Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Aeacheans or Greeks - who sacked Troy?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Gordopolis (U5722839) on Thursday, 14th August 2008
I'm reading HG Wells' 'A Short History of the World'.
It's a cracking read and I can highly recommend it. Even though it seems that modern day archaeologists are making daily breakthroughs, it's interesting to read how much we knew of our history even back in 1920 when this was published.
One thing which confuses me though is Wells' assertion that the army of Agamemnon which beseiged Troy were of the Aryan/Nordic/Dorian Greek stock (the same Greeks who lived and fought through the rise of Athens, martial Sparta, battle Thermopylae etc), rather than the earlier 'Aeachean' stock.
As I had understood until now, The Trojan war was believed to have been fought between two essentially 'Aeachean' peoples, those of the city states on the Greek mainland and isles vs those of Troy. After this, the invasions of the northern peoples (Dorians/Aryans/Nordics) had triggered the Greek dark age, which lasted until the awakening of Athens in ~800bc.
I thought initially that this might be an 'understanding at the time of writing' issue, but a quick googling suggests the origin of the beseigers of Troy is still undecided.
I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on this one... -
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 15th August 2008
The latest (ongoing) excavations at Troy seem to support the theory that the city suffered several calamities during the Bronze Age. By Ö÷²¥´óÐãr's time it was largely a ruin and, judging by his assumption that its destruction in war was understood by his audience, the greatest of these calamities, from which it never really recovered, was by Ö÷²¥´óÐãr's time accepted to have been as a result of a siege and assault. He simply used that accepted story as a backdrop for his own story which centered not on politics (which he largely invented and populated from imagination - his own, or imaginative tales which had become tradition before him), but on Achilles.
What the archaeologists have also more or less confirmed is that Troy was by no means a Greek city, at least in the sense popularised by Schliemann and generally assumed for much of the period since then. Instead it seems to have had strong and long lasting ties with the Hittite empire, both culturally and politically and finds since 1995 of Hittite inscriptions (the first writing excavated from Troy) have reinforced this view.
This has started a flurry of activity in re-examining what is known from the Hittite record regarding assaults on that empire's political and trade dominance on the Anatolian peninsula. As yet however (largely due to the fact that the Hittites found themselves at war with almost every other ethnic and political grouping in its proximity over its lifetime) nothing concrete has been established linking Troy to a Greek, or even an Aechean assault. -
Message 3
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Thursday, 21st August 2008
Research the invasion of the sea people in Egypt, then look at the invasion of the meshwesh and the other tribes in the bible, and compare to the story of Troy.
Helen the word translates into ancient Egyptian as "The Face". And as you must know Helen is the face that launched a thounsand ships". Also, looking at the temple carvings in Egypt about the Sea People anyone with even a rudimentry grasp of history can identify jewish sidelocks, and Greek helmets and armour.
I'm sorry this is only brief but I only have limited time to type this.
Finally when did the Trojan War occur?
And when did the invasion of the Sea people occur?
Yep!!! -
Message 4
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 22nd August 2008
"Helen" (or a variant spelling thereof) in Greek simply means,"Greek". It i snot inconceivable that Greek women were captured and taken to Troy.
The Trojan War is reckoned to have taken place c. 1,250 BC.
Whatever the ethnic origin of the "Greeks" who took part in the War (if it happened), there is no doubt that the Doric Greeks strongly identified with Agamemnon et al. -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 28th August 2008
Normann once again when he refers to Greeks (he does not like as much as Romans) says whatever...
First there is absolutely no sign either inside Ö÷²¥´óÐãrs' poems or in excavations in the area to make us think that the Troyans were not Greeks! Secondly you have to know that a large part of archaiologists fanatically fought for Myceneaens to be classified non-Greeks just because "they did not resemble to Socrates or Pythagoras much" (as if Greeks are any golden nation of philosophers and mathematicians that was born in 600 B.C. and died in 100 B.C.) only to be so much dissapointed when two NON-archaiologists and with little personal knowledge of Greek easily proved that Mycenaeans were as Greek as any other culture that was developed in the area.
