Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
The Trojan war took placein the 7thC BC
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Hi all
Further to my theory in the Velikovski thread I would like to propose that the Trojan war described by 麻豆约拍r took place in the 7th Century BC and was around the time of Gyges a Lydian King who tried to subdugate the Greek Cities of Asia Minor. This Lydian Ling married the most beautiful woman in the world and was a great warrior before becomming king. Before the Egytpian Chronology was set the Trojan war was thought to date from around 750BC but I bring it even further down in time to the 600's BC. I am an adherant to the New Chronology proposed by various authors that proposes no `dark age' of Greece.
麻豆约拍r I also place in the 7th Century.
To support this poposal I will start with some `anomolies' in the Iliad that cause problems setting the war in Myceanean times and hopefully you guys can fill in some more.
The first is burial customs. The myceaneans buried their dead. Yet 麻豆约拍r has the Greeks cremating their dead. This cremation in 麻豆约拍r fits perfectly with the 7thC BC in Asia Minor.
Second coinage. Coinage was invented in about 700BC by the Lydians and Carians. There was no coinage in Myceanean times. 麻豆约拍r describes in the Iliad the coinage of `Talents', Talents of gold. This early coinage was made of Electrum a mix of Gold and Silver, found in abundance in Lydia in Asia minor. This places the time of the war to a period where coinage was in use - 7thCBC.
In the Iliad the Elean games(Olympics) are mentioned as being in the past. This means the Trojan war must date from after the start of the Games. The usualy date for the start of the games is 776BC. I have proposed a later date of the games to around 700BC due to Carbon dating and archaeology of the region. So the war must have taken place in the 7thC BC ie the 600's. Perhaps around 660-650BC?
This is a start. I expect a lot of flak. -
Message 2
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Artorius,
Let the flak begin!
The difficulty with the examples that you utilise is that they only proved a date for the text of 麻豆约拍r rather than the tale itself. The fact that the original 麻豆约拍ric audience had certain preconceptions of the world sround them is infused through the narrative. An example of whole the audience's world is embedded within the text can be seen in the constant analogy matters military with peaceful farming similes. This does not led us to conclusion that the story is not really about war but rather farming. One must appreciate that whilst the tale is based in Bronze Age time it has to be told in a matter that makes it accessible to a 7th century audience.
Secondly, if your dating of 600bc is accurate it would put within two to three generations (grandfather to Grandfather) of knowledge. Considering that both Thucydides and Herodutus go back further than this in their respective backdrops to their tales it is hard to imagine how they would exclude as tremenduous an event as a united greek invasion of Asia Minor that happen just over a century before the Persian invasion of Greece. This dating would also put it in a clash with the colonistaion of Asia Minor, all of which has too much evidence to ne contemprorary without direct validation.
Now, I haven't really followed the Velikovski thread, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he the guy who propounds a new ancient history based pretty much on linguistic paradigms? I know Nik loves the use of language as a root of cultural analysis, and I have my own appreciation of etymology as well, but surely archaelogical evidence has some bearing as well?
Also, if 麻豆约拍r was a contemproary to events, as you seem to be claiming, would that not make him a reporter rather than a epic poet? I would ask Nik for help here but the names of the characters are a bit aporychal Menelaus(rage of War?), Agamemnon (Very Resolute), Helen. These are paradigmatical creations to express a general characteristic. Poetic license if you will.
I accept a practical explanation for the siege of Troy, and personally I think that the city controled the route through Bospuros Straits and was tolling grain carrying vessels from the Black Sea which were heading for the Mycenean city-states, whose own hinterland was not as fertile. By tolling the grain merchant vessels Troy got fat will Greece suffered. By removing Troy they could free the passage of Grain whilst retaining their own wealth, thus giving rise to the great Mycenean culture which we have evidence of. The significance of this war, and its subsequent impact, would justify its rembrance in idealised form through, wait for it, the Greek Dark ages (which have been known to happen to regions from time to time).
Elistan -
Message 3
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 9th December 2005
It appears others have also come to a similar conclusion:
-
Message 4
Posted by rebeccalouisehurst (U2704551) on Friday, 9th December 2005
I have heard that there was much controversy as to whethere HOmer actaully wrote the epic poems himself any way, especially certain books of the odessey, and wasn't there an oral tradition before this anyway? so there is no way of know when the stories are from and how much they were coruppeted in the telling anyway. They may not have had money when the story was first told, but within the oral tradition the speaker could have added bits to make the story more relevant to the audience and the time.
-
Message 5
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 9th December 2005
My guess is that 麻豆约拍r was an Ionian Greek. (the language he uses is a close match)He was obviously unhappy about the Lydian wars against the Ionian Cities. Gyges managed to take the Trojan cities. I see 麻豆约拍r making tale around the whole episode to take a swipe at the Lydians and promote the Greek ideal and Greek greatness in the face of these wars. In this he failed as Croseus, Gyges' great grandson, took the whole of Greece but then got too cocky and took on the Persians and lost, leaving Athens and the mainland Greeks to face the Persians alone.
In making the tale it looks like he wove a narrative around exisiting tales from the region and Greece. -
Message 6
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Hi Elestan
In your first paragraph you say it is a bronze age story. But 麻豆约拍r mentions Iron in the Iliad. Placing it sometime in the early iron age. This would fit with 7thC.
In second paragraph you give date of 600BC, I didnt state this date as the date of the war. I suggested 660-650BC. Remember that if most dates after 776BC are incorrect that people like Herodotus may be pushed later than thought in time.
Classical Greece was at about 300BC, that's a lot of time for the Greeks to have become confused as to their history, as pointed out by the Egyptians that Plato suggested Solon had visited. -
Message 7
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Hi Artorius,
The descriptions of warfare in Ilyad fit more with the Bronze Age weaponry, with the prevalence of a body armour turning a single individual into virtual tank. This underscored within 麻豆约拍r over the efforts made to regain armour and the struggle between Odysseus and Ajax for the armour of Achilles. 麻豆约拍ric reference to iron, cremation, currency etc., as I said in the earlier post date the telling of the tale more than the tale.
I am interested in the Gyges line that you propounded, although I have not had time to look into it at any detail, merely skimming over it. In my understanding of the period it seems quite complex to produce a piece of comtemporary propaganda in the form of epic poetyr as the first recorded piece of literature. It seems more logical to look internally for an expression of cultural identity for one's earliest tales. The use of the Epic format by more cultured societies, such as the Aeneid by Vergil, has to be seen from the context of how they drew upon this earlier work. Personally I am in favour of a multiple authorship over time, with '麻豆约拍r' being a version which happen to survive. I am also open to the fact that the endings of both Odyssey and the Ilyad were later additions.
Herodutus wrote in 450s/440sBCE, and classical Greek culture could be said to have started around much earlier. Thales of Miletus (on the Asian Minor coast, south of Troy) was writing around 600BCE, Pythogoras was arond 550-500BCE, and Soctrates himself was dead by 399BCE. 麻豆约拍r was old before even Miletus, because the Greeks treated him as such. The gyges you refer to was only a generation before Miletus.
As to the inaccuracies of dating, when exactly is it supposed to become obscure? No one doubts Herodotus was factually inaccurate, but he never claimed to be so in our modern sense of the word. He merely claimed 'historie', or enquiry as in a medical examination, an attempt to come to the root causes of the problem of his day, namely the animosity between Greek and Persians. Within this context he touches upon the conflicts that you speak of, and in particular of Cresous. To Herodotus himself: "He was the first foreigner, so far as we know to come in direct contact with the Greeks, both in the way of conquest and alliance".Bk 1.6 No where in this analysis does he mention 麻豆约拍r as an author commenting on Creosus father, and if there had even been a whiff of a rumour it would have found its way, cause every other rumour seem to do so.
If the Greeks of the 7th/6th/5th and 4th century treated 麻豆约拍r as an even earlier poet talking of a bygone age that was still closer to them than they are to us now, who are we to second guess them? we claim to be able to redraw their cultural from a distance of 2 and 1/2 half millenia, when they left us plenty of evidence of how they saw it in their day.
Elistan
PS Enjoy the debate though -
Message 8
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Hi Elistan
The description of warfare in the Illiad is a combination of the old ways, heroic fighting (Trojans) and the new way -Phalanx fighting - Greeks which so frustrated the Trojans. Phalanx fighting cannot have existed in accepted Myceanean times. It appears to me to be a change between the bronze age way of fighting and the new iron age way. See :
I dont see that the Greeks would have known an auwful lot about their own history of 300 years before. We hardly know much about our own last 500 years except what is fed to us and then it's only the educated who know it. Once the Lydians had taken Greece they would have re-written history their way causing the amnesia that later generations have.
