Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
The True site of Troy ;)
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
Hi all, just a bit of fun here!
There are some people firmly believing that Troy and of course its famous battle with the Trojans and their dodgy gifts was actually in Britain!
Supposedly ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔrs Oddessy makes more sense if you take it to go right at the pillars of hercules and north into britain... Troy itself was based in what is now Cambridge (apparantly the site matches troys description) and the 2 protaganists, Troy and the Trojans were actually Celt tribes having a big argument over iron ore wealth..
Any thoughts? -
Message 2
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
Its wrong
-
Message 3
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
But it does explain why it took Odysseus 10 years to get back to Ithaca.
TP -
Message 4
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
How do you mean, he asked the locals for directions or something?
-
Message 5
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
Hi Renegade
Yea, and do you know how much the book about this theory goes for now on Amazon, about Β£80 - Β£350. A few months ago it was like Β£700!..... -
Message 6
Posted by Vinnievoyle (U2874080) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
I'm no expert and do not claim to have studied ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr's texts in depth. But, there are ancient texts (12 Century manuscripts copied from earlier sources) which repeatedly mention that the remnants of the Trojan race left the Anatolian coast and migrated to Britain, specifically to Wales. In 'Cyffes Taliesin'(The Confession of Taliesin) for example by that famous poet of the same name, and recorded in the 'Book of Taliesin', the following lines occur in middle Welsh:
"Mi ddaethum yma at weddillion Troya" (I came here to the remnants of Troy/the trojans). I'm not saying this iswhat happened but when these lines were put down, most likely in some magic mushroom induced trip, the legend was already quite old as was the legend of Brutus founding Britain. Numerous other dark age/druidic sources bring it up but I don't have the Mss numbers to hand. -
Message 7
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
Vinnievoyle, I'm interested in your use of the term 'druidic' manuscript, as I've never come across the term 'druides' or a Celtic equivalent in any dark age source. 'Magi', yes. 'Druides', no.
-
Message 8
Posted by Vinnievoyle (U2874080) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
I'll have to look this up, but in one of the triads of Britain (University of Wales Press, edited by Rachel Bromwich) there are a few triads which refer to the Derwyddon(druids), their religion and the esteem which the ancient Britons/Celts throughout Europe held them in. Not a Druidic manuscript perhaps( I know of none which exist), as I think their traditions were passed on by word of mouth and anything written down could well have been destroyed during the Roman assault on Anglesey & elsewhere; but manuscripts whose original authors would have been very familiar with their old traditions and beliefs. 'Ammau pob anwybod" (Question/Doubt all which is unknown) was one apparent tenet of their faith. Though Taliesin might well be considered a druid of sorts? He claims in said poem to be 'Chief bard of the Island of Britain', known and respected with a shapeshifting past.
-
Message 9
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
Hi all
It could also be a coincidence that the Iceni occupy the place the attacking Achaeans would have occupied and the Trinovantes occupied the same area the Trojans were defending....if the battle took place on the Gog(Trojans?) magog(Achaeans?) hills and surounding area as proposed by this theory...
The main feature of the theory is that the rivers mentioned by ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr bear a very strong resemblance to those of the Cambridge plain, Wash and surrounding areas. Temes(Thames) is also mentioned by ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr.
The general idea is that when Greece was devasted by the exlosion and earthquakes of Santorini northern tribes invaded from the North, fleeing floods and devastation. These peoples then took their myths and stories with them, which when written down were then applied to places in the Greek area.
Wilkens though tries to convince us that the actual names of the places themselves were in northern Europe and the incomming peoples named places in Greece after their own homelands, much as what happened in America when the Europeans arrived. He equates Dieppe with Thebes and places Egypt therefore in northern France.(there is an Egypt point on the Ise of Wight and a river Isis) He traces nearly all the tribes mentioned by ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr to northern European locations. In Linear B however there is a person decribed as `the Egyptian'. We do not know of course though whether this meant Wiken's Egypt or `the Egypt' which wasnt called such until well after the time of linear B.
