January 05, 2009

By Dr. George Voskopoulos

International politics has always been a field of study that sets challenges not only to IR scholars but to the conventional standard of ethics and people´s ability to form evaluative judgments. Although in international relations it is a highly disputed issue to pinpoint facts and set aside non-facts I will try to focus on a number of issues re-lated to the current crisis in the Gaza strip.

The first relates to Israel´s unquestionable right to defend itself. This stems from the UN Charter but it is of little importance since the UN is a nominal only means of as-sisting the socialization process of states. Yet, still Israel has been a victim of terrorist attacks not by a state but a group of extremists, namely Hamas. However, things get more complicated since Hamas, an extremist group by our standards, constitutes a democratically elected authority. Israel has never taken this fact into consideration nor has it sought a causational explanation as to why ordinary Palestinians have made this choice.

Ever since Hamas´ rise to power Israel has made every effort to undermine its politi-cal authority. Practically it refused to acknowledge its structural, institutional and po-litical power among Palestinians. Eventually it made the same mistake as in 2006 in the case of Hezbollah. Both organizations enjoy popular support and are seen as pro-tectors of a nation that has suffered so much for so long. Oddly enough the Jews and the Palestinians share one common feature, that is, an orchestrated, irrational, inhu-man effort to be eliminated.

Current Israeli policy obviously sets a central aim: to provide security to its people. This is a noble aim, a task every single government is expected to operationalize. The critical question refers to the means used and the cost vis-à-vis the prospect for a fu-ture solution, unless a solution to the problem is not a priority. Let us look at another set of interrelated issues of the conflict.

The timing of the military attack leads us to a number of defining parameters. The first relates to inter-party rivalry and the coming elections in Israel. Practically, the weariness of the Israeli people from the continuous attacks from Hamas provided the strongest motive in initiating an attack at this scale. The American view that the win-ner takes it all depicts the motivation framework of the Israeli coalition government. The second defining element has to do with politics within the Palestinians. When Y. Arafat neared the end of his life many in Israel felt relieved. I was never in a position to understand why. It was obvious that in the absence of a father figure the Palestini-ans would not operate in an orchestrated way, using acceptable means of doing poli-tics. Third, Israel has made substantial efforts to undermine the unity of the Palestini-ans, probably under the impression that a politically parcelized community would be unable to claim more than Israelis were willing to offer.

Instead of focusing on assisting the infrastructure in the occupied territories it literally made the life of ordinary Palestinians unbearable. It provided no prospect for a better future, employment, education, economic development. Those are the very basic ele-ments of modernity. Modernization is a process that assists people reformulate their attitudes, values and behavior. On top of that it does not allow extremists to find popular support among people. In the absence of the above, Palestinians felt hopeless and embraced Hamas.

Those voices across the world that criticized Israeli policy were notoriously attacked as anti-Zionists. Anti-Semitism became the raw material used to tar the image of all those who dared to question adopted policies. Oversimplification is a fact of life but it should not be applied in so complicates issues. I am afraid fundamentalists do not come from one only cultural and religious milieu. They can be found in every single society in both East and West. Samuel Huntington would probably suggest that it is a clash of civilizations, a battle between civilized and non-civilized, although one of the worst crimes in world history has been committed by the civilized and Christian Nazis against Jews.

A war neither Israel nor Hamas truly wanted turned into a war both are willing to wage´. [1] This is a statement made by an International Crisis Group analyst that de-picts a segment only of the true story. A certain milieu in both sides did want the war. Unfortunately it happened to be those who had the authority to exercise their power in a most unacceptable way.

In any case the conflict at hand has no civilizational aspects, although the killing of so many innocent people by a militarily powerful state such as Israel is not a noble act, even though it is understood as an act of the Israeli government in order to defend its people. It is a conflict between fundamentalists in both sides, those who politically survive on the basis of the existing, historically-supported and perpetuated hatred.

Moreover, it exposes our ability as human beings to act rationally, setting priorities and coming up with a macro-strategic plan. It is a war that is bound to support ex-tremists in both sides. It results from the myopic syndrome of leaderships, a problem-atic process of political socialization of the Palestinians and Israel´s brutal acts against civilians.

The first collateral damage of the war is the United Nations and its regulatory, norma-tive role. At the end of the day this policy supports the law of the jungle. A second collateral damage is our values as human beings, “civilized or less civilized”. Who really believes that the killing of innocent people, women and children and an ongo-ing humanitarian disaster will make the Israeli people safer?

