Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Ancient gold jewelry?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Monday, 25th September 2006
In the museum in Varna ,Bulgaria, there is an exhibition of funereal gold jewelry claimed to be the oldest in the world. Can anyone verify this or suggest wher I can get further information?
-
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 25th September 2006
The most ancient? Wait, in Egypt there have been found tombs with artifact in them (even golden ones if I am not mistaken), then in ancient Greece there have been found tombs dating back in the 15th-16th B.C. centuries like the famous "tomb of Agamemnon" in Mycenes (named after the mythical Agamemnon, possibly it could be himself also why not?) where we have found golden masks and such.
I am not really aware of golden masks and other important burial site artifacts in Thrace predating the 1000 B.C. era to be the most ancient but then in a bit of a search I have found this site of this guy who visits Bulgaria and tries to write a bit of a story about it and listan to what he read out there (in touristic guides?).
I have answered to him to give him some direction, now if he got the idea he got, if he is not capable (on the basis of his seemingly reduced education) then I cannot do more.
The teaching of the story is that you should not trust everything that everyone says (not even me, why? You have always to check). But then my advice is that to be especially suspicious of scientists in the Balkan (and not so much the Greek who are very reserved) but those of Bulgaria, FYROM, Albania, Serbia... they will say whatever to justify their national/political intentions - e.g. Bulgaria remembered of Thraecians and tried to do the connection (that is impossible!) in order to have a bsis to get access to the Aegean sea. Cool, good thing they did but here we talk about history not casino-games. -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 25th September 2006
However on the basis of this thread I would like to ask people here what do they think of Thraecians (who were they, what language they probably spoke etc.). When they appeared on scene and when they dissappeared etc.
-
Message 4
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 25th September 2006
Hi Copperworks,
This rang a good few bells, as I remembered seeing an article on this on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ News site last year. Anyway, here are all the links that relate to it, and also one to the Bulgarian Natural History Museum.
More Treasure Found In Bulgaria (18 August 2006):
Ancient Dagger Found In Bulgaria (6 August 2006):
Bulgaria unearths Thracian riches (25 July 2006):
In pictures: Thracian riches (25 July 2005):
Bulgaria Hopes To Exploit Golden Heritage (11 November 2004):
Bulgaria dig suggests rich past (22 October 2004):
Unique book goes on display (26 May 2003):
According to a Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ link, you can get to the Bulgarian Natural History Museum at:
Cheers,
RF -
Message 5
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Monday, 25th September 2006
Thanks for the replies. As far as I can remember it was claimed that these articles pre-dated Egyptian ones and were dated around about 3,500 B.C. They really were quite impressive - gold beads, amulets e.t.c. arranged around an ancient skeleton in an approximation of the original tomb.I don't think a reputable institution would intentially mislead the public. As for the Thracians -another sadly overlooked area of Antiquity. Wasn't Spartacus a Thracian? If so , why isn't he a Bulgarian national hero?
-
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 25th September 2006
I saw some of the above links. The artifacts are remarkable and of great beauty and of great value and not only because of their materials.
But on their dating I would be conservative. Some of them look like contemporary with Hellenistic times or even later and bare similarities with Greek equivalent, they have even Greek themes on them. On the other hand samples like that golden vine-leafes I saw in one picture are so similar to a technique produced also in the Macedonian kingdom after it got rich taking the gold mines of Chalchidiki... that does not mean that Thraecians could not be the developers of that technique and who knows, these samples may predate the Greek ones... but going how far back...?
Greeks after all did not only take Dionysus from Thraecians but a lot of music styles and other cultural features. But on the other hand, I would be very reserved and would not dare to group every tribe from Russia to Minor Asia as Thraecian. This is too simplistic (and convenient for some!) but it is really way out of reality as that huge area contained a huge number of really diverse tribes. Phrygians and Moesians were also Thraecians but I cannot find the slightest connection with... Dacians or Scythians! -
Message 7
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 25th September 2006
Hi E_Nik,
I agree on the beauty of some of the artefacts - that book in Etruscan looks stunning.
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Wasn't Chalcidice (Chalchidiki) part of Thrace at some point? -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 25th September 2006
You just highlighted one weakness of many modern concepts on history of S.E. Europe: the absolute failure to define what is Thraecians. Out of that weakness stems the fact that historians have grouped the most impossible tribes from Ukraine down to Minor Asia to the point that Dacians of central Roumania must be somehow related to Phrygians (who were certainly of Thraecian affinity and Lydians (who were not Thraecian but had some contact with the Phrygians)!!!
Why all the above trouble? For one simple reason: Greek History! Yes. For good or for bad whatever is termed in the region will always have to do with what is termed as Greek... i.e. in our case all what is perceived as non-Greek can be termed instantly as Thraecian (or the more fashionable nowadays, Illyrian - though thraecians were different to Illyrians who lived further north and on the western side of the peninsula!).
And why all that? Because of the incapability of some to believe the reasonable and their insisting that ancient Greeks went down on earth from planet Mars or something and all were compressed in southern Peloponesus just because the north was not cool or something...
If one mentions the paradigm of Iberic peninsula where you have languages and dialects that are unified on the palet ranging from Portuguese, then to Galician (portuguese and spanish) then to castelliano, then to catalan, then to French catalan, then to southern french and Italian and so on...
