Greek Art --- the evolution in editions
John Prodromidis
Radeff (rad...@aol.com) wrote on Oct/8:
\
> John Boardman was born in 1927 and educated at ...... He spent
> several years in Greece, three of them as Asst. Director of the
> British School of Archaeology at Athens and he excavated in Smyr-
> na, Crete, Chios and Libya......
>
> 4)1996 Greek Art [by] *Sir* John Boardman Published by Thames
> and Hudson in London
>
> Index under the letter M begins with ***Macedonia*** for the
> total of 11 pages
>
> Figure 192 Purple and gold cloth from the tomb of Philip II at
> Vergina .....
>
> There are more figures from the tomb.
>
> As in the 1985 edition his vita is included with the addition
> of Sir to his name.
OK Nada.
I will reply based solely on the information you provide, which
will tell you something about my trust in you.
> Now can a very pertinent question be asked here. What took him
> so long?
To publish the photograph? Perhaps, permission from the excavator,
and waiting for the oucome of the
scholarly analysis.
To be knighted? The lenght of the Queen's list.
> One more query - Did they settle the name issue or is this
> literary license?
This is the wrong question:
The name-issue concerns the appellation of a political
administation in the Balkans. It does not mean the ancient
Macedonians were not Greeks, nor that we cannot say that
they were. Settlement of the latter does not rest of the
talks of the governments of Greece and FYROM, but rather
with the historians: and from what you posted, it seems that
Boardman qualifies.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John Prodromidis
Radeff (rad...@aol.com (Radeff) wrote yesterday:
>
> > > John Boardman was born in 1927 and educated at ...... He spent
> > > several years in Greece, three of them as Asst. Director of the
> > > British School of Archaeology at Athens and he excavated in
> > >
> > > 4)1996 Greek Art [by] *Sir* John Boardman Published by Thames
> > > and Hudson in London
> > >
> > > Index under the letter M begins with ***Macedonia*** for the
> > > total of 11 pages
> > >
> > > Figure 192 Purple and gold cloth from the tomb of Philip II at
> > > Vergina .....
> > >
> > > There are more figures from the tomb.
> > >
> > > As in the 1985 edition his vita is included with the addition
> > > of Sir to his name.
> >
> > OK Nada.
> > I will reply based solely on the information you provide, which
> > will tell you something about my trust in you.>>
>
Good.
> > > Now can a very pertinent question be asked here. What took him
> > > so long?
> >
> > To publish the photograph? Perhaps, permission from the excavator,
> > and waiting for the outcome of the
> > scholarly analysis.
> >
> > To be knighted? The length of the Queen's list.
>
> No, what took him so long to add Macedonia to his text? For 42 years,
> he ignored Macedonia and in some editions stated revised and expanded.
> On the 43rd year, he discovered Macedonia in Greece. Isn't this amazing?
Tell me, Nada, what was known, archaeologically, about Macedonia and the
ancient macedonian art, 42 or even 20 years ago?
What was the mass of evidence to warrant conclusions and making any gene-
ralisations -even among the sceptics and concervative (as many historians
ought to be)- to begin with?
> To be fair to Sir Boardman, he is not the only one to revise and expand
> through decades and then "see the light" by adding Macedonia to his
> findings.
Because we now know more.
It is a matter of archaeological findings, let's face it. In that sense
M.Andronikos's discovery and (indeed) impressive presentation paved the
way, and now we start getting the fruits of these labors.
> > > One more query - Did they settle the name issue or is this
> > > literary license?
> >
> > This is the wrong question:
> > The name-issue concerns the appellation of a political
> > administration in the Balkans. It does not mean the ancient
> > Macedonians were not Greeks, nor that we cannot say that
> > they were. Settlement of the latter does not rest of the
> > talks of the governments of Greece and FYROM, but rather
> > with the historians: and from what you posted, it seems that
> > Boardman qualifies.
>
> This is not the wrong question.
OK Nada. If you say so... :-)
>
> This is the crux of the entire matter and/or issue that we spend
> all of our time debating in this forum.
We talk about the past, and we also talk modern politics, etc.
The specialists in the field, however, can draw their conclusions
about the ancients. That is independent of our talks here. That is why I
said it is a different issue.
> I have the opportunity to see more than a lot of you here in regards to
> literary materials. Its no rocket science to see the lay of the land by
> comparing the editions of the same works.
