tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post3955269849319105139..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Andreas Willi on MacedoniaDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54706122076478420392009-08-23T06:37:56.806+03:002009-08-23T06:37:56.806+03:00I agree with Dienekes on account of having the nam...I agree with Dienekes on account of having the name of Macedonia usurped by Bulgarians from FYROM. There is no doubt that ancient Macedonians spoke a Hellenic tongue, although some evidence, such as retention of d instead of th (danos vs. thanos) would indicate a moment of division from the rest of Greek dialects before the age of Mycenaeans (so in the first half of 2nd millenia BC). In these aspects, Macedonian is close to Phrygian: probably in the very ancient times, Greek language wasn't isolated, but part of a large dialect continuum that included Greek, Phrygian and the ancestors of Armenian language.<br /><br />Genetically, the blood of Macedonians continues both in Greeks and to lesser extent the Bulgarians who used to live in the Western parts of modern Greek Macedonia. Most of the latter have been driven out to Bulgaria in so called population exchanges and the rest have become Hellenes. Those living in FYROM can make no claim of being of Macedonian descent, since those regions were never part of historical Macedonia, but of Paeonia, who was inhabited by a peculiar Thracian tribe.ahernehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05102953982424653657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8931358512749685712009-07-21T12:27:13.374+03:002009-07-21T12:27:13.374+03:00we know that the Macedonian army had other Balkan ...<i>we know that the Macedonian army had other Balkan peoples in it</i><br /><br />Other Balkan peoples were illiterate at the time, while Macedonians were clearly not, as there are 4th century inscriptions and texts in both Attic and the Macedonian dialect (which is of course perfect Greek).<br /><br /><br /><i>Tell that to a Scot or Frenchman. Both see themselves as modern derivatives of the older peoples you name.</i><br /><br />I do not ascribe to the theory that what one "considers" is what one is.<br /><br /><i>Consider Slavophone and Albanophone Greeks who normally considered themselves fully Greek.</i><br /><br />These people (whatever their genetic origins) did begin to consider themselves as Greeks and were gradually accepted as such by the Greeks, and now they all speak Greek and are tied to the Greeks by ties of marriage.<br /><br />A common language is an absolute prerequisite for a formation of a common people, because without a common language, there is no real communication and sense of unity.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14455262371106645342009-07-21T10:28:57.470+03:002009-07-21T10:28:57.470+03:00"Strictly speaking they are not Scots, just a..."Strictly speaking they are not Scots, just as French people are not Franks." Tell that to a Scot or Frenchman. Both see themselves as modern derivatives of the older peoples you name. I think you are defining ethnicity by language? Personally I think this kind of definition never works. Consider Slavophone and Albanophone Greeks who normally considered themselves fully Greek.Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54700789876614173872009-07-21T10:26:26.362+03:002009-07-21T10:26:26.362+03:00I am not sure about your logic on this particular ...I am not sure about your logic on this particular bit: "What wondrous miracle would result in myriads of Macedonians settling throughout Asia not to leaving a single trace of their non-Hellenic presence? Did the Macedonians decide to abandon their language at precisely the time of their own triumph? A simpler explanation is that they did not." The problem here is that we know that the Macedonian army had other Balkan peoples in it, who also left no linguistic trace, and we know Greek was the language of authority and communication. So why would you expect any minority languages of soldiers to leave a trace within the enormous empire? This does not affect your main argument, but I see no "miracle" here.Andrew Lancasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15050253327442799011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2614447375269599012009-07-20T12:01:18.306+03:002009-07-20T12:01:18.306+03:00It seems that so many scholars think that it was o...It seems that so many scholars think that it was only the Macedonians who had issues with their Hellenicity. If one were to remove all Athenocentric arguments about who is and who is not Greek, we would be quite surprised to find that no other Greeks whether of a Polis or Ethne (Tribal) background were so interested in evoking some type of Hellenic benchmark. Thucydides mentions that 'Barbarian lifestyles were also practiced' by the Aetolians, Arkadians, and Molossians. Again the Athenocentric arguments pivot around the 'type of lifestyle these people practiced' not who they were and as such these assertions did no stop these tribes to continue their own brand of lifestyle throughout their recorded history. No-one doubted (except of-course the Athenians) their Hellenic background. Likewise, the Macedonians practiced a lifestyle which was similar to the above mentioned tribes, one which revolved around non-Polis guidelines. All these ethne-states and the Macedonians included, knew who they were, they just did not need city-slickers like the Athenians to come into their turf and tell them that they were all just a bunch of uncouth hillbillys. So as you can see A. Willi (like D. Tompkins before him) is not really that concerned with the historical narrative. It is the use of academic institutions in current contemporary politics which has these scholars concerned. Yes, the people who live in the modern region of Macedonia such as the Greeks, Bulgarians, YugoSlavs, Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, etc. should all be able to call themselves Macedonians. But not at the expense of the other's historical narrative. For example, the "ancients" were part of a Hellenic historical narrative just as the "moderns" are part of the wider Balkan historical narrative consisting of the Bulgarians, Greeks, YugoSlavs, and others who live within its regional confines. Geographical qualifiers make good sense but only if they are respected by all the regional players. The region of contemporary Macedonia is a "Pragmatic Salad" we have to be careful to avoid leaders who act like fruit.Joanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667164953168426021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22041478273309069162009-07-16T15:56:55.854+03:002009-07-16T15:56:55.854+03:00Strictly speaking they are not Scots, just as Fren...Strictly speaking they are not Scots, just as French people are not Franks. <br /><br />Nonetheless, these cases are not the same as that of Macedonia as there are no longer any real Scots worth speaking of, and -as far as I can tell- no genuine Franks.<br /><br />If Greeks had disappeared, no one would mind if the FYROM Slavs used the name of "Macedonians", just as no one cares that the Slavs of Bulgaria use the name of Bulgars even though they are not really Bulgars. Even in that case, though, there is some justification, since the historical Bulgars presided over a Slavic state; just as the historical Franks presided over a French-speaking state. <br /><br />Not even this level of justification can be found in the case of the FYROM Slavs. Their claims to the name of "Macedonians" would be equivalent to West Turks calling themselves "Ionians", or Russians calling themselves "Scythians".Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13275904939881904872009-07-16T14:50:11.462+03:002009-07-16T14:50:11.462+03:00Well over 98% of modern Scots do not speak the anc...Well over 98% of modern Scots do not speak the ancestral language of the Scots, the original "Scotti" who came from Dal Riada in Ulster (Ireland). The Scotti spoke a Gaelic dialect. All modern Scots speak English, even the vanishingly small number who also speak Gaelic (Erse). <br /><br />Indeed, Edinburgh was once in the English kingdom of Northumbria, and Glasgow was in the Welsh kingdom of Strathclyde. Both cities only came under Scottish control in about 1018. This is about half a millenium after the Slavs had settled Macedonia.<br /><br />By your standards the people of Edinbugh and Glasgow should have no claim to be Scottish. Go there and try telling them that, Dienekes, you might survive ;)Urseliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333874143134076409noreply@blogger.com