The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in : the Case of

Ioannis Xydopoulos University of

Abstract This chapter analyzes the criteria Thucydides used to define Greek and native communi- ties by examining his representations of the Macedonians, , , and Il- lyrians, who inhabited the coastal regions of the northern Aegean and beyond. It focuses on the period from the mid-5th-century BC until the end of the (404 BC). This study argues that the colonial context exerted an important influence upon the southern Greek concept of these peoples during the 5th century and under- pinned the contemporary distinction between and barbarians. The latter may be defined as those peoples who first came into contact with the Greek colonies on the Aegean coast and the Propontis; evidence for these cultural encounters may be traced back to the 8th century BC. Consideration is also given to a specific Athenian ideology which developed following the Persian Wars, and which found expression in Thucy- dides’ writing. Finally, given that the of “ethnicity” is itself a product of 20th-cen- tury ideological concerns, this discussion reconstructs ancient perspectives by focusing instead on the precise terms and descriptive vocabulary found in the relevant sources.

Η παρούσα ανακοίνωση επιχειρεί, μέσω μιας σύντομης εξέτασης των σχετικών εδαφίων στο έργο του Θουκυδίδη, να ερμηνεύσει τον τρόπο παρουσίασης των Μακεδόνων και των Θρακών κατά τη διάρκεια του Πελοποννησιακού πολέμου σε σχέση με (και συνδυάζοντας) τις σύγχρονες απόψεις και τάσεις της έρευνας στους τομείς της Κοινωνικής Ανθρωπολογίας και της Αρχαίας Ιστορίας. Παρουσιάζονται τα κριτήρια βάσει των οποίων ο Θουκυδίδης χαρακτηρίζει τα φύλα αυτά ενώ ακροθιγώς εξετάζεται και ο όρος «βάρβαρος» στο έργο του, πάντοτε σε σχέση με το αντικείμενο της έρευνάς μας. Παράλληλα, γίνεται προσπάθεια ανίχνευσης των κριτηρίων καθώς και των ενδείξεων, με τα οποία καθορίζεται από τον ίδιο η «εθνικότητα» τόσο του ελληνικού φύλου των Μακεδόνων όσο και των Θρακών. Τονίζεται ο ρόλος του αποικισμού α) στη διαμόρφωση της εικόνας που είχαν οι Έλληνες της Νότιας Ελλάδας κατά τον πέμπτο αιώνα για τα φύλα που κατοικούσαν στην περιοχή του Β. Αιγαίου και β) στη διαφοροποίηση Ελλήνων και βαρβάρων. Επιπλέον, προτείνεται ως κριτήριο διαμόρφωσης της παραπάνω εικόνας η Αθηναϊκή ιδεολογία που αναπτύχθηκε με τη λήξη των Περσικών πολέμων και η οποία απαντά στο έργο του Θουκυδίδη.

Representations  Ioannis Xydopoulos

The concept of community Definitions of the concept of community are problematic and the subject of considera- ble debate in the social sciences. One useful framework isolates three general categories employed in anthropology. ‘Community’ may be characterized in terms of: (i) com- mon interests among people; (ii) a common ecology and locality; or (iii) a common social system or structure. Besides interests, ecology or social structure anthropologists have also traditionally emphasized an essential commonality as the underlying a community’s creation and perserverance. Communities have been regarded as empirical things-in-themselves, social organisms, as functioning wholes, and as things apart from other similar things. Nevertheless, notions of ‘community’ have changed, as anthropol- ogy has responded to functionalist and structuralist approaches. For example, Anthony Cohen has argued that community should be seen firstly as a symbolic and a contrastive one, and secondly, as a product of the situational perception of a boundary dividing one social group from another. In his view, awareness of community depends on consciousness of boundary. According to Cohen’s dual argument communities and their boundaries exist not as social-structural systems and institutions, but as worlds of meaning in the minds of their bearers1. Community is an aggregating device, which both sustains diversity and expresses commonality. It encapsulates both closeness and sameness, as well as distance and difference. Members of a community are related by their perception of commonalities, and equally, they are differentiated from other com- munities and their members by these relations and the patterns of association to which they give rise2. As far as ancient Greek is concerned, I think that Cohen’s description accords perfectly with the one given by Catherine Morgan. Morgan has stated that community in its ancient Greek context should be treated as “an innocent definition of a group with which individuals identify, resting on, and reflected in factors such as shared residence, cult, or subsistence needs. A community is thus an entity that implies at once perceived similarities and differences and thus has clearly recognized boundaries”3. Morgan’s defi- nition highlights the that we are dealing with groups which may define themselves in more than one way. Community is strongly related to the Greek terms of [city- state] and ethnos (the English language possesses no term for the concept of an ethnic group or ethnic community, so when we use the word ethnos [ethne in plural] we refer to people; however the adjective ethnic is used). Community may be understood in a politi- cal sense, with regard to the variety of common relations implied in residence arrange- ments, adherence to laws, warfare, cult and subsistence strategies – that is the areas which the Greek sources themselves identified as central to the expression of shared identities. However, polis does not provide a synonym for this political sense of the term4. Instead, it covers a variety of usages. All of these apparently share the common denominator of the sense of a number of people living together and acting together. While ethnos has a simi- lar meaning, it refers to cultural, rather than biological or kinship differences; hence like cultural attributes are held to identify a group as an ethnos. As groups of men and women interpret and express their collective experiences, these interpretations and expressions The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography  cohere into cultural practices and attitudes over time, which are then handed onto the next generations, who modify them according to their own experiences and interactions. The continuity and survival of these ethnic dimensions of communities are key elements underpinning the formation of nations in the modern era. In fact, some scholars have studied the rise of contemporary nations in the context of their ethnic background. Nev- ertheless, the complexity of ancient does not permit such analysis. In recent years the and role of ethnic expression in Greek antiquity have been among the most debated topics among both archaeologists and . One con- clusion of these debates is that it is essential to gauge the contextual complexity of this topic. Every ancient Greek belonged to a multiplicity of groups, which included: the family and household; the neighbourhood or village; the military unit; the community and its political subdivisions. The meaning of ethnos ranges across these diverse social sub-groups. As a result of this complexity, what is required is systematic analysis of everything in the available documentation that pertains to ethnic consciousness. The importance of this question cannot be overstated. It provides a crucial new dimension to the process of defining ethnic communities in pre-modern eras. The study and con- sideration of the various contexts outlined above is a valuable, indeed necessary sup- plement to the framework of precise criteria used to define ethnicity that have been identified by Anthony Smith: (i) a collective name; (ii) a common myth of descent; (iii) a shared history; (iv) a distinctive shared culture; (v) an association with a specific territory; and (vi) a sense of solidarity5.

Hellas, Hellenes and Barbarians Definitions of ethnicity may be divided into two categories: subjective and objective. The former treats ethnicity as a process by which tribes, ‘races’, or nation-states identify themselves, other groups, and the boundaries between them, while the latter relies on criteria such as physical characteristics resulting from a shared gene-pool6. According to social scientists the criteria for determining ethnic self-consciousness would have been physiological similarity, as well as a cultural matrix of shared geographical origin, ances- tors, culture, modes of production, religion, values, political institutions, and language. Different ethnic groups privilege one or more these above the others. It may in fact be argued that ethnic stereotypes, both ancient and modern, are significantly more reveal- ing about the community that produces them than those they are intended to define. The Greeks’ subjective definitions or ideology of their own ethnicity have been the subject of considerable discussion. E. Hall has categorized the four main hypotheses developed in the course of this debate as follows: (i) the notions of and barbaros (barbarian) already existed before the completion of the ; (ii) the emergence of these two notions was simultaneous and occurred between the 8th and the late 6th cen- turies; (iii) the Persian wars created a collective Panhellenic identity; and (iv) although a sense of ethnicity already existed in the Archaic period, the polarization of Greek and barbarian was magnified after the Persian wars7. In my opinion, this final hypothesis is

