History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedThe Hellenicity of the “barbarian” Macedonians

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 13:12
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Yes, but again, look at the timeframes Chilbudios...
In the same way we can't take to account late BC and early AD records for Macedonians (e.g Strabo), we can't compare the timeframes of Scythia and Macedon. You're talking about dates, when Greek influence was greately established compared to archaic times (excluding Ionia and Sicely).
Though my argument was not initially a matter of chronology but of symptoms showing perhaps similar processes (the quasi-universal Greekness of a mixed Greek-barbarian element), even so, my examples are in the same time-frame. The Greek colonies from Scythia (as most of the main Greek colonies from Black Sea, Aegean or Mediterranean) flourished starting with 6th century BC (the earliest ones might have been set in late 7th century) and did so for many centuries to come, being thus contemporaneous with the ascension of Macedonian polity, the presence of Macedonians in written sources, the assertion of Macedonian Hellenicity, with the epigraphic monuments, etc. For the latter, you can check the  Packhum site and you'll find many Scythian Greek inscriptions from the same period as, say, Pella Katadesmos; I already exemplified with some inscription from Sicily (another place colonized by Greeks) to illustrate similar and contemporaneous phenomena like those you identified in Ancient Macedonia.
 
Quote Ofcourse the "one inscription for every rock" I said was a way of speech, not a true argument. It was an exhageration to point out great amount.
Since the Pontic coasts exhibit thousands of such inscriptions, perhaps a more accurate expression of magnitude would be in order to make a point Wink
 
Quote As for the Greeks importing names like "Ioannis" is only for religious reasons. Furthermore, they made them Greekish, they don't kept for example Jewish names in a Jewish form but turned e.g Ιακώβ to Ιάκωβος, while they refered to Jewish people named Jabob as Ιακώβ.
Everyone adapts names (Andrew is not in a Greek form, is it?), everyone adopts names for some reason (Christianity is a reason like any other). I can't believe the Greeks were some special people, having their own special ways (and names) and borrowing nothing but instead giving everything to the others. These are romantic myths if anything. A matrimonial alliance (which happened often between Greeks and barbarians) could trigger such an anthroponomastic practice: e.g. the name Roxane which was worn by few Greek women, probably echoing the age of Alexander the Great. A significant cultural influence could have also such consequences. Let's take Latin, a very important source of names for ancient Greek speakers during the times of the Roman Empire. We find Greeks having Latin names (e.g. Flavios, Claudios), we find Greeks having names derived from Latin ones (e.g. Marcion from Marcus).
 
Quote As for Thrace, can you be more specific? Who wrote it is a part of Hellas? I'm not aware of such a source, at least not an ancient one. Currently, a part of it is in Greece but overall in school you learn that Thrace is a larger region, that Thracians were neighbouring nation to the Greeks, that Ionians colonized the coast, that Thracian were Hellenized, that Pomaks could be their closest ancestors etc etc.
But why ancient one? We are also unaware of any source from Myceneaen or Homeric age claiming the Macedonians were Greek back then and yet almost everyone assumes that based on written testimonies from centuries when not millenia later. Thrace nowadays gives a similar example:
Yet based on this late reality, few dare to draw conclusions about how Thrace was 20-2500 years ago.
Macedonia is a larger region, too. Its inhabitants were once also non-Greek tribes, and at some point some Greek speakers colonized parts of its territory. The Macedonians were also perhaps Hellenized. I am yet to see some serious evidence for an archaic Greekness of Macedonians which does not apply to some other barbarian culture which was later obscured by the Greek language, literacy and civilization.
 
Quote But here you come to my original point and i'm not sure if you got me from the beginning. Is Hellenization the correct word to use for those periods? Writting is not excistent or litteracy is low, the Greek world is rather static and there are no forces that can cause a systematic change of culture, religion, language?

I'm basically objecting to the definition. Also, those authors who use that theory can not put a finger to an approximation on when and where it started.
Hellenization means to become a Hellene. And the authors put the finger - Johnathan Hall, for instance (see the first page of this thread for several excerpts of what this author thinks of Hellenicity)
 
Quote I already answered to that. Emathia and Pieria as far as the Pindus chain. Strabo tells us that Macedonia was earlier called Emathia. Justin records the same when he speaks about the arrival of Caranus. Aegae was Phrygian until the 12th century. You have a difference of material cultures during the bronze age between what we now call southern macedonia and the part that covers Aegae, Drama etc as Hammond notices. The Chalkidike penisula needs no introduction... The Chalkidike people differenciated themselves from the pre-Philippic Macedonia. Just some examples...
But which is the evidence those material cultures spoke Greek (and only Greek) or that they were identified with the Macedonians?
Strabo says that Macedonia was called Emathia, and that parts of this country (i.e. which was formerly known as Emathia) were held by Epirotes, Illyrians, Bottiaei and Thracians and even goes further to list the Thracian tribe of the Pieres inhabiting Pieria and foothills of Olympus. (VII, fr. 11). He also says that a large part of Greece is held by barbarians, in particular regions of Macedonia and Thessaly by the Thracians (VII, 7, 1). I wouldn't trust Strabo in all what he claims, however if one uses Strabo to prove something about Macedonia, then Emathia and Pieria were mostly non-Greek in the earlier ages, even more, according to Strabo, Thracians seem to have been here (southern Macedonia) the most important ethnos in the archaic times.
 
Quote Your coca cola bottle has Romanian text on the ingredients and mine has Greek. Cretans make their own kinds of soft drinks called "Gerani" as well as other names.
Not really, until recently (some years ago, thus I guess one can still find such bottles in junkyards, collections or used as flower vases, etc.) most bottles were having labels only in English. In the 70s there was even a TV sketch played by a famous local actor, on the instructions or the ingredients lists which were virtually untranslateable for most people (as they were in Hungarian, Czech, German, Russian, Turkish, Vietnamese, whatever language of this Earth) http://youtube.com/watch?v=CeHuaGoDlq4 (the sketch is in Romanian, however at 0:40 it starts on DeliKat, imported from Hungary, and it follows with other two products).
And the shape of the bottle (which was actually the point of my analogy) is the one which really matters (the label gets destroyed faster, not mentioning the symbolism of the bottle which would make it persist in some other representations but the bottle - drawings of all types and for all purposes, comercials recorded in different forms, etc.) and it's not local. It's an import and it's so widely found in many corners of the world. Most of the Greek/Myceneaen pottery has no real clues of its origin, but shapes, ornamentation, color. You won't know if those creating those artefacts or those using them were speaking Greek or not. Like many archaeologists say: pots are not people.
 
