Fighting Fashionable Historical Nonsense - #1 John Shea

[Ptolemy]

These series of articles will expose to public eyes authors, often self-proclaimed historians, that deliberately misrepresent and manipulate historical evidence. It is sometimes hard for a reader to distinguish between a book about historical events published by an historian, having a huge academic scholarly work to back up his claims and a book that its main aim is to be bestselling, often written by amateur writers of history, nevertheless trying to disguise it under the veil of a scholarly accurate work.

The latter is often politically motivated, as some authors rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using a number of techniques to obtain their results. One such fine example is the following paragraph, taken from the book of John Shea "Macedonia and Greece: The struggle to define a new Balkan Nation". The author John Shea, using a number of selective use and fabrication of known facts, assumptions of unproven facts and lastly logical fallacies attempts to misrepresent and manipulate Alexander's matriarchal origins.

Lets analyse his falsifications further:

Alexander's Ancestors

It is often said that Alexander the Great was at least half Greek because whatever ethnicity characterized his father, his mother, Olympia, was Greek. She was a Molossian from Epirus, a group that some historians have believed was Greek by language and culture. However, authoritative writers have explained the ethnic make-up of the Molossians as they do that of the Macedonians: the upper classes adopted Greek ways and the Greek language, but were not Greek by birth. Relying on the writings of Strabo from Roman times to form this judgment, R.A. Crossland raises doubts about this supposed Greek ethnicity, noting the strong presence of Illyrians in Epirus. Although Greek was well established in the region, he says it may simply have been used by the leading families. Crossland says that even the existence of inscriptions in Greek around 370 B.C. does not prove that Greek was the original native language of the Molossians since the concept "Epirotic" may go back only to the fourth century B.C. and be basically geographic.
Furthermore, Crossland points out that the Greek writer Thucydides described a neighboring group, the Chaones, as barbaroi though their leaders from the ruling family had Greek names. Similarly, he classed the Thesproti, the Molossi, the Parauaei and the Atintanes as barbarian by associating them with the Chaones and not listing them among the Hellenes. If the Molossi and other Epirotic groups were not really of Greek ethnicity, then Alexander's mother, a Molossian, was probably not of Greek ancestry. Thus, neither Alexander's mother nor his father was Greek.

The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation
by John Shea

Contrary to Shea's allegations 'authoritative writers' have described ancient Epirotes as being Greeks. Eminent historians like the late professor Nicholas Hammond who is considered wordwide as the best authority in ancient Epirus history, along with a number of other historians including Errington, E. Borza, D. Sacks, P. Cartledge, R. Morkot concluded that ancient Epirotan tribes ethnicity is way more clear than the one of ancient Macedonians and it was plain and simple Greek. For more read Modern Historians about ancient Epirus

Its at least suspicious, Shea especially ignores totally Borza's conclusion that Epirotes were Greeks - Ironically Borza was his favourite source in the entirety of his book about ancient Macedonia - and brings forward the "doubts" of R.A.Crossland as an somewhat conclusive proof about the alledged - according to Shea- non greek origin of ancient Epirotans. Furthemore, Crossland's opinion as we can all read, is based upon speculations. Notice the use of hypothetical words 'may', 'possibly'. Truth is that except the archaeological evidence proving the greek origin of ancient Epirotes, there are also a number of other factors making it even clearer such as Epirotan names being both in etymology and in roots undoubtedly Greek. Crossland's doubts are refuted by surviving ancient accounts where there is always distinction between Epirotes and Illyrians and numerous accounts making more than clear to everyone that Molossian royal house and population are Greek.

To quote the leading figure in the history of ancient Epirus NGL Hammond who summarizes all the known facts and puts an end to Shea's series of wishful thinking:

"The controversial issue, whether Epirotan Ethnes spoke greek has already mentioned previously inside this book. Its obvious that the Greek language was spoken during all Dark age in Dodona and in Nekromanteion. The latter was considered always as one of the Greek manteia (Herod. 1.46.3) where he talks about the “greek manteia” and the meeting of Herod. with the delegates of Periander is described as a normal action (Herod. 5.92)
The Cassiopeians likely spoke greek in that era, because the daughters of Aenieans went to offer worship among them and Molossians, who took part on Ionian immigration were obviously greek speaking, according to Herodotus.
The royal family of Molossis, mainly spoke greek and its members were considered Greeks from Pindarus, Herodotus and Thucydides, but they were not pure. These one way or another are just straws in the wind. The real evidence has came only with the recent discovery of the inscriptions of 370/368 BCE. They are completely in Greek, the names are Greek and the ethnes which are represented to these inscriptions are Molossian and Thesprotian. Greek language and greek names werent adopted suddenly before Peloponessean war. These ethnes were speaking Greek even before the time of Thucydides. We can conclude confidentially that Thucydides put the label “barbarians” onto the ethnes of S. Epirus, without any secondary meaning of non-Greek speakers anyway. They could spoke a more ancient form of Greek language - like the “other Amphilochians” who are too difficult to exist as a carrier of non-greek ethnes between the Greek speaking ethnes of S. Epirus, North Aetolia and Akarnania."

