Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 136

Thread: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

  1. #81
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    These letters were very thorough. Unfortunately we only have pieces of these letters. Not sure who Kuruntiya and Sahurunuwa are, would have to check.

    Thebes was definitely an important city in Bronze Age Greece. They competed frequently with Orchomenos over the hegemony in Central Greece. In the Late Helladic period the two cities were separated by Lake Kopais until Orchomenos, possibly with Theban help, drained the lake. Since that area was a plain it made for decent agriculture but also made many of the cities there vulnerable to attack (especially in the center of Greece). Neither city had a particular grasp over the Aegean Sea either, which would explain why they struggled to control the area and had few overseas contacts. Linear B tablets show that these cities had a military build up, in particular chariots are mentioned in the hundreds, large for a city state. Fortifications and constructions from that time show that Thebes was a fairly strong city with powerful walls, a temple and a palace. It might not be surprising that Mycenae became the most dominant in Greece as well as having the greater influence abroad. Mycenae was well guarded in the Peloponnese but also had control of the Argive plain. Thebes and Orchomenos on the other hand were forced into constant competition, a contest which Orchomenos probably won most of the time but at some point Thebes became dominant.

    During Classical Antiquity these sites were known to the Romans and Greeks who made frequent pilgrimages to Thebes in order to give offerings to Herakles. There existed a prominent Herakles cult in Thebes but also a rival cult at Argos. As such there were two competing cults, as seen in the icons of the Argive "young Herakles" and the Theban "adult Herakles". Interestingly there were images of Herakles but with Athena also depicted in multiple panels, as well as on Attic pottery in the early Classical era, which is an odd depiction given what we know of the myths. Athena as a female deity is not associated with any male deity and Herakles is not associated in any direct way with Athena. Yet it is a combination of two deities which kept being repeated in stone and on pottery. Even using iconography which implies marriage, something that is not made explicit anywhere in the myths.

    Here again we see the problem of relying on mythology. For instance Pausanius mentions specific locations such as a grave and a palace which were associated with the burial of Herakles' sons and of Herakles birth respectively. Excavations in that area do show that these were built during the Mycenaean period so people in the antiquity were able to make the connection. But evidence which connects them to Herakles is not present, curious in the latter example since the myths say that Herakles was born in Tiryns rather than Thebes. The Theban palace does show that the city was ruled by a king and that is important to understanding Bronze Age Greece, however Herakles was not a king himself in these myths. This is probably the best example I can provide of the ancients mixing myth with reality.

    They recognized these sites as originating in the Bronze Age but their association to Herakles was likely inserted later. Perhaps it could be cultural memory on their part. For instance the colossus of Memnon in Egypt mentioned by Homer and other writers. The colossus appears to be a reference to the Ramesses statues but there are also mentions to a colossus in Anatolia. Most likely the character of Memnon in the Illiad was a stand-in for the great conquerors of the past; Ramesses certainly, but probably the Hittite kings as well. The connections made in mythology to Anatolia, Egypt and Phoenicia, even the Colchis, are likely to be cultural memory as well. They may have received cultural influences from these places. An example being the clear syncretism between Herakles and Melqart (notably the Tartaros connection) which was probably no coincidence, they were likely influenced by Melqart to begin with.

    The lack of the Hittites in these myths could simply be due to the Hittites not having any direct influence. Mycenaean activity in Anatolia saw them coming into contact with the western Anatolians. The Mycenaeans had more influence from the west Anatolians as well. After the Hittite Empire collapsed the Greeks saw more contact with the Phoenicians and Egyptians. Although material goods from the Bronze Age show that Mycenae and some other cities had overseas contact with Egypt and the Levant. Certainly direct contact in the Aegean islands, Anatolian coast and Cyprus. But in the Illiad Memnon of Asia is mentioned as the ally of the Trojans so chances are Memnon really is a stand in for the Hittites. As we know the Hittites fought conflicts in support of Wilusa.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  2. #82
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    Kirta only kneels before God... who is also his father, or so he claims.
    Well that's convenient, then!

    That is a brilliant observation on your part about Aryans inserting themselves into existing civilizations.
    Why thank you, Oda. I'm contributing and doing my small part here for the good of Murica, the universe, and future generations who will look upon us the same way we view people of the Bronze Age, no doubt. Your knowledge in this area is starting to frighten me, though, because I'm not entirely convinced you aren't a time traveling Luwian who just knows all of this stuff naturally because you were there.

