Talk:Ancient Macedonians/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

-> cont

We'll just go ahead and ignore the anonymous user's nonsense.

Athenean, whilst I disagree with u'r accusations, I would be happy to go through things with u. I, too, am busy this coming week. So we'll pick it up then

Hxseek (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming more and more evident the IP is just another reincarnation of a banned troll, so yes, let's just ignore them. What we should now all do is (1) read the new literature that was provided here, (2) rewrite the main body of the text on that basis, (3) tweak the lead to reflect it, but only at the very last stage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A sensible plan Hxseek (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

FP, you state that "(1) read the new literature that was provided here, (2) rewrite the main body of the text on that basis, ". Sorry FP. That is NOT how wikipedia works. This is how it works --> (1) Read the new literature that was provided here, (2) Determine if the new literature fits in with the majority consensus on the topic. (3) tweak the lead to reflect it. The key point here is (2)... If it does not fit with majority consensus you cannot tweak the lead according to WP:NPOV. You are however, welcome to include material from the new source in a section of the article to highlight what the new source says in opposition to the majority consensus. I would be happy to help you and HxSeek deal with the minority views that discount greekness once and for all so we can put it to rest, and finally discuss the ancient macedonian culture, language, and ethnicity, which a majority of all scholars will tell you is Greek. Yours and HxSeeks calling into doubt the consensus should not take up so much of this article in accordance with WP:NPOV . 174.117.97.72 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep talking about "majority view" and "consensus", but it is evident that you actually have no substantive idea about history, archaeology or linguistics. So do everyone a favour, and SFU Hxseek (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"For the last two centuries ... Macedonians.[30]" I read this paragraph, and I felt the need to express my opinion about it, examining it as a text of an encyclopedic article: I did not like its writing style at all! At all! It could be a paragraph in a lecture about the ancient Macedonians, or in an scholar's book on the same topic, but — in the way it is written — not a paragraph in an encyclopedic article. Reading it, I feel like reading a professor teaching me as the supreme authority about what I should and what I should not know (and believe!) about the Macedonians!

See for instance the last sentence: "Whilst the Macedonians were certainly part of a ‘broader Greek cultural world at least by the 5th century”,[29] what matters most (why does this matter most? Because Borza says so?) is that they made their mark not as Greeks, or a different Balkan people, but as Macedonians." This sentence is a mixture of two excerpts of two different authors of two different books! These excerpts are obviously put one next to the other, and then the editor of the sentence decides that what matters most is the opinion of Author No 2! It is obviously the wrongest way one could choose in order to present and connect these two opinions.

Non to speak about weasel expressions and qualitative subjective remarks like "It is clearly observable", "have been shown to be" etc. In general, this paragraph constitutes IMO an excellent example about how an encyclopedic text should not be written. Its authoritative and didactic style makes it a no no. I can understand the good intentions of its editor, and I recognize that its editor helps by adding new sources, but, in terms of writing style and structure, it needs to be reworked and rewritten. As it is now, it gives the impression not of a NPOV text, but of the opposite, namely of a text where an academic expresses her/his personal believes and exposes his readings, in order to impress us.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yannis, this is exactly what I brought up a couple days ago, but I didn't realize that if you do not have a username nobody pays attention to you. I suppose I should get one as soon as possible. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit there's something to this. It should be toned down. Unfortunately I can't do much about it as long as I haven't had a chance to read the new literature cited. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

About Engels' article: I gave a quick read through Google Book (and only the pages I was allowed to read!), because I haven't yet the book in my hands, to Engels' interesting article about Macedonians' identity, and I feel the need to point out that there are some very interesting remarks in his article, which are not reflected in the aforementioned paragraph. I mention three of them:

• Page 96: "Increasing urbanization and the corresponding adaptation of a Greek way of life were important long-term developments which finally led in the

Macedonian region to a fusion of Macedonian and common Greek identity."

• Page 96: "These 'Greek' gods stress the close links of Macedonian religion to the usual Greek pantheon. The names of the most important Macedonian religious festivals are also typically Greek."
• page 97: "This is also a strong evidence of a process of fusion of regional Macedonian and common Greek religious identity in the Hellenistic period"

In the last excerpt, see the juxtaposition between regional (Macedonian) and common (Greek). Engels does not examine the Macedonians as a non-Greek people. Of course, he mentions in 97 the commont cults with the Thracians and others, and he absolutely correctly underlines (p97) the complexity and fluidity of ethnic identities in the ancient Greek world; he also correctly points out that we need to learn more about "Macedonians" and "Greeks". I agree in both conclusions of him! Therefore, this fluidity, this complexity, this uncertainty, if you want, should be mentioned in the new text you want to prepare. And it

is correctly referred in the "bad paragraph" I talked about before. At the same time, however, Engels (and not only him) mentions a very interesting process of "fusion" between "Greek" and "Macedonian", which basically takes place through the adoption of the common Greek way of life by the Macedonians. This is something basic for the understanding of the Macedonians, which existed in the previous text (maybe to the extreme, when using the word "hellenized"), and now lacks. Even if one does not believe that the Macedonians were Greeks, one cannot ignore this "fusion", which takes place by the "adaptation of a Greek way of life". You don't like the way "hellenization"? Ok! F... it! But in a serious encyclopedic article you cannot ignore the process itself, which is beyong doubt.

These are my comments, as regards Engels. If it happens to read any of the other "new sources", I'll comment on them as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: I now remembered another very interesting remark by Engels (p84). He writes that, although in the ancient Greek world there were doubts about the

"Greekness" (in the way that the authors in question percieved it at the time) of the Macedonians, no such doubts were expressed about the "Greekness" of the Epirotes, who present so many common traits in terms of historical course and social organisation. But he swiftly gives a possible explanation himself: Contrary to the Macedonians, the Epirotes never achieved a status of hegemonial power in Greece! This is a very interesting approach! Engels (possibly!) means that if other Greeks felt the Epirotes as a serious threat, maybe another Demosthenes would emerge, and would question their "Greekness". And he is probably quite right! I don't think that this excerpt of Engels needs mentioning in the article, but I wanted to underline it here as a very interesting and perceptive scholarly approach.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What have you people been doing again with the lead??? What are these "independent families"? God... not again... GK (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GK, I would request that this sentence be removed form the lede, since I cannot edit as the page is under protection. "Traditionally ruled by independent families, the Macedonians seem to have accepted Argead rule by the time of Alexander I of Macedon." It is not sourced with a reliable source. Further, the majority view is that Macedonia was settled by Greeks from Argos, therefore there were no 'independent families, that accepted Argead rule. If there were people in the area before the Argives arrived, they have left no written history, and conjecture about 'hypothetic' peoples in the area accepting Argive rule is pure conjecture, and does not belong in the lead. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

About (part of) Anson's article: After reading part of (because of Google Book again — I think I'll buy this very interesting book) Anson's article as well (unfortunately I could not access page 20), I tend to agree with GK1973. I really fail to see what was so wrong with the last part of the lead, which was scrapped in favor of a very ugly paragraph (which actually is a collection of random quotations with no encyclopedic cohesion and written in an awfully didactic styly). Some excerpts from Anson:

• Page 18:"By the second century the literary evidence suggests that the Macedonians and their southern neighbors saw themselves and each other as Greeks." Isn't this the description of a process of hellenization? Isn't this what the lede was previously saying?! The whole parapraph of Anson pp. 18-19 is a collection of proofs about how the Macedonians had gradually become Greeks!
• Page 19: "The Macedonians after all when they emerge onto the world stage share so much with the southern Greek world." See also the words chosen and used. If there is a southern Greek world, then who lives in the northern Greek world? Quiz!
• Page 19: "Even though Macedonia was a land of much diversity bla bla bla the evidence suggests that this region was certainly part of the Greek cultural milieu in the fifth century and, by the end of the fourth century, was recognized as such by the inhabitants of the southern regions of the Penninsula." Not only did we have a progress of hellenization of the Macedonians, but, at the end, the southern Greeks accepted the northern ones as members of the same "cultural milieu". Isn't is what we would nowadays call "compatriots"?

The man is crystal clear! Does he question the core of what consitutes the"19th and early 20th century scholars' conclusions"? I think not! His text shows me a different approach but the same conclusions. Where is then this novel approach on the Macedonians which is supposed to change what we knew until now? Nowhere? No, there is a new approach, but not where FutPer and Hxseek tried to present it. The novel approach has to do with the focus of the interest of modern scholars: They want to see beyond "Alexander the Greek"; they want at last to find and re-invent "Alexander the Macedonian"; they want to know more about Macedonia itself and its identity, and they try to see history through the Macedonian eyes, because the "usual suspects" who wrote down

Macedonia's and Alexander's history were Greeks but non-Macedonians. These historians and authors told us about "Alexander the Great", "Alexander the Greek", "Alexander the emperor of Persia", they told us about his empire, his achievements and his Diadochi, but what about Macedonia itself and its people? This is what now modern scholars want to know better; they try to cover a gap, and their efforts deserves our respect, because they undertook a difficult task and they try to explore a field with little to help them. At they same time, these scholars discover a distinct Macedonian identity (as there was a distinct Epirotan, a distinct Athenian and a distinct Aetolian identity), and try to explain us that the ancient world percieved ethnicity differently; it was something more complex, something more fluid, and it is wrong to understand it as we understand modern ethnicity distictions and borders. After all, even Pericles was first Athenian and then everything else ("Greek identity" existed for Pericles, Demosthenes and the other ancient Athenians only when it served their interests, and it was never "common", in the way we now understand this word).

