Ancient Macedonian Ethnic Identity

A Study with Emphasis on the Literary Sources

From the 5th c. B.C. to the 2nd c. A.D.

by

Alexander Harmantas

A thesis submitted to the Department of Classics

in conformity with the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts

Queen’s University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

August, 2017

Copyright © Alexander Harmantas, 2017

  

Abstract

The ethnic identity of the ancient Macedonians continues to be the most debated subject

within Macedonian historiography. The debate has fixated on a simple question: were the

Macedonians Greeks, or a separate ethnic group? Rather than attempting to trace the exact

origins of the Macedonians – an exceedingly difficult task in dealing with any ancient people –

this thesis will focus on the ethnic presentation of the Macedonians: how do the ancient literary

sources identify the Macedonians? How did the Macedonians identify themselves? What factors

shaped the Greeks’ perspectives towards the Macedonian kings and their people? How much can

we reasonably infer about the Macedonians’ ethnic self-perception and identification in the

absence of their own literary testimony? This thesis will seek to answer these essential questions

by providing a comprehensive analysis of the relevant ancient literary sources dating from the

mid-late 5th c. B.C. to the early 2nd c. A.D., devoting careful attention to all of those passages

which particularly relate to the subject of Macedonian ethnic identity. It will be demonstrated

that the first established ruling dynasty of Macedon, the Argeads, may be considered Greek

according to both modern and ancient Greek criteria for ethnicity; they held a conscious identity

as Greeks and were accepted as such at a fairly early point by the intellectual and literary elite of

southern Greece. Regarding the wider Macedonian populace, however, more direct evidence is

required for us to readily ascertain their sense of ethnic identity. While an ethnocultural merging

of Greeks and Macedonians does appear in literature by a later point in antiquity, the Greeks of

the Classical period were consistent in designating the Macedonian people as ‘barbarians.’

Although further literary evidence (especially in the form of an average Macedonian

communicating their sense of ethnic self-perception) is needed before any definitive conclusions

can be drawn, we may perhaps best understand the Greeks and Macedonians as ethnically

  i
  

related yet distinct groups, gradually placed in close ethnocultural alignment by Greek writers

only in the centuries following Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Near East.

  ii
  

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Anne Foley for her insight, careful attention

to detail, and constant encouragement, all of which were invaluable to the completion of this

study. Our lengthy discussions over our shared passion for Greece and Classical studies were

undoubtedly amongst the highlights of my time at Queen’s. I would also like to extend my

gratitude to the remainder of the Department of Classics for having provided me with an

excellent environment in which to engage in my work.

  iii
  

Table of Contents

Abstract..................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................. iii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures......................................................................................................... vi
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................. vii

Chapter I) Introduction ........................................................................................ 1

The Ancient Sources: Problems and Limitations .................................................... 3
Modern Sources for Ancient Macedon.................................................................... 9
The Importance of Ethnic Self-Identification: a Personal Anecdote..................... 12

Chapter II) Early Macedonia: A General Overview........................................ 15

Basic Geography ................................................................................................... 16
Macedonia at the End of the Bronze Age .............................................................. 17
Dark Age Evidence for the Origin of the Ancient Macedonians .......................... 19
The Emergence of the Macedonians in the Literary Sources ................................ 21

Chapter III) Macedonian Culture ..................................................................... 26

Macedonian Pastoralism ........................................................................................ 27
Cultural Parallels: Macedon and Epirus ................................................................ 28
The ‘Macedonian Tomb’ ....................................................................................... 31
Macedonians vs. Thracians and Illyrians .............................................................. 33
Political Organization: the Macedonian Monarchy and Other Institutions ........... 34
Macedonian Religion............................................................................................. 38
Macedonian Culture: 4th c. ‘Atticization’ and General Conclusions .................... 40

Chapter IV) Macedonian Ethnic Identity, Part I: The Argeads ..................... 47

Defining Ethnicity ................................................................................................. 48
Ethnic Identification of the Macedonian Royal Family: the Argive Connection .. 50
Archelaus I: the first ‘Barbarian’ King .................................................................. 54
Attitudes towards Philip II: Demosthenes and Isocrates ....................................... 56

Chapter V) Macedonian Ethnic Identity, Part II: The People ........................ 62

The Greeks’ Views on the Relationship between the Argeads and the Macedonian
Populace ................................................................................................................ 63
The Macedonians’ Ethnic Identity in the Late Classical Period ........................... 65
Cultural Alignment of the Greeks and Macedonians in the Alexander Historians 66
The Merging of Greek and Macedonian Identity in the Hellenistic Period and Late
Antiquity ................................................................................................................ 69
Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 70

  iv
  

Chapter VI) Ancient Macedonian Speech: Literary and Epigraphic Evidence

............................................................................................................................... 72
‘Macedonian’: Language or Dialect? .................................................................... 72
The Pella Curse Tablet .......................................................................................... 73
Epigraphic Discoveries at Vergina and Macedonian Toponyms .......................... 75
Literary Evidence for Ancient Macedonian Speech .............................................. 78
...................................................................................................................................
Other Evidence and General Conclusions on ‘Macedonian’ ................................ 81

Chapter VII) Conclusion .................................................................................... 87

Alexander the Great’s Panhellenism and Ethnic Self-Perception ......................... 91
Alleged Instances of Alexander drawing an Ethnic Distinction between Greeks
and
Macedonians .......................................................................................................... 96
Final Remarks: the Legacy of the Ancient Macedonians ...................................... 99

Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 105

Primary Sources................................................................................................... 105
Secondary Sources............................................................................................... 106

  v
  

List of Figures

Fig. 1: Map of mainland Greece (Roisman and Worthington 2010: xx)

Fig. 2: Map showing the constituent territories of ancient Macedon (Hatzopoulos 1996: 557)

Fig. 3: The gradual expansion of the Macedonian kingdom (Roisman and Worthington 2010:
xxi)

Fig. 4: ‘Family tree’ of the Argead Dynasty (Borza 1990: 1)

Fig. 5: Façade of king Philip II’s tomb, Vergina (Andronikos 1984: 101)

Fig. 6: Layout of Philip’s tomb (Andronikos 1984: 98)

Fig. 7: Interior of Thracian tomb of Sveshtari, Bulgaria, 3rd c. B.C. (retrieved from
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/359/gallery/: 8 Jan. 2017)

Fig. 8: Façade of ‘Rhomaios tomb’ at Vergina (reconstruction), dated to first half of 3rd c. B.C
(Andronikos 1984: 33)

Fig. 9: Fresco of Macedonian soldiers from tomb at Agios Athanasios near Thessaloniki,
dated to last quarter of 4th c. B.C. (retrieved from:    
https://hellinon.net/2016/11/16/η-ελληνική-ασπίδα-την-εποχή-των-μακεδό/ 8 Jan. 2017)

Fig. 10: Detail of artwork in Thracian tomb of Kazanlak, late 4th c. B.C. (retrieved from
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/44/gallery 8 Jan. 2017)

Fig. 11: Lead scroll of the Pella curse tablet in the Museum of Pella, first half of 4th c. B.C.
(retrieved from
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Pella_leaded_tablet_%28katadesmos%29
_4th_Century_retouched.jpg: 28 Dec. 2016)

Fig. 12: The text of the Pella curse tablet (Akamatis 2003: 143)

Figs. 13, 14: Painted grave stelai from Vergina, ca. 350 B.C (Andronikos 1984: 84-85)

  vi
  

List of Abbreviations

Arist. Aristotle
Pol. Politics

Arr. Arrian
Anab. Anabasis

BRL Fox, Robin J. Lane, Ed., (2011) Brill’s Companion to Ancient

Macedon: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Macedon,
650 B.C. – 300 A.D. Leiden/Boston.

CAM Roisman, Joseph, and Ian Worthington, Eds., (2010) A Companion

to Ancient Macedonia. United Kingdom.

Curt. Quintus Curtius Rufus

Dem. Demosthenes
Phil III. Third Philippic

Diod. Diodorus Siculus

Hdt. Herodotus

Hes. Hesiod
Cat. Catalogue of Women

HM II Hammond, N. G. L. and G.T. Griffith, (1979) A History of

Macedonia Vol. II, 550-336 B.C. Oxford.

Isoc. Isocrates
Paneg. Panegyricus
Phil. To Philip

Liv. Livy

Plut. Plutarch
Alex. Life of Alexander
Eum. Life of Eumenes

Polyb. Polybius

Strab. Strabo

Thuc. Thucydides

  vii
  

Chapter I
Introduction

As soon as one delves into the ancient literary sources it becomes apparent that there

were severe ambiguities surrounding the Macedonians’ ethnic character. To the Greeks of the

south, Macedonia was a mysterious backwater lying north of Mt. Olympus, inhabited by a

people whom they hardly viewed as having a share in their intricate and rapidly advancing

civilization. Yet, while it is clear that the Greeks were generally inclined to regard the

Macedonian populace as ‘barbarians’, we cannot be sure that the Macedonians lacked a

conscious identity as Greeks. The most pressing issue facing scholars is the unavailability of

direct testimony from the Macedonians themselves. Macedonia emerges in our earliest literary

sources from the exclusive perspective of the Greeks and continues to be discussed largely from

an external point of view in our later sources, which date to the period of Roman domination of

the Mediterranean. While it is possible that the Greeks’ tendency to refer to the Macedonians as

barbarians indicates their awareness that the Macedonians did not identify as Greeks, there is

ultimately no certainty in this contention. Dearth of evidence has led some scholars to take a

considerable deal of academic license on this issue; for instance, Richard Stoneman, in his

introduction to the Alexander Romance, makes the bold and sweeping claim – without providing

a shred of evidence or analysis – that the Macedonians were not Greeks and the common people

did not speak Greek (the latter point, as we will see in a later chapter, has become sharply

contested in light of our most recent evidence).1 Even Nicholas Hammond, who held the view

that the Macedonians were of Hellenic stock, maintained that the Macedonians proudly

considered themselves “separate from the Greeks.”2

                                                                                                               
1
Richard Stoneman, (1991) The Greek Alexander Romance, London: 3.
2 N. G. L. Hammond, (1989) The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions, and History, Oxford: 19.

  1
  

Although these statements may bear some element of truth, we should avoid drawing

such firm conclusions until definitive evidence emerges from the Macedonian side. Indeed, this

stance is both sociologically sound and cognizant of the fact that future epigraphic discoveries

may someday alter or augment our current understanding of the ancient Macedonian people.

Focusing primarily on the ancient literary sources, this study will devote itself to answering the

following essential questions, as far as the evidence permits: how did the Macedonian populace

identity itself ethnically? Why did the Greeks perceive the Macedonian populace to be non-

Hellenic? Does the evidence allow us to ascribe a Hellenic identity to the Macedonian populace,

or would this perhaps apply exclusively to the ruling Argead dynasty of the Macedonians, who

consistently claimed Greek descent? In particular, this paper will present a break from earlier

scholarship on ancient Macedon by emphasizing the importance of the Macedonians’ ethnic self-

perception rather than the attitudes of the southern Greeks towards Macedon.3 In recent times,

scholars in the humanities and social sciences have shifted towards the notion that one’s ethnicity

is subjectively perceived and should not necessarily be defined simply on the basis of objective

cultural attributes (or according to the attitudes of an external group). Therefore, although we

shall investigate the Greeks’ perspective in detail – as well as some key aspects of Macedonian

culture – this paper will be more cautious of the idea that the Greeks’ views of Macedon

correspond with the Macedonians’ own sense of ethnic identity.4

                                                                                                               
3
As historians of ancient Macedon overwhelmingly agree that the question of the Macedonians’ ethnic identity
cannot be answered by exclusively examining material remains (Engels 2010: 88), this study will not be devoted to
an archaeological analysis of such things as grave goods or burial customs. In any case, the Macedonians of the late
Archaic and early Classical periods display a material culture with so much similarity to that of the Greeks that one
would hardly be able to discern between the two groups by solely investigating physical pieces of evidence. Even in
the case of the Mycenaeans and the Minoans, it was the discovery of the written Linear B script that ultimately
allowed scholars to distinguish the former as an ethnically distinct group. Indeed, it is often the literary/epigraphic
evidence which is more revealing towards a socially constructed phenomenon like ethnicity.
4
An oft-cited article by historian Ernst Badian (“Greeks and Macedonians”) attempts to provide an overview of
how Greeks and Macedonians perceived each other – and how the Macedonians viewed themselves – yet it only
succeeds in demonstrating that the southern Greeks did not view the Macedonians as Greeks. As we shall see, the

  2
  

The Ancient Sources: Problems and Limitations

It is apparent that the ancient authors usually treat the Macedonian people in a separate

manner from their kings, identifying the former as barbarians yet sometimes accepting the latter

as Greeks.5 Such a contradictory attitude towards the Macedonians has posed a significant

stumbling block to scholars, and the fact that our Greek sources provide very little ethnographic

detail on the Macedonians populace makes the issue all the more problematic. Herodotus,

writing in the late 5th c. B.C., is the first to offer substantial commentary on the Macedonian royal

family and unconditionally accepts their claim to Greek ethnicity via a tradition tracing their

descent to Argos in the Peloponnese. But when it comes to the Macedonian people, Herodotus

has very little to say besides a few passing and indirect references to them as barbarians.

Thucydides, following Herodotus, accepts the Greek lineage of the Macedonian royal family,

though he likewise categorizes the common people as barbarians – albeit without employing

much serious analytical rigour to their origins, linguistic affiliation, or ethnic identification.

Coming to the later Greek sources we have from the 4th c. B.C., we are again faced with a

profound lack of interest on the subject of Macedonian ethnography. Unsurprisingly, the focus of

Greek orators and politicians at this time was the sudden and meteoric rise of Macedon under

king Philip II, and it is his figure which looms over the respective accounts of such men as

Demosthenes and Isocrates. Demosthenes’ orations are filled with political slander against Philip

and we can be fairly confident that many others in Athens shared his vividly anti-Macedonian

stance. However, since Demosthenes did not concern himself with the Macedonian people as a

whole in his lengthy orations against Philip, he has left us with some harsh and emotionally

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
contention that the Macedonians did not perceive themselves as Greeks ultimately rests on no definitive evidence,
and certainly does not apply to their royal family.
5
The relationship between the Macedonian Argead kings and the common populace will be discussed in two
consecutive chapters on “Macedonian Identity.” Unlike the case with the Macedonian people, we have significant
and consistent testimony from the Argead kings for their own self-identification as Greeks.

  3
  

driven tirades that are devoid of any informational substance regarding the Macedonians’ ethnic

identity. Demosthenes provides no obvious indication that he himself was well-informed about

the ethnic identity of the Macedonians – from firsthand experience or otherwise – and we must

therefore be wary of his own extreme biases as an Athenian political rival of Macedon in his

attempts to paint Philip as a non-Greek barbarian. A more interesting position is that of the orator

Isocrates, who championed Philip as a blue-blooded Greek and Panhellenic hero yet avoided

presenting the Macedonian people as Hellenes. It is clear that the political sphere had an impact

on these orators (and other contemporary Greek thinkers), though we shall see that neither

Demosthenes nor Isocrates can give us a clear answer to the question of the average

Macedonian’s own ethnic identity.

The sources we have for the conquests of Alexander the Great are far from contemporary,

dating to centuries after his death. The earliest account belongs to Diodorus Siculus, who wrote

near the end of the 1st c. B.C. Next, we have the history of the somewhat obscure Roman writer

Quintus Curtius Rufus, who was active sometime during the mid to late 1st c. A.D., followed by

the respective accounts of Plutarch and Arrian of Nicomedia, both of which date to the 2nd c. A.D.

Finally, we have the work of Justin, which may be as late as the end of the 4th c. A.D.6 Despite

presenting some variations in literary style and focus, these historians – as one might expect – all

fixate primarily on the figure of Alexander himself, committing little interest to the Macedonian

populace. The historical accounts of Arrian and Plutarch include the most pertinent evidence for

our discussion of ancient Macedonian ethnic identity, and this paper will therefore focus mainly

on these sources of evidence. It must still be stressed from the outset, however, that neither

Arrian nor Plutarch has handed us significant commentary on the Macedonian people as a whole.

                                                                                                               
6
P.J. Rhodes, (2010) “The Literary and Epigraphic Evidence,” A Companion to Ancient Macedonia (CAM), Joseph
Roisman and Ian Worthington eds., 23-40: 29.

  4
  

Arrian, who was an ethnic Greek and Roman citizen from an aristocratic family in Asia Minor,

eventually obtained the consulship in Rome and served there as a military commander;

accordingly, his account emphasizes Alexander’s strategic insight and the tactical organization of

the Macedonian army.7 The Macedonians’ ethnic identity appears irrelevant to Arrian, and, as

will be investigated at length at a later point, there are only a handful of passages in his Anabasis

which allow us to make some important inferences regarding the Macedonians as an ethnic

group and their relationship to the Greeks. Modern scholars tend to treat Arrian’s Anabasis as the

most reliable of our extant sources on Alexander’s campaigns, due to the fact that he drew

principally on the original accounts of Ptolemy I (one of Alexander’s generals and the founder of

the Ptolemaic Dynasty in Egypt) and Aristobulus, an officer in Alexander’s army.8

Plutarch’s Life of Alexander eschews the technical, military-oriented narrative of Arrian

in favour of a more philosophical evaluation of Alexander as a monarchical leader. As with

Arrian, however, we must not forget that Plutarch wrote under the context of Roman imperial

power in the 2nd c. A.D. and this naturally influenced both his ideas and those circulating amongst

the literary clique to which he belonged. In this Roman context, Alexander emerges variously as

a positive role model – especially in the military realm – or as a negative embodiment of

                                                                                                               
7
It is important to note Arrian’s insistence on portraying Alexander as a heroic warrior-king and a descendant of
Achilles (through his mother, Olympias). In doing so, Arrian sets up a dual parallel – one between Alexander and
Achilles, and another between himself and Homer. This is indicated by Arrian at the beginning of the Anabasis:
“One account says that Hephaistion laid a wreath on Patroclus’ tomb; another that Alexander laid one on the tomb of
Achilles, and called him fortunate, since he had Homer to proclaim his deeds and preserve his memory. And well
might Alexander envy Achilles this piece of good fortune; for in his own case there was no equivalent. His one
failure, the single break, as it were, in the long chain of his successes, was that he had no worthy chronicler to tell
the world of his exploits.” Arrian, Anabasis (translated by Martin Hammond, Oxford 2013) 1.12.1-2.
8
Dawn L. Gilley and Ian Worthington, (2010) “Alexander the Great, Macedonia and Asia,” CAM 186-207: 187. As
Arrian states at the very beginning of his history, “ἀλλ᾽ ἐμοὶ Πτολεμαῖός τε καὶ Ἀριστόβουλος πιστότεροι
ἔδοξαν ἐς τὴν ἀφήγησιν, ὁ μὲν ὅτι συνεστράτευσε βασιλεῖ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ, Ἀριστόβουλος, Πτολεμαῖος δὲ
πρὸς τῷ ξυστρατεῦσαι ὅτι καὶ αὐτῷ βασιλεῖ ὄντι αἰσχρότερον ἢ τῳ ἄλλῳ ψεύσασθαι ἦν (It seems to me,
however, that Ptolemy and Aristobulus are the most trustworthy writers on this subject, because the latter took part
in Alexander’s campaigns, and the former, Ptolemy – in addition to this advantage – was himself a king, and it is
more disgraceful for a king to tell lies than anyone else).” Despite the obvious naiveté of Arrian’s latter claim, we
have no reason to deny Ptolemy as a valuable source.

  5
  

immoral excess.9 Indeed, the preoccupation with vice and immorality is common amongst

Roman writers of the 1st – 2nd centuries A.D., some of whom found the powerful, monarchical

figure of Alexander the Great to be a relevant medium through which various concerns and

anxieties over the absolute rule of the emperors could be explored. On a more practical level,

Alexander’s supremacy as a general was of interest to the Romans insofar as he inspired men

towards the virtue of military discipline and excellence on the battlefield. In any case, we should

remain conscious of the fact that the image of Alexander handed down to us is one captured

through a Roman lens – or at least, through the lens of a Greek in a Roman world (with regards

to Arrian, Plutarch, and Diodorus). For instance, Plutarch’s presentation of Alexander as a

‘unifier’ of Hellenic and Eastern culture holding sway over both Greeks and barbarians seems to

be done in a manner so as to reflect a “Roman civilizing ideal.”10 While a cultural evaluation of

Alexander inevitably surfaces in Plutarch’s account, in which he is tested against Plutarch’s

precise set of philosophical criteria for Hellenism, Plutarch only takes tangential interest in the

Macedonian people. Similarly to Arrian’s Anabasis, passages relevant to the discussion of

Macedonian identity are sparse in the Life of Alexander. This is not to say that Plutarch offers

little of value to the subject at hand; we shall see that his work, like Arrian’s, indicates a

tendency to conflate Greeks and Macedonians on a cultural level, something which we do not

find in the earlier Classical sources. Nevertheless, both authors demonstrate a continuation of the

ambiguity in defining the Macedonians as an ethnic group, sometimes noting their cultural

alignment with the Greeks yet at other times indicating a divide between the groups. As non-

Macedonians, Arrian and Plutarch should be approached with a degree of caution whenever they

indicate tension or the appearance of cultural difference between Greeks and Macedonians.
                                                                                                               
9
Tim Whitmarsh, (2002) “Alexander’s Hellenism and Plutarch’s Textualism,” The Classical Quarterly Vol. 52 No.
1, 174-192: 175.
10
Sulochana R. Asirvatham, (2010) “Perspectives on Macedonians,” CAM 99-124: 114.

  6
  

Perhaps the greatest challenge to our discussion of Macedonian ethnic identity in the

‘Alexander historians’ is determining to what extent our extant accounts are true to the original,

contemporary chronicles of Alexander, which are now lost. Besides Aristobulus and Ptolemy,

the Alexander historians drew variously from a few other primary sources, namely Nearchus and

Onesicritus, who both served in Alexander’s navy. Additionally, they drew from the account of

Cleitarchus, which appears to have been based on these two writers and was likely composed

shortly after Alexander’s death.11 Callisthenes of Olynthus, nephew of Aristotle, accompanied

Alexander in the capacity of official court historian with the ostensible goal of promoting

Alexander’s Panhellenic agenda. However, relations gradually soured between the two men

(indeed, Callisthenes was put to death) and it follows that his account was never completed. 12

Though it is not always clear which accounts our Alexander historians are drawing on, there are

certain key indicators that can point to the use of a specific source. For example, the accounts of

Diodorus and Curtius display a great deal of overlap, indicating that they drew on a common

source (in this case, Cleitarchus). But the problem of whether Diodorus or Curtius had access to

Cleitarchus as a firsthand source, or through an intermediary, remains unclear to scholars.13

Meanwhile, Plutarch’s account is so eclectic in its usage of sources that we are constantly

reminded of the fact that the primary Alexander sources themselves may be subject to error,

contradiction, or bias, and reside amidst other lost sources about which we know virtually

nothing.14 The essential point here is that the original sources for Alexander are by no means

                                                                                                               
11
Waldemar Heckel and J.C. Yardley, (2008) Alexander the Great: Historical Sources in Translation, United
Kingdom: xxi.
12
Ibid, xx.
13
Ibid.
14
See for instance Plutarch’s remarks at 46.1 (Life of Alexander), where he invokes and juggles the testimony of a
number of obscure non-conventional sources on Alexander’s visit to the Amazons.

  7
  

infallible, though in any case only small fragments of these have been preserved by the later

Alexander historians, rendering thorough critique impossible.

When we encounter the common literary expression of ‘Greeks and Macedonians’ in our

extant accounts, which appears to present these two groups as separate ethnic units, should we

assume that this very same expression of distinction was used by Macedonians like Aristobulus

and Ptolemy? Furthermore, do the occasional instances in which we find a clear cultural

alignment of Greeks and Macedonians reflect the perceptions of these (and other) original

Macedonian sources? Certainly, the Greeks contemporary with Alexander were inclined to draw

a divide between themselves and the Macedonians, and the tendency for writers like Arrian and

Plutarch to refer to ‘Greeks and Macedonians’ as independent ethnic groups may simply reflect

their commitment to conveying the reality of Greek attitudes towards Macedon in the late 4th c.

B.C. Moreover, even if Aristobulus and Ptolemy did maintain a distinction between Greeks and

Macedonians, we could only cautiously assume that they were doing so from an intimately

Macedonian perspective, and not out of a desire to casually accommodate their historical

narratives to a contemporary cultural climate in which Greek views of Macedon were still

generally negative. As men who were formally Greek-educated of privileged status, neither

Aristobulus nor Ptolemy can be guaranteed to be accurate representatives of the average

Macedonian.15 We are therefore faced with a dual-leveled barrier in evaluating our extant

sources for Alexander: they are based on original sources which may not reflect an

unambiguously Macedonian perspective, and present interests and priorities which do not

necessarily coincide with those of Macedonian historians from centuries earlier.

                                                                                                               
15
Asirvatham 2010: 97

  8
  

Modern Sources for Ancient Macedon

No paper, written on any subject related to ancient Macedon, could avoid citing the work

of the late British scholar Nicholas Hammond. As a member of the British Special Operations

Executive (SOE), Hammond travelled extensively throughout the regions of Epirus and

Macedonia during World War II. His intimate familiarity with northern Greece is reflected in his

three-volume A History of Macedonia, published in the 1970s, which remains unparalleled in its

thoroughness and rigorous attention to literary and archaeological detail. Hammond later

condensed this work into another publication, The Macedonian State: the Origins, Institution,

and History (Oxford 1989), which naturally included added analysis of the new archaeological

and epigraphic discoveries made in Macedonia since the publication of A History of Macedonia.

To this day many of Hammond’s views remain unchallenged, or only slightly modified, which

clearly testifies to the objective quality of his scholarship. His aforementioned works will

therefore constitute an integral part of this paper’s secondary sources. Of course, there are other

eminent historians from whom this paper has drawn inspiration. The American scholar Eugene

Borza is also widely recognized as a leading authority on ancient Macedon, and his 1990 work In

the Shadow of Olympus (held by many to be his magnum opus) will be of practically equal value

to the work of Hammond in allowing this paper to provide the most objective account possible of

ancient Macedonian ethnic identity. Indeed, it would be quite a misguided decision to have only

a single author form the backbone of the study at hand – or any other for that matter – and the

inclusion of Borza’s careful scrutiny and criticism of Hammond should hopefully ensure that this

study is free from obvious source-bias. As Hammond and Borza have approached the issue of the

Macedonians’ ethnic identity with more clarity and attention to detail than any other scholars, it

is fitting that their respective works will be among the most frequently cited in this paper. In

  9
  

particular, however, this paper diverges from Borza’s generally neutral position on the

Macedonian language, a subject to which he devotes very little analysis in his work.16 As a

specialist of ancient Greek, Hammond offers a far more informed discussion of ancient

Macedonian speech and understands epigraphic, literary, and cultural evidence as equally

important in determining its affiliation.

Additionally, of vital importance to this paper are the two most recent compilations of

articles on ancient Macedon: A Companion to Ancient Macedonia (Blackwell 2010, eds. Joseph

Roisman and Ian Worthington), and Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon (Brill 2011, ed.

Robin Lane Fox). These ‘companions’ contain a host of articles by numerous acclaimed classical

historians, representing the best and most up-to-date scholarship on a variety of topics related to

ancient Macedon. They are therefore highly useful in filling the gaps left by Hammond and

Borza, especially in the area of linguistic/epigraphic evidence. Moreover, each companion

contains an insightful article directly focusing on the issue of ancient Macedonian ethnic identity

(one by Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos, in Brill’s Companion, and another by Johannes Engels in the

Blackwell counterpart). Both companions reflect the growing consensus within contemporary

scholarship that the Macedonians were most likely a Greek-speaking people prior to the advent

of koine Greek in the 4th c. B.C. Nevertheless, the Blackwell companion takes a more cautious

outlook towards the idea that the Macedonian populace held a conscious Greek identity. It is

worth noting that the two companions differ somewhat in their respective focuses; the Brill

companion generally provides more analysis of archaeological data (inscriptions, coins, tombs,

etc.) while the Blackwell companion offers a more comprehensive survey of the literary sources

                                                                                                               
16
Borza’s In the Shadow of Olympus holds that we lack substantial evidence to determine whether ‘Macedonian’
was a distinct language or a dialect of Greek. Yet, his contention that the “handful of surviving genuine Macedonian
words” (1990: 93) are in some respects closer to Thracian/Illyrian is misleading as it completely ignores how this
sample actually numbers in the hundreds and largely consists of words which are widely recognized as clearly
Greek. The Macedonians’ linguistic affinities will be examined in ch.6, “The Macedonian Language”.