Translation from the Greek Book version into English.
"Epirus", Book III Page 109

[Amyntas]

Isnt John Shea related with our northern neighbours in someway?

[Xiotis]

Originally Posted by Giourkas

Isnt John Shea related with our northern neighbours in someway?

I read somewhere that his wife is from FYROM. If you read Shea and then look at Stefov/Stefou/Stefovski's articles you will see that he takes a lot of his passages from Shea.

BTW Ptolemy: nice work.

[Ptolemy]

Yeap, read carefully what he writes in his introduction of page 3.

"Probably everyone has heard the idea that the use of the name Macedonia by the Macedonians is a threat to Greece because it shows the expansionist ambitions of the Macedonians. Usually this idea is presented alongside the view that the name Macedonia is Greek in any case and should be reserved for Greek use. However the Greek claims go far beyond these assertions. This book presents ideas that contradict the Greek claims. In essence this book presents the counter-charge that the (formerly Yugoslav) Macedonians have a better claim to the name and the history of Macedonia than the Greeks in general, and even the northern Greeks who live in the lands that more than two thousand years ago formed the heartlands of the great Macedonian Empire. This might seem like an extraordinary position to take, given public perceptions about the issues. Such public perceptions stand as testimony to the effectiveness of the Greek presentation of their argument. However it is now my view that an alternative argument can be made convincingly. At the very least this indicates that the issues are not black and white. It also tells us some very important things about Greek nationalism and its possible role in shaping Balkan affairs."

Translation of the above:

John Shea DOES NOT claim to be unbiased. In fact he indirectly ADMITS he is BIASED against Greek position and naturally he adopts 100%FYROM's stance over the issue. Since the author himself, admits of being BIASED against a granted position (Greek), his further claims afterwards about "objectivity" in reference to facts are completely ludicrus, if not fatuous, and its quite visible in the text i have been already demonstrate his tremendous misinterpretations and deliberate falsification of history.

[Xiotis]

Originally Posted by Ptolemy

Yeap, read carefully what he writes in his introduction of page 3.

"Probably everyone has heard the idea that the use of the name Macedonia by the Macedonians is a threat to Greece because it shows the expansionist ambitions of the Macedonians. Usually this idea is presented alongside the view that the name Macedonia is Greek in any case and should be reserved for Greek use. However the Greek claims go far beyond these assertions. This book presents ideas that contradict the Greek claims. In essence this book presents the counter-charge that the (formerly Yugoslav) Macedonians have a better claim to the name and the history of Macedonia than the Greeks in general, and even the northern Greeks who live in the lands that more than two thousand years ago formed the heartlands of the great Macedonian Empire. This might seem like an extraordinary position to take, given public perceptions about the issues. Such public perceptions stand as testimony to the effectiveness of the Greek presentation of their argument. However it is now my view that an alternative argument can be made convincingly. At the very least this indicates that the issues are not black and white. It also tells us some very important things about Greek nationalism and its possible role in shaping Balkan affairs."

Translation of the above:

John Shea DOES NOT claim to be unbiased. In fact he indirectly ADMITS he is BIASED against Greek position and naturally he adopts 100%FYROM's stance over the issue. Since the author himself, admits of being BIASED against a granted position (Greek), his further claims afterwards about "objectivity" in reference to facts are completely ludicrus, if not fatuous, and its quite visible in the text i have been already demonstrate his tremendous misinterpretations and deliberate falsification of history.