    The Aryans did the same thing in Greece which led to the beginning of the Late Helladic period (starting in the 1600's BC) and "Mycenaean" Civilization. Although Bronze was already known to the Cretans and mainlanders prior to this (actually Crete, the isles, and the Greek mainland was settled by peoples who crossed from Anatolia sometime around 2000 BC), it does appear that Indo-European speaking peoples took over Greece and became an upper class. Presumably this is also the introduction of the chariot to the Greeks. Since prior to the Mycenaean period the inhabitants were probably not Indo-European speaking. Genetically they were more similar to the Cretans and Cypriotes, however an invasion of sorts by Indo-European peoples changed this. Apparently the 1600's BC was the year of Aryan invasions. This is when the Luwians and Hittites took over Anatolia, when the Mitanni Empire was created in Upper Mesopotamia, also very close to the start of the Vedic Age in north western India (they may have even destroyed the Indus Valley Civilization). The Cretan Civilization which dominated the Aegean, and presumably also much of mainland Greece, is conquered by the Greeks in the 1400's BC. Perhaps in some way this relates to the Hyksos as they invaded and conquered Egypt around the same time (maybe displaced, or influenced by Aryans, or maybe it was a coincidence).

    It is very possible that the Pelasgians or Dorians mentioned as having conquered Mycenaean civilization, were actually some of the more barbarous Aryan tribes in the north, which were not technically considered part of Mycenaean Greek civilization. Also interesting to note that Mycenean Civilization and the Luwians were very similar culturally and the two had a lot of interactions. It could be that Mycenaean crossed over from Anatolia, and that they were originally Luwians. The other theory is that they came down directly from the Eurasian Steppe, crossed the Danube and conquered Greece. For all we know it could have been both migrations. What is also likely is that the Greeks in this time might have considered themselves separate ethnic groups (Achaeans, Dorians etc). Although they might have also had some common ground as well, there may have been a conception of Greece (if Homer is any indication) but not as total as later on. If the Ahhiyawans are the Achaeans then it is interesting that their ruler calls himself "Great King of Ahhiyawa" instead of "Great King of Greece" or something of that sort. Even the mythical Agamemnon did not have influence in the northern reaches of Greece, in places like Thebes. Also interesting that the Greeks were so fixated on Anatolia. It could indicate that the Bronze Age Greeks regarded Anatolia as the mainland across the Aegean, or the homeland or what have you, which does support the possibility that the Mycenaean Greeks were originally Indo-European speaking Luwians that crossed the sea and conquered the peoples in the islands and in mainland Greece. I mean even if they aren't descended from Luwians, they are at the very least related by virtue of both being Indo-European peoples.

    Hide your kids, hide your wife, cause these Aryans killing everybody.
    Considering how there weren't any professional linguists or anthropologists back then to make these distinctions, I'm sure various Mycenaean Greeks and Luwians at some point viewed each other as similar enough that they considered each other long lost brethren of some sort compared to the Anatolian peoples who did not speak an Indo-European tongue and other peoples beyond them who spoke Afro-Asiatic languages. The proximity of the Greeks and Luwians most likely meant that they shared a lot of culture beyond just the language they were using as well.

  3. #83
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)



    The Ancient Aryans were a savage people, who thrived on warfare and slaughter.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  4. #84
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post


    The Ancient Aryans were a savage people, who thrived on warfare and slaughter.
    It was the Assyrian man's burden to civilize them.

  5. #85
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    It is funny you mentions linguists because everything we know about Hattic Civilization and the Hattic language was recorded by the Hittites themselves. For this reason scholars have been able to study the Hattic language and determined that it was probably a Caucasic language.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  6. #86
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    It is funny you mentions linguists because everything we know about Hattic Civilization and the Hattic language was recorded by the Hittites themselves. For this reason scholars have been able to study the Hattic language and determined that it was probably a Caucasic language.
    Sure, but these Hittite scribes would have had no framework for contextualizing the Hattic language in a broader scheme of things or as part of a larger language family. I would refrain from calling anyone a linguist or etymologist unless they are taking a systematic approach to the study of language. Oddly enough this sort of study actually did exist in classical antiquity with the Classical & Hellenistic Greeks, especially the grammarian Dionysius Thrax of Alexandria & Rhodes, and the Romans, including even Claudius writing about Etruscan or the late Republican-era Roman Marcus Antonius Gnipho of Gallic origin who wrote a book on Latin grammar. Even the late Warring States and Han dynasty Chinese studied their own language, for instance, the Erya dictionary predated the Han period. Yang Xiong of the Western Han period wrote a treatise about regional dialects and vocabularies. Xu Shen of the Eastern Han period published a landmark work on explaining the Chinese pictographic writing system and arranging it systematically by shared radicals. I bet a Hittite never did anything cool like that, Oda! So there!