Quote Now to the examples i gave you on modern Greek as you say. Tsakonian is not exactly modern Greek.
[...]
So my point is that claiming that those phenomenas are stricly found in Macedonia are far from correct, whether a linguist says so or not. It is a matter of awareness rather than knowledge on ancient Greek.

I'm lacking time, but if you want i can scan many more examples from many places, reaching as far as the island of Karpathos (which Leonidas in this case can assist as a native Karpathian).
It is, as it is spoken today. The birth of its dialect may be ages ago, what it matters is most examples you picked to illustrate some phonological features (or accidents) are from today, not from 2500 years ago. Even that wonderful, pitoresque sample of linguistic particularity, but also orality and spontaneity can't prove anything for the Greek dialects spoken millenia ago. I'm sure you can bring many more examples, but you paint the Greek linguistic world of today, not the ancient one. Languages change. For an ancient language you need ancient evidences, and so far, there's only that one name which supports your case. One name is not a linguistic feature, it is not a dialect.
 
As such, with the evidence you provided so far, those linguists are correct to identify in some Macedonian features some local particularities. It is a matter of awareness and knowledge of the ancient Greek.
 
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 04-Feb-2009 at 13:27
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3265
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 18:18
I will add these to my library:
Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (2000)
Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (2002)
A History of the Archaic Greek World, 1200-479 BCE (2007)
Thanks
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2009 at 19:25
Hello!
Sorry for my long absence but i was lacking time to write anything lately.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


Everyone adapts names (Andrew is not in a Greek form, is it?), everyone adopts names for some reason (Christianity is a reason like any other). I can't believe the Greeks were some special people, having their own special ways (and names) and borrowing nothing but instead giving everything to the others. These are romantic myths if anything. A matrimonial alliance (which happened often between Greeks and barbarians) could trigger such an anthroponomastic practice: e.g. the name Roxane which was worn by few Greek women, probably echoing the age of Alexander the Great. A significant cultural influence could have also such consequences. Let's take Latin, a very important source of names for ancient Greek speakers during the times of the Roman Empire. We find Greeks having Latin names (e.g. Flavios, Claudios), we find Greeks having names derived from Latin ones (e.g. Marcion from Marcus).


Chilbudios, i didn't say they didn't borrow the names. I said that when borrowing a name, they did not leave it in it's original form but changed it to fit Greek phonology. For example Marcus turned to Markos, Valerius turned to Oualerios, Dārayavahuš turned to Darios etc. Noone says those are not non-Greek names. Ofcourse, there are exceptions like Adam, Eva and Maria which were left intact as their Jewish form. In the majority of names however, changes are made.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


But why ancient one? We are also unaware of any source from Myceneaen or Homeric age claiming the Macedonians were Greek back then and yet almost everyone assumes that based on written testimonies from centuries when not millenia later. Thrace nowadays gives a similar example:
Yet based on this late reality, few dare to draw conclusions about how Thrace was 20-2500 years ago.
Macedonia is a larger region, too. Its inhabitants were once also non-Greek tribes, and at some point some Greek speakers colonized parts of its territory. The Macedonians were also perhaps Hellenized. I am yet to see some serious evidence for an archaic Greekness of Macedonians which does not apply to some other barbarian culture which was later obscured by the Greek language, literacy and civilization.


Yes i got yout point...Like for example in 2000 years from now, maybe peoples perception of Thrace will be the current status. However, people will see that in Thrace, Greeks, Bulgarians, Turks and Romanians inhabited it. That requires ofcourse that most of the data available today vanishes. Todays data is much more than the data produced in archaic ages, so if we find today 0.0010% of what was produced lets say at 700BC, then in 2000 years from now, people should find more than that 0.0010% of archaic data we have now. Anyway, this is another thread concerning how much we will leave behind us, since we use the internet and optical discs instead of stone.

Last but not least, we don't know much about what happened around 1800BC, but we do know pretty much about what was happening 700-1000 years ago.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


Hellenization means to become a Hellene.


In that case all Hellenes were Hellenized at different points of history. That was my earlier point...

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


Strabo says that Macedonia was called Emathia, and that parts of this country (i.e. which was formerly known as Emathia) were held by Epirotes, Illyrians, Bottiaei and Thracians and even goes further to list the Thracian tribe of the Pieres inhabiting Pieria and foothills of Olympus. (VII, fr. 11). He also says that a large part of Greece is held by barbarians, in particular regions of Macedonia and Thessaly by the Thracians (VII, 7, 1). I wouldn't trust Strabo in all what he claims, however if one uses Strabo to prove something about Macedonia, then Emathia and Pieria were mostly non-Greek in the earlier ages, even more, according to Strabo, Thracians seem to have been here (southern Macedonia) the most important ethnos in the archaic times.


We know for sure that other people lived there as well. It doesn't even need to be discussed at this point. Furthermore, from my earlier posts i demonstrated a Macedonian inscription where a Thracian from Macedonia is reffered as barbarian.

However, one would not just rely on Strabo as he is a geographer, not a linguist/ethnologist - he makes the remaining Brygoi Illyrians, he believes Carian has many Greek words (not that Greek inherited the pre-Greek anatolian ones) and he completely omits the ancient presence of Phrygians in Macedonia. I believe he can distinguish a greek from a foreigner, but that's all about it.

However, he speaks of those people you mentioned...Epirotans, Cretans, Thracians, Illyrians etc...Not Macedonians. Others, like Justin, Diodorus mention the establishment of the Macedonian Kindom by Karanos who colonized the area with a large band of Greeks.

That is still problematic...According to others, the Macedonians emerged before the Dorian invasion. So, Karanos based on those traditions cannot be the father of the Macedonians (Attamak LOL).

I know i'm not giving an answer with this but at least i give perspective. Was a tribe originally called Makednoi that gave their name to the inhabitants of the greater regions? Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe the Macedonians were insignificant in number compared to the other people in the area, but got a boost with the arrival of the Argeads and preveiled. Maybe there were no Macedonians, in the area before Karanos but a myth was created to claim the nativeness from the Brygoi, the Epirotans and the Thracians. All these are hypothesis.

As for your initial question, none of the mycenaean sites in southern macedonia can proove the inhabitants were "The Macedonians". They only proove Mycenaean material culture, linear B litteracy (1 example) and Greek alpgabetical litteracy almost at the same time as the rest of Greece. 