  10
  

for ancient Macedon. The latter is therefore more immediately compatible to the focus of this

paper, although it is Hatzopoulos’ article in Brill’s Companion that provides some of the more

interesting and original observations on the ancient Greek authors’ attitudes towards the

Macedonians’ ethnicity.

It is unfortunate that Macedon, like other peripheral areas of the Greek peninsula, has

traditionally received far less attention from classicists than southern Greece. As the general

body of literature on Macedon is so small relative to that of other subjects relating to Greek

antiquity, it follows that the problem of the Macedonians’ ethnic identity has become a niche

subject unto itself within the realm of ancient Macedonian history. Ernst Badian’s 1982 article

“Greeks and Macedonians” can be largely credited for initiating the lively debate over ancient

Macedonian ethnicity. Badian clearly outlines some of the most pressing issues related to the

subject, such as the importance of acknowledging how Macedonians and Greeks regarded each

other, and understanding the fluidity of ethnic identity construction. Unconcerned with questions

of anthropological or historical character, Badian forgoes an investigation into a possible genetic

kinship between Greeks and Macedonians, instead emphasizing the importance of one’s

consciousness of their ethnic identity over objective ancestral origins. While this paper disagrees

with Badian on a few key points – namely his tentative conclusion that the Macedonian populace

was not Greek-speaking (in fairness to Badian, the best evidence for the Macedonians’ speech

was not yet available) – it likewise shares his emphasis on identity over genetics. We shall see

that there may very well be evidence for an ancestral-genetic relationship between Greeks and

Macedonians, as indicated through the Macedonians’ use of a Greek dialect; Hammond

remained firm in this contention throughout his entire career, as have others. But, as Hammond

aptly states at the conclusion of his first volume of A History of Macedonia, “a means of

  11
  

communication is very far from assuring peaceful relations between two peoples, as we know

from our experience of the modern world.”17 This point, which was echoed by Badian years

later, directly plays into the notion that ethnic groups are often closely related linguistically and

culturally, yet retain very separate identities.18

The Importance of Ethnic Self-Identification: a Personal Anecdote

I have a personal anecdote which amply attests to the precedence of ethnic self-

perception over objective ancestral origins. Four years ago, I had the opportunity to take part in

an archaeological excavation at the site of Argilos in the Greek province of Macedonia through a

program offered by the University of Montreal. Argilos, situated just outside the eastern

periphery of the Chalcidice peninsula, was a colony founded by southern Greek colonists

sometime around the 9th-8th centuries B.C. With commanding views of the Strymonian Gulf and

Mt. Pangaion immediately to the east, Argilos is undoubtedly one of the most attractive sites in

northern Greece at which one can toil under the scorching Greek summer sun. A rather

insignificant site scarcely mentioned in the ancient sources, it was sacked by Philip II during his

rapid expansion of the Macedonian kingdom in the 4th c. During my time there, my rather

unusual Greek surname attracted the curiosity of the French-Canadian professor in charge of the

site. He, as well as some others, initially took no hesitation in assuming it was of Spanish origin

– and indeed, I recall only one participant in the excavation who regarded my surname as

“obviously Greek.” One afternoon, the aforementioned professor was surveying our work on the

                                                                                                               
17
N.G.L. Hammond, (1972) A History of Macedonia Vol. I, Oxford: 441.
18
There are a number of examples of this in more modern times. For instance, the Germans and Austrians are
culturally very similar, sharing the German language and descent from similar ancestral population groups. But of
course, both retain distinct identities. A similar parallel exists amongst members of Slavic groups, such as
Ukrainians and Russians; needless to say, these groups have directed serious animosity towards each other for
centuries, despite bearing such obvious cultural and linguistic affinities with one another. In Western Europe, the
Galicians of northern Spain and the Portuguese were virtually indistinguishable during the Middle Ages. Indeed,
these two groups still display a number of cultural peculiarities, speaking practically the same language. Again,
however, each group proudly proclaims its own distinct ethnic identity.

  12
  

site with a Greek professor from the University of Thessaloniki. As he approached my trench, he

called out my name in a somewhat jocular voice, completely mispronouncing it; I lost no time in

correcting him, shouting back my surname with the proper syllabic emphasis on each vowel. The

Greek professor then turned to him and, without hesitation, proclaimed in Greek (with an

unmistakably snide tone), “O Harmantas einai Vlachiko (Harmantas is a Vlach name).”

The French-Canadian replied with a simple “Ah” – as if to indicate that his doubts about

the Hellenicity of my surname were finally confirmed. As neither professor was aware of my

basic understanding of conversational Greek, I subsequently took them off guard when I clarified

that my grandfather’s village was not known as a Vlach settlement, nor had any member of my

family ever identified as a Vlach. Years ago, as a student in junior high school when my interest

in ancient Macedonian history seemed to be increasing daily, I happened to stumble on a number

of modern ethnographic maps of the region of Macedonia, mostly dating to the late 18th and early

19th centuries. Such maps use a variety of colours to indicate different ethnic groups: for

instance, Greeks in blue, Slavic groups in green, Turks in red, and Albanians in orange. Though

no two maps were identical (and this can certainly be attributed to the respective political biases

of the illustrators), central Macedonia was shown to be inhabited by all these groups, to varying

degrees in certain locations. However, the Pindus region of Grevena from which my grandfather

hails was consistently marked as being extensively populated by another group, one whom I had

never heard of: the Aromanians. “Who are these Aromanians?” I asked myself. “Could it be that

my grandfather’s village is, in fact, an Aromanian settlement?” A bit of Internet research quickly

clarified that the Aromanians are essentially the Balkan counterpart to the Romanians, with both

groups speaking a Latin-based language. Historically, the collective term for these peoples of

Eastern Europe has been ‘Vlachs’. The origins of the Vlachs – much like the ancient

  13
  

Macedonians – have been vigorously debated. These peoples have been variously described as

descendants of Roman settlers, ‘Latinized’ Thracians and Dacians, or even ‘Latinized Greeks’

(as the Greek government somewhat chauvinistically claims). Over the last century or so, the

Vlachs of the Greek peninsula have been largely assimilated into Greek culture, gradually losing

knowledge of their Latin language and typically identifying singularly as ‘Greeks.’ Only

pocketed areas remain in the Pindus region and elsewhere where Vlachika is still spoken as a

primary language, and it is indeed extremely rare to encounter a Vlach in Greece who completely

eschews a sense of Greek identity.

Thus, well before my episode at Argilos, I had accepted the possibility that I shared some

Vlach lineage through my grandfather. But to be in Greece, and to hear a Greek attribute an

ethnic identity to me which I had never claimed, was uncomfortable to say the least. In that

moment, I could not help but feel that some parallel had been conjured up between myself and an

ancient Macedonian; much like the Argeads, my own ethnic consciousness as a Greek had been

called into question by none other than a Greek. Although I do embrace my Vlach roots, I

identify myself to others exclusively as a Greek, and this will never change. Likewise, my entire

family on my father’s side proudly shares this sense of Hellenic identity, and has been immersed

– for as long as they can remember – in no other culture than that of the Greeks. I am therefore

living proof of the fact that one’s ethnic consciousness ultimately prevails over vague notions of

ancestry and genetic kinship, and that the perceptions of others towards one’s ethnic identity are

often entirely irrelevant.19

                                                                                                               
19
It must be stressed that this paper will not concern itself whatsoever with the modern dispute between Greece and
the Republic of Macedonia over the ‘cultural ownership’ of ancient Macedonian history. Indeed, I have encountered
students of Classical history who found the issue of the ancient Macedonians’ ethnicity engaging without having
been prompted by any awareness of said conflict. This highlights how the subject of this paper is important in and of
itself within Classical antiquity and has no answers in a modern political feud which, though interesting, is irrelevant
here. For an overview of the Greece/Republic of Macedonia issue see Loring M. Danforth, (2010) “Ancient

  14
  

Chapter II
Early Macedonia: A General Overview

As the aim of this study is to provide an analysis of the literary evidence for ancient

Macedonian ethnic identity, a thorough examination of the region of Macedonia from such early

periods as the Neolithic and Bronze Age will not be undertaken. Indeed, the lack of written

records and only fragmentary archaeological evidence makes any reconstruction of such remote

eras difficult, if not outright impossible – a problem more severe in Macedonia than in southern

Greece. But more importantly, the daunting task of trying to track the movements of various

prehistoric peoples throughout the region would be quite irrelevant to the question of how the

Macedonians, as a historical ethnic group, both identified themselves and were identified by

others centuries later. Of course, the Macedonians were ultimately derived from some population

group that migrated towards the southern Balkans and the Greek peninsula, and the more

anthropological concern with tracing the genetic bloodlines of the Macedonians admittedly does

raise the interesting (and long-debated) question of whether the Macedonians shared the same

ancestors as their Greek neighbours. Some reasonable theorizations have been made on this

subject, which we shall consider in brief shortly; these relate, in particular, to the collapse of

Mycenaean civilization and the movements of populations within the Greek peninsula during the

Dark Age. This discussion will then turn to the available literary evidence for the emergence of

the Macedonians as a historical group. At any rate, however, it must be emphasized that the

tentative conclusions to be drawn on this matter do not bear any essential significance to this

study’s primary focus – the issue of Macedonian ethnic identification in the literary sources from

the 5th c. B.C. onwards.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Macedonia, Alexander the Great and the Star of Vergina: National Symbols and the Conflict between Greece and
the Republic of Macedonia,” CAM 572-598.

  15
  

Basic Geography

Mountainous terrain, extensive plains, dense forests and numerous rivers and streams

characterize the region of Macedonia. It has a dual climate: Mediterranean along the coast, and

continental inland. In basic geographical terms, Macedonia may be defined “as the territory

drained by the two great rivers, the Haliacmon and the Vardar (Axios), and their tributaries.”20

However, any purely geographical delineation of Macedonia is inherently problematic, given

that its borders fluctuated over time in accordance with the various political entities that held

sway over the region. Thus, the original territorial kingdom of the Macedonians does not

correspond exactly to the Roman province of Macedonia (or its later Byzantine incarnation), nor

to the modern region which straddles several nations (Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, and

Bulgaria). As we shall see, the actual heartland of the historical Macedonians was centred on the

Emathian and Pierian plains immediately to the north of Mt. Olympus, from which they extended

their rule eastwards across the Axios to the Strymon river and Mt. Pangaion, and westwards to

the Pindus mountains. This gradual acquisition of territory therefore brought Macedonian

influence over areas which are not drained by the Haliacmon-Axios watershed. For matters of

clarification, the term ‘Macedonia’ is employed by scholars in reference to the region strictly as a

geographical entity – for instance, the area drained by the Haliacmon-Axios (as per Hammond’s

definition). ‘Macedon’, on the other hand, is a political term and refers to the land that was ruled

directly and traditionally by Macedonian kings.21

                                                                                                               
20
N. G. L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, (1979) A History of Macedonia Vol. II, Oxford: 3.
21
Eugene Borza, (1990) In the Shadow of Olympus: the Emergence of Macedon, Princeton: 29. Classical Greek
writers tended to exclude the core territories of Macedon from their geographical descriptions of Greece, which
obviously reflects their opinion that the Macedonian populace was not Hellenic. However, this changed over the
course of the Hellenistic period. For instance, Strabo’s Geography noted centuries later that “Macedonia, of course,
is a part of Greece (frag. 7 F 5).”

  16
  

Macedonia at the End of the Bronze Age

As the Mycenaeans are in a sense the first ‘Greeks’ by virtue of their use of Linear B, a

primitive form of Greek, we might be tempted to begin our investigation of ancient Macedonian

ethnicity by determining the extent to which Mycenaean civilization prevailed in Macedonia.

There have been generally few Mycenaean finds in central Macedonia, the majority of which

date to the Late Bronze Age. Although the coastal areas of the Thermaic Gulf have yielded

Mycenaean pottery dating to ca. 1350 B.C., it is unclear whether Mycenaeans actually settled

there due to the fact that most of the ware is of a local variety as opposed to having being

imported from the south.22 The discovery of a Mycenaean cemetery at the site of Aghios

Demetrios, located in the ‘Petra Pass’ just north of Mt. Olympus, demonstrates that the

Mycenaeans at least reached the Macedonian frontier and perhaps pushed further north into

western Macedonia.23 Meanwhile, Kozani in southwestern Macedonia has yielded a considerable

amount of Mycenaean pottery, a fair portion of which was imported (most likely from Thessaly).

While there is little archaeological confirmation for extensive Mycenaean settlement in western

Macedonia, the area has produced some valuable cultural artifacts, notably two bronze swords of

Mycenaean type from Grevena dated to 1400-1350 B.C.24 Again, however, we lack sufficient

archaeological evidence to confirm a widespread Mycenaean presence in central Macedonia, and

scholars agree that our available data indicates that the region was only tangentially associated

with Mycenaean civilization.

Yet, regardless of what population group(s) inhabited Macedonia at the close of the

Bronze Age, it is not necessarily the case that it directly gave rise to the historical Macedonians.

                                                                                                               
22
Ibid, 63. For detailed overviews of Mycenaean finds in Macedonia see Hammond (1972: 290-300) and K.A.
Wardle, (1975) “The Northern Frontier of Mycenaean Greece,” BICS 22: 206-12. For a list of Mycenaean sites in
Greece see R. Hope Simpson, (1981) The Sites of Mycenaean Greece, Park Ridge, NJ.
23
Ibid, 64.  
24
Hammond 1972: 292

  17
  

At this time populations began to shift both towards and within the Greek peninsula, which is

confirmed by archaeological data. Macedonia, in particular, saw the arrival of a group of central

Europeans belonging to the ‘Lausitz’ culture; these people appear to have occupied much of

Albania, northern Epirus, and Macedonia west of the Axios River by ca. 1150 B.C.25 Scholars

have been able to identify them with the Briges, a group described by Herodotus as the

predecessors of the the Phrygians of Asia Minor.26 As he writes, “οἱ δὲ Φρύγες, ὡς

Μακεδόνες λέγουσι, ἐκαλέοντο Βρίγες χρόνον ὅσον Εὐρωπήιοι ἐόντες σύνοικοι ἦσαν

Μακεδόσι, μεταβάντες δὲ ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἅμα τῇ χώρῃ καὶ τὸ οὔνομα μετέβαλον ἐς

Φρύγας.” 27 Evidently, Herodotus is repeating a Macedonian tradition concerning the Briges and

gives us no precise information regarding the duration of their stay in Macedonia. His statement

that the Macedonians and the Briges were ‘σύνοικοι’ (neighbours) indicates that they were

separate groups, but co-existed peacefully until the departure of the latter from Europe. Given

that our latest material evidence pertaining to the ‘Lausitz’ culture associated with the Briges is

dated to about 800 B.C. (as shown by pottery finds at Vergina), we may infer that it was probably

around that time when they migrated to Asia Minor.28 Therefore, as the Briges dominated the

majority of the central Macedonian plain for roughly three and a half centuries, it seems that the

early Macedonians could not have been established throughout that area until well after the end

of the Bronze Age. As we shall see shortly, the Macedonians began their conquest of the central

                                                                                                               
25
Borza 1990: 65. Characteristic features of ‘Lausitz’ pottery include the fluted handle and fluted or grooved bowls
and jugs; the twisted handle is also common. The sites of Vardarophtsa and Vardina (in central Macedonia) have
produced the majority of this ware. See Hammond (1972: 305-307).
26
Ibid. Whether or not the Briges were actually the direct ancestors of the Phrygians remains a topic of debate.
However, the majority of scholars agree with both Hammond and Borza’s identification of the ‘Lausitz’ culture with
the Briges, a connection which was made by even earlier historians.
27
Herodotus, Histories (translated by Robin Waterfield, Oxford 1998) 7.73.1: “As the Macedonians say, these
Phrygians were called Briges as long as they lived in Europe, where they were neighbors of the Macedonians; but
when they changed their home to Asia, they changed their name also and were called Phrygians.”
28
Hammond 1972: 307. The exact reasons for the Briges’ abandonment of their Balkan lands remain unknown to
scholars. It is impossible to determine whether some of the Briges remained in Macedonia and were ultimately
absorbed by the Macedonians.

  18
  

Macedonian plain from the district of Pieria north of Mt. Olympus, yet there is no mention in any

account of violence between them and the Briges.29 It is thus possible that the early Macedonians

remained in the southern vicinity of Pieria during the Briges’ occupation of Macedonia and only

began their takeover of the wider region once the Briges had departed around the late 9th c.

Dark Age Evidence for the Origins of the Macedonians

Again, while it is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into the broad and complex

subject of migrations at the very end of the Bronze Age, the essential point to acknowledge (as

illustrated by the Briges) is that Macedonia’s population around the time of the Mycenaean

collapse was by no means static, nor identical to what it had been in preceding centuries.

Therefore, we should not see the region of Macedonia’s general isolation from the Mycenaean

world as necessarily disqualifying the possibility that the historical Macedonian people shared

descent from an early group of primitive Greek-speakers. As Borza observes, it is the early Iron

Age that “probably saw the establishment of the basic ethnic pool from which the historical

Macedonians and their neighbors were derived.”30 Early Iron Age sites have been excavated at

various locations in Macedonia including Vergina, Dion, and Kozani, demonstrating a generally

eclectic material culture with traits representative of both southern Greece and the Balkans.

However, the archaeological record for central Macedonia is still very limited, especially for the

transitional period from the late Iron Age to the early Archaic.31 Despite this obstacle, we have

an important literary clue which sheds some light on the shady picture of the late Iron Age/early

Archaic in Macedonia. Describing the movement of a group of early Greeks, Herodotus states,

“οἴκεε ἐν Πίνδῳ Μακεδνὸν καλεόμενον: ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὖτις ἐς τὴν Δρυοπίδα μετέβη καὶ

                                                                                                               
29
Ibid, 412.
30
Borza 1990: 73
31
Ibid, 76. As Borza notes, the main problem with this period is that we are almost wholly dependent on limited
samples of grave goods and other material remains. Such a meager archaeological record prevents us from fully
determining the extent of either foreign influence or local peculiarities in the material culture of the region.

  19
  

ἐκ τῆς Δρυοπίδος οὕτω ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐλθὸν Δωρικὸν ἐκλήθη.”32 Later in the Histories,

a link between the Dorian Greeks and the Macedonians is again indicated when Herodotus

mentions the allies of the Spartans: “All of these except the Hermioneans are Dorian and

Macedonian, and had last come from Erineus and Pindus and the Dryopian region (ἐόντες οὗτοι

πλὴν Ἑρμιονέων Δωρικόν τε καὶ Μακεδνὸν ἔθνος, ἐξ Ἐρινεοῦ τε καὶ Πίνδου καὶ τῆς

Δρυοπίδος ὕστατα ὁρμηθέντες).”33

The migrations around the Pindus region that Herodotus is referring to certainly occurred

centuries before his time, perhaps as early as ca. 1000 B.C.34 Although we cannot precisely trace

the origin of these accounts connecting the Dorians and the Macedonians, it appears that

Herodotus is preserving some memory of post-Mycenaean instability across the Greek mainland.

It is probable that movements of Greek-speaking groups occurred within the Greek peninsula

around 1100-1000 B.C., and at least some of these groups would have settled in the area around

the Pindus mountains in northwest Greece.35 Thus, Herodotus is perhaps indicating that the

respective ancestors of the historical Macedonians, and the Greek groups that would ultimately

come to be known as ‘Dorian’, coexisted somewhere in the Pindus Mountains at the transition

from the Bronze to the Dark Age.36 Since the migrations to the Pindus region would have been

driven primarily by illiterate groups (in a temporary state of turmoil), it follows that they have

not produced a distinct linguistic trail of evidence. In light of this point we are forced to

acknowledge that any reconstruction of a migratory phase around the Pindus Mountains should

                                                                                                               
32
Hdt. 1.56.3: “They settled in the territory around Pindus and were called Makednon; from there they migrated to
Dryopia, and finally came from Dryopia into the Peloponnese, where they took the name of Dorian.”
33
Hdt. 8.43.1
34
Borza 1990: 69
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid, 71. Hammond hypothesizes that the Dorians referred to by Herodotus intermingled with the early ancestors
of the Macedonians during their time in the Pindus, leading to their adoption of the tribal name Makednon before
moving to southern Greece and later taking on the name of Dorians. Meanwhile, the ancestors of the historical
Macedonians maintained this name after departing the Pindus and reaching Macedonia.

  20
  

be treated as tentative until further evidence emerges. It must also be emphasized that the link

between the Dorians and the Macedonians in the context of Dark Age population shifts should

not be construed as evidence for the so-called ‘Dorian Invasion’, an outdated hypothesis

postulating that a new group of Greek-speakers arrived at the end of the Bronze Age and brought

about the downfall of Mycenaean civilization. Scholars have largely abandoned this view as it is

unsupported by either archaeological or linguistic evidence, among other reasons.37 At any rate,

the debate surrounding the Dorian Invasion is an entirely separate issue altogether; the relevance

of the above passages from Herodotus is that they constitute fair literary evidence for the

Macedonians having their origins in the Pindus region.

The Emergence of the Historical Macedonians in the Literary Sources

We can now turn to our next piece of literary evidence for the earliest stages in the

formation of the historical Macedonians as an ethnic group. Thucydides, in his History of the

Peloponnesian War, describes the expansion of the Macedonians through a series of conquests.

His account reads as follows:

τὴν δὲ παρὰ θάλασσαν νῦν Μακεδονίαν Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Περδίκκου πατὴρ

καὶ οἱ πρόγονοι αὐτοῦ, Τημενίδαι τὸ ἀρχαῖον ὄντες ἐξ Ἄργους, πρῶτοι
ἐκτήσαντο καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν ἀναστήσαντες μάχῃ ἐκ μὲν Πιερίας Πίερας, οἳ
ὕστερον ὑπὸ τὸ Πάγγαιον πέραν Στρυμόνος ᾤκησαν Φάγρητα καὶ ἄλλα
χωρία (καὶ ἔτι καὶ νῦν Πιερικὸς κόλπος καλεῖται ἡ ὑπὸ τῷ Παγγαίῳ πρὸς
θάλασσαν γῆ), ἐκ δὲ τῆς Βοττίας καλουμένης Βοττιαίους, οἳ νῦν ὅμοροι
Χαλκιδέων οἰκοῦσιν: τῆς δὲ Παιονίας παρὰ τὸν Ἀξιὸν ποταμὸν στενήν
τινα καθήκουσαν ἄνωθεν μέχρι Πέλλης καὶ θαλάσσης ἐκτήσαντο, καὶ
πέραν Ἀξιοῦ μέχρι Στρυμόνος τὴν Μυγδονίαν καλουμένην Ἠδῶνας
ἐξελάσαντες νέμονται. ἀνέστησαν δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς νῦν Ἐορδίας καλουμένης

                                                                                                               
37
Ibid 65. Archaeologists and scholars have pointed to other deficiencies in the basic outline of the ‘Dorian
Invasion’ hypothesis. As Borza notes, it is hard to comprehend how a “presumably numerically and technologically
inferior population” could devastate the well-organized Mycenaean citadel complexes. While it is indeed clear that
the downfall of Mycenaean civilization was violent, it is impossible to attribute this to the invasion of a people that
are invisible archaeologically. Furthermore, scholars agree that the historical Dorian Greek dialects were not
introduced by an invading group, but have their origins either in a form of Mycenaean that survived into the Dark
Ages or in a post-Mycenaean dialect.

  21
  

Ἐορδούς, ὧν οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ ἐφθάρησαν, βραχὺ δέ τι αὐτῶν περὶ Φύσκαν

κατῴκηται, καὶ ἐξ Ἀλμωπίας Ἄλμωπας.38

Oddly, Thucydides does not provide any information as to where exactly the Macedonians began

their process of expansion, leaving us to wonder how the Macedonians first came to Pieria.

Scholars presume that a general migration eastwards out of the Pindus Mountains to the

Olympus region took place roughly around 700 B.C., leading to a concentration of related tribes

in Pieria who eventually coalesced under the name of Makedones.39 The problem here is that

archaeologists are yet to confirm the specific route by which the ancestral tribes of the

Macedonians might have entered Pieria. Of a few routes that have been proposed, the most

convincing seems to be the Petra Pass, which separates the Pierian and Olympus ranges; the

presence of an Iron Age settlement near the opening of the pass may indicate that this area was

traversed by the early Macedonians on their way out of the Pindus range.40 Whatever the case,

Pieria emerges as the first clearly documented homeland of the historical Macedonians.

Herodotus likewise places the Macedonians in the general vicinity of Pieria, writing that

Perdiccas I (the first ruler of the Macedonians) and his brothers began their conquests from Mt.

Bermion.41 It is interesting and of significant note that both Herodotus and Thucydides describe

                                                                                                               
38
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (translated by Martin Hammond, Oxford 2009) 2.99.3-5: “The
land by the sea which is now called Macedonia was conquered and formed into a kingdom by Alexander, the father
of Perdiccas, and his ancestors the Temenidae, who originally came from Argos. They defeated and drove out of
Pieria the Pierians, who then settled in Phagres and other places at the foot of Mt. Pangaeus, beyond the Strymon;
the land which lies under Mt. Pangaeus towards the sea is still called the Pierian vale. They also drove out of Bottia,
(as it is called) the Bottiaeans, who are now the neighbours of the Chalcidians, and they acquired a narrow strip of
Paeonia by the river Axius, extending down to Pella and the sea. Beyond the Axius, they possess the country called
Mygdonia stretching to the Strymon, out of which they drove the Edonians. They expelled from the country still
called Eordaea the Eordaeans, of whom the greater part perished, but a small remnant of them settled in the
neighbourhood of Physca; and from Almopia the Almopians.”
39
Borza 1990: 78
40
Ibid, 79. The Petra Pass also contains the remains of a late Mycenaean settlement dated to ca. 1200 B.C.,
indicating that the pass was known as an established route into Pieria at an early point. However, the state of the Iron
Age excavations at the site allow for only a tentative association with the Macedonians.
41
Hdt. 8.138.3: “ὑπὲρ δὲ τῶν κήπων ὄρος κεῖται Βέρμιον οὔνομα, ἄβατον ὑπὸ χειμῶνος. ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ
ὁρμώμενοι, ὡς ταύτην ἔσχον, κατεστρέφοντο καὶ τὴν ἄλλην Μακεδονίην (Above it rises the mountain called
Bermion, which none can ascend in the winter due to cold. From there they went forth when they had won that

  22
  

the Macedonians as progressively expanding their territory northwards from Pieria, first seizing

control of the central Macedonian plain before moving east towards the Strymon river, and west

towards the Pindus range. Theoretically, had the historical Macedonians originated from a non-

Greek population during the Dark Age, this would be an unusual direction for their migration

into Macedonia; indeed, their entry into the region would have more likely occurred from the

Balkan landmass to the north, in a southwards direction. Though it remains to be stressed that the

Macedonians’ Pindus link is still shady and somewhat speculative, this observation supports the

theory that the Macedonians did descend from a Greek-speaking group within the Greek

peninsula, previously isolated somewhere in the Pindus area.

It is important to note that Thucydides distinguishes between groups of Macedonians.

According to his account, “τῶν γὰρ Μακεδόνων εἰσὶ καὶ Λυγκησταὶ καὶ Ἐλιμιῶται καὶ

ἄλλα ἔθνη ἐπάνωθεν, ἃ ξύμμαχα μέν ἐστι τούτοις καὶ ὑπήκοα, βασιλείας δ᾽ ἔχει καθ᾽

αὑτά.”42 The Lyncestae, Elimiotae, and other ‘inland’ (ἐπάνωθεν) tribes mentioned in this

passage were inhabitants of ‘Upper Macedon’, Macedonia’s hinterland comprised of the districts

of Lyncestis, Elimea, Tymphaea, Eordaea, and Orestis (see Fig. 2). These territories had their

own local chieftains and were initially independent of the Argead kings, whose rule was

established to the east over the lands situated around the central Macedonian plain (collectively

referred to as ‘Lower Macedon’ and including Pieria, Bottiaea, Almopia, Crestonia, and

Mygdonia). From an early time the Upper Macedonian tribes were considered to be closely

related to the Epirotes, their immediate neighbours west of the Pindus range.43 Although king

Alexander I managed to exercise some degree of authority over Upper Macedon during the latter
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
country and subdued the rest of Macedonia).”
42
Thuc. 2.99.2-3: “There is an upper Macedonia, which is inhabited by Lyncestians, Elimiots, and other tribes; these
are the allies and tributaries of the lower Macedonians, but have kings of their own.”
43
Hammond 1972: 440. For example, Hecataeus (mid 6th c. B.C.) calls the Orestai (an Upper Macedonian tribe) an
“ethnos Molossikon (FGrH 1 F 107).”

