AlunSalt

Thank you for your voice of sanity. I should just add few corrections - the alleged banknote was never printed. It was a mockup by some individuals while we still had the Yugoslav dinars. It is in no way connected to the government or National Bank. Here's some independent cataloger with all the banknotes that were used http://www.atsnotes.com/catalog/macedonia/maced... plus the current ones http://nbrm.gov.mk/default-en.asp?ItemID=C2B154... .

The first map is ethnic map published by a newspaper (I can read only the most bottom smallprint). Showing were Macedonians used to live. Showing where's the region of Macedonia. Not calling for liberation of these regions or similar. Every Balkan country has its own ethnic maps including Athens http://www.florina.org/news/2007/july06_e.asp - for you it's hard to understand as England is an island. In the Balkans all the nations claim other territories - by mistake or by history.

Again, thank you for your voice of sanity. According to UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 7 billion people can choose names of their roads, language, airports, nationality. Only 2 million Macedonians can not.

Let me remind you that United Kingdom decided to call us by our constitutional name back in 1999. First of the old EU members. Only Ireland followed it. All the 10 others just stick to the 1992 declaration in which they decided not to recognize any country that has Macedonia in its name. Even that Badinter's commission declared that Macedonia has no problems with its name, it's no treat to nobody and should be recognized as an independent country under its constitutional name.

Let's say Thessaloniki is renamed to "Capital of the Greater Area of Skopje". Teaching in schools that the greater area is occupied by Slavs and publishing bank notes and maps illustrating graphically the situation. Acting in a way third-party countries approved no matter they had any knowledge or relationship with the area. What would have happened then? You know that the Balkan Peninsula is a really strange playground where no childish is welcome.

Thanks for this worthwhile post, and thanks to Kiro Velkovski for his very useful additional information. One striking feature about Prof. Miller’s “Documentation” page —

http://macedonia-evidence.org/documentation.html

– is precisely, as Mr. Velkovski notes, a _lack_ of provenance so striking as to give the word “documentation” a distinctly breezy lilt: did co-signers ask for details about the “bank note,” and a translation of the text with the map?

Then, too, we need interpretation: what do these documents _mean_? If the map is authentic, does it mark an evocative (and historically accurate) record of lands once inhabited, or some sort of twisted scheme of conquest (”twisted” because the Republic’s size, budget, and military strength speak quite decisively against such action)?

Other sources tell me that Mr. Velkovski’s note on the White Tower is spot on. Without documentation, the “bank note” risks seeming no more “realistic” than the tale of the “White Castle” Harold and Kumar seek in their famous quest:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366551/

For further comments on Prof. Miller’s letter, see:

http://astro.temple.edu/~pericles/Letter.htm

Dan Tompkins

Dear professor Tompkins,

Thank you for your appreciation. I just call for everyone to let the historians and archaeologists do their work. I have the right to self-declare myself as a Macedonian, and nobody can take that from me. I answered some claims on this page as the author was especially touched by those, and such claims are used for decades to discredit the Macedonian cause.

I am proud Macedonian and I know that my grandfather was. It was never a question what we are and what language we speak. And many traces are found that my people claimed our Macedonian ancestry for centuries. I am saying this just to add that the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that there's claim that the nation living on 50km from Pela, full with excavations from like 7th century BC has a need to "steal Greek history".

Last year Athens minister for foreign affairs confirmed that Greece has 51% and we have only 38% of historic Macedonia http://www.greekembassy.org/Embassy/content/en/... .
Will it be OK if we call ourselves Republic of 38% Macedonia? Can we kindly ask Ireland to call themselves "Republic of 80% Ireland" (or so)? Can we kindly ask USA to call themselves "United States of 50% America"? If we change our name to Republic of Northern (or Upper) Macedonia will they change their regions name from Macedonia to Souther (or Lower) Macedonia? BTW, which is the lowest percent that allows us full claim? 51%? What about the sales tax? Lunacy...

Finally, I would kindly ask you to read this current interview of professor Friedman, a great friend of Macedonia and the Balkans http://www.balkanalysis.com/2008/12/14/victor-f...

Also, thank you for your answer to Prof. Miller and, as I am pretty well versed in Athens propaganda, feel free to contact me if you need any help.

Best regards,
Kiro Velkovski
Skopje, Macedonia
P.S. Yes, I loved Greece, especially the White Sea (Aegean). But, now, I am flabbergasted by the hate and fabrications produced by our neighbors. For years, and this year especially I will skip visiting Greece and vacationing there. Ohrid is still the most beautiful lake and town in the world :)

Dear professor Tompkins,

Have to tell you that you have published great post on the silly name issue between Greece and Macedonia, despite usage of FYRO Macedonia as a name of my country might be considered as rather offensive ;)

Just wanted to ask you as non-biased scientist about the alleged Greek roots deriving, as they claim, since the 5 century BC. Is it possible that the modern Greeks have preserved the original national, ethnic, cultural and language characteristics throughout the last 25 centuries.

one more question. Is it true that the only criteria for being Greek in the ancient times was to speak Greek language. Is it correct that Alexander the great was never participating Olimpic games because he was not speaking greek language. Let us be clear Im not so stupid to think he was speaking modern Macedonian language.

Best regards

Thanks to Mr. Momiroski and Mr. Velkofski.

I have to be careful in responding. I would not claim to be a "non-biased scientist," since I know that I do care about some issues in a way that makes absolute objectivity impossible. But it's important to make evidence-based claims, and to consider other possible explanations -- and to be brief!

Taking Mr. Momiroski's second question first. It was Alexander I of Macedon (ruled for nearly 50 years in first half of 5th century BCE and active in the Persian Wars) who gained admission to the Olympics, Herodotus 5 .22. To the best of my knowledge, Herodotus does not say why the judges admitted him. Jonathan Hall's important book, Hellenicity, argues that before the Persian Wars, the term "Hellene" was "aggregative," i.e. used to distinguish certain groups in central Greece and to exclude others. It was a sign of power and prestige, not of language, and was denied to "lesser" groups whose bloodlines were no different: Helots, Perrhaiboi, Magnesians, Aetolians, Arcadians (p. 169 -171). Interpretation of passages like Herodotus 5 .22 is difficult, but "language" is not mentioned. After the Persians came, "Hellene" came to be defined "oppositionally," i.e. anyone who opposed the Persian.

This means, of course, that ethnicity is cultural and develops over time: it is not primordial or eternal. The essays by Triandafyllidou in my webpage describe the process of ethnic formation in modern Greece -- a sort of reply to your first question. Triandafyllidou challenges the notion of "linear" progression from the past to the present, and says why. The process by which antiquity, the Church, and other elements came together to define modern Hellenism is fascinating. A number of scholars including Livianos describe the emergence and suppression of modern Macedonian consciousness and identity by both neighbors and great powers.

All of this is acceptable if we believe in ethnic or racial "formation," as most social scientists seem to do.

On the language: we have vey little linguistic evidnce from early Macedonia. In the fourth century, the written language was Attic Greek. Earlier it seems to have been Doric, but the remains are so sparse that we don't know how widely it was actually spoken. James O'Neil in Australia, in the prominent journal Glotta, said "The question of whether this Doric-related form of Macedonian should be classified as a dialect of Greek, or a different, though closely related language is a hard one to answer. Not only do we have far too little material to determine whether speakers of standard Greek could understand it …., we cannot know, without actual speakers and readers to consult, what problems they would have had and how far these would have affected their understanding. Even when there is adequate evidence, it may prove hard to determine whether two forms of speech should be classified as different dialects or separate languages. If ability to understand another form of language is the test, there is a stronger case to regard standard Italian and standard Spanish as one language than to regard the Venetian and Sicilian dialects of Italian as forms of the same language. We should allow for the possibility that spoken Macedonian was as far from standard Attic as Sicilian is from Venetian, and that it may have been difficult to determine whether there were two separate languages or just two dialects, even if we had better evidence."

Best,

Daniel Tompkins
James L. O’Neil, Sydney
“Doric Forms in Macedonian Inscriptions”
Glotta 82 (2007) pp. 192-210: 209

Dear Prof. Thompkins,

Thank you again and I believe that it will take years to clarify the HISTORY. I hope that archaeological excavations in Republic of Macedonia will help unearth something really useful for that part of human history. It might help clarify our origins, hopefully.

Also, some other scientific developments (in the last decade) clearly show that my people are pretty well connected to ancient Macedonians http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=132&... . I am not claiming this in some victorious way, but I really hope it will bring something on the table to work with. For archaeologists, too. For linguists, historians...

The race to prove Hellenism of Macedonians was started in Athens and it will probably last long. And again, the outcome will change nothing because, as I said earlier, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ is the only document that allows me to claim my nationality as Macedonian. The rest will be decided by the historians, archaeologists, genetics and other scientists.

Thank you and best regards,
Kiro Velkovski

Its very pity, for professor trying to use, genetic sources , or sites with fascist material, to connect, his people with the ancient Macedonians.
There no doubt today, after the Vergina tub, the Pella katadesmos, and just before little months the discovery of Phillip II palace, and all the other sources, until India, That the ancient Macedonians was speaking Greek, wright Greek, Had Greek names, Greek city names, same religion with the other Greeks, and they spear Greek civilization ONLY.
How is possible slavic tribes who came in the area, after many centuries, trying to connect themself with ancient Macedonias, without any scientific documentation and the historical truth.
And if there is some, who has doubtful s about the nasionality of Macedonians, they are certain that you have no connection.
Its really amazing!!!
Anyway today there are many serious scientific studies about Greek DNA,saying that not influenced by the Slavs and the Turks, despite the 400
years of slavery .
You try many times to slavicize Macedonia and Macedonians 1878, 1903, 1912, 1916, 1944 but you lost, We have defeated you all those times. We have defended successfully our Greekness. And after each defeat, you massively left Macedonia for slavic paradise. Because you wanted to avoid punishment. Well done! But, enough! How many times would you fail slavicizing Macedonia before stopping that attempt?
Now you say to your people that Macedonia divined at 1913, and the land is occupied from others!!!You say that in two years the agreement will canceled, and you will make one unite Macedonia!!!!
But i have one question, why there is no, one battle of that against someone, to liberate their land??
Why all these Bulgarian revolutionary s , who talked about Macedonia , never hide their nasionality, and their believes, to unite Macedonia with Bulgaria???
End how is possible to call yourself Macedonian and you cant spell right the name of original Macedonian city, Thessaloniki??? and you call it Solun?
I'll tell you why. Because you dont have the theta in your language, you can say Tessaloniki, but not Thessaloniki.
If you are Macedonian, sir, will now speak the same language. But you are not.
Your origin is Slavic, not Macedonian.
End you denied the existence of Greek Macedonians. You want to monopolize something not belong to you.The Greeks do not deny the existence of a nation, a language or a democracy since 1944, but opposed to the legality of ownership of the Macedonian name in order to set a Slav population (with known history) in the Balkans.The Greeks defend their history and cultural heritage
Question, who you kill so many years??
Today you call your language Macedonian, but your language contracted at 1944, from American professor Horace Lunt and Blazhe Koneshki.Until 1944 you was speaking only Dialects Mr Kiro Velkovski.
How is possible Macedonians all these centuries be without language????
You talking about into the Greek territory, but let me remind you something that all Slavian country s sign. The Slavic Dialectology map, the "OLA" ( "Obshcheslavjanskij Lingvisticheskij Atlas"), which states that all the Slavic dialects in the territory of non-Slav nation states will be called simply "Slavic .

I think Miller has "politicization" in favor the whole thing properly, rather than focused narrowly, as was the historic significance of hypothesis.This opens the opportunity to say the distracted attention of the public from the substance of the issue, the obscene distortion of history by Fyromians and shifted to Hellenic-Fyrom relations.
This is unfair. Let stick to historical truth, and the scientific documentation .
And right now 254 professors agree.
From the other side, we show [unnecessary word deleted -Alun] of subculture.
We reading amazing versions about history, one says the Greeks cant read Homer, and the language of Homer is the ancient Macedonian language.
Other says that the 12 gods, was not Greek Gods, but Macedonian Gods.
Other say that the common(koiki) Hellenistic language was foreign to the ancient Macedonians!
Others engineers believe that the ancient macedonian language was the Demotic
text, on rosseta stone, when the demotic have a full translated from the 19th century.
One electrician with the name Stefoy Cristo, wrote historical books.
Its amazing.

Thank you

Alun, I am heartened to hear that Professor Miller's letter to President Obama has prompted you, and I would suspect many others, to now rethink the seriousness of this unfortunate dispute between the FYROM and Greece, and not to accept the flippant arguments put forward by acolytes of the FYROM, as exemplified by one of the above commenters, Goran Momiroski, who trivializes it to a "silly name issue".

Interested parties, who are prepared to dig a little deeper and think more critically, recognize that a "silly name issue", it certainly is not! Rather, it is a serious and de-stabalising condition for the region, and I am saddened, that it has reached this state. The lazy thinking by many on this matter, who would normally issue a quick riposte, generally of a form that relegates this matter to a simple spat, and positing the well trodden fallacious argument of "Luxembourg", or some such equivalent, is coming quickly to an end.

The acolytes of the FYROM have employed all manner of rhetorical devices and fallacies of thinking, in their attempt to garner support for their psuedo-history. Although they employ all manner of fallacies, the fallacy of weak induction, of which the appeal to ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) has been their tool of choice.

The above commenter, Kiro Velkovski, is a prime example in the use of sophistry. Moreover, he attempts to neutralize the evidence put forward in Professor Miller's letter to President Obama, by presenting fallacious and dismissive retorts towards, in this instance, the evidence of the banknote with the White Tower emblazoned on it. He and Tompkins attempt to argue that it is irrelevant and should be ignored, on the grounds that it was never put into circulation.

This line of reasoning, is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst.

I put forward, the argument, that interested parties should not focus on whether such an act was successful or otherwise, but rather, to focus on its intent.

By way of analogy, consider the following.

A thief in the middle of an attempted auto theft, is apprehended. The thief has been thwarted from carrying out the act of theft. Should the eye witness evidence of this act of theft be ignored, because the thief did not succeed in his intent to steal the car. Of course not, in fact, the eye witness evidence is paramount.

Tompkins says in his letter:

"The "bank note" with the White Tower is dated to 1991, but we need to know where and when it circulated, and why. Kiro Velkovski tells us (in a comment at http://archaeoastronomy.wordpress.com/2009/05/2... ) that this was "a mockup by some individuals while we still had the Yugoslav dinars. It is in no way connected to the government or National Bank." A political scientist in Macedonia adds, "It was made as a proposal by a nationalist group and printed on normal paper ... it was never accepted." (Personal communication.)"