Second, Mycenaeans had already colonised much of the Mediterranean hence I think when it comes to Minor Asia it should be clear that a Greek city on the coast was more than the normal for the times.
Third, Ö÷²¥´óÐãr makes absolutely no racial, ethnic, religious or cultural distinction between Troyans and Achaians - maybe for facilitating his poems... however he mentions easily other national differences which is striking!
Considering the fact that we talk about times prior to the utilisation of the term "Hellenic" or "Greek", it is more than natural to suggest that you had a kind of continuum of tribes habitating from the Greek peninsula to Minor Asia and this continuum was in terms of people, dialects and cultures. Now who became later "Greek" or "Thraecian" is of little importance.
No matter if Troy was a colony or a city of local people - certainly a wealthy one and a rather cosmopolitan one - one thing is most probable: the two opposite armies spoke rather close dialects and could understand to an extend each other (for comparison, just imagine that much later in classical times the isolated Phrygians in the depths of Minor Asia and Greeks still had the ability to communicate on a basic level).
Dorians have nothing to do with Caucasus, are not "indoeuropeans" (nothing like that existed ever) and did not come from the north. They were merely an offshoot of Macedonians and it is mainly them that defined the later Greek culture. -
Message 6
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 28th August 2008
Ö÷²¥´óÐãr might not have distinguished (why would he?), but I was not talking about the content of his story. I was talking about the archaeological evidence taken from Troy itself.
By the time Ö÷²¥´óÐãr was writing the area was very much considered a part of the Greek world. But that means nothing in the context and is in no way helpful in deciphering the clues that do exist from a period many centuries before his time. -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 28th August 2008
I am with you that there is no conclusion about the actual "ethnic" origins of Troyans. However judging from those aforementioned archaiologists' (a lot of local Greek ones included!) cold shower when Ventris and Chadwick proved them stupid, I would not jump into any conclusions about Troyans being far from Achaians! If Phrygians on the inner side of the peninsula still spoke a language closely related to Greek (without Greeks being there) what more natural than to imagine that Troyans and Achaians were brothers/cousins/whatever relationship you want. A kind of relation that other Greek tribes had with each other.
My view is that we are talking about an extremely small geographical area with a very easy access by sea habitated by sea people. -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 28th August 2008
It doesn't matter what you feel Nik. We're talking about the political and cultural ties that the city enjoyed at the time the "Trojan War" (or whatever incident might lie behind the story) actually happened and what the archaeological data supports. What's emerging with increasing regularity from the 90s suggests it was, at least during this crucial period, Hittite.
But the other thing that the archaeological record shows is that any destruction caused during this period pales into insignificance compared to earlier and later disasters, something that Schliemann discovered early on in the archaeological investigation of Troy and which really confused him, leading him to catastrophically wrong conclusions regarding dating his finds.
When the archaeology reveals anything different I'll let you know. -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 29th August 2008
60% of Greeks were allied with Romans against the other 40% of Greeks. Even when the king of Macedonia tried once again to unite Greeks against Romans he failed. Now even if you claim that Troyans were allied to Hittites that tells us nothing about their own local culture or ethnic origin.
Note also that were are talking about times prior to the existence of the term "hellenic", we are talking about times that Mycenaean kingdoms were no much different in many aspects of culture than the Hittite kingdom. Personally I "feel" that archaiologists who were not capable to "feel" the proper ethnic origins of Mycenaeans, they are not in position to point the ethnic origins of Troyans (note down, a city sacked 7 times).
As for Hittite presence in the coast, there is not much proof of any substantial presence of them there (that excludes any circumstantial alliance or brief conquest). -
Message 10
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 29th August 2008
It doesn't matter what you feel, Nik. The contemporary archaeological evidence places Troy within the Hittite culture at the crucial time. Take it from there.
Please.