:-) Because science advances Nada.
> Its stinks. It smacks of unfair usage. Its my personal opinion.
>
That is biased and, I dare say, even a sign of close-mindedness. You
can not stop the scientific field from learning more about the ancients.
simply because this contradicts a certain preconception you have
inherited!
> I would feel the same if it involved any other nation, too.
> So if we are all Macedonians, why keep this fire going?
"" """
:-)
But to answer your question: Because we don't know how to accommodate
and live with the other, to the degree that some fanatically rather stick
to a baseless mythohistory and take issue with the historians, the
carriers of the message.
> Whats in the pot at the end of the rainbow? Here is the bottom line -due
> to the denial by some of our (ROM) roots, the alliance with those who
> would support our annihilation, and mass ignorance on some parts, this
> issue will rage forever.
> No, Boardman and others like him are not allowed my acceptance or
> admiration. Its my own opinion. Its another foray into a sense of sadness
> for I did truly enjoy his previous editions of Greek art.
>
> HRA
My first reaction would be to say that this is so uncharacteristic of you.
George Baloglou
In article <8766962...@dejanews.com> jpr...@essex.ac.uk
(John Prodromidis) writes:
>Radeff (rad...@aol.com (Radeff) wrote yesterday:
[deleted]
I cannot believe it: Hope/Nada Aldrich/Radeff transplanted in
soc.culture.greek by John Prodromidis the Intrepid! I had noticed
the thread in alt.news.macedonia, but didn't find the time to respond;
John's response suffices, of course, but here is what I have to say:
Nada and everybody else, please let go of the notion that Greece, and
foreign scholars (!!!) as well, were afraid of the term "Macedonia"
until 1990 and then they, somehow, started using it frantically: this
line of attack simply defeats your purpose and discredits you, especially
in the eyes of those who knew of Thessaloniki's newspaper "Macedonia"
(1911-1995), for example.
[Especially for Ms. Aldrich: built your case, *if you can*, based not on one,
but several publications (on Greek art, Macedonian monuments and inscriptions
and all that); and since you will not be able to do that, why don't you find
a copy of pro-Bulgarian Albert Sonnichsen's book "Confessions of a Macedonian
Bandit" (discussed here not too long ago) and tell us where and how the author
erred (in characterizing the comitadjis and their supporters as Bulgarians,
for example) ... or go and find, powerful librarian as you are, a copy of
Michel Paillares' "L' imbroglio Macedonien" (for a description of early 20th
century Macedonia that you are going to like even less) and enlighten us all?]
Back to Macedonian art and archeology: I suppose that the discoveries of
the 70's were critical enough to attract attention, but, of course, other
antiquities such as the palace in Pella and its mosaics (which I frequently
visited as a child) must have also attracted the scholars' interest and I am
sure that have been discussed in a number of books; did their authors refrain
from saying that the palace was in Macedonia? Just curious! [And just another
project for Nada ...]
For the time being, I am re-posting one of Professor Manolis Andronikos'
very last articles that is of some relevance here (my translation):
"H ADEKASTH ISTORIA" "THE IMPARTIAL HISTORY"
tou Mavoln Avdrovikou by Manolis Andronikos
TO BHMA, 25 Augoustou 1991 "Vima", 8/25/91
Nees Epoxes / Tmnma B
selida B.4 p. B4
(ar8ro A, stnles 3 kai 4)
Eivai loipov dyskolo, av oxi It is indeed difficult, if
adyvato, va ftasoume se miav not impossible, to arrive at an
istorikn ektimnsn adekastn, akomn impartial view of History, even
kai stnv periptwsn twv pio apoma- in the case of the most distant
krysmevwv gegovotwv, akomn kai av events, even if there seems to be
dev faivetai va yparxei opoiadn- no interaction between them and
pote sxesn avamesa stov istoriko the historian. The most recent
kai s'ayta. To pio prosfato para- example, one that corroborates
deigma, pou epibebaiwvei tnv or8o- the validity of this thesis, is
tnta tns apopsns autns, mas to provided by two works of History
prosferouv dyo istorika erga pou that have just been published.
molis kyklofornsav. Prokeitai gia They are both concerned with the
dyo istories tns Makedovias, gram- History of Macedonia, and are
meves apo egkyrous istorikous. H written by recognized historians.