So, let's re-examine my previous question: What was the problem with the lede, and why is the current proposal better?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not followed very closely the text in this article, but I think the basic idea promoted by Hall, Engels et al is that the Greek and Macedonian identities were not pre-existent, but constructed in time. For example, Engels says (page 90): "In antiquity, mythological ancestors have been often invented with the clear intention to strengthen the sense of ethnic unity. This may also be true for Makedon as the mythical ancestor of the Macedonians." As such Macedonians became Greeks, they were not Greeks from the start (as identity, not as language, which is a different discussion with different arguments - see also Engels on pages 93-95). And here is how they disagree with previous scholarship seeing the Macedonians an archaic Greek tribe migrating from Argos or whatever other mythical place of origin. Do they assert anything about the Greekness of Macedonians in 8th or 7th century BC? (the current lead gives "the kingdom of Macedon established by the 8th or 7th century BC") Do they argue about a Macedonian Greek identity maintained through black-and-white pottery or Myceneaean sherds? Daizus (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't they agree that "they [the Macedonians] were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC"?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't cherry pick the sources! This article is not about Macedonians in 5th or 4th century BC only. It is also about an "ancient people" creating a kingdom in 8th or 7th century BC (and apparently existing before that: the text is not very clear on this point, but it tells of excavations unearthing "black-and-white pottery, characteristic of the tribes of northwest Greece" and "Μycenaean sherds" which were "dated with certainty to the 14th century BC"). Many Thracians or Illyrians or Phrygians or Lydians were also "linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by" some century BC. This is not an article about how Ancient Macedonians became Greeks (or were Greeks descending from Zeus himself), but about Ancient Macedonians. Daizus (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Daizus, if you want to talk about cherry picking, look at which sources were cherry picked by HxSeek/FP for the 'new paragraph' as pointed out by Yannis. Further, your point unfortunately makes no sense. You say "This is not an article about how Ancient Macedonians became Greeks... This article is about Ancient Macedonians". Well, if this is about the ancient Macedonians, and if the ancient Macedonians were Greek, then this article will discuss their Greek way of life, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The majority of scholars consider the Ancient Macedonians as a Greek people from the 4th-5th century onward. If you don't want to talk about how they 'became greek' then fine, we can skip their etnogenesis then and just state them as Greek directly in the lead and ignore the 7-8th C's. The article is not 'Ancient Macedonians in the XXth Century' , its simply 'Ancient Macedonians', therefore, if their culture changed from barbaric to Greek, that should absolutely be discussed in the article. Your comments tend to be part of the same agenda-pushing type that FP/Hx have been displaying, it is a shame, because rather then contributing to the article, you simply wish to only focus on calling the consensus into question. Why not do some research on the Language of the macedonians, how about their Religion? How about their habits in their daily lives? Of course you would not be interested in this because all sources will identify these things as part of the greater Greek culture, something which Borza himself says upsets those from FYROM circles. At the end of the day, in accordance with WP:NPOV we must give appropriate weight to the majority view,... which is not being done right now... This article has been slowly picked away by those with an agenda for way too long. What I don't understand is why people like Yannis, GK, and others, don't assert themselves to protect the article ? 174.117.97.72 (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Foolish statement. U want to talk about language, see Chadwick, Mallory and Engels, and see how "consensus" it is. U want to talk about their way of life, see Hammond, the "Companion", etc, and observe exactly who their way of a life was more like - "Greeks" or northerners. Sure everyone knows they worshipped Zeus, and other Greek gods, but did u know the way they worshipped was different, and they worshipped Thracian gods and other illyrian cult deities ?? This is important.

Sure, lets talk about language! The majority view in Academia is the ancient macedonians spoke a Greek dialect similar to Doric (see Hammond, Lewis, Boardman, etc) for a period of time prior to Koine Greek being standardized in the 4th Century BC. After Alexander the Great, I don't think there is a single Academic who would state that the macedonians didn't fully speak Greek like all the other city-states. Furthermore, the volume of the surviving public and private inscriptions indicate that there was never any written language in ancient Macedonia but Greek. According to WP:NPOV, the article should be weighed as such. Secondly, much of a muchness on how they worshiped each god, the important issue is which gods they worshipped and the general religion. This is an encycleapedic article, not a specialized work. It would be overkill to state that 'The athenians burned incense for 3 days and jumped on one foot while worshipping Zeus, The spartans juggled rocks and then ate 3 eggs during prayers, while the macedonians did three cartwheels and drank one glass of milk". Generally, if a topic has so much information with a majority view in academia is available, then that topic would be better off in a separate article 'Ancient Macedonian Religion'. You are getting rather specific here, and I don't think its useful to the article. Infact, it isn't. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In responce to Yanismoarou, Dazius is exactly right. Essentially, what we are changing the focus to is to investigate how Macedonians formed, why, and what made them the way they were. If we want to explore how they were integrated into the broader Greek community, then one must explore the process - which took centuries! They were not Greek because they used black and white pottery in the 13th century, but they became Greek because they were eventually seen as such by outsiders, Greeks and non-Greeks alike. That is what you missed, Yanis. Nobody disputes the 'end result', but the process is important. That is the interesting thing - how human societies develop. Afterall, that is why we study history.

Hxseek (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, your statement is incorrect: "but they became Greek because they were eventually seen as such by outsiders, Greeks and non-Greeks alike.". They became Greek because they viewed themselves as Greek. They spoke the same basic language and shared a common Alphabet, (there were many Greek dialects, Attic, Doric, etc.), they shared the same religious beliefs, and the majority view in academia is that they were culturally and ethnically similar to the other peoples living in the region. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

174.117.97.72, my point makes no sense for someone not being able to get it.

First, I said nothing of Borza or FYROM, find another way to deal with your frustrations. I'm neither Greek, nor Bulgarian, nor Macedonian, I don't care about your petty quarrels. Second, I said the "article is not about Macedonians in 5th or 4th century BC only". You can talk about 5-4th century Macedonians, but this article starts in 14th century BC, suggesting the population of later Macedonia was Greek in that age! Can you present a single inscription mentioning Greeks/Hellenes in 14th century BC? Or Macedonians? Saying the inhabitants of later Macedonia were Greeks because they used "Greek" pottery, is like saying many Greeks today are Americans because they have Coke bottles and cans. Searching for Macedonians in Myceneaean age is like searching for Americans in 14th century AD Europe and Western African coast. This mumbo-jumbo about cultures and languages misses the most important thing - the identity. I would welcome to see something about the tribal, "barbaric" Macedonians, but this article is focused on how Greeks they were from the beginning of time! The first attempt to suggest otherwise is under siege. Daizus (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not an issue of their Greek identity in 15th century BC... Even in Attica and the Peloponnese the Greek identity was not fully formed at that time. The issue here is that HxSeek unilaterally decided to take sentence out of the lead that stating that the from the 4-5th century BC onwards, (possibly earlier but to be safe lets say 4-5th) the majority view by academia is that they were a greek peoples. This was a statement backed by reliable sources, illustrating the majority view supported in modern times by various academics.... Chamoux, François and Roussel, Pomeroy, A. R. Burn, Cawkwell, Ehrenberg, Errington, Hammond, Robin Lane Fox, Robin Osborne, Arnold J. Toynbee , Ulrich, Wilcken, Ian Worthington , and many more... I could continue but i think my point is made. The statement has been in the lead for YEARS for a reason. That HxSeek reads 1 new book and thinks that justifies his removal is reprehensible to the spirit of Wikipedia. If we look at the point Yannis brought up on the editorializing nature of the paragraph he wrote, its not much of a stretch to surmise that HxSeek removed this for agenda-driven reasons. This is not in the spirit of wikipedia, and contrary to WP:NPOV 174.117.97.72 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Greek identity did not exist at all in 15th century BC! In fact, for the 2nd millenium BC we don't know all Greek speakers had a single name and identity for themselves, or conversely, whatever names and identities they had, those included the Greek speakers only.

Millions of people believed the Earth is flat or that the Sun goes around the Earth. Claims held for many years are of no relevance, if they are not widely held today, and by experts. Thus, from a review of a volume I mentioned above we learn that "[a]n important intellectual advance in anthropology of the past generation was the recognition that, however much its participants believe (or want to believe) that it is innate, ethnicity is a construct -- a fact already recognised by Herodotos." I"m almost sure this view is dominant or about to be dominant in academia, at least in the study of ethnicity and group identities. See the books I mentioned above and you can continue with Ton Derks, Nico Roymans (eds.), Ethnic constructs in antiquity: the role of power and tradition (2009), Kathryn Lomas (ed.), Greek identity in the western Mediterranean (2004), Lee E. Patterson, Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece (2010), and many similar others. Daizus (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, but what does this have to do with the article? We are straying off-topic here. The issue of what the Macedonians identified as (or if they even identified as anything at all) in the 8th or 7th century BC is moot, as there are no written records from that period. I'm going to have to agree with the Yannis and the IP editor here, there is nothing wrong with the sentence that was removed from the lede, with the addition that we replace "history" with "recorded history". Athenean (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead never delt with 15th Century in the first place. To even go there is pure conjecture. As per HxSeek, I decided to take a look at what Engles has to say about the Macedonian Language and it appears he confirms that the only written records that exist from ancient Macedonia are written in a dialect of Attic Greek, and later on Koine Greek, (See page 94 of the book Daizus linked to in his earlier posts). No matter what specific words one tries to nit-pick in order to define a particular dialect, the consensus from recorded history is that they spoke one form of greek or another, until finally the spoke Koine Greek like the rest of Greece. Athenean brings up a good point here. Maybe it has been semantics all along... and to use the 'recorded' identifier in the sentence that HxSeek removed from the lede should make any grievances moot. As seems to be the majority consensus, I would agree with restoring the sentence at the end of the lede with the change so that it reads

