11-24-2010, 01:39 PM
Of courseI was not talking about what exactly happened before the 5th-6th century BC. All my arguments have to do with what the Greeks believed to have happened and as such formed/acknowledged the "ethnicities" of various peoples among which the Macedonians, the Athenians, the Spartans, the Thracians or the Bottiaians in the centuries for which we have exact and multiple evidence. This whole issue has to do with the ethnic identity of the Macedonians at the time of Perdiccas and back to Alexander I. About earlier times we only can guess taking into account the literary evidence we have comparing its different variations and comparing them with mainly non-literary archaeological evidence. What I am saying is that in the absence of definitive evidence it is not the "myths" that crumble but all and any suppositions. The myths are among the only evidence we have to reconstruct some aspects of reality, knowing that there are many chances we are wrong. How can we conclude that the story of the Temenids, who were just 3 brothers (one variation of the "myth") or accompanied by a multitude of Greeks (another variation of the same "myth") is untrue? Scant evidence for a certain story does not mean it is a lie. You need evidence to disprove these stories too. So, what I am (and always have been) saying, is that there is no point in trying to prove or disprove myths we have little evidence about except from the fact that they were considered true by the ancients and that there were variations of. It is the mere fact that they were accepted at least as far back as the 5th century BC. Apart from that, much of our debate here has nothing to do with the emergence of the Macedonians but with their exploits and general situation at the time of Thucidydes, which is a historical time we have plenty evidence from. What i am supporting regarding the Bottiaians for example has nothing to do with whether they really came from Crete. It's about the peoples of the 5th century believing they were Greeks. I am sorry if I misunderstood your claims, but having to deal with different discussions in a single thread may be taxing, so I urge you to exactly determine the variables of your arguments, so that I can agree or disagree with you.
Of course I agree that ethnicity can be based on false claims, of course I agree that the Argead and the Makednoi stories are present in the literary works but impossible to prove or disprove, of course I agree that tribal identity can be fluid, I have stated this a hundred times already. But I have to add that disproving these claims is as far-fetched as trying to prove them. I think that we might be in agreement and, as already stated, I might have misunderstood your position that I took to have been a seconding of Paul's words that “the peasantry, let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones”. If this is the case, I humbly apologize for appearing offensive.
Of course I agree that ethnicity can be based on false claims, of course I agree that the Argead and the Makednoi stories are present in the literary works but impossible to prove or disprove, of course I agree that tribal identity can be fluid, I have stated this a hundred times already. But I have to add that disproving these claims is as far-fetched as trying to prove them. I think that we might be in agreement and, as already stated, I might have misunderstood your position that I took to have been a seconding of Paul's words that “the peasantry, let it be remembered, are of Thracian stock, subject to the Makedones”. If this is the case, I humbly apologize for appearing offensive.
