William Greenwalt

MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES Karanos 1, 2018 123-127 WILLIAM S. GREENWALT Santa Clara University Interviewed by M. AGUDO VILLANUEVA Universidad Complutense de Madrid [email protected] A. I. MOLINA MARÍN Universidad de Alcalá de Henares [email protected] In this first issue of Karanos, the Editorial Board wishes to give recognition to one of the main promoters of Ancient Macedonian Studies, William Steven Greenwalt of Santa Clara University. Greenwalt is well-known in our field, although perhaps he has not received appropriate credit for his contributions since he is yet to publish a book length manuscript. Nevertheless, he is a scholar who has primarily contributed, not to the scholarship on Philip II or Alexander the Great, but to the study of the Argead Dynasty and its significance. Thanks to his work, issues such as that of royal Argead charisma and polygamy are now widely discussed among Macedonian scholars. In addition, he has popularized the name Karanos, accepted during the 4th century b.c.e. as the legendary founder of the Argead Dynasty. Perhaps more importantly for our current purposes, we have chosen Karanos as the appropriate title for our new journal: as such, Karanos will perhaps found another (hopefully) lasting legacy. It seems then appropriate to begin with Greenwalt as we launch a series of interviews in what will be a recurring element of our publication which we will entitle, Main Voices in Ancient Macedonian Studies. A student of Harry Dell and much influenced by Erich Gruen, Greenwalt has developed a research line focused upon religious themes, having been strongly influenced by anthropological perspectives. Many of his ideas have been challenged by other Macedonian scholars, but so have the ideas of almost every other student of the ancient world. As such, we think that Greenwalt’s contribution to the study of ancient Macedonia will influence Argead scholarship for some time to come. Beyond a doubt, we think he has helped to advance and energize the study of our field. eISSN: 2604-3521 ISSN: 2604-6199 WILLIAM GREENWALT [INTERVIEWER]: First, let me say that it is a honor to have you ask me these questions. Even though compared to many, I have published but a modest amount, but your questions mean that I am being taken seriously. Thank you. Let’s start with the origin of the kingdom of Macedon. What do you think regarding its nature, were they an ethnic group or a federation of states? [GREENWALT]: As to the origin of the Macedonian kingdom, I do not think that all its inhabitants were from one ethnos, at least from the reign of Alexander I. In addition, my hunch is that from an early date there was a fair amount of marriage between lower Macedonians, upper Macedonians, Illyrians, Thracians, and polis dwelling Greeks. Nor do I think that kingdom was a group of federated states. There obviously was some kinship link between those in upper and lower Macedonia, but upper Macedonia was not a part of the Temenid (I prefer Argead) realm until the time of Philip II. There were close ties (sometimes) between the Temenids and the royal houses of some of the nearer, upper Macedonian regions, but once you get to the west of Bermion, the upper Macedonian cantons were essentially independent. Kings like Perdiccas II may have thought they were the overlords of the rest, but wishful thinking is not reality, as Thucydides proves. I believe the kingdom was long held together because those in the Temenid king list were thought to be divinely ordained (Herodotus) --a right recognized throughout lower Macedonia. It may be a repeated question for the academic world, but it is almost an obligation to make it. In your opinion, Macedonians: Greek, not Greek or depends? To me, it really doesn’t matter. By the fourth century, the institutions of the poleis had evolved so far beyond what the Greeks saw in Macedonia, that many could address the Macedonians as barbarians. I suspect, however, that the bulk of the Macedonians were of Greek extraction. Tombstones and divine names are dominated by Greek names, although there were some that don’t appear elsewhere. What impresses me is how much the Macedonians began to align themselves with Greek culture at large and with the Greek tongue, understandable by other Greeks. The Macedonian dialect itself apparently could not be understood by other Greeks, but the relative isolation of the Macedonians allows for that. If you go to northern England today and talk to most of the locals, especially in the countryside, you probably will not understand the local jargon, if you don’t look closely at their lips. Still, those who live from York northward to Scotland, read standard English. I doubt many Macedonians were literate until very much past the Classical Era. Some scholars have pointed out the existence of a kind of popular assembly among the Macedonians. This question contradicts the full powers we know the argead dinasty had. What do you think about the real influence of this institution? Karanos 1/2018 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES 124 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES I don’t believe in constitution assembles of any sort until the Temenids were no more. I admire his scholarship very much, but all of Hatzopoulos’ evidence for such groups is either not from Macedonia proper during the Temenid dynasty, or from the Hellenistic Era. I believe that, in theory, the kings of the Macedonians were absolute in authority, divinely established. But, kings don’t rule in theory. They rule because the are followed, or they don’t rule for long. No matter how small the realm, a king can’t be everywhere at once, so the good will, especially of the Hetairoi, was necessary to give the king some reach. No sane king would completely ignore advice given