"Some scholars have suggested that they had formed a distinct ethos before they were linguistically and culturally fully integrated into the Greek world by the 5th or 4th century BC, however most scholars concur that the ancient Macedonians were Greek people throughout their recorded history." And of course, cite the appropriate sources, to represent the majority view in accordance with WP:NPOV, as it was before. 174.117.97.72 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion was not about the lead. However looking at the allegedly NPOV but very original synthesis above, I don't think this is a fight worth fighting for. Daizus (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to give my two cents, briefly, I fully agree with Yannis that Hxseek's paragraph, while well-intentioned and containing some good parts, has a strong editorializing flavor ("what matters most", "it is clearly observable that") and needs work. Also the last sentence "Whilst the Macedonians were certainly part of a ‘broader Greek cultural world at least by the 5th century”,[29] what matters most is that they made their mark not as Greeks, or a different Balkan people, but as Macedonians." is heavily SYNTHy. It takes a conclusion from the Companion, and one from Borza and SYNTHesizes them together for a conclusion that is supported by neither source. The "what matters most" claim is also unfit for an encyclopedia. I also find it strange that this article discusses the origins and nothing else, so a merger with Macedon is something I would support. Athenean (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly will wacth out for that. Point accepted, though, given the current state of the rest of the article, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black Hxseek (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I cannot make a change to a protected page, I would like to make a request that in accordance with the above discussion; that the text added by HxSeek be either fully removed, or at the least, request that the last sentence of the text be removed. ("Whilst the Macedonians were certainly part of a ‘broader Greek cultural world at least by the 5th century”,[29] what matters most is that they made their mark not as Greeks, or a different Balkan people, but as Macedonians."). Dr.K, Yannis, Athenean, and others all aired their grievances with the entire text... and particularly the last sentence which to many seems to have an editorializing tone to it. As Athenean states, 'It takes a conclusion from the Companion, and one from Borza and SYNTHesizes them together for a conclusion that is supported by neither source.' HxSeek seems to agree that the tone may be a bit-overboard and not fit for an encyclopedia when he states in response to Athenean 'I certainly will wacth out for that. Point accepted' 174.117.97.72 (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also agree with simply deleting this article and re-directing to Macedon. Since , for the most part, this page only deals with the Origins, it not much more then Macedon already touches upon. Either that, or rename this page 'Origins of the Ancient Macedonians' (specifically not 'Origins of the Macedonians'). By the way, as far as Ancient scholars are concerned, the Ancient Macedonians were settled by Greeks from Argos, a view shared by a many modern scholars.174.117.97.72 (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the last clause ("...what matters most"...) as an unencyclopedic value judgment (I think we all agreed on that) as well as a "It is clearly observable that". I've purchased the Companion and should receive it in the next several days, and look forward to going over it. Athenean (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile back at the ranch

http://portal.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite4_1_10/01/2011_372433

Sorry if that link doesn't post correctly. I've been reading all the help stuff and am still confused. (I come form the age of whiteout and typewriters.  :) )

Anyway, the article, titled "Archontiko dig bears witness to rich warrior society" about the continuing digs at Pella/Archontiko over the decade have revealed some idea of the material culture of the region from the late Iron Age to the Hellenistic period. I use this as an example because I just happened to have been looking up information on these very digs. That is, from the 7th century BCE forward. Someone coming to this page wanting to know about, you know, the Ancient Macedonians, as they lived and died, will not find that in this article. It is simply an article on how Greek or not-Greek they were. Nothing about them or their culture and history. So frustrating. One might get the idea that this article isn't about the Ancient Macedonians at all, except as they relate to modern politics. Oh dear. Gingervlad (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody says this is a nice article; it is an awful article! In terms of quality, it is pure garbage, a failure! See the structure: a huuuuuge section about "Origins" (which, after you try to read it, you then needto take pills in order to recover) and then .... nothing! Nothing! It is so empty, it makes me wonder from times to times if we really need it, or if it could be simply incorporated into Ancient Macedonia. But if its editors believe that we need it, they must add some content to it like this extremely interesting article Gingervland provided us with.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a merger is certainly worth considering. I seem to remember Dieter Bachmann saying this for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

All this should (and will?) be incorporated in the re-do of the entire article. So we can have subsections about Macedonians (their way of life, culture, religion, language, etc). Then we need to follow with a section on how they appear on the world stage, and what circumstances brought this about. If the latter sounds like 'origins', then be it. There is nothing wrong with examining this. It is only controversial because disruptive editors (like the anonymous nationalist above) make this into a personal crusade of defending Hellas against usurpation, souring the atmosphere and disrupting people who actually have positive approaches to the topic at hand.

Hxseek (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already made a proposal above (before Christmas) as to what this article should incoroporate. I do not agree with a merger, having separate entries for peoples is normal and in this case, Macedon cannot actually include all information about the Macedonian tribes and customs. "Macedon" was actually Argead Macedonia only. GK (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all it is wrong to link the ancient Macedonians with the Argeads alone. For example we also know that the Lyncestians claimed descend from Corinth and the Orestai (according to some sources an Epirote tribe, to most though a Macedonian) from Orestes himself... I will be occupying myself with this article shortly, but anyone who would like to see this one brought up to some kind of standards should be ready to help researching about the ancient Macedonians and their historical/archaeological past and occupy himself with the Ancient Macedonians and not with other non Macedonian tribes who inhabited these lands before them. GK (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse there should be a focussed approach, but we should neither limit it too much. Ie, some background from the period immediately preceding the 7th century BC is required, obviously focussing on upper Macedonia (and Orestian highlands where the Makedones were supposed to have migrated from) as well as the Pierian coast, where they first expanded to. Obviously, we should not waste time with Strymon Macedonia, Chalcidice, Paeonia, etc, which were obviously 'foreign' and acquired later. Hxseek (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The background you mention should be given of course but not analyzed, as I guess you agree with. If there are no specific articles for toponymes or ethnonyms presented in this article, these should be made and linked to. But mentioning entities like "Emathia", "the Bottiaians", "the Pierians" etc is of course only logical. On the other hand giving details about non Macedonian entities should be of course limited to what is useful and belongs to the flow of the text. For me, what is of paramount importance is for anyone willing to contribute in any way, to understand that this article should not be about the land but the people. So, any historical data about how Macedonia (or any ancient Macedonian kingdom or political entity) expanded, conquered, lost etc should not be our focus. The people, their traditions and customs, their tales are... GK (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But land and people are inextricably linked. Hxseek (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Language

As a starter of upgrade, I have put something together for Language.

The exact character of ancient Macedonian language remains a matter of discussion, although it was surely an Indo-European language. The lack of consensus is not only due to the relative paucity of evidence, but is also a result of differences in opinion amongst linguists as to which features of language are the most defining. That Macedonian which is available to us comes from surviving inscriptions and personal names (onosmatics).

NG Hammond put forth the idea that Macedonian was a ‘broad’ and ‘retarded’ version of Aeolic Greek dialect. Hammond’s supposition was based on a sentence given by the 5th century writer, Hellanicus, who made the mythical figure of Macedon a son of Aeolus. Hammond’s conclusion has been criticised by Borza and Crossland.

An extensive analysis of Macedonian words was performed by R Crossland. He highlighted that one third of the Macedonian words known from inscriptions have no satisfactory etymology viz-a-viz Greek. Thus his results differ to those of Kalleris, who argued that ¾ of Macedonian words are of Greek origin. Unlike Crossland, Kalleris failed to exclude from his analysis obvious Attic loans. Other words, especially the place-names counted by Kalleris to be Greek, could well be of a general IE derivation. Certain phonological features in Macedonian differ from those of Greek dialects, eg the change if Indo-European voiced aspirates to unvoiced. Macedonian, like Illyrian and Thracian, did not undergo this development. Crossland concludes that the evidence does not suggest that Macedonian was a Greek dialect.

Direct ononsmatic evidence has been utilized to further analyse the linguistic picture of lower Macedonia. In addition to Greek names, various names of a Brygian- Phrygian, Thracian, and Illyrian character also existed, prompting suggestions that Macedonian was a hybridized Brygian – NW Greek language . Hatsopoulous’ analysis also revealed a large sub-set of the greek names are specific to the pastoral commnunities of western Macedonia and Epirus. Whilst the Greekness of a majority of Macedonian names is significant, borrowing or emulation of names from a culturally ‘prestigious’ neighbour occurred throughout history. Pre-Greek and Greek names often co-existed within the same family well into Roman times.

Contemporary anecdotes as to the relationship between Macedonian and Greek languages are not detailed enough to help us conclude how different/ similar Macedonian was to Greek. Writers like Plutarch and Arrian testify that Maceodnians continued to speak in distinct Macedonian “style”, or in the “Macedonian language”. However, this could equally symbolize a situation whereby Maceodnian was either separate language to, or a mere dialect of, Greek.

