Makedonians were not Greek?

beorna said:

Perhaps something more about terms. I already mentioned the Ionioi. They have given their name as term in the east for all Greeks, yunan, yamanni. Their migration to Little Asia was perhaps starting in the 11th century or at least in the 10th. In the 7th century they formed the Dodekapolis and the panionion. So their name became famous and spread back, across the Aegeis to Attika.
In Assyrian texts the Ionian name appeared during the middle of the 8th century, the oldest from a text of Sarrum-ken II, where he claims victory over pirates called jaunaja. Perhaps the Jaunaja/Yamanni derived from the form that we already had at Homer Iaones or in the older for with digamma Iawones. Unfortunally is the term Jaunaja/Yamanni not restricted to greeks, but is also used for Phoenicians and others.
so we can say, that the Ionians didn't migrate as ionians to the coast of Little Asia and not at all as tribe to greece at 1600BC, as we can read it in common sources.

It's the same with the Aioles. They are known as tribe from Kyme, Temnos, ...... and some others. They shall have come originally from thessalia, but it is also said, that they came from Boiotia. It was thukydides, who said, that the Boiotioi as well came from thessalia and were once called Aioles. among these primeval aioles the aitolians and eleens. This is unfortunately not true, because Aitolians, Eleeans, Phocians and other did not speak Aiolian but a Dorian dialect. Linguistically Lesbians, Boiotians and Thessalians seem to be closer related, but there is no evidence, that they ever called themselves Aioles.

So the only term we have for early Greeks, those of the mycenian culture are Achaioi and danaoi. I led the name Argeioi aside, because it just means "inhabitants of the plain". The term Ahhijawa appears in Hethitian textes, while the Tanaja/Danaja appear in egyptian textes. That this tanaja is linked with the Danaoi is proven by an inscription of Neb-Maat-Re-Iaut-Re from the first half of the 14th century, where towns are reported for tanaja, Mukana, deqais, medjena, nuplija, keter, Wjry and amukla, which are Mykene, Theben, Messene, Nauplion, Kythera, Elis and Amyklai.

Click to expand...

And? What is the point of breaking everything to the families of two? What are you saying here?
I find your division of Greeks and Hellenes artificial and unrealistic. The Greek language has 200 dialects - all of them Greek, including whatever dialect was spoken in Macedonia. Greek language, Greek religion, Greek names = Greek culture in Macedonia, therefore by your ethnic standards - Greek ethnos. All the pedantic divisions of yours don't serve much, IMHO, when trying to define a cultural unity. You make like hundreds of little boxes to put inside every possible language division, and then say that whoever weren't mentioned my Homer are not Hellenes? What is that? One cannot stop the development of a nation and say "Gee, only from, say, 776 BC, in January the 15, whoever was in, say, Athens was Greek, all the others are not. And also, whoever wears a hat is not a Greek, and whoever didn't testify that he is Hellene in a document that came to us is not Greek too". The real life is not like that, everything in it's place and time. One would have a very boring ... life if he/she follows those lines, and a very boring life in general, indeed.

Anna James said:

I see the Macedonians related to the Greeks - this is Greek enough for me. I see the Bavarians as German enough for me, since they became part of the German ethnogenesis, this is German for me. I don't see difference between Greek and Hellenes, and all that became part of the Greek etnnogenesis are Greek for me.

Click to expand...

It is not important, whether you see them as enough Greek or not. It is not important if you see the bavarians as german enough. What is important, that's why i gave you the bavarian example, is that the parts of a nation can be older than the nation.

Anna James said:

Playing as a team - Alexander did exactly that, build a Hellenistic empire to spread the Greek culture, this is Greek for me. He didn't build a Macedonian one, did he? Nor he saw himself as other than Greek.

Click to expand...

First of all did Alexander not build a hellenistic empire, but a makedonian one. But nevertheless, I don't refute Alexander as greek and by his conquest the Greek culture and language became widespread. A hellenisation started after his death. But that says nothing about the early Makedonians.

