1. Ethnicity of Ancient Macedonians
The end of Ottoman occupation signified for Greece the triumph of the dogmatic,
theocratic culture of the Byzantine Empire, and creation of a state which looked like
an epitome “byzantine empire”, very diverse ethnically and on the bases of
language. This reality limited how Greeks saw themselves and determined their
aspirations for the future. To the generations involved in the war of independence,
history outside of this culture framework was remote.
But west-european philhellenes saw Greeks on idealistic aspects, as a people that
provided a link with the past., and accordingly sought to fit every historical detail to
the view that contemporary Greeks connect with the Greeks of the classical
world. Eventually Greek nationalist circles took upon this belief, that today’s Greeks
are direct descendents of the earliest population of Greece, and have actively upheld
it ever since. This idealistic vision legitimized claims on territories which showed
traces of Hellenism in the past, such as Macedonia and Epirus. And all this from the
people that up to the time of war of independence was not conscientious of links with
classical world.
This essay will focus on claims by Greek historians that ancient Macedonians had
originated from the same population pool that produced other Greek peoples. It is an
effort to bring forth data that speak for a non-Greek character of Macedonia, and
indicate that the claim about Greekness of the ancient Macedonians is misguided
and has no bases of support from available data.
Historians that have maintained the Greekness of Macedonia view had to
compromise with the little data available on the subject, or take historians’ remarks
out of context, or rely legends to support their views. These historians have preferred
to relate to unproven views like the proto-Greek homeland (held by the Bulgarian
archeaologist, V.I. Giorgiev) relating to a period prior to 4000 B.C. In reality, this
view has no historical value and its only basis is the belief that Greeks originated
from the north. Evidence points to much later migrations to the mainland Greece,
and to be of uncertain origin. But the idea sounded attractive, it points to the antiquity
of the Greeks, and what’s better, in this proto-Greek homeland are included areas
that were to be known as Epirus and Macedonia, hence, Greeks would have a
reason to claim these areas for the reason that they had been originally Greek.
On the same fashion, these historians use Linear B tablets to prove their affinity with
original inhabitants of Greece. Scholars have observed that the classical Greek
language elements constitute less than 50% of the language of the tablets. Putting
aside the murky past as to what evolved into Greek, S. Levin would conclude about
the language of Linear B tablets that “We can properly say it is not demonstrably
Greek but looks as if it might be Greek, but again it might be something else…”
(Levin, S., (The Linear B Decipherment, Controversy Re-examined, State University
of New York, 1964, p. 197) On the bases of known data, it is impossible to know with
exactly what Greek is identified.
Within this reality of uncertainty of what constitutes Greek, some historians construct
Macedonian history on the assumption that the area’s original language was Greek.

2. And on the basis of this assumption, many of these historians are led to see the
Dorians as being a greek tribe, following on Herodotus who saw descendancy of the
Greeks from them, the rest of “Greek” tribes he considered to have been Pelasgic.
In reality some historians hold to this view, while some others, when convenient, look
to the Pelasgians as the Greek point of origin. These arguable assumptions and
others based on these, have led to contradictory conclusions. Many authoritative
historians have disputed the Greekness of the Dorians, for the name of its main
tribe, Hyllis, has Illyrian connotation. (See the article on ‘Greeks and the Dorian’
invasion) Of interest is the fact that of the main Greek tribes are identified as
Pelasgic, but Herodotus never referred to the Dorians as such. Then, if Pelasgian
origin is claimed, where does that leave other populations that have been described
as such, and believed to have populated a wide area.
Major conclusions appear hypothetical and have no basis of support. Contradiction
accompany also the work of N.L.G. Hammond. He devoted serious work on the
Macedonians, but then, on important elements of Macedonian history, he makes
unfounded assumptions. On the question of identifying the ancient Macedonians, he
borrows from Herodotus, Thycydides, and Isocartes and other Classical sources,
and concludes,
“the men of the royal house certainly spoke Greek. They also spoke the language of
their people, ‘Macedonian’, which contained words of early Greek origin but was not
intelligible to contemporary Greeks.”
Apparently, what we should understand here is that the ancients spoke of a distinct
Macedonian language, but Hammond adds that this language contained words of
early Greek origin. In reality he is extracting a meaning that the ancients do not
convey. Hammond’s formulation does not say much, and leaves much unexplained.
These early Greek words, most likely were IE, and the question arises as to why
wouldn’t they also be in the vocabulary of Thracians and the Illyrians. Apparently this
is an attempt to limit Kretschmer’s conclusion that Greek (at -that is the language of
original Hellenes), Macedonian, Thracian, Phrygian, and Illyrian are all related. It is
on the bases of these weak assumptions, some historians have built the claim that
these people were Greek speaking..
As for the origin of the Greeks, according to Herodotus, the Dorians moved before
the Trojan war to southern Thessaly and south-west Macedonia and south-west
Macedonia where they were called ‘Makedoni’. (Poulton, p. 12) It has been
customary to see Dorian origin, as well as Greek origin, in line with what Herodotus
indicated, Thessaly being the original place of Dorians. This view has proven very
convenient for Greek historians especially, for those who prefer to point to a
connection of Greeks with the Macedonians and the Epiriots. George Grote, instead,
sees another legend as more probable, which sees the origin of the Greeks further
south. Hesiodic Catalogue indicates that Dorus, son of Hellen, occupies the “the
country over against Peloponnesus on the opposite side of the Corinthian Gulf,” and
calls the inhabitants after himself, Dorians. ( George Grote, History of Greece, 1853,
p. 101) Grote thought that “this story, that the Dorians were at one time occupants,
or the chief occupants, of the range of territory between the River Achelous, and the
northern shore of the Corinthian Gulf, is at least more suitable to the facts

3. attested by historical evidence than the legends given in Herodotus, who represent
the Dorians as originally in the Phthiotid…”. (Grote, p. 102)
More specifically, Hammond indicated Macedonians originated in the Orestian
highlands since before the Dark Ages, population pool possibly having originated
from the same population pool that produced other Greek peoples. The Macedonian
tribes subsequently moved down from Orestis in the upper Haliacmon to the Pierian
highlands in the lower Haliacmon because of pressure from the Orestae, a related
tribe who had migrated to Orestis from Pelagonia. Here they mixed with the “Dorians
to be”. (Summary found in Wikipedia on Macedonians). This view faithfully maintains
Herodotian explanation, and also Hammond’s assumption that Macedonian
“possible” have the same origin as the rest of Greek tribes, a generalization that has
legends as source.
While classical scholar, William Ridgeway had reached a totally different view and
indicated that the Dorians had an Illyrian affinity. (The early age of Greece, p. 660)
His view is based on elements of Doric language which he thought identified with
Illyrian. He maintained that the assibilation of original “dh”, which characterizes Doric
alone amongst the various Greek dialects, originates in Illyrian. He also observed
that the names of of the heroines from whom many Illyrian tribes traced their
descent all end in “ ω” is also the regular termination of female names in Doric.
Ridgeway concluded that Dorians “closely resembled in their social habits, their
physique, method of wearing the hair, in the disposal of their dead, and their dialectic
forms, the Illyrians, that they must be regarded...as an Illyrian tribe.” ( Barbara W.
Freire-Marreco, Anthropological Essays, p. 308)
Indications of Illyrian affinity of Dorians run counter to the modern tradition of
identifying the Doric language as a Greek dialect. The fact is that this language has
been documented late in time, and has come from inscriptions, which linguists have
found considerable Illyrian elements. This state of of the language is reflective of
many centuries of cohabitation with other Greek tribes. We can suppose that earlier
in time, Doric must have been closer to Illyrian. Illyrian elements in Doric also might
indicate that earlier in time Greek and Illyrian languages had still maintained
commonalities.
A survey of the last 200 year historiography shows differences in the interpretations
of the little data that is available about the ancient Macedonians. This work was
originally lead, as I indicated, by west european philhellenes and eventually was
assumed by Greek historians who looked at historic data to affirm contemporary
Greek links with classical Hellenes and their past. In this framework, these
historians have extended their claim of Greekness to include ancient Epirus and
Macedonia. The more recent discussion attempting to relate to a connection of
Macedonians and Greeks have been led by J. N. Kalleris (1954), V. I. Georgiev
(1966), I Pudic (1971) and N. G. L. Hammond (1979). Their work has inherent
weaknesses, they ignore data that does not fit their speculative assumptions. At the
same time, it has to be pointed out that they have been very effective in influencing
the opinion as to who were the Hellenes and who should be considered a Hellene.