As an aside, I have just finished reading `Chariot' by Aurthur Cotterell and in this he states that 麻豆约拍r must be woefully ill informed about chariot warfare because the heroes are only transported in them to the battlefield and dont really fight in them. The problem Arthur has of course is that he is placing the war in the wrong time 1300BC when chariot warfare was the norm, intead on 660BC. When placed in the 7th C it makes perfect sense as by then Chariot warfare tactics had changed and their use been nullified by mass troops. After this time Chariot use gradually became just a method of transport and for pomp. Even the Britons only used it to throw their spears. They dismounted to fight.
This revised timeline also means that Rome was founded in the 7thC not the 8th This fits in better with what is know of Roman remains and carbon dating. -
Message 9
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 9th December 2005
hi artorius,
I'm afraid you'll have to cite the relevant passages to me, because I definitely don't remember any reference to phalanax fighting 麻豆约拍r. Rather both sides were Hero driven, a bronze age phenomenon. You keep citing the same website, and it only has one reference to a 1948 article. I don't mean to disparage your sources, but you need to be a bit broader to get me to bite.
The speed with which you disparage the Greeks knowledge of a three hundred year old past is a little startling, considering that this was the birth place of history, philosophy, politics. They were hardly ignorant or uneducated louts. The Lydian 'brainwashing' didn't seem to effect any other part of their intellectual development.
As chariot usage, the saxons rode horses into battle then dismounted, why not the Greeks with Chariots?
Elistan -
Message 10
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Hi Elestan,
Just flicking through Book12 (520) of the Iliad which has the reference :
" so he cried, driving them on, and all ears rang with cries and a tight phalanx launched against the wall"
In answer to your qyuery re chariots; thats the whole point, they did dismount and fight, but this form of fighting is dated to the 7thC not 1300th C BC. -
Message 11
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Its more an allusion to the kind of formations the heroes' retainers are said to adopt on the batlefield. As such it is more a reinterpretation of the Epic to suit contemporary fighting experinces of the Greek speaking world during the classical period. Warrior poets were still fighting as individuals in the seventh century while Tyrtais of Sparta seems to be among the first true hoplite poets.
-
Message 12
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 9th December 2005
There is a wealth of info here on the theory of no dark age in Greece. All the evidence points to a continuation of the Myceanean into archaic.
My own feeling is that linearB was used only for official records until the new alphabet was adopted sometime around 800- 700BC.
Linear A on Crete looks very much like ancient Egyptian to me. It is known that Crete had strong links with Egypt before the comming of the Greeks.
So I presume Linear A is an official Egyptian language written in Cretan letters. One of the words in many of the finds is taken as the name of a diety and goes by the name of As-sa-ra-(me) and this is exactly the Egyptian form of Osiris -Asar. The probable reason the later Greeks wrote it as (O)siris is that the first A in late dynastic took on an Aus or Us sound. So the Greeks must have learnt the name in late dynastic period. Why should Asar be important on Crete. Crete was the island in the Green Sea. Asar was a water god.(Budge - The Gods of The Egyptians Vol 2.) -
Message 13
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Re: Message 7. E
Elistan and Artorius,
great debate.
With esteem,
Paul. -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
Did not find time yesterday.. and I would not write a small one would I? Indeed great debate thanks to Elistan and Artorius but I must clear this from the beginning that I am fully covered by Elistan despite the interesting remarks of Artorius (Gyges, Lydians and 麻豆约拍r鈥檚 anachronisms)
I also have the same arguments. Yes, 麻豆约拍r does a lot of anachronisms but then do not forget he makes a bunch of other mistakes in addition like saying in one part that Odysseus was blond and on the other that he had black hair. 麻豆约拍r did all these mistakes because the poems were pre-existing in different versions 鈥 most oral some written as well 鈥 and he wrote his own by 鈥渃opy-paste鈥 and of course giving his own special touch (that is where he 鈥渆mbellishes鈥 the story with 8th century cultural hints such as iron usage and cremation of the dead) on the final poem that made him so famous around the Greek world. This is not different than those Byzantine or Italian drawings that show Saints of the early Christian times dressed in late Byzantine/Italian clothes and armour 鈥 that does not mean that Saints lived in the 12th AD century!
I speculate 麻豆约拍r wrote down the poem since his style is a highly flashback one and that is not normal for an oral poem (an audience would be a bit puzzled and lost; only readers would be delighted). It was this style of his that made him prevail over other versions. Now, the poems he used seem to be really centuries older and that is why after his success there were no other stories left. Most were oral anyway, the few written were not used anymore since 麻豆约拍r鈥檚 edition as Peisistratus ordered to be copyrighted from private collection texts (there you might had some mistakes as well) was supposed to be the formal one. In case the war was so recent 鈥 even if it happened in 800 BC there would have remained more stories around many different Greek cities especially the Ionean, Aeolean and Achaian ones. However, apart from 麻豆约拍r鈥檚 poem there weren鈥檛 any other left in the 5th century. Not to mention that the Odyssey is highly unlikely to have happened even in early archaic years in a time when the Greek navy recessed in front of the Phoenician 鈥 and it is also highly unlikely that a sailor would get lost in the Mediterranean for 10 years and his tale would be told as an epic (it would sound more of a joke!) 鈥 not to mention there was not known any civilisation in the Mediterranean (let alone be Corfu!!!) that had that kind of palaces and motored ships with automatic pilots鈥 all these details are really so strange and are not the result of imagination but the misty remembrance of more progressed civilisations (Minoan or mycenean could be that and please no UFOs here!!!).
I agree with Artorius comments that it is also progressed civilisations that tend to forget after 500 years, yes it is true that certain events that happened in 1500 A.D. we do not master them and we have to speculate (imagine we do not know a lot about the man who discovered America!), but then here were are not talking about a small detail but about a war that allegedly gathered a massive amount of ships and troops thus it must had left a lot of memories even after 500 years like the Persian wars did.
Then I do not see how the Olympics could have been so wrongly dated 鈥 do not forget that there were official records in Olympia that any historian of that time could revise thus since the Olympics were held every 4 years and since in the 5th century there were around the 80th-100th Olympic Games then the 776 BC date for the first official games is converging to the reality. And records could not sooo easily be changed since were based on athlets who were coming from real cities and usually from known families (each family would remember a winner for more than 150 years!!!), thus adding 30-40 Games to gain 200 years would imply finding some 200 fantastic winners. Not to mention that the 鈥榮tories鈥 (and these are no myths!) mention real persons, great political figures of the time such as Lycurgus of Sparta. These are no myths since there is no mentioning of Gods intervening in Lycurgus鈥 projects 鈥 only the Helot鈥檚 revolt!!! I do not see the point why the Trojan war that was an event even more important that Lycurgus鈥 projects would be described 鈥榟eroically鈥 and with nicknames, and Lycurgus鈥 projects would be described just as a brief story of what had happened including real names and events without much intervention from the gods. The difference is that the one happened some more than 500 years than the 8th century (meanwhile destructions happened!), while the other happened some 200-300 years before the 5th century (without many big time destructions in the meanwhile). I am going to add a bit more鈥 -
Message 15
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
Hi E
In the first paragraph of your reply you say that these issues in 麻豆约拍r are anachronsisms. I see them more as proof.
Re second paragraph. There are many stories from the 5th Century about the wars. We must remember, Troy was but a minor city and 麻豆约拍r wove these tales around it as you say, probably from existing mythologies of the region. The wars were many in the 7th C, the Lydians, Phrygians(Brigia/makedoi), Greeks(Greki) the Ionian rebellions, The Scythians/Cimerians, civil wars etc etc, all documented. It was a time not only of wars but of earthquakes and other natural disasters, causing famines and hardship. Hence the Lydians transporting some of their peoples to Italy founding the Etrurians.
There is no evidence for the date of the Oylmpics from 776BC. Even Delphi has no evidence of a temple before the 7thC. For Olympic records to have been kept in a temple it had to have existed! The first Olympic temple is again dated to 7thC.
Sorry got to go see my sons Nativity. Back later. -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
For Elistan who asked me to refresh on the significance of names. Yes all names in 麻豆约拍r are nicknames (including his own name that indeed normally means hostage, though that could be in another sense!) that usually have to do with the characters. I am no specialist (I have notions of ancient Greek though my modern ones often aid me a lot) though some are more explicit than others.
Helen 鈥 Elenh = some said from Ellhn i.e. Greek but then at 麻豆约拍r鈥檚 times that was not used yet, this name got popular after the late 8th century and only in the greek mainland not in the west (鈥淕reek鈥漚s the call us still the westerners) or the east (鈥淚onan鈥 as they call us still the Middle Easterners).. 麻豆约拍r uses the 鈥淒anaoi鈥 and the 鈥淎chaioi鈥. Ellhn most probably comes from the verb elanoo (鈥渙o鈥=omega) = to march forward and destroy (usually used for armies or for ships attacking other ships鈥 but it seems that it was used for the 鈥渇emmes fatales鈥 also!!!!