prwtn exei titlo "In the Shadow The first one is titled "In the
of Olympus. The Emergence of Shadow of Olympus. The Emergence
Macedon", Princeton 1990, kai syg- of Macedon", Princeton 1990, and
grafeas tns eivai o Eugene Borza, is authored by Eugene Borza,
ka8ngntns sto Pennsylvania State professor at the Pennsylvania State
University. H deutern exei titlo University. The second one is titled
"The Miracle that was Macedonia", "The Miracle that was Macedonia",
London 1991, kai eivai grammevn London 1991, and has been written
apo tov gvwsto agglo istoriko by the well known British historian
N.G.L.Hammond, syggrafea tou mvn- N.G.L. Hammond, author of the
meiwdous tritomou ergou monumental three-volume treatise
"A History of Macedonia". "A History of Macedonia".
O avagvwstns tou ergou tou The reader of E.Borza's book
E.Borza aifvidiazetai otav sto is taken aback upon encountering,
prwto kefalaio, pou exei ws 8ema in the first chapter (devoted to
tnv istoria tns makedovikns isto- the history of the historiography
riografias, syvavta eva ypokefa- on Macedonia), a sub-chapter titled
laio me titlo "Makedovikes spou- "Macedonian Studies and
des kai to `Makedoviko Zntnma'", the `Macedonian Question'",
opou o syggrafeas avaferetai stn where the author refers to
sygxrovn istoria tns Makedovias, Macedonia's recent history, its
stnv apeleu8erwsn tns, stov emfy- liberation, the Greek civil war and
lio polemo tns Ellados kai stis our neighbors' claims, centered on
diekdiknseis twv geitovwv mas, me Thessaloniki. That this inserted
epikevtro tn 8essalovikn. Oti sub-chapter has nothing to do with
auto to embolimo ypokefalaio dev either the history of Ancient
exei sxesn oute me tnv istoria Macedonia (the subject of the book)
tns arxaias Makedovias (pou eivai or the history of the Macedonian
to 8ema tou bibliou), alla oute historiography is evident. (Later
kai me tnv istoria tns istoriogra- on, the reader is to be surprised
fias tns Makedovias eivai prodnlo by the author's information on
(argotera 8a ekplagei o avagvw- <Greek President> K. Karamanlis'
stns me tnv plnroforia tou syggra- interest in the excavations in
fea gia to evdiaferov tou K.Kara- Macedonia.)
mavln gia tis ereuves stn Makedo-
via).
Bebaia o Borza eivai sobaros Borza is certainly an earnest
istorikos kai 3erei va tekmnri- historian and he knows how to
wvei tis apopseis tou diatnrwvtas document his views maintaining a
mia kritikn stasn, wste va pei8ei critical approach, so that the
tov avagvwstn oti epidiwkei kai reader is convinced that he seeks
ftavei stnv istorikn avtikeimevi- and attains historical objectivity.
kotnta. Etsi kleivovtas to kefa- So, concluding chapter 4, titled
laio 4, pou exei titlo "Poioi "Who were the Macedonians?", he
ntav oi Makedoves;" grafei: writes:
"Eivai kalytera va apofeugoume ws "As an ethnic question it is
e8viko problnma tnv erwtnsn, afou best avoided, since the
oi sygxroves kyriws apnxnseis mainly modern political over-
(overtones) teivouv va syskoti- tones tend to obscure the
souv to gegovos oti dev exei pra- fact that is really not a
gmatika snmasia. Oti mporei va very important issue. They
ntav h va mnv ntav Ellnves sto may or may not have been
syvolo h s' eva meros tous... dev Greeks in whole or in part...