Well... is it so hard to understand that back in the 3rd millenia B.C. (i.e. 3000 - 2000 B.C.) SE Europe+ Minor Asia was habitated by tribes that were presenting a similar situation like in the linguistic lines of the Iberic peninsula. Hence, you had the various tribes (those around the Aegean) that later evolved to the Greek ones and the others that evolved in their own ways into the tribes termed as Thraecians/Moesians/Phrygians or more generally Thraecians.
Sorry but the affinity of Phrygians to Greeks is well established. It is also a paradox that out of all that huge culture of Thraecians we have found absolutely no writtings and we know no words but whatever we find in thraecian cities is Greek as if Thraecians had something against their own language and culture.
Of course I will not say here that because of the above, Thraecians must had been certainly Greeks as not many of them would be accepted in the Olympics (like it was the case for Macedonians, Aetolians and Eyrutaneans - people that were occasionaly accused of being 'barbarians' by some historians who were on a certain propaganda despite the first habitating on mountain Olympus and the latter around the Delphi!!!! What else can I say!).
All I am saying is that the notion of Thraecians being one distinctive race that lived from Ukraine down to Minor Asia is at least simplistic and funny as there is absolutely no link between all that apart the usual... Greek-like specimens we find all around the black sea that prove nothing else than existing commerce for which you had all that... Trojan War... ehehe!!!
What exactly I am saying is that it seems by the 1st millenia B.C. (i.e. 1000 - 0 B.C.), the evolution around the Aegean and the advent of the term 'hellenic' (describing Greeks) meant that those tribes habitating north of the Aegean (especially on the east, i.e. where modern Bulgaria is) would be described as non-Greek - without that meaning that these people must had been radically different to Greeks in languages and customs. If anyone mentions that "Thraecians did not have democracy or civilised manners or such" I will remind him that these are in no sense any distinctive characteristic of a tribe or a race and will remind him that Macedonians, Aelolians, Eurytaneans, Spartans, Thessalinas, Epirots and so many other Greek tribes that did not excel exactly in arts and literature (well Spartans only in poetry - but then Thraecians also had excellent music. We should not also forget that Thraecians had a religion similar to that of Greeks sharing many gods, but also having their own but then it is widely known that greek cities had various local deities along with the official 12 gods at cases more revered than the 12 gods.
The fact that the bulk of Greeks (including Macedonians that suffered the terrible lies of big-time liar and traitor to Athens during the battle Demosthenis) did not accept Thraecians as pure Greeks does not prove that these spoke a largely different language... we could possibly talk about a difference similar to modern Portuguese and Spanish.Talking about the southern tribes and since from what is already known (at least the little things we have) that Phrygian (a thraecian language) had some certain relation with Greek (if not close), it seems that these tribes could be seen as being on the fringes of the Greek world...
... that also explains why they leanrt so easily Greek and why whenever they decided to write something they did it always in Greek. Makes sense isn't it? If they spoke Russian for example they would certainly had tried to write also in their own language. It is also certain that the more you went away from the sea the less connection of Thraecians with the Greek world and the more connection of them with tribes of continental Europe. It is obvious (for me) that Dacians had nothing to do, culturally or linguistically with southern Thraecians of Aegean Thrace of the 10th B.C. century (cos anyway these were hellenised by the 1st A.D. century or much earlier). It is also natural to imagine that in the center of the peninsula various Thraecian tribes would had mixed with the western Illyrian tribes but then these two tribes should not be mixed as their bulks lived in different geographic areas and there is no proof of big-time moves horizontally in the peninsula at those times.
Now, I am not going to say that Bulgarians should not consider such tribes as their ancestors "or they should give them to us Greeks". No way! Far from that. Thraecians had been Thraecians, but then not exactly what we think of them - certainly not what Bulgarians think of them!!! Since Bulgarians are living on the place these people existed, they are their ancestors no doubt on that, but then just because it is convenient for them to talk about a hypothetic Thraecian nation covering all these huge areas from Ukraine (the place Bulgarians went down... now you get the connection????? ok!) does not mean that we will sit down to accept that unless someone here will come to me and prove to me the connection between Phrygians and Dacians of Romania (see.. I am not even asking any connection with Ukraine or something!). -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 25th September 2006
If you permit me that speculation:
If the war of Troy happened in the place it happened then it is very possible that it was between the following two sides: Mycenean kingdoms that later evolved to be termed as Hellenic states and on the other side those kingdoms that later gave the Thraecian, Moesian and Phrygian states/kingdoms - who were controlling the part of modern European Turkey and Bosporus plus northern Minor Asia (Phrygians) - some greek islands of northern Aegean were controlled by Moesians like Lesvos, Samos and Samothrace (even the name says it!). It is visible from the fact that in some myths, the leader of Trojans is Dardanos himself (one of ther forefathers of Thraecians) who also named the Dardanelia crossing.
It is also noteworthy to see that this guy Dardanos is a relative of all the other guys, Doros, Ionas, Aiolos, Makednos etc. that gave the other Greek tribes ... in a sense that at least implies (in the way that myths imply) a common ancestry to all these people... regardless to what was termed much later as Greek and as non-Greek.