Representations  Ioannis Xydopoulos the most probable one for linguistic reasons, as Greek speakers could distinguish them- selves from speakers of a non- in the Archaic period. Reflections of this linguistic difference between Greeks and barbarians are encountered in archaic litera- ture. The presence and use of the wordbarbaros (barbarian) in the literary sources up to the 5th century BC also supports this hypothesis. A thorough search through archaic has revealed three passages in which barbaros or its derivative forms are used. The presence in the Iliad (2. 867) of the words barbarophonos (of foreign language) to refer to the and barbaros in an opaque fragment of of (22, B 107) is sufficient proof of the Greeks’ consciousness of their difference, linguistic and cultural, from other ethnic groups8. A similar distinction is also encountered in Pindar9. As well as revealing the historical development of the word barbaros itself, these sources support the argument that the distinction Hellen-barbaros existed in the Archaic period, even though the diametric opposition between Greek and barbarian did not evolve until the 5th century10. It is difficult to identify in the epic genre any clear articulation of ‘Hellenic’ conscious- ness. Despite the fact that epics such as the Iliad celebrated the confrontation between Greeks and Trojans and , as has been noted, used the word barbarophonos, it is important to note that the opponents sacrifice to the same gods. There is little evidence for the Trojans being the stereotyped ‘other’ in the way the Persians would become so in the 5th century11. The model that is constructed through such oppositions is not an ethnic one. From the 8th century onwards new conceptions of space and territoriality emerged as populations became more sedentary. Two key factors explain the Greeks’ prioritisation of the linguistic criterion for the self-determination of their ethnicity. Firstly, as a result of colonization Greek speakers could always distinguish themselves from those who spoke a different language. The available evidence strongly suggests that the Archaic period witnessed a considerable degree of interaction between Greeks and those who would later be categorized as barbarians. For example, the mother of was either from or Caria, while ’s mother was a Thracian princess. Secondly, it may be argued that the privileging of the linguistic criterion for ethnic self-determination countered the heterogeneity of Greek social customs and practices, political allegiance, cult and traditions, which derived from the different communities, whether Dorian, Ionian, or Aeolian. It is especially important to high- light the Aeolian difference, because it is usually ignored in discussions of Hellenic self- consciousness. Although Homer provided the Greeks with an ordered representation of their past, the Homeric texts are also evidence of a time when the Greeks did not use a collective name (i.e. Hellenes) to describe themselves12. The heterogeneous social customs men- tioned above are indicated in the various tribal names Homer refers to. In the Iliad, dif- ferent ethnic groups mentioned include the ‘Aetolians’, ‘Cretans’ or ‘Boeotians’. Other collective terms used comprise the ‘’ (occasionally ‘Panachaeans’), ‘Argives’, and ‘Danaans’. In the Homeric text the Hellenes are still the inhabitants of the original Hellas, a district in . Thus comes from ‘Hellas and Pthia’ (9. 395). It The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography  is obvious that in the Iliad (as well as in the Odyssey – 1. 344 ‘throughout Hellas and Argos’) the meaning of the term Hellas was limited to the geographical region in the north of Greece13. Between the creation of Homer’s epics and ’s Catalogue in the early 6th century, the significance ofHellas (Hesiod, Opera et dies, 653) shifted to refer to the whole of mainland Greece. The Greeks, in turn, came to identify themselves as Hellenes. The concept of an extended Hellas must therefore have existed by at least the beginning of the 7th century, and possibly even earlier14. As the discussion so far has indicated, there is sufficient evidence to confirm the view that a Hellenic self-consciousness emerged between the 8th and 6th centuries. Several factors contributed to this development: colonisation brought the Greeks into contact with all the countries of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea regions; the colonies es- tablished retained ties to the mother city; the diffusion of the alphabet and of the epic poems themselves extended their linguistic identity; and the foundation of Panhellenic institutions and cult centers articulated a socio-cultural presence, as well as providing important media for ideological expression. Regarding the latter the games at Olympia are a case in point. Although they may originally have been an exclusively Peloponne- sian affair, by the 6th century competitors were coming from Greek cities as far afield as and , and the judges were called the Hellanodikai. Consideration of the term Panhellenes is important for an understanding of the diffusion of a Greek identity. The word occurs only once in theIliad (2. 530), where it may be understood in a broad sense (as in Odyssey, 1. 344’s use of the term Hellas) to mean the whole of the Greeks15. The term also occurs in Hesiod (Opera et Dies, 528), (Fragment 102) and (Isthmia II. 38; IV. 49; 6. 62) and in these contexts it signifies that Greeks of disparate provenance lived together in newly founded settlements. It would seem probable that an awareness of community existed in the Archaic period and that this was reflected by the emergence of a concept of Panhellenism. Nevertheless, this earlier awareness of community had little to do with the full significance of belonging to a wider Greek family, which only became apparent when most of the Greek-speaking communities came under threat from Persia16. The Greeks’ ‘ethnic’ sentiment, developed during the period of colonization, did not evolve to the extent that it could easily be directed against the peoples in the newly discovered areas of the northern Aegean or the Black Sea. However, the opposition of Greeks and Persians in the 5th century decisively altered the relationships of the former with foreign cultures. The direct confrontation with ethnic difference foregrounded, for the Greeks, the importance of reformulating their theoretical reflection, especially of socio-political structures17. Through their confrontation with the Persians the Greeks developed a growing sense of superiority and managed to define their own ethnic iden- tity, which they set as criteria for the definition of barbarians or the stereotyped other18. Therefore, it may be argued that what changed between the Archaic and the Classical periods was in fact the mechanism of Greek self-definition: a stereotypical, general- ized image of the exotic, slavish and unintelligible barbarian was established, and Greek identity could thus be defined through opposition to this image of alterity. To find the

Representations  Ioannis Xydopoulos language, culture or rituals of the barbarian desperately alien was immediately to define oneself as Greek19. ’ made a significant contribution to the growth of empirical knowl- edge about the non-Greek other, through geographic and ethnographic digressions on the populations with which the Persian Empire had come into contact. Despite the strangeness of many of these customs, the narrator respected them as expressions of different systems prevailing among each people. It may be suggested that his text signals an awareness that being a barbarian was relative, and that it questions the idea that the Greeks were superior by nature – a notion which, as has been mentioned, emerged after the Persian Wars. F. Hartog has persuasively argued that what Herodotus sought to achieve through his work was to ‘hold up the mirror’ to his Greek audience. Displaying a series of images of barbarian practices would serve as a reflection of Greek customs20. Hartog also suggested that Herodotus’ ethnographic accounts of ‘the other’ were imag- inary mirages informed by contemporaneous socio-cultural concerns. For his Classical Greek readers, the definition of their own special culture against an exotic background was paramount and these concerns would have shaped Herodotus’ authorial intentions as well as the reception of his writings. Thucydides also subscribed to a cultural definition of Greekness, but on rather different terms. Herodotus’ cultural conception of Greek identity operated on an unambigu- ous inclusion/exclusion basis. In contrast, Thucydides viewed Greeks and barbarians as polar opposites. In a passage referring to the Eurytanians, who formed a great part of the Aetolian ethnos, Thucydides’ description of these people strongly suggests much broader Athenian prejudices towards northern Greece as a whole. Thucydides’ com- ment that the Eurytanians ‘spoke a completely unknown tongue and ate raw meat’ (Thuc. III.94.5) emphasizes linguistic and cultural criteria to differentiate between the Greeks and the Eurytanian ‘other’. The form of Thucydides’ classification of the Eury- tanians is encountered in other examples such as the following passage from the begin- ning of his work: Up to this date, the people in many parts of Greece, the Ozolian Lokrians, the Aetolians, the Akarnanians, and those of the neighbouring mainland, live in the ancient manner. The habit of carrying weapons has remained with these mainlanders as a vestige of ancient brigandry. For the whole of Greece used to carry weapons, because the settlements were unfortified and the encounters insecure; so they used to live in arms just as the barbarians (Thuc. I.5.3-I.6.1). Like Herodotus, Thucydides was neither an ethnographer, nor concerned to elaborate his representation of the world. After all, he declared in the beginning of his work that, to his mind, ‘the ancient Greeks were living in a fashion similar to the existing barbar- ian one’ (I.6.6). This implies that the ‘modern’ Greeks were de facto superior to the bar- barians, and that it was impossible for the latter to reach the Greek status of living21. Regarding the ethne under examination, the Macedonians and the Thracians during the 5th-century BC, the period addressed in this paper, the question of evidence is problematic. As scholars have already demonstrated, few sources shed light on the The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography 