4. But there is also another set of modern historians who contradict their view. Using
available language data these scholars have concluded that the ancient Macedonian
language more or less related to the languages of Macedonia's northern neighbors,
the Illyrians and the Thracians. These scholars include Muller and Mayer, writing in
the nineteenth century, and Thumb, Thumb-Kieckers, Vasmer, Kacarov, Beshevljev,
Budimir, Pisani, Russu, Baric, Poghirc, Chantraine, Katicic, and Nerosnak, writing in
the twentieth.
The proponents of Greekness of the Macedonians have always been out to affirm
their position with suspecting historians. One of them, Kalleris thought that by
expounding on the words that were thought to be in Macedonian, would render
further credibility to the view that ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin. The
only language evidence thought to be Macedonian consists of 153 words, preserved
mainly by Hesychius (perhaps fifth century a.d.), and occasionally by other ancient
authors.
Dealing with the Greek language itself is a challenging assignment. We saw above
the foreign elements in Greek language, as well as the content in it of pre-Greek
language elements. Even the Greek’s main component, the IE, is questionable as to
how telling it is, for we might be dealing with elements that are common with the
neighboring languages, and not because they are genuinely Greek. Then, the
language having been under Hellenic pressures would have been vulnerable to the
entry of Greek words late in time.. Frequently if a gloss was found to have some
affinity with Greek, many took it as being of Greek origin. Georgiev followed this
procedure. He found Greekness in some Macedonian toponyms which in reality
were not Greek but pre-Greek. (Ilievski, Peta, Position of the Ancient Macedonian
language…, p. 136) Historians like Kalleris, being sure of their Greek linkage of
these Macedonian word, set to prove their Greek origin. But his conclusions were
heavily criticized.
Crossland finds his observations about the 153 glosses unconvincing. First, he says,
a third of these words have no satisfactory etymology. Second, he says that a further
44 items should be disregarded as being false forms in the sources from which they
came. They are simply adjectives of Greek formation based on place-names.
Although these words seem to be Indo-European, they could belong to an Indo-
European language other than Greek. Some of them might be military or technical
terms which are Attic in form and were borrowed from Attic Greek in the fifth or
fourth century.
Third, Crossland argues, if Macedonian was a dialect of Greek it is extremely
unlikely that it would have been similar to Attic Greek. The original Macedonians did
not come from the area of Athens and share no history with the Athenians. This
means that the Attic words are a false lead, just late borrowings from Greek. It would
be much more convincing, perhaps crucial, to find Macedonian words that were not
specifically Attic but which occurred either in a considerable number of Greek
dialects or in some of the dialects that were spoken in areas adjacent to Macedonia.
Kalleris gives fifty-one words of this kind. Many of these words occur in Doric or
other West Greek dialects or resemble words in these dialects. However, it is quite
possible that these words were borrowed from West Greek dialects or from

5. Thessalian, particularly since all except eighteen of them are the sort of words which
the Macedonians might well have borrowed from their neighbors. They include titles
of gods, names of festivals and months of the year, military terms, and names of
objects that they might have learnt from neighbors to make and use. Such words are
often borrowed from neighboring groups, so their existence in Macedonia is not
convincing evidence that they were originally Macedonian.
Fourth, the remaining eighteen words, none of which corresponds exactly in
meaning or form with Greek words, seem insufficient to make a case for classifying
Macedonian as Greek. Once again there is the possibility that the words were
borrowed from neighbors. At the western and southern borders of Macedonia were
tribes speaking different Greek dialects, and we know that the Macedonians were in
contact with these peoples. The Thessalonians to the south are particularly likely to
have been influential since they were culturally and politically more advanced than
the Macedonians before the fifth century. They are likely to have influenced the
Macedonians particularly strongly until the growth of Athenian influence. Herodotus
reports on traditions in the same period of close contact between the Macedonians
and the Dorians before the latter were supposed to have migrated southward.
Finally, though again it is hardly sufficient basis for any conclusion, there is one
language feature evident in the surviving "Macedonian" words that points to the idea
of a separate language. Macedonian seems to have had a phonological feature that
marks it as different from Greek dialects. This is the correspondence of a sound
written with B, to Ph in Greek. For instance, this would appear as something like
Bilippos in Macedonian, and Philippos in Greek. Crossland says that this change
puts Macedonian closer in phonology to Illyrian and Thracian than to Greek...
Basically Crossland reaches two conclusions, that Macedonian cannot be classified
as Greek, and that the language is closer to Illyrian and Thracian. He found phonetic
features to be similar in Macedonian, Thracian, Illyrian, and Phrygian and indicated
that the people who spoke them were in contact in late prehistoric times. (Crossland,
R.A., CAH, pp. 842-3) Limitation that Crossland puts on Macedonian affinity to
Illyrian language, that this affinity at the same time “does not mean that Macedonian
was a dialect of either language” are understandable, for Illyrian and Thracian are
even less known than Macedonian.
Another well-known linguist, Francisco Rodriguez Adrados, goes further in affiliation
of the Macedonian language. He writes, “Macedonian is only known to us through a
few glosses that that display certain characteristics, the principal being the
conversion of voiced aspirated to unaspirated voiced…, a seen in Illyrian, Phrygian
or Slavic, among other languages. Other characteristics coincide with the the Greek
dialects or with Illyrian or Phrygian… (A History of the Greek Language…, p. 36)
Both linguists, on the basis of few glosses identified as Macedonian, point to its
affinity with the languages of Macedonia’s northern neighbors. Their opinions are in
line with Kretschmer’s view that Greek (at -that is the language of original Hellenes),
Macedonian, Thracian, Phrygian, and Illyrian all related. (Kretschmer, pp.155-289).
In line with Kretschmer’s opinion is I.I. Russu has indicated that similarities between
Illyrian and Thracian, would be a basis for a common linguistic branch (Russu, 1969)