  7. #87
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    I'm not sure if they wrote anything that in depth. The Hittites wrote tablets about the Hattic language. Primarily Hattic words but also about the grammatical structure. I'm not sure that people studied languages to this level during the Bronze Age. Generally this sort of thing was for scribes but scribes being writers of documents were more interested in the actual written word. Scribes had to familiarize themselves with written symbols. Hittite scribes had to be familiar with Hittite cuneiform and Luwian glyphs and to some extent Sumerian and Babylonian cuneiform. They also had to have sufficient understanding that some rulers ordered reforms and changes to the written systems and they had to carry this out.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  8. #88
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I'm not sure if they wrote anything that in depth. The Hittites wrote tablets about the Hattic language. Primarily Hattic words but also about the grammatical structure. I'm not sure that people studied languages to this level during the Bronze Age. Generally this sort of thing was for scribes but scribes being writers of documents were more interested in the actual written word. Scribes had to familiarize themselves with written symbols. Hittite scribes had to be familiar with Hittite cuneiform and Luwian glyphs and to some extent Sumerian and Babylonian cuneiform. They also had to have sufficient understanding that some rulers ordered reforms and changes to the written systems and they had to carry this out.
    If the Hittites, instead of just doing mindlessly rote exercises of copying, wrote actual commentaries about the grammar and vocabulary of another language like that of the Hatti, that is remarkably impressive for a Bronze Age culture. Do you have an online academic ".edu" site that perhaps mentions or explains this? I'd love to see that. I'm familiar with this and that about Bronze Age literature going back to the first known poetic author known by name, the Sumerian poet priestess Enheduanna, but to be honest I didn't think any kind of grammarian existed until the Iron Age. You basically just opened up an idea that I didn't even think existed, Oda. Thanks a lot, you little jerk. Now I have to go learn about it.

  9. #89

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    Ask sumskilz but I don't think that the Hyksos were Aryan or Hurrian. I have seen theories that they were Hurrian or had a Hurrian element to them. But I am pretty sure that the Hyksos were Levantines.
    Yes, that's what Drews also states, that they were Amorite princes from the Levant, maybe with some Hurrian speakers thrown into the mix.

    His argument is that the Indo-Europeans used the chariot to establish themselves as ruling aristocracies over conquered lands and thus spread the IE languages (so no mass migrations of nomadic pastoralists), but not that they were the only ones to do it. He does underline that a lot of other groups did the same thing as well. First came Labarna, already petty Anatolian king, who conquered the land of the Hatti with his warriors (mostly Proto-Anatolian speakers), took the name Hattusilis and established the Old Hittite kingdom. His son Mursilis raided deep into Babylonia. These guys demonstrated the possibilities opened up by chariot warfare to everybody else, so in the second quarter of the 2nd milenium BC various bands of charioteer warriors of varying provenance aspired to mimic them by taking over established kingdoms or conquering civilized lands, from Greece to India.

    In the case of Greece, he posits that an invasion of 75'000 Indo-European/Proto-Greek speakers would have been enough to conquer the native population of maybe 750'000, as this was the roughly the ratio of Spartans-to-Helots in classical times, who played out a similar dynamic of political hierarchy, in the way he pictures Mycenaean society.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    ... (Tiryns actually existed as a lame horse until the Archaic period). While it is possible that Pelasgian or Doric invaders caused the collapse I have yet to see any evidence for this. It is also quite possible that the collapse was the result of wars between city states and civil wars or revolutions within the cities as well. One thing that I couldn't help but notice from the later Greek texts is that they mention there being kings that ruled in antiquity, however by the time of the Classical period and Hellenistic period many of the Greek states lack kings in the true sense. Many of the Bronze Age sites show large scale destruction of Bronze Age palace complexes, and cities to some extent. But given the destruction of palaces and such, I do think that these were actually revolutions against these monarchies. Don't believe me? Well the terms for rulers in Classical Antiquity were usually "Basileios", "Tyrranos", "Archagetai". None of these terms imply an actual kingship. In the Bronze Age the term "Basileios" referred to a general or official. In fact the actual term for a king was "Wanaka" (Anax) and this term is not actually used again after the Bronze Age. In fact when Homer refers to Agamemnon in the Iliad, he does so by calling him "Anax". Zeus is also referred to as Anax. This does not just imply a shift in terminology in my opinion, but an actual ideological shift from the collapse of Bronze Age Greece. But just imagine having all of these warrior bands who have nothing better to do, there are bound to be wars between these warrior societies and actual city states, even revolutions and regicide. Perhaps the Pelasgians and Dorians fit into this somewhere... they took advantage of the internal conflicts to invade Achaea? Why the new rulers didn't just style themselves as "Anax" as well I really don't know. Maybe it was because they derived their power from their supporters, rather than an actual institution of kingship?
    I have been listening to the History of Greece podcast lately, so I have some remarks on the subject.

