Editor, Archaeology Magazine
36-36 33rd Street
Long Island City, NY 11106
U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

I opened the January/February issue of Archaeology today and eagerly turned to "A Letter from Macedonia" only to discover that it was actually a letter from ancient Paionia – the land north of Mt. Barmous and Mt. Orbelos. Livy’s account of the creation of the Roman province of Macedonia (45.29.7 and 12) makes clear that the Paionians lived north of those mountains (which form today the geographically natural northern limits of Greece) and south of the Dardanians who were in today’s Kosovo. Strabo (7. frag 4) is even more succinct in saying that Paionia was north of Macedonia and the only connection from one to the other was (and is today) through the narrow gorge of the Axios (or Vardar) River. In other words, the land which is described by Matthew Brunwasser in his "Owning Alexander" was Paionia in antiquity.

Early relations between Macedonia and the Aetolian Confederacy, unlike their contacts in the Hellenistic Age, have not been often subjected to historical investigation. Inspite — or rather because — of this relative shortage of modern studies historical constructs do not agree in details. Historians dealing with a rapid growth of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II admit that Aetolia belonged to his closest allies even in the last years of the king’s reign. This friendly attitude is commonly believed to find proof in transferring Naupactus from the Achaean Confederacy to the Aetolians with help from Philip II after the battle of Chaeronea. This consensus [2], however, was disturbed by an unconventional historical reconstruction presented by A. B. Bosworth [3]. The sequence of events as presented by Bosworth was not unquestionably accepted, but still demands discussion since the person behind it is undoubtedly counted among the most influential recent historians of Alexander the Great [4].

The so-called Donations of Alexandria, a Ptolemaic royal ritual in 34 BCE, is an important but puzzling landmark in the development of the Roman Near East. At this theatrical, public ceremony, of which relatively detailed accounts survive in Plutarch’s biography of Antonius and Dio Cassius’ Roman History, [1] the triumvir Marcus Antonius solemnly promised to Kleopatra VII Philopator and her infant children rulership over the east “from the Hellespont to India”, a domain that was largely identical with the empires of both the Ptolemies and Seleukids at their greatest extent.

The celebrations lasted several days. The key ceremony took place in the gymnasion, the usual location for coronations in Alexandria. Like actors on a stage, Antonius and Kleopatra and her four children - three of whom were also Antonius’ children -  
performed on an elevated dais before the royal household, the royal guard and members of the Alexandrian citizenry. Kleopatra and her eldest son Ptolemaios XV Caesar (‘Caesarion’), with whom she shared the Ptolemaic kingship, were proclaimed Queen of Kings and King of Kings of the enormous empire outlined above. Antonius’ children by Kleopatra - Alexandros Helios, Kleopatra Selene, Ptolemaios Philadelphos - received lesser, albeit still magnificent royal titles. Kleopatra was dressed as Isis, Antonius presumably as Dionysos; Alexandros Helios wore the attire of an Iranian king, and Ptolemaios Philopator the generic royal dress of a Hellenistic king. The only participant, who was not awarded royal honours, was Antonius, the Roman.

Greek authors talking about actions by a popular assembly of Greek polis regularly use the term ekklesia while referring to this institution. This noun is often applied to the assemblies in the states in which other designations for this institution had the official character. Ekklesia became, therefore, thanks to Athenian model mainly, a generic term for "the Greek popular assembly". Today historians, however, are fully aware that at Athens ekklesia had demos as a synonym [1], so in documentary evidence as in literary works. Ancient authors sometimes retain the wording of decrees they quote, but translating the documentary style of decrees into a language comprehensible to a broader circle of readers is more common. The question how ancient Greek authors rendered state’s working, decree-passing procedures and names of acting assemblies was analysed for the polis-states, yet other forms of political organisation in Greece there is no specific study [2].

The most notable exception is the Macedonian assembly that is also the most important scholarly problem among the better researched non-polis, assemblies. This privileged situation of the Macedonian assembly does surprise, since it is the central problem in the discussion on the constitutional (or non-constitutional) character of the Macedonian monarchy [3].   

One hundred eighty-three words, nearly a full page of the manuscript, portray Philip on three campaigns: against Methoni, against Byzantium, and, amidst a description of his talents and character, against Athens. Though this text resurfaced briefly, and obscurely, in 1838, its importance for Philip and for Byzantine scholarship has never been examined. Brad L. Cook describes the contents of the Philip epitome, translates it and compares it to ancient tradition.

L'iscrizione che ci accingiamo ad analizzare non ha lungi 'storia' bibliografica: edita nel 1949 da G. Daux e successivamente ripubblicata nel 1968 de Klaffenbach in IG, IX, 1,2 è stata per molto tempo ignorata della critica, che non ne ha mai prodotto una trattazione specifica.

Il documento epigrafico che ci accingiamo ad analizzare ha ormai una lunga <<storia bibliografica>>. Inscritto su una piccola stele di granito, riutilizzata in una chiesa nei dintorni di Oleveni (attualmente appartenente alla repubblica di Macedonia-Fyrom, sito poco a nord del confine con la Grecia), esso viene pubblicato per la prima volta nel 1948, ma rimane praticamente ignorato finché, nel 1970, F. Papazoglou non vi punta per prima l'attenzione, intuendone la potenziale importanza storica.

There have been certain fallacies circulating for the past few years due to ignorance on the“Macedonian Issue”. It is exacerbated by systematic propaganda emanating from AVNOJ, or communist Yugoslavia and present-day FYROM, and their intransigent ultra-nationalist Diaspora.

Students of antiquity usually follow Jakob Attje Otesen Larsen and believe that the notion koinon, ethnos and sympliteia were “official” or semi-official designations for Greek Leagues. [1] This view was challenged by Adalberto Giovannini, who argued that the terms klinon, ethnos, sympoliteia had no legal meaning. Consequently, Giovannini concluded that there was no difference between federal states and unitary ones in ancient Greece. [2] The most systemic and powerful defence of traditional views was presented by Frederick W. Walbank in a short study entitled “Were there Greek federal States?” [3]