Macedonians’ conception of their own identity22. Nor is there written evidence con- cerning the self-consciousness of the Thracians. Therefore, as the main sources for the period are the texts of Herodotus and Thucydides it is important to bear in mind the fact that these identities were ascribed by the southern Greeks, mainly Thucydides. A second limitation, which also needs to be foregrounded, is that the concept of community discussed so far refers almost exclusively to a sense of ethnic conscious- ness at a national level. The lack of written evidence regarding these ethne during the Classical period prevents discussion of their sense of community. According to Morgan, our knowledge of their self-definition is limited to the geographical factor for the Thracians and the specific context of the period of the Peloponnesian war for the Macedonians. Having established these theoretical parameters, as well as their limitations, the task of the following sections is to explain Thucydides’ view towards the peoples residing in the northern areas of the Greek peninsula, namely the Macedonians and the Thracians (references to and Scythians are too rare to allow any firm conclusions). The first ethnos to be addressed is the Macedonians. In addition to examining Thucydides’ representation of them I will also consider whether contemporaneous definitions of the Greek community affected Thucydides’ narratology.

Thucydides and the Macedonians In 2006 I published a study of the representation of the Macedonians and their country by the of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC)23. In it I suggested that Thucy- dides’ references to the Macedonian people and their country have a clearly circumstantial character. Furthermore they are informed by the Poteidaea incident (432/1), the inter- vention of the Thracian king Sitalkes (429), and the military operations the Spartan gen- eral undertook in the area (424/3). Thucydides frames his representation of the Macedonians with the Spartan general Brasidas’ reference to them in the speech he made to his troops. In his harangue Brasidas clearly classified them as barbarians: ‘you should learn about these barbarians whom now you are afraid of, a part of them you have already fought against, the Macedonians among them, that, from my own estimate of them, and what I have heard from others, they are not strong’ (IV.126.3)24. Thucydides further estab- lishes this view in his narrative of Brasidas’ and Perdikkas’ campaign in in 424/3 B.C., when he wrote that “the Chalkidians and Macedonian cavalry [came to] nearly a thousand, and there was also a large mass of barbarians”25. These passages have provoked considerable discussion, especially during the late 20th century. Regarding the question of ethnicity, the question is: were the Macedonians Greeks? Or, rather, did Thucydides think of the Macedonians as Greeks or as barbarians? Most recently has argued in his Commentary on Thucydides, that “in the present passage […] Thucydides meant to suggest that the Macedonians were intermediate between Greeks and (utter) barbarians” (392)26. In my opinion, Thucydides did not intend to ascribe any negative value to the Macedonians. Furthermore, as Hornblower has indicated, and as shall be argued later, Brasidas’ speech, or Thucydides’ rendition of it, employs the appropriate lan-

Representations  Ioannis Xydopoulos guage a leader would use to rally his soldiers for an imminent battle. Besides consideration of Thucydides’ concern to create a credible narrative it may also be argued that it is un- likely that he would consider the Macedonians “barbarians”, or even “intermediates”, since this ethnic group’s royal dynasty had already been recognized as Greek in Herodotus’ account, which Thucydides also accepted27. In addition to this it was also known, again from Herodotus, that in the early 5th century BC the Macedonian prince and later king, Alexander I, was allowed to participate in the Olympic Games, after having his Hellenic descent proved to the Hellanodikai. Admission to and participation in these Panhellenic Games were undisputed criteria of ‘Greekness’. Thus it may be asked whether the Greek perception of this ethnos, the Macedonians, was mediated by their complex relationships with, on the one hand, the Greek colonies on the and the coasts of north- ern Aegean and, on the other hand, the inhabitants of the Macedonian kingdom? Perhaps the explanation for Thucydides’ use of the term barbarians may be found in this interac- tion of ethne. It would not seem fanciful to suggest that the answer to these questions may be found in this colonial context, which was a stage for acting out conflicts and competi- tions between local barbarians and the various Greek communities. An examination of some characteristic passages from Thucydides’ text offers a frame- work within which these questions may find answers. Thucydides’ account of Brasidas’ expedition in the Chalkidike peninsula records that it was a peninsula which runs out from the canal made by the Persian King, and culminates in Athos, a high mountain which projects into the . The cities on Akte include Sane, an An- drian colony… (and) the others are Thyssos, Kleonai, Akrothooi, Olophyxos, and Dion. These are inhabited by a mixed population of barbarians ‘barbarian ethne’, speaking Greek as well as their own language. A few of them are from Euboean Chalkis, but most are either (descended from the who once inhabited Lemnos and ) or else Bisaltians, Krestonians or Hedonians. They all live in small citadels28. It has been argued that in this passage Thucydides emphasizes the linguistic criterion, which was not of great importance to him29, as we shall argue in detail later. His use of the word diglosson (speaking two languages), should be interpreted as meaning speak- ing Greek and non-Greek languages. One important cause of this linguistic condition was the fact that these barbarian towns were established on the site of previous Greek settlements in the area30. It has also been suggested that Thucydides’ intention was to state that in his days a homogenous population, whether of Greeks or barbarians, no longer existed. It is impossible to move beyond speculations such as these regarding Thucydides’ intentions. Although this passage reveals little about Thucydides’ specific view of the Macedonians, as he would have had no reason to refer to them in regard to Akte, it nevertheless gives an impression of the contempory Athenian perception of the whole area. Considered in this sense the text shows firstly, that the Macedonians were not classified with these ‘barbarian ethne’, and secondly, that Thucydides distinguished between barbarians and those who spoke Greek. Thucydides’ references to the Macedonians need to be examined very carefully. On the one hand, when he writes “Perdikkas led his own Macedonian army and a force The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography  of supplied by the Greek inhabitants of the country” (IV.124.1), the Mace- donians and the Greeks are clearly distinguished. However, two other passages reveal that he also considered them separate from the barbarians: “...the entire Greek force came to about three thousand, the Chalkidian and Macedonian cavalry [came to] nearly a thousand, and there was also a large mass of barbarians...” (IV.124.1); and “... the Macedonians and the mass of the barbarians...” (IV.125.1). The opposition between IV.126.3 (cf. above) and IV.125.1 is obvious: the Macedonians are clearly distinguished from the barbarians31. Simon Hornblower has, in my opinion rightly, suggested that Thucydides’ view was inconsistent. As has been commented, Brasidas’ incorporation of the Macedonians into the barbarians may be explained by the fact that his speech was meant to encourage his soldiers and it was not a representation of Thucydides’ own opinion of the Macedonians32. A contrast is offered by Thucydides’ classification of “a large mass of barbarians” in (IV.126.3), which implies that these barbarians were other tribes and of a totally different status to the Macedonians. In addition to this, the definition of the Macedonians’ native allies as barbarians (IV.124.1) clearly establishes their difference from both the Macedonians and the Greeks. Furthermore, Thucydides provides a narrative of the Macedonian expansion in the region, and describes how the Hedonians, Bottiaians and Krestonians were among the people conquered or driven out by the Macedonians. In this account he clearly confirmed the region’s multi-ethnic character: It was the of today – the Macedonia by the sea – which had been acquired first by Alexander, the father of Perdikkas, and by his ancestors, being Temenidae coming from Argos in early times, and they reigned expelling by force of arms the Pieres from , who later settled Phagres and other small places beyond the Strymon under Mt Pangaeum (indeed the land be- tween Pangaeum and the sea is still called today the Pieric Gulf ), and the so-called Bottiaei from Bottiaea, who now live as neighbours of the Chalkidians. (4) And they acquired a narrow strip of alongside the river Axius, running down from inland to and the sea. Beyond the Axius they cultivate the land called as far as the Strymon, having driven the Edones out. (5) And they expelled also the Eordi from what is now called Eordia (the majority of them perished and a small part of them have settled by Physka) and the Almopes from . (6) And these Macedones acquired both from the other tribes the places which they still hold to- day, namely Anthemous and Crestonia and Bisaltia, and from actual Macedonian tribes a large amount of land. The totality is called ‘Macedonia’, and Perdikkas was king of them (i.e. king of the Macedonians) when Sitalces was invading33.