On the contrary, the massacre is bound to fuel the tank of new extremists. It will not assist Fatah and will not turn it into an acceptable interlocutor. By contrast we should focus on how to include Hamas in the peace process. Its military defeat is an easy task for Israel but this will assist its political profile and prestige among Palestinians.

In the past, Mahmoud Abbas was politically undermined by Mr. Sharon’s policy and his reluctance to allow in essence the normalization of life in Gaza and the West Bank [2]. Hardliners in both sides have led us to the current situation. In any case an imme-diate ceasefire should be a priority to end the humanitarian crisis. Bombing civilians, mosques and hospitals, preventing humanitarian aid to reach refugees and depriving civilians from the very basics that sustain life is a policy that undermines the future of any attempt to re-initiate negotiations. Unless the war means to put a final end to the peace process. In a Clausewitzian sense a total war is waged against states not peoples and civilians. Israeli leaders do not seem to leave space for a future political settle-ment. In fact they undermine the accommodating capacity of the next Israeli govern-ment and do not allow moderate voices among Palestinians to make sense to a much suffering people.

1] See Ending the War in Gaza, Middle East Briefing N°26

5 January 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5838&l=1

2] See the analysis in “A Vote for Hamas?”, Washington Post, October 20, 2005. Also, “Aimless in Gaza”, The New York Times, July 16, 2005

Source:  AmericanChronicle.com

In this article, we intend to examine the ancient evidence on the way the Ancient Macedonians were defining themselves in reference to their own identity. Concerning their own beliefs about themselves we shall review the available evidence coming from the ancient sources, both Literary and Archaeological.

B. The Archaeological Evidence.

[1] Pella Katadesmos

The Pella curse tablet is a curse or magic spell (Greek: κατάδεσμος, katadesmos) inscribed on a lead scroll, dating to the 4th or 3rd century BC. It was found in Pella (at the time capital of Macedon) in 1986 and published in the Hellenic Dialectology Journal in 1993. It is possibly the only attested text in the ancient Macedonian language (O. Masson).

It is a magic spell or love charm written by a woman, possibly named Dagina, whose lover Dionysophōn (i.e. “Voice of Dionysus“) is apparently about to marry Thetima (i.e. “she who honors the gods”; the standard Attic form would be Theotimē). She invokes “Makron and the demons” (parkattithemai makrōni kai [tois] daimosi, Attic would be para-kata-tithemai) to cause Dionysophon to marry her rather than Thetima, and never to marry another woman unless she herself recovers and unrolls the scroll.

Katadesmoi or defixiones were spells written on non-perishable material, such as lead, stone or baked clay, and were secretly buried to ensure their physical integrity, which would then guarantee the permanence of their intended effects.

The language is a harsh but distinctly recognizable form of North-West or Doric Greek, and the low social status of its writer, as evidenced by her vocabulary, strongly hint that a unique form of Doric Greek was spoken by lay people in Pella at the time the tab was written (see below, Dating and Significance). Brixhe and Panayotou (1994:209) think a Macedonian origin of the text probable, but they suggest that the population of Pella was not homogeneously autochthonic, and they prefer to wait for a second find before making a definitive statement.

Before the publication of the Pella katadesmos’ findings in 1993, it was proposed that Doric Greek may have been spoken in pre-Hellenistic Macedon as a second dialect in addition to a Macedonian dialect (Rhomiopoulou, 1980).

The Greek version:
1. [Θετί]μας και Διονυσοφώντος το τέλος και τον γάμον καταγράφω και ταν αλλάν πασάν γυ-
2. [ναικ]ών και χηράν και παρθένων, μάλιστα δε Θετίμας, και παρκαττίθεμαι Μάκρωνι και
3. [τοις]δαίμοσι, και οπόκα εγώ ταύτα διελ<ί>ξαιμι και αναγνοίην πάλ<L>ιν ανορ<ύ>ξασα
4. [τόκα]γάμαι Διονυσοφώντα, πρότερον δε μη μη γαρ λάβοι άλλαν γυναίκα αλλ’ εμέ,
5. [εμέ δ]έ συνκαταγηράσαι Διονυσοφώντι και μηδεμίαν άλλαν, ικέτις υμώ<ν> γίνο-
6. [μαι, Φίλ]αν οικτίρετε δαίμονες φίλ[ο]ι, ΔΑΓΙΝΑΓΑΡΙΜΕ φίλων πάντων και έρημα, αλλά
7. [....]α φυλάσσετε εμίν ό[π]ως μη γίνεται τα[ύ]τα και κακά κακώς Θετίμα απόληται.
8. [....]ΑΛ[-].ΥΝΜ .. ΕΣΠΛΗΝ εμός, εμέ δε [ε]υ[δ]αίμονα και μακαρίαν γενέσται.
9. [-]ΤΟ[.].[-].[..]..Ε.Ε.Ω[?]Α.[.]Ε..ΜΕΓΕ [-]