Recent syntheses regarding the question have summarized that Macedonian “surely shared a substantial part of its vocabulary with north-western Greek dialects but there were also demonstrable influences from Illyrian, Phrygian and Thracian”. Mallory’s position is that the available evidence could equally suggest that Macedonian was (i) either a peripheral Greek dialect, (ii) a separate but ‘sister’ language, or (iii) an altogether separate Indo-European language.

Whatever the exact nature of the attested Macedonian texts, it is probable that prior to the 5th century Macedonian tribes were themselves linguistically, or at least dialectically, heterogeneous because a “mountainous geography naturally isolates populations, resists large-scale economic integration, and creates refuge zones”. Even ‘’within’’ individual language communities, a diversity of dialects would have been spoken. As Jonathan Hall states, multilingualism was the rule, not an exception.

Standardization began in the 5th century, with the rise of Athenian Empire. The prestige associated with its ‘’koinized’’ vernacular led to its widespread adaptation within Greece as well neighbouring regions already involved in extensive contacts with the Greek world (ie southern Thrace, Illyris and Macedonia). As Macedonia defeated Athens for empirical supremacy, it continued to utilize an established lingua franca. However, local “Macedonian” continued to be spoken into the Antigonid era.

Notes

^ a: generally pertain to terms of a political and military nature

+couple of extra reference will need to be added

A good start, but somewhat POV-ish (unsurprisingly?), and suffers from the editorial and didactic tone we talked about earlier. Any position that states that the language is related to Greek is "criticized", while those that state otherwise are not. Other problems are zero mention of the epigraphic evidence, which is all in Greek (is that maybe why?). Also, the recent Hellenic hypothesis is excluded, as is the work of Masson. Athenean (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

i am not criticizing evidence which "supports" a particular side, but explaining , from the sources themselves, why some of the differences have occurred. On the balance of it, no one conclusion is enforced

What exactly are u referring to w.r.t. the " epigraphic evidence" please? Masson's evidence is considered in mallory's and engel's summary. If there is anything in particular u want to include from it, feel free to state so.

and u can leave out the snide commentary, Athenean. Be a man and not a girl Hxseek (talk)

Wow. Edit-warring (3 reverts), taunt-laden edit summaries, juvenile personal attacks, and sexism. I strongly suggest you improve your behavior, because this is the last time I'm going to warn you. By the way, I own the book (my copy came today), and it's "Anson", not "Anon". Athenean (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

K, k. Settle down. Try to act in good faith, esp given the effort I have put in. Hxseek (talk) 04:33, 30 January

2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one throwing insults around. And I would much more willing to assume good faith if for once I saw you make an edit pertaining to something other than the "Origins" question of this topic. Athenean (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

U insinuate. As I said above, I am trying to do something on all aspects bit by bit. Yes, I am interested in "origins". My interest in that extends far beyond Macedonians, but all Europeans , celts, mycaeneans, etc, etc. Its all fascinating. Run-of-the-mill Roman history, battle of so and so, dont interest me. I like the esoteric and difficult questions of language spreads, group formation, etc. Does that mean I'm some whack racialist ?

I'm not terribly interested in discussing you specifically, but I'm just saying, if one looks at your contributions on the topic, it's pretty much "Origins" and nothing else. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I digress. Athenean (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You are digressing. I asked you, in good faith and out of respect, to offer some input into the linguistic issues. Instead you appear to be fixed on criticizing my interests and taking a less than cordial tone. Work on that, please Hxseek (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you re-added Borza's value judgement "What matters most is that...". That is a value judgment, and needs to go. Several editors have already agreed

on that. Also, why is "The Macedonians were fully part of the Greek cultural world by the 5th century BC" changed to "Anson has suggested that Macedonians were part of a ‘broader Greek cultural world at least by the 5th century.”."? Again this is weasel wording. Why the quotation marks? Why hedge using "Anson has suggested" and not just take Anson at his word like the previous version did? Also, if you're going to quote Anson, he says the were "certainly part of the Greek cultural milieu" (page 19) and "clearly part of a broader Greek cultural world, but in your version you removed the emphasis, while attributing the quote to Anson. All this hedging, weasel-wording and innuendo. Is it just me, or am I seeing a pattern here? Athenean (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have issue with just stating it as fact, although there is nothing weasel with stating that something is a scholars view or theory. We can extend the quote too. U'r issue with Borza is personally motivated. It is a nice summary to tail off with, and puts the whole "issue" into perspective .

now, stop nit-picking for the sake of arguing. U'r accusations are unwarranted, and if anything, expose a bitterness within you.

Hxseek (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's an uninformative value judgment that has no place in an encyclopedia, and that's not just me saying it. "Ιt's a nice summary to tail off with" is not a valid argument, either. Athenean (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. It is your POV that it is uninformative and value judgement. Are u denying that they were Macedonian  ? Hxseek (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, what is POV is that you think it's "nice". Now that is a value judgment. It's only "nice" if it's important to you that it says the three magical words "not as Greeks". As for the statement itself, it is rubbish, since according to Anson (and others) "[Macedonia] was certainly part of the Greek cultural milieu by the 5th century BC'" (Anson p 19 and again p 20), i.e. a century before they "made their mark". If Macedonia was cerainly part of the Greek cultural world by the 5 th century BC, how is it that they made their mark over a century later "not as Greeks but as Macedonians"? By Alexander's time, even non-royal Macedonians participated in the Olympic Games. Borza's claim flies in the face of everything we know about the ancient Macedonians. That you think it's "nice" speaks volumes. Athenean (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest edits

The editorial, didactic tone is back ("Despite the ambivalence about their origins..." and "While it is clear that..."), and the distortion of the sources. Also, there is nothing wrong with "dubious" about Britannica, though it is generally not an ideal source. Athenean (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if vouz prereferee, I can change " it is observable" to Hall, Hornblower, Borza, Green, Hammond, Engels, Anon argue that the Greeks were not convinced as to the Greekness of the general Macedonians into the 3rd or 2nd century. I just thought the former is less of a mouthful Hxseek (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"It is clearly observable" is verbose and unnecessary. Why do you need it? The only reason I can think of is so as to place additional emphasis on the fact that the some Greeks did not consider the Macedonians "brothers", i.e. weasel-wording. The wording "On the one hand, Greeks, into the fourth century..." is perfectly suitable and neutral, there is no need to "clearly observe" anything. The additional wording is also un-encyclopedic. The sources you mention are authors who are not constrained to used neutral, succinct language, but we are. Athenean (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll change that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.69.153 (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just get rid of it, please. Thank you. Athenean (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not like the above text but that is irrelevant to my argument. If we start from the language we are bound to end there. Plus, there is no reason to analyze all evidence or positions. These are or should be analyzed in the respective "Ancient Macedonian" language article. There is no reason to say much about the language here other than the basic info. Whoever wishes to learn more, he can go to the said article and read for himself. If you wish to add to that article, that would be a totally different story. As noted above, we have to start dealing with the people. Present the various Macedonian tribes and then start talking about their culture. I'm afraid I have been held up by some deadlines, but I hope soon I will be able to devote the necessary time to start adding material. Please stop, at last, trying to somehow stress your POV regarding the ethnic affiliation of the Macedonians and start adding material about them. It seems you are not interested in anything else and that is a shame... GK (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to judge other editors, but I have to agree with GK and Athenean. Hxseek came here like a tornado (which is not necessarily bad), and scolded the other editors (mainly the Greek ones — it is not a secret that most editors here are Greeks, which is normal due to the topic of the article) for POV-pushing etc. etc. He/she even remembered the modern history of Macedonia (or a distorted version of it [about e.g. what Metaxas, "the exterminator", did]) and somehow related it with what we discuss here. Unfortunately, his/her attitude (tone, irony, comments, style, edit-warring) do not agree with the image of a NPOV editor who came to constructively contribute (contrary to FutPerf hopes), but with the image of an editor who strongly believes that he/she know the truth and came here determined to teach it to us (and if somebody does not agree with this truth, well ... it's her/his problem!). And you definitely cannot build trust with such an attitude. Especially, when you don't understand the basics (e.g. what is weasel and what is not), and you don't realize that, in terms of encyclopedic style and content, what you write has obvious deficiencies and needs re-working. I am afraid Hxseek attributes to other editors problematic attitudes of himself/herself. If there is no change of attitude from her/his part, I am afraid that the other editors (the "POV pushers") will remain hostile towards her/him, and no progress will take place here. And the article will pay for this bad relation among the various editors. Unfortunately ...--Yannismarou (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, well said. Whenever I see an editor loudly proclaiming how "neutral" they are and accusing everyone else of being "biased", it is never a good sign. Athenean (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst Yannismarou’s diplomatic tone is a welcome change from the usual …, the selectivity of accusations is not. I never brought modern history into this. Other editors politicized the issue- see the paragraph above by the anonymous nationalist, my response to him merely set his jibberish straight. Also this user’s front page[1]. My intent has not been to 'scold 'other editors, however, I have not been unjustified w.r.t. to the article as a whole. Of course, my wanting to change the article might bring some tension, however, I think it is long overdue.

Much of the accusation seems to be more a case of certain editors not liking my inclusion of what has been written by some of the more up –to-date scholars. If my edits (which in my opinion are actually neutral, well written and academic) are criticized, then obvliously those criticizing are oblivious to the way that much of the entire article is rather skewed, and it is those who criticize that have militantly guarded the current state of the article. Of course, I do accept genuine suggestions and corrections. I think we should end the finger pointing (with which we can engage in all year), and let’s try to improve the article

I submit below something on lifestyle or culture (please suggest how we should title it). Obviously, this would need touching up, adding to, etc.