This is the thread from the 'Makedon' mailing list where our friends discussed Shea's book when it was first released in 1997. Scroll down to item 11 to see the discussion pertaining to Shea. Even the 'Makedon' mail list participants saw that he was biased towards their arguments. One of the posts claims he was killed in a car accident. I have never been able to verify this. Incidently these archives provide an interesting insight into the mindset of our friends. The archives go back many years and you will see some of the usual characters participating:

MAKEDON LISTSERV ARCHIVES

[Ptolemy]

Dr John Shea / Our Staff / School of Psychology / Faculty of Science and Information Technology / The University of Newcastle, Australia

Research Areas:

Psychological factors that affect health, especially immune functions, allergies and cancer
Support groups for cancer patients
Personality factors as predictors of hypnotic talent, and the use of hypnosis for bodily change
Human sexuality



My PhD work at the University of Queensland was in the area of attachment behaviour in children. Following four years as a tutor at the University of Queensland, I went to the University of Papua New Guinea for seven years. Here I studied a variety of issues of concern to such a developing country, in particular questions about cognitive development and the measurement of cognitive skills.

I joined the University of Newcastle in 1979 and continued my interests in applied areas of psychology, teaching and researching in the areas of child development, human sexuality, and health. My applied interests were reflected also in my work as a practising psychologist during this period. For more than 25 years now I have worked as a consulting psychologist, and am a fellow and immediate past president of the Australian College of Practising Consulting Psychologists (ACPCP). Ongoing involvement with the practice of psychology includes work with Psychology Private Australia, the peak body of private practising psychologists in Australia.




Looks being specialized in 'attachment behaviour in children' makes you a qualified 'historian' in FYROM. 'nough said with this nutcase!

[Ptolemy]

Nice find Xioti. From the link you gave...

"From what vague details I remember John Shea is from Newcastle (NSW, Australia). He is married to a Macedonian-Australian. I believe this is how he gained an interest in Macedonian affairs."

I'm not sure about this but I think he may lecture at the University of Newcastle, or least has some form of academic qualifications or doctorate, but not in history. I could be wrong here. But I think it's clear he doesn't come from a background of Balkan studies, because in the introduction to his first book (see below) he stated "I began the process of discovery from a state of quite profound ignorance".

In 1992, he wrote a book called:

The Real Macedonians
Publisher: Macedonian Australian Human Rights Association, Newcastle.
ISBN 0 646 10504 3

Having read that book, plus the new one you mention Glen, it is obvious he is starting off from a pro-Macedonian position. However, if I can quote from his first book, "Despite my new-found cynicism about the Greeks, I have tried to present ideas that can be critically examined". I think he has achieved this aim in both books.

Personally, I think Shea's aim has been to redress a (perceived or otherwise) imbalance in scholarship on the Macedonian issue. Libraries are awash with books on Macedonia that emanate from Greece or promote the Greek nationalist position. Perhaps he felt it was time for an english language book that took an unashamedly pro-Macedonian position - to get the basic Macedonian position across to non-Macedonians. Again, as he states in the intro. to The Real Macedonians: "I do not claim to be unbiased, though in my examination of the evidence available to me I tried to be as objective as possible".

The following passage, can perhaps also give an insight to his motivation:

"When I began I had a deal of respect for the people of Greece.....However, my respect faded when confronted by the transparency of the lies of Greek propaganda, and by my discovery of the viciousness with which they have dealt with Slavic-Macedonians since they invaded Macedonia eighty years ago. Objectivity is difficult in the face of the brutal denial of human rights. Of Irish background myself, I share the feeling of Roger Casemant, an Irish patriot, who was executed by the British after the 1916 uprising in Ireland:

I know of two tragic histories in the world - that of Ireland and that of Macedonia. Both of them have been deprived and tormented."

He is simply just another propagandist, disguised under the veil of a "neutral" author for the vast majority of unsuspected readers.

[Spartan]

"I know of two tragic histories in the world - that of Ireland and
that of Macedonia. Both of them have been deprived and tormented."


Funny how he tries to compare the Slav-Macedonians with the Irish!

The Irish never tried to claim they were something their not, and they have not tried to steal anyones history. They can also prove their existence since ancient times, unlike the 60 year old "Ethnicity" of the MAKs!


This guy needs to do some self-examination using his own education. He should also take the child development he has studied and use it to analyze the claims of that child country!

[Orphic_Hymn]

Its true that John Shea's book titled "Macedonia and Greece: The struggle to define a new Balkan Nation" has brought wide smiles on the face of some of our Northern neighbors..

In one of R.Stefov's propaganda articles titled "Part 4 - Rise of the Macedonian Empire" we have the pleasure of reading a quote of J.Shea's book which proves the mallicious intent celebrated through his totally unhistoric approach of the Makedonian Question.