  23
  

half of the 5th c. B.C., its territories were not formally adjoined to the Macedonian state until the

reign of Philip II. Therefore, what we have is a distinction between the original Makedones of

Lower Macedon – led by the Argeads – and the peoples of Upper Macedon, who became

Makedones upon their political incorporation into the Macedonian state.44

Fig. 1: Map of mainland Greece (Roisman and Worthington 2010: xx)

                                                                                                               
44
Hammond 1972: 439. Hammond notes the probability that the peoples of Upper Macedon shared more cultural
ties to the Epirotes than to the Makedones; this link will be explored in more detail in the following chapter. The fact
that Thucydides designated the Upper Macedonian tribes as ‘Macedonians’ indicates his recognition of king
Alexander I’s establishment of power in those areas, which brought most of the Upper Macedonian chieftains into
an alliance with him for a period of time.

  24
  

Fig. 2: Map showing the constituent territories of ancient Macedon. The dotted red line indicates
Macedon proper’s greatest extent in the mid-late 4th c. B.C (Hatzopoulos 1996: 557)

Fig. 3: The gradual

expansion of the
Macedonian kingdom
(Roisman and
Worthington 2010: xxi)

  25
  

Chapter III
Macedonian Culture

A proper evaluation of ancient Macedonian culture must begin with a few key

acknowledgements. On one hand, much consideration has been given to the fact that the

Macedonians, by the 4th century B.C., were firmly acquainted with the vibrant, cosmopolitan

Greek culture of the city-states to the south. By that point they had developed a number of urban

centres and a predilection for many of the cultural elements shared by their southern Greek

neighbours. On the other hand, it is a more difficult task to clarify the exact ‘nature’ of

Macedonian culture prior to the late Classical period of Greek history. Can we speak of a

distinctly ‘Macedonian’ culture? If so, how did it gradually come to be influenced by the socio-

cultural developments in the southern portion of the Greek peninsula? Moreover, is it possible to

determine that a rudimentary form of Greek culture was initially prevalent throughout Macedon,

before being subsumed – or, rather, augmented – by the largely Attic elements introduced to the

kingdom by the mid 4th c.?

As usual, all of these questions require careful attention to both archaeological and

literary sources of evidence. Although language is typically regarded as an aspect of culture, this

chapter will mainly focus on Macedonian culture on the basis of discrete customs. ‘Customs’ to

be examined include religious practices, methods of political organization, ways of life and

social institutions. We shall see later on that Herodotus treats customs and language as separate

constituents of Greek ethnicity (Hdt. 8.144.2), and it thus seems reasonable to apply this line of

thinking to our understanding of the Macedonians as an ethnic group; regardless of their

linguistic affiliation, can their customs be seen as Greek, or rather, unique?

  26
  

Macedonian Pastoralism

A characteristic feature of Macedonian culture was pastoralism.45 The common person

generally held the occupation of shepherd or hunter, engaging in methods of subsistence farming

with a lifestyle based around transhumance. While such a way of life could be observed in other

remote locations in Greece at essentially anytime throughout the centuries of antiquity, it must be

emphasized that pastoralism long persisted as the dominant lifestyle for the Macedonians.46 The

peoples inhabiting Upper Macedon were especially inclined towards pastoralism. This of course

stands in contrast to the southern Greeks, who had been immersed in their respective urbanized

poleis well before the end of the Archaic period. The geographic isolation of Macedon from the

southern portion of the Greek peninsula prevented the common Macedonian from obtaining a

direct experience of many prominent poleis – and vice versa. Nevertheless, contact did exist with

the Greek city-states during the Archaic period, especially through the colonies established in

and around the Chalcidice peninsula.47 Though there is some evidence for the existence of more

urbanized settlements by the late 6th c. B.C. in the southeastern, core territories of Lower

Macedon, these would not reach the splendor and organization of the southern Greek poleis until

the reign of Philip II in the 4th c. 48 However, archaeological excavations at the site of Aiani have

demonstrated that the Macedonians in earlier times were not as socially and culturally removed

from the city-states as previously thought. Aiani, located in the Upper Macedonian district of

Elimea, has yielded the remains of a large urban centre which can be dated back to the late
                                                                                                               
45
A.P. Daskalakis, (1965) The Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians, Thessaloniki: 32.
46
The traditional account of the foundation of the Macedonian kingdom, as provided by Herodotus, describes the
three brothers Perdiccas, Aeropus, and Gauanes as pastoralists, tending horses, oxen, sheep, and goats (Hdt.
8.137.2). Thus we see pastoralism intimately associated with the founders of the Macedonian royal family. Also, a
passage from Arrian (Anab. 7.9.2) attests to the pastoral quality of Macedonian life, describing how Philip II brought
the Macedonians “down from the mountains to the plains (κατήγαγε δὲ ἐκ τῶν ὀρῶν ἐς τὰ πεδία).”
47  M.B. Hatzopoulos, ed., (1993) Macedonia: From Philip II to the Roman Conquest, Athens: 26. For instance, the

colony of Methone, established by Eretrians from Euboea at the mouth of the Haliakmon river in the 7th c. B.C., was
an early site of contact between Macedonians and southern Greeks.
48
N. G. L. Hammond, (1991) The Miracle That Was Macedonia, London/New York: 48.

  27
  

Archaic period.49 This is obviously well before Philip’s time, and indicates that the inhabitants of

such an obscure location were already enjoying a fairly high standard of living and culture in the

6th and 5th centuries B.C. Indeed, the public and private residences of Aiani “attest to an urban

settlement that displayed civic organization and growth in late Archaic and Classical times.”50

Thus, even in one of Macedon’s more isolated regions, we can observe an early predilection for

more advanced cultural expressions. While Aiani is a somewhat exceptional case, it clearly

illustrates how archaeological finds have caused a reassessment of the old view that the

Macedonians’ progression away from pastoralism only began under Philip II.

Cultural Parallels: Macedon and Epirus

It is important to note that there are some cultural parallels between Macedon and other

isolated areas of the Greek peninsula, namely Epirus. Much like the Macedonians, the Epirotes

led a rustic lifestyle well into the Classical period, inhabiting small villages with very few urban

settlements.51 It is also evident from ancient sources that the Classical Greeks likewise regarded

the Epirotes as ‘barbarians’, as Thucydides did near the end of the 5th century B.C.52 In his

History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides describes the Epirotes as being part of a non-

Hellenic military contingent:

                                                                                                               
49
G. Karamitrou-Mentessidi, (2011) “Aiani – Historical and Geographical Context,” in Brill’s Companion to
Ancient Macedon (BRL), Robin J. Lane Fox ed. Leiden, 93-112: 94. A notable discovery at Aiani is the “Building
With the Stoa”, an L-shaped portico dated to the very end of the Archaic period with sides measuring 25 x 30 m.
The inclusion of double rooms resembling shops indicates that this structure likely formed part of an agora complex.
Aiani also contains a public cemetery with graves dating to the Archaic and Classical periods; most of these are pit-
graves, similar to those found at other locations in Macedon (such as Vergina). The oldest graves have yielded an
abundance of Corinthian ware in the form of both black and red-figure vases, indicating important trade links with
southern Greece. In many burials, the mouths of the deceased were covered with a lozenge-shaped decorated gold
sheet (epistomia), and female burials have yielded a variety of precious gold jewellery. The head of a kore and torso
of a kouros have also been uncovered from the grave offerings. Meanwhile, male burials have produced bronze
weaponry including helmets, iron spear-points, and swords. All of this clearly points to the fact that Aiani enjoyed a
high level of economic prosperity. See also Hatzopoulos (1993: 29-32).
50  Ibid, 110.  
51
Engels 2010: 84
52
HM II: 45

  28
  

καὶ αὐτῷ παρῆσαν Ἑλλήνων μὲν Ἀμπρακιῶται καὶ Λευκάδιοι καὶ

Ἀνακτόριοι καὶ οὓς αὐτὸς ἔχων ἦλθε χίλιοι Πελοποννησίων, βάρβαροι δὲ
Χάονες χίλιοι ἀβασίλευτοι, ὧν ἡγοῦντο ἐπετησίῳ προστατείᾳ ἐκ τοῦ
ἀρχικοῦ γένους Φώτιος καὶ Νικάνωρ. ξυνεστρατεύοντο δὲ μετὰ Χαόνων
καὶ Θεσπρωτοὶ ἀβασίλευτοι. Μολοσσοὺς δὲ ἦγε καὶ Ἀτιντᾶνας Σαβύλινθος
ἐπίτροπος ὢν Θάρυπος τοῦ βασιλέως ἔτι παιδὸς ὄντος, καὶ Παραυαίους
Ὄροιδος βασιλεύων. Ὀρέσται δὲ χίλιοι, ὧν ἐβασίλευεν Ἀντίοχος, μετὰ
Παραυαίων ξυνεστρατεύοντο Ὀροίδῳ Ἀντιόχου ἐπιτρέψαντος. ἔπεμψε δὲ
καὶ Περδίκκας κρύφα τῶν Ἀθηναίων χιλίους Μακεδόνων, οἳ ὕστερον
ἦλθον.53

The Epirotes being referred to here are the Thesprotians and Molossians, and it is interesting how

this passage includes the Macedonians alongside these Epirote tribes as part of a ‘barbarian’

force. Hammond has convincingly argued that the relative lack of highly-developed Greek

cultural and political expression amongst the Epirotes was the key determining factor – as

opposed to their language – for their being considered ‘barbarians’ by the Greeks. As he writes,

“Those who did not participate in the world and the ideas of the Greek city-state were

‘barbaroi’.”54 Indeed, the numerous discoveries of inscriptions dating to the early 4th c. B.C. have

firmly demonstrated that both the Thesprotians and Molossians spoke a Greek dialect.55 This

suggests that their designation as ‘barbarians’ was mainly due to the Greeks’ impression that

they were profoundly isolated – wholly disconnected, perhaps – from the southern Greek world

on a socio-political level.

                                                                                                               
53
Thuc. 2.80.5-7: “Of Greeks he (Cnemus) had in his army Ambraciots, Leucadians, Anactorians, and the thousand
Peloponnesians that he brought himself; of barbarians a thousand Chaonians, who, having no king, were led by
Photyus and Nicanor, both of the governing family and holding the presidency for a year. With the Chaonians came
the Thesprotians, who, like them, have no king. A Molossian and Atintanian force was led by Sabylinthus, the
guardian of Tharypas the king, who was still a minor; the Paravaeans were led by their king Oroedus, and were
accompanied by a thousand Orestians placed at the disposal of Oroedus by their king Antiochus. Perdiccas also,
unknown to the Athenians, sent a thousand Macedonians, who arrived too late.”
54
HM II: 45. The social structures of both Epirus and Upper Macedon were largely based around the ethne, regional
and cultural associations of people lacking a formal political union or central urban centre. Many Greeks of the
Classical period regarded ethne as a primitive form of socio-political organization. For more on this, see N.G.L.
Hammond, (2000) “The Ethne in Epirus and Upper Macedonia,” T  he Annual of the British School at Athens Vol. 95:
345-352.
55
Hammond 1989: 14. Hammond makes the logical observation that the local dialect of Greek spoken by the
Epirotes was certainly in use in the 5th c. B.C., and probably earlier.

  29
  

The Greek outlook towards the Epirotes during the Classical period thus appears quite

similar as that facing the Macedonians, though a few key differences can be ascertained. Unlike

Macedon, Epirus was firmly rooted in the Greek mythological tradition through stories of the

return of heroes from the Trojan War (nostoi) to Epirus, which “precluded any serious debate” of

the Hellenicity of the Epirotes.56 Macedon, on the other hand, lacked such a distinct connection

to the Trojan War, having no mention whatsoever in Homer’s Iliad. While there is some

important evidence from Hesiod for Macedon’s inclusion in the mythological traditions of the

Archaic period (which will be examined more closely in ch. 6, “Ancient Macedonian Speech”),

it is nonetheless clear that Epirus was more closely woven into the fabric of the Greek Epics than

Macedon. A connection to the Trojan War was, of course, something all Greek communities

maintained and emphasized as an important aspect of their Greek identity. Furthermore, the

oracle of Dodona in Epirus was held by ancient Greek legend to be the “cradle of the Greek

race”, and the very name of Hellas may be derived from the area surrounding the sanctuary,

Hellopia.57 Such an ingrained relationship to the Greek ethnicity through legend is absent in

Macedon. However, what the case of Epirus demonstrates is that the Greeks were prepared to

label other groups of Greek-speakers as ‘barbarians’ on the basis of a perceived low level of

cultural refinement.58 While the subject of the Macedonians’ language will be discussed in more

detail at a later point, it is worth noting here that the Classical Greek perception of both the

Macedonians and Epirotes as barbarians may have been constructed in essentially the same way

– by emphasizing cultural and political advancement over linguistic and genealogical affiliation.

With this in mind, one should be cautioned against assuming that the term ‘barbarian’

necessarily denotes a non-Greek linguistic character of either the Epirotes or Macedonians.

                                                                                                               
56
Engels 2010: 83
57
Daskalakis 1965: 17
58
Ibid.

  30
  

The ‘Macedonian Tomb’

A noteworthy feature of Macedonian culture is monumental tomb architecture, best

exemplified by the tombs discovered by Greek archaeologist Manolis Andronikos at the site of

Vergina.59 A total of nearly seventy ‘Macedonian tombs’ have been found thus far, the most

recent discovery being that of an elaborate tomb at Amphipolis. The majority of the

‘Macedonian tombs’ are located in the region itself, the earliest of which date to the first half of

the 4th c. B.C. 60 While no two ‘Macedonian tombs’ are identical, they share a number of common

architectural elements, with their defining feature being the vaulted roof. They typically contain

a large burial chamber, roughly rectangular in shape, preceded by an antechamber. In almost all

cases, the tombs are built of durable blocks of poros and covered by a circular tumulus.61 What is

striking about the ‘Macedonian tomb’ is how it has no architectural parallel in other parts of

Greece. Indeed, the provision of a royal tomb built on a grand scale, to be accompanied by an

abundance of gold and silverware (as seen at Vergina), was a practice that was shared by the

Thracians rather than the Classical Greeks of the city-states.62 The extremely focused discipline

that the Macedonians directed to the construction of these tombs is undeniably conspicuous,
                                                                                                               
59
It should be stressed that the ‘Macedonian tomb’ was a burial form unique to the elite and by no means constitutes
an aspect of ‘average’ Macedonian culture. The site of Pella has yielded numerous examples of more modest
tombs/burials belonging to the non-nobility. These date to the last quarter of the 5th c. B.C. down to the first half of
the 4th. Basic tombs hewn out of natural rock are common, typically measuring roughly 1.5-2.5 x 1-1.5 m. Less
frequent are oval and rectangular inhumation pits cut into hard soil, with walls lined and reinforced by clay or small
stones. These graves were generally accompanied by quality red and black-figure pottery (of a variety of usual
Greek vase types), jewellery, and finely crafted terracotta figurines (especially in the case of children). Agricultural
tools and weapons were sometimes found in male burials. Overall, the necropolis at Pella indicates that the common
populace enjoyed a fairly high standard of living as inhabitants of an urban polis, and were not restricted to a
pastoral mode of existence. See Ioannis M. Akamatis, (2003) “The Cemetery of Pella: the Agora Graveyard,” in
Pella and its Environs, Thessaloniki: 142-143.  
60
Hatzopoulos 1993: 147
61
Ibid.
62
Hammond 1991: 56. A number of well-built Thracian tombs have been discovered, such as the Kazanlak and
Sveshtari tombs in modern Bulgaria (figs. 7, 10). The former tomb dates to the late 4th c. B.C. and contains
impressive artwork of a similar style to the frescoes found in some ‘Macedonian tombs’, such as the ones at
Vergina. It is possible that these Thracian tombs were in fact influenced by those of the Macedonians, though the
Thracians had already been building tombs (albeit less elaborate ones) in the preceding centuries. Evidently, the
Macedonians’ techniques in metalworking and artistry from this period have more in common with the Thracians
than the southern Greeks.

  31
  

especially as they did so at a time when monumental architecture for the purpose of burials had

long disappeared in Greece. However, we must recall that there is Homeric precedent for

providing the dead with a covered tomb.63 Andronikos notes that the tomb of Philip II at Vergina

contained a golden larnax in which the king’s charred bones were placed, wrapped in a purple

cloth.64 This corresponds very closely to Homer’s description of the warrior Hector’s burial at

the end of the Iliad:  “καὶ τά γε χρυσείην ἐς λάρνακα θῆκαν ἑλόντες πορφυρέοις πέπλοισι

καλύψαντες μαλακοῖσιν. αἶψα δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐς κοίλην κάπετον θέσαν, αὐτὰρ ὕπερθε πυκνοῖσιν

λάεσσι κατεστόρεσαν μεγάλοισι: ῥίμφα δὲ σῆμ᾽ ἔχεαν.”65 With this passage in mind, it

seems likely that Philip’s tomb was a way for both himself and the Macedonian royal family to

communicate their sense of attachment to the Homeric tradition and, by natural extension, their

identity as Greeks. At any rate, the monumental ‘Macedonian tomb’ is perhaps best seen as a

distinctly Macedonian invention. In terms of its general conception, the ‘Macedonian’ tomb

appears to reflect a Balkan tradition that had disappeared in Greece centuries before the Classical

period. Yet, simultaneously, the Greek architectural elements the Macedonians incorporated into

their 4th c. tombs do seem to reflect a desire to invest the tombs with the physical aura of

contemporary Greek temples, particularly through the decorated facades of many tombs (see

figs. 5 and 8). In this way, we can see the Macedonian elites aligning themselves with Greek

culture through the ‘Macedonian tomb’, despite how it was by no means a typical Greek

structure at the time.

                                                                                                               
63
C. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, (2011) “The Arts at Vergina-Aegae, the Cradle of the Macedonian Kingdom,” BRL 271-
295: 290.
64
Manolis Andronikos, (1984) Vergina: The Royal Tombs, Athens: 73.
65
Homer, Iliad 24.795-799. “They took the bones and placed them in a golden urn, covering them over with soft
purple robes. They quickly laid the larnax in a hollow grave, and covered it over with great close-set stones. Then
they swiftly heaped the mound.”

  32
  

Macedonians vs. Thracians and Illyrians

Investigating the customs of the non-Greek peoples bordering Macedon provides another

angle from which the Macedonians’ own culture can be assessed. Both the Illyrians and

Thracians have been noted for their piratical tendencies and marauding exploits, with the former

group having presented a serious threat to Upper Macedonia during the 5th c. B.C. through

sporadic yet devastating raids.66 There is literary evidence that attests to the excessively

‘barbarous’ characteristics of the Illyrians and Thracians, for which there is no correspondence

amongst the Macedonians. For instance, on the subject of Alexander the Great’s Balkan

campaign, Arrian recounts how the Taulantians (an Illyrian tribe) made a sacrifice of three boys,

three girls, and three black rams before engaging the Macedonian king in battle.67 There is no

evidence that the Macedonians ever practiced such rites at any point in their history, and they

likely held such practices to be abhorrent, as did the Greeks.68 Further significant cultural

differences from both the Illyrians and Thracians can be found in Herodotus’ Histories. In one

passage, he mentions that the Thracians purchased their wives “at high prices from their

parents.”69 Concerning the Illyrian tribe of the Eneti, Herodotus states that it was their custom to

gather all their marriageable girls once a year in a village, and have them auctioned off to

bidding men.70 Certainly, neither of these practices – nor anything similar – has been recorded of

the Macedonians. While it is not entirely unreasonable to challenge the veracity of Herodotus’

claims regarding the respective customs of either the Illyrians or Thracians, his history

                                                                                                               
66
HM II: 165
67
Arr. Anab. 1.5.7
68
Daskalakis 1965: 34. Of course, this is made clear by the traditional mythological account of Agamemnon and the
sacrifice of Iphigenia. While one should not take Arrian’s account as sure proof of the cultural practices of the
Taulantians (especially as the barbarity of human sacrifice was a common Greek literary and moral theme), the
greater point is how he uses this episode to contrast these people with the Macedonians – thus indicating a cultural
divide between the groups.
69
Hdt. 5.6.1
70
Hdt. 1.196.1

  33
  

constitutes the most extensive ethnographic account of these peoples and should not be assumed

as having no credibility.71 What is more relevant here is the likelihood that, had the Macedonians

themselves engaged in similar cultural practices, the numerous Greek writers and artists attracted

to the Macedonian court at the end of the 5th c. would surely have made mention of them.72 Yet,

despite all the hostility the Macedonians attracted from the Greeks during the Classical period

(and especially during their ascendance under Philip II), they were never ascribed such savage

characteristics as were the Thracians and Illyrians. It can therefore be inferred from our available

evidence that the Greeks’ perception of the Macedonians differed from the one they held towards

the Thracians or Illyrians; whatever the Greeks might have thought about the Macedonians on an

ethno-cultural level, they did not regard them as akin to these groups.

Political Organization: the Macedonian Monarchy and Other Institutions

In terms of its political organization, Macedon differed remarkably from the Greek city-

states. Unlike the southern poleis, Macedon never underwent a transformational process in its

political structure that resulted in the adoption of democracy, oligarchy, or tyranny. Instead,

monarchy prevailed as the central institution of Macedon until its final conquest by Rome.73 The

Argead dynasty emerged as the leading royal family of Macedon, and it was this house which

produced the kingdom’s legitimate heirs until the end of the 4th c. B.C. (see fig. 2). Neither

Herodotus nor Thucydides provides any clear information regarding when Perdiccas I, the

founder of the Argead dynasty, ascended the Macedonian throne; this has been tentatively placed

at some point in the 7th c. Likewise, we know practically nothing else of the next four Argead

kings, and it is not until the early 5th c. that we receive concrete literary evidence for a
                                                                                                               
71
It is ultimately impossible for us to know whether or not Herodotus embellished such accounts of
Illyrian/Thracian customs. Regardless, the most important point here is that neither Herodotus – nor any other Greek
author – ever portrayed the Macedonians as being in cultural alignment with these groups.
72
Daskalakis 1965: 35
73
Carol J. King, (2010) “Macedonian Kingship and Other Political Institutions,” CAM 374-391: 374.

  34
  

Macedonian monarch – first for Amyntas I, but particularly for Alexander I, whose reign is the

earliest that can be confidently dated.74 Monarchical rule was a practice that had been largely

abandoned in Greece by the early Archaic period, and was viewed by democratic cities

(especially Athens) as a culturally outdated, despotic system of government. Indeed, the Greeks

regarded subservience to a king as a characteristic feature of barbarian life, and there are known

occasions in which the Macedonian kings were themselves referred to as barbarians.75

In practically all matters the king possessed executive powers; he directly appointed his

own officers, financed projects from his own treasury, and convened an assembly of citizen-

soldiers whenever he deemed it necessary.76 A defining feature of the Macedonian political

structure was its essential simplicity. Indeed, we lack evidence for any other political institutions

besides the kingship prior to the reign of Philip II. We have a reference from Arrian to the paides

(‘youths’), an institution in which young males were groomed according to the values and

practices of elite Macedonian society. His account attributes its establishment to Philip and offers

a description of its general function:

ἐκ Φιλίππου ἦν ἤδη καθεστηκὸς τῶν ἐν τέλει Μακεδόνων τοὺς παῖδας ὅσοι

ἐς ἡλικίαν ἐμειρακιεύοντο καταλέγεσθαι ἐς θεραπείαν τοῦ βασιλέως, τά τε
περὶ τὴν ἄλλην δίαιταν τοῦ σώματος διακονεῖσθαι βασιλεῖ καὶ κοιμώμενον
φυλάσσειν τούτοις ἐπετέτραπτο. καὶ ὁπότε ἐξελαύνοι βασιλεύς, τοὺς
ἵππους παρὰ τῶν ἱπποκόμων δεχόμενοι ἐκεῖνοι προσῆγον καὶ ἀνέβαλλον
οὗτοι βασιλέα τὸν Περσικὸν τρόπον καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ θήρᾳ φιλοτιμίας βασιλεῖ
κοινωνοὶ ἦσαν.77

                                                                                                               
74
King 2010: 377  
75
For instance, Greek orators derided both Archelaus I and Philip II as barbarians. The Greeks’ views towards both
the Macedonian kings and the common people of Macedon will be examined in the following two chapters.
76
Hammond 1991: 43
77
Arr. Anab. 4.13.1: “It was a custom introduced by Philip, that adolescent sons of those Macedonians who had
enjoyed high office, should, as soon as they reached manhood, be selected to attend the king’s court. These youths
were entrusted with the general care of the king and the protection of his body while he was asleep. Whenever the
king rode out, some of them received the horses from the grooms, and brought them to him, and others assisted him
to mount in the Persian fashion. They also shared in the friendly rivalry of the hunt with the king.”

  35
  

The integration of Macedonian youths into the cultural life of the Macedonian court was

significant as it provided them with a formal education and an intimate exposure to Greek

intellectual thought.78 Moreover, it sought to foster a close relationship between the paides and

the king and prepared them for a career of military service.79 Upon attaining full adulthood they

typically became part of the king’s personal court circle as ‘Companions’ (Hetairoi) serving him

both at home and on campaign. The king was solely responsible for rewarding the Hetairoi with

gifts, land, and rank promotions for their aid and bravery on the battlefield.80 The ‘Companions’

served variously as members of the elite Macedonian cavalry units or as foot-soldiers

(pezhetairoi), often holding positions of command. They first gain prevalence in our sources

from the time of Philip onwards, particularly in the respective accounts of the Alexander

historians. However, as the term hetairoi itself is first attested in Homer (Iliad 1.345, 1.179) we

can be sure of its Archaic origins as a designation for the king’s noble associates.81 This perhaps

indicates that the ‘Companions’ – as a sort of institution – served Macedonian monarchs prior to

both Philip and Alexander. While the ‘Companions’ provided the king with consultation and had

the right to speak freely,82 there are no known instances in which their advice was binding on the

king, who ultimately held supreme authority in all matters. Nevertheless, the king was obligated

                                                                                                               
78
Noriko Sawada, (2010) “Social Customs and Institutions,” CAM 392-408: 405.
79
Q. Curtius Rufus (5.1.42) offers the same overview of the paides’ function as Arrian but adds “magnorumque
praefectorum et ducum haec incrementa sunt et rudimenta (these are the trials and duties of great prefects and
generals).”
80
Hammond 1989: 57. Hammond notes that while the Macedonian king associated with his Companions as primus
inter pares, in reality he was completely in control of them. If a Companion was failing in his duties – or exceeding
his powers – he could be instantly removed, demoted or have rewards withheld.
81
King 2010: 382
82
E.g. Arr. Anab. 2.16.8. “αὐτὸς δὲ συναγαγὼν τούς τε ἑταίρους καὶ τοὺς ἡγεμόνας τῆς στρατιᾶς καὶ
ταξιάρχας καὶ ἰλάρχας (He then summoned a council of his Companions and the leaders of his army, together
with the captains of infantry and cavalry).” Cf. Diodorus Siculus 17.54.3. “ὁ δ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος εἰς τὸ συνέδριον
παραλαβὼν πάντας τοὺς φίλους καὶ περὶ τῶν προτιθεμένων αἱρέσεων ἀνακοινωσάμενος ἠξίου τὴν ἰδίαν
γνώμην ἕκαστον μετὰ παρρησίας ἀποφήνασθαι (Alexander gathered all his friends into a council and laid
before them the alternatives. He was urging each to speak his own mind freely).”

  36
  

to reign according to customary law, thereby regulating relations between the Macedonian

citizenry, the royal house, and his own ‘Companions.’83

As the king was himself both a warrior and leader, his respect from fellow soldiers

depended greatly upon his own displays of bravery, strategic expertise, and self-sacrifice. In this

regard the Macedonian king can be seen as embodying a Homeric ethos; he was responsible for

setting a moral standard for his subjects, and the merit of his actions determined the level of

support he generated amongst his immediate followers and the general Macedonian populace.84

All cities and territories in the king’s possession were directly subject to his command and

restricted from pursuing their own military or political agendas. He held sole ownership over

Macedon’s mines and timber, with a number of estates and farms throughout the countryside.

Religious duty was also invested in the king, who presided over daily sacrifices as well as all

festivals and ceremonies. Through this capacity as chief communicant between the gods and the

Macedonians, the king was perceived as having some degree of ‘superhuman’ power.85

Polygamy was practiced by Macedonian kings, most notably Philip II who had at least seven

wives. Marriages to multiple princesses from other noble families (such as the Molossians of

Epirus, or the royal houses of Upper Macedon) forged political and military alliances and helped

secure male offspring as successors to the throne. Although succession was sometimes contested

                                                                                                               
83  M.B.
Hatzopoulos, (2011) “Macedonia and Macedonians,” BRL 43-49: 48.  
84
The symposium and the royal hunt were important institutions which reinforced ties between the king and elite
members of Macedonian society. The Macedonian symposia, like those of the Greeks, derived from the Homeric
feasting tradition, whereby all participants were united by the principle of egalitarianism and freedom of speech.
Likewise, the hunt fostered comradeship between the king and his Companions. During the hunt, the king was
expected to distinguish himself as the ‘chief hunter’, while the other participants competed for the king’s
acknowledgment through their own displays of hunting prowess. For more on these customs, see Sawada (2010:
402-408).
85  Hammond 1991: 32. Alexander the Great was actually deified after his death, becoming the focus of a number of

worship cults throughout Greece (notably on the island of Thasos).  