The English Translation:

1. On the formal wedding of [Theti]ma and Dionysophon I write a curse, and of all other

2. wo[men], widows and virgins, but of Thetima in particular, and I entrust upon Makron and

3. [the] demons that only whenever I dig out and unroll and re-read this,

4. [then] may they wed Dionysophon, but not before; and may he never wed any woman but me;

5. and may [I] grow old with Dionysophon, and no one else. I [am] your supplicant:

6. Have mercy on [your dear one], dear demons, Dagina(?), for I am abandoned of all my dear ones.

7. But please keep this for my sake so that these events do not happen and wretched Thetima perishes miserably

8. and to me grant [ha]ppiness and bliss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella_katadesmos

[2] Decree from Boule and Demos of Ephesos making month of Artemision holy; AD 162/164

Transl of the underlined text:  “Macedonians and the REST of Greek ethnes (”Makedosin kai tis loipois ethnesin tois Ellinikois“)

[3] Damon’s Decree

Around 143/142 BC, Damon the Macedonian, son of Nicanor, from the city of Thessalonica, paid with his own money and erected a statue of copper in Olympia, honouring Q.Caecilius Metellus. In the statue’s inscription it is written as motives of this honouring the virtue of the honoured and the sympathetic actions of Quintus Metellus to “Macedonians and the rest of Greeks“. What is more interesting is that the statue was erected from Damon the Macedonian in Olympia, the most important Hellenic centre of that era and it reveals Macedonians saw themselves as Greeks. 

 

The original language of the inscription is:

[Resolved by the boule and demos....Theos Soter [founded] a Greek city in [the Thebaid]…making its name Ptolemais [fron himself, and becoming its patron] To it the king sent [...settlers from...]and from Argos [and from..and from Lacedaimo]n and from Thes[saly?] and from..the [council and people] decreed [to...]

Decree about the founding of Ptolemais from Ptolemy I. The inscription itself is a Hadrianic copy of an early Ptolemaic decree.

[5] Dedication by Alexander the Great to Athena Polias

 

 

 

“διατελεί εις τε αυτόν και την πατρίδα και τους λοιπούς μακεδόνας και τους άλλους Έλληνας“

 

[4]Decree about the founding of Ptolemais from Ptolemy I.

Greek, around 330 BC
From Priene, Asia Minor

In 336 BC Alexander the Great embarked on a programme of territorial expansion, which would eventually extend the boundaries of the Greek world to Egypt in the south and to India in the East. In 334 BC Alexander crossed the Hellespont, the narrow strait separating Europe and Asia, and went first to Troy. There he dedicated his armour to Athena and laid a wreath at the tomb of Achilles, the legendary hero and champion of the Greeks in the Trojan War. This act prefigured Alexander’s role as a new Achilles liberating the Greek cities of Asia Minor from Asiatic rule.

That same summer of 334 BC, a successful engagement with the Persian army at the river Granicus, east of Troy, opened the gates of Asia Minor, and Alexander proceeded to tour the Greek cities of the west coast, expelling their Persian garrisons.

On reaching Priene, he made a further dedication to Athena. There the townspeople were laying out their new city and building a temple to its patron goddess. Alexander offered funds to complete the temple, and the inscription on this wall block, cut into a block of marble, records his gift. The inscription was found in the nineteenth century by the architect-archaeologist Richard Pullan leading an expedition on behalf of the Society of Dilettanti. It reads: ‘King Alexander dedicated the Temple to Athena Polias’.

B.F. Cook, Greek inscriptions (London, The British Museum Press, 1987)

Gift of the Society of Dilettanti
GR 1870.3-20.88 (Inscription 399 and 400)
Room 78, Classical inscriptions, north wall

B.F. Cook, Greek inscriptions (London, The British Museum Press, 1987), pp. 21-22, fig. 12

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/d/dedication_by_alexander.aspx

[6] Ptolemaios, son of Glaukias testimony 

In 163 BC the Macedonian Ptolemaios, son of Glaukias living in Memphis of Ptolemaic Egypt, sends a letter to the ruler of his place because he is getting harrased from the Egyptians of one temple despite the fact that he is…GREEK.