Thucydides and the Thracians In connection with both Brasidas’ campaigns and the Macedonians and Sitalkes the second ethnos Thucydides frequently mentions (twenty-one citations) is the Thra- cians34. For ancient writers, especially those writing in the Classical Period and later, the Thracians, who as is now known spoke an Indo-European language35, were considered a primitive people. In the sources, they appear to comprise the warlike and ferocious tribes living in the mountains of Haemus and Rhodope, as well as the peaceable inhabitants of the plain. The latter were those who had first come into contact with the Greek colo- nies on the Aegean coasts and the Propontis. By the 8th century B.C. Greek settlements

Representations 10 Ioannis Xydopoulos had been established at Abdera, Maroneia, Aenus, Perinthus, , , and Mesambria36. The river Axius formed the western boundary of the Thracian tribal region for both Hecataeus (FGrHist 1, F 146) and Herodotus (VII.123.3). Hecataeus mentions Chalastra, Therme, and Sindonaei as the first three towns of the Thracians east of Axius, although Herodotus differs and sites the Mygdonians there. From the Early there was also a strong Thracian presence in Pieria, which is confirmed both by archaeological finds and by the literary evidence. The Thracians, who took on the name Pieres from this country, when was founded by Eretrian settlers on the coast, came into contact with them37. Thucydides’ text also reveals the emergence ofThrace as a geographical term. It appears this way in fifty-three cases, along with three uses of the adjective Thracian. While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss all these citations in detail, some comment on the term Thracians is called for. Thucydides uses the term Thracians with a range of senses or meanings: firstly, as a military force (in five cases); secondly, as the Odrysian king Sitalkes’ subjects (in three cases); and finally, in a general sense (in three cases). He also refers to other Thracian tribes, which he calls autonomous (seven cases)38. Two explanations may be given for the semantic range and versatility Thucydides confers on the term. Firstly, it further confirms the fact that he was a Thracian and northern expert, and so knew the and geography of the region and its tribes39. Secondly, it corroborates the view, articulated by Herodotus, that the Thracians lacked political unity, even though in Thucydides’ time the was established. The question of Thracian unity is significant as it would have made them invincible40. It may be argued that Thucydides’ mention of the different Thracian tribes provides plausible support for the following hypothesis: in his narrative Thucydides uses the general term Thracians to denote all the tribes which were Sitalkes’ subjects, and he treats separately all the other remote Thracianethne , often described asautonomous to indicate that they were not controlled by the Odrysian king41. The most characteristic example of the latter is the case of the autonomous mountain Thracians, who inhabited Rhodope and who bore knives (machairophoroi) (Thuc. II.96.2 and VI.27.5). It is important to highlight Thucydides’ clear differentiation between Thracians and Greeks. He almost never calls the former ‘barbarians’, except in one instance, when he discusses a Thracian mercenary force which had come to help the Athenians in their 413 Sicilian expedition. It is a striking case. Despite their arrival the Athenians decided not to employ the mercenaries and sent them back. Not only had the Thracian men, who belonged to the ‘autonomous’ tribe of Dii and resided above the Rhodope moun- tains (II.96.2), arrived late in order to depart for Sicily, but the price for their services would be too high for the almost devastated Athenian economy (Thuc. VII.29.1). The Athenian commander Diitrephes was instructed to escort the mercenary force back to Thrace with clear instructions to inflict as much damage as possible in . However, the Athenians were not prepared for the brutality the Thracian mercenaries unleashed in the infamous incident of the attack on the village of Mykalessos. They killed almost everybody, including the pupils of a school and then razed the village. The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography 11

Thucydides comments on this incident twice, terming it as the most unfortunate of the whole war42. Thucydides accepted that war produced atrocities, but only between the fighting forces. What happened at Mykalessos broke the rules and conventions of war that innocent people were not to be killed43. The combination of blood-thirst and cow- ardice with which he characterises these Thracians were common topoi used in literary definitions of barbarians. Thucydides’ description of this case signals a clear conception of cultural difference between Greeks and barbarians: the latter lacked areti [virtue], a characteristic virtue of the former. Although the memory of this slaughter probably informed the subsequent connection, in tragedy, of any unfortunate incident with Thracian cruelty44, Thucydides, despite being critical, appears reluctant to classify these mercenary Thracians as barbarians. He wrote: “the Thracians, when they are not afraid, like most of the barbarians, are blood-thirsty”. I think that the use of word ‘like’ (omoia) is significant. Thucydides frames the whole incident as an exception, albeit striking and brutal, to the normal course of war. It was also an exception to the normal behaviour and attitude of the Thracians. A political intention may be underlie Thucydides’ apolo- getic position: not only were these Thracians mercenaries employed by the Athenians, but their commander was also Athenian, and thus responsible for their behaviour. Had Thucydides unequivocally termed these Thracians, and in effect their Athenian -com mander, as barbarians in a text addressed to the Athenian public45 he would be acting against the ideological supremacy Athens had been developing since the foundation of the and which he himself upheld. It was in Athens’ interest to promote a negative image of the barbarian to justify the League’s and its own leading role against the threat of the exotic barbarian46. Thucydides clearly sought to avoid blurring the cul- tural definitions that underpinned this ideological position. Attic tragedy of the second half of the 5th-century reflects this ideological representation. In plays from this period a more generalised and negative image of the barbarian is encountered in the guise of a uniform genos (genos here suggesting kinship, not culture)47 with determined modes of behaviour instead of any specific enemy, such asa Persian or a Thracian48. Another factor that may have informed Thucydides’ treatment of the Thracians was that many Thracian metics were living in Athens. The community had grown as a re- sult of the extensive relations between Athens and the coastal colonies on the north- ern Aegean. Thucydides himself was half-Thracian in origin, which would most likely have influenced his representation of the Thracians. However, the fact that Thucydides introduces himself as an Athenian in the very first sentence of his work should not be overlooked. Simon Hornblower has pointed out that Thucydides did not use his (demos) name, although it was part of his official name, as this would have been inappropriate in a work intended for the wider world. Thucydides appears to have dis- tinguished between his personal identity and his identity as a historian. In book IV, when describing himself and his own actions he acknowledges his Thracian origins. Thucydides calls himself “Thucydides, the son of Olorus”. The latter was a royal Thra- cian name, which also helps to explain Thucydides’ financial interests in Thrace49. Thus the fact that he expressly declares himself an Athenian suggests that this identity must

Representations 12 Ioannis Xydopoulos have been the dominating influence on his representation of these ethnos. One may go on to posit that his own partly Thracian origins had little influence on the expression of these views.

Thucydides’ view It may be suggested that Thucydides’ writing was informed by threeHellenic perspec- tives. Firstly, the so-called ‘colonial’ perspective, through which his fellow Athenians, as well as other southern Greeks, viewed the inhabitants of the north Aegean re- gion. The Greek colonies located on the shores of Pieria and the Chalkidic peninsula doubtless contributed to the image of these lands as inhabited by barbarians. This was certainly the case in , for example, where the colonists refused to accept its Greek inhabitants as Greeks50. As is characteristic of colonial the na- tives residing in the newly discovered areas were perceived by the colonists as the ‘other’ with whom they had either to cooperate with in commerce, for example, or to cope with in disputes or war. The fact that some of these natives were Greek-speaking probably mattered little; the same was the case of the Sicilian Greeks, whom Thucy- dides calls Sikeliotai (III.90.1), a term not found in Herodotus, who, when referring to the Sicilian Greeks, writes “the Greeks living in Sicily”. The Sikeliotai could be regarded as a ‘sub-Hellenic’ entity, whose identity coalesced in the colonial sphere of southern . However, as territory serves as a criterion of ethnicity, by providing a homeland to the Sikeliotai Thucydides implies an ethnic dimension to this identity. Furthermore, the existence of other native Sicilians needs to be considered in this construction of a specifically Sikeliote identity. The presence of native Sicilians living within the self-proclaimed boundaries of Sikeliote territory would have enforced the Athenian view of them as outsiders and consolidated their colonial identity. Return- ing to Thucydides’ view of them as the native allies of the different Greek powers, it is apparent that he defines them as barbarians in contrast to both the ‘colonial’ Sikelio- tai and Italiotai and the Greeks of the ‘old country’. Therefore it may be argued that the Greek colonial experience played an important role in the crystallization of both aggregative and oppositional notions of Greekness. Needless to say, in this process native ethnic groups were seen as opponents51. The ambiguity of the boundary between Hellas and barbarism is most apparent in the case of the communities on the northern periphery of Greece. Their ethnicity was ques- tionable, especially when their speech – Herodotus’ second criterion of hellenicity – was not intelligible to Greeks from further south52. In addition to this, certain traits of these indigenous populations must have contributed to this barbarian image: all these ethne certainly had their own material cultures, languages, cults, and other customs53. Even in the example of , it is worth mentioning those populations Thucydides considered Greek: the people of Ambracia (II.68.5, 80.5) and Amphilochian Argos (II.68.3-5), in other words, the inhabitants of colonies. Colonization meant helleniza- tion, and this is vividly depicted in the preceding passage (II.68.3-5)54. The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography 13

