Alexander the Great : Greek or SouthSlav

And that is why it doesn't exist anymore? Couldn't have been too good!

The ancient Macedonians were not Greeks!

28 April 2011.
Aleksandar Donski

Institute of History and Archeology Goce Delcev University – Stip, Republic of
Macedonia


A REJOINDER TO A RECENT LETTER, BY AUTHORS SYMPATHETIC TO THE GREEK POSITION.


Ancient Macedonia and the territory of today’s

Republic of Macedonia

In their tract the signatories initially wrote:

"The land in question, with its modern capital at Skopje, was called Paionia in
antiquity. Mt. Barnous and Mt. Orbelos (which today form the northern limits
of Greece) provide a natural barrier that separated then, and separates today,
Macedonia from its southern neighbor. The only real connection is along the
Axios/ Vardar River and even this valley does not form a line of commu­nication
because it is divided by gorges”.

The import of the above passage means that ancient Mace­donia was situated on
the territory of today’s Greece, while the territory of today’s Republic of
Macedonia coincided with the territory of Paionia. This premise would deny
today’s Macedonians the right to claim their own ancient Macedonian
ethno-cultural heritage. It has the effect of restricting their historical
antecedents to Paionia, alone.

Indeed, it is difficult to understand how classical scholars could ignore
certain salient facts. The borders of ancient Macedonia changed constantly over
different periods. At its inception ancient Macedonia spread only over a small
part of what is today southwestern Macedonia. Later, the conquests of its rulers
effected changes in Macedonia’s borders. There was a period when a large part of
ancient Macedonia was located on the territory of Macedonia that came under
Greek authority for the first time in 1913. (Today, Macedonians living in this
recently-acquired Greek territory historically have been denied by local
authorities any right to identify with their ethnic or national traditions).

In earlier times, ancient Macedonia also spread over a large portion of today’s
Republic of Macedonia. Surely, the signatories are aware of the ancient
Macedonian region Lyncus, which largely extended over the territory of today’s
Republic of Macedonia. The ancient Greek geographer, Strabo, (63/64 BCE – ca. CE
24), states: that the ‘“Lyncus,” region was an inextricable part of ancient
Macedonia.” He also wrote:

"…in fact the regions around Lyncus, Pelagonia, Orestia, and Elimeia, used to be
called Upper Macedonia, though later on they also were called by some ‘Free
Macedonia’. But some go so far as to call the whole of the country Macedonia"
(Strabo Geography, Book VII, Chap. 7, 6).

In ancient Macedonia, or Lyncus, there lived a famous tribe called the
Lyncestians, whose inhabitants were part of the ancient Macedonian population.
Philip II’s mother, Eurydice, came from the Lyncestian tribe and actually she
was born on the territory of today’s Republic of Macedonia.

Thucydides also wrote about the Macedonian origin of the inhabitants of Lyncus:

"There is an upper Macedonia, which is inhabited by Lyncestians, Elimiots, and
other tribes; these are the allies and the ‘client states’ of the lower
Macedonians, but (they) have kings of their own". (Thucydides, Book II).

The capital city of the ancient Macedonian region of Lyncus, called “Lynk,” was
located on the territory of today’s Republic of Macedonia. This city was located
in the current village of Bukri, located at the curve of the Erigon, or Black
River, at today’s “High Hill” (Visoko Brdo).

The ancient Macedonian city of “Heraclea,” also located on the territory of
Lyncus, is reported to have been personally established by Philip II of Macedon.
Even today, the city’s ruins are evident on the territory of the Republic of
Macedonia and all are free to visit these sites.

Other sites found in today’s Republic of Macedonia include the famous ancient
Macedonian cities: Gordinia, Atalanta, Eidomenè and a significant part of the
ancient Macedonian region of Amphakstida.

That Eidomenè is located on the territory of the present Republic of Macedonia
and also was an ancient Macedonian city is further supported by Thucydides. In
his description of the war between the Thracians and the Macedonians, in the
middle of the fifth century BCE, Thucydides explains that the Thracian army
attacked the Macedonians and took the city of Eidomenè:

"Leaving Doberus, the Thracian army first invaded the country which formerly had
been the principality of Philip, and took Eidomenè by storm." (Thucydides, Book
II).

Thucydides (II, 100) also mentions the conquest of the ancient Macedonian cities
of Gordinia and Atalanta, also located on the territory of the Republic of
Macedonia.

Another city located on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia is the
ancient Macedonian city of Dostonei. Further evidence of the existence of an
ancient Macedonian civilization is clear from the presence of numerous defensive
fortresses that ancient Macedonians built to protect themselves from outside
attacks. The most famous of these is located outside the city of Demir Kapiya.
There are others elsewhere in the Republic of Macedonia.

Thousands of ancient Macedonian coins and other objects such as jewelry,
weapons, household artifacts and tombs have been unearthed in the Republic of
Macedonia and are on display both in Macedonia and in other countries. Numerous
artifacts from Macedonia’s ancient past testify to the fact that a vibrant,
ancient and distinctively Macedonian civilization thrived on the territory of
the Republic of Macedonia. Some data on this topic can be found in "Ancient
Kingdom of Macedonia in the Republic of Macedonia" by Prof. Dr. Viktor Lilcik
(The Journal for Archeology, History, History of Art and Ethnology, Year VIII,
No. 23, Skopje, 2004, Republic of Macedonia; ISSN 1409/5742).

The territory of Paionia, which the signatories stoutly maintain is the
historical territory of today's Republic of Macedonia, also changed its
boundaries constantly throughout its history. A large part of Paionia was
located on what is today, the part of Macedonia that is under Greek authority.
Note for example that during the Troyan War, Paionia stretched along the central
part of, what is today, the Aegean portion of "Greek" Macedonia. Around the
sixth century BCE, Paionia occupied an even larger expanse of Greece’s Aegean
Macedonia and also included the area around today’s Thessaloniki (Solun). Along
with the ancient Macedonian cities of Aerop, Atalanta, and Lete, it stretched
even as far as Amphypolis on the border with Thrace. In the fifth century BCE,
Euripides wrote that the Paionians were a people who inhabited the Pangai
Mountains, east of Amphipolis and Chalkidiki, in southeastern Macedonia.

Later, as the Macedonians pushed the Paionians northwards, they extended their
own boundaries. In 217 BCE King Philip V of Macedonia
completely conquered Paionia and the Paionians were merged with the ancient Macedonians making the
two peoples into a single nation. At that point, ancient Macedonia spread to
occupy what is now the territory of the Republic of Macedonia.
[link to www.veneti.info]

The signatories also write:

"While it is true that the Paionians were subdued by Philip II, father of
Alexander, in 358 B.C. they were not Macedonians and did not live in Macedonia.
Likewise, for example, the Egyptians, who were subdued by Alexander, may have
been ruled by Macedonians, including the famous Cleopatra, but they were never
Macedonians themselves, and Egypt was never called Macedonia.”

Here, again, the signatories demonstrate a dubious grasp of the facts. Their
claim that the territory of Paionia was never called “Macedonia”, is
demonstrably false.

Actually, the borders of Paionia shifted in the process of being absorbed into
what was later called Macedonia. These facts support the assertion that Paionia
was the name given to a large part of what is today regarded as “Greek”, or
Aegean Macedonia, including the territory east of the Chalkidiki peninsula.
Later, this territory too was given the name of Macedonia.

The same situation obtained in other parts of Macedonia, including areas in
today’s Republic of Macedonia. Some of these areas had been called Paionia, but
later, especially after Philip V destroyed Paionia, it too came to be called
Macedonia.

The ancient Greek geographer, Strabo, confirmed this (VII, 41), when he states
that the Paionians lived in large areas of ancient Macedonia:

"It is clear that in early times, as now, the Paionians occupied much of what is
now Macedonia..."



The libraries of the world are rich with historical evidence - written
documentation and maps – that support the fact that the territory of the former
Paionia became part of Macedonia and it is incomprehensible how the signatories
do not know these facts. (Later we'll provide a brief discussion of the origins
of the Paionian people).



Why signatories create the non-existent term

“Macedonian Greeks.”?

The signatories’ letter to president Obama also stated:

"Macedonia and Macedonian Greeks have been located for at least 2,500 years just
where the Modern Greek province of Macedonia is"

Unfortunately for the signatories to this letter, the historical data and terms
that they cite have been either invented or manipulated. The term “Macedonian
Geeks,” referring to the ancient Macedonians, is a time-honored and meaningless
canard. No biographer of Alexander the Great of Macedonia ever characte­rized
the ancient Macedonians as “Macedonian Greeks,” but only as Macedonians. It is
difficult to understand how these expert signatories could invent a nonexistent
term to support their core premise. One suspects that since no ancient
biographer of Alexander ever used the term “Macedonian Greeks”, these “experts”
decided that this term needed to be invented to better align their argument with
the official Greek policies and propa­ganda that their letter supports.
Objective contemporary experts agree that the writing of the ancient authors who
directly observed these societies is far more valuable and valid than the
expedient inventions of the signatories.




On the origin of today’s Macedonians



In the letter, the signatories also argue:

"We do not understand how the modern inhabitants of ancient Paionia, who speak
Slavic – a language introduced into the Balkans about a millennium after the
death of Alexander – can claim him as their national hero."