It could be possibly that a large scale war like what it is described in Iliad, created the division of all these numerous tribes into two main camps the South-Western (that later evolved to Greeks) and the north-eastern (that gave Thraecians, Moesians and Phrygians - who as tribes were cut in two by the passage of the former tribes through the Dardanelia). Who knows... -
Message 10
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Thanks for a very detailed exposition, Nikolaos. Might I also enquire about the Macedonians , weren't they considered akin to barbarians by the ancient greeks? And doesn't this problem resonate down to modern times with both Greece and Albania disputing their provenance?
-
Message 11
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Hi Copperworks,
You're really opening a can of worms by asking E_Nikolaos if the Macedonians were viewed as barbarians by the ancient Greeks!
The following quote from Herodotus's "Histories" implies that some Greeks felt they were barbarians, whereas others didn't:
-------------------------------------------------
"And that these descendants of Perdiccas are Hellenes, as they themselves say, I happen to know myself, and not only so, but I will prove in the succeeding history that they are Hellenes. Moreover the Hellanodicai, who manage the games at Olympia, decided that they were so: for when Alexander wished to contend in the games and had descended for this purpose into the arena, the Hellenes who were to run against him tried to exclude him, saying that the contest was not for Barbarians to contend in but for Hellenes: since however Alexander proved that he was of Argos, he was judged to be a Hellene, and when he entered the contest of the foot-race his lot came out with that of the first."
Source: Project Gutenberg
-------------------------------------------------
If the runners felt that Macedonians were barbarians, then it is fair to infer that at this time, some other Greeks felt the same way as they did. However, the management of the games (the Hellanodicai)and Herodotus certainly didn't feel the same way.
Offhand, I can't think of any other reference apart from this that refers to them as barbarians.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Hehe, copperwork! People here have raised the question many times and some already (though 100% knowledgeable) tease me because they know I am a Macedonian myself and thus not objective on the issue though I will try to give you the most 'cold' and accurate answer my subjective position can gie you (if you are in doubts please verify 100% of what I say, you will see that the opposite side fails to do so I am adamant on that!).
Ancient Macedonians were Greek. Asking why were they Greek is like asking why Londonians are English or why Parisians are French - if you get in that trap, then discussion ends up really funny. Even Greek Mythology mentions Makednos as a greek guy. The Macedonian mountain of Olympus (now what! Olympus itself) was the holy mountain of Greeks... it would be strange that no ancient Greek ever mentioned that Olympus actually belongs to barbarians!
We know they spoke Greek, since out of the more than 6,000 writtings written by Macedonian (and these were commoners not philosophers speaking foreign languages!!!) we find that all "more than 6,000 writtings" were in Greek. There was absolutely no othr language spoken in the area and whoever ever tells you other things he is a liar and there is some kinf of propaganda behind his effort. First let him bring you solid proof of that and then please also tell me so that I know!**
Visitors from the south, in the 5th century (thus before Philip and Alexander) mentioned them as Greek. Persians (oh yes! didn't they know? or where they so stupid? I think Persians knew well who was Greek and who was not!!! Better than liar Demosthenis) mentioned them as Greek and actually they used the Macedonian King as a Greek to talk with Greeks to convince them.
What dialect they spoke? A Greek dialect related to Dorian - in fact In those ancient times what was Greek was not dependent on Attic or what Athenians thought yet. Spartans, allies of Macedonians certainly considered them as big-time Greeks. But then if today some people can only think the "Athenian way"...what really Athenian commoners (and not one liar politician) thought of Macedonians? That they were certainly Greek as they even had theatrical plays in the 5th century where they made jokes about Macedonians (they were saying these talked like villagers) but certainly from such jokes you can see that Macedonians were considered as "villagois Greeks and not as barbarians. And what Macedonians declared of themselves? Well they declared the proudest of Greeks from here up to India and China were they left behind only Greek... and we talk about semi-iliterrate Macedonian soldiers that left all that not anyone else! Romans also loved Greek culture but would not go to the extend of using greek everytime they wrote something from England to Persia!!! Isn't it?
Now I get your permission to redress your question to "At last, who thought of them as non Greek".
1st: After the Persian wars, when Alexander the I (great great great grandfather of Alex the Great) decided to participate himself in the Olympics, a couple of losers convinced also some others (but not all of them anyway, that was a minority that brought the case!!!) that he should not run on the basis he was a barbarian... that is a usual argument, however what they forget to tell you is that part of the whole - anyway stupid - argument had been that during the Persian invasion, Macedonia was subdued by Persians and Alexander had to give his sister to a Persian noble for marriage... hence he was related in a way to barbarians... the truth is that the neighbouring Chalchidikian city-states always tried to expand against the kingdom of Macedonia and it was to their benefit if the latter remained isolated from other alliances among the Greek world (now you get the point). Of course, the judges, the 'Hellanodikae' found the argumentation ridiculous and considered Macedonians like any other Greeks not only Alexander himself as some say, as no Greek could participate in the Olympics representing a... barbaric state. Only that actually is enough as an argument to convince anyone but then it is not enough for some... then have you ever wondered what is propaganda? Pro-pa-ga-nda? Well ... it a notion that has absolutely nothing to do with facts.
so they continue and say that Alexander I was named Philellin hence he was obviously a foreigner. This is one of the most ridiculous efforts to bend the truth: they think that the term 'phillelin' means "foreigner friend of Greeks" but the truth is that this meaning dates back to the ... 19th century A.D. and the Greek revolution (true! they are so lowly educated they think it was the same back then). Actually, back in the early 5th century, the term was given only to Greeks that served the common cause of all Greek tribes like Alexander I had done... giving it to barbarians would be at least an insult if not a hybris!!!!! Amazing!!! It is worthless to mention how many other Greeks Plato had awarded with the title of the Philellin.... !!!
