| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Duncan
In: Yorkshire
|
|
 |
|
| Since Homer describes a Bronze Age war, placed at 1200 BC or later, doesn't this absolutely rule out Troy being in Anatolia? |
This information is from Wiki which also tells us: Classically, the Iron Age is taken to begin in the 12th century BC in the ancient Near East, ancient India (with the post-Rigvedic Vedic civilization), and ancient Greece (with the Greek Dark Ages).
The Greeks in 1200 BC were still using bronze, although there is evidence for Trojan use of iron: Military technology designed to complement the use of iron came from Assyria. A macehead found in 1902 at Troy, dated to around 1200 BC, is likely to have been of Assyrian manufacture. Assyria in fact may have considered Troy an outpost of itself. At any rate, iron trade between the two places was well established by that time, with the Assyrians jealously guarding their trade secrets of production. It ought also be noted that the early phase of the Assyrian Empire had trade contacts with the area in which iron technology was first developed at the time that it was developing.
Homer describes a war taking place between Achaeans and Trojans that led to the destruction of Troy. Korfmann places this around 1150 BC. It's a Bronze Age figure for Greece but certainly on the cusp of the Iron Age. If the Trojans have access to some iron weaponary good for them. The technology wasn't that much better though...
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| DPCrisp wrote: | | Anatolia's use of iron (from 2000 BC onward) had developed by at least 1500 BC into the manufacture of weaponry superior to bronze. |
Since Homer describes a Bronze Age war, placed at 1200 BC or later, doesn't this absolutely rule out Troy being in Anatolia? |
Homer is a modern text.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pulp History
In: Wales
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | | Komori should read this link......... it alleges Britain as a Phoenician power base......... |
Forget the link... Been There, Done That, Bought the T-Shirt And the Book as well.
Very interesting read from a man who proposed this back in the beginning of last century. Unfortunately for Waddell his continual references to 'Arians' (in the anthropological sense) throughout the book, which was written around the rise of Adolph Hitler, endeared him to no one; least of all academia at the time.
Waddell travelled to Tibet at a time when it was dangerous to do so, learned their language and read many of their ancient texts. He wrote extensively on ancient cultures and their languages, myths and legends. One of his major works was the British Edda in which he puts forward the notion that the Norse and Icelandic legends are British in origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A._Waddell |
Does his use and abuse by Nazis render his research any less valid or informed?? He seems to have covered all the topics involving "G and W", Wal and Walloons, and much being discussed here.
_________________
Question everything!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| Since Homer describes a Bronze Age war, placed at 1200 BC or later, doesn't this absolutely rule out Troy being in Anatolia? |
You'll get no argument from me on that one, Dan. It's just another piece of valid evidence that points to the Trojan War somewhere else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| Does his use and abuse by Nazis render his research any less valid or informed?? He seems to have covered all the topics involving "G and W", Wal and Walloons, and much being discussed here. |
No it does not. Waddell was around at the time of great discovery in the field of archaeology and had the good sense to catalogue many of the finds that are now kept out of sight in museum basements especially finds in Britain which orthodoxy can find no explanation for in their own view of British history.
He also makes the point that as early as the 1920s compartmentalisation was entrenched in academia. His efforts were one of the first cross-disciplinary studies ever undertaken into the inter-relationship of various ancient cultures.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Then I guess all the extant papyri texts from the 3-4th Century BC are clever forgeries and every writer who mentions Homer from Thucydides to Cicero are also bogus.
Plato doesn't exist!
I better check that one with Loopy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
When considering who the Greeks were, it is probably best to apply the 'Norman' model. The Normans might occupy any particular place (from Ireland to the Holy Land) but after a little while you'd be hard-pressed to say where they originally came from. We think we know that the Normans were originally from Scandinavia but that is probably just the place where our evidence happens to run out. After all the Vikings are themselves just 'the Greeks' of the northern regions. It would be specially nice if the Vikings were the Greeks.
More immediately though I rather favour the Greeks-were-Phoenicians theory because the Phoenicians were dab hands in alphabetising local languages and Classical Greek is the alphabetical version of Demotic Greek.