Below, we have provided proof that today’s Macedonians, citizens of the Republic
of Macedonia and of the remaining parts of Macedonia (including those living in
the region under the control of the Greek Government) are mainly blood
descendants of the ancient Macedonians.




Why Alexander the Great was not Greek?

In their letter, the signatories incorrectly stated:

"Alexander the Great was thoroughly and indisputably Greek".

Many ancient testimonies exist in which the Macedonians are treated as a
separate nation, distinct from the Greeks. However, the signatories’ position
that Alexander the Great was Greek is effectively discredited with his own words
or, more precisely, those of his official biographer, Arrian. Arrian has
recorded the speech that Alexander the Great delivered to his officers, when his
army balked at continuing the fighting during the final battles in India. Arrian
points out that initially, his men were reticent to tell him of their
unwillingness to continue, but that Alexander, perceiving that there was a
problem, called his officers to a meeting and addressed them with the following
words:

“O Macedonians and Grecian allies... I have collected you together into the same
spot, so that I may either persuade you to march forward with me, or may be
persuaded by you to return.”

In the the same speech, Alexander added:

"But, O Macedonians and Grecian allies stand firm! But what great or glorious
deed could we have performed, if, sitting at ease in Macedonia, we had thought
it sufficient to preserve our own country without any labour, simply repelling
the attacks of the nations on our frontiers, the Thracians, Illyrians, and
Triballians, or even those Greeks who were unfriendly to our interests? (Arrian,
Anabasis, Chap. XXV).

Alexander’s speech clearly distinguishes between the Macedonians and the Greeks
as two separate nations. In these excerpts, not only does he address Macedonians
and Greeks separately, (“Macedonian and Grecian allies”), but he also clearly
explains that the Macedonians living in Macedonia could be endangered by their
neighbours: Illyrians, Trichinas, Triballians and Greeks!

If we assume that Arrian took these data from history dedicated to Alexander,
written by Ptolemy I (general, childhood friend and, according to some sources,
Alexander’s half-brother) then the authenticity of this statement is
undeniable. In addition, Arrian is generally considered one of the most serious
of the ancient sources on Alexander the Great’s biography.




On Alexander I and the First Olympic games

Further to our rebuttal of the allegations in the letter sent to President
Obama, we read:

"His great-great-great grandfather, Alexander I, competed in the Olympic Games,
where participation was limited to Greeks."

Alexander I (circa. 497 - 454 BCE) was Alexander the Great’s ancestor. It is
true that he insisted on participation in the Greek Olympic Games and overcame
strong Greek political objections to do so. Since the Greeks treated them as
“barbarians” (non-Greeks), all other Macedonians continued to be forbidden to
participate in the games. Some additional examples should further illuminate
this point.

During the rule of Alexander I, war broke out between a united Greek forces and
the Persian Empire. Macedonia was a militarily weak and economically poor
country at that time and found itself caught in the middle of a fierce war that
placed Alexander I in a potentially dangerous situation. Both the Persian and
the Greek forces could easily conquer Macedonia, if they felt its actions
opposed their interests. Accordingly, Alexander I sought to maintain Macedonia’s
neutrality and secretly tried to reassure both the Persians and the Greeks of
Macedonia’s good intentions. For example, he gave his sister in marriage to the
Persian general, Bubares, and also provided the Greeks with confidential
informations. However, the night before the decisive battle at Platheia (479
BC), Alexander went to the Greek camp, allied himself with the Greeks, and gave
them information about the location of Persian forces. It is possible that he
aligned himself with the Greeks, because he assumed that the Greeks might well
win the battle and would emerge victorious in the war. It was at this point that
he presented himself as “Greek” and was allowed to participate in the Greek
Olympic Games, albeit over strenuous political objections from some Greeks.

This allegation that Alexander falsely presented himself as “Greek” to dissuade
the Greeks from attacking Macedonia after they had prevailed over the Persians
has been challenged by many modern historians. One of them is the well-known
American historian, Dr. Eugene Borza. In his book: "In the Shadow of Olympus,
The Emergence of Macedon" (Prince­­ton University Press, New Jersey, ISBN
0-691-05549-1, USA, 1990) Borza asks: “If Alexander was really Greek would not
the Greeks know that in advance? Wouldn’t they know if the Macedonian dynasty is
“Greek” and if it is what would be the need of proving it to them? On the
contrary, they knew very well back then who their compatriots were, and who were
not,” (especially during the war with the Persians). The question arises why
anyone would need to stress their allegedly “Greek” origin, and why would a
genuine citizen of Athens or Sparta or any other real Greek state need to prove
the bona fides of his Greek origin?

Other historians are of the same opinion: Macan, How, Wells, Badian and others.

Yet another question arises. Why did the Greeks initially prevent Alexander I
from participating in the Olympic Games and declare him a “barbarian”? Surely,
if he was Greek, they would not first declare him a barbarian (a man who does
not speak Greek); rather they would recognize their compatriot immediately.

Alexander I’s decision to declare himself a “Greek”, just prior to the battle of
Plataea in 479 BCE is discussed by Herodotus. Borza states that Alexander I did
this for political reasons, specifically to align himself with the Greek world
after they emerge victorious over the Persians. Borza also notes (Eugene Borza;
"In the Shadow of Olympus, The Emergence of Macedon", pg. 63, ibid) that
Herodotus contradicts himself, when describing this episode, because Herodotus
(History, 7.130) cites that the Thessalians (Greek tribe who lived on the south
from Macedonia) were “first Greeks” to come under Persian rule, and in so
doing, Herodotus, for all practical purposes, confirms that the Macedonians are
non-Greeks.

This means that the participation of Alexander I at the Olympic Games was
difficult to achieve and he succeeded only after he insisted and with the
stipulation that only Macedonian kings would be allowed to participate in the
Olympic Games. The rest of the Macedonian nation continued to be treated as a
separate, that is to say “barbarian” nation.

The fact is at that time that the Greeks found the recognition of Alexander I
acceptable because Macedonia was for them potentially an ally against the
continuing threat posed by the powerful Persian Empire.

If this evidence is not sufficient, let us quote Herodotus himself. While on
one hand he claims that Alexander I declared himself to be "Greek", on the other
hand the same Herodotus (History, 8.142) wrote that the Spartan Greeks have
characterized Alexander I as “suspicious stranger”.

An even more telling proof that Alexander I was not "Greek" is the fact that the
Greeks themselves announced him as "Philhellene" (friend of the Greeks, i.e.
Greek devotee), after he helped them with information that facilitated their
conquest of the Persians). Those titles were given to foreigners, i.e. to
non-Greeks who performed services for the Greeks.

Alexander I simply behaved in this manner to retain control of his then weak
country. In this he succeeded. He preserved Macedonia, which, only a few
generations later, militarily conquered the Greek city states and the whole of
Persia.




Why then did Philip II participate in the Olympic Games?

The signatories’ letter continues by raising the issue of Philip II's (Alexander
the Great’s father) participation in the games on Olympia and Delphi:

"Alexander’s father, Philip, won several equestrian victories at Olympia and
Delphi, the two most Hellenic of all the sanctuaries in ancient Greece where
non-Greeks were not allowed to compete. Even more significantly, Philip was
appointed to conduct the Pythian Games at Delphi in 346 B.C. In other words,
Alexander the Great’s father and his ancestors were thoroughly Greek."

This is another unsuccessful attempt to "prove" that which can not be proven.
Philip II joined in the Greek games after he had conquered large tracks of Greek
possesions (Amphipolis, Potidaea, Crenides and others). He was appointed to
manage the Pythian Games, not because he was "Greek", but by virtue of his
conquests of Greek territory. His status as "conqueror" conferred on him a
freedom to do as he wished. No Greek was in position to stop him, neithr then,
nor later. Below we will show further data that clearly demonstrate that the
Greeks considered Philip II a “barbarian” (non-Greek, i.e. a man who does not
speak Greek). We are convinced that this evidence is more compelling than the
unsubstantiated assertions contained in the signatories’ letter.

In the same paragraph, the signatories posit the term “ancient Greece”. That
term demands explanation and clarification. Precisely which nation state and
territory constitutes “ancient Greece”? All available evidence indicates that no
such country ever existed. All that ever existed on the territory of today’s
Greece were smaller city-states which were constantly at war with each other. To
use the artificial and contrived term “ancient Greece” in support of an argument
that would deny an entire nation its identity is to place scholarship completely
at the service of the propaganda agenda of the modern Greek state which seeks to
convince the world that today’s Greece is a continuation of “ancient Greece.”
Lost in this manufactured history is the fact that today’s Greeks are an ethnic
amalgam of different nationalities and the fact that a country named “Greece”,
i.e. “ancient Greece” never existed.




On the location of Argos and the figure of Heracles

The next salient issue that the signatories’ letter raises turns on the ancestry
of the Macedonian royal line:

"Even be­fore Alexander I, the Macedonians traced their ancestry to Argos, and
many of their kings used the head of Heracles - the quintessential Greek hero -
on their coins."

Here the signatories attempt to make the case that the Macedonian ruling dynasty
originated with the city of “Argos.” What they fail to add is that can point to
several cities named “Argos”. Later, they point out that Macedonian kings were
"Greek" merely because some of them made coins adorned with the head of the
“Greek hero” Heracles.

