Upcoming Oxford Exhibit - Items from Aigai

[athenas owl]

Well Henry was rooted in 16th century English culture. He was 16th century English culture. Your point might have more merit if an exhibit of Henry's family tree attempted to prove that the entire family was rooted in ancient English culture... The Tudors were Welsh. One could say they had been Anglised over the years. Owen Tudor, Henry VIII's great grandfather had been a page in Henry V's court and pulled quite the clever coup by marrying Henry V's widow. But they descended from Rhys ap Gruffydd....and until Owen came to the English court, he was known as Owain ap Maredudd ap Tewdwr or some such. The Welsh might take offense if they were described as rooted in the ancient culture and civilisation of England.

Heh Heh, I told you I was a little hazy there! Nonetheless, I wouldn't argue that Henry wasn't rooted in the culture and civilization of the England of his time, just like the Macedonians were rooted in the culture and civilization of their time. We are not comparing England of the 16th century with the Celts of pre-Roman Britain.

Again, the quote I used mentioned that the Macedonian Royal family was rooted in ancient Greek culture going back to the beginnings of the dynasty. That's not just the definitely Hellenised 4th century. I may be reading that wrong. And as I won't be able to see the exhibit I can not say whether they will touch on non-Greek elements of ancient Macedonian culture, again prior to the 5th or 4th centuries. If the exhibit does that, then I will stand corrected. The quote doesn't seem to indicate that however. I do think, and this is what fascinates me about the Macedonians is that they were at the crossroads of the varied peoples in the region. After all Philip married an Illyrian and a Thracian as well as women from various northern Greek tribes. Who knows who all the wives of many of the earlier kings were from. Alexander, when he went into exile went to Illyria and not to any city=state in the South. Why there, what connection did he have? How intriguing to me those connections are or could be. I often think that the uniqueness of the Macedonians, whoever they were, gets lost in all the modern drama.

Peter Weller, commenting on Engineering an Empire, said something to the effect that Philip had not destroyed the Greek cities he defeated....like this: "He didn't want to destroy the Greeks, he wanted to be the Greeks". That series is kind of okayish...mostly because I enjoy his commentary, though sometimes I wince.

[Nikas]

Again, the quote I used mentioned that the Macedonian Royal family was rooted in ancient Greek culture going back to the beginnings of the dynasty. That's not just the definitely Hellenised 4th century. I may be reading that wrong. And as I won't be able to see the exhibit I can not say whether they will touch on non-Greek elements of ancient Macedonian culture, again prior to the 5th or 4th centuries. If the exhibit does that, then I will stand corrected. The quote doesn't seem to indicate that however. I do think, and this is what fascinates me about the Macedonians is that they were at the crossroads of the varied peoples in the region. After all Philip married an Illyrian and a Thracian as well as women from various northern Greek tribes. Who knows who all the wives of many of the earlier kings were from. Alexander, when he went into exile went to Illyria and not to any city=state in the South. Why there, what connection did he have? How intriguing to me those connections are or could be. I often think that the uniqueness of the Macedonians, whoever they were, gets lost in all the modern drama.

Peter Weller, commenting on Engineering an Empire, said something to the effect that Philip had not destroyed the Greek cities he defeated....like this: "He didn't want to destroy the Greeks, he wanted to be the Greeks". That series is kind of okayish...mostly because I enjoy his commentary, though sometimes I wince.

Well yes, but I guess there is where we come to it: you are entitled to your opinion of course, but I at least believe that in the context we are now comparing the ancient Macedonian Royal family was of the ancient Greek civilization and culture and while I would definitely disagree with your statement of a "Hellenized 4th century", I still hold that by just about any definition that the Macedonians were part of the Greek civilization and culture. Unfortunately, it appears we have now definitively crossed into the so-called "Macedonian"/Greek debate, but I would also personally disagree with the "non-Greek" elements of the Macedonian culture, that is an assumption that it they would be any more relevant, or in a different context, of say, displaying Thracian wares in an exhibition of ancient Athens. As for Alexander, perhaps he chose Illyria because it was still an area that posed a significant implied threat to Macedonia? It was not all that long ago that the Illyrians had killed a Macedonian King on the battlefield and it was not that far in the future that they would need a pacification tour of duty before Alexander took his show on the road to Asia. Where I will agree with you, is I do believe they were at the frontiers of the Greek world and were exposed to the "cross-roads" of many different cultures, just not at the centre of it As for Peter Sellers, he as well is entitled to his opinion, but I would remind you that the title is somewhat telling, as is the content of the show itself: "Engineering an Empire: Greece - Age of Alexander".

