|
Post by Artemisia on Nov 27, 2003 20:52:05 GMT -5
The Thracians were considered as barbarians by the Ancient Greeks. "Thracian" was a blanket term for many tribes of the East Balkans. The Thracian coast was colonized by south Greeks and later incorporated into the Macedonian kingdom. In Hellenistic times, what is today Greek Thrace as well as Turkish Thrace and a good part of Bulgaria would be Greek-speaking primarily. The more northern parts of Thrace probably remained relatively un-Hellenized, which is why after the Roman conquest they were converted into Latin speech. Thanks, Dienekes. It seems Satyros needs a good history lesson before trying to blast a knowledgeable person. I suppose Satyros thinks that names like Ditizele, Suethes, Razkaporis, Ziaelas, and Cotis are of Greek origin. P.S:Sorry I'm messing up the quotes. First time I'm using a forum like this.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 27, 2003 22:41:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Satyros on Nov 27, 2003 23:04:28 GMT -5
---------------Heinrich Schliemann was a great man. If it weren't for him we wouldn't know of Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns today, or at least we would have discovered it much later.---------------- Yeah, WHATEVER------------ The Iliad is an epic poem.....it is not a historical work!--------------- I dont think i ll take your word on this one! ----------------Yes. And they all say that the Thracians were NOT Greeks. Give me ONE ancient source were the Thracians are said to be a Greek people. I'm sorry if you are from Thrace, but only the Greek colonies on the Aegean and Black Sea coast of Thrace were Greek (I may also add Phillipopolis and a few inland Hellenistic settlements). The Odrysians, Getae, Dacians, and many other Thracian tribes were not Greek.--------------- What is it with you trying to prove Thracians as non Greek? No, i am not Thracian, but to assume i am only defending them because i am, is insulting to me. You have NO IDEA about the tribes living in Thrace, or about anything concerning Thrace in general, therefore i will provide some information later on.. ----------------My professor is a notable Bronze Age archaeologist! I would not trust someone who is NOT knowledgable about these things. And yes, I do have my own opinions but any opinions have to be based on professional as opposed to other sources.--------------- Well, if i was in your place, i wouldnt trust him very much. ============The Thracians were considered as barbarians by the Ancient Greeks.=========== You mean by the ANCIENT ATHENIANS ========"Thracian" was a blanket term for many tribes of the East Balkans.======== True. Many tribes, some of which were Hellenic/Greek/etc. some of which werent. ==========The Thracian coast was colonized by south Greeks and later incorporated into the Macedonian kingdom. In Hellenistic times, what is today Greek Thrace as well as Turkish Thrace and a good part of Bulgaria would be Greek-speaking primarily. The more northern parts of Thrace probably remained relatively un-Hellenized, which is why after the Roman conquest they were converted into Latin speech. ========= Yes, you are mostly correct. But from you especially, i would excpect a better opinion on Greek history, on which we actually know very little about. Greeks/Hellenes were not only the Athenians and the Spartans. These two centres of Ancient Greece are falsely seen today as the only important factors in the Ancient Greek world. No, the Ancient Greek world involved a larger unity across a wider area. So you should be MORE CAREFUL when you only use as your sources the biased Athenian references on barbarous behavior. If you choose to focus your interest in classical Athens, fine, but dont make the mistake to disrespect the rest of the Greek teritories and the unkown prehistory -------------I suppose Satyros thinks that names like Ditizele, Suethes, Razkaporis, Ziaelas, and Cotis are of Greek origin---------------- Of course these names do not have Greek origin, these words are written in English and i dont understand what they mean. Here are only a few of the names of some Greek/Hellenic Thracian tribes IN GREEK, i m sorry if you dont speak the language Artemisia, and i m sorry to you too Dienekes, in case you have forgoten the language and cannot understand: ÈÑÁÊÅÓ: ÁËÇÔÏÉ ÁØÉÍÈÉÏÉ ÂÅÓÓÏÉ ÂÑÉÁÍÔÅÓ ÃÅÔÅÓ ÄÅÑÑÁÉÏÉ ÄÉÏÉ ÈÕÍÏÉ ÊÏÑÐÉËÏÉ ÌÁÉÄÏÉ ÏÄÑÕÓÓÁÉ ÐÉÅÑÅÓ ÓÁÐÁÉÏÉ ÓÅÑÄÁÉ ÓÉÈÙÍÅÓ<br> ÓÉÍÔÏÉ ÔÑÁËÅÉÓ ---------------It seems Satyros needs a good history lesson before trying to blast a knowledgeable person.