I no longer have the book as I gave it away but a summary of the theory can be found here:
-
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Artorius,
Thanks for the link. To be quite frank I thought that the idea of a British Troy was probably an elaborate hoax. But it does appear that the author was in earnest, amazing as that may seem. A great many objections to the theory must assuredly occur to readers. Is anyone sufficiently convinced as to want to debate the issue?
TP -
Message 11
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this theory not imply that migrations started in England and headed east rather than vice versa? Where is the archaelogical eveidence for this? Surely Tony Robinson must have tripped over something by now?
-
Message 12
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Hi Twin,
The biggest problem I have with it is that Alexander the Great is said to have visited Troy on his way into Asia minor. So by his time - 350BC a place in asia minor was indeed called Troy.
I am not sure how Wilkens could explain this away unles of course that Troy was named after the original Troy in England. The original Troy having been destroyed around 1200BC in conventional chronology..
The other problem from a Greek point of view is that according to Archeaology there are way to few towns and cities around at the time that the Trojan war is placed in conventional history for such a large force to be assembled. Also some of the directions given in the story make no sense in a mediteranean setting.
So either the conventional dates for the war are wrong or it did indeed take place elsewhere. My view is that the conventional dates are wrong and that it happened around 950-900BC. Removing of course most of the `dark ages' of Greece and elsewhere that didn't really occur but may be a figment of conventional history's imagination. -
Message 13
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Hi Elistan
Migrations in antiquity from the North into southern regions ie into Greece and Italy are well known. Perhaps Niko could help us with some more on this. -
Message 14
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Doubtful, heck its bad enough wading through your chronological revisionism and attempts to rationalise mythical figures as genuine personalities without Nick's particular brand of prehistoric migrations and suggestions that people are attempting to hide aspects of the past from the rest of us.
-
Message 15
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
cmon Loll, you know history is written by the victors...sooo much must be hidden from us...
-
Message 16
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
From my own personal experince history is generally written by the losers looking for another outlet for their talents. Often they are attempting to curry favour with the victors but that is a different matter. Of course its going to be hidden from you if you insist upon only relying on your own hermetically sealed chronology as a guideline. Either way I don't think ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr was reporting on Flag Fen or anything like that.
-
Message 17
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Artorius, Athens and Miletus had been arguing over who had rights to settle on the site of the Troad some three or four centuries earlier than Alexander before it was turned into the equivelent of a hellenistic theme park and then given further significance as being the site of Rome's mother city in 188BC. That and the site of Hisarlik appears to have had a considerable level of occupation going back 5000 years but never let such tiny details get in the way of your theory that there are no major urban settlements around the Black Sea and Aegean at this point. I know the archaelogical reports are rather dry but do us a favour and leave your ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr on the shelf.
In so far as your attempts to downgrade the conventional chronology, who here said the Trojan war was a real event given the numerous layers of destruction forund on the site during the Late Bronze and Early Iron age in Anatolia. -
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Somebody has been reading Clive Cussler, who used this idea in his story Trojan Odyssey. Suggesting that men would be more likely to fight over the fact that the British controled the Tin trade at that time, than over an unfaithful wife. Good read though as are all Cusslers books.
-
Message 19
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Yes well Herodotus was making this argument two and a half thoudsand years ago, although he figured Paris and Helen sloped off to Egypt where Menelaus found her after leaving Troy based upon the fact it is alluded he sailed as far as Ethiopia in the Odyssey. Hence Priam didn't hand the woman over when the Greeks came a knocking. All the same ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr is a poem not direct history as you or I would concieve it, not so sure about Artorius, so it does not have to have to be exact in its ascribing cause. I think there may be a case that the Tin trade form the Zagros mountains in Iran is a more likely source of conflict in the Eastern mediteranean whereas the Peoples of the sea like the Shecklesh and Sherdana may well have had more influence on the transport of tin and amber from north west Europe as it came down the Rhone. Just because someone can pay to have their book published does not mean that they are automatically on to anything.