This however does raise for me another point to the one you alluded to earlier. Let us say that the artifacts and so-called "evidence" does in fact show that right from the outset the Macedonian dynasty was actually in fact "rooted in the civilization and culture of ancient Greece". Why would the organizers have to disavow this? Is this simply not sound scientific method, a theory supported by evidence? I would say it is akin to the organizers saying they are having an exhibit on the ancient Spartan dynasty and trying to disassociate it from the "civilization and culture of ancient Greece"? I will grant that there may be a more deliberate purpose in this exhibit, but circumstances being what they are, and if they in fact can, as we say, "back it up", well….

[athenas owl]

Peter Weller..not Peter Sellers...though a "documentary" narrated by Peter Sellers would possibly be quite amusing.

[Nikas]

Peter Weller..not Peter Sellers...though a "documentary" narrated by Peter Sellers would possibly be quite amusing.

Yes, I suppose it would be! My typo notwithstanding, Engineering an Empire is an interesting series.

[marcus]

Peter Weller..not Peter Sellers...though a "documentary" narrated by Peter Sellers would possibly be quite amusing.

Wasn't Peter Weller the guy who played RoboCop?

ATB

[athenas owl]

Yes, he was. I was trying for some snarky comment about Robocop vs. Inspector Clouseau, but not feeling all that witty, stopped myself.

Weller is also apparently a lecturer at Syracuse University, and was a graduate student in some kind of history from UCLA. Who knew? When I first saw him hosting EanE, I went and looked him up.

Though it should be noted, that in some circles Weller is considered a cult hero, for "Buckaroo Bonzai"..errr, not that I would ever think such a thing.

[marcus]

Yes, he was. I was trying for some snarky comment about Robocop vs. Inspector Clouseau, but not feeling all that witty, stopped myself.

Weller is also apparently a lecturer at Syracuse University, and was a graduate student in some kind of history from UCLA. Who knew? When I first saw him hosting EanE, I went and looked him up.

Though it should be noted, that in some circles Weller is considered a cult hero, for "Buckaroo Bonzai"..errr, not that I would ever think such a thing.

My next question was going to be "but it surely isn't the same one"; then I looked him up and, hey presto.

Well, well, well, RoboClassics it is, then ... "Sayonara, Perikles."

ATB

[Paralus]

This however does raise for me another point to the one you alluded to earlier. Let us say that the artifacts and so-called "evidence" does in fact show that right from the outset the Macedonian dynasty was actually in fact "rooted in the civilization and culture of ancient Greece". Why would the organizers have to disavow this? Is this simply not sound scientific method, a theory supported by evidence? I would say it is akin to the organizers saying they are having an exhibit on the ancient Spartan dynasty and trying to disassociate it from the "civilization and culture of ancient Greece"? I will grant that there may be a more deliberate purpose in this exhibit, but circumstances being what they are, and if they in fact can, as we say, "back it up", well….

A more deliberate purpose is more than hinted at by the language. Presenting evidence to a purpose might be a better way of describing it.

You are correct, though, about transgressing site rules and I am busy on other matters. Suffice to say that the city state Greeks certainly considered the Macedonians "others" in Classical times. Macedonian "philhellenising" certainly indicates the sensitivity of Macedonian kings to this view.

[Nikas]

A more deliberate purpose is more than hinted at by the language. Presenting evidence to a purpose might be a better way of describing it.

You are correct, though, about transgressing site rules and I am busy on other matters. Suffice to say that the city state Greeks certainly considered the Macedonians "others" in Classical times. Macedonian "philhellenising" certainly indicates the sensitivity of Macedonian kings to this view.

Obviously I do not accept your assessments, so I will suffice to say that the Macedonians "certainly" were not "others" in Classical times, regardless of the political views of some of the southern city state Greeks, and that "philhellenising" was "certainly" a laudable thing, for any Greek, to do.

[agesilaos]

Going to sound like a fence sitter here but Alexander I and the Macedonian Royal Family WERE considered Greeks, whuch is why he could compete at Olympia, the rest of the Macedonians were considered non-Greek, though culturally they were heavily influenced by the South and seem to have shared the Greek religion we know that Makedonisti was unintelligible to the Southerners sufficiently for them to exclude them from Herodotos' definition of Greekness; needless to say, this has nothing to do with the archaeological facts or modern opinion and is nothing to do with the forbidden topic, a modern Spartan is probably less Greek than an ancient Macedonian so great have been the population shifts in the Balkans.