 

eisebiazonto boulomenoi exspasai me kai agagisai, kathaper kai en tois proteron xronois epexeirisan ousis apostaseos, para to Ellina me einai

[7] Alexander’s letter to Chians

In 334 BCE, Alexander invaded Asia as leader (hegemon) of the Corinthian league, the alliance of Greek cities and the Macedonian king that was to fight against the Achaemenid Empire.

One of the articles of the Corinthian treaty stated that the Greek towns were to remain autonomous, and that their constitutions were to remain unchanged.

However, the Greek cities in Asia Minor were no members, and Alexander did interfere with their internal affairs, as is shown in the following letter to the people of the island of Chios.

The inscription was translated by J.C. Yardley.

From king Alexander to the people of Chios,
written in the prytany of Deisitheos:[1]

All those exiled from Chios are to return [2], and the constitution on Chios is to be democratic. Drafters of legislation are to be selected to write and emend the laws so as to ensure that there be no impediment to a democratic constitution and the return of the exiles. Anything already emended or drafted is to be referred to Alexander.

The people of Chios are to supply twenty triremes, with crews, at their own expense, and these are to sail for as long as the rest of the Greek naval force accompanies us at sea.

With respect to those men who betrayed the city to the barbarians, all those who escaped are to be exiled from all the cities that share the peace [of Corinth], and to be liable to seizure under the decree of the Greeks. Those who have been caught are to be brought back and tried in the Council of the Greeks. In the event of disagreement between those who have returned and those in the city, in that matter they are to be judged by us.

Until a reconciliation is reached among the people of Chios, they are to have in their midst a garrison of appropriate strength installed by king Alexander. The people of Chios are to maintain the garrison.

Remark 1:
The prytany of Deisitheos was probably in 334, but the formula “from king Alexander” is not common before the battle of Issus in 333.

Remark 2:
One of the returned exiles was the historian Theopompus.

[8] The Trial of Agonippos

One, not so wide known inscription, stating the same, is the inscription of Mytilene in 332 BC. Its about the imminent conviction of Agonipos, tyrant of Eressos. He was put in that seat from Memnon and afterwards Agonippos fought in the side of Persians. In the following inscription it says clearly Agonnipos went on war against “Alexander and the Greeks”. Of course Macedonians are included as Greeks.

B. Fragment 2 (front face). The trial of Agonippos

[those] who had been besieged [on the] acropolis he [--] and from the ci|tizens he exacted twenty thousand slaters, [and] | he repeatedly plun dered the Greeks with his raids, and the altars he razed || to the ground, (the altars) of Zeus [Ph|ilippi[os]; and after a war had been instituted by him against Alexander and the Greeks, | he stripped the citizens of their weapons, excluded (them) from the city en masse, and, after their wiv|es and their daughters had been seized by him and imprisoned || on the acropolis, three thousand and two hundred | slaters he exacted (from them); the city and the temples | he pillaged with his pirates and burned down, and | (he) burned along with them the bodies [of the] citizens; and finally he went to Alexander and gave || a false account and slandered the citizens. They shall try | him under oath by secret vote regarding | (whether to put him to) death. And if the death penalty is voted, after a counter-proposal (for punishment) has been put forward by Agonippos, the second vote | shall be made, (to indicate) in what way he ought to di||e. If, after Agonippos has been convicted by the court, [ anyone tries to restore any of the family of Agonippos or makes a motion or proposal I about (their) return or about the restoration of their property, ac|cursed shall be that man both himself and his family, and in all other respects let him be liable to the law [that] (is aimed at anyone) by whom the stele || is destroyed, (the stele) that concerns the tyrants and their descend|ants- And a solemn vow shall be made in the assembly imm\ediatelyy that the man who in making his judgement also brings assistance to (he city | and to justice shall prosper but that to those who contrary to justjice cast their vote the opposite of this (shall happen). [| A decision was reached, (There were) eight
hundred and eighty-three (voters). Out of | these, seven acquitted, the rest condem|ned.

[9] The Stele of Xanthos

 

“The early cemetery of the marketplace of Pella gave us the most important findings. From the end of 5th c. BC. originates the tomb stele of Xanthos, a relatively poor child. In order to construct the small stele, a piece of marble was re-used. The inscription of the stele writes:

ΞΑΝΘΟΣ/
ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟ/
Υ ΚΑΙ ΑΜΑ/
ΔΙΚΑΣ ΥΙΟΣ

“Special interest displays the mitronymic Amadika. The name appears to originate from the root am- where it derives also the homeric verb ‘amao’ αμά-ω (mow) and the macedonian ending -dika. Remember the name Eurydika. Observe the normal formation of the Macedonian ending in -a instead of -i.
So while the examples before a few years were few, today almost daily they are increasing with the discoveries of archaeology”

Translating from John Akamatis.

