• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Were Ancient Macedonians Greek?

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Domen

Copper age, middle stone age etc. What you say is that if you go even further back we ALL come from the same man (Adam) and the same woman (Eva) somewhere in Africa.

I am telling you for an era that "races" exist, not for an era that each one was cousin with all others.
 
Here you have tons of quotes by 22 ancient writers which indicate that Macedonians were not Greeks:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-civilizations?p=361944&viewfull=1#post361944

1) Diodorus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/diodorus.html
12) Plutarch - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/plutarch.html
2) Justin - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/justin.html
13) Livy - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/livy.html
3) Arrian - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/arrian.html
14) Polybius - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Polybius.html
4) Curtius Rufus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/curtius.html
15) Thracymachus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Thracymachus.html
5) Thucydides - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Thucydides.html
16) Herodotus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/herodotus.html
6) Isocrates - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/isocrates.html
17) Demosthenes - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/demosthenes.html
7) Ephoros - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Ephoros.html
18) Josephus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Josephus.html
8) Ptolemy - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Ptolemy.html
19) Strabo - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/strabo.html
9) Pausanias - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/pausanias.html
20) Dionysius Periegetes - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Dionysius1.html
10) Medius of Larisa - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/medeius.html
21) Pseudo-Scylax - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/PseudoSkylax.html
11) Pseudo-Herodotus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/PseudoHerodotus.html
22) Dionysius son of Kalliphon - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/DionysiusSon.html

Summary:

Ancient Quotes on the Macedonians as Distinct Nation

The ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians, geographers, and orators, speak of the Macedonians as distinct nation, separate from their Greek, Thracian, and Illyrian neighbours. They are clear that Macedonia was never part of Greece and that the Macedonians conquered Greece, Thrace, and Illyria, and kept the Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians enslaved, until Rome defeated the Macedonian armies and turned the country into its first province in 168 BC. The assertion of those modern historians that propagate that the Macedonians "were Greeks" which have "united" Greece, is absurd and is completely unsupported by the words of the ancients who clearly considered Greece subjected by the Macedonian foreigners. The Macedonians garrisoned the Greek cities (like the Thracian and Illyrian cities) to enforce their occupation, and later used the Greeks (along with equal numbers of the Thracians and Illyrians) for their conquest of Persia.
 
Here you have tons of quotes by 22 ancient writers which indicate that Macedonians were not Greeks:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-civilizations?p=361944&viewfull=1#post361944

1) Diodorus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/diodorus.html
12) Plutarch - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/plutarch.html
2) Justin - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/justin.html
13) Livy - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/livy.html
3) Arrian - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/arrian.html
14) Polybius - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Polybius.html
4) Curtius Rufus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/curtius.html
15) Thracymachus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Thracymachus.html
5) Thucydides - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Thucydides.html
16) Herodotus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/herodotus.html
6) Isocrates - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/isocrates.html
17) Demosthenes - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/demosthenes.html
7) Ephoros - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Ephoros.html
18) Josephus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Josephus.html
8) Ptolemy - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Ptolemy.html
19) Strabo - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/strabo.html
9) Pausanias - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/pausanias.html
20) Dionysius Periegetes - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/Dionysius1.html
10) Medius of Larisa - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/medeius.html
21) Pseudo-Scylax - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/PseudoSkylax.html
11) Pseudo-Herodotus - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/PseudoHerodotus.html
22) Dionysius son of Kalliphon - http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/DionysiusSon.html

Summary:

This is not an argument, Domen, you post 22 links with a description you just felt like for them, and which (in the quote) is very clearly trash-talk from who knows what kind of mud-infested brain (which brain you do not name either, contrary to the famous names you have random links of and paint as somehow in agreement with your quote).

So at least try to not be knee-jerkish.

later edit:

Hm, oh, i now saw your site too. Historyofmacedonia.org?

:rotfl:

Maybe you should try supporting racial theory views by quoting stormfront next.
 
He's apparently quoting Plutarch, Polybius, Thucydides, Herodotus, etc. I assume you recognize those names? That's certainly not the same as quoting Storm Front. Now it might be helpful to actually post some of those quotes rather than just links, but, if these legitimately recognized historical writers did say those things, it's legitimate to refer to them in a History discussion.
 