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


And the shape of the bottle (which was actually the point of my analogy) is the one which really matters (the label gets destroyed faster, not mentioning the symbolism of the bottle which would make it persist in some other representations but the bottle - drawings of all types and for all purposes, comercials recorded in different forms, etc.) and it's not local. It's an import and it's so widely found in many corners of the world. Most of the Greek/Myceneaen pottery has no real clues of its origin, but shapes, ornamentation, color. You won't know if those creating those artefacts or those using them were speaking Greek or not. Like many archaeologists say: pots are not people.



Ofcourse pots are not people, but you've comparing the modern industrial age with times where making a mycenaean pot was hi-tech. Otherwise, the examination of material culture would not be significant in archeology. Just an example...The anatolian limestone kouroi in Cyprus...

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


It is, as it is spoken today. The birth of its dialect may be ages ago, what it matters is most examples you picked to illustrate some phonological features (or accidents) are from today, not from 2500 years ago. Even that wonderful, pitoresque sample of linguistic particularity, but also orality and spontaneity can't prove anything for the Greek dialects spoken millenia ago. I'm sure you can bring many more examples, but you paint the Greek linguistic world of today, not the ancient one. Languages change. For an ancient language you need ancient evidences, and so far, there's only that one name which supports your case. One name is not a linguistic feature, it is not a dialect.
 
As such, with the evidence you provided so far, those linguists are correct to identify in some Macedonian features some local particularities. It is a matter of awareness and knowledge of the ancient Greek.


Chilbudios, my point was that those phonological changes do not signify non-Greek phenomenas. It's like saying "All birds fly" when you know that penguings, ostrages, chickens and many other birds don't...This renders the "all birds fly" to a false absolute argument. I couldn't not remember instantly ancient greek examples of the same phenomenas, but at least i showed you that similar things occured in remote areas were the foreign influence could not create them (θ -> δ in an area where the foreign language has none of those consonants). Besides, even the modern examples should not be omitted. Modern Greek examples are often used by linguists in the analysis of the Greek language historically.

Last time i showed you Koribos and the Thessalian decree with the phonetically changed names. During my absence, i remembered more words that again cover different geographic areas. Now, that i have time, whithin a week i will find even more. I'm good in attic Greek for obvious reasons, i can't even remember modern Greek dialectal differences, which makes it even harder when it comes to ancient greek. Imagine how it is for a non native speaker that want to draw a conclusion. Now let's see some examples.

First of all i will take the opposite direction...

In Linear B you have the word ζαFετες (za-we-te) translitterated in as Zawetes and standard Greek (τ)ζαβέτες. It means "this year". Later in various Greek dialects it turned to Fέτος (wetos) and then to εφέτος/φέτος. So, in this case the archaic forms have a V/W sound and later turn to Ph-. So maybe it is originally Φ that occasionally interchanged with B instead of the opossite. Unfortunately, we don't have enough Mycenaean sources to be  sure.

Second, the word Tύμβος which means round mound/grave. It also appers as Τύμφος...Today in Greek you have the following forms : Τύμβος, τύμφη (see mount tymphe), τούμπα...All mean the same. The first is panhellenic, the second is local (epirus) and the third is Macedonian (Modern Gk). Taking to consideration the third, anciently in macedonia the word could be τύμβα, where β was pronounced as b (since the W was represented by F-digamma) and υ as -ου. Translitterating that it would be tumba, exactly the same as the current macedonian equivalent (note μπ- in Greek translitterates as b or mb like in this case).

Third the Thessalian lake Boibe described in the Apollonian myths. Obviously, the lake got it's name from Phoibos aka Apollo...

Fourth the Macedonian river Baphyras meaning "bridged river" (Gephyra = bridge).

Fifth the word Βαλαρός in Cretan Doric which means bad/evil man, an excile. In attic the word is not attested exactly like that but instead you have the verb Φαλαρίζω (i'm bad, i behave as a tyran) and Φαλαρισμός (being inhuman).

Sixth, the Arcadocypriot άνωδα instead of attic άνωθε which means up-side.

You will find many similar examples in the Book "The Modern Greek Language in Its Relation to Ancient Greek" by Edmund Martin Geldart. Just some extracts...


 

As you see, there are more phonetical changes than one might imagine.

My point with all these is not to put a finger if Macedonia was hellenized in the bronze age, in the colonial age or in the classical age. None of us can answer that and in the end the result is the same. My point is that some erronious assumptions have been put forward in the past and have been presented with thin arguments and methodology, which in other issues would not be passed that easily.

To start from the basics...The only historically centrum languages of the area we're aware of were Greek and Phrygian.

As I mentioned earlier, since both Greeks and Phrygians (or somekind of ancestors of both) passed through Macedonia, it is impossible to think that they completely emptied it, leaving no people back.

With the collapse of the Hittite empire, the migration of the Phrygians to Anatolia and the migrations of proto/mello-Greeks to the south, a huge vacum must have been created in the area. This vacum could have given space to the formation and a separate development of a new kind of speech.

I'm not insisting that Macedonian is related to Doric or Aeolic, since it can be easily a separate idiom. What i tend to believe nowadays is that it was a language that shared common basis with those dialects.

The consonant changes as you've seen are not unique, nor geographically restricted. Even in Palaeophrygian you can find the same phenomena e.g ber- instead of pher- (i bring), arkieFais instead of Archiereus (where Greek -eus in that case is pronounced -ephs).

With the last example, i add weight to my earlier comment that it might have been originally B that turned to Φ and not the opposite.

Last but not least, i cannot say Phrygian can't have affected a possible macedonian idiom. The opposite, it must have. In that case, it falls into the same group which makes it akin to Greek as some say.



Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 08:43
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

First of all i will take the opposite direction...

In Linear B you have the word ζαFετες (za-we-te) translitterated in as Zawetes and standard Greek (τ)ζαβέτες. It means "this year". Later in various Greek dialects it turned to Fέτος (wetos) and then to εφέτος/φέτος. So, in this case the archaic forms have a V/W sound and later turn to Ph-. So maybe it is originally Φ that occasionally interchanged with B instead of the opossite. Unfortunately, we don't have enough Mycenaean sources to be  sure.