Ç ãëþóóá ôùÃ* áñ÷áßùÃ* ÌáêåäüÃ*ùÃ* - ÍÝá óôïé÷åßá áðü ôçÃ* ÐÝëëá

A collection of Decrees related to Alexander the Great. All the decrees left behind from ancient Macedonians of course are written in Greek.

1-Letter to chian-king alexander

2- 2 letter to chians-king alexander

3- ionia priene-king alexander,334bc

4- delphi-king alexander,324 bc-

5-maked-kalindria-king alexandros.4cth bc

6-letter to chian by king alexander,334 bc

7-delphi-king alexandros,321 bc

8-amorgos-king alexander

9-delphi-alexandros,170 bc

10. maked-samos-king alexandros

THE DECREES WERE KINDLY SENT TO US BY SAMIOS MAKEDONAS

Conclusion:

These are only a few of the numerous inscriptions which Archaeologists brought to light in Macedonia and elsewhere. More than 5,000 inscriptions written in Greek is the best evidence of the Greek ethnicity of ancient Macedonians. Once again the conslusion is inescapable: Archaeological Evidence in conjunction with
linguistic analysis of inscriptions and names proves the diachronic cultural identification of the Macedonians with the rest of the Greeks.

In this article, we intend to examine the ancient evidence on the way the Ancient Macedonians were defining themselves in reference to their own identity. Concerning their own beliefs about themselves we shall review the available evidence coming from the ancient sources, both Literary and Archaeological.

A. The Literary Evidence

The first available evidence comes from the Macedonian king Alexander I during his speech to Atheneans. Essentially we have a clear confession that Alexander considers himself a Greek.

Herodotus 9.45:  Had I not greatly at heart the Common welfare of Greece I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself Greek by descent, (”te gar Hellên genos eimi tôrchaion“) and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery. …If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Greek Cause,….I am Alexander of Macedon‘

Another cited excerpt makes it even more clear that Alexander I was proud of his Hellenic identity. While speaking to Persians:

Herodotus 5.20.4: Tell your king who sent you how an Greek man, viceroy of the Macedonians (”anêr Hellên - Makedonôn hyparchos”)has received you hospitably… “

Furthermore Herodotus provides us with a clear-cut testimony about their Hellenic identity from the members of the Macedonian royal house themselves.

 

Herodotus 5.22.1: “Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Hellenes ( “Hellênas de einai“), as they themselves say(”kata per autoi legousi“), I myself chance to know”

 

 The letter of Alexander the Great to Darius is a mere proof of the Hellenic Identity of Macedonians.

Arrian Anab. 2.14.4: Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece (“Makedonian kai eis tên allên Hellada”) and did US great harm though WE had done them no prior injury [...] I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks [...]

Followed by an apparent demonstration of their Hellenic identity and Cause during Alexander’s speech to his army. Simultaneously we have a clear distinction between Greeks and the Foreign elements of Alexander’s army.

Arrian 2.7: There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours ! They will be fighting for pay— and not much of it at that; WE on the contrary shall fight for Greece (“tous de xyn sfisin yper tis Ellados ekontas amynomenous”) , and our hearts will be in it. As for our Foreign (“barbarwn te”) troops —Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians,Agrianes — they are the best and stoutest soldiers of Europe.

[Translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt]

We find Alexander saying in:

Arrian Anab. 3. 18. 11-12: But Alexander replied that he intended to punish the persians for their invasion of Greece, the destruction of Athens, the burning of the temples, and all manner of terrible things done to the Greeks: because of these things, he was exacting revenge.

On another occasion while he was speaking to Thessalians and other Greeks:

Plutarch. Alex (ed. B. Perrin) XXXIII: On this occasion, he [Alexander] made a very long speech to the Thessalians and the other Greeks, and when he saw that they encouraged him with shouts to lead them against the Barbarians, he shifted his lance into his left hand, and with his right appealed to the gods, as Callisthenes tells us, praying them, if he was really sprung from Zeus, to defend and strengthen the Greeks

While Speaking to his own Macedonian Commanders:

Curtius Rufus 5.6.1: Alexander called a meeting of his generals the next day. He told them that no city was more hateful to the Greeks than Persepolis, the capital of the old kings of Persia, the city from which troops without number had poured forth, from which first Darius and then Xerxes had waged an unholy war on Europe. To appease the spirits of their forefathers they should wipe it out, he said.