[Nikas]

Going to sound like a fence sitter here but Alexander I and the Macedonian Royal Family WERE considered Greeks, whuch is why he could compete at Olympia, the rest of the Macedonians were considered non-Greek, though culturally they were heavily influenced by the South and seem to have shared the Greek religion we know that Makedonisti was unintelligible to the Southerners sufficiently for them to exclude them from Herodotos' definition of Greekness; needless to say, this has nothing to do with the archaeological facts or modern opinion and is nothing to do with the forbidden topic, a modern Spartan is probably less Greek than an ancient Macedonian so great have been the population shifts in the Balkans.

Yes, this has nothing to do with modern Balkan politics and/or ethnological issues. Certainly the Balkans has had it's share of population shifts, as basically everywhere in Europe has. I do not agree that the rest of the Macedonians were non-Greek, and I will leave it at that.

[Paralus]

Obviously I do not accept your assessments, so I will suffice to say that the Macedonians "certainly" were not "others" in Classical times, regardless of the political views of some of the southern city state Greeks, and that "philhellenising" was "certainly" a laudable thing, for any Greek, to do.

I would agree with Agesilaos: whilst Macedonian royalty were accepted as Greek for Olympic competition by the Hellanodikai, the rest of the Macedonians were not.

Interesting that Thucydides notes that Brasidas takes along Perdiccas and "the forces of his Macedonian subjects" as well as hoplites "composed of Hellenes domiciled in the country". A clear distinction - not only on the basis of arming - being made between the two for, in an army composed of Peloponnesians, Chacidians, Acanthians and Macedonians, he later says: "there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians" (4.124.1-2). The "immense crowd of barbarians". Unless Acanthos supplied the "immense crowd of barbarians", Thucydides can only be referring to the "Macedonian subjects".

City state (esp Athens) "snobbery" may well have had much to do with the view. Someone once suggested to me that it might well be akin to putting an Orkney Islander and a Londoner in a bar and watching them communicate...

[Nikas]

Obviously I do not accept your assessments, so I will suffice to say that the Macedonians "certainly" were not "others" in Classical times, regardless of the political views of some of the southern city state Greeks, and that "philhellenising" was "certainly" a laudable thing, for any Greek, to do.

I would agree with Agesilaos: whilst Macedonian royalty were accepted as Greek for Olympic competition by the Hellanodikai, the rest of the Macedonians were not.

Interesting that Thucydides notes that Brasidas takes along Perdiccas and "the forces of his Macedonian subjects" as well as hoplites "composed of Hellenes domiciled in the country". A clear distinction - not only on the basis of arming - being made between the two for, in an army composed of Peloponnesians, Chacidians, Acanthians and Macedonians, he later says: "there were about three thousand Hellenic heavy infantry, accompanied by all the Macedonian cavalry with the Chalcidians, near one thousand strong, besides an immense crowd of barbarians" (4.124.1-2). The "immense crowd of barbarians". Unless Acanthos supplied the "immense crowd of barbarians", Thucydides can only be referring to the "Macedonian subjects".

City state (esp Athens) "snobbery" may well have had much to do with the view. Someone once suggested to me that it might well be akin to putting an Orkney Islander and a Londoner in a bar and watching them communicate...

That Thucydides differentiates between Perdiccas own Macedonian subjects and other Hellenes that were domiciled in Macedonia is not that surprising. The key is the use of "his Macedonian subjects". We know from other sources that Macedonian kings had invited other Hellenes to settle in Macedonia and this is simply a distinction between Perdiccas own subjects and other Greeks that were for whatever reason living in Macedonia and were apparently not considered Perdiccas own personal subject. More importantly, it is however indeed about the disposition of the army, and the fact that the Macedonians are paired together with the Chalcidians, Greeks unless that is in dispute, besides the barbarians. Again later:

"and when night came on, the Macedonians and the barbarian crowd suddenly took fright in one of those mysterious panics to which great armies are liable," (4.125) we see again that it is the Macedonians and the barbarians, not the Macedonians are the barbarians:

