Author:

Effective demolition of the main argument put forward by Greece to justify blocking Macedonia’s path to integration into NATO and the EU.

The late N.G.L. Hammond, Emeritus Professor of Greek at the University of Bristol, Honorary Fellow of Clare College, University of Cambridge, and Officer of the Royal Hellenic Order of the Phoenix, was perhaps the Western world’s leading authority on ancient Macedonia, and author of a three-volume history of ancient Macedonia. From early on, he was quite categorical about the nationality of the ancient Macedonians: ‘The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbours.’ This conclusion was based on a study of Herodotus, Thucycidides and other ancient Greek writers (N.G.L. Hammond, A History of Greece to 322 BC, 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1967, p. 535).

This conclusion was reaffirmed in the works on ancient Macedonian history he subsequently published. In his ‘History of Macedonia’, he wrote the following:

The Macedonians had no reason and presumably no wish to align themselves with the Greek states either as promoters of Greek culture or as speakers of a common language. Each people had its own culture, and each people was destined to develop on its own lines in accordance with its own genius and its own situation. Hostility between the two was to be expected. A slender bridge between them was represented by the Greek language, spoken as contemporary Doric by the royal house and in the form of an ancient patois by the Macedones, but a means of communication is very far from assuring peaceful relations between two peoples, as we know from our experience of the modern world. (N.G.L. Hammond, A History of Macedonia, vol. 1, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972, p. 441).

In his ‘The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions and History’, Hammond wrote the following:

We have already inferred from the incident at the Olympic Games c. 500 that the Macedonians themselves, as opposed to their kings, were considered not to be Greeks. Herodotus said this clearly in four words, introducing Amyntas, who was king c. 500, as ‘a Greek ruling over Macedonians’, and Thucydides described the Macedonians and other northern tribes as ‘barbarians’ in the sense of ‘non-Greeks’, despite the fact that they were Greek-speaking. When it came to political controversy, it was naturally good invective to call the king a barbarian too. Thus a Greek speech-writer called the Thessalians ‘Greeks’ and Archelaus, the contemporary Macedonian king, ‘a barbarian’. Demosthenes spoke of Philip II as ‘the barbarian from Pella’. Writing in 346 and eager to win Philip’s approval, Isocrates paid tribute to Philip as a blue-blooded Greek and made it clear at the same time that the Macedonians were not Greeks. Aristotle, born at Stageira on the Macedonian border and the son of a Greek doctor at the Macedonian court, classed the Macedonians and their institution of monarchy as not Greek, as we shall see shortly. It is thus not surprising that the Macedonians considered themselves to be, and were treated by Alexander the Great as being, separate from the Greeks. They were proud to be so. (N.G.L. Hammond, The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions and History, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989, p. 19).

Other classical scholars support Hammond’s thesis on the non-Greek character of the ancient Macedonia. The late Chester G. Starr, Bentley Professor of History Emeritus at the University of Michigan, has this to say:

‘The Acarnanians, Aetolians, and other Greeks dwelling in the forests and fertile plains of northwest Greece remained backward tribal peoples. To their east lay the large but weak kingdom of Macedonia. This was not counted as Greek, though its stock was closely related’. (Chester G. Starr, ‘A History of the Ancient World’, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 1991, p. 260).

‘Macedonia was essentially a tribal kingdom, far larger than any Greek state but so loosely organised and beset by even more barbarian neighbours that it had never been important. Its kings had fostered Greek culture at their courts and been accepted as Greek by the officials of the Olympic games; but the peasantry and nobles, though akin to the Greeks, were considered distinct’. (Ibid., p. 367).

As the above quotations indicate, a case could be made that, if not the Macedonian people, then the Macedonian kings could be considered to have been Greek, insofar as they claimed Greek descent and promoted Greek culture at their court. Paul Cartledge, Professor of Greek History in the Faculty of Classics at the University of Cambridge and a biographer of Alexander, mentions that ‘it is noteworthy that only the reigning king of Macedon, and no other Macedonians, was considered sufficiently Greek to be permitted to enter the sacred Olympic Games as a competitor.’ (Paul Cartledge, Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past, MacMillan, London, 2004, p. 33).

Yet to describe Alexander the Great and his father Philip II as ‘Greek kings’, as their respective Wikipedia entries, presumably bombarded by edits from Greek nationalists, rather pointedly do, is somewhat akin to calling the British monarchs since the 1710s ‘German kings and queens’. The late Moses I. Finley, Lecturer in Classics at the University of Cambridge, wrote that, from the point of view of the Greeks, Philip II was ‘a despot and outsider, at best an “honorary Hellene,” whose own motives and interests, it need scarcely be said, were fundamentally not those of the Greeks he was to lead.’ (M.I. Finlay, The Ancient Greeks, Chatto and Windus, London, 1963, p. 83). As for Philip’s son, Alexander the Great, ‘It seems that he relied almost entirely on his own Macedonian generals and soldiers and had little trust in the Greeks, and that he was prepared to make a place for the Persian nobility.’ (ibid., p. 173).

Cartledge goes into some depth about Alexander’s unwillingness to rely on Greek troops, and on the fact that many more Greeks fought for Persia against him than vice versa:

‘To sum up: the most plausible explanation of the composition of Alexander’s forces, as it seems to me, is that he mistrusted the Greeks’ loyalty, with good reason after all, and that an awful lot more Greeks disliked or feared Alexander’s Macedonian rule than positively favoured or embraced it. This impression seems confirmed by none other than Arrian, retailer of the pro-Alexander Official version of events for the most part. At the Battle of Issus, he reports, there was among Alexander’s troops ‘even a degree of emulous antagonism between members of the Greek and Macedonian peoples’ – that is, between troops who were supposed to be fighting on the same side in a common cause. This was because for many Greeks, the Macedonians too – not just the Persians – were ‘barbarians’. Furthermore, it was Macedon, not the [Persian] Great King, which they thought was the real, or at any rate the more immediately present, danger and enemy. For many Macedonians, conversely, Greeks were members of a recently defeated and so despised people who did not know how to conduct their political and military life sensibly‘. (Cartledge, Alexander the Great, pp. 94-95).

There remains the question of why certain classical scholars whose own works have shattered the myth that the ancient Macedonians were Greek should have ended up endorsing the Greek-nationalist cause vis-a-vis the Republic of Macedonia, even at the price of eating their own words. As we noted above, Hammond, in his ‘History of Macedonia’, wrote the following of the ancient Greeks and Macedonians:

‘A slender bridge between them was represented by the Greek language, spoken as contemporary Doric by the royal house and in the form of an ancient patois by the Macedones, but a means of communication is very far from assuring peaceful relations between two peoples, as we know from our experience of the modern world.’

Yet in an interview with the Greek-nationalist publication Macedonian Echo in February 1993, he said the following, in response to the suggestion that Demosthenes of Athens viewed the Macedonians as ‘barbarians’:

‘Personally, I believe that it is the common language, which gives one the opportunity to share a common civilization. Thus the language is the main factor that forms a national identity.’

Cartledge devotes a considerable part of his biography of Alexander to discussing the ambiguous nature of Alexander’s relationship with, and identification with, the Greek world, noting:

‘We have already seen that it was a live issue whether Alexander was truly “Greek”.’ (Cartledge, Alexander the Great, p. 15).

Yet five years later, Cartledge added his name to an open letter to President Obama signed by 200 classical scholars in support of the Greek-nationalist stance on Macedonia, which claimed:

‘Alexander the Great was thoroughly and indisputably Greek.’

I am not going to speculate here as to why such scholars might contradict themselves in this way, though I believe it is not difficult to work out. Suffice it to say that I take more seriously what scholars say in their major works, than what they say when making political statements.

This comment appeared on the author’s Greater Surbiton weblog, 15 September 2010

To get to the real Macedonians we need to start a little before the time of Alexander the Great. If we go too far back, say to the seventh century B.C., we find that Macedon was a tiny little piece of land that no one today would really be interested in. It was an area that could be covered on horseback in a day’s ride. Macedon at first included the area immediately east of Lake Kastoria and east and north of the Haliakmon River. Certainly there is little glory to claim from this period of Macedonian history. By the fifth century B.C. the kingdom had been extended eastward to what is now the Struma River, and a century later the Macedonian homeland was extended to include all of the territory West of the Nestos River.’ In the time of Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great, the Macedonian homeland was at its largest, and Macedonian power was at its peak. This seems the obvious era in which to begin our enquiry.

Modern Greeks prefer to think of the ancient Macedonians as Greeks. This was part of their justification for taking a part of Macedonia by conquest earlier in this century, and is still used to justify their present international position. Greek arguments frequently focus on the time of Alexander because of his undoubted influence in spreading Hellenic culture to distant parts of the known world. It is clear, too, that they gain some satisfaction from imagining some family connection with that extraordinary figure. However, the modern Greek ideas would have been rejected by both the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks.

If we start by looking at modern Greek discussions of these ideas we can then consider what historians have to say about their arguments, point by point. We get some of the flavor of Greek attitudes in the Greek publication Macedonia, History and Politics (published by George Christopoulos, John Bastias, printed by Ekdotike Athenon S.A. for the Center for Macedonians Abroad, and the Society for Macedonian Studies, 1991). This is a publication available in Greek embassies and distributed to Greek communities and multi-cultural organizations throughout the English-speaking world. The author of this book considers that the use of the Greek language by Macedonians is proof of their Greekness. In passing we might reflect on the modern use of English by many countries as a convenience for trade or war, and note that this usage proves nothing at all about the ethnicity or culture of the users. However, the author of Macedonia, History and Politics claims that the dissemination of the “Greek language and Greek culture throughout the known world by Alexander the Great and his Macedonians provides the most irrefutable confirmation” of the unity of the Macedonians with the other Greeks.

To explore thoroughly this issue of the proposed Greekness of the Macedonians, we need to consider evidence from a number of quarters. If the early Macedonians were Greek you would expect that (a) there might be clear evidence that the language of the Macedonians was a dialect of Greek, rather than a separate branch of the Indo-European language group; (b) writers of the time would have recognized Macedonians as Greek rather than as foreigners and would have spoken about Macedonia as though it was a part of Hellenism; and (c) historians today would speak of the ancient Macedonians as though they were Greek in ancient times. As we will see, none of these ideas is unequivocally supported.

Linguistic Evidence

In questioning the significance of the use of Greek by the ancient Macedonians we need to sort out some of the linguistic history of the Macedonians. Firstly, the language of the original Macedonians, whatever it was, existed long before Macedonia became a powerful state. This is before the time of the great kings Philip II and Alexander the Great. The name “Macedones” originated many centuries earlier, and probably came from the “real” Macedonian language. If the Macedonian language was recognized as Greek, and understood by Greeks, you would expect that this was the language used by the great Macedonian kings in a formal or legal context. But it was not.

We know with some certainty that Attic Greek, which came from much farther south (around the Athens area) and was being used in other parts of the world as a trade language, was used more and more as the language of state and used also in Alexander’s multi-cultural army. No linguist accepts that this language was the original Macedonian. So we have clear evidence that the Greek used by the Macedonians was a new language. Therefore one cannot argue that the use of this language proves any linguistic associations between the original Macedonians and Greeks.

Many scholars have concluded that the ancient Macedonian language was not a Greek dialect and that it was more or less related to the languages of Macedonia’s northern neighbors, the Illyrians and the Thracians. These scholars include Muller and Mayer, writing in the nineteenth century, and Thumb, Thumb-Kieckers, Vasmer, Kacarov, Beshevljev, Budimir, Pisani, Russu, Baric, Poghirc, Chantraine, Katicic, and Nerosnak, writing in the twentieth. Here attention will be given to sources more readily accessible to those who want to inquire further.

The problem for modern-day linguists is that not a single sentence of the original Macedonian language has been retained. All that is left are records of proper names and isolated words -which, as historian E. Badian of Harvard University points out, is hardly sufficient basis for judgments about linguistic affinities.’ We do know that the Macedonians increasingly came to use a southern form of Greek in their formal dealings. Traian Stoijanovich tells us that in the fifth century B.C., the Macedonian rulers abandoned Macedonian and began using Attic Greek for public administration. This did not change the attitudes of the Greeks, who still regarded the Macedonians as barbarians.

However, Stoijanovich says it is not known whether the ancient Macedonian language was an independent language or a Greek dialect into which a non-Hellenic vocabulary and certain other non-Hellenic traits were introduced. Like other historians, he considers it quite possible that Macedonian was the language of the ruling class and that a considerable proportion of the subjects of the Macedonian chiefs spoke other languages.

Peter Hill, author of the section “Macedonians” in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, The Australian People, writes:

What is certain is that Alexander’s mother tongue was not Greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes.

Like Hill, E. Badian refutes the assumptions that a nation is essentially defined by a language and that a common language implies a common nationhood. He argues that this latter idea is patently untrue for the greater part of human history and to a large extent even today. The formal written language of ancient Macedonians was inevitably Greek, as was the case for various other ancient peoples. There was really no alternative. However, this in no way assures good relations between peoples, nor does it necessarily show any consciousness of a common interest. What is of greater historical interest, Badian says, is the documented evidence that Greeks and Macedonians regarded each other as foreign.

The use of the Macedonian language by Alexander’s infantry. The Macedonian kings, Philip and Alexander, favored Hellenization and encouraged the use of Attic Greek in their administrations, but the use of this foreign tongue was not foisted upon ordinary Macedonians. Although at least some of Alexander’s Greek companions knew the Macedonian language, having come to Macedonia at an early age, Alexander never tried to impose Greek on his Macedonian infantry or to integrate this infantry with Greek units or Greek “foreign” individuals. Alexander’s infantry continued to use the Macedonian tongue even late into his Asian expeditions. Badian describes some convincing cases in which Macedonian troops could not follow commands in Greek. For instance, during his argument with Clitus, which led to his good friend’s death, at the end Alexander is said to have called for his guards in Macedonian when he felt his life threatened. Badian rejects the idea that this was a reversion to a more primitive part of his psyche, under stress. He prefers the simpler explanation that Alexander used the only language in which his guards could be addressed.

To establish his case, Badian quotes a surviving papyrus fragment that seems to be the only good source to reveal the facts of the infantry use of Macedonian. This fragment tells of a battle, early in 321 B.C., in which the Greek commander Ambiance faced the Macedonian Neoptolemus with his Macedonian phalanx. Wanting to have the Macedonians join him rather than fight him, Ambiance needed to convince them of his superior position. The story continues:

When Eumenues saw the close-locked formation of the Macedonian phalanx … he sent Xennias once more, a man whose speech was Macedonian, bidding him declare that he would not fight them frontally but would follow them with his cavalry and units of light troops and bar them from provisions.

Badian tells us that Xennias’ name reveals him to be a Macedonian. Since he was with Ambiance he was probably a Macedonian of superior status who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. Ambiance needed this interpreter to transmit his message. This means that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian if they were going to understand. Ambiance did not address them himself, although this was the common way for leaders of the time, nor did he send a Greek. Badian concludes that Greek was a foreign tongue to the Macedonians. Similarly, Alexander used Macedonian to address his guards because it was their normal language, and he had to be sure he would be understood. It also seems clear that educated Greeks did not speak the Macedonian language unless (presumably) they had grown up with Macedonians and learned it from their childhood friends, as some of Alexander’s Greek companions must have.

Other facts are consistent with this argument. Philip II seems not to have used any Greek commanders for his Macedonian troops. Presumably, the first generation Greek immigrants into his cities had not learned the language. It is also a fact that Ambiance, the commander in the story above, was notorious for the trouble he repeatedly had in getting Macedonian infantry to fight for him, even though he was an able leader. His problem was probably not simply his troops’ antagonism to the fact that he was Greek. His problem was that he could not directly communicate with Macedonian soldiers. In the end this defect cost him his life.

Political reasons for the use of the Greek language. Considering the use of Greek as the language of command in Alexander’s armies, R.A. Crossland concludes that this development was a matter of administrative efficiency. Although it was the Macedonians who had to learn Greek at first, the same requirement was made of at least some of his Persian troops after many conquests. For a long while Alexander thought that Greek was the best language to use as the common medium of communication among the peoples of his empire, “and not because Macedonian was similar to it.” Nevertheless, as we have already noted, even by the latter part of his Asian campaigns, Alexander’s infantry still did not speak a Greek language.

In other words, a very important reason for Hellenization of the Macedonians was their new role of political power-broker. The Greek language was available in written form and was widely used throughout the Macedonian sphere of influence. It was a very convenient vehicle for use in creating an international empire, something that both Philip and Alexander hoped to do. Its use may have also have led to some appeasement of Greek hostility towards the dominating Macedonians. All of these are sound reasons for choosing to use the Greek language as the tongue of administration throughout the expanding empire. However, after a time the value of Greek culture to the Macedonians’ cause began to fade. Eventually Alexander began to think in terms of a blending of the diverse cultures of his great empire. Perhaps in order to appease his new Persian subjects, it was now the blending of Macedonian and Persian that mattered, rather than the blending of Macedonian and Greek.

Macedonian attitudes to the Greek language. For the most part we have little information on Macedonian attitudes to the Greeks or their language. Badian reminds us that no Macedonian oratory survives, since the language was never a literary one. However, he concludes that the existence on both sides of a feeling that they were “peoples of non-kindred race” is very probable. The language barrier would keep this awareness alive, even though the literary language of educated Macedonians could only be Greek. That fact was as irrelevant to ordinary people, and perhaps even to those of higher status, as was the Hellenization of the Macedonian upper class. Badian gives a more recent example of a similar phenomenon. In eighteenth-century Europe, French language and culture prevailed amongst people of education. In fact, during the early part of the eighteenth century the language and culture of the German royal courts, including that of Frederick the Great in Prussia, were French. Most of the books published in Germany in the first half of the century were in Latin and French! Thus upper-class German ladies might write only in French, yet this did not mean that they were French or even Francophile. Badian suggests that Clitus’ anger toward Alexander was representative of a persisting antagonism to Greeks and their ways seen among all classes of Macedonians. He says that these feelings are most clearly evident where the historical record deals with ordinary people, like the Macedonian infantrymen referred to above.

The linguistic character of ancient Macedonia. Arnold Toynbee asserts that the Macedonians of all ancient historical periods spoke Greek. He argues firstly that “they (the Makedones) were already Greek speaking 150 years to 200 years earlier than Augustus’ time.” This observation would seem to be of little weight in the present discussion since we have already noted the increasing, and deliberately chosen, use of Attic Greek by the Macedonian nobility. The use of a language from a distant location by a limited number of noble families tells us nothing about the native tongue of the Macedonians of the fourth century B.C., the Anglo-Saxons of thirteenth century England, or the Prussians of early eighteenth century Germany.

Nevertheless it is worth looking at Toynbee’s point a little further to uncover its internal inconsistencies. Toynbee describes an occasion in 167 B.C. when L. Aemilius Paulus announced in a public speech at Amphipolis the Roman government’s decisions for the settlement of continental European Greece. This speech was delivered in Latin, but there was a Greek translation of the speech “for the benefit of Paulus’ audience which was drawn from all parts of Greece.” From this Toynbee concludes that at this stage the Macedonians were Greek-speaking, since in the public meeting place at Amphipolis, the majority of the listeners must have been Macedonians. Yet Toynbee himself states that the Greek translation was provided because the audience “was drawn from all parts of Greece.” However, if we follow Toynbee’s line that we are dealing with a diverse group of native Greek speakers, many of whom were Macedonian and who, according to Toynbee, spoke a dialect of Greek that no other Greeks could understand, it is asking a bit much to expect us to believe that these representatives suddenly all understood the same “Greek”- that is, unless the “Greele’ that was used was the koine, the international version of Greek developed from Attic, that was widely spoken in this area of the empire at the time. The audience was made up largely of leaders of one kind or another, people who were most likely to speak such a language. It is likely that virtually any trader, businessman, administrator, or political leader of the time would have spoken this language (or would have been in the company of an interpreter who could), as well as his own vernacular and perhaps other trade or administrative languages as well. Thus the translation of Paulus’ speech into Greek tells us absolutely nothing about the native language of the Macedonians or of anyone else.

Toynbee presents other arguments based on linguistic analysis to support his contention that the Macedonians were native Greek speakers. He asserts that Macedonian is Greek based on the “Greekness” of the word “Makedones” and its variant “Makednoi,” Macedonian place names, the names of the members of the Argead house, all recorded Macedonian personal names, the names of Macedonian from Upper Macedonia, the names of the Upper Macedonian cantons, the names of the Macedonian months, the majority of which he claims as Greek. Though at first glance this kind of analysis seems weighty, the counter-arguments are at least as powerful.

An issue that we have to deal with here is what constitutes a “Greek name.” It is generally accepted that Indo-European Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians and others settled in the Balkan Peninsula in the fourth, third, and second millennium B.C. As we will see later in more detail, it has been argued that only 40 to 50 percent of the vocabulary of Greek is Indo-European in origin and that 80 percent of its proper names cannot be explained as Indo-European.9 At least two possibilities might explain the presence of such linguistic forms in ancient Greek. One is that pre-Hellenic cultures were non-Indo-European and that the Greek newcomers adopted many proper names and other words from those peoples. Alternatively, the words might have been introduced by conquerors and settlers from the Levant and from Egypt in the second millennium B.C. In either case it is quite possible that such words came into Macedonian and other Balkan languages in the very same way. Thus both languages might have borrowed from others. If we favor the modern view that the pre-Hellenic influences in Greek are non-Indo-European, and we take into account the observed fact that place names often tend to last through conquest and assimilation, its would be reasonable to assume that some of the supposed “Greek” place names found in the “Macedonian” language are in fact pre-Hellenic names.

It is easy to find modern examples of the same phenomenon. Both France and Germany have many Celtic place names yet do not speak a Celtic language, or even the same language. The people of England are “British,” a name based on a Latin word formerly applied to a Celtic-speaking people and now referring to an Anglo-Saxon people. A study of the word “British” does not help us to determine what language the British speak. It is certainly not Latin, yet there is historical evidence about the use of Latin in Britain, the same kind of evidence that is trotted out to prove that the Macedonians were Greek. For instance, since English coins have Latin on them, we might conclude that the British speak Latin, following the argument that it would not make sense to use a language no one could read on such common items. Similarly, many English parish churches have collections of epitaphs in Latin, dating from the Middle Ages. Classicist Andy Fear points out that most of the population of medieval England could not even read English, let alone Latin. Obviously, the significance of surviving Greek texts from Macedonia must be treated with caution. Fear notes, too, that Greek inscriptions from ancient Macedonia are in a mixture of Greek dialects. It is much easier to believe that this could occur if Greek was alien to Macedonia, instead of the common language. If the latter were the case, we might expect to see a consistent form employed.

If we study the month names used in England and France, we can see that they resemble each other. This is not a basis for concluding that French and English are the same language. All one can reasonably conclude is that there has been similar heavy influence across these two languages. To say, for such superficial reasons, that Greek and Macedonian are the same language is to make far too much of a little thing. We must remember also that much of the history about ancient Macedonians that is passed on to us comes through Greek sources, and names are likely to have been shaped into Greek forms for a myriad of reasons, including the likelihood that Greek writers may not have been able to pronounce other tongues. A modern analogy would be to think that France is a German-speaking country because when reading a German textbook one comes across the name “Frankreich” ruled by, say, Karl rather than Charles. It is easy enough to find English forms of foreign place names that look far removed from their native form; Florence for Firenze, and so on.

In his essay “Linguistic Problems of the Balkan Area in Late Prehistoric and Early Classical Periods,”o R.A. Crossland directly addresses the issue of the linguistic character of ancient Macedonian. Crossland points out that the principal languages of the Balkan region in question* appear to have been Illyrian or an Illyrian language group; Thracian or Thraco-Dacian; and Macedonian. When it comes to the language of the Macedonians, Crossland takes a position very different from modern Greek writers. He rejects the idea that the Macedonians and their language were of Mycenaean origin. Then he goes on to consider linguistic and archeological evidence about the possible origins of Macedonian and in so doing directly contradicts Toynbee.

Crossland points out that the territory of the Macedones at the beginning of the fifth century B.C. seems to have lain between Tymphaea in the west, Pelagonia in the north and the river Axius in the east, but so far no category of place-names that we can identify as “Macedonian” has been identified in this area, and no inscription in Greek earlier than the late fourth century B.C. has been found in any part of Macedonia. Thus we have no substantial evidence about the nature of the Macedonian language in the time that it was most exclusively used (before the fifth century B.C.), but neither do we have evidence of any Greek language being in use at that point in history. The use of Greek came later.

Crossland says that the names of Macedonians mentioned in fifth- and fourth-century sources are almost all either certainly or possibly Greek, but he argues that this is not significant, since members of one people often borrow names from another whom they regard as culturally superior. Certainly the Macedonian craze for things Greek, including Greek education for the children of the upper classes, suggests such an attitude.

Next, Crossland points out that the ancient writers of the time gave imprecise information about the language of the Macedonians. None of the ancient Greek writers gives a detailed statement about the language that the Macedones spoke. The limited evidence that remains consists of words preserved by Greek lexicographers, especially Hesychius, from about the fifth century A.D. According to Crossland, these words were listed as “used by the Macedonians” or “used in Macedonia” without any indication of the origins of the words. Crossland also cites several other authorities who confirm his conclusions.

Regarding the ancient writers’ capacity to recognize significant linguistic features, Crossland agrees with Toynbee in pointing out that when language and speech seemed very different the ancient writers might have had difficulty in making correct classifications. We do not have an understanding of the details of their systems for classifying language. However, we need to remember that only in very recent times have linguists recognized the many languages that make up the Indo-European group. Crossland says that it is difficult to know whether one group of Greek speakers, say the Athenians, would have been able to recognize really different dialects of Greek, or whether they would have been influenced by differences of culture to classify such dialects as barbarian.

Crossland says that the evidence available is too sparse and unsatisfactory to tell us conclusively whether Macedonian was a dialect of Greek or a distinct language. He notes that another authority, N. Hammond, has actually concluded that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek, based on interpretations of information in ancient sources about the status and use of Macedonian under Alexander the Great and his successors. However, Crossland is skeptical of Hammond’s reasoning and says that better evidence would come from comparative linguistic study.

Crossland says that two kinds of evidence would help us to conclude that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek. Firstly, we would have to be able to observe or reconstruct its sound system and morphology in a way that would reveal any similarities to recognized ancient Greek dialects, and any contrasts to other Indo-European languages. Secondly, we would have to know whether speakers of most of those Greek dialects could understand and be understood by Macedonians. But none of the necessary evidence is available. The lexical items thought to be Macedonian are too few and uncertain for any useful reconstructions of the language’s sound system or morphology, and no Greek writer of the fifth or fourth century B.C. states explicitly whether Greek speakers such as the Athenians could understand the native speech of the Macedonians. Crossland says that these Greeks seemed to have had no difficulty in communicating with the Macedonian court, but this is probably because the royal family of Macedonia, and perhaps most of the nobility, spoke Attic Greek fluently. At home with their families or with their own clansmen they probably used their native tongue, Crossland believes.

We do not know either what form of “international” Greek speech might have been used in Macedonia since there are no substantial inscriptions in Greek from Macedonia earlier than the third century. The Greek speech used might have been Attic or an early form of the koine deriving from it that was already spoken even more widely in the Balkans before Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire.

The information about supposedly Macedonian words given by ancient lexicographers may not be very reliable. Along with words that were a part of the real Macedonian tongue in the fourth century B.C., they might have listed words and usages typical of the variety of Greek that was used in Macedonia from the third century onwards. They may also have included words that were special to the Macedonian armies. Some Greeks in the early Hellenistic period may even have regarded as Macedonian words that belonged to the koine as a whole, but not to Attic. We have no way of knowing the underlying basis for classifying words as belonging to one language or another.

Crossland is very critical of Kalleris, a Greek writer who tries to make a case from a linguistics standpoint for Macedonian being a Greek dialect. It is worth looking at this material in detail because of its apparent thoroughness, and because of its relevance to Toynbee’s arguments.

In an examination of the 153 words that are described as Macedonian in ancient sources, Kalleris considers that well over three-quarters of these words are Greek. Crossland finds this quite unconvincing. First, he says, a third of these words have no satisfactory etymology. Second, he says that a further 44 items should be disregarded as being false forms in the sources from which they came. They are simply adjectives of Greek formation based on place-names. Although these words seem to be Indo-European, they could belong to an Indo-European language other than Greek. Some of them might be military or technical terms which are Attic in form and were borrowed from Attic Greek in the fifth or fourth century.

Third, Crossland argues, if Macedonian was a dialect of Greek it is extremely unlikely that it would have been similar to Attic Greek. The original Macedonians did not come from the area of Athens and share no history with the Athenians. This means that the Attic words are a false lead, just late borrowings from Greek. It would be much more convincing, perhaps crucial, to find Macedonian words that were not specifically Attic but which occurred either in a considerable number of Greek dialects or in some of the dialects that were spoken in areas adjacent to Macedonia. Kalleris gives fifty-one words of this kind. Many of these words occur in Doric or other West Greek dialects or resemble words in these dialects. However, it is quite possible that these words were borrowed from West Greek dialects or from Thessalian, particularly since all except eighteen of them are the sort of words which the Macedonians might well have borrowed from their neighbors. They include titles of gods, names of festivals and months of the year, military terms, and names of objects that they might have learnt from neighbors to make and use. Such words are often borrowed from neighboring groups, so their existence in Macedonia is not convincing evidence that they were originally Macedonian.

Fourth, the remaining eighteen words, none of which corresponds exactly in meaning or form with Greek words, seem insufficient to make a case for classifying Macedonian as Greek. Once again there is the possibility that the words were borrowed from neighbors. At the western and southern borders of Macedonia were tribes speaking different Greek dialects, and we know that the Macedonians were in contact with these peoples. The Thessalians to the south are particularly likely to have been influential since they were culturally and politically more advanced than the Macedonians before the fifth century. They are likely to have influenced the Macedonians particularly strongly until the growth of Athenian influence. Herodotus reports on traditions in the same period of close contact between the Macedonians and the Dorians before the latter were supposed to have migrated southward.

Finally, though again it is hardly sufficient basis for any conclusion, there is one language feature evident in the surviving “Macedonian” words that points to the idea of a separate language. Macedonian seems to have had a phonological feature that marks it as different from Greek dialects. This is the correspondence of a sound written with B, to Ph in Greek. For instance, this would appear as something like Bilippos in Macedonian, and Philippos in Greek. Crossland says that this change puts Macedonian closer in phonology to Illyrian and Thracian than to Greek, but it does not mean that Macedonian was a dialect of either language.

Crossland is not convinced by claims that comments from writers such as Arrian and Plutarch in the first to second centuries A.D. (e.g. Plutarch, Ant. 27) show that Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek as their native tongue. He says they are inconclusive since the expressions used are vague and might be referring to a “Macedonian style” rather than a “Macedonian language” or “dialect.” These descriptions would be just as likely if Macedonian was a distinct language as they would be if it was a dialect of Greek. Crossland points out that it is possible that Macedonian kings and their courts, soldiers and colonists might have continued to speak a second language in their homes and among themselves for some generations even though they spoke Greek for most practical purposes. After all, it is easy to think of examples of this kind of thing in more modern times. Crossland notes that Gaelic was used alongside English for generations by Scots who emigrated to America. It is still used in this way in some small communities in North America. Similarly, although English was used as the language of command and administration in British army regiments recruited predominantly in Wales, the Welsh language was still used privately.

Like historians who have examined this question, Crossland suggests that Alexander may have required Macedonians in his armies to use Greek as the language of command, just as he required many Persians to learn it (Plut. Alex. 43.7), because it was efficient, and because he thought it the language best suited to serve as the common medium of communication among the peoples of his empire. This kind of strategic decision does not require that Macedonian should have been similar to the new “international” language.

In summing up, Crossland says again that the evidence does not indicate convincingly that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek rather than a separate Indo-European language. Even Toynbee, who is persuaded in the opposite direction by the very flimsy evidence we have considered above emphasizes that the evidence is “fragmentary, … confused and self-contradictory.” In practical terms this suggests that modern Greeks may have to look elsewhere for convincing evidence that ancient Macedonians were Greek.

John Shea, Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, McFarland, 2008, pp. 23-35

Epirus and Epirots, who have had an impressive survival history, have not received adequate scholarly attention. Contemporary historians have treated the subject only superficially, most likely in an attempt not to enter into a controversy with the proponents of the Greek claim that Epirus and Epirots were Greek, a claim which is in total contradiction to the historical sources.

In fact, most of Greek and Roman sources attest to a specific non-Greek ethnic identity for the Epirots. Greek and Roman sources convey abundant information for an assumption that Epirus was the land of a very ancient people and its people was considered ‘barbarian’ (βάρβαρον). These sources allow us to conclude with a tolerable safety that:

• Epirots were ethnically distinct from the Greeks;
• Ancient Greeks perceived the Epirots as being distinct and not part of their ethnos;
• Higher aristocratic strata adapted aspects of Hellenic culture, but overall the populace preserved its non-Hellenic identity.

The Greeks of antiquity had no clear concepts about the peoples north of their territories. If the perception of this variegated barbarian world to the north was imprecise, at the same time, the sources indicate that the Greeks had no difficulty in differentiating themselves from them, finding their language as totally unintelligible, and characterized them as ‘barbarian’ (people that speak a non-Greek language). The Greek geographer, Strabo wrote about the line that separated at one time the Greeks from these “barbarians’:

[7. 7. 1]: Moreover, the barbarian origin of some is indicated by their names—Cecrops, Godrus, Aïclus, Cothus, Drymas, and Crinacus. And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks (though this was still more the case formerly than now); indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians—Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes—Epeirotic tribes.

[7. 7. 1]:  καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀνομάτων δὲ ἐνίων τὸ βάρβαρον ἐμφαίνεται, Κέκροψ καὶ Κόδρος καὶ Ἄικλος καὶ Κόθος καὶ Δρύμας καὶ Κρίνακος. οἱ δὲ Θρᾷκες καὶ Ἰλλυριοὶ καὶ Ἠπειρῶται καὶ μέχρι νῦν ἐν πλευραῖς εἰσιν· ἔτι μέντοι μᾶλλον πρότερον ἢ νῦν, ὅπου γε καὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ παρόντι Ἑλλάδος ἀναντιλέκτως οὔσης τὴν πολλὴν οἱ βάρβαροι ἔχουσι, Μακεδονίαν μὲν Θρᾷκες καί τινα μέρη τῆς Θετταλίας, Ἀκαρνανίας δὲ καὶ Αἰτωλίας τὰ ἄνω Θεσπρωτοὶ καὶ Κασσωπαῖοι καὶ Ἀμφίλοχοι καὶ Μολοττοὶ καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, Ἠπειρωτικὰ ἔθνη.

The meaning of the term “barbarian” was fluid, but in most of the cases, the term, used with identical meaning for Illyrians, Epirots, Macedonians, Dacians and Thracians, implied an ethno-cultural identity which differed fundamentally from that of Greek. Thucydides and Strabo distinguished clearly Epirots from the Greeks.

“Only two of Thucydides’ (2.80) northern chieftains have Greek names and many Epirote tribes did not speak Greek (Strabo 7.7.1) (Grant 1988). Thucydides [2.68] would also distinguish the local population from Greek colonizers who were culturally impacting the local population. Talking about how Amphilochia became “Hellenized”, he indicated that the Argive hero Amphilochus founded Amphilochian Argos, a city within a barbarian land (Amphilochia) which became “hellenized as to the language they now have” (hellenisthesan ten nun glossan) from association with Ambraciots brought in by its inhabitants as additional colonizers.

Hammond (1967: 419-20) suggests the Argives only switched dialect and that the other ‘barbarian’ Amphilochians spoke an uncouth form of Greek. This is certainly not what Thucydides says (Hornblower 1991). Gomme (1956) inferred that Amphilochus was a barbarian.

Proponents of the thesis that Epirots were Greek point to the fact that in epigraphical sources most of the names are Greek. But this is not an adequate or a consequential reason. History is full of examples of people adapting cultural aspects of neighboring peoples. It has been ascertained that Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra (Hornblower 1996). Herodotus is more specific about this phenomenon. He indicated that when Dorians settled in Peloponnesus, they took upon themselves to do away with differences with the local population, they even Hellenized their tribal names. Here is how Herodotus puts it:

[Book V, 68]: “Thus he had done to Adrastos; and he also changed the names of the Dorian tribes, in order that the Sikyonians might not have the same tribes as the Argives; in which matter he showed great contempt of the Sikyonians, for the names he gave were taken from the names of a pig and an ass by changing only the endings”.

[V, 68]:  ταῦτα μὲν ἐς Ἄδρηστόν οἱ ἐπεποίητο, φυλὰς δὲ τὰς Δωριέων, ἵνα δὴ μὴ αἱ αὐταὶ ἔωσι τοῖσι Σικυωνίοισι καὶ τοῖσι Ἀργείοισι, μετέβαλε ἐς ἄλλα οὐνόματα. ἔνθα καὶ πλεῖστον κατεγέλασε τῶν Σικυωνίων· ἐπὶ γὰρ ὑός τε καὶ ὄνου τὰς ἐπωνυμίας μετατιθεὶς αὐτὰ τὰ τελευταῖα ἐπέθηκε, πλὴν τῆς ἑωυτοῦ φυλῆς· ταύτῃ δὲ τὸ οὔνομα ἀπὸ τῆς ἑωυτοῦ ἀρχῆς ἔθετο .

In fact a preponderance of sources from ancient authors distinguished the Epirots from the Greeks. At same the same time the sources point to no such distinction between the Epirots and the Illyrians. This prompted William Ridgeway to suggest that ‘there was no sharp line between the speech of Illyrians and Thesprotians or Thessalians’ (1901: 352).

In reality, ancient authors never use to ascribe a Greek identity to all Epirots in general. Indeed, some ancient Greek authors tried to portray only the ruling elite of Epirots as being Greek. As for the Greek cultural elements that characterized some in this elite, there is abundant sources that points to their late introduction in Epirus.

M. P. Nilsson would note that ‘during the fifth century BC the Epirots were drawn into Greek politics and began to be Hellenized‘ (1986: 105). A high point of this tendency was reached as Epirots under Pyrrhus, thanks to their military capability, extended their power beyond Epirus into the disrupted Greek world. And to legitimize their expansionist policies, they invented geneaelogical lines attributable to their ‘Greek origin’. The genealogy of their royal house was carried back into the Greek mythical age. According to Nilsson, the creation of these myths signified an ‘overdone eagerness of a barbarian house to appear as heroic Greeks’ (1986: 108). But even after the higher strata of the society had adapted Hellenic cultural aspects, in general, Epirots were never accepted as authentic Greeks.

Even proponents of the ‘Greekness’ of Epirus see Epirots as having a ‘barbarian’ origin but they explain that this was due to their primitive and backward way of life. At the same time, some of these historians are forced to account for a non-Greek element inEpirus. Robert Browning indicates:

‘The language of the Epirotes is repeatedly described in antiquity as non-Greek (Thucydides 1.47, 1.51, 2.80, Strabo, 8.1.3). Yet the Epirotes were connected with the origin of various Greek communities’ (1983: 2).

There may well have been an ethnic and linguistic mixture inEpirus, some tribes speaking Greek, others Illyrian or some other language (cf.Hammond (1967: 423); Katičić (1976: 120-7).

Being more precise, if Epirots were connected with, say Pelasgians or Dorians, that does not make them Greeks, to the contrary this would indicates how different from the Greeks they were; and if there was any ethnic and linguistic mixture, it had to have come late in history, with the establishment of Greek colonies and various interactions between the two peoples.

King Tharypa who in his early years was educated in Athens, on his return to Molossia introduced among the Molottians, Greek forms, Greek manners, and the language of Greece as far as he could, for his power, like that of all other Molottian kings, was very limited. In his ‘Life of Pyrrhus’, Plutarch relates the historical tradition that attributed to Tharypas responsibility for introducing Greek customs, laws and letters to the cities of Molossia. The late Roman epitomist Justin claims that Tharyps ‘primus itaque leges et senatum annuosque magistratus….composuit’ (first set up laws, the senate and annual magistracies).

Import of Hellenic culture is not unique to Epirus. Parthian kings also pretended to be champions of Hellenism. From the reign of Artabanus I. (128/7-123 B.C.) they bear the epithet of  ‘Philhellen’ as a regular part of their title upon the coins. That the Parthian court itself was to some extent Hellenized is shown by the story, often adduced, that a Greek company of actors was performing the Bacchae before the king when the head of Crassus was brought in. This single instance need not, it is true, show a Hellenism of any profundity; still it does show that certain parts of Hellenism had become so essential to the lustre of a court that even an Arsacid could not be without them. Artavasdes, king ofArmenia (54?-34 B.C.) composed Greek tragedies and histories (Plut. Crass. 33)”.

For some historians, the imported cultural attributes were a good enough reason to prove that Epirotes were Greek, even assume that they were Greek even from the outset. Logically, if Epirotes had been Greek, why would they, for example, had to coin their genealogical lineage to show their ‘Greekness’?

Hellenism abetted since the time of King Tharypa has to be seen in a wider context to understand its nature and scope. It was a cultural force that proved advantageous to adapt to, especially for the higher social strata. But becoming part of Hellenic world would not be easy with inherited contradiction. N. G. L. Hammond asserts that mythical foundations were being laid for the entry of the Epirotes and the Macedonians into the Greek world (1967).

Ethnicity could be proved or challenged by inventing genealogies and mythical precedents. Euripides wrote propagandist plays for such peoples as the Macedonians (Archelaus) and probably the Molossians (Andromache), and brings to light the claims of mythical origins and genealogical manipulation to Hellenicity, when their detractors in the Greek world insisted that they were barbarians (Hall 1992).

As historical sources indicate, only the higher strata of society saw it to their advantage to put forth such claims. Elizabeth Donnelly Carney indicated that ‘The degree of Hellenization of Molossia outside the royal family is debatable’ (2006: 140). In reality, there is enough evidence to conclude that the general populace preserved its ethnic individuality and Hellenism did not make much an inroad.

Nationalist Greek historians wantingly misinterpreted a fragment from Herodotus, where a Molossian nobleman is presented in midst of “Greeks” who competed to take for wife Agariste. For the sake of authenticity, I will present the whole text:

[126]: For Cleisthenes the son of Arisonymos, the son of Myron, the son of Andreas, had a daughter whose name was Agariste; and as to her he formed a desire to find out the best man of all the Hellenes and to assign her to him in marriage. So when the Olympic games were being held and Cleisthenes was victor in them with a four- horse chariot, he caused a proclamation to be made, that whosoever of the Hellenes thought himself worthy to be the son-in-law of Cleisthenes should come on the sixtieth day, or before that if he would, to Sikyon; for Cleisthenes intended to conclude the marriage within a year, reckoning from the sixtieth day. Then all those of the Hellenes who had pride either in themselves or in their high descent, came as wooers, and for them Cleisthenes had a running- course and a wrestling-place made and kept them expressly for their use.

[126]: Κλεισθένεϊ γὰρ τῷ Ἀριστωνύμου τοῦ Μύρωνος τοῦ Ἀνδρέω γίνεται θυγάτηρ τῇ οὔνομα ἦν Ἀγαρίστη. ταύτην ἠθέλησε, Ἑλλήνων ἁπάντων ἐξευρὼν τὸν ἄριστον, τούτῳ γυναῖκα προσθεῖναι. Ὀλυμπίων ὦν ἐόντων καὶ νικῶν ἐν αὐτοῖσι τεθρίππῳ ὁ Κλεισθένης κήρυγμα ἐποιήσατο, ὅστις Ἑλλήνων ἑωυτὸν ἀξιοῖ Κλεισθένεος γαμβρὸν γενέσθαι, ἥκειν ἐς ἑξηκοστὴν ἡμέρην ἢ καὶ πρότερον ἐς Σικυῶνα, ὡς κυρώσοντος Κλεισθένεος τὸν γάμον ἐν ἐνιαυτῷ, ἀπὸ τῆς ἑξηκοστῆς ἀρξαμένου ἡμέρης.  ἐνθαῦτα Ἑλλήνων ὅσοι σφίσι τε αὐτοῖσι ἦσαν καὶ πάτρῃ ἐξωγκωμένοι, ἐφοίτεον μνηστῆρες· τοῖσι Κλεισθένης καὶ δρόμον καὶ παλαίστρην ποιησάμενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τούτῳ εἶχε.

[127]: From Italy came Smindyrides the son of Hippocrates of Sybaris, who of all men on earth reached the highest point of luxury (now Sybaris at this time was in the height of its prosperity), and Damasos of Siris, the son of that Amyris who was called the Wise; these came from Italy: from the Ionian gulf came Amphimnestos the son of Epistrophos of Epidamnos, this man from the Ionian gulf: from Aitolia came Males, the brother of that Titormos who surpassed all the Hellenes in strength and who fled from the presence of men to the furthest extremities of the Aitolian land: from Peloponnesus, Leokedes the son of Pheidon the despot of the Argives, that Pheidon who established for the Peloponnesians the measures which they use, and who went beyond all other Hellenes in wanton insolence, since he removed from their place the presidents of the games appointed by the Eleians and himself presided over the games at Olympia,–his son, I say, and Amiantos the son of Lycurgos an Arcadian from Trapezus, and Laphanes an Azanian from the city of Paios, son of that Euphorion who (according to the story told in Arcadia) received the Dioscuroi as guests in his house and from thenceforth was wont to entertain all men who came, and Onomastos the son of Agaios of Elis; these, I say, came from Peloponnesus itself: from Athens came Megacles the son of that Alcmaion who went to Crœsus, and besides him Hippocleides the son of Tisander, one who surpassed the other Athenians in wealth and in comeliness of form: from Eretria, which at that time was flourishing, came Lysanias, he alone from Eubœa: from Thessalia came Diactorides of Crannon, one of the family of the Scopadai: and from the Molossians, Alcon.

[127]: ἀπὸ μὲν δὴ Ἰταλίης ἦλθε Σμινδυρίδης ὁ Ἱπποκράτεος Συβαρίτης, ὃς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον δὴ χλιδῆς εἷς ἀνὴρ ἀπίκετο (ἡ δὲ Σύβαρις ἤκμαζε τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον μάλιστα), καὶ Σιρίτης Δάμασος Ἀμύριος τοῦ σοφοῦ λεγομένου παῖς. οὗτοι μὲν ἀπὸ Ἰταλίης ἦλθον, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ κόλπου τοῦ Ἰονίου Ἀμφίμνηστος Ἐπιστρόφου Ἐπιδάμνιος· οὗτος δὲ ἐκ τοῦ Ἰονίου κόλπου. Αἰτωλὸς δὲ ἦλθε Τιτόρμου τοῦ ὑπερφύντος τε Ἕλληνας ἰσχύι καὶ φυγόντος ἀνθρώπους ἐς τὰς ἐσχατιὰς τῆς Αἰτωλίδος χώρης, τούτου τοῦ Τιτόρμου ἀδελφεὸς Μάλης. ἀπὸ δὲ Πελοποννήσου Φείδωνος τοῦ Ἀργείων τυράννου παῖς Λεωκήδης, Φείδωνος δὲ τοῦ τὰ μέτρα ποιήσαντος Πελοποννησίοισι καὶ ὑβρίσαντος μέγιστα δὴ Ἑλλήνων πάντων, ὃς ἐξαναστήσας τοὺς Ἠλείων ἀγωνοθέτας αὐτὸς τὸν ἐν Ὀλυμπίῃ ἀγῶνα ἔθηκε· τούτου τε δὴ παῖς καὶ Ἀμίαντος Λυκούργου Ἀρκὰς ἐκ Τραπεζοῦντος, καὶ Ἀζὴν ἐκ Παίου πόλιος Λαφάνης Εὐφορίωνος τοῦ δεξαμένου τε, ὡς λόγος ἐν Ἀρκαδίῃ λέγεται, τοὺς Διοσκούρους οἰκίοισι καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου ξεινοδοκέοντος πάντας ἀνθρώπους, καὶ Ἠλεῖος Ὀνόμαστος Ἀγαίου. οὗτοι μὲν δὴ ἐξ αὐτῆς Πελοποννήσου ἦλθον, ἐκ δὲ Ἀθηνέων ἀπίκοντο Μεγακλέης τε ὁ Ἀλκμέωνος τούτου τοῦ παρὰ Κροῖσον ἀπικομένου, καὶ ἄλλος Ἱπποκλείδης Τισάνδρου, πλούτῳ καὶ εἴδεϊ προφέρων Ἀθηναίων. ἀπὸ δὲ Ἐρετρίης ἀνθεύσης τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Λυσανίης· οὗτος δὲ ἀπ᾽ Εὐβοίης μοῦνος. ἐκ δὲ Θεσσαλίης ἦλθε τῶν Σκοπαδέων Διακτορίδης Κραννώνιος, ἐκ δὲ Μολοσσῶν Ἄλκων.

Herodotus identified the candidates generically as “Hellene” but this does not explain at all if the eligibles were real Hellenes or just proud of their contrived Hellene background. Shuckburgh expressed surprise that a Molossian would be an eligible candidate for the daughter of a Greek king. According to him the Molossian would have required to invent a Hellene or a Pelasgic ancestry:

“The Molossians were not usually regarded as Hellenic, and it is somewhat remarkable that a suitor for the hand of a daughter of an Hellenic king should have been found among them. He probably claimed Hellenic or Pelasgic descent”. (Shuckburgh 2010: 201/202)

Elaborating further on the event, Herodotus writes:

[128]: So many in number did the wooers prove to be: and when these had come by the appointed day, Cleisthenes first inquired of their native countries and of the descent of each one, and then keeping them for a year he made trial continually both of their manly virtue and of their disposition, training and temper, associating both with each one separately and with the whole number together…

[128]: τοσοῦτοι μὲν ἐγένοντο οἱ μνηστῆρες. ἀπικομένων δὲ τούτων ἐς τὴν προειρημένην ἡμέρην, ὁ Κλεισθένης πρῶτα μὲν τὰς πάτρας τε αὐτῶν ἀνεπύθετο καὶ γένος ἑκάστου, μετὰ δὲ κατέχων ἐνιαυτὸν διεπειρᾶτο αὐτῶν τῆς τε ἀνδραγαθίης καὶ τῆς ὀργῆς καὶ παιδεύσιός τε καὶ τρόπου, καὶ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ἰὼν ἐς συνουσίην καὶ συνάπασι,

Cleisthenes appears ill at ease with the backgrounds of all the candidates. With all the probability Molossian Alkon had faked his geneaelogy and, as a result, Cleisthenes required a long period of time to verify candidates’ origin.

This case illustrates one reason why higher strata wanted to change their identity; the advanced Hellenic culture would be ideal ground to affirm themselvs. Herodotus has preserved a telling passage that convincingly illustrates the advantages of changing identity.

[V, 72]: Lacedemonian stranger, go back and enter not into the temple, for it is not lawful for Dorians to pass in hither.” He said: “Woman, I am not a Dorian, but an Achaian.” So then, paying no attention to the ominous speech, he made his attempt and then was expelled again with the Lacedemonians…

[V, 72]: ὦ ξεῖνε Λακεδαιμόνιε, πάλιν χώρεε μηδὲ ἔσιθι ἐς τὸ ἱρόν· οὐ γὰρ θεμιτὸν Δωριεῦσι παριέναι ἐνθαῦτα.» ὁ δὲ εἶπε «ὦ γύναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Δωριεύς εἰμι ἀλλ᾽ Ἀχαιός.»  ὃ μὲν δὴ τῇ κλεηδόνι οὐδὲν χρεώμενος ἐπεχείρησέ τε καὶ τότε πάλιν ἐξέπιπτε μετὰ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων· τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους Ἀθηναῖοι κατέδησαν τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ, ἐν δὲ αὐτοῖσι καὶ Τιμησίθεον τὸν Δελφόν, τοῦ ἔργα χειρῶν τε καὶ λήματος ἔχοιμ᾽ ἂν μέγιστα καταλέξαι

The attraction to the Hellenic culture of the upper social strata on the main did not affect the ethno-cultural tradition ofEpirus. This tradition had evolved very early and has been identified as being Illyrian in character. The main historical event that was to determine the ethnic character ofEpiruswas doubtless the collapse of the Mycenaean culture:

‘The last Illyrian penetration into northern Greece in the twelfth century BC led to the decay of the flourishing Mycenaean culture and to a complete upheaval in Greek political history. Epirus which had been in greater part Hellenized and whose religious center was the sanctuary of Zeus in Dodona, became once more Illyrian. Aetolia, a flourishing land in Homeric times, lapsed into almost complete barbarism. A great many of the Aetolians crossed the Corinthian Gulf, subjected the native Greek population, and settled in the land which became known as Elis’ (Dvornik 1966: 151).

According to the historian Henry Smith Williams, precisely at this time more than half of Aetolia ceased to be Grecian, and without doubt adopted the manners and language of the Illyrians, from which point the Athamanes, an Epirote and Illyrian nation, pressed into the south of Thessaly (1926: 110).

Referring to the Greece during the Dark Age, prior to the arrival of the Hellenes, Strabo indicated that upper Acarnania and Aetolia was populated by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes—Epeirotic tribes:

[7.7.1]: “ Ἀκαρνανίας δὲ καὶ Αἰτωλίας τὰ ἄνω Θεσπρωτοὶ καὶ Κασσωπαῖοι καὶ Ἀμφίλοχοι καὶ Μολοττοὶ καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, Ἠπειρωτικὰ ἔθνη”.

According to Thucydides [3.94 ]: “…Eurytanians, who are the largest tribe in Aetolia, and speak, as is said, a language exceedingly difficult to understand, and eat their flesh raw.

[3.94 ]: Εὐρυτᾶσιν, ὅπερ μέγιστον μέρος ἐστὶ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν, ἀγνωστότατοι δὲ γλῶσσανκαὶ ὠμοφάγοι εἰσίν, ὡς λέγονται).

A real ethnographic picture of these areas (Hellenicity of which has been questioned) comes from a proverbial citation of Macedonian King, Philip V, about the demand of the Roman delegation that he withdraw from Greece:

[Polybius, Book XVIII. 5]: ‘What is this Greece which you demand that I should evacuate, and what how do you define Greece? Certainly most of the Aetolians themselves are not Greeks! The countries of the Agraae, the Apodotea, and the Amphilochians cannot be regarded as Greeks. So do you allow to me to remain in those territories’.

[XVIII. 5]: Αἰτωλῶν δ’ οὐκ ἀνεκτόν: ποίας δὲ κελεύετέ με” φησὶν ” ἐκχωρεῖν Ἑλλάδος καὶ πῶς ἀφορίζετε ταύτην; αὐτῶν γὰρ Αἰτωλῶν οὐκ εἰσὶν Ἕλληνες οἱ πλείους: τὸ γὰρ τῶν Ἀγραῶν ἔθνος καὶ τὸ τῶν Ἀποδωτῶν, ἔτι δὲ τῶν Ἀμφιλόχων, οὐκ ἔστιν Ἑλλάς. ἢ τούτων μὲν παραχωρεῖτέ μοι;”

The unclear ethnic picture in these territories seems to be prevalent even during Strabo’s time. In the following passage, he seems to be unsure as to which people to include within Greece:

[10.1.16]:  “…the Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Athamanians (if these too are to be called Greeks)…”

[10.1.16]: “…Αἰτωλοὶ καὶ Ἀκαρνᾶνές εἰσι καὶ Ἀθαμᾶνες, εἰ χρὴ καὶ τούτους Ἕλληνας εἰπεῖν”.

One way to explain this confusion concerning the identification of ethnicities in these areas, is to conclude thatEpiruswas profoundly Illyrian, and that the Illyrian element had penetratedAetolia, Acarnania, and Athamania:

“Acarnania, like other states of the kind, was the result of conquest by an invading host. The conquest might well have resulted in a mixed population in which any non-Greek elements would be likely to be Illyrian. Actually there are a number of Illyrian place names in Acarnania, but they are relatively few” (Larsen 1968: 90).

In October 1984, 70 historians and archaeologists from Greece, Albania, Romania, Italyand several other countries of Europe convened in Clermont-Ferrand, France. They held a colloquium with a group of Specialists in ancient history who were working there under the direction of Professor Pierre Kaban, the renowned expert on Epirus. They compared studies on the tribal and ethnic groups which gradually organized into urban life, then federated into state organizations. They compared juridical institutions such as family right of ownership, the role of the woman in the family and the procedure in freeing slaves. Similarities of Epirot centers like Dodona and those of Southern Illyria were evidenced by the layout, architecture, and political organization, also the circulation of coins, the structure of groves, the burial rites and articles found in the tumuli. But scholars concluded that from early antiquity until the Roman times that culture of southern Illyria and Epirus, including Molossia, was quite different from that of classical Greece as found in Athens and Sparta (Jacques 1995).

Another perspective from which one can expound on the identity of the Epirotes in antiquity is the establishment of Greek colonies on the coastline north of Greece. Apparently the population in the interior of Epirushad to had been less hospitable because no colonization has been recorded there. As to which ethnicity inhabited the areas where the colonies were established, Niebuhr had no problem deciding what they were not one century ago: ‘the fact that colonies were established there, is a proof that the Epirots were not Greeks; for we surely cannot suppose that the Greeks founded colonies in their own country’ (1852: 137).

Proponents of nationalist Greek claims have attempted to abase every reference not in line with their view. Of their favored mention are two of Herodotus fragments that supposedly indicate that the Thesprotians dwelt inGreece(2.56) and that the Dodonaeans were Greeks (4.33).

Indeed, Herodotus shed some light about the templeof Dodonaand Thesprotia which were known to the Greeks of his time, but however this gives no hints on ethnic character of the Epirots. Whereas in another fragment he drew up the boundaries of Greece on the basis of military contingents which took part in the Troy War on the side of Greeks. According to this point of view, the Leucade and Ambracia marked the furthest northern point of Greece [8. 47: Ἀμπρακιώτῃσι καὶ Λευκαδίοισι, οἳ ἐξ ἐσχατέων χωρέων ἐστρατεύοντο].

It has been assumed that Herodotus implied that the people of Epirus were Greeks. This comes from a vague verse taken from Herodotus [Book 4: 33]: “…and the people of Dodona receive them first of all the Hellenes” (πρώτους Δωδωναίους Ἑλλήνων δέκεσθαι). However, this interpretation has been dismantled a long time ago:

‘Though Herodotus speaks of Thesprotia as a part of Hellas. He refers later to its old condition, when it was a celebrated seat of the Pelasgians, than to its state at the time when he wrote his history’ (Anthon 2005: 483).

It was a Greek lexicographer like Hecateus of Miletus who noticed that what was Greecein his time has been previously inhabited by a non-Greek people, which he used to call as ‘barbarian’. (Ἑκαταῖος μὲν οὖν ὁ Μιλήσιος περὶ τῆς Πελοποννήσου φησὶν διότι πρὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ᾤκησαν αὐτὴν βάρβαροι).

Plutarch records in his account an interesting glimpse when Pyrrhus as a little child went to the Illyrian king, Glaucias of Taulanti. The Illyrian king escaped the poor Pyrrhus from his dangerous rivals, and treated him generously as his own son. Later, Glaucias headed a large Illyrian army which settled Pyrrhus upon throne of Epirus. This reflects the narrow relations between Illyrians and Epirots; they intermingled with one another to the level of intermarriages at royal level. As far as literary tradition goes, we find not a single evidence to suggest any major difference between Illyrian and the language of Epirots.

It has been my intention to negate Greek nationalist claims about Epirus, by pointing to a broad spectrum of sources in support of Illyrian character of Epirots. I have not analyzed the historical scope of the Hellenic influence on the Epirotes. But as of Pound indicated: ‘It was not easy to define Greece as the term was understood in the fifth century. That it was the area within which Greeks lived goes without saying, but the Greek people themselves spoke several dialects, and near the borders of the Greek world these passed into the distinct languages of the ‘barbarian’ peoples like Illyrians and Thracians. Epirus formed no part of Greece, and in the fifth century Greek commerce and culture had made little impression on its tribes. It is doubtful whether the tribes of Aetolia and Acarnania should be considered Greek” (1977: 30).

Even by Strabo’s time Epirots continued to preserve their identity. Strabo indicated, at about the beginning of the new era, that someMacedoniaencompasses also the area that extended to Korkyra for the reason of similarity in habits of the population and also for the fact that some of the population was bilingual. It is interesting that Strabo seems to indicate similarities that with inhabitants this area but does not mention Greeks, although by this time the Greek language was in extensive use by the Macedonians. Referring to the indicated bilingualism in Epirus, M. Nilsson wrote:

‘If there were people amongst the Epiriots who spoke two languages, one of the languages must have been Greek which they used in subscriptions, and the other was the local tongue’ (1909: 137).

Bibliography:

Grant, M. 1988:  Civilization of the ancient Mediterranean, vol. 1 (Scribner’s).
Hammond, N.G.L. 1967: Epirus (Oxford).
Hornblower, S. 1991: A commentary on Thucydides, vol. I (Oxford).
Gomme, A. W. 1956: Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. II (Oxford).
Hornblower, S. 1996: The Oxford classical dictionary, vol. 1 (Oxford University Press).
Nilsson, M. P. 1986: Cults, myths, oracles, and politics in ancient Greece (P. Åström).
Browning, R. 1983: Medieval and Modern Greek (Cambridge University Press).
Katiçiç, R. 1976: Ancient languages of the Balkans, vol. 1 (Mouton).
Hall, E. 1996: When is a myth not a myth?. Black Athena revisited, 343.
Carney, E.D. 2006: Olympias (Taylor & Francis).
Shuckburgh, E.S. 2010: Herodotus, Book 6 (Cambridge University Press).
Dvornik, F. 1966: Early Christian and Byzantine political philosophy (Dumbarton Oaks).
Williams, H.S. 1926: The historian’s history of the world, vol. 3-4 (The Encyclopaedia britannica co).
Larsen, J.A.O. 1968: Greek federal states (Clarendon P).
Jacques, E.E. 1995: The Albanians: an ethnic history from prehistoric times to the present (McFarland).
Niebuhr, B.G. 1852: Lectures on Ancient History, vol. III (London).
Anthon, Ch.2005: A classical dictionary (Kessinger Publishing).
Pounds, N. J.G. 1977: An historical geography of Europe (CUP Archive).
Nilsson. M. 1909: Studien zur Geschichte d’altem Apeiros (Lund).

Author’s note: The article has been written on 28 November 2011 – the National day of ALBANIA. 

By: Musë Gurabia

© www.albpelasgian.com
© www.arberiaonline.com 

Instead of introduction

The question whether the ancient Macedones were Greeks or not has triggered endless debates among scholarship since XIXth century onwards. The attempts to solve that puzzle were not always of scholar motivation: the involving of modern nationalism in historical domains has tangled the whole issue of Macedones. The question of the actual racial origins of the ancient Macedonians cannot be answered adequately on the basis of the language or of social and religious customs in historical times.

It is, however, historically an unprofitable question, which has only gained in importance in modern times because it has been taken up by nationalists of all kinds in the Balkans and elsewhere and exploited, according to the answer, in the service of territorial and other claims. Hence it is not surprise at all to find out senseless claims either by Greeks and Slavs of Macedonia, whose purpose is to usurp the throne of historical owner of Macedonia.

A scholar who enters on such debate does not have an easy task: first and foremost, he must necessarily refrain from taking any biased political position. What does this mean? The nationalist historiographies systematically have abused with the ancient testimonies and archeological excavations by enhancing the importance of some details in expense of others. Without any scruple, Greek nationalist freaks uphold infamous slogans like: “Μακεδονία 4000 χρόνια ελληνικής ιστορίας και πολιτισμού (Macedonia: 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization). In a burst of national pride, they are going to ascribe deceitfully an artificial Hellenism to Macedonia; thereby to justify their nationalist policies in Macedonia.

Actually we have received a number of ancient sources that have been preserved through millennia, who at least are profuse in number. But at the same time, they are quite vague and not clear references; as a matter of fact, the scholars drew up different interpretations. Although the situation is not as hopeless as it seem at the first glimpse: one who is going to dedicate his time on searching the roots of Macedones has to sift with great of caution the ancient sources by omitting corrupted parts.

Who were the Dorians?

It has been assumed that Macedonians owe their origin to the tribes which later were identified as primarily Dorian. In the period which followed the unstable Iron Age, Dorians were established on both sides of the northern extension of the Pindus range. Being restricted into barren mountains, the Proto-Dorians were fond to acquire new arable lands. The trajectory of their migration is treated by a number of scholars in different ways. But all of them principally agree that this migration begun from Pindus range (probably in the early seventh century) with the ultimate destination to the fertile plain of Emathia.

The proponents of Greek origin of Macedones base their claim largely on the groundless assumption that Dorian pool was Greek speaking from the very outset. This assumption led them naturally to suggest that Macedonians were Greeks, although not the same with the rest of Greeks. Such a conclusion leaves much to be desired.

Dorians, to begin with, were a conglomeration of tribes who established themselves as overlords of a large section of historical Greece. Scholars still are unsure about the primordial homeland of Dorians: the Dorians were thought to have come from Northern Danubian regions. Dalmatia and Pannonia might have been the very first seats of them before they swamp into southern part of Balkans.

An Illyrian component among them is recognized by a various range of scholars. According to the tradition, there were three main Dorian tribes: Ὑλλέας καὶ Παμφύλους καὶ Δυμανάτας (Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and Dymanatai). Ps-Scylax in his geographical description of eastern shores of Adriatic gives some valuable hints on what we may justly call as Proto-Dorians:

[22]: “The barbarians called Lotus-eaters are the following: Hierastamnai, Boulinoi (Hyllinoi), coterminous with Boulinoi the Hylloi. And these say Hyllos son of Herakles settled them: and they are barbarians. [...] And Boulinoi are an Illyric nation”.

[22]: Εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ οἱ λωτοφάγοι καλούμενοι βάρβαροι οἵδε• Ἱεραστάμναι, Βουλινοὶ Ὑλλινοί• Βουλινῶν ὁμοτέρμονεςὝλλοι. Οὗτοι δέ φασιν Ὕλλον τὸν Ἡρακλέους αὐτοὺς κατοικίσαι• εἰσὶ δὲ βάρβαροι. [...]Βουλινοὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶν ἔθνος Ἰλλυρικόν.

This leaves some room to doubt that Proto-Dorians seemingly were similar to the historical Illyrians since they used to live in the same territories. There is absolutely no reliable evidence to attribute any Greek origin to them while it is apparently known that Greeks as an ethnos were not yet consolidated. Thucydides tries to recount this chaotic state:

[1.3]: “The feebleness of antiquity is further proved to me by the circumstance that there appears to have been no common action in Hellas before the Trojan War. And I am inclined to think that the very name was not as yet given to the whole country, and in fact did not exist at all before the time of Hellen, the son of Deucalion; the different tribes, of which the Pelasgian was the most widely spread, gave their own names to different districts”.

[1.3]: δηλοῖ δέ μοι καὶ τόδε τῶν παλαιῶν ἀσθένειαν οὐχ ἥκιστα: πρὸγὰρ τῶν Τρωικῶν οὐδὲν φαίνεται πρότερον κοινῇ ἐργασαμένη ἡἙλλάς: [2] δοκεῖ δέ μοι, οὐδὲ τοὔνομα τοῦτο ξύμπασά πω εἶχεν,ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν πρὸ Ἕλληνος τοῦ Δευκαλίωνος καὶ πάνυ οὐδὲ εἶναιἡ ἐπίκλησις αὕτη, κατὰ ἔθνη δὲ ἄλλα τε καὶ τὸ Πελασγικὸν ἐπὶπλεῖστον ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν παρέχεσθαι

Pausanias reports that Dorian expedition took place two generation later after the Trojan War:

[4.3.3 ]: “After the conclusion of the Trojan war and the death of Nestor after his return home, the Dorian expedition and return of the Heracleidae, which took place two generations later, drove the descendants of Nestor from Messenia”.

[4.3.3]: διαπολεμηθέντος δὲ τοῦ πρὸς Ἴλιον πολέμου καὶ Νέστορος ὡς ἐπανῆλθεν οἴκαδε τελευτήσαντος, Δωριέων στόλος καὶ ἡ κάθοδος Ἡρακλειδῶν γενομένη δύο γενεαῖς ὕστερον ἐξέβαλε τοὺς Νηλέως ἀπογόνους ἐκ τῆς Μεσσηνίας.

However, this does not explain for instance what was the ethnic relation of Dorians with the old inhabitants like Achaians who got heavily contracted in the most barren sections of the country. Strabo makes it explicit that many of the former inhabitants were simply driven out by the newcomers:

[009.001.007]: But after the return of the Heracleidae and the partitioning of the country, it came to pass that many of the former inhabitants were driven out of their homelands into Attica by the Heracleidae and the Dorians who came back with them.

[009.001.007]: μετὰ δὲ τὴν τῶν Ἡρακλειδῶν κάθοδον καὶ τὸν τῆς χώρας μερισμὸν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν συγκατελθόντων αὐτοῖς Δωριέων ἐκπεσεῖν τῆς οἰκείας συνέβη πολλοὺς εἰς τὴν Ἀττικήν

It is quite plausible that Dorians were at least perceived as not having the slightest tie with the Achaians. With the drift of time, they were apparently influenced by the much-advanced Achaians to the degree they were assimilated.

[Herodotus: 68]: Thus he had done to Adrastos; and he also changed the names of the Dorian tribes, in order that the Sikyonians might not have the same tribes as the Argives; in which matter he showed great contempt of the Sikyonians, for the names he gave were taken from the names of a pig and an ass by changing only the endings”.

[Herodotus: 68]: ταῦτα μὲν ἐς Ἄδρηστόν οἱ ἐπεποίητο, φυλὰς δὲ τὰς Δωριέων, ἵνα δὴ μὴ αἱ αὐταὶ ἔωσι τοῖσι Σικυωνίοισι καὶ τοῖσι Ἀργείοισι, μετέβαλε ἐς ἄλλα οὐνόματα. ἔνθα καὶ πλεῖστον κατεγέλασε τῶν Σικυωνίων• ἐπὶ γὰρ ὑός τε καὶ ὄνου τὰς ἐπωνυμίας μετατιθεὶς αὐτὰ τὰ τελευταῖα ἐπέθηκε, πλὴν τῆς ἑωυτοῦ φυλῆς• ταύτῃ δὲ τὸ οὔνομα ἀπὸ τῆς ἑωυτοῦ ἀρχῆς ἔθετο

It is again Strabo who points out that Dorians lost the intercourse with the rest of Dorians, and as a matter of fact they were no longer a part of the same tribe as before:

[Strabo 008.001.002]: “...the Dorians too, since they were few in number and lived in a most rugged country, have, because of their lack of intercourse with others, changed their speech and their other customs to the extent that they are no longer a part of the same tribe as before. And this was precisely the case with the Athenians”.

[Strabo 008.001.002]: “…καὶ τοὺς Δωριέας δὲ ὀλίγους ὄντας καὶ τραχυτάτην οἰκοῦντας χώραν εἰκός ἐστι τῷ ἀνεπιμίκτῳ παρατρέψαι τὴν γλῶτταν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἔθη πρὸς τὸ μὴ ὁμογενές, ὁμογενεῖς πρότερον ὄντας. τοῦτο δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις συνέβη”.

The mutual animosity between Dorians and Achaians lasted as we may infer from ancient sources at least until the Classical period. According to Herodotus, Dorians were strictly prohibited from entering to the Achaian temples on the grounds they were foreigners. According to him, Cleomenes tried to trick the women priests by faking his origin: “Woman, I am not a Dorian, but an Achaian.” ( «ὦ γύναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Δωριεύς εἰμι ἀλλ᾽ Ἀχαιός.»).

It should be duly pointed out that there was a gigantic gap between the external name of a tribe and its real origin. It was a common practice in the very antiquity to label a people on the basis of a noteworthy king. We may note in passing, Eurpides in his ‘Archelaus’ who has preserved an interesting glimpse which cast some light to our idea:

“Danaus, who was the father of fifty daughters, having arrived in Argos inhabited the city of Inachus, and made a law that those who had before borne the name of Pelasgiotæ throughout Greece should be called Danai.”

Also we have seen in the quoted fragment of Herodotus, the Sikyonians desired to count themselves as equal with the Arigives. For that purpose, Adrastos is said to have changed only the endings of names. This seems to suggest that Hellenism (if we are to use the Classical connotation of the term) never affected Dorians, who preserved a distinct individuality during all the time.

Let us turn back to the scope of chapter. Does the Dorian extraction of Macedones indicate any kind of Hellenism? The answer is a doubtless NO. We have squarely argued that Dorians got Hellenized during their intercourse with the Achaians to the level they were no longer similar with the rest of Dorians. Anyway, the warped assumption that the Dorians of Pindus were Greeks at that time is not sustained at best or groundless at worst.

It has been even assumed that historical Macedonians sprung from Southern Dorians on the grounds that the same southern toponymes could be found as well in Pindus:

[STRABO 008.003.031]: “…and they point out the site of the city on a lofty place between Ossa and Olympus, two mountains that bear the same name as those in Thessaly”.

[STRABO 008.003.031]: “…Πῖσαν εἰρῆσθαι, οἷον πίστραν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ ποτίστρα• τὴν δὲ πόλιν ἱδρυμένην ἐφ’ ὕψους δεικνύουσι μεταξὺ δυεῖν ὀροῖν, Ὄσσης καὶ Ὀλύμπου, ὁμωνύμων τοῖς ἐν Θετταλίᾳ”.

In all probability, a bunch of northern names (like Ossa, Olympus, etc) were spread most likely by any wave of Dorian wanderers. Their presence around the mount Olympus is backed up even by the authority of Diodorus Siculus. He furnishes us with the following excerpt:

[V.80.2]: “The third people to cross over to the island, we are told, were Dorians, under the leadership of Tectamus the son of Dorus; and the account states that the larger number of these Dorians was gathered from the regions about Olympus…”

[V.80.2]: τρίτον δὲ γένος φασὶ τῶν Δωριέων παραβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν νῆσον ἡγουμένου Τεκτάμου τοῦ Δώρου• τούτου δὲ τοῦ λαοῦ μέρος τὸ μὲν πλέον ἀθροισθῆναι λέγουσιν ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον τόπων”. 

The Dorian extraction of Macedones is indicated originally from the authority of Herodotus who points out that people who later began to be called as Dorian dwelt initially in Pindos and were called “Makednian”:

[Herodotus, Book I. 56]: “…for in the reign of Deucalion this race dwelt in Pthiotis, and in the time of Doros the son of Hellen in the land lying below Ossa and Olympos, which is called Histiaiotis; and when it was driven from Histiaiotis by the sons of Cadmos, it dwelt in Pindos and was called Makednian; and thence it moved afterwards to Dryopis, and from Dryopis it came finally to Peloponnesus, and began to be called Dorian”.

[I,56]… ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ Δευκαλίωνος βασιλέος οἴκεε γῆν τὴν Φθιῶτιν, ἐπὶ δὲ Δώρου τοῦ Ἕλληνος τὴν ὑπὸ τὴν Ὄσσαν τε καὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον χώρην, καλεομένην δὲ Ἱστιαιῶτιν• ἐκ δὲ τῆς Ἱστιαιώτιδος ὡς ἐξανέστη ὑπὸ Καδμείων, οἴκεε ἐν Πίνδῳ Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον• ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὖτις ἐς τὴν Δρυοπίδα μετέβη καὶ ἐκ τῆς Δρυοπίδος οὕτω ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐλθὸν Δωρικὸν ἐκλήθη.

If we are to believe Herodotus opinion, Dorians began to be called with this name in the moment they finally came toPeloponnesus. Hence it is not far from the truth that Macedones owe their origin not to Hellenized Dorians of Peloponnesus but to the ones living in Pindos.

The emergence of Macedonian ethnos: the story of Argeads

Much has been written for the establishment of Argead Macedones in the Emathia plain. The ancient writers were somehow more focused on the chief leaders rather than people around them. Herodotus in his story recounts the wanderings of three ‘Macedonian’ brothers and their itinerary:

[137]. Now of this Alexander the seventh ancestor was that Perdiccas who first became despot of the Macedonians, and that in the manner which here follows: From Argos there fled to the Illyrians three brothers of the descendents of Temenos, Gauanes, Aëropos, and Perdiccas; and passing over from the Illyrians into the upper parts of Macedonia they came to the city of Lebaia.

[137]. τοῦ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρου τούτου ἕβδομος γενέτωρ Περδίκκης ἐστὶ ὁ κτησάμενος τῶν Μακεδόνων τὴν τυραννίδα τρόπῳ τοιῷδε. ἐξ Ἄργεος ἔφυγον ἐς Ἰλλυριοὺς τῶν Τημένου ἀπογόνων τρεῖς ἀδελφεοί, Γαυάνης τε καὶ Ἀέροπος καὶ Περδίκκης, ἐκ δὲ Ἰλλυριῶν ὑπερβαλόντες ἐς τὴν ἄνω Μακεδονίην ἀπίκοντο ἐς Λεβαίην πόλιν.

The link with the Peloponnesian Argos is either tenuous and is devoid from historical reality and as such it has been a subject of reproach. Robert M. Errington concedes:

“Herodotos, who probably visited Macedonia at the time of this Alexander, recounts the first, perhaps semiofficial, version, which depends on the similarity of sound between the name of the Peloponnesian town Argos and that of the royal famiy name Argeadai” (1990: 2).

Judging from the geographical description given by Herodotus, we may plainly invoke that this Argos is to be found in Orestia. Strabo gives additional hints on the foundation of that city:

[BookVII,8]: It is said that Orestes once took possession of Orestias – when in exile on account of the murder of his mother – and left the country bearing his name; and that he also founded a city and called it Argos Oresticum.

[BookVII,8]: λέγεται δὲ τὴν Ὀρεστιάδα κατασχεῖν ποτε Ὀρέστης φεύγων τὸν τῆς μητρὸς φόνον καὶ καταλιπεῖν ἐπώνυμον ἑαυτοῦ τὴν χώραν,κτίσαι δὲ καὶ πόλιν, καλεῖσθαι δ’ αὐτὴν Ἄργος Ὀρεστικόν.

The so-called ‘Argive’ Macedonians emerged most likely in the proximity of Ἰλλυριοὺς, Ἄργεος and Λεβαίην. Although we have slender evidences about the inhabitants of these districts, it can be safely conjectured that Illyrians prevailed there.

As a matter of fact, original Macedonians were more akin to them rather to any other people. All of these territories were constantly excluded from Hellas proper; the Greek presence is barely to be found at the period we are speaking about. As Argive Macedonians became a powerful clan they swamp eastwardly by conquering a multitude of tribes in the Emathia plain. For a clear picture of this expansion we have to utilize Thucydides records:

[2.99]: “Assembling in Doberus, they prepared for descending from the heights upon Lower Macedonia, where the dominions of Perdiccas lay; for the Lyncestae, Elimiots, and other tribes more inland, though Macedonians by blood and allies and, dependents of their kindred, still have their own separate governments. The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos.This was effected by the expulsion from Pieria of the Pierians, who afterwards inhabited Phagres and other places under Mount Pangaeus, beyond the Strymon indeed the country between Pangaeus and the sea is still called the Pierian gulf of the Bottiaeans, at present neighbors of the Chalcidians, from Bottia, and by the acquisition in Paeonia of a narrow strip along the river Axius extending to Pella and the sea; the district of Mygdonia, between the Axius and the Strymon, being also added by the expulsion of the Edonians. From Eordia also were driven the Eordians, most of whom perished, though a few of them still live round Physca, and the Almopians from Almopia. These Macedonians also conquered places belonging to the other tribes, which are still theirs— Anthemus, Crestonia, Bisaltia, and much of Macedonia proper. The whole is now called Macedonia, and at the time of the invasion of Sitalces, Perdiccas, Alexander’s son, was the reigning king.”

[2.99]:“ξυνηθροίζοντο οὖν ἐν τῇ Δοβήρῳ καὶ παρεσκευάζοντο, ὅπωςκατὰ κορυφὴν ἐσβαλοῦσιν ἐς τὴν κάτω Μακεδονίαν, ἧς ὁΠερδίκκας ἦρχεν. τῶν γὰρ Μακεδόνων εἰσὶ καὶ Λυγκησταὶκαὶ Ἐλιμιῶται καὶ ἄλλα ἔθνη ἐπάνωθεν, ἃ ξύμμαχα μέν ἐστιτούτοις καὶ ὑπήκοα, βασιλείας δ᾽ ἔχει καθ᾽ αὑτά. τὴν δὲ παρὰθάλασσαν νῦν Μακεδονίαν Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Περδίκκου πατὴρ καὶοἱ πρόγονοι αὐτοῦ, Τημενίδαι τὸ ἀρχαῖον ὄντες ἐξ Ἄργους, πρῶτοιἐκτήσαντο καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν ἀναστήσαντες μάχῃ ἐκ μὲν ΠιερίαςΠίερας, οἳ ὕστερον ὑπὸ τὸ Πάγγαιον πέραν Στρυμόνος ᾤκησανΦάγρητα καὶ ἄλλα χωρία καὶ ἔτι καὶ νῦν Πιερικὸς κόλποςκαλεῖται ἡ ὑπὸ τῷ Παγγαίῳ πρὸς θάλασσαν γῆ, ἐκ δὲ τῆςΒοττίας καλουμένης Βοττιαίους, οἳ νῦν ὅμοροι Χαλκιδέωνοἰκοῦσιν: τῆς δὲ Παιονίας παρὰ τὸν Ἀξιὸν ποταμὸν στενήντινα καθήκουσαν ἄνωθεν μέχρι Πέλλης καὶ θαλάσσηςἐκτήσαντο, καὶ πέραν Ἀξιοῦ μέχρι Στρυμόνος τὴν Μυγδονίανκαλουμένην Ἠδῶνας ἐξελάσαντες νέμονται. ἀνέστησαν δὲκαὶ ἐκ τῆς νῦν Ἐορδίας καλουμένης Ἐορδούς, ὧν οἱ μὲν πολλοὶἐφθάρησαν, βραχὺ δέ τι αὐτῶν περὶ Φύσκαν κατῴκηται, καὶ ἐξἈλμωπίας Ἄλμωπας. ἐκράτησαν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν οἱΜακεδόνες οὗτοι, ἃ καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἔχουσι, τόν τε Ἀνθεμοῦντα καὶΚρηστωνίαν καὶ Βισαλτίαν καὶ Μακεδόνων αὐτῶν πολλήν. τὸ δὲξύμπαν Μακεδονία καλεῖται, καὶ Περδίκκας Ἀλεξάνδρουβασιλεὺς αὐτῶν ἦν ὅτε Σιτάλκης ἐπῄει.

The above excerpt does not satisfy our curiosity at all if the previous inhabitants were simply driven out or overlaid by the new rulers. Strabo candidly asserts that:

[ 7.5.11]: “But of all these tribes the Argeadae, as they are called, established themselves as master”.

[7. 5. 11]: “Vτούτων δὲ πάντων οἱ Ἀργεάδαι καλούμενοι κατέστησαν κύριοι”.

If the Strabo’s account carries any validity, then we may surmise that there was no massive expulsion of the native inhabitants. The adjacent areas around original seats of Macedonians are not to be ignored, as some desire. It is very common among Greek nationalist historians to dissociate original Macedonians from their nearby neighbors like Illyrians (the progenitors of modern Albanians), Bryghes and various Thracian tribes.

Macedonia’s first dwellers 

The continuous intercourse with them had a great importance in the formation of classical Macedonians, which were strictly excluded from Greece, either in terms of ethnicity and geography. It would be an anomaly of its kind to consider that the traces of previous inhabitants were entirely lost with the arrival of Macedonians. We are going to reveal some of these mysterious tribes:

[Herodotus, VII,73]: “Now the Phrygians, as the Macedonians say, used to be called Brigians during the time that they were natives of Europe and dwelt with the Macedonians; but after they had changed into Asia, with their country they changed also their name and were called Phrygians”.

[Herodotus, VII,73]: οἱ δὲ Φρύγες, ὡς Μακεδόνες λέγουσι, ἐκαλέοντο Βρίγες χρόνον ὅσον Εὐρωπήιοι ἐόντεςσύνοικοι ἦσαν Μακεδόσι, μεταβάντες δὲ ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἅμα τῇ χώρῃ καὶ τὸ οὔνομα μετέβαλον ἐς Φρύγας.

The ancient sources do not clarify about the identity of Bryghes, but nonetheless a couple of sources assign to them as Thracians. Hence, Strabo hammered home:

[7. 3.2]: “And the Phrygians themselves are Brigians, a Thracian tribe...”.

[7. 3.2]: καὶ αὐτοὶ δ’ οἱΦρύγες Βρίγες εἰσί, Θρᾴκιόν τι ἔθνος…”.

The cultural impact of Bryghes, Mysians, Pierians and the rest of Thracians is yet to be interpreted. Optimistically, we can say that the examination of extant sources reveal that original Macedonians blended to a certain degree with the Thracians who previously occupied a large section of historical Macedonia. The stubbornness of classical Greeks to not accept Macedonians as their own is at least historically justified. The Hellenization of upper strata of Macedonian society was never enough as to eradicate the non-Greek component of Macedonian people.

Ancient sources:

1. Graham Shipley,The Periplous of Pseudo-Scylax: An Interim Translation, 2008
2. Thomas Hobbes, Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
3. W. H. S. Jones and H. A. Ormero, Pausanias , Description of Greece
4. Loeb Classical Library edition, The Geography of Strabo
5. George Rawlinson, The History of Herodotus

Modern sources: 

1. Robert Malcolm Errington, A history of Macedonia, University of California Press, 1990
2. M. V. Sakellariou, Macedonia, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization, Ekdotikè Athenon, 1992
3. Apostolos Vasileiou Daskalakēs, The Hellenism of the ancient Macedonians, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1965

Theopompus, too, had given a minute account of the Epirot tribes, and explained their geography, either in speaking of Philip’s first expedition into Epirus, or of his marriage with Olympias. All that Trogus says of Epirus was, no doubt, taken from Theopompus, as may be proved by certain quotations from Theopompus.

The name of Epirus is Απειρος, and that of its inhabitants Απειρωται; thus we read it on coins. We call all nations according to the κοινι, or according to the Attic form; but the ancients commonly called each nation according to its own dialect, and hence they, no doubt, commonly called the Epirots Απειρωται.

Thus we read in Plautus Alii for Elii—on coins they call themselves Αλιοι —and the Romans unquestionably called Pyrrhus king of the Apirotae, and not Epirotae. In the earlier times the name Απειρος embraced a much wider range of country, for it extended as far as the entrance of the Corinthian gulf. Acarnania and Aetolia are even in Thucydides included in Epirus. 

Epirus is “the continent,” in opposition to islands; we find it so especially in the Odyssey and in the Homeric Catalogue, where it is mentioned in opposition to the Cephallenian empire of the islands. Afterwards the name assumed a different meaning.

After the Trojan war, the Acarnanians spread over that coast; the Aetolians, by the side of the Curetes, rose from a small to a very large people, and a number of Greek colonies established themselves on that coast. The Acarnauians were late settlers in those parts; in the Iliad they are not yet mentioned there.

In the time of Thucydides, the name Epirots is vague and indefinite, Acarnaniaus, Aetolians, and even Locrians, being mentioned under this name, but especially Arcananians and Aetolians; but in the proper sense, the name Epirots even then, and afterwards generally, was the designation of the nations between the Acroceraunian mountains—the perpetual seat of storm and thunder—and the Ambracian gulf; these nations in the earlier times had no common appellation.

 But Epirots, as far as their origin is concerned, dwelt even in Aetolia, and a great many of the Aetolian tribes were Epirots; the Dolopians, and other mountain tribes of Pindus, did not differ from the Epirots. “In the north the Epirots extended even as far as Argyrocastro in Macedonia, and down the Illyrian Aornus.”

Theopompus justly called all those tribes Pelasgian; their country contained Dodona, the centre and sanctuary of the Pelasgians, and the seat of the Pelasgian oracle, just as in the East Samothrace was the chief seat of the Pelasgian worship.

Eighteen tribes in Epirus, whose names I need not detail, are considered to have belonged to the Pelasgians. They extended even into Macedonia; and the genuine Macedonians, in the narrowest sense of the name, were probably a kindred race; but having subdued Thracian, Illyrian, and Greek tribes, they had become greatly altered, while the Epirots had remained pure and unchanged.

One Marsyas, a Macedonian author, according to the Scholia on the Odyssey, called them Siceli, and that with justice. Voss was the first to direct attention to that passage, and I have made use of it. The Siceli in the Odyssey are the Epirots; the Pelasgians in southern Italy, and to the north, even beyond the Tiber, are known under the name of Siculi, under which they also appear in the island of Sicily; but all belong to one and the same race.

The question to what race the Epirots belonged was formerly answered with the greatest confusion, and people felt no uneasiness about it. They were without hesitation declared to be Greeks, although the expression of the ancients is ambiguous.

During the latter period, after the downfall of the royal house of Pyrrhus, i. e., in the sixth century after the building of Rome, the Epirots had greatly assimilated themselves to the Greeks, whence, in the latter period of antiquity, they were regarded as Greeks; but this belief is erroneous.

They had, it is true, more Greek civilisation than the Macedonians, but this was only accidental, “and Polybius calls them Greeks only because they had become hellenised; but hellenised Greeks must be well distinguished from real Greeks.“On this subject see Cicero’s speech for Flaccus.

The Lydians, Mysians, and Carians, were all regarded as Greeks; but Cicero expressly states, that the Greeks despised them as complete barbarians. 

Those nations, however, had become so much hellenised, that the Romans did not hear them speak any other language but Greek: they wrote Greek, their ordinary language and everything else was Greek, and the Romans, therefore, naturally looked upon them as real Greeks. ”

Thucydides calls the Epirots barbarians, and both Scylax and Dicaearchus reckoned Amphilochia as the commencement of Greece. Strabo, too, is not ambiguous on this point; and the fact that Herodotus calls Dodona one of the most ancient Greek sanctuaries, points only to a community of religious worship.”

As Siculi and Pelasgians, the Epirots were not, indeed, foreign to the Greeks, but still more foreign than e. g. the Franks were to the Goths. It may have been difficult for Goths and AngloSaxons to understand each other, but it was still more difficult for the Pelasgians and Greeks.

Thucydides ( ?) in speaking of some Aetolian tribes with Epirot names, says that they were barbarians, and that, too, αξυνετωτατοι, while the Mysians and others are called only αξυνετοι. In like manner, the Russians and Bohemians understand each other more easily than the Russians and Poles; and the Russians and Croats, again, understand each other better than Cossacks and Croats.

But the fact that the Epirots are called the most unintelligible, shows that there must have been at least a possibility to understand them.

During the Peloponnesian war, all those Epirot tribes existed separately from one another. The Molottians and Thesprotians alone were united under one prince; but the Chaonians and the other tribes were independent, “forming no kind of confederation; still, however, one or other of them predominated.

This isolation rendered it possible to establish there such a large number of Greek colonies; and, moreover, the fact that colonies were established there, is a proof that the Epirots were not Greeks; for we surely cannot suppose that the Greeks founded colonies in their own country.”

We find among them the same institutions as in Greece, but in their historical development they always were a couple of centuries behind the Greeks. They still preserved the ancient and simple mode of life, they were Απυργοι, and had no towns surrounded by walls, but lived in open villages containing only an acropolis (fort), into which, in times of war, they carried their property, and their wives and children. B

ut the Acarnanians, whose settlements belong to a later date, dwelt in towns. They were free, and when they had kings, they were the descendants of heroic families, whose ancestors were generally connected with Troy, as we find to have been the case with all the Pelasgian nations; some also traced their origin to the heroes of Greece. Their states were mostly very small, or if not small, at least very weak, and their princes had no authority.

This accounts for the circumstance, that when in the Peloponnesian war all the Epirot tribes were called to arms against Cnemus and the Acarnanians, they were so exceedingly feeble and powerless.At the same period we meet with the guardian of Tharyps, king of the Molottians.

The form Molossians, by which we generally designate that people, is quite arbitrary; the double σ has come into use, because the double τ is considered to be Attic; and hence the form Molossi has been introduced; but the name by which the people called themselves, was no doubt Μολοττοι. Aristotle, who cannot be said to employ Attic forms, calls them Μολοττοι; and the Greek grammarian Aelius Dionysius (in Eustathius on Iliad «) informs us that the double τ was a Thessalian form.

The royal family of the Molottians, the Aeacidae, traced their origin to Achilles, as the dynasty of the Macedonians traced theirs to Heracles. But there is no historical idea either in the one case or in the other, for Achilles was unknown to the Molottians under that name: they called him Aspetus, and traced their origin to Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles.

The two names of the son of Achilles, Pyrrhus and Neoptolemus, shows an amalgamation of two entirely different stories. It cannot but make us smile, to hear that at Troy Pyrrhus assumed the name of Neoptolemus,
and afterwards again took that of Pyrrhus.

The stories of Neoptolemus and Pyrrhus were quite different, and refer to different persons, but were afterwards transferred to one. In the Trojan story the son of Achilles never had any other name but Neoptolemus; Euripides was the first that here introduced confusion.

At the time of the Peloponnesian war, great changes were brought about among the Epirots by the above mentioned king Tharyps or Tharybas (Tharytas is a mere slip of a copyist). Tharyps is the Greek form, and Tharybas the Pelasgian.

The Pelasgian nations formed the names of Greek towns ending in as from the oblique case, as in Italy, Taras, Tarantum; in Sicily, Acragas, Agrigentum; and Byzas, Byzantium; and we may assert in general, that wherever there occurs a double termination in a name (Greek and Italian), the simpler form is Greek, and the longer one Pelasgian or barbarous.

Tharyps is of the highest importance in the history of those tribes. I am surprised that no one in the eighteenth century has made him the hero of some historico-political novel, such as were written by the Chevalier Ramsay and even by the great Haller (Usong).

At the beginning of the war his father died, leaving him as a boy under age; and his guardian sent him to Athens where he was to receive a Greek education. The Athenians, availing themselves of this opportunity, concluded a treaty with the Epirots, which however produced no consequences.

In the meantime, the administration of his principality was carried on by his guardian in a faithless manner. When the young barbarian had finished his education and returned to his own country, he introduced among the Molottians, Greek forms, Greek manners, and the language of Greece as far as he could, for his power, like that of all other Molottian kings, was very limited.

I Have already remarked that all the Epirot tribes had institutions, the foundations of which were the same as those of the Greeks. Thus we have mention of γενι among them.

Their government was by no means despotie, but a monarchy limited by laws. Aristotle mentions the Molottians along with the Spartans, as an instance of a μοναρχια πατριος; and he says that the power of their kings was as limited as that of the kings of Sparta. By law their power was extremely narrow; but personal influence could change anything, as was the case, e.g., with the kings during the middle ages.

In England, the power of the Norman kings over their barons was limited by law; but as conquerors they set themselves above the law and ruled as sovereigns, not only in an arbitrary, but even in a tyrannical manner.

Such also was the case with the Spartan, Epirot, and Molottian kings. Passaro was their capital: there they swore mutually—the king to observe the law, and the people to obey. I do not know whether this was done once for all, or whether it was repeated every year; but I believe that the latter was customary, and that the oath was taken at the πανιγυρεις.

These Molottian kings had as yet no towns, and even in the time of Pyrrhus we find the greatest simplicity in their manners and mode of living. The king’s wealth consisted in his flocks, and their shepherds were nobles, as in the Homeric poems.

Down to the time of Tharyps, there are no Epirot coins; they are not found till a later period, which is another evidence of the simplicity of their manners.Tharyps, then, was the king who hellenised the Molottians; and this change was communicated also, more or less, to the other Epirot nations. “This is all we know of his reign.” He left behind him two sons, Alcetas and Neoptolemus, which names show his anxiety to trace his family to Greek ancestors. 

The earlier names are altogether barbarous, but they now claimed to be descended from Achilles: changing their ancestral hero Aspetus, the father of Pyrrhus, into Achilles; and as they adopted the Greek legend of the marriage of Andromache with Pyrrhus, Trojan names also occur: Neoptolemus, Troas, the sister of Pyrrhus, and Deidamia.

Hence we must infer that the poems about Troy were not unknown to those nations. Alcetas succeeded his father, but had scarcely anything beyond the title of king. The Greeks at least do not mention him as king, and Xenophon gives him the title υπαρχος.

Amid the countless number of opinions on Greece, we are strongly inclined to adhere to the view that, formerly, all Greece was called Pelasgia, and that it was inhabited by the people of the Pelasgians. It is well known that the name Hellas is of later origin; and its late origin and diffusion are explained in a singular manner, the insufficiency and unhistorical nature of which show themselves at once, though it is associated with great names. It is said that Hellas was a town ofThessaly, in Achaia Phthiotis, and that it received its name from the hero Hellen, who, together with his sons, was invited by the neighbouring Thessalians to rule over them, and decide disputes among them.

In this manner, it is said, the name Hellenes began to spread. But this hero, Hellen, stands on the same footing as Ion, Aeolus, Doras, Achaeus, and others, all of whom are not real persons, but mere personifications of the tribes. I do not believe in the existence of a town,Hellas, in Achaia; it is not mentioned anywhere in history, and is a mere inference from a verse in Homer.

There are some other points which we must bear in mind. It is an erroneous opinion, that Homer had no common name for the whole of Greece; for there can be no doubt that, by the name Argos, he did not designate Peloponnesus alone, but the whole of Greece. This has been recognised even by several critics in antiquity, and is positively attested by the verse — Πολλήσι νήσοισι  και Αργει παντι ανασσειν

But much has been said against it, and the correct view has been forgotten.Argosis the general name, andThessalyin particular is called the Pelasgian Argos. The nameHellascame into use gradually, but how and when this happened we cannot say. All we know is, that it arose after the epic period, and that, at the time when our historical accounts begin, all the Greeks, even those ofAsia, called themselves Hellenes. But how this remarkable change arose, we know not. In the earlier times, the name Hellenes was much more limited; and, at first, they are mentioned in contrast with the others.

The name Pelasgians, for the inhabitants of Greece, does not occur in Homer, although he speaks of that race. But it is found only in the Odyssey, where, in general, everything is much more recent than in the Iliad, and, if I recollect right, the Pelasgians are mentioned in Crete; in the Iliad, so far as the Greek word is concerned, we have only the name Πελασικον Αργος in the catalogue, which is the most recent part of the Iliad; and, concerning the time of the composition of which, a discovery, I think, may yet be made.

Wherever in the Iliad the name Hellenes occurs, it seems to be confined to the inhabitants of Phthiotis, that is, the Myrmidons, the subjects of Achilles. In the catalogue, Hellas belongs to the Pelasgian Argos; in other places it occurs side by side with Argos, as in the words Ελλαδα και μεσον Αργος, and av ελληνάς και Αχαιους. In the latter passage, the reading, before the time of F. A. Wolf, was Πανελληνάς, instead of which αν ελληνάς, is, no doubt, the correct reading.

Herodotus distinguished the name of the Hellenes from that of the Pelasgians. He calls the Ionians Pelasgians, and the Dorians Hellenes; and relates that the latter originally dwelt on Mount Pindus, but that after various wanderings over Parnassus, Oeta, etc., they at length entered Peloponnessus. Of the Dorians we shall speak hereafter, and show that, in these earlier times, they must be considered to have been a greater people than they were afterwards in the historical time, when they occupied the little Δορις τετραπoλις .

But granting that according to Herodotus, who is here a very safe guide, the Dorians were Hellenes, and the Ionians Pelasgians, we must not invert the proposition, or maintain that Ionians and Pelasgians, and Dorians and Hellenes were the same and synonymous. Other tribes too, though they were not Dorians, were yet Hellenes; the Phocians and Locrians, e.g., to whom we cannot assign a distinct race or character, may perhaps have belonged to the most ancient Hellenes. I infer this from the passage about Αιας Οιλος , who is famous av ελληνάς και Αχαιους, in which assuredly his tribe is included.

In regard to the Pelasgians, I believe that in my Roman History  I have made tolerably clear the paths in this labyrinth, and how to get out of its mazes. I believe that the conclusions at which I have arrived, however startling they may be, may yet be relied upon, and after all, correspond more with what might reasonably be expected, than the commonly received opinions.

Whoever believes that the essentially different nations in those districts must necessarily have been small, imagines a necessity which has no existence. Seeing that in the East, tribes of the same race extend over a vast range of country, as the Iranians from Chusistan to the Jaxartes and Bokhara; and beholding, as we do, the wide diffusion of the German, Celtic, and Iberian races, can there be anything surprising or objectionable in our supposition, that in a similar manner an ancient race extended from Asia Minor, including its north-western coast, to the frontiers of Liguria; nay, that the same race even spread over the Western Islands?

If we take our own language and compare it with the Latin and Greek, or even with the Eastern languages, we find that they are related to one another, shewing that they must all have proceeded from one original stock; and we must accordingly assume an immense diffusion of that race; if, moreover, we consider the great affinity between the Iranian and Sarmatian languages, these races also must originally have been of the same stock.

Such also is the case with the Pelasgians, and several other nations may be conceived to have been akin to them, however great the extent of that race itself may have been. People have always been deceived in this case by the fact, that the Greeks often apply to themselves the name Pelasgians; but this confusion does not commence till a later period, when they were already in a state of decay.

In the earlier ages, when the recollection of the ancient times was still alive, and when there existed, if not an historical tradition, at least an image of them, this confusion does not occur. The tragic poets never call the Hellenes Pelasgians; but they justly apply the name to the first inhabitants ofPeloponnesus, in the mythico-heroic age, for they were really Pelasgians.

This Pelasgian race commenced on the Propontis, on the frontiers of Bithynia proper, between Cyzicus and the subsequent Nicomedia: there we find the most eastern traces of the Pelasgians; from thence they occupy the whole of the west of Asia Minor, inhabiting a broad tract of coastland down to the river Maeander in the south; there the Teucrians and Meonians no doubt belonged to them.

We then find them in the islands of the Aegean, in Lesbos and Chios, where they were subsequently subdued by the Ionians—Lemnos and Imbros, whence they, extend into Macedonia. The southern part of Macedonia is Pelasgian, so is the western part, and in fact, the whole country, so far as it is comprised within a line drawn from southern and western Macedonia to Illyricum.

In later times, indeed, this line comprised only Epirus; but it is evident, that originally the whole of Illyricum also was occupied by Pelasgians. In the north they extend along the whole coast, as far as Pannonia, and on the north of the Alps as far as Vindelicia, or the country of Bavaria. InItaly they dwelt on the coasts of both seas, on the Adriatic as well as on the Lower Sea. The Veneti, on the Adriatic, belong to them, and the whole of southern Italy, south of a line extending from the mouth of the Liris into Apulia, is Pelasgian.

The tribes which dwelt between them, in the mountains, were probably conquerors, who afterwards penetrated into those countries; and there must have been a time when the whole country was Pelasgian. This is really less startling than is commonly imagined.

“At the time when our history begins, we find the Pelasgians scattered, and the process of dispersion continues without interruption: their greatness lies entirely beyond the boundaries of history. When the Greeks call them δυσποτμωτατον Eθνος, this appellation is certainly correct as far as historical times are concerned.”

The question here naturally arises, How stood the Hellenes in the midst of this vast Pelasgian world? were they not likewise Pelasgians? I answer no, they were not Pelasgians. This is expressly and decidedly stated in the testimony of the ancients. But Hellenes and Pelasgians were kindred nations; identity of religion and similarity of language connected them with each other; here, too, we find a fundamental difference and a fundamental relationship, bound together by an inexplicable law.

But how, in the midst of the Pelasgian world, a people which was not Pelasgian could maintain itself in its isolation in the mountains, is a question which I cannot answer, and which you cannot expect me to answer. This much we can say with certainty, that the difference did not arise from a mixture of races. Herodotus expressly recognises the difference; and Aristotle also clearly distinguishes them from the surrounding Pelasgians.

He says that the Hellenes, who were then called Γραικοι, dwelt uponMountPindus aboutDodona, whither they had fled to escape from the flood. This allowsus to suppose, that in the early times the Hellenes were a more extensive nation.

If this be true, and if they once did occupy districts in which a great portion of their race perished in some physical catastrophe, the question is less puzzling; and, in fact, it is puzzling only when we refuse to exercise the modesty of distinguishing between that which can be known and that which cannot.

In such enquiries we must always beware of attaching too much importance to isolated testimonies; and although it is said, that at first the Hellenes dwelt on Pindus, yet we must not suppose that all the Hellenes occupiedMountPindusonly.

They may, very possibly, have come down from the mountains in the earlier times, and spread further, perhaps over southernThessaly, Histiaeotis, towards Achaia, Phthiotis, and the Dorian hills.

We meet with inextricable difficulties, if we attempt to trace out and examine the ancient traditions about the different tribes inGreece. The Argives derive their name from the country ofArgos, contrary to the general rule, according to which the names of nations exist first, and countries derive their names from the nations.

Argosprobably signified a castle, a town, or something similar, and the name occurs in countries occupied by Pelasgians. Larissa, which also occurs in Pelasgian countries, and certainly signifies a strong castle or fort, is everywhere the name of some fortress.

The other general names are Danai and Achaeans, which I do not consider synonymous. Achaeans seems certainly to have been the name of a special people, which was afterwards used in a general sense. Danai, on the other hand, never was a special name, but was probably always a general designation, which no doubt belonged to all Pelasgian nations.

However much I am averse to building historical researches upon names of nations, still I must direct your attention to the fact that the name Danai has a great resemblance to other TyrrhenoPelasgian names, and is evidently very closely akin to them. Danai and Dauniiare unquestionably the same; and the Daunii are clearly allied to the Tyrrhenian race.

Danae is said to have founded the Pelasgico-Tyrhenian Ardca, and on the other hand the father of Tyrrhenus ( = Turnus) was, according to some, called Daunus, and his mother Danae. Daunus and Launus, again, are the same, d and / in Latin, and in the socalled Aeolian dialect, being always exchanged for one another, as in δακρον and lacryma, Ducetius and Leucetius. Launa, Lavinia, and Lavinium, are the same as the different names of the Latins,Lavici, Lakinii, Latini, and all these names are identical with Danai.

Hence we may assume, that Danai was the peculiar name of thePelasgians inGreece, just as Tyrrheni and Siceli were the names of the Pelasgians inItaly. These are the conclusions at which I have arrived after many years’ reflection, and I should be glad if you could become convinced of their truth.

The Pelasgians, in the earliest times ofGreecewere, it would seem, clearly distinguished as Pelasgians of Thessaly, and Pelasgians of Peloponnesus, and to the latter the poets refer the name of Tyrrhenian Pelasgians. There is, however, nothing to justify further historical inferences from these designations. The Pelasgian settlements again, are distinguished by the fact that some are called Arcadian, and others Thessalian.

The confusion in these names is quite endless: the different names of the Pelasgian nation, and the different names of the particular tribes, are employed in such a manner, that they are seen in history doubled, or even trebled, in the same place, as if Tyrsenians and Pelasgians, Thessalians and Pelasgians, and Tyrsenians and Thessalians, had made war upon one another, whereas in reality they are the same people. Now if the question be asked, whether all these peoples, which the ancients sometimes comprise under the general name of Pelasgians, and those which in different countries they expressly mention under thisname, as in Chios and Magna Graecia, in other words, whether the peoples, from the Liburnians in the west down to the Meonians, Sicels, and Tyrsenians, were one nation in the sense in which the Slavonians, e.g., in their immense extent are a nation,—I answer: who can by any possibility know this?

What rational man can you expect to express himself upon this subject in any other than an undecided manner? It is not possible here to give a decided opinion; but considering the vast extent of this nation, I certainly must suppose, that there existed considerable differences in the dialects and mode of life of various portions of it; although I will neither deny nor affirm anything. When an ancient Sicel met a Tyrrhenian fromSamothrace, it is possible that they may have understood each other, just as a Cossack can, with some difficulty, be understood by a Bohemian, a Serbian by a Great-Kussian, and the latter by a Bohemian, provided they have accustomed their ears a little to the strange dialect.

But I do not mean for a moment to assert this, and can say nothing else concerning it than that the analogy of great nations proves, that there are always dialectic differences, and that they may become very strongly marked, although the identity of the nation remains. These differences may even become so great, that the several tribes do not understand one another, which is the case more particularly, when one portion of the nation is subdued, and for a time lives under another as a conquered people, adopting the dialect of the conquerors.

The Arabs of the Peninsula and the Mauritanians, or inhabitants of Tunis, have great difficulty in understanding one another, but after all they can do so; in like manner, the language of the Maltese is very different from theirs, and yet when you see the Maltese written, you can see the fundamental features of the Arabic, or, if you will, of the language of Tunis. Whatever may be the differences in words, which occur in the different Arabic dialects, and which are not found at all in others, yet the Arabs fromSyriaand those fromYemenunderstood each other immediately, however much the country of the one may be separated from that of the other. Thus the whole question is one of those which cannot be decided.

Greeks were not the first perpetrators to design a device that could eventuate in stealing historical events and twist the accounts of other people. Among the most despicable acts of theft has been the masterminded plan to plagiarize the Iliad. What would be considered a translation in modern times, was permissible rendering of Illyrian mythological elements into Greek official ideology. The custom of depriving subjugated people of their own gods was practiced from the dawn of civilizations.

The invaders would often adopt the gods of the conquered slaves in order to break their spirit and erase their memories. Yet no other invaders apart from Greeks has ever stolen the whole mythology of another people. Not only Greeks stole the Iliad from Illyria but they even changed their own name from Greek into Helens ‘people of the sun’. Why did Greeks escape unnoticed for their transgression? The Roman invasion of Illyria the distraction of Illyrian royal records and libraries made the Greek theft invisible. Unable to deal with the rising power of Illyria, weakened Greek city states invited Rome to destroy their annoying Illyrians and only after the fall of the culturally superior  neighbors did Greeks change the name into Helens.

The acceptance of the name Helen was not an indiscriminate act of surrender before the falsification of history. The very seeds of Greek civilization did not share the same genetic make up. The so-called Dark Ages of Greece, the pouring of Dorian tribes in Peloponnesus was actually an act of retribution for the distraction of Troy. Hence Achaeans finally paid a heavy price for destroying the Illyrian colonies inAsia Minor.

The creation of Homeric songs and their impact on Greek psyche corresponded to the destruction of Mycenaean civilization in Greece by Dorian tribes. But were Dorian people Greek by descent? The names of Dorian chieftains show that their origin was actually northern Illyrian where they rushed forth towardsGreece. Among Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and the Dymanes, the name of Hylleis (alb. hyllus ‘star, sun’) is not Greek at all while Dymanes is typically Illyrian, similar to Dymalus : ‘two mountains’. Illyrian dynasties used to add the numbers dy- ‘two’, tri- ‘three’ in front of their names to symbolize the unique royal line of succession.

The method of naming the leaders according to the royal parentage was typical of ancient monarchies. Because Greek people were actually a mixture of invading Achaeans and liberating Dorians the name Helen was considered to be a restoration of ‘people of the sun’ in their native land. Despite of common Indo European origin Achaean and Dorian were two different cultures. Not only language was different but even the architecture and burial customs were not the same. In the list of Hellenic tribes and cities, Illyrian names can be detected easily.

The full list of Illyrian tribes can be found at the bottom of article!

• Hellenic Illyrian Tribes 

Greek civilization grew out of a welter of various Hellenic Illyrian tribal nations which had occupied the region from time immemorial or had entered from elsewhere at an early date. Not much is known of this complex group of interrelated peoples.

ÆTHIKES They lived in northern and northwestern Thessaly, on Pindos and Karvounia mountains, near the Peneios river. They were neighbours of the Athamanes and the Tymphaioi and were first mentioned by Homer. They were regarded by other Hellenic peoples as barbarians and thieves. Their towns were Metsovo and Malakasio (nowadays within the administrative division of Ioannina). They disappeared after the Roman annexation of Greece in the 2nd century BCE.

AGRÆOI They lived in the Agrapha Mountains, between the rivers Achelous and Agraphiotes. They called their land Agraea or Agrais. Important cities were Agrinio (capital city of the administrative division of Aetoloakarnania) and Ephyra.
They created their own kingdom.

• Salynthios…………………………………..fl. c. 430 BCE
• To the Ætolian League…

AKARNANES They lived in Akarnania, having arrived there from Argos. Their cities were Amphilochia, Amphilochikon Argos, Limnaea, Stratos, Oiniades, Anaktorio, Echinos, Aktio, Solion, Alyzea, Astakos, Phoitia, Medeon, Thourion, and Metropolis.

• Alkmeon
• Akarnan, with…
• Amphoteros
• The Akarnanian League…………………………….5th cent.
• Allied to the Amphilochians
• Allied to Athens………………………..5th cent.-391
• To Sparta……………………………………391-371
• To Thebes……………………………………371-300
• To Epirus……………………………………300-273
• Allied to the Ætolian League…………………..270-245
• To the Ætolian League…………………………245-231
• 2nd Akarnanian League…………………………230-225
• To Macedonia…………………………………225-197
• Within the Roman State from 197…
• Mnasilochos……………………………..190-189

ALMOPIA They were located northwestern Macedonia, nowadays adm.div. of Pella, between the rivers Loudias and Axios and between the regions of Eordaea and Pelagonia. The region was inhabited by few people, who were isolated – therefore it was one of the first regions occupied by Macedonia. The primary cities were Orma, Apsalos, Europos, and Notia.

• Almopas
• To Macedon

AONES Ancient inhabitants of Boeotia after the Ektines, regarded by other Hellenes as barbarians. They lived near Thebes, and came from Sounion (Attica) toBoeotia, together with Temmikes, Leleges, and Yandes.

• Aon (Aonia – later called Boeotia - was named after him)
• Defeated by the Cadmians
• Afterwards they lived between north of Thebes and Lake Yliki.

APERANDOI They lived between the rivers Agraphiotes and Megdovas, to the Agrapha mountains, neighbours of the Agraeoi. They were an Ætolian sub-tribe.

ATHAMANES They lived in northeastern Epirus, on Tzoumerka mountains and in part of the administrative division of Trikala. They were regarded by other Hellenes as a semi-barbarian tribe. Important cities of this tribe: Argothea (capital city) and Theodoria.

• Athamas
• To the Corinthian League……………………c. 395-378
• To the 2nd Athenian League…………………….378-
• During the 2nd Sacred War allied to Macedonia
• Opposed to Phocis 354
• Opposed to Macedonia 323
• Under the control of Macedonia
• Alliance with Pyrros of Epirus
• Theodoros……………………………………fl. c. 205
• Amynandrus…………………………………..fl. c. 201
• Formed an Athamanian League

ATINDANES They lived in the region between Chaonia and Dodoni, in northwest Epirus.

• Allied to the tribe of Molossoi……………….c. 429
• Allied to Rome………………………………c. 229
• Allied to Macedonia…………………………225-221
• To Macedonia……………………………………….205

AVANDES They lived in Euboea. They were a protohellenic tribe that came into Greece appr. 2100-1900 BCE. They had lived initially in Phocis (Avai) and some of them in Argolis, Sicyon, Epirus, and Asia Minor.

• Avas
• Elephinor
• Chalkodous
• After the Trojan war they colonized Illyria.
• They disappeared after the Ionian invasion on Euboea…

BOEOTOI The region of Boeotia is northwest of Attica, nowadays one of the 52 administrative divisions of modern Greece.

• Boeotus
• Itonus
• Hippalcimus, with…
• Alector, and…
• Areilycus
• Leaders of the province during the Trojan war:
• Peneleus
• Leitos
• Arcesilaus
• Prothenor
• Klonios

Three generations after the Trojan War the region was inhabited by the Boeotian tribe. They lived initially on the Boios mountain of Pindos, between Epirus andMacedonia. From there they moved to Arne between Thessaly and the Pagasitikos bay (till the end of the late Hellenic era). They claimed to be an Ætolian sub-tribe.

• Boeotos
• Opheltas………………………………..fl. 1150-1100
• Xanthos
• By the end of the monarchy, the tribe had colonized the whole region, by c. 950.
• 1st Boeotian League…………………………..525-480
• This consisted of the city-states of Thebes, Koronea, Aliartos, Tanagra, Thespies, while Orchomenos and Plataea remained independent, and Eleutheres and Erythres went to Athens.
• Allied to Persia…………………………490-479
• 2nd Boeotian League…………………………..479-447
• 3rd Boeotian League…………………………..447-387
• Boeotia was divided into districts in this era. These were:
• a.) Thebais (including the cities of Thebes, Knopia, Ogchestos, Potniae, Kalydna, Therapnae, Schoinous, Peteon, Teumissos, Glisas, Yla, Foinikis, Tropheia),
• b.) Orchomenia or Phlegyandis or Andreis (Orchomenos, Askledon, Tegyra, Yettos, Achmones, Kyrtone),
• c.) Chaeronea,
• d.) Kopon (Kopes, Akraefnio),
• e.) Levadeia,
• f.) Koronea (Koronea, Alalkomemes, Tylfossion),
• g.) Aliartia (Aliartos, Medeon, Okalea),
• h.) Thespiki (Thespies, Eutrisi, Lefktra, Kerissos, Nisa, Askre, Ippotes, Thisvi, Korsies, Sifoi),
• i.) Plataeis (Plataea),
• j.) Tanagraea or Poimandria (Tanagra, Delio),
• k.) Parasopea (Eteonos, Skolos, Ysies, Erythres),
• l.) Tetrakomia (Phires, Aulis, Mykalessos, Arma, Eleion, Yrea),
• m.) Anthedon (Anthedon, Isos, Salganeas),
• n.) Larymna (Karsea, Ales),
• o.) Oropos
• 4th Boeotian League…………………………..378-338
• To Macedon…………………………………..338-245
• 5th Boeotian League………………………336-146
• To Aetolia…………………………………..245-236
• To Macedon…………………………………..236-146
• To the Roman Republic…………………………146-27
• 6th Boeotian League…………………..146 BCE-3rd cent. CE
• To the Roman Empire (dist. of Achaea 85 BCE)….27 BCE-395 CE

CHAONES Ancient protohellenic tribe with a Pelasgian root. They lived in Epirus, between the Keraunia mountains and Kalamas river, therefore the first name of Epirus was Chaonia. They were related the the Chaones of southern.Italy. Important cities: Vouthroton, Ilion, Foenice, Panormos, Ogchismos, Amandia, Antigonea

• Chaon
• They developed a system relying on an annual leader. By the 5th century they had combined to a large degree with local Thesprotean and the Illyrian peoples.
• Allied to Ambracia against the Akarnanes……….428
• Photios and…
• Nikanor
• To the League of Epirus……………………….232-170
• To Rome…………………………………………170

DOLOPES An ancient Aetolian tribe, related to the Magnites. They lived in Acarnania, southern Thessaly, and Phthia. Their borders were Phthia and Aenianes (East), Eurytanes-Agraeoi (South), Amphilochia (West), Athamanes-Thessaliotis (North). Their capital city was Ktimeni; other important cities were Dolopeis, Ageiai, Menelais, and Ellopia.

• Dolops
• Ktimenes
• To Phthia
• Phoinikas
• Allied to Persia during the Persian Wars
• Opposed to Herakleia 420.
• To Pheres 374
• To Macedonia 344
• Allied to Athens 323
• To the Aetolian League
• To Macedonia
• Independent………………………………….189-174

DORIANS A major Hellenic group of closely related tribes or septs, the Dorians are regarded both in archeology and in legend as the conquerors of the Peloponessus. Initially they lived in the area near Mount Olympus, in the land of Doris. In the 12th century they began migrating southward, and three separate Doric tribes (Hylleis, Pamphyloi, and the Dymanes) settled in eastern and southern Peloponnesus, displacing the native Achaeans. The mythological account of this has it that these three groups were the descendents of three Herakleides (children of Herakles), Temenus, Aristodemus, and Cresphontes, who successfully recovered an inheritence lost to a cousin, Eurysthenes of Mycenae. They were a rather dour, plain-spoken, and harshly disciplined people – as their best-known branch, the Classic Age Spartans, personified greatly. The tension between themselves and the other great Hellenic people, the Ionians – who regarded Dorics as barely-literate, ill-mannered martinets – is at the heart of a great deal of Greek historical development.

• Doros
• Ægimios
• Yllos
• Colonization of the Peloponnesus………………from c. 1100

Afterwards the Dorians colonized Megara, Argolis, Laconia, Messinia, Aegina, Milos, Thera, Crete, Rhodes and Corinth.

DRYOPES Related to the tribe of Leleges, they were a barbaric tribe. They lived in the area between the mountains Oiti and Parnassus. They called their land Dryopis. Owing to Dorian pressure they evacuated their land and colonized Euboea,  Karystos, Styra, Cyprus, Kythnos, Argolis (Asine, Nemea), Messinia, andEpirus. Main city: Drys.

• Dryops
• Melaneus

EKTINES The first inhabitants of Boeotea.

• Ogygos

EORDAEA Ancient region (and tribe) in western Macedonia near the lake Vegoritis. Eordaea’s borders were Almopia-Lyngistis (North), Elimea (South), Imathia (East), Orestis (West). Inhabited during the late Bronze Age, the Eordoi were a proto-Hellenic, Indo-European that came to Eordaea appr. 2200 BCE. Nowadays there is the administrative division of Kozane. Main cities were Eordaea, Arnissa, Vegora and Kellas. Eordaea was the birthplace Ptolemy Lagos, the Macedonian general who gained the throne of Egypt.

• Eordos
• Destroyed by the Timenides of Macedonia
• Allied to the Greeks during the Persian wars

EPEIOI A Pelasgian tribe in the western Peloponnesus, they lived in Elea, Pisatis, western Achaea, and the Echinades islands. Their cities: Vouprasion, Elida, Yrmine, Myrsinos, Olene, Dyme, Ephyra, Kyllene, Pylos, Aleisio.

• Epeios
• During the Trojan War there were 4 different kingdoms…
• Polyxenos and…
• Thalpios and…
• Andimachos and…
• Diores
• Many conjoined with Kaukones and Ionians and lived in Achaea (the Larissos River district).
• The Epeioi of Pisa combined with the Arcadians and dwelt lived in Pisatis.
• Agorios
• The remaining eventually melded with the Ætolians and lived in Elea; Elean sequence thereafter…

EURYTANES An Ætolian sub-tribe, they lived in the district of Karpenissi (today:capital city of Evritania), between the mountains Panaitolikon and Tymfristos. Their borders were Aenianes (East), Dolopes (North), Aperandoi-Akarnanes (West), Aetolians (South), Thestians (Southwest), Ofionians (Southeast). During the prehistoric era they had probably lived in Thessaly. Their capital city was Oichalia.

• Eurytos
• Allied to the Ætolians
• From time to time to the Achaeans of Phthia, to Thessaly or to Macedonia
• To Rome 146

GEFYRAEOI A non Hellenic tribe (Poinicians) They lived in Boeotia in the town Gefyra. Afterwards they moved into Attica It is claimed that they brought the alphabet into Greece. Homeland of Armodios and Aristogeiton, murderers of the Athenian tyrants Hippias and Hipparchus

IDONOI They lived in western Thrace, between the rivers Strymon and Nestos  (nowadays there are the cities Drama and Zichne). Their land was called Idonis or Andandros. Important cities were Myrkinos (capital-city), Draviskos and Amphipolis.

• Idoneus
• Lykurgos
• Getas……………………………………….fl. c. 500
• To Persia during the Persian wars

IONIANS One of the great pan-Hellenic tribal groups. They lived initially in southwestern Thessaly, but at a very early date migrated south. Some of them remained in southwestern Thessaly and others moved to west Locris, Achaea and Pisa. Afterwards they colonized Attica and Asia Minor. They also extensively settled the Cyclades, Euboea, Corinth, Megara, Epidaurus, and by the end of the Mycenean era they were in Attica, Megaris, Epidaurus, Troezin, Kynourua andAchaea. Defeated by the Achaeans, Minyes, Phlegyes and Lapithes, they remained largely in Attica, some of the islands, and most especially in western Asia Minor, which became known as “Ionia”. They are to a large extent responsible for Greek literature, philosophy, and much Hellenic art (the Ionian dialect is the foundation upon which standard Classic Greek developed, which in turn gave birth to “Koine” (Common speech – the language of most of the New Testament), Byzantine dialects, and ultimately modern Greek. In acquiescing to Persian hegemony in Asia Minor during the 6th and 5th centuries, they earned the scornful contempt of the Peloponessian Dorians, who regarded Ionians as weak, compliant, mendacious, and very likely treasonous. It is this tension between the two groups which is at the heart of much of Greek historical development.

• Ion
• Partitioned into four sub-tribes: Geleondes, Oplites, Aegikoreis and Argadeis.

KIKONES They lived between the Evros river and the Vistonis lake. They came there appr. 1300-1200 BCE. Their cities were Xantheia, Maronea, Ismaros, Zone and Kyzikos.

• Allied to Trojans
• Euphimos
• Mendes
• Their capital Ismaros was conquered by Ulysses after the Trojan war
• After the Mycenean era they disappeared as an identifiable people.

KRESTONES The Kristones lived in Krestonia a Macedonian district between Chalkidicia and the Strymon river. They were a Pelasgo-Thracian sub-tribe. Important cities: Antigonea, Xylopolis, Terpyllos, Karavia, Kreston.

• To Mygdonia from 480 BCE

LAPITHES The main inhabitants of early Thessaly, together with the centaurs (Northern Pelasgia-Perraivia). Their main cities: Argissa, Gyrtone, Orthe, Elone, Olossoi. They colonized Perraivia. In the 10th cent. they built a lot of cities in other regions (Koronos of Koronea, Phaliros of Phalara, Elatos of Elateia in Arcadia,Boeotia and Phocis, Phorvas and Triopas in Rhodes).

• Lapithus
• Ypseus
• Ixion
• Peirithous
• Kaeneas (his succestors were the Kypselides of Corinth)
• Koronos (his succestors were the Phylaides of Attica) with…
• Polypoites and…
• Leondeus (during the Trojan War)
• They were defeated by Ægimios, king of the Dorians…

LELEGES Prehistoric tribe, they were nomads.

• Leles (from Laconia or Egypt)
• They colonized the Cyclades islands, Asia Minor, Aetolia, Acarania, Megara (King Leles), Locris, Leukas, Euboea, Boeotia and Lacedaemon (King Eurotas)
• Leleges from Sparta colonized Messinia (King Polykaon)
• Leleges from Megara colonized Pylos (Messinia) and Pylos (Elis)
• Leleges in Epirus were neighbors of the tribe of Molossoi
• In Thessaly they succeeded the Pelasgoi
• Evacuation of Ionia due to the Greeks 1200-1100 BCE
• Altis (King during the Trojan war – allied to the Trojans)
• After the Trojan war they inhabited Chios and Samos
• Evacuation of Caria owing to pressure from the tribe of Cares

LYNGISTES They lived in Macedonia, in the Lyngystis Region (nowadays: Florina) and their capital-city was called Herakleia. An Illyrian tribe, they were neighbours of the Dassarites. Main cities were Herakleia, Kella, Vevi.

• VAKCHIADES
• Aeropos
• Vromeros
• Arrabaius……………………………………fl. c. 423
• Argaeus……………………………………..fl. c. 391
• To Macedonia appr. 338

MAGNITES They lived on Thessaly, in Magnesia, they were a Macedonian sub-tribe. Important tribe during the Neolithic, Bronze, Minoan and Mycenean ages. Their cities were: Mithone, Thaumakine, Melivoia, Olizon and Minyai.

• Magnes
• Prothous
• Philoktetes and…
• Medon (during the Trojan War)
• Continued independence until the 6th cent.
• To Thessaly…………………………….6th cent.-363
• To Pheres……………………………………363-c. 342
• To Macedonia………………………………c. 342-194
• Founding of Demetrias, capital city of Magnesia  293 BCE
• The Magnesian League………………………….194-171
• Eurylochos………………………………….193
• To Macedonia…………………………………171-168
• To Rome - (within the Magnesian League)………..from 168

MALIEIS They lived in southern Thessaly, a Dorian sub-tribe. The Malians were partitioned into three sub-tribes: Trachinioi, Paralioi, Iereis. Their capital city was Herakleia and afterwards Lamia.

• Within the Malis region (their land was named after them) from c. 1100
• Malos
• To the Amphictiony of Delphi……………..8th cent.- ?
• Opposed to the Phoceans end 6th cent.
• To Thessaly
• To Sparta……………………………………427-c. 371
• To Pheres…………………………………c. 371-370
• To Thebes……………………………………370-343
• To Macedonia…………………………………343-220
• To the Ætolian league…………………………220
• To Thessaly appr. 27 BCE

MOLOSSOI An Epirote tribe dwelling in the north, who succeeded in gaining control over all of Epirus in late Classical times. They were best known for a breed of huge war-mastiffs they used in military operations.

• For their rulers, see the earliest (pre-Aeacid) leaders of Epirus. Molossus, their eponymous ancestor, was said to have been born of a union between Neoptolemus and Andromache.
• Established the Kingdom of Epirus, 6th or 5th centuries ?
• Epirus to the Aeacid dynasty 395.
• A League of Molossoi formed c. 300, within Epirote and then Roman jurisdiction.

MYGDONES A Thracian tribe living in southern Macedonia between the rivers Axios and Strymon, in northern Chalkidicia, near the Thermaikos Gulf. Their cities were Therme, Sidos, and Chalestri.

• To Paeonia………………………………..to the 350′s BCE
• To Macedonia thereafter…

OETAEOI They lived on the mountain Oeti in southern Thessaly and in the 5th century in the valley of Aspos river. Important cities: Antikera, Anthile, Herakleia, Trachis.

• Opposed to Dorians and Trachineans
• Formed the Oeteanid League
• To the Aetolians……………………………..280-168
• To the Achaean League…………………………162-146
• Free and independent for a time; then…
• To the Thessalian League thereafter…

ORESTES They lived in Epirus in their land called Orestis, which was part of Molossia. They inhabited the northern and northwestern borders of Greecebetween the rivers Aous and Achelous. They claimed to be successors of Orestes of Mykenaea. Important cities were Orestia and Argos Orestikon.

• To Macedonia
• To the Orestian League of Orestes within Roman hegemony
• To the Roman district of Macedonia

PAETOI A minor tribe living in the region called Paetike. Their most important city was Zerenia.

• To Persia and against the Greeks during the Persian wars  appr. 500-480
• To Macedonia, 336
• Against the Persians 334

PELASGOI An Indo-European tribe, that came into the Hellenic region appr. 3000 BCE. They lived in western Thessaly and Epirus. Afterwards they colonized not only Argolis and Arcadia, but also some of the Aegean islands, Attica, Crete, Ionia, Achaea, Phocis, Phthiotis, Euboea, Kristonia and Sicyon.

• Pelasgos
• Chloros

Most of them disappeared after the end of the Mycenean era, but some Pelasgian communities survived till the beginning of the 5th century BCE in Kristonia and Propontis.

PERRAIVOI They lived in northern Thessaly, initially in the district of Istiaiotis. Their cities were Gonnoi, Olousson, Phalanna, Doliche, and the Perraivean Tripolis (3 cities) consisting of Azoros, Polichna, and Pythion.

• Triopas
• Karkavos……………………………………..c. 1500 BCE
• Gouneus (during the Trojan war)
• To the Amphictiony of Delphi
• To Larissa
• To Archelaos of Macedonia
• Defeated by the Aetolian League……………………199
• Members as free tribe in the Delphian Amphictiony……196
• They created a Perraivean League……………….196-191
• To Macedonia…………………………………191-185

THE SEA PEOPLES Students of European history will be familiar in a general way with the phenomena of the devolution of Classic cultures, the swarming forth of innumerable barbarian tribes, and the subsequent emergence of the so-called “Dark Ages”, together with the slow re-emergence of a vibrant civilization in the Mediaeval and Renaissance eras. Such a model is an oversimplification of what occurred, but it is valid at least in broad descriptive outline. What is perhaps less well recognized is that such a pattern has happened, albeit on a smaller scale, before. Before the 1200′s BCE, the Eastern Mediterranean played host to a variety of sophisticated civilizations. For a variety of reasons, the 17th to 13th centuries BCE saw a general retreat, one which did not begin to reverse itself until the 9th century BCE (leading to the eventual flowering of Classic-Age civilization by the 5th century). One important factor in this process was the sudden emergence of a group of barbarian tribes known collectively as the Sea-Peoples. These raiders critically damaged the ancient civilizations of Greece, Anatolia and Syria, and seriously threatened the southern Levant and Egypt. The origins of these peoples are unknown, though it is believed that they emerged from the Aegean and may have been Minoan or Greek in origin. They referred to their own homeland as Ahhiyawa, which seems to be related to the word Achaean. The Hittites described their home as an island near Milawanda (Miletos, on the Ionian coast); which may refer to Rhodes, while the Bible describes their origin-point as Caphtor, which is believed to be Crete. They were technologically and artistically sophisticated, being one of the first groups in the Levant to use iron weapons. The following is a list of the documented Sea Peoples, and what linguists and archeologists believe about their origins and eventual fates…

Map of Homeric Greece

DANYA / DANNUNA They have been identified with the Danaoi, mentioned in Homer’s Iliad; another, far-fetched explanation is that they are related to the Gaelic Celts (Danaan). Some historians and archeologists have suggested that the Danya invaded Canaan in alliance with the Philistines but then joined the Israelite tribal confederation as the tribe of Dan. The original territory of that tribe bordered Philistia, and the Philistines seemed to bear a particular grudge against the Danites, who eventually relocated to the Galilee.

EKWESH This name is very similar to the Hittite name for Greeks (Acheans). Very little is known about them.

LUKKA These are believed to have hailed from Lycia, and probably returned there after several unsuccessful invasions of Egypt.

PELESHET These are the Philistines who settled in the southern coast of Canaan and established the pentapolis of Gaza, Gath, Ekron, Ashkelon and Ashdod. They may have invaded Canaan originally in alliance with the Israelites, who settled in the inland areas, but any collegiality quickly disappeared if Biblical records are anything to go by. The name Palestine, given to Judea by the Romans after the Jewish Wars, is believed to be derived from Philistine, although some scholars have suggested that it actually (ironically) comes from a derogatory Greek epithet for Jew.

SHARDANA Formerly, it was thought that this people migrated out of the Hellenic region, crossed the central Mediterranean, and conquered Sardinia, which still bears a variant of their name. Recently though, it has been suggested that the migration was in the opposite direction – that they were aboriginal inhabitants of Sardiniawho traveled eastward into the Hellenic littoral.

TJEKER / SHEKELESH The Tjeker are of uncertain origin, but they raided Egypt repeatedly before settling in northern Canaan. They may originally have been the Teucri, a tribe inhabiting northwest Anatolia around Troy. They conquered the city-state of Dor and turned it into a Tjeker kingdom. They are one of the few of the Sea Peoples for whom a ruler’s name is recorded – in the papyrus account of Wenamun, an Egyptian priest…

• Beder (Prince of Dor)……………………mid 1000′s BCE ?
• Dor fell to King David of Israel in the 990′s, and the Tjeker are not mentioned after that date.

Besides the Dorite Tjeker, some scholars believe that the Tjeker may have been connected in some way with the Israelite tribe of Menasseh.

TYRSENNOI May be related to the Etruscans, since their name is similar to Tyrrhennoi, the Etruscans’ name for themselves (hence the Tyrrhian sea).

WESHESH Their origins are unknown, though there is some evidence that they may have come from the area of Caria. Some have theorized that they, like the Danya, became part of the Israelite confederacy (as the tribe of Asher).

TEMMIKES A barbarian tribe living in Boeotia before the Cadmians and the Boeotians. They came to Boeotia along with the Aones, Leleges, and Yandes.

THESPROTIANS Their region was called Thesprotia. Nowadays Thesprotia is one of the 52 administrative division (nomoi) of Greece (capital-city: Preveza). They lived in Epirus between the Amvrikikos Bay and the Kalamas river and between Pindos mountains and the Ionian Sea.

• The first inhabitants………………………………………….Early Bronze Age
• Beginning of the middle Hellenic period the region had been inhabited by the tribes of Elopes, Greacians, Kassopaeoi, Dryopes, Dononians. They moved and colonized afterwards Ithaca, Leucas, Akarnania
• Partial colonization of Thessaly and S.Greece 12th-11th cent.
• Thesprotos
• Kallidice
• Isolated until appr. 730 BCE
• South Thesprotia was occupied by Eleans 7th cent.
• Allied to Corinth…………………………… ?  -5th cent.
• Allied to Athens and the kingdom of Molossoi…….415-404
• Occupation of Kassopaea, Dodoni, East Thesprotia by Molossoi after 400 BCE
• To the 2nd Athenian league…………………….375-c. 350
• The Thesprotian League middle 4th cent. (cap-city: Elea, afterwards Titane)
• To Macedonia…………………………………343-300
• To the League of Molossoi…………………………300
• To Macedonia…………………………………300-220
• To the Epirote League…………………………220-167
• To Epirus……………………………………….167
• The Thesprotian League……………………167-148
• Assigned as a district of Macedonia within Rome….148-27
• Assigned as a district of Achaea within the Roman Empire from 27 BCE

The Thesprotians were divided into many sub-tribes: Aegestaeoi, Dodonians, Eleaeoi, Elinoi, Ephyroi, Ikadotoi, Kartatoi, Kestrinoi, Klauthrioi, Kropioi, Larissaeoi, Onopernoi, Opatoi, Tiaeoi, Torydaeoi, Fanoteis, Farganaeoi, Fylates, Chimerioi. Their main cities were Ephyra, Chimerion and Torine.

VISALTES They lived in Macedonia, east of the Mygdonia region, between the Volvi lake and the Strymonas river
Their cities were: Verge, Euporia, Kalliteres, Oreskia, Visaltia (capital-city). Before the 5th cent. Visaltie and Kristonia had a common history

• Mosses……………………………………c. 500-480
• Demetrius……………………………………fl. c. 450
• Vastareas……………………………………….c. 350
• To Macedonia…………………………4th cent. to 179
• Part of Mygdonian territory (within Macedon and then Rome) from 179…

VISTONES They lived in the Rhodopi district to the Aegean sea, near Abdera. Their land was called Vistonea and it was between the Kikones and the Sapes regions.

• Vistonas
• Orpheus
• Diomedes (during the Trojan war)

YANDES Proto-Hellenic tribe inhabiting Boeotia alongside the Aones, Leleges, and Temmikes. They lived near Thebes, and in later times colonized East Phocis (building the city of Yambolis), West Locris, and Aetolia.

Originally taken from: © http://www.geocities.ws/protoillyrian/tribes.html

List of Illyrian tribes in alphabetical order

Ardiaei

Abri

Agrianes

Amantini

Andizetes

Arrianes

Atintani (Atintanes)

Autariates (Autariate)

Azali

Boii

Breuci

Bylliones

Carni

Catari

Celegeri

Chelidones

Colapiani (Colapani)

Cornacates

Daesitiates

Daorsi

Dardani

Dassarstae (Dassarenses,Dassaretae)

Daversi

Delmatae (Delmetae)

Deraemestae

Deuri

Dindari

Ditiones

Docleatae

Encheleae (Enchelleae)

Eravisci

Glintidiones

Grabaei

Histri

Iapode (Japodes)

Iasi (Jasi)

Labeatae (Labeates)

Latobici

Liburni

Maedi

Maezaei

Melcumani

Moesi

Molossi (Molossii)

Naransii

Oseriates (Osseriates)

Paeones

Parthini

Perestae (Penestae)

Pirustae (Pipustae)

Plearaei

Sardeaties

Scirtari

Scordisci

Seleiitani

Siculotae

Soirtones

Taulanti (Tallanii)

Triballi

Vardaei

Veneti