One more testimony from Alexander himself comes in:

Curtius Rufus 5.8: As for Alexander, it is generally agreed that, when sleep had brought him back to his senses after his drunken bout, he regretted his actions and said that the Persians would have suffered a more grievous punishment at the hands of the Greeks had they been forced to see HIM on Xerxes’ throne and in his palace.

In Plutarch we find:

Plutarch’s Moralia, On the Fortune of Alexander, 332A: But he said, ‘If I were not Alexandros, I should be Diogenes’; that is to say: `If it were not my purpose to combine barbarian things with things Hellenic, to traverse and civilize every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, to push the bounds of Macedonia to the farthest ocean and to disseminate and shower the blessings of the Hellenic Justice and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me Diogenes, that I imitate Herakles, and emulate Perseus, and follow in the footsteps of Dionysos, the divine author and progenitor of my family, and Desire that Victorious Hellenes should dance again in India [...]“

In the Dedication of Alexander to Athena Polias:

Arrian, I, 16, 10: Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, from the barbarian inhabitans in Asia.

Another clear sign of his Hellenic self-identification is shown explicitely in the event with Daniel’s Prophesy:

Josephus 11.8.5: And when the book of Daniel was showed to him (Alexander) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he [Alexander] supposed that himself was the person intended.

During the Event with Spitamenes’ wife:

Curtius Rufus 8.15: The savagery of the deed carried more weight with him than gratitude for the favour, however, and he had her ordered from the camp. He did not want her tainting the character and civilized temperament of the Greeks with this example of Barbarian lawlessness.

The Macedonian Philip V verifies his Greek identity:

Polyvius, 18.4.8: For on many occasions when I and the other Greeks sent embassies to you begging you to remove from your statutes the law empowering you to get booty from booty, you replied that you would rather remove Aetolia from Aetolia than that law

 In the Treaty between Hannibal of Carthage and Philip V of Macedon we find a clear-cut reference to “Macedonia and the rest of Greece”:

Polybius, 7, 9, 4: In the presence of Zeus, Hera, and Apollo: in the presence of the Genius of Carthage, of Heracles, and Iolaus: in the presence of Ares, Triton, and Poseidon: in the presence of the gods who battle for us and the Sun, Moon, and Earth; in the presence of Rivers, Lakes, and Waters: 3 in the presence of all the gods who possess Macedonia and the Rest of Greece: in the presence of all the gods of the army who preside over this oath. 4 Thus saith Hannibal the general, and all the Carthaginian senators with him, and all Carthaginians serving with him, that as seemeth good to you and to us, so should we bind ourselves by oath to be even as friends, kinsmen, and brothers, on these conditions. 5 (1) That King Philip and the Macedonians and the Rest of the Greeks who are their allies shall protect the Carthaginians, the supreme lords, and Hannibal their general, and those with him, and all under the dominion of Carthage who live under the same laws; likewise the people of Utica and all cities and peoples that are subject to Carthage, and our soldiers and allies 6 and cities and peoples in Italy, Gaul, and Liguria, with whom we are in alliance or with whomsoever in this country we may hereafter enter into alliance.

In the speech of the ambassador of Macedonia to the Aitolians:

Livius, From the Foundation of the City 31: The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the SAME speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day.

While the Macedonian troops found a Greek man and burst into tears when they heard Greek spoken:

Arrian, “The Indica” XXXIII: There a man appeared to them, wearing a Greek cloak, and dressed otherwise in the Greek fashion, and speaking Greek also

. Those [Macedonians] who first sighted him said that they burst into tears, so strange did it seem after all these miseries to see a Greek, and to hear Greek spoken. They asked whence he came, who he was; and he said that he had become separated from Alexander’s camp, and that the camp, and Alexander himself, were not very far distant. Shouting aloud and clapping their hands they brought this man to Nearchus

Conclusion:

The evidence cited previously from various ancient literary sources help us to comprehend how the ancient Macedonians identified themselves. The conclusion is inescapable: Even if the amount of ancient Macedonian testimonies is limited, the available evidence points out explicitely that Ancient Macedonians identified themselves more or less as Greek. Macedonians are the same people who had Greek names, spoke Greek, renamed or build Greek cities, having of course Greek names, worshiped the Greek Pantheon, participated in Pan-Hellenic games and waged a Pan-Hellenic war against Persia while they spread everywhere they passed the Greek language and Greek Culture. The message they left is quite clear. They identified themselves as Greeks.