eivai kairio gia tnv katavonsn is really not crucial to
tns istorias tous... H apodoxn our understanding of their
(apo tous Makedoves) kapoiwv apo- history... Their adoption of
psewv tou Ellnvismou gia makro some aspects of Hellenism
xroviko diastnma eivai pio snma- over a long period of time
vtiko apo tn gevetikn domn eite is more important than the
tou makedovikou pln8ysmou gevika genetic structure of either
eite tns basilikns oikogeveias the Macedonian population or
eidikotera". their royal house in particu-
lar". <p.96>
Autn n taxa vnfalia diatypw- This ostensibly distanced
sn erxetai se avti8esn me tnv epi- wording is at odd terms with his
movn prospa8eia tou va aporripsei persistent effort to reject every
ka8e pngn pou bebaiwvei tnv elln- single source that attests to the
vikotnta twv Makedovwv h estw tou Greekness of the Macedonians or
basilikou oikou twv Makedovwv, even just that of their royal
pou aperifrasta martyrouv o Hrodo- house, undeniably affirmed by
tos ki o Hsiodos. Kai otav eivai Herodotus and Hesiod. And when he
ypoxrewmevos va avtimetwpisei tnv has to face the unshakeable
adiapseustn martyria twv epigra- testimony of the Vergina epigraphs,
fwv tns Bergivas, pou bebaiwvouv confirming that, by the end of 5th
pws apo ta teln toulaxistov tou century at the latest, Macedonians
5ou aiwva oi Makedoves exouv elln- had Greek names, he footnotes:
vika ovomata, grafei se yposnmei- "This argument (of Andronikos)
wsn: "To epixeirnma (tou Avdrovi- is true enough only as far
kou) eivai arketa aln8ivo mexri as it goes. It neglects
to snmeio auto. Dev ypologizei o that the hellenization of
e3ellnvismos twv Makedovwv mporei the Macedonians might have
va egive evwritera apo tnv epoxn occured earlier than the age
tou Filippou kai tou Ale3avdrou of Philip and Alexander, and
kai epomevws dev mporei va xrnsi- cannot therefore serve as a
meusei gia va apodei3ei oti oi means of proving that the
Makedoves ntav mia ellnvikn fyln". Macedonians were a Greek
tribe". <p.91, n.29>
Gia to idio auto 8ema o On this same topic, N.G.L.
N.G.L.Hammond grafei oti oi stn- Hammond writes that the Vergina
les tns Bergivas apodeixvouv avam- stelae prove beyond doubt the
fibola tnv ellnvikotnta twv Make- Greekness of the Macedonians; for
dovwv, giati o agglos istorikos the British historian does not
oute tn martyria tou Hsiodou oti overlook Hesiod's testimony that
o my8ikos progovos twv Makedovwv, the mythical progenitor of the
o Makedwv, ntav gios tou Dia kai Macedonians, Macedon, was the son
tns 8yias, tns korns tou Deukali- of Zeus and Thyia (Deukalion's
wva kai adelfns tou Ellnva, kai daughter and Hellen's sister) and
adelfos tou Magvnta, oyte tis mar- a brother of Magnis; nor does he
tyries tou Hrodotou gia to ignore Herodotus' testimonies on
"dwrikov kai makedvov e8vos" kai the `dorikon kai makednon ethnos'
(`dorian and macedonian nation')
gia tnv katagwgn tou basilikou and the origins of the Macedonian
oikou twv Makedovwv apo to Argos, royal house in Argos, verified by
pou epibebaiwsav oi "ellavodikai" Olympia's "Helleno-Judges". It is
tns Olympias, paragvwrizei. A3i- worth mentioning that in his
zei va snmeiwsoume pws o N.G.L. "History of Greece", published in
Hammond stnv "Istoria tns Ella- 1959, N.G.L. Hammond was not that
dos" pou dnmosieuse to 1959 dev assertive on the issue of the
ntav toso katngornmatikos gia to Macedonians' ethnicity, even though
8ema tns e8vikotntas twv Makedo- he never arrived at conclusions
vwv, molovoti pote dev eftave se such as those of E. Borza. After
symperasmata sav auta tou a thorough investigation of both
E.Borza. Omws n systnmatikn the written sources and the
ereuva toso twv graptwv pngwv archeological findings, however,
oso kai twv arxailogikwv eurnma- he was led into his recent views.
twv tov odngnsav stis prosfates
apopseis tou.
Ws epistnmwv kai oxi ws As a scientist rather than a
Ellnvas, exovtas asxoln8ei se Greek, having engaged throughout
oloklnrn tn zwn mou me tnv my life in research at the cradle
ereuva tns koitidas twv Makedo- of the Macedonians, ancient Aegea,
vwv, twv arxaiwv Aigwv, dev exw I have no doubt on the correctness
kamiav amfibolia gia tnv or8otn- of Hammond's views. To strengthen
ta twv apopsewv tou Hammond. Kai this even further, I may add that
gia va evisxysw akoma perissote- right now we have in our hands a
ro mporw va pros8esw pws autn tn recent find from Vergina: a 500 BCE
stigmn dia8etoume eva prosfato inscription bearing the Greek name
eurnma apo tn Bergiva. Epigrafn of Peperias, carved in beautiful
tou 500 p.X. me to ellnviko Greek letters on a silver vase.
ovoma Peperias, xaragmevo me And I do hope that additional
wraia ellnvika grammata se asn- epigraphical findings will soon
mevia fialn. Kai elpizw pws kai corroborate all that has been
alla epigrafika eurnmata 8a epi- demonstrated so far to us by
bebaiwsouv syvtoma auto pou ta the extensive archeological
plousia arxaiologika eurnmata discoveries.
mas deixvouv ws twra.