@Domen

Copper age, middle stone age etc. What you say is that if you go even further back we ALL come from the same man (Adam) and the same woman (Eva) somewhere in Africa.

I am telling you for an era that "races" exist, not for an era that each one was cousin with all others.

What makes you think that Ancient Greeks were all people of one "race", if even ancient writers such as Herodotus point to their various "racial" origins. Archaeology confirms that between ca. 2000 BC and ca. 900 BC there were several waves of Indo-European invaders, intermingling with various groups of indigenous Non-IE peoples.

Even Athenians and Spartans were not of the same "race", according to Herodorus, as Spartans had more of IE blood, while Athenians more of Non-IE (Pelasgic) blood, and even when it comes to IE ancestry of both groups, it was different - Athenians were Ionic (immigration ca. 2000 BC), Spartans Doric (immigration ca. 1000 BC).

IE fraction of Spartan ancestors were much more recent immigrants to the region, than that of Athenian ancestors. Herodotus also noticed this.

Quote from Herodotus:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-history.txt

Afterwards he turned his thoughts to the alliance which he had been recommended to contract, and sought to ascertain by inquiry which was the most powerful of the Grecian states. His inquiries pointed out to him two states as pre-eminent above the rest. These were the Lacedaemonians and the Athenians, the former of Doric, the latter of Ionic blood. And indeed these two nations had held from very early times the most distinguished place in Greece, the one being a Pelasgic, the other a Hellenic people, and the one having never quitted its original seats, while the other had been excessively migratory; for during the reign of Deucalion, Phthiotis was the country in which the Hellenes dwelt, but under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they moved to the tract at the base of Ossa and Olympus, which is called Histiaeotis; forced to retire from that region by the Cadmeians, they settled, under the name of Macedni, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopis having entered the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians.

What the language of the Pelasgi was I cannot say with any certainty. If, however, we may form a conjecture from the tongue spoken by the Pelasgi of the present day- those, for instance, who live at Creston above the Tyrrhenians, who formerly dwelt in the district named Thessaliotis, and were neighbours of the people now called the Dorians- or those again who founded Placia and Scylace upon the Hellespont, who had previously dwelt for some time with the Athenians- or those, in short, of any other of the cities which have dropped the name but are in fact Pelasgian; if, I say, we are to form a conjecture from any of these, we must pronounce that the Pelasgi spoke a barbarous language. If this were really so, and theentire Pelasgic race spoke the same tongue, the Athenians, who were certainly Pelasgi, must have changed their language at the same time that they passed into the Hellenic body; for it is a certain fact that the people of Creston speak a language unlike any of their neighbours, and the same is true of the Placianians, while the language spoken by these two people is the same; which shows that they both retain the idiom which they brought with them into the countries where they are now settled.

The Hellenic race has never, since its first origin, changed its speech. This at least seems evident to me. It was a branch of the Pelasgic, which separated from the main body, and at first was scanty in numbers and of little power; but it gradually spread and increased to a multitude of nations, chiefly by the voluntary entrance into its ranks of numerous tribes of barbarians. The Pelasgi, on the other hand, were, as I think, a barbarian race which never greatly multiplied.

Translating Herodotus into modern genetics, linguistics and archaeology, Spartans were mostly Dorian Indo-Europeans (late wave of IE immigration from ca. 1200-900 BC, those people who destroyed the Achaean Civilization - the middle wave of IE immigration), to a lesser extent mixed with local Pre-IE population. Athenians were to a larger extent Non-Indo-European genetically, and their Indo-European element was mostly Ionian (the earliest wave of IE invaders, from ca. 2000 BC).

Basing on this we can assume that Spartans had more of R1 haplogroup (and perhaps more of I2), while Athenians more of E1b, J2 and G2.

Question is - what were the haplogroups of Ancient Macedonians?
 
He's apparently quoting Plutarch, Polybius, Thucydides, Herodotus, etc. I assume you recognize those names? That's certainly not the same as quoting Storm Front. Now it might be helpful to actually post some of those quotes rather than just links, but, if these legitimately recognized historical writers did say those things, it's legitimate to refer to them in a History discussion.

And do you propose we set resources to now hunt for the original texts and compare them, for the above post? Or is it a bit more logical to argue against this type of lazy work, moreso when mass-produced by a site which is known for its propagandistic tone and traits?