Tompkins acceptance of these individuals off-the-top-of-your-head statements, with nothing more, as it stands, than blind faith, without the requirement of these parties to provide supporting references or foot-notes to their "evidence" is in his eyes, sufficient. Moreover, he puts forward "a political scientist", who has no name, gives no references, no footnotes, and then presents this as evidence, how laughable. To a critical thinker, such evidence is considered hearsay, and is far from sufficient. Tompkins acceptance of this hearsay as bona fide evidence further demonstrates his lack of critical thinking, or worse, discredits him as deceitful and irrelevant.

In short, the banknote exists. The intent is important in this matter, and not the success, or otherwise, of the act of using such a banknote. Until, evidence can be presented that this banknote, was not Government sponsored, then good try, but not good enough.

Kiro Velkovski, further asserts the following:

"The first map is ethnic map published by a newspaper (I can read only the most bottom smallprint). Showing were Macedonians used to live. Showing where’s the region of Macedonia. Not calling for liberation of these regions or similar. Every Balkan country has its own ethnic maps including Athens"

I put forward that any interested party, can search the Internet, and find all manner of propaganda from the FYROM, which suggests otherwise. The above retort is nothing but another fallacy of relevance, specifically, it is a red herring argument.

One can readily find irredentist material, for example, the following images here http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8933/gruevski1..., and here http://www.utrinski.com.mk/?ItemID=0DEBC1171E9F... showing the Prime Minister Gruevski, of the FYROM, laying a wreath on a memorial, whilst a map of "Greater FYROMacedonia" is draped over the memorial.

Kiro Velkovski's retort exhibits the fallacy of hasty generalization. For we do not see Kiro Velkovski attempt to argue against all the remaining maps found in school books that are used in the FYROM's Government sanctioned school curricula, such as those exposed in the following article http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2..., for example. Why is that Kiro Velkovski? Maybe Mr. Tompkins, might posit an answer?

In early 2008, on Greece's Skai TV a documentary aired on the matter relating to the FYROM's Government sanctioned pedagogic material used in Government schools in teaching its students their history. The journalist interviewed a number of students of this school, as well as the minister Milovski of the FYROM. I suggest you view the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTUqfuTbk_s&... and make up your own mind, as to whether this is not deeply worrying and only adds to the maelstrom of discontent.

There is a plethora of irredentist propaganda emanating from the FYROM, it's really not hard to find, be it Government sponsored or otherwise. The trend that this patchwork of evidence exposes, is important and worrying, and does not provide a foundation for good neighbourly relations.

The social-anthropological community posit the importance of myth building as a necessary part of nation building. This is true, in part. Diough, a myth is based, in part, on reality. A nation, whose myths are entirely fabricated, will only establish a nation that is built on nothing, but a lie.

Cohorts of Tompkins ilk, appear to take principles of reasoning, such as, the law of parsimony, to be an anathema. In addition, the above arguments put forward by the acolytes of the FYROM are exhibiting the fallacy of missing the point, of red herring, and appealing to unqualified authorities. The arguments are specious in form and do not stand up to the scrutiny critical thinking and skepticism.

Any theory or explanation, as logicians insist, must save the appearances, that is, be fit, have systematic honesty, have standards, have clarity, have scope and is adaptable and open. That is to say, theories, even most inclusive ones, even paradigms must stand or fall with whether they provide an account for what any "fool" can plainly see, and if the theory and the appearances are at odds, then the theory gives way, and the appearances trumps.

Tompkins and the FYROM, seem to ignore what any "fool" plainly sees, given the evidence, that is at present available to the scientific community, which plainly supports the case, that ancient Macedonia is Greek.

Similar lapses in critical thinking, as exposed above, are found peppered throughout Tompkins entire letter of rebuttal.

Greece's claim to the history of ancient Macedonia is not an either-one-or-the-other argument, as presented by Alun, but rather the history of ancient Macedonia is, but one thread, in the rich historical tapestry that defines Greece. As an aside, Alun's argument also appears to exhibit a circularity.

Daniel Tompkins, and other acolytes of the FYROM, so that we're absolutely crystal clear on this:

I am proud to be Macedonian.
I am proud to be Hellene (Greek).
I come from Thessaloniki, the capital of the province of Macedonia of Northern Hellas (Greece).
My mother tongue is Hellinica (Greek).
My heritage is Hellene (Greek).
I am Macedonian.

I'm done.

P.S.

The following link http://maktruth.blogspot.com/2009/06/latest-pro... is also a worthy reference that is relevant to this piece.

Dear Anastasios,

I never claimed status of professor. I just pointed out to two of the "facts" in Prof. Miller's letter that are frauds and deliberately false.

My point is - if there are two such frauds in Prof. Miller's letter that I can spot with my untrained eye, how many more "mistakes" are there, deliberately skewing the truth?

I don't even try to analyze your text - there's one thing that we cannot argue about. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-DECLARE MYSELF AS MACEDONIAN. And I do so. 7 billion people on Earth has that right. 2 million Macedonians have that right too.

I will leave history and archeology to scholars.

Regards,
Kiro
Skopje, Macedonia
P.S. This fascist maps http://www.florina.org/news/2007/july06_e.asp are maps by your government, not mine...

Kiro Velkovski,

you do not have the right to appropriate other people's history!

You of course, can call yourself what ever you wish. However, your insistence on this matter, and moreover, the propaganda your Government has employed, somehow reminds me of your stance, to be akin to that of a child-spitting-the-dummy!

I put down your insistence of naming yourself this way, is predominately due to a failure in your nations OODA loop ( Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA). Moreover, I see failures at each step of your nations OODA loop, which is equally mirrored in the psyche of it's citizens.

I have looked on the site you have provided, Kiro Velkovski, and I am a little perplexed, I don't see what is "fascist", as you put it, about the maps shown on that site, please help me out here, would you?

By the way, Kiro Velkovski, if you weren't aware the Rainbow Party received just 4,522 votes (0.09 percent) in the 2009 European Elections. See here http://ekloges.ypes.gr/pages/index.html?lang=en, and here http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2009/.... The second site is in Greek, but I'm sure you can still decipher the important bits.

Clearly I'm still missing a fairly basic point. I've been looking at material from Sicily. In the first millennium BC most of Sicily was Greek. The same is true of Southern Italy. The language, temples and practices were Greek. Some of the biggest names in Greek philosophy were from this region, Archimedes, Empedocles and Zeno amongst others. In fact it was people from this region who helped define what it meant to be Greek. The sanctuaries you see at Olympia today were an innovation from the western Mediterranean.

As far as I know, no-one is suggesting that the southern part of Italy should be in the modern state of Greece. No-one contests that the region was Greek. It's simply that the ancient history isn't relevant to modern territorial claims. Why is it therefore important in Macedonia?

In the future it is entirely feasible I'll be researching to what extent Macedonian religious practices were Greek. If I conclude that the social elite were more Hellenised than most ancient Macedonians I won't see that as making a statement about modern boundaries.

There's plenty of other places to discuss modern Balkan history and the current problems of the region are not going to get solved here. What I would like to know is should Classicists and Archaeologists be making pronouncements on modern political boundaries based on history around thousand years ago? Certainly some European countries have named based on the old Roman provinces, but is that enough? Is it possible to write ancient history without making political claims in the present?

Thoughts on the ancient past and its use are welcome. Further comments on modern history would be better sent to somewhere with more expertise on the region. Any comments purely about modern history and politics are not going to be approved or else deleted from this point on.

Alun, you make some valid points. Although, I must correct you in a part of your analysis, before I begin in earnest.

You say:

"As far as I know, no-one is suggesting that the southern part of Italy should be in the modern state of Greece. No-one contests that the region was Greek."

As fas as I know, no one is suggesting that the FYROM, or any of its constituent parts, should be in the modern state of Greece either! You, infact, have it the wrong way around. Greece has no modern territorial claim over the FYROM. Rather, the irrdentist activity by the Government of the FYROM, and its denizens, have openly displayed their territorial claims over Greek sovereign territory, and these territorial claims are, but one, of a number of concerns, to us Greeks.

You say:

"It’s simply that the ancient history isn’t relevant to modern territorial claims. Why is it therefore important in Macedonia?"

Alun, relevance is a two place predicate. That is, relevance is relvant to something. Relevance is a symmetrical and reciprocal relationship. If A is relevant to B, then B is relevant to A.

Your statement of relevance must, therefore, also equally apply to the case of the Slavs, of the FYROM. It is the Slavs that are the protagonist who are attempting to use ancient history to establish modern day territorial claims, not the Greeks!

Let me by way of analogy, posit the following as an attempt to, possibly, lift the fog of uncertainty that has mired this polemic controversy, and bring some clarity to this discussion. My reasoned analogy is founded on the meme.

A meme can be defined as cultural characteristics or artifacts that are passed down throughout generations. Moreover, a meme can be defined as any characteristic of a culture, be it, for example, memories, language, ideas, toponyms, inscriptions, peoples names, norms, customs, sensibilities, religion, festivals, rituals, codes of behaviour, history, myths and story telling, and social gestures. These characteristics can be considered as mimetic markers of a society/civilization. These markers can be transmitted from one generation to the next in a way, analogous to the transmission of genetic information. A corpus of mimetic markers together form a mimetic strand, or thread, which, as a single unit, identifies a society/civilization.

A mimetic strand, carries with it, both the social structure and culture of a society/civilization. The social structure can be thought to be comprised of relationships among groups, institutions, and individuals within a given society/civilization. Whilst, the culture, composed of memories, language, ideas, toponyms, inscriptions, peoples names, norms, et cetera, provides a sense of meaning to individuals within a given society/civilization.

By way of example, in many societies the family unit is a core institutional building block of social structure. Whilst, for example, marital monogamy or polygamy, expectations of a certain number of children, manner of child upbringing, and willingness to live with in-laws are highly variable in different societies. These latter characteristics can be said to be of a cultural nature. Social structure can be thought of as a skeleton, with culture being the muscle on the bones. The two are inextricably connected, mutually dependent and reinforcing. A change in one results in a change in the other. The mimetic strand represents this unity, which is simply referred to as society/civilization.

I shall refer to the term mimetic strand, or thread, from this point on, simply as a strand, and equally, the term marker to mean mimetic marker.

Let us first take the case of Sicily, in Italy.

The contemporary Sicilian strand is one that is composed of many markers, spanning, chronologically, back through to the Sicilian primordial past. The contemporary Sicilian strand contains a marker of the classical epoch, to which you have alluded to, and this same marker, is also found in the contemporary Greek strand. However, the contemporary Sicilian strand also contains a large number of markers that are not shared with the contemporary Greek strand. The Sicilian strand has, of course, evolved over time, and continues to do so, in a manner that has never, in any way, impinged on the soma, or being, of the contemporary Greek society, such that it be considered a threat to the Greek strand. The Sicilian strand does not exhibit a desire to over-emphasize one marker in their strand, whilst de-emphasizing, ignoring, or synthesizing their remaining markers. The Sicilian strand exhibits a mature and stable state. Thus, both strands can, and do, coexist side-by-side in harmony. The Greeks would not even blink an eye-lid towards the Sicilians, if the Sicilians were to show a desire to erect an eight storey statue of Pythagoras in Siracusa, since the Sicilians acknowledge that historically, Pythagoras was part of the Greek cultural sphere and history, , as you also readily acknowledge, and in *equal* measure, Pythagoras is also a part of Sicilian history.

Let us take the case of Greece.

The contemporary Greek strand, like all strands, is by definition, centered on mimetic markers, which in essence, defines, in the Greek case, Hellenicos Politismos (Greek Civilization). To the Greeks, the strand composed of the markers identifying the strand as Greek are taken to be far, far, more important than their analogous biological equivalent. This mimetic strand is what is cherished by the Greeks. That is, the social structure and culture, known simply to the Greeks as, Hellinicos Politismos, is what defines someone to be Greek, rather than their genetic make up, and consequently, gives them their right to lay claim to Greek culture, which consists of their memories, language, ideas, toponyms, inscriptions, peoples names, norms, customs, sensibilities, religion, festivals, rituals, codes of behaviour, history, myths and story telling, and social gestures, et cetera.

Let us take the case of the FYROM.

The Slavic strand of Greece's immediate northern neigbour, the FYROM, on the other hand, has unfortunately attempted to impinge itself on the soma of Greek society, in a manner that is considered threatening to the Greek strand. This threat, is not something new, it is something that has been been present throughout Greece's recent bloodied history, although, this Slavic strand has metamorphosed itself overtime.

The Greeks see this Slavic strand, of the FYROM, as one that has *not* evolved naturally over the course of time, in a manner born out by the Sicilian case, but rather, it has mutated itself through a process of artificial synthesis. One can attest to this synthesis by observing all manner of propaganda, Government sponsored or otherwise, against the Greek strand over a extended period of time. The Greeks look at that this Slavic strand, of the FYROM, and see it as a recent artificial mutation, synthesized via the Bulgarian strand. Moreover, this mutant strand is attempting to enter the Greek soma, and use certain specific markers of the Greek strand, whilst, in equal time, discard other mimetic material that is also part of the Greek strand, resulting in a mutant strand that represents the society of modern day FYROM.

This attempted mimetic engineering, to create this mutant strand, using Greek mimetic material, in a selective manner, without the consent of the Greeks, is seen by the Greeks as immoral and in no way acceptable, period!

The attempted mimetic engineering, has focused on specific markers, in this case, markers that are of the Classical Macedonian epoch, and this is why the Greeks show their concern and specific focus on those mimetic markers of the Greek strand. Although, if they attempted to target and mimetically engineering other mimetic markers of the Greek strand, the Greeks would have equally been in uproar, and they would have focused on those particular markers.

The FYROM, if they so desire, to be irrational, can call themselves Macedonian, but it will have a hollow ring to it.

The legitimate Macedonians, who can attest to this assertion, through their mimetic strand, and consequently, their mimetic markers can only be Hellenes (Greeks) and never Slavs. The Slavs of the FYROM, can never assert this, for their strand does not have necessary, or sufficient, mimetic markers to allow them to do so.

The Greeks look at the mimetic variation between the Slavic strand, of the FYROM, and the Greek strand and see a discernable difference. Equally, the Slavs, of the FYROM, also look at the mimetic variation between the Slavic strand, which is attempting to mutate, and the Greek strand and see a discernable difference. Whilst, by means of comparison, the mimetic variation between the Greek-Cypriot strand, and the Greek strand, is seen by both the Greek-Cypriots and the Greeks, to not be discernably different.

The Slavic strand, of the FYROM, is analogous to a Frankenstein creation, it may exist, but like Frankenstein was not human, they equally are not Macedonian; they are not the real thing!

The Slavs, of the FYROM, continually ramble on about their right to self declare themselves as Macadonians, but equally, the Greeks have the right to self declare themselves as the Real Macedonians!

Interested parties must recognize, that the Slavs, of the FYROM, use various tools of propaganda, although, one particular tool is one that attempts to impose "concision" as a means of silencing debate. They attempt to assert their "right" to all that is Macedonian, in an a priori manner, without debate.