-
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
The question of the true story behind ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔrβs poems has fascinated many writers and researchers even from ancient times. No matter what has been said so far, one detail unites all writers: the two poems are a collection of past myths and they do not have necessarily to talk about the same historic events that happened in a specific order. For example, if Odysseus existed in reality and was a king of Ithaca and a mariner that performed many voyages he did not necessarily take part in the Trojan War and fewer are the chances that he got lost for β¦ another 10 years in a sea (Mediterranean) millennia before those times (1500-1000 B.C.) β¦ if anyway the war happened in that time period (if it ever happened like that and it was not just a collection of past continuous campaigns).
If we take the stories as they are we have to imagine that Odysseys the king of Ithaca, an island just a few Km away from Corfu (supposedly the island of the Phaeacs according to some writers ancient and new), had no idea not only of who was his neighbour king but also no idea of the existence of Corfu, its habitants and itsβ¦ unmanned automatic guided shipsβ¦.
Now, in Iliad it seems that there is more sense and that most writers, especially the ancient ones seem to agree that Troy existed and was a large city just on the mouth of Dardanelles (on the south side, thus on Minor Asia). Also most writers β especially ancient ones β believe that the Trojan War must had occurred around 1175 or 1250 or a century earlier around 1350 which makes it at least 400 years older than ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr who lived around 800-750 B.C.
It is not that I trust 100% the ancient writers (cos they did not know much more than us on the issue given that there were not many other myths circulating about this war (thus certainly a war that occurred many generations before them) but then if we are to call the ancient writers βliarsβ and take out the Minor Asian option then I cannot imagine where else could be that Troyβ¦ Egypt, Palestine or the Black sea perhapsβ¦ i.e. the main trade areas of the Mycenaeans.
This so-called-theory about Mycenaeans campaigning in England is the least dodgy. Ok, it is known that earlier Minoan and later Mycenaean (like Phoenician) artifacts were sold as far as in England, probably by means of the βriver-tradeβ throughout modern France (celtic tribes were not rookies in trade!), or the occasional Minoan/Mycenaean ship that would go out and make the round of western Europe. Such ships could then return with other products, say with metals and such. But can anyone say that England was the main supplier of metal for Mycenaean kingdoms to the point that the latter depended directly on England on that aspect so as to get at a point so pissedoff and gather 70,000 troops and some 1000 ships and send them make the round of Europe to land in England and campaign for 10 yearsβ¦ it is really a far stretched point. I mean, if you said to me India, I could still accept it easier making the connection to the stories of mythical hero/leader/god (?) Dionysus who campaigned from Egypt to Greece and then India in times, as mentioned, earlier than the 5th millennia B.C. If you told me, the mythical mariner Odysseus must had landed on England, I would say βyes, possibly, who knows! But the Trojan War related to England (or another place in Western Europe) I would say βdefinitely notβ.
It seems that Schliemanβs findings, situated right on the spot (mouth of Dardanelles) that ancient writers said, might be indeed the real Troy. Afterall I think that there was done a research by multidisciplinary groups of geologists, archaiologists and historians who studied the modern geological characteristics, then made projections in the past (in the 1400 β 1100 B.C. era) and then looked again in ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔrβs text and found striking coincidences (e.g. the distance of the city from the sea, the location of the Greek camp and its surroundings etc. I would add on the top that Sliemanβs city had been raided and rebuilt many times (Troy should be Sliemanβs 2nd or 3rd city I do not remember) which coincides again with ancient myths that stated that for example, Hercules had already raided the city 1-2 generations before the generation of Agamemnon, Menelaus and Co.
And why not? It is known that Mycenaen kingdoms expanded from 2000 B.C. to 1400 in population and taken for granted that the mountainous peninsulas on the west side of the Aegean could not feed properly increased numbers (from those days even up to today!), it can be taken for granted that Mycenaeans like their contemporary Minoans and later classical and Byzantine Greeks depended on imports. Imports were either from Egypt, Middle East, Minor Asia and Black Sea. It is bound that all that commerce had to be controlled by someone and for the case of Minor Asia - Black Sea it was possible to be done by one major city based in the mouth of Dardanelles.