Anna James said:

if you start cutting ethnoses like this, we should say that there were no Greeks at all, only Athenians, Spartans, whoever else and their dog...I don't see this as realistic. In the same logic there should be not ethnos at all, any ethnos, only very narrow groups, like clans or something, interbreeding with their cousins....this was tried and it doesn't work.

Click to expand...

No, why should we? Spartans and athenians and others saw themselves as hellenes and were seen by others as hellenes. Why does my hypothesis refute the presence of an hellen ethnos.

Anna James said:

As for your interpretation of Strabo, I told you why I don't agree - you draw clear lines where there is an ethnic soup, and surmise that Strabo said that whoever were Epirots, when he didn't say this as all.

Click to expand...

If I may quote you:
This is 7,7:8:
"...The Amphilochians are Epeirotes; and so are the peoples who are situated above them and border on the Illyrian mountains, inhabiting a rugged country — I mean the Molossi, the Athamanes, the Aethices, the Tymphaei, the Orestae, and also the Paroraei and the Atintanes, some of them being nearer to the Macedonians and others to the Ionian Gulf. 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. But the Illyrian tribes which are near the southern part of the mountainous country and those which are above the Ionian Gulf are intermingled with these peoples;..."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...trabo/7G*.html
and it goes on: "........and near these people are also the Lyncestae, the territory Deuriopus, Pelagonian Tripolitis, the Eoerdi, Elimeia, and Eratyra. In earlier times these peoples were ruled separately, each by its own dynasty. For instance, it was the descendants of Cadmus and Harmonia who ruled over the Enchelii; and the scenes of the stories told about them are still pointed out there. These people, I say, were not ruled by men of native stock; and the Lyncestae became subject to Arrabaeus, who was of the stock of the Bacchiads (Eurydice, the mother of Philip, Amyntas' son, was Arrabaeus' daughter's daughter and Sirra was his daughter); and as well, of the Epeirotes, the Molossi became subject to Pyrrhus, the son of Neoptolemus the son of Achilles, and to his descendants, who were Thessalians."

This says clearly, that the people of orestis were Epirotes. I agree, that it is not clear for Lyncestes and Elimiotis (that's why a underlined it on my map with dots, not with a line), but Strabon says, that they were of a different stock than the Greeks and that the Molossi follow, may indicate, that Lyncestis and Elimiotis were of Epirote origin, too.

Anna James said:

Elimiotis - archeological proof, more than 20 sites, I wrote about this enough. O'brian see them as Macedonian.
Lyncestis - with dynasty form Corinth, Greek one. This is seen also in the quotes I put here from Green and Ashley.
Orestis - Strabo said that the area was build by Orest, in mythological terms, translated in historical ones - Greek colonization. I will look for more info on it, but all 3 histoprians I quoted see the three cantons as Macedonian and Greek in one or another degree.

Click to expand...

How can they be makedonian before the makedonian conquest?
And do you know the myth of Orestes? The story shall have happened a short time after the Troan war, so around 1200. But in the original version there is no foundation of Orestis by orestes. There is no evidence, that this was different to Lyncestis, where descendents of the Bakchiads shall have ruled. It may be true, but mustn't

Anna James said:

And? What is the point of breaking everything to the families of two? What are you saying here?
I find your division of Greeks and Hellenes artificial and unrealistic. The Greek language has 200 dialects - all of them Greek, including whatever dialect was spoken in Macedonia. Greek language, Greek religion, Greek names = Greek culture in Macedonia, therefore by your ethnic standards - Greek ethnos. All the pedantic divisions of yours don't serve much, IMHO, when trying to define a cultural unity. You make like hundreds of little boxes to put inside every possible language division, and then say that whoever weren't mentioned my Homer are not Hellenes? What is that? One cannot stop the development of a nation and say "Gee, only from, say, 776 BC, in January the 15, whoever was in, say, Athens was Greek, all the others are not. And also, whoever wears a hat is not a Greek, and whoever didn't testify that he is Hellene in a document that came to us is not Greek too". The real life is not like that, everything in it's place and time. One would have a very boring ... life if he/she follows those lines, and a very boring life in general, indeed.