It is well to remind the signatories at this point that authentic evidence
regarding the origin of the Macedonian dynasty does not really exist and that
which has been examined to date has been contradictory in nature. Some ancient
authors maintain that the Macedonian kings originated in the city of Argos in
the Peloponnese. Others claim that the Macedonian dynasty originated in the city
of Argos in – Macedonia! The historian Appian from Alexandria (around 95-165 CE)
has explained the origin of the Macedonian dynasty this way:

"There is an Argos in Peloponnese, another in Amphilochia, another in Orestea,
whence come the Macedonian Argeadae, and the one on the Ionian sea..." (Appian,
Syrian Wars, 63).

Orestea was an area in Macedonia and it contained a city named Argos. Indeed,
according to Appian, this was the place in which the Argeadae Macedonian dynasty
originated, not in Peloponnesian Argos.

As we continue with this investigation into the identity of the Macedonian
dynasty, consider the fact that Alexander the Great spoke only Macedonian with
his guards, a language the Greeks did not understand. This, together with the
fact that Philip II and Archelaus (king of Macedonia from 413 to 399 BC) were
called “barbarians”, i.e. non-Greeks by the Greeks, makes it probable that the
Macedonian dynasty consisted of Macedonians, whom the Greeks themselves,
regarded as non-Greeks. Even if they originated in the city of Argos, then it
was in all likelihood the city of Argos in Macedonia, where the citizens spoke
Macedonian, because it was their mother tongue. It is unremarkable that some may
have spoken Greek as a second language, since it was the language of their
neighbors. We do not find citizens living in the border areas of neighboring
countries speaking each others’ languages unusual today and there is no reason
to find it unusual then. In the same way that Macedonians spoke Greek, we find
that some Greeks from the bordering areas accepted certain features from the
Macedonian language into their language. (Athe­na­os in Deipnosophists III and
Plato in Cratylus mention this process).

Statements that classify the Macedonian kings as “Greeks,” because some placed
images of Heracles on their coins do not merit serious consideration. Heracles
was a mythological figure and many Balkan nations worshiped him both then and
later. The appearance of his image on Macedonian coins was more likely for
religious and cultural reasons and not because of any ethnic affinity. A similar
argument can be made regarding the worship today of Buddha, who was born an
Indian. The worship of Buddha does not mean that all Buddhists should be
considered “ethnic Indians”.

Indeed, Macedonia is not alone in placing Heracles’ likeness on its coins; other
nations have done the same. For example, in the Roman Empire there are coins
that bear Heracles’ image. Some are: ASI, coined in the Ethrurian city of
Populonia (third century BC); the coins of Maximinius II, from Caracala; or
those of Marcelinius and other Roman emperors. By the signatories’ logic, one
might very well ask whether the Romans were also Greek, since they also
emblazoned their coins with the image of the “Greek hero,” Heracles? Similarly,
coins with the head of Heracles can also be found in Thrace. Again, the question
arises, were the Thracians also “Greek”? Coins with Heracles’ image were also
made in Syria. Even Napoleon I, in honor of the First Consulate (1799 - 1804)
commissioned coins with Heracles’ image. In 1970 a 10-franc coin was struck
bearing the image of Heracles. One hopes that the French will not be challenged
to protect their identity as Macedonians have simply because they have struck
coins bearing the image of Heracles. Indeed, in 1998, 1999 and 2000 in
Gibraltar two pound coins were minted with the image of Heracles. According to
the signatories’ logic, that single act renders Gibraltar no longer a British,
but a Greek colony. There are many other examples in the world of coins
symbolizing the desire of different nations to commemorate heroes of cultures
other than the nation minting the coins. It would take too much space to name
them all. Clearly, the image of Heracles appears on the coins of many other
non-Greek nations, and not just those of Macedonia.




About Euripides’ plays

Further, the signatories allege that Euripides’ plays in Greek performed for
Macedonian audiences prove that Macedonians were Greek:

"Euripides – who died and was buried in Macedonia – wrote his play Archelaos in
honor of the great-uncle of Alexander, and in Greek. While in Macedonia,
Euripides also wrote the Bacchai, again in Greek. Presumably the Macedonian
audience could understand what he wrote and what they heard".

Lacking relevant data for denying that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek,
the signatories resort to the use of these kinds of frivolous arguments.
Euripides wrote in Greek because he was Greek and it was his mother tongue. He
also probably did not know the ancient Macedonian language, even though he had
lived in Macedonia for some time. Even today, it is not unusual for visitors to
foreign countries to write in their native language, particularly if they lack
professional competence in the host-nation language. There is no evidence to
indicate how his works were received in Macedonia, so this statement should be
discounted.




Demosthenes’ testimonies about

the non-Greek character of the Macedonians

Additional speculation on the use of Greek and the ethnicity of Macedonians:

"Greek was the language used by Demosthenes and his delegation from Athens when
they paid visits to Philip, also in 346 B.C."

It is unclear whether citing Demosthenes as proof of the “Greek character” of
the Macedonians is altogether serious. This is because Demosthenes is considered
the fiercest pro-Greek detractor of Macedonia and Philip II. He continually
stressed the non-Greek, or barbarian qualities of Macedonians. It would be truly
astounding if the signatories, all authorities in classical studies, were
unaware of this.

Demosthenes’ famous first speech against Philip II of Macedon was delivered in
351 BC and became famous under the name of “The First Philippic”. Later Philip
attacked the city of Olintus, an ally of Athens. At that time, Demosthenes wrote
another three speeches attacking the Macedonians and demanding that Athens help
Olintus. However, Olintus was taken by the Macedonians and Demosthenes
participated in the delegation that negotiated between Macedonia and Athens.
Later, he wrote “The Fourth Philippic”.

In 338 BC at Chaeronea, the famous battle between the Macedonians and the Greeks
took place. After that, Macedonia’s king Philip II occupied most of the Greek
city-states. Demosthenes continued making anti-Macedonian speeches causing the
Greeks to rebel against the Macedonians for their own freedom. However, later
the Athens’ Council, under Macedonian pressure, reached a decision to sentence
the leaders of the anti-Macedonian rebellion, together with Demosthenes, to
death. Demosthenes managed to escape to an island where he committed suicide.

The ancient Greek historian Plutarch witnessed the anti-Macedonian endeavors of
Demosthenes. In his work “Comparison between Demosthenes and Cicerone” (written
in 75 BC) Plutarch wrote:

„Demosthenes…walked among the cities in Greece and everywhere, as we have
previously said, indulged himself in the conflicts in the service of the Greeks
who wanted to chase the Macedonian representatives away… After he came back he
continued to resist Antipater and the Macedonians”

In his writings, Demosthenes attacked Macedonia and he clearly defined
Macedonians and Greeks as two separate nations. Even in his “First Philippic”,
he described Philip as (quote): “a man who subjugated the citizens of Athens and
ruled Greece’s internal affairs.”

Demosthenes also clarified the absence of any connection, either ethnic or
mythological linking the ancient Macedonians to the “Greek God Heracles”. In one
of his many anti-Macedonian speeches, he disputed the right of Macedonians to
assert a claim as the descendants of Heracles. Criticizing the Macedonian
delegates, who repeated that Philip II is Heracles’ descendant many times,
Demosthenes argued:

“I believe that Heracles, heard the words of the delegates, who persistently say
that Philip is a descendant of this God with a revolt. Let this god get to know
the scorn of all religions. Let this god see the Macedonian tyrant. This god,
the hater, punisher and destroyer of tyranny…” (Quintus Curtius Rufus: “The
history of Alexander of Macedon”, translated from Latin by dr. Ljubinka
Basotova; Skopje, 1998, pg. 30).

Perhaps, Demosthenes provided the clearest evidence of the non-Greek origin of
the Macedonians and their rulers in his “Second Philippic”, where he said the
following about Philip II:

„Philip, this man not only that he is not Greek, but he has nothing in common
with the Greeks, also. If only he was a barbarian from a decent country – but he
is not even that. He is some scabby creature from Macedonia – the country from
which you cannot even bring a slave who is worth something.”

The excerpt, “Philip, this man not only that he is not Greek, but he has nothing
in common with the Greeks, also”, has been intentionally stressed to demonstrate
to the signatories that their letter contradicts the writings of the greatest
ancient Greek orator Demosthenes and, in so doing; it underscores their role as
anti-Macedonian propagandists. The lesson here is that no less a figure than
Demosthenes fervently asserted that Philip II of Macedon was not Greek, that he
had nothing in common with the Greeks, and finally that the king of Macedonia
was a mere “barbarian”.

One may well ask what the term “barbarian” connotes when Demosthenes uses it in
reference to Phillip. Many of today’s scholars believe that the word “barbarian”
in ancient times was used mainly to refer to people who spoke a language which
could not be understood by Greeks, thus carrying the strong connotation of
people who babble. Virtually, any nation that did not speak Greek was referred
to as “barbarian” by the Greeks, while the Greek city-states referred to each
other as “xenoi”. In the words of the ancient Greek authors the term “barbarian”
was defined by the Athenian playwright Aristophanes (448 - 385 BCE). In his play
“Birds” (written in 414 BCE) Aristophanes wrote:

“I have stayed for a long time with them and taught them to speak, although
before that they were barbarians.”

Here, we can see clearly that, for the ancient Greeks, the term “barbarians”
meant “people who did not speak Greek”, or more basically, it meant those who
were not Greek.