One would wonder why he'd quote the afrocentric fiasco promoted by Bernal when the 'out of Africa' theory has nothing to do with the social nor political aspects of the 'question', but then one remembers how the FYROMian government was impicated in the genetics fiasco (A. Arnaiz-Villena) in which science was employed into the little 'Gene War' they began.
In this 'Gene War' the FYROMian government and their hard core nationalists attempted through this fiasco to support that we Hellenes do not belong to the 'older Mediterranean substratum of peoples' and by doing so, claim that the population of FYROM predates even the earliest form of Hellenic civilization and thus have a legitimate right not only on the name and culture which is totally alien to them but also to the region, which according to them we illegally occupy.

While reading the quote presented in Risto's article we find futher proof of the unhistorical approach made by J.Shea through his choice of sources. We read:

He claims that up to a quarter of the Greek vocabulary can be traced to Semitic origins (which for the most part means the Phoenicians), 40 to 50 percent seems to have been Indo-European, and a further 20 to 25 percent comes from Egyptian, as well as the names for most Greek gods and many place names.

Indeed he does, of course the critisizm by scholars of the field is more than enough to understand why the specific source shouldn't have been selceted.
For example, Thomas G. Palaima, Professor of Cassics, University of Texas at Austin, in his "Latest rewrite of the roots script" explains..

- the breezy freedom with which he etymologises Greek words. For example, anthos "flower," nitron "niter" and the formative - nthos suffix are all said to come from Egyptian ntr . He places heavy emphasis on semantic correspondence, that is, if words in two languages look alike and can be said to have roughly parallel meanings, they derive one from the other or both come from a common root. It is pettifogging of historical linguists to use sound laws to trace any such words back to different roots.

and he continues:

Previous attempts to identify the extent of Semitic and Egyptian loan words in Greek are dismissed as flawed by rigid IE linguistic principles. These include two articles in the enemy's journal Glotta (Bertrand Hemmerdinger and A. G. McGready, 1968) and a full monograph by Emilia Masson (1967) working under the direction of Pierre Chantraine, author of the standard Greek etymological dictionary. Masson uses all previous work on this subject from Bochart in the mid-17th century through Muller and Muss-Arnolt in the late 19th century up through Semitist Michael Astour's study (1965) of the historical and mythical connections between Greek and Semitic cultures. If Indo-Europeanists and pre-Indo-Europeanists showed for 350 years reasonably strong interests in Greek-Semitic-Egyptian contacts and continue to do so - as in Yves Duhoux's elegant study (1988) of Mycenaean Greek lexical evidence for contacts between Greeks and non-Greeks - and have found little evidence for massive cultural interconnections, they must have prejudiced minds and faulty methods.

and he continues

To what lengths will this foolishness go? Bernal theorises in Cadmaean Letters (1990) and repeats here that the Semitic alphabet was transmitted to the Aegean area around the middle of the second millennium BC in conjunction with a colonisation and settlement of Greece by Phoenicians and Egyptians that was known and accepted by the ancient Greeks, but has been deliberately suppressed by modern Aryanists. However, there is no trace of Greek alphabetic writing until the early 8th century, shortly before which most students of Greek script and history place its introduction.

Anyway, while articles both for and against on the theory in question are out there and continue to be compiled even now, the true reason for the selected source becomes evident in J.Shea's closing statement of the selected quote:

For our purposes it is sufficient to note that even the current acknowledgment of the significance of Phoenician influence in the formation of ancient Greek culture indicates some of the ethnic mix that made up ancient Greece

Here we find the true issue or as J.Shea calls is "our purpose".
Unlike Bernal who is clearly interested in the cultural aspect of the 'out of Africa' theory, hence why he attempts (even though fallaciously to present an etymology for Athena) and under no condition centralizes on the possible intermixing between 'ethnicities'.
J.Shea turns it to the notion of some Nazi originated Aryan purity myth, which as mentioned above, supported by the FYROMian government's funded "Gene Wars" attempts to prove rights on what they perceive as their lands.


Lets close by again quoting Thomas G. Palaima's question:

To what lengths will this foolishness go?

[Ptolemy]

From the big stefov idiocies #1, i quote a paragraph of the known propagandist and constant liar Stefov where he is caught lying again in reference to John Shea.

This exact issue was tackled by Historian John Shea in chapter 4 of The Great Ethnic Mix of Greece, pages 77 to 96, in his book "Macedonia and Greece, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation". Among other things, John Shea proves that even the ancient people were not homogeneous.

It seems clearly John Shea was merely a tool, the well-known propagadists of FYROM used to pass their own gibberish through a illusory "neutral" author. As i said in a previous post, being specialized in 'attachment behaviour in children' it makes you a qualified 'historian' in FYROM, as long as you distribute their fantasies in their struggle to construct an 'identity'.