Josif Grezlovski
Then, the logical questions should be;
a) When did Andronicos start to dig in Macedonia?
b) Were there any other archeological sites being excavated in
Macedonia in the last twenty or so years? and
c) How long does it take for archeological digs, goods to be exposed to
scientific scrutiny?
d) Tell us John. P. when did the excavations in Lefkadia, Derveni,
Veria, Kozani, Naousea, Pella, Servia, Vergina started? Was it ten years
ago? Was it twenty years ago? More then forty years?
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Mozilla/3.03Gold (Win95; I)
[Netscape]">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P>http:www.gate.net/~joegrez/</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
Stavros N Karageorgis
In article <61s8h1$s...@panix.com> balo...@panix.com (George Baloglou) writes:
<snip>
I draw the attention of Mangovski and Grezlovski to the text of the footnote
from Borza's book. Let me reproduce here again:
"This argument (of Andronikos) is true enough only as far as it goes. ***It
neglects that the hellenization of the Macedonians might have occured earlier
than the age of Philip and Alexander, and cannot therefore serve as a means of
proving that the Macedonian were a Greek tribe****."
Is this amazing or what? In response to a valid argument by Andronikos as to
the hellenicity (and we're talking about culture here, not genetics; this in
itself is indicative of the weakness of Borza's argument) of the ancient
Macedonians at the time of Philip and Alexander, he ripostes that ti neglects
the possibility that the ancient Macedonians MAY HAVE BEEN HELLENIZED EARLIER!
And this is the alleged 'champion' of Messrs. Grezlovski and Mangovski! A
scholar who attempts to weaken another scholar's case about the Hellenicity of
Ancient Macedonians, based on material evidence from the era of Philip and
Alexander, by arguing that maybe this evidence of their Hellenicity may be the
result of EARLIER hellenization of the Macedonians!
We also get a good glimpse about what Borza means by 'ethnic': 'genetics'!
Here it is:
" Their adoption of some aspects of Hellenism
over a long period of time is more important than the
genetic structure of either the Macedonian population or
their royal house in particular.". <p.96>
THE GENETIC STRUCTURE!!!!!! Who gives a hoot about their genetic structure?
This is the same scholar that opines that it is possible that the ancient
Macedonian were HELLENIZED ****BEFORE the era of Philip and Alexander***** to
dowgrade the indisputably Hellenic character of material culture of
Macedonians of the above era, as described and analyzed by Professor
Andronikos!!!!
So, is this what we're dealing with here? A question of GENETICS, while even
the most revisionist of historians is willing to suggest that the
Hellenization process of Ancient Macedonians had occured BEFORE the era of
Philip and Alexander?? How Hellenic were 5th century Athenians, in GENETIC
TERMS? What difference would that make on whether they were Hellenic in
culture and conscience?
<snip>
If I see Messrs Grezlvovski and Mangovski use Borza again to support a
position that ancient Macedonians did not become Hellenic CULTURALLY by the
time of Philip and Alexander, I'll know for certain that they are blind.
"And so much did our city [,Athens,] bequeath to the other peoples
in the ways of reason and speech, that her disciples did
in turn enlighten others, and the name of the Hellenes is
now considered pertinent not to race but rather to spirit,
to the point of calling Hellenes those with whom we share
education and upbringing, rather than those with whom we
share in nature."
Isocrates, Panegyricus, 50
Regards,
Stavros N. Karageorgis, C.Phil. (Sociology)
E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu
Gregory Dandulakis
In article Stavros N Karageorgis <kara...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>In article balo...@panix.com (George Baloglou) writes:
...
>>For the time being, I am re-posting one of Professor Manolis Andronikos'
>>very last articles that is of some relevance here (my translation):
>If I see Messrs Grezlvovski and Mangovski use Borza again to support a
>position that ancient Macedonians did not become Hellenic CULTURALLY by the
>time of Philip and Alexander, I'll know for certain that they are blind.