There are many instances in which ancient Greek writers use the term
“barbarian” to refer to representatives from many Asian, African as well as
European nations. For example, if the representatives of a distant Asian nation
were called “barbarians” because they did not speak Greek, it would be the same
as if it were used to describe the Macedonians. The term “barbarians” cannot
have one meaning when used to refer to Macedonians and a different meaning when
applied to other non-Greek Asian, African or European nations. This point is
important precisely because many Greek or pro-Greek authors have attempted to
minimize Demosthenes’ reference to Macedonians as “barbarians”. They state,
although unconvincingly, that he made no distinction between the Macedonian and
Greek nation, but rather qualified them as “barbarians” only in an effort to
“derogate their culture” for “political reasons”.

Demosthenes was not the only Greek who regarded the Macedonians as “barbarians”,
i.e. a nation not of Greek origin. In the fifth century BCE, the ancient Greek
writer, Thrasymachus, called the Macedonian king Archelaos a “barbarian,” as
distinct from the Greek Larisians, in one of his speeches. (Clement of
Alexandria, "Stromatis", 6).

The Macedonians were also called “barbarians” by the Greeks in the Lexicon,
“Suda”. (Written by some ancient and medieval writers). When translating the
word “causia” (a kind of Macedonian hat), in “Suda” an unknown ancient Greek
writer wrote that it was a “kind of barbarian head cover” (Suda, Kappa, 1139).
The fact that this hat was created and mostly used by the Macedonians clearly
indicates that this Greek writer considered the Macedonians to be “barbarians,”
or people who do not speak Greek.

The ancient Greek grammarian Hesychius from Alexandria (fifth century) also
described the Macedonians as “barbarians”. In his description of the word
“sarissa” (a long spear of the Macedonian phalanx), Hesychius wrote that it was
used by the “barbarian Macedonians”.

In sum, Demosthenes’ anti-Macedonian statements represent one of the most
significant and compelling sources attesting to the non-Greek origin of the
ancient Macedonians. Naturally, as a Greek, he spoke Greek during his stay in
Macedonia. There is no evidence that these conversations were facilitated by
interpreters, but it is disingenuous for the signatories to argue that, simply
because leading Macedonians spoke Greek - the language of their neighbors - that
those Macedonians were in fact “Greeks”.




On the language of the ancient Macedonians

We will now turn our attention to the signatories’ assessment of the language of
the ancient Macedonians:

"Another northern Greek, Aristotle, went off to study for nearly 20 years in the
Academy of Plato. Aristotle subsequently returned to Macedonia and became the
tutor of Alexander III. They used Greek in their classroom which can still be
seen near Naoussa in Macedonia."

With regard to the use of language, we also read the following:

"Alexander carried with him throughout his conquests Aristotle’s edition of
Homer’s Iliad. Alexander also spread Greek language and culture throughout his
empire, founding cities and establishing centers of learning. Hence,
inscriptions concerning such typical Greek institutions as the gymnasium are
found as far away as Afghanistan. They are all written in Greek. The questions
follow: Why was Greek the lingua franca all over Alexander’s empire if he was a
'Macedonian'? Why was the New Testament, for example, written in Greek?"

Aristotle was born in Stagira (a Greek colony, mainly inhabited by Greeks, on
the Macedonian coast, which was destroyed by Philip II during his anti-Greek
campaign, when he drove all Greek colonists from Macedonia’s Aegean shores).
There is no evidence on the ethnic origin of his parents. However, we do know
that his father, Nicomachus, was Philip II’s personal doctor. We can assume that
he was Macedonian. Generally, those closest to the Macedonian rulers (especially
Philip II) were mainly trusted Macedonians, a fact that can be easily
corroborated by a review of their inner circle. Simply because Aristotle was
educated in Greek and for a long time was absent from Macedonia, does not
necessarily mean that he was Greek.

We do not contend that Alexander did not speak Greek. Rather, we argue that he
spoke it as a second language and that his mother tongue was Macedonian, a
language quite different from Greek. It is simply not credible that the
signatories, all classical scholars, were totally ignorant of the ancient
testimonies attesting to the clear differences in the languages of the ancient
Macedonians and that of the Greeks of that time. We will undertake this task in
their stead.

Proof of the difference between the ancient Macedonian and Greek languages can
be found in a fragment of papyrus believed to be part of the lost “History of
the Inheritors” by the above-mentioned Greek historian Arrian (Lucius Flavius
Arrianus Xenophon, who lived around 92 to 175 CE). In this work (PSI XII.1284),
there is an episode from Macedonian history in which the distinctiveness of the
Macedonian language is clearly evident. Here we read that the secretary to
Philip and Alexander of Macedon, Eumenes, “…sent forward a man named Xenias,
who spoke Macedonian …” to negotiate with the Macedonian army of Neoptolomeus.
This event took place around 321 BCE.

We have already noted that Arrian wrote a biography of Alexander the Great of
Macedon, which is considered the oldest, complete biography of this Macedonian
warrior. In this biography, Arrian fequently stresses the difference between the
Macedonians and the Greeks. Here, we will limit our remarks to a description of
the battle of Issus, in which thousands of Greeks fought on the side of Persia
against the Macedonians. Arrian wrote that in this battle the most violent
conflict occurred between the Macedonians and the Greeks, and that this was
chiefly because of the great hatred between the two nations. Arrian put it this
way:

"There was a violent struggle. Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonian
back into the water and save the day for their left wing... The fight was
further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian". (Arrian:
"The Campaigns of Alexander", translated by Aubrey De Selincourt, Penguin books,
USA, 1987, pg. 119, the bolding is mine).

Can someone explain to me how it is possible the Macedonians and the Greeks were
"one people" when in this relevant ancient testemony we can see that there was
an old racial hatred between the two of them?

An outstanding account on the distinctiveness of the language of the ancient
Macedonians was also given by the ancient historian Plutarch (who lived from
around 45 until 120).

In his biography about Eumenes, describing the appereance of Eumenes in front of
the Macedonian soldiers, Plutarch wrote:

"...On the first sight of the general of their heart, the troops saluted him in
the Macedonian language, clanked their arms, and with loud shouts challenged the
enemy to advance, thinking themselves invisible while he was at their head."
("Eumenes" by Plutarch 14, 10, translated by John and William Langhorne. E
version on: [link to www.attalus.org] John Langhorne lived in the
XVII century. He was a famous English poet, and translated the works of Plutarch
together with his brother William. This translation appeared in 1770).

Plutarch mentions the Macedonian language in his biography of Marc Antony as
well. It is known that after the death of Alexander the Great, his empire fell
apart and its respective parts were ruled by his top military commanders. For
example, his childhood friend (according to some sources, his half-brother)
Ptolemy I ruled Egypt and some neighboring countries. He founded the Ptolemaic
dynasty, which ruled Egypt after his death. The most famous descendant of this
Macedonian dynasty is the Egyptian queen Cleopatra VII. In the biography about
Marc Antony, Plutarch wrote about Cleopatra in detail and indirectly noted that
her mother tongue was Macedonian:

"It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an
instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another; so that
there were few of the barbarian nations that she answered by an interpreter; to
most of them she spoke herself, as to the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews,
Arabians, Syrians, Medes, Parthians, and many others, whose language she had
learnt; which was all the more surprising, because most of the kings her
predecessors scarcely gave themselves the trouble to acquire the Egyptian
tongue, and several of them quite abandoned the Macedonian." ("Antony" by
Plutarch, translated into English by the playwright, John Dryden, who lived from
1631 until 1700. E-version of this translation can be found
on: [link to classics.mit.] edu/Plutarch/antony.html).

This account by Plutarch discusses the mother tongue of the Ptolemies, i.e. the
Macedonian language. Clearly, Plutarch believed that, some of the Ptolemies,
perhaps for political reasons, neglected the Macedonian language in deference to
speaking the local language. Since, Plutarch does not say that this was the case
with Cleopatra, we may infer that she retained her mother tongue.

Plutarch provides us with other accounts about the distinctiveness of the
Macedonian language. Sometime around 76 CE, Plutarch, referencing some older
works, wrote a biography of Alexander the Great of Macedon in which he describes
(head 53), an argument between Alexander the Great and his friend:

"Alexander... breaking from them, he called out aloud to his guards in the
Mace­donian language, which was a certain sign of some great disturbance in
him." (Plutarch: “Alexander the Great”, Macedonian translation, Skopje 1994).

This account refers to an incident when Alexander thought that his friend
Cleitus, with whom he had argued while drunk, posed a danger to his life. At one
point, Alexander thought that Cleitus, would attack him, so he summoned his
guards (shield-bearers) to protect him. Plutarch clearly writes that they were
summoned in Macedonian.

To explain this account by Plutarch, we need to mention the fact that the
official language in the Macedonian Empire and in its army, during the
Macedonian dominion, was the language of “koine” (mixed language) that was used
in the Macedonian Empire. In addition to words from the ancient Greek dialects
(which were numerous) koine contained words from other languages as well.
Alexander established this language for practical reasons, since he was aware
that he would encounter resistance were he to impose the unfamiliar Macedonian
language on the different nations in his empire.

Universal use of this mixed language or koine, later was strictly enforced by
the Macedonian dynasties that ruled the divided parts of Alexander’s empire to
facilitate ease of communication among the different nations. Today scientists
consider koine as a kind of Esperanto of that period.