The second of the hellenic perspectives, the geographical factor, would have informed at the very least the Athenians’ conception of their region, if not that of others: Thrace, which included Macedonia, was outside the geographical boundaries of Hellas. Un- fortunately, the identification of the geographical area of Hellas is problematic. In my opinion, it was still limited to the south of Thessaly, although in Thucydides’ time the term had taken on a wider meaning. Herodotus’ comment that is ‘the gateway to Hellas’ (VII.176.2) suggests the validity of this argument. Similarly, the 4th- century Periplous, written by Pseudo-Scylax, indicates that Thessaly was understood to be the northern frontier of Hellas: “Hellas begins in Ambracia and reaches up to the Peneios river (in Thessaly) and the Magnesian city of Homolion”55. Other literary sources, from the 4th to the 1st centuries BC, reveal the survival of this geographically limited understanding of the term Hellas. Thucydides’ view is that of an outsider. His construction of a specific Macedonian or Thracian identity was influenced by the presence of other non-Greek populations with- in the boundaries of what had become known as Thracein the era of colonization, part of which was during his time Macedonian territory. The Greeks used the general name Thracians to refer to the local tribes, although some of them were not of Thracian ori- gin56. Further evidence that the southern Greeks designated the entire area, especially the Chalkidike peninsula and the various ‘Greek’ cities on its coasts, as Thrace is re- corded in the Athenian Tribute Lists up to 438/7. The entries for the Chalkidian cities belonging to the Delian League are recorded either as ‘tribute from Thrace’ or simply ‘Thracian tribute’. Besides the epigraphic evidence, literature confirms this geographi- cal perspective through the many references to the Greek colonies in Macedonia and Thrace57. Furthermore, fifth-century tragedy reflects the shifting physical “boundaries of Hellas”, though it develops poetic landmarks symbolic of the gateway from Hellas to barbarism, such as the Symplegades, the ‘crashing rocks’ which guard the way into the Black Sea58. Thus it appears that in accordance with contemporaneous criteria the tragedians regarded parts of western Asia and the Aegean islands as Greek. However, for Greeks the most problematic boundary between Hellenism and barbarism was lo- cated among the tribes of the mainland in northern Greece, where Hellenic influence was at its strongest. A passage in ’ Supplices describes the extent of mainland Hellas as stopping short of the Thracians and Illyrians, but including the Aetolians and Ambraciots. Unfortunately, Aeschylus’ description does not make clear whether the Macedonians were to be included59. The third hellenic perspective informing Thucydides’ text was political. This was the decisive criterion for Thucydides. Use of the Greek language was apparently insufficient to characterize someone as ‘Greek’. For the Athenian historian, the polis-perspective was the determining influence. The foundation for his thinking was that of a polis with its distinctive political culture, lifestyle, and institutions. For Thucydides an ethnos’ politi- cal system was a fundamental criterion. Basileia must have left the Athenians with bitter memories, since in literature it is always connected to the term barbaros. Thucydides’ text clearly illustrates this: in describing the Peloponnesian attack on Akarnania in 429

Representations 14 Ioannis Xydopoulos

BC, he writes that “the Hellenic troops with Knemos consisted of Ambraciots, Leukadi- ans, and Anaktorians, in addition to the one thousand Peloponnesians with whom he ar- rived. He had also contingents of barbarian troops: there were one thousand , a tribe that is not governed by a king”60. The Macedonians and the Odrysian Thracians also had kings, which begs the question why did Thucydides not characterise them also as barbarians? Two arguments may be advanced regarding the status of the Macedoni- ans. Firstly, they could be regarded as a ‘sub-Hellenic’ entity, since their genealogy was comparable to that of other Greek ethne (see note n. 27). Secondly, the Macedonians had acquired territory, which by providing a homeland served as a criterion for ethnic- ity. However, this territory was also inhabited by other ethne, such as the Thracians and the Illyrians. Thucydides himself, in II.100.5, clearly distinguished between Thracians and Macedonian cavalry, which clearly supports the idea of at least a military distinction between Macedonians and outright barbarians. The Macedonian collectivity satisfied the two criteria for ethnicity identified by J. Hall, namely territory and descent. It may be argued that their identity remained consistent due to the presence exerted by the native barbarians and the Greek allophylloi [belonging to another ethnos]. On the other hand, the Thracians, whether living either in Athens or on the Thracian coasts, were not, in my opinion, perceived as exotic barbarians. Neither were they considered Greeks, which leads one to surmise that they were treated as intermediates, like the Macedonians, who were Greeks in origin, but not considered Greeks by all southern Greeks. Perhaps, some of the Thracian metics were even among the xenoi [foreigners], who participated in the funerary procession at the end of the first year of war (Thuc. II.34.4), thus making them- selves less xenoi and more intermediate in the eyes of Athenian citizens. Noting that in 5th-century literature Hellenes was a label used to designate ‘the whole Greek-speaking world’, E. Hall went onto argue that ‘it was then and only then that the barbarians could come to mean the entire remainder of the human race’61. Thucydides does not say how barbarians were recognized in his times, which was probably due to the fact that like most ancient writers he did not bother to state the obvious. Thucy- dides’ emphasis on the linguistic criterion of non-Greek speech as defining barbarism62, may also explain his distinction between the Macedonians and the barbarians. Recent research revealing that Macedonian speech was in fact a Greek dialect which may have borrowed Thracian and Illyrian technical terms, casts doubt on this63. In the 5th cen- tury it is apparent that a Greek dialect was classified as ‘barbarian’ if it was found suffi- ciently unintelligible. When for example in ’s (341c) implied that Pittacus’ Lesbian tongue was difficult to understand, he called it ‘barbarian’. Such a classification is striking as the Hellenic descent of the Lesbians was never questioned and was inside the boundaries of Hellas64. In contrast the Macedonians lived in what E. Hall has termed the grey area between Hellas and Thrace. This geographical factor together with their use of dialect explains why, in the works of Thucydides and other contemporary writers, other Greeks perceived them as different65. Thus, it may be argued that it was the multi-ethnic character of the Macedonian kingdom that made Thucydides the historian, as well as other writers, clearly distinguish between Macedo- nians and Greeks. The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography 15