2nd. The next time we listen from someone that Macedonians were barbarians is from Demosthenis. In the mean time we had learnt from Athenian writer Thoucidides that Aitolians and Akarnaneans and Eyrytaneans "must be barbarians" because they have bad manners and talk like villagers and they should not be named Greeks... ok. So according to Thoucidides the Delphi Oracle was not Greek but barbarian!!! Ammmmaaaazing!!!! So what did dear Demosthenis say? He was saying...
"... and who is Philip? Isn't he a barbarian? No he is even worse than barbarian... he drinks wine without water, he has 80 concubines and he swears and talks with a foul language... ".
Hahahaha! There is no better example of a Greek talking about another Greek than the above! Actually only from the above everyone gets the idea that even Demosthenis himself did not believe all the lies he was saying! Perhaps that is why it took him 3 speeches, write down three please, not one to convince the Athenians to do something about this "womaniser Philip" and it is true that Athenians were never convinced that Macedonians were foreigners but only reacted belately when they saw that the Macedonian kingdom expands more than it should affecting their interests!!! Certainly none saw the battle between Macedonians and the allied army of Thebans-Athenians as a battle of Greeks and barbarians (that is only in the mind of some propagandists). Now in that battle the "brave Demosthenis" only managed to run away dropping his shield ... the same shameful behaviour as easrlier when he accused the also great Athenian rhetor Aishunis who ... surprise surprise was in favour of Macedonians cos he believed the genuine will of Philip to unite Greek states, kingdoms, federations in a strong alliance. Why did he accuse him? It was part of the plan. Since he considered Macedonians as barbarians, Aishinis naming them "leaders of the Greeks" should be proved as treason. So he put him to trial but then accusations only fell so easily. And I ask: Athenian courts were made out of Athenian people. Were Athenians so ignorant as not to know that Macedonians were barbarians or not? Shouldn't they condamn this guy Aishinis if he preached submission to barbarians? Ha! Nothing of these happened and poor Demosthenis had to retract himself as another lie of his failed to do the job he wanted.
... so far what do we have in favour of the idea that Macedonians were not Greeks? 2-3 liar athlets with a propagandistic plan behind them and 1 big-time liar propagandist politician who managed to betray his own city in the war himself created... Search as you like... maximum you will find 1-2 references suggesting Macedonians were barbarians and these will be either in the sense Macedonians talk like villagers (i.e. the case of half of Greeks talking about the other half: If I tell you how many Greek tribes were accused of being barbarians you will ask me in the end "Who was Greek anyway?"... oh yes, the list includes Athenians and Spartans and Thebans... haha!).
Are these two lonely sources above enough? No. But they are enough for propagandists. -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Now you might wonder what dialect exactly had Macedonians.
Ok. The truth is that most of the 6,000 writtings found in Macedonia (plus the other elsewhere- those proved that written by Macedonians particularly and not any other Greeks) are lists of things, or tombs or short phrases thus we have no full texts apart some texts in the Roman times which are of course in Greek. However, from what we sea 100% of them are Greek, plus the names of the people are 100% Greek. Nothing that suggests anything foreign.
There is a lexicon of Macedonian particular words identified from those writtings plus every other source possible but these unfortunately rise to some 100s of words hence not enough (and lucky enough for the opposition that still harbours hopes of finding something else). Out of these few hundred Macedonian words, 80% is blatantly Greek for some 10% there is suspicion that this is Greek and only some 5% there is suspicion that is related to neighbouring non-Greek dialects of central Balkans Illirian or Thraecian or both).
Now, what the opposition tries to say is that all the 80% is just Greek donations and that the 20% (cos the 10% ambiguous is certainly non-Greek for them!!!) is representing the pure Macedonian language. A way of thinking which is purely mazing. That is why I ask you again if you know well the term pro pa ga nda.
Do not also forget that the above words do not take into account all those words that Macedonians had in common with other Greeks that they used in most of their writtings, then the 80%-90% percentage similarity is also the same true between Dorian and Ionian and between Ionian and Attic and between Dorian and Aeolian and so on.
There is also some hint that Macedonian apart from being related to Dorian (actually Dorian is related to Macedonian ad the former came from the latter!) was also related or influenced by Aeolian (neighbouring Thessalians were Aeolians - note that Thessalians also had never mentioned that they lived next to barbarians!!). One (I think Athenian) writer visited Macedonia in the 5th century and suggested that Makednos be the cousin of Aeolos (hinting that there was some similarity in the dialects) - we can also think of no reason why this writer would do something like that if he did not believe that Macedonian is just another Greek dialect.