Click to expand...

Of course a nation doesn't start at a single day. But everything starts. Do you think the Americans have allways been americans, The English English, the French French, The Germans German, the Italians Italian, the Russians russian? The became what they are today by a process, sometimes longer sometimes shorter. and all of them were something else before they became what they are. The americans spoke English, before thy became americans and a lot of them are from germany, France, the netherlands, sweden, later from Poland, Italy and so on. The English are a mix of Celto-Romans Britons and several Germanic people. BTW those Anglo-saxons shall have come as well as three different tribes to Britannia. Each tribe shall have settled in his own region. Today we know, that this is untrue and even the Saxons are nowadays no longer a tribe but a term for different germanic groups. And beside those three tribes there were Franks and frisians as well, who had an importance for the settlements in Britannia. The french were once Gauls, then Gallo-Romans and later conquered by different germanic groups and among them the Franks were the most succesful ones. The people became French at least by the times of the capetingians. so because the people in the 5th century in the provence spoke a roman language, close to modern french, they weren't french and the Germanic franks weren't French too.
This is the same with the hellenes. They created a common ethnic feeling perhaps at the times of Homer. So before that, they weren't hellenes and if they had no common ethnic feeling, they were no ethnos. They spoke probably close related languages of the Greek language, in the same way the mycenians already did. They seem to have had a common ethnic feeling too. we can't say this for the dark ages. If we look to the culture, a lot was rescued through the dark ages, but the mycenian ethnos seem to have been destroyed by the migrations of different groups fom the north, like Dorians, Thracians or unknown other ones.

beorna said:

Of course a nation doesn't start at a single day. But everything starts. Do you think the Americans have allways been americans, The English English, the French French, The Germans German, the Italians Italian, the Russians russian? The became what they are today by a process, sometimes longer sometimes shorter. and all of them were something else before they became what they are. The americans spoke English, before thy became americans and a lot of them are from germany, France, the netherlands, sweden, later from Poland, Italy and so on. The English are a mix of Celto-Romans Britons and several Germanic people. BTW those Anglo-saxons shall have come as well as three different tribes to Britannia. Each tribe shall have settled in his own region. Today we know, that this is untrue and even the Saxons are nowadays no longer a tribe but a term for different germanic groups. And beside those three tribes there were Franks and frisians as well, who had an importance for the settlements in Britannia. The french were once Gauls, then Gallo-Romans and later conquered by different germanic groups and among them the Franks were the most succesful ones. The people became French at least by the times of the capetingians. so because the people in the 5th century in the provence spoke a roman language, close to modern french, they weren't french and the Germanic franks weren't French too.
This is the same with the hellenes. They created a common ethnic feeling perhaps at the times of Homer. So before that, they weren't hellenes and if they had no common ethnic feeling, they were no ethnos. They spoke probably close related languages of the Greek language, in the same way the mycenians already did. They seem to have had a common ethnic feeling too. we can't say this for the dark ages. If we look to the culture, a lot was rescued through the dark ages, but the mycenian ethnos seem to have been destroyed by the migrations of different groups fom the north, like Dorians, Thracians or unknown other ones.

Click to expand...