Below that, I will submit a chapter about the early political history of the Macedonians.

If the language paragraph I earlier proposed needs to be condensed, and there is agreement to that, that does not seem inappropriate to me.

Overall, what I propose is that the article, after the lede, can have something like the following chapter layout

(1) language – an summary-type paragraph on current thoughts, plus some ‘sociolinguistic’ aspects

(2) Culture, religion, institutions, etc. maybe each in sub-heading format

(3) Early history of people / kingdom

(4) Then we may attempt an analysis on “Identity”, ie how they were seen and how they developed as a people, within the ‘broader’ context. Aspects mentioned in the ‘modern discussions’ section should be worked into here.

The abovementioned layout, I think, compartmentalizes things well and removes the heavy onus on the “Origins” section, as the article currently stands.

Hxseek (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Lifestyle, material culture, etc

For the general Macedonian population, their way of life was influenced by the ecological and geographic nature of the land they lived in. Inhabitants of Upper Macedonia shared many features of political, social and economic organization with those of other central Balkan regions: Epirus, Illyris, and mountainous Thrace. They practised seasonal transhumance supplemented by agriculture. Often, upland sites served as important focal points for local communities, so-called ‘tribal centres’. The often difficult conditions resulted in competition for resources, sometimes resulting in inter-tribal conflict as well as raiding forays into the comparatively richer lowland settlements of coastal Macedonia and Thessaly.

Prior to the 5th century, socio-political organization was mainly organized on the basis of relatively small, nucleated communities called ethne. In the central Balkans, more complex socio-political formations, ‘kingdoms’, only began to form from the 5th century. In a similar process to that of the Mollosian house of Epirus and the Odrysians in Thrace, the Argeads forged a kingdom in Macedonia and entered the historical scene.

It is also during the 5th century when Hellenizing influences become apparent in Macedonian communities {the region having been previously outside the Mycenaean cultural Koine}. Classical Greek influences began to diffuse northward after Greece itself recovered from the so-called “Dark Ages”. Although trade with colonies such as Methone and those in the Chalcidice began in the 7th century, a more ubiquitous presence of items of an Agean-Mediterranean character is observed from the 5th century BC. Such items include ‘Athenian Red Figure’ fine tablewares, oil and wine amphorae, fine ceramic perfume flasks, glass, marble and precious metal ornaments, which were distributed throughout the Mediterranean as luxury imports. Hellenization essentially broadened the political, economic, and spiritual horizons of the Macedonian communities. In addition to links with the Mediterranean world, it facilitated and/ or strengthened links with other regions of Europe, such as La Tene central Europe, the “Scythian” nomads in the Black Sea hinterland, and southern Italy.

Urbanization was encouraged and controlled by Macedonian kings. Whilst a comparatively meagre number of Macedonians lived in the few native Macedonian cities (ie Aegea, Pella, Dium), urbanization increased by the 4th century BC as Greek colonies were conquered and integrated into Macedonia, or new towns were founded (such as Philippi, Thessalonike and Alexandropolis).These towns possessed typical Greek urban infrastructural features, such as gymnasia, temples and theatres. However, whilst towns enjoyed a relative autonomy, rule was a monarchical autocracy, marking an important distinction in Macedonian political and social identity.

Macedonians were ruled by their kings, from their earliest history until the Roman settlement in 167 BC. The nature of this kingship, however, remains debated. One viewpoint sees it as an autocracy, whereby the king held absolute power. Any other position of authority, including the army, was appointed at the whim of the king himself. The other, “constitutionalist’, position argues that there was an evolution from a society of many minor ‘kings’, each of equal authority, to a sovereign military state whereby an army of citizen soldiers supported a central king against a rival class of nobility. Kingship was hereditary along the main male line, however, whether this was of a primogeniture nature remains to be established. The situation was further complicated by the fact that Macedonian kings were notoriously polygamist, sometimes resulting in sibling rivalry and even fratricide. An aspect of social life which was characteristic of Macedonian kings and their leading nobles was court symposia – dominated by heavy drinking (of apparently unmixed wine), feasting, and general debauchery. Symposia had several functions, amongst which, they provided relief from the hardship of battle and marching. The symposia themselves speak of the degree of Hellenization of the Macedonian court. They provided a venue for interaction amongst Macedonian elites. An ethos of egalitarianism surrounded symposia, allowing all male elites to express ideas and concerns, although built-up rivalries, and excessive drinking, often led to quarrels, fighting and even murder. This excessive, ‘barbaric’, behaviour (in the eyes of Greeks), and the degree of grandeur and extravagance, set Macedonian symposia apart from Greek ones. All in all, the Macedonian elite were highly Hellenized. Yet, it is significant that they also retained practices and values which symbolized the maintenance of a distinctly Macedonian identity.

Macedonians worshipped many Greek Gods, especially Zeus, Apollo, Heracles and Dionysus. The Macedonians had their own festival which took place at the same time as the Greek Olympic Games. They also worshipped non-Greek gods, such as the “Thracian rider”, Orpheus and Bendis, as well as other lesser Balkan cult figures. By the fourth century, there had been a significant fusion of Macedonian and common Greek religious identity Nevertheless, Macedonians were also open to influences from other cultures they conquered, notably those from the Near East, and through that, Egypt Another distinctive feature of Macedonian religious practice was their preference for lavish tombs rather than temples, due to several reasons. Firstly, it reflected differences in the socio-political organization of Macedonia (ie centralized monarchy vs the numerous, competing Greek poleis). Secondly, it reflected a different beliefs with regard to the afterlife. Elite Macedonians were cremated, and tombs contained a rich repertoire of jewellery and ornaments, often of gold and decorated with zoomorphic and patterns, as well as numerous weaponry. Such ostensive burial style became apparent in the late 6th and 5thn centuries, symbolizing the formation of a Macedonian ethnic identity throughout the region. This general similarity extended beyond Macedonia, to other regions in the central Balkans, such as Thrace, signifying a continuation of archaic cultural and social similarities.

A good start, but I object to the third paragraph, which automatically implies that the Macedonians were Hellenized non-Greeks. That is an automatic

endorsement of one point of view and unacceptable. There is also some editorializing, particualry here ll in all, the Macedonian elite were highly Hellenized. Yet, it is significant that they also retained practices and values which symbolized the maintenance of a distinctly Macedonian identity.. Why is this "important" and to whom is it "important"? The very first sentence is kind of empty and uninformative and obvious: Every population is influenced by the geography and environment they live in. In general, while the additions contain some good parts, there is a distinct "the Macedonians weren't Greeks" motif running throughout the proposed additions, which I find objectionable. Athenean (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can remove the "yet it is significant" wording. You needn't take the third paragraph as a commentary on ethnicity. It rather pertains to the scale of economic, infra-structural, political development; although (it states), this might have already begun from the 7th century.

I feel the first sentence is important. Both Hammond and Carol G Thomas stress the role of the land. To you it might seem obvious, but is a good introduction to others who might have relatively little idea about the region

I also see that some of the stuff (ie kingship) is already written about in the macedon article (and rather well). So again there might be discussion as to where this should be placed.

And thanks for the adding references for the inscriptions in the article. It is very interesting, and should definitely be included into a compressed version of my suggested language section, above

Hxseek (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

a good start and much more closer to what I imagine this article to encompass. Of course there will be debates on many aspects but I have a question. These texts you offer have some kinds of refs. Are you pasting the texts from someplace or are these refs your own additions to a text you have compiled? Again, there will be many debates and changes, I also have many objections, but a good start nevertheless... GK (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to complain, but from a first look, you seem to have misunderstood your sources... I just wanted to see if for example Archibald really supported what I deemed to be wrong and saw that what the author said was :

a. that they (the Balkan peoples not the Macedonians) sometimes formed relatively small, nucleated communities (p.123) and not mainly (he gives the Bottiaians as an example) and

b. he never proposes that the Macedonian kingdoms formed in the 5th century, all of them, I knew to have been much older.

These are just few of the comments I have to make regarding your text and the interpretation of the sources. I think you have to be more careful with what the sources propose Hxseek. Of course we will all check all sources anyone gives, but I would appreciate it if you checked your text and correct any such errors. Unless it is not your text, in which case, we will need the source. Yet, for a third time, I will say, a good start! GK (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. He says sometimes they were small, nucleated communities, eg the Bottiaians. He then writes "States - complex socio-political entities composed of

many different nucleated or extended communities - were beginning to emerge in the 5th century. The larger one were recognized as kingdoms, notably those of the Argead dynasty in Macedonia, the Molossian ...."

To me, he is outlining a progression of socio-political organization, from smaller communities to more complex 'kingdoms'. His figure of 5th century is as light as day. Obviously, this differs to traditional back-dating of the inception of the Macedonian dynasty Hxseek (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

He means that in the 5th century they started being recognized as kingdoms by the rest of the Balcans, not that they were not a kingdom before. What he means, to my opinion, is that the Argead (for example) kingdom became politically apparent in the 5th century, not that before that there was no Argead (or any other) kingdom. He tries to differentiate between small socio-political entities (a small, weak and apparently unorganized and even unstable Argead Macedonia - entities also identified or self identified as kingdoms) and the larger later entities (an organized, lawful and strong expanded Argead kingdom). His mentioning of the word "kingdom" is not literal and it is obvious from the fact that he does not refute accepted history or the historical status quo. Should he have done so, he (and we) would have considered this text as fringe theory. It is an archaeological and historical fact that we have political entities in the region known as "kingdoms" certainly before the 5th century. GK (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it would require some careful interpretation to see what he really means, but you could be right. Perhaps, this is better placed in the early history section, awaiting.