Nationalists from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M) and her diaspora constantly allege that only Greek historians and institutions subscribe to the notion that the ancient Macedonians, including the Hellenistic successors of Alexander, belonged to the sphere of the ancient Greek world. The nationalists from F.Y.R.O.M claim that the notion that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe is an assertion largely motivated by propaganda efforts of the Greek state. According to nationalists from F.Y.R.O.M and her diaspora the ancient Macedonians were a proto-Slavic tribe who spoke a proto-Slavic language and are the ancestors of the Slavic population of F.Y.R.O.M. No credible and objective historian in the world supports this far fetched claim.

A quick survey of international museums, and their descriptions of ancient Macedonia and ancient Macedonian artificats, shows that many of the most reputable and respected international institutions regard the ancient Macedonians as an ancient Greek tribe.

I leave it to the reader to decide who to believe: a group of radical nationalists from F.Y.R.O.M and her diaspora who claim that Alexander the Great was a proto-Slavic speaker (even though there is not one shred of evidence to support this) who belonged to a tribe that are alleged ancestors of the Slavs of F.Y.R.O.M (a population that was almost universally regarded as Bulgarian up to 120 years ago) or the most reputable museums in the world.

[Credit goes to Georox for compiling this information]

1. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/gkru/hd_gkru.htm#mace

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/tacg/hd_tacg.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/alex/ho_52.127.4.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/angk/hd_angk.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/haht/ho_2002.66.htm

2. The British Museum. London.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/world_cultures/europe/ancient_greece.aspx

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/m/portrait_alexander_the_great.aspx

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/d/dedication_by_alexander.aspx

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/b/bronze_mask_of_dionysos.aspx

3. The Louvre. Paris.

4. The Getty. Los Angeles.

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=8128

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=8239

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=35555

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=109801

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=35552

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=248738

5. The Hermitage. St. Petersburg Russia

http://hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_7_1_1b.html

6. The Fitzwilliam Museum. Cambridge

http://www-cm.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/east-west/

7. The Philadelphia Museum of Art.

http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/40363.html?mulR=4756

By Chris Philipou

Source: http://maktruth.blogspot.com/2008/12/world-museums.html

Skopje’s Uneducation System and the Good Professor Čepreganov

By Marcus A. Templar

In defending his and his compatriots’ “Macedonian” ancestry, it seems that Dr. Todor Čepreganov, Ph. D, and Director of the National History Institute at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje (todorc@yahoo.com) has been quoted as saying, “Eugene Borza (Prof Emeritus Penn State University) published many books on Alexander the Great and Antic [ancient] Macedonia, has asked, ‘Why would the Macedonians invade, kill and enslave their own people?’”[1]

Since Dr. Čepreganov did not understand that it was only a rhetorical question, I offer Eugene Borza’s response to his own question: “ancient history is replete with examples of bona fide Greeks who fought constantly against one another.”[2]  I would love to send a copy of Borza’s paper to the good professor, although one can read Borza’s statement on the first page of JSTOR (second paragraph, fifth line) without a subscription.[3]

There is not a single historian outside the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and its diaspora that would give a different answer.  Non-FYROM Slav historians respect themselves and their degrees.  As for the FYROM “historians” and their diaspora, I would suggest that they take a good look and study very carefully the WHOLE book The Peloponnesian War authored by Thucydides, the first and foremost scientific historian ever, and the reasons behind the authorship of this book.  The title could give them a hint!  It would be useful, as well, for the same “historians” to read about the Melian Dialogue in the same book (Thucydides V, 84-116) and the result of that debate.  I do not want to confuse these “historians” with offering information on other battles like the Battle of Helos that took place in circa 1213 BC, 20 years before the Trojan War (1193-1183 BC). Nevertheless, the Battle of Leuktra (371 BC), the two Battles of Mantineia (418 BC and 362 BC) could give them the clue. 

Regarding the part “Why … enslave their own people?”  I am referring the good professor to Pausanias who affirms:

I know also of the following rite which is performed here.  By the sea was a city Helos, which Homer too has mentioned in his list of the Lacedaemonians:  These had their home in Amyclae and in Helos the town by the seaside.”  It was founded by Helius, the youngest of the sons of Perseus, and the Dorians afterwards reduced it by siege.  Its inhabitants became the first slaves of the Lacedaemonian state, and were the first to be called Helots, as in fact Helots they were.  The slaves afterwards acquired, although they were Dorians of Messenia, also came to be called Helots, just as the whole Greek race were called Hellenes from the region in Thessaly once called Hellas.[4]

I must note that the Macedonians never “enslaved” anyone the way the Spartans did, but it seems Dr. Čepreganov had cut class the day his professor was teaching that chapter.  Nevertheless, how is it possible for someone who claims to be a professor and historian with a degree in History to read the book The Peloponnesian War and quote everything on ancient Macedonia and Macedonians, but miss the reasons why the author wrote the book?  It is as if one reads Lev Tolstoy’s book War and Peace quoting various parts and not knowing that the war and peace that Tolstoy wrote about was between France and Russia! 