As for what nation where the Trojans we have again heard anything on earth... from Lydians and Hittites (which is not very far fetched anyway) to Egyptians, Italians or Africans (since Ethiopians helped them at the end). However, and apart the natural context that his poems took in the 5th and 4th century and the struggle against Persians (fight of Europe against Asia etc.), ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr never classified Trojans as Achaians nor did he put interpreters when an Achaian hero would swear at a Trojan and the opposite. Trojans seemed to have exactly the same religion, and same customs and same language and that was natural enough since even in myths their mythical ancestor was Dardanos who came from a similar Someone will mention, these are just myths but then Phrygians and Thraecians in the 2nd millenia B.C. were not that very far from Greeks and the opposite - actually there was not even the word Greek (for ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr Hellas was a small insignificant city inbetween Thessalia and Phocea). Thus anyone who says that Trojans were substantially different than the Achaians is just speculating in the uknown. -
Message 21
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Hi Lol
My theory? Historical dates are being revised all the time by conventional history.
Yes the evidence of occupation of Hisarlik goes back 5000 years or so but there is no evidence that it was called Troy or Ilium. The closest ancient reference we have is the Hittite references to Wilusa and it's king Aleksandros.
Strangley the Myceanean Greeks dont mention it at all and at the time they were supposed to be attacking it their cities were in decline and suffering from earthquakes and the like. This is not `dry archaeology' it's archeaelogical fact!
As to wether the war was a real event may have nothing to do with Hisarlik and it's many layers as we dont know for certain that Hisarlik was Troy.
I have an open mind about the position but favour an Anatolian Troy. Having read the latest reports from the teams excavating in Troy they also have an open mind about it and there are constant arguments by scholars about it and the references in Hitite texts.
So it seems they are none the wiser than we... -
Message 22
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
As it stands Linear B doesn't appear to have mentioned much about many things other than accounts of palace economies, although the name Hector does turn up. I suppose the fact that Alexander continues to be a common Greek name would suggest that the Hittites were talking about those we now describe as Myceneans. Having said that other groups of wandering marauders around at the same time tended to have more impact on the literate urban communities they descended upon as opposed to in their own communities where oral records sufficed. I'd agree with your assertion about whether the site of Hisarlik is the equivelent of Troy but as it stands it seems to have been considered as the Troad from the reintroduction of writing in the Aegean during the first Millennium BC.
-
Message 23
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
so was troy true or not i do not know but can someone say for a fact if it was true or not.
-
Message 24
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Well the film was rubbish whether it was true or not.
-
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 3rd August 2006
An interesting point Artorius (on the fact that the common dates for Troy siege coincide with the common dates of decline of Mycenaean kingdoms) but I will give you a hint:
It is known anyway that the greek peninsulas, perhaps apart Thessalia, could not provide with enough food to support developped kingdoms/cities etc. We know that Mycenaeans anyway had expanded more than the land (and the means of those days) could provide them, thus they were extensively suported by sea trade (like Minoans did), and thus had developped considerable fleets.
Now from what other sciences tell us, there was a considerable climatic change in that era (in between 1400 and 1000 B.C.), which had a cooling effect in the area. Lets not forget that the lands now are called Greece had a semi-tropical climate prior to 1500 B.C. (with rihnos, lions, elephants etc.). Of course that happened gradually but then it meant certainly that one too many times per decade the harvest would be a disaster (it takes time for plants to get used to new conditions) thus Mycenaean kingdoms, in order to maintain their development had to depend more and more on sea trade (why not from the Black Sea where they might had less problems with that climatic change?).
Hence, the urge to control that commerce themselves would be a matter of survival explaining why they dedicated so many ressources and so much time for that campaign that did not just target one city but the whole area (as the same myth tell us: Achaeans had actually sieged and conquered the majority of surrounding cities before enterring Troy during those 10 years).
Thus it is not that strange that the siege of Troy coincided with the downfall of Mycenaeans. Myself I think that the war happened in a series of campaigns on the Minor Asian coast where raiders supported themselves by raiding the place but also with continuous support from the other side of the Aegean while Troyans had allies most of the cities of Minor Asia (Phrygians, Lyceans) and recruited various mercenaries (being the rich people they might had been due to the commerce they controlled!). I also think that the war happened a bit before the Mycenaean downfall, i.e. around 1400-1300 B.C. -
Message 26
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 3rd August 2006
There's a small group of fields by the side of the airport road five or six miles from Dublin called Troy - not far from Toberbunney. The guy who delivered vegetables when I was a kid grew his spuds there. Shifty-eyed git, if I remember rightly. Always looking over his shoulder and rubbing his heel (sometimes simultaneously).