----------- Maybe a history lesson would be good for me, but i dont think you are any more knowledgable than i am. I not trying to blast anything, i am just tired to see people from other countries making quick and non scientific statements that do not have any connection to reality.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 28, 2003 1:43:49 GMT -5
www.topeiros.gr/gr/tourismos/delta_nestou.asp"Κατά την αρχαιότητα, στην περιοχή γύρω από την κοιλάδα και το Δέλτα του Νέστου, κατοικούσε ο λαός των Βισαλτών. Αυτή η φυλή ήταν μια από τις πολλές φυλές των Θρακών, του μεγάλου αυτού έθνους, του συγγενούς με τους Έλληνες και τους Ιλλυριούς, που απλωνόταν τότε σ’ ολόκληρη τη σημερινή Ελληνική και Τουρκική Θράκη και τη σημερινή Βουλγαρία. Οι αρχαίοι Έλληνες χώριζαν τους θράκες σε δύο κύριες ομάδες L: αυτούς που κατοικούσαν βόρεια και δυτικά του Αίμου (Μοισία ) , που ήταν βάρβαροι και απολίτιστοι και αυτούς που ζούσαν στη Νότια Θράκη και είχαν αναπτύξει αξιόλογο πολιτισμό. Πίστευαν οι Έλληνες πως αυτοί οι Θράκες, του νότου, τους είχαν διδάξει, σε πανάρχαιους καιρούς, τη λατρεία των Μουσών, την καλλιέργεια της γης, την οχυρωματική τέχνη και την τέχνη του πολέμου. Κατά την εποχή του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου η Θράκη κατακτήθηκε από τους Μακεδόνες και στα χρόνια που ακολούθησαν, τουλάχιστον τα νότια μέρη (Ελληνική και Τουρκική Θράκη και νότια Βουλγαρία ), εξελληνίσθηκαν πλήρως. "
|
|
|
Post by AfrikanerAndy on Feb 7, 2004 19:50:45 GMT -5
The Trojans were Illyrians (Albanians) the Name of the Trojans was Dardannians, the name of one of the southern-most Illyrian Tribes, was Dardanni, the Trojans are descended from Dardannos, who was claimed by the Illyrians as one of their own, Illyrium also seems very similar in name to Illium, the name of Troy, Most of this is speculation, since there is not a huge amount of evidence for Illians (Trojans) or Illyrians(Ancient Albanians) Also, The Illyrians, and in Particular the Dardanni had a relationship with the Thracians, and a number of other peoples, whom were mentioned as the Allies of the Dardannians in the Illiad, Oh and On the Thracian Issue, The "Thracian" language, is a distinctive Non-Greek, subfamily of the Indo-European Language family, the Thracians are Not Greeks.
|
|
|
Post by sonofzeus on Feb 7, 2004 21:01:07 GMT -5
The Trojans were Illyrians (Albanians): ------------------------------------------------ Yes,you found it Illyrians=Albanians=Trojans and Ionians. The Trojans were of Thraco-Phrygian origin thus of Thracian origin,racially they were of the Mediterranean racial type especially of the south east Mediterranean-Europoid brach(+all of its subraces). Illyrians may are the central-northern Albanians whom belong to the Dinaric racial type like Yugoslavians. "the Name of the Trojans was Dardannians, the name of one of the southern-most Illyrian Tribes, was Dardanni," Dardanians descended by Thraco-Phrygians,thus south-east Hellenes and there was even a colony in North Illyria know as Ias,modern Albanian Dardania the people there are still Mediterraneans and Anthropologist such as Carleton Coon has link them to the south-East Hellenes. " the Trojans are descended from Dardannos, who was claimed by the Illyrians as one of their own, Illyrium also seems very similar in name to Illium, the name of Troy, Most of this is speculation, since there is not a huge amount of evidence for Illians (Trojans)" The Trojans were Thraco-Phrigians not "Illyrians". "or Illyrians(Ancient Albanians)" Northern Albanians are not the only Illyrians there are many more. " Also, The Illyrians, and in Particular the Dardanni had a relationship with the Thracians, and a number of other peoples, whom were mentioned as the Allies of the Dardannians in