Well, sorry, they do not have the right to appropriate all that is Macedonian by using fallacious arguments that skip the vital step of the *burden of proof*, and simply ask everyone to jump to their a priori conclusion.

These specious arguments that they shove down peoples throats must be vehemently rejected.

This is their dilemma, and this is the reason why they are attempting to manufacture a mimetic strand that contains markers that are, to all intense and purposes, and knowingly, synthetic and foreign to them. However, their conceited Government, blindingly continues with this unnatural social experiment, to create a Frankenstein monster, as this is the only way that they can attempt to lay claim on the mimetic markers of the Classical Macedonian epoch, and as such, lay claim to characteristics, such as the name, Macedonia, and to justify their territorial claims to the Macedonian province of Northern Greece.

Alun, this is what irks us Greeks and in a similar way, what also irks the Bulgarians. (note: The FYROM has impinged on the Bulgarian strand, as it has done on the Greek strand).

Greece and Bulgaria are attempting to protect their mimetic material against a mutated and metastasized strand, which is the FYROM strand.

This reaction to protect ones mimetic strand is not, in fact, isolated to Greek society. Similar dynamics were readily seen in contemporary US society. By way of example, I put forward the case of the Absolut Vodka launched an advertisment in Mexico, showing a map of Mexico from the 1830's; the map can be seen here http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2008/04.... There was such an uproar in the US, because of this map that the company was forced to withdraw the commercial and apologize to the US. Now just imagine it being the sovereign Government of Mexico, and not an alcoholic beverage company making such claims towards the US. How would have the US reacted?

The Tompkins rebuttal ignores a similar social dynamic within his own society, whilst he attempts to deride Greece's sovereign right to protect herself. This guy is not to be trusted, he is an amateur.

To end this post, Tompkins chastises Greece's sovereign right to close their borders towards the FYROM during the 1990's (cf. the US embargo imposed on Cuba, since 1961, and it is still in place), and talks about its economic impact on them, whilst in equal time, he simply ignores the FYROM's recent ridicules spendthrift eight storey statue of Alexander the Great in Skopje, amongst many other delusional activities.

Further, Tompkins, in his opening address of his rebuttal letter, found here http://astro.temple.edu/~pericles/Letter.htm, puts forward the UN as an authority, in a poor attempt to legitimize his argument. However, this rhetoric, is simply absurd, since the UN is an organ created and established through a hegemonic power, that is, the US, being the victor of WWII. This political organ is neither democratic, nor is it scientific. This authority of the UN, can neither lend credibility to the FYROM's claims, nor can it say anything about this matter that is of any scientific importance, and as the Philosopher Spinoza says, numbers by themselves can not produce wisdom.

So, Tompkins argument is, simply, a fallacy of both relevance and of weak induction, specifically it is, in this case, an appeal to force and to an unqualified higher authority, respectively. So once again, Tompkins demonstrates that he can not think! An automaton could do better.

The word Macedonian as used by the Slavs, of the FYROM, does not have a sense, that is, it has no convention or meaning, and is thus, cognitively empty and can not refer, and therefore, can be ignored. [1]

I'm done, for now.

Reference:

[1] Valid deductive argument form:
A word that does not have a sense, that is, it has no convention or meaning, and is thus, cognitively empty and can not refer, and therefore, can be ignored.

P.S.

Telemachus, now is the time to be angry.

— Odysseus, when the time came to deal with the Suitors.

and

The man who gets angry at the right things and with the right people, and in the right way and at the right time and for the right length of time, is commended.

— Aristotle

The Greeks are fully in their right to be angry at the misinformation and propaganda that has been perpetrated on them by the Slavic denizens of the FYROM.

Lots of answers...

http://www.mhrmi.org/news/2009/june09_e.pdf

I completely agree that the irrelevance ancient occupation also applies to any claims by Macedonia on the Greek region of the same name. It's also the case as I originally stated that the ancient Greek nature of the ancient Macedonians is also irrelevant to the Greek claim to Macedonia. Thessaloniki is Greek regardless of what further ancient or medieval discoveries are uncovered there. My point is not about specific modern borders, it's about how relevant the politics of 2000 years ago are to any modern European disputes.

I think your comment on the greater importance of culture over genetics is a well-made point. The Greek position that Macedonians a Slavic nation with no Greek inheritance would not work from a biological perspective. The genetic evidence makes hybridity rather than replacement of population more likely. However, the French still value their Gallic sites, despite the country being established by the Franks. Stonehenge is listed as 'English Heritage', despite the national myth of settlement from Saxony. Many nations take an eclectic view of their past. Clearly Macedonians have a different sense of belonging to the Greeks.

This is not entirely surprising as borders have shifted a lot in the past 2000 years. A lot of the territory of the Republic was in the Roman province of Macedonia. The Byzantine Empire if I recall correctly, used the term differently to indicate a region administered from Adrianople. This would suggest that Macedonia has long been used in the Balkans in a variety of ways rather than being a cognitively empty term.

I also agree with your defence of self-determination. This would seem to suggest that Macedonians, wherever they are, can self-determine. If this is the case it would seem that the Greek objection to its northern neighbour is not the name but rather any possible territorial claims. If that's the case then matter can be solved by a bilateral treaty fixing the border. Those negotiations are likely to go much better if one side does not refer to the other as denizens or untrustworthy. It's only likely to harden positions, as observed by Floudas in 1996.

To be honest I was thinking of simply blocking the comment as referring other peoples as denizens, or a Yale PhD as an amateur, is not the kind of abuse I want here. Anyone who wishes to carry on the argument in a similar manner is welcome to do so - on their own website.

Alun,

you say:

"However, the French still value their Gallic sites, despite the country being established by the Franks. Stonehenge is listed as ‘English Heritage’, despite the national myth of settlement from Saxony."

Alun, you make a valid point, although, the Franks as an "ethnic" identity, no longer exist, whilst the Greeks stiill do. The same applies with the Saxons. There are no "ethnic" Franks, or "ethnic" Saxons running about.

Alun, the term denizens is defined to be "a habitual visitor to a place." The term was directed at those, who originally were from the FYROM, who no longer live in the FYROM, but are frequent visitors, as an attempt to capture all cohorts, in hindsight maybe the word diaspora might have been more suitable.

The form of Tompkins rebuttal is amateurish, and I will stick with this opinion, others have the right, of course, to make up their own minds. I accept, your terms and conditions, and will, in future, exclude any adjectives that may be misinterpreted, or otherwise.

Alun,

some further comments on your most recent post.

You say:

"It’s also the case as I originally stated that the ancient Greek nature of the ancient Macedonians is also irrelevant to the Greek claim to Macedonia."

Alun, what Greek claim are you referring to here?

"Thessaloniki is Greek regardless of what further ancient or medieval discoveries are uncovered there."

With all due respect, it certainly is not only Thessaloniki that is Greek, the entire providence of Macedonia in Northern Greece is Greek!

"My point is not about specific modern borders, it’s about how relevant the politics of 2000 years ago are to any modern European disputes."

My understanding was that political discussions were not welcomed on the site?

"The Greek position that Macedonians a Slavic nation with no Greek inheritance would not work from a biological perspective."

Alun, this is precisely what we do have, right now, the Greeks are not prepared to share their Greek inheritance of Macedonia with the Slavs, of the FYROM.

"This would suggest that Macedonia has long been used in the Balkans in a variety of ways rather than being a cognitively empty term."

The term Macedonia is a cognitively empty term, when used by the Slavic people of the FYROM as a means to identify themselves, for the Greeks consider this as culturally Greek and never Slavic.

"This would seem to suggest that Macedonians, wherever they are, can self-determine. If this is the case it would seem that the Greek objection to its northern neighbour is not the name but rather any possible territorial claims.

Not so quick, I stated:

"The FYROM, if they so desire, to be irrational, can call themselves Macedonian, but it will have a hollow ring to it.

The legitimate Macedonians, who can attest to this assertion, through their mimetic strand, and consequently, their mimetic markers can only be Hellenes (Greeks) and never Slavs. The Slavs of the FYROM, can never assert this, for their strand does not have the necessary, or sufficient, mimetic markers to allow them to do so. "

I think I'm pretty clear on my position.

"If that’s the case then matter can be solved by a bilateral treaty fixing the border."

Excuse me, but the borders have been fixed in the treaties of 1913, that is not the issue. The issue the Greeks have is the irredentist propaganda, which emanates from the Government of the FYROM, and its diaspora. The Greeks are completely in their rights to be extremely angry with the FYROM, making such territorial claims on Greek sovereign territory. The only posture that the Government of Greece can take with this threat, is to consider it as real and present danger. The Slavs, of the FYROM, can not plead ignorance on this matter, they know precisely what they are doing, this is the Balkans, known as a powder keg. The Slavs, of the FYROM, are truly playing with fire.

Kiro Velkovski ,

re: "Lots of answers..."

With all due respect, but LOL, this the standard laughable propaganda and sophistry emanating from the FYROM diaspora.

Here is a brief response to some comments by Alun and Iconoclast.

First, Alun notes that I have a Ph.D. from Yale (in Classics) and am not, in that sense, an amateur. I’m very grateful, but would prefer to say that contemporary Balkan history is a field in which all participants -- I, Prof. Miller, and his 200+ cosigners -- are “amateurs.” What we bring to the topic is some familiarity with the places under discussion, and some training and judgment in how to look things up and drawing conclusions. (Even the field of Classics holds many sub-specialties: I criticized Prof. Miller for ignoring or rejecting the best contemporary scholarship on history of ancient ethnicities – a topic on which Iconoclast had genuinely interesting comments.)

A cruel set of adages holds that a chef or athlete is “only as good as” his / her last meal or game, and so it is with controversialists. We’re all “amateurs” in one or another way, and what must be judged is not our credentials but the quality of our claims.

In this regard, I did my homework and came up with some suggestions. Iconoclast invites review of some key points. First, a preliminary note: the most important mail I’ve received in the past two weeks comes not from professors but victims, or better, grandchildren of victims who were killed or tortured on both sides, equally horribly, in the 1940-1949 period. Like the cultural features Iconoclast details, the pain is transmitted through generations and remains alive today, affecting all efforts at analysis and argumentation. Resolving the problems posed by this set of memories, deeply imbedded north and south of the border, strikes me as a major goal for all parties, but one that only the parties involved can achieve – not outsiders.

“Irredentism” refers to the insistence on recovering territory historically or culturally related to one’s nation. Modern Greece is built on the irredentist activity of the early 20th century, for instance. Effective irredentism requires not just symbols and words, but military or diplomatic power. I have seen in the Republic of Macedonia maps of territory that Slavic Macedonians, not long ago, shared with Greeks. One needs only Greek sources (some of which I’ve quoted) to trace Slavic marginalization there after 1913 and especially after 1922, their suppression and “forceful Hellenization” (as one Greek scholar puts it), their expulsion in great numbers in the Civil War, and their continued selective exclusion under the 1982 law. It is hardly surprising that they will regard it sadly (just as Cypriots regard Kyrenia), but highly unlikely that they will take up arms to reclaim it. I have seen no analyses that demonstrate how this might be possible.

On Alexander the Great, readers will note that I commented very little, concentrating instead on the formation of Macedonian identity in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE and especially on Alexander I. I don’t approve of propagandistic uses of Alexander the Great by either side.

Responding to Prof. Miller’s presentation on “Paeonia,” a name that the Greek government itself is not, I noted, putting forward, I commented on the growth of modern Macedonian ethnicity. The best recent historians of this topic seem to agree that the term “Macedonia” has been legitimate since around 1900 for the region now including the Republic of Macedonia, applying to the combined vilayets of Kosovo, Salonica and Monastir. The historians also record the vigilance of the neighboring states and of the Great Powers in suppressing Macedonian aspirations. So Iconoclast’s argument is really with contemporary historians, some of whom are Greek. (For an analogous case of recent ethnic development, consider the Palestinians, who like Macedonians emerged from the Ottoman Empire and progressively established their identity. Rashid Khalidi is worth reading.)

The recent development of Macedonian ethnicity is dismissed by some Greeks, who are justly proud of using the oldest, or perhaps second oldest (Chinese writing is debated) continuously used written language in the world. But it’s hard to see a strong historical argument for denying that the inhabitants of a region called Macedonia are Macedonian. And it is not a zero sum game. What Iconoclast calls the “soma of Greek society” is far more stable and resilient than he portrays it. It is not “impinged on” in any serious way.

As to the Absolut Vodka advertisement: it ran in Mexico for about two months, February – early April 2008, when American anti-immigration media (Fox News, Lou Dobbs) picked it up. Absolut, which is owned by French company Pernod (boycotted by some Americans in the crazed American hostility to France preceding the Iraq invasion of 2003), withdrew the ad. Quoting from news stories: “Absolut tried to assuage Americans in a corporate blog post …. However, the response was vitriolic, with 95 pages of comments voicing anti-Hispanic sentiments…. Absolut withdrew the ad.” As one blogger put it, “Everybody please join these lunatics in their worthy cause so that America can be free, once and for all, of the scourge of reckless advertising copywriters.”
Iconoclast performs a service by pointing to the irrationality of anti-Hispanic feeling in the US, and to the Miami-based rage against Castro of which Cuban-Americans are major victims. These are lousy models for productive interstate relations, but the Cuba parallel is instructive. It has prevented Cuban refugees here from communicating with their relatives, and has allowed corporations from other countries to steal a march on the USA in Cuba, while bringing no discernible benefit -- prompting us to ask, what gain has accrued to Greece from its own economic blockades of a neighbor?

Note that Foreign Minister Samaras began the first, unofficial blockade -- instructing Thessaloniki customs officials not to honor the stamp, "Republic of Macedonia" -- at a time when Thessaloniki was the main transit center for the RoM's trade with third countries. It dislocated the state's economy. That happened in Feb. '92, only five months after RoM declared independence, without allowing time for any serious negotiations.

Finally, American readers may want to ponder Iconoclast’s claim that the UN (only one of several groups that have criticized human rights violations in Greece) “is an organ created and established through a hegemonic power, that is, the US.” If he’s going to align himself with the critics of Absolut Vodka, he’ll find many of these believe the UN is run by foreigners and is completely opposed to US interests.

Finally, I’m grateful to Alun for the reference to: “A name for a conflict or a conflict for a name? An analysis of Greece's dispute with FYROM,” by Demetrius Andreas Floudas, Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Winter 1996. The author is, the web tells us, Senior Associate, Hughes Hall College, University of Cambridge, Associate Fellow of the Hellenic Institute of International and Foreign Law, Member of the British Academy of Experts. The journal he published in is managed by a group of very responsible academic group including:

Founding and Current Editor
George A. Kourvetaris, Dept Of Sociology,Northern Illinois University

Associate Editors
…
Stephens Constantinides, Universite du, Quebec Montreal
…
Charles Moskos, Jr., Northwestern University
…
Victor Roudometof, University of Cyprus
…
Charles Tilly, Columbia University

-- to mention only a few. It does not look like a bastion of “FYROM” propaganda.