This means that Alexander communicated in koine with his military commanders and
his army (among whom the Mace­donians were dominant; there were also many
Greeks, Thra­cians, jewish people and people from other nations). However, at the moment
when he thought that his life was in danger, he instinctively began speaking in
his mother tongue, Macedonian. This reaction accords with human psychology and
most people would react similarly to perceived danger. His instinctive reaction
to call out in Macedonian, when he had no time to formulate an urgent call for
help to his Macedonian guards in a foreign langu­age, establishes beyond doubt
that Macedonian was his mother tongue.

Clear evidence of the distinctiveness of the ancient Mace­donian language was
also provided by the Latin historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (of whom the period
of living is not known – some say he lived BCE others say that he lived in the
first century CE).

The incident of the trial of the Macedonian, Philotas, who was accused of
plotting the murder of Alexander, is well known. The plot was revealed and
Philotas was publicly interrogated by Alexander.

Quintus Curtius Rufus described this event and clearly stated that the
Macedonians spoke a different language. He even quotes Alexander addressing the
Macedonians in the first person plural “the mother and our language”. Alexander
addressed Philotas with the words:

“Now you are going to be trialed by the Macedonians. I am asking you: are you
going to address them in Macedonian?”

Philotas denied, explaining that, besides Macedonians, there were other nations
present there. To this, Alexander addressed the Macedonians saying:

“Can you see? Did Philotas come to the point, when he rejected his own mother
tongue?... But, let him speak as he wants, and you remember that he has equally
alienated from our customs and from our language.” (Quintus Curtius Rufus, "De
Rebus Gestis Alexandri Macedonis", VI, 10; translated from Latin by dr. Ljubinka
Basotova, Skopje, 1998, pg 272).

But, Philotas remained indifferent to these accusations and in his speech he
said:

“I am being accused of refusing to speak in my mother language and for being
disgusted with the customs of the Macedonians. Does this mean that I am a threat
to the kingdom I despise in this way? But, even from before, the mother tongue
was abandoned in the conversation with other nations, thus the winners and the
defeated had to learn a foreign language." (Q. C. R. quote, pg. 274).

However, in the accusation against Philotas Bolon, Alexander’s commander
interfered, maintained that: “…although he was Macedonian, he was not ashamed to
listen to the people who spoke in his own language with the help of an
interpreter.”

This event established the existence of an independent and separate Macedonian
language. Also, this description illuminates the fact that some Macedonians,
whether to facilitate greater communication with the other nations or for other
reasons, used the foreign language koine. Among themselves, however they
continued to communicate in their mother Macedonian tongue.

We see that during the trial, Philotas was rebuked by Alexander for his refusal
to speak Macedonian to the Mace­donians. Philotas accused Alexander of
establishing koine, he argued that the Macedonian language had been neglected a
long time ago, so that both the winners (Macedonians) and the defeated (Greeks
and other nations) had to learn a new language (koine).

Bolon interfered and accused Philotas, who though Mace­donian, communicated with
the Macedonians through interpreters. This is an extremely important account and
proof that, at that time, many Macedonians could not speak koine, so when they
wanted to talk to someone, they used interpreters. Although Philotas spoke
Macedonian, he did not want to communicate with the Macedonians in their own
language, but rather he insisted on having their words translated into koine.

It is incomprehensible that the signatories managed to overlook these elementary
facts from the biography of Alexander the Great of Macedon.

Regarding the language of the ancient Macedonians we present a map from the
"Ancient Languages of Europe" published in 2008 at the University of Cambridge
(Edited by Roger D. Woodard, published by Cambridge University Press, 2008)
which depicts those territories in which ancient Greek was spoken. It is clear
that most of Macedonia (with the exception of the sparsely inhabited peninsula
Chalkidiki, where Greek colonies remained for a very long time) was not part of
the Greek speaking area. We see on this map that the Macedonian language clearly
is presented as a language spoken in ancient times.




A map titled “Greek dialects in the first millennium BC and the neighboring
languages” published in the book "Ancient Languages of Europe" (Edited by Roger
D. Woodard), published by Cambridge University Press (Great Britain, 2008, pg.
49-50). It shows that in ancient Macedonia the spoken language was Macedonian, a
neighboring language of the Greek dialects.




To conclude, the koine language was lingua franca in the Ma­ce­donian Empire,
not because the Macedonians were "Greeks", but to permit the different nations
in the empire to communicate among themselves with the help of this ancient
"Esperanto".

The signatories of this letter, perhaps unintentionally, indirectly confirmed
this truth when they used the term “lingua franca”. It is known that the term
lingua franca comes from Italian which means a third language used for
communication among people who speak different languages. This third language is
different from the mother tongue of those communicating with each other. By
using the term lingua franca, the signatories are saying that the Mace­donians,
the Greeks and the other nations in the Macedonian Empire did not understand
each others’ mother tongues. This then gave rise to the need for a third
language, which is the "common" language, or koine.

Similarly, even if we agree that the ancient Macedonian language did not exist
in its written form and that the first written language used for communication
among the Macedonians was Greek, it does not follow that writing in Greek makes
them Greek. First of all, we have cited accounts that state that some of them
did not speak a word of spoken Greek. Secondly, during the classical period, the
written languages of the Romans and the Greeks were the only ones known in
todays' Balkan area. It would be quite sad if every nation that used either
Greek or Latin written languge would be considered as ethnical Greek or Latin.
Even after their arrival from Asia into the Balkans, in the seventh century, the
Turkish-Mongolian Bulgars, too used the Greek written language in their written
communications. Did that make them Greeks too? One might well ask about the rest
of the nations at that time: Illyrians, Thracians and other nations that wrote
in Greek? The Romans until the second century BCE also wrote their chronicles in
ancient Greek dialects. Were they Greeks until the second century BCE and then
suddenly transformed themselves into Romans?

There are tens of ancient writers who clearly state that the ancient Macedonians
were not Greeks. They include: Arian, Appian, Ampelius, Demosthenes, Dexipus,
Dichearchus, Diony­sius, Dio Crysostomus, Diodorus of Sicily, Dio Casius,
Aechinus, Zosimus, Josephus Flavius, Justinus, Quintus Curtius Rufus,
Clea­ne­us, Clauidian, Clement of Alexandria, Cornelius Nepos, Cohenus,
Pausanias, Plutarch, Polybius, Pseudo Scylax, Sozo­menus, Strabo, Trasymachus,
Herodianus etc. In their works they all offered completely different evidence
highlighting the distinctiveness of the ancient Macedonians as well as the fact
that they were a different nation from the Greeks. (Additional details on these
accounts can be found in the upcoming book "Ancient Greek and other ancient
testimonies of the individuality of the ancient Macedonians" by Aleksandar
Donski, scheduled soon to be published in RoM, by University Goce Delcev).




Today's Macedonians are descendants

of the ancient Macedonians

The signatories’ argument now moves to their claim that the present-day
Macedonians are late-comers to the Balkan Peninsula:

"The answers are clear: Alexander the Great was Greek, not Slavic, and Slavs and
their language were nowhere near Alexander or his homeland until 1000 years
later. This brings us back to the geographic area known in antiquity as Paionia.
Why would the people who live there now call themselves Macedonians and their
land Macedonia? Why would they abduct a completely Greek figure and make him
their national hero?"

We have presented serious proofs taken from ancient sources, which clearly
demonstrate that neither Alexander nor the ancient Macedonians were ever Greek.
On the contrary, these two nations have fought each other and frequently have
exhibited a mutual intolerance in many other areas.

Today's Macedonians in large degree are descendants of the ancient Macedonians
and it is a fact that those who would deny today’s Macedonia’s status as a
nation, are afraid that these proofs will be revealed and worse gain currency
and broad public acceptance. These proofs exist, they are here to stay and they
cannot be “propagandized” or prevaricated away.

Even during the time of Yugoslav communism (the period when today's Republic of
Macedonia was a constituent member of the Yugoslav Federation) the history of
ancient Macedonia had been the subject of willful neglect. In a number of
history books published during Yugoslavia’s communist era, the ancient
Macedonians were never even mentioned.

A short, representative list of some of these omissions follows.

It is true that today's Macedonians speak a language that belongs to the "Slavic
family of languages". Of course the spoken language does not always determine
the ethnic origin of a given nation. Today's Irish speak and write in English,
but they are proud of their Irish ethnicity.

Besides, in the language of ancient Macedonians (at least in the few words that
were kept mainly by the ancient grammarian Hesychius), words which according to
their pronunciation and meaning are similar to the present day Macedonian words
and other Slavic languages can be noticed. This is a truth obvious to all those
who have knowledge of Slavic languages and it is accepted by Slavic linguists
dealing with these issues.

It is clear that the signatories haven’t the slightest knowledge of the language
or the culture of today's Macedonians, nor have they made any apparent effort to
study this area. The question arises how the signatories can reach such
definitive conclusions about the origin of contemporary Macedonians, when they
know almost nothing about them?

Contemporary Macedonians differ anthropologically from the ancient Slavs which
is a much stronger argument in support of the signatories’ position about the
language. The Byzantine historian Procopius described the ancient Slavs as
exceptionally "tall and strong people" with exclusively blond or reddish hair
(Procopius, De Bellis). It is more than obvious that today's Macedonians mainly
of medium height, or less and some with dark complexions, have completely
different anthropological features. Clearly, these modern Macedonians do not fit
the description of the old Slavs and cannot be their pure descendants.

