 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| PARAKATH radio Monday's at 9pm |
Welcome - Καλωσόρισμα - Hoş Geldiniz - оказать прием - willkommen - Bienvenue
| ©2009 Pontian Association of Montreal, "Efxinos Pontos" - Σύλλογος Ποντίων Μοντρεάλ, "Έυξεινος Πόντος". ©1999-2009 Lefter. All Rights Reserved. |
January 22, 2009
Editor, Archaeology Magazine
36-36 33rd Street
Long Island City, NY 11106
U.S.A.
Dear Sir,
I opened the January/February issue of Archaeology today and eagerly turned to "A Letter from Macedonia" only to discover that
it was actually a letter from ancient Paionia - the land north of Mt. Barmous and Mt. Orbelos. Livy's account of the creation of the
Roman province of Macedonia (45.29.7 and 12) makes clear that the Paionians lived north of those mountains (which form
today the geographically natural northern limits of Greece) and south of the Dardanians who were in today's Kosovo. Strabo (7.
frag 4) is even more succinct in saying that Paionia was north of Macedonia and the only connection from one to the other was
(and is today) through the narrow gorge of the Axios (or Vardar) River. In other words, the land which is described by Matthew
Brunwasser in his "Owning Alexander" was Paionia in antiquity.
While it is true that those people were subdued by Philip II, father of Alexander, in 359 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus 16.4.2), they
were never Macedonians and never lived in Macedonia. Indeed, Demosthenes (Olynthian 1.23) tells us that they were
"enslaved" by the Macedonian Philip and clearly, therefore, not Macedonians. Isokrates (5.23) makes the same point.
Likewise, for example, the Egyptians who were subdued by Alexander may have been ruled by Macedonians, including the
famous Cleopatra, but they were never Macedonians themselves, and Egypt was never called Macedonia (and so far as I can
tell does not seek that name today).
Certainly, as Thucydides (2.99) tells us, the Macedonians had taken over "a narrow strip of Paionia extending along the Axios
river from the interior to Pella and the sea". One might therefore understand if the people in the modern republic centered at
Skopje called themselves Paionians and claimed as theirs the land described by Thucydides.
But why, instead, would the modern people of ancient Paionia try to call themselves Macedonians and their land Macedonia?
Mr. Brunwasser (p. 55) touches on the Greek claims "that it implies ambitions over Greek territory" and he notes that "the
northern province of Greece is also called Macedonia." Leaving aside the fact that the area of that northern province of modern
Greece has been called Macedonia for more than 2,500 years (see, inter alios, Herodotus 5.17; 7.128, et alibi), more recent
history shows that the Greek concerns are legitimate. For example, a map produced in Skopje in 1992 (Figure 1) shows
clearly the claim that Macedonia extends from there to Mt. Olympus in the south; that is, combining the ancient regions of
Paionia and Macedonia into a single entity. The same claim is explicit on a pseudo-bank note of the Republic of Macedonia
which shows, as one of its monuments, the White Tower of Thessalonike, in Greece (Figure 2). There are many more
examples of calendars, Christmas cards, bumper-stickers, etc., that all make the same claim.
Further, Mr. Brunwasser has reported with approval (International Herald Tribune 10/1/08) the work of the "Macedonian
Institute for Strategic Research 16:9", the name of which refers "to Acts 16:9, a verse in the New Testament in which a
Macedonian man appears to the Apostle Paul begging him: 'Come over into Macedonia, and help us.'" But where did Paul go
in Macedonia? Neapolis (Kavala), Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessaloniki, and Veroia (Acts 16:11-17:10) all of which are
in the historic Macedonia, none in Paionia. What claim is being made by an Institute based in Skopje that names itself for a
trip through what was Macedonia in antiquity and what is the northern province of Greece today?
I wonder what we would conclude if a certain large island off the southeast coast of the United States started to call itself
Florida, and emblazoned its currency with images of Disney World and distributed maps showing the Greater Florida.
Certainly there was no doubt of the underlying point of "Macedonia" in the mind of U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius on
December 26, 1944, when he wrote:
"The Department [of State] has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official
statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and
other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This government considers talk
of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland" , or Macedonian "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery
representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against
Greece."
[Source: U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations vol viii, Washington, D.C., Circular Airgram (868.014/26Dec1944) ]
Mr. Brunwasser (a resident of Bulgaria), however, goes on to state, with apparent distain, that Greece claims "Alexander III of
Macedon (Alexander the Great) . . . as Greek."
This attitude mystifies me. What is there to "claim"? Alexander's great-great- great grandfather, Alexander I, was certified as
Greek at Olympia and, in the words of the father of history "I happen to know that [the forefathers of Alexander] are Greek"
(Herodotus 5.22). Alexander's father, Philip, won several equestrian victories at Olympia and Delphi (Plutarch, Alexander 4.9;
Moralia 105A), the two most Hellenic of all the sanctuaries in ancient Greece where non-Greeks were not allowed to compete.