6. While Sorin Paglia indicated that “according to the available data, we may surmise
that Thracians and Illyrians were mutually understandable…” (2002) Ridgeway had
indicated that “it is probable that Thracians, once a tribal name like Illyrian, had later
on grown into an ethnic. It certainly cannot be said that there was any well-defined
difference between Thracians and Illyrians. (Ridgeway, p. 351) But others see the
two as two different languages and explain that similarities have resulted
from interferences. (Hemp, Georgiev).
At this time not much is known as to what constituted Illyrian, or its dialects, or,
Thracian, and much less as to commonalities of these languages with some of the
Greek dialects. Even less is known of what might have been the relationship of the
former languages to each other. Greece was more of a smaller area, there were
language differences between various Greek tribes, one would expect that
differences existed also between various Illyrian tribes. But it was always possible,
as Ridgeway indicated, “if tribes really related by blood and language, but who have
long dwelt far apart, are brought together, they may find their dialects so far
divergent as to be unintelligible to each other…”. (p. 345)
Between these possible Illyrian Phrygian attributes one of the languages must have
proceeded the other. Assuming that this affinity characterized Macedonian language
affinity at the onset of Iron Age, and assumeing Illyrian and Phrygian were two
distinct languages, then we have to assume that the foundation of the Macedonian
would be on only one language not on both. On this basis, we have to assume that
originally Macedonian was an Illyrian-resembling language, for Phrygian would have
had a later impact on the language. It is only logical to assume that Macedonia was
populated prior to the appearance of Bryges from the north, and not an unpopulated
place. Or, otherwise, Phrygians would also be seen as having had an Illyrian
affiliation, or itself be of Illyrian identity. M. Gimbutas is of the view that “the
Phrygian language is very much related to Thracian and also Illyrian. There are
numerous grammatical similarities between Phrygian and Thracian; relations with
Greek can also be traced, but what is more important for the question of Phrgian
origin, are the close relations of Phrygian with Slavic and Baltic.” (Marija Gimbutas,
Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe,1965, p. 338)
Linguists Eric Hamp/Douglas Adams also considered Macedonian a non-Greek
language (The expansion of Indo-European languages, 2013). Giuiano Bonefante,
after the discovery of Pella Curse Tablet, suggested that Macedonian was a Greek-
influenced dialect of Illyrian. The referred tablet is dated to between mid to early 4th
century BC and is described to be in ‘a dialect of North-Western Greek, part of the
Doric dialects. (O. Masson, 1996) This document follows Hesychius’s 5th century
lexicon which Crossland, as was indicated above, concluded is indicative of
language different from Greek. Apparently this language was not the common Greek
dialect of the Hellenistic era, and as Bonefante indicates must have been heavily
Illyrian.
Pella Curse Tablet is a testament of the state of the “North-Western Greek”/Doric
dialect c. 350 b.c., which as was indicated was heavily Illyrian influenced. Linguists
Carl Pauli, A. von Blumenthal and others had recognized traces of Illyrian in the
“Hyllean” elements of Doric. Henric Birnbaum, Ancient Indo-European dialects,

7. 1966, p. 59) Pseudoskylax places the origin of the main Dorian tribe further to the
northeast. Here is what he relates, “the barbarians called Lotus-eaters are the
following: Hierastamni, Boulioni (Hyllinoi), coterminous with Boulionoi the Hylloi. And
these say Hyllos son of Herakles settled them: and they are barbarian. And they
occupy a peninsula a little lesser than Peloponnese. And from peninsula parastonion
is upright: Boulinoi live besides this. And Boulinoi are an Illyric
nation…” (Pseudoskylax, The description of Europe, 22) On the basis of this, the
descendants of Heracles and the main Dorian tribe was an Illyric tribe. As for the
early nature of this dialect not much is known, inscriptions in Doric appear late in
time.
The remark by Titus Livius (64BC-AD 17) that “Aetolians, Acarnanians,
Macedonians -man of the same language.” has to be explained on the same basis.
While Aetolians, Thucydides indicated spoke an ‘unintelligible tongue’. ( III, 94)
Polybius (200BC-118BC) also related that ‘certainly most of the Aetolians are not
Greeks...” (Book XVIII.5) Most of today’s historiography has this area part of the
northwestern Greek dialect, characteristics of which have been traced to Illyria and
Epirus”. ( Wilson, Nigel, Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece, 2006, p. 4)
These passages, relating Aetolians, who are described as non-Greek and indicated
to speak the same language as the Macedonians confirms the latter’s non-Greek
character. The remark by Livius is indicative of survival of the non-Greek element
into these areas late in the first millennium, and the only element that united these
areas to Greece was their Hellenized elites. If this Hellenic link was weak at the end
of the first millenium, it must have been even weaker during the fifth century.
Historian W. W. Tran indicates that Illyrians followed Phrygians in Macedonia prior to
the emergence of the Macedonian tribe, he indicates, “When the tribe of the
Makedones came from Pindos and seized the Emathian plain, they found the
country, afterwards geographically known as Macedonia, already peopled by a
mixture of races, Anatolian aborigines had long since built a city at Edessa...and
several other Macedonian cities show Anatolian name forms. But these Asiatics had
been overlaid by invasions from the north, and the country, as the Macedonians
found it, was Illyrian and Thracian…”, the Illyrian presence is traced also in
toponyms… “the Macedonian capital of Pella, was certainly an Illyrian foundation, as
its old name Bounomos shows; and the same may be of other towns also, though,
except in the case of Pella, we know only the names which they bore in historical
times.” ( W. W. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, Oxford, 1913, p. 178)
Tran does not elaborate as to the origin of the Macedonian tribe. But he adds, “it is
obvious that with the expansion of the dominant tribe, whatever its nationality, large
Illyrian and Thracian elements must have been taken up into what subsequently was
the Macedonian people…(Tran, p. 177) But he definitely stays away from identifying
them as Greek. As for the origin of the Hellenic influence in Macedonia, he
says, “into this land, at a later time they came. Chalkidike and the coast were full of
Greek cities; and they must have begun at once to exercise an hellenizing influence
on Macedonians, just as the Corinthian colonies did upon Epeiros. But on the
Macedonian language their Ionic dialect produced no effect. (Tran, p. 178)

8. Tran refers to ‘Anatolian aborigines’ as also having populated the area. Tran most
likely refers to what eventually came to be referred to populations of Lusatian
culture, which according to Krahe were part of original Illyrian population. (Harmatta,
Janos, 1967, pp. 231-234) It should be pointed out also that an ancient tradition
among historians points to an affinity between this people and the Illyrians. This
ancient tradition indicates that the Phrygians anciently migrated to Anatolia from the
Balkans and connected to the Mygdones, the name of two groups of people, one if
which lived in northern Macedonia and another in Mysia. Recent theories trace this
migration to have occurred at the beginning of 12th century BC. (Wikipedia on
Phrygia) John Shea, in line with this view, says “the inhabitants of Macedonia were
probably the Brygi...their name derived from the Macedonian word breg (at:
apparently an IE word present in Albanian language also), “hill/mountain” (Shea,
John, p. 47)
While Strabo had indicated that “The country now called Macedonia was formerly
called Emathia. It acquired this name from Macedon, one of its ancient princes.
There was also a city Emathia near the sea. The country was occupied by some of
the Epirotæ and Illyrians, but the greatest part by Bottiæi and Thracians. The Bottiæi
were of Cretan origin, and came under the command of Botton; the Pieres, who
were Thracians, inhabited Pieria and the parts about Olympus; the Pæonians, the
borders of the river Axius, from whence the region was called Amphaxitis; the Edoni
and Bisalti, the rest of the country as far as the Strymon. The Bisalti retained their
name, but the Edoni went under the various names of Mygdones, Edoni, Odones
and Sithones.” Fragments, 11
According to this passage, Strabo conveys his thinking that Macedonia was
inhabited by the Illyrians Thracians, and Bottiæi (Strabo indicates they were Cretan
immigrant from Iapygia; “in the matter of weapons and pendants, they shared their
tastes with Illyrians; the two also shared the cult of the double-axe, Thucydides
indicates that they were driven away, see Wikipedia, Bottianeans) populations
which, as we will see, were part of ‘Pelasgic’ populations that originally inhabited the
area. D.G. Hogarth agrees with this identification and indicated that the Bryges and
many other European tribes pertained. Hogarth indicates Orestians, Lynceatians,
Elimontes, Paeonians, and so forth, had maintained their identity. (Hogarth, Philip
and Alexander…,1897, p. 5-7) As for the origin of the Hellenic element, that is kings
and their followers, he relies on legends which tell that they came from Argos.
(Hogart, p. 6)
If actually these tribes had preserved their identity, one would expect that possible
migrations would have ended-up being absorbed by the native populations. Ridgway
put forth a rational as to the possible outcome of mixtures of related peoples, he
said, “The Thesprotians or Illyrians who under their tribal name of Thessali became
the masters of the old population of Thessaly would all the more readily adapt the
language of the conquered, if their own tongue was closely related to that of the
population among whom they settled, and into they were largely absorbed. (The
early age of Greece, vol. 1, p. 345) Naturally, this language development would
pertain to divergences among the tribes of common ethnic origin, not to the use of
Greek by the governing elites, say in Macedonia and Epirus during the last half of
the 1st millennium. For many historians, this reality of evolved dialects and use of