He said once a guy called Schliemann called around and asked could he dig there but our man told him in no uncertain terms that they were NOT 'dig-your-own' spuds and he could fie himself off to Turkey, for all HE cared!
Nice spuds though, even if one ran the risk of breaking one's tooth on the odd arrowhead. -
Message 27
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 3rd August 2006
If Troy was in England, how come they could see Samothrace?
Was Troy true? Not quite sure what that means. The Iliad and Odyssey are stories, albeit allegedly set in a historical background. If Troy was in Anatolia as the stories allege, them there are remains of an ancient city in the right area with the right characteristics. Does that make it true?
As for the film, it was definitely not true, but was another re-telling of the story. Actually, I didnβt think it was that bad. I know some historians got upset but it was supposed to be entertainment, not a documentary. -
Message 28
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Thursday, 3rd August 2006
It was an awful film in my opinion, The best bit was the horse, which is now in a park in Cannakele on the Dardanelles.
-
Message 29
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Thursday, 3rd August 2006
Nevermind the innaccuracies, it was far too long, the scenes were all ripped off from other blockbusters while the dialogue was rubbish and Brad pitt seemed to mimic whoevers' accent he was acting with, adopting a faux English Accent whenever he had to do scenes with the likes of Cox or O'Toole while he suddenly became Australian in conversation with Bana or the actress that played Brisias. It takes some doing to make a turkey out of the Illiad but the fastest way seems to be to remove the Gods from ther story.
-
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 3rd August 2006
Despite my love for accuracy, I did not mind that much the film, it was meant to be a free re-make of the story with a different twist. Fair enough its just entertainment (they could not even imitate roughly the weaponry of that era - which had been much more impressive than what shown).
I think the most blatant error of the film was to depict the war as one of semi-barbaric Greece united against Troyans (depicted as noblemen as shown by their uniformity in military suits). The name Greece did not exist in pre-1000B.C. times and certainly we do not know if Troyans were not Greeks themselves (I mean related phyletically to Mycenaeans anyway!). The notion of Greece also did not exist as these were independent kingdoms and it was not all of kingdoms that participated but only those who seemed to have many ships - thus directly involved in the commerce - and some of their subjects thus it was nowhere near any Greek coalition against foreigners... the possibility that this might had been yet another endo-phyletic war among hellenic/parahellenic tribes is much greater (parahellenic I regard Moesians, whatever tribe is mentioned as Thraecians, even Phrygians etc. cos they were really not that far back in the 2nd millenia of B.C. era both culturally and linguistically despite the whatever linguistic classifications done for these tribes - all commencing by the futile effort to include Greek in a hypothetic indo-european language... not commenting on that palatovelaro centum/satem largely irrelevant to historic events classification).
Whatever the truth on the above the Trojan war was done by a group of kingdoms against another group of kingdoms on the other side of the Aegean for clearly commercial reasons: control of commerce. Placing Troy in the mouth of Dardanelles is more than logical. -
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 3rd August 2006
In the mean time I read somewhere (well via Wikipedia) that ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr has mentioned Phrygians (eastern neighbours of Troyans who were also their allies in that war) as being different to Trojans. If they were different to Phrygians and if Phrygians were really very close to Thraecians (who all were anyway not that far from Greek tribes back in those times), I do not see why Trojans were not related to Greeks unless Troy had been a colony of somebody else like Egyptians, Phoenicians, Celtics or any other tribe circulating in Eurasia and north Africa.
PS: I personally consider that Phrygians (related to Thraecians), Thraecians and the rest of Greek tribes could still understand each other quite nicely until the mid-2nd millenia B.C. I also find the linguistic groupings of these languages (and the usual comparison with Illyrian etc.) as highly ridiculous as I personally consider that one has to stick more to vocabulary and grammar and less in pronunciation in the determination of language correlation - i.e. just try to write northern english accents as they are pronounced (example: pronounced=pronaounsd) and you will have not onlyt a different language but also one that you could classify in a different group palatovelarowhatever. That is why I stick to vocabulary and grammar and keep aside the pronounciation as secondary. -
Message 32
Posted by tuisku (U5381802) on Monday, 21st August 2006
Hi!