Finally, as to “denizen”: whether to use it it’s a matter of tone and respect. “Citizen” would be far less condescending, since “denizen” often designates, for instance, patrons of a bar, or bears in a forest. I doubt that Iconoclast’s irritation extends to Macedonian bears.

Note that I've not called anyone names.

Dan

Let me add my perspective on the things said so far. I tend to agree with the positions of Dan. I am a Macedonian, but moreover, I find more logic in them than in the positions of Miller or other supporters of "Greek Macedonia".

I feel a personal connection with the issue because I was born in Bitola, which is a town near the current border with Greece. My extended family has origins in what is now northern Greece. My grandfather has fought in the Greek civil war on the side of the DAG (the "communists"). After they were defeated (and with ample help in arms from the UK I might add), the families of the fighters were forced to flee Greece, because retributions were soon to follow, especially if you were Macedonian. The Macedonians fought on the side of DAG, because they have been exposed to continuous helenisation in Greece. I know this not from books, but from conversations with my grandmother and father. One of my earliest childhood memories is that of my family being forbidden entry in Greece in 1980's. My father can not enter Greece to this day, because a law passed in 1982 forbids entry to those people who are "blacklisted" unless they show that they are "of greek descent". The personal identification documents bearing the Macedonian names of Greek places are not accepted in Greece today.

I believe that the history is in the past. But, we need not go far into the past to find the roots of today's problems. The Macedonian people have existed on the territory which is known as Macedonia for centuries. They have a separate language (Macedonian) from the surrounding Slavic nations, but also they have retained in their everyday lives practices and symbols (most notably the sun symbol excavated near the village of Kutlesh - Vergina which was also excavated in the present day Republic of Macedonia and is used as ornamental decoration on houses built in the 19-th century). I strongly believe that this whole issue is the result of some very recent bad politics reflecting the power play of the "international community" towards the right of the Macedonians to have their own recognized state. Everyone is circumventing the issue of the balkan wars in 1913. Then, it was decided that the Macedonia liberated from the Turks should be given to the "liberators" (Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia). Nobody took seriously the fact of the existence of the Macedonians, which were living on that territory, and which have declared themselves as such. Their fallacy was that they have been for the most part poorly educated, lacked the support and lobbying power in the countries which at that time decided what their fate should be.

After the treaty of Bucharest in 1913, the victors have begun a systematic campaign of molding the Macedonians and transforming them to Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians. And, in the case of Greece, replacing the population of northern Greece (the newly acquired territories) with "pure" Greeks from Asia minor as to change the ethnic makeup of those regions. A practice that has almost succeed; my cousins in Greece today seldom speak Macedonian. The names of villages, rivers, mountains were "hellenised". These plans were threatened when in Yugoslavia, finally a separate political entity was formed which allowed the Macedonians to have their own autonomy, and in recent times to have their independent state. So now, the game has changed; instead of trying to erase even the mention of the Macedonians, the Greek state has instead turned to proving that the true Macedonians are the Greeks inhabiting northern Greece (systematically purged from anything Macedonian in origin from the time of the "liberation" in 1913). It is here that the ancient history is misused. And, because of this practice, nationalism will rise in today's Macedonia. So, Greece should not fear irredentism towards itself, but should finally admit to the attrocities commited and begin the healing process. I do not believe that any of the Macedonians who suffered under Greek rule want "a greater Macedonia". They want respect, recognition of their plight, and in documented cases, a restitution of their forcefully taken property if applicable.

I apologize for the long digression, but I felt that it was necessary to give the context of the matters from a point of view of a Macedonian who does not feel that he is a Hellene, although I have Greek friends, and I respect Greek history, even speak a little bit of Greek.

Finally, to illustrate the levels to which these fabrications and misleadings have escalated, in the 90's while I was visiting Greece I was attacked simply because I had said that I am Macedonian, but not Greek. This has happened in Solun (Thessaloniki). Another incident was when I have posted on an archeoastronomy list regarding the proposed Kokino ancient observatory in Macedonia (http://www.kokino.org). There I was flamed by a professor from the university of Thessaloniki (using the Greek name here) for the reason that I have dared to use the term Macedonian on that list. Fortunately, other members defended my right of expression.

I hope that I have shed some light on this matter. No doubt that I will be severely criticized, but I am used to it; my whole family was persecuted, driven into submission, killed for 100 years now; I will continue to tell our story to anyone who listens.

Finally, I am an astrophysicist, I do not subscribe to nationalism, I would like to see this planet united. But, I do not have a "dual designation". I am not a Macedonian and a Greek at the same time, just Macedonian. And, I believe it to be simply rude to deny someone the basic right of self-expression. Especially after all that has happened. An entire nation can not be erased from the face of this tortured planet. I oppose anyone who assumes the position of a final arbiter in these matters, and of nations who proud themselves with being great, while at the same time committing unchecked acts of genocide.

Just to correct the previous comment... The address of the ancient observatory's site is: http://www.kokino.org.mk . Sorry for the mixup. Since this is a site dedicated to archeoastronomy, I think this correction will be important.

Alun, I'd like to continue with the discussion, by means of adding some further clarity to what I have already said, if I may. I shall also respond to some of Dan Tompkins points a little later.

You say:

"I completely agree that the irrelevance ancient occupation also applies to any claims by Macedonia on the Greek region of the same name."

Sure, ok, no problem, however, it is easier said than done! How do you propose to "bell the cat", that is to say, how do you propose to coerce the Slavs, of the FYROM, to accept such a position? For this occupation, as you put it, is seen by the Slavs, of the FYROM, as one of their major social engineering planks, which they are attempting to use as a means to justify their claim/appropriation to all that is Macedonian. Whilst, the Greeks, rightly, see this action as entirely unjust, immoral and unacceptable, and in equal time, are vehemently rejecting it!

"It’s also the case as I originally stated that the ancient Greek nature of the ancient Macedonians is also irrelevant to the Greek claim to Macedonia."

Alun, the Greeks, did not create this maelstrom, it was imposed on the Greek society, via an exogenous agent, being the Slavs, of the FYROM. The Greeks responded, they were not the protagonists. The Slavs, of the FYROM, chose to target mimetic markers of, in your words, the "ancient Greek nature of the ancient Macedonians". The Greeks reacted to protect their mimetic material. Those, who attempt to chastise the Greeks for this, or dismiss its seriousness, exhibit the fallacy of missing the point (Ignoratio Elenchi). Although, I am extremely heartend that 250+ Classical Scholars, and counting, and as you have also said, "with big brains" are signing Professor Miller's letter to the POTUS, Obama. These people understand the problem and that is why they are signing up, the ones that haven't don't understand the problem.

"The Greek position that Macedonians a Slavic nation with no Greek inheritance would not work from a biological perspective. The genetic evidence makes hybridity rather than replacement of population more likely"

Alun, it also does not work from a mimetic perspective. Note, *both* the Slavs, of the FYROM, and the Greeks look at each others mimetic strand and see a discernable variation, they see little overlap, even if the genetic variation is found to be much less pronounced. Hybridity may be more than likely the case, nevertheless, it can say little, if anything, about the cultural variations, and in particular, how, or whether, one cohort, vis-a-vis, demonstrates an affinity for the other. If you're postulating that some sort of loose kinship dynamic exist between the two cohorts, well sorry to disappoint you, but it does not. Not at least, in a cultural sense.

“This would suggest that Macedonia has long been used in the Balkans in a variety of ways rather than being a cognitively empty term.”

The term Macedonia is a cognitively empty term, when used by the Slavic people of the FYROM as a means to identify themselves, for the Greeks consider this as culturally Greek and never Slavic.

By way of an analogy, to explain what I am trying to get across, I posit the following. If someone decides to call themselves, because they have the equal rights of self-determination, and settle on calling themselves an Helicopter. What does it mean for them to call themselves a Helicopter? It has no real meaning, because it has no context. This is what I mean by cognitively empty, when the Slavs attempt to use the term Macedonian to refer to themselves. For the Greeks, this term only has meaning when reference is made within the Greek cultural sphere and never the Slavic cultural sphere. When Macedonian is used in the Slavic cultural sphere to the Greeks it is cognitively empty, the Slavs might as well have said "I am an Helicopter"; if they had the Greeks would have given two hoots about it! That is why a word that does not have a sense, that is, it has no convention or meaning, and is thus, cognitively empty and can not refer, can be ignored. That is why the Greeks ignore the Slavs when they refer to themselves as Macedonian. It means nothing to them!

The Slavs, of the FYROM, have targetted the international community to try and establish a monopolistic stance towards the name Macedonia, and all that it means, and through their propaganda attempt to re-center the meaning of what Macedonian means to be soley in the Slavic cultural sphere, and away from the Greek cultural sphere. So when Professor Miller says that he is trying to stop the Slavs, of the FYROM, from making "Alexander the Great a Slav", he is spot on with his analysis. He is one that has seen through the Slavic propaganda, save, the remaining 250+ Classical Scholars that have also seen through the propaganda.

"However, the French still value their Gallic sites, despite the country being established by the Franks. Stonehenge is listed as ‘English Heritage’, despite the national myth of settlement from Saxony. Many nations take an eclectic view of their past."

By way of clarifying my previous post on this point, let me expand on it. Alun, because your argument is incomplete, that is, it is an enthymeme, which in this case is missing a number of premises and conclusions. To allow the argument to be properly evaluated, it is necessary to include the missing statements, which you had implied, but did not state explicitly. The enthymeme may be written as a standard form syllogism as follows:

1. Present day inhabitants of a nation state are citizens of that nation state.
2. Citizens of a nation state have sovereign rights.
3. All artifacts found in a nation state are the sovereign rights of that nation state and its citizens.
4. Citizens sovereign rights guarantee them their right to value artifcats found in their nation state.
5. All past inhabitants, who occupied the same geographical region as the present day citizen of a nation state, can not usurp any sovereign rights of the nation state and its present day citizens.
6. Therefore, in conclusion, if the French can value their Gallic sites, despite the country being established by the Franks, then the Slavs, of the FYROM, can value their Ancient Macedonian sites, despite the country, FYROM, being established by the Slavs.

I posit that the above completed proposition is what you were inferring.

Now, let us evaluate this syllogism. Firstly, the above syllogism exhibits the fallacy of relevance, specifically a a red herring, but more importantly a straw man fallacy. The reason it is a red herring is, because you have already stated that ancient history should be irrelevant to this dispute, but then proceed to put forward an analogy that takes such a form. Despite the fact that the argument is a red herring, and should therefore be ignored, nevertherless, we shall continue to evaluate it. The reason it is a straw man fallacy is, because this is *not* what the Greeks are in fact arguing about. The Greeks support all those premises, as well the final conclusion. The Greeks are, in fact, arguing about this:

1. Present day inhabitants of a nation state are citizens of that nation state.
2. Citizens of a nation state have sovereign rights.
3. Citizens of a nation state have equal rights to self-determination.
4. Citizens of one nation state must not diminish in any way, shape, or form, the equal rights of self-determination of citizens of another nation state.
5. The Government and its citizens of a nation state must in no way support, particiapate in, and/or assist in any activities or propaganda that are deemed irridentist in nature to another nation state, and the Government of the nation state where such irredentist activity is taking place, must take all immediate steps to ensure that any such irredentist activity immediately ceases and desists against another nation state.
5. The citizens of the nation state of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have asserted their equal rights of self-determination and called themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but equally, a cohort of ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic have the equal rights of self-determination and to assert their rights to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje.
7. Therefore, in conclusion:

WHEREAS, the citizens of the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, in their act of asserting their equal rights of self-determination to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights of self-determination of ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic who assert their equal rights to self-determination and to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje;

WHEREAS, the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, by asserting their equal rights of self-determination to call their nation state by the appellation, the Republic of Macedonia, or simply, Macedonia, has instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights of self-determination of the ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje;

WHEREAS, the ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic, who through their domicile and/or place of birth in the Province of Macedonia of Northern Greece assert their equal rights to self-dertermination and call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje;

WHEREAS, the ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic, who assert their equal rights of self-determination to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, also assert their equal rights and that they must not be disadvantaged in the international community, or international fora, by having their Hellenic character in any way, shape, or form, diminished or made diminutive by the act of another nation state.

WHEREAS, the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, by monopolising the name Macedonia, in all the ways that they have done so, have diminshed the equal rights of self-determination of the Government and citizens of the nation state of the Hellenic Republic.

WHEREAS, the Government of the the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, must cease and disist in the use of pedagogic material that exhibts psuedo-history that has been developed by the Government of the nation state, whose capital is Skopje, and in which this material is neither supported, nor recognised, by the leading international scientific and pedagogic communities.

WHEREAS, the Government and the citizens of the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, have shown by way of support, particiapation in, and/or assistance in activities or propaganda that are deemed irridentist in nature to the Government and the citizens of the nation state of the Hellenic Republic, and the Government of the nation state, whose capital is Skopje, where such irredentist activity is taking place, has not taken all immediate steps to ensure that any such irredentist activity immediately ceases and desists against the nation state of the Hellenic Republic.

Alun, this is pretty much the problem the Greeks have with the Slavs. I may have, more than likely, missed a few issues out, but the above gives you a flavour of what most of the actual issues are.

The Greeks and the Slavs are in what Logicians call a "deadly embrace", "a race condition" or "a deadlock state", because in the act of the Government and the citizens, of the FYROM, asserting their equal rights of self-determination they have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the same equal rights of self-determination of the Government and citizens of the Hellenic Republic.

"Clearly Macedonians have a different sense of belonging to the Greeks."

Alun, as I have stated, above, the Slavs, of the FYROM, don't consider their mimetic strand to have any Greekness, in any sense of the word, in it. They impinge on the Greek strand, target mimetic markers of, in this case, and in your words, the "ancient Greek nature of the ancient Macedonians", extract those mimetic markers, create a transmutated strand that they then call the "Macedonian" strand, whilst the Greeks see this transmuted strand as an artificial and synthetic strand, which, to boot, has been created from Greek mimetic markers. So I would posit, that we Greeks are fully in our right to be insulted and angry at what the Slavs, of the FYROM are perpetuating. This is again, another problem the Greeks have with the Slavs, of the FYROM.

One further point I would like to make about your statement, above. By the act of yourself, having used the appellation "Macedonians", to identify the Slavs, of the FYROM, and *only* that cohort, the Slavs, of the FYROM, will have and enjoy, by default, all, in essence, what it means to be a Macedonian, and you have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably taken away from the Macedonians, who are ethnic Greeks, and who identify themselves as having Greek heritage and having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje. This subconcious cognative step that you just took, has an immediate implication. It has precluded the Greek cohort that desire to assert their self-determined equal rights to be known as Mcedonian, *without* being identified by others as being related to the Slavs, of the FYROM. This describes in essence the "Macedonia name issue". The outcome is "heads" they win, "tails" we loose. This assymmetric nuance, is what the Greeks want the rest of the world to understand!