9. Greek by elites has been confusing, and their references about the ethnic character
of these tribes have proven to be controversial.
Peter Green sees Macedonia as made of two quite distinct regions, lowlands and
highlands; he indicates that the lower Macedonia was the old central kingdom and
was found by the original Macedon migrants had adapted more readily Hellenic
cultural elements, while inhabitants in upper Macedonia remained more akin to
Illyrians or Paeonians or Thracians then they were to their lowland cousins (Peter
Green, Alexander of Macedonia, pp. 4-5). John Shea added that Orestis, the place
from which the Macedonians came to their lowlands home, had remained essentially
Illyrian in culture and language and wondered if this would be the clue to the
ethnicity of the Macedonians themselves. (Shea, p. 50)
In midst of these indications for an Illyrian affinity of the Macedonians, of the recent
scholars, N. G. L. Hammond has held a contrary opinion and has been persistent in
claiming Greekness of the Macedonians. He has based his stand on the fact that
inscriptions found on the area are in Greek and on a mythological reference by
Hesiod that the ancestor of the Magnesians and Makedon, the legendary ancestor of
the Macedones lived around Pieria and Mount Opympus, and thus according to
Hammond, Macedonians must have been Greek-speaking. (N.G.L. Hammond, The
Koina of Epirus and Macedonia, 1991, 183-192) This assumption carries Hammond
to assume that all the Macedonian tribes were speakers of Greek. And the gradual
Hellenization of Macedonia and the spread of Hellenism under Alexander the Great
served his assumptions well. His deep knowledge of history of the area has allowed
him to come up with assumptions that are in line with his opinions, but have proven
to be controversial.
To what was believed to be an area populated by Illyrians and Thracians (see
above), for there is no other population mentioned to have populated Macedonia
before them, Hammond relates to Bryges, as having invaded the area in the first half
of the twelfth century B.C. These people are believed to be related by origin to the
Phrygians who during classical times inhabited western Anatolia. Based on
archaeological evidence some historians maintain that they were members of the
Lausitz culture that migrated into this area during the Late Bronze Age. On the bases
of the distribution of Illyrian names in central Europe, “the same areas as did the
Middle Danube-Knowvitz-Lusatians culture of the early Urnfield period. Illyrian-
Germanic and the Illyrian-Baltic language relationships are another basis for the
assumption that the Middle Danube-Knovitz-Lusatian people spoke Illyrian (or rather
Proto-Illyrian Dialects.” (Marija Gimbutas, p. 337)
Evidence of this invasion has been provided by the arrival of the pottery of the
‘Lausitz’ culture of the Danube valley circa 1150 b.c. (Poulton, High, Who were the
Macedonians?) He indicates that they made their entry first into the middle Vardar
and Pelagonia. (p. 644) and analyzes their influence. At c.1150-950 it extended
from Vergina in Bottiaea, Visoi in Pelagonia, Cinamak in the upper Drin valley, Burrel
in the Mat valley...to Delvine, and Gjirokaster. An area which today corresponds to
historic Macedonia and southern Illyria. He states that this area shrunk c. 950-800 bc
as Illyrians pushed southward (c.850 bc in Vajze, Bodrishte and Kakavi). At the

10. same time Hammond indicates, that in this area, the Brygi maintained contact with
areas to the north. (p. 654)”
According to Hammond, the above period was “followed by an Illyrian presence and
domination of Macedonia from 800-650 BC. Changes were observed throughout
Macedonia, lower Vardar, western Bulgaria. They also had some effect on northern
and central Greece. The evidence has survived almost entirely in warrior graves
and women's graves which were much less numerous. There were cremations
sometimes in urns, as well as inhumations, large pithoi were used as coffins, e.g. at
Vergina…In the cemetery at Vergina the period of greatest prosperity, c. 900-800
B.C. was followed by radical changes and a growing impoverishment…” (CAH, p. )
Hammond indicates these migrations had originated from Glasinac cultural area to
the northeast in Bosnia.
At Vista in Zagori burials were made in shallow trenches, or in cist-graves rooted
with branches on which stones were placed, or under a cairn of stones . The burials
were close-packed, set in three layers, very close to the settlement, and the
cemetery was in use from just before 900 B. C. into the fifth century B. C. To judge
from the objects buried with the dead, this community had contacts with Barc,
Vergina, Vodhine, the Illyrians, and also southern Greece".
Hammond indicates that the populations involved in these migrations left traces
throughout Macedonia, lower Vardar, western Bulgaria, Hammond indicates had
originated in Glasinac cultural area. This expansion is described as of a large scale.
Hammond here indicates that the pressure seems to have been less strong in the
western side of the peninsula (p. 652) and according to his view Illyrians had arrived
in central Albania in late 11th or 10th century B.C. This view has never been
followed with data on which it was based. His view is based on the following
assumption, “The Glasinac type of bronze ornament have been found especially in
the province of Scodra, and it is probable that Illyrian tribes pressed forward at this
time into the plain of Malakater and exerted pressure on the peoples of north
Epirus”. (CAH, pp. 652-3)
As relating to Albania, Hammond’s view about the southern extension of Illyrians
relies on a reference by Appian’s (23-79 a.d.) that ‘Illyri proper” are situated in an
area north of Duracium. According to this view the area immediately to the south in
time was to have a mixed population of Illyrians and Greeks, and Epirus further to
the south was Greek speaking. Appian’s remark most likely was intended to note the
distinction between the area that was impacted by Greek-Roman culture and the one
that was not, as was seen at the beginning of new era. And the impact basically had
come from the established colonies, who also brought along their respective
dialects, as evidenced by inscriptions found in this area.
Certainly Appian’s remark does not reflect on the past reality of the area, which
points to its non-Greek character. Its well known that tumulus-burial ritual connects
this area with Illyrians. As to affinity to Greek culture with this area, Hammond
himself indicated that "The archaeological evidence shows that Greek culture, as
revealed in pottery and other objects, did not penetrate into inland Epirus, except at
Dodona and there only to a very limited extent, until the fourth century" (1967, 423).