I just finished reading a book of an Italian guy, Felice Vinci: "Baltic Origins of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr's Epic Tales". Whew...Very brave story... Please, read it! Although I won't buy everything he claims, it seems to be the most thorough investigation of this subject until now.
Based mainly on geographical, climatical, historical and archeological evidence he claims that the real setting of Iliad and Odyssey can be identified at Baltic sea and not at Mediterranean. For instance,
- already the ancient historian Strabo was wondering how the places at the Mediterranean and in ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr's stories did not match;
- the climate in ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr's stories is very often rainy, foggy and cold and people are wearing thick clothing;
- Peloponnesos is flat (Sjaelland?) according to ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr whereas it has mountains in Greece...;
- many of the placenames seem to match, etc...
For instance, he identifies Troy in Finnish coast: there is a village called Toija and - according to Vinci - the geography fits to ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr's description. In fact, this does not sound so funny when you consider that this coastal region in Finland shared the Battle-Axe culture of Baltics during around 2500-2000 BC. Then, whereas everywhere alse in Baltic region the culture still flourished, the Finnish part of it suddenly vanished. War of Troy?
The Achaean homeland is identified in present day Denmark, where - indeed - signs of a strong Bronze-Age culture have been identified. After all, it was a place where flintstone was easily found during Stone Age and it may have continued as a strong Bronze Age (Battle-Axe) culture later on.
So, take a look in that book. You might get surprised how all details start to match...
I started it with a grin in my face but then realized that it might even be like he says although the Greek will never accept the story... -
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 29th August 2006
First I have to say that philosophically I am not in any way against such books, though I recognise that 99% of times are mostly written for creating impressions using the method of selective examples.
To give you an example, 100-150 years back some Germand and certain English (those on the indoeuropean theory) were flirting (not to say making love) with the idea that original Greek tribes were more close to Germanic (in an effort to cover the fact that Germanic tribes had been culturally of the most regressive for millenia till Rennaissance - no comments on that!) and they were bringing funny examples such as that ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr said Achilles was blond and that Oddyseus was blond! Yes, it seems that Achilles might had been blond, what is so strange, at all times there existed blond (not scandinavian blond, this white-like hair but mediterranean style!) at a 10% analogy to 70% light, medium, dark, close to black brown and 30% black hair. But then Oddyseus was mentioned only once as blond and other 10 times as having black hair thus one can attribute all that to bad copies. It is also known that at the times of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr blond was in fashion as being exotic but as Greeks were expanding their colonies and meeting blond people, the colour of blond became the colour of idiotic barbarians - black and dark brown and big eyes was the typical civilised man as Aristotle (if I remember well) comments.
Now going into that book, I think that this Italian guy is yet another one that tries to step on the indoeuropean theory and on the descend of Greek talking tribes from the north. I have written 1000s of times that this is most wrong as there is absolutely no myth in which Greeks remember any distant homeland in the north as they should if this was true and when there is one (the golden flee) that refers to the Black Sea it refers to as a distant foreign and totally barbaric (in the modern sense) land.
Going to the details? When ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr, describes a campaign of 70,000 soldiers with around 1500 ships that landed on coast and raided numerous cities all over the place (to survive and prosper) for 10 years until they finally found the way to break into powerfull Troy, then we naturally have to guess that that army stayed there for at least 9 winters. Now I do not know how well you know the climate of Greece but I can reassure you that I prefer the winter in England than winter in Greece of north Aegean (same for Minor Asia). Trust me rain in south England is a pleasant shower bath, rain in southwest Europe is chair-legs. And when it rains so much and the climate is so humid and of average temperature it is stupid to wear a summer-chiton, you will most probably die of pneumonia.