And stop all this pro-greek thing, it's boring. -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 30th August 2008
I know it is boring but it is not pro-greek... we are talking about times prior to the utilisation of terms like "Greeks" or "Hellenes".
Your theory is more exiting because it is less convicing. Like theories of Mycenaeas being non-Greeks. Like theories of Macedonians being non-Greeks, poor and backwards and still accepted in Olympics. What else can I say?
I am interested in learning what shows strong Hittite intervention in the area of coastal Minor Asia! Especially considering the fact that Hittite history is a kind of joke in the field of history of these eras, having been used very often for the most unbelievable of stories (ex. Hittites being of semitic or mongolic origins etc.).
I do not find your theory irrational. Hittites at the time were a powerful kindom in eastern Minor Asia. However, they hardly ruled over the likes of Phrygians let alone Lycians and if they did so it was quite short-lived and in the sense of local alliances. Had they been allies of Troyans I do not know... most certainly Troyans being for long estranged by their western neighbours Achaians they would certainly deal with Hittites hence any presence of Hittite-style products in the area would not come as a surprise. However, that tells us absolutely nothing about the Troyans.
Hittites and their presence more west was so negligible that actually is not even remembered by Greeks who noted their direct neighbours (Phrygians, Lydians, Lycians, Karians, Bithynians etc.) all thraecian people (apart Lydians who came more from the east) that were ethnically, linguistically and often culturally very close to Greeks.
If you ask me there are 2 most probable cases: Troy being an Achaian colony or Troy being a city of the ancestors of Thraecians that lived nearby. Note that in those times what was Greek and what Thraecian is not important as we talk about a continuum of tribes and dialects (and no Aryans or Caucasians here!). -
Message 12
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 30th August 2008
I wasn't asking you.
And I don't have a theory - I'm just reading the collected data from fifteen years of intensive archaeology at Troy. It seems that Troy went through a significant period of importance as an essentially Hittite entity. This is what the evidence is showing, and it is not really surprising either given the citadel's strategic placement, its function with regard to revenue raising, and the ascendancy of the Hittites during the crucial period in question.
The archaeology, it must be said, supports only the fact that the city was under political, administrative and to some extent cultural domination by the Hittite empire for a period lasting between two and three centuries. The ethnicity of its general population during this time cannot be inferred from the data. Neither does the architecture give much of a clue as to which ethnic group its inhabitants identified themselves with.
This ambiguity however can also mean that the city historically maintained a great amount of autonomy but chose to "ally itself" with whosoever was most likely to help it do so. If any one of the surrounding political entities grew phenomenally in stature, size and military power - as the Hittites did - then it would not be inconceivable that Troy fell under that power's protection and traded levies from its main business (a tax on trade throughput in the region) for guarantees of survival. Hence the Hittite written ledger accounts that have turned up from that period.
If you want to put some other local power into that role at that time be my guest, but you had better first explain why there is absolutely no evidence of them doing the same, and even more importantly why then the archaeological record is revealing more and more Hittite artefacts from the period that this "other" power was alleged by you to be in control. -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
I think the case you present is very possible. As I said, taken for granted that Troy got into economic and consequently military conflict with the major part of the Aegean world, it sought allies in the inner Minor Asia. The stories of poems mention various kingdoms which can be identified though make no clear liaison with Hittites but it is valid to think that as these kingdoms were possibly client kingdoms to Hittites, it was all about Hittite protectionism.
Well, again this does not answer clearly what kind of ethnic group were Troyans. Taking for granted that they lived in coastal western Minor Asia, there is little left to think other than make the supposition that they were most probably a group affiliated ethnically with the ancestors of Greeks and Thraecians. -
Message 14
Posted by Philip25 (U11566626) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
I saw nothing particular, when I visited Troy some years ago, to suggest a close ethnic association with Myceneans - although there was undoubtedly trade.
Neither, I think, did the greeks assert such a relationship.
