|
Post by Artemisia on May 11, 2004 17:56:39 GMT -5
Still. There were others who believed in Homer too but they didn't get lucky THREE times. He just had a very strong intuition and was very dedicated.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 11, 2004 17:58:00 GMT -5
Let's face it, ultimately you cannot compare this Greek epic, created 700 years after the fact, to contemporary records from the Hittites. If by using the word "created" you mean the time the final versions of the epics were written down, then fine. The earliest, unknown versions go back to the time immediately after the Trojan war. It did happen. As for the Hittites, their records need an awful lot of assumptions to be made before we use them as tools to understand Troy.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on May 11, 2004 18:01:56 GMT -5
Still. There were others who believed in Homer too but they didn't get lucky THREE times. He just had a very strong intuition and was very dedicated. The point I am trying to make is that it was not luck. He used Homer as a guide. Had he assumed "Homer" did not know what he was talking about then he would not have found them. I said "Homer" because I think he is probably more mythical than the Iliad.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 12, 2004 6:42:28 GMT -5
Schliemann was many things, a good businessman, linguist and lover of the writings of Homer, but he was not an archaeologist, just a rich dilettante who went to places archaeologists went, got lucky and found things of note.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 12, 2004 10:23:55 GMT -5
Schliemann was many things, a good businessman, linguist and lover of the writings of Homer, but he was not an archaeologist, just a rich dilettante who went to places archaeologists went, got lucky and found things of note. He was not an archaeologist but no one really was back then. Their methods were really elementary. Still, he had great intuition and got lucky. Today's archaeologists envy him because he wasnot an archaeologist and despite that, he transformed archaeology more than they ever will.
|
|
|
Post by Sharrukin on May 16, 2004 15:47:10 GMT -5
We must bare in mind the 700-year difference between the "Trojan War" and Homer, including anachronisms and omissions. The reason why Homer never mentions Hittites could be that while other peoples remained extant in his time, the Hittites were no longer extant, or perhaps within one of the other peoples which survived into the time of Homer, the Hittites may well be hidden under. In the Hittite records there are references to Achaeans (called either Ahhiya or Ahhiyawa, compare with archaic Greek, Akhaiwoi) and Troy, and even mentions an Achaean presence in Ilios as well as a "war" with the Hittites over Ilios, dated to about the very period (archaeologically) for the fall of Troy VII, about 1250/30 BC. Lycian is definitely Anatolian, and Carian is probably Anatolian. Just about all the literature I've come across does not come from a Turkish source. I did not know about Clazomenae, and since I've not heard about any similar occurance, I'm assuming that Clazomenae was an exception? Yes, I've read about a Mycenaean burial chamber at Ephesus, but I've also read about Anatolian cultural artefacts at the same site including cremation burials which are typically Anatolian. So, no, it is presumptuous to say that Ephesus is a Mycenaean settlement, but rather that Ephesus had a Mycenaean population mixed in with an Anatolian one. Troy was definitely Anatolian in physical culture. There has even been found an inscription in Luwian found at Troy. www.olympicwatch2004.com/bswbOWSubPage.asp?PubID=BSAO&Volume=1&Issue=1&ArticleID=5The Mycenaean artefacts only point to contact. If there is politics involved, the same can be said of the opposite. Just because Mycenaean artefacts have been found at a site doesn't make that site a Mycenaean settlement. As far as I've read, the only sites that are considered totally Mycenaean establishments are Miletus, Iasos, and a site near Halicarnassus. True, the Hittites didn't refer to themselves by that name, however other peoples living in the same period did call them Hittites. The Egyptians called them Khety, the Assyrians called them Khatti, and the Hebrews (whom we get our word) called them Hittim from their eponymous ancestor Heth. So, it is still true that the archaeologists did not invent the name, but rather that other ancient peoples invented the name which was taken over by the archaeologists. Apparently, these ancient peoples called them such because they came from the land of Hatti. Linguists have certainly made enough analysis of the Anatolian languages to warrant them being put into their own subfamily within IE. The operative word here is "seems". If there is difficulty gaining a Greek etymology from Apollon, perhaps the name is of foreign derivation? Here is one theory regarding the Luwian name Appaliunas: www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/apollo.htmNeither. I'm just an ancient history buff who loves to hunt for the newest ancient history book, and my library nearly fills a whole wall. Almost every month I go to CSLA to look into the most current journals to try to be kept up to date on the latest discoveries and take notes. My main focus is ancient Middle Eastern history and Anatolia falls within that broad criteria, and so I have extensive materials on the history and geography of the Hittite Empire.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 16, 2004 19:11:34 GMT -5
Hello Sharrukin,
Nice to see history buffs like you interested in ancient history. I hope you are a young person because most young people these days care only about $$$ and nothing else.