If the good professor wants to offer a real service to himself and his compatriots, he should start working on their Slavic history, language, and heritage.  Of course, if he still feels “Macedonian” he could author a scientific paper filled with scientific arguments using primary sources of the time on the imaginary amalgamation of the Slavic population of geographic Macedonia with the Greek speaking Macedonians, as Fanula Papazoglu determined on page 333 of her dissertation “Macedonian Cities during Roman Times.”  Dr. Mikhail D. Petruševski was the editor of her dissertation that was written in Serbian, and the University of Skopje approved it in 1957.  Perhaps professor Čepreganov would like to offer a catalogue of about 1,500 ancient Macedonian monuments and inscriptions, of course all Greek, hidden in the basements of museums in Skopje!  The inscription of Oleveni would do it for starters.[5]

However, the professor was also quoted as saying:

Ernst Badian (Harvard University - History Department) explains the last battle between Macedonians and Greeks: ‘After hearing and rejoicing on the news of Alexander’s death, Greek soldiers and mercenaries saw their chance to remove themselves from Macedonian despot rule and rebelled. However, a Macedonian army under Pithon did defeat the rebels. Pithon, no doubt recognizing their immense value for the empire as a whole, persuaded them to go back to their posts, assuring them personal safety in return. Yet, contrary to his oath, seventeen thousand Greeks were cut down, after surrendering their arms, by the enraged Macedonians, and Pithon could not stop them.  The patent needs of the empire and the oath of their commander were swallowed up in the explosion of what we can only regard as the men’s irrational hatred for their Greek enemies.’

 Since the good professor has no scientific argument on his own, I would like to respond to Dr. Badian’s argument, but why do I have the feeling that the good professor of Skopje was not interested in Badian’s whole statement.  I have no doubt that Badian has read Polybius V, 108, 3, 7, 8 where he says that a few Macedonian cities had revolted against Philip, who eventually re-captured them.

Here is the text,

3. He therefore set forth at once with his army to recover as soon as possible the revolted cities, … 7. as he was convinced that this was the only way by which he could recover his principality of Pharos. 8. Philip, then, advancing with his army recovered the cities I mentioned, took Creonium and Gerus in the Dassaretis, Enchelanae, Cerax, Sation, and Boei in the region of Lake Lychnis, Bantia in the district of the Caloecini and Orgyssus in that of the Pisantini. 9. After these operations he dismissed his troops to winter quarters. This was the winter in which Hannibal after devastating the wealthiest part of Italy was going into winter quarters at Gerunium in Daunia, 10. and the Romans had just elected Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paulus to the consulate.[6]

As the professor can see, not only “Greek” cities, as he put it, revolted against the Macedonian kings, but also Macedonian cities against their own king.

 For the sake of the reputation of Skopje’s Academy of Sciences and Arts and all its members, one only hopes that Dr. Todor Čepreganov is neither a member nor a representative of the academic view of his country.  For if he was a member and a representative of the academic view of his country, the education in the Republic of Skopje has reached rock bottom in scientific thought and arguments equal to the level of the sixth graders those books were intended for (indeed yes, the capital of a country can name the whole country, i.e. Mexico, Panama, Rome, Byzantium to name a few.)  If in the end the professor’s scientific findings convince historians of his part Slavic and part Greek Macedonian ancestry, then we might have something to talk about.  Until then, I have news for the professor: he is a Slav!!! 

There is reciprocity in all fair and balanced scientific arguments.  The FYROM Slavs cannot demand from the Greeks to prove scientifically that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks and simultaneously demand from the world to take their word that they are “the Macedonians” through an amalgamation that never existed.  Why should anyone take the word of the Slavs for their unproven “Macedonian” ancestry, but not the word of the ancient Macedonian kings that they were Greeks? 

Whether the ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not is an unprofitable historical question.  The Athenians were Pelasgians according to Herodotus, but the dear professor has not spent a minute trying to argue scientifically whether the ancient Athenians were Greeks or not.  Since however, he insists that he is “Macedonian” and connects himself to the ancient Macedonian culture, I would recommend that instead of concentrating in de-Hellenizing the ancient Macedonians, the professor should try to connect his Slavic ancestry to the Greek Macedonians; scientifically, of course!

I wish him Good Luck in his efforts; he definitely needs it!