Menelaus 鈥 Menelaos or the older Meneleoos = mhnys= anger + laos (or the older leoos)=people (or armies)
Agamemnoon= agan=excessive,very much + memnoon= resolute leader (the chief of Ethiopians is also named Memnoon)
Thersitis = comes from tharsos (older form of tharros) = courage & nerve (Thersites was the only commoner that dared to go against the will of heros and he got beaten for that)
And so on鈥 as we see there is not real name. From what the story says is that mainland Greeks had a problem with Troyans Attention Artorius: 麻豆约拍r never ever said that Troyans were no Greeks! They all had greek names, religion and habits! Of course the names were nicknames that is why they were Greek plus the gods could be translated as usual 鈥 but then none can say that Trojans were definitely non-Greeks just because they had allies from the inner of Minor Asia. Such notions prevailed after the troubles with Persians.
Now, what was the problem? Of course we cannot imagine 1000 ships and 80.000 warriors going on campaign for a woman or even to wash out that kind of shame. Elistan鈥檚 explanation is obvious. One that visits Greece may only notice that apart from Thessaly all the rest has only small areas for cultivation thus the Mycenean kingdoms relied on commerce to maintain their populations and 鈥榗ity cultures鈥. The black sea was where they were mainly buying their wheat. Probably Trojans (Greeks or no Greeks) got 鈥榖ig鈥 controlling and exploiting the trade route then increasing so much the taxes 鈥 thus they were 鈥渃ruising for a bruising鈥濃 they caused it, they 鈥渋nvited in鈥 (Helen) their own 鈥渄estruction鈥: Mainland Greeks got so furious (Menelaos) that accepted to unite under a great leader (Agamemnon) to organise a campaign against Trojans and so on鈥 Of course other explanations exist but the only near certain is that this war was big and it happened in Mycenean times, e.g. in the mycenean palaces many of the Linear B tablets dating (officially) around 1400-1300 BC showed a very large gathering of war material not that this constitutes a definite proof though.
Now, another thing, Artorius, 麻豆约拍r does not make any distinction between the fighting style of Troyans and Greeks. Not only Greeks did not fight as a phalanx but they actually fought more 鈥榟eroic鈥 style than Trojans. Trojans had 2-3 big hero chiefs, Greeks had 7-8 ones and the rest were poorly armed men (no middle class or phalanx-style here! Thersitis was the exception and not a bright one since he got beaten up like a slave!). They meant to aid only from the backlines. The front line was the well armoured chiefs: I agree again here with Elistan and that is no make up for our previous strong disagreements! Sometimes we agree sometimes we disagree, that is the nature of dialogue!! Indeed the fighting style of both Trojans and in particular Greeks is more tailored to the bronze impressive weaponry of Myceneans. Has anyone seen these 8-shaped cumbersome shields, or the full body laminated 鈥榯horax鈥 (a more cumbersome and more protective form of the much later Roman famous laminated armour). Bronze is anyway an expensive metal unlike the later iron. Of course iron weapons were also expensive but then in a phalanx, if one (like Achilles for example) lost his armour it would not be such a big trouble to find another one 鈥 at least a shield and a spear of lower quality taken from a commoner were enough to get in action again. However at those times within such a fighting style losing your armoury meant that you had to take one from another 鈥 dead noble (preferably the stolen armour would be from the enemy鈥檚 side!!!) since no other soldier possessed similar armoury. Thus poor Achilles had to cry to his mother to pull some strings to get the best man (a God!) do his new armoury, ehehe!!
In anyway, phalanxes clearly were a Dorian invention, I can even speculate that it was the Spartans themselves that pioneered in this tactic since their societal changes in the 8th century (Lycurgus new legislation) suggest so 鈥 the phalanx was the rise of the middle class man out of the need of the upper class to built larger and more effective armies against the larger Messenian forces 鈥 control of all the valley with a traditional 500 Spartan noble men against 800 Messenian nobles plus some 6,000-7,000 farmers fighting along them for survival could be nearly impossible 鈥 though some may argue that the phalanx transformation happened only during the first major revolt around 670-660 BC. In any case if that was the time of Hector and Agamemnon then all the above should have happened later鈥 alright, here Artorius here suggests a possible shift of dates 鈥 for example of the Persian wars to around 300 BC and Alexander after 200 BC.
Artorius if the above happened then it has nothing to do with our 1000 BC 鈥 600 BC period but the mistake must be located in the 500 BC 鈥 0 BC period鈥therwise if there is no mistake here then Jesus was born around 300 AD! It just does not turns in! Too many kings and generals and armies and conquerors that lived too much to fit within a 300 BC 鈥 0 BC period! It is impossible! However, if I make a mistake here and Artorious actually meant something else, then Artorious if you can be more elaborate on where you think the mistake was done I am also curious to hear (e.g. I have heard, though do remember where, that Jesus actually was born around 3 BC!!! But that makes us lose 3 years that is not any big time change. -
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
Please take your time Artorius.
Now nobody said that with the first Olympics people would start building expensive monuments - the fact that the first big monuments were built in the early 6th century only proves that the first games were heald for at least more than 100-150 years. The first 100-200 years the Games had 2-3 events only thus were of a lower scale. Helians also were not the richest of Greeks to take the initiative and funds started coming from all directions only when the Games' importance rose above the importance of other Games such as the Delphic, the Isthmian or the Nemean. Thus I see your point more as a storng hint of the 776 B.C. date rather than as a proof for the opposite. Also you should note down that in the case of Delphi, the temples were built in the place of older Temples - the usual problem of Greece: sacred places remained the same, people usually built their cities in the place of older ones (often using the materials of the destroyed ones), see its a small place with too often strong earthquakes. Mind you Greece was full of temples earlier than the 8th century but usually of smaller size and built with 'easier' materials such as wood (the whole Greek architecture was actually developed first for wood not marble!!).
Etrurians were the Etruscans in North Italy? I thought the language of those is considered as non-indoeuropean (for the bits and parts we know, though theories are not verified yet), then I thought that we knew about the Lydian language to be Indo-european with some more eastern influences or am I doing a mistake? -
Message 18
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
Hi E,
In your second paragraph you support my theory. You say that the use of the name Helen did not start until after the 8th C. Perfect for placing the date of the war in the 7thC.
In your third paragrpah you mention 13/1400BC Myceanean times. These times are forshortened if there was no, or very little dark age. Tell me this for instance, if the Greeks were so good at recording their history as Ellistan proposes where is their narrative of the dark age. How come every great poet,philosopher,king,concumbine, foreign king,philosophers ad nauseam never ever ever mention any kind of dark age in Greece. It never existed. It is purely an invention of modern archaeologist and historians getting Egpytian Chronology wrong and so making a dark age where there was none. When this is realised the date of the myceanean age can be brought down closer the the archaic at which point all makes sense.
In your 4th/5th paragraph you mention that 麻豆约拍r did not mention anything about phalanxes. I have already proven that he does and that it is quite evident in the descriptions of the Achaen line. I would go even further and say that it was an early form of the phalanx as the smaller shields and longer spears had not yet been instigated by the spartans. Probably learned from the Carians or was it Aeolians mercenaries was it? It was King Gyges himself, decribed sometimes as a hoplite who intorduced the phalanx to the Ionion Greeks.
I agree I have to look at my dates carefully. so far I have only proposed rough dates, ie `around 700BC'. I was hoping someone like yoursef could help rewrite Greek history as it should be without this false 400 years of darkness. I will try to put together more concrete dates. I would concede that the Olympic games could have started 714-720BC. Placing the foundation of Carthage at about 750BC. The Trojan war itself was just part of the wars going on in the time of Gyges and 麻豆约拍rs weaving a tale around it should be seen in that perspective. I would say it dates to about 680-670BC. homers claim of tousands of ships for the Achaens as you know could not be possible, this was more wishful thinking on his part. Hoping that the Greeks would indeed find the will to unite and crush the Lydian(Herakleidian threat). As it was the Herakliedae did win in the end with Croseus.
In your last paragraph you piont out the problems of bringing the timelines down. This is where I hope you can help. By pointing out where there may be an overlap of some sort in Greek history of the period 600BC - to safe history 300BC/0??
I would now like to say that the Phoenician alphabet was also first brought to the Greeks in Asia minor ie from Anatolia/Ionia as most modern experts have deduced. They would have learend this probaly from the Lydians or Phrygians or Carians who already had it. As 麻豆约拍r is considered as one of the earliest to use writing then the date of the import of it can be fixed at a time before this, so perhaps at early 700'sBC.
A conflaguration/earthquake in about 800BC ending the myceanean forms. Another in about the time of the trojan war again causing widepread destruction. (the first temples in Greece having to be rebuilt. -
Message 19
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
Hi E,
Look at the archealogy, the first temples in Greece INCLUDING WOODEN were built\dated to 700BC or less. Then rebuilt after earthquakes in more lasting form.