Modern Historiography and Thucydides’ view Readers of ancient Greek history from the mid-19th century to the present will recog- nise the authors’ attitudes towards the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks, by the way they present the significance of the Macedonian kingdom for Greek history. In many histories of , the author’s opinion is revealed by the chronology adopted. That the year 338 BC, when the Macedonian king Philip II defeated the coali- tion forces of Athenians and Boetians in Chaeroneia, represented the end of Greek his- tory is a position associated with the so-called ‘classicist’ conception of Greek history. This was first articulated by the Greek historiographers of the Roman Imperial period, when Greeks and Macedonians were considered two distinct ethne. Both political rea- sons and the need for the Greeks to express their ‘national’ sentiment explain this his- toriographical construct. However, the reasons for its resurrection in modern times are rather complex and cannot be fully addressed in this present chapter. Undoubtedly, the inter-European conflicts of the second half of the 19th century, which centered around powerful, emotive concepts of nationhood, frequently exerted a powerful effect on the treatment of ancient Greek history. Indeed, one of the founders of history as a critical science, B.G. Niebuhr, viewed ’s achievements negatively. He con- sidered him and the as alien to the Greeks. It may be claimed that Niebuhr’s views were shaped by his personal experiences, as he drew a parallel between Alexander, as conqueror, and Napoleon. Examples such as this clearly show the necessi- ty of a critical awareness and revision of the historiographical treatment of Macedonia’s role in history, as well as how much work remains to be done in this regard. A thorough study of the use of the term ‘national’ in modern Greek historiography is similarly beyond the scope of this article due to its breadth and complexity. Neverthe- less, a telling instance of the influence of this term on modern Greek historiography, with particular regard to the ancient Macedonians, signals the significance of this topic. By the end of the 18th century, the ideas of the European Enlightment had gradually begun to penetrate the , with the result that some Greek intellectuals realised they were heirs to a great past. Consciousness of this history became one of the stimuli for the Greek revolt of 1821. While early Greek nationalists based their ideals almost completely on the classical past, this changed midway through the 19th century under the influence of Spyridon Zambelios and Constantinos Paparrigopoulos, whose writings had a profound impact on Greek historiography. Both Zambelios and Papar- rigopoulos, despite their differences, reflect the ideology of mid-19th-century Greek . In particular, they sought to tackle the major unfinished tasks of the liberation movement that had started back in 1821: the restoration of a dubious continuity of the Greek nation based on the consciousness of a united Greek ethnos and the creation of a strong Greek state encompassing all Hellenes. Following that line of thought, there appeared a tendency in the historiography of the period to place the concept of the ‘na- tion’ at the centre of Greek history. To counter the skepticism regarding the ‘Greekness’ of modern Greeks as expressed by some European historians, such as J.P. Fallmerayer, and to provide the young kingdom with a means of national identification, Paparrig-

Representations 16 Ioannis Xydopoulos opoulos developed the so-called ‘continuity thesis’. According to this interpretation, there exists an unbroken connection between the ancient and modern Greeks by way of the Macedonian kingdom, the and the Greek Orthodox Church. Thus the small Greek state of the mid-19th-century became the heir to a great past and as such it inherited the duty to strive for the resurrection of the Byzantine Empire. According to the continuity thesis, which is still the basis of mainstream Greek histori- ography, the ancient Macedonians were rightly classified as Greek, for they belonged to the same broader nation as the southern Greeks. Moreover, Alexander the Great was a powerful symbol of what Greek genius and perseverance could achieve. Today, it is known both from the literary and epigraphi- cal sources of the Classical and Hellenistic periods that the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians cannot be disputed on a scientific basis, especially since from a lin- guistic point of view the Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect. It cannot be denied that the nation-centered tendency of modern Greek historiography created a kind of ‘official’ historiography. The national oversensitivity of the 19th and early 20th -cen turies, when the main political issue was the unification of the Hellenes, soon became a feature of political abuse. Nevertheless, this tendency has been displaced during the last three decades by a new historiographical trend which has adopted new theoreti- cal approaches and concepts66. Modern scholars, considering ancient population groups and trying to define ethnicity, tend to apply anachronistic criteria, such as a shared language, which can be problem- atic. For example, it may be claimed that it is inappropriate to apply the term ethnicity, invented in the mid-20th century, to an ancient phenomenon67. It has been argued that in the Archaic period of the Greek mainland, the culturally authoritative criteria of eth- nicity were descent and homeland, not language. There is evidence of the importance of the criterion of descent for the Macedonians, as at least two genealogies ascribe a Greek descent to their eponymous ancestor, Makedon68. Since, on the other hand, one cannot deny that ethnicity, for anthropologists and sociologists, includes ‘culturally based col- lective identities’ of ‘indigenous groups… based primarily on religion, language, politi- cal organization, [and] racial categorizations’69, we must assume that the term ‘barbar- ian’ would not have lost its original linguistic sense in the Archaic period in order to find it again in the Classical period. Recently, J. Hall has denied that Macedonia was a ‘melting-pot’ for ethnic groups. He based his objection on three arguments: i) it is not language, religion, and culture that ultimately define ethnic identity, but a shared kinship; ii) Macedonia was not in the periphery of a consolidated Greek world, since other (non-Greek) populations resided in the Greek peninsula and the Aegean islands and were not considered Greek; and iii) the 5th century constitutes a transitional phase ‘during which the form (aggregati ve>oppositional) and the content (ethnic>cultural) of the Greek identity underwent a profound development’70. Although he is right in assuming that Macedonia was not peripheral to a Greek world, the fact that the sources themselves, such as Herodotus, Thucydides, or Strabo71, refer to various pre-hellenic peoples or ethne actually living in The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography 17 the northern region of the Greek peninsula, some of whom were later incorporated into the Macedonian kingdom, disproves his rejection of the ‘melting-pot’ theory72. In addition to this, archaeology also provides strong evidence for the progress of accul- turation among the various peoples on the shores and in the hinterland of the northern Aegean. Burials in , Trebenishte, and Duvanli indicate that these interactions date back as early as the 6th century73. It is therefore no coincidence that on the island of Samothrace inscriptions in a non-Greek language, although written in Greek script, have been discovered. These have moreover been interpreted as Thracian74. Not only do these dedications clearly show that both Greeks and non-Greeks used the Samothra- cian sanctuary of Kabiroi from the second half of the 6th century but they are an early and interesting example of mixed settlements, which may be compared to those on Akte, mentioned by Thucydides75. Absolute boundaries are difficult to draw for the historian, and as E. Hall has stated, ‘ethnic groups shade off into one another and interaction and interdependence have led to a high degree of acculturation’76. The case of the ethnos of the Bottiaei, re- siding in the Chalkidike peninsula, is one example that justifies E. Hall’s remark and proves that Macedonia (or Thrace) was a melting-pot. The crucial issue here is that it cannot be determined whether they were of Greek origin or not. While some scholars take their Greek origin for granted others have suggested, on the basis of archaeological finds, that the Bottiaei were not Greeks, but instead a hellenized ethnos almost identical to the Greeks77. P. Flensted-Jensen has recently advanced the following conclusions: the Bottiaians understood and spoke Greek; they were considered as Greeks in Classical times; and they were early hellenized barbarians78. Thucydides, who always referred to them in close connection to the Chalkidians in Thrace, does not make any comments about their origin, probably because he also thought of them as Greeks.

Conclusion To sum up: Thucydides approached the northern communities of the Macedonians and the Thracians from a Hellenic perspective. However, he treated neither of these ethne as extremely exotic and barbarian. Irad Malkin has argued that this treatment resulted from the fact that the outskirts of the Greek world, once reached, explored, and colonized, probably seemed not so much absolutely alien as more of ‘the same’. The Greek world was geographically close and known through maritime contacts, and its communities were approachable through personal relations and trade. Nor did religion display sharp distinctions. There the primary difference affected rituals and priorities, rather than mental outlooks79. This treatment could be easily understood in the Ar- chaic period of Greek history (8th-6th cent. BC), when a strong Hellenic center, which would have created bipolar differences, had not yet been established. In the Classical period, when Thucydides wrote his Histories, there was a clear recognition of a ‘we’. As far as the Greeks were concerned, their sense of identity rested on three pillars: the colonial view, the geographical factor, and the political criterion.