"οἱ μὲν Μακεδόνες καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν βαρβάρων εὐθὺς φοβηθέντες"
oi men Makedones kai to plithos ton barbaron eutheis fovithenetes"

I do believe that city-state snobbery had a lot to do with it, especially where Athens is concerned. I mean if they actually believed this:

"That is how firm and sound the high-mindedness and liberality of our city are, how much we are naturally inclined to hate the barbarians, though being purely Greek with no barbarian taint. For people who are barbarians by birth but Greeks by law - offspring of Pelops, Cadmus, Aegyptus, Danaus and many others-do not dwell among us. Consequently, our city is imbued with undiluted hatred of foreignness." - Plato, Menexennus

[Paralus]

That Thucydides differentiates between Perdiccas own Macedonian subjects and other Hellenes that were domiciled in Macedonia is not that surprising. The key is the use of "his Macedonian subjects". We know from other sources that Macedonian kings had invited other Hellenes to settle in Macedonia and this is simply a distinction between Perdiccas own subjects and other Greeks that were for whatever reason living in Macedonia and were apparently not considered Perdiccas own personal subject.

Agreed: he differentiates on both the arming (Macedon having no heavy infantry of any use) and ethnos. We know that Philip II extended the "companionate" to Greeks in Macedonia but we do not know if earlier kings did similar. Likely not. Were these Greeks actually a part of Macedonia one would expect them to be subject to the king. It is odd that these Greeks, "domiciled within the country", seemingly are totally independent islands within Macedonia. Isuspect they are those Brasidas has "talked into" joining him and likely Greeks of the coastal poleis - almost certainly formerly aligned with Athens. If not, they are a little like villages of Lacedaemonians scattered about Attica. The question is: why are they a separate entity within the Macedonian Kingdom?

More importantly, it is however indeed about the disposition of the army, and the fact that the Macedonians are paired together with the Chalcidians, Greeks unless that is in dispute, besides the barbarians. Again later:

"and when night came on, the Macedonians and the barbarian crowd suddenly took fright in one of those mysterious panics to which great armies are liable," (4.125) we see again that it is the Macedonians and the barbarians, not the Macedonians are the barbarians:

"οἱ μὲν Μακεδόνες καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν βαρβάρων εὐθὺς φοβηθέντες"
oi men Makedones kai to plithos ton barbaron eutheis fovithenetes"

Thucydides thrice refers to the "Macedonians" in this description. It is a pity it is not Arrian. The first is a clear reference to those that Perdiccas "rules over", aka his subject Macedonians. The second is a clear reference to cavalry in Thucydides' listing of the army. Again we have the allies, Macedonian hippies and the large "crowd of barabarians". The third referrs "the makedones" and the "plethos ton barbaron" (the many barbarians) having scarpered.

The question here is, who are the "barbarians"? Clearly they are not the Illyrians for they have caused the scarpering by changing sides. Given this is not the kingdom of Philip II they can hardly be the Paeonians, Thracians or others. Thucydides notes only the Acanthians and Chalcidians as well as those Peloponesians Brasidas brought with him (including mercenaries). The Macedonian kingdom at this time is likely to have comprised only the lower plain and not all of that (the Greek poleis of the coast for example).

I would guess that Thucydides referes to the "hetairoi" of Perdiccas, his un-numbered his cavalry nobility ("all the cavalry"), as the "Makedones" and the crowd of barbaroi are the serf population of Macedonians pressed into service as traditional peltasts with whatever they could lay hands on (javelin/longche and hopefully some sort of shield). It is Philip II who expands the landed population of Macedonia as his infantry is transformed from serf to landholder and thus into "Makedones" or actual "citizens" (for want of a better word).

I do believe that city-state snobbery had a lot to do with it, especially where Athens is concerned. I mean if they actually believed this:

"That is how firm and sound the high-mindedness and liberality of our city are, how much we are naturally inclined to hate the barbarians, though being purely Greek with no barbarian taint. For people who are barbarians by birth but Greeks by law - offspring of Pelops, Cadmus, Aegyptus, Danaus and many others-do not dwell among us. Consequently, our city is imbued with undiluted hatred of foreignness." - Plato, Menexennus

Indeed. As I say, imagine an Orkney Islander and a Londoner conversing over a beer...