11. If the area south of “Illyri proper” seemed different to Appian, he most likely have had
in mind the seashore strip, the area noted for concentration of Greek and Roman
colonists.
Unrealistic assumptions about the Illyrian presence in the area puts historians on an
untenable position. They reconcile the literary references about the Illyrians, not with
a factual explanation as to how they appeared but by making more unsubstantiated
assumptions. Hammond suggests that “it was probably during the period (c.750 b.c.)
of Liburnian supremacy at sea that the Taulantians and other Illyrian tribes seized
the rich coastal plain between the rivers Shkumbini (ancient Genusus) and Aous.” As
we will see later, archaeological unearthing show no evidence of new settlements
during this time in Albania. Illyrian migrations that are indicated to have ‘probably’
happened, have no archaeological evidence.
As concerns the Albanian area, Albanian archeologist Frano Prendi indicated that
according to archaeological unearthing several components are discernible: the
autochthonous tradition, elements of sub-Mycenaean and Proto-Geometric
civilization, and elements of Central European origin which were spread through
Albania by the second wave of the Pannono-Balkan migration”. (end of the twelfth
and the eleventh centuries B.C.). Prendi does not fail, at the same time, to point that
the impact of the latter migration has been limited in scale and were felt mainly in
Albania’s southeast. He indicated that “the small number of urn-burials are
associated with the v2nd wave of these migrations, “but the objects found in them
are with a few exceptions typically Illyrian objects.” (CAH, p. 230)
Professor Hammond, on the other, appears to indicate a wider Pannono-Balkan
impact on the area. He indicated “wares at Shkoder (Gajtan) and Pazhok, both are
characteristic of the so-called Lausitz culture which entered the south-west Balkans
in the 12th century and spread into parts of Albania, north Epirus and Macedonia…
As we noted above, he observed Bryges affinity with objects found in other tumuli
which Albanian archaeologists had identified to be Illyrian. The remarks would
appear to have been made to contradict the view that tumuli with the objects prove a
continuous and uninterrupted use by the practitioners of this ritual, that is the
Illyrians. But not to look too arbitrary, Hammond adds that “there are also non-
Lausitz elements, such as the love of weapons and the preference for amber, which
persist after the decline of the Lausitz influence. These represent the presence of a
different people who stayed on for many centuries.” (CAH, p. 628). He does not
elaborate as to who this people might have been but at the same time infers, or tells
us, that they were not to continue for long (at -an inappropriate occasion to predict
their extinction). Bryges, by his own submission (see above), were in the area for
only a few hundred years, and what exact impact they might have had on the
existing culture is not known, again according to his submission, the same
population they found in the area, continued to be present after “the decline of the
Lausitz influence”.
This area for sure was populated prior to Lausitz migrations, Bryges impact should
not be seen as having put to an end the native culture. W. Ridgway indicated that
this area was inhabited by Thraco-Illyrians, who were also related to the original
population that inhabited Greece. (The early Age of Greece, p. 353 ) Vladimir I.

12. Georgiev claimed that these people preceded the Hellas Greeks and were Illyrian
and indicated that Egyptian inscription’s “Prst” related to Thrucians (Pelasgians in
Wikipedia). W. Ridgeway indicated that there wasn’t any well-defined difference
between Thrucians and Illyrians and there was a close relationship between the
Pelasgic population of Greece and thraco-Illyrians (The early Age of Greece, p. 351)
Georgiev saw Pelasgian as an Indo-European language “between Albanian and
Armenian” (Georgiev 1941, p.63, quoted in H. M. Hoeningwald’s review in
Language 19.3 (July-September 1943) p. 270) Hammond tells us that
Hecataeus(early 5th century) had indicated that the Elimeotae, Lyncestae and
Pelagones, as well as the Orestae, were Epiriotic tribes.(CAH, 3-3, 1982, p. 266)
Evolvement of various cultures north of Greece was not done in complete isolation.
F. Prendi observed, that “the civilization of the Late Bronze Age developed out of
that of the Middle Bronze Age, a fact so far best attested in southern Albania. In the
subsequent enlargement and enrichment of that civilization an important role was
played by the economic and cultural links with neighboring countries, above all with
the Aegean, which were very close.” (CAH, p. 228)
But he does not refer to the connecting element here, that the objects were found in
tumuli, built at various times, which archaeologists have connected with the Illyrians.
About tumuli Garasanin indicated “we pointed out...that tumulus burials were
characteristic of the West Balkan area from Early Bronze Age. It continued over a
large area throughout the Iron Age, mainly in areas which were certainly Illyrian. So
we may regard this form of burial as Illyrian in the ethnic sense.” ( I. Garasanin,
CAH, p. 599) Evidently Albanian territories were part of this Illyrian area, for tumulus
burials have been discovered from the north allaway south to Ephyra. Frano Prendi
maintains that this ritual once it had appeared in Albania, continued without
interruption throughout the late Bronze and Early Iron periods, becoming at this time
a specific part of Illyrian ethnic tradition.(p. 235)
This tradition most likely is connected with migrations that Albanian archaeologists
have traced to have occurred c. 2100 b.c. This migration evidently spread beyond
borders of Albania. In addition to tumulus burials, J. Maran observed parallels exist
in the form of incisions and notches, noted in the northern half of the Peloponnesus,
particularly in Olympia, and the pottery from sites of the Cetina Culture, which is
characteristic for central Dalmatia and extends into Bosnia and Serbia. He suggests
that a part of the population from the original region of the Cetina Culture had
migrated southward. (Marjeta Shashel Kos, Cadmus and Harmonia in Illyria, p. 219)
As for Hammond’s reference about Bryges impact on the area, particularly about his
observation relating to Bryges use of tumuli, are we to assume here that after the
Bryges came c.1150-950 bc, the abandoned their burial ritual, adapted the Illyrian
ritual, used the tumuli for a while, and by c.900 bc gave them back to a people of
Illyrian tradition. This is improbable, for it entails a readily adaptation of an Illyrian
ritual by a non-Illyrian people, if that is what Hammond assumed. This is hard to
conceive, unless they were also practitioner of the same ritual, which some
historians do maintain. Some of these burial places, such as Vodhine, Piskove,
Vajze and Ephyra, were established prior to the supposed Bryges cultural onset in

13. this area, and some of them had interruption in use, after which period use was
reestablished.
Albanian archaeologists have indicated a somewhat earlier date for the so called
Pannono-Balkan migration (and for Professor Hammond Illyrian). They observed
that the only traced migrations after migration of c. 2100 B.C. occurred at the end of
Bronze Age, c. 1200 and a second wave at the end of 12th and 11th cbc. Frano
Prendi maintain that the these emigrations had a only limited impact on the existing
population. Hammond accepts that in this area, the “Illyrian” pressure has been less
strong (p. 6…) without going further into detail.
As it could be seen there is a disagreement as to what happened in the Albanian
territory; archaeologist Frano Prendi’s view holds that these migrations have had a
limited impact on the area and the existing population, which according to them had
evolved into the Illyrian ethnos much earlier. As evidence of limited impact and
survival of existing inhabitants can be seen most clearly in the uninterrupted practice
of burial rites in tumuli, the customary inhumation in the Illyrian manner being in the
contracted position. (p. 230) Examples of continuation of this tradition are tumuli at
Piskove, Vajze and Vodhine which were first constructed and used in the Middle
Bronze, if not earlier, and were re-used towards the end of the late Bronze Age and
on into early Iron Age.” To what Hammond refers as graves created after what he
calls the Illyrian migrations, Frano Prendi maintains that they were a continuation of
a tradition brought down in this area in early Bronze Age.
Another cultural element, which Albanian archaeologists indicate proves the
uninterrupted evolvement of Illyrian development, referred as “Devolian” pottery,
survived unscathed. In the Korce basin and the adjoining areas, the pottery of the
first era of the Iron Age is almost identical in technique, shape and decoration with
the Late Bronze Age painted pottery of Maliq, so that it is often difficult to distinguish
between them. This is an important factor in demonstrating the continuity of the
tradition of the’ Devollian’ pottery from the Late Bronze Age period into the Early Iron
Age and even down to the sixth century B.C. From this stability and continuum
during the Bronze Age eventually evolved the Illyrian ethnos, that is with southern
local specifics.
It is interesting to note that the “Devollian” culture had expression in Macedonia. The
decorated pottery of this type is well known through a series of archeological
discoveries in western, central and eastern Macedonia.( W.A. Heuertley, Prehistoric
Macedonia, Cambridge, 1939, p. 99, catologue 459-467) “The pottery links Maliq
iiid3 firmly with western Macedonia represented by Boubousti, and equally with the
Late Bronze Age painted pottery of central Macedonia. ( Prendi, F., CAH, p. 222)
This style of decoration continues to be in use in Western Macedonia even during
the early Iron Age. (Zhaneta Andrea, Macedonian Illyrian links…, Studime Historike,
1969, #1) It is interesting to note that idioms of this culture “were well known to
anyone who traveled in the hill villages of Epirus, Albania and southwest Macedonia
before the Second World War… (CAH, Vol. 3-1, p. 642)
Considering the archeological continuity in western Macedonia from late bronze into
early iron age and its identification as being of Illyrian character, and on the other