Opposition sits down and tries to be based on the pronunciation of Macedonians. They say that "F" was pronounced more as "B" and that names end in "as" (e.g. Amuntas, Perdikas etc.) and that some words commence with "sa.." (!!how strange!!). Now it is widely known that the sound "F" was only formated in classical times while in archaic it was pronounced "PH" while in Mycenean times it was actually "B". Dorians actually continued to speak with "PH" and that is why by many (even Athenians!) Dorian was considered as a purest form of Greek - that is why in latin they retained the "PH" form and today you write Greek words with PH and not with F like us! In a sense one may say that Macedonians spoke more pure Greek than the altered Ionian that was largely influenced by the non Greek people of Minor Asia! Names ending in "as" were really popular in Macedonia but were also very common in other places mainly Aeolian and Dorian, there is nothing weird about that! Words begginign with "sa.." were as common in Macedonian as in the rest of Greek dialects... it is just that the most famous word of theirs, called sarissa (the long spear) started with "sa"... it is worth mentioning that the back side of the spear was called by all Greeks "saroter" as it "sarono" (i.e. sweeping) the enemy - the used it to kill the wounded enemies while marching over them in phalanxes). Sarissa as a term could possibly describe the sweeping action but that is a personal speculation. -
Message 14
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Nikaloas, I hope my question didn't seem offensive, I had no idea that you had formerly answered these questions (I am fairly new to these boards) You certainly seem to have a good knowledge of original sources. Perhaps I could hazard another point and add that I am quite ignorant of matters Macedonian But.....
Philip was a King, right? Not a tyrant or Pre-eminent nobleman. Hadn't the other Greek city states( with the exception of Sparta) gone through Monarchy and the Tyrants, and arrived at Democracy by this period? If Macedonia still retained a more archaic form of government doesn't that add weight to the suggestion that they were in many ways different from their southern cousins? -
Message 15
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
No, please, you are never offensive, it is your absolute right to question and afterall I enjoy talking about history of the place I was born. I only apologise to people that have heard such 100s times here but I am never bored as you see, so my answer is totally dedicated to you!
Please also note that I am in no sense "big-time" angry with the Slavic people (speaking a Bulgarian dialect and till 1940 self-recognised as Bulgarians until communist Tito gave them the "Macedonian dream") from the small state of FYROM that insist for their own propagandistic reasons that Macedonia is somehow non-Greek and all these irrelevancies I enjoy to reveal to the world just to get access to the Aegean (an age-old trick of Bulgarians who recognise them only as Bulgarians but also do not recognise Macedonians as Greeks in order to keep the Aegean access... for themselves!!! Get the point?). I am certainly also not against USA that did not create all that but really likes the idea of such a mess in the region in order to have yet another joker to play against the countries adding pressure if one country does things that it does not like. These things are natural on the diplomatic game its no point sitting down to argue.
But here we talk about history. And for that we search the facts not what anyone wants to say for any reason.
Thus I go directly (with your permission) and redress your question as the following:
"Does the difference of political traditions and the cultural hysterisis implies a more extensive difference between Macedonians and southern Greeks?"
Very reasonable question as sometimes such things create suspicions. If we take from a strictly rational point of view, then instantly one will say that political organisation and cultural hysterisis is by no means a criterion of nationality or tribal origins! It is as if saying "If Saoudi Arabia becomes a democracy then its citizens will automatically cease to be Arabs!!!".
However, I will not sit down on the above argumentation style and will tackle directly your question.
Was Macedonian organisational tradition vastly different to that of southern Greeks? Was their evolution totally inconsistent to that of other Greeks? My answer is no. First let me put things in the correct time framework.
It is known that the few powerful Mycenean Kingdom that ruled most of the greater area of what is known as Greece today had collapsed by the end of the second millenia (around 1000 B.C.) while several ancient cities like Mycenes were destroyed and abandones - others were destroyed or decayed and then slowly rebuilt in new forms often very different to Mycenean organisations but then it is a myth that it happened everywhere and that it was vastly different to Mycenean organisations... first we do not know details on Myceneans second the only difference is that the new states were less powerful than Mycenean kingdoms!!! In many places the population became again rural, as it usually happens in such situations (see end of Roman Empire, end of Byzantine Empire etc.). Political organisation falls back to the level of a collection of villages. Villages tend to create the small towns then the city and around the city the states. Of course that is a very generic view of what happened as it did not follow that pattern everywhere in the Greek world. For example, Greeks of Cyprus did not pass from those levels and continued having older forms of governance, i.e. Kings! Spartans - that were not so much of a city state but a weird form of a kingdom that ruled the 1/4th of Peloponesus continued well into classical times having a royal family albeit with two kings (that creation must had been the result of Lycurgus laws to reduce the direct power of kings and stabilise things etc.). Thessalians never developed city-states but passed on directly to the form of federation (a federation of rich landowners, oh yes!!!) and I think they were ruled by a king (if I am not mistaken, otherwise it must had been the Aitolians). Aetolians (mid-western modern Greece) in their federations had kings (if it was not the Thessalians) up to ... late Hellenistic times!! Epirots had kings in a similar system like Macedonia. Even city-states of South Italy had kings up to classical times, not to mention that the citizens of Akragas had proposed to philosopher Embedoklis to become their king despite that it was his father that brought democracy to them getting rid of a bad tyrrant!