According to available Byzantine accounts, in the seventh century many Slavs
were moved from Macedonia into Asia Minor by Justinian II. From the notes of
Constantinople’s Patriarch Nicephores (head 34) who lived in the tenth century
and from the writings of the Byzantine historian Teophanus (from the eighth to
the beggining of the ninth century), we know that, in the seventh century,
Justinian II moved from Balkan area (Macedonia) around 150.000 Slavs. From that
number, he later chosed 30,000 strong enough to fight and who were included in
military campaigns against the Arabs in 692.

In Macedonian folklore, there are many folk songs, stories, legends and myths
with ancient Macedonian content registered and popularized in the sixteenth,
eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Some even feature foreign
travelogue writers who visited Macedonia.

In Macedonian folklore there is a number of Macedonian folk works about some of
the ancient Macedonian monarchs. There are certain folklore elements (especially
in the folk stories) which are undoubtedly rooted in the time of ancient
Macedonia. For example, there are several motifs that are reminiscent of ancient
Macedonia: the lion (which existed in ancient Macedonia and is frequently
present in Macedonian folk stories, and also in heraldry); the king with the
horn (dedicated to Alexander the Great); the bobcat; the philosopher; the three
brothers (taken from Herodotus’ story about the creation of Macedonia); the cult
of water; the belief that the crow is evil and that the eagle is noble, along
with many others. Macedonian folklore is a rich source of insight into
contemporary Macedonia and could invite revealing comparisons with the ancient
Macedonian cultural heritage.

There are many customs, ceremonies and beliefs that the ancient Macedonians
bequeathed to the Macedonians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For
example, Herodotus wrote that during celebrations in ancient Macedonia, men sat
separately from women. This custom has been evident to the writers of Macedonian
folklore from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and is even evident today.
The custom of breaking bread during wedding ceremonies, mentioned by Alexander
the Great's biographer, Quintus Curtius Rufus still persists. The treatment of
the men's belt on the national dress as a symbol of masculinity (written by
Aristotle, also registered in the nineteenth century) can be traced directly to
the ancient Macedonians. Presenting a ring to an heir (before dying) is a custom
of the ancient Macedonians and the custom of cutting one's hair during a time of
grief -- all are vestiges of ancient Macedonian traditions. Even the ancient
Macedonian custom of electing a king (held during a mass gathering of the army
and elections affirmed by acclamation) remained with the Macedonians of the
nineteenth century as a custom by which village elders are selected. Ancient
Macedonian elements are present in the celebration of today's Macedonian
holidays: "Lazara", St. George, "Rusa Sreda" and the day of forgiveness.
Ancient Macedonian elements are reflected in contemporary "Dodol" customs when
calling for rain. The belief that the snake has magic power; many funeral
customs etc, all are legacies passed down from the ancient Macedonians.

Many elements of ancient mythology, popularly known as "Greek mythology" -- but
without the slightest justification – are apparent in Macedonian national
folklore of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Research into the origin of
the so called "ancient gods" would reveal that most of the deities were not of
Greek origin. Herodotus himself states that most of their main gods, as well as
their names, the Greeks took from Africa. In this regard, Herodotus wrote in his
"History": "Almost all the names of the gods came to Greece from Egypt.” With
minimal effort, anyone can prove that most of the well known ancient and
medieval authors, who dedicated their works to this mythology, either were not
Greeks or their origin is unknown. It is not difficult to prove that many of the
personalities referenced in this mythology were not of Greek origin. In truth,
this is a mythology created and practiced by certain, mainly Balkan, nations and
we hope that in future it will no longer be referred to as "Greek", but rather
as "Balkan" or "Mediterranean" mythology.

There are many motifs that Macedonian folklore inherited from this mythology. If
we compare the motifs of ancient mythology with those of contemporary Macedonian
folklore, we notice some surprising coincidences. Some of these are: fairies
(from the ancient menadas); personalization of the sun and the stars; the story
of the golden touch; the dragon; the personalization of des­tiny, happiness and
death; a god transformed into an old man; the heroic deeds of the middle age
hero King Marko (like the deeds of Heracles); the underworld; metamorphosis and
many others. (More details on all of this can be found in Aleksandar Donski's
book: "The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Ma­cedon - The Аrguments and
Еvidence that Тoday’s' Mace­donians are Des­cendants of the Аncient Macedonians
(Part One - Folklore Ele­ments", MNLD "Grigor Prlicev", Stip/Sydney, 2004,
National Libra­ry of Australia card number and ISBN 0 9581162 5 3).

Available documents show that many Macedonians from the nineteenth and the
beggining of the twentieth centuries – admittedly under the influence of foreign
propaganda -- declared themselves as direct descendants of the ancient
Macedonians. Of course, they inherited this “self-declaration” from their
ancestors, because, at that time, the Republic of Macedonia did not exist and
therefore could not be "blamed" for forcing them to do so.

If the foregoing evidence is not persuasive, we will turn our attention to
modern genetic research. Recently, a group of Spa­nish scientists conducted
genetic research on contemporary Macedonians and found that they are one of the
oldest nations in Europe.

Researchers from the Department of immunology and molecular biology, X. 12 de
Octubre, at the University of Complu­tens, in Madrid, under the leadership of
Dr. Arniez-Vilena from Spain, undertook this research in cooperation with the
Institute for Laboratory Research of Tissues and Blood Transfusion in Skopje.
In the process, they also compared the results with research conducted in other
Mediterranean nations. The purpose of the research was to measure the extent of
Macedonians and Greeks in today's genetic pool among Mediterranean nations. For
the first time experts studied Macedonians’ HLA (antigens from human white and
red blood cells) class 1 and class 2 DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid).

The research “HLA genes on Macedonians and sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks” was
published in a reputable Danish magazine “Tissue Antigens” on February 2001
(Book 57, edition 2, pps. 118-127). As a result of this research, the following
conclusions were made public:

1) The Macedonians belong to the older Mediterranean basis
(groupings), like the Iberians (including the Basques), northern Africans,
Italians, French, Cypriots, jewish people, Libyans, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and
Iranians.

2) The Macedonians have nothing in common with their neighbors, the
Greeks, who, themselves, do not belong to the older Mediterranean basis.

3) The Greeks were found to have a significant similarity to
sub-Saharan Ethiopia, which distinguishes and separates them from the rest of
the Mediterranean groups.

The researchers reached the following conclusion:

“This supports the theory that the Macedonians are one of the most ancient
nations in the Balkans and long before the arrival of the Mycenaean Greeks,
around 2000 BC.”

The research further indicates that the Greeks bear a genetic similarity with
sub-Saharan ethnic groups not only in Ethiopia, but also in Sudan and in Western
Africa (specifically Burkina-Faso), while the Macedonians are closer to the
citizens of Cyprus.

Indeed, gods and deities fall silent before such arguments. Certain historians
claim that the creators of the Mycenaean culture are the Pelasgians (an ancient
nation that also lived in Mace­donia). "Microsoft Encarta" discusses this
possibility in an article entitled Crete and the Pelasgians.

Additional evidence that today’s Macedonians are the genetic descendants of the
ancient Macedonians came from a research project conducted by the respectable
Swiss genetic institute “iGenea”. In an interview published in the Belgrade
(Serbian) magazine, “Nin,” (May 27, 2009), the director Imna Pasos, says that
the genetic material of the old nations was taken from tombs discovered at
several archeological sites and was later compared to those of contemporary
nations. On the basis of the DNA analysis conducted within the framework of this
research, the experts concluded that today’s Macedonians are mainly descendants
of the ancient Macedonians and that they have the right to call themselves
descendants of Alexander the Great.

It is difficult to imagine how the signatories might go about impeaching this
genetic evidence, and following its disclosure, rationalizing their own public
statements that today’s Macedonians have nothing in common with the ancient
Macedonians.

The strength of this and other evidence makes it clear that the signatories’
knowledge of contemporary Macedonians is wholly inconsistent with the
persistence of their charges that Mace­donians have falsified their history.
Despite such strong evidence to the contrary, the signatories and like-minded
policy-makers in the Greek Government unaccountably insist on arrogating unto
themselves the right to deny Macedonians their rightful historical and cultural
identity.




Today’s’ territory of the Republic of Macedonia

is an inseparable part of the overall territory of Macedonia

The signatories also claim:

"The ancient Paionians may or may not have been Greek, but they certainly became
Greekish, and they were never Slavs. They were also not Macedonians. Ancient
Paionia was a part of the Macedonian Empire. So were Ionia and Syria and
Palestine and Egypt and Mesopotamia and Babylonia and Bactria and many more.
They may thus have become “Macedonian” temporarily, but none was ever
“Macedonia”. The theft of Philip and Alexander by a land that was never
Macedonia cannot be justified"

It is true that there are different opinions about the ethnic origins of the
Paionians, and we have already stated that the territory of Paionia extended not
only onto the territory of today’s Republic of Macedonia, but also deep into
what is now the part of Macedonia that is administered by Greece. We noted that
Paionia ceased to exist as a country in the third century BCE and became an
integral part of Macedonia. During this period the Paionians no longer appeared
as a separate nation. The reason for this can only be surmised, but it is
apparent that the Paionians were ethno-culturally similar to the Macedonians,
and thus a relatively quick merger resulted in the creation of one nation. There
are ancient accounts that attest to the fact that the ancient Balkan Brygian
nation participated in the ethno-genesis of the ancient Macedonians (the proof
for this is the similarity in their speech). According to Strabo (VII, 38) there
were ancient accounts that indicate that the Paionians too are descendants of
the Brygians (Phrygians):

"Some believe the Paionians may have been colonists of the Phrygians..."