Because I happen to have read the book mentioned by Borza, I can say
for sure that his arguments are more subtle than those perceived by
the above commentators. Borza explicitly says about the ancient
Macedonians:
1. The currently available evidence supports best, but very weakly,
the idea that they "originated" from a proto-greek stock.
2. That the Macedonians developed sufficiently differently from the
(rest) southern Greeks due to geographical relative isolation, and
due to their peculiar interactions with the non-greek neighbors.
3. That even at the time of Alexander, the ruling class's _self-iden-
tification_ with the southern greek _identity_ was calculative
(for political reasons), very weak, and ultimately (deep down in
their consciousness and political practice) not-existing (simi-
larly to what Alexander did with Egyptian and Persian cultures/
identities at the time). They were above all Macedonians. (This
argument, if true, goes very strongly with Stavros's correct
posit that "someone (collectively) _is_ what he _wants_ to be".
My opinion is that Borza is splitting hairs. Ancient Macedonians might
have been to ancient Greeks what Charlemagne was to the Romans (Byzan-
tines or not). So?
Gregory
Anastassios D. Retzios, Ph.D.
In the early 70's I believe in Vergina but he escavated other sites
before
> b) Were there any other archeological sites being excavated in
>Macedonia in the last twenty or so years? and
I think that escavations continue in Vergina and in Dion
> c) How long does it take for archeological digs, goods to be exposed to
>scientific scrutiny?
Not any time at all. I am sure that the Vergina excavations were
visited by hundreds of archaelogical experts over the years and the
publications were peer-reviewed. I think that both the site as well
as the objects are easily examined by anyone who visits the site or
the archaelogical museum in Thessaloniki. Do not forget that at least
four major non-Greek archaelogical missions are located in Greece
(British, French, American etc, etc..) and regularly participate in
escavations with their greek colleagues. For example, Mycenean sites
in Macedonia have been excavated by the American Mission.
> d) Tell us John. P. when did the excavations in Lefkadia, Derveni,
>Veria, Kozani, Naousea, Pella, Servia, Vergina started? Was it ten years
>ago? Was it twenty years ago? More then forty years?
The Derveni excavations were in the 50s or 60s. As for Vergina, it
was escavated partly before Andronikos ever started digging there
because some graves and a Hellenistic palace were already escavated in
the 50s (as I visited the place a schoolboy in the mid-60s)
Any further questions?
Anastassios R.
John Prodromidis
Josif Grezlovski (joe...@gate.net) asks on Oct/13:
\
> > Tell me, Nada, what was known, archaeologically, about Mace-
> > donia and the ancient macedonian art, 42 or even 20 years ago?
> >
> > What was the mass of evidence to warrant conclusions and
> > cervative (as many historians ought to be)- to begin with?
> > It is a matter of archaeological findings, let's face it. In
> > that sense M.Andronikos's discovery and (indeed) impressive
> > presentation paved the way, and now we start getting the
> > fruits of these labors.
> Then, the logical questions should be;
> a) When did Andronicos start to dig in Macedonia?
Since you are into logical questions Josif: Don't you think it
would be more logical to ask when he and the rest (in Vergina and
elsewhere) found a sufficient mass of findings to warrant conclu-
sions... rather than when the 'start' was?
> b) Were there any other archeological sites being excavated in
> Macedonia in the last twenty or so years? and
> c) How long does it take for archeological digs, goods to be
> exposed to scientific scrutiny?
> d) Tell us John. P. when did the excavations in Lefkadia,
> Derveni, Veria, Kozani, Naousea, Pella, Servia, Vergina
> started? Was it ten years ago? Was it twenty years ago? More
> then forty years?
Do you want to find out because you wish to be educated again in
things Macedonian, or are asking just for the heck of it?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John Prodromidis
N.Radeff (rad...@aol.com) wrote yesterday about Sir J.Boardman:
>
> > > No, what took him so long to add Macedonia to his text?
> > > For 42 years, he ignored Macedonia and in some editions
> > > vered Macedonia in Greece. Isn't this amazing?
> >
> > cedonia and the ancient macedonian art, 42 or even 20 years
> > ago?
>
> You tell me, John, for in my Macedonia they only dug to plant
> the food they needed to survive and the graves to bury the
> dead.