the Illiad, Oh and On the Thracian Issue, The "Thracian" language, is a distinctive Non-Greek, subfamily of the Indo-European Language family, the Thracians are Not Greeks." Know nothing,Thracians were Greeks and they spoke Hellenic (all Greeks back then and now had their own dialects),Greeks spoke Hellenic/Grekika not Indo-European: From racial types of Albania: "3) A tall to medium stature, dolichocephalic or mesocephalic type with dark hair and dark brown eyes, a straight nasal profile, and a tendency toward a lesser leptorrhiny than the total group. This is an Atlanto Mediterranean racial type which is also prevalent in other Balkan countries. It may also be sorted out of available statistical series of Greeks (from Ancient Greeks), while it is common in Bulgaria and easily distinguishable among Serbs. It, or a similar type, also occurs with Dinarics in northern Italy and the Tyrol. In northern Albania it is commonest in Malsia Jakoves and Dukagin." www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/bilder/troe-map15.jpg"The pigmentation changes gradually but extensively from a prevailingly blond condition in Istria to a prevalence of dark-mixed and dark eyes, and of black or dark brown hair, in southeastern Dalmatia." Dalmatia is the home, in solution, of a strong Atlanto-Mediterranean strain comparable to that found in northern Italy, which must go back in both places to a considerable antiquity." Example from all this region of upper Balkans. www.jugoslovenka.com/lydia/lydia_1.jpegwww.jugoslovenka.com/born2befree77/born2befree77_1.jpegwww.jugoslovenka.com/doris/doris_1.jpegwww.jugoslovenka.com/ledeno_srce/ledeno_srce_1.jpegwww.frosina.org/infobits/aubreyherbert.jpgThe people there are of south-east Hellenic origin! That's the 40% of Greece: "The tall to medium stature,dark brown-eyed Atlanto-Mediterranean which seems old and basic in southeastern Europa" "While the Atlanto-Mediterranean, prominent in Greece since the Bronze Age, is still a major factor" "The important discovery about Crete, however, is the fact that its population is mostly Atlanto-Mediterranean; this race seems to be almost equally important in most of Greece. It has also appeared in the Dinaric area, and in Serbia; we shall see more of it in the eastern Balkans." the 45% of Bulgaria: "East of the Illyrians and north of the Macedonians lived, in classical times, the Thracians." "The Bulgarians are a composite people, with the following racial elements easily discernible: (a) a medium to tall-statured Atlanto-Mediterranean;" "The basic in element in Bulgaria is the Atlanto-Mediterranean," the 20-25% of Yugoslavia: "The previous occupants were Romanized, Latin-speaking descendants of Illyrians and Thracians." "It has also appeared in the Dinaric area, and in Serbia;" "3) A tall to medium stature, dolichocephalic or mesocephalic type with dark hair and dark brown eyes, a straight nasal profile, and a tendency toward a lesser leptorrhiny than the total group. This is an Atlanto- Mediterranean racial type which is also prevalent in other Balkan countries. It may also be sorted out of available statistical series of Greeks (from Ancient south-east Greeks), while it is common in Bulgaria and easily distinguishable among Serbs. It, or a similar type, also occurs with Dinarics in northern Italy and the Tyrol." That's too the 40% of Fyrom,the 20% of Albania,a big part of Anatolian Turks 20% to 30%: Albanian Soldier. -------------------- www.jmu.edu/orgs/wrni/kla.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on Feb 21, 2004 11:17:19 GMT -5
Son of Zeus, looks like you need to take some introductory Archaeology classes and cool it down with the propaganda. Most of your posts defy reality!
|
|
WB
Full Member
Posts: 140
|
Post by WB on Mar 8, 2004 16:27:53 GMT -5
"Who were the Trojans?"
pUrE nOrDiK aRyAn SoLdiErS oF oDin'S wAr KuLT oMfgz siEg hEiL 14-88 omFgZ
|
|
|
Post by Sharrukin on May 8, 2004 1:25:58 GMT -5
I submit the following for consideration:
1. The culture of Troy VI and VII (c. 1800-1000 BC) as discovered by archaeologists is described as a western Anatolian-type culture. We know that culturally, western Anatolia was Luwian.