I agree with that for the most part, only I regard the Mycenean ethnos as not destroyed by the Dorians, but turned in the Greek ethnogenesis by it. However, I would go with the latest layer of ethnogenesis, and the Macedonians entered history as part of the Greek ethnogenesis, or as Hellenized, as you would say. This makes them Greek to me, or sub-Greek, like I like to say. Whoever they were before that, I would say that what they entered history with counts.
For Strabo and Oresteans - yes, Strabo included them with his list of Epirotes, but right after that he says about Orestes, which is meaningful to me and i would not discard it as a myth' rather, I take it as a mythologycal prezentation of real story of Greek colonization. I don't see why Greek colonization from the South couldn't have happened, since we have several accounts of it, in historical and mythological versions alike.

but the original myth of orestes lets him go to tauris, perhaps at the Crimean peninsula. The problem with very old myths is, that they were blown up through the centuries.
BTW, the Taurians were called by strabon Scythians, allthough the story of Orestes must have happened around 1200 and the scythians appear in the 8th century!

And another quote from strabon, 9th book, chapter 5,11:
As a result of the fame and dominance of theThessalians and makedonians those of the Epirotes, which live nearest to them, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes forced, did become parts of the Thessalians and makedonians, e.g. the Athamanians, Aethikians and Talarians part of the Thessalians, the Orestians, Pelagonians and Elimiotes but became Makedonians.

P.S: Thanks, that I am forced by you to read Strabon again

beorna said:

but the original myth of orestes lets him go to tauris, perhaps at the Crimean peninsula. The problem with very old myths is, that they were blown up through the centuries.
BTW, the Taurians were called by strabon Scythians, allthough the story of Orestes must have happened around 1200 and the scythians appear in the 8th century!

And another quote from strabon, 9th book, chapter 5,11:
As a result of the fame and dominance of theThessalians and makedonians those of the Epirotes, which live nearest to them, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes forced, did become parts of the Thessalians and makedonians, e.g. the Athamanians, Aethikians and Talarians part of the Thessalians, the Orestians, Pelagonians and Elimiotes but became Makedonians.

P.S: Thanks, that I am forced by you to read Strabon again

Click to expand...

For Elimiotis we have now the archeological evidence for unbroken Greek culture line from 1400-100 BC.
As for the Orestians, the idea that they traced themselves to Orestes is about Greek ancestry, not Macedonian one. Strabo puts Thessalians and Macedonians in one bag, so I read this as they being both Greek, since the Thessalians were Greek. Like here "...did become parts of the Thessalians and Macedonians...".
Also, in the Orestes quote:
"...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. But the Illyrian tribes which are near the southern part of the mountainous country and those which are above the Ionian Gulf are intermingled with these peoples;..." VII, 7
I see "these people" as reference to the people of Orestes, the Greek people, otherwise the statement wouldn't make any sense. Illyrian peoples intermingled with Illyrian peoples ????? Makes no sense to me. Now, Greek ones intermingled with Illyrian peoples, this makes sense to me.

Again, in wiki "Orestis ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_language"]Ancient Greek[/ame]: Ὀρεστίς from the term orestias meaning "mountainous") was a region of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Macedonia"]Upper Macedonia[/ame], corresponding roughly to the modern [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastoria_Prefecture"]Kastoria Prefecture[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Macedonia"]West Macedonia[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece"]Greece[/ame]. Its inhabitants were the Greek tribe Orestae.[1] As most of Upper Macedonia, it became part of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedon"]Macedon[/ame] only after early 4th century BC; before that it had close relations with Epirus. A silver finger ring of 6th century BC bearing the frequent Orestian name "[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus"]Antiochus[/ame]" has been found in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodona"]Dodona[/ame] sanctuary.[2] During the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War"]Peloponnesian War[/ame], a thousand Orestians led by King Antiochus accompanied the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parauaeans"]Parauaeans[/ame] of Epirus..."

Why would Epirots join the Greeks in the Peloponnesian war anyway? Now, Greeks to join Greeks, this makes sense, and the king with his Greek name too. I have to check this in Thukikides when I have time.

Anna James said:

From where in Strabo is the quote you posted here, /I couldn't find it in Book VII, chapter 7/?

Click to expand...