Now onto the problem of 麻豆约拍r having had an oral tradition, the bards singing the song of the Trojan war through the dark ages for 400 years then writing it down. Tell me, who exactly did they sing it too in the dark age when no one was around to hear it. Especially no one educated. In the current dark age theory there were no palaces, great houses, not only in Greece but all over the near east. So did they sing it to the animals or birds perhaps? -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
Very interesting, but then there are so many other problems. Like there is a huge civilisational transition from the Mycenean times to classical Greek as there is from Classical Greek to Byzantine Greek. Your theory simply gives no space for that. Imagine that before Ventris and Chadwick (excellent men!!!) Myceneans were not even considered as Greeks since their lifestyle and societal organisation was totally different (or so it was till then thought!!!) to the later classical era. Even nowdays many find it hard to believe that these were the same people as they find it hard to believe that glorious but christian-imperial Byzantines were based on the Greek population as they find it very hard to believe that the pathetic (in terms of power, cos in terms of civilisation we are not that down!) modern Greeks have anything to do with any of these civilisations. But it happened, and it took 1000s of years.
However, these things happen to the best of the families (Greek expression,ehehehe), but then it takes time. I cannot see how a late Mycenean civilisation of 1200 BC could be glued with mid-archaic years of 700 BC. The civilisational gap is huge and no earthquake can explain that. -
Message 21
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
Hi E,
The link bewteen Myceanean and Archaic has already made made. Pottery atributed to 1200BC has been found in archaic levels. This is always said to be `airlooms' and so ignored. You will find many instances of `airlooms' being made to fit current dark age theory. Even pottery atrributed to the dark age has been found contemperoaneously with archaic. What I could use your help with is placing the time of the end of Myceanaian which I tentatively propose as around 800BC during some cataclsm/earthquakes that weakened Myceanean palaces/forts enough for invaders to come from the north. Can you sggest who these invaders were, were these the Dorians? Herakleidae as in Ionian/Lydia? Pelasgians? Using the idea of very little dark age can you fill in this bit of the puzzle from your knowledge of the northern invasions, using the timescale I have proprosed. -
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
... continuing from the above, thus even if you managed to prove your theory then again we would have to invent a 400 years mid-period to explain that huge transformation that the Mycenean world underwent.
The fact that we find nothing of value between 1200 and 800 BC does not mean that that time era did not exist for Greece. Apart from the radioctivity measurements you also have geological measurements and indeed in a geological inter-layer largely corresponding to period 1200 BC - 800 BC you do not find often much interesting stuff.
If you glue the 1200 BC to 800 BC then that cannot be done for the whole of Mycenean history since the conquest of Crete remains as early as the 1550 BC latest date (these measurements do not rely in Egyptian or Olympics or any other chronologies). Not to mention that the eruption of the volcano in Thera is being currently pushed further back according to newer and more accurate measurements... initially it was thought around 1650 then 1700 not they say it happened around 1800 or earlier. Now you will tell me that geology there is not so accurate... well yes a 100-150 difference is possible since they made earlier the mistake not to pay too much attention to submerged lands and since some other 5-6 major activations have messed up the place by submerging/emerging parts of the land. Had the eruption happened in 1800 then the Minoan civilisation is pushed further back (they seem not to have developed overnight).
Thus your theory only elongates the Mycenan times throughout the 1200-800 period and does not eliminate that period. Not to mention that this is the actual period of Phoenician domination in the mediterranean (i.e. in the absense of Greek powerful naval forces!!!). Both Myceneans and later archaic Greeks dominated the Mediterranean but then Phoenicians at some interval seemed to go virtually unchallenged: that was exactly the 1200 BC - 800 BC interval when Greeks underwent a serious recession. I would find it indeed strange if Phoenicians had developed so easily among powerful Myceneans and powerfull later archaic Greeks. -
Message 23
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
Hi E
What huge trnsition from Myceanean to classic? More than enough time, Clasical Greece resides in at 300BC. They didnt even start making statues until the 500'BC. The beautiful Greek statues we associate with them were the the period 350BC and downwards. Again they learnt this statue making from the Ionion Greeks who got it from the Lydians, Carians Phrygians etc.
There is no problem of the Pheonicians in the timeline I suggest. They were traders. Carthage was only founded in 750BC. The reason that they have made no move towards Greece is exactly because of the reason you have pointed out. The Ionion and mainland Greeks were too strong for them. Especially when backed by the Lydians and Egyptians.
Concerning timelines before 1200BC you need to study the revisionists, Velikovsky, James, Rohl and others to see where dates and dynasties have overlapped.
Here is a good starting point:
Its a long document, but I know you like long texts
-
Message 24
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
Just thought of something interesting. Some people try to move the Trojan war out of the med and into the Atlantic north citing the reason as evidence of tides in the Oddysee. This is now easily explained. If the war took place when there were earthquakes happening then Odyseus was purely hit by a tsunami and sent with the tsunami wave up the river mouth. This also explains why it took him so long to get home.
-
Message 25
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
Further on the Phoenicians. I would time their arrival in Tyre at shortly after the time of the destruction of Myceanean civilistaion, ie in my timeframe 800BC+- 50 years. So perhaps they were part of the peoples who entered the vacume after the detructions. Remember their dates are also confused because of Egytpian Chronology affecting their neighbours chronologies. Is it any coincidence their date of arrival is given as 1200BC? In my view this is way out and should be around 850-800BC or less. Giving time for the pheonicianns to learn the alphabet from the Egytpians and other neighbours?? Cant remember who the other lot were?
-
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 10th December 2005
I am also of the same view about how we regard our past (the inherent human need to make his findings more old thus more exciting). However, do not confuse me with that. I will not exactly be dissappointed or something if the ancient history of the Greeks as well as of other people (Egyptians and Phoenicians etc.) is proved one day to be shorter.
I do not mind you searching this stuff, actually you make me see it from other perspectives, I like this conversation and I like your revisional attitude that questions on blur areas. But then leaving the blur area of 1200 BC 800 BC (that is not anything unique in history of mankind), and going to classical era I say that you make a grave error: Classical era could not be in 300 BC cos if Persian wars were around then then how can you compress a 150 years of greek civil wars, the victory of Macedonians, Alexander's expendition and the Hellenistic kingdoms that lasted for 200 years plus all those events that happened in parallel in Rome and Carthage... and see there are a lot of texts for these to cross verufy. Fitting all these in 300 years is impossible unless Jesus was born in 200 AD. but then the mistake as I said was not done in the classical period but in AD times and it should be pointed out there not in 1200-800 BC!!!! The BC times are measured inversely thus any mistake should be rooted in the beggining. As I said I know only some guys who said that Jesus had to be born around 3BC but that is not a big-time error that would overturn our perspective of human history.
I also think that the transformation of Mycenean kingdoms to city states was huge in all terms political, societal and civilisational. Not to mention that even early archaic Greeks did not seem to have any rememberance of Mycenean kingdoms as entities - they only had vague misty myths. It is indicative that the most powerfull kingodm Mycenes was only mentioned in myths without any attempt to be connected with any of the later kingdoms/federations/city states.
I will take sometime to read your info which is nontheless intruguing and try to point out what makes (for me) sense and what not. Thanks for the contribution! -
Message 27
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Hi E
The early archaic Greeks had no need to mention the Myceaneans because there was no break in history in Greek eyes. It was just continous history. We get the word Myceanean from Schlieman as you know. The archaic Greeks called them Achaens, Danans etc(麻豆约拍r), there is your evidence.
I am not suggesting any compression of history between 800bc and 300BC. I am not moving the persian invasion at all. All I am saying is that there is plenty of time between the end of the Achean age in 800BC(my timeline) and the beginning of classical age 350 -300BC. I see the Persian invasion of Ionia as part of archaic ie when Croseus was defeated. Now that I know in what period this all happens I can now identify The Peoples OF The Sea and Helen of Troy.
As surmised in the other thread. Gyges married the most beautiful woman in the world. In most accounts of the episode her name is not mentioned but looking deeper we find her name was Todu and she came from Mysia. The other name for Mysia was Aeolia and Aeolis the mythical founder was a son of Hellen. 麻豆约拍r then has taken the story of Todu and assigned her the name of the ancient Aeolian Goddess. Very clever. Mysia was a region very close to where Troy now is. Infact the Trojans mistakenly stopped there on the way to Troy thinking that it wa where troy was.
Having identified where and when the Trojan war took place, it is now easy to clear up a few other problems. In one of these I have found Velikovski was wrong to associate the Sea Peoples with the Persians and Greeks of 4th Century BC. It as obviously the Persions and Ionion Greeks of the 6thC BC. I can now name all the peoples of the Sea with confidence. Will suggest these in new thread. -
Message 28
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Artorius,
Could you clarify for me why you keep refering to the Classical Age as between 350BCE and 300BCE, when the Hellenistic age began in the 320s, and the Classical predated that by a century. I appreciate your belief in no Dark Age, and Nik is better informed than I on that period, but it keeps jarring this reference of 300BCE. Surely you acknowledge that the Classical Age was the time of Herodotus, Thucydides, Socrates etc.?