2. If we accept the equivalence of Hittite Wilusa with Homeric Wilios, (Ilios, Ilium, Troy), we know that Troy was amongst the Arzawa-lands as described in Hittite texts. The name "Arzawa" had been used by the Hittites as either the name of a specific western kingdom, or a general term for western Anatolia. In the sense of the latter, Arzawa was also known as Luwiya. Troy or Wilusa, as an Arzawa-land may very well have been a Luwiya-land.
3. As for the supposed "Greek" names of the kings of Troy, we do have the names of two kings in Hittite sources, namely Alaksandush and Walnu, son of Alaksandush. I submit the following. "Alaksandush" is not a Greek or Greek-derived name of this Anatolian king. Instead it is the native Anatolian name which was Grecized as Alexandros. The name of the father of Paris, "Priamos" can be compared with the Luwian name "Piryamuwash", and "Walnu" the last known king of Troy bares a decidedly un-Greek name.
4. We do know of a war which included Wilusa between the "Ahhiyawa" (perhaps Achaeans) and the Hittites. According to the Manapa-Dattas Letter addressed by the king of Seha to the king of Khatti, Piyamaradush, a renegade Hittite subject, in alliance with his son-in-law, Atpas, ruler of Millawanda (Miletus), which was politically alligned with the Achaeans, (archaeologically, we know that Miletus was Mycenaean at this time) brought most of western Anatolia under Millawandan rule. We read that Troy itself was attacked by an unknown power. The king of the Seha Riverland, one of those kingdoms under Millawandan rule asked for Hittite intervention. The Hittites responded with an invasion of Millawanda which overthrew king Atpas, and restored Seha and Wilusa back under Hittite overlordship. Walnu, son of Alaksandush was established as king of Wilusa. Another tablet made reference to a "war" between the king of Ahhiyawa and the King of Khatti over the "town" of Wilusa. The Achaean king may have been the unknown power which attacked Troy according to the Manapa-Dattas Letter.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 8, 2004 11:36:04 GMT -5
I don't know what the Trojans were, but they were very stupid. Homer was not an historian, but he wrote a good yarn based on the stories he heard in his childhood no doubt. Anyway Helen was immortal. Ask her!
|
|
|
Post by kynikos on May 9, 2004 16:18:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 9, 2004 16:36:39 GMT -5
Hmmm, looks like you've been reading a lot about Korfmann's work lately. Well, look at what's happening these years. Much of Western Anatolia has Minoan and Mycenean layers which means that many Greek myths were correct in stating that some cities in Anatolia were founded by either king Minos or heroes of the Trojan war. This year, archaeologists found Minoan frescos and Linear A writing in Miletus. Halicarnassus, Iasus, Ephesus, Cnidus, and probably Erythrae, Mylasa, and Clazomenae were most likely Mycenean cities also.
I am not a big fan of the Luvian theory. "Luvian" is a term created by archaeologists based on the word found in Hittite tablets. The Hittites themselves remain a mystery. Whose ancestors were they and what happened to them, no one knows.
Alexandros is a Greek name and not a borrowing from an Anatolian language. That much is clear......the name means "protector of men" in Greek. Yes, the Alaksandu reference is what is creating a big controversy. Could Alaksandu have been a Greek prince of Anatolia? As I said before, the name Alexandros is definately Greek and Alaksandu is borrowed from the Greek, not the other way around.
I find it interesting how American and German Jewish archaeologists today want to discredit the work of Schliemann and Blegen, who both believed that the Trojans were either Greek or from a people who were closely related to the Greeks. I also find it interesting how many archaeologists dislike Heinrich Schliemann......just because he got lucky and found not ONE, but THREE, Homeric sights.
|
|
|
Post by Sharrukin on May 10, 2004 8:50:43 GMT -5
We need to bare in mind that what you've mentioned are purely coastal places, and so really have no baring on the huge interior. Some of the literature I've found only consider Miletus as a purely Minoan/Mycenaean settlement while the other places you've mention are considered to have a Minoan/Mycenaean presence mixed with western Anatolian culture. At Troy itself, there is evidence of much Mycenaean pottery, but none of the literature considers these artefacts as evidence to indicate that Troy was a Mycenaean settlement.
Luvian was not CREATED by archaeologists. It was DISCOVERED by archaeologists, in contexts which indicate that the term described both a western language and a western land.