However, I'd be reluctant to share your optimism about "facts" regarding the earliest history of the A.M s. This is the realm of pre-history, and no contemporary historical source, nor any archaeological findings confirms the circumstances of their formation with absolute certainty

To Athenean: hold it there, partner. If everyone else is required to draft changes here, and discuss them, then I think that should also apply to you. Coz now your just adding stuff unnecessarily into the conclusion (ie stuff about religion, and amphitheatres ?!) that will be included in other sections. The succint comment about 'cultural millieu' would cover all that, anyway

Hxseek (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My addition are impeccably sourced, and most of them do not touch on the hot-button issue of the "origins" (sources, geography) so I don't see what's the big deal. Whence "unnecessary", btw, and who decides what's "necessary"? An expansion of the "cultural milieu" is not unnecessary, nor should we assume that all of our readers know what that means. However, I do hear what you are saying and will take this into account in the future. I'd like to remind you that you are under a revert restriction, which you have violated. Please self-revert, or face the consequences. Athenean (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not doubt the sources, but the "synthesis" needs to be agreed upon, for now you are merely self-contradicting what u said earlier. Furthermore, it would be counterproductive for u to make significant changes when other editors have not agreed on a final draft. For the sake of good scholarly will, and the good of the article , I suggest u take this on board. Eg the stuff on inscriptions is all well and good, but one cannot place the conclusion from that particular inscription, and that particular scholar's interpretation of it, as the final conclusion to the whole linguistic issue This is wp:undue, esp that other scholars have taken this on board and still conclude that they can't exactly "conclude", if u get my drift. (this is not intended to launch into a linguistic debate, but an illustrative exercise)

Hxseek (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to remind you that what started the current dispute were your massive edits to the lede that you implemented without any prior discussion or consensus. So, don't go on lecturing others now. I also do not recall any agreement to refrain from editing the article without your approval. Can you point to where I agreed to such a thing? Athenean (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, u can edit. However, it does seem to be a case of say one thing, do another. It seemed like areasonable approach to try. Obviously, ur not interested in it. It is not ideal, and might lead to a situation where the article is disjointed coz everyone is just adding there own little thing. Btw, I don't call adding 3 sentences "massive". 203.20.35.28 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's more than 3 sentences, and you removed a sentence from the lead. Hardly minor. Actually, you are the one that did one thing (made changes to the lede) and now are saying another (get consensus before making edits). I would be happy to agree to refrain from making unilateral edits, provided this retroactively applies to your changes to the lede that started this disupte (i.e., return the article to its state on January 20). What do you say? Also, please indent your comments using ":". Athenean (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That is fine. It's all Moved from the lede into discussion now, anyway (?by you, wasn't it). Look, I have no problems with what u included, and the way u wrote it is fine. But, then I would like to add some stuff too. So we' d have to come to agreement, which would take the whole thing back again. That is why I was suggesting that we just do a draft here first. But if that doesn't agree with u, then that's ok Hxseek (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Either we revert back to Jan. 20, or from now on we agree to draft here first. But I want to see what other editors think first. What I cannot support is that my edits be subject to approval by all editors but not your original Jan. 21 edits (and you will note that quite a few editors objected to those). Btw, if you agree with what I wrote why do you attack my edits at your AE appeal? And would you please indent your comments? Athenean (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

that is fine. I agree. Hxseek (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hxseek, the 6th century is not prehistory. There is absolutely no doubt that Archelaos was the king of the Argead Macedonians in the 6th century for example. I am not talking about Caranus or Koinos or other semi-mythical personas but of well documented, archaeologically substantiated names. Macedonian obscurity starts in the 7th century BC, which can only be the starting point of any alternative theories. Anyways, due not forget that we have to give due weight and there is no reason to doubt prevalent theories which talk about Argead kings far into the 8th and 9th centuries BC, even if you do find more sources backing alternatives up. If, though, we can include them in the text properly, we will, there is no doubt, as well as we can document them well.

As to Athenean's edits, I have no problem with anyone editing, it will be a long process to make up a good structure to start with and most possibly, whatever we do here will replace all content of the article anyway. The article will only serve as a pool for ideas and phraseology, but I expect it to anyways be discarded and I really doubt that anyone will disapprove if we manage to make a good and balanced text.. I can only regret that at the time I have more pressing issues, but I will help as much as I can. Hxseek, the 6th century is not prehistory. There is absolutely no doubt that Archelaos was the king of the Argead Macedonians in the 6th century for example. I am not talking about Caranus or Koinos or other semi-mythical personas but of well documented, archaeologically substantiated names. Macedonian obscurity starts in the 7th century BC, which can only be the starting point of any alternative theories. Anyways, due not forget that we have to give due weight and there is no reason to doubt prevalent theories which talk about Argead kings far into the 8th and 9th centuries BC, even if you do find more sources backing alternatives up. If, though, we can include them in the text properly, we will, there is no doubt, as well as we can document them well.

As to Athenean's edits, I have no problem with anyone editing, it will be a long process to make up a good structure to start with and most possibly, whatever we do here will replace all content of the article anyway. The article will only serve as a pool for ideas and phraseology, but I expect it to anyways be discarded and I really doubt that anyone will disapprove if we manage to make a good and balanced text.. I can only regret that at the time I have more pressing issues, but I will help as much as I can. GK (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt about the veracity of the line of Kings prior to Alexander I, to Archelaos. However, where the lack of detail lies in is as to how this dynasty came to power, exactly when, and from where. The 6th century is right on the edge of history, and the first truly historic figure is Alexander I (although his predecessor is mentioned by an alomst contemporary source), and thus it is the beginning of the fifth century that "Macedonia" truy enters the political stage. That is what I agree with in Sprawski, Archibald, Borza and Engels. So there is no really prevalant theory about these earlier times, although Hammond's once is circulated here quite often Hxseek (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand your answer. What does the century in which Macedonia practically enters the political scene have to do with whether it was a kingdom before that and what are the positions held by Sprawski, Archibald, Borza and Engels you agree with and Hammond does not? That Alexander I is the first Macedonian we are certain of his existence? What "theory" are you talking about, which has no prevalent position? GK (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What i;m referring to is there is uncertainty exactly when the Macedonians came into 'being" first of all, and from where. That they lived in Mountains north of Olympia (since the Bronze Age) is only one (ie Hammond's), as yet, relatively unsubstantiated theory. That's what i meant. I do not doubt that the king line goes back to Archelaos. Hxseek (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well... a good thing that at least the Argead Macedonians themselves did not claim autochthony or a history spreading back for thousands of years like most other Greek (to my opinion) states... then we would have even more theories to present and comment on. GK (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time recently to provide input into the continuing discussions, but I should have some time available this week. I'll also consider creating an account, since this page is protected and I cannot make edits without one.... 174.117.97.72 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Language

Lets try to come to an agreement to the language section, chaps:

Due to the fragmentary attestation and differing methodologies, various interpretations have possible about the ancient Macedonian language. Macedonians had little inclination for recording their speech in epigraphic form until the 4th century, by which time the Attic Koine was adapted as the official language of the Macedonian court and its administrative institutions. The local Macedonian vernacular is attested in some hundred words from various glosses, mainly those of Hesychius of Alexandria, as well as placenames, personal names and local inscriptions.

Macedonian personal names have been extensively analysed. The majority of personal names inscribed in the funerary stellae at Verginia, which span the period 375 – 275 BC, are recognizable Greek forms. The tombs also bear inscribed patronymics. Although adoption of Greek names could bear witness to a process of cultural emulation, it is apparent that Greek names were in vogue amongst the population of Vergina by the end of the 5th century. Literary sources also attest a number of Macedonian names. A large number are described to be “pan-Hellenic” (Alexander, Ilympus, Cleitus), whilst others seem to be names confined to Epirus and Macedonia (Dabreas, Arrabaios, Balakros). Others are suggested to be Phrygian or Thracian (eg Amadokos). Well into Roman times, both, Greek and non-Greek names were sometimes found within the same family.

An analysis of attested Macedonian glosses representes its own challenges. For example, scholars are required to inrepret which words that are glossed as “Macedonian” actually represent epichoric forms rather than loanwords from proper Greek. In an analysis of 153 Macedonian glosses, Kalleris concluded that the majority of the words have morphological and phonological features which align with Greek dialects. However, Crossland came to an opposite conclusion. His analysis excluded words and names which he saw to represent obvious Attic loands (mostly of political and military nature), and noted significant morphological features which set Macedonian apart from the cmmon Greek dialects, such as the appearance of unaspirated voiced consonants in positions where Greek dialects normally displayed aspirated voiceless consonants. Crossland thu argued that Macedonian rather aligned with Ilyrian and Thracian.