Second, the word Tύμβος which means round mound/grave. It also appers as Τύμφος...Today in Greek you have the following forms : Τύμβος, τύμφη (see mount tymphe), τούμπα...All mean the same. The first is panhellenic, the second is local (epirus) and the third is Macedonian (Modern Gk). Taking to consideration the third, anciently in macedonia the word could be τύμβα, where β was pronounced as b (since the W was represented by F-digamma) and υ as -ου. Translitterating that it would be tumba, exactly the same as the current macedonian equivalent (note μπ- in Greek translitterates as b or mb like in this case).
I don't know what exactly you meant by "opposite direction", however if a linguistic phenomenon (sound change) happens in one direction, studying the opposite may indicate nothing. Your first example is about W, not about B. In the second case, the Greek form has the B sound (whereas the particularity of Macedonian we were discussing is about having B-s instead of some Greek P+H-s/F-s)
 
Quote Third the Thessalian lake Boibe described in the Apollonian myths. Obviously, the lake got it's name from Phoibos aka Apollo...
Such information, though interesting, is hard to be valued without a specific context. If however we assume Boibe is a local rendition of Phoibos, it doesn't exclude that this name shows a northern linguistic influence (Thessaly is somewhat north, isn't it?), the one which was present also in Macedonia.
 
Quote As you see, there are more phonetical changes than one might imagine.
I know there are, but that doesn't exclude that Macedonian linguistic area to have its own phonetic and phonologic specificity, one which was remarked by the scholars studying the Greek dialects and Greek substrata.
 
I will answer later to some other interesting points you made.
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 16:51
IMO the Macedonians were trying to gain more ground in both  the Agean and with the Semi Greek territories such as Thrace,Thesally ,Ilyria. Macedonians tried to incorporate and consul with the Athenians,but every state was bent on staying in control.The Athenians had went to Darius sometime before in order to stop the Macedonian growing threat.

The Pelopenssian League and the League of Thebes were not cohesive, as a result the  Macedonian Confederacy would've just have to suffice,after their defeat in attempted rebellion.It was why in the end Athenians and Thebian states become Hellinized as with other previous empires,Selucids,Ptolemiac,Sodgdiana,and the Indo-Greek Kingdom.


Edited by AksumVanguard - 30-Mar-2009 at 01:19
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 566
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 17:21
Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

IMO the Macedonians were trying to gain more ground both  Agean and the sEmi Greek territories such as Thrace,Thesally ,Ilyria.


A small correction here. Thessaly was considered entirely greek and Illyria and Thrace were not Greek at all.
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 20:53
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

Originally posted by AksumVanguard AksumVanguard wrote:

IMO the Macedonians were trying to gain more ground both  Agean and the sEmi Greek territories such as Thrace,Thesally ,Ilyria.


A small correction here. Thessaly was considered entirely greek and Illyria and Thrace were not Greek at all.

You are of course correct,the Ilyrians are Barbarians,and they aren't under the hellenistic empire until later on,by Lysimachus. And so was Thraces.


Edited by AksumVanguard - 13-Mar-2009 at 20:58
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 14:50

Flipper, I am postponing my reply in order to finish reading some books. One I've just read is Margalit Finkelberg, Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition (2005)
The author is a classicist and this books gives some perspectives on ancient Greekness. For now, I'll just excerpt some bits related to the language of the ancient inhabitants of Macedonia:

p. 31: "Compare, for example, the case of the Phrygians. The Phrygians spoke an Indo-European language closely related to Greek, which allows us to suppose that their position as regards the Greeks could not have differed much from that of the Macedonians."

p. 121: "Thus Macedonian, for example, does not share with Greek at least one of the features identifying the unique idiom of the latter, namely, the devoicing of the IE voiced aspirates."

Here are also two dialectal maps, please note the outsideness of Macedonia:


p. 110, map 3:

p. 132, map 4:

 
 
I'm currently reading a book on ancient north-western Pontic coast, about personal names and about the relations between Greeks and barbarians. I'll be back soon with some more evidences about my earlier point of ethnic mixture in Greek colonies under a veil of rich Greek epigraphy.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2009 at 21:06
Hello and sorry for my late response again. Got some health issues lately that kept me away from computers.

Quote
I don't know what exactly you meant by "opposite direction", however if a linguistic phenomenon (sound change) happens in one direction, studying the opposite may indicate nothing.


I ment that originally in certain cases the b-sound was used instead of ph-. That the change of b- to ph- occured later in other Greek dialects, while in Macedonian it was preserved.

Quote
Your first example is about W, not about B. In the second case, the Greek form has the B sound (whereas the particularity of Macedonian we were discussing is about having B-s instead of some Greek P+H-s/F-s)


That's a good remark Chilbudios. However, the specific example was not random. We know that non-attic speakers were the first to transform the b-sound to v/w-sound. We can't know exactly when this could have happened in Macedonia. However, when it comes to φέτος and βέτος (β as a v-sound) you have the Macedonian month Υπερβετταίος which was the last moth of the year. Besides, i believe that the Macedonian -b in Bilippos etc is a W/V sound. If you think about it both Greek β and φ are produced in the same way with the lips by blowing the air to different directions.

Now take a look at your second map.



Look closely at the area over Thessaly. The region of Kozani behind Olympus, until Grevena and Pindus is marked as Doric speaking. That is a large part of Upper (Mountainous) Macedonia incorporating Boion and Elimeia. I have been refering to these areas earlier in my posts.

I dunno which timeframe the map shall represent, but remember that Hammond, Hatzopoulos and others consider that the Macedonian anexation of the previously Phrygian parts occured entirely much later.

Also, note that the earliest attestations of Macedonians as a group places them at Pindus. Then you have the establishment of the Kindom by Karanos and a large band from Argos around 808BC.

I will return to that books comment shortly with Oneils points on the mater.

Now, I will make a list of attested words that are characterized by possible Macedonian phonology, that is supposed by some to be absent in Greek:

- Βίλιππος (Φίλιππος), Βάλαινα (Φάλαινα), Βίλα Βρατεάδου (Φίλα), Βερενίκα (attic Φερενίκη but Doric Φερενίκα), άβρουFες (όφρεις), βασκιοί (pl. φασκιοί), Βρύγες (Φρύγες).
- Δάνος (Θάνος), Αδραία (Αίθρια)

Now, I dunno if such an amount of words qualify to characterize a certain phonology. I will summarize what examples i have found previously in other Greek terretories outside Macedonia.