We have noted that there is a difference in the opinion about the ethnic origin
of the Paionians.

The signatories of the letter compare Paionia to the territories of Egypt,
Syria, Palestine, Bactria and others, and claim that these territories were
temporarily “Macedonian” but none of them (including Paionia) ever became
”Macedonia”. This statement is unhelpful and fails to address the fact that
Paionia simply was absorbed into a greater and growing Macedonian state. That
process is different from conquest and the acquisition of empire, as happened in
the case of Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Bactria, etc. However this part (although
in the past was called Paionia) was later renamed Macedonia. In the following
period, the territory of Paionia gradually began to shrink to the benefit of
Macedonia. Please note in the preceding maps how and over what time-period
Paionia disappeared and its territory finally was renamed Macedonia.

Almost all of Paionia at that time, with its shifting borders, came to be known
as Macedonia and it remains so today. There are thousands ancient, medieval and
contemporary foreign artifacts (maps, travelogues, reports, testimonies,
newspaper records, magazines and books, state and other documents, historical,
geographic, ethnographic and other types of works, artistic works and many other
items), in which parts of today’s Republic of Macedonia (cities, villages,
rivers, mountains, regions) were treated as an integral part of Macedonia and
were stigmatized by the epithet “Macedonian”.

Three examples follow that will illustrate that the territory of today’s
Republic of Macedonia, together with the parts of Macedonia under Greek,
Bulgarian and Albanian authority, were a political and territorial unit called
Macedonia.














The map by the ancient author, Claudius Ptolemaeus, from the first and second
centuries known as Tabula Decima et Ultima Europae. On the map today’s Republic
of Macedonia can be seen as an integral part of the ancient Macedonian state




The famous ancient map Tabula Peutingeriana (Fourth century), in which the parts
of today’s Republic of Macedonia are a unit and constitute the complete
territory of ancient Macedonia






The map titled: Macedonia, Epirus and Achaia was printed in Duisburgh, 1589. On
this map almost the entire territory of today’s Republic of Macedonia is
presented as an integral part of the complete territory of Macedonia.



The signatories contradict their earlier arguments:

"The traditions of ancient Paionia could be adopted by the current residents of
that geographical area with considerable justification."

Initially, the signatories claimed that today’s citizens of the Re­public of
Macedonia are “Slavs” who have "nothing in common" with the peoples of the
ancient Balkan nations. Suddenly, they contradict themselves by writing that
these people, who have nothing to do with the ancient Balkan nations, could
“have used” the traditions of the ancient Paionians. Are the signatories telling
us that present day Macedonians are "allowed" to "use" the tradi­tions of any
ancient Balkan nation, except the ancient Macedo­nians despite the fact that
they are largely their ancestors?

In the next part of their letter the signatоries are showing notorious lack of
knowledge. Here we read:

"But the extension of the geographic term “Macedonia” to cover southern
Yugoslavia cannot be. Even in the late 19th century, this misuse implied
unhealthy territorial aspirations."

I invite the signatories to ask their students or even high-school pupils in
their respective countries, the year that the consti­tution of Yugoslavia was
promulgated. They might be surprised to discover that the year was 1929,
although this country, under another name, had existed since 1918. It defies
logic why the signatories would state in an official document that the term
“Macedonia” represents the “southern part of Yugoslavia”; and even more
incongruously, why the undersigned would impute to Macedonia “unhealthy
territorial aspirations in the nineteenth century…” when, at that time,
Yugoslavia did not even exist?

At this point in the signatories’ letter, specious propaganda merges into
mendacity:

"The same motivation is to be seen in school maps that show the pseudo-greater
Macedonia, stretching from Skopje to Mt. Olympus and labeled in Slavic. The same
map and its claims are in calendars, bumper stickers, bank notes, etc., that
have been circulating in the new state ever since it declared its independence
from Yugoslavia in 1991. Why would a poor land-locked new state attempt such
historical nonsense? Why would it brazenly mock and pro­voke its neighbor?"

We have already mentioned that there are many maps created by foreign authors
long before the promulgation of the constitution of the Republic of Macedonia.
On those maps, some are shown in this text, the territory of the Republic of
Macedonia is clearly marked as an inseparable part of the territory of Macedonia
The signatories’ claim that the map of the whole Macedonia was printed on bank
notes in the Republic of Macedonia is a malicious lie and wholly devoid of
academic merit! I am calling everyone of the signatories to show at least one
single bank note officially printed in the Republic of Macedonia on which the
map of a united Macedonia is depicted. No such bank note exists! By attaching
their signatures to such a document, these "experts" have not only revealed
themselves as manipulators of historical facts, but liars as well!

The signatories’ attempt to "prove" that today's Republic of Macedonia and the
part of Macedonia under Greek authority always were "two separate units" is
spurious and is tantamount to denying an entire people the right to their own
historical identity. This may not be a crime but it is an instance of serious
professional irresponsibility and moral turpitude. These two parts of Macedonia,
together with the parts under Bulgarian and Albanian authority, in fact have
been an inseparable entity from ancient times. For the first time, this part of
Macedonia came under Greek authority in 1913, during the Second Balkan War, when
Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria wrested control of Macedonia from the Ottoman
(Turkish) Empire and divided it among themselves. Greece occupied the largest
portion of Macedonia and annexed it. As a practical matter, Greece established
an artificial and arbitrary border inside Macedonian territory. It was a line --
later a border -- at which the Greek army managed to arrive before the Bulgarian
and Serbian armies. These latter two armies, themselves, had conquered
significant parts of Macedonia. It is therefore dumbfounding when the Greek
Government, along with the signatories, discovers a "prior historical
justification" for Greece’s northern border, which had only been in existence
since its occupation by the Greek army in 1912 and 1913. That these three large
parts of Macedonia -- which are now under Greek and Bulgarian authority,
together with the current territory of the Republic of Macedonia -- were in the
past one unit called Macedonia -- is very well known in Greece today. To
illustrate this, we will cite part of the article "All in a Name" issued by the
then Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dora Bakoyanis and published in "The
Wall Street Journal", 01.04. 2008. In the article, the Minister refers to the
complete territory of Macedonia:

"The term `Mace­donia` has always been used to delineate a wider geographical
region, approxi­mately 51% of which is part of Greece, 38% of which is in FYROM,
(Republic of Macedonia) and 9% of which is in Bulgaria"

Clearly, the Greek Minister has admitted that three parts of Macedonia: the
Republic of Macedonia (which she calls FYROM), the part under Greek authority,
and the part along the Bulgarian border were integral parts of the single region
called Macedonia. Yet, the signatories unaccountably claim that the "Greek" part
of Macedonia had always been a "separate unit," completely distinct from the
territory on which the Republic of Macedonia is located. It would appear that
the former Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dora Bakoyanis, has contradicted
and impeached the very case that the signatories sought to make.




Comment on additional information

Let us now turn our attention to charges of the Republic of Macedonia’s alleged
"Territorial aspirations":

"We would note that in 1929, in an effort to submerge unruly local identities
into a unified Yugoslav nation, King Alexander of Yugoslavia named the region
the Vardarska province, after the major river that runs through it. See, for
example, the Yugoslav stamp of 1939 with the ancient Paionia labeled with the
name Vardarska. This effort to reduce ethnic tensions was rescinded by Tito, who
used the 'Mace­donian' identity as leverage against Yugoslavia’s Greek and
Bulgarian neighbors."

We have proved that even in ancient times the territory of today's Republic of
Macedonia was an integral part of the complete territory of Macedonia. Macedonia
and the Macedonians had been enslaved for centuries, and, not surprisingly, each
conqueror imposed its own administrative names on the parts of Macedonia under
their respective authority. This is the reason king Alexander of Yugoslavia
named that part of Macedonia under the control of Serbia "Vardar province". The
Serbian occupiers also wanted to denationalize the Macedonians, turn them into
"Serbs" and to wipe out all traces of Macedonia in the territory of Macedonia.
However the Macedonians in this part of Macedonia resisted these
denationalization efforts of the Serbian Government regime conducted in the name
of the Yugoslav king, who was himself subsequently murdered in 1934 in Marseille
by representatives of an illegal Macedonian organization. During the Second
World War this part of Macedonia came under Bulgarian, German and Italian
occupation. This occupation also triggered strong resistance. Armed uprisings in
which there were as many as 60,000 Macedonian fighters erupted towards the end
of the war demanding freedom. These anti-fascists won the freedom of the Vardar
sector of Macedonia and proclaimed the establishment of the Macedonian Republic,
although within the framework of communist Yugoslavia. Following the fall of
Yugoslavia in 1991, the Republic of Macedonia declared its independence.