Some people here happen to have actually read some of those writers, and i mean read them not as quotes online. So yes, my view is that they are misrepresented (at best).
 
@Domen

Actually, never mind! There is no purpose in arguing with you!

I saw your post history! You can keep telling that everyone is of Slavic origin and I will keep telling that Macedonians, Boeotians , Mycenans etc are of Greek origin :)
 
Sitalkas you don't know what you write. Where did I tell that "everyone is of Slavic origin" ???

Mycenans etc are of Greek origin

Original Proto-Mycenans migrated to Greece from the Eurasian steppe, though.

In Greece they intermingled with previous (Stone Age) migrants from Asia Minor and other places.

Mycenans - or the Achaeans - were the middle wave of Indo-European immigrants (ca. 1700-1600 BC).

Herodotus wrote that ancestry of Athenians was mostly Pelasgic, who adopted an Indo-European language.

He contrasts them with Spartans, who put more emphasis on their "Indo-European racial purity", than Ionian-speakers.

Are Slavic-speaking Macedonians more like Athenians / Ionians - i.e. genetically locals, who just adopted language of invaders?

Or are Slavic-speaking Macedonians more like Spartans / Dorians - invaders who refused to mix with or assimilate the locals?

All written records of Slavic invasions of the Balkans and of the way how Slavs treated their slaves* suggest that they were more like Ionians. Check my thread "Phenotypes of Early Slavs", it says how Slavs who migrated to Southern Europe became darker due to mixing with locals and recesiveness of blonde alleles to dark ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)#Which_trait_is_dominant.3F

Northern Slavs remained light-haired and light-skinned for a longer time, for example M. Kromer (1512-1589) described Poles as "primarily blondes".

*Slavs - unlike most other peoples - were absorbing captured slaves into their communities and offering them freedom:

A quote from Strategikon of Emperor Maurice:

"(...) Slavs do not keep prisoners in perpetual slavery like other peoples, but they demarcate for them a limited period of time, after which they give them a choice: they can return home after purchasing their freedom, or stay among them as free people and friends. (...)"

Another source says that Slavic men took enslaved Greek women as wifes and adopted their children (Procopius, III.3.9-19).

There was polygamy among Slavs during Paganism, so taking Greek and Roman women from invaded areas as wifes was not a problem.

This explains why Slavs colonized so vast areas in such a short time. Their number grew fast because they absorbed captured slaves on a massive scale.

The same situation took place among the Iroquois of North America during their rapid expansion at the expense of other tribes in the 1600s. By 1650s "original" Iroquois were just 1/4 - 1/5 of them all, while the majority were enslaved members of defeated tribes, who had been absorbed into tribes of the Iroquoi confederation.
 
Sitalkas you don't know what you write. Where did I tell that "everyone is of Slavic origin" ???



Original Proto-Mycenans migrated to Greece from the Eurasian steppe, though.

In Greece they intermingled with previous migrans from Asia Minor and other places.

Mycenans - the Achaeans - were the middle wave of Indo-European migrants (ca. 1700-1600 BC).

Herodotus wrote that amcestry of Athenians was mostly Pelasgic, who adopted an Indo-European language.

He contrasts them with Spartans, who put more emphasis to their "Indo-European racial purity", than Ionian-speakers.

I urge you to stop typing trumped up air, and non-arguments. You aren't an authority on migrations, so your 'as-a-matter-of-fact' posts are just echoes of some tendency and nothing more. Furthermore, try reading the people you try to find quotes from, cause in such a case you would not really want to use Herodotos as a basis for 'genetic theory' you enjoy, unless you also wish to search for the genetics of Pan, who Herodotos claimed had met with the famous runner on account of the battle of Marathon, Pheidippides, in the mountains of Arcadia. So you should provide an equally serious haplogroup dna study of Pan now.

Or- i don't know- maybe stop being like this? Cause you provide zero information and seem to me, on account of examples like the one elaborated upon in this post of mine, to only want to antagonise for some frankly bizarre reason.

PS: of less note, but you should think of not editing your posts 20 min after you posted them. It is not helpful at all.
 