Elistan -
Message 29
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
Hi Elistan,
Sorry yes you are right, was geting mixed up there with the Classical and Hellenistic. Many thanks. -
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
A ok I was also confused with that comment of classical age starting from 300 BC. Its ok no big deal no harm done to your image, I make a sum up: so classical age starts around 500 BC, say seven years before Darius first campaign towards Greece and ends around 340 BC (say 7 years before Alexander's campaign) 10-15 years + or - is alright depending what event we use as a bench mark.
Now we forget about later than 500 BC eras and we concentrate on the question which is the era around 1200 BC to 800 BC whose events have to be "dispersed" in the eras 1300-1200BC and mainly to 800-550 BC if Artorius theory (based on other similar theories) have to be correct.
Artorius I did not yet read all of the linked text. I am no specialist in archaiology but then referring to a few artifacts said to be of 1200 and found in subsequent layers, finding an object in a certain geological layer is not the only proof that this object is from that era. For example, if you find a Minoan artifact in England in a layer of the 1100 BC that does not mean that Minoans still produced their culture in 1100 BC (had been conquered for 500 years by Myceneans) and it does not mean that Minoans ever travelled in England themselves. It could be just that Minoans travelled till south France, sell their merchantise, then with internal Gaulic commerce the artifact reached northern France were it could had been sold to English Celts. There they managed to keep the artifact for 300-400 years till it was lost, thus we found it in the layer corresponding to 1100 BC. Archaiologists need to find really a lot of artifacts or proof of installations to say that this was of that period and of those people.
Now going directly to your theory, this is not clear. The Trojan war did happen in the 8th century or the 7th century? Now even if the poem was an allegory for the current events against Ioneans and Lydians that could be recognisable from Greeks at least 200 years later. However, no Greek of the 5th century was able to identify which war was the one that 麻豆约拍r was reffering too. In Greek mythology the Aeolos, Dorieus and Ionas were the sons of Hellhn, i.e. a man, not of Hellen who was a women, Hellhn was the father - thus this story could be no myth at all being simply a description for greek children of very young age to learn the tribe-ology of their 'ethnos' (nation).
Hellhn normally was placed in the time right after the cataclysm as the son of Deukalion (who lived through the cataclysm) and was a priest of the temple of the Graia or Gaia (Mother Earth) from where you have the other name Greek (that means old people in the sense of wise people). Wise (Greeks) or enlighted (Hellenes) (impressive names e!). But these myths are certainly not referring in the 8th not even in the 9th century. Despite any earthquake (large earthquakes in Greece happen every 10 years and terrible ones every 50 - no big deal) nothing like that would have been mentioned as the cataclysm - the Greeks do not describe even the Thera volcanic eruption or any other major catastrophe as the cataclysm.
- here I forgot to mention to you that the meaning of Hellhn should not be the same necessarily as the meaning of Helen I gave you earlier (from the verb elano=destroy - perhaps this comes from burning with light?). Most nowadays seem to agree that the word 'Hellhn' has to do with Helios or the other accent Selios (the Sun) and it actually comes from Hel or Hal or Al depending on accents that has to do something with light. Another word for light is "Foos" ("oo" for omega) or the more ancient pronounciation "Faos" (thus you probably have the "alpha" letter "A" as "light of the sun"!). From there on you have Sellhnh also (moon).
Anyway explanations could be many but the above are quite possible as Greece was always referred to as the land of the light.
Now having only read very briefly about findings in late Mycenean early geometric times there is indeed this time interval of 1200 - 800 B.C. and that is obvious on the styled of art. The destructions that Dorians caused plus the earlier possible social uprest (due to the overexpansion of Myceneans) caused the rural-isation of the greek societies. The absense of big cities and the diminuishing of commerce meant that you had no big time constructional projects, thus not many things to be written on (writtings must have been made but by very few - possibly on destroyable materials thus difficult to find). On the writting I am insisting! ALL Mycenean and Minoan writtings have been found on easily destroyable materials and in fact we are very lucky to have found something. Thus if early geometric people continued that (bad, ehehe!) habit of writting on easily destroyable materials then the absense of large buildings to keep them in safe would mean that most were most - not to mention that of course the rural-isation of societies meant that fewer people would have the luxury of studying and writting. Now during geometric era 1150-900 BC you have simple artistic forms, very strict and compatible with the Dorian militarist ideology if I am allowed to say so (even in their later temples they continued on that simplistic style). However from 900 B.C. and onwards, and that was the heydey of the Phoenician commercial expansion you have the 'orientalisation' of artistic forms (then showing people, richer texture, etc.) in Greece, who got influenced from Egypt and Phoenice - perhaps in an effort of starting selling there also and regain their earlier commercial position? Who knows? A bit like modern Chinese copycats that copy to sell (Japanese also did that in the 1950s, its no shame at all!), why not?
Now if we do not find much of that period 1200-800 and we have found more of the 1800-1200 B.C. period is due to one simple reason. Mycenes and Tirynth and Pylos were Mecenean kingdoms that once destroyed they were not replaced by another new city? Why didn't we find about Mycenean Sparta? Cos it was replaced by Dorian Sparta (that had left a lot of ruins but these were destroyed ALL by a French psychopath general who landed there with his army (i forgot his name) in the 18th century who wrote proudly "I have finished. There is not a single stone left for anyone to see", see Turkish would not care much, and the unarmed locals could not do much - thus its a myth that Dorian Spartans did not have important buildings!). Why don't we find anything about Mycenean Athens? Because archaic Athens was built on the same place. And you know what happens? Rebuilding of a city means you use the same materials from the old thus you have no trace. That does not happen though from the one day to the other. Of course you could say that this could happend in 100 years I say no. That process took 100s of years. And all that gave me the following argument:
You mention about Mycenean history expanding from 1800 BC (at least!) up to around 700 BC when the Dorians descended. Thus it goes without saying that all Minor Asian Ionean colonies were built in Mycenean times. It is virtually impossible to say that these colonies were built around 800 or 700 BC and you know what? Of aaaalll the Greek cities around the Mediterranean the ones with the largest number of colonies were Miletus and Ephesus. For a city to built a colony it had to have a substantially large volume and you do not haver that kind of volume within 10-20 years. You need more than 100-150 years to reach a volume enough to send a number of settlers to set up a new colony. Since Miletus' formed colonies well before the 6th century (since most of them were grown up cities in the 5th century!!!), Miletus must have been built before the 10th century. That does not go directly against your theory but then according to your theory Miletus was built by Mycenean Ioneans thus it had nothign to do with the descend of Dorians and the fled of the bulk of Ioneans.
To tell you the truth it is proved that Myceneans had colonies in Cyprus and Palestine (the Philistines) since the 1400 B.C. (not to mention that there are theories that say Phoenician civilisation was born out of the contact of Mycenians with Middle Easterners - till then Middle Easterners did not exactly show a great love for the sea). Thus it would be no strange thing if Miletus and other cities were actually founded before the Dorian descend. However, tombs have been found within Attica (near Athens) of dead that had been cremated. Since that was a Dorian custome we guess that Dorians had reached the outskirts of Athens. But then these tombs also have been dated around 1100 using separate methods .
Artotius I have a difficulty in imagining that Mycenean times ended in 800 B.C. too many things happened in the mean while and for me the geometric period is no contemporary to mycenean (clearly different fashion) and no contemporary to later archaic (different fashion also). It fits with the descend of Dorians in 1100 B.C. and all that social transformation I have described earlier. -
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 11th December 2005
I read it again and I did not explain certain things well (I wrote it part by part phrase by phrase)... my alst argument was meant to be like this:
It maybe strange that the only Ionean city left in mainland was Athens and all the rest were the islands and in Minor Asia. That goes hand in hand with the theory that Ioneans fled the descend of Dorians but then the earlier Mycenean presence till Cyprus and Palestine means that perhaps Ioneans were widespread all over the place and that Dorians took those Ionean places in mainland apart from Athens thus the others were spared (since early Dorians were no specialists in navy).
Now that is my real argument Artorius: Ioneans were in the east but in the west? Italy was colonised by Greeks at the latest from the 8th century (and that is not due to mythologies that say so but due to separate chronological surveys). Of course Myceneans had also a presence earlier but the bulk of colonies were of Dorians!!! Now if Dorians descended in late 700s B.C. how on earth could they 1) establish power in mainland 2) increase that much in populaiton 3) send colonies and make S.Italy having the land with the largest Greek population in the Mediterranean (!!!) and all these in 150-200 years. Syracuse was a half a million city in 500 B.C with many other colonies on its account. It is impossible that Dorians went in Corinth in the late 8th century (thus late 700s). Simply the numbers are not helping your theory. Going by numbers one should say that Dorians must have descended well before 1200 BC!!! I am roughly ok with the 1200 B.C. estimate but that means that the 1200B.C.-800B.C. was a very very productive time period and set the prerequisites for the later expansion of Greeks in the Mediterranean and the re-taking of the first position from the Phoenicians that had meanwhile found the space to expand in these 400 years.