  37
  

(as was the case following the death of Alexander I), rule was normally passed down to the

king’s eldest son.86

Macedonian Religion

Regarding the religious practices of the Macedonians, it is clear from both literary and

archaeological sources that the worship of the Greek pantheon was well established throughout

Macedon by the Classical period. Nevertheless, Macedonian religion displays a number of

peculiarities, and it would be an enormous task to provide an exhaustive account of its

development from the Archaic all the way down to the Hellenistic period. It is important to note

that religious practices varied considerably amongst Greek communities themselves, particularly

in terms of how much emphasis was placed on the worship of certain gods. Cult practice was

also diverse and Greek poleis typically had a number of local deities as objects of worship.

Essentially, Greek religion was far from a monolithic phenomenon and the Macedonians’ own

religious practices resemble this trend through their eclecticism and uniqueness relative to other

Greek communities.87 Macedon’s idiosyncratic religious character was partly due to the region’s

close proximity to the Thracians, Illyrians, and Paeonians, and this undoubtedly resulted in a

degree of foreign influence on the Macedonians’ own religious practices.88 For instance, the

worship of Dionysus was especially popular amongst both the Macedonians and Thracians, and

both groups shared the popular cults of Orpheus and Bendis.89 The Macedonians remained open

                                                                                                               
86
King 2010: 377
87  Paul
Christesen and Sarah C. Murray, (2010) “Macedonian Religion,” CAM 428-445: 429.  
88
Hammond 1991:131
89
Engels 2010: 97. The worship of Dionysus of Macedon seems to have begun very early, perhaps at some point in
the Archaic period. The Macedonian king sacrificed to Dionysus on a designated day each year (Arr. Anab. 4.8.1),
and Euripides’ Bacchae – the most famous piece of ancient Greek literature with a Dionysiac theme – was
performed for the first time in Macedon late in the 5th c. B.C. Among other things, this clearly attests to the
Macedonians’ devotion to Dionysus. We also have evidence from the ‘Orphic papyrus’, found at the site of Derveni
in Macedonia and dated to the late 4th c. B.C. This text contains references to aspects of Dionysiac rituals and
beliefs. For a good summary on the importance of Dionysus to the Macedonians, see Christesen and Murray (2010:
432-433).  

  38
  

to the worship of certain foreign deities in later periods, as illustrated by Alexander’s visit to the

Oracle at Siwah in Egypt.90

Despite these foreign influences, the religious practices of the Macedonians appear to

have been of a predominantly Greek character. The worship of such deities as Zeus, Heracles,

Aphrodite, and Artemis was common and Macedonian coinage prominently displays gods of the

Greek pantheon.91 The worship of Zeus and Heracles was especially popular, particularly since

the Argead dynasty claimed direct descent from Heracles. It is difficult – perhaps impossible – to

determine exactly how widespread such Hellenic religious practices were in Macedon prior to

the 5th c. B.C. One major issue in providing an overview of Macedonian religion in pre-Classical

times is the general lack of archaeological remains pertaining to elements of religious practice,

particularly in the form of grand temples commonly seen in southern Greece. The site of Dion,

however, has yielded some noteworthy evidence for the Macedonians’ religious practices in the

Archaic period. There, excavations have revealed the remains of a temple dating to the end of the

6th c., which was attributed to a sanctuary of Demeter.92 Dion also happens to be the location at

which the Macedonians celebrated the Olympia festival in honour of Zeus and the Muses,

established under the reign of king Archelaus I at the close of the 5th c.93 As a common sanctuary

                                                                                                               
90  Christesen and Murray 2010: 435. Of course, the Greeks’ practice of appropriating foreign deities dates back well
before Alexander’s time; the goddesses Astarte (Ishtar) and Isis were adopted from the Near East and Egypt at an
early point.  
91
As Zeus and Heracles were the most revered deities of the Argead dynasty, there are numerous depictions of them
on Macedonian coins, especially popular in the 4th c. B.C. during Philip and Alexander’s time (and with later
Hellenistic kings). The depiction of Heracles with a bow club can be traced back to the reign of Perdiccas II during
the mid 5th c. B.C. Additionally, the religious emblems of the ivy leaf and the goat (representing Dionysus), and the
crested helmet (for Athena), were introduced even earlier under Alexander I. Other religious emblems seen on
Macedonian coins include the thunderbolt and eagle introduced by kings Archelaus I and Amyntas II, obvious
allusions to Zeus. For a good summary of Macedonian coinage prior to the 4th century B.C., see Hammond 1991:
50-51.
92
Ibid, 106. The remains of this temple consist of two buildings, later succeeded by another monument in the
Hellenistic period.
93
Diod. 17.16.3-4. He provides a description of Alexander the Great partaking in games and sacrifices at Dion and
states that Archelaus instituted them (θυσίας μεγαλοπρεπεῖς τοῖς θεοῖς συνετέλεσεν ἐν Δίῳ τῆς Μακεδονίας

  39
  

visited by all Macedonians, Dion thus emerged as a ‘Pan-Macedonian’ religious and cultural

focal point. The celebration of athletic, musical and theatrical competitions took place at Dion,

and the Olympia festival provided the king with an opportunity to personally engage members of

the army, aristocracy, and the Macedonian public.94 Another significant Macedonian religious

festival held in honour of Zeus was the Hetairideia, which was also observed by the Magnetes of

northern Thessaly (whom Hesiod connected genealogically to the Macedonians).95 Although it is

unclear exactly when this festival was established, it appears to have been a very old tradition far

predating the Classical period. The fact that it was dedicated to Zeus ‘Hetaireos’ alludes to a

possible Homeric origin for the Hetairideia, and there can be no doubt that this was a local

religious festival not adopted from southern Greece.96

Macedonian Culture: 4th c. ‘Atticization’ and General Conclusions

Already by the end of the 5th c. B.C. Macedon was becoming firmly tied into the cultural

sphere of the Greek world.97 But it was particularly during the latter half of the 4th c. under Philip

II when Macedon began to display numerous overt characteristics of southern Greek culture. By

this point, social institutions such as the symposia, athletic training in the gymnasia, and formal

education were gaining prevalence in Macedon.98 Additionally, a number of Greek intellectuals

and artists were attracted to the Macedonian royal court, with perhaps the most well known

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
καὶ σκηνικοὺς ἀγῶνας Διὶ καὶ Μούσαις, οὓς Ἀρχέλαος ὁ προβασιλεύσας πρῶτος κατέδειξε). Arrian (Anab.
1.11.1) also mentions Alexander’s participation in the festival.
94
M. Mari, (2011) “Traditional Cults and Beliefs,” BRL 453-465: 456.
95
Hammond 1989: 37. We have mention of the Hetairideia from the 2nd c. A.D. historian Athenaeus (15.372). The
rural Magnetes inhabited a buffer-zone of mountainous terrain situated between Lower Macedon and Thessaly.
Another custom they shared in common with the Macedonians was a type of dance known as the karpea, which
featured men dressed in full suits of armour (mentioned by Hesychius). The link between the Macedonians and the
Magnetes will be explored in further detail in ch. 6.
96
HM II: 158-9
97
Although earlier kings such as Perdiccas II and Alexander I had promoted the growth of Greek culture in
Macedon, Archelaus I was the first king to consciously do so on a wider public level. The court of Archelaus
welcomed a number of prominent Greek intellectuals including writers, poets, artists and philosophers. For more on
Archelaus I, see Borza (1991: 171-172).        
98  M.B. Hatzopoulos, (2011) “Macedonians and Other Greeks,” BRL 51-78: 61.

  40
  

example being the philosopher Aristotle as Alexander the Great’s tutor. The adoption of the

koine dialect of Attic Greek and the aforementioned social institutions can clearly be seen as

direct attempts to foster southern Greek (mainly Athenian) culture in the Macedonian court,

which eventually permeated throughout much of the region.99 It is therefore perhaps more

accurate to speak of an ‘Atticization’, rather than a ‘Hellenization’, of Macedon. However, this

would not seem to apply to those culturally Hellenic features of Macedon known from earlier

times, namely religious practices. As the available evidence suggests that the worship of the

Greek gods in Macedon was indeed “as old as the royal house”, it is unlikely that the Hellenic

pantheon was simply borrowed from the southern Greeks in the same way that the

aforementioned institutions were.100

At any rate, there is much that remains elusive to scholars concerning the status of

Macedonian culture. Indeed, none of the historians of Alexander the Great concerned themselves

heavily with the specific customs of the Macedonians, making only occasional (and sometimes

vague) references to their cultural practices. Certainly, the archaeological record shows that the

Macedonians appreciated Greek material culture and we find numerous expressions of it in the

region from the late Archaic period onwards. It may be argued that the Macedonians, situated as

they were between southern Greece and the Balkan landmass to the north, “developed their own

national characteristics and their own form of civilization.”101 As we have seen, the Macedonians

were largely committed to a pastoral lifestyle until the time of Philip II (and even afterwards, to a

                                                                                                               
100  Hammond 1989: 149. While it is impossible to know whether Greek religious beliefs were ultimately indigenous
to Macedon, or imported from Greece at a very early period, the former possibility seems more likely given the
predominance of Greek deities in the Macedonian religious pantheon, and the Greek character of their religious
festivals. There is no evidence to suggest that the Macedonians abandoned a native religion in favour of Greek
practices. Moreover, the thorough immersion of the Macedonians in Greek religion does differ from neighbouring
Balkan groups. For instance, Herodotus records that the Thracians only worshipped Ares, Dionysus, and Artemis
(Hdt. 5.7.1).  
101
Hammond 1991: 131

  41
  

lesser degree), and were thus comparable to only a minority of communities throughout the

Greek peninsula. Their monarchy, of course, also set them apart from most Greeks on a

fundamental level. Therefore, while it is undeniable that numerous accessories of Greek culture

ultimately prevailed throughout Macedon – which were especially upheld by the elite ruling

class – the Macedonians essentially differed from the Greeks in both political and social

structure.102 This does not necessarily mean that the Macedonians did not identify with Greek

culture, as the Argead kings vigorously did; but it does indicate that their expression of Greek

culture was conveyed through a very distinct socio-political context relative to the southern

poleis.

                                                                                                               
102
HM II: 149-150    

  42
  

Fig. 4: ‘Family tree’ of the Argead Dynasty (Borza 1990: 1)

Fig. 5: Façade of king Philip II’s tomb, Vergina (Andronikos 1984: 101)

  43
  

Fig. 6: Layout of Philip’s tomb (Andronikos 1984: 98)

Fig. 7: Interior of Thracian tomb of Sveshtari, Bulgaria, 3rd c. B.C. (retrieved from:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/359/gallery/)

  44
  

Fig. 8: Façade of ‘Rhomaios tomb’ at Vergina (reconstruction), dated to first half of 3rd c. B.C
(Andronikos 1984: 33)

Fig. 9: Fresco of Macedonian soldiers from tomb at Agios Athanasios near Thessaloniki,
dated to last quarter of 4th c. B.C. (retrieved from:    
(https://hellinon.net/2016/11/16/η-ελληνική-ασπίδα-την-εποχή-των-μακεδό/)

  45
  

Fig. 10: Detail of artwork in Thracian tomb of Kazanlak, late 4th c. B.C. (retrieved from:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/44/gallery)

  46
  

Chapter IV
Macedonian Identity Part I: The Argeads

How the ancient Macedonians identified as an ethnic group – and how they were

perceived by other groups – are interrelated questions which inherently reflect upon the

multifaceted and fluid nature of ethnic identity. As this is a particularly complex issue, some

limitations should be acknowledged from the outset. It was noted in chapter 1 that the lack of

direct evidence from the common Macedonian populace is most problematic; without testimony

from the average Macedonian it is impossible for us to readily ascertain their sense of ethnic

consciousness as a people. While there is evidence that the Macedonian kings of the Argead

dynasty identified as Greeks, this observation cannot be readily generalized to the people as a

whole. Moreover, we must remain mindful of the fact that practically all our information on the

Macedonians is external, provided mainly by Greek writers whose perspectives inevitably

contain varying degrees of bias.

The aim of this chapter (and the next) is to provide an accurate evaluation of Macedonian

identity that is consistent with both an ancient Greek and modern understanding of ethnic

identity. As Herodotus is the first, and indeed the only historian to offer a somewhat systematic

investigation into the Macedonians as an ethnic group, a number of his observations in the

Histories are important to our discussion of Macedonian identity. Additionally, some significant

inferences about the Macedonians’ ethnic identity can be drawn from Greek writers of the late 4th

c. B.C. and from the later ‘Alexander historians’. Not only was the Macedonians’ form of

political organization a key determinant of Greek attitudes towards them, but so was political

context, as shown by the opinions expressed of Philip II during the Macedonian takeover of

Greece. Finally, some observations will be made about the gradual merging of Greek and

  47
  

Macedonian identity that occurred following Alexander’s conquests in the Hellenistic and

Roman periods.

Defining Ethnicity

It is of course necessary to provide a definition of ethnicity before attempting an

investigation into the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians. Despite how modern scholarship on

ethnic identity is ever-increasing and diversifying, there is widespread agreement amongst

sociologists and other researchers regarding the primary criteria used to define an ethnic group.

Such criteria typically include a collective name, a shared history, a common myth of descent, a

distinctive shared culture, an association with a specific territory, and a sense of communal

solidarity.103 While cultural features such as religion and language are important attributes of an

ethnic group, they are not always exclusive to a particular group. Indeed, what ultimately

distinguishes one ethnic group from another is its association with a specific territory and its

sense of a ‘collective historical experience’.104 The common myth of descent is an aspect of

collective historical experience holding paramount significance to the identity of a particular

group, as it affirms a distinct claim to ‘peoplehood’ which transcends discrete cultural attributes.

As indicated by the term ‘myth’, such a claim is essentially one of a putative shared ancestry.

According to Jonathan Hall, “The genealogical reality of such claims is irrelevant; what matters

is that the claim for descent is consensually agreed.”105 An ethnic group emerges as a distinct

subpopulation of society once its members have generated a self-conscious identity. Although a

group may be assigned an ethnic label by outsiders, this is only an ‘ethnic category’ until the

group adopts that label for itself, at which point it assumes an ethnic identity and thus becomes

                                                                                                               
103
Jonathan M. Hall, (1997) Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge: 25.
104
Ibid.
105
Ibid. This is another position largely shared by sociologists, and the notion of a putative common ancestry can be
traced back to the pioneering work of Max Weber.

  48
  

an ethnic group.106 The key point to acknowledge here is that conscious self-identification – not

external ascription – is what ultimately establishes a distinct ethnic group in its own right.

It is interesting to note that the ancient Greek understanding of ethnic identity parallels

the aforementioned modern sociological analysis in a number of ways. A particular passage from

Herodotus’ Histories is often cited for its significance in defining the Greeks as an ethnic group.

Herodotus recalls an episode in which the Athenians are seen emphasizing the reasons for their

opposition to the Persian king Xerxes, and takes the opportunity to provide a concise set of

criteria for the Greek nation:

πολλά τε γὰρ καὶ μεγάλα ἐστι τὰ διακωλύοντα ταῦτα μὴ ποιέειν μηδ᾽ ἢν

ἐθέλωμεν, πρῶτα μὲν καὶ μέγιστα τῶν θεῶν τὰ ἀγάλματα καὶ τὰ οἰκήματα
ἐμπεπρησμένα τε καὶ συγκεχωσμένα, τοῖσι ἡμέας ἀναγκαίως ἔχει τιμωρέειν
ἐς τὰ μέγιστα μᾶλλον ἤ περ ὁμολογέειν τῷ ταῦτα ἐργασαμένῳ, αὖτις δὲ τὸ
Ἑλληνικὸν ἐὸν ὅμαιμόν τε καὶ ὁμόγλωσσον καὶ θεῶν ἱδρύματά τε κοινὰ
καὶ θυσίαι ἤθεά τε ὁμότροπα, τῶν προδότας γενέσθαι Ἀθηναίους οὐκ ἂν
εὖ ἔχοι.107

Here, we see a common tongue, religious practices (shrines/sacrifices), and customs (i.e. general

habits/ways of life) as the primary attributes by which kinship with the Greeks is established.

These attributes clearly correspond to the modern criterion of a ‘distinctive shared culture’, and

appear inextricably tied to the Greeks’ sense of communal solidarity and shared history within

the context of the passage. Classicist Edward Anson argues that of all these attributes provided

by Herodotus, language was the clearest criterion of Greek ethnicity, noting the primacy it

receives in the Histories as a defining element of Hellenism.108 As we shall see, however, all of

                                                                                                               
106
Stephen E. Cornell and Douglas Hartmann, (2006) “Mapping the Terrain: Definitions” in Ethnicity and Race:
Making Identities in a Changing World, Thousand Oaks, 15-39: 21.
107
Hdt. 8.144.2: “For there are many reasons why we should not do this, even if we wished; first and foremost, the
burning and destruction of the temples of our gods, whom we are obliged to avenge fully rather than make pacts
with the perpetrator of these things, and next, the kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods
and the sacrifices that we have in common, and our common customs, to all of which it would not be suiting for the
Athenians to betray.”
108
Edward M. Anson, (2009) “Greek Ethnicity and the Greek Language,” Glotta Bd. 85, 5-30: 6.

  49
  

the above criteria are equally relevant in determining whether the Macedonians constitute a

distinct ethnic group.

Ethnic Identification of the Macedonian Royal Family: The Argive Connection

Ultimately, what we have with Herodotus is a definitional framework that can be used in

conjunction with modern criteria to assess the ethnic identity of the ancient Macedonians.

Although Herodotus does not explicitly mention the ethnic criterion of having a ‘distinct ethnic

consciousness’ in his passage in Book 8, he does directly indicate elsewhere in the Histories that

this ethnic attribute was projected by the Macedonian royal family. This further highlights a level

of conceptual compatibility between Herodotus and modern sociological analysis. Herodotus

says the following about the ruling Argead dynasty of the Macedonians and the early 5th c. B.C.

king Alexander I:

Ἕλληνας δὲ εἶναι τούτους τοὺς ἀπὸ Περδίκκεω γεγονότας, κατά περ αὐτοὶ
λέγουσι, αὐτός τε οὕτω τυγχάνω ἐπιστάμενος καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐν τοῖσι ὄπισθε
λόγοισι ἀποδέξω ὡς εἰσὶ Ἕλληνες, πρὸς δὲ καὶ οἱ τὸν ἐν Ὀλυμπίῃ διέποντες
ἀγῶνα Ἑλληνοδίκαι οὕτω ἔγνωσαν εἶναι Ἀλεξάνδρου γὰρ ἀεθλεύειν
ἑλομένου καὶ καταβάντος ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, οἱ ἀντιθευσόμενοι Ἑλλήνων
ἐξεῖργόν μιν, φάμενοι οὐ βαρβάρων ἀγωνιστέων εἶναι τὸν ἀγῶνα ἀλλὰ
Ἑλλήνων: Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ἐπειδὴ ἀπέδεξε ὡς εἴη Ἀργεῖος, ἐκρίθη τε εἶναι
Ἕλλην καὶ ἀγωνιζόμενος στάδιον συνεξέπιπτε τῷ πρώτῳ.109

It is particularly interesting to note how Herodotus states that the Argeads were Greeks “as they

themselves say (κατά περ αὐτοὶ λέγουσι).” Moreover, the fact that Alexander “proved that he

was of Argive descent (ἀπέδεξε ὡς εἴη Ἀργεῖος)” obviously indicates that he and the

remainder of his royal family shared a conscious ancestral association with the city-state of

Argos in the Peloponnese, which is discussed in more detail by Herodotus in a later passage in

                                                                                                               
109
Hdt. 5.22.1-2: “Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to
know and will prove it in the later part of my history. Furthermore, the Hellanodikai, who manage the contest at
Olympia determined this, for when Alexander chose to compete and entered the lists for that purpose, the Greeks
who were to run against him wanted to bar him from the race, saying that the contest should be for Greeks and not
for foreigners. Alexander, however, proved himself to be an Argive, and was judged to be a Greek. He accordingly
competed in the furlong race and tied for first place.”

  50
  

Book 8. Perdiccas I, the founder of the Argead dynasty and a descendant of Temenus (himself a

descendant of Heracles) had fled his native home of Argos with his two brothers, coming first to

Illyria before settling in a town called Lebaea in Macedon (“ἐξ Ἄργεος ἔφυγον ἐς Ἰλλυριοὺς

τῶν Τημένου ἀπογόνων τρεῖς ἀδελφεοί, Γαυάνης τε καὶ Ἀέροπος καὶ Περδίκκης, ἐκ δὲ

Ἰλλυριῶν ὑπερβαλόντες ἐς τὴν ἄνω Μακεδονίην ἀπίκοντο ἐς Λεβαίην πόλιν”).110 This

account was upheld by the Athenian historian Thucydides, who wrote that the ancestors of

Alexander I were “originally Temenidae from Argos.”111 References to the Argive lineage of the

Macedonian royal house would continue to be made in the centuries following the reign of

Alexander I, and there is no indication from any source that the basic premise of this story was

ever challenged in antiquity.112 Furthermore, the very fact that multiple prominent historians

including both Herodotus and Thucydides accepted this story indicates that “such a view was not

limited to a literary coterie, but was the communis opinio in that period.”113

Scholars have raised challenges towards the historical authenticity of the accounts

concerning Alexander I and the Macedonian royal family’s descent from Argos. For instance,

Herodotus’ anecdote of Alexander coming “equal first” in a foot race in the Olympic games has

been questioned, given how neither he – nor any other Macedonian – appears in an Olympic

victors’ list until the late 4th c. B.C.114 Meanwhile, the story pertaining to Perdiccas and his

Argive descent is not attested prior to Herodotus, and it is impossible for us to know when it first

                                                                                                               
110
Hdt. 8.137.1
111
Thuc. 2.99.3: “Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Περδίκκου πατὴρ καὶ οἱ πρόγονοι αὐτοῦ, Τημενίδαι τὸ ἀρχαῖον ὄντες ἐξ
Ἄργους.” This is reiterated at 5. 80. 1, where Thucydides states that Alexander was “himself of Argive descent (“ἦν
δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐξ Ἄργους”).
112
Hammond 1989: 19
113
Hatzopoulos 2011: 57. Thucydides’ agreement with Herodotus concerning the Argive ancestry of the
Macedonian royal house should be appreciated in light of the fact that he often challenges Herodotus’ claims in the
Histories. Moreover, as Hatzopoulos points out, Thucydides had a firsthand experience of northern Greece and it is
quite unlikely that he would take such knowledge for granted.
114
Ernst Badian, (1982) “Greeks and Macedonians,” in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical
and Early Hellenistic Times, Studies in the History of Art 10. Beryl Barr-Sharrar and Eugene N. Borza eds.
Washington, D.C., 33-51: 36.

  51
  

gained circulation at the Macedonian court. The earliest we can confidently date the Argeads’

identification as Greeks is therefore the beginning of the 5th c. B.C. It should also be noted that the

overtly pro-Hellenic tone surrounding Alexander I’s appearances in the Histories indicates that

he is likely the originator of some of the material transmitted by Herodotus. This is most clearly

evidenced by an episode where Alexander appears before the Athenians on the eve of the battle

of Plataea, having ridden over from the Persian camp under cover of darkness (the Macedonians

had already submitted to Xerxes). Offering advice and revealing the battle plans of the Persian

commander, Mardonius, Alexander proudly proclaims “αὐτός τε γὰρ Ἕλλην γένος εἰμὶ

τὠρχαῖον καὶ ἀντ᾽ ἐλευθέρης δεδουλωμένην οὐκ ἂν ἐθέλοιμι ὁρᾶν τὴν Ἑλλάδα.”115 As

Eugene Borza notes, the account is suspect given the unlikelihood of Alexander engaging in such

a risky meeting with the Athenians and the unusual details of the battle itself.116 It would indeed

appear that Alexander, eager to emphasize his Hellenic credentials in the aftermath of the Persian

invasion, provided Herodotus with the aforementioned account which, if not entirely fabricated,

is certainly embellished to some degree. However, what is relevant here is not the historicity of

the episode, but the fact that Alexander used it to stress his Greek identity.117 This can likewise

be said of the account of his participation in the Olympics, and the very story of the Macedonian

royal family’s descent from Argos. In assessing all of this with the previously cited criteria for

ethnic identity, we see a clear affirmation of communal solidarity with the Greeks, and a

common myth of descent linking the Macedonian royal family with the Greeks.
                                                                                                               
115
Hdt. 9.145.2: “For I myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas exchange her
freedom for slavery.”
116
Borza 1990: 110
117
Whether or not Alexander actually participated in the games at Olympia, he clearly possessed knowledge of
Greek in order to communicate this (and other) information to Herodotus. This indicates, by extension, that the
entire Macedonian royal family understood Greek, and it is quite hard to imagine that Herodotus would have been
eager to affirm the Greek heritage of a dynasty that could not even speak the language of their ancestors. It is
important to note that the Olympic episode would have predated the rise of koine Greek in Macedon by almost a
century – which means that Alexander likely made use of a native Greek dialect in his dealings with the southern
Greeks.

  52
  

Some further observations can be made regarding Alexander I’s claim of Greek identity

in the Histories. To begin, the very fact that Alexander is seen stressing his ‘Greekness’ on

multiple occasions is itself an indication that many contemporary Greeks were either

unconvinced or uncertain as to the Argead family’s Hellenic origins.118 This is made clear in the

passage depicting his entry to the Olympic games, in which we actually hear of Alexander’s

Greek descent being scrutinized (and ultimately authenticated) by the Hellanodikai. It is

impossible for us to know how the Hellanodikai validated Alexander’s claims to Argive descent

and what sort of additional evidence they may have worked with.119 Nevertheless, Alexander

succeeded in establishing a familial myth of descent of canonical status among Greek historians.

The claim to Argive descent was emblematic of Macedon’s growing immersion in Greek affairs

and Alexander’s desire to foster a closer association between his kingdom and the southern

Greeks.120 Yet, its strong persistence among later Macedonian kings clearly demonstrates that it

became engrained upon the royal family’s consciousness and thus cannot be seen merely as a

political tool of Alexander to garner support from the Greeks. Although Alexander understood

the political expediency of emphasizing his Greek heritage to the southern Greeks, this should

not be taken to suggest that his identification as a Greek was therefore un-genuine or motivated

primarily by political factors.121 Rather, the significant preliminary steps Alexander took in

cultivating Greek culture at the Macedonian court, and in orienting his kingdom more towards

the social sphere of the southern Greek peninsula than the northern Balkan regions, reflect a
                                                                                                               
118
Borza 1990: 113
119
The matter is somewhat confusing to scholars, considering how there is questionable evidence to begin with for
Alexander’s participation in the Olympic games beyond Herodotus’ testimony. It is unlikely that Thucydides would
have simply accepted Herodotus’ account of the Greek origins of Alexander’s family without an official verdict on
the subject already in circulation from the Hellanodikai. This lends credence to the idea that the Hellanodikai did
evaluate Alexander’s Argive origin.
120
Borza 1990: 113
121  Essentially, considerations of political expedience did not necessarily determine Alexander’s decision to assume

Greek identity, but Alexander’s emphasis on his own Greek identity would inevitably bring with it a level of
political expedience in relations with the southern Greeks. This point also applies to later Macedonian kings.  

  53
  

deeper desire to connect to Hellenism – one which cannot be explained simply in political terms.

Alexander both believed and wanted others to believe that he was a Greek.