Of course, climate at those times was different. If we make the guess that the war happened in the 1400-1200 B.C. period (late Myceneans) when we fall in the interim period of changing climate. Prior to that (in the times of Minoans and early-middle Myceneans), the climate had been sub-tropical, with a pleasant spring, long summer, pleasant autumn and a very short and mild winter (snow only in taller mountains), a climate that permitted many tropical animals and plants to survive (lions are said to had been of the last to survive as far as the interim period). After that the climate changed: autumn became more cold, spring was divided in a colder start and a hot end and summer remained summer (though a bit more prolonged than what is today... something like the weather in south Greece, Crete today) though more dry. The third major change happened in the 3rd-4th A.D. times (wonder why climate changes brought often major historical changes!).
In any case, even if the Trojan war happened early in the interim period or even earlier it is not any surprise to read about heavy rain and about people wearing thicker cloths in autumn or winter! To give you an example of the 5th century B.C. (a period theortically hotter than our modern), we read that Socrates in one of his rare exits from his beloved Athens participated in a campaign in Chalkidiki (same latitude with the place were most say Troy was in Minor Asia) and when winter came, everything was frozen, they could not even lit a fire easily to melt the ice for water and their food stocks were over since ships would not risk sailing under such a weather. Shorter the winter it had been (in comparison to today), it would nontheless give you often the chill that the Nordic people "enjoy" for more months.
Now what else seems to fit with the Baltic-Danmark hypothesis? The names? What? Finnish gave Finno-ugric names to their cities I think, and Finno-Ugric being a mongolic family of languages have nothing to do with the Greek names we read in Heliad (ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr never mentioned that Troyans were any different to Achaians in religion, language or customs).
I have no doubt that cultures existed in the Baltic region, in Finland and Danmark. But I sincirely doubt (in the absence of proof or at least an indication) of the possibility of existence of a city so well fortified and defended that could withstand the attack of an army of 70,000 (or even of 10,000!) for 10 years (or even 1 month!)... guess how much being the place of inspiration for myths such as the Trojan war.
Do not also forget that Troy appears in a number of other myths, it had been sacked recently by Hercules and his army 2-3 generations before that great expendition and that is another evidence that the 7-8 times sacked Troy of Minor Asia (placed in the most strategic point in the mouth of Dardanelles controlling ship routes from Mediterranean to the Black Sea) was most probably the real Troy. -
Message 34
Posted by tuisku (U5381802) on Wednesday, 30th August 2006
I agree that the climate could be humid and chilly also in Greece. However, the inconsistencies in geography are very nicely explained by Vinci.
Actually, so nicely that some people seem to take this story quite seriously, like prof. of classic literature William Mullen from Bard College: they organized a boat trip during the summer 2006 to follow the path described by Vinci in his book. You can find their travel diary by googling.
Vinci's point is that the Mycenean people, when moving to Mediterranean due to weather getting colder, carried the tale&placenames with them but later on forgot their early origin or modified the story to fit (as much as they could) it with the new setting and named the places accordingly. So, this would explain the similar type of names in the regions. The similar culture in former Denmark and coast of Finland is explained by the Battle-Axe culture that was spread all around the Baltic Sea.
One detail what I particularly would like to correct in your message is the statement "Finno-Ugric being mongolic language family". This view, what is traditionally considered very negative, has its origins in Swedish ultranationalistic research of history in the beginning of the 20th century when Finns were tried to prove to have mongolic origins. All this have been proved wrong by modern and unbiased research of linguistics and genetics. Furthermore, there is some evidence, although very heavily discussed (google Kalevi Wiik), that Swedes are just genetically Finnic (Finns and/or Saami) people but have just changed their language due to spread of agriculture. So, please, show some respect to one of the oldest and original languages of Europe... OK, bit off the topic, but had to react...
Well, to conclude, I think Vinci have been very brave to publish his theory, and it seems to explain some inconsistencies of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔr's work very well. We will see what the English translation induces in the future: hopefully some more discussion and archeological studies in the suggested locations. Indeed, there should be large amount of archeological remains, taking into account the numbers mentioned in Iliad.
However, the presently accepted history is so deeply built in the academic family that I see long and nasty way for the pioneers...
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 Β 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
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ 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.