Will the Real Cynesians Please Step Forward? (History)

[Hatty]

Komorikid wrote:

[Komorikid]

Let's assume for the moment that Iman Wilken is correct in assuming that Troy was in England and that a Celtic (NOT Goidelic) culture was an overlay in England and Atlantic Europe incorporating Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain. According to Homer these would have been the Archaean, Argives, and Danaans from the Continent and the Dardanians/Trojans from England. There are NO GREEKS in Homer's Epics.

They all spoke a common language, worshipped common Gods and were culturally and philosophically identical. The time frame is the 12th century BC or to be specific 1180BC generally accepted as the date of the destruction of Troy.

The first question to answer is what language did they speak? The assumption that it was Greek, this I believe is unfounded as there was no Hellas as a national identity until after the time that Homer's Epics were written. According to the early geographers and historians Greece was settled by disparate tribes from various areas surrounding the Aegean and Ionian Seas and from the inland.

So as I see it we have a mystery elite speaking a mystery language in Western and Northern Europe. Is there a mystery language that just happens to come from one or both of these areas? Yes there is, it's Gothic; the most enigmatic of all European languages. Gothic is unique in that it shares its verb conjugation with Latin, and incorporates Greek and Runic letters. Two of these letters Sampa and Qoffa are Ionian Greek (the language of Homer) and disappeared from the Greek language before the Classic period.

The orthodox view is that English is an amalgam of Romance and Germanic but how much of both these linguistic categories have Greek origins, in the orthodox sense? If, as I believe, Gothic is much older than is assumed and was in fact a proto-Greek, the etymology of many words in both Romance and Germanic may have their origin in Atlantic Europe and were subsequently transferred to Greece when the refugees of the Trojan War escaped to the Med (Aeneas an Co). The proto-Greek developed into Dorian and Ionian in the Eastern Med and various Runic scripts and Gothic in Northern Europe.

That leaves us with the Goidelics; the people everyone erroneously assumes are the REAL Celts. They appear to have had no elite Celtic overlays. They are speaking the same language they have been speaking for thousands of years. There is no evidence that Goidelic was ever spoken anywhere in Europe outside the confines of its existing areas apart from the North-western tip of Spain and Portugal. The Goidelics are genetically and linguistically of Phoenician descent.

The view that English has very few loan words from Goidelic may be false. If the language overlay in England was a proto-Greek then the common word base would be much larger as there are many common words in both languages that are of Greek origin. But it is assumed by orthodoxy that these were inherited by both languages either as a result of Roman invasion or by Greek-speaking clergy after the 1st century AD.

The Greeks are presumed to have developed their alphabet from the Phoenicians in the Eastern Med but it just could be that it was developed along the Atlantic seaboard and Britain and then transferred by seaways to Greece where it developed via Ionian/Dorian into Classic Greek and overland Europe where it became Gothic. It may be that Classic Greek is a combination of both; the Ionian strain reaching Greece first by ship and the Gothic several hundred years later overland from the north. This would accord with Greek historians who say Greece was founded first from the sea by the Pelasgians and then from overland tribes from the north.
The Pelasgians were allies of the Trojans in the Iliad.
The Achaeans were the Trojans' enemy from the continent.

Pelasgians comes from the Greek pelagos = sea - Pelagio > Belasgae > Belgae
= Sea People
Achaeans in Greek is Achaioi = Akwaian (Germanic -- akwa) aqua -- water
= Sea People

The mysterious Sea Peoples are not so enigmatic, their name says exactly who they were.
They were the Peloset and Aqaiwasa of the the Egyptian. Ahhijawa to the Hittites and from Linear B Achaiwia seems to be the oldest name for Greece 'the Land of the Sea Peoples'
The Egyptians recorded they came from the Great Green Sea in the West -- The Atlantic.

[Hatty]

Komorikid wrote:

[Ishmael]

[Ishmael]

[Ishmael]

[Mick Harper]

I entirely disagree. It is much better (psychology-wise) to be extremely partisan or extremely hostile. So long as one varies one's strategy from time to time re any given theory.

[Ishmael]

[Komorikid]

Hatty wrote:

[Mick Harper]

As you know, Ishmael, I have no great enthusiasm for these theoretical debates - one of the principle rules of Applied Epistemology being "Never start with definitions, finish with them". But then Applied Epistemology itself is only what I say it is (though anyone is free to be the 'I' in question.) So perhaps I can better illustrate my own position with reference to Troy.

Since I accept the Velikovskian argument abut the non-existence of the Greek Dark Ages, I place the Trojan War at about 700 BC, which of course puts Schliemann out of court. My position is sufficiently strong that I tend to treat this as 'fact'. I also accept that London has strong Trojan connections because the local Trinovantes (New Trojans) are a historical reality -- in the sense they are mentioned by ancient sources.

However neither of these are my theories so I don't hold on to them with paternal pride. On the other hand I was the first person (or so I claim) to notice the significance of Paris (the chief hero of Troy) being near Troyes (French for Troy) but this has never led to amything so again I don't regard it as Cosmic Truth.

As far as Troy being anywhere else, and especially the Wilkens thesis....well, it seems to me pretty much barking. The connections he makes are just not good enough even for me to take it on board as an interesting hypothesis. On the other hand I am quite taken by the theory that The Iliad and (especially) The Odyssey are sailing instructions à la song-lines.

I find all this What Is Truth stuff pretty much beside the point. Whatever's in my head is a good enough guide for me...but of course I've got a particularly good head so this might not be the best test for other people.

[Ishmael]

[Hatty]

Oakey wrote:

[Komorikid]

[Ishmael]

Kom,

I just want to say that I am very sympathetic to this proposal. I just insist that we should always discuss it as an hypothetical and never as a certainty. There's much intriguing evidence to support the idea. That said, we shouldn't pretend this hypothesis is anywhere near a position where every alternative is irrational by comparison.

[Mick Harper]