I suppose you mean 9,5,11

Anna James said:

For Elimiotis we have now the archeological evidence for unbroken Greek culture line from 1400-100 BC.

Click to expand...

No, you have not. You have some mycenian findings, which the archaeologist say, don't mean, that Elimiotis was by that part of the mycenian culture. And you have so-called northern Greek ceramik, which was as well used by Epirotes and is not limited to greeks.

Anna James said:

As for the Orestians, the idea that they traced themselves to Orestes is about Greek ancestry, not Macedonian one. Strabo puts Thessalians and Macedonians in one bag, so I read this as they being both Greek, since the Thessalians were Greek. Like here "...did become parts of the Thessalians and Macedonians...".

Click to expand...

Strabon accepted the makedonians as greeks yes, but we are not speaking about the times of Strabon. I do not deny, that Makedonians were greeks at the times of Strabon. But herefor read the fragments of the 7th book. "What's now makedonia, was called Emathia earlier. The name it got from the old leader Makedon.......This land was owned to some Epirotes and Illyrians, but mainly Bottians and thracians...." And strabon goes on with thracian Pierians, Paionians, Edonians and bisaltians and mygdonians in the makedonian area.

Anna James said:

Also, in the Orestes quote:
"...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. But the Illyrian tribes which are near the southern part of the mountainous country and those which are above the Ionian Gulf are intermingled with these peoples;..." VII, 7
I see "these people" as reference to the people of Orestes, the Greek people, otherwise the statement wouldn't make any sense. Illyrian peoples intermingled with Illyrian peoples ????? Makes no sense to me. Now, greek ones intermingled with Illyrian peoples, this makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

Strabo calls the Orestians of epirote origin. I can't see, why he now should mean Greeks with "these people"? He means Orestians with "these people".

Anna James said:

Again, in wiki "Orestis (Ancient Greek: Ὀρεστίς from the term orestias meaning "mountainous") was a region of Upper Macedonia, corresponding roughly to the modern Kastoria Prefecture, West Macedonia, Greece. Its inhabitants were the Greek tribe Orestae.[1] As most of Upper Macedonia, it became part of Macedon only after early 4th century BC; before that it had close relations with Epirus. A silver finger ring of 6th century BC bearing the frequent Orestian name "Antiochus" has been found in Dodona sanctuary.[2] During the Peloponnesian War, a thousand Orestians led by King Antiochus accompanied the Parauaeans of Epirus..."

Click to expand...

Argos orestikon is the name of the town, that should have been founded by orestes. You brought the correct translation. Orestias means mountanous and argos, means plain. So is this town now called plain in the mountains or plain of orestes? Which is more plausible? The original myth doesn't speak of a travel to Orestis, but to the Black Sea.

Anna James said:

Why would Epirots join the Greeks in the Peloponnesian war anyway? Now, Greeks to join Greeks, this makes sense, and the king with his Greek name too. I have to check this in Thukikides when I have time.

Click to expand...

Why supported the persians Sparta, why did Thracians fought there? Because Greeks joined greeks?
I would suppose, Epirotes had economical and political interests

beorna said:

Argos orestikon is the name of the town, that should have been founded by orestes. You brought the correct translation. Orestias means mountanous and argos, means plain. So is this town now called plain in the mountains or plain of orestes? Which is more plausible? The original myth doesn't speak of a travel to Orestis, but to the Black Sea.

Why supported the persians Sparta, why did Thracians fought there? Because Greeks joined greeks?
I would suppose, Epirotes had economical and political interests

Click to expand...

Both names are plausible, really...and Orestes going to the Black See through Orestea, who knows what route did he choose? I don't remember being said that he swam all the way there....
Why is then Hammond seeing the Oresteans as Greek if there is no reason for that whatsoever? There is very scarce info on this, but I suppose a respected historian wouldn't go writing things that every high school kid can check in one source and find them wrong.
I don't know, interests or now, the king himself went there, not just sending troops, it seems that he saw this of utmost importance to risk his own bum. One thing is to support, another is to go there yourself, and risk to leave his kingdom without a ruler. I will check this in Thukidides and will come up with an opinion later.