by his subjects and they would have been keenly interested in the king abiding by the “law” (=tradition). Woe to the king who thinks he can do anything he wants, whenever he wants. Even Alexander the Great realized this most of the time. In your opinion, what are the reasons for the longevity of the Temenid dinasty and its marked archaic character? The longevity of the dynasty, I believe, had everything to do with the foundation story told by Herodotus: that is, the line of the king was divinely ordained and guided. As to its archaic character, although tomb deposits prove that the Macedonians traded with others, mostly polis Greeks, but Macedonia didn’t really engage with the rest of Greece until the Persian War. The early Temenids had little power or wealth, and were constantly defending what they had from others, especially Illyrians. In the fifth century, this begins to change some under Alexander I and Perdiccas II, but the pace of Hellenization (and by this I mean that espoused the those in cities) really begins to accelerate under Archelaus. Still, kingship ran deep in Macedonia (look at what happened when the Romans tried to abolish kingship, without taking direct control of the realm), and kingship is a trait most other Greek states had grown beyond. Thrace and Persia had a great influence throughout the history of Greece. Macedonia was a part of the Achaemenid Empire in the fifth century BC. On the other hand, they lived in continuous relationship with Thracian during much of its history. In what sense does this contact mark the idiosyncrasy of the Macedonian people? I have published in several articles, what I believe to be true: that is Temenid kingship was very much influenced by Thracian notions of kingship. Persian kingship is of another kind. Persia’s influence across western Asia and southeastern Europe is manifest, even at an early date. I believe that the Macedonians, Thracians, and others paid heed to Persia, even before the Persians essentially annexed lower Macedonia for a time. But Persia was far away (mostly) and I think its influenced diminished with distance. Archealus hosted during his reign several poets, musicians, tragedians, sculptors and painters from Southern Greece, like Agathon, Euripides, Zeuxis, Callimachus or Cherilus. Was he a point of inflection in the kingdom of Macedonia or was it a trend already evident since Alexander I’s time? Karanos 1/2018 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES 125 WILLIAM GREENWALT I have again published in several pieces that I think the rate of Hellenization in Macedonia was greatly accelerated by Archelaus, but like Borza, I don’t think that any Temenid king wanted to become a Greek. These kings and the subjects rather absorbed what they liked about Greek culture into their unique realm. Alexander I may have competed in the Olympic Games, and Greek goods can be found in Macedonian tombs, but I see no real evidence for a large attempt to appropriate Greek ways until Archelaus. After all, he created a Macedonian Olympics precisely to allow all Macedonians (probably, especially the Hetairoi) to compete for the kind of honors that were denied those who could not “prove” their Greek ancestors. Obviously, by the end of the fifth century, more Macedonians were assuming some Greek ways, but I don’t see much until Archelaus. What role did Harry Dell play in impulsing the Macedonian studies in USA? I think Harry Dell, a student of Charles Edson at Wisconsin, did a lot for Macedonian studies in the U.S. About the time he came along, besides Gene Borza (an exact contemporary at Penn State), I don’t think there was much attention paid to Macedonia in the Americas (although Beth Carney was working at Duke). An interesting fact is that he and Gene planned to co-write a version of the book Gene later published some 15 years after Harry’s death. Dell would have an even bigger scholar in Macedonian studies if he had not passed (cancer) when he was either 47 or 48 (I don’t recall the month of his birth) in 1981. Dell certainly was the reason I decided to do graduate study at UVa. Anson, Borza, Adams and you come from the University of Virginia, Would it be correct to say that existed a “School of Virginia” for the Macedonian studies? In the early 70’s Dell began to churn out several dissertations dealing with the late Temenid period and the early Hellenistic Era. Not everyone attracted to UVa did work in Macedonian history, but increasing Virginia was becoming a hub for Macedonian studies. Ed Anson, Lindsay Adams, Frank Collins (who chose a career in the foreign service, rather than the path of scholarship) all were finishing up their dissertations, or had just finished when I came on the scene. When I started graduate work in 1976, others began their work at UVa, too. Pat (now Dintrone), Frank Holt, and Roxane Gilmore (who didn’t finish, but who did marry Jim Gilmore, the one time governor of Virginia and Presidential candidate), began to very interested in Macedonia and the Hellenistic Era. Other students began to flow in, but the interest in Macedonia took a big hit in 1981, when Dell died. Unfortunately, Harry did not take the lead in my dissertation since he died just as I was beginning (the unfortunate soul who saw me through was Lindsay Adams). When Virginia decided not to follow with a second Macedonianist, whatever “Macedonian school of Virginia” might have become, pretty quickly died. Borza was a close friend of Dell, but never at Virginia. He studied at Chicago and taught at Penn Karanos 1/2018 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES 126 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES State. I may be wrong, but I think that Dell had more would be Macedonian students than did Borza when he was alive. Karanos 1/2018 MAIN VOICES IN ANCIENT MACEDONIAN STUDIES 127