"I also agree with your defence of self-determination. This would seem to suggest that Macedonians, wherever they are, can self-determine."

Alun, please consider the following. I am a Macedonian, a Greek Macedonian, however I am in no way identified with or related to the newly formed independent state referred to as the FYROM; I feel insulted by the fact that I cannot be known as, simply, a Macedonian without being identified by others as being related to the Slavs, of the FYROM. Alun, I can attest to this happening, personally, to me a number of times when I travel.

So, Alun, how do you propose that my human rights to self-determine myself as just, simply, Macedonian, and most importantly, entirely distinct from those with Slavic memitic markers, in an environment that has now been poisoned by the propaganda of the Slavs, of the FYROM and its diaspora, who are being referred to by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, whilst I can not do so?

Why, Alun, do you believe it is fine, for them to be known throughout the world as, simply, Macedonians, whilst I will not be given that equal right?

When you call the Slavs, of the FYROM, Macedonian, I would rather you say Slav-Macedonian, or Macedonian Slav, or some such, so that you also respect my equal rights as well, and when you refer to me as Macedonian, you say Greek Macedonian, or Macedonian Greek.

An assymmetry exists, this needs to be acknowledged by all parties, the Slavs, of the FYROM, the international communities, and dealt with!

As a consequence of this assymmetry, I am forced to add prefixes, or some such, to the appellation, Macedonian when I wish to identify myself, or even worse, sit their and attempt to explain the history, which does not work, because of modern societies self imposed concision, where most outsiders aren't even interested in understanding the nuances, but continue to insult me?

Why, Alun, do the Slavs, of the FYROM, have the right to create a monopoly on the name of a region that has the appellation Macedonia and claim it as theirs?

Alun, the Slavs, of the FYROM, must acknowledge that an ambiguity, in particular a double-meaning, exists when they attempt to use the appellation, Macedonia, for their newly formed nation, whilst in equal time the appellation, Macedonia, is also used to refer to the region of Macedonia, to the Province of Macedonia in Northern Greece, and the Region of Prin Macedonia in Bulgaria. In this region of Macedonia there are people that want to use the term Macedonian, and do not want to be identified as being related to the Slavs, of the FYROM.

This assymmetry must be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of *all* parties!

The Greeks do not want to impinge on the self-determination of another people, in any way, shape or form. However, there is one undeniable caveat that must apply, vis-a-vis, to both parties when the act of self-determination is asserted by any one party. The caveat being, that the party who asserts their equal right of self-determination can not in any way, shape, or form, diminish or make diminutive the equal right of self-determination of any other party. That is, each party, vis-a-vis, must have *equal rights*, which is exactly the wording used in the UN Charter [1]. So, any decision made, vis-a-vis, by one party that is inextricably connected, mutually dependent on, and affected by, the counter-party can *not* be made in a uni-lateral manner. Each party, vis-a-vis, must appreciate the sensibilities of their counter-party.

In closing, I am, frankly, sick and tied of hearing from the Slavs, of the FYROM, blathering on about their rights to self-determination, whilst they blindingly assert their equal rights to self determination, they forget that in the UN charter it says, *equal rights* and not just *uni-lateral rights* to self-determination. For there to be equal rights, the Slavs, of the FYROM, can not ignore the equal rights of the Greeks, when in their act of asserting their equal rights to self-determination, the Slavs, of the FYROM, have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights to self-determination of the Greeks. Unfortunately, the Slavs, of the FYROM, to date, seem to believe that they, for some reason have more rights than the Greeks to the equal rights of self-determination.

The Slavs, of the FYROM, require an extreme dose of persuasion from the international community to bring this to an end, since the carrot approach has not worked. The Slavs, of the FYROM, on their own will not do so, until they belatedly realise that all avenues are closed to them for gaining entry into the NATO and EU etc.

They must recognise, accept, and acknowledge that we the Greeks also have equal rights to self-determination, as they unashamadly protest and demand from the Greeks at every possible opportunity!

All they need to do is share the name, in a way which distinguishes themselves from all others who also consider themselves Macedonians, but do not want to be identified by others as being related to the Slavs, of the FYROM, in any way, shape, or form. The Greeks will not, in no way, back down on this matter, period!

Alun, I would be interested to know your thoughts on what I have said, regarding this matter.

[1] Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter states

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Alun, as you can see I had to write all the above to fight off the propaganda that is emanating from the simple act of the Slavs, of the FYROM, calling themselves a Macedonia. This information assymmetry, which exists is very subtle, and if you are not aware of it you can be misled. The following exerpt from a talk with Noam Chomsky explains it very well. I recommend you read it to understand what is happening.

"You can lie or distort the story of the French Revolution as long as you like and nothing will happen. Propose a false theory in chemistry and it will be refuted tomorrow."

Yes, that's the kind of thing I mean. Nature is tough. You can't fiddle with Mother Nature, she's a hard taskmistress. So you're forced to be honest in the natural sciences. In the soft fields, you're not forced to be honest. There are standards, of course; on the other hand, they're very weak. If what you propose is ideologically acceptable, that is, supportive of power systems, you can get away with a huge amount. In fact, the difference between the conditions that are imposed on dissident opinion and on mainstream opinion are radically different. I'll give you a concrete example, if you like.

Yes, do that.

Okay. For example, I've written about terrorism, and I think you can show without much difficulty that terrorism pretty much corresponds to power. I don't think that's very surprising. The more powerful states are involved in more terrorism, by and large. The United States is the most powerful, so it's involved in massive terrorism, by its own definition of terrorism. Well, if I want to establish that, I'm required to give a huge amount of evidence. I think that's a good thing. I don't object to that. I think anyone who makes that claim should be held to very high standards. So extensive documentation, and from the internal secret records and historical record and so on. And if you ever find a comma misplaced, somebody ought to criticize you for it. So I think those standards are fine.

All right, now, let's suppose that you play the mainstream game. For example, the Yale University Press just came out with a volume called The Age of Terror. The contributors are leading historians, many of them at Yale, the top people in the field. You read the book The Age of Terror, the first thing you notice is there isn't a single footnote, there isn't a single reference. There are just off-the-top-of-your-head statements. Some of the statements are tenable, some are untenable, but there are no intellectual criteria imposed. The reviews of the book are very favorable, laudatory, and maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. I happen to think a lot of it is wrong and demonstrably wrong. But doesn't really matter, you can say anything you want because you support power, and nobody expects you to justify anything. For example, on the unimaginable circumstance that I was on, say, Nightline, and I was asked, say, "Do you think Kadhafi is a terrorist?" I could say, "Yeah, Kadhafi is a terrorist." I don't need any evidence. Suppose I said, "George Bush is a terrorist." Well, then I would be expected to provide evidence, "Why would you say that?"

So that you aren't cut off right there.

In fact, the structure of the news production system is, you can't produce evidence. There's even a name for it -- I learned it from the producer of Nightline, Jeff Greenfield. It's called "concision." He was asked in an interview somewhere why they didn't have me on Nightline, and his answer was -- two answers. First of all, he says, "Well, he talks Turkish, and nobody understands it." But the other answer was, "He lacks concision." Which is correct, I agree with him. The kinds of things that I would say on Nightline, you can't say in one sentence because they depart from standard religion. If you want to repeat the religion, you can get away with it between two commercials. If you want to say something that questions the religion, you're expected to give evidence, and that you can't do between two commercials. So therefore you lack concision, so therefore you can't talk.

I think that's a terrific technique of propaganda. To impose concision is a way of virtually guaranteeing that the party line gets repeated over and over again, and that nothing else is heard.

— Noam Chomsky, interview Conversations with History March 22, 2002 (http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Chomsky/)

Alun, I suggest you also read the following passage, by way of understanding the problem of ambiguity or double-meaning that I referred to previously on the use of the word Macedonia.

"The other way in which cognitive meanings can be defective is ambiguity. An
expression is said to be ambiguous when it can be interpreted as having more than
one clearly distinct meaning in a given context. For example, words such as ‘‘light,’’
‘‘proper,’’ ‘‘critical,’’ ‘‘stress,’’ ‘‘mad,’’ ‘‘inflate,’’ ‘‘chest,’’ ‘‘bank,’’ ‘‘sound,’’ and ‘‘race’’
can be used ambiguously. Thus, if one were to describe a beer as a light pilsner, does
this mean that the beer is light in color, light in calories, or light in taste? If one were to
describe an action as proper, does this mean proper in a moral sense or proper in the
sense of being socially acceptable? Or if one were to describe a person as critical, does
this mean that the person is essential for a certain task or that the person tends to
criticize others?
As is the case with vagueness, ambiguity can also affect entire statements. Such ambiguity
often results from the way in which certain words are combined. For example,
there was a newspaper headline that read, ‘‘Tuna are biting off theWashington coast.’’
Does this mean that the tuna are nibbling away at the coastline or that fishermen
are catching them off the coast? Presumably it means the latter. And another headline
read, ‘‘College students are turning to vegetables.’’ Does this mean that the students
are metamorphosing into vegetables or that they are incorporating more vegetables
into their diet? Again, the intended meaning is probably the latter.
The difference between ambiguity and vagueness is that vague terminology allows
for a relatively continuous range of interpretations, whereas ambiguous terminology
allows for multiple discrete interpretations. In a vague expression there is a blur of
meaning, whereas in an ambiguous expression there is a mix-up of otherwise clear
meanings. However, there are many forms of expression that are ambiguous in one
context and vague in another. For example, the word ‘‘slow’’ in one context could
mean either mentally retarded or physically slow, but when the word refers to physical
slowness, it could be vague. How slow is slow? Similar remarks apply to ‘‘light,’’ ‘‘fast,’’
and ‘‘rich.’’
Ambiguity and vagueness are important in logic because there are countless occasions
in which the evaluation of an argument leads to the observation, ‘‘Well, that
depends on what you mean by . . .’’ Certain phraseology in the argument is vague or
ambiguous, and its meaning must be clarified before any evaluation can proceed. For
example, Scientologists argue that their organization should be exempt from paying
taxes because, they claim, Scientology is a religion. Evaluating their argument requires
that we clarify the meaning of ‘‘religion.’’"

— A Concise Introduction to Logic, by Hurley 7th Edition, Chapter2: Language: Meaning and Defintion, Page 79-80

Note: Correction to the posting

my statement:

"When Macedonian is used in the Slavic cultural sphere to the Greeks it is cognitively empty, the Slavs might as well have said “I am an Helicopter”; if they had the Greeks would have given two hoots about it!"

should read:

"When Macedonian is used in the Slavic cultural sphere to the Greeks it is cognitively empty, the Slavs might as well have said “I am an Helicopter”; if they had the Greeks would *not* have given two hoots about it!"

Aleksandar,

I shall briefly respond to your post, and try to make time to respond in greater detail a little later, if time permits.

Aleksandar,
Your view of history is your point of view only, and can not be considered as entirely balanced or of a bi-partisan form. The same historical period that you have referenced, I see in a very very different light than yourself. That is to say, your exemplar of the world is completely different to my exemplar of the world. I suggest interested parties read some of the works of Philosopher Samuel Kuhn to understand what I mean when I use the word exemplar in this context.

Aleksandar,
I can also give my stories of the massacres by a cohort of your kinsmen, the Komitazides (Commitern), who declared themselves to be Bulgarians, and had a close affinity with Bulgarian Military. These people perpetrated many heinous crimes against the local Greek people of the village of Flambouron, from where my Father is from, and many other Greek villages in this region of Macedonia of Northern Greece during the WWII.

Alkesandar,
I can also give a story about abuse and man handling towards myself by your kinsmen in the Bitola (called by the Greeks Monastiri (Monestary in English)) in 2001, when I visited the town. I was in the main paved shopping street, some curious people in the main paved shopping street asked me who I was and where I was from, , but in a way that was not welcoming, and I said I am a Macedonian and a Greek. They began to push me around and verbally abused me, I feared for my life, and then when I wanted to leave to get a taxi to get back to the border with Greece and FYROM, I was forced to pay an outrages amount of money to do so, 10 times what I paid to get to Bitola from the border, in the first place.

Aleksandar, you say:

"They have a separate language (Macedonian) from the surrounding Slavic nations, but also they have retained in their everyday lives practices and symbols (most notably the sun symbol excavated near the village of Kutlesh – Vergina which was also excavated in the present day Republic of Macedonia and is used as ornamental decoration on houses built in the 19-th century)."

Sorry, Aleksandar, but I assert the right to challenge you to your above assertions.

I do not accept your assertion that the Sun-Burst symbol, the Vergina, has anything to do with your people. Moreover, I assert it has no ethnic or cultural affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje. By all means you have the right to value artifacts that you find in your nation state from the Ancient Macedonian epoch. But that is all. You definitely can not twist the historical evidence from the "ancient Greek nature of the ancient Macedonians", as Alun has stated, to drag it towards a Slavic-centric meaning, so as to mean "ancient Slavic nature of the ancient Macedonians". That you definably can't neither assert, nor will be allowed to do by the Greeks.

As Carl Sagan would assert in such circumstances, "Extraordinary assertions demand extraordinary proof. In the absence of this, it is inappropriate to believe anyone's extraordinary claims or to draw far-reaching conclusions from little evidence."

Aleksandar, you have made your extraordinary assertions, now show us your extraordinary proof. Show us the money, as the Americans would say!

I noticed that the discussion went off the archeology tracks, again. I just want to remind you all that according to UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ I have the right to self-declare myself as Macedonian. And I do so.

Please close that branch of your discussions, and, as Alun kindly asked, continue with archeology discussions.

Regards,
Kiro

Thanks for the reminder, Kiro. Just a short reply to iconoclast. It is clear that we are never going to see things even remotely along the same line. From your comments, I can see that you are a well educated person, but to me, you just serve as a proof of the concept that by using logic every assertion can be "proved". I will let other readers to draw their conclusions from this dicsussion. As for presenting extraordinary facts, I will not present them, because it would serve no purpose in this context. You are already firmly convinced in your truth. Just think about the fact that you are always using the term slavs and FYROM for my country and nationality. No one is questioning your right to call yourself Greek. As for the incident which happened to you in my home town, I apologize, and I am sorry. But, how can you expect otherwise, when you say "I am a Macedonian and Greek" and in that order... I have said it before, how can you be both? How can you expect and demand that the entire heritage of the past be exclusively Greek? And, I am sure that you must be aware that before 1913 Greece did not have any part of Macedonia. How come, suddenly after 100 years the Greeks are Macedonians? As for the atrocities, they happen, when you attack a people they will defend, what do you expect? The sunburst of Kutles is a Macedonian symbol which the Macedonians today living in the Republic of Macedonia have every right to use, as have the Greeks living in the northern Greece if they identify truly with it. the fact that you do not accept me as a Macedonian is not my problem, it rests on your shoulders. And, I will remind you that the whole slavic settlement theory rests on very shaky grounds scientifically. Furthermore, even if the settlements happened as it is claimed, the slavic tribes fused with the ancient Macedonians. So, Macedonians today have every right to the ancient heritage. As the Greeks have the right to the ancient Greek heritage. And lastly, a question. The ancients worshiped the Olympic pantheon. Today's Greeks are orthodox. I might claim on that basis that you are not of the lineage of the ancient Greeks. If you disagree with that, but proceed with claiming that today's Macedonians have no ties with ancient times, then I think you need to rethink the whole issue...