If we discuss the Hittites and Luwians as ethno-linguistic entities we do have some general hints to their origins. We can define the direction of origin but also defining where non-IE languages were distributed in the same time period in question. In central Anatolia itself, there was the non-IE language of the Khattians. To the east of them were the Hurrians, to the north east, Caucasian languages, and to the south of the Khattians were Semitic and again Hurrian languages. This leaves western Anatolia. Archaeologically, we can trace western Anatolian culture to the Balkans. Since all Anatolian language are characterized as bearing the most archaic features of IE which have long since been abandoned in all other IE language families, we can consider Anatolian languages as relics, reflecting the time of the earliest formation of IE. From Marija Gimbutas we have a description of the first waves of Kurgan culture invading Old European territory from the Ukrainian steppe creating new hybrid cultures in the Balkans, about 4300 BC. By about 2300 BC new Kurgan incursions pushed peoples bearing these hybrid cultures into western Anatolia. Troy itself had evidence of these new incursions. From western Anatolia, those bearing Anatolian languages migrated eastwards. The Hittites, the easternmost of the Anatolians invaded central Anatolia and superimposed themselves on the native Khattians, preserving both the non-IE language and the name of the land.
You misunderstood. I'm not saying the Greek name Alexandros was a 'borrowing' from Anatolian, I'm saying that the Anatolian name was probably Grecized as Alexandros. But, okay, the names are quite similar, and we have documentation for the name Alexandros even in Linear B inscriptions. But if hidden within Alaksandush is Greek Alexandros, the legend itself gives this name as the alternate to the name of prince Paris. Culturally, the region is still considered west Anatolian, reflected in the Hittite description of it being an Arzawa-land, and the existence of Mycenaean pottery obviously reflects relations with the Greeks. The best then that can be said in favor of the Greek side of this issue is that there may be a Greek influence in the Troad.
Let's face it, ultimately you cannot compare this Greek epic, created 700 years after the fact, to contemporary records from the Hittites.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 10, 2004 9:28:11 GMT -5
Well, if there really WAS a Trojan war, it was fought near the coastal areas and had no connection with the interior. Homer never mentions Hittites. He just mentions allies of the Trojans: the Carians, Phrygians (who were probably not even in Anatolia during the period of the Trojan war), Lycians, etc. How far these people are the descendents of Luvians and Hittites we don't know. I myself believe that the Carians and Lycians were from the Aegean, as many ancient sources tell us. That's because the other places haven't been extensively studied. When Greek archaeologists excavated at Clazomenae in the early 1920s and found Mycenean remains (swords, pottery, tombs), the Turks quickly destroyed them and tried to hide the fact. You see, archaeology is very much connected with politics. The Turks do the same for Ephesus these days. It is clear from the archaeological evidence to date (which includes a Mycenean burial chamber) that Ephesus was another Mycenean city. Troy itself has much Mycenean material and it is hard to believe that this was just a result of Mycenean influence. Well, the ancient writers do not initially say that the Trojans were an Anatolian people. In fact, some ancient sources say that the Trojans and Greeks were of the same race. However, this still doesn't prove that a Trojan people as such (meaning as it is described by Homer) ever existed. Yes, it was discovered on Hittite tablets. However, the Hittites themselves were a creation of the archaeologists. They didn't refer to themselves by that name. I don't think one can make definate statements about the Anatolian languages. For most of them, we only have a few words (mostly corrupt transmissions) and we barely know what the grammar and vocabulary sounded like. But the name Alaksandu appears on Hittite tablets, not in Greek literature. Therefore, the name of this "Trojan" was Greek and was Hittitized. Yes, Alexandros appears on Linear B tablets, as does Alexandra (another name for Cassandra.) No one can tell for sure, but I think there is a deeper connection between the Greeks and Trojans. It was probably not just cultural. What do you have to say about the deity Appaluinas found in Troy? Apollo is probably not an Anatolian god. His name seems to come from the Doric "apella". However, many myths do link him with places in Anatolia. Perhaps he was a god common to both regions. I agree. I believe that there was a war in north-west Anatolia between Greeks and natives. What these people were and how the whole thing started no one can tell. The Iliad is an epic poem, not a historical record. Check this out: news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=517310By the way, are you a student of archaeology/history? I am an archaeology student.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 11, 2004 17:49:14 GMT -5
I also find it interesting how many archaeologists dislike Heinrich Schliemann......just because he got lucky and found not ONE, but THREE, Homeric sights. ONE might be luck. THREE is not. He found them because he believed in Homer.
|
|