My reading of the Hittite archives now being evaluated, are that while not necessarily of Hittite blood, Troy (Wilios, Ilios) was seen by the Hittites as very much in their sphere.
Places like Miletos (Milawata?) appear to be accepted as having a different basis viz a viz Achiawoi.
So I would need much more evidence - than your unsupported assertions and assumptions - that there was a link.
Phil -
Message 15
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
The original question of the thread was not "who were the Trojans?", but "who attacked Troy, was it the Achaeans or the Greeks?".
Professor Drews has written extensively on the ancient Greeks and arrived at the conclusion that the term Achaean describes both the northern Greeks and the southern Greeks. So then the question must be which of the two attacked Troy, the northern Achaeans or the southern Achaeans?
Drews writes, "the evidence is considerable that the particular Achaeans who sacked Troy came from the north."
The End of the Bronze Age, Drews, 1993, p.217. -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
Philip the problem consists in the narrow viewing of what is "Greek" and what is not, fueled sometimes by ignorance sometimes by underlying political motives... which however gives us the 100% absurd result that while other nations covered huge chunks of land (Chinese, Germanics, Celtics etc.), the Greeks were a special kind of nation that descended from planet Mars, landed on Peloponese and Attica, selectively populated a few islands in the Aegean etc and could live only in city-states ruled either by democracies or oligarchies.
What I say is that this view is 100% false, unhistoric and down to the basics offensive and racist.
The reality is that "Hellenes" and "Greeks" are two terms that probably came around the 9th B.C. century and were eventually used for people originating from Macedonia down to Crete at a time where the fall of Mycenaean kingdoms and the regression of the overall Aegean area created fragmented societies closed to themselves (e.g. the greek word for "king" is vasilias but actually it means a... village mayor, normally the word was "anax" (saved only in the word "anaktoro", i.e. palace) - that only shows the extend of regression that the whole area underwent:
Hence what became later "Greek" and what non-Greek tells us little about the actual ethnic, tribal and anthropologic
affinities of people. One thing is for sure: Greeks, south coastal Thraecians (cos northern ones are different people - as the term was eroded later on to include people up to Roumania and Ukraine), the likes of Phrygians, Lycians and Karians were anthpologically one and the same race. They were culturally very close. They spoke dialects that resembled. And above all starting from Epirus, passing from Thrace and finishing to central Anatolia you had an undeniable linguistic-cultural continuum of people - a continuum that is placed actually in the large continuum of Mediterranean to Iranian people.
Now if you consider Greeks/Achaians in the narrow sense then possibly the Troyans were not - if you want my opinion though in battle the two armies would have as much difficulty in understanding each other as Spartans and Athenians in the 5th century. Keep in mind that Troy was over the Aegean side, and this sea is really very very small (1 day sailing). It is irrational to believe that different people habitated there unless one comes here to prove us that the region was invaded by outsiders at some time. For your notes, the only invasion we know is that of "Thraecians" (ancestors of Phrygians and affiliated tribes) who came from coastal European Thrace and habited parts of Minor Asia. For your knowledge 700 years later and after quite a lot of time of isolation from Greeks, Phrygians still spoke a language very close to Greek and were considered by the generally very racist Greeks as a tribe "not very far" from them. -
Message 17
Posted by Philip25 (U11566626) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
Lots of probablies, and statements, but all unsupported by references or evidence.
It may be logical to you, but to be honest you ain't gonna convince anyone else unless you can site facts.
Phil -
Message 18
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
Yu're quite right, JohnWickerman, but alas Nik - as usual - has sensed a bit of Greek heritage slipping away from his fatherland and - as usual - will now produce reams of assertion to keep it from doing so. I have long ago realised that he sees it as his patriotic duty and in such a pursuit (the defence of one's fatherland) the victims are potentially many. Archaeological evidence is one such victim when Nik gets going.
So, getting back to reality - at the time the Trojan War supposedly occurred (or whatever event might have occurred upon which the story was based), it seems that Troy was essentially Hittite. Moreover, there is no evidence of a siege or any wholesale destruction at the time either - even allowing for a leeway of a few centuries either side.