About the Hittite connectionw of the Lycians, the Carians, etc., I have this to say. If ancient sources say that the Carians and Lycians were from the Aegean, I'd much rather believe that there is some truth to them since we are talking about people who existed only in the past. It is obvious that ancient historians knew these people much better than modern historians. Therefore, if Herodotus, Thucydides, Pausanias, Strabo and others talk about the Carians being a people from the Aegean islands, I'd much rather believe them. If you look at early Carian pottery it looks almost identical to Mycenean and is not much influenced by black Hittite wear. Even in the Archaic period, the Carians made pottery based on the Corinthian model. Therefore, there shouldn't be any doubt that the Carians were more connected with the Aegean islands and Greece than with the Anatolian interior. As I said before, I believe that the Carians were part of the larger Pelasgian nation. Thucydides mentions old Carian tombs on the island of Delos. These were not mere tombs of Carian visitors.
The names Apollo an Artemis do indeed seem pre-Greek, but it is much better to hypothesize that the name Apollo comes from "apella" rather than Appaluinas (or Appaliunas). I've seen that site you suggested and although it is interesting, it is just an attempt by a Hittitologist to trace everything to Anatolia. I can find better connections between the Apollo kouros and Minoan/Mycenean figurines. Artemis is actually Cretan and not Anatolian. She was connected to the Cretan goddess Britomartis (you see the -art- part here.)
|
|
|
Post by Emathius on May 17, 2004 8:19:38 GMT -5
Who were the Trojans? That's quite simple.
Troy was established by Phrygians - therefore Trojans were Phrygians. Moreover, we know that Phrygians originated in Macedonia, and were known as Brygians (Highlanders) in Europe. Since they were Phrygians/Brygians we can conclude that they were one of many Thracian nations.
It should be stressed that Troy as a city existed over 4000 years and was the center of ancient civilizations. After the Trojan War, the city was seemingly abondoned from 1100 to 700 BC. It is only about 700 BC that Greek settlers first began to occupy the area.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 17, 2004 8:30:46 GMT -5
Actually, the Phrygians were NOT a Thracian nation. They were quite different and constituted a separate ethnicity.
There is no evidence for Troy being a Phrygian city. There is evidence that a people from the Balkans occupied Troy VII for a short period of time (judging from their pottery style) but they were probably driven out by Aeolian settlers. Whether these Troy VII people were Myceneans, Thracians, Phrygians, or Mysians is not clear. What is clear beyond doubt is that the next layer of Troy, Troy VIII was an Aeolian city.
|
|
|
Post by Emathius on May 17, 2004 8:48:05 GMT -5
Thracians as a whole encompassed tens of different ethnicities and independent tribes (Dacians, Moesians, Triballians, Phrygians, Serdians, etc.) who all spoke a closely related language, and had similar customs. Even Herodotus said that they were the second largest people in the ancient world (after the Indians) and very disunited as a group.
Therefore, saying that Phrygians were a Thracian nation is like saying that Croatians or Poles are a Slavic nation.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 17, 2004 10:53:19 GMT -5
No, Emathius, the Phyrgians were a completely different people just like the Greeks and Thracians were two separate peoples. Point to ONE ancient reference where Phrygians are said to be a Thracian people. There is none. The Phrygian language was quite different from Thracian and is in fact more related to Greek than to Thracian. Archaeological evidence from Gordion and Midas City also shows that Phrygian material culture was much diffent from that of the Thracians.
You may say that the Greeks, Thracians, and Phrygians were related peoples, but they were certainly not of the same nation. The Greeks and Phrygians (who are said to have come from Macedonia) were closer related than either group was to the Thracians. Look at Phrygian (Old and New) inscriptions and tell me how much of it sounds familiar. Then look at Thracian and you will see that it is a totally different language.
|
|
|
Post by Sharrukin on May 18, 2004 21:10:06 GMT -5
Therein lies the problem. The classical sources tend to repeat older sources until one gets to a myth. Either that, or the classical sources record more than one kind of origin story. Just to take the Carians as an example, Herodotus states two versions of their origins: one based upon the Cretans and Greek mythology and the other based upon the Carians themselves. Not only does the Carian version portray themselves as being indigenous to the region, but also points to a relationship with the Lycians and the Lydians. Here I believe the archaeological evidence is superior. Not only do we know that Lydian and Lycian are Anatolian (and therefore native) languages, but we can compare Carian with Lydian and Lycian.
I have no doubt as to the Mycenaean influence in southwestern Anatolia. As I've stated before, the three confirmed Mycenaean settlements including Miletus, were located there, and even Hittite sources mention Achaean political expansion from Miletus into this very area. If Carians did have a presence in the Aegean, the best way to judge it is to say that it expanded from Caria, not to Caria.