As for me forcing you to read Strabo... I don't know for you, but I kind of like this type of mutual challenging to find stuff - it's like a good exercise for the brain and the memory; and one gets to think about things they didn't think before. So I actually enjoy it...

Anna James said:

Both names are plausible, really...and Orestes going to the Black See through Orestea, who knows what route did he choose? I don't remember being said that he swam all the way there....
Why is then Hammond seeing the Oresteans as Greek if there is no reason for that whatsoever? There is very scarce info on this, but I suppose a respected historian wouldn't go writing things that every high school kid can check in one source and find them wrong.

Click to expand...

you don't know, what respected historians are able to write. you would be surprised.
As you can see, no one did look into the sources to check it!

Anna James said:

I don't know, interests or now, the king himself went there, not just sending troops, it seems that he saw this of utmost importance to risk his own bum. One thing is to support, another is to go there yourself, and risk to leave his kingdom without a ruler. I will check this in Thukidides and will come up with an opinion later.

Click to expand...

do this!

beorna said:

you don't know, what respected historians are able to write. you would be surprised.
As you can see, no one did look into the sources to check it!
do this!

Click to expand...

Well, I also tend to interpret Strabo in a different way that you do...
beorna, what do you mean when you talk about "Northwestern Greeks"? For what I find here on the net, the Molossi are said to be a Greek tribe; and they claimed to have come from Achilles, spoke Greek, and were Dionysus's fans. According to my understanding of Greekness, so far I don't see why I should regard them as non-Greek. According to wiki they inhabited the area since Mycenean times, so in my thinking they should be seen as sub-Greek too. What about the Chaonians? - they spoke Greek also.



Thesprotia is even more south than the other 2, and spoke Greek too, what about them? How come Magnetes are considered Greek, and, say, Thesprotians, Epirots?

Anna James said:

Well, I also tend to interpret Strabo in a different way that you do...

Click to expand...

That's your right. But by what quotes from Strabon? I showed you, that Strabon said definitely something different to your map. If Strabon said explicitely that one is Epirote, what makes you interpretating it as greek? If he speaks of Thracians, Epirotes and Illyrians, what makes you interpretating it as greek?

Anna James said:

beorna, what do you mean when you talk about "Northwestern Greeks"?

Click to expand...

Usually I mean Arkania, Aitolia and Thessalia. The epirotes are unclear. We have here the same problem as we have with the Makedonians. There were connections with the mycenian culture and since the 8th century we have greek colonies. Allthough the material culture shows similarities with the Illyrians, we have Greek inscription from Dodona since the 6th century, but as well as the Makedonians, the Epirotes were not accepted as hellenes. Completely hellenized they became in the 4th century. So I would include them among the northwestern greeks since the6th, probably more 5th century. But again, not as hellenes.

Anna James said:

For what I find here on the net, the Molossi are said to be a Greek tribe; and they claimed to have come from Achilles, spoke Greek, and were Dionysus's fans. According to my understanding of Greekness, so far I don't see why I should regard them as non-Greek. According to wiki they inhabited the area since Mycenean times, so in my thinking they should be seen as sub-Greek too. What about the Chaonians? - they spoke Greek also.

Click to expand...

No, that is wrong again. the molossians were not greek, as I told you above. And they did not claim to be descendents of achilleus, their dynasty claimed to be descendents of achilleus. That would be, as if I would claim the British as Germans, because their royal family is German and that by both sides. and different to the Molossians this is not only a myth.

Anna James said:

Click to expand...

Show me the sources by Strabon, that support this map!

Anna James said:

Thesprotia is even more south than the other 2, and spoke Greek too, what about them? How come Magnetes are considered Greek, and, say, Thesprotians, Epirots?