Archelaus I: the First ‘Barbarian’ King

The very same could be said of king Archelaus I, who was noted in chapter 3 for having

accelerated the promotion of Greek culture in Macedon at the end of the 5th c. Archelaus

regularly invoked his Argead lineage, as evidenced by the common depictions of Heracles on his

coinage (the ancestor of the Temenids). Additionally, Euripides produced a play named in

honour of Archelaus celebrating his descent from Argos and Heracles.122 But despite having been

a fervent patron of Greek culture of almost celebrity status among his contemporaries, Archelaus

is the first Macedonian on record to be referred to as a barbarian. During a conflict between

oligarchic factions in Thessaly, Archelaus was invited on behalf of the Aleudae family to offer

his support and succeeded in backing the local oligarchs in Larisa, after which a Macedonian

garrison was installed in the city. This prompted the orator Thrasymachus to remark, “Shall we,

being Greeks, be slaves to Archelaus, a barbarian?”123 This quote deserves analysis on a few

levels. According to Ernst Badian, Thrasymachus’ comment demonstrates that “as late as c. 400

B.C. the official myth of the Temenid descent of the Argead kings could be derided.”124 Certainly,

it at least reflects the fact that many Greeks still regarded Macedon as lying beyond their cultural

sphere. But it is not so clear that Thrasymachus’ comment necessarily indicates that there was

significant doubt concerning the Argeads’ claim to Greek descent, as Badian believes. Here we

must acknowledge the wider political context in which this statement was made. When

Thrasymachus delivered his oration, Archelaus had already been honoured as both a benefactor

and proxenos at Athens as a reward for his services to the city. These honours had likewise been
                                                                                                               
122
Borza 1990: 173  
123
Frag. 2 (Diels ed., Frag. Vorsokratiker, 6th ed.)
124
Badian 1982: 34

  54
  

bestowed upon his grandfather, Alexander I, for his aid to the Athenians in the Persian Wars.

The particularly significant fact about Archelaus’ assumption of these titles is that they were

conferred upon him as a hereditary right by the Athenians, which would have been

unprecedented for a non-Greek.125 The political elite in Athens and other southern poleis would

have certainly been aware of Archelaus’ diplomatic status, his family’s claim to Greek descent,

and the immersion of his royal court in Greek culture. But there was no need for Thrasymachus

to emphasize these things to the Greek public amidst the fear that Macedon was beginning its

gradual incursion into Greek affairs.126 For Thrasymachus, conflating the Macedonian monarchy

and the Macedonian people would have seemed most opportune and convenient in a time of anti-

Macedonian sentiment. Indeed, by characterizing the Macedonian king as a barbarian,

Panhellenic sentiment could be easily roused amongst the general public against Macedon. This

was a feasible device since the average southern Greek had practically no knowledge of the

Macedonian royal family and, following the political and intellectual elite of southern Greece in

the late 5th c. B.C., was inclined to regard the elusive Macedonian populace as non-Greek.127

Thus, what we may infer from Thrasymachus’ comment is that the Argead claim to Greek

descent was not, necessarily, facing serious doubt, but that the Macedonian king could be

handily equated with the Macedonian populace on an ethnic level when it became politically

convenient to do so. An anti-Macedonian politician may have very well accepted the Argeads’

claim to Greek descent yet chosen to downplay that belief before the common Greek public as it

suited their diplomatic agenda.

                                                                                                               
125
Daskalakis 1965: 235
126
Ibid.
127
For instances of the Macedonian people being considered barbarians, see Thuc. 2.80.5-7, 2.81.6, 4.124.1

  55
  

Attitudes towards Philip II: Demosthenes and Isocrates

The above trend could be observed just over half a century later during the reign of king

Philip II. As Philip was responsible for masterminding the Macedonian conquest of the Greek

city-states, he naturally attracted a great deal of antagonism from his enemies, some of whom

focused on attacking his Hellenic credentials. The most virulent opposition to Philip came from

the orator Demosthenes, who composed a series of anti-Macedonian speeches (Philippics)

addressed to the Athenian public. Of course, Demosthenes’ grievances with Philip emanated

entirely from the political realm, and it is unlikely that the orator had any personal concern with

the Macedonian king’s Argive heritage.128 However, the perception of Macedon as an uncivilized

backwater still held sway amongst the Greeks, and such a skilled orator as Demosthenes could

not miss the opportunity to exploit this in his political rhetoric. His most livid attack on Philip

reads as follows:

ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὑπὲρ Φιλίππου καὶ ὧν ἐκεῖνος πράττει νῦν, οὐχ οὕτως ἔχουσιν, οὐ
μόνον οὐχ Ἕλληνος ὄντος οὐδὲ προσήκοντος οὐδὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἀλλ᾽
οὐδὲ βαρβάρου ἐντεῦθεν ὅθεν καλὸν εἰπεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὀλέθρου Μακεδόνος,
ὅθεν οὐδ᾽ ἀνδράποδον σπουδαῖον οὐδὲν ἦν πρότερον πρίασθαι.129

Brief references to Philip as a barbarian also occur in Demosthenes’ third oration in the

Olynthiac series (3.17, 3.24), while the Macedonian people as a whole are associated with

barbarians in another speech, On the False Embassy (19.327).

Besides the obvious slander and abuse contained in Demosthenes’ speeches against

Philip, it is nonetheless clear that they ultimately reflect the reality of Athenian public opinion
                                                                                                               
128
Like his predecessors, Philip proudly embraced his Hellenic ancestry. He is on record for a victory in a chariot
race at Olympia, ca. 356 (Plutarch Alexander 3.5), as represented on his coinage. Philip promoted Greek culture
both at the Macedonian court and amongst the common populace, and appointed both Greeks and Macedonians as
hetairoi in his court, drawing no social distinction between the groups. It is thus clear that Philip’s Greek credentials
were more than enough to satisfy a Greek of equal social rank to Demosthenes.
129
Demosthenes, Philippic III (translated by J.A. Vince, Cambridge 1930) 9.31: “Yet they have no such qualms
about Philip and his present conduct, though he is not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a
barbarian from any place that can be named with honor, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never
yet possible to buy a decent slave.”

  56
  

towards Macedon. As Badian observes, the “polite acceptance” of the Macedonian kings as

Greeks ruling a barbarian people was not yet established sentiment.130 Indeed, it would have been

regarded as nonsensical for Demosthenes to claim that the Thebans, or even Thessalians, were

barbarians – but not the Macedonians, who remained shrouded in mystery to the north of

Olympus. However, as in the case of Thrasymachus’ denial of Archelaus’ Hellenicity, we should

not immediately assume that Demosthenes necessarily doubted the Argive lineage of his

opponent. It is possible that Demosthenes accepted the accounts of both Herodotus and

Thucydides and took no issue with the idea that Philip and the Macedonian royal family were of

Greek descent. Certainly, however, nothing had changed since the time of Archelaus in that –

before the common Greek – the Macedonian king and his people could still be conflated

ethnically. Demosthenes realized this fact and maximized its potential as harmful political

rhetoric in his speeches against Philip.

Much more interesting to the discussion of Philip’s Argive heritage are the compositions

of the political essayist Isocrates. In clear contrast to most of his contemporaries, Isocrates

championed Philip as a blue-blooded Greek who would make the perfect leader of a Panhellenic

crusade against Persia, the traditional enemy of all Greeks. While Demosthenes and others

portrayed Philip as a rapacious monarch threatening the liberty of the poleis, Isocrates saw the

Macedonian king as the Greeks’ best hope for finally achieving political unity. Unlike

Demosthenes, Isocrates actually drew specific attention to Philip’s Argead lineage and the story

of his ancestors. What is particularly significant, however, is how Isocrates sought to emphasize

Philip’s Greek credentials by drawing a direct distinction between the Argead monarchs and

                                                                                                               
130
Badian 1982: 34

  57
  

their Macedonian subjects. Isocrates recalls the reign of Perdiccas I in a letter addressed to

Philip:

ὁ δὲ τὸν μὲν τόπον τὸν Ἑλληνικὸν ὅλως εἴασε, τὴν δ᾽ ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ

βασιλείαν κατασχεῖν ἐπεθύμησεν: ἠπίστατο γὰρ τοὺς μὲν Ἕλληνας οὐκ
εἰθισμένους ὑπομένειν τὰς μοναρχίας, τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους οὐ δυναμένους ἄνευ
τῆς τοιαύτης δυναστείας διοικεῖν τὸν βίον τὸν σφέτερον αὐτῶν.131

Here, Isocrates is obviously indicating that the Macedonian populace was not Greek. This is

likewise the case when he states that Perdiccas “alone among the Greeks did not deem it right to

rule over a people of kindred race (μόνους γὰρ Ἑλλήνων οὐχ ὁμοφύλου γένους ἄρχειν

ἀξιώσας).”132 But a more peculiar differentiation between Greeks and Macedonians comes in a

concluding passage of the same letter addressed to Philip. It states:

φημὶ γὰρ χρῆναί σε τοὺς μὲν Ἕλληνας εὐεργετεῖν, Μακεδόνων δὲ

βασιλεύειν, τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων ὡς πλείστων ἄρχειν. ἢν γὰρ ταῦτα πράττῃς,
ἅπαντές σοι χάριν ἕξουσιν, οἱ μὲν Ἕλληνες ὑπὲρ ὧν εὖ πάσχουσι,
Μακεδόνες δ᾽ ἢν βασιλικῶς ἀλλὰ μὴ τυραννικῶς αὐτῶν ἐπιστατῇς, τὸ δὲ
τῶν ἄλλων γένος, ἢν διὰ σὲ βαρβαρικῆς δεσποτείας ἀπαλλαγέντες
Ἑλληνικῆς ἐπιμελείας τύχωσι.133

An explanation for this presentation of the Macedonians lies in the Athenian political atmosphere

during Macedon’s growing rise to prominence under Philip. Like most southern Greeks, the

Athenians were extremely wary of kings and feared the consequences of a Macedonian

monarchy being imposed upon them. Although Isocrates believed that Philip possessed the

necessary attributes and resources to unite the Greeks, he simultaneously understood that the

Macedonian monarch would not find widespread appeal unless he could mitigate the negative
                                                                                                               
131
Isocrates, To Philip (translated by George Norlin, Cambridge 1980) 5.107: “He, on the other hand, held entirely
aloof from Hellenic territory, and set his heart upon occupying the throne of Macedon. For he knew full well that the
Hellenes were not accustomed to submit to the rule of one man, while the other races were incapable of ordering
their lives without the control of some such power.”
132
Isoc. 5.108
133
Isoc. 5.154 “I assert that it is incumbent upon you to work for the good of the Hellenes, to reign as king over the
Macedonians, and to extend your power over the greatest possible number of the barbarians. For if you do these
things, all men will be grateful to you: the Hellenes for your kindness to them; the Macedonians if you reign over
them, not like a tyrant, but like a king; and the rest of the nations, if by your hands they are delivered from barbaric
despotism and are brought under the protection of Hellas.”

  58
  

connotations of kingship.134 Therefore, Isocrates presents Philip and his Argead predecessors as

men with respect towards Greek democratic liberties, posing no threat to the Greeks as they only

desire to rule as kings over their own people, the Macedonians.

It is also apparent that Isocrates has relegated the Macedonians to an intermediary

position between Greeks and barbarians – they are neither. Whether or not the Macedonians took

issue with being ascribed to an ethnic grey zone between Greeks and barbarians, we cannot tell.

In any case, such a consideration was ultimately irrelevant for Isocrates, and Philip “would be

only too happy to see his Heraclid pedigree confirmed.”135 This raises an interesting question: did

Philip and his Argead predecessors see themselves as distinct from their Macedonian subjects by

virtue of their Greek lineage? Sulochana Asirvatham observes that the Argeads distanced

themselves from the common Macedonian populace through their claims to Greek descent,

thereby reinforcing outside perceptions of the Macedonian people as non-Hellenic.136 This is a

reasonable observation insofar as it reflects upon the fact that the Greeks did see the

Macedonians’ subjection to the Argead monarchy as a mark of barbarism (we shall investigate

this in detail in the next chapter). However, we should not assume that the Argeads viewed their

Macedonian subjects as non-Greek. The Argeads succeeded in uniting the Makedones behind a

single royal family and at all times fostered a close relationship with their people; no other

Macedonian aristocratic family ever emerged as a real threat to the Argeads’ supremacy.

Circumstances might have turned out differently had the Argeads arrogantly held aloof from the

Macedonian populace with a detached sense of ethnic Greek pride. Moreover, it seems unlikely

that the Macedonian populace would have maintained such respect and obedience to a ruling

                                                                                                               
134
Hatzopoulos 2011: 68
135
Ibid, 69.
136
Asirvatham 2010: 107  

  59
  

dynasty from which they felt ethnically and culturally removed.137 Thus, the Macedonian people

and the Argeads may have seen themselves as separate due to the latter’s Temenid descent, but

not their Greek descent. Unfortunately, the lack of testimony on this matter from either side

prevents us from drawing firm conclusions, though at any rate it is important to acknowledge

that we have no instances of the Argead kings explicitly referring to their own Macedonian

populace as non-Greek.

Returning to Isocrates, the fact that he does not classify the Macedonians as full-fledged

barbarians is in itself interesting, possibly indicating that most southern Greeks at least

distinguished between Macedonians and their Balkan neighbours, or that the Macedonians were

seen as occupying an intermediate position between these groups on a cultural level.138 But the

essential point is that, despite having a political agenda diametrically opposed to that of

Demosthenes, Isocrates likewise had absolutely no desire to portray the Macedonian populace as

Greek. While Isocrates readily accepted the Greek descent of Philip and his family, his decision

to separate the Macedonians from the Greeks was a calculated and necessary appeal to public

opinion. Even if Isocrates had personally believed that the Macedonian people were indeed of

Hellenic ancestry, an affirmation of that would only be damaging to Philip as it would suggest

his approval for the idea that Greeks should replace democracy with monarchical rule.

Overall, the kings of the Argead dynasty expressed themselves as Greeks in genuine

fashion. While the southern Greeks occasionally did challenge the Hellenic ancestry of the

Argeads, their accusations of barbarism typically occurred during times of political tension and

                                                                                                               
137
Daskalakis 1965: 87. This is an instance in which lack of literary testimony is particularly frustrating. Even if we
allow for the possibility that the Macedonian people identified themselves exclusively as ‘Macedonians’, this did not
hinder their acceptance of the Argeads, whom they may have regarded as both ‘Macedonian’ and ‘Greek’ (and who
may have presented themselves as such to the common populace). In any case, it seems quite likely that the
Macedonians saw the Argeads’ immersion in Greek culture as authentic, and we have no evidence to indicate that
they doubted their tradition of Argive descent.
138
The question of the Macedonian populace’s ethnic identity will be investigated in the following chapter.

  60
  

do not necessarily reflect true disbelief in the Argive lineage of the Macedonian kings.

Moreover, as all available ancient sources indicate that the Argeads took conscious pride in their

Greek heritage, it is thus undeniable that they fulfilled some of the most crucial criteria of ethnic

identity: a sense of communal solidarity and shared history (with the Greeks), and an association

with a specific territory (Argos/Greece), all woven together by a common myth of descent (the

tale of Perdiccas I). Regardless of how they were perceived by other Greeks, the Argeads

maintained a distinct sense of Greek identity from the moment they emerged in history until the

very conclusion of their dynasty.

  61
  

Chapter V
Macedonian Identity Part II: The People

Determining how the general Macedonian populace identified itself ethnically – as

opposed to the Argead kings – is a difficult task and a somewhat separate issue altogether. As

discussed in the last chapter, the Argead ruling dynasty formally conveyed their Greek identity

through a tradition tracing their family’s origins to Argos in the Peloponnese; both Herodotus

and Thucydides upheld this account, as did later Greek writers. Although the southern Greeks

occasionally challenged the Argeads’ Hellenicity (especially during periods of political conflict

with Macedon), we have seen that the fundamental point of significance is that the Argeads

persistently claimed Greek descent. However, it is unclear whether the common people shared

this sense of Greek identity with their Argead rulers as they have left an invisible literary record

of their own on this issue.139

While we will continue to consult the respective histories of Herodotus and Thucydides

regarding both the Argeads and the Macedonian populace, the ‘Alexander historians’ also

provide some observations on Macedonian culture and identity that are of great value to the

discussion at hand. Although the appearance of ‘Greek’ and ‘Macedonian’ as separate ethnic

designations indicates that these groups were perceived as independent ethnic identities (at least

by the Greeks) during the Classical period, this distinction became less rigid during Alexander’s

conquests and in the later period of the Successors, when we begin to see an ethno-cultural

alignment of Greeks and Macedonians in opposition to the foreign peoples of Egypt and the Near

East. This was likewise the case with the advent of Roman intervention in the Hellenistic

kingdoms of the eastern Mediterranean, and the perception of the Macedonians as being

essentially Greeks was commonplace by late antiquity.

                                                                                                               
139
Badian 1982: 45

  62
  

The Greeks’ Views on the Relationship between the Argeads and the Macedonian Populace

We have seen that the sociological importance of the Argead tradition of descent from

Argos lies not in its historical objectivity, but in its role in formally communicating the Argeads’

shared sense of Greek identity.140 Interestingly, the Argeads’ insistence on their Greek identity

was not accompanied by an eschewal of Macedonian identity. Indeed, just after Alexander I

appears in the Histories proclaiming himself to be a Greek before the Athenians at Plataea, he

departs with the statement “I am Alexander the Macedonian (εἰμὶ δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ

Μακεδών).”141 Herodotus therefore presents Alexander’s Greek and Macedonian identity as

being perfectly compatible.142 Yet, Herodotus also provides us with the most concise distinction

between an Argead and his subjects from any Classical source, in his description of king

Amyntas I as “a Greek ruler of Macedonians (ἀνὴρ Ἕλλην Μακεδόνων ὕπαρχος).”143 As

noted in the previous chapter, the orator Isocrates (5.107) likewise drew a sharp distinction

between the Macedonian royalty (in his case, Philip II), and the common Macedonian populace

decades after Herodotus. It is clear that these writers were drawing on traditional notions of

Classical Greek identity in assigning the Argead kings a different ethnicity from their populace.

The political theory which the southern Greeks developed clung tightly to the notion that

barbarians – as opposed to themselves – were naturally predisposed to being governed by

monarchs. Indeed, the Greeks interpreted the Argive foundation myth as a reflection of this

through its depiction of a foreign Greek family coming to rule over a native Macedonian

                                                                                                               
140
Borza 1990: 78. As Borza observes, the migration of a single royal family into the region likely would have left
no archaeological record, rendering it a vain endeavour to search for physical evidence backing this tradition. The
Argead family was, in all likelihood, derived from the same population pool as the remainder of the Makedones.
141
Hdt. 9.45.3
142
Hatzopoulos 2011: 55
143
Hdt. 5.20.4

  63
  

population.144 Isocrates emphasized this perspective and (in line with Aristotelian theory)

ultimately believed that Greeks can rule, but cannot be ruled. 145 Thus, there can be little doubt

that the privileged political status of the Argeads played a crucial role in separating them from

their subjects on an ethnic level – in the eyes of the Greeks. As we have seen, opponents of the

Macedonian kings could still find it rhetorically convenient to conflate them with their populace,

and the Greeks were never entirely comfortable with the idea of one-man rule, in the form of

either tyranny or kingship. But the essential point here is that, unlike the common Macedonian

populace, the monarchical Argead dynasty was not inherently un-Hellenic according to Classical

Greek political theory.

It is interesting to note that Aristotle, who spent significant time at the Macedonian court

and surely possessed an intimate understanding of the region, did not provide a systematic

discussion of Macedonian ethnic identity in any of his works.146 Nevertheless, his description of

certain “kingships of the barbarians (βασιλεῖαι τῶν βαρβάρων)” at 1285a16 of his Politics does

correspond rather neatly with the Macedonian monarchy.147 On these monarchies Aristotle

writes:

τυραννικαὶ μὲν οὖν διὰ τὸ τοιοῦτόν εἰσιν, ἀσφαλεῖς δὲ διὰ τὸ πάτριαι καὶ
κατὰ νόμον εἶναι. καὶ ἡ φυλακὴ δὲ βασιλικὴ καὶ οὐ τυραννικὴ διὰ τὴν
αὐτὴν αἰτίαν. οἱ γὰρ πολῖται φυλάττουσιν ὅπλοις τοὺς βασιλεῖς, τοὺς δὲ
τυράννους ξενικόν: οἱ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ νόμον καὶ ἑκόντων οἱ δ᾽ ἀκόντων
ἄρχουσιν.148
                                                                                                               
144
Asirvatham 2010: 107
145
Aristotle’s Politics (1327b 29-33) outlines a traditional perspective on Greek political organization. Unlike the
perpetually disorganized peoples of northern Europe, and the peoples living in continual subjection in the Near East,
“the Greek race continues to be free and to have very good political institutions, and to be capable of ruling all
mankind if it attains constitutional unity.”  
146
Engels 2010: 86
147
Hammond 1989: 21  
148
Aristotle, Politics (translated by H. Rackham, Cambridge 1944) 1285a 24-30: “These kingships therefore are for
these reasons of a tyrannical nature, but they are secure because they are hereditary and rule by law. Also, their
bodyguard is of a royal and not a tyrannical type for the same reason; for kings are guarded by the citizens in arms,
whereas tyrants have foreign guards, for kings rule in accordance with law and over willing subjects, but tyrants rule
over unwilling subjects.” It should be noted that the Spartans’ kingship does not fall under Aristotle’s classification

  64
  

It is quite possible that Aristotle had the Macedonians in mind when he composed this

passage, and we can therefore take this as an indication that he agreed with the contemporary

Greek view that the Macedonian people were barbarians. His later observation, however, that the

kings of Macedon (like those of Sparta and the Molossians) “have either acquired or settled

territory (ἢ κτίσαντες ἢ κτησάμενοι χώραν, ὥσπερ οἱ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεῖς καὶ

Μακεδόνων καὶ Μολοττῶν)” implies recognition of the Argive foundation myth – and by

extension, the Argeads’ Greek ethnicity.149

The Macedonians’ Ethnic Identity in the Late Classical Period

Despite the lack of testimony from the common Macedonian populace about their own

sense of ethnic consciousness, we can make some key inferences from the Alexander historians.

While the accounts of Herodotus and Thucydides demonstrate that the Greeks were generally

inclined to regard the Macedonian people as barbarous, the Alexander historians offer a number

of instances in which the Macedonians share a clear cultural alignment with the Greeks.

Simultaneously, the issue of ethnic identity in terms of ‘Greeks vs. Macedonians’ does

occasionally surface in the respective accounts of the Alexander historians. One prominent

example scholars point to as revealing the existence of an ethnic differentiation between the

Greeks and Macedonians can be found in Arrian’s account of the Battle of Issus. As Arrian

writes of the combat, “καί τι καὶ τοῖς γένεσι τῷ τε Ἑλληνικῷ καὶ τῷ Μακεδονικῷ

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
of “βασιλεῖαι τῶν βαρβάρων” and is described in a separate passage. Aristotle observed that the Spartan
monarchy (unlike that of the Macedonians) “did not carry sovereignty in all matters (οὐκ ἔστι δὲ κυρία πάντων)”,
such as having the power to condemn a subject to death. In his view, the Spartan kingship was essentially a supreme
generalship whereby kings held all authority in matters related to war. For the full passage on the Spartan monarchy
see Pol. 1285a 1-10.
149
Aristot. Pol. 1310b 39-40, Hammond 1989: 21. Engels (2010:86) notes the possibility that Aristotle’s silence
about Macedonian ethnic identity could reflect political caution in the wake of Macedonian hegemony over Greece.
Indeed, he may have understood that the question of the Macedonians’ origins was largely irrelevant to both Philip
II and his son, Alexander, each of whom he served and knew personally. Rather than risking a contradiction of his
own classical Greek political theory by defining a people under monarchical rule as Greeks, Aristotle opts for an
indirect classification of Macedonians as barbarians strictly according to political theory.

  65
  

φιλοτιμίας ἐνέπεσεν ἐς ἀλλήλους.”150 According to James Romm, Arrian treats the Greeks and

Macedonians “as two distinct ethnic groups, rather than the Macedonians as a subdivision of the

Hellenic genos.”151 Although this remark fails to fully take into account the fluid meaning of the

word genos, the point of the passage is nonetheless clear; ‘Greek’ and ‘Macedonian’ clearly

appear as separate ethnic designations.152 Even if we accept that the Macedonians did share an

ancestral link with the Greeks, we cannot deny that Arrian was following his Classical Greek

predecessors in presenting these two groups as distinct from one another. As discussed in chapter

1, however, we cannot trust the Alexander historians for communicating a Macedonian outlook

towards their relationship with the Greeks at the end of the 4th c. B.C.153

Cultural Alignment of the Greeks and Macedonians in the Alexander Historians

Despite how the Alexander historians do appear to present the Macedonians as a distinct

ethnic group through their occasional references to ‘Greeks and Macedonians’, they do not draw

a cultural distinction between these two groups as one might expect. On the contrary, their

accounts describe certain key events in which the Macedonians are situated on a new ethno-

cultural binary: Greeks and Macedonians versus barbarians. A notable instance of this occurs in

Arrian’s description of a ceremony at Opis (near Babylon) in 324 B.C., convened by Alexander in

hopes of reconciling the Macedonians and the Persians. Arrian mentions how, during the
                                                                                                               
150
Arr. Anab. 2.10.6: “The fight was embittered by the feeling of rivalry between the Greek and Macedonian
peoples.”
151
James Romm, (2010) The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander, New York: xxi.
152
The word genos (γένος) can refer variously to the idea of race/ethnicity, stock, family, kin, or nationhood.
However, it should be pointed out that even among the Greeks, we find expressions like ouk homophylou genous
(‘not of the same stock’) or allophylos (‘of another people/tribe’) applied to other Greeks (Hatzopoulos 2011:68).
For example, Thucydides (1.102.3) mentions how the Spartans applied the latter term to the Athenians.
153
It is important to acknowledge that the terms ‘Hellene’ and ‘Hellas’ initially carried no all-inclusive ethnic
meaning for the Greeks, being used originally by Homer to refer to a specific tribe inhabiting a small region of
Thessaly. It was not until the Archaic period that the Greeks collectively began to take on the name of Hellenes and
ceased to identify solely based upon their regional locale of origin. Daskalakis (1965: 45) argues that the isolation of
the Macedonians in the northern reaches of the Greek peninsula severed them both from the Homeric epic tradition
and the related sociocultural developments which consequently led to the emergence of a common Hellenic identity
amongst independent southern Greek communities. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that the
Macedonian populace presented themselves as Hellenes to the southern Greeks.  

  66
  

performance of a sacrifice, “καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ κρατῆρος αὐτός τε καὶ οἱ ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὸν

ἀρυόμενοι ἔσπενδον τὰς αὐτὰς σπονδὰς καταρχομένων τῶν τε Ἑλλήνων μάντεων καὶ

τῶν Μάγων.”154 It is evident here that the ‘Magi’ represent the religious clergy of the Persians

and other Iranians, yet the corresponding religious specialists officiating on behalf of the

Macedonians are not described as ‘Macedonian’, but as “seers of the Greeks (Ἑλλήνων

μάντεων)”. Of course, the very fact that these Greeks are presiding over a significant religious

ceremony with all the Macedonians in attendance would be very unlikely if the Macedonians

possessed their own seers or a distinctly un-Hellenic take on ritual and sacrifice. This would

appear to indicate that there was neither a distinct form of Macedonian mantic art, nor a sense of

national consciousness attached to the Macedonians’ religious practices. Therefore, we may

reasonably conclude that Arrian is providing an instance of cultural conflation of Greeks and

Macedonians within the religious sphere. 155

Another passage from the Anabasis similarly demonstrates the cultural alignment of

Greeks and Macedonians. When Alexander attempted to introduce the foreign custom of

proskynesis (a form of prostration) to his army he was naturally met with widespread reluctance,

and even faced direct criticism from his court historian, Callisthenes. Towards the end of a

lengthy address Callisthenes makes the following remark:

καὶ οὖν ἐνθυμήθητι, ἐκεῖσε ἐπανελθὼν ἆρά γε καὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας τοὺς
ἐλευθερωτάτους προσαναγκάσεις ἐς τὴν προσκύνησιν, ἢ Ἑλλήνων μὲν
ἀφέξῃ, Μακεδόσι δὲ προσθήσεις τήνδε τὴν ἀτιμίαν, ἢ διακεκριμένα ἔσται
σοι αὐτῷ τὰ τῶν τιμῶν ἐς ἅπαν, ὡς πρὸς Ἑλλήνων μὲν καὶ Μακεδόνων
ἀνθρωπίνως τε καὶ Ἑλληνικῶς τιμᾶσθαι, πρὸς δὲ τῶν βαρβάρων μόνων
βαρβαρικῶς;156

                                                                                                               
154
Arr. Anab. 7.11.8: “Alexander and his friends dipped their wine from the same bowl and poured the same
libations, following the lead of the Greek seers and the Magi.”
155
Hatzopoulos 2011: 70
156
Arr. Anab. 4.11.8: “Therefore consider whether you will return home and compel the Greeks, who are men most
devoted to freedom, to pay you the honour of prostration, or whether you will leave the Greeks alone, and inflict this
shameful duty only on the Macedonians? Or will you make a general distinction, so as to be honoured by the Greeks

  67
  

Though we have yet another immediate presentation of ‘Greek’ and ‘Macedonian’ as separate

ethnic entities, Arrian again fuses the two groups into a single cultural unit when he specifically

refers to their shared adherence to Hellenic customs (Ἑλλήνων μὲν καὶ Μακεδόνων

ἀνθρωπίνως τε καὶ Ἑλληνικῶς τιμᾶσθαι). Just as in the previous passage, the Macedonians

are clearly aligned with the Greeks on one end of an ethnic spectrum, while the Persians and

other ‘barbarian’ peoples occupy the other. This is likewise evident when Plutarch offers a

description of Alexander’s attempts to ‘orientalize’ his army:

ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν φίλων ἑώρα τῶν μεγίστων Ἡφαιστίωνα μὲν ἐπαινοῦντα καὶ
συμμετακοσμούμενον αὐτῷ, Κρατερὸν δὲ τοῖς πατρίοις ἐμμένοντα: δι᾽
ἐκείνου μὲν ἐχρημάτιζε τοῖς βαρβάροις, διὰ τούτου δὲ τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ τοῖς
Μακεδόσι.157

It is interesting to note how Craterus’ adherence “to his ancestral customs (τοῖς πατρίοις)” –

which must be specifically Macedonian customs – is shown as accommodating not just the

Macedonians, but the Greeks as well. While the actual ‘customs’ being referred to in this passage

are not detailed, the implication is that native Macedonian customs were essentially compatible

with those of the Greeks. The Macedonians’ attachment to Hellenic culture is further emphasized

when Plutarch recalls the general Cassander’s reaction to proskynesis: “ὁ δὲ Κάσανδρος

ἀφῖκτο μὲν νεωστί, θεασάμενος δὲ βαρβάρους τινὰς προσκυνοῦντας, ἅτε δὴ

τεθραμμένος Ἑλληνικῶς καὶ τοιοῦτο πρότερον μηδὲν ἑωρακώς, ἐγέλασε

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
and Macedonians as a human being and after the manner of the Greeks, and by barbarians alone after the manners of
barbarians?”
157
Plutarch, Life of Alexander (translated by Robin Waterfield, Oxford 2009) 47.5: “Moreover, when he saw that
among his closest friends Hephaestion approved his plans and joined him in changing his mode of life, while
Craterus clung fast to his ancestral customs, he employed the former in his business with the Barbarians, and the
latter in that with the Greeks and Macedonians.”