Now, back to archeoastronomy. I do not know if alum has had time to read his blog, but I will once again remind him of the link I posted before of the Kokino site. I had correspondence with a professor from the UK about making some additional measurements there, and I would invite the host of this blog to contact me, or visit the place. The initial research has indicated the exsistance of a lunar calendar, but I personally think that a person who is active in this kind of research should visit the place. So far it has been studied by astronomers and physicists, but I do not believe that a real researcher in archeoastronomy has visited Kokino. On the website there is a map showing the exact position, and if you have any questions, you can contact me.

That's a lot to read after coming home from work. Iconoclast, I think you get the problem exactly right when you ask "how do you bell the cat?" This is where I disagree with Prof Miller, because I don't think the answer is to replace classical justification with another. Otherwise you end up with an Alexandrian arms race where both sides ignore that over the past two thousand years the word 'Macedonia' has been used to describe an awful lot of territory both inside and outside the borders of modern Greece.

It also relies on everyone agreeing that the Greeks are the people who can define what is and isn't Macedonian. I've been flipping through Cavalli-Sforza's genetic maps of Europe. For his first, second and third principle components the south of Greece seems to be different to the north. The fourth and fifth show no significant difference. I think some of that is due to the limitations of the maps, and I'm very sceptical about genetic data anyway. However, even if it is an accurate reflection of biological inheritance, if you don't accept a direct link between ancient and modern boundaries it's not an issue. On the other hand if the fourth century BC defines modern ethnities then you have a problem, because citizenship, who was and was not Greek, was a matter of biological inheritance rather than language. The Greek position on a cultural rather than biological inheritance is therefore a sophisticated and sensible approach, but it still requires a pick 'n' mix approach to what bits of culture you choose to inherit. Others may choose to pick or drop other elements of the same inheritance.

Ethnicity is something that's constantly being recreated as one generation passes down its beliefs and values to the next. In turn it's also affected by the actions of other peoples around it, absorbing some influences and defining itself in opposition to some others. It doesn't come from a defining point in time, it develops and evolves over time. That's why I don't think Miller's concentration on specific period while excluding others is helpful.

I'm aware of Kokino, but I don't have any opinion on it. I tend to be sceptical of lunar alignments. They increase the possibility of finding a significant alignment by chance and there's no way of looking at just one site and working out if the alignments are intentional or not. A lot of places where people used to think there were alignments such as Cahokia, and possibly even El Caracol, are being disputed.

What makes it interesting is that there's a few people in south-east Europe finding similar sites along the Rhodope mountains. I've got a copy of a book with a chapter Typology of the Mountain Thrace Archaeoastronomical Sites in it by Alexexey Stoev and others, and I've just seen he mentions Kokino there. It looks plausible, but I'd want to see more about the archaeological context before having an opinion. That won't be happening in the near future because most of the sites are published in Bulgarian, which I don't read yet. I won't be able to visit the sites either as I'm not going to be able to get travel insurance for at least a year.

Alun, the doubts you mention about Kokino are exactly the reasons I want to get some researchers with field experience to get interested in the site. I am by no means an expert, I have read the papers, strolled about the site and have my own conclusions. I am skeptical, maybe too much, but in my opinion it is better to err on the safe side :) I have a link to one english version of a paper about Kokino. It was presented at a conference in Bulgaria. I hope it will help you to get an introduction to the archeoastronomical propositions. You can contact the author if you wish to get the archaeological perspective. For my part, I have tried to find any geological evidence that the stone markers have been carved to some extent; I am not sure, but I think that that possibility is slim at best. I know that there have been some pottery finds at the site, and I myself have seen some fragments last year when I visited the site. It seems that the dating of the fragments and the alignment of the sky with the markers agree, but... My biggest objection is that as you will see, the very nature of the site provides ample markers to work with. So, we might never be able to conclusively prove anything, even if the site was used as an observatory.

In any case, I hope that you will have fun reading the paper. I am really glad that you are healthy now. When you feel like it, you can visit the site. It is not going to go anywhere :)

Just like a Texan, is both a pround Texan and a proud American, equally I am a proud Macedonian and a proud Hellene (Greek). And no one, has the right to deny me of my God given right to self-determine myself as a Hellene (Greek) and a Macedonian, not you Dan Tompkins, not the Slavs, of the newly established nation of the FYROM, nor anybody else. I will not let it happen.

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"What we bring to the topic is some familiarity with the places under discussion, and some training and judgment in how to look things up and drawing conclusions. (Even the field of Classics holds many sub-specialties:I criticized Prof. Miller for ignoring or rejecting the best contemporary scholarship on history of ancient ethnicities – a topic on which Iconoclast had genuinely interesting comments.)"

Dan, you are fully in your rights, to disagree with Professor Miller, but what you can not assert is that your proposition is logically stronger and more cogent than Professor Millers. Professor Miller and the 250+, and growing, other Classical Scholars (see here http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html) may have very good reasons to justify their position and not to consider, or give the weighting to the cohort of scholars that you have chosen to lend your support to, and leading you to, thus, say "the best contemporary scholarship on history of ancient ethnicities". Terminology that conveys information is said to have cognitive meaning, and terminology that expresses or evokes feelings is said to have emotive meaning. Statements expressed in emotive terminology often make value claims. The word "best" has emotive meaning. What you consider "best" in the exemplar you align yourself with, does not necessarily map to "best" in Professor Millers and the remaining 250+ Classical Scholars exemplar. History is founded on science, of Historiography, that is it is a science. Moreover, it is seated on deductive nomological reasoning, the scientific method, which involves constructing a hypothesis and then testing the strength and cogency of the hypothesis using reasoning by induction, that is drawing conclusions based on probabalistic evidence: a generalization based on observed instances, or the making of such generalizations, in the usual working method of scientists. It should be clear that a hypothesis can never be proven, although, it can be disproven. So, Dan, when you refer to, and align yourself with, this "contemporary scholarship", in which phase of the scientific method are we precisely in? Hypotheses, are just that, hypotheses, and in science they, regularly, come and go. An a priori analytic argument can tell what is in entailed by a set of assumptions, but it can not tell you whether the assumptions themselves are true. So analytic a priori arguments are in general sterile, as far as, a way of finding of what is infact the case, they are very fruitful as a way of finding what is implied by certain assumptions that we make, but that is all they can do. To this date *all* evidence supports and reinforces the current hypothesis that the Ancient Macedonians are Greek. Others can put forward all manner of alternative hypothesis to challenge this, but it is for them to prove their hypothesis with peer-reviewed evidence to give their hypothesis its strength and cogency. Until that time these hypotheses can be added to one-thousand-and-one other unproven hypotheses. This is how science works.

"Resolving the problems posed by this set of memories, deeply imbedded north and south of the border, strikes me as a major goal for all parties, but one that only the parties involved can achieve – not outsiders."

Both nations must put their past behind and look towards the future with open hands of friendship, mutual respect and co-operation. The future is in our hands. Greece has had, and still has her arm extended and her hand opened.

"Effective irredentism requires not just symbols and words, but military or diplomatic power."

Dan, history is a very harsh, but also, paradoxically, a very presient teacher. History has taught the Greeks many, many bitter lessons, where a neighbouring nation state may become a proxy, that is a pawn, in the aspirations of other regional powers, such that Greece finds herself in a zugzwang, to continue with the chess board game analogy. So, I posit your definition of irredentism is far to narrow and somewhat naive. I therefore, respectfully disagree with your analysis. Loring Danforth, American professor of anthropology says:

"Greek fears that use of the name Macedonia by Slavs will inevitably lead to the assertion of irredentist claims to territory in Greek Macedonia are heightened by fairly recent historical events. During World War II Bulgaria occupied portions of northern Greece, while one of the specific goals of the founders of the People's Republic of Macedonia in 1944 was "the unification of the entire Macedonian nation," to be achieved by "the liberation of the other two segments" of Macedonia. (“How can a woman give birth to one Greek and one Macedonian?” Melbourne, Australia, 1991-92)

" I have seen in the Republic of Macedonia maps of territory that Slavic Macedonians, not long ago, shared with Greeks."

Dan, you are wrong, the region of Macedonia under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire was an ethnic mixed salad, ergo the appellation "macedoine salad" consiting of Greeks, Bulgars, Serbs, Albainians, Turks, and the Roma people. The people that you now call Slavic Macedonians had a strong affinity with the Slavic Bulgars and/or the Slavic Serbs, where they were considered to be in the cultural sphere of the Bulgars/Serbs. The evidence from Ottoman census reports, nor correspondence by foreign diplomats does not support your argument. I am a little perplexed, what is your point anyway?

"One needs only Greek sources (some of which I’ve quoted) to trace Slavic marginalization there after 1913 and especially after 1922, their suppression and “forceful Hellenization” (as one Greek scholar puts it), their expulsion in great numbers in the Civil War, and their continued selective exclusion under the 1982 law."

Dan, this is a matter that can, in no way, be given the justice it deserves in *one* sentence for both the Slavs and the Greeks, in the manner that you have done so. This was a period of historical upheaval of cataclysmic dimensions for all parties concerned. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, there are somethings that you can't say in one sentence, and Dan, this subject is exactly one of those things that you can definitely not say in one sentence. I would go further to say, that I am disappointed, rather than offended, in you, although I am sure many Greeks who are reading this blog, are very offended. It rings alarm bells to me, that the person who raises this subject in such a superficial manner is being disingenous at best and deceptive at worst. For you to pretend, that by writing *one* biased sentence, and to some how rationalize, that you have narrated the maelstrom of events during this turbulent period, leads me, sorry to say, to seriously question both your motives and your agenda with regards to this entire issue. Your attempt to create the appearance of good-guy/bad-guy narrative, when it is the furthest from the truth. I am sincerely dissapointed, Dan, you have done a great disservice to your argument. Concision is best left to the propagandists, and not to those who are sincerely wanting to put forward scholarly arguments. Those who are genuinely interested in knowing what happened during that oeriod in the region of Macedonia, I suggest they go to their nearest major library and seek out and read as many books from as many authors on this period, and then make up their mind.

"On Alexander the Great, readers will note that I commented very little, concentrating instead on the formation of Macedonian identity in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE and especially on Alexander I. I don’t approve of propagandistic uses of Alexander the Great by either side."

Dan, I beg to differ, but the arguments that you have put forward in your letter of rebuttal, exhibit the fallacy of weak induction, specifically the fallacy of a slippery slope. You can in no way come to the conclusion that you come to based on suppositions, definitely not! All current evidence supports and reinforces the hypothesis that Alexander the Great was within the Greek sphere. Eugene N. Borza, American historian, has written multiple works on ancient Macedon and is regarded an expert on the overall subject:

"Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émigrés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity [...] The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called ”Macedonia” for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation “Macedonia” and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival. ("Macedonia Redux", in "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity", ed. Frances B Tichener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999)

Save what Borza, et al. have said on this matter, even if, all we can say, about the Greek speaking people of Ancient Macedonia, is just that, there is no logical or rational justification to take a cognitive leap towards a proposition that the Ancient Macedonians have any relationship, whatsoever with the Slavs, of the FYROM. Dan, if you can demostrate rational cogitative steps, which would lead a critical thinker, even close to such a conclusion, I would be extremely interested.

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"Responding to Prof. Miller’s presentation on “Paeonia,” a name that the Greek government itself is not, I noted, putting forward, I commented on the growth of modern Macedonian ethnicity"

Dan, the current political position of the Sovereign Government of the Hellenic Republic is neither permanent, nor binding. There is no binding treatyin place between the two sovereign nations, in this respect. So, you can assert that the name "Paeonia" is not the present position of the Hellenic Republic. However, you can not say anything about what the current or future democratically elected Sovereign Government of the Hellenic Republic may or may not do. The current stance does not procludes the Sovereign Government of the Hellenic Republic from altering it in the near future. The Greek Government, unlike the Government of the FYROM is not playing games, such as holding Referendums to deal with this matter, in which a number of EU member states have already critisized the Government of the FYROM for using such chutzpah tactics. Please note, what is being discussed here is completely hypothetical, and should not be construed or misconstrued, in any way, shape or form, to represent positions or opinions of the Sovereign Government of the Hellenic Republic. These are completely my own pesonal opinions.

"The best recent historians of this topic seem to agree that the term “Macedonia” has been legitimate since around 1900 for the region now including the Republic of Macedonia, applying to the combined vilayets of Kosovo, Salonica and Monastir. The historians also record the vigilance of the neighboring states and of the Great Powers in suppressing Macedonian aspirations."

Dan, I would assert that historians have a very different slant on the historical ethnogenisis of the Slavic people of the FYROM, than what you are putting forward. If you intend making references to higher authorities, if you are to be taken seriously, you need to cite the references. You have not done, so in this instance, so once again very little weight, if any can be given to your assertion. A note, to those who are genuinely interested in learning about this phenomenon of ethnogenisis I suggest they go to their nearest major library and seek out and read as many books from as many authors, and then make up their mind. Just as a primer, see the following two excerpts:

"The political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity; they continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians rather than Macedonians. (“The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World", Princeton Univ. Press, December 1995, p.64)

Ferdinand Schevill, American professor of history:

"Although in some areas (of geographical Macedonia) the various groups were all inextricably intermingled, it is pertinent to point out that in other sections a given race decidedly predominated. In the southern districts, for instance, and more particularly along the coast, the Greeks, a city people given to trade, had the upper hand, while to the north of them the Slavs, peasants for the most part working the soil, held sway. These Slavs may properly be considered as a special “Macedonian” group, but since they were closely related to both Bulgars and Serbs and had, moreover, in the past been usually incorporated in either the Bulgar or Serb state, they inevitably became the object of both Bulgar and Serb aspirations and an apple of discord between these rival nationalities. As an oppressed people on an exceedingly primitive level, the Macedonian Slavs had as late as the congress of Berlin exhibited no perceptible national consciousness of their own. It was therefore impossible to foretell in what direction they would lean when their awakening came; in fact, so indeterminate was the situation that under favourable circumstances they might even develop their own particular Macedonian consciousness. ("History of the Balkans": From the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 1922, reprint 1991)

Dan Tompkins, you say:

"The historians also record the vigilance of the neighboring states and of the Great Powers in suppressing Macedonian aspirations. So Iconoclast’s argument is really with contemporary historians, some of whom are Greek."