14. hand, knowing that the carriers of painted wares in the southwest Albania, as
Albanian archaeologists have observed, were the Illyrians, it is logical to conclude
that it is this same people that has also created the late bronze age culture in
western Macedonia. (Prendi, F., La civilization prehistoric de Maliq, Studia Albanica,
1966, 1, 267)
What Hammond accepts that these “northwestern” originated in Maliq...from where it
spread through the lakelands, central Albania...Epirus, and upper Macedonia...as far
as the right bank of Vardar. While lakeland had contacts had contacts with many
area, the rulers there seem to have been closest to the Brygi and the chieftains of of
north Epirus in the early period from the 12th to the ninth century and then with the
Dardanians, an Illyrian tribe...from 800 to 700 B.C. (CAH, p, 640) And he related
much of the Albanian archaeological evidence of this period to the
Bryges. According to him, this material culture, extended from Vergina, to Pelagonia
to Drin Valley to Delvine. In line with his view, it would follow that Brygi power shrunk
under pressure from Illyrian migrations. Thus according to this view, control of
Vergina, as with the rest of the area, went from that of Bryges to that of Illyrian
control. This exposition remains to be reconciled with the view of the existence of a
continuous and uninterrupted similar material culture in this area.
Most likely the carriers of this style of pottery culture never ceased to exist during
Burges presence. Chances are that possessing a more advanced culture, they
absorbed the new comers, as Byrges eventual disappearance would indicate. In the
Iron Age, this culture was abandoned only as the dominant way of life changes from
pastoralism to agriculture. (CAH, p. 644)
Bryges were first mentioned by Herodotus, who also stated that according to the
Macedonians they migrated to Anatolia, believed to have been at around 1200 BC.
Some indicate that they were part of Lausitz people that moved south in the later
Bronze Age (Borza, E.N., In the Shadow of Olympus…, 1990, p. 65) According to
Charlesworth they took hold of Vardar Valley and Pelagonia, then of Central Albania
as far as Epidamnus parts of northern Epirus c. 1200-1150; and c. 1150 they
conquered Central Macedonia.(CAH, II-2, p. 709)
Albanian archaeologists did unearth evidence of this migration, and their view is that
it had some effect especially in the southeast Albania. But in their view the impact on
the existing culture was not determinant in changing the established culture. Outside
of southeast, the impact of this invasion was felt even less, as we will see below.
Based on the indicated continuity of Boubousti decorated wares style from late
Bronze to Iron Age, the impact of migration on western Macedonia was not
overwhelming either. Charlesworth indicates that even after the migration to
Anatolia, there remained some Bryges inland of Epidamnus and in northern
Pelagonia. (p. 709)
With the onset of historical time, Macedonian history did not become more clear or
less controversial. It was still affected by unrealistic assumptions and use of data to
support these unproven assumptions. Here is a confusing statement by
Hammond, who has not accepted Illyrian affinity of the tumuli in Albania and Epirus,
but indicates that the tumulus at Vista, “the objects buried with the dead, this

15. community had contacts with Barc, Vergina, Vodhine, the Illyrians, and also southern
Greece” although refers to a later historic period, confirms the unity of the area.
Although the inference by Hammond that this unity was established late by the
Illyrian migrations, there is no data to negate the possibility that this similarity had an
earlier history than 800 b.c. A study of tumuli in Epirus and Albania indicates that
characterizing features of these tumuli, “justify hypothesis on the strong ties
between the chieftains buried in the R (at -Leukas, one of the oldest in Greece) and
in the Eastern Adriatic Cultural tumuli”. These tumuli are also in affinity with EBA (3rd
millennium B.C. Aegean cultures. (Oikonomidis, Papayiannis, Tsonos, Ancestral
Landscapes…, Lyon, 2011, p. 197)
Vista tumulus created “just before 900 b.c.”is found to have objects to those found at
Virgina of 800 b.c. Barch and Vodhine that were built 500 years before, and the
Illyrians. Hammond now accepts that Bronze Age Illyrian migrators began to use the
existing tumuli. As I had indicated, archaeology has not evidenced the assumed
migrations, I have to conclude that the actual users of these tumuli continues to be
the autochthonous population. As for Vergina , its earliest tumulus built in 11th c.b.,
have group burials and a number of single inhumation, which A.M. Snodgrass
indicates be matched further south in the Greek peninsula...nor do they recall the
standard mound of the the Bronze Age “Tumulus Culture’ of the barbarian to the
north, which normally holds one or two burials; but the latter tumuli of the later tumuli
of the Balkans, and especially those of the Glasinac plateau in Bosnia which must in
part coincide with the date of Vergina, show some resemblances. (Snodgrass, A.M.,
The Age of Greece…, p. 197-8) Hammond indicates that Glasinac (Illyrian) tumuli
appear in Vergina c. 800 b.c.
This history of the area and its people, frequently based on unsubstantiated
assumptions remains enmeshed in mystery and controversy. Significant question
about the history of the area remain open. Did the original people have in what
came to be known as Thrace, Macedonia, Greece, Epirus, and Illyria have a
common language at the time of IE migrations? How did the language or languages
change following these migrations? What was the impact of the so called Pannano-
Balkan migrations on various people mentioned as having lived north of the
Greeks. Much is known about the Greeks and not much about their neighbors that
we learned from the ancient authors were different from the Greeks; and how and
when these differences had developed; nor does history know much about the
differences between various of the Greece’s northern neighbors. Prominence on the
Macedonian history has taken the view of Greekness of Macedonians based on the
assumption that they spoke Greek espoused by Hammond. The same rationale is
followed on Albania. Only Illyrian migrations, according to this view, were to interrupt
this language reality.
These are questions that historians have not really researched, mainly because of
the complexity involved, and basically ignoring the questions. Unfortunately, the
above questions, and assumptions were overshadowed by Hellenic cultural
presence beyond Greek borders. For some historians this was affirmation of the
Greekness of Macedonia, Epirus, and south Illyria as Greek or related to Greek; for
others this was only a evidence that the ruling elites had adapted elements of
Hellenic culture, while the general population overall preserved its non-Greek