  68
  

προπετέστερον.”158 Once more, the Macedonians are sharply contrasted with the ‘barbarians’ of

the East by means of their cultural synchronicity with the Greeks.

The Merging of Greek and Macedonian Identity in the Hellenistic Period and Late Antiquity

The emergence of the Successor kingdoms in the aftermath of Alexander’s conquests led

to new developments in the relationship between Greeks and Macedonians. Indeed, with the

advent of the Hellenistic period we find evidence for the absolute conflation of Greeks and

Macedonians, particularly from the Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt. The Ptolemies, like the rulers

of the other Successor states, sought to develop their newly acquired territory by attracting

settlers from all over the Greek world. Among the numerous pieces of papyri recovered from the

Fayum, archaeologists have identified tax documents from the Ptolemaic era which show only a

basic division of citizens into the categories of ‘Greek’ and ‘Egyptian’.159 While the ‘Greek’

category could include citizens of foreign origin who became Hellenized (including, besides

native Egyptians, Thracians and Judaeans), what is more relevant here is how the Ptolemies

themselves made no use of a distinct category of ‘Macedonians’. Regardless of whether or not

the Ptolemies saw it as politically expedient to present their Macedonian subjects as ‘Greeks’ to

the city-states of the Greek mainland (from which they actively sought immigrants), it seems

unlikely that the Macedonian settlers in Ptolemaic Egypt would have been content with this if

                                                                                                               
158
Plut. Alex. 74.1: “The other, Cassander, had only recently come to Babylon, and when he saw some barbarians
doing obeisance to Alexander – since he had been raised as a Greek and had never seen such a sight as this before –
lhe laughed boisterously.”
159
Asirvatham 2010: 121. Although Greek culture and settlement thrived in Hellenistic Egypt, it did so in an isolated
form, especially in comparison with the Near East. Indeed, Ptolemy I made little effort to fuse Greeks and
Macedonians with Egyptians, as Egypt lacked a native elite class similar to the Persian one that could aid in this
process. Besides Alexandria, Greek colonists were concentrated around the Fayum, Memphis, and the area west of
the Nile Valley. Meanwhile, the rest of Egypt was divided into 42 districts, a traditional Egyptian practice for over
3,000 years, which contained roughly seven to ten million natives. Most Egyptians were therefore free to live as they
always had, only encountering Greek culture if they were compelled to venture far from their immediate
communities. This social segregation characteristic of Hellenistic Egypt differs sharply with the general mingling
between Greeks and natives in the cities of the Seleucid Near East. For more on this see Winthrop Lindsay Adams,
(2006) “The Hellenistic Kingdoms,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World, Glenn R. Bugh ed.
New York: 28-51.

  69
  

they were consciously averse to any sense of Hellenic identity and lacked clear cultural ties to

their Greek counterparts. This perhaps demonstrates that Macedonian identity in Ptolemaic

Egypt was ultimately subsumed within Greek identity at both an elite and public level.160 A direct

reference to “Macedonians and other Greeks (Μακεδόνας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας)”

occurs in Strabo’s Geography,161 and Polybius likewise refers to the Macedonians as a group of

Greeks in his record of a treaty between the Carthaginian general Hannibal and king Philip V. A

section of this treaty reads:

ἔσται δὲ καὶ Φίλιππος ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ Μακεδόνες καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων
οἱ σύμμαχοι, σῳζόμενοι καὶ φυλαττόμενοι ὑπὸ Καρχηδονίων τῶν
συστρατευομένων καὶ ὑπὸ Ἰτυκαίων καὶ ὑπὸ πασῶν πόλεων καὶ ἐθνῶν ὅσα
ἐστὶ Καρχηδονίοις ὑπήκοα.162

These passages reveal that, by Roman times, any serious ethnic differentiation between Greeks

and Macedonians had largely dissapeared. Therefore, the presentation of ‘Greek’ and

‘Macedonian’ as two separate ethnic groups by the Alexander historians likely reflects the

attitudes of the 4th c. B.C., rather than the contemporary attitudes of the later periods in which they

wrote.163

Conclusions

Overall, our available literary evidence does present the Macedonian populace as an

ethnic group that was distinct from the Greeks during the Classical period. However, it must be
                                                                                                               
160
In a papyrus letter (ca. 256 B.C.) addressed to Zenon, a Greek administrator of Ptolemaic Egypt, an unknown
Egyptian worker (via a scribe) claims that he has been mistreated because he is a “barbarian”, specifically
mentioning that he cannot speak Greek. Besides highlighting a degree of social disconnection between the
politically dominant Greco-Macedonian class and the native Egyptians, this may also indicate that the Egyptians
made no ethnic distinction between Greeks and Macedonians and saw the groups as a single cultural unit through
their shared used of koine Greek. See Papyrus letter to Zenon in Michael Austin, (2006) The Hellenistic World from
Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, Second edition, Cambridge: 307.
161
Strab. 10.2.23
162
Polybius, Histories (translated by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh, New York 1889), VII. ix: “And King Philip and the
Macedonians, and the other Greeks as are his allies, shall be supported and protected by the Carthaginians now in
this army, and by the people of Utica, and by all cities and tribes subject to Carthage.” The same treaty also makes
mention of “θεῶν πάντων ὅσοι Μακεδονίαν καὶ τὴν ἄλλην Ἑλλάδα κατέχουσιν (all the gods who rule
Macedonia and the rest of Greece).”
163
Heckel and Yardley 2008: 7

  70
  

emphasized that we are limited to external perceptions of Macedonian ethnicity since, unlike

their Argead kings, the Macedonian people have left no testimony regarding their sense of ethnic

identity, nor any shared traditions pertaining to their origins and history. As discussed, the

Classical Greeks regarded monarchical subjection to be a feature of barbarian life, yet implied

that Greeks themselves could rule others; such political theory supports the exclusive attribution

of Greek identity to the Argead dynasty. Nevertheless, we should not overlook the fact that the

Greeks and Macedonians are consistently presented in cultural alignment by the Alexander

historians, which is especially conspicuous in those episodes that juxtapose them with the

Persians and other eastern peoples. It is this very cultural alignment which eventually blurred the

ethnic differentiation between Greeks and Macedonians during the Hellenistic period, as these

groups were naturally merged through a common ethno-cultural milieu that distinguished them

from the native societies of Egypt and the Near East that they came to occupy.164

                                                                                                               
164
It is interesting to note that the Persians may have referred to both Greeks and Macedonians as Yauna. In
particular, Persian royal inscriptions from the turn of the 6th century B.C. make mention of yauna takabara – “the
Yauna wearing the hat.” This was likely an allusion to the kausia, a distinctive hat worn by the Macedonians. It is
therefore possible that the Persians made no significant ethnic distinction between Greeks and Macedonians well
before Alexander’s time. See Engels (2010: 87).
 

  71
  

Chapter VI
Ancient Macedonian Speech: Literary and Epigraphic Evidence

Towards the end of the 5th c. B.C., a standardized form of Attic Greek known as koine was

adopted in Macedon, which persisted as its language of both formal discourse and official

communication throughout the late Classical and Hellenistic periods. 165 While there is no doubt

that the Macedonians used koine in these capacities, scholars have debated the extent to which it

was actually employed by the ordinary Macedonian populace. This is inextricably tied to another

question: if koine was imported from southern Greece, what was the original language spoken by

the Macedonians? Was ‘Macedonian’ a distinct language in its own right, or some sort of Greek

dialect? Moreover, is it possible that multiple dialects, or languages, were spoken in Macedon?

This chapter will outline the available evidence for Macedonian speech – both literary and

archaeological – in order to provide a realistic evaluation of the linguistic affinities of the ancient

Macedonians.

‘Macedonian’: Language or Dialect?

There has been disagreement for decades over how the speech of the Macedonians should

be classified. Until the late 20th century the investigative efforts of scholars were limited to a

relatively small sample of genuine ‘Macedonian’ vocabulary, amounting to a total of roughly

300 words largely consisting of personal names and basic nouns. These were derived mainly

from coins, inscriptions, stray literary passages, and the records of the 5th c. A.D. lexicographer

Hesychius of Alexandria.166 The majority of the surviving words are identifiably Greek, while

some share roots with Thracian and Illyrian or are of otherwise ambiguous origin.167 Although it

cannot be confidently stated what sort of Greek dialectical family Macedonian might have

                                                                                                               
165
HM II: 49
166
Engels 2011: 94
167
Ibid.

  72
  

belonged to based upon this sample, it has been proposed that it was a rough Greek dialect with a

degree of foreign influence. The Macedonian kingdom bordered and included various peoples

who spoke Thracian, Illyrian, Paeonian, and Phrygian, and the Macedonians themselves certainly

borrowed words from such groups.168 Nevertheless, this collection of surviving ‘Macedonian’

words is insufficient to provide a comprehensive reconstruction of the actual structure of

Macedonian speech. As Ernst Badian rightly observes, such a small sample of vocabulary cannot

form a reliable basis upon which the linguistic affinities of the Macedonians can be

ascertained.169 Therefore, we must direct our attention to the most significant epigraphic

discovery in the region: the Pella curse tablet.

The Pella Curse Tablet

Discovered in 1986, the Pella curse tablet is a text inscribed on a lead tablet (fig. 11)

written by, or on behalf of, a woman aiming to impede the marriage of her former lover to

another woman. It has been described as “basically north-western Greek”, especially in its

morphology, with phonetic traits similar to Thessalian (fig. 12).170 Dated to around 375 B.C., this

tablet (knowns as a katadesmos) is the most extensive non-koine document found in Macedon,

and constitutes the best evidence for the theory that ‘Macedonian’ was a Greek dialect

                                                                                                               
168
Hammond 1989: 13
169  Badian
1982: 33
170
Hatzopoulos 2011: 61. Linguistic traits that the Pella curse tablet shares with the northwestern Greek dialects
include the conservation of the long /a/, the contraction of /a/ and /o/ (short or long) into a long /a/ (e.g. ἀλλᾶν), and
the presence of temporal adverbs ending in –κα (ὁπόκα). A characteristic feature of Macedonian speech is the
substitution of ‘voiced’ consonantal stops for ‘unvoiced’ ones. For example, we typically find β instead of φ (e.g.
Βερενίκη vs. Φερενίκη) and δ instead of θ (Ξανδικός vs. Ξανθικός), as well as γ in place of χ. Some early
scholars in the 19th century initially regarded this as an un-Greek characteristic, attested in other Indo-European
languages such as Celtic and Germanic. However, the accumulation of more epigraphic data over the last century
has led most scholars to challenge this view. Their essential point is that the simple use of ‘voiced’ instead of
‘unvoiced’ stops in a dialect with overwhelmingly Greek characteristics does not necessarily prove affiliation with
non-Hellenic languages, and can be explained as a linguistic feature that developed within the Greek language.
Indeed, this phonetic peculiarity has also been observed in Thessaly, where personal names such as Ἀμβίλογος (as
opposed to Ἀμφίλοχος) and Βύλιππος (corresponding to the common Φίλιππος) have been observed on
inscriptions.

  73
  

resembling a northwest variety.171 That ‘Macedonian’ was related to the northwest branch of the

Greek language is indicated by a few ancient sources. The ancient Greek geographer Strabo

states that the inhabitants of the Upper Macedonian cantons spoke a language similar to that of

the Epirotes, who were themselves speakers of a northwest Greek dialect. He writes:

καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰ περὶ Λύγκον καὶ Πελαγονίαν καὶ Ὀρεστιάδα καὶ Ἐλίμειαν
τὴν ἄνω Μακεδονίαν ἐκάλουν, οἱ δ᾽ ὕστερον καὶ ἐλευθέραν: ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ
σύμπασαν τὴν μέχρι Κορκύρας Μακεδονίαν προσαγορεύουσιν,
αἰτιολογοῦντες ἅμα ὅτι καὶ κουρᾷ καὶ διαλέκτῳ καὶ χλαμύδι καὶ ἄλλοις
τοιούτοις χρῶνται παραπλησίως: ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ δίγλωττοί εἰσι. 172

Additionally, Plutarch (Pyrrhos 11.4.) may be indicating that the accent of Macedonian speech

could be easily replicated by the Epirotes when he describes how some of king Pyrrhus ’ men

“pretended to be Macedonians (προσποιουμένους εἶναι Μακεδόνας),” when speaking before

an actual group of Macedonians.173 While both Epirotes and Macedonians had adopted the use of

koine by this period, Plutarch’s observation is interesting as it reflects the underlying cultural

proximity between the two groups and the possibility that they were still using their original

dialects.

It is of no surprise that the Pella curse tablet has been hailed as a pivotal discovery in the

archaeological quest to determine the linguistic affiliation of ‘Macedonian’. Moreover, it is a

telling fact that some prominent scholars who have long taken a skeptical stance towards

                                                                                                               
171
Engels 2010: 95  
172
Strab. 7.7.8: “And in fact the regions about Lyncus, Pelagonia, Orestias, and Elimeia used to be called Upper
Macedonia, though later on they were also called Free Macedonia. But some go so far as to call the whole of the
country Macedonia, as far as Corcyra, stating as their reason that in tonsure, language, short cloak, and other things
of the kind, the usages of the inhabitants are similar, although some speak both languages.” It is unclear whether
Strabo’s observations on Epirote and Macedonian customs and language are referring specifically to an earlier
period or to his own time, when standard koine was well established throughout the Greek mainland. Regardless, his
observation that some of the Epirotes and Macedonians were ‘δίγλωττοί’ indicates that, at some point, they spoke
closely related native Greek dialects.
173
Hatzopoulos 2011: 62

  74
  

‘Macedonian’ being a Greek dialect have avoided analysis of the Pella curse tablet.174 What this

inscription likely indicates is that – to some extent – there was a local dialect of Greek being

spoken in the first half of the 4th B.C. in Macedon, around the same time that the use of koine was

becoming increasingly popular. Whether the dialect presented by the Pella curse tablet was one

used by the common populace, the Macedonian aristocracy, or both, is difficult to ascertain.175

People from all levels of society engaged in the practice of magic and conjuration, so the nature

of the inscription should not be taken as a sure indicator of its progenitor’s social rank. Indeed,

more substantial discoveries will be needed to gain a truly comprehensive understanding of how

widespread this Greek dialect was in Macedon.

Epigraphic Discoveries at Vergina and Macedonian Toponyms

Moving on, we find that the site of Vergina, famous for its royal tombs, has yielded some

valuable evidence in the form of dozens of grave-markers (stelai), which testify to the personal

names commonly employed by ordinary Macedonian citizens (see figs. 13 and 14). A total of 47

stelai were reconstructed by archaeologist Manolis Andronikos, generally dating from the mid to

late 4th c. B.C.176 All the names engraved on these stelai are Greek, with the exception of only

one name, Amadocos, which is of Thracian origin.177 It is worth noting that many of the stelai

                                                                                                               
174
For instance, Borza contends in a more recent article, “Greek and Macedonian Ethnicity” (Romm 2010), that
there is not enough evidence that a Greek dialect was used in Macedon, completely ignoring the Pella curse tablet.
Also, the recent edition of Alexander the Great: Historical Sources in Translation (Heckel and Yardley 2008) makes
no mention of this discovery in its brief section on the Macedonian language.  
175
According to Hatzopoulos, the presence of forms such as ‘διελέξαιμι’, ‘ἰμέ’, ‘ἀνορόξασα’ and ‘δαπινά’ in the
Pella curse tablet are “expected in Macedonia but alien to the northwestern dialects”, which casts doubt on the
hypothesis that it might have been the work of an Epirote living in Pella. He argues that the tablet seems to
demonstrate an idiosyncratic dialect intermediate between northwest and Thessalian Greek. See M.B. Hatzopoulos,
(1999) “The Speech of the Ancient Macedonians in light of the Recent Epigraphic Discoveries,” International
Symposion on Ancient Macedonia VI.
176
Andronikos 1984: 83. Andronikos notes that these stelai were found in the form of hundreds of broken fragments
over the mound of the Great Tumulus, having been used in its construction. It is therefore impossible to assess the
actual remains of the graves they once accompanied. Nevertheless, Andronikos asserts that the “dimensions and
quality” of the stelai support the proposition that they accompanied the graves of average Macedonian citizens
rather than those of the elite – who, as we have seen, tended to be buried in fairly elaborate tombs.
177
Ibid.

  75
  

record the name of the deceased’s father, and thus indicate the type of names that were popular a

generation earlier, around the very end of the 5th c.; these are also largely identifiable as Greek.

In certain cases, Macedonian names are typically unique to the region with no obvious

equivalent in Attic Greek or other dialects, while some, such as Ptolemaios, can be traced back to

Homeric Greek.178 Additionally, a dedicatory inscription to the goddess Eukleia (SIG 1.252n)

has been discovered at Vergina, part of a small handful of brief inscriptions found among the

tumuli displaying Doric features; it is dated to around 370 B.C. and attributed to Queen Eurydice,

mother of Philip II.179

The toponyms found throughout the region of Macedon likewise demonstrate an

overwhelmingly Hellenic character, as do the names of months in the Macedonian calendar,

religious cults, and local deities.180 That such important spheres of Macedonian terminology

display overtly Greek characteristics points to the likelihood that a form of Greek was native to a

core population of Macedon. Indeed, if a non-Greek language was used by the Macedonians

before the introduction of the koine, it would have likely left a significant impact on such things

as toponyms and calendrical terms – and we would certainly expect to find more foreign

elements in personal names. This is not the case, and the available evidence ultimately supports

the theory that the occasional non-Greek elements in ‘Macedonian’ were a result of the region’s

close proximity with non-Greek peoples, rather than remnants of an originally non-Greek

                                                                                                               
178
Engels 2010: 95. The most popular male names in ancient Macedon were Dionysius, Alexander, Apollonius,
Posidippus, Demetrius, Philip, Artemidorus, Heracleides and Bithys, all clearly Greek except the last name (which
appears to be Thracian). See also P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews, (2005) A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names 4,
Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Regions of the Black Sea, Oxford.
179  Hatzopoulos 1993: 79.
180
Hammond 1989: 13. Greek toponyms of Macedon include Pieria, Lebaea, Heracleum, Petra, Aegeae, and Dium,
among many others. The occasional non-Greek, or pre-Greek name (such as Edessa) is a trend not unique to
Macedon; a number of place names throughout southern Greece are derived from a non-Greek Indo-European
language (such as Larissa, Parnassus, Corinthos, Hymettus, Cnossus, etc.).

  76
  

language that was almost wholly subsumed by Greek elements.181 It seems highly unlikely that

the Macedonians, at an early point when they maintained marginal contact with southern Greece,

would have suddenly abandoned their native tongue in preference for a rugged, unique dialect of

Greek – even going so far as to Hellenize the names of numerous places with which they were

already familiar.

It must still be acknowledged that multiple dialects or languages could have been spoken

throughout Macedon.182 As noted above, Macedon was situated immediately next to numerous

non-Greek populations, and the expansion of the kingdom (particularly in the 4th c. under Philip

II) inevitably brought the Macedonians into close contact with those peoples. In particular, the

attestations of Thracian personal names used in Macedon, though rare, can indicate that people

of foreign origin were incorporated into Macedonian society. With this taken into account, it

seems reasonable to propose that non-Macedonians might have retained the use of their original

languages alongside ‘Macedonian’ or koine Greek. Again, while the Pella curse tablet provides

evidence for the use of a dialect similar to northwest Greek in Macedon, more archaeological

discoveries are needed to confidently define the extent to which it was employed. It is possible

that the form of Greek on the Pella curse tablet is but one of several dialects of Greek that were

used in Macedon, and it is unknown if that form of Greek was used throughout both Lower and

Upper Macedon.183

                                                                                                               
181
Hammond 1991: 6
182
Borza 1990: 94
183
Although there is evidence that a northwest Greek dialect similar to that of the Epirotes was used in Upper
Macedonia, more data is needed to determine its relationship to the dialect on the Pella curse tablet.

  77
  

Literary Evidence for Ancient Macedonian Speech

Literary testimony for ancient Macedonian speech is, like the archaeological evidence,

far from abundant. The earliest indication as to the linguistic affiliations of the Macedonians

comes from Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women. In this work, Hesiod casts the traditions of various

Greek peoples in the form of genealogies, indicating specific mythological individuals as

ancestors of each Hellenic linguistic group. He describes how two sons, Magnes and Macedon,

were born to Zeus and Thyia, “dwelling around Pieria and Mount Olympus.”184 This connection

indicates that the region of Macedon – of which Pieria formed a core part – derived its name

from the mythological figure of the same name. Hammond observes that the name ‘Macedonia’

is itself Greek “in root and ethnic termination” and appears to carry connotations of length or

height. 185 Although Hesiod constructs more of an indirect relationship between Macedon and the

sons of Hellen, father of the Greek race (making them first cousins rather than siblings), the fact

that they are still associated within the same genealogical framework shows that Hesiod regarded

the Macedonians to be Greek-speakers.186 Hesiod would have made this observation at some

point in the 7th c. B.C., making his testimony the earliest available literary evidence suggesting an

ethno-linguistic relationship between Macedonians and Greeks.

                                                                                                               
184
Hesiod, Catalogue of Women 3.4-5. Thyia was the daughter of Deucalion (son of Prometheus), whose son Hellen
was the eponymous ancestor of the Hellenes. Hellen’s own sons Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus were understood as the
ancestors of the three main dialect groups of Greek: Dorus, for the Doric, Aeolus for Aeolic, and Xouthus for Ionic
(through his son Ion).
185
Hammond 1989: 12. In Homer’s Odyssey we find the words makednos and makedne for the first time, with the
basic meaning of ‘long’; the lexicographer Hesychius gives both ‘long” and ‘tall’ as meanings for this adjective. It is
thus possible that the term Makedones was a reference to the people as ‘highlanders’ or ‘mountain folk’, given the
region’s terrain.
186
Engels 2010: 90. It is very probable that Hesiod regarded the Magnesians of Thessaly and the Macedonians as
related linguistically, hence the fraternal relationship of Magnes and Macedon. Cultural evidence for a relationship
between the two groups is the Hetairideia religious festival, observed by both Macedonians and Magnesians. A later
genealogical tradition was provided by the 5th c. historian Hellanicus, who visited Macedon. Hellanicus modified
Hesiod’s account, making Macedon a son of Aeolus, not his cousin. According to Hammond, this modification was
due to Hellanicus’ conviction that the Macedonians spoke an Aeolic dialect of Greek (1989: 12-15).

  78
  

It is not until a much later period that we find direct references in Greek literature to a

distinctly ‘Macedonian’ form of speech. A notable example of this is when Plutarch describes

the episode in which Alexander, in a bout of drunken rage, killed the senior Companion Cleitus

at a banquet while campaigning deep in Asia. As he writes, “ἀναπηδήσας ἀνεβόα

Μακεδονιστὶ καλῶν τοὺς ὑπασπιστάς τοῦτο δὲ ἦν σύμβολον θορύβου μεγάλου, καὶ τὸν

σαλπιγκτὴν ἐκέλευσε σημαίνειν.”187 Plutarch’s specific mention of ‘Μακεδονιστὶ’ has created

a fair deal of debate amongst scholars as to whether it is referring to a dialect of Greek, or a

distinct language; either might seem possible if the passage is taken in isolation. Yet, in light of

the available archaeological evidence, it seems likely that Plutarch is referring to a distinct

dialect of Greek spoken by the Macedonians. It is worth pointing out that we find numerous

literary references to variants of the Greek language including ‘Boeotian’, ‘Laconian’, ‘Dorian’,

‘Aeolian’, ‘Phocian’, ‘Chalcidian’, ‘Arcadian’, and ‘Attic’.188 A reference to a ‘Macedonian’

form of Greek fits neatly into this trend, and by no means necessarily implies that it was an

unrelated language.189

The Roman historian Curtius Rufus provides a similar reference to a distinct dialect of

the Macedonians, but in a different context. Curtius describes how the commander Philotas was

brought to trial before an Assembly of Macedonians for having conspired to kill Alexander.

Alexander asks Philotas whether he would like to speak in his ‘native tongue’ during the

proceedings (“quaero, an patrio sermone sis apud eos usurus”), to which Philotas responds:

                                                                                                               
187
Plut. Alex. 51.4: “Alexander leapt to his feet and shouted in Macedonian for his corps of guards, a signal that this
was an extreme emergency, and ordered the trumpeter to sound.” The implication here is that under normal
circumstances standard koine Greek was employed, and that Alexander’s bodyguards (ὑπασπιστάς) understood
both ‘Macedonian’ and koine.
188
Anson 2009: 7. For instance, we have an account at Arrian 6.13.5 of a Boeotian soldier communicating to
Alexander in his native dialect (βοιωτιάζοντα ἅμα τῇ φωνῇ ταῦτα φάναι).
189
The same conclusion can be made at Plut. Life of Antony 27.4, where it is stated that some of the Ptolemies gave
up “speaking Macedonian (τὸ μακεδονίζειν).” The context makes it clear that they had not bothered learning
Egyptian or their native tongue, preferring standard koine Greek.