Click to expand...

Ever heard of assimilation and inculturation?

Anna James said:

Why would Epirots join the Greeks in the Peloponnesian war anyway? Now, Greeks to join Greeks, this makes sense, and the king with his Greek name too. I have to check this in Thukikides when I have time.

Click to expand...

so read Thuk. II 80.

perhaps you read Strabon 10,1,16 as well: "Because westwards of the Thessalians and Oitaeans (live) the Aitolians, Akarnanians and, if one may call even this hellenes, live the Athamanians."
Remember that strabon wrote in the first century BC. And even at those days, he was not sure whether it should be allowed to call the Epirotic Athamanians Hellenes or not. so much now about the Greekness or better hellenicity of the Epirotes!

Epirus is of course another Greek word. Epirus with capital "E" means that region, but epirus (small "e") means "continent" in Greek. The non-Greek tribes lived mostly north of modern Greece. Illyrians for instance, resided where modern Albania is located.

Macedonians lived next to Hellenes (yes, the Thessalian tribe that named modern Greeks). Therefore, Macedonians were as close as it gets to the heart of Greece which was the region surrounding Mount Olympus.

Thessalonian said:

Epirus is of course another Greek word. Epirus with capital "E" means that region, but epirus (small "e") means "continent" in Greek. The non-Greek tribes lived mostly north of modern Greece. Illyrians for instance, resided where modern Albania is located.

Macedonians lived next to Hellenes (yes, the Thessalian tribe that named modern Greeks). Therefore, Macedonians were as close as it gets to the heart of Greece which was the region surrounding Mount Olympus.

Click to expand...

I widely agree. Epirus has its linguistic roots in proto-greek *apeiros and indo-eur. *apero for coast. So linguistically they were close to the Mycenians and hellenes.

Early macedonians weren't close to the heart of Greece, because Emathia was spatially divided by the Thracian Pieria from Thessalia. But BTW that Thessalia or exactly the region Hellas gave its name for the hellenes doesn't mean it was the heart, even if Mt. Olympus was in their territory or exactly at the borders of their territory.

Emathia is in modern Central Macedonia. It is adjacent to Pella, Vergina and Olympus.
Pieria mountains were the home of the Muses. Thrace was in the East of Macedon, not in the West. From my balcony window I can see: Olympus, Pieria mountain range, the valley of Pella etc.

Thessalonian said:

Emathia is in modern Central Macedonia. It is adjacent to Pella, Vergina and Olympus.
Pieria mountains were the home of the Muses. Thrace was in the East of Macedon, not in the West. From my balcony window I can see: Olympus, Pieria mountain range, the valley of Pella etc.

Click to expand...

I know where Emathia is. Pierians are said to be Thracians and we find Thracians in the north and east of Emathia too. That's exactly what i already said and why Strabon said about this region, that Epirotes, Illyrians and mainly Thracians lived there.

beorna said:

perhaps you read Strabon 10,1,16 as well: "Because westwards of the Thessalians and Oitaeans (live) the Aitolians, Akarnanians and, if one may call even this hellenes, live the Athamanians."
Remember that strabon wrote in the first century BC. And even at those days, he was not sure whether it should be allowed to call the Epirotic Athamanians Hellenes or not. so much now about the Greekness or better hellenicity of the Epirotes!

Click to expand...

My question is not what the Athenians, Strabo of whoever one else from the area in the time was thinking about the Epirotes, but, objectively, from our point of view, what are we to think about them. Say, I may insist, for example, that a certain Bulgarian village is populated by non-Bulgarian, on the grounds that it's isolated, uncultured, and the dialect they speak is quite removed from the official Bulgarian language, but objectively, if those people have the Bulgarian language in one of it's dialects, the Orthodox Christian religion, and variety of customs that characterize them as Bulgarian they are Bulgarians, no matter what I would think about them.