Macedonians also fought for their national freedom in those parts under Greek
and Bulgarian authority. The signatories appear not to know that in 1925 (twenty
years before Tito’s election) the Greek Government recognized the existence of a
separate Macedonian identity on its territory and even undertook to provide
education for Macedonians in Macedonian language. To carry out this undertaking,
the Greek government financed the publication of an elementary text-book for the
educational use of Macedonian children in that part of Macedonia that had come
under Greek authority. This textbook was later withdrawn from circulation and
use following considerable pressure from Greek nationalists. At the same time,
Macedonians were exposed to fierce persecution, harassment, murders, false
imprisonment, deportation, mass evic­tions and expropriation of property and
concerted and organized attempts at denationalization by successive Greek
Governments. There are other documents issued by the Greeks in which the
existence of a separate and distinct Macedonian national identity in the
framework of the Greek state and beyond.




Front cover of the "Abecedar" - a school text-book to educate Macedonian
children, written in the Macedonian language and published officially by the
Greek government in 1925

The arbitrary and unilateral administrative renaming of Mace­donia by the
occupying power cannot retroactively be considered an “historical proof” of its
identity. If we follow this logic with regard to Greece, itself, then we might
argue that the territory of today’s Greece during the time under Ottoman
(Turkish) Empire, was not called Greece, but “Yunanistan” and the Greeks
“Yunanistans”. If we apply the same logic to Greeks as the signatories apply to
Mace­donians, then the very people who deny Macedonian ethnicity and ancient
history are not Greeks, but “Yunanistans” who later decided to become "Greeks".
The Greeks later rebelled and, aided by European forces in the 1820s,
established for the first time in history a unified Greek state. Only a minority
of its citizens were imbued with a sense of national consciousness. Many of the
inhabitants of the newly created Greek state declared themselves to be “Romei”
(Romans) and not Greeks. This remar­kab­le fact is a reflection of the rule of
Byzantium (whose citizens had always identified themselves as "Romans"). Indeed,
the first crest of the Greek state was almost identical with that of Bavaria and
had nothing in common with Greece.




The crest of the Greek State The crest of Bavaria

in the nineteenth century



The Greek nation was not recognized by the official representatives of the
European countries of that time. At the time “Filiki Eteria” (a secret
organization seeking to overthrow Ottoman rule and establish an independent
Greek nation) was created in 1814 in Vienna, the European rulers were gathered
at the Congress of Vienna. Greek nationalists printed and addressed to the
participants a demand for the liberation of their country. Two Russian countes,
Yoannis Capodistria and Alexander Ypsilanti, represented the Greeks in Vienna.
But their demands were not placed on the agenda. The chairman, Prince von
Clemens Wenzel Metternich, told them that “there is no Greek nation and that in
Turkey there is no other nation but the Turkish one”. (Details regarding these
documents, taken from the Russian archives, can be found in academician Blaze
Ristovski’s “History of the Macedonian nation”, Macedonian Academy of Science
and Art, Skopje, 1999, ISBN 9989-649-57-X; pg. 10 -12).

Later, fortune smiled on the nascent Greek state. It began to expand at the
expense of the Ottoman Empire and began conquering territories that had never
before been Greek. In 1881 and after the Second Balkan War, Greece seized from
the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire a large part of Epirus, a region south-east of
Macedonia. However, Epirus also was never Greek in ancient times. As proof of
the non-Greek character of Epirus and its inhabitants, we turn to the research
of the British military historian, Major John Charles Ardagh, published as an
official document by the Government of Great Britain in 1881. A few years
earlier the new, Greek state announced its territorial expansion in the Balkans
at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. At that time Greece aspired to occupy
Epirus, claiming that it had been “Greek territory”. In order to gain a clear
insight into Greek claims of an historical right to Epirus, the British
government retained the military historian, John Ardagh, to research the issue
and give evidence on the ethnic character of Epirus in ancient times. Ardagh
received the assignment in 1880 and in 1881 he delivered his report to the
British government. In the memorandum Ardagh quotes from the works of all the
ancient writers available to him and who had written about the ethnic character
of Epirus. Some are: Strabo, Scylax, Dichearchus, Scymnos, Dionysus, the Iliad,
the lists of the Amphictionic league and other sources. In the end, he clearly
concluded that Epirus was never Greek territory in ancient times. This
memorandum was titled “Memorandum on the Ancient Borders of Greece” and was
published in the “British Documents of Foreign Affairs” Edition, Part I, Series
F, Europe, 1848 - 1914, Vol. 14 "Greece, 1847 - 1914", Univer­sity
Publica­ti­ons of America. This document was accepted by the British
govern­­ment on 24 February 1881. In it, major Ardagh cited the ancient sources
that he used for his research and issued the following conclusion:

"...nor have I found anywhere a suggestion that Epirusus was Greek, except that
Dodona, the great oracle, though situated amid barbarians, was a Greek
institution, and the legend that the Molossian Kings were of the house of the
Eakidae. When Epirusus first became powerful 280 BCE, Greece had long been under
the complete ascendancy of the Macedonians and after the fall of that Empire at
the battle of Pydna, 168 BC it became a Roman province in 148 BC."







In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Russian-Greek initiative for the
establishment of an independent Macedonia became evident. As far back as October
1829 a meeting of of Tsar Nicholas I’s Second Committee was held on the crisis
between Russia and Turkey. Russian count, Yoannis Capodistria (of Greek origin)
put forward a draft-document that initially had been submitted in March of the
previous year, 1828, when Capodistria was chairman of the newly founded national
assembly of Greece. In 1830 Greece gained independence with the help of the
Great Powers, and Capodistria not surprisingly was elected its first president.
His proposal, presented by the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs noted that
the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire in the Balkans was about to collapse. It argued
that the following countries were to be established: 1. Dacia (Romania); 2.
Serbia, including Bosnia and Bulgaria; 3. Macedonia, including the whole of
Rumelia and the islands; 4. Epirus, including Upper and Lower Albania; 5. the
area of the Hellenes (Greece), together with the southern border of the river
Peneus in Thessaly and the whole of the archipelago. Each of these countries was
to be ruled by a Duke. An important irony emerges in the story of the creation
of the Greek state: Greek nationalists and their first president, Yoa­nnis
Capodistria, demonstrated and made representations to the Russian government
advocating the establishment of an inde­pendent Macedonian state. The irony here
is that the indivi­dua­lity and separate character of the Macedonian nation are
prin­ciples that today’s Greek politicians absolutely and cate­gorically reject.

After Capodistria was elected as the first president of the new Greek state, he
again proposed a change in the Balkan borders. He never included Macedonia,
Epirus or Thrace in the framework of the new Greek state, but he suggested that
Cyprus should be given to France, Crete to England and Rhodes to Russia. He
maintained that the ethnic writ of the Greek state extended to the Peneus River
in Thessaly and Attica Bay together with the islands on the archipelago. Then
in 1831, prompted by Russia, he moved the northern border to Olympus and Pindus,
but he never extended that border as far as Macedonia. (All these documents are
available in the Russian archives and can be found in academician Blaze
Ristovski’s “History of the Macedonian nation” that we already mentioned).

We have noted that the portion of Macedonia now under Greek authority became
“Greek” in 1913. In the succeeding decades, Macedonians from this part of
Macedonia were exposed to a systematic regime of state terror (prosecutions,
imprisonment, murders, rapes… These are supported by international documents and
testimonies containing eye witness accounts). Thousands of Macedonians were
expelled and moved out of their homes in Macedonia and in the 1920s and
Christians from Turkey were moved in. The descendants of these Turkish
Christians (though their ancestors lived in Asia, but never in Macedonia),
acting under the influence of Greek propaganda, declared themselves to be
“descendants of Alexander the Great,” rather than what they were: descendants of
Turkish sultans.

The signatories criticize the Macedonian government for publishing this ethnic
map of Macedonia because, as they allege, it indicates that the Macedonian
government “invented” a “pseudo greater Macedonia”. Here again, the signatories
exhibit abysmal ignorance. The fact is that simmilar map was first published in
Sofia, Bulgaria in 1933 when the Republic of Macedonia did not exist.




Afterword

Today’s Macedonians are a peaceful nation, prepared for cooperation and peaceful
coexistence with their neighbours. The Republic of Macedonia is a multicultural
state in which every citizen is free to identify with their own national and
cultural traditions and values. In every echelon of government of the Republic
of Macedonia there are, besides ethnic Macedonians, ethnic Albanians, Vlachs,
Serbs, Roma, Turks, Bosniaks and representatives of other nationalities.

Unlike the Republic of Macedonia, Greece officially claims that there are no
ethnic minorities on its territory, a claim that is absurd on it face. One
wonders if any state in the world exists which, like Greece, denies its citizens
the right to ethnically declare them­selves as they wish.

In today’s Greece there are: Macedonians, Roma (Gypsies), Vlachs, Albanians,
Turks and representatives of other nations who are denied the elementary human
right to freely identify them­sel­ves ethnically and culturally. Anyone doubting
this statement should visit Greece and seek out state-sponsored schools in which
children study in the Macedonian, Turkish, Vlach or Albanian languages.
Additionally, Greece has prevented the in­de­pendent Republic of Macedonia from
naming itself as it wishes, which is itself an unprecedented act of wanton
political terror. Perhaps, the signatories might find it enlightening if they
imagined someone denying, or otherwise appropriating their identity and in
addition, insisting that they change their personal names.

The future between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece lies in the context of
good-neighborliness and close, friendly cooperation. If this is to happen,
mutual respect is needed. Let’s hope that future generations of Greeks manage to
put aside their negative feelings and that our posterity will live in a
civilized, peaceful, prosperous and mututally-supportive Balkan sub-region.