“We, the undersigned scholars of Graeco-Roman antiquity, respectfully request that you intervene to clean up some of the historical debris left in southeast Europe by the previous U.S. administration.”

“On November 4, 2004, two days after the re-election of President George W. Bush, his administration unilaterally recognized the “Republic of Macedonia.” This action not only abrogated geographic and historic fact, but it also has unleashed a dangerous epidemic of historical revisionism, of which the most obvious symptom is the misappropriation by the government in Skopje of the most famous of Macedonians, Alexander the Great.”

http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html

That said, there are a few points in this article which could do with some clarification.

In a couple of places, it uses the phrase “sources suggest” to introduce a theory. This phrase is a little misleading: these sources are modern scholars, not ancient text. No ancient text has anything to say about the identity of either Cleopatra’s mother or her grandmother(s).

Also, Strabo does not say that Cleopatra’s father had multiple wives nor that they were of high status. What he does say is that Cleopatra’s elder sister was their father’s only legitimate daughter — and the accuracy of that statement is disputed.

While it is (most likely) true that Cleopatra spoke Egyptian, it’s a bit of a stretch to infer that this reflects her mother’s influence. She was clearly a skilled linguist, being able to speak 8 or 9 other languages beside — including Hebrew, Troglodytic, and “Ethiopian”. Why is this not evidence that her mother was a Jew? a Troglodyte? Or, indeed, black African?

The theory that Cleopatra’s mother came from the Egyptian religious elite has been used to explain why her legitimacy was not attacked by Roman sources, by scholars who accept the accuracy of Strabo’s statement. But exactly the same theory has been proposed for her father’s mother — to explain why his legitimacy _was_ attacked by Roman sources, even though he was accepted as king in Egypt. In both cases, it is purely speculative. It rests on an earlier marriage (whose existence is also disputed) between a Ptolemaic princess (whose mother is unknown) and a High Priest of Ptah. It is the father of this High Priest who is the most likely subject of the statue found in Algeria.

Cleopatra’s maternal ancestry, regardless of its ethnic makeup, has some relevance to establishing _ancient_ ideas of what constituted dynastic legitimacy. But the argument about whether she was black, like the argument about whether Macedonians were Greeks, is about _modern_ politics. It is tiresome and irrelevant.

To David Emery: If there were any Persian blood, it would be so far back as to be miniscule. Stacy Schiff’s novelistic biography has a good deal of speculation in it. And you’re right that racial designations can degenerate into numbers and statistics, often used for nefarious purposes. Your comments demonstrate in the long run the very point I am trying to make: race doesn’t matter, and is usually used negatively.

And for the record, what does “person of color” mean in this context (or any other). Is a ‘classic’ light skinned Egyptian a ‘person of color’? What about a Persian? How much pigmentation is required to get this designation, or is this based on other either ethnic/racial characteristics?

The Ancient Greeks had a very good understanding of who were Greek and who were not- there was never a grey area for them. Ancient Macedonians (called ‘Makedons’ by Herodotus and Thucydides) were never considered Greek; stories remain from ancient texts- notably Herodotus- of specific Macedonian kings like Alexander I (Macedon King during the early 5th century) claiming Greek ancestry, from the city-state of Argos I believe. Paraphrasing, he claimed to be:

“A Greek king ruling over a barbarian people”

Herodotus recalls him going over to Greek side before the Battle of Platea (479BC) and giving advice, despite the fact he was fighting with the Persians. He also recalls him participating in the Olympic games- something you had to be Greek to do.

It is likely that Herodotus got most of his sources from Athens, who around the mid fifth-century would have wished to paint the Macedonian KING (as opposed to the general people) as Greek in order to maintain a steady supply of pitch and timber from the Macedonian forests, to maintain their navy. Whenever Athens had no use for the Macedonians, she considered them as barbarous as other tribal people north of Thessaly.

The rhetoric of Demosthenes in the fourth-century certainly painted them as such, although this must be taken with a pinch of salt since he had utter political motives.

The Macedonians that defeated the poleis in 338 at Chaeronea would go on to spread Greek language and traditions over Asia and yes, Egypt…Much like the Romans continued to up to the middle ages. But to class them as “Greek” themselves would be erroneous in my opinion. Although “Macedonians with Hellenistic identity” doesn’t really have such a nice ring to it.

Sorry to waffle, very refreshing article aside from that.