If Philip was Greek, wasn't his son also Greek?
When Euripides - who died and was buried in Macedonia (Thucydides apud Pal. Anth. 7.45; Pausanias 1.2.2; Diodorus
Siculus 13.103) - wrote his play Archelaos in honor of the great-uncle of Alexander, did he write it in Slavic? When he wrote the
Bacchai while at the court of Archelaos did he not write it in Greek even as it has survived to us? Or should we imagine that
Euripides was a "Macedonian" who wrote in Slavic (at a date when that language is not attested) which was translated into
Greek?
What was the language of instruction when Aristotle taught Alexander? What language was carried by Alexander with him on
his expedition to the East? Why do we have ancient inscriptions in Greek in settlements established by Alexander as far away
as Afghanistan, and none in Slavic? Why did Greek become the lingua franca in Alexander's empire if he was actually a
"Macedonian" ? Why was the New Testament written in Greek rather than Slavic?
On page 57 of the so-called "Letter from Macedonia" there is a photograph of the author standing "before a bronze statue of
Alexander the Great in the city of Prilep." The statue is patently modern, but the question is whether the real historic Alexander
could have read the Slavic inscription beneath his feet. Given the known historic posterity of Slavic to Greek, the answer is
obvious.
While Mr. Brunwasser's reporting of the archaeological work in Paionia is welcome, his adoption and promotion of the modern
political stance of its people about the use of the name Macedonia is not only unwelcome, it is a disservice to the readers of
Archaeology who are, I imagine, interested in historic fact. But then, the decision to propagate this historical nonsense by
Archaeology - a publication of the Archaeological Institute of America - is a disservice to its own reputation.
Let it be said once more: the region of ancient Paionia was a part of the Macedonian empire. So were Ephesos and Tyre and
Palestine and Memphis and Babylon and Taxila and dozens more. They may thus have become "Macedonian" temporarily, but
none was ever "Macedonia".
Allow me to end this exegesis by making a suggestion to resolve the question of the modern use of the name "Macedonia."
Greece should annex Paionia - that is what Philip II did in 359 B.C. And that would appear to be acceptable to the modern
residents of that area since they claim to be Greek by appropriating the name Macedonia and its most famous man. Then the
modern people of this new Greek province could work on learning to speak and read and write Greek, hopefully even as well
as Alexander did.
Sincerely,
Stephen G. Miller
Professor Emeritus,
University of California, Berkeley
PS: For a more complete examination of the ancient evidence regarding Paionia, see I. L. Merker,"The Ancient Kingdom of
Paionia," Balkan Studies 6 (1965) 35-54
Editor, Archaeology Magazine
36-36 33rd Street
Long Island City, NY 11106
U.S.A.
Dear Sir,
I opened the January/February issue of Archaeology today and eagerly turned to "A Letter from Macedonia" only to discover that
it was actually a letter from ancient Paionia - the land north of Mt. Barmous and Mt. Orbelos. Livy's account of the creation of the
Roman province of Macedonia (45.29.7 and 12) makes clear that the Paionians lived north of those mountains (which form
today the geographically natural northern limits of Greece) and south of the Dardanians who were in today's Kosovo. Strabo (7.
frag 4) is even more succinct in saying that Paionia was north of Macedonia and the only connection from one to the other was
(and is today) through the narrow gorge of the Axios (or Vardar) River. In other words, the land which is described by Matthew
Brunwasser in his "Owning Alexander" was Paionia in antiquity.
While it is true that those people were subdued by Philip II, father of Alexander, in 359 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus 16.4.2), they
were never Macedonians and never lived in Macedonia. Indeed, Demosthenes (Olynthian 1.23) tells us that they were
"enslaved" by the Macedonian Philip and clearly, therefore, not Macedonians. Isokrates (5.23) makes the same point.
Likewise, for example, the Egyptians who were subdued by Alexander may have been ruled by Macedonians, including the
famous Cleopatra, but they were never Macedonians themselves, and Egypt was never called Macedonia (and so far as I can
tell does not seek that name today).
Certainly, as Thucydides (2.99) tells us, the Macedonians had taken over "a narrow strip of Paionia extending along the Axios
river from the interior to Pella and the sea". One might therefore understand if the people in the modern republic centered at
Skopje called themselves Paionians and claimed as theirs the land described by Thucydides.
But why, instead, would the modern people of ancient Paionia try to call themselves Macedonians and their land Macedonia?