The discovery of the Pella Curse tablet, representing the earliest attested inscription from Macedonia (early 4th century BC) has been interpreted as representing a remote Doric Greek dialect., however Hall has advised against making generalized conclusions as to Macedonian speech based on the evidence of one inscription. Notwithstanding, at the lexical level, other Greek and non-Greek (Phrygian) idioms are certainly also evident. Hammond argued, rather, that Macedonian was a ‘broad’ version of Aeolic Greek dialect. Hammond’s supposition was based on a sentence given by the 5th century writer, Hellanicus, who made the mythical figure of Macedon a son of Aeolus. However, Hammond’s methodology has been criticized , although direct linguistic analyses have also found possible Aeolic influences. Further inscriptiory evidence arrives from neighbouring Epirus, including the sanctuary at Dodona. Here, Greek inscriptions are abundant. Further, Strabo and Hecataeus suggest that the Epirotian, Macedonian (and Illyrian) tribes shared dialectical similarities. Ths has led to conclusions that Macedonian must have also belonged to the NW linguistic koine depicted at the inscriptions at Dodona. However, Hall supports Crossland's arguement that such inscriptions are of a comparitively late date, c. 370 BC, and does not prove that this was the original language of NW Greece. It could have rather been adapted later as an additional, inscriptionay language.

Contemporary anecdotes describing the relationship between Macedonian and Greek languages are not detailed enough to help us conclude how different/ similar Macedonian was to Greek. Writers like Plutarch and Arrian testify that Maceodnians continued to speak in distinct Macedonian “style”, or in the “Macedonian language”. However, this could equally symbolize a situation whereby Maceodnian was either separate language to, or a mere dialect of, Greek.

From the analysis of linguistic evidence, scholars have arrived at different conclusions, but all agree that the evidence is scarce. The number of Greek words, names and very use of Greek inscriptions has made a case that Macedonian was an archaic, peripheral from of Doric and NW Greek , which showed some non-Greek features. On the other end of the spectrum, Greek lexical superposition onto “native” phonological features have proposed various scenarions that Macedonian represents some form of “Hellenized” Brygian, Thracian or Illyrain.

Whatever the proposed nature of “Macedonian”, it is likely that Macedonian tribes were themselves linguistically, or at least dialectically, heterogeneous because a “mountainous geography naturally isolates populations, resists large-scale economic integration, and creates refuge zones”. Linguistic boundaries were likely to be have been blurred, and a diaglossic situation existed in Epirus and Macedonia. Given that all the direct linguistic evidence appears from historic times, one cannot confirm whether this region housed a “pool” of NW Greek speakers since the Bronze Age, as Hammond contends, or if Greek was adapted secondarily by the local communities.

Linguistic standardization began in the 5th century, with the rise of Athenian Empire. The prestige associated with its ‘’koinized’’ vernacular led to its widespread adaptation within Greece as well neighbouring regions already involved in extensive contacts with the Greek world, including in the Macedonian court. As Macedonia defeated Athens for empirical supremacy, it continued to utilize, and spread, the established lingua franca. However, local “Macedonian” continued to be spoken as a local vernacular into the Antigonid era. Hxseek (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• 1st paragraph: Attic was used by the Macedonian court already by the 5th century BC, not the 4th. We should also include that "all surviving epigraphic evidence, from grave markers to public inscriptions, is in Greek." (Anson, p. 20)

OK

• 2nd paragraph: "were in vogue" is problematic, as is the whole sentence. The implication that Greek names "were adopted" and were "in vogue" implies subtly that they were completely foreign to the Macedonians. I see this as an attempt to undermine the preceding sentence. The quote from Hall also seems out of context. To what era is her referring to? In general we must be very careful with quoting sources out of context. Other than that, the paragraph seems fine.

change it to "already bore Greek names "? What do you mean by what era is Hall referring to ?

I'm not sure how that would fit in, but I find the sentence problematic nonetheless. I need to think about it a little bit more. Athenean (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph: Too much space devoted to Crossland, who seems to take up the whole paragraph. As far as I know, the theories of Macedonian as Illyrian or Thracian are a minority view, and devoting this much space to one of them seems a violation of WP:DUE. Also, it's best to avoid specialized words like "epichoric", which many of our readers might not understand, with somewhat simpler language, such as "local". In this

If there is no concensus, then there i no minority view, really. See paragraph below for extensive ref list of scholars all presenting some variety of opinions. My whole purpose here is to present the methodological reasons for lack of consensus. So Kalleris and Crossland represent to opposing positions of a spectrum which can be juxtaposed for illustrative purposes. I start with the Greek view, and then continue with "hoever" is because it does indeed seem to be the slightly more mainstream view. So it is a natural flow, unless you isist I start vice-versa it.

There may be no consensus, but it is my impression that far more scholars nowadays support that Macedonian was a Greek dialect than otherwise. Athenean (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• 4th paragraph: Regarding the Pella Curse Tablet, I would like to keep everything from the current version of the article. We can of course add to it, but I don't think anything should be removed, as it is solidly sourced and worded. In this respect, I find the second sentence particularly problematic. Ditto with the extensive criticism of Hammond. How come every theory that the language was a Greek dialect is followed by a "however" or "criticism"? I don't see the various "Illyrian" and Thracian scenarios similarly hedged.

Sure, I can add the stuff currently for P.C.T word-for-word. Maybe the stuff on Hammond is out of place in this parapgraph, and perhaps can be removed. I included his Aeolic theory because it is rather widespread, and widely criticised for the way he came to his conclusion, not the result itself; but point accepted

I think we should keep the PCT paragraph as is, and add a separate paragraph for Hammond and the Aeolic theory.Athenean (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• 5th paragraph: Seems fine, although perhaps it could be further expanded. Surely there must be more material about the language in ancient writers.

Yes more can be added

• 6th paragraph: Seems fine.

• 7th paragraph: Seems fine.

• 8th paragraph: Seems fine, although "empirical" is wrong here, should be "imperial" or better, "political".

In general, the proposed section seems like a good start, although I have several objections which I list above. There is a little too much hedging concerning any "Greek" hypotheses and none for the non-Greek hypotheses. I would keep the paragraph on the Pella Curse Tablet as as is, without any removals, though additions would be fine. After all, in the current version it says that the PCT has been used to suggest that the language was a Doric dialect, not that it is a Doric dialect, period. I am also surprised that the Companion isn't used as a source. Thus, I would like to spend some time going over the Companion as far as the language is concerned, and maybe include some material from it as well. After all, it is the most up to date source we have. Athenean (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The companion: Engels devotes 2 pages to it. What is stated has already been covered, in pretty much same format, although i can add his reference for completeness. What i did use was his quote on pg 93 as a scholarly summary referenced after para 7. Hxseek (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Again I am going to advise/warn against the inclusion of a text like this. It is completely out of the scope of the article. If, Hxseek, you are so bend on writing about the ancient Macedonian language, then you should start a discussion in the respective article, not here. You cannot possibly wish to add 8!!! paragraphs discussing the ancient Macedonian language. If I included my sources and opinions, this would become a 16 paragraph article... The language should be commented in just one sentence and linked to the respective article which will elaborate, this article is about the people and their language, no matter how debatable a topic (which to my opinion is much less debated than what Hxseek of FP believe it to be) should not take precedence, especially when we do have the proper article to work on. GK (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. We have to be careful not to fork Ancient Macedonians, but on the other hand some mention of the language is not entirely out of place here. If you can propose your addition on the talkpage like Hxseek has, I think that would be great. Athenean (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

U prob have a point, GK. Although, feel free to observe the sources if u think that the lack of consensus is a figment of my imagination Hxseek (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that there is perfect consensus Hxseek, I mean I can easily argue that the prevalent theory remains that the ancient Macedonian language (that is the language the peoples of the ancient Macedonian kingdoms and not the peoples who inhabited any area formerly or later on a part of any Macedonia in ancient times) spoke a Greek language (either of the Aeolic or the Dorian branch). Yet, this has little to do with what should predominantly be discussed in this article, while, along with their "ethnicity" will be the core issue of debate here. I know we will not be able to avoid (after many debates and (un)welcome, (non)constructive comments from various "well-meaning" users and IPs) writing a long section regarding their ethnicity and there we will make an analytical presentation of the various theories and will try to alot due weight. But the language should be discussed in the respective article. Here, only a small paragraph is needed which which will state something like :

The exact nature of the vernacular of the various Macedonian ethnoi has been long debated in scholarly circles. Whether the ancient Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect, a language sibling to Greek or another Indoeuropean language anciently is contested but it is universally accepted that by the 4th century BC, the Macedonian vernacular had been fully or for the most part replaced by the Attic Koine in all levels of society. What consists an indisputable fact is that Greek was the only language used by the Macedonians for written expression.

3 sentences to encompass both oral and written language, I think justly and with no connotations. GK (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I find that excessively drastic. In fact I find myself not objecting to Hxseek's edits, with perhaps a few minor adjustments. Athenean (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

drastic? What do you mean by drastic? We are talking about an article here which will have chapters like "Macedonian Tribes" and "Religion" which will probably be much less in size than what Hxseek proposes that we add about the language. The language is not really important, especially when we have a relative article... We can discuss such and much longer inclusions if you like there. Why here? So that the article again becomes the mess it is now? Do you really believe that even if we reword the above text (I have already worked on it but still do not agree with including it here) it will be that "short"? Again we will include examples and quotes, we will make it 12 paragraphs long and it will dominate the article, which will again completely lose its focus... If, on the course of restructuring this article we manage to make as long if not longer contributions to other, more important chapters, then we might again discuss adding to the language section. Now it will only cause unnecessary trouble. I know how this will end up. I find myself already in disagreement with half of the conclusions, suppositions, innuendos, connotations, interpretations, wordings etc. Imagine what will happen if we start disagreeing with more users barging in, the whole thing again becoming an arena... Again, people, let's leave this for later, no reason to argue about it now, when there is so much more important data to include.