So, Nik's speculation to one side, the ethnicity questions raised can be answered thus: We don't know what kind of ethnicity dominated within Troy at the time and we most definitely don't know the ethnicity of any attackers since we can't even find evidence that it was attacked.
We do know that Troy, in a crucial sense, was Hittite at the time and that the Hittite empire was never without active enemies on its borders. It is conceivable that Troy (a valuable asset) was seized as booty on the back of some inroad into late Hittite hegemony in the region by someone else, but it appears that inroad did not require a direct assault on the citadel. The answer therefore will have to come from a more complete understanding of Hittite military engagements and political evolution than we have, and this will have to come from concentrating on studying the Hittite record, not the "Greek".
Nik can fantasise as much as he wants. The facts are beginning to speak louder than him (though I admit they are fighting an uphill battle). -
Message 19
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
Quote:
"...looking at the temple carvings in Egypt about the Sea People anyone with even a rudimentry grasp of history can identify jewish sidelocks, and Greek helmets and armour."
The sidelocks represent Libyans and are clearly identified as such. However, what was a 'Greek' (to use modern terminology) is not so easily identifiable.
Quote:
"Finally when did the Trojan War occur?
And when did the invasion of the Sea people occur?"
There is no set date for the Trojan War, but current thinking places it in the latter years of Ramesses II, before Merneptah took to the throne.
The so-called 'invasion' of the Sea Peoples is dated to around 1175 BCE. For a more rationale (in my opinion) interpretation of what actually happened do a search on this site for the Sea Peoples thread. -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
Every time somebody else (and especially me) points out to things over which you cannot counterargument you start the personal attacks Nordmann. Redress yourself and tell me how big is the surface from Epirus to Thrace and Troy...? How long is it by sea-travel? 1 day? 2 days? How long is it by foot from east Anatolia? What is the cultural heritage of Hittites in western Minor Asia (zero? minimal?).
Who talks with points is something quite visible. The only thing you can say is accusing others of "over-patriotism", something that has nothing to do with my case. The problem is that you cannot accept the reality, that the world was not and is not the way it is more convenient for you to see. -
Message 21
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
Or, it seems, convenient for archaeologists such as Korfmann, Rose, Uerpmann and Jablonka who, unlike you Nik, are hampered by being in posession of the facts as they are uncovered and who have the unenviable job of publishing these facts knowing full well that they fly in the face of your own theories, Nik, which are seemingly based on walking distance and bad chronology.
I'll write and let them know they can just give up all this silliness of excavating etc. Nik has spoken. -
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
Haha... no I have not "spoken" and let the people do their job. The role of archaiologists is to excavate.
However note that too many times in the past many of them have proved to be weak in any further analysis like those over-experienced workers that when get a managerial position they are not able to manage anything because they are not able to see anymore 10cm outside their perimetry. The example of all those archaiologists that cried about the non-Greekness of Mycenaeans who were showered with cold water from two outsiders of this weird field, Chadwick and Ventris, is indicative.
You have to realise that here I claim not to know the truth. I just present the most plausible hypothesis. The one and only thing for sure is that we are not talking about France and Mexico but about the Aegean: the lands in the west, the islands, the lands in the east. And geography says that if a nautical people lived there it most certainly went everywhere. Many of the Achaian-affiliated tribes were nautical people since time immemorial.
That is my hypothesis: that you had a continuum of people and dialects all way from Epirus to coastal Thrace up to coastal Minor Asia on the Aegean side. The example of isolated in the middle of the landmass Phrygians is indicative. Who became Greek later and who remained "outsider" is out of issue here. -
Message 23
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
Well, you're wrong again Nik.
For example, of the four archaeologists I mentioned only one is licenced to excavate at Troy. The rest are there for their specialist expertise. Digging isn't everything you know, and making sense of what's dug up is everything. That's the way science goes - it's analytical.