Φ -> Β

- Αλίβω instead of αλίφω.
- Βαλαρός (bad/evil man, an excile  in Cretan Doric), instead of Φαλαρός, verb Φαλαρίζω (being bad)
- Βέρακας (Thessalian) instead of Φερεκλής
- Βιλαράς instead of Φιλαράς. Currently a well spread Greek surname, geographically unrelated to Macedonia (try google or facebook).
- Βοίβη instead of Φοίβη (Thessaly)
- Βλησκούνι instead of φλησκούνι
- Κόρυβος (Elis, Megara) instead of Κόρυφος - See Gk. κορυφή
- Κύμβη (Greek word for bowl). The Κυμβ-/Κυβ- prefix is used for concave or bent objects like κύμβαλον (concave musical instrument), κυβαίον (cup), κύμβος (concave pot). However, you have exceptions where b- turns to ph- like κυφαλέος (bent), κύφελλα (the concave part of your ear), κύφος (humpbacked see κύφωσις).  So according to strict Greek phonology, the first examples should be with φ instead of β.
- Τύμβος, Τύμφη and the tribe of the Τυμφαίοι or Τυμβαίοι/Τυμπαίοι (http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb193/bboyflipper/MacedonianMegara.gif) - See also Τυμφηστός


Δ -> Θ

- αίδωσα instead of αίθουσα
- δα instead of θα (note modern idiom from Aeolia)
- άνθρωπός from ανδρός (gen for man) + οπός (faced) = άνδρο-οπός = ανθρ-ώ-πός
- σκυδνός or σκυθρός (surviving) from the verbs Σκυδάζω, σκυδμαίνω - also Σκυθρωπός similar case to άνθρωπός.


Possible use of F(w) -> β(v)

- ζαFετες/Fετος, εφέτος, φέτος, υπερβετταίος/υπερβερταίος
- Fικοία -> βικία (Elis)
- όρβος (mountain Attic όρος) earlier ορfος (Corfu)  - See Macedonian mountain όρβηλος
- Περραιβοί (att. Homer. means from the source of the Aias/Aous) which comes from Πέρρας + ΑίFα.


Those are some examples and i'm pretty sure there are more to find. Some of those above are widely used Greek words (anthropos, skythros, alifo etc) and even though it is not easy to think of them directly, it is a serious miss to omit them.

So, here is my previous points. Can few examples in Macedonian inscriptions be considered alien, when you have similar examples in other areas of Greece? It's not that you have a vast amount of such Macedonian-styled words. I personally believe that all the examples above including the Macedonian, are leftovers of PIE in Greek. It is very probable that those survived widely at an early stage of Greek that we cannot attest or haven't attested yet. Do you think that that hypothesis is less probable? James L. O'neil suggests that the PIE bh- could have been deaspirated to -b in Macedonia.

Moreover, since Macedonian preserves the proto-Indoeuropean voiced aspirated, as against all other Greek dialects changing them to unvoiced aspirates. Macedonian must have started to differentiate itself earlier than any of the better known dialects. So that even though it had some developments in common with neighbouring Greek dialects, such as the infinite in -stai shared with Northwest Greek, more changes of vocabulary are likely to have occured in Macedonian even than was the case in Cretan and this is supported by the number of unusual words preserved as "Macedonian" in the glosses.

Then he says the following

Speakers of Doric dialects or even an Aeolic one like Thessalian may have found Macedonian less difficult to follow, since it shared many features with them as against Attic-Ionic.

Then he makes the following hypothesis:

We should allow for the possibility that spoken Macedonian was as far from standard Attic as Sicilian is from Venetian, and that it may have been difficult to determine whether there were two separate languages or just two dialects even if we had better evidence.

O'Neils analysis is labeled "Doric forms in Macedonian inscriptions" where he analyses the 3 larger inscriptions as well as smaller fragments, placenames and personal names. He seems to find similarities with mainly Doric and some Aeolic but gives ofcourse space to the other view as shown above.


From all these, i can summarize that if there are problematics in the classification of Macedonian as a known or unknown Greek dialect, there are much more problematics in other hypothesis. That is my point from the start of this thread and i think O'Neil is very good in showing this.

Just one example...Why are some Macedonian phonology labeled as alien, when e.g within Aeolian you have Πετθαλος (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=148432&bookid=10&region=3&subregion=9) and Φετταλός (http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=145923&bookid=13&region=3&subregion=6) in Thessalian/Boettian respectively? Is the -τθ combination standard in Greek? Does that make Thessalian alien because of the usage of -τθ?

It is fair to keep distance and give space to possibilities, but the same weight of problems should be applied equally to all cases, which i have the belief is not done sometimes.


PS: Just out of curiosity. Has anyone ever mentioned the possibility that Eteocretan could have been spoken in some areas, considering that there's a large minority group of Cretans that colonized the area? Could the small amount of pre-Greek/Non Thracian names attested at Kalindoia be attributed to the Bottians?






Edited by Flipper - 23-Mar-2009 at 21:25


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 12:32
Don't worry, I haven't forgot about this. I hope your health problems are no more (I see you active and posting).
 
"My second map" is said to represent prehistoric Greece, Greece in 2nd millenium BC (possibly in early 1st). I provided it together with the other two maps for showing no consistent "Greekness" in most of Macedonia during the 2nd millenium BC. Which leaves us to conclude that most of Macedonia "Greekized" during the 1st millenium BC (and I suggested earlier this process perhaps wasn't complete at the apogee of Macedonian kingdom, i.e. 4th century BC). Please note that the main centers of ancient Macedonian power and culture (Aigai, Beroia, Pella, not to mention those settlements beyond Axios or Strymon) lie outside the hashed areas. If, as you say, there were some population identified as Macedonian in those mountainous valleys of Upper Macedonia (for which we have no direct evidence, but I can accept this hypothesis for the sake of discussing it), most of the Macedonian population in Classical and Hellenistic age is composed of Hellenized/Hellenizing natives (for me is hard to accept that a small population, living in several valleys could exterminate/chase away the much more numerous populations of the Macedonian plains and occupy those areas), in many cases this Hellenization meant also becoming Greek from non-Greek.
 
I will reply soon to your other comments about Macedonian dialect/language and its feature, for now I'll just comment on the excerpts from James L. O'Neil's work.
 
Quote Moreover, since Macedonian preserves the proto-Indoeuropean voiced aspirated, as against all other Greek dialects changing them to unvoiced aspirates.
Changed the emphasis. Note the difference in voicing, which is the feature we've been discussing. This author seems to contradict your point, that the other Greek dialects share this feature with Macedonian, claiming that Macedonian is unique in this.
 