Dan, stop creating sophistry these people that you call "Macedonian", considered themselves Bulgarians at the turn of the previous century. To attempt to say other wise is deliberately conflating the facts.

Dan, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the Slavs, of the FYROM, don't exist and should not be allowed equal rights of self-detemination, for this, self-evidently, be an oxymoron argument. However, when the citizens of the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, in their act of asserting their equal rights of self-determination to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights of self-determination of ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic who assert their equal rights to self-determination and to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje then we have a problem.

The Greeks do not want to impinge on the self-determination of another people, in any way, shape or form. However, there is one undeniable caveat that must apply, vis-a-vis, to both parties when the act of self-determination is asserted by any one party. The caveat being, that the party who asserts their equal right of self-determination can not in any way, shape, or form, diminish or make diminutive the equal right of self-determination of any other party. That is, each party, vis-a-vis, must have *equal rights*, which is exactly the wording used in the UN Charter [1]. So, any decision made, vis-a-vis, by one party that is inextricably connected, mutually dependent on, and affected by, the counter-party can *not* be made in a uni-lateral manner. Each party, vis-a-vis, must appreciate the sensibilities of their counter-party. It needs to understood that the Slavs, of the FYROM, are not the only ones who have equal rights to self-determination. The Greeks also have that equal right.

By the way Dan, one of your own ambassadors Henry Morgenthau so the region of Macedonia a lot different than what your making it out to be:

Henry Morgenthau, American politician, ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the First World War:

"The Greek War of Independence, which came to a successful conclusion in 1832, affected less than one half of the Greeks in the Turkish Empire. It did not bring freedom to the Greeks of Macedonia and Thrace, of Crete and the Aegean Islands, nor to the more than two million Greeks in Asia Minor and Constantinople […] When the Turks and the Bulgarians left, Macedonia remained a purely Greek region." ("I was sent to Athens", Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1929)

and

"Finally, Krste Misirkov, who had clearly developed a strong sense of his own personal national identity as a Macedonian and who outspokenly and unambiguously called for Macedonian linguistic and national separatism, acknowledged that a ‘Macedonian’ national identity was a relatively recent historical development. ("The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World”, Princeton Univ. Press, December 1995, p.63)

Dan Tompkins, you say:

" So Iconoclast’s argument is really with contemporary historians..."

Speaking for myself, Dan, if I may, so as to set the record straight. That is not what I would conclude, using my own analysis. So, Dan, since you have come to such a conclusion, please, go ahead, and share your reasoning with the rest of us. I'm sure we would all be quite interested.

"(For an analogous case of recent ethnic development, consider the Palestinians, who like Macedonians emerged from the Ottoman Empire and progressively established their identity. Rashid Khalidi is worth reading.)"

I shall do so. No doubt the the above reference will be a worthwhile read, and I do not wish to question its relevance to this matter, before having read it, however, I am somewhat skeptical of its analogical strength, save that, I shall keep an open mind.

"The recent development of Macedonian ethnicity is dismissed by some Greeks, who are justly proud of using the oldest, or perhaps second oldest (Chinese writing is debated) continuously used written language in the world. But it’s hard to see a strong historical argument for denying that the inhabitants of a region called Macedonia are Macedonian."

Dan, your argument is entirely fallaceous and inparticular your arguments exhibits the following fallacies:

1. The fallacy of ambiguity, specifically, the fallacy of equivication.

Your argument cunningly asserts the word "region", rather than the word "country" as a means of asserting claim on the entire region of Macedonia, rather than just the FYROM. This is completely unforgivable, if this was intentional. I am sorry, Dan, but you are loosing your credibility with me.

2. The fallacy of relevance, specifically, an appeal to the people.

You are attempting to arouse emotions, by making a sweeping fallaceous statement in an attemot to portray the Greek character in a "bad light". Your assertion is offensive to me, and most certainly, to the majority of Greeks.

3. The fallacy of relevance, specifically, a straw man fallacy

In particular, you have attempted to distort the argument and then attacks the distorted argument. Sorry, but that is *not* what the Greeks are arguing about, but rather we are arguing on the points as outlined in the above post http://archaeoastronomy.wordpress.com/2009/05/2..., dated 2009 June 15, and certainly not the above ludicrous and fallaceous assertion. I suggest interested parties read that post, although for convenience I have duplicated the argument below:

1. Present day inhabitants of a nation state are citizens of that nation state.
2. Citizens of a nation state have sovereign rights.
3. Citizens of a nation state have equal rights to self-determination.
4. Citizens of one nation state must not diminish in any way, shape, or form, the equal rights of self-determination of citizens of another nation state.
5. The Government and its citizens of a nation state must in no way support, particiapate in, and/or assist in any activities or propaganda that are deemed irridentist in nature to another nation state, and the Government of the nation state where such irredentist activity is taking place, must take all immediate steps to ensure that any such irredentist activity immediately ceases and desists against another nation state.
5. The citizens of the nation state of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have asserted their equal rights of self-determination and called themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but equally, a cohort of ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic have the equal rights of self-determination and to assert their rights to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje.
7. Therefore, in conclusion:

WHEREAS, the citizens of the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, in their act of asserting their equal rights of self-determination to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights of self-determination of ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic who assert their equal rights to self-determination and to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje;

WHEREAS, the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, by asserting their equal rights of self-determination to call their nation state by the appellation, the Republic of Macedonia, or simply, Macedonia, has instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights of self-determination of the ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje;

WHEREAS, the ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic, who through their domicile and/or place of birth in the Province of Macedonia of Northern Greece assert their equal rights to self-dertermination and call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje;

WHEREAS, the ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic, who assert their equal rights of self-determination to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage having no ethnic or cultral affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, also assert their equal rights and that they must not be disadvantaged in the international community, or international fora, by having their Hellenic character in any way, shape, or form, diminished or made diminutive by the act of another nation state.

WHEREAS, the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, by monopolising the name Macedonia, in all the ways that they have done so, have diminshed the equal rights of self-determination of the Government and citizens of the nation state of the Hellenic Republic.

WHEREAS, the Government of the the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, must cease and disist in the use of pedagogic material that exhibts psuedo-history that has been developed by the Government of the nation state, whose capital is Skopje, and in which this material is neither supported, nor recognised, by the leading international scientific and pedagogic communities.

WHEREAS, the Government and the citizens of the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, have shown by way of support, particiapation in, and/or assistance in activities or propaganda that are deemed irridentist in nature to the Government and the citizens of the nation state of the Hellenic Republic, and the Government of the nation state, whose capital is Skopje, where such irredentist activity is taking place, has not taken all immediate steps to ensure that any such irredentist activity immediately ceases and desists against the nation state of the Hellenic Republic.

The Greeks do not want to impinge on the self-determination of another people, in any way, shape or form. However, there is one undeniable caveat that must apply, vis-a-vis, to both parties when the act of self-determination is asserted by any one party. The caveat being, that the party who asserts their equal right of self-determination can not in any way, shape, or form, diminish or make diminutive the equal right of self-determination of any other party. That is, each party, vis-a-vis, must have *equal rights*, which is exactly the wording used in the UN Charter [1]. So, any decision made, vis-a-vis, by one party that is inextricably connected, mutually dependent on, and affected by, the counter-party can *not* be made in a uni-lateral manner. Each party, vis-a-vis, must appreciate the sensibilities of their counter-party. It needs to understood that the Slavs, of the FYROM, are not the only ones who have equal rights to self-determination. The Greeks also have the same equal rights.

Just like a Texan, is both a pround Texan and a proud American, equally I am a proud Macedonian and a proud Hellene (Greek). And no one, has the right to deny me of my God given right to self-determine myself as a Hellene (Greek) and a Macedonian, not you Dan Tompkins, not the Slavs, of the newly established nation of the FYROM, nor anybody else. I will not let it happen.

Kiro Velkovski,

I want to remind you that in your act of asserting your equal rights of self-determination to call yourself by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, you have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights of self-determination of ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Republic who assert their equal rights to self-determination and to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, but simply, Macedonian of Greek heritage, having no ethnic or cultural affinity or ties whatsoever with the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje.

You forget that in the UN charter it says, *equal rights* and not just *uni-lateral rights* to self-determination. For there to be equal rights, the Slavs, of the FYROM, can not ignore the equal rights of the Greeks, when in their act of asserting their equal rights to self-determination, the Slavs, of the FYROM, have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights to self-determination of the Greeks.

Kiro Velkovski, you seem to believe that you, for some reason have more rights than the Greeks to the equal rights of self-determination.

Aleksandar,

you say:

"I can see that you are a well educated person, but to me, you just serve as a proof of the concept that by using logic every assertion can be “proved”."

I respectfully beg to disagree with you, the purpose of logical and critical thinking is to uncover fallacies of thinking. Logic is a science with firm mathematical foundations. To deny this, is to deny all that which science and archeology is founded on. I, would hope that you are not suggesting this fallacy, Aleksandar.

Clearly we will continue to disagree. We Macedonians, who are also Greeks. The Sun Burst symbol, the Vergina, of the Greek speaking of Ancient Macedonia, will continue to cherish our history.

Alexandar, you are most welcomed to value the Sun Burst symbol, the Vergina, of the Greek speaking Ancient Macedonians, if you so desire.

Alexandar,

you say:

"And, I am sure that you must be aware that before 1913 Greece did not have any part of Macedonia."

You appear to have been reading to many books that are written and printed in your country. I suggest, if you wish to know what happened during the period of the Ottoman Empire, you read a history book that is written by an un-biased scholar outside of your country, and then come back and ask that question again.

Aleksandar, you are exhibiting the fallacy of ambiguity, specifically, the fallacy of equivocation, specifically, you are confusing the word "Region" for the word "Country". There was only a region of Macedonia during Ottoman period, so you question has no meaning and relevance.

"How come, suddenly after 100 years the Greeks are Macedonians?"

Its called the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 against the Ottoman Empire, where the Greeks fought alongside the Serbs and the Bulgars to gain their freedom from the Turks. The Province of Macedonia of Northern Greece is the land that the Greeks won from the Turks, that is why we now have Macedonia. I don't blame you Aleksandar, you have only learnt what was taught to you in your school. What was taught to you was simply propaganda, manufactured psuedo-history, in which no one else in the world believes that is learned in this epoch of Balkan history. Its really unfortunate that you have been misled this way.

" As for the atrocities, they happen, when you attack a people they will defend, what do you expect?"

Aleksandar, I think I have already addressed this emotive point. Your exemplar of the world is different and non-overlapping with my exemplar of the world. I really recommend you read some of the works of the Philosopher Thomas Samuel Kuhn to truly understand your fallacy of thinking.

The sunburst of Kutles is a Macedonian symbol which the Macedonians today living in the Republic of Macedonia have every right to use, as have the Greeks living in the northern Greece if they identify truly with it. the fact that you do not accept me as a Macedonian is not my problem, it rests on your shoulders.

"And, I will remind you that the whole slavic settlement theory rests on very shaky grounds scientifically."

Yes, Aleksandar but the current archeological evidence supports the slavic settlement hypothesis. It may be an inconvenience to you, because it precludes you from asserting your ties to the Greek speaking people of Ancient Macedonia, but science is a tough task master.

" Furthermore, even if the settlements happened as it is claimed, the slavic tribes fused with the ancient Macedonians. So, Macedonians today have every right to the ancient heritage. As the Greeks have the right to the ancient Greek heritage."

Aleksandar, as I have said, you are fully in your rights to value the Ancient Macedonian heritage, but the current evidence supports the case that the Greek speaking people of Ancient Macedonia were in the very much centered in the Greek sphere. As I have already said the Macedonians were a part of the Greek subset, so Macedonian = Spartan = Greek, so were of course have the right to the ancient Macedonians, Spartans, Athenians, Theban, etc, , you get the picture.

Aleksandar, the law of parsimony states that any theory or explanation, as logicians insist, must save the appearances, that is, be fit, have systematic honesty, have standards, have clarity, have scope and is adaptable and open. That is to say, theories, even most inclusive ones, even paradigms must stand or fall with whether they provide an account for what any “fool” can plainly see, and if the theory and the appearances are at odds, then the theory gives way, and the appearances trumps. The law of parsimony currently supports the case that the Greek speaking people of Ancient Macedonia were Greek.

" And lastly, a question. The ancients worshiped the Olympic pantheon. Today’s Greeks are orthodox. I might claim on that basis that you are not of the lineage of the ancient Greeks."

Aleksandar, logic is very important to be able to think clearly. You have just demonstrated the importance of logic, and you should not have dismissed it they way you did, because you just exhibited the fallacy of presumption, specifically begging the question. How did you make that cogitative leap from your premise to your conclusion? Aleksandar, your argument is not valid or strong.

Aleksandar, being able to think critically you have to try as hard as possible to throw away all past beliefs or assumptions, and be skeptical about all around you. When you move closer to this point, then you can begin to think critically and Know Your Self.

Nope, I didn't. Self-declare yourself as you wish. But, not a single Macedonian self-declares as such in Greece (my fellow Macedonians are not allowed, your fellow Greek Macedonians do not want to). Check the censuses. And, you connect my self-declaration to a "nation state, whose capital city is Skopje" and yours to a Macedonian of Greek heritage i.e. you are self-declared as a citizen of nation state, whose capital is Athens. When you put the things that way, it immediately clears up - you are connected to Athens and you feel Greek, I am connected to Skopje and I feel Macedonian. QED

"The law of parsimony currently supports the case that the Greek speaking people of Ancient Macedonia were Greek."

No it really doesn't. Language is important, but it is not the defining feature of ethnicity as the modern Balkans would show. The equation between language and peoples is also being thrown out in archaeology. There's very few Iron Age archaeologists in the UK or Ireland who would say the Celts were in the islands precisely because language is not ethnicity. What makes the ancient Macedonians more Greek is the variety of other evidence from archaeology, but this is ambiguous.

Traditional histories say that the Greeks colonised Chalkidike around the 8th century BC. They are said to have have stuck to the peninsulas because of the tribe living in the interior. It's a similar tale for colonisations elsewhere, which would suggest there was a strong divide between Greek and non-Greek. I'm not so sure about this. The histories we have are written centuries later from the points of view of specific Greek cities. In the case of Athenian history it would be useful to think of the inhabitants of Chalkidike as non-Greek as it would help justify the settlement of the area, at least to other Greeks. However, the archaeological record shows that there's evidence for exchange of material between Chalkidike and southern Greece long before the colonisation moment back further into the Iron Age and Bronze Age. So you have archaeologists like John Papadopoulos pointing out that the historical record is not the last word on ancient ethnicity or culture.

Where does this leave ancient Macedonia? I think in other places you can see a process of intentional Hellenisation around the Mediterranean around the mid-seventh to sixth centuries. Settlements beyond the Peloponnese make a very strong point of emphasising how Greek they are at this time, and Macedonia could be doing the same. Borza (click on 'Who were the Macedonians') says that there's good reason to argue that around this time the Macedonians too were becoming Hellenised. Equally when Macedonia takes control of Greece there's an argument to be made about to what extent it is Macedonianised. The conquest is more or less the dividing point between the Classical and Hellenistic periods in Greek history. There is no one defining point where we can say what is exactly ancient Greek or ancient Macedonian. Once you get past that Greek history becomes much more dynamic and interesting.