I actually had never though it like that before but then all that notion about this 400 middle ages dark ages is so wrong. Phoenicians took just nicely the role of the primary sea-people in the Mediterranean (not that Greeks forgot to swim or something, they just underwent a serious recession), then older kingdoms were destroyed in mainland Greece thus people were spread in smaller towns in the surrounding regions that again slowly came together to form larger cities that increased population (with the increase of commerce that gave also an increase in the artistic output etc.) and then by the 10th century you have new waves of Greeks that re)colonised the Mediterranean (who knew were they where going, the Mediterranean was not exactly an unknown place to them).
The early recession 1200-1000 B.C. does not mean that people forgot to write or something... the Linear B was the child of Linear A and the Linear C (wrongly baptised as Cypriot why then don't you call Linear B as Mycenian?) was the child of Linear B and Linear C is only so converging to the Phoenician proto-alphabet which is quite similar to earlier egypto-mediterranean alphabets thus taking into account that Minoan also is supposed to be influenced by Egyptian (Minoans had close relations with Egyptians and Eastern Mediterranean) that means that the so called Phoenician Alphabet was not necessarily developed by Phoenicians but was just one variant of the alphabets that circulated the east Mediterranean for centuries before them. Yes, that is another discussion that needs more space so lets go to the important thing that people did not forget to write or something:
Again I pinpoint that Myceneans had the bad for us habit to write on easily destroyable materials thus what we have found was merely by lack (broken tablets within vessels in the ruins of palaces. They did not have the habit of writting in stones or if the did we have not found them yet. The writting on a stone (marble or anything) is the best in order to save it for a long time. If they were writting on paper (probably the case for long poems such as those that were the inspiration much later for 麻豆约拍r - it is quite difficult to imagine an idiot sitting down to curve all that o a stone!!!) then that explains why we have not found anything. Now if we do not find anything on tombs that is because most tombs found of that era are from rural places... It is only natural that the rural-isation meant that fewer people would have the time and will to learn to write: Imagine that in Charlemagne's "great" "wanna-be-roman" France it was only some 100 people that knew how to read and write!!! Do we have a lot of texts from that period? Almost nothing! For similar reasons most tombs and artistic objects of early geometric eriod were constructed by illiterate people (not to mention that even earlier Myceneans did not have the habit of writting on tombs or they did so but on destroyable materials. Then as urbanisation restarted, so slowly but steadily more and more people learnt how to write thus it became nice to write something on the vase since there were more and more people that could read it so in the end even an illiterate slave making vases would be told to copy the writings from other examples given to him (probably that is why sometimes you have ugly letters, haha!).
But again these things take at least a 100 years interval and there many events that happened between the 1200-800 BC period that take 100 years or more to happen than these cannot be squizzed into 1300-1200 BC and into 800-600 BC. -
Message 32
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Hi E,
You are basing most of your assumptions on accepted chronology. To see the picture I am painting you must suspend that belief for moment. You talk of the Philistines, he Phoenicians and mention dates such as 1400Bc, 1200BC and the like. These dates are all wrong. Caused by the errors of Egyptian chronlogy.
As i am compiling the time line I can see how things have become out of skew and peoples made much older than they actually were. The Isrealites for example. Modern comentators claim that the israelites/hebrews spread out and populated other countries, citing the antiquity of Israelites in accepted chronology and the similarity of names in other places. Place them in their correct time and it is the opposite. They descended from these people, not gave birth to them.
There is no evidence whatsoever that linearB was written on paper/papyrus/skins although as you say it does not preclude it. Linear B was adopted by the Greeks when they conquored the Minoan cvilisation centred on Crete made weak by Thera's eruption. The Minoan ended about 1500BC? Probably due to eruption of Thera. Greek speaking civilisation started after 1500BC. They used the adapted cretan script for official records until the disasters of around 800BC ended myceanean power and other northern peoples invaded - Dorians/Hereacleidea etc. This power then shifted to the Greeks of Asia minor who also had to suffer from the domination of the Herakleidae- the Lydians. The Ionians of Asia minor having learned the aramaic/egyptian/coptic from Asia minor transmitted this alphabet to mainland Greece.
I believe the Isrealites where just another of the many peoples displaced at around 800BC from Central Anatolia and regions east of there by the invading Phrygians and the like. They travelled southeastward and merged with the hebrews. Another of these peoples became the Phoenicians when mixed with other peoples probably Thracian/Ionion.
What I am seeing is a general weakening of ancient Near East/Greek/Anatolian civiliasations by earthquakes around 800BC, giving an opportunity of northern peoples to take advantage of the weakened state and invade. These people pushed the former inhabitants out to form cities elsewhere. -
Message 33
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 12th December 2005
I have found some archaeological and carbon dating studies which show how things have been fused. In this first extract, we see a warrior has been buried and cremated, and this places it in Myceaanean time as it is TroyVI(late Myceanean as we shall see.1400BC-1200Bc. Now the author is confused, he states that the burial practice is very similar as practised in Athens in the 8th/9thC BC. But how can it be so similar when 400 years seperates them. The truth is there is very little time difference. Troy VI was destroyed by earthquake. In my view around 800BC-850BC, not 1200BC. So this is proof that there was continuation between late Myceanean in my view 800BC-850BC and early archaic 750-800BC. This find also proves that this person died during Troy VI of the late Myceanean(late bronze/early iron age) due to the cremation. Here is the extact and ink:
"One of the male graves is that of a warrior who was not only buried with his "killed" sword wrapped around his ash urn but who also had a very large krater set up over his grave as a permanent above ground burial marker, in much the same fashion as much later masterpieces of Geometric pottery were set up over the graves of Athenian nobles in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C."
Next we move onto Troy VII, 麻豆约拍rs Troy, dated to 1200BC. This next peice of evidence is about carbon dating the period. The results so so confuse the scientists that they give a huge margin or error of up to 570 Years!!! and they call the results imprecise, why, because they dont fit! Notice though how they include geometric pottery for : "the period 800 to 400 B.C. for Geometric/Archaic/Classical"
Here is the extract and link:
"In practice, this means that two of the most important periods of time in Anatolian archaeology--the beginning of the Bronze Age and the entire pre-Hellenistic Iron Age (leading to the rise of the Classical period) --are represented, respectively, by Before Present (BP) dates of 4150 and 2450. These apparently specific BP dates are not as precise as they might seem. Because of the "flatness" of the curve, they translate roughly into a range of 2950 to 2600 B.C. for the beginning of the Early Bronze Age and a range of 800 to 400 B.C. for Geometric/Archaic/Classical, all of which is far too imprecise for practical use.
The general outline of early Anatolian chronology as dated by radiocarbon, set forth in the recent summary by Mellink in the third edition of Chronologies in Old World Archaeology in 1992 (COWA 3), is probably roughly correct, at least for the relative sequences, even though the research is already nine years out of date. The tables list only 210 radiocarbon dates from 48 subsets of sites covering 6500 years of prehistory from about 8000 B.C. to about 1500 B.C. (uncalibrated). Fifty-six of these dates have error margins between 卤100 years and 卤570 years. Many sites are represented by a single determination or at best two, or three, or four, and all the dates need now to be reconsidered and recalculated with the newest calibration program in Stuiver, et al., (1993), and they need to be combined with many others that have now been published elsewhere or are to be published. "Basal" Mersin, for example, is represented by one radiocarbon date with an error margin of 卤300 years. The true potential of radiocarbon for Anatolian chronology is best seen in Korfmann et al., (1987) for Demircih眉y眉k, and in Korfmann and Kromer (1994) for Troy and Beşiktepe, where literally hundreds of radiocarbon determinations have now been made and integrated with the stratigraphic sequences from which the samples were collected, and where statistically significant comment can at last be made. S. W. Manning's long-awaited book (1995) resolves some of the unanswered questions left by COWA 3."
In the next extract we see that clay tablets are found writen in linearB (is this true? as it would be first for LinearB for non official use)If this is not a forgry then it proves for the names mentioned in he Iliad. It looks a bit too good to be true to me. Anyway it again is placed at the wrong time. Strangley, because of the chronology, these linearB tablets are placed in the time of the Hitties.It is not explained why a Hittite city of 1200BC would write in LinearB. Here is the extract and link:
"clay tablets were found by Hugo Winckler and Theodore Makridi in Turkey (Tyler 20, 21). Numerous clay tablets containing Linear B writing carved into wet clay were found at Bogazkoy in Turkey (Tyler 21, 23). These tablets date back to the Late Bronze Age Troy (Allen 258). The story of a war on the Aegean coast between a Greek king and the Hittite emperor's powerful western neighbor is described in the letter on the tablet (Tyler 21). This is consistent with 麻豆约拍r's account of the Trojan War. Furthermore, many of the names of people and places inscribed in the tablets are similar to the names found in the Iliad. For example, Priam and Pariamu, Paris and Pariya, Achaeans and Ahhiyawa, Troy and Taruisa, Ilios and Wilusa (Allen 258), and Alexandros and Alaksandus are names that are so much alike that it is unlikely that the similarities are coincidental (Wood 207). Indeed, the artifacts that were found in the sixth and seventh settlements of Troy, in Greece, and in the Hittite empire point to the fact that Troy was an actual city during the Bronze Age and that a war prevented Trojans from having outside contact with the rest of the world."