Quote Macedonian must have started to differentiate itself earlier than any of the better known dialects
That's pretty much the story of every language. Some time ago, a PIE dialect started to differentiate and eventually became a language. The process continues today. The Romance languages, for instance, at some point were some dialects/variants of Latin (Vulgar Latin).
 
Quote We should allow for the possibility that spoken Macedonian was as far from standard Attic as Sicilian is from Venetian, and that it may have been difficult to determine whether there were two separate languages or just two dialects even if we had better evidence.
Changed the emphasis. In some cases the difference between language and dialect is in the eye of the beholder. Compare the Scandinavian languages with the Italian dialects.
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 22-Apr-2009 at 12:40
Back to Top
khshayathiya View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 20-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 108
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote khshayathiya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 12:52
"A language is a dialect with an army and navy", they say.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 12:54
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Ofcourse pots are not people, but you've comparing the modern industrial age with times where making a mycenaean pot was hi-tech. Otherwise, the examination of material culture would not be significant in archeology.
Meanwhile I read Drago Mitrevski's "The Spreading of the Myceneaen Culture throught the Vardar Valley" which you earlier recommended. This author suggests in several occasions that this is about trading, cultural influences, local imitations, etc. not so much about Greek-speaking populations represented by Greek-specific artefacts.
I also find misleading this dichotomy of superiority vs inferiority. Certainly creating a nice-looking Myceneaen pot required some knowledge, skills, materials, but it doesn't mean that  a) these artefacts weren't traded/offered as gifts (as recipients for wine, honey, incense, oils, etc.) or even b) these artefacts weren't imitated.
 
For a parallel example, check some Greek pottery in "barbarian Scythian" sites:
That doesn't mean the examination of material culture is not significant, it only means that not everything is a direct marker of ethnicity (or language).


Edited by Chilbudios - 22-Apr-2009 at 13:00
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 13:32

Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Chilbudios, i didn't say they didn't borrow the names. I said that when borrowing a name, they did not leave it in it's original form but changed it to fit Greek phonology. For example Marcus turned to Markos, Valerius turned to Oualerios, Dārayavahuš turned to Darios etc. Noone says those are not non-Greek names. Ofcourse, there are exceptions like Adam, Eva and Maria which were left intact as their Jewish form. In the majority of names however, changes are made.

You made this point that names change when adapted in a language and I agree, this is largely true. But what I actually attempted to show is that sometimes one cannot differentiate between a foreigner wearing that name transcribed in Greek and a Greek wearing a borrowed name. For sake of simplicity, I'll use the mother tongue as a sole criterion and I believe that unless there's some extra information, we can't say about someone named Ουαλεριος what his mother tongue was: Greek or Latin. Κλαυδιος Πτολεμαιος was perhaps born in a Greek speaking family, but many others named Κλαυδιος weren't. It's like today when we can't tell of a certain Lee living in the U.S. what his mother tongue is: Chinese, Korean, English or some other.

I promised I will bring more evidence of "barbarians" hiding under Greek names and epigraphy. Here is some (I'm not using copy-paste because of the diacritics which may not render correctly, consequently I apologize for any mistakes in transcriptions):

Besides typical "barbarian" names, in the manumissiones from Delphi (most from mid 2nd century BC), we find also several (freed) slaves with Greek names.
From the SGDI II collection ( http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/book?bookid=466 ) here are some examples of
Maioteans (Scythians?): 1992 - Αγαθων, 2163 - Ευταξια, Παρνασιος
Bastarnians: 1754 - Αριστω
Sarmatians: 2274 - Αφροδισια, 2142 - Ειρηνα, Φιλοκρατεια
Galatians (Celts): 1885 - Αγαθων
Thracians: 1902 - Διονυσιος, 1832 - Σωτηριχος
Phrygians: 1922 - Δημητριος

Another situation is when we have a "barbarian" father but a "Greek" son. The case of Thucydides is quite famous, but we can find this phenomenon in epigraphy, e.g. in the Thracian space, in IGB III.2 corpus ( http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/book?bookid=188 ), here are some persons whose father was named Auluzenis (a Thracian name):
1690 - Καστωρ Αυλουζενεος
1703 - Ερμογενης Αυλουζενεος
1832 - Απολ[λω]νιδης Αυλ[ου]ζενεος
What's even more interesting that there are situations in reverse, like in IGB V 5652 where we find a certain Αυλουζενις Ερμοδ[ω]ρου or like in the Pontic inscription CIRB 266 where we have someone named Παιρισαλος Ερακλειδου. I take Pairisalos to be an Iranian name(for Pairi- check Pairisades, the name of several Bosporan kings).

Some other good examples I found in the Egyptian papyri and ostraca, as in Egypt there were some Greeks, Macedonians, Thracians, etc. deployed as mercenaries or soldiers. For instance in the papyrus NYU 122 / 2.16 ( http://epiduke.cch.kcl.ac.uk/2008-07-21/html/p.nyu/p.nyu.2/p.nyu.2.16.html http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/app/apis/item?mode=item&key=nyu.apis.4852&dbg=1 ) we find a Macedonian and a Thracian. The Macedonian's name is Serapion! Both fathers had the same name: Dionysios. How can one tell their ethnic identities only by considering their names? In another papyrus, NYU 71 / 2.14 ( http://epiduke.cch.kcl.ac.uk/2008-07-21/html/p.nyu/p.nyu.2/p.nyu.2.14.html http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/app/apis/item?mode=item&key=nyu.apis.4795&dbg=1 ) we find more Thracians: Θεω[ν Ηρα]κλειδου, Ζωιλος Εκαταιου, Προξενος Προξενου. Theon, Herakleides, Zoilos, Hekataios, Proxenos - aren't these names Greek enough? And yet there were some Thracians in Egypt named that way.

With such examples at hand, I think it's hard to maintain that having a Greek name meant necessarily to have a Greek ethnic identity or even Greek mother tongue. We can at best assume that at some point those individuals became familiar with or fluent in Greek. Perhaps many were Greeks for many generations but we need positive evidence to argue for that. A large density of Greek names suggests a strong Greek culture and possibly also identity, but we may have the surprise to find other identities and languages obscured by such naming fashions. Whether the name was Greek or non-Greek but adapted to Greek, we can't really say what identity a particular person had or what was his mother tongue unless we have some more evidence to correlate and support such conclusions.