From the above one sees that actually our traditional idea of a democratic city-state was the blatant minority in the anient Greek world even up to the end of classical times. Actually even the form of city-state was a minority and was relevant only to large ports of Athens, Corinth, Rodhes and Syracuse but not to Spart which had been a normal state rather than a city state (governing up to 1/4th of Peloponesus). It is also interesting to note that this term is really one that we developed ourselves to describe things we were interested (i.e. democracy vs oligarchy)... the Greeks would not be interested in any such distinctions between a city-state (polis-kratos) like Corinth and a federation like Aetolians. "Polis" (the "whole" of citizens, has nothign to do with the size or population of a place) and "kratos" (power, the ability to enforce things comes from krato=to hold).
Now, if one insists on the false view of classical Greece via city-states, a view which is more of a political statement than a precise historical argumentation, then he sees that those cities that passed through the transformation towards democracy had begun with kings, kings were substituted by aristocrats, then by oligarchs, these by tyrrants and then to democracy - each city would take its own path through that line but then it is also noteworthy that throughout that line there were traditional institutions that remained for long, like the council of war, itself an institution that led to the "eklessia" (i.e. assembly of citizens - citizens were only those that served in the army, thus the free men, women did not serve in the army, slaves did not (oh yes!), immigrants did not or served as auxiliaries in non-combat places (oh yes!). Of course people who talk of city-states will omit the fact that democracy was born out of the military-council since it does not fit in their political statement. As they will also ignore the fact that Athens had been more conservative (not to mention fascist) than Syracyse under tyrrants and Pella under kings. At least there they did not hunt down philosophers for their thoughts (blah blah... details of history!).
Now, what Macedonians had? They had a king yes. But his power were loose as Macedonia had been a loose feudal system where kings were more or less the first among equals. That is because the Macedonian kingdom was formed out of the need of the smaller states of the area to become stronger against the traditional raids that were coming down by river Axios (known as Vardar to modern Slavs... its no accident, Goths came down from there and then the Bulgarians were raiding from there, the Germans in WWII enterred from there etc. - its a passing point). Hence, Macedonia rose as a shield on that point, a fact that was described by Stravo in Roman times (oh, just to note down: Stravo thinks Macedonians were of the best of Greeks). Former regions (possibly earlier kingdoms?) like Eordaioi, Emolpiaioi, Orestai had their feudal families that remained always strong and usually (usually!) the successor would chose a bride from these families. There was some royal interchange with the kingdom of Epirus (often seen as a brother kingdom to Macedonia sharing a lot of similarities... but then Macedonian feudal leaders did not accept sometimes such moves as in the case of Alexander the Great see below
note:.....funny enough none asked officially whether Pyrrhos was Greek nor not yet, but I think some Albanians unofficially want to pass the claim that he was Illirian, i.e. Albanian (really? Romans did not notice that!) but this is really getting funny here in the Balkans where every ancient Greek person has been claimed as Bulgarian, Russian, Albanian but not Greek! - well I have even heard once that one Turkish guy said that Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr was normally named Omar and was non-Greek but proto-Turkish!).
There is absolutely no reason to be surprised that these aristocratic feudal leaders remained powerful for long since they obviously tried to control the kings and maintain their premium position, that even during hellenistic kingdoms and till the Roman times. Afterall it was them that betrayed the King, even during battle when they took the cavalry and left the place. Half of Macedonian kings were actually less powerful than them. Alexander the I is the one that distinguished really, then his grandson (or so I think) Amuntas (grandfather of Alexander the Great). Of course Philip is the one that made the difference becoming the absolute leader but still he never became the absolute king he would like to be as he had to fight off comments such as that he should make his first son Alexander to step aside as he was the son of an Epirot woman and not of a Macedonia and that when Philip married the daughter of Attalus, it should be the expected child. Some say it was maybe that fear that made Alex's mother to murder her husband (nothing is certain though, everything is possible).
What is all that different from other places in the Greek world? The only difference I find is that Macedonia in the early times did not have a port to have a large city and remained largely rural. Hence, aristocrats were landowners, i.e. feudal leaders. In cities like Athens it was the same thing, only that these were not feudals. They were simply aristocrats. I am sorry but does anyone here knows how many non-aristocrats rose in ... democratic Athens? 2. Themistocles and Socrates. ALL others were aristocrats, having roots to 2-3 main families!!! Pericles? Plato? Who else do you want? Aristeides? Alkiviades? Aristocrats ruled Athens well through its democratic phase. Not to mentio that the whole democracy thing was a partially the outcome of aristocrats in order to avoid again the appearence of populist tyrrants - they continued to rule but only a bit more in the dark than being in the light as they were in Macedonia.
What else on Macedonia? The military council of course. That had exactly the same characteristics as any other military council in any other Greek states. All soldiers were assembled, the leader (king or general spoke) and the soldiers decided by shouting yes or no. That was a very basic organisational tool but a very powerful as if the army was against a decision then it overruled the plans of the leader be it the king. It is noteworthy that it is this (in the basics very democratic) institution that Alexander had to listen to in India... it is not that its army did a mutiny or something... (well, in the eyes of the irrelevant or the politically painted it is a mutiny or a revolution!)... that was merely the military council where Alexander proposed his plans and where his soldiers voted no - then Alexander had to stand up and give a last speech trying to change their opinions - a bitter but very nice and very true speech... but then soldiers were adamant.