16. character. In support of the latter, linguists have pointed to apparent language
similarities between Macedonian and Illyrian and Phrygian, thus pointing to
commonalities between the three. Added to this is evidence that the similarity of the
cultural material .
To be noted here is the fact that Boubousti, Bistrica Valley is within the area that is
known to have been settled by the Oresti tribe. It is the area also where Macedonian
dynasty Argeadae originated, Caranus being the first known king (808-778 BC) .
Considering the above referred archeological continuity and its Illyrian character, it
would be reasonable to see the Argeadaen dynasty as being Illyrian at its
foundation. Illyrian name for the pre-historic place Bounomos or Bounomeia would
be in the same line of evidence that points to an Illyrian affinity of the people.
We might add that the affinity of these populations is preserved in the Greek
mythology. In Aeschyyus’s The Suppliants it is said,
I am Pelasgus, offspring of Palaechthon, whom the earth brought forth, and lord of
this land; and after me, their king, is rightly named the race of the Pelasgi, who
harvest the land. Of all the region through which the pure Strymon flows, on the side
toward the setting sun, I am the lord.There lies within the limits of my rule the land of
the Perrhaebi, the parts beyond Pindus close to the Paeonians, and the mountain
ridge of Doddana; the edge of the watery sea borders my kingdom. I rule up to these
boundaries. (The King of Argos,The Suppliants, 490 BC, translated by E.D.A.
Morshead)
Its indicated that the land of Perrhaebi, inhabited by Pelasgi, extends beyond Pindus
close to the Paeonians. In Greek mythology Perrhaebus, eponymous ancestor of
Perrhaebi, was son of Illyrius, as were Encheleus, Autarieus, Dardanus, Maedus,
and Taulas. From these, sprang the Taulanti, Parthini, Dardani, Encheleae,
Autariates, Dassaretae and the Daors. Autareius had a son Pannonius or Paeon and
these had sons Scordiscus and Triballus.[2] Hammond indicates that this legend
was probably put together by the Greek founders of Epidamnus (preserved in
Appian, Ill. 1) Of interest here is the reference to Perrhaebi, situated south of the
Macedonians, are considered amongst the most ancient tribes of Thessaly.
This legend connects the population of the area with a Pelasgic past. It is of interest
to also note that according to this myth, the population of the area that came to be
known as Macedonia, Epirus and Illyria had an Illyrian ethnogenesis. Although it is
only a legend, we have to take this view as reflective of how the populations north of
Hellens were viewed during the fifth century BC. At the same time, as Snodgrass
pointed out
...there is no basis to see an affiliation of this population with the Greek culture. A.M.
Snodgrass indicated, "Altogether, the graves of Macedonia, like their contents, are
best explained by the durability of the non-Greek cultural element here, in which the
phenomena of Greek influence—the Protogeometric pottery, and perhaps the rare
cremations at Vergina—are fleeting." (Snodgrass 2000, p. 163)
James Whitley commenting about Greek pottery style said, "The inhabitants at
these sites continued to use a style of 'Balkan' pottery that has little in common with

17. Greek painted wares throughout the Archaic period ...Macedonian material culture
had little in common with that of central Greece. Differences are apparent from a
very early date." (Whitley 2007, p. 253)
History has indicated that ethnicity and culture has not always been the same, and
there has a practice by some historians to keep the Macedonians detached from
material culture that characterizes their area. And some, ignoring Macedonia’s
Illyrian affiliation, look elsewhere for links.
When historians deal with the subject of ancient peoples impression they leave is
that these people had a defined ethnicity and defined borders, situation which is hard
to visualize in an area that has had continuous migrations. Ancient authors do refer
to a population prior to the formation of distinct Hellenic tribes, frequently referred as
Pelasgic and believed to be not IE, and which populated not only Greece but the
whole of Southern Europe/Mediterranean area. This population spoke a language
that has not been defined. We don’t know how their language changed over time.
We know from Linear B tablets that by Classical period Hellenic language had
undergone an extensive transformation. As for the language of the people north of
Hellenes, the Macedonians, as we indicated, not much data has remained, but on
the bases the meager data, “Macedonian” language is put closer to Illyrian by
linguists.
It is unrealistic to ascribe a narrow time frame to the Illyrian domination of
Macedonia. As the Albanian case indicated, the impact of migrations at the end of
Bronze Age had a limited impact on the material culture. The same could observed
about the material culture of Macedonia’s n/w, that is Orestea area. There is no
evidence to determine the exact impact of these migrations on the overall area of
Macedonia.
Discussions about the language or languages at this early period in this area
speculative at minimum. Although it is assumed that a pre-IE language was spoken
in the Balkans, nothing is known about this language. It follows that we dao’t also
know if the same language or dialect was spoken throughout; in other words, was
the “Pelasgic” that was spoken in Greece the same as that spoken in what came to
be known as Illyrian areas. And than to continue, how much of this language, if any,
was retained by the IE populations that eventually evolved; and, did the level of this
retention vary between the various areas? In other words, did Pelasgic that was
spoken in Macedonia or Illyria vary from that of Greece, or did that of Macedonia
vary with that of Illyria, etc., and how much of it was retained by corresponding IE
languages. We also noted above that classical Greek language exhibited extensive
Phoenician, Egyptian, and was most likely only 40-50% “Greek”. We know that
by Classical times, people to the north were seen as barbarian by the Greeks,
mainly because their language was different.
It is known that by the sixth century B.C.E., the Greek world had become a cultural
and linguistic area much larger than the geographical area of present Greece. Greek
colonies were not politically controlled by their founding cities, although they often
retained religious and commercial links with them. The Greeks both at home and
abroad organized themselves into independent communities, and the city (polis)

18. became the basic unit of Greek government. Towns such as Beroea, Pella and
Edessa came to be run on the Hellenic model.
By fifth century, Macedonian kings invented a family connection with Greek mythical
figures and adapted a philhellenic. They also abandoned Macedonian language and
began using Attic Greek for public administration. But, as Crossland indicates, that
as Macedonian took the position of the language of the ruling elite, a considerable
proportion of the population might have spoken other languages. There are
indications that even Alexander the Great spoke in a non-Greek language to his
infantry.
Relying on information from Classical sources Hammond’s view was more specific,
he indicated that “the man of the royal house certainly spoke Greek. They also
spoke the language of their people, the ‘Macedonian’, which contained words of
early Greek origin but was not intelligible to the contemporary Greeks…” (Poulton,
Hugh, Who are the Macedonians?, p.13) The contention that ‘Macedonian’
contained words of early Greek origin’ does not say much. How different would these
words referred to as of early Greek origin be from words of say of early Illyrian
origin? On the basis of observation by linguists that Macedonian was not a Greek
dialect, it would be reasonable to conclude that the language was closer to Illyrian
instead.
One aspect of the language can be discussed in more certain terms, we can assume
that the Macedonian language had evolved, and with time, like all the Macedonian
society, was heavily impacted by Greek. And when historians and linguists refer to
Macedonian glosses, we have to assume that these glosses relate to borrowings at
a relatively late period.
Strabo (64/63 BC-c. AD 24) pointed to the cultural similarity between Macedonians
and Epiriots, both described as barbarian by the ancient writers. He would indicate,
And in fact the regions about Lyncus, Pelagonia, Orestias, and Elimeia, used to be
called Upper Macedonia, though later on they were by some also called Free
Macedonia. But some go so far as to call the whole of the country Macedonia, as far
as Corcyra, 327 at the same time stating as their reason that in tonsure, language,
short cloak, and other things of the kind, the usages of the inhabitants are similar
(That is, to those of the Macedonians), although, they add, some speak both
languages. (Geography, Book VII, 8, p. 309)
In another account, translated by W. Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece,
Cambridge, 1901, p. 343) , is indicated,
“The Amphilochi are Epiriots, and so also are those nations which inhabit a rugged
countrey above them and close to the Illyrian mountains, The Milotti, the Athamanes,
the Aethices, the Tymphaei, the Orestae, the Paroraei, and the Atintanes, some of
whom approach near to Macedonia, others to the Ionian Gulf… With these people
are intermixed Illyrian nations, some of which are situated on the southern part of the
mountain region, and others above the Ionian Gulf… (Ridgeway, p. 343)