I don't use Herodotus as a basis for genetic theory. I use genetic data as a basis for it, Herodotus was quoted because what he wrote supports what modern genetic research says. BTW, I am not the one who first embraced genetic and "racial" arguments in this thread. That was Franklin Waters and Sitalkas, who claimed that all Slavic-speakers are genetically the same, while Greek-speakers are entirely distinct. I quoted sources which debunk this, including a comparison of basic haplogroups which already show that Macedonians have in 80% the same haplogroups as Greeks, while only in 50% the same haplogrpups as Poles, so clearly they cannot be genetically closer to Poles than to Greeks. You are unhappy talking about "race" only after I debunk your silly assumptions about links between language and genes.

How will you counter quotes from these 22 ancient authors which indicate that Macedonians were not Greek, just like Thracians were not Greek.

For some reason your country is in possesion of Western Thrace even though Thracians were not Greek.

It is hypocritical to claim rights to areas basing on a peoples who lived there 2500 years ago, while also controlling areas where they didn't live.

================

Edit:

seem to me, on account of examples like the one elaborated upon in this post of mine, to only want to antagonise for some frankly bizarre reason.

I don't want to antagonize, I want to see some solid evidence that Ancient Macedonians were Ancient Greeks, if such evidence exists.
 
And do you propose we set resources to now hunt for the original texts and compare them, for the above post? Or is it a bit more logical to argue against this type of lazy work, moreso when mass-produced by a site which is known for its propagandistic tone and traits?

Some people here happen to have actually read some of those writers, and i mean read them not as quotes online. So yes, my view is that they are misrepresented (at best).

Well, most of those works are publicly available. So, yeah, debunking one or two would go a long way. You certainly don't have to debunk them all since that's all that's needed.

My understanding is the southern Greeks saw themselves differently because of the Polis and collective decision-making. This meant they viewed a Monarchy as something different. That doesn't mean they didn't view them as non-Greeks, but certainly as different Greeks.

Anyway, it's up to Domen to actually post some quotes, since I'm not clicking those links. He certainly posts enough as is that it seems odd he wouldn't add that too.
 
Sparta was a monarchy, but I don't think that was what defined Spartans as 'different', even to the extremely biased eyes of the Athenians. In fact, that's part of the problem - slmost all of the written sources come from people from a particular city with a particular view of what 'Greece' is.
 
Eh, Sparta was sort of a Monarchy, but it was a Polis with many of the same elements as other Poleis. Sparta had far more in common with Athens than Macedonia.
 
Sitalkas said:
Have they tested our ancestors?

Here you can find some ancient DNA from Minoans and Mycenaeans, but only female haplogroups (mtDNA) were tested:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

And it doesn't really tell anything specific. They had such haplogroups which are common in entire Europe today.

Sitalkas said:
The excavations in the tomb of Amphipolis are going well, they say that the tomb hasn't been looted so maybe they will find a buried corpse; or more.

I really hope they will do a DNA test and compare it a Slavic one. Then our dear neighbors will be able to shut it once and for all.

I don't think that DNA will tell you beyond any doubt about ethnicity. As I wrote, Macedonians and Greeks share 80% of haplogroups.

Of course Y-DNA is not the whole genome (there is also mtDNA and autosomal DNA and you can examine teeth to check where a person was born).

E1b amounts to 21% in Greece and 18% in Macedonia. Napoleon Bonaparte also had this haplogroup, but a variant more common in North Africa:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/royaldna.shtml

Bonaparte / France / Napoleon Bonaparte / M / 1821 / E1b1b1b2a1d



Or maybe he had a slightly different variant (E1b1b1c1) according to this link:

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.co...-y-dna-haplogroup-belonged-to-e1b1b1c1-e-m34/

Still a very rare haplogroup in France (more frequent in other regions, mostly outside Europe):



Bourbon dynasty of France was of G2 haplogroup, which of course doesn't mean that Georgians can claim them:



G2 haplogroup is much older than both France and Georgia, since it spread across Europe with Stone Age farmers.

Copernicus had probably L23, which is most common in Armenia, and this doesn't really resolve the old Polish-German dispute on his ethnicity.

Frequency of haplogroup which Copernicus had (if the examined body was really his body - there are some doubts about this):



Anyway, it's up to Domen to actually post some quotes, since I'm not clicking those links.

OK, I will choose the "best" ones and post them.
 
EDIT: The below is directed primarily towards Louis.

