Hallo Verbose.
Overall, you bring out interesting theories, but there are some points I cant accept.
Perphaps, but they certainly had no concept of a gene pool. What would be the evidence of a "genetic" difference anyway?
Hey, buddy, dont try to sneak on me theories that I didnt mention. Of course I dont base the entire Macedonian uniqueness on the sole premisis of gene pool. But I did put it in context of the
cultural and linguistical differences that would be implied from such ehnogenetic approach, if applied to the historical period in question.
None of this would have had any relevance for how Alexander, the Macedonians or the Hellenes/Greek thought about themselves and each other. As far as the "movements" are concerned, no one knows what the scale of this might have been, perhaps none (these were stories told by the Greek), and how much of the differences that might have come about due to linguistic developments.
Unfortunately, the field of mental archeology hasnt had any important advancements recently as far as I know. So yes, oral sources are not to be trusted, and yes, we cant know what Macedonians thought of themselves.
However, we do know what the Greeks thought of them, or how they named them.
So, in the end, we turn to written and material sources (i.e. artifacts), as the most reliable, and they clearly point to the cultural, linguistic and genetical differences, especially in the early history of Macedonia.
In this light, I would recommend you to completely ignore the so called mythological lineage, since it was only in service of the political aspirations of the powers then (Macedonia, Persia, Rome etc). So
It was perfectly possible to "become" a Hellene by attaching yourself to the mythology of origins. The Macedonians did (Brygians or not), became Greek, and changed the whole concept of "Greekness", just as you have described it.
this sentence would lose its sense.
And I didnt mention anything near to becoming Greek. Greek cultural and linguistical influence is another thing, which by all means was very potent back then. It would be like claiming that Syria and Judea back in the Roman times were actually culturally and linguistically Roman, which would be stupid. Or if you want me to point you to a more recent example, take the global Americanization that is currently going on. But we are not Americans, are we? (thanks god for that.
)
The Greek played around with the stories, in the plural, of their own descent to the point that they are not very useful for trying to work out where they "really" came from. Scholars tried it in the 19th century, but the current tendency would be to recognise these stories as something that was meaningful at the time they were told.
He he! Oh, I ensure you they fulfilled their meaning even in the time when they were told (read: invented) by the 19th century scholars. Of course Im talking about the stories of the supposedly Greek heritage of Macedonia, which were all in service of the idea for a strong Greek state on the Balkans back then to oppose the Russian influence spreading through Bulgaria and the other Slavic nations. When the Westerners came and started telling romantic stories of their ancient heritage, the locals knew only about sheep and grain. At that time, the Greek government dreamt the Megali idea of a Greek state with the borders of Byzantia, and this is the furthest they got to tracing their roots. But before the establishment of the Greek state, their apetites for a nation were barely reaching Olympus. And this is when the myth of the Greek Macedonian origin was formed and it served its purpose, since after the Balkan Wars, Greece anected half of Macedonia, overpopulated with Slavic Macedonians, an entire century after their independence.
I dont really understand your point about barbarians and Homer, but nevermind.
What I'm driving at is that trying to find superhistorical categories (a Brygian gene pool? really?) to answer the question if Alexander/the Macedonians were Hellenes or not is going to be anachronistic.
What
I am driving at is that Im not finding superhistorical cathegories, but instead I relied on material and written sources ever since my initial letter.
Heck, I even dont know why you mention nation, when its clear that there was no such concept then.
And also, what Im driving at is that trying to construct unprooven theories about Macedonian origin (the Western trend began in 19th century, as i said), only in service of certain hegemonistic policies, is in fact, what is anchronic here.
Generally speaking nationalities are malleable, fluent things. Already old Ernest Renan in "What is a nation?" pointed out that the single most important factor for forming a national identity is the capacity of the people sharing it not to remember past history, but to forget.
Hmmm, thats a bold theory, especially having in mind that the precess of national awakening everywhere came along the one of historical rediscovering. Totally off topic, but I would like to hear something in brief more about that.
None of this would have had any relevance for how Alexander, the Macedonians or the Hellenes/Greek thought about themselves and each other. As far as the "movements" are concerned, no one knows what the scale of this might have been, perhaps none (these were stories told by the Greek), and how much of the differences that might have come about due to linguistic developments.