19. Strabo indicates “...with these people are intermixed Illyrian nations, some of which
are situated on the southern part of the mountain region, and others above the
Ionian Gulf…” Ridgeway, p. 343
As to who might have been the bilingual speakers of this area we refer to Srabo’s
reference to the Molossians, he indicated,
"The Molotti also were Epirotæ, and were subjects of Pyrrhus Neoptolemus, the son
of Achilles, and of his descendants, who were Thessalians. The rest were governed
by native princes.” (Ridgeway, p. 344)
The bilinguals of Strabo might have well been Molossians, Lyncesti and the Encheli
who were governed by Aecides, Bacchiadæ and Cadmides, ruling families which
used to spoke presumably Greek. The rest of the tribes were governed by their own
princes, clearly implying for their non-Greek language.
These references point to a reality in the area where the native population continues
to be present. Strabo talks about Epiriot nations that extend to Macedonia and to the
border of Thessaly, and indicates that this area is culturally similar and some of the
inhabitants of this area speak “both languages”. By all accounts, it would appear that
Stabo had in mind Greek and Illyrian languages. At the same time, in this Epiriot
Illyrian mix, Epiriots can’t be automatically identified as Greek, for the ancient
sources never recognized the Epiriots to be genuine Greeks, or was Epirus deemed
as Greece. Greek language in the area has to be seen as the outcome of
Hellenization which began with the adaption of the Greek language by society’s
elites.
The 1st millennium B.C. saw infusion of a population from the north, of the Bryges,
believed to be represent Lausitz culture. archaeologists have also observed the
appearance later of Illyrian type tumulus-burials. What exact impact these migrations
might have had on the native population is not known. History and archaeology have
indicated similar populations have inhabited Macedonian and Albanian areas,
archaeology has traced evidence of elements of the similar cultures, that is the
autochthonous tradition, elements of sub-Mycenaean and Proto-Geometric
civilization, and elements of Central European origin.
In addition to the observed similarities of objects found in tumuli, linguists have noted
similarities between Bryges, Macedonian and Illyrian languages. it is not known if
these similarities existed before Byrges migration or were due to their association
with Macedonians and Illyrians after migration. In my opinion it would be unrealistic
to assume that the Byrges annihilated or assimilated the previous people and its
culture completely, and then in turn the Illyrians would followed suite with Byrges.
The Albanian unearthing indicated the impact in Albanian area had been limited; this
does not exclude the possibility that in Macedonia the impact might have been
stronger, and that not all areas had been equally impacted. But, based on Strabo’s
reference one can conclude that the area from Epirus to Macedonia by the time of
the new era, maintained an identity that was not Greek and the other language
Strabo had in mind was, in all probability a form of Illyrian.

20. Historian Tom Winnifrith would indicate that it is very likely that even at the end of
the Roman conquest, nearly two hundred years after after Alexander the Great, quite
a high proportion of the wilder districts of both Macedonia and Epirus were still
speaking a non-Greek language.14 As to which this non-Greek language might have
been, the answer should be sought in what’s probable. It can’t have been accidental
when Stephanus Byzantinus (fl. 6th century AD) inferred the non-Greek character of
Athamania, a region located south-east of Epirus/west Thessaly, by indicating that it
is a place in Illyria (Ethnica, p. 33), thus reflecting area’s Illyrian affiliation.
As a collarery to the conclusion that Macedonian cannot be classified as Greek,
Hecataeus’s (late 6th century) passage that Elimeotae, Lyncestae and Pelagones,
as well as the Orestae, who are believed to be the ancestors of Macedonians, were
of Molossian affiliation, would also point to ascribing a non-Greek affiliation of these
tribes; this Molossian affinity goes far in the past and does not relate to the adaption
of Greek culture by sections of society, which was a late phenomenon. Apparently,
this non-Greek character of these tribes confirmed in the passage Strabo describes
Macedonia and Epirus to be culturally similar, and also refers to the existence of
bilingualism, as late as of the beginning of the new era. And these langauges have
to be Greek and some form of Illyrian.
It is true that classical literature does not refer to Macedonians and Epiriots as being
Illyrians, but this is not a reason to classify them ethnically as non-Illyrian. The fact
that certain historians identify only two specific locations as being inhabited by ‘Illyrii
proper’, was not meant to indicate that people of the same cultural base did not
extend beyond the so called ‘Illyrii proper’. Basically late antiquity authors used the
notion ‘Illyrians’, and there is no evidence that all ‘Illyrians’ identified themselves by
that name. Illyrian tribes were dispersed through a wide area, and never had a
unifying central authority. By the time the notion ‘Illyrii proper’ was used, southern
Illyria had felt the impact of Greek and Roman colonies, which became centers of
life, and seem to have been the focus of the above historians. But that should not put
to doubt the survival of the native population. Testament to this survival is Strabo’s
passage about the existence of bilingual populations in Macedonia and Epirus, as
well as as ability of this population to eventually absorb the colonists in
Ionian/Adriatic strip.
The mistake these historians make is attempting to determine the ethnicity of native
population on the basis of established Greek colonies and the inscriptions they left,
and practically dismissing literary references, archaeological, and onomastic
evidence. They do injustice to history especially in cases when Hellenistic presence
at the end of millenium is presented to explain ethnic reality in Macedonia at the
beginning of millenium. E. Borza indicated that “direct literary, archaeological, and
linguistic evidence to support… the contention that a distinct Macedonian ethnos had
existed in the Haliacmon valley since the Bronze Age is lacking.”* This interpretation
has been criticised as a “conjectural reconstruction” from what appears during later,
historical times.” (Borza, 1992, p. 70)
The effort that philhellenes undertook to enlighten on the Greekness of the
Macedonians did not contribute to further to the study of the history of the ancient
Macedonian. To the contrary, the views of early scholars like Muller, Mayer,

21. Ridgeway, Niebuhr and others have proven relatively more viable in the face of
scientific data. Their effort was motivated more by an interest to popularize the view
of Greekness of the Macedonians than a genuine interest to add to the study of the
subject. Frequently their views proved contradictory and could not survive testing, as
the attempt to utilize “Macedonian” glosses to prove the Greekness of the ancient
Macedonian language proved. But to be fair, one has to recognize that their views
have been pushed to eminence even on popular publications.
The many questions about ancient Macedonians remain open. We have seen that
they have no Greek ethnic affiliation. But historiography, as we have indicated, is full
of references of cultural affinity between the Illyrians and the Macedonian. As to the
precise nature and extent of this affinity, opinions have diverged, and the view of
Illyrian affinity of Macedonians was overshadowed by historians promoting the view
of Greekness of the Macedonians. As John Wilkes indicated, “while it is true that
Pan-Illyrian theories have been set aside, the questions which prompted their
formulation still remain: there are traces of Illyrian names, and some historical
tradition, for the presence of Illyrians people in parts of Europe beyond the limits of
their historical homelands, and also in Asia Minor… In general the linguistic evidence
for Illyrians in Greece, Asia Minor and Italy is yet to be interpreted…” (The Illyrians,
1995 p. 39) And this particularly relates to the Macedonians. Certainly much has
been put forth in support of Illyrian relationship of Macedonians, and we can
conclude that it is only with Illyrians that ancient Macedonians had originally related.
It remains for the historians to determine elements that have contributed to the
evolvement of Macedonians during the first millenium b.c. and afterwards.