Now from the same article. Here we have a graveyard asigned to 1250BC Troy VII. Yet the burials are all cremated. Not possible for Myceanean times, see above burial for Troy VI. The authors think they have made some great discovery of evidence of cremation in 1250BC when in fact they have only proven that Troy VII belongs in the 7thCBC not 13thBC.
Here is the extract.
"Not only city ruins and ancient artifacts, but also human remains give further evidence that the city of Troy was real and that a Trojan War did take place[twh6] . A foreign graveyard outside the city walls, charred human remains, and broken skeletal remains suggest the actuality of the city and of the events. The burial custom during the time of the 麻豆约拍ric Greeks was to cremate their dead in order to purify the body by fire so that the soul might be liberated (Schuchhardt 310-311). Interestingly enough, a German team of archaeologists decided to excavate a mound at Besik Tepe, located five miles from Hissarlik (Wood 168). This sight, located near the Besika Bay, "represents the most likely site of Troy's ancient harbor, where Mycenaean Greeks would have been camped during a siege of Troy" (Allen 258). In the 1980s, Korfmann excavated a mound at Besik Tepe and discovered a Late Bronze Age cemetery (Allen 257). This foreign graveyard dates back to about 1250 BC (Tale 2). Amazingly, when the base of the mound was excavated, scientists found "over fifty cremations and burials with Greek grave goods and pottery . . . loosely described as being of the thirteenth century BC" (Wood 168). Excavators have connected this tumulus to the mound that Greeks believed to be that of Achilles (Allen 257), a warrior who kills the Trojan hero, Hector, in the Iliad (Yenen 6). The graves of foreign people outside Troy's city walls support 麻豆约拍r's account of a siege laid on the city of Troy during a war. Because the pottery dates back to the time period of the Trojan War, because the graves are Greek, and because many cremations were found, quite possibly, excavators have uncovered some of the graves of Greek warriors killed during the Trojan War"
In sumary, there is plenty of evidence that Troy VI belongs in about 9thCBC and Troy VII in 7thC BC. Troy VI was destroyed by earthquake as I have surmised. Troy VII was quickly rebuilt and was destroyed in around 680BC (Trojan war). Troy VIIb was also destroyed by fire most likely now by Scythian/Cimerians. Troy VIIb2 also. -
Message 34
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Writing, Troy? Correct me if I am wrong but until fairly recently that was one thing seemingly absent from the Troad before the site was resettled. Mind you I've only just found out what a Luwian heiroglyph is yet something tells me that its not Greek. There again when was the statue at the Karabel pass set up?
-
Message 35
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Hi Lol
Yes the nature of the relief shows that he considered the peoples there as couragous:
Herodotus
"Those of them whom he found valiant and fighting desperately for their freedom, in their lands he set up pillars which told by inscriptions his own name and the name of his country, and how he had subdued them by his power; but as to those of whose cities he obtained possession without fighting or with ease, on their pillars he inscribed words after the same tenor as he did for the nations which had shown themselves courageous, and in addition he drew upon them the hidden parts of a woman, desiring to signify by this that the people were cowards and effeminate"
Cant see any pussy on that relief!. Anyway, the Lydians are not mentioned so I presume the time of this relief is the time of RamsesII/Psametich1 or similar and that the Egyptians are there to help the Lydians fight off the Cimmerians/Scythians.
The way I see it, Gyges first asked help from the Assyrians who he made a treaty with and who helped him keep the Cimmerians at bay. However at some point he must have lost faith with the Assyrians because he sent men to help Psamatich(RamsesII) throw off the Assyrian yolk.
Now I presume the Assyrians would have withdrawn their support of Gyges. And so what happened next is that the Scythians invaded again but this time broke through and sacked Sardis as well as other towns. Gyges must have called in his favour of Ramses/Psmamtich and an army was sent to dispatch the Scythians which was done. Unfortunatley Gyges was killed in the war, making Ramses the temporary leader of the country until Ardys, son of Gyges took over.
When the Egyptians left Ardys did the only sensible thing he could, make a treaty with Assyria. The Assyrians were in no mood to argue as they had been weakened by the loss of Egypt and didnt want to have the Scythians knocking on their back door as they still had plans for Egypt. Lydia was their buffer and it had to be a strong buffer. When the Scythians returned the Assyrians helped the Lydians defeat them.
It appears the Lydians played a very clever game, between the two superpowers, making sure that neither became too powerful for their own good. Supporting one or the other or being supported by one or the other when needed.
Sounds plausible? -
Message 36
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
Hi E's
Ellistan pointed out the the Trojan war was fought amongst he Greeks according to 麻豆约拍r. This is true. However the allies of the Trojans came from all over Anatolia including Caria and Phrygia. So all these Anatolian peoples were considered in some way Greek by 麻豆约拍r if you take it literaly. The Phrygians were a `Greek' speaking people originally from Macedonia region. We have discussed in another thread the link bewteen Greek and Macedonian. The Lydians and Carians were more indiginous and may be related to the Thracians or Phoikians. Caria was said to be called Phoenicia before changing to Caria after it's first great King. Caria later became more `Greek' when the Ionian settlers arived from Greece. At the time of the Trojan war 麻豆约拍r relates that Melitus as being a Carian city. This later became Ionian.
If we look at all this infromation it tells us that the Trojan war took place sometime very early in the reign of Gyges or shortly before.
The list of allies in 麻豆约拍r seems to mention the predesscor of Gyges -Candyces -Lydian kings of the Herakleidae. It is said that 麻豆约拍 may have use an earlier allies/city list as his basis for the one in the Iliad.
Gyges before usurping power in Lydia and becomming the first Tyrant was a mercenary or General of some sort held in high regard. some claim he was possibly Carian or even Aeolian/Mysian. This would make sense if when sent to fetch Todu\Helen from Mysia for Candyses he fell in love with her. Also makes sense that when he became King he must have noticed the mainland Greeks sending their Ionian settlers in to the Carian lands and Islands. Eventually he took on the Greeks and managed to conquor the Troad and Colophon early in his reign. The islands though would remain beyond his reach.
So my dating for the Trojan war must be around when Gyges came to power (687) (during the civil war that ensued) or shortly before during his time as a mercenary warrior.(690's) The probable basis for Achilles.
To date this then would put the war at between 700 - 690 or 690 - 680. This would push the Olympics back to nearer where it has been assigned to in history to the relief I am sure of Ellistan and E.
麻豆约拍r then composed his Iliad during the time of Gyges or his successor. Possibly 650's.
The time around 690BC seems apt for the war as this was at the time of a visitation of Halleys Comet. Perhaps not fully visible though in Anatolia as it was recorded definately in China for 690BC. Thhis would again though explain 麻豆约拍rs involvment of the Gods. In previous time's Halleys comet approached much closer to the Earth. Reason for the war? Mysia/Aoelia and that part of Anatolia was the region where Purple dye was made. It was very very expensive and only Kings could afford it(hence why royalty wear purple). The war I believe was to secure this trade. 麻豆约拍r's Iliad is full of references to Purple and the dye. Book 1 alone has 8 references.
Halleys comet also visited in 842BC, giving rise I presume to the disasters and earthquakes of this time. So this dates my periods of destructions of various cities to around 842BC. These being rebuilt again but subsequently conquored by the new incomming notherners. -
Message 37
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
Artorius, all very nice but then Herodotus states the inscription at the Karabel pass was set up by one Sesostris, an Egyptian he believed had brought civilisation as well as circumcision to the Black Sea, having mistaken Luwian for Egyptian heiroglyphs.
-
Message 38
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
Hi Lol,
Okay so it was a nice story but could have happened. The relief is incidental. Egyptians were supposed to have fought at Troy as well.
The relief/Stele was set up by Hittite king I think in commemoration of a battle against the ancestors of the Lydians. Which places it around 800BC in my book -
Message 39
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
Who was Egyptian in the Illiad, you're not going to suggest Memnon son of the Dawn by any chance?
-
Message 40
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Hi All
I have further proof that the Trojan war must have taken place in the 7th Century. According to Greek mythologians BEFORE the Trojan war took place the Phrygian Kings Gordios and Midas ruled. We now know why Midas was associated with Gold. It wasnt actually gold but Electrum again from the river Pactolus. (alloy of gold and silver). The Phrygians were called Mushku by the Assyrians. Below you will find a record of King Sargon, written after he had conquored Samaria. You will notice that Sargon ruled from 721-705BC. In this inscription you will notice that Sargon has in the past, defeated King Midas(Mi-ta-a). This would mean Midas was defeated in about 720's or 7teens. So this means that the Trojan war must have taken place after this date. Midas died about 690BC by which time the Lydians under the Herakleidae were in place and then Gyges muscled in:
SARGON II (721-705): THE FALL OF SAMARIA (a) Inscriptions of a General Nature
"Pave dcs Fortes," No. IV, lines 31-44.