Representations 18 Ioannis Xydopoulos

Notes 1 See in general, A. Cohen, The Symbolic Construction of Community, London 1985. 2 N. Rapport, J. Overing, Social and Cultural Anthropology. The Key Concepts, London 2000, pp. 62-63. 3 C. Morgan, Ethne, Ethnicity, and Early Greek States, ca. 1200-480 B.C.: An Archaeological Perspective, in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, I. Malkin (ed.), Cambridge (MA) 2001, p. 77. 4 C. Morgan, Early Greek States beyond the Polis, London 2003, p. 12. 5 A. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Oxford 1986, pp. 21-31. 6 W. Isajiw, Definitions of Ethnicity, in “Ethnicity”, 1974, 1, pp. 111-124. 7 E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition through Tragedy, Oxford 1989, p. 6. 8 Homer, Iliad 2. 867. For the Heraclitus fragment see H. Diels, W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokra- tiker, Bonn - Leiden 1951, v. 1, 22, fr. B 107. 9 Pindar, Isthmia VI, 24. 10 Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., 1989, p. 8; J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge 1997, pp. 45-46. 11 W. Burkert, Herodot als Historiker fremder Religionen, in G. Nenci, O. Reverdin (eds.), Herodote et les peuples non grecs, Entretiens Hardt 35, Geneva 1990, p. 5; Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., pp. 21-25; Hall, Ethnic Identity cit., p. 46. 12 K. Meister, Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus, Co- logne 1990, pp. 14-15. 13 Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., p. 7; R. L. Fowler, Genealogical thinking, Hesiod’s Catalogue, and the Creation of the Hellenes, in “Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society” 1998, 44, pp. 9-10; J. M. Hall, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture, 2002, pp. 127-128. 14 M. Finley, The Use and Abuse of History, London 1971, p. 125, remarks: “It was Hesiod, apparently, who first gave literary expression to the belief that all Greeks had a common progenitor, Hellen. Hence the collective name, Hellenes”. See Hesiod, Fragmenta, 9.1. See also I. Weiler, The Greek and non-Greek in the Archaic Period, in “Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies”, 1968, 9, p. 23. 15 H. C. Baldry, The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought, Cambridge 1965, p. 22 among others, argues that these lines have long been regarded as an interpolation. Otherwise, it may only refer to the population of northwest Greece as opposed to the . See Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., p. 7. 16 This is vividly depicted in Herodotus’ argument that there was a feeling of kinship between the Greeks from the point of view of origin, language, religion and customs (Herodotus, VIII.144). 17 W. Nippel, Griechen, Barbaren und “Wilde”, Alte Geschichte und Sozialanthropologie, Frankfurt am Main 1990, p. 283. 18 Nippel, Griechen cit., p. 283; I.S. Moyer, Herodotus and an Egyptian Mirage: the Genealogies of the Theban Priests, in “Journal of ”, 2002, 122, pp. 71-73; Burkert, Herodot cit., p. 5; Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., pp. 21-25; P. Cartledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others, Cam- bridge 1993, p. 38; Hall, Ethnic Identity cit., p. 46. 19 Hall, Ethnic Identity cit., p. 47, though I cannot agree with his over-simplistic distinction between an “aggregative” ethnic identity before the Persian Wars (i.e. built up on the basis of similarities with peers) and an “oppositional” identity after the Persian Wars. 20 F. Hartog, The Mirror of Herodotus. The Representation of the Other in the Writing of History, Berkeley -Los Angeles 1988. See also Cartledge, The Greeks cit., pp. 55-56; Hall, Ethnic Identity cit., p. 45. 21 I.K. Xydopoulos, Koinonikes kai politistikes scheseis ton Makedonon kai ton allon Ellinon, Thessaloniki 20062. 22 Hartog, Mirror cit., pp. 356-357; Nippel, Griechen cit., p. 25. The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography 19

23 Xydopoulos, Koinonikes cit., pp. 56-61. Some preliminary thoughts on the Athenian attitude towards the ‘barbarian states’ in the north of the Greek peninsula were expressed by E. Badian, Philip II. and Thrace, in “Pulpudeva”, 1980, 4, pp. 51-71. 24 See Thuc. IV.126.3. 25 Thuc. IV.124.1 and IV.125.1. 26 S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. II, Oxford, 1996, pp. 390-393 and especially p. 392. 27 Herod. V.22.2. See also Thuc II.99.1-3 and V.80.2. For the views expressed by scholars on these passages see Xydopoulos, Koinonikes cit., p. 51 n. 86. 28 Thuc. IV.109.1 ff. 29 B. Funck, Studie zur der Bezeichnung βάρβαρος, in E.C. Welskopf (ed.), Soziale Typenbegriffe im alten Griechenland und ihr Fortleben in den Sprachen der Welt, volume 4, Berlin 1981, p. 39. 30 A.W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. III, Books IV-V24, Oxford 1966, pp. 588- 589, argues that these were foreigners who spoke Greek as well as their own tongue and were not com- pletely hellenized. For the populations in the region and their treatment by the early Macedonian kings see N.G.L. Hammond, A History of Macedonia. vol. I, Oxford 1972, pp. 437-439; N.G.L. Hammond, G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia vol. II, Oxford 1979, pp. 62, 64-65; M.B. Hatzopoulos, L.D. Loukopoulou, Recherches sur les marches orientales des Temenides (Anthémonte-Kalindoia) 1ère partie, Athens 1992, pp. 30-31. 31 Gomme, Historical Commentary cit., p. 612, argues that these were the coastal cities which “were pre- dominantly Greek but had long been within the Macedonian kingdom, Strepsa, , and others”. About this Greek hoplite force, see M.B. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings. A Historical and Epigraphic Study, I-II, Athens 1996, pp. 106-108 (esp. p. 108, n. 1) who argues that there were along the coast “if not genuine Greek colonies, mixed Greco-barbarian settlements, such as Pella, Ichnai, Chalastra, Sindos and Therma” and that it was probably these cities which provided the bulk of the Macedonian hoplite forces mentioned in 5th-century sources. 32 Hornblower, Commentary cit., pp. 390-393. 33 II.99.3 [trans. by N. G. L. Hammond, The Macedonian State, Oxford 1989, p. 51]. For the Macedonian expansion see Hatzopoulos, Institutions cit., pp. 169-171; also Hammond, Macedonia cit., vol. I, 192- 193 (for the Bisaltians), 179-182 (Grestonia), 427-428 (Hedonians); Gomme, 1996, p. 589. Contra J. Hall, Contested Ethnicities: Perceptions of Macedonia within Evolving Definitions of Greek Identity in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge MA, 2001, p. 165ff. 34 See I.57-58, 62, 65, 100, II.96-101, IV.7, 102, 107, 109, V.6. 35 C. Brixhe, A. Panayotou, Le thrace, in F. Bader (ed.), Langues indo-européens, Paris 1994, pp. 179-203. 36 J. M. Ross Cormack, s.v. Thrace, in S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Third edition revised, Oxford 2003, p. 1515. 37 VIIa.1.11.1. See Hammond, Macedonia cit., vol. I, p. 417. 38 See Thuc. II.96.1-3. 39 See Hornblower, Commentary cit., vol. II, p. 339 for the other citations from Thucydides’ work, which prove his expertise. 40 Thelocus classicus in Herodotus is V.3.1. 41 A.W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, K.J. Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. IV, Books V25- VII, Oxford 1970, p. 405. 42 Thuc. VII.29.1 ff. See also Z.H. Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Unmasked, Ox- ford 1998, p. 100. 43 J. de Romilly, Les barbares dans la pensée de la Grèce classique, in “Phoenix”, 1993, 47, pp. 287-288; Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdomcit., p. 100.