Mr. Brunwasser (p. 55) touches on the Greek claims "that it implies ambitions over Greek territory" and he notes that "the
northern province of Greece is also called Macedonia." Leaving aside the fact that the area of that northern province of modern
Greece has been called Macedonia for more than 2,500 years (see, inter alios, Herodotus 5.17; 7.128, et alibi), more recent
history shows that the Greek concerns are legitimate. For example, a map produced in Skopje in 1992 (Figure 1) shows
clearly the claim that Macedonia extends from there to Mt. Olympus in the south; that is, combining the ancient regions of
Paionia and Macedonia into a single entity. The same claim is explicit on a pseudo-bank note of the Republic of Macedonia
which shows, as one of its monuments, the White Tower of Thessalonike, in Greece (Figure 2). There are many more
examples of calendars, Christmas cards, bumper-stickers, etc., that all make the same claim.
Further, Mr. Brunwasser has reported with approval (International Herald Tribune 10/1/08) the work of the "Macedonian
Institute for Strategic Research 16:9", the name of which refers "to Acts 16:9, a verse in the New Testament in which a
Macedonian man appears to the Apostle Paul begging him: 'Come over into Macedonia, and help us.'" But where did Paul go
in Macedonia? Neapolis (Kavala), Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessaloniki, and Veroia (Acts 16:11-17:10) all of which are
in the historic Macedonia, none in Paionia. What claim is being made by an Institute based in Skopje that names itself for a
trip through what was Macedonia in antiquity and what is the northern province of Greece today?
I wonder what we would conclude if a certain large island off the southeast coast of the United States started to call itself
Florida, and emblazoned its currency with images of Disney World and distributed maps showing the Greater Florida.
Certainly there was no doubt of the underlying point of "Macedonia" in the mind of U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius on
December 26, 1944, when he wrote:
"The Department [of State] has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official
statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and
other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This government considers talk
of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland" , or Macedonian "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery
representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against
Greece."
[Source: U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations vol viii, Washington, D.C., Circular Airgram (868.014/26Dec1944) ]
Mr. Brunwasser (a resident of Bulgaria), however, goes on to state, with apparent distain, that Greece claims "Alexander III of
Macedon (Alexander the Great) . . . as Greek."
This attitude mystifies me. What is there to "claim"? Alexander's great-great- great grandfather, Alexander I, was certified as
Greek at Olympia and, in the words of the father of history "I happen to know that [the forefathers of Alexander] are Greek"
(Herodotus 5.22). Alexander's father, Philip, won several equestrian victories at Olympia and Delphi (Plutarch, Alexander 4.9;
Moralia 105A), the two most Hellenic of all the sanctuaries in ancient Greece where non-Greeks were not allowed to compete.
If Philip was Greek, wasn't his son also Greek?
When Euripides - who died and was buried in Macedonia (Thucydides apud Pal. Anth. 7.45; Pausanias 1.2.2; Diodorus
Siculus 13.103) - wrote his play Archelaos in honor of the great-uncle of Alexander, did he write it in Slavic? When he wrote the
Bacchai while at the court of Archelaos did he not write it in Greek even as it has survived to us? Or should we imagine that
Euripides was a "Macedonian" who wrote in Slavic (at a date when that language is not attested) which was translated into
Greek?
What was the language of instruction when Aristotle taught Alexander? What language was carried by Alexander with him on
his expedition to the East? Why do we have ancient inscriptions in Greek in settlements established by Alexander as far away
as Afghanistan, and none in Slavic? Why did Greek become the lingua franca in Alexander's empire if he was actually a
"Macedonian" ? Why was the New Testament written in Greek rather than Slavic?
On page 57 of the so-called "Letter from Macedonia" there is a photograph of the author standing "before a bronze statue of
Alexander the Great in the city of Prilep." The statue is patently modern, but the question is whether the real historic Alexander
could have read the Slavic inscription beneath his feet. Given the known historic posterity of Slavic to Greek, the answer is
obvious.
While Mr. Brunwasser's reporting of the archaeological work in Paionia is welcome, his adoption and promotion of the modern
political stance of its people about the use of the name Macedonia is not only unwelcome, it is a disservice to the readers of
Archaeology who are, I imagine, interested in historic fact. But then, the decision to propagate this historical nonsense by
Archaeology - a publication of the Archaeological Institute of America - is a disservice to its own reputation.
Let it be said once more: the region of ancient Paionia was a part of the Macedonian empire. So were Ephesos and Tyre and
Palestine and Memphis and Babylon and Taxila and dozens more. They may thus have become "Macedonian" temporarily, but
none was ever "Macedonia".
Allow me to end this exegesis by making a suggestion to resolve the question of the modern use of the name "Macedonia."
Greece should annex Paionia - that is what Philip II did in 359 B.C. And that would appear to be acceptable to the modern
residents of that area since they claim to be Greek by appropriating the name Macedonia and its most famous man. Then the
modern people of this new Greek province could work on learning to speak and read and write Greek, hopefully even as well
as Alexander did.
Sincerely,
Stephen G. Miller
Professor Emeritus,
University of California, Berkeley
PS: For a more complete examination of the ancient evidence regarding Paionia, see I. L. Merker,"The Ancient Kingdom of
Paionia," Balkan Studies 6 (1965) 35-54