Which of course according to you means nothing against your right to hypothesise based on nationalistic bias and walking distance.
Isn't it time you started reading about what you pontificate about? Even pontiffs do it these days ... -
Message 24
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 1st September 2008
Erm Nick, it is notoriously difficult to define ethnicity in the archaeological record given the nature with which material trappings used to identify who is and is not part of an ethnos can change as well as overlap. If we consider just the physical remains excavated, as has been mentioned the cutural trappings of the site at Hisarlik suggest much stronger links with the urban centres of central Anatolia than the Palace economies of Mycenean Greece. For example the artistic canon used to represent figures is the same as that used at the Hittite capital. The written evidence discovered on the site also points east not west as Luwian script is closely identified with Lydian of the First Millennium BC as opposed to Linear B that it is contemporary with.
Now admittedly you could make great play of the apparent affinity between Alaksandus of Wilusia mentioned in the Hittite library uncovered at Bogazkoy and Paris, referred to as Alexandros in Ö÷²¥´óÐãr, not to mention the God used to swear by the alliance, Apuliana and the similarity to Apollo, if only to suggest you had done some prior research. Certainly Alexandros appears in linear B, as does Hector for that matter, however the Ala prefix is common in both Lydian and Hittite names while the Sandus ending also appears to be based on a common Anatolian name, Sandon, an equivelent of Herakles in Lydia. The worship of Appollo also appears to have come westwards from Anatolia, possibly related to the Hurrian Aplu.
Whatever the case with regard to material remains and diplomatic treaties, the fact you base your assertion on Trojan ethnicity on the origin of their language, defining it as either Archeaen Greek or Thracian does mean you have forgotten the other tongue present in the Northern Aegean until the mid first millennium BC. There was a distinct language spoken on the island of Lemnos unrelated to Greek, Thracian or Lydian, all included within the Indo-European language family. The language found on Lemnos has been tentatively linked to Etruscan due to the fact that each adopted only three vowel symbols with the Phoenetic alphabet they borrowed from the Greeks. In fact if you want to go by simple geographical proximity, a language related to that spoken on Lemnos is far more likely a candidate for what was spoken across the waters in Troy and the other coastal regions of the Northern Aegean than the dialects spoken in the Mycenean Palace economies concentrated around the Southern Aegean that were the Archaeans of Ö÷²¥´óÐãr. It may well predate the spread of Thracian into the Northern Aegean from the Balkans for that matter. Especially given the prominence of the worship of the Caribeiri, whose sacred island was Lemnos, in Thrace as well as Asia Minor during the historical period.
There is further evidence to suggest that the population of Troy may well have been related to that on Lemnos and later to the populations of Etruria given the genetic affinity between haplotypes identified in the study of remains found in Etruscan tombs. They appear to have more in common with modern Anatolian populations than their modern Tuscan counterparts. A similar relationship has been traced between the genetics of modern Tuscan and Anatolian cattle populations. -
Message 25
Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Sunday, 30th November 2008
Troy itself is still pertty undecided..
1. there is no strong proof of the existance of a city called troy in the mycenean period.
2. No hard evidence of "the troyan war".
3. If the city found at Hissarlik (by some believed to be troy) is troy, either the date of the war, or the size of the city dont make sence.
However, there is some evidence of transmigration of Poelasti, Sikala, Shakaloesha and Danoi (seapeole)
The egyptians had some trouble withe these peoples around the right period. They did not take over egypt, but the Egyptians could not stop them from taking over other lands. -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 30th November 2008
It is also said that the Linear B logs in Mycenean palace of Pylos that record a considerably increased stocking of weaponry are dating around 1200 B.C. I am not so sure if this stands really correct but if it does then it somehow coincides with that turbulent period - it does not have to be linked necessarily with the Troyan campaign but it could as well have something to do.
From the people you mention, Peleste (from where the name of Palestine) were descendants of Greek coloners in south Palestine, Sikele sounds like Sikelia (Sicily - already colonised by Mycenaean times by Greeks) and Danoi like Danaoi (a more ancient name for Greeks) but then who knows?