Representations 20 Ioannis Xydopoulos

44 Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., pp. 107-110, 122-126; Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdomcit., p. 100. 45 For the historians and their audience, see A. Momigliano, The Historians of the Classical World and Their Audiences: Some Suggestions, in “Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa”, 1978, 8, 1, pp. 59-75 (for Thuc. esp. p. 66). 46 Hall, Hellenicity cit., p. 187. 47 F.W. Walbank, The Problem of Greek Nationality, in “Phoenix”, 1951, 5, p. 47. 48 Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., p. 161; W. Nippel, The Construction of the “Other”, in T. Harrison (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians, Edinburgh 2002, p. 291. 49 S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. I, Oxford 1991, pp. 4-5. 50 I. Malkin, Greek Ambiguities: “Ancient Hellas” and “Barbarian Epirus”, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Per- ceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge (MA) 2001, pp. 187-212. 51 C.M. Antonaccio, Ethnicity and Colonization, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge (MA) 2001, pp. 113-157, esp. 120-121. 52 Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., p. 177. 53 Antonaccio, Ethnicity cit., p. 121. 54 Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions cit., p. 196. 55 C. Müller, Geographi Graeci Minores I, Paris 1882, pp. 35-36. 56 A.J. Graham, The Colonial Expansion of Greece, in Cambridge III, 3, Cambridge, 1982, p. 115. As Hammond, Macedonian State cit., p. 48 has suggested, when the defeated Persians withdrew in 479, ‘the Chalkidians drove the Thracians out of the middle prong, Sithonia, and the Athos penin- sula became a refuge for small communities from Crestonia, Bisaltia, and Mygdonia’. He thinks that Al- exander I had promoted the policy of Macedonian coexistence with the natives east of the Axius river. It is there, he assumes, that the Greek language was adopted and the annexed peoples were becoming bilingual in the mid-5th century, as well as in the communities of the Athos peninsula. 57 See, e.g. (Quaest. Graec. XI) and his description of the adventures of Eretrian colonists, who sailed in ‘Thrace’, founding Methone around 730 BC; Herod. VII.123.3; Thuc. II.99.4; See also Ham- mond, Macedonia cit., pp. 425-426. 58 Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., p. 166. 59 Aeschylus’ Supplices 250-258; Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., p. 170. 60 Thuc. II.80.4-5. See S. Hornblower,Thucydides , Baltimore 1987, p. 194 and Hornblower, Commentary cit., vol. I, p. 80 for his commentary. 61 Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., pp. 11 and 170; cf. pp. 166-167. 62 Thuc. II.3.4, 2.68. In her study of the invention of the barbarian, Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., p. 179, remarks that the word barbaros originally referred solely to language, and simply meant “unintel- ligible”. That it could retain this sense in the 5th century is shown by the use of a cognate in the descrip- tion of the clangor of birds (, Ant. 1002). 63 On the Macedonian language see e.g. C. Brixhe, A. Panayotou, Le macédonien, in F. Bader (ed.), Langues indo-européens, Paris 1994, pp. 205-220; C. Brixhe, Un “nouveau” champ de la dialectologie grecque; le macédonien, in Atti del III Colloquio internazionale de Dialettologia Greca, “Annali dell’Istituto univer- sitario orientale di Napoli”, 1997, 19, pp. 41-71. 64 The meaning of the term Hellas has been treated repeatedly. See J. Hall, The Odrysian Kingdom cit., pp. 125-171 for the most recent (to my knowledge) conclusions – despite some exaggerations – on the subject as well as the previous bibliography. 65 See Xydopoulos, Koinonikes cit., pp. 60-98 for these references and their various explanations. 66 For a brief overview of how the term nation has been used in modern Greek historiography, see N. Svoronos, Analekta neoellinikis Istorias kai istoriographias, Athens 1982, 77-18. For a thorough search The Concept and Representation of Northern Communities in Ancient Greek Historiography 21

regarding Macedonian studies in particular, up to 1980, see M. Hatzopoulos, A Century and a Lustrum of Macedonian Studies, in “The Ancient World”, 1981, 4, pp. 91-108. 67 M. Todd, Migrants and Invaders, Charleston 2001, p. 14; I. Malkin, Introduction, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge (MA) 2001, p. 3. 68 Hesiod, , fr. 7. 69 S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity, London - New York 1997, p. 61. 70 J. Hall, Contested Ethnicities: Perceptions of Macedonia within Evolving Definitions of Greek Identity, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge (MA) 2001, pp. 165-167. 71 See, e.g. the mention of various tribes in these northern areas in Herod. VII.110-115; Thuc. II.99.3; Strabo, Geogr. VIIa.1.11.1. 72 See, e.g., Strabo VII.1.41.1ff.. Hammond, Macedonia cit., vol. I, pp. 405-441 undertakes full-scale analysis of the sources and of the presence of various (non Greek) tribes and ethne in Macedonia and Thrace. 73 Hecataeus (FGrHist 1, F 146). For mixed Greco-barbarian settlements see Hatzopoulos, Institutions cit., pp. 106-108 (for Sindos, p. 108, n. 2; for Therma, p. 108, n. 3); J. Bouzek, I. Ondrejova, Sindos- Trebenishte-Duvanli: Interrelations between Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, in “MedArch” 1 (1988), pp. 84-94. 74 For their language, see G. Bonfante, A Note on the Samothracian Language, in “Hesperia”, 1955, 24, pp. 101-109; A.J. Graham, 1982, p. 118; K. Lehmann (ed.), Samothrace, vol. II, pt. 2, New York 1960, pp. 8-19. 75 Cf. note 28. 76 E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian cit., p. 170; Jones, 1997, ch. 5. 77 P. Flensted-Jensen, The Bottiaians and their poleis, in M.H. Hansen, K. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Historia Einzelschriften95), Stuttgart 1995, pp. 109-110 for the references. 78 Flensted-Jensen, Bottiaians cit., p. 110. 79 I. Malkin, Introduction cit., p. 14.

Bibliography Primary Sources Aeschylus -Page D. (ed.), Aeschyli Septem quae supersuntTragoedias, Oxford 1972. Archilochus -West M. L.(ed.), Delectus ex Iambis et Elegis Graecis, Oxford 1980. Hecataeus -Jacoby, F. (ed.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist), vol. Ia, Leiden 1957. Herodotus -Hude C. (ed.), Herodoti Historiae, vols. I-II, Oxford 1975. Hesiod -Merkelbach R.- West M. L. (eds.), Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum,Oxford 1970.. Homer Iliad -Munro D. B.-Allen T. W.(eds.), Homeri Opera, vol. I, Oxford 1982. -Munro D. B.-Allen T. W.(eds.), Homeri Opera, vol. II, Oxford 1979..

Representations 22 Ioannis Xydopoulos

Odyssey -Allen T. W.(ed.), Homeri Opera, vol. III, Oxford 1979. -Allen T. W.(ed.), Homeri Opera, vol. IV, Oxford 1985. Pindar -Bowra C. M. (ed.), Pindari carmina cum Fragmentis, Oxford 1958. Plato -Burnet J. (ed.), Platonis Opera, vol. III, Oxford 1989. Plutarch -Hubert C.- Ziegler K. et al. (eds.), Plutarchi , vols. I-VII, Leipzig 1908-1967. Sophocles -Pearson A. C. (ed.), Fabulae, Oxford 1961. Thucydides -Jones H. S. (ed.), Thucydidis Historiae, vol. I, Oxford 1974. -Jones H. S. (ed.), Thucydidis Historiae, vol. II, Oxford 1979.

Secondary Works Antonaccio C., Ethnicity and Colonization, in Malkin I. (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cam- bridge (MA) 2001, pp. 112-157. Bader F. (ed.), Langues indo-européens, Paris 1994. Funck B., Studie zur der Bezeichnung βάρβαρος, in Welskopf E.C. (ed.), Soziale Typenbegriffe im alten Grie- chenland und ihr Fortleben in den Sprachen der Welt, vol. 4, Berlin 1981, pp. 26-51. Hall E., Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition through Tragedy, Oxford 1989. Hall J.M., Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge 1997. Id., Contested Ethnicities: Perceptions of Macedonia within Evolving Definitions of Greek Identity, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge (MA) 2001, pp. 159-186. Id., Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago 2002. Hammond N.G.L., A History of Macedonia. vol. I, Oxford 1972. Id., Griffith G.T.,A History of Macedonia, vol. II, Oxford 1979. Id., Literary Evidence for Macedonian Speech, in “Historia”, 1994, 43, pp. 131-142. Hornblower S., A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. I, Oxford 1991. Id., A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. II, Oxford 1996. Jones S., The Archaeology of Ethnicity, London - New York 1997. Kalléris J., Les Anciens Macédoniens, I-II.1, Athens, 1954-[repr. 1988]. Malkin I. (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge (MA) 2001. Morgan C., Ethne, Ethnicity and Early Greek States, ca. 1200-480 B.C.: An Archaeological Perspective, in I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Cambridge (MA) 2001, pp. 75-112. Nippel W., Griechen, Barbaren und “Wilde”, Alte Geschichte und Sozialanthropologie, Frankfurt am Main 1990. Id., The Construction of the “Other”, in Harrison T. (ed.), Greeks and Barbarians, Edinburgh 2002, pp. 278-310. Zahrnt M., Die Entwicklung des makedonischen Reiches bis zu den Persenkriegen, in “Chiron”, 1984, 14, pp. 325-368.