[Nikas]

Agreed: he differentiates on both the arming (Macedon having no heavy infantry of any use) and ethnos. We know that Philip II extended the "companionate" to Greeks in Macedonia but we do not know if earlier kings did similar. Likely not. Were these Greeks actually a part of Macedonia one would expect them to be subject to the king. It is odd that these Greeks, "domiciled within the country", seemingly are totally independent islands within Macedonia. Isuspect they are those Brasidas has "talked into" joining him and likely Greeks of the coastal poleis - almost certainly formerly aligned with Athens. If not, they are a little like villages of Lacedaemonians scattered about Attica. The question is: why are they a separate entity within the Macedonian Kingdom?

I can't seem to recall the exact source, but somewhere I have read that during some disaster, a war or an earthquake, whole communities from the Peloponnesus were given shelter in Macedonia. They may as you say have been scattered communities, but it is also a possibility that at the time of the Peloponnesian War these Greeks were given temporary residence pending some change of affairs back in their home states, and were not expected to be Macedonian subjects. While I am unable to find the other source I am thinking about, these should give an example:

[5]" After Helice you will turn from the sea to the right and you will come to the town of Ceryneia. It is built on a mountain above the high road, and its name was given to it either by a native potentate or by the river Cerynites, which, flowing from Arcadia and Mount Ceryneia, passes through this part of Achaia. To this part came as settlers Mycenaeans from Argolis because of a catastrophe. Though the Argives could not take the wall of Mycenae by storm,[6] built as it was like the wall of Tiryns by the Cyclopes, as they are called, yet the Mycenaeans were forced to leave their city through lack of provisions. Some of them departed for Cleonae, but more than half of the population took refuge with Alexander in Macedonia, to whom Mardonius, the son of Gobryas, entrusted the message to be given to the Athenians.2 The rest of the population came to Ceryneia, and the addition of the Mycenaeans made Ceryneia more powerful, through the increase of the population, and more renowned for the future."

Pausanias, Book 7.25

"Theopompus says that when Pericles overpowered Euboea the Histiaeans by agreement migrated to Macedonia, and that two thousand Athenians who formerly composed the deme of the Histiaeans came and took up their abode in Oreus." [4]

Strabo 10.1.14

At the time of Perdiccas, communities such as these may have been considered to be temporary settlers (refugees even) and not Macedonians per se. As you say, I don't believe we have any references to their acceptance as Macedonian companions until the time of Philip II.

Thucydides thrice refers to the "Macedonians" in this description. It is a pity it is not Arrian. The first is a clear reference to those that Perdiccas "rules over", aka his subject Macedonians. The second is a clear reference to cavalry in Thucydides' listing of the army. Again we have the allies, Macedonian hippies and the large "crowd of barabarians". The third referrs "the makedones" and the "plethos ton barbaron" (the many barbarians) having scarpered.

The question here is, who are the "barbarians"? Clearly they are not the Illyrians for they have caused the scarpering by changing sides. Given this is not the kingdom of Philip II they can hardly be the Paeonians, Thracians or others. Thucydides notes only the Acanthians and Chalcidians as well as those Peloponesians Brasidas brought with him (including mercenaries). The Macedonian kingdom at this time is likely to have comprised only the lower plain and not all of that (the Greek poleis of the coast for example).

I would guess that Thucydides referes to the "hetairoi" of Perdiccas, his un-numbered his cavalry nobility ("all the cavalry"), as the "Makedones" and the crowd of barbaroi are the serf population of Macedonians pressed into service as traditional peltasts with whatever they could lay hands on (javelin/longche and hopefully some sort of shield). It is Philip II who expands the landed population of Macedonia as his infantry is transformed from serf to landholder and thus into "Makedones" or actual "citizens" (for want of a better word).

For the "plethos ton barbaron" it's difficult to say. It could just be a contingent of barbarian troops that Perdiccas has gotten from somewhere that Thucydides doesn't elaborate on (and in Thucydides world view there were enough around to choose from) or even as you see it, serfs of Macedonia (after all, all of Greece had an indigenous population prior to the arrival of the Greeks, such as the Pelasgians), but what I think is important is that Thucydides is careful in distinguishing them, there are Macedonians, and then there are barbarians, but they are not one and the same. At some future point, these "barbaroi" may have become Macedonians, if they are indeed the impressed serfs, but at the time of Perdiccas, it does not appear that they were considered as Macedonians so we cannot say for sure. Yes, the detail of an Arrian would have been helpful!

As I say, imagine an Orkney Islander and a Londoner conversing over a beer...

Or a Canadian and an Australian?