(Property of Sargon, etc., king of Assyria, etc.) conqueror of Samaria (Sa-mir-i-na) and of the entire (country of) Israel (Bit-Hu-um-ri-a} who despoiled Ashdod (and) Shinuhti, who caught the Greeks who (live on islands) in the sea, like fish, who exterminated Kasku, all Tabali and Cilicia (Hilatyu), who chased away Midas (Mi-ta-d) king of Musku, who defeated Musur (Mu-su-ri) in Rapihu, who declared Hanno, king of Gaza, as booty, who subdued the seven kings of the country la', a district on Cyprus (Ia-ad-na-na}, (who) dwell (on an island) in the sea, at (a distance of) a seven-day journey.
The Ancient Near East - James B Pritchard.
Ashdod was a port city in Isreal belonging to the Pilistines, later to Juda. The Musuri by the way are the Egyptians. The identity of the Egyptian King related in this text has always been a mystery. He as called 'Sibe' by the Assyrians elsewhere. This must, in my veiw, be Shoshenk IV.(720-715) One of his epithets was Si-Bast.
King Hanno of Gaza is King Hanon of Gaza.
Further more :
麻豆约拍r recounts briefly that the Trojan king Priam had in his youth come to aid the Phrygians when the Amazons attacked them. (Iliad 3.189).
If the date of the Trojan war then is in the period between 700-680's then Priam would have been fighting for the Phrygians against the Amazons in the 720's or earlier. The Amazons were tribes associated with cities like Smryni, Ephesus and others. Coming from northern Anatolia. Amazon actually just means `warrior'. The Greeks read the word and interpreted it to mean women as in their language it was made up of : mazos, breast, "full-breasted"; a (privative) and masso, touch, "not touching" (men). So became in Greek myths associated with women warriors. Perhaps their society was very matriarchal and the women did the fighting. Evidence of female horse archers have been found further to the north from where these Amazons may have first come.
As to Memnon of the Iliad, in my chronology the Egyptian king at this time would have been Seti I. Upon his ascension, he took the prenomen, Menmaatre. He is known to have fought wars against the `Hittites' so would have been in the region. Possible though that 麻豆约拍r just wove him in to the story. He was suceeded by RamsesII. -
Message 41
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 19th December 2005
Do I take it then that the Trojan war did in fact take place in the 690'sBC. Is the evidence convincing enough for you especially that last message before this? Do I have a case for this? If so I will try and identify the other players such as Hector, Paris and the like, or does anyone else know who these may have been based on using the time of Gyges and immediately before.
-
Message 42
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Monday, 26th December 2005
Interesting addendum.
The Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus, who wrote two centuries after the death of Gyges (c680-644), tells in the first book of Histories that Lydia was once ruled by a man named Candaules or Myrsilus.
The Velikovskian reconstruction makes the Hittites, with their capital at Boghazkoy in central Anatolia, the precursors of the neo-Babylonian empire. Several of their kings were named Mursilis.
Noggin -
Message 43
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Monday, 26th December 2005
Hi Noggin,
Yes, I realised this link with Myrsilus of Maonia and Myrsilus of the Hittites, who the Greeks I think called Chaldeans, who were neo Assyrian/Babylonians. -
Message 44
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
Hi Noggin,
Further on this subject of Myrsilus. The way I read it is that the Phrygians invaded Chaldean/Hittite) territory in about 890BC (not 1200BC)pushing the Chaldeans further south and eastward. This gave rise to the last of the "Hittite"/Chaldean rulers with one becomming one of the founders of Lydia. Interesting though that if the last of the "Hittites" was the beginning of the Lydian it explains why Lydia was so keen to conquor the Phrygians which they did, defeating them and "re-uniting" it's territory.
These "Hitites" were pushed further east and southeast settling it appears near Syria/Lebanon in the region from Carchemish to the Orontes river region - Ugarit. It was here, now known as Hatti and possibly Apiru(homeless wandering people?)possibly Aramean, that they became a force to fight with by both the Assyrians/Babylonians and the Egyptians, Cananites and Phoenicians. Eventualy the Hittites were absorbed by the Assyrians. If the Apiru are these wandering Hittites then it places the Armana letters at about 840BCish, meaning Akhenaten and Tutankhamen belong in this time frame.(incidentaly some unconfirmed carbon dating places them in this time to.) Due to the chronological mess I am not sure yet wether the Apiru/Abiru/Hebrew can be linked with the moving Chaldean/Hittite/Aramean peoples. The link of the Hebrews though with Ugarit is very strong. Ugarit(MaKaZu?) was destroyed probabably by ShalmenasserIII in 850ishBC forcing these peoples further south into Phoenician and Cananite territory. -
Message 45
Posted by Oprichniki (U3049732) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Well I study the Mycenian Civilisation and its most likely this point has already been made but as you know the Mycneians were the civilsation to lay siege and take over Troy in the Late Helladic IIIC period in approximately 1200 - 1100 BC therefore I believe the Destruction of Troy was in this time period as the Mycenian civilisation collapsed due to internal affairs back home in Greece shortly after the fall of Troy. Also if you look at when the Dorians moved into mainland reece that should help prove my point as they attacked the Mycenians after the fall of Troy. Also according to Thucydides the fall of Troy occured in 1200 BC not in the 7th Century Bc. I'm sorry but i have to disagree with your first statement.
-
Message 46
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Hi Opri,
As has been said before. Myceaea chronology is based on flawed Egyptian chronology. Also Midas was supposed to have lived just before the Trojan war, yet no evidence for the Phrygians exists until the 9/8thC BC. The fabled Midas himself was defeated by Sargon in around 720BC.
Also the oympic games are mentioned in the Ilead in their original for mas the Ellean games. as these games didnt start until 776BC the time of the war can be narrowed down. -
Message 47
Posted by philhk (U3109337) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Hi Nikolaos & all,
interesting thread, I can`t contribute much except to say the Iliad & Oddessey are two fantastic books & in my opinion were both written, based upon Greek oral tradition, by the same man who we now know as 麻豆约拍r.
Although I am handicapped by an inability to read these books in the original Greek I have read several different translations & my opinion, especially with regards to the Iliad, is that stylistically it points to one author/compiler with the possible exception of the various endings with which you are all possibly aware. For me the natural ending appears to be, (excuse my translation which is from memory as I don`t have a copy of either handy at the moment) " & these were the funeral games/rites for Hector, tamer of horses." Some versions end with "& then came an Amazon,..." which has suggested, if I remember correctly that the poem of the Trojan war continues further than the brief period between Aggamemnons quarrel with Achilles & Hectors funeral. My opinion is that, stylistically at least, this short time covered stands alone as evidence of possibly the first great literary work in the western world, written by one man but based, as has been mentioned, on a previous oral tradition.
I am prepared to accept that versions continuing with " & then came an Amazon" may well be an addition by a later writer & based upon a remnant of earlier oral poetry which was ignored by 麻豆约拍r who showed a revolutionary, & previously unknown talent for the written word.
I think it is important to remember this when considering 麻豆约拍r & in the search for historical evidence contained in the works we should not overlook the 2 books most important feature which is the accomplishment of the wests first literary masterpieces, which in my mind point definitely to a single author.
The Oddesssey does, to my mind, give slightly more problems than the Iliad but at the same time, due to the use of extremely more complex literary devices shows a growing understanding of an innovative poet with the new concept of the written word.
Now I`m getting to the point I meant to raise with this post & that is that Oddeyseus 10 yrs wandering was not told as either a fact, or as mentioned by Nikolaus "a joke" but was a literary device used by 麻豆约拍r to enable Telemachus to come of age, if 麻豆约拍rs hero had been quicker returning from the war then his son, born just prior to the expedition would not have been old enough either to visit Nestor & Menelaus, (thus excising important background material) or upon his fathers return to help him overthrow the suitors who are abusing the important ancient Greek tradition of Hospitality upon which much of the book is based.
It would also be not nearly so exciting & so to my mind all this is evidence of a master storyteller perfecting his art.
I doubt I have managed to express myself as I might have wished, unfortunately I am no 麻豆约拍r & I crave your indulgence but hopefully after I manage to re-read certain sections during the next few days I may manage to explain my thoughts more succintly.
Kind regards,
Phil. -
Message 48
Posted by LittleHill (U3038272) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
Dont waste space philhk
-
Message 49
Posted by philhk (U3109337) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
Dear Doc50cents,
if you are referring to the empty space above & below my text I apologise but unfortunately due to my rather poor abilities with computers I don`t know why the post appeared that way & although I attempted to at the time I was unable to correct it.
If on the other hand you believe the contents of the message itself to be a "waste of space" I would appreciate a slightly more elaborate response as to the reasons why.
I am new to these boards & am still getting the hang of things.
Regards,
Phil.
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 聽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
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 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.