That is very close to my point Nada.
The archaeological work was limited and even then not focused on
the classical period alone, but also on the prehistorical,
archaic, roman, byzantine, ottoman...
Even Aigai were not located and Stageira still contested...
What I am suggesting above is that the mass of information avai-
lable was quite limited to warrant conclusions a few decades
ago.
> They never expected to have to defend their origins or to
> leave the proof to help their descendants in that same
> purpose.
Indeed archaeology was conducted somewhat leisurely in Greece,
and dealing with the upper layers and slowly going down.
> Plus in our religion, we deem it t be sacrilegious to disturb
> the last resting places.
To be honest, I don't know if Macedonian remnants would be
found in modern-day FYROM beyond a place or two... This is not
to say that excavations can not alter this picture somewhat but
as far as the literature goes, the land was primarily home to
the enemies of the Macedonians.
> > What was the mass of evidence to warrant conclusions and
> > making any generalisations -even among the sceptics and
> > conservative (as many historians ought to be)- to begin
> > with?
>
> Are we speaking here of Philip's tomb?
Strictly speaking, I am not. (I even told you that before.)
> If so, its quite probable that not everyone in this world
> past and present is buried at home. Have you given that
> any consideration?
That is why I mentioned Alexander to you the other day.
> > > To be fair to Sir Boardman, he is not the only one to re-
> > > vise and expand through decades and then "see the light"
> > > by adding Macedonia to his findings.
> >
> > Because we now know more.
> > It is a matter of archaeological findings, let's face it.
> > In that sense M.Andronikos's discovery and (indeed) im-
> > pressive presentation paved the way, and now we start
> > getting the fruits of these labors.
>
> What we know more about is that it makes the case much more
> verifiable if you can point to texts that, although revised
> to suit the current wishes, will flood the market and allow
> the world populace to give you the revision you really want-
> the name.
You'll have to rerun this to me one more time, Nada. I am not
sure I understand your point.
> Yes, I do believe I have seen the name, Andronikos, mentioned
> in several places of the new wave of text revision.
OK. That complements what I was saying some lines above.
\
> > The specialists in the field, however, can draw their con-
> > clusions about the ancients. That is independent of our
> > talks here. That is why I said it is a different issue.
>
> What the "specialists" do best is history and criticism.
> Criticism can be positive or it can be negative. It all
> depends on where you stand.
Their criticism and reconstruction of the past is generally
viewed as constructive. It is only 'negative' if hindering
your agenda. But this is not to say that your agenda is
accurate or sound.
\
> > > Its stinks. It smacks of unfair usage. Its my personal
> > > opinion.
> >
> > That is biased and, I dare say, even a sign of close-
> > mindedness. You can not stop the scientific field from
> > learning more about the ancients simply because this con-
> > tradicts a certain preconception you have inherited!
>
> I am biased?
I am afraid so, Nada. You turned against the messengers
(historians) because you don't like the message and sort of
'slander' because they conclude the Macedonians were Greeks.
At least that is what I understood and I tried to read you
very carefully. If an erroneous impression was communicated,
I apologize.
> Hold on, John. Take a surf around anm and tell me if any of
> us (ROM) have stooped to the usages I have seen made by some
> Johnnie-come-latelys here.
Nada, please don’t bring others in our conversation now.
This is a conversation between the two of us. If I called you
something throw it to me and give me a chance to reconsider or
explain.
Do I project on you the employment of 'pedar' or whatever
frequents the vocabulary of some newcomers. No! Let’s not
get distracted here, please.
> Look in you files and see if I ever used a derogatory term
> against your people or the Bulgarians.
Nada I can. But I will not. Even if you have (humanum est
errare) by comparison you are more like an oasis in your
expressions, and one does not want to destroy that illusion.
> You want to know where my mind is close. Its close to that
> land that gave me my parents and the grandparents backwards
> for ages. Without it, I would not exist.
Nada, I don't think someone wants to invade that land...
> Listen closely, please, no one ever uttered one word that
> could have even been closely associated with a grave of any
> ancient Macedonian. They never said, look smartly now, I
> have an important lesson to teach you, for its in that pit
> where the bones of Philip lie that will determine your being
> Macedonian and all the rest means nothing.
> Do you at least understand any of the above?
:-( I am not sure, Nada...
Does it pertain to something I said?