  79
  

“Praeter Macedonas, plerique adsunt, quos facilius, quae dicam, percepturos arbitror, si eadem

lingua fuero usus, qua tu egisti.”190 While ‘patrio sermone’ at first glance appears to connote

either a dialect or language (in the same way that ‘Μακεδονιστὶ’ does), closer inspection of this

passage reveals that it more likely implies the former. Of course, the language Alexander is

speaking in, referred to by Philotas, is koine Greek. However, if the native tongue (patrius

sermo) that Alexander mentions was a language alien to Greek, Philotas’ reference to koine

being “more easily understood (quos facilius, quae dicam, percepturos arbitror)” would seem

redundant, since non-Macedonian onlookers of the trial would presumably find the

Macedonians’ own language wholly unintelligible.191 As Daskalakis aptly notes, the reasonable

deduction to be made here is that Curtius was probably “referring to a Macedonian dialect of the

Greek language, to which the non-Macedonian Greeks present would naturally prefer standard

Greek.”192

Plutarch and Curtius Rufus’ respective references to Macedonian speech are interesting

and revealing for reasons beyond the simple question of whether they are suggesting the use of a

Greek dialect or a distinct language. Indeed, the passages found in these authors demonstrate that

the Macedonians had retained the use of an original dialect well into the 4th c. B.C. But in what

contexts was it usually employed, and by whom? The aforementioned account in Plutarch clearly

indicates that Alexander’s use of ‘Macedonian’ was due to exceptional circumstances, and it

follows from this that koine Greek was used on ordinary occasions.193 However, Curtius’ account

implies that it was not uncommon for the Macedonian soldiers (forming the Assembly at

                                                                                                               
190
Curt. 6.9.35: “Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I believe, will more easily understand what
I shall say if I use the same speech which you have just employed.”
192
Daskalakis 1965: 70. It is worth noting that Curtius is the only Alexander historian who indicates the use of
Macedonian speech during the trial of Philotas, and the historicity of this episode is thus open to question. In any
case, the above analysis remains applicable to this passage.  
193
Engels 2010: 95

  80
  

Philotas’ trial) to speak their native dialect, and another account from Plutarch’s Life of Eumenes

describes how the Greek general was greeted by his troops “in their Macedonian speech.”194

Although this seems contradictory, a reasonable explanation is that ‘Macedonian’ enjoyed usage

amongst the common soldiers, while officials and the king’s hetairoi more typically employed

koine.195 Nevertheless, the actual commands of the Macedonian army were likely to have been

executed in koine Greek, with ‘Macedonian’ being used by troops in more casual settings

throughout their campaigns. We have evidence that the Macedonian army received commands in

standard Greek from Plutarch, when he recalls the 30,000 young Persian recruits (Epigonoi)

Alexander organized into new battalions of the phalanx. According to Plutarch, “τρισμυρίους

παῖδας ἐπιλεξάμενος ἐκέλευσε γράμματά τε μανθάνειν Ἑλληνικὰ καὶ Μακεδονικοῖς

ὅπλοις ἐντρέφεσθαι, πολλοὺς ἐπιστάτας καταστήσας.”196 It would be a practical necessity

for an army organized like Alexander’s to require a common language of command, and it must

therefore be regarded as highly improbable that the Persian recruits would be taught a different

language from the remainder of the Macedonian infantry.197 This amounts to evidence for the use

of koine throughout Alexander’s army.

Other Evidence and General Conclusions on ‘Macedonian’

A fragmentarily preserved comedy written by the Athenian playwright Strattis contains

what appears to be our sole direct literary attestation of actual Macedonian speech. The play,

titled The Macedonians, was performed towards the end of the 5th c. B.C. and depicts a

                                                                                                               
194
Plut. Life of Eumenes 14.5, 11
195
Hammond 1989: 14
196
Plut. Alex. 47.3: “Alexander selected 30,000 boys and gave orders that they should be taught the Greek language
and to use Macedonian weapons, and he appointed a large number of instructors to train them.” Another specific
instance of Alexander employing Greek with the Persians is at Diod. 17.67, where he instructs that the family of
king Darius be taught Greek (“μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὴν μὲν Δαρείου μητέρα καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας καὶ τὸν υἱὸν
ἀπέλιπεν ἐν Σούσοις καὶ παρακατέστησε τοὺς διδάξοντας τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν διάλεκτον”).
197
HM II: 46

  81
  

Macedonian communicating in a rural, unpolished dialect.198 In response to an Athenian’s

question, “ἡ σφύραινα δ’ἐστὶ τίς; (the sphyraena, what’s that?)”, the Macedonian says,

“κέστραν μὲν ὔμμες, ὡτικκοί, κικλήσκετε (it’s what you Attic folk call the cestra).”199 Colvin

notes that the form ‘ὡτικκοί’ (as opposed to the proper ἀττικοί) is only attested in ‘country

bumpkin’ contexts in Attic comedy. 200 It therefore appears that Strattis was stereotyping

‘Macedonian’ as a backwater dialect of Greek. Furthermore, there is later Roman testimony for

the Macedonians’ use of the Greek language. The Roman historian Livy observed how “Trifling

causes occasionally unite and disunite the Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Macedonians, men

speaking the same language (Aetolos, Acarnanas, Macedonas, eiusdem linguae homines, leves

ad tempus ortae causae diiungunt coniunguntque).”201 As Livy is recalling a convention of Greek

states around 200 B.C., the ‘same language’ shared by these groups may refer either to a form of

northwest Greek, or simply koine Greek.202 Livy provides another statement confirming the

Macedonians as Greek-speakers in the 2nd c. when he recalls how the Roman general Paulus read

a declaration before a crowd of Macedonians. According to Livy, “Paulus Latine, quae senatui,

quae sibi ex consilii sententia visa essent, pronuntiavit. ea Cn. Octavius praetor – nam et ipse

aderat – interpretata sermone Graeco referebat.”203 Of course, the Greek being referred to here

can only be standard koine or a Macedonian dialect. The Romans would have surely taken record

of a non-Greek language in Macedon during their administration of the region, yet there are no

                                                                                                               
198
Engels 2010: 95. We find earlier comic playwrights (such as Aristophanes) poking fun at other Greek dialects in
similar fashion, such as Boeotian or Laconian. Indeed, “It is very unlikely that Macedonian would have been the
subject to ridicule if a foreign language and not a Greek dialect had been spoken in that country (Daskalakis 1965:
63).” The very context of Strattis’ play is thus indicative as to ‘Macedonian’ being a dialect of Greek.
199
Strattis (fragments in Hatzopoulos 1999).
200
Steven Colvin, (1999) Dialect in Aristophanes and the Politics of Language in Ancient Greek, Oxford: 279. The
form ὔμμες (vs. Attic ὑμεὶς) is also found in Homer, the Doric writings of Theocritus, and the Aeolic of Sappho.  
201
Livy, History of Rome (translated by Rev. Canon Roberts, New York 1912) 31.29.15
202
Engels 2010: 93  
203
Liv. 45.29.3: “Paulus announced in Latin the decisions of the senate, as well as his own, made by the advice of
his council. This announcement was translated into Greek and repeated by Gnaeus Octavius the praetor.”

  82
  

sources indicating their awareness of the existence of such a language amongst the general

population.

Overall, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a native Greek dialect was spoken by

at least a fair portion of Macedon’s populace. The available archaeological data indicates this,

and ultimately corresponds with the literary evidence, in which references to Macedonian speech

appear to indicate that it was a dialect of Greek. This supports the theory that the Macedonians

were descended from an early group of Greek-speakers, and thus shared an ancestral tie to the

Greeks. Although we cannot rely solely upon the testimony of Hesiod, his incorporation of the

Makedones into the Greek genealogical family tree – defined clearly upon the basis of Hellenic

linguistic affiliation – virtually stands as incontrovertible literary support for the idea that the

Macedonians were Greek speakers at an early point. The occasional traces of Thracian or other

Balkan influences in ‘Macedonian’ (mainly in the form of personal names) reflect a natural

borrowing process from such groups, who lived in close proximity to the Macedonians. There

are no known Greek literary accounts which directly indicate that ‘Macedonian’ was a form of

Thracian or any other non-Greek language, a connection that not even the virulent anti-

Macedonian orator Demosthenes sought to establish.204 There is also no hard archaeological

evidence of a distinct ‘Macedonian’ script or language. However, it should be emphasized that

more discoveries, especially in the realm of archaeological epigraphy, will be needed to

confidently confirm the classification of ‘Macedonian’. For instance, a number of additional

inscriptions containing the same dialect as the Pella curse tablet would be necessary to

definitively prove that this dialect was prevalent amongst a substantial portion of Macedon’s

                                                                                                               
204
Hammond 1979: 44. It is worth noting further that the Macedonians’ tongue is nowhere explicitly described by
Greek writers as being generally incomprehensible – something that did, in fact, happen concerning some southern
Greek groups. For instance, Thucydides (3.94.5) wrote that the Eurytanians of Aetolia “speak a most unintelligible
dialect and eat raw flesh (ἀγνωστότατοι δὲ γλῶσσαν καὶ ὠμοφάγοι εἰσίν).”  

  83
  

populace. Indeed, further discoveries could yield evidence for the existence of other Greek

dialects in Macedon. Finally, while koine Greek became common in Macedon by the 4th c. B.C.,

it is likely that the common people (for some time) retained the use of their dialect(s) “as part of

a two-tiered system of speech”, with koine being used for official purposes and a native tongue

in more casual and traditional settings.205

Fig. 11: Lead scroll of the Pella curse tablet in the Museum of Pella, first half of 4th c. B.C.
(retrieved from:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Pella_leaded_tablet_%28katadesmos%29
_4th_Century_retouched.jpg)

Fig. 12: The text of the Pella curse tablet (Akamatis 2003, p.143)

1. [θετι]μασ και διονυσοφωντοσ το τελοσ και τον γαμον καταγραφω και ταν αλλαν
πασαν γυ-
2. [ναικ]ων και χηραν και παρθενων μαλιστα δε θετιμασ και παρκαττιθεμαι μακρωνι και
3. [τοισ] δαιμοσι και οποκα εγω ταυτα διελεξαιμι και αναγνοιην παλειν ανοροξασα
4. [τοκα] γαμαι διονυσοφωντα προτερον δε μη μη γαρ λαβοι αλλαν γυναικα αλλ᾽ η εμε
5. [εμε δ]ε συνκαταγηρασαι διονυσοφωντι και μηδεμιαν αλλαν ικετισ υμων γινο-
6. [μαι φιλ]αν οικτιρετε δαιμονεσ φιλ[οι] δαγιναγαριμε φιλων παντων και ερημα αλλα
                                                                                                               
205
Borza 1990: 94

  84
  

7. [ταυτ]α φυλασσετε εμιν οπωσ μη γινηται τα[υ]τα και κακα κακωσ θετιμα αποληται
8. [....]αλ[-].υνμ .. εσπλην εμοσ εμε δ᾽ ευ[δ]αιμονα και μακαριαν γενεσται
9. [-]το[.].[-].[..]..ε.ε.ω[?]α.[.]ε..μεγε [-]
(SEG 43:434)

1. Of [Theti]ma and Dionysophon the ritual wedding and the marriage I bind by a written spell,
and of all other
2. wo[men], both widows and maidens, but of Thetima in particular, and I entrust to Makron*
and
3. [the] daimones, and (only) when I should dig up again and unroll and read this,
4. [?] that she might wed Dionysophon, but not before, for I wish him to take no other woman
than me,
5. and that [I] grow old with Dionysophon, and no one else. I [am] your supplicant:
6. Have pity on [Phil?]a*, dear daimones, for I am (a) dagina? of all my dear ones and I am
abandoned.
7. But guard [this] for my sake so that these things do not happen, and wretched Thetima
perishes miserably.
8. ... but that I become happy and blessed.

(Translation by E. Voutiras, editor of the Pella curse tablet)

  85
  

Figs. 13 & 14: Painted grave stelai from Vergina, ca. 350 B.C (Andronikos 1984: 84-85)

  86
  

Chapter VII
Conclusion

There is ultimately no simple answer to the old question of whether the ancient

Macedonians were ‘Greek’. As we have seen, such a seemingly straightforward inquiry is loaded

with ambiguity, and demands an answer which must take into account the fact that we can speak

with certainty about the ethnic identification of only a segment of the Macedonian populace. In

chapter 4, we saw that the Argead dynasty, in particular, largely fulfilled the sociological and

Herodotean criteria necessary for them to be considered Greeks. They spoke the Greek language,

observed Greek religious customs, maintained a family tradition affirming their Greek descent

from Argos and – most importantly – were conscious of their Greek identity. Despite the

occasional challenges to their Hellenicity from the southern Greeks, the Argeads persistently

claimed Greek descent (from their very first mention in the Classical literary sources onwards)

and we have no reason to deny their own ethnic consciousness for an external – and almost

always politically hostile – southern Greek perspective. The real problem, indeed, lies in

determining the ethnic identity of the wider Macedonian populace, which is so often ignored by

our extant sources. It cannot be stressed enough that our lack of ‘average’ Macedonian literary

testimony prevents us from gaining a firm understanding of how the Makedones perceived

themselves as an ethnic group. Despite the liberties some scholars have taken in assigning the

Macedonians a conscious ethnic identity – whether as ‘Greeks’ or as ‘Macedonians’ – this study

strongly supports the idea that more precise information is needed for us to confidently assert

how these ‘silent people’ identified in ethnic terms. Even if we accept that at least some portion

of the Macedonian populace did speak a native dialect of Greek, as our available literary and

epigraphic evidence does indicate, can we really be sure that they called themselves Hellenes,

rather than Makedones? Is it perhaps the case that they made use of both of these appellations,

  87
  

specifically identifying as Hellenes to the Greeks of the south? Or, rather, did they simply see

themselves as Makedones, feeling separate from the Greeks? Only time will tell if the necessary

evidence surfaces to allay these conflicting possibilities. We should avoid making the same

mistake of so many scholars in the past, which is to assume that our Greek perspectives towards

the Macedonian populace undoubtedly reflect their own sense of ethnic identity. Indeed, it is

reflective of a more recent scholarly trend in the field of classical studies to emphasize the fact

that our views on the historical Macedonians have been significantly shaped by non-Macedonian

perspectives.206 Following this outlook, this study stands behind the notion that we need more

evidence to make a definitive statement on the ethnic identity espoused by the ancient

Macedonians.

In any case, the state of our available evidence should not discourage us from making

some key inferences about the Macedonians’ ethnic qualities. Of course, there are undeniable

peculiarities to the Macedonian way of life, such as the pervasiveness of pastoralism, tribal

organization in the form of ethne (especially in Upper Macedon), and, most outrageously to the

Greeks, monarchical rule. But we need not see the Macedonians as essentially unique in the

Greek world. As Hatzopoulos aptly points out, the Macedonians’ ethnic status “must be studied

in connection with that of other peripheral Greek-speaking peoples.”207 Indeed, we have seen that

the Epirotes, like the Macedonians, were generally organized on the basis of the ethnos rather

than the polis, and were likewise regarded as ‘barbarians’ by the Greeks, despite their use of the

Greek language. Nor was the Macedonians’ monarchy unique in the Greek world, as we know

that kingships also existed amongst the Greek-speaking Cypriotes (with similar chieftains

                                                                                                               
206
Asirvatham 2010: 124
207
Hatzopoulos 2011: 71

  88
  

present amongst the Epirotes as well).208 Nevertheless, none of this removes the fact that the

Greeks were typically hesitant to consider the Macedonians true Hellenes. What this again

highlights (as Herodotus demonstrated early on) is that ‘Greekness’ ultimately transcended the

simple possession of the Greek tongue. As the Classical period progressed, the Greeks

(especially the Athenians) understood genuine Hellenicity as entailing cultural and political

refinement – things which the Macedonians were seen as lacking. This is most clearly evidenced

by the orator Isocrates who, as we have seen, accepted the Argeads as Greeks yet was reluctant

to classify the general Macedonian populace in the same way. According to Isocrates, “καὶ τὸ

τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὄνομα πεποίηκε μηκέτι τοῦ γένους ἀλλὰ τῆς διανοίας δοκεῖν εἶναι, καὶ

μᾶλλον Ἕλληνας καλεῖσθαι τοὺς τῆς παιδεύσεως τῆς ἡμετέρας ἢ τοὺς τῆς κοινῆς

φύσεως μετέχοντας.”209 This shows how the Greeks’ definitional criteria for their own ethnicity

had moved well beyond basic notions of linguistic and ancestral kinship, as had earlier been the

case in Hesiod’s time during the Archaic period.

Given the current state of our evidence, the clearest statement we might be able to make

about the Macedonians ethnically is that they likely shared a basic ‘blood relationship’ with the

Greeks, but were presented as a distinct ethnic group by the ancient sources for most of antiquity.

This is to say nothing of how the Macedonian populace exactly identified itself, and we may

perhaps never have the answer to this. We know that in modern times ethnic groups are often

ancestrally and linguistically related (e.g. Austrians and Germans, Czechs and Slovaks) though

they retain very separate ethnic and national identities; this could, perhaps, have been the case

with the Greeks and Macedonians. If we accept this postulation – that the Greeks and

                                                                                                               
208
Ibid, 72.
209
Isocrates, Panegyricus 4.50: “And she (Athens) has made it that the name Hellenes suggests no longer a race but
an intelligence, and that the title Hellenes is applied rather to those who share our culture than to those who share a
common blood.”

  89
  

Macedonians were related, yet distinct ethnic groups – we can draw a remarkably relevant and

interesting parallel to the presentation of the Medes and Persians in the ‘Alexander historians’.

Of course, it is common knowledge to historians that both the Medes and Persians were Iranian

peoples, sharing a cultural, linguistic and ancestral relationship. However, we find a tendency

amongst the Alexander historians to refer to these groups as distinct ethnic entities. Much in the

same way that we so commonly see the expression ‘Greeks and Macedonians’ in the respective

accounts of Arrian and Plutarch, so too do they make mention of ‘Medians and Persians.’ For

instance, when describing a ceremony at Susa during which many of Alexander’s commanders

were married, Arrian says that “ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἑταίροις τὰς δοκιμωτάτας

Περσῶν τε καὶ Μήδων παῖδας ἐς ὀγδοήκοντα. οἱ γάμοι δὲ ἐποιήθησαν νόμῳ τῷ

Περσικῷ.”210 Besides the obvious distinction between these two Iranian groups, Arrian’s careful

note that the weddings took place “in the Persian manner” further indicates an awareness of a

difference between the groups in terms of cultural customs. Such a difference is indeed

confirmed by Plutarch, when he describes Alexander’s taste for eastern fashion:

οὐ μὴν τήν γε Μηδικὴν ἐκείνην προσήκατο παντάπασι βαρβαρικὴν καὶ

ἀλλόκοτον οὖσαν, οὐδὲ ἀναξυρίδας οὐδὲ κάνδυν οὐδὲ τιάραν ἔλαβεν,
ἀλλὰ ἐν μέσῳ τινὰ τῆς Περσικῆς καὶ τῆς Μηδικῆς μιξάμενος εὖ πως,
ἀτυφοτέραν μὲν ἐκείνης, ταύτης δὲ σοβαρωτέραν οὖσαν.211

Here, we have a clear indication that the Greeks perceived the Medians as lacking the cultural

polish of the Persians, by whom they had been violently subdued centuries earlier.

Unfortunately, we lack contemporary Persian or Median testimony to confirm how these groups

perceived each other in ethnic terms. But the essential point here is that the Greeks were

                                                                                                               
210
Arr. Anab. 7.4.6: “Likewise, to the remainder of his Companions he gave the choicest daughters of the Persians
and Medes, eighty in total. The weddings were celebrated in the Persian manner.”
211
Plut. Alex. 45.2: “However, he did not adopt the famous Median fashion of dress, which was altogether barbaric
and strange, nor did he take trousers, sleeved vest, or tiara, but carefully devised a fashion which was midway
between the Persian and the Median, more modest than the one and more stately than the other.”

  90
  

prepared to present these two groups as distinct ethnicities, despite the objective ethnic

relationship that existed between them. It may very well be that this same model applies to the

presentation of the Macedonians and Greeks in the Alexander historians, and, by extension, in

the earlier Classical literary accounts.

Alexander the Great’s Panhellenism and Ethnic Self-Perception

If we are ultimately unsure about the Macedonians’ self-perception as a collective ethnic

group, what can we make of their overall cultural legacy? Can their conquest of Egypt and the

Near East be described as a Greek conquest, in essence? Perhaps the most obvious angle from

which we might attempt to answer these questions would be the position of Alexander the Great

himself; indeed, should we not find some important reflection of Macedonian identity in the

most famous Macedonian of all time? We have seen (ch.1) that the extant sources for Alexander

are quite late and do not always provide us with a clear-cut view into the contemporary attitudes

and opinions towards him and his fellow Macedonians. But one thing which all our sources agree

upon is Alexander’s proclivity to portray his conquest of the East as a fundamentally Greek

triumph. The vehicle by which he communicated this was Panhellenism, which can be most

loosely defined as the notion of Greek cultural or political unity. In the case of the illustrious

Macedonian conqueror, a suitable description for Panhellenism would be the idea that various

Greek city-states could enrich themselves by uniting in common cause and conquering all, or

part, of the Persian Empire.212 Although one cannot overlook the intrinsic political element of

that policy, it is nevertheless evident that Alexander’s relationship to Panhellenism transcended

purely political motivations, particularly given his Argead ancestry and his genuine inclination

towards the Homeric ethos. As a presumed descendant of both Heracles (through Philip) and

                                                                                                               
212
Lynette G. Mitchell, (2007) Panhellenism and the Barbarian in Archaic and Classical Greece, Wales: xvii.

  91
  

Achilles (through his mother, Olympias) Alexander likely had no doubts at all about his own

ethnic ‘Greekness’.213 Indeed, not only did Alexander’s promotion of Panhellenism emphasize

his identity as a Greek, it also aligned him with Greek heroic ideals and thereby carried

enormous significance to him on a personal level.

Of course, Alexander’s policy of Panhellenism had precedents in the political affairs of

his father, Philip II. A year after Philip defeated the city-states of Athens and Thebes at the Battle

of Chaeronea (338 B.C.), he established the League of Corinth. With Philip elected as hegemon of

the League, the Greek city-states (excluding Sparta) were now united for the first time behind a

federal entity. Philip was eager to advertise the League of Corinth as a Panhellenic alliance, one

whose goal was to conquer the Persian Empire and free the Greek cities of Asia Minor. He

tactfully chose Corinth as the seat of the League since that was also where the earlier Hellenic

alliance of 481/80 B.C. had been founded during the second Persian invasion of Greece; thus, he

could portray the League as both a revival and continuation of the Greek crusade against the

traditional enemy of Persia.214 As Diodorus writes of Philip, “διαδοὺς δὲ λόγον ὅτι βούλεται

πρὸς Πέρσας ὑπὲρ τῶν Ἑλλήνων πόλεμον ἄρασθαι καὶ λαβεῖν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν δίκας ὑπὲρ

τῆς εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ γενομένης παρανομίας ἰδίους τοὺς Ἕλληνας ταῖς εὐνοίαις ἐποιήσατο.”215

Alexander was naturally keen both to continue his father’s Panhellenic agenda and to assert the

Greek identity of the Argead dynasty. Moreover, we also see Alexander aligning Macedon as a

whole with a Greek ethnic consciousness; as Arrian records, Alexander’s ‘letter to Darius’ not

only makes reference to the Persians having invaded “Macedon and the rest of Greece (ἐλθόντες

εἰς Μακεδονίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Ἑλλάδα)”, but it also strongly emphasizes that he has

                                                                                                               
213
Asirvatham 2010: 101  
R. Lane Fox, (2011) “Philip of Macedon: Accession, Ambitions, and Self-Presentation,” BRL 335-366: 357
214
215
Diod. 16.89.1-2: “He spread the word that he wanted to make war on the Persians on the Greeks’ behalf and to
punish them for the profanation of the temples, and this won for him the loyal support of the Greeks.”

  92
  

“been appointed commander-in-chief of the Greeks (ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡγεμὼν

κατασταθεὶς).”216

Scholars have noted the propagandistic overtones in Arrian’s description of Alexander’s

letter, noting that it is likely a construction by Arrian himself. In particular, some have argued

that Alexander’s appeal to Hellenic nationalism was simply a means of gaining support from the

Greek city-states, lacking genuineness. 217 However, such a naïve view is overly simplistic and

fails to acknowledge an essential element of truth in this instance of the Macedonian king’s

insistence on the ethno-cultural unity of Macedonians and Greeks. Indeed, it overlooks the

important fact that in this ‘letter’, Alexander is not just promoting the idea of a common heritage

between Macedonians and Greeks to his Greek allies; he is also emphasizing their ethnic

alignment to the Persians, and wants to be seen as a fundamentally Greek leader to all groups.

Alexander was thus firmly situating himself within the collective Hellenic consciousness of

opposition to Persia, promoting unity between Greeks and Macedonians as the dual constituents

of a single ethno-cultural unit. There are other episodes from both Arrian’s Anabasis and

Plutarch’s Life of Alexander which help solidify the contention that Alexander took his

Panhellenism seriously on a personal level, going well beyond the raw political dimension.

Following the Battle of Granicus – the first major confrontation between the Macedonians and

Persians in Asia – Alexander had three hundred suits of Persian armour sent to Athens, which is

mentioned by both Arrian and Plutarch in their respective accounts. An inscription

accompanying these suits of armour read, “Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks (except the

                                                                                                               
216
Arr. Anab. 2.14.4. Alexander’s cultural alignment with the Greeks certainly had an impact on the perceptions of
various native peoples of the Near East; for example, the Jewish author of I Maccabees refers to Alexander as the
“King of Greece” (Maccabees I. 1-9, in Austin 2006). Although this was not a literal title held by Alexander, this
view of him strongly reflects his inexorable tie to the Greek world.
217
Eugene Borza, (1982) “Athenians, Macedonians, and the Origins of the Macedonian Royal House,” Hesperia
Supplements, Vol. 19, Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History and Topography, 7-13: 13.

  93
  

Lacedaemonians), dedicates these spoils, taken from the Persians who dwell in Asia

(Ἀλέξανδρος Φιλίππου καὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες πλὴν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων τῶν

τὴν Ἀσίαν κατοικούντων).”218 Again, while it is impossible to miss the propagandistic

overtones of this dedication (made especially conspicuous by the exclusion of the Spartans, non-

members of the League of Corinth and Alexander’s campaign), the importance of this to

Alexander’s own self-perception as a Greek leader of a Panhellenic war against Persia likewise

cannot be ignored. Indeed, we can see how this reflects Alexander’s awareness of the importance

his campaign bore towards avenging the collective Hellenic psyche for the wrongs suffered at the

hands of Xerxes,219 and it is hard to imagine that Alexander would have cared so strongly about

such a cause if his intentions were purely political and lacking a real personal identification with

Greek culture.220 An interesting (albeit clearly fictitious) passage from Plutarch describes how a

bronze tablet overflowed from a spring near the city of Xanthus in Lycia, “with ancient

characters which foretold that the empire of the Persians would be destroyed by the Greeks.”221

Plutarch then goes on to mention how Alexander was encouraged by this omen as he proceeded

to venture towards Cilicia and Pamphylia. This account is particularly interesting because it

further highlights Alexander’s personal identification as a true hero of the Greeks. Indeed,

Plutarch presents this passage to capture the idea that Alexander’s alignment with the

Panhellenic character of his campaign was both natural and necessary, and evenly divinely

ordained. Overall, it substantiates the presentation of Alexander as a leader genuinely absorbed

                                                                                                               
218
Arr. Anab. 1.16.7. Cf. Plut. Alex. 16.8, where he describes the exact same dedication.
219
Mitchell 2007: 31
220
Arrian again indicates this at 2.7.4, where we see Alexander before the Battle of Issus proudly proclaiming that
his army “willingly fights on behalf of Greece with their hearts in it (ξὺν σφίσιν ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἑκόντας
ἀμυνομένους).” It is important to note here how Alexander is bestowing the Panhellenic spirit of his campaign not
just on his Greek allies, but on the Macedonians as well.
221
Plut. Alex. 17.2

  94
  

into the Hellenic ethos and far from being concerned with Panhellenism simply for its political

use.

An event from Alexander’s campaign that certainly cannot be overlooked for its immense

significance to the discussion of his Panhellenism is the burning of the Persian royal capital of

Persepolis. As Michael Flower sensibly observes, Alexander needed to select at least one major

Persian city for destruction “if he was to fulfill the promises which both he and his father had

made to the Greek members of the Corinthian League”222. Despite Plutarch’s mentioning of how

the burning of Persepolis may have been the result of an intoxicated Alexander acting out of

impulse, and Arrian’s opinion that it was bad policy, Alexander must be taken fully seriously in

his statement that it was meant to punish the Persians for their invasion of Greece and the

destruction of both Athens and its temples.223 How could Alexander miss such a chance to

bolster not only his self-perception as a Panhellenic Greek hero, but that same perception in the

eyes of the Greeks? Although there is an inherent degree of political expedience to this act of the

Macedonian king’s imperial policy – as Alexander would have surely hoped that burning

Persepolis would help maintain the support and goodwill of the Greek city-states – this is another

instance of Panhellenism that bore significant meaning to his Greek identity on a personal level.

Essentially, the destruction of Persepolis provided Alexander with a decisive opportunity to “re-

enact” the Homeric and Panhellenic triumph over Troy.224 By carrying out this conclusive act of

                                                                                                               
222
Michael Flower, (2000) “Alexander the Great and Panhellenism,” in Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction,
A.B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham eds. New York, 96-135: 114.
223
Arr. Anab. 3.18.12: “ὁ δὲ τιμωρήσασθαι ἐθέλειν Πέρσας ἔφασκεν ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἐλάσαντες τάς
τε Ἀθήνας κατέσκαψαν καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐνέπρησαν, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα κακὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνας εἰργάσαντο, ὑπὲρ
τούτων δίκας λαβεῖν.”  
224
Mitchell 2007: 192. There are a few other instances where we find a direct heroic association between Alexander
and Achilles. Plutarch (15.4) alludes to this when he describes how Alexander poured libations to the Greek heroes
upon arriving at Troy, before proceeding to anoint Achilles’ grave with oil and running a race around it with his
companions. In his account of Alexander’s battle with the Mallians (a people of the Indian subcontinent), Arrian
(6.9.3) indicates that it was customary for Alexander to have the “shield from the temple of Athena at Troy” carried
before him into battle, which again demonstrates his personal connection to Achilles.  