I cannot see how all the above are in irrelevance with the greek culture... Macedonia presents all those archaic features that elsewhere evolved to what is known as city-states. Now why Macedonia remained a fossil (even in their dialect along with social evolution), the answer is simple:
They had no sea, thus no access to commerce, communication and information thus remained largely rural concentrated in their farming business and defending themselves from the northerners but also the Chalchidikians in the east and the Thessalians in the south. Now who else had no sea? The mid-Peloponesians (e.g. Helians), the Aetolians had not much of ports, the Akarnanians and the Eyrutaneans the Epirots had not much of ports, the Thessalians alike... Now what do we see? Apart the fact that Aetolians and Akarnanians and Eyrutaneans were occasioanally also suffering from accusations of being barbarians (like Macedonians) despite actually living ... around the Delphi!!! for the simple reason that they were less culturally developed than others .... all these people shared similar social development like Macedonians.
The result? Pretty much obvious! Social development is irrespective of racial or tribal ancestry!!!! In our example, Greeks had quite different evolutions; those Greeks that lived in mountainous areas like Epirots, Macedonians, Akarnanians, Aitolians and Eyrutaneans remained largely rural, retaining older social forms that were also reflected in their dialects that were more close to older forms of Greek language. It is no wonder that for those reasons Macedonians felt all the above people as 'more close' to them than other Greeks but then at the end all those would share a common structural basis along with other Greeks... the aristocrats and the military council! -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Even today, a part of Greeks identify with the term "the sea people", the other part identifies themselves with the term "the mountainous people". However, the touristic slogan "sea-sex-and-sun" along with too much Atticism meant that the former gained the preferance among modern Greeks.
I wonder then why we call sea thalassa (Dorian/Macedonian pronunciation) and not thalatta (Attic pronunciation). -
Message 17
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Nikolaos,
I have read it nearly all and I hope that you thank me for that effort.
Over the question about the Macedonians and there language and Alexander the Great I think you discussed it in length with for instance lol and others. About Bulgaria and Fyrom (Former Yugoslavian Republic Of Macedonia) I was in the discussion with Aleksandar and you for more than two hundred messages.
I was also in discussion some week ago about genetics, language and culture.
Some are every time tied to the territorial claims of nowadays countries as Britain and the Celts and seek to link it to language prove and genetic prove. Languages aren't always connected to cultures. With other words you can also have Celtic culture in Germany, while they spoke Germanic. And you could have also people in Britain with the Celtic culture and etnically not related to the people from where the culture originated.
So if the Bulgarians claim that tribe X or etnicity Y is their anchestry it can be that it were others. The same with the Macedonians (are you reading it Aleksandar?) or with the Greeks. I think traces of a certain culture are just that and have not always to be connected with this or that genetic pattern, as culture and even so language can be transferred also without physical movement of some people applicating a certain culture or language. Thus IMO you are never sure.
So the genetic prove that I saw made in an Italian laboratory by "scientists" from Fyrom was just balderdash. As some equal balderdash I read on Bulgarian and Greek websites.
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS. Nick and thank you for your nevertheless interesting and as usually (I can't do it, while my knowledge of English isn't that great as yours) long replies to Copperworks. And I let the discussion about the language to lol. Although I am not sure if he will start again after the nearly endless debate. -
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Copperworks,
welcome to the boards with your interesting question.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 19
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 27th September 2006
Paul you are one of the most courageous contributors in these columns, and as I proof I state that you have read down many of my infernally-long and tedious messages, but then I have to disagree with you: you write excellent, with perfect grammar (I do not pay attention as I write lightening-fast), and you have your ideas tidy while I am flying from one issue to the other relentlessly (a hint of my dyslexic tendences, eheheh!).
I totally agree with you that Bulgarians have every right to consider Thraecians as their ancestors as culture, language and ancestry (genes etc.) do not go hand in hand. It is more than obvious that the bulk of Thraecians became Bulgarians while a significant part of them in the south integrated the Greek nation (which integrated also the likes of Phrygians in Minor Asia), no wonder on that!
My main idea above was not of course to claim Thraecians as Greeks or something but to describe a situation where out of the various tribes existing in S.E. Europe the bulk in the south consolidated as Greeks while the bulk in the center-east as Thraecians but then in the middle you had all these inter-tribes which could "understand" both sides as it usually happens in such situations. What I mostly implying is that out of their need for simplicity, historians often over-group tribes of a large area into one generic tribe, like in case of Thraecians. For me, from the very few things I know and from what I see I cannot find the connection easily between Thraecians of Minor Asia (i.e. Phrygians) and Thraecians of mid-northern Roumania (e.g. Dacians).