 
 
Here're few more articles about ancient Greeks and barbarians and their cultural world and identities, etc:
 
T. Bekker-Nielsen, "Mobility, ethnicity and identity: the evidence of the funerary inscriptions from Pantikapaion"
http://www.pontos.dk/publications/papers-presented-orally/oral-files/Bek_Mobility.pdf
 
Alexandru Avram, "The Territories of Istros and Kallatis"
http://www.pontos.dk/publications/books/bbs4-files/BSS4_04_Avram.pdf (especially p. 63 for a model of Greek-barbarian cohabitation in 7th-6th centuries BC Istros)
 
Mirena Slavova, "Philology and Cultural Identity: the Balkans as a Common Cultural Area in Antiquity"


Edited by Chilbudios - 22-Apr-2009 at 13:55
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 14:17
One last contribution for today is about the Macedonian diallect/language and its features.
 
You're certainly right to doubt that "such an amount of words qualify to characterize a certain phonology" but there are some extra considerations:
 
a) We have a small number of certain Macedonian words (or Greek words in Macedonian pronounciation, whatever the case). As such, while in absolute terms the number is not that impressive, it is more so in relative terms
 
b) It is not only a list of words, it is the testimony of ancient authors, as well. Plutarch, in Moralia (Greek Questions, question 9), testifies for this particularity of the Macedonian pronounciation (Plutarch speaks of Macedonian B instead of Ph). I assume the ancient ones must have heard something to write such a thing.
 
c) The list of words is actually larger. As my previous post was about names and epigraphy, I'll be using Macedonian names to exemplify it. Scholars like O. Masson and M. Hatzopoulos suggested that several names from the inscriptions show this particularity. In IG I3 89, for instance:
Γαιτεας instead of Χαιτεας
Βυργινος instead of Φυρκινος
Σταδμεας instead of Σταθμεας
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 22-Apr-2009 at 14:33
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jun-2009 at 10:57
Chilbudios!
It's been a while since the last time i had time to write in this thread.

First of all, i don't know if you have noticed, but your arguments are far better than most books speaking about possible barbarian nature of Macedon. I really mean it, so respect for that. Smile

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


I promised I will bring more evidence of "barbarians" hiding under Greek names and epigraphy. Here is some (I'm not using copy-paste because of the diacritics which may not render correctly, consequently I apologize for any mistakes in transcriptions):


That's very correct. There are many barbarians hidding behind Greek names. Even in Athens and Piraeus you will find loads of Thracians that had communities there and in smaller cities between the Isthmus and Athens. Foreigners using local names is a common fenomenon. For example, even today an Albanian named Gjerg living in Greece, would introduce himself as Georgios.

Ofcourse, that is a problem if you need to determine an individuals ethnicity. For example look at the following inscription

http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=150696&bookid=126&region=4&subregion=11

All those names are Thracian except from Artemidora. However, from the inscription we know Artemidora is barbarian as well, because she's labeled as such. You've got an inscription from Macedonia where a Thracian woman, is labeled barbarian, which shows the view of the locals towards Thracians even though they are a part of the population. Generally, the term "barbarian" is used amongst the Macedonians, which means they differenciate themselves from foreigners just like the rest of the Greeks.

However, that's not the only problematic issue here. Take for example Herodotus. He was probably half-Carian from his father who was called Lyksu. Many Ionians were a mix of Attics, Minoans, Carians, Lydians and other anatolian populations. However, as we know, the Athenians being the pure Ionians were calling themselves Athenians while the Ionians of Asia Minor where those bearing proudly this name.

Now the other Ionians, and among them the Athenians, avoided the name, not wishing to be called Ionians, nay even now I perceive that the greater number of them are ashamed of the name: but these twelve cities not only prided themselves on the name but established a temple of their own, to which they gave the name of Panionion, and they made resolution not to grant a share in it to any other Ionians (nor indeed did any ask to share it except those of Smyrna);
 
If we accept that Herodotus is by birth a half-barbarian and since we know he's a patriot, do you think he would like to be called Barbarian? I think, that for many half-breeds in Macedonia the same would apply. They wouldn't like to be classified as non-Greeks.


Third on the names are the strickly Macedonian names. To be called Dimitrios in Macedonia is nothing revealing, because it is a so called Panhellenic name. Contrary names like Perdikkas, Alketas, Ikkotas, Tirimmas are strickly Macedonian forms.

Perdikkas is the Macedonian version of Peridikaeos where i in ri is dropped, joined with di and the ending has the Dorian form.

Alketas is the Macedonian version of Alkeus, having a doric suffix in the end.

Ikkotas is the equivalent of Hippotas, keeping the Mycenaean-Greek i-qo form for horse.

Tirimmas is a strickly Macedonian invension, but still perfectly Greek meaning "Cheese lover".

Those are just few examples out of hundreds. Macedonians, invented their own names, in Macedonian style that have an obvious meaning in Greek.


Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


One last contribution for today is about the Macedonian diallect/language and its features.
 
You're certainly right to doubt that "such an amount of words qualify to characterize a certain phonology" but there are some extra considerations:
 
a) We have a small number of certain Macedonian words (or Greek words in Macedonian pronounciation, whatever the case). As such, while in absolute terms the number is not that impressive, it is more so in relative terms



I agree, but we don't know how much from what we read in inscriptions can be rendered as Macedonian. Maybe, in many cases we cannot distinguish a different written language from Attic. I gave you the example of Cypriots, who write identically to other Greeks, but speak very differently. Unless a local dialect word is used, you can't distinguish Cypriot writtings from mainland Greek.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

b) It is not only a list of words, it is the testimony of ancient authors, as well. Plutarch, in Moralia (Greek Questions, question 9), testifies for this particularity of the Macedonian pronounciation (Plutarch speaks of Macedonian B instead of Ph). I assume the ancient ones must have heard something to write such a thing.


Yes, you're right about that. What i'm questioning is if that is a result of barbarophony or isolation and different development from Southern Greek. As you've seen dialects like Doric and Aeolic that are closer to archaism, still preserved words that included those rules.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


c) The list of words is actually larger. As my previous post was about names and epigraphy, I'll be using Macedonian names to exemplify it. Scholars like O. Masson and M. Hatzopoulos suggested that several names from the inscriptions show this particularity. In IG I3 89, for instance:
Γαιτεας instead of Χαιτεας
Βυργινος instead of Φυρκινος
Σταδμεας instead of Σταθμεας


But both Masson and Hatzopoulos in the end, concluded that Macedonians spoke a separate branch of Greek that followed a different development that the rest. That means, that that phenomenon did not trouble them so much to classify Macedonian as non-Greek because the sound laws.