Searching for others who had lots of boats back then is much more difficult, one has to stick to the obvious and only if that is proved wrong he should search elsewhere... -
Message 27
Posted by SafricanAndy (U7173046) on Monday, 1st December 2008
Forgive my ignorance, but regarding the archeological site that is now refered to as "Troy", i.e the one that was originally excavated by Schliemann: How certain can we be that that is the site of the Troy that Ö÷²¥´óÐãr was refering to in his works? I mean, did they dig up a piece of stone with the name inscribed upon it? Or is it the site that has been traditionally associated with Troy by later cultures, in other words, according to the Romans for example.
I am not asserting that the place we call Troy today is not the historical Troy, but can we be certain that there even was a historical Troy? What if Ö÷²¥´óÐãr was blending pre-existant myths? He did include mythological characters into his story, after all....
Just wondering
Andy -
Message 28
Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Monday, 1st December 2008
It has been two years since i did some research on this, what I remember is this:
There is one inscription somewhere that could refer to Troy (I forgot how or where it was mentioned)..
The only things Schliemann based his theory on, was that the place and the size of the hill (more or less) match Ö÷²¥´óÐãrs description. Also he found a layer of civilisation that was destroyed by war or fire. (however this layer does not match the period)
A later researcher (a rather famous German archaeologist, I cant seem to remember his name -shame on me-) has given this site an epic immage and claimed it to be troy without a boubt. This was only to make his sponsors happy..
I dont know if this site is troy, but it is likely that (no matter where it is)its size, importance and (if ever occured) importance, consequences of the war (/siege) are beïng extremely overestimated.. It is just an episode of which the story literally grew to mythical proportions.
(Not meaning that I dislike troy as a subject of study and discussion ofcourse) -
Message 29
Posted by PlatosAtlantis (U13723894) on Tuesday, 2nd December 2008
Dear NIKOLAUS,
About TROY"S Geographic Location, it's TIME- LINE and the People's race you got it ALL wrong.
FIRSTLY the Source is dubuious & debatable because HOMER left out a few things that would have given us a clue had we known what he omitted !
And By LO ! we know what ESSENTIAL-information he left-out because it did not suit his Greek Melodrammer or Tragedy !
HERODOTUS in 450 bc & Zoilos the Ö÷²¥´óÐãrus-Basher( dd 250 bc.)Tell us that the Greeks were caught up accidentally between a Trade embargo of Assur upon Egypt with the Greeks as innocent onlookers.
Hellen just happened to be in the way underfot so to say ! -
Message 30
Posted by PlatosAtlantis (U13723894) on Tuesday, 2nd December 2008
Dear King Arthurii
TROY's WAR motive is a known invention of HOMER
we know by HERODOTUS( 450 bc & Zoilios the Ö÷²¥´óÐãr-basher( dd 250 bc.)that Ö÷²¥´óÐãr left-out essential
information that left all historians astray.
Troy's War's TIME-LINE is: 861-60 bc, the war only took ONE year the other NINE yearsHelen spent in Egypt as wife of TWO Emperors;
"Proteus & Theoclymenos"
Menelaus had to steal his wife back by subterfuge
according to the mean cheating conniving but brilliant scene of the wrecked sailor( Menealaus)
announcing his own death to throw Theoclymenos off-guard and abduct the" Wife of the Emperor ".
The Allegiance to Helen by Oddysseus council was just an invention to absolve the Greeks of direct guild as a Deus-ex-machina" attacking Troy
Troy was an Assyrian dependancy By having a multi denominal Force the Greeks avoided Assyrian wreath to any Greek tribe/City individually.
The Attack of the SEA- PEOPLES is an invention too as can be read in Dr Velikovsky's Peoples-of the Sea( 1970)
CONCLUSION:
Troy was not sacked in: 1193-83 but in: 861-60 bc.Still historians despite written evidence to the contrary rather continue to believe the fabulations of HOMER above the truth of Herodutus & Euripides !