Funnily enough I'm reading an excellent article on this subject at this very moment. You've (correctly) identified taxonomic differences and similarities between Sparta and Athens - that is, matters of fact - and (incorrectly) inferred similarities of perception and identity. Identities (such as 'Greek', 'male', 'citizen' and so on) do depend on taxonomic features, but they are constructed by emphasising certain of those features and glossing over others. To use a simple example, a Roman might have had the identity of 'citizen', which emphasises his legal rights and places him in the same category as citizen farmers, potters, soldiers and senators. At the same time, he may hold the identity of 'Italian', which includes in his category non-citizens living in the same province as him but excludes citizens living away from it. The point - which I was making constantly in the discussion about race - is that identities do not actually depend on similarities or differences of fact at all, because you can always find features which groups of things have in common or in difference and emphasise as you choose. The article in question is here, and I suggest it may be of great interest to all in this thread.
 
Personally, not only do I agree with the idea that the people who live there have associated with Macedonia for quite a long time, I don't think it's Greece's business either way. But that's not really a history debate, it's a political debate.

From the time I've spent searching, and from conversations I had with common people (on the internet) on the matter of the name the Former Yugoslav Rep. of "Macedonia",
I've learned ONE THING;
persons LIKE YOU who present themselves as having knowledge on this matter, who come STRAIGHTFORWORD and fluently saying things as the ones you claim,
those people are trying -for their own reasons- to manipulate others...


the people who live there have associated with Macedonia for quite a long time

EXCUSE ME???
Those people SELF-DECLARED THEMSELVES as "Macedonians" in 1991,
they DO NOT live on Macedonia (their country is settled on PAEONIA by 100%),
they define themselves as "Macedonians" the last 2-3 decades,
they don't speak the language of the ancient Macedons,
don't have the names,
etc
etc
etc NOTHING TO CONNECT WITH THE MACEDONS


when on the other hand Greece has EVERYTHING connecting it with Macedonia,
THE LAST 3000 YEARS;


Land (the ancient greek kingdom of Macedonia WERE/IS in Greece by 100%),
language (greek),
Names (greek),
Recorded History (everything greek),
etc
etc
etc


So I'll politelly ask you to cut the crap.

Do your "job" elsewhere.

NO IDIOTS HERE


The ONLY arguments FYROM has on the matter of the name dispute, ARE ONLY POLITICAL,
for the citizens of a country are FREE to choose the name of the country they live.

YET those people are NOT FREE to (so stupidly) ASURP the history of another nation
(especially of a nation which has been studied so exhaustively such as Greece, which means THEY CAN'T FOOL OTHERS),
and FOR SURE they DON'T have the right to THREATEN WITH WAR other nations, having territorial claims FOR A LAND THAT WERE NEVER THEIRS TO CLAIM.

NEVER!!


In the name dispute FYROM has NOTHING BUT political arguments which SIMPLY LOST almost ALL OF THEM,
because of the BEHAVIOR of the radical-right ultranationalistic LIARS.



Eugene Borza, "Macedonian Redux" p.260 (quote)
"On the other hand the (so-called) "Slavomacedonians" (Slavs entered Balkans 10 centuries after the demise of the Ancient Kingdom of Alexander) ARE A NEWLY EMERGENT PEOPLE IN SEARCH OF A PAST, to help them legitimise their precarious present, as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a world dominated historically by Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians.
The 20th century of a "Macedonian ethnicity" and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the Yugoslavic collapse of 1991, has followed a rocky road.
In order to survive the vicissitudes of the Balkan history and politics, the "Slavomacedonians", NEED THEIR OWN SO CALLED MACEDONIAN ETHNICITY which evolved for NO MORE than a century, and thus it seemed natural for them and appropriate to call their NEW country "Macedonia" AND TO ATTEMPT TO provide SOME cultural references to bolster ethnic survival..."


"Modern Slavs, both from Former Yug. Rep. of Macedonia and Bulgarians cannot establish a link with antiquity, in contrast with the Greeks.
The Slavs entered the Balkans 10 centuries after the demise of the Ancient Kingdom of Alexander.
Only the most radical-right nationalists Slavic emigrants of the US, Canada and Australia even attempt to establish connection with antiquity...
"
 
Since 1991 ???