  95
  

symbolic vengeance against the Persians, Alexander was powerfully communicating his self-

perception as a Greek hero triumphant over the traditional ‘barbarian’ enemies of Greece,

creating an unmistakable parallel to the Greeks’ defeat of the Trojans.

Alleged Instances of Alexander’s Ethnic Distinction between ‘Greeks’ and ‘Macedonians’

Our preceding discussion has demonstrated that Alexander indeed held a conscious

identity as a Greek. Nevertheless, a peculiar passage from Plutarch’s Life of Alexander has

garnered attention from scholars for apparently suggesting that Alexander’s identification with

Greek culture presented a disconnect from his own Macedonians. Describing Alexander’s

infamous drunken feud with the companion Cleitus, Plutarch has Alexander state to a pair of

Greeks, “When you see the Greeks walking about among the Macedonians, do they not look to

you like demigods among so many wild beasts (ὑμῖν οἱ Ἕλληνες ἐν τοῖς Μακεδόσιν ὥσπερ

ἐν θηρίοις ἡμίθεοι περιπατεῖν;)?”225 This has been interpreted by some historians as a moment

in which Alexander is denigrating his Macedonian background, preferring Greek culture and

thereby indicating his own consciousness of a serious cultural divide between Macedonians and

Greeks.226 However, upon closer inspection it is evident that this passage is strictly

communicating Plutarch’s own views about Alexander’s qualities as a Greek. It is hardly to be

taken as an objective, historical statement that Alexander actually made himself, which is indeed

supported by the fact that this quotation is preserved by no other ‘Alexander historian’. As

classicist Tim Whitmarsh explains, “For Plutarch, to be Greek means to think, and (crucially) to

act in an ethical way.”227 Whitmarsh further notes that Plutarch’s account is devised in such a

way as to evaluate Alexander’s Hellenic characteristics according to his own subjective

philosophical ideals. Here, the struggle between moderation and excess is explored by Plutarch
                                                                                                               
225
Plut. Alex. 51.2
226
Heckel and Yardley 2008: 7  
227
Whitmarsh 2002: 178

  96
  

as a key facet of Alexander’s character. We can see how an event like the symposium would

provide Plutarch with the perfect stage on which to critique Alexander according to his own

Classically-informed standards of Hellenicity. Although Greeks taking part in the symposium

were expected to exercise restraint, manners, and respect, the Macedonian symposium featuring

Alexander and Cleitus is one of intoxicated hostility, quarrel, general disorder – and finally,

murder. Plutarch therefore views Alexander’s inability to hold a mannered symposium as a

reflection of the “triumph of passion over reason”,228 and the king’s reversion to ‘Macedonian

speech’ during the incident is meant to further emphasize his inherent, inescapable ‘otherness’ as

a Macedonian. Thus, Plutarch presents Alexander as aligning himself with the Greeks, yet

ironically falling short of their standards as a typical Macedonian would.

At any rate, the very fact that the Macedonians are depicted as taking part in a symposium

shows how embedded they were in Greek culture by this point, and Plutarch is essentially

anchoring his critique of Alexander on a somewhat crude cultural distinction between Greek and

Macedonian symposia, which may have mattered little to the Macedonians themselves. While

Greeks might understandably scoff at such a barbaric incarnation of the symposium, the

Macedonians may have viewed their participation in the symposium as an affirmation of their

own Greek cultural identity. Ultimately, attempting to use this passage to demonstrate that

Alexander himself drew an objective, conscious ethno-cultural distinction between Greeks and

Macedonians is as misleading as suggesting that his ‘Macedonian speech’ was a distinct

language as opposed to a native dialect of Greek. Indeed, Plutarch is the only one making a

cultural distinction between Greeks and Macedonians here, alluding to Alexander’s Macedonian

origins as the essential obstacle to his efforts at embodying the philosophical principles of an

educated, elite Greek.

                                                                                                               
228
Ibid,183.

  97
  

Though not as conspicuous as the above passage from Plutarch, another instance in which

it has been claimed that Alexander regards the Macedonians as “separate from the Greeks”229

occurs in the account of Curtius Rufus. According to Curtius, prior to the Battle of Issus

Alexander gave a specific address of encouragement to the core contingents of his army: the

Macedonians, Greeks, and the Thracians/Illyrians. As he writes, “Cumque agmini obequitaret,

varia oratione, ut cuiusque animis aptum erat, milites alloquebatur.”230 Curtius goes on to say that

Alexander called upon the Macedonians to be mindful of their valour in war and status as

‘liberators’ of the world; meanwhile, the Greeks were to remember the Persians as their

traditional enemies, who had devastated their homeland under the invasion of Xerxes. Lastly,

Alexander invoked the fighting spirits of the Thracians and Illyrians by alluding to the vast

riches and spoils of the Persian Empire, which awaited them as victors in battle. While Curtius

certainly took a considerable deal of literary license in constructing this passage, it seems

reasonable that Alexander would have felt an inclination to convey unique sentiments to the

respective groups of his army – both on this occasion and likely at other times as well. But does

this episode really indicate anything of deep value regarding Alexander’s own perspective on the

existence of either an ethnic relationship, or divide, between Greeks and Macedonians?

Obviously, Alexander would have acknowledged the basic socio-political differentiation

between his allies levied from the Greek city-states, and his own Macedonian troops. As these

groups served in separate tactical units, it follows that they would be addressed separately in the

context of a military operation. But it is quite apparent that Curtius’ account does not reveal

anything definitive about the Macedonians’ ethnic self-perception, or even Alexander’s

perception of them, for that matter. Although Alexander might have been aware of the Greeks’
                                                                                                               
229
Hammond 1989: 19
230
Curt. 3.10.4-9: “And as he rode past the ranks, he addressed the soldiers in different terms, such as were
appropriate to the feelings of each.”

  98
  

tendency to dissociate from the Macedonians, this passage yields nothing conclusive as to how

he understood the Macedonians’ relationship to Hellenic culture and identity.

Final Remarks: The Legacy of the Ancient Macedonians

Of course, not all Greeks contemporary with Alexander the Great were swayed by his

consistent appeals to Panhellenic unity. Anti-Macedonian sentiment was tangible throughout

many parts of Greece during his campaign in Asia, culminating in the almost immediate

outbreak of the Lamian War upon his death in 323 B.C. Nevertheless, what other Greeks might

have thought about Alexander hardly disqualifies the fact that he clearly held an ethnic Greek

identity and truly felt that his conquest was Greek in nature.231 It is the Macedonian people,

rather, who occupy a more interesting position for us to consider within the wider context of the

cultural impact of Alexander’s conquests. Evaluating the cultural legacy of the ancient

Macedonians ultimately requires us to go beyond our extant literary sources. Besides engaging in

the tedious task of scrutinizing the works of various authors, there are some basic, logical

deductions one can make regarding the extent to which the Macedonians may have held an

ethnic consciousness as Greeks. At times, scholars have missed some remarkably obvious

implications of the fact that Alexander’s conquests resulted in the diffusion of Greek culture

throughout Egypt and the Near East, even so far as the Indian subcontinent. If we are to suppose

that the Macedonian populace lacked a genuine and substantial immersion in Greek culture, then

by which vehicle did Hellenism spread? Surely this could not have been accomplished if only the

Argeads and other elites of Macedonian society identified with Greek culture. There are further

points to consider here. In the past, some scholars have asserted that Macedon’s rise to

                                                                                                               
231
Not all Greeks in Alexander’s time held a negative opinion of the Macedonian king. Both Arrian and Plutarch
make mention of Demaratus the Corinthian, an elderly man who extolled Alexander as a champion of Panhellenism.
As Plutarch records, “Demaratus declared that those Greeks who had died before they could see Alexander seated
on the throne of Darius had missed one of the greatest pleasures in the world (Plut. Alex. 56).”

  99
  

prominence in the Greek world during the 4th c. was largely tied to the process of Hellenization

under the Argeads, most clearly marked by the widespread adoption of koine Greek. The

implication is that the Macedonian people were originally alien to Greek culture, abandoning

their native practices for those of the Greeks. History has consistently shown that peoples tend to

lose their linguistic and cultural identity (either gradually acquiring another, or ceasing to be

entirely) through conquest by an external group.232 Yet no group, between the 5th c. Persian

occupation and the arrival of the Romans, ever conquered Macedon. Why, then, did both the

Argeads and their common populace so readily embrace Greek culture if they faced no external

pressure from a Greek group? Here, we might logically infer that the Macedonians felt some sort

of natural predilection for Greek culture; the common person did not become enamored with it

simply through the ‘Hellenizing’ efforts of their kings. Rather, it would seem that the Argeads

were conscious of their people’s inherent, preexisting attachment to Greek culture, and thus did

their best to foster it by exposing them to the highest developments of southern Greek culture

from the 5th c. onwards. We have seen that the Macedonian populace possessed a somewhat

primitive, ‘barebones’ form of Hellenic culture by virtue of their use of a Greek dialect and their

religious customs. Essentially, it is this basic, yet fundamental connection to Greek culture which

gave the Macedonians a preliminary basis for their eventual assimilation of so many aspects of

southern Greek culture.

This line of reasoning brings us back to the question of how the Macedonians related to

the Panhellenic character of Alexander’s conquests. As discussed in chapter 5, there are a

number of instances in the accounts of the extant Alexander historians in which we see both the

Greeks and Macedonians aligned as a single ethno-cultural unit. Indeed, writers like Arrian and

                                                                                                               
232
Daskalakis 1965: 89. An obvious example of this is the Arab conquest of Egypt in the 7th c. A.D. Native Egyptian
culture, and the language itself, were virtually eradicated as the Arabs settled en masse throughout the country.

  100
  

Plutarch broke away from their Classical predecessors by providing occasional, yet direct

demonstrations of the Macedonian populace (as represented by the soldiers in Alexander’s army)

in cultural conflation with the Greeks. Moreover, in their respective accounts the Greeks and

Macedonians appear to form a collective unit on one end of a binary between ‘Greek’ and

‘barbarian’, clearly ethno-culturally united in direct opposition to the Persians. Both Greeks and

Macedonians, indeed, took offence at Alexander’s fascination with Eastern culture (particularly

the act of proskynesis) and his attempts to ‘Orientalize’ the army in later years. What is

interesting to note is how we have absolutely no instances in our extant sources of the

Macedonians taking issue with Alexander’s Panhellenic agenda. Ironically, it is only certain

Greeks who were ambivalent towards Alexander’s Greek credentials and authority as a leader on

behalf of all Greece. One would almost certainly expect that if the Macedonians maintained a

strictly and proudly ‘Macedonian’ identity with absolutely no desire to align themselves with the

Greeks, the Alexander historians would have something to say about it. Indeed, would we not be

provided with some key passages in which the Macedonians take offence to their conquest being

led by a self-proclaimed Greek, fighting on behalf of all Greeks? Furthermore, how could

Alexander have commanded the respect and fierce loyalty of his Macedonian troops if there was

a mutual feeling of serious ethnic difference between them? As the Macedonians were of

steadfast loyalty not only to Alexander but all Argeads, we can reasonably infer that they both

respected and probably related to their rulers’ claims of Hellenic identity.

In closing, we should recall that an ethnic identity is both socially constructed and fluid

and is frequently formed through the assertions of group members themselves.233 A group needs

to perceive itself as distinct to ultimately constitute an ethnic group in its own right. Therefore,

                                                                                                               
233
Cornell and Hartmann 2006: 28

  101
  

until we obtain direct testimony from the Macedonian populace, we should remain hesitant

towards the contention that they had no sense of an ethnic or cultural consciousness as Greeks.

This study essentially holds that our available evidence allows us to see the Macedonians as an

ethnic group that shared an ancestral blood-relationship with the Greeks, yet was generally

perceived by the Greeks as non-Hellenic, primarily due to the nature of their socio-political

organization. Thus, we should acknowledge that the usual expression of ‘Greeks’ and

‘Macedonians’ is perfectly acceptable, but only insofar as it accurately reflects a Classical

Greek-derived attitude towards Macedon. It does not necessarily coincide with how the

Macedonians viewed themselves, nor how their Argead kings viewed them. At any rate, it is

undeniable that by the end of the 4th c. B.C. the Macedonians had successfully “projected

themselves as the chief representatives of Greek culture, both at home and in their conquering

campaigns to the East.”234 During the Hellenistic period Greeks and Macedonians started to

become virtually indistinguishable and formed a single ethnic unit relative to the peoples of

Egypt, the Near East, and Rome.235 By that point many southern Greeks had come to regard the

Macedonians as bearing an essential kinship with the remainder of the Hellenes. This is clearly

evidenced in the historical account of Polybius, a Greek writer active during the Roman

Republic’s swift rise to power throughout the Mediterranean in the 2nd c. Polybius recalls how in

210 B.C an Acarnanian ambassador named Lyciscus was sent to Sparta on behalf of the

Macedonians, after an alliance of southern Greeks – the Aetolian Confederation – had taken up

common arms with Rome against king Philip V of Macedon. Lyciscus was tasked with

dissuading the Spartans from joining the Aetolian Confederation in what was Macedon’s first

military conflict with Rome. Indeed, Lyciscus’ defense of the Macedonians has been hailed as

                                                                                                               
234
Hatzopoulos 2011: 73
235
Hammond 1989: 20

  102
  

“the highest tribute paid to the importance of Macedonian Hellenism in all Greek antiquity.”236

Polybius records the following of Lyciscus’ speech in Sparta:

καὶ πρὸς οὐδὲν τούτων ἀπολογηθῆναι δυνάμενοι σεμνύνεσθε, διότι τὴν ἐπὶ
Δελφοὺς ἔφοδον τῶν βαρβάρων ὑπέστητε, καὶ φατὲ δεῖν διὰ ταῦτα χάριν
ἔχειν ὑμῖν τοὺς Ἕλληνας. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ διὰ μίαν ταύτην χρείαν Αἰτωλοῖς χάρις
ὀφείλεται, τίνος καὶ πηλίκης δεῖ τιμῆς ἀξιοῦσθαι Μακεδόνας, οἳ τὸν πλείω
τοῦ βίου χρόνον οὐ παύονται διαγωνιζόμενοι πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους ὑπὲρ
τῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀσφαλείας; ὅτι γὰρ αἰεί ποτ᾽ ἂν ἐν μεγάλοις ἦν κινδύνοις
τὰ κατὰ τοὺς Ἕλληνας, εἰ μὴ Μακεδόνας εἴχομεν πρόφραγμα καὶ τὰς τῶν
παρὰ τούτοις βασιλέων φιλοτιμίας, τίς οὐ γινώσκει;237

Here, Lyciscus emphasizes the objective historical reality of how the Macedonians were, for

centuries, directly responsible for shielding Greek civilization from barbarian incursions, thereby

allowing its prosperity and development. But he goes on to say more. Before the Spartan

audience, Lyciscus passionately states:

τότε μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ ἡγεμονίας καὶ δόξης ἐφιλοτιμεῖσθε πρὸς Ἀχαιοὺς καὶ
Μακεδόνας ὁμοφύλους καὶ τὸν τούτων ἡγεμόνα Φίλιππον: νῦν δὲ περὶ
δουλείας ἐνίσταται πόλεμος τοῖς Ἕλλησι πρὸς ἀλλοφύλους ἀνθρώπους,
οὓς ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε μὲν ἐπισπᾶσθαι κατὰ Φιλίππου, λελήθατε δὲ κατὰ σφῶν
αὐτῶν ἐπεσπασμένοι καὶ κατὰ πάσης Ἑλλάδος.238

Indeed, Lyciscus shows absolutely no reserve in ethnically associating the Macedonians with the

Greeks, emphasizing how the Achaeans, Spartans, and Macedonians are all ‘ὁμοφύλους’, of

                                                                                                               
236
Daskalakis 1965: 40
237
Polyb. 9.35: “Not being able to say anything in defense of any of these acts, you talk pompously about having
resisted the invasion of Delphi by the barbarians, and allege that for this Greece ought to be grateful to you. But if
for this one service some gratitude is owing to the Aetolians, what high honour do the Macedonians deserve, who
throughout nearly their whole lives are ceaselessly engaged in a struggle with the barbarians for the safety of the
Greeks? For that Greece would have been continually involved in great dangers, if we had not had the Macedonians
and the ambition of their kings as a barrier, who is ignorant?”
238
Polyb. 9.37: “Then you were contending for glory and supremacy with Achaeans and Macedonians, men of
kindred blood with yourselves, and with Philip their leader; now a war of slavery is threatening Greece against men
of another race, whom you think to bring against Philip, but have really unconsciously brought against yourselves
and all Greece.”

  103
  

kindred blood, and distinct from the unrelated, ‘ἀλλοφύλους’ Romans.239 The point is clear: by

the advent of Roman domination, many Greeks had finally become accustomed to seeing the

Macedonians as an integral part of the Hellenic family. Just as in Alexander’s time, when the

Greeks and Macedonians were culturally aligned in opposition to the barbarian Persians, these

two groups were now united against a new group of ‘barbarians’ – the Romans. Clearly, the

legacy of the Macedonians as defenders of Greece and purveyors of Greek culture was already

taking root barely over a century after Alexander’s death. Despite the elusiveness of the ancient

Macedonians’ own voice in the literary sources, their inextricable and intimate attachment to the

transformation of Greek civilization from a regional to a global commodity speaks louder than

words. Though we may require further evidence to confirm the Macedonians’ sense of ethnic

self-perception, none is needed for us to see these people as having perhaps played the most

significant role in ensuring the survival of Greek culture throughout antiquity and the succeeding

ages.

                                                                                                               
239
The fact that Lyciscus is speaking on behalf of the Macedonians indicates that they themselves shared his
sentiments about their significance to Hellas. They wanted to communicate their feelings to the Greeks not for the
sole reason of political expedience, but out of a desire to convey what they held to be true about themselves as a
collective group. It would be somewhat naïve to suggest that this was a perspective exclusive to the Argeads and the
elite, and not the wider Macedonian populace as well.

  104
  

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Aristotle, (1944) Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21. Translated by H. Rackham,

Cambridge.

Arrian, (2013) The Anabasis and the Indica. Translated by Martin Hammond, Oxford.

Curtius Rufus, Quintus, (1984) The History of Alexander. Translated by John Yardley,
London.

Demosthenes, (1930) Demosthenes with an English Translation. Translated by J.H.

Vince, Cambridge.

Diodorus Siculus, (1963) Library of History, Volume VIII: Books 16.66-17. Translated by
C. Bradford Welles, Cambridge.

Herodotus, (1998) The Histories. Translated by Robin Waterfield, Oxford.

Hesiod, (2007) The Shield, Catalogue, Other Fragments. Translated by G.W. Most,
Cambridge.

Isocrates, (1980) Isocrates with an English Translation in three volumes. Translated by

George Norlin, Cambridge.

Livy, (1912) History of Rome. Translated by Rev. Canon Roberts, New York.

Plutarch, (2009) Greek Lives. Translated by Robin Waterfield, Oxford.

Polybius, (1889) Histories. Translated by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh, London/New York.

Strabo, (1924) Geography. Translated by H.L. Jones, Cambridge.

Thrasymachus, (1951) F2 in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th ed. H. Diels ed.,
Dublin/Zurich.

Thucydides, (2009) The History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Martin

Hammond, Oxford.

  105
  

Secondary Sources

Adams, W., (2006) “The Hellenistic Kingdoms,” in The Cambridge Companion

to the Hellenistic World. Glenn R. Bugh ed., New York: 28-51.

Akamatis, Ioannis M., (2003) “The Agora of Pella,” in Pella and its Environs, Thessaloniki:
137-139.

Andronikos, Manolis, (1984) Vergina: The Royal Tombs, Athens.

Anson, Edward M., (1984) “The Meaning of the Term Makedones,” AncW 10: 67-68.

___________ , (2009) “Greek Ethnicity and the Greek Language,” Glotta, Bd. 85:
5-30.

___________ , (2013) Alexander the Great: Themes and Issues, London.

Asirvatham, Sulochana R., (2010) “Perspectives on the Macedonians from Greece, Rome, and
Beyond,” in A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Joseph Roisman and Ian Worthington
eds., United Kingdom: 99-124.

Austin, Michael, (2006) The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A
Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, Cambridge.

Badian, Ernst, (1982) “Greeks and Macedonians,” in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical
and Early Hellenistic Times. Studies in the History of Art 10. Beryl Barr-Sharrar and
Eugene N. Borza eds., Washington, D.C.: 33-51.

Baynham, Elizabeth, (1998) Alexander the Great: the Unique History of Quintus Curtius,
Ann Arbor.

___________ , (2010) “Arrian’s Sources and Reliability,” in The Landmark Arrian:

The Campaigns of Alexander (Anabasis Alexandrou). James Romm ed., New York: 325-
332.

Billows, Richard, (2000) “Polybius and Alexander Historiography,” Bosworth and Baynham:
286-306.

Borza, Eugene N., (1982) “Athenians, Macedonians, and the Origins of the Macedonian Royal
House”. Hesperia Supplements, Vol. 19, Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History and
Topography: 7-13.

___________ , (1991) In the Shadow of Olympus: the Emergence of Macedon,

Princeton.

___________ , (2010) “Greek and Macedonian Ethnicity,” Romm: 333-336.

  106
  

Bosworth, A.B., (1980) “Alexander and the Iranians,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 100
(centenary issue): 1-21.

___________ , (1993) “Aristotle, India, and the Alexander Historians,” Topoi, Volume 3/2:
407-424.

___________ , (2006) “Alexander the Great and the Creation of the Hellenistic Age,”
Bugh: 9-27.

Bowersock, G. W., (1999) Hellenism in Late Antiquity, Ann Arbor.

Cartledge, Paul, (2010) “Introduction,” in The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander
(Anabasis Alexandrou). James Romm ed., New York: Xiii-xxviii.

Champion, Craige, (2004) Cultural Politics in Polybius’ Histories, California.

Christesen, Paul and Sarah C. Murray, (2010) “Macedonian Religion,” Roisman and
Worthington: 428-445.

Colvin, Steven, (1999) Dialect in Aristophanes and the Politics of Language in Ancient Greek,
Oxford.

Cornell, Stephen E. and Douglas Hartmann, (2006) “Mapping the Terrain: Definitions,” in
Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks: 15-39.

Danforth, Loring M., (2010) “Ancient Macedonia, Alexander the Great, and the Star or
Sun of Vergina: National Symbols and the Conflict between Greece and the Republic of
Macedonia,” Roisman and Worthington: 572-598.

Daskalakis, A.P., (1965) The Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians, Thessaloniki.

Engels, Johannes, (2010) “Macedonians and Greeks,” Roisman and Worthington: 81-98.

Errington, R.M., (1978) “The Nature of the Macedonian State under the Monarchy,” Chiron 8:
77-133.

Feuer, Bryan (2011) “Being Mycenaean: a View from the Periphery,” American Journal of
Archaeology, Vol. 115, No. 4: 507-536.

Flower, Michael, (2000) “Alexander the Great and Panhellenism,” in Alexander the Great in
Fact and Fiction. A.B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham eds., New York: 96-135.

Fraser, P.M. and E. Matthews, (2005) A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names 4, Macedonia,
Thrace, Northern Regions of the Black Sea, Oxford.

  107
  

Gilley, Dawn L. and Ian Worthington, (2010) “Alexander the Great, Macedonia and Asia,”
Roisman and Worthington: 186-207.

Green, Peter, (1992) Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography, Berkeley.
Gruen, Erich S., (2006) “Greeks and non-Greeks,” Bugh: 295-314.

Hall, Jonathan M., (1997) Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge.

Hammond, N.G.L., (1972) A History of Macedonia Vol. I, Historical Geography and

Prehistory. Oxford.

___________ , (1975) “The End of Mycenaean Civilization and the Dark Age: (b) The
Literary Tradition for the Migrations.” CAH, 3rd ed., vol. 2, pt. 2, ch. 36b.

___________ , (1976) Migrations and Invasions in Greece and Adjacent Areas. Park
Ridge, N.J.

___________ , (1986) A History of Greece to 322 B.C. Oxford.

___________ , (1989) The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions, and History. Oxford.

___________ , (1991) The Miracle That Was Macedonia. London/New York.

___________ , (1994) “Literary Evidence for Macedonian Speech,” Historia: Zeitschrift für
Alte Geschichte, Bd. 43, H. 2: 131-142.

___________ , (2003) “The Language of the Macedonians,” in Alexander the Great: a Reader.
Ian Worthington ed., London/New York: 20-2.

Hammond, N. G. L. and G.T. Griffith, (1979) A History of Macedonia Vol. II, 550-336 B.C.
Oxford.

Hatzopoulos, M.B., ed., (1993) Macedonia: From Philip II to the Roman Conquest,
Athens.

_____________ , (1996) Macedonian Institutions Under the Kings, Athens.

___________ , (1999) “The Speech of the Ancient Macedonians in light of the Recent
Epigraphic Discoveries,” International Symposion on Ancient Macedonia VI.

_____________ , (201l) “Macedonia and Macedonians,” in Brill’s Companion to Ancient

Macedon: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Macedon, 650 B.C. – 300 A.D. Robin
J. Lane Fox ed., Leiden/Boston: 44-49.

___________ , (2011) “Macedonians and Other Greeks,” Fox: 51-78.

  108
  

Heckel, Waldemar and J.C. Yardley, (2008) Alexander the Great: Historical Sources in
Translation, United Kingdom.

Hope Simpson, R., (1981) The Sites of Mycenaean Greece, Park Ridge, N.J.

Kalleris, J.N., (1976) Les anciens Macédoniens, Athens.

Karamitrou-Mentessidi, G., (2011) “Aiani – Historical and Geographical

Context,” Fox: 93-112.

King, Carol J., (2010)“Macedonian Kingship and Other Political Institutions,” Roisman
and Worthington: 374-391.

Kokkinidou, Dimitra and Katerina Trantalidou, (1991) “Neolithic and Bronze Age Settlement in
Western Macedonia,” The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 86: 93-106.

Krevens, Nita and Alexander Sens, (2006) “Language and Literature,” Bugh: 186-207.

Lane Fox, Robin J., ed., (2011) Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in
the History and Archaeology of Macedon, 650 B.C. – 300 A.D, Leiden/Boston.

Lilimpaki-Akamati, Maria, (2003) “Pella,” in Pella and its Environs, Thessaloniki: 134-135.

Mari, M., (2011) “Traditional Cults and Beliefs,” Fox: 453-465.

Mikalson, Jon D., (2006) “Greek Religion: Community and Change in the Hellenistic Period,”
Bugh: 208-222.

Mitchell, Lynette G., (2007) Panhellenism and the Barbarian in Archaic and Classical Greece,
Wales.

Roisman, Joseph, and Ian Worthington eds. (2010) A Companion to Ancient Macedonia.
United Kingdom.

Romiopoulou, Katerina, (1971) “Some Pottery of the Early Iron Age from Western Macedonia,”
The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 66: 353-361.

Romm, James, ed., (2010) The Landmark Arrian: the Campaigns of Alexander (Anabasis
Alexandrou), New York.

Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C., (1999) “In the Shadow of History: the Emergence of Archaeology,”
The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 94: 353-367

___________ , (2011) “The Arts at Vergina-Aegae, the Cradle of the Macedonian

Kingdom,” Fox: 271-295.

  109
  

Sawada, Noriko, (2010) “Social Customs and Institutions,” Roisman and Worthington:
392-408.

Scaife, Ross, (1989) “Alexander I in the Histories of Herodotus,” Hermes, 117. Bd., H. 2:
129-137.

Snodgrass, A. M., (1971) The Dark Age of Greece, Edinburgh.

Stephens, Susan, (2009) “Hellenistic Culture,” in The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies.
George Boys-Stones, Barbara Graziosi and Phiroze Vasunia eds., New York: 86-97.

Stoneman, Richard, (1991) The Greek Alexander Romance, London.

Tomlinson, R.A., (1987) “The Architectural Context of the Macedonian Vaulted Tombs.” The
Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 82: 305-312

Wardle, K.A., (1975) “The Northern Frontier of Mycenaean Greece,” BICS 22: 206-212.

Whitmarsh, Tim, (2002) “Alexander’s Hellenism and Plutarch’s Textualism,” The Classical
Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 1: 174-192.

Worthington, Ian, (2003) “Alexander and the Unity of Mankind,” in Alexander the Great: A
Reader. Ian Worthington ed., London: 198-201.

___________ , (2008) Philip II of Macedonia, New Haven.

  110
  

  111
  

  112
  

  113
  

  114