In going by your name you must have a sideline intrest in King Arthur's story ?
Well my contention is that he was a FRENCH King who never saw Great-Britain but was a Celtic king from Brittany.
An American from Texas discovered in 1990 that
Arthur styled himself Emperor of the the Second Rome(= TRIER in Germany.)orImperator-Brittanorum
are you intrested ? where can I find the TOPIC to answer you to ? ? ? )
Sincerely " PlatosAtlantis " Dec.2008 from TU-Delft Holland. -
Message 31
Posted by PlatosAtlantis (U13723894) on Tuesday, 2nd December 2008
"INTERNAL SEVER ERROR HAPPENED"
now I have to re-type it.
Which is a pity because I was about to reveal
Troy's REAL Location: Not the present on at the Dardanelles.
Dear MICHAEL WOOD's" Where TROY once stood:"
Documentary preparation researchers had briefly mentioned an alternative sideline that they did not persue for lack of space in the series in 1979
Namely that: HOMER told, " after TROY was burned the survivors
founded FIVE " NEW- Troys",
One of which Copies,Schliemann" Found" as 'TROJA or Illion-Nova' in 1867-70
These FIVE -new- TROYS were: known as,
ROME, VENICE, BUTROTUM, PERGAMUN & TRUVA at the Hellespontus.( 'TROY' is a word-corruption or greek-inflection of the supposed founder" TROS"
However the original 'Troy' that was left burning was not at the Dardanelles but at the " IRON- GATE" near ILLION hence TRUVA was named ILLION- NOVA by Schliemann.)
TARSUS was Taurusia or the original-burned- Troy
at the Scamander or SEHAN river( now called SEYHAN or Ceyan-River.)( Latin: Sarus & Piramus.
Since Troy's siege, the Sealevel has risen 50 Meters, as a landlobber this eustaci-fact did not bother or consern Schliemann, who was even supprized that the present Mean Sea-level pushed up the groundwater inside the Hissarlik-Mount!)
Statisctic or would you call this 'red-herring' a debuking historical fact ? ?
Sea-level has risen since Troy's fall, so much, that it is now 20 meters UNDER groundwater.
Ö÷²¥´óÐãr mentions that the Citadel of Troy stood( Only-)30 meters ABOVE then Sealevel @!
By simply reconing IF Schlieman found HIS" TROY"
above present mean-Sealevel than it is the ( later-)Copy! not the original one.
Sure one could debate that Ö÷²¥´óÐãr's Height surveys cyphers were corrupted too over time but that is picking endless arguments!
ILLION is a known deriviate-Word-corruption of:
WHALLUSIAH, now called the River "KIRZAL - IRMAK "
I told this alternative or dissident topographical or geological de-'tale' several years ago I forget in which Thread but It was NOT READ by anyone, thus not commented !gone into oblivion.( ofcourse ignorance is bliss !)
I hope that THIS time I get more than the Stupid "FAQ- ONE - LINER "
asking for ( more)" Evidence "or If I am sure that not more than 5 other cities could have been " Troy "
This simple observation is not brilliant and easily overlooked ! Most Website-forummember
took it even for granted as-if this'knowledge'was allready discussed !and rejected.
Sometimes I think people take the MYTH as more intresting and the historical research as a fabulated "Forgery".
I have contacted mr( or meanwhile Sir ?)MICHAEL WOOD himself about this Subject ( When he was still aviable by a personal E-Mail several years ago,
TROY's LOCATION-hype ? is a has been !
but I got the answer that he was too busy making another Historical film series about the " Ariyans invading India epoch" and felt no more consern in re-doiing the TROY- Series with my new information added.
I got sarcastic by these kind of experiences !
Sincerely " Plato's Atlantis." dd Dec. 2008 ( TU-Delft, Holland.)
" On with your One-liner reply "! if any !
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.