|
|
|
Post by Artemisia on May 18, 2004 22:06:56 GMT -5
Hi Sharrukin, I'd like you to know that your arguments are valid indeed, but there really isn't any right or wrong in this case. We simply don't know much about these people and they didn't leave any records for us (apart from a few words.... and IF they are translated right!) before they lost their language and culture compeletely in Hellenistic times. Yes, but as I've stated before, in this case, I tend to believe the classical sources more than modern archaeology. As an archaeology student, I am sometimes suspicious of archaeological interpretations because they get turned down every ten years. Hey, no one believed that Knossos existed before Evans brought it to light (actually, it was Minos Kalokairinos who first discovered it; we must give the guy some credit! Well, either the Carians or the ancient authors are correct, but the funny part is that there are no pre-historic settlements in inner Caria, just on the coastal areas. Therefore the Carians may have been indigenous but their ancestors probably came from the Aegean. As I said before, we only have a few very fragmentary Carian words and it is difficult to make a definative statement about the language. The Lycians and even the Lydians were also said to have actually come from Crete and the Greek mainland at different time periods. We must not totally disregard ancient authors; after all, they knew the Carians, Lydians, and Lycians better than us. To date, Miletus, Iasos, and Muskebi (near Halicarnassus) are confirmed Mycenean settlements. There are several others that have not been confirmed and/or published yet but they do await confirmation/publication. In any case, they are all located on the coast of western Anatolia. OK, it could be. But it can also be the other way around, from the Aegean to Caria. A third possible scenario is that the ancestors of the people who later became the Carians and Aegeans were the same and lived in both territories at the same time. Whatever the case, there was definately a strong link between Carians and Aegeans.
|
|
|
Post by Sharrukin on May 18, 2004 23:20:40 GMT -5
Ummm, no. The Phrygians don't figure into Troy until after the Trojan War, and no, they were not Thracians. The culture of the European Brygians was derived from the Lusatian Tumulus Culture of Central Europe. This Brygian/Phrygian Culture dominated Macedonia between about 1150 to 800 BC, with Vergina as capital. At Troy VIIb (c. 1180 BC) there is the introduction of Knobbed Ware from southeast Europe, which would indicate an intrusive population. If these were Phrygians, they are archaeologically LATER than the Trojan War.
|
|
|
Post by Sharrukin on May 20, 2004 0:17:14 GMT -5
Hello, Artemisia Thank you, and I'd like you to know that I don't entirely discount the classical sources as to plausible origin theories. But, I guess our approaches are different. Instead of taking the origin theories at face value, I would rather find corresponding linguistic, contemporary annalistic, and physical (archaeological) evidence (if at all). If there is, or, if there is nothing in the physical, annalistic or linguistic data which contradicts the received tradition, then I can better except the tradition. Case and point are the Phrygians. They were said to have come from Europe. Linguistically, they are not related to the Anatolian languages, and their language is close to Greek. We have a place-name in Europe - Gardens of Midas at the foot of Mt. Bermion, which reflects a tradition of a Phrygian presence in Macedonia. In Europe they were said to have been called Brygians, and we have found archaeological proof that the "Phrygian Culture" which dominated Macedonian originated in the region of the classical Brygians. Also, archaeologically, we have found pottery at Troy VIIb (c. 1180 BC) which originated in the Balkans. The Armenians were said to have been "Phrygian colonists" and their language is considered by some linguists to be closer to Greek than to Indo-Iranian, therefore if they were not Phrygian, they certainly originated in the same regions as the Phrygians. And I tend to believe the modern archaeology (and other mitigating data) more than the classical sources for the reasons I've stated, unless of course the classical source compliments the modern source. For me, the physical evidence of necessity must have more weight than the classical narrative. A case and point are the Lycians. Herodotus states that they were originally from Crete until Minos banished Sarpedon and his party to the future Lycia. The Lycian language is derived from Luwian. It then follows that if they originated from Crete, then the Cretans spoke Luwian. From Herodotus, it is implied that the Lydians were native to the region they ruled, yet their language is related to Lycian. For me, the idea that Lydus, Lycus, and Car were "brothers" has the ring of truth to it. In this case the linguistic evidence has more weight than the classical narrative, yet that one version of the classical narrative is borne out. Yes, the interior of Caria does lack settlements. The Hittite records portray the Lukka of this region as being nomadic, although the sites of Alinda (perhaps Lukkan Iyalanda) and Alabanda (perhaps Lukkan Valivanda) has yet to be excavated. The Persian form of the name Caria, Karka, can be seen in the ancient Hittite name of an Anatolian people known as Karkiya or Karkisa. The Hittite evidence seems to imply that the Karkisa and the associated Masa were probably not where the Carians and Mysians would be found in the Classical Period but nevertheless, somewhere in western Asia "in the direction" of Wilusa. So, even in Hittite records, another alternative is implied - the Carians were present in Anatolia, but in another part of western Anatolia. Lydian itself, although an Anatolian language, unlike the other western languages is actually more related to Hittite than to Luwian. Here, Herodotus may be correct in implying that they were indigenous to the region. If then, we shouldn't disregard this witness to the Lydians, why should we regard a Cretan origin of the Lycians who spoke a related language? To me there is an inconsistency amongst the ancient authors. No, they must be secondary sources, only to add flesh to modern observations (until any of those observations is proved false). ........southwestern Anatolia........ I can at least agree that there was an Aegean influence in southwestern Anatolia.
|
|