If the assumption that these Thraecian tribes descended from the north - which is usual as a case but then this is so stereotypical - then it could be that various mixes of these tribes with the mediterraneans created the various tribes that gave much later the Greeks and the Thraecians but what I think is that if say during the Trojan war Thraecians fought on the side of Trojans, then Greeks and Thraecians of those early times would understand each other quite well and I mean not only the swearings (international language!) but other things also. Afterall, it is known that Phrygian language had many basic words similar to Greek and that should show us something. It is a pity that there has been nothing written in Thraecian but then that insistence of Thraecians to write only in Greek is also strange (Romans also used the Greek alphabet but used it for their language like Romans or Copts in Egypt or Slavs did for example). I am not saying they spoke Greek but if the southern Thraecian tribes spoke something close to Greek (say portuguese to spanish or french to spanish) then it would not surprise me.
Some try to suggest that Macedonians should be considered as one of the transitional tribes between Thraecian to Greeks or Illyrians to Greeks however the mere fact that Macedonians were accepted in the Olympics even when they were an insignificant little summary of a kingdom should tell us these were Greeks like any other and the mere fact that some sit down and discuss it while theoretically acceptable as a part of a dialectic methodology but then pratically it is pure loss of time! There are issues less clear than that and the issue of Thraecians is an intriguing one.
... beware though even here you have propagandistic underground implications mainly by Bulgaria (Greeks use the term Thraecian only geographically but Bulgarians try to monopolise the heritage of Thraecian as "pre-Bulgarian" as if Bulgarians replaced them directly - actually Thraecians had become pretty much all Greeks by late Roman times, then Goths came and established and later Avars and Petzengs and only last and panting came Bulgarians and established their kingdom. While it is natural to say that a large part of Greek/Gothic/Avar speaking descendants became Bulgarians, there cannot be established any direct succession from Thraecians to them. -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 27th September 2006
Another remark of mine is the habbit of dividing tribes in those misty times by their artifacts found in graves. I mean, the fact that I drive a VW does not make me a German does it? Finding similar artifacts from one place to the other does not mean that there must be also some tribal relation as such things travelled at considerable distances via trade . Of course, one will say "if the case is that we find more than 2-3 items similar?". Again I would say that in such findings we find 10-2Γ -30 items but then again these are not enough to describe a whole culture or a tribe. Certainly in Medieval Europe things did not differ a lot from place to place as I cannot remember if English were dressed in very distinctive ways than French or Germans. Another example are the Italic tribes. If we knew nothing of them and very little of the Greek cultures we would certainly consider Italic tribes (including Etruscans) as one identical culture based on the similarity of artifacts.
The facts that the bronze age cultures of europe presented similarities here and there does not mean that we may instantly group cultres in a vast area under the same umbrella. I think something similar has been done with Thraecians were this name was applied to all the eastern S.E Europe from southern coast to Ukraine. Personally I just think it makes no sense and it does not represent the diversification which was considerable if not huge back then. Even if Thraecians had formed a short-lived kingdom in modern-day Bulgaria nobody can verify to me that all under it were "thraecian" and nobody can verify to me that "all under dacia" in Romania were also Thraecians. That sounds to me like oversimplification, a trap that often the oversimplification of ancient writers lead us in doing... or our over-zeal for some dubious propaganda.
I only hope that this interest on Thraecians - a largely misunderstood culture (they were not the barbarians we think of them, these people had some really progressive culture) - will lead to more findings in modern day Bulgaria where it seems that the golden specimens found justify the myth of king Midas with the golden touch! -
Message 21
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Saturday, 30th September 2006
Thanks for the answers. Not tedious or dense but have given me a lot to chew on. I am currently reading 'the classical world' by Robin Lane Fox,a beautiful work which only briefly touches on some of this due to its very broad time sweep. Bearing in mind I am not a historian, could you suggest some literature on the themes you have broached (with the emphasis on clarity and accessability)
-
Message 22
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 2nd October 2006
Nikolaos,
thank you for your kind first paragraph and there are a lot of reasonable arguments in your reply, especially the last paragraph.
"Bulgarians try to monopolise the heritage of Thraecian as "pre-Bulgarian"
Let's say that the Traecian heritage remained in that area and that it was adopted by several people wandering in that area? And that the Bulgarians came last and picked up some seeds from what was remained of the Thraecian culture? (for me it isn't so important what language they were speaking, while a language is in my humble opinion only a means to communicate and understand each other and that can be done in whatever language or dialect.)
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 2nd October 2006
Nikolaos,
in a sense driving in a VW makes you a bit liking the German culture of car manufacturing...(smile). Someone driving here in the Fifties with a big Oldsmobile, full with chrome additions was a bit adhering to the American culture...(second smile)
Why is this fixation on "tribes", "ethnies" and genitics?
In my opinion it is only important as to understand how migrations took place over the world. And if these "tribes", "ethnies" took with them a certain language, a certain culture or that that certain language, culture migrated by simple peership is in my opinion not that important.
To come back on the Celtic culture, which was found nearly allover Europe even till in Turkey, for me it only says that people living in all these places had adapted to that kind of culture, many times or perhaps most times independent of their genetic background and as such had to be reckoned as Celts.
I am abhorred of those anchestry-freaks, looking for some celebrities in their family. And they seek then mostly along the male line and forget that there is each generation a female, who brings half of the genes in the equation...
If I say my grand-children are my grand-children independent of the genetic link then it are for me "my" grand-children and for me it is more important that they behave along "my" "culture" and "set of values", than any genetic link.
I hope I have not too much offended the people of the Family Iree.
Warm regards,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.