What about the Macedonian Declaration of 1901:

http://makedonika.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/boris-sarafov-the-macedonian-agitation-the-times-1901/

"It is a grievous error to suppose that we seek to acquire Macedonia on behalf of Bulgaria. We Macedonians consider ourselves to be an entirely separate national element, and we are not in the least disposed to allow our country to be seized by Bulgaria, Servia, or Greece. We will, in fact, oppose any such incorporation with all our might. Macedonia must belong to the Macedonians. The misunderstanding has arisen through our residing in Bulgaria. The circumstance of our having prepared a Macedonian insurrection while living in this country led to the conclusion that we were aiming at a union between the two Slav provinces. That is, however, perfectly absurd. If we were to be expelled from Bulgaria and were to settle in Switzerland nobody would suppose that we intended to liberate Macedonia on behalf of Switzerland; we merely go where we find the most favourable opportunities for our revolutionary work."

The reason why Macedonians were counted as Bulgarians or Serbs in Turkish censuses, was because they belonged to Bulgarian Church or Serbian Church, and Turks counted nationalities and / or ethnic groups basing on their religions - from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Macedonia#Statistical_data

The basis of the Ottoman censuses was the millet system. People were assigned to ethnic categories according to religious affiliation. So all Sunni Muslims were categorised as Turks, all members of Greek Orthodox church as Greeks, while rest being divided between Bulgarian and Serb Orthodox churches.[29]

And Slavic language spoken in Macedonia has been known under the name "Macedonian language" at least since the 17th century.

Here is a comparison from year 1603 of several languages, of which five (12. to 16.) are Slavic, and one of them is "Macedonian" (12.):



It is a page from a 1603 work by German linguist Hieronymus Megiser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Megiser
 
Since 1991 ???

What about the Macedonian Declaration of 1901:

So now we're going to quote papers (of EQUAL value with a toilet paper),
Bulgarian ideas of the late 19th-early 20th century and products of the at the time Bulgarian imperialism, that NEVER took form, NEVER got accepted by ANY organization etc, etc, etc,

as recorded History???

...And even if we accept this, DOES THESE LAME 100 YEARS BRING THOSE PPL CLOSER TO THE ANCIENT MACEDONS??
There's an almost 3000 years HISTORICAL GAP, between them and the ancient macedons...
Any bright idea about that??


Here's how close to the ancient Macedons this trash-paper of yours is bringing them;
Elisabeth Barker
The Royal Institute of International Affairs,
year 1950,
p.10

"...All that can safely be said is that during the last eighty years many MORE seem to have considered themselves Bulgarian, or closely linked to Bulgaria (she reports about the people of the Former Yugoslav Republic region which Josef Tito started calling "Macedonia" the 1950s), than have considered themselves Serbian, or closely linked to Serbia (or Yugoslavia).
Only the people of the Skoplje
region, in the north west, have ever shown much tendency to regard themselves as Serbs.

There is NO DOUBT that they are southern Slavs; they have a language, or a group of varying dialects, that is grammatically akin to Bulgarian but phonetically in some respects akin to Serbian, and which has certain quite distinctive features of its own (from the proto-Slavic language)..."




Have you heard of the UFOs?
A guy saw one flying in Culberson, Texas just yesterday...

BIG NEWS !!!


The paper you're presenting is TRASH !! Period...

(refresh your page, I made additions)
 
I will say one thing. At least your posts are pretty to look at. I assure you I'm not trying to manipulate anyone on this issue. People are free to say what they want and feel what they want (but, I'd hesitate to add, also be what they want).

The Macedonian Socialist Republic existed before 1991 (obviously). It goes back to 1944. Before that, there were obviously others who associated with the name living in that area. None of that is claiming they were legitimately associating with the name (since, as far as I'm concerned, that's irrelevant to the discussion). All it says is they chose to associate with the name. However, it made sense to want to continue to use the name they'd associated with previously. I don't think they have to be closer to the Ancient Macedonians in order to have reasons to want to use the name Macedonians.

Although I still don't see why it's anyone's business but themselves what people call themselves unless two states have identical names, which require differentiation in international contexts (the closest examples I can think of are the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). We've managed to find a way to avoid confusing the two.
 
language (greek)

There is no any clear evidence that Ancient Macedonian language was Greek. Alexander the Great learned Koine Greek, but that was "English of his time".

Ethnic Jews once they migrated to places like Alexandria in Egypt were also learning to speak Koine Greek, which did not make them less Jewish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom