![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I wrote the Macedonians turned against the Greek poleis becuase it refers specifically that it had wars with Athens, etc. They already had an alliance with Epirus and Thessaly, had it not ? The above sentence does not imply that Macedonians were not Greeks, but they certainly were not a city -state. So the nomenclature is strictly 'political', not 'ethnic' Slovenski Volk ( talk) 09:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Macedonians turned also against the Boeotian League, a League isn't exactly the same political structure as the polis (Thebes the center of the League was raised to the ground). So, the term 'Greek states' encompasses all these entities. Alexikoua ( talk) 05:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article on Haliacmon, which seems to be the river referred to here, but it has been spelled 'Heliacmon' in the article. Does anyone object if I correct the spellings and wikilink to our article? The ancient Greek name for the river is Ἁλιάκμων so I don't know why the first vowel should be rendered as 'e' in English. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
There has been some to-ing and fro-ing regarding what was imported and what native. My suggestion is we either leave this out, or correctly state the facts. Some editors have argued that the "Greek" elements, however defined, were native, whilst others were imported.
Apart from being a rather meaningless division, this is (if anything) inaccurate and opposite to actual fact.
Snodgrass Altogether the graves of Macedonia, like their contents, are best explained by the durability of the non-Greek cultural element here, in which the phenomena of Greek influence - the Protogeometric pottery, and perhaps the rare cremations at Vergina - are fleeting.
Krisstianson As the Macedonians became infused with Greek civilization
Whitby But, if Macedonians were beginning to make use of some central Greek objects, they were otherwise sticking to their peculiar Macedonian ways
Lemnos It has already been noted that the community at Vergina had stronger links with northern regions, but contacts with southern areas in Greece are also indicated by the few imported vases...
Borza From the archaeological record it is clear that Macedonians were a non-Greek people who became increasingly Hellenized.
I thus propose either leaving simply "fusing GReek and Thraco-Illyrian", or "indegenous Macedonian elements became increasingly Hellenized".
This paragraph is just one POV:
But see Robert Rollinger's chapter in Blackwell's Companion to the Classical Greek World (ed. Konrad H. Kinzl), p. 204 and 205:
Rollinger authored also " Yaunā takabarā und maginnāta tragende 'Ionier'. Zum Problem der 'griechischen' Thronträgerfiguren in Naqsch-i Rustam und Persepolis", challenging the widely held view that Yaunā takabarā were Greeks wearing a petasos, i.e. Macedonians and Thessalians. He also suggested it is possible that takabarā is a representation of "die Kampftechnik der griechischen Phalanx" Daizus ( talk) 12:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to say, but this section has a POV and editorialized feel to it. It seems that most paragraphs here have been picked-and-placed in order to paint a central theme -- namely that the editor seems to be doing the best he can to call into question the greekness of the macedonians -- I don't have a problem with views of borza and others, but they should not be presented in such an editorialized fashion. Frankly it seems like a long-winded, one-sided essay, with a lot of contentious statements in it.... can anyone really argue that the tone of this section is not even slightly skewed?
Over the next few weeks I'll be making changes to this section that I feel will give it more of a neutral point of view. Everything of course, can be discussed here on the discussion page, and I hope to have some constructive engagement from the other editors of this page.
I will be making edits in good faith under WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. I would appreciate other editors also using good faith, and not simply reverting changes without discussion. Lets work together to make this a fair and useful NPOV article for all readers.
Three things in my current edit are:
1. The beginning of this section opens quite poorly. As it is a very long section, the first few sentences should act as a summary and introduction to the section. It would be prudent to restate the following summary from the lead regarding the identity of the macedonians, that the macedonians were 'Generally described as an ancient Greek people,' (using the 17 existing references). Restating statements from the lead in their appropriate sections is good practice, and is commonly followed on wikipedia.
2. Changing "The earliest version of the Temenid foundation myth was circulated by Alexander I, via Herodotus, during his apparent appearance at the Olympic Games." To: "Herodotus, one of the foremost biographers in antiquity who lived in Greece at the time when the Macedonian king Alexander I was in power, writes that Alexander I stated his descent from the Argives during his appearance at the Olympic Games."
It is generally accepted that Alexander I appeared at the Olympic Games. This article is not the right place to argue about whether or not he appeared there, as is insinuated by the 'apparently'. (This is just one example of the current state of the state of the article, which puts a conspiratorial question over every historical source that does not agree with the most recent editor..)
Changing "Despite protests from some competitors, the Hellanodikai ("Judges of the Greeks") accepted Alexander’s Greek genealogy, as did Herodotus himself, and later Thucydides." To:
"The judges of the Olympic Games (Hellanodikai) accepted Alexander’s Greek genealogy although there were some protests from competitors. The competitors either did not believe Alexander I, or simply called into question his Greekness in an attempt to lessen the field of competition."
Removing the following passage, for reason given below: "The judges were either moved by the evidence itself, or did so out of political considerations - as reward for services to Hellas. The historicity of Alexander I’s participation in the Olympics has been doubted by some scholars (Alexander’s name does not appear in any list of Olympic victors), who see the story as a piece of propaganda engineered by the Argeads and spread by Herodotus.[134] Moreover, that there were protests from other competitors suggests that the supposed Argive genealogy of the Argeads "was far from mainstream knowledge";[135] and the appellation "Philhelene" was "surely not an appellation that could be given to an actual Greek".[135][136] Whatever the case, "what mattered was the Alexander had played the geneaological game a la grecque and played it well".[137]"
This entire passage is (as the editor states), the view of "some scholars", (i.e, not the view of MOST scholars). It is certainly not the mainstream view. The editorializing tone of this passage is summed up purely by the last sentence quoting hall: "Whatever the case, "what mattered was the Alexander had played the geneaological game a la grecque and played it well".[137]
Removing "The emphasis on the Heraklean ancestry of the Argeads served to heroicize the royal family and to provide a sacred genealogy which established a "divine right to rule" over their subjects.[138] The Macedonian royal family, like those of Epirus, emphasized "blood and kinship in order to construct for themselves a heroic genealogy that sometimes also functioned as a Hellenic genealogy."[139]"
The above does not flow well with the previous paragraph removed, and does not talk directly to the macedonian identity in general...
REMOVING: Although most contemporary Greek writers accepted the Argeads as Greek, they nevertheless expressed an air of ambiguity about them (specifically their monarchic institutions and their background of Persian alliance) often portraying them as a potential "barbarian" threat to Greece. [1] For example, the late 5th century sophist, Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, objected "we Greeks are enslaved to the barbarian Archelaus" (Fragment 2). [2]
OFF TOPIC. This does not belong here. The identity of the Argeads, and how other Greeks felt about them can be discussed in a section on the Argead page.
REMOVED: "What cannot be denied, however, is that the cultural commodification of Hellenic identity that emerged in the 4th century might have remained a provincial artifact, confined to the Balkan peninsula, had it not been for the Macedonians."
OFF TOPIC & editorializing. This does not belong here. It does not talk to the identity of the Macedonians. The spread of Hellenism via Greco-Persian campaigns under alexander is not an appropriate discussion here.
3. In his book 'Phillip II of Macedonia' Ian Worthington makes a statement that talks directly to the identity of the Macedonians,: 'not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable.' ("Philip II of Macedonia", Yale University Press, 2008). This is an important statement, and his overall must be expressed considering that Worthington is also referenced about 20-30 times in this article by the current author.
There is already too much noise and POV tone to this section. It needs some serious work. I tend to find the way that it is currently written is as follows: (being slightly facetious of course)
"Most contemporary greeks considered the Argives greek" (1 sentence) "Though some contemporary greeks felt otherwise..." (followed by 30 sentences outlining why some felt otherwise).
"Most modern scholars consider the macedonians to be a greek people" (1 sentence) "Though some scholars feel otherwise....." (followed by 90% of the remainder of the article discussing why some feel otherwise).
Unfortunately most of this article is focused on the view of the 'some', and the reader has barely any information on the view of the 'many'.... For example, why is it that most contemporary greeks considered the Argives to be greek?? This is not discussed at all in the article, only the contrary point. That is the common theme is see here.
My goal over the next few weeks will be to add content and sources (Both contemporary and modern views) that will even out the article, and present the reader with a more balanced viewpoint.
I hope to engage in a positive collaboration with other editors!
Cheers!
99.231.167.199 (
talk)
13:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Despite concerns raised above, Alexi still has not modified his map included in the language section. Basically, the map is incorrect and not in accordance with the author (Georgiev) which he sites. I thus invite Alexi again to defend his map before we remove it
Alex's map has the proto-Greek area (as per his legend) includes NW Greece & central and western Macedonia. However Georgiev clearly states
- Page 147/148 on Intro to Indo-European ...
"On the basis of the distribution of the ancient toponymy the Balkan Peninsula can be divided into seven or eight basic ethnic regions: Daco-Mysian (Dacia and Mysia= Moesia), Thracian (Thrace), pre-Greek (Pelasgian; southern & central Greece together with a large part of the Aegean Islands), Proto-Greek (Epirus, western and northern Thessaly), Macedonian (southern Macedonia, the basin of the Heliacmon river), proto-Phrygian (north & central Macedonia, the basin of the Erigon river), Illyrian...Dalmatian"
- later, section 5.4 he expands on this explicitly:
"The proto-greek region included Epirus, approx up to Aύλώv to the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamantia, ..Acarnania, west and north Thessaly (Hestiatis, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, Pieria), ie the territory of contemporary northwestern Greece."
So I fail to see the confusion as to how Alexi derives his map. ? OR Slovenski Volk ( talk) 01:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
.
However, don't you think that showing the map gives some undue weight to Georgiev's view? According to many enough scholars, Macedonian is nevertheless derived from Proto-Greek. Images and maps are powerful tools. In my opinion, for the Language section we need:
Also Proto-Greek, Proto-Macedonian and Proto-Phyrgian should have stronger and possibly related colors (e.g. blue, indigo, mauve). For the rest of the languages please use faded colors. Daizus ( talk) 10:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
We are using Georgiev because he was used as the original map source, but your caution is certainlyl valid, we are rather making heavy use of him. In fact, Georgiev is becoming outdated; common opinion increasingly places the 'emergence' of Greek in Greece (ie eastern south-central), not in "waves of migrations" from outside it, whether Macedonia, central Balkans, the steppe, or Anatolia.
And there is indeed a problem with map - they imply a static situation and linguistic boundaries at a time when this was not the case.
However, as Georgiev goes, he does not state that Macedonian derived from proto-Greek; according to his analysis, this had split earlier, before the development of proto-Greek proper.
Dazius, can you please clarify your suggestion for a 3-levelled map ?
Slovenski Volk ( talk) 10:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll give the precise parts (highlited parts disagree with both SV maps) from: Georgiev V.I. "The arrival of the Greeks in Greece: the linguistic evidence." Noyes Press. pp. 243-253. British Association for Mycenaean Studies, 1974. ISBN 9780815550228
.
Epeiros, Khaonia, Kammania, Arktanes, Oresteia-Orestai, Paloeis, Kokytos, Akheron, Keraunia ore, Lynkos-Lynkeai, Olympos, Pindos, Onkhesmos, Euroia, Boukhetos, Drys, Kharadra, Thessalia, Lethaios, Dolikhe
Thus, in the region just above, roughly northern and north-western Greece, one finds only archaic Greek place-names. Consequenstly, this is the proto-Hellenic area, the early homeland of the Greeks where they lived before they invaded central and southern Greece. Since Greek place-names are very dense in that region and they have a very archaic appearance, once may suppose that the proto-Greeks were settled in it during many centuries and even millennia.
Moreover, I can't explain why SV immediately created as a response two maps, claimed to be Georgiev's: In the first one the borders of the Proto-Greek area is moved south to Corinthian gulf, while Proto-Mac is limited to Aliakmon basin. (claimed to be in p. 147-148). The second seems more accurate with the borders of the Proto-Macedonian area moved north, however we have two serious issues:
You have cited these passages before. They are from a different publication than the one SlV cited. Slv says his map corresponds directly to a map Georgiev himself has in the other publication, in the direct neighbourhood to the passages he cited above. That's enough for us. I'd need more context to judge how these two passages are to be reconciled with each other, but in any case that's neither here nor there. Georgiev has a map, we follow that map, debate over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why the last paragraph to begin with 'Hall Concludes'. The previous 3-4 paragraphs mention nothing of Hall and don't source any material from him. (Therefore, What is he concluding?) This article is not an essay representing Hall's view ( he is only mentioned once in name in the entire article!). Something like this would be more appropriate and proper style: "On the issue of Macedonian identity, Hall concludes....." or "Modern day scholars have come to conclusions regarding the Macedonian identity. Hall concludes that....." etc.... Using this style doesn't insinuate that the prior paragraphs are hall's view and it removes the essayist/synthy tone that plagues this whole section.
Of course, not all scholars share this view (that the identity of the Macedonians is a 'redundant question'), and the reader should not be left with only this quote as the only impression from a scholar regarding a conclusion on identity. Frankly, I think that this concluding paragraph should be entirely removed... but until we can get a consensus on that, I've simply added a quote from Ian Worthington to give the reader a balanced viewpoint. Worthington is sourced 40 times (!!) in this article, twice as much as Hall is! 99.231.167.199 ( talk) 02:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The language section is starting to become a bit too long and too technical for the purposes of this article. This is not the place to discuss classification schemes for IE language family. The work cited also appears to be relatively minor and is given undue weight, nor is ancient Macedonian its focus. Athenean ( talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
>If you have doubts as to the whether it is RS and breaches UNDUE, feel free to ask around Slovenski Volk ( talk) 08:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The Garrett paper was published in Berkeley Linguistics Society [5], which certainly is a reputable outlet. No problem about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I wrote the Macedonians turned against the Greek poleis becuase it refers specifically that it had wars with Athens, etc. They already had an alliance with Epirus and Thessaly, had it not ? The above sentence does not imply that Macedonians were not Greeks, but they certainly were not a city -state. So the nomenclature is strictly 'political', not 'ethnic' Slovenski Volk ( talk) 09:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Macedonians turned also against the Boeotian League, a League isn't exactly the same political structure as the polis (Thebes the center of the League was raised to the ground). So, the term 'Greek states' encompasses all these entities. Alexikoua ( talk) 05:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article on Haliacmon, which seems to be the river referred to here, but it has been spelled 'Heliacmon' in the article. Does anyone object if I correct the spellings and wikilink to our article? The ancient Greek name for the river is Ἁλιάκμων so I don't know why the first vowel should be rendered as 'e' in English. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
There has been some to-ing and fro-ing regarding what was imported and what native. My suggestion is we either leave this out, or correctly state the facts. Some editors have argued that the "Greek" elements, however defined, were native, whilst others were imported.
Apart from being a rather meaningless division, this is (if anything) inaccurate and opposite to actual fact.
Snodgrass Altogether the graves of Macedonia, like their contents, are best explained by the durability of the non-Greek cultural element here, in which the phenomena of Greek influence - the Protogeometric pottery, and perhaps the rare cremations at Vergina - are fleeting.
Krisstianson As the Macedonians became infused with Greek civilization
Whitby But, if Macedonians were beginning to make use of some central Greek objects, they were otherwise sticking to their peculiar Macedonian ways
Lemnos It has already been noted that the community at Vergina had stronger links with northern regions, but contacts with southern areas in Greece are also indicated by the few imported vases...
Borza From the archaeological record it is clear that Macedonians were a non-Greek people who became increasingly Hellenized.
I thus propose either leaving simply "fusing GReek and Thraco-Illyrian", or "indegenous Macedonian elements became increasingly Hellenized".
This paragraph is just one POV:
But see Robert Rollinger's chapter in Blackwell's Companion to the Classical Greek World (ed. Konrad H. Kinzl), p. 204 and 205:
Rollinger authored also " Yaunā takabarā und maginnāta tragende 'Ionier'. Zum Problem der 'griechischen' Thronträgerfiguren in Naqsch-i Rustam und Persepolis", challenging the widely held view that Yaunā takabarā were Greeks wearing a petasos, i.e. Macedonians and Thessalians. He also suggested it is possible that takabarā is a representation of "die Kampftechnik der griechischen Phalanx" Daizus ( talk) 12:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to say, but this section has a POV and editorialized feel to it. It seems that most paragraphs here have been picked-and-placed in order to paint a central theme -- namely that the editor seems to be doing the best he can to call into question the greekness of the macedonians -- I don't have a problem with views of borza and others, but they should not be presented in such an editorialized fashion. Frankly it seems like a long-winded, one-sided essay, with a lot of contentious statements in it.... can anyone really argue that the tone of this section is not even slightly skewed?
Over the next few weeks I'll be making changes to this section that I feel will give it more of a neutral point of view. Everything of course, can be discussed here on the discussion page, and I hope to have some constructive engagement from the other editors of this page.
I will be making edits in good faith under WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. I would appreciate other editors also using good faith, and not simply reverting changes without discussion. Lets work together to make this a fair and useful NPOV article for all readers.
Three things in my current edit are:
1. The beginning of this section opens quite poorly. As it is a very long section, the first few sentences should act as a summary and introduction to the section. It would be prudent to restate the following summary from the lead regarding the identity of the macedonians, that the macedonians were 'Generally described as an ancient Greek people,' (using the 17 existing references). Restating statements from the lead in their appropriate sections is good practice, and is commonly followed on wikipedia.
2. Changing "The earliest version of the Temenid foundation myth was circulated by Alexander I, via Herodotus, during his apparent appearance at the Olympic Games." To: "Herodotus, one of the foremost biographers in antiquity who lived in Greece at the time when the Macedonian king Alexander I was in power, writes that Alexander I stated his descent from the Argives during his appearance at the Olympic Games."
It is generally accepted that Alexander I appeared at the Olympic Games. This article is not the right place to argue about whether or not he appeared there, as is insinuated by the 'apparently'. (This is just one example of the current state of the state of the article, which puts a conspiratorial question over every historical source that does not agree with the most recent editor..)
Changing "Despite protests from some competitors, the Hellanodikai ("Judges of the Greeks") accepted Alexander’s Greek genealogy, as did Herodotus himself, and later Thucydides." To:
"The judges of the Olympic Games (Hellanodikai) accepted Alexander’s Greek genealogy although there were some protests from competitors. The competitors either did not believe Alexander I, or simply called into question his Greekness in an attempt to lessen the field of competition."
Removing the following passage, for reason given below: "The judges were either moved by the evidence itself, or did so out of political considerations - as reward for services to Hellas. The historicity of Alexander I’s participation in the Olympics has been doubted by some scholars (Alexander’s name does not appear in any list of Olympic victors), who see the story as a piece of propaganda engineered by the Argeads and spread by Herodotus.[134] Moreover, that there were protests from other competitors suggests that the supposed Argive genealogy of the Argeads "was far from mainstream knowledge";[135] and the appellation "Philhelene" was "surely not an appellation that could be given to an actual Greek".[135][136] Whatever the case, "what mattered was the Alexander had played the geneaological game a la grecque and played it well".[137]"
This entire passage is (as the editor states), the view of "some scholars", (i.e, not the view of MOST scholars). It is certainly not the mainstream view. The editorializing tone of this passage is summed up purely by the last sentence quoting hall: "Whatever the case, "what mattered was the Alexander had played the geneaological game a la grecque and played it well".[137]
Removing "The emphasis on the Heraklean ancestry of the Argeads served to heroicize the royal family and to provide a sacred genealogy which established a "divine right to rule" over their subjects.[138] The Macedonian royal family, like those of Epirus, emphasized "blood and kinship in order to construct for themselves a heroic genealogy that sometimes also functioned as a Hellenic genealogy."[139]"
The above does not flow well with the previous paragraph removed, and does not talk directly to the macedonian identity in general...
REMOVING: Although most contemporary Greek writers accepted the Argeads as Greek, they nevertheless expressed an air of ambiguity about them (specifically their monarchic institutions and their background of Persian alliance) often portraying them as a potential "barbarian" threat to Greece. [1] For example, the late 5th century sophist, Thrasymachus of Chalcedon, objected "we Greeks are enslaved to the barbarian Archelaus" (Fragment 2). [2]
OFF TOPIC. This does not belong here. The identity of the Argeads, and how other Greeks felt about them can be discussed in a section on the Argead page.
REMOVED: "What cannot be denied, however, is that the cultural commodification of Hellenic identity that emerged in the 4th century might have remained a provincial artifact, confined to the Balkan peninsula, had it not been for the Macedonians."
OFF TOPIC & editorializing. This does not belong here. It does not talk to the identity of the Macedonians. The spread of Hellenism via Greco-Persian campaigns under alexander is not an appropriate discussion here.
3. In his book 'Phillip II of Macedonia' Ian Worthington makes a statement that talks directly to the identity of the Macedonians,: 'not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable.' ("Philip II of Macedonia", Yale University Press, 2008). This is an important statement, and his overall must be expressed considering that Worthington is also referenced about 20-30 times in this article by the current author.
There is already too much noise and POV tone to this section. It needs some serious work. I tend to find the way that it is currently written is as follows: (being slightly facetious of course)
"Most contemporary greeks considered the Argives greek" (1 sentence) "Though some contemporary greeks felt otherwise..." (followed by 30 sentences outlining why some felt otherwise).
"Most modern scholars consider the macedonians to be a greek people" (1 sentence) "Though some scholars feel otherwise....." (followed by 90% of the remainder of the article discussing why some feel otherwise).
Unfortunately most of this article is focused on the view of the 'some', and the reader has barely any information on the view of the 'many'.... For example, why is it that most contemporary greeks considered the Argives to be greek?? This is not discussed at all in the article, only the contrary point. That is the common theme is see here.
My goal over the next few weeks will be to add content and sources (Both contemporary and modern views) that will even out the article, and present the reader with a more balanced viewpoint.
I hope to engage in a positive collaboration with other editors!
Cheers!
99.231.167.199 (
talk)
13:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Despite concerns raised above, Alexi still has not modified his map included in the language section. Basically, the map is incorrect and not in accordance with the author (Georgiev) which he sites. I thus invite Alexi again to defend his map before we remove it
Alex's map has the proto-Greek area (as per his legend) includes NW Greece & central and western Macedonia. However Georgiev clearly states
- Page 147/148 on Intro to Indo-European ...
"On the basis of the distribution of the ancient toponymy the Balkan Peninsula can be divided into seven or eight basic ethnic regions: Daco-Mysian (Dacia and Mysia= Moesia), Thracian (Thrace), pre-Greek (Pelasgian; southern & central Greece together with a large part of the Aegean Islands), Proto-Greek (Epirus, western and northern Thessaly), Macedonian (southern Macedonia, the basin of the Heliacmon river), proto-Phrygian (north & central Macedonia, the basin of the Erigon river), Illyrian...Dalmatian"
- later, section 5.4 he expands on this explicitly:
"The proto-greek region included Epirus, approx up to Aύλώv to the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamantia, ..Acarnania, west and north Thessaly (Hestiatis, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, Pieria), ie the territory of contemporary northwestern Greece."
So I fail to see the confusion as to how Alexi derives his map. ? OR Slovenski Volk ( talk) 01:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
.
However, don't you think that showing the map gives some undue weight to Georgiev's view? According to many enough scholars, Macedonian is nevertheless derived from Proto-Greek. Images and maps are powerful tools. In my opinion, for the Language section we need:
Also Proto-Greek, Proto-Macedonian and Proto-Phyrgian should have stronger and possibly related colors (e.g. blue, indigo, mauve). For the rest of the languages please use faded colors. Daizus ( talk) 10:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
We are using Georgiev because he was used as the original map source, but your caution is certainlyl valid, we are rather making heavy use of him. In fact, Georgiev is becoming outdated; common opinion increasingly places the 'emergence' of Greek in Greece (ie eastern south-central), not in "waves of migrations" from outside it, whether Macedonia, central Balkans, the steppe, or Anatolia.
And there is indeed a problem with map - they imply a static situation and linguistic boundaries at a time when this was not the case.
However, as Georgiev goes, he does not state that Macedonian derived from proto-Greek; according to his analysis, this had split earlier, before the development of proto-Greek proper.
Dazius, can you please clarify your suggestion for a 3-levelled map ?
Slovenski Volk ( talk) 10:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll give the precise parts (highlited parts disagree with both SV maps) from: Georgiev V.I. "The arrival of the Greeks in Greece: the linguistic evidence." Noyes Press. pp. 243-253. British Association for Mycenaean Studies, 1974. ISBN 9780815550228
.
Epeiros, Khaonia, Kammania, Arktanes, Oresteia-Orestai, Paloeis, Kokytos, Akheron, Keraunia ore, Lynkos-Lynkeai, Olympos, Pindos, Onkhesmos, Euroia, Boukhetos, Drys, Kharadra, Thessalia, Lethaios, Dolikhe
Thus, in the region just above, roughly northern and north-western Greece, one finds only archaic Greek place-names. Consequenstly, this is the proto-Hellenic area, the early homeland of the Greeks where they lived before they invaded central and southern Greece. Since Greek place-names are very dense in that region and they have a very archaic appearance, once may suppose that the proto-Greeks were settled in it during many centuries and even millennia.
Moreover, I can't explain why SV immediately created as a response two maps, claimed to be Georgiev's: In the first one the borders of the Proto-Greek area is moved south to Corinthian gulf, while Proto-Mac is limited to Aliakmon basin. (claimed to be in p. 147-148). The second seems more accurate with the borders of the Proto-Macedonian area moved north, however we have two serious issues:
You have cited these passages before. They are from a different publication than the one SlV cited. Slv says his map corresponds directly to a map Georgiev himself has in the other publication, in the direct neighbourhood to the passages he cited above. That's enough for us. I'd need more context to judge how these two passages are to be reconciled with each other, but in any case that's neither here nor there. Georgiev has a map, we follow that map, debate over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why the last paragraph to begin with 'Hall Concludes'. The previous 3-4 paragraphs mention nothing of Hall and don't source any material from him. (Therefore, What is he concluding?) This article is not an essay representing Hall's view ( he is only mentioned once in name in the entire article!). Something like this would be more appropriate and proper style: "On the issue of Macedonian identity, Hall concludes....." or "Modern day scholars have come to conclusions regarding the Macedonian identity. Hall concludes that....." etc.... Using this style doesn't insinuate that the prior paragraphs are hall's view and it removes the essayist/synthy tone that plagues this whole section.
Of course, not all scholars share this view (that the identity of the Macedonians is a 'redundant question'), and the reader should not be left with only this quote as the only impression from a scholar regarding a conclusion on identity. Frankly, I think that this concluding paragraph should be entirely removed... but until we can get a consensus on that, I've simply added a quote from Ian Worthington to give the reader a balanced viewpoint. Worthington is sourced 40 times (!!) in this article, twice as much as Hall is! 99.231.167.199 ( talk) 02:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The language section is starting to become a bit too long and too technical for the purposes of this article. This is not the place to discuss classification schemes for IE language family. The work cited also appears to be relatively minor and is given undue weight, nor is ancient Macedonian its focus. Athenean ( talk) 01:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
>If you have doubts as to the whether it is RS and breaches UNDUE, feel free to ask around Slovenski Volk ( talk) 08:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The Garrett paper was published in Berkeley Linguistics Society [5], which certainly is a reputable outlet. No problem about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)