It's also worth pointing out tha Borza (p. 97 in the same book) is firmly against applying discussions of ancient ethnicity into the modern world.

The victors write the history. Iconoclast, I can not convince you of my viewpoints. It is not a matter of which books I read, I simply know that my grandmother lived in what is today northern Greece at the time of the Balkan wars, as did her mother in the times before that. They declared themselves Macedonian, and they spoke the Macedonian language (not Greek). It is true that those regions were a mix of nationalities (if such a term is valid for descriptions back then), but in the Aegean Macedonia back then the Macedonians were a major group, if not the majority. It is only after the Hellenization and the relocation of people after 1913, the renaming of the places (1922) and finally the events from 1949 that the Macedonians there are now a minority. This is finalised by the Greek strategy to rename the northern provinces to East, Central and West Macedonia and Greeks there started to call themselves Macedonians from the end of the 80's when it became clear that an independent Macedonian state is about to form. The aim of this is abundantly clear. There are written documents to prove this, and Dan is also mentioning the facts. As far as I have read your reply to him, you do not have evidence to corroborate your rebuttal of his claims. This policy of purging the Macedonians has continued, and not only they are not recognized in Greece, but as can be seen from your comments, it repulses you to even say their proper name. The analogy with Texas is beside the point, in our case we have people who were indigenous to the place and are now forced to erase their identity by settlers who want to be Macedonian and Greek... As for historical texts, this whole issue is product of a fine tuned propaganda. If as I have said in 1912 the Macedonians were allowed to have their state as Greece and Bulgaria helped by Russia and UK were allowed to in the 19-th century, this issue would not have existed now. The whole problem stems from there, and not from ancient history. It is simply a conquest and a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing that continues to this day and now culminates in a never before recorded policy of blackmail and threats for a nation to change its name.

So, let us end this discussion; enough has been said so far, so that every reader can draw its own conclusions. I know that you are going to respond to this, but this is my last comment here. Take care.

Iconoclast provides 4400+ words responding to me. mega biblion is not always mega kakon (“a big book … a big evil”) but wordiness does reduce readership. I’ll respond as briefly as I can. Unless some truly novel point comes up, this will be my last post on the topic.

“you can not assert is that your proposition is logically stronger and more cogent “

Dan: no. I just gave my arguments to a group of professionals. So far, they’ve responded positively.

"the best contemporary scholarship on history of ancient ethnicities". What you consider "best" in the exemplar you align yourself with, does not necessarily map to "best" in Professor Millers and the remaining 250+Classical Scholars exemplar. History is founded on science, …”

Wow. A mini-lecture on scientific method and static apriorism. Iconoclast might have done better to write less and read more, for instance in the sources and arguments that I provided and he ignores about ethnic formation, and to have noted that I warned Prof. Miller he was on a bad scholarly track three months ago.

“Greece has had, and still has her arm extended and her hand opened.”

In some ways that is very true and commendable. But important issues remain. The Greek foreign ministry continues to assert as a matter of faith that there are no ethnic minorities in Greece, for instance; and there is the NATO veto, etc.

“neighbouring nation state may become a proxy, that is a pawn,…” for hostile powers

True enough but exactly how this might work remains very vague. It was that vagueness that crippled many arguments of the Greek govt in the 1990s (see Zahariadis’, JMGS, 1996: “these claims were tenuous and implicit and … depended on a chain reaction of events that was neither clear nor probable”

In the meantime, Athenian anarchists are reportedly getting arms from Albanian sources, not the Macedonians who are regularly put forward as Mormo figures.

“… Ottoman census reports, [do] not support your argument. I am a little perplexed, what is your point anyway?”

My point was that many in the Republic of Macedonia had ancestors who lived in what is now Greek Macedonia. They did not leave for tourism.

All census reports are done by governments and often – since the time of Maccabees – serve the interests of governments. That is one reason the numbers in censuses of Macedonia seem unreliable to historians like Livanios (pp. 6 on the Ottoman census of 1904, and 25 on the unreliable Greek census of 1928).

Note that Zahariadis 1994, after reporting reasons for Greek concern about the new state to the north, suggests that one worthwhile response would be to recognize the ethnic minority population within Greek borders, possibly with a census. The Greek government has still not done this.

[On population shifts since 1913] “your agenda with regards to this entire issue. Your attempt to create the appearance of good-guy/bad-guy narrative,…”

It is unclear what Iconoclast disputes here: I mentioned the “forceful suppression” of Slavic Macedonians in Greece, mentioning a Greek source. Iconoclast might, as a scholar, look up the source and dispute it. I mentioned the 1982 law limiting return to “Greeks by genos,” with more detail in my underlying letter:

http://astro.temple.edu/~pericles/Letter.htm

In short, Iconoclast provides many adjectives but ignores the evidence.

“Alexander the Great was within the Greek sphere.”

I don’t disagree. The question is, in what way? Was it the “linear” relationship that the Greek scholar Triandafyllidou disparages? Was it the hostile relationship envisaged in the 1837 founding document of the Greek Archaeological Service? Alexander the Great would require a special essay, which is one reason I did not deal with him. I’m glad to see that Iconoclast takes Borza, a whipping boy on this issue since 1992, as an authority.

“there is no logical or rational justification to take a cognitive leap towards a proposition that the Ancient Macedonians have any relationship, whatsoever with the Slavs,”

which is one reason I did not.


[on “Paeonia”] “you can not say anything about what the current or future democratically elected Sovereign Government of the Hellenic Republic may or may not do.”

Of course not. But using the term “Paeonia” will not advance any cause.


“on the historical ethnogenisis of the Slavic people of the FYROM,... If you intend making references to higher authorities, if you are to be taken seriously, you need to cite the references.”

I provided references, and Iconoclast ignored them. See the “Letter.” I have no dispute with the quotation he provides from Danforth


“stop creating sophistry; these people that you call ‘Macedonian,’ considered themselves Bulgarians at the turn of the previous century. To attempt to say other wise is deliberately conflating the facts.”

I repeat, that great powers and neighbors had every reason to deny Macedonian identity, and that the evidence appears to be that the sense of identity expanded in the 20th century, largely, as Mazower says, due to the “combined idiocies” of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria.

“I don't think that anyone is arguing that the Slavs, of the FYROM, don't exist …. when the citizens of the nation state, whose capital city is Skopje, in their act of asserting their equal rights of self-determination to call themselves by the appellation of simply, Macedonian, [they] have instantaneously, inextricably, and demonstrably diminished the equal rights of self-determination of ethnic Greek citizens of the Hellenic Repbulic… then we have a problem”

Noone holds a franchise on the name “Macedonian.“ Some people on both sides claim it is “holy.” So they don’t like it when others use it. But there is no evidence that the inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia aim to prevent any use of the term “Macedonian” in Greece, which is what the extremist language (“diminished… rights of self-determination”) claims. Danforth, cited by Iconoclast, has already made this point. That Henry Morgenthau described “Macedonia” as a “purely Greek region” in 1929, a year after the Greek census showed the opposite, tells us more about how Great Powers regarded the Balkans than about territory itself.

I have no dispute with Loring Danforth’s finding that “Krste Misirkov, who had clearly developed a strong sense of his own personal national identity as a Macedonian and who outspokenly and unambiguously called for Macedonian linguistic and national separatism, acknowledged that a ‘Macedonian’ national identity was a relatively recent historical development.” That is indeed part of my point about ethnogenesis.

“Your argument cunningly asserts the word "region", rather than the word "country" as a means of asserting claim on the entire region of Macedonia, rather than just the FYROM. This is completely unforgivable, if this was intentional.”

No cunning involved. The three vilayets – Salonika, Monastir and Kosovo – that made up the region “Macedonia” from the early 1900s onward (see Livanios) were not a country until 1991.

I am criticizing not the “Greek character” which Iconoclast says he represents, but arguments by the Greek government and some partisans.

Iconoclast presents a numbered list of claims the point of which is that people who think of themselves as Macedonians and live in a region long called Macedonia may not call their state by the name, Macedonia, because this some how damages citizens of the Greek province of Macedonia. Iconoclast throws in the dread term, “irredentism,” without a word about the form irredentism might take, and without considering that continued condescension and hostility will spur, not reduce, irredentist fervor in the state to the north.

Iconoclast claims that the Republic of Macedonia is “monopolising the name.” That would require denying the right of others to use the word – which is the opposite of what’s happened. Noone I know in the Republic of Macedonia “denies” any Greek of his or her “God given right to self-determine myself as a Hellene (Greek) and a Macedonian.”

Indeed, I shall say right now that I believe Iconoclast is probably a Macedonian (since we don’t know who he or she is, we cannot be sure). That’s a good thing. But it has never been at issue.

Apologies for the typos and errors above. The most important is, I think:

" The three vilayets – Salonika, Monastir and Kosovo – that made up the region “Macedonia” from the early 1900s onward (see Livanios) were not a country until 1991."

which should be:

" The three vilayets – Salonika, Monastir and Kosovo – made up the region “Macedonia” from the early 1900s onward (see Livanios); the Republic of Macedonia, formed parts of these vilayets, was not a country until 1991."

Mr Kiro Velkovski

I will stay to this one:
Both Phillip II and Alexander the Macedonian used the ancient Greek language for diplomatic, trade and administrative purposes. It seems to have been an act of political expediency. The use of the Greek language for these purposes cannot be used to support the claim that ethno-culturally the ancient Macedonians were Greek, any more than the official use of English, French and Portuguese in many countries in Africa can be used to claim that the inhabitants of these countries are thereby of English, French and Portuguese origin.

So you believe that Macedonians speaking and whiting Greek, only for for
diplomatic, trade and administrative purposes!!!!
I wonder why all the others like Persians,Syrians, Egyptians, Thracians, Romans , identify them as Greeks until today.
End where is the original language you talking about???
Its obvious that you are confuse, you cant explain that Ancient Makedonians speaking and writing in Greek, Had Greek names, build city s with Greek names..
Little History lessons:
In 324 BC Philip B fought the Dardanias and built the city Iraklia there are ruins -and-beyond Monastery today, to counter their attacks.
Near the town was Iraklia villages Styvira, Vrychida, Athakos, Vrygias, Meliti.
Earliest where is now the town of Ohrid, was the ancient Greek town or Ligkistis Lichnitis or Lichnidos. The Ligkistes argue that descendants of Vakchiadon of Corinth.
One of the kings of was the Arravaios the daughter of Eurydice, the married Amyntas III, father of Philip II (father of Alexander the Great).
The Dardanos was from Arcadia
But the Dardania, over current Skopje and the Greek cities of Monastir, Gevgeli, the valley between Axios and Moravia - the Dardania, located just before the Roman-era was created by the descendants of Dardania, son of Electra and Arcades Zeus, who fled from Arcadia. From there he went to disasters due to Samothrace and then moved to the area near Troy. From this came the name of the Dardanelles.Capital of Dardania was Scoupoi.(Scopje)
To add the first expedition of Alexander the Great, in the north up to the Danube, and that seriously injured in return, from the Paionon ambush near today borders in Florina;
The term Makednon nation is the concept of gender and
course refers to the Macedonian Greeks Dorians, from Argos.
The word "Macedonia" is Greek a word that itself the ethnic Greeks indigenous geographical Macedonia. If you think you and others who Slavomakedonians itself in Slavic languages as Makentotsi you can steal the Macedonian history of this place using Greek terms you kid yourself.

(...at this point the comment wanders into the realm of everything that's wrong with non-Greek Macedonians in modern history for another 600 words, so I've trimmed it. Alun)

First Macedonian republic was established on August 2nd, 1944 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASNOM and its Manifesto (in Macedonian) hails first liberated Macedonian state http://mk.wikibooks.org/wiki/МАНИФЕСТ_НА_АСНОМ_... . It transferred parts of its sovereignty to Yugoslav Federation. If you see the composition of Yugoslavia before and after the war, the first nation that emerged with its own republic was exactly Macedonian. My grandfather was a partisan fighter in Skopje Brigade from the middle of 1941.
WWII for Macedonians was a liberation war. Not only against Germans, Bulgarians, Albanians, but also against Serb occupation.

Some more documents in English http://www.cecl.gr/RigasNetwork/databank/REPORT...

I'm sorry Mr moderator.
But deleting my post means is unacceptable for me...
So i have to leave from conversation.
Thanks for hospitality anyway.

Hm, I would just want to ask if Alun has had a chance to read the paper about Kokino. I am concerned the link might have escaped the host's attention among all of these comments. He is probably regretting posting this toppic by now :) I am really curious about your comments on the paper Alun...

And with that I'm closing comments on this thread. I assume Anastasios didn't have time to read all the comments above which is why he's skipped the whole 'when it is appropriate to support modern nationalistic claims with ancient history?' discussion. I can't say I blame him. I'm busy with other things including my own research. I've got limited time to respond to mini-essays and give them the attention they deserve. At the same time I don't want to leave people putting a lot of effort in writing responses and then ignoring them.

To clarify my own position, I think the way Prof. Miller handles ethnicity is not helpful. I don't think it would be fair to say his letter was intended as a definitive statement on the subject, but I think his approach of categorising Macedonians as either Greek or non-Greek is not suited to a historical view of the topic. It might work as a snapshot of time, but not of something that changes over centuries.

I also think that applying classical ethnicities directly onto the modern world and ignoring the intervening centuries is not a sound basis for political action, by either side. The modern world is not the classical world and somewhere choices will have to be made about which classical traits are relevant and which are not. When you do that you're saying more about the modern world than its classical roots. Modern frameworks are anachronistic if what you're interested in is the ancient world.

You're welcome to disagree with me, and add your signature to Prof Miller's letter. However, I hope the above makes it clear there are historical rather than nationalistic reasons why I will not, regardless of seeing some friends on the list. It might mean I disagree with some thoughtful and intelligent people, but that's what ancient historians do. Research journals are full of people discussing ideas and disagreeing with other historians opinions.

That's what disturbs me about some of the statements on Macedonian ethnicity. Not that people disagree with me, but that some people find the mere possibility of another opinion unacceptable. That's why I'm not happy that I'm closing this thread, but we've moved to the stage where we're getting reiterations of the same arguments. It's a shame because I've learned a lot from both sides.

If I return to the subject of ancient Greek ethnicity (and that's very likely) I'll try and email everyone who's participated above so they can criticise whatever else I write. And there'll be plenty to criticise because I think I'll be going out on a limb with some of my ideas.

My thanks to everyone above who's contributed.

Update: It looks like my spam bin swallowed one of Iconoclast's further comments. The discussion continues at Modern Macedonian History.