Since Latin is the alphabetical version of Italian, the Romans were probably Phoenicians too though they themselves claim to be Trojans so I expect the Trojans were Phoenicians. That would mean the Trojan War was fought between Phoenicians and Phoenicians which makes a lot of sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Mick points to the 'five hundred year gap' proposed by Velikovsky. He also mentions the unreliability of radio-carbon dating. |
On the contrary, I point to the reliability of radio-carbon dating. It is orthodoxy that claims it to be unreliable because it clashes with its own dating paradigm
| My understanding is that it is still the principal technique used by Archaeos to date the world around us. |
Quite right. And so it should be. It is also AE's hope and joy because it is a paradigm that is outside the control of archaeologists. Or so we had thought...
| The BBC's archaeology night a couple of weeks ago aired a programme looking at the dating of Silbury Hill. From fresh material discovered as a result of the Hill's partial collapse, it is now possible to place it at 2400 BC +/- a generation. That's pretty specific stuff. They now place it right at the cusp of the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age in Britain, and squarely back to the time of the Beaker People. Am I to take it that this is all bollo*** and that it really could be much older or much younger? |
Well, all the dates should have five, six, seven hundred years knocked off them but frankly it doesn't really matter because orthodoxy gets all the dates wrong on a systematic basis so generally speaking not much harm is done. Silbury Hill is still between Stonehenge II and Stonehenge III (or whatever). It's only history at the beginning and end (there's none during of course) of the five, six, seven hundred year gap itself where stuff matters because all the real juxtaposing goes out the window.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| If Velikovsky's chronology is to be believed, in 100 years the Greeks experienced the greatest intellectual transformation in the history of the world. |
Well, yes, I thought that was the case. Actually it's not necessarily a hundred years...both Orthodoxy and the Velikovskians play a little fast-and-loose so anything up to three or even four hundred years could be squeezed into the gap. The Minoans are often given a dating of 1400 BC which is a full nine hundred years before their Classical cousins came into flower. Theseus of Athens...fancy him being a hero to both!
But even so, all the changes you suggest are, in my opinion, quite feasible in a hundred years of relentless development. You must not judge the pre-Alexandrine Greeks with normal historical people living either in their barbarous steady-states or their Imperial steady-states. They're more like us. Where a hundred years sees the horse carriage give way to the moon-rocket.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| But even so, all the changes you suggest are, in my opinion, quite feasible in a hundred years of relentless development. You must not judge the pre-Alexandrine Greeks with normal historical people living either in their barbarous steady-states or their Imperial steady-states. They're more like us. Where a hundred years sees the horse carriage give way to the moon-rocket. |
Interesting how this statement contradicts THOBR
And if they were the same people doing the same thing why would they want to.
| The chief contribution of The History Of Britain Revealed to linguistics is to show that languages change very slowly. Orthodoxy believes they change very fast | |
| Theseus of Athens...fancy him being a hero to both! |
If you can cite any Minoan literature where Theseus is listed as a mythological figure I'd be interested to hear it. I think it is rather that Minos is a place in Greek mythology or an actual place that had mythological significance. It just wasn't in present day Crete.
You are mistakenly of the opinion that Greek Myth is based in Greece. If the Athenians brought their Mythology from somewhere else the Myth is continuous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Homer is a modern text. |
How modern?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Interesting how this statement contradicts THOBR And if they were the same people doing the same thing why would they want to. |
You'll have to explain the THOBR reference. When I say "the same people doing the same thing [in the same places]" I am trying to show that orthodoxy's treatment of them being separated by a five-six-seven hundred year Dark Age must be incorrect not that there is no differences at all.
So far as differences in language between (let's say) King Minos and Pericles, you have to bear in mind three things:
1. There might really be as much as four hundred years between them which means some language change in the meantime
2. Crete and Athens are a fair distance apart so there might be quite a difference in their regional dialects
3. We haven't quite come to terms with the fact that what we read of either man might not be the same as what we might have heard from either man.
| If you can cite any Minoan literature where Theseus is listed as a mythological figure I'd be interested to hear it. I think it is rather that Minos is a place in Greek mythology or an actual place that had mythological significance. It just wasn't in present day Crete. |
Well, the Athenians clearly believed that the Minoans lived in Crete and they also appear to believe that the Minoans were living there just the other year....which is quite good near-contemporaneous evidence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| If the Trojans have access to some iron weaponary good for them. |
What are you saying, Duncan? That despite quoting passages that say Troy-upon-Dardanelles was thoroughly "ironized", you'd trivialise it as "access to some iron weaponry" so as to line it up behind Homer's no-mention-of-Trojans-using-iron account?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Don't we have a separate thread for Troy?
Even if it turns out the Beaker People are the Trojans, the question here is where they came from at the ushering-in of the Bronze Age.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | | Since Homer describes a Bronze Age war, placed at 1200 BC or later, doesn't this absolutely rule out Troy being in Anatolia? |
You'll get no argument from me on that one, Dan. |
I didn't realize Homer wore a watch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