GK (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In responce to GK, you do have a point, as I said above. There is a seperate language article. I would certainly accept that we should not get bogged down with extensive linguistic analysis, etc; nor should we have paragraphs of direct quoting (this can be referenced as in-line citations, so if wanted to , one can scroll down for it). I am optimistic that we can achieve something, and by now, there has been a lot of work done on the subject, and amongst us, I;m sure we have covered it all. Now. we just have to agree on the salient points of lay-out, so it reads well, is neutral and not UNDUE, etc. . Overall, I think (and I guess Athenean does too) that my proposal is not excessively lengthy ?

However, GK, there is a whole other dimension to linguistics is the social aspect (as per the last couple para's in my draft), which often is not so well discussed in language articles.

I will be happy to do whatever the general concensus is. If an abridged version is favoured, I;d be fine with that, and will aim to incoporate the above stuff in the language article.

Hxseek (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a shame that otherwise talkative editors did not yet state any opinion or comment here. If you and Athenian feel like it, we can move this discussion to the language article and after completing a lengthy analysis there, use it as reference for any (abridged or unabridged, according to how the effort will go here) version in this one. It is only a matter of priorities. Do we want to occupy ourselves with the Ancient Macedonians first or with their language? Eventually we can/will do both, so whatever your wish I will go along. GK (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Any further thoughts ? The Ancient macedonian language article is quite good already, and apart from required few tweaks, it might serve well. I brief couple of summary chapters here might suffice ? Hxseek (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Shortened Language Section for this article proposal

Macedonia was a linguistically heterogeneous landscape, including various Greek elements (Dorian & Euboean colonies; Greek speaking pastoralist ethne) as well as non-Greek speakers (Illyrian, Thracian , as well as “native” languages .

Scholars have attempted to characterise Ancient Macedonian per se based on the evidence supplied by “Macedonian” onosmatics, inscriptions and glosses. Macedonian shares close structural and lexical affinity with the “proper” Greek dialects (esp NW Greek and Thessalian). At the same time, a number of phonological, lexical and onosmatic features also set it apart. The latter features occur in some of the most conservative systems of its language,. Different opinons exist as to whether these features make Macedonian merely an abberant form of Greek, or whether it qualifies a status as a seperate, yet related language, or perhaps even a Hellenized Brygian one. In any respects, Brygian shared close affinities with Greek, lending to theories that Greek, Macedonian and Phrygian/ Brygian formed an Indo-European sub-family.

The entire north Aegean region, extending from Epirus to Thrace, formed a diglossic linguistic area, whereby Greek idioms were used as “official languages” in addition to various local idioms. Various Greek alphabets were used for inscriptions, even in non-Greek contexts. Whilst Corinthian and Ionian elements made early appearances, Attic became widespread, corresponding with the rise of Athenian political and cultural authority throughout the region. When Macedonia became the pre-eminent Aegean power, it continued to use, and further spread, the Attic koinon already used for wide variety of political and administrative purposes. Attic was also adopted as a vernacular lingua franca amongst the disparate peoples of Macedonian kingdom. Although Macedonian continued to be spoken by Macedonians well into Antigonid times, Attic became the prevalent oral dialect not only in Macedonia, but throughout the Macedonian ruled Hellenistic world.

Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, no, I much prefer the longer version. Athenean (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason (apart from personal preference)? I', inclined to agree with GK; in that there is already an entire article on AM language. It would be somewhat redundant to to expansive section on language here if a couple paragraphs like above would encapsulate the matter. I think some prgoress need to be made here, so we can then move into lifestyle/ culture section. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well for one, there is no mention of any of the inscriptional evidence (e.g Pella Curse Tablet), something which I think is essential. Also, what is meant by a "native language"? I think that is very confusing. The sentence The latter features occur in some of the most conservative systems of its language is unsourced. Also, Epirus is not a diglossic region to my knowledge. Not to mention the stuff about Brygian is also somewhat speculative and a bit off topic. The Macedonians weren't Brygians, at least not originally. While the older text is a bit rambling and could be tightened, it also has some good points to it. Anyway, I need to think about it a little bit more, go over both versions and check the sources some more and maybe come up with some proposals of my own. Athenean (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The PCT has been duly considered in the summaries of relevant scholars. The PCT discovery has not 'closed' the matter in the way some people might think. As J Hall stated, there matter is still inconclusive, and the evidence from one script doesn't really change this. Rather, the PCT is used to support the idea that Macedonian was a form of NW greek. Notwithstanding, the PCT inscription itself still contains all the other features (already noted from names and 'glosses') which are considered "abberant".

The Brygian connection is not speculative when virtually all scholars pose such a connection; and it does not mean that the Macedonians themselves were Brygians; but the langauge has an obvious substratum, possibly Byrgian. These substratum features are are in some of the most conservative elements of the language - in Panayatou's article. The "native language" has a foot note attached -refers to pre-Greek langauges in the area: Brygian, Edonian, Paeonian. Epirus was a diaglossic / bilingual area - see Irad Malkin or J Hall.

Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The PCT doesn't "close" the matter, but it should be mentioned along with the rest of the epigraphic evidence. As for the Brygian connection, it is speculation, because nothing about ancient Macedonian is proven. Regarding the "native language" stuff we are going to have to disagree. There is nothing to suggest that Paeonian and Brygian were spoken in the original homeland of the Macedonians, in Orestis and Pieria. Athenean (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

it is mentioned and considered. Like it's stated, the summary of evidence is from names, glosses, and inscriptions - the latter refers to the one in Pella, not those written in Attic.

secondly, everything before 5th century is hypothetical, anyway. We do not even know for sure that Orestis was the "homeland" and when Greek really began to be spoken in the region. Anyhow, tradition does place Bryges in Emanthia, and credible scholars have argued that Brygian was spoken there, and did constitute a substratum. This isno less speculatory than anything about their protohistory . u might not agree with this, but that's your opinion (and even if Ur a leading authority on the matter, it doesn't negate that of a not insignificant corpus of scholars who support the scenario)

Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I find the new focus on the Bryges beyond the scope of the article. As far as I recall, your previous version didn't mention them at all. So after a conversation with another user it's all about the Bryges now? While a Greek-Macedonian-Brygian language family may well be plausible, it is highly speculative and quite beyond the scope of this article. For instance, I only found one mention of the Bryges in all of the 700 pages of the Companion. I don't see the big deal anyway, there already is a language section, perhaps it might be best to move to another topic? Athenean (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It does not focus on the Bryges (the word is only mentioned twice !); but only a proposed linguistic substratum - which is actually quite prevalent in the literature, as I have become aware merely by reading more and more of the literature. The overall Phrygo-Greek affinity is also worth mentioning and generally accepted. Nevertheless, I can modify the paragraph to address concerns on focus of subject

Yes, we need to move on to next topic, but the current langauge paragraph as it stands needs (slight) modification (ie -> something along my lines), because rather than a conclusion, it ends with a a piece of evidence. That's poor style

Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::So then you figured you would just ram your changes through? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Not only that, but the version you implemented is actually different from the one you proposed here. Extremely uncool. Athenean (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's barely different. If anything it was somewhat simplified further, and less stuff on Bryges. I really don't think there is anything you can object to Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) On second thought, my rv may have been a bit rash. I got really annoyed that you replaced the previous version with yours, but since your additions have certain merits, I self-reverted and tried to merge the two. Athenean (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's good you re-evaluated. Next I will focus on culture , etc Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) So as you can see, I pretty much restored your version while keeping some of the previous version. However, I do have two objections: 1) The "mixed language" claim is not backed by the sources used. I am not a linguist, but I do know that in linguistics a mixed language is a technical term that refers to something specific. So to make the claim that Macedonian has been hypothesized to be a mixed language, a linguistics source would need to be used, and only if it specifically claims Macedonian as a mixed language. 2) Same for the "particularly conservative features" claim: Only if the source used actually states that these are "particularly conservative features", otherwise it is OR. I note you have added a footnote, but that is not good enough. A source needs to be used, one that specifically backs the claim. Athenean (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you actually tab on the footnote, there is an accompanying reference from Panayatou: traces of this language were confined to one of the most conservative of areas, that of onosmatics or religion.

On mixed -> from Hatzopoulos, pg 115 the most recent suggestion is that the historical Macedonians were the product of the fusion of two linguistic groups. One spoke a Greek dialect akin to the NW dialects and to Thessalian...The other consisted of speakers of Brygian {He himself does not agree with this initially, yet on a later page he comes round to this idea again} I am aware "mixed" language has specific connotation in sociolinguistics, however, I think it is OK here in its current context ?

BTW, are you sure your sources state that Macedonian was Doric. Becuase I have only read that it was NW GReek. Whilst the two are related, they are generally seen as distinct sub-groups (Also interestingly, Finkelstein sees Thessaly as the 'home' of Doric, later becoming Aeolized. That is why linguists see a lot of NW Greek elements in Thessalian) Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok about the conservative, although Panayotou speaks of "traces of a substratal language", which isn't reflected in the current version. As for the "mixed language" claim I am not convinced. In this instance it would be best to ask an actual linguist (e.g. Future Perfect at Sunrise). Athenean (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think "Greek dialect" would be preferable to "aberrant form of Greek". "Aberrant" has a moralistic, value-judgment ring to it. Athenean (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read 4 different books on language contact and sociolignuistics. Truly "mixed languages" in strictu sensu are rarely, if ever, attested. But the theory is there and does appear to be plausible for our particular case. Second suggestion instituted. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)