Since you mentioned Hatzopoulos, here are some comments he made on the voice stops:

the vast majority of personal names, not only were perfectly Greek (Φίλιππος, Ἀλέξανδρος, Παρμενίων, Ἀντίπατρος, Ἀντίοχος, Ἀρσινόη, Εὐρυδίκη) but also presented original traits excluding the possibility of their being borrowed from the Attic dialect, which was the official idiom of the kingdom (Ἀμύντας, Μαχάτας, Ἀλκέτας, Λάαγος), indeed from any other Greek dialect (Πτολεμαῖος, Κρατεύας, Βούπλαγος).

One reason – perhaps the main one – for such resistance to the assimilation of new evidence and persistence of obsolete theories until these very last years is the way in which since the nineteenth century the scholarly discussion about Macedonian speech and its Greek or non-Greek character has focused on the sporadic presence in Macedonian glosses and proper names -- which otherwise looked perfectly Greek -- of the sign of the voiced stop (β, δ, γ) instead of the corresponding unvoiced, originally “aspirated” stop expected in Greek, as for instance in Βάλακρος and Βερενίκα instead of Φάλακρος and Φερενίκα.

What the partisans of such theories have not always explicitly stated is that they all rely on the postulate that the sounds rendered by the signs β, δ, γ in Macedonian glosses and proper names are the direct heirs of the series of voiced “aspirate” stops of Indo-European and do not result from a secondary sonorisation, within Greek, of the series represented by the signs φ, θ, χ. However, one must be wary of short-cuts and simplifications in linguistics. For instance, the sound /t/ in the German word “Mutter” is not the direct heir of the same sound in the Indo-European word *mater, but has evolved from the common Germanic form *moδer, which was the reflex of Indo-European *mater.

The example of Latin demonstrates that the evolution /bh/>/ph/>/f/>/v/>/b/, envisaged above, is perfectly possible. Thus, the form albus (“white”) in Latin does not come directly from Indo-European *albhos. In fact the stem albh- became first alph- and then alf- in Italic, and it was only secondarily that the resulting spirant sonorised into alv- which evolved into alb- in Latin (cf. alfu=albos in Umbrian and ἀλφούς˙ λευκούς in Greek).


He has written a lot, but i just quote some samples. The main point is that none of those you mentioned called Macedonian non-Greek language, but a dialect of separate development.

Basically, Macedonian is a similar case with Arcadian. However, thanks to early Cypriot and Cretan writtings we know Arcadian is Greek developed differently from a native pre-Greek language different from the other pre-greek substances that gave a character to Attic, Aeolic, Doric etc. In early Macedonian inscriptions we don't have complete sentences, like Arcadian to make a profile.

Also, each time i devote myself to this issue, i find new words in different Greek dialects (mainly Doric and Aeolic) that follow the same rules as Macedonian. Those words, are not borrowings but relics of archaism.



Now, i want to show you something interesting i've found. I guess you remember what i earlier said about geographic unrelated phenomenas similar to the Macedonian sound laws? The funny thing is that i found examples in the 2 places i originate from (upper Macedonia and Aeolia). Specifically, the following text is the local dialect of upper Macedonia, dated around the 60s.




Most Greeks, wouldn't understand easily this text. If the difference between Attic and Macedonian were as the text above and Greek Demotic, then it is fully understandable that Attic speakers could not comprehend Macedonians easily.

What is interesting with the modern Macedonian dialect above is the iotaism (use of i instead of Grek e) found in Thessalian, the turn of o to -u like Tsakonian Doric, the vowel dropping (eg. σκώθκι instead of σηκωθηκε and Περδικκας instead  of Περιδικαίος), the use of Δ instead of Θ (δα instead of θα).

Moreover, there are combinations of sounds that are highly unsual in Greek, but still that does not make the text non-Greek or non readable as Greek. Examples: εφκιάνει, σναζουμι, σκωθκι, δλεια. Before commenting that those are phenomenas of foreign influence, note that none of the surrounding languages have θ and δ. I would rather compare them to pre-Greek words like τλάθυμος, αρκρκοκλες̣ etc.

On the use of Δ instead of Θ compare the Macedonian Greek "δα σώσει τουν οργού μπρουστητίρα" and the Palladarian (Aeolia) "δα κολλούσε όλη η χώρα"



As I told you before, Aeolians moved to Aeolia with the comming of the Thessalians. The Aeolic speech of Thessaly probably changed a bit, while in Asia Minor, some archaic elements could have been preserved.

Also, the word κατούνια (furrow) cognates with the Kerkyrian καντούνια (furrow, narrow street). You know the passages about Upper Macedonians when it comes to dress and speech being similar in a line stretching to Epirus and Corfu.

The inscription http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/oi?ikey=153303&bookid=172&region=4&subregion=11

Ϝαλιος ἐμὶ τῆς Δολίο

could be compared with the above text's "η λάλας κι μι παράτωρσι" where "εμι" and "μι" is the equivalent of standard Greek εμε/με.

Now, another word, that is really suprising in the page above, is the word πιρπιρέϊ (pirpirei) which means butterfly (Greek ψυχάνθη, πεταλούδα) and has it's root to PIE peipel. While in other Greek dialects the meaning is metaphoric (soul of the flower, flying flower), in Macedonian Greek it has kept the PIE version. That could also be a phenomenon of isolation. We don't have an attestation of butterfly in Linear B to know if the Mycenaeans used a PIE rooted word for butterfly before the metaphor, but we know for example that Macedonian Kynagidas is the word used during Mycenaean times in Greece that later changed.

Also, note γνεκις (women, Att. γυναίκες, Aeolic Βανήκες, Myc. Ku-ne-ka, PIE gwen, gwna).

Last, as i told before, skepticism about Macedonian emerged in earlier times when epigraphic evidence was scarce. Even before the curse tablet of pella, the arethousa tablet and some other minor inscriptions, many scholars were quite sure.

John Antwerp Fine, suggests that most modern scholarship (back in 1983) recognise the dialect as Greek and it seems the skepticism was mostly an earlier debate.







Edited by Flipper - 15-Jun-2009 at 23:22


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.145 seconds.