    1) Tiryns was destroyed early in the Classical Period (470s or 460s) by the Argives and its people fled to Macedon, where king Alexander I welcomed them. Mycenae also existed during that era as a tiny city-state and even contributed 80 hoplites to the Peloponesian army that held the pass at Thermopylae (this I remember from Herodotus)!

    2) In the linear B tables, "basileus" (the Bronge Age equivalent actually, pa-si-ru) was the title of the king's overseers in remote villages/settlements, further away from the citadel/seat of power. During the Dark Ages and by the Geometric Era, these guys had actually become local kings, since the palatial economy and control collapsed, in the way that later Greek uses the term basileus; so when the Dark Age settlements started to coalesce physically to form the early city-states, the local basileis formed the first aristocracies of the merged community. Later on, the office may have been preserved in its ceremonial/religious role, for example in Athens there was the "archon basileus", in Sparta they survived as hereditary generals basically, in Cyrene they wielded actual power as kings until the 6th century

    3) In the Iliad, written in the 8th century BC, only Agamemnon, the high king, is described as "anax", the Mycenean-era word for king. Every other (minor Achaean) king (Odysseus, Nestor, Diomedes etc) is a basileus, though I am not sure as to how was Priam described. I don't recall the archaic and classical Greeks ever using the word "anax" for kings (I may be mistaken though), but by the Hellenistic era the term that had come to denote king in the sense that we understand it is clearly "basileus", in text, in coins, in votive offerings and inscriptions, everywhere. In fact, in medieval and modern Greek the work "anax" has fallen out of use in favor of "basileus", except when used as a component in composite words. For example "anaktoron", literally the king's building, is the Greek world for palace.


    4) Tyrannos/tyrant denotes something different, it is a monarch that has come to power through illegitimate means. It is also a loanword from Lydian. Originally it did not have negative connotations and many tyrants were great rulers (Periander, Peisistratus, Gelon and Hiero), but by the second or third generation of tyranny the ruler had grown up as an entitled spoiled brat, so many of them were brutal and the people struggled to overthrow them. So the term started to get negative connotations during the end of the Achaic period. Basileus and anax were words used to denote legitimate kings.

    5) It's difficult to explain how Pelasgians, Leleges and other non-Greek speakers of the historical era survived for like 1000 years after the invasion and conquests of the Proto-Greek speakers without being eventually subsumed into the Greek-speaking population. Maybe it has to do with the fact that that Greek mainland is mountainous, so many communities are isolated, and that there is a great number of islands in the Aegean. Even a large island like Samothrace was basically taken from the Thracians as late as the 7th century BC (btw the poet Archilochos who fought as mercenary in these wars remarked that all the wretches of Greece had gathered in Samothrace lmao). Corcyra/Corfu in the Ionian sea was also Hellenized by Corinthian colonists around 700BC! In eastern Crete, there had survived a group of people in classical times called Eteocretans, literally meaning true Cretans, who probably were Minoans that had been displaced by invading Mycenaeans and later Dorians!


    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    My position is that the Iliad is based on multiple events involving the Mycenaean Greeks (actually I hate the term "Mycenaean", so I will call them "Bronze Age Greeks" from now on). There are multiple mentions of "Ahhiyawan" raids in the Aegean and West Anatolia. The first one is Attarsiya who invaded and raided West Anatolia and Cyprus. Some have argued that Attarsiya is the basis for Atreus the King of Mycenae (the one who supplanted Eurystheus and the Perseids, he was also the father of Agamemnon), interestingly Atreus' grandfather Tantalus was said to have been Anatolian. The unnamed Great King of Ahhiyawa who was a contemporary of Muwatallis II and Ramesses II, mentions in one of his letters to the Hittite king that his own grandfather "Kagamunash" made an alliance with an Anatolian ruler (or Kagamush was the Anatolian ruler, and the Ahhiyawan ancestor is unnamed). Therefore the Great King of Ahhiyawa claims suzerainty over some islands in the Aegean which were given to Ahhiyawa by his Anatolia ancestor. This appears to coincide with the raids of Piyama Radu and his taking control of Lesbos. Presumably the islands disputed between the Hittites and the Ahhiyawans, around 1290 BC, were those islands around Lesbos. Piyama Radu is mentioned as having fled to the Ahhiyawans when the Hittites chased him out of Anatolia. This involves Wilusa because at the same time Alaksandu of Wilusa makes a treaty with the Hittites. Simultaneously the Hittite vassal king of Arzawa formed an anti-Hittite coalition and received support from the Ahhiyawans. Although Wilusa is an important piece, what I found more interesting is that Miletus (Millawanda) is attacked twice by the Hittites (in the reign of Mursili II and in the reign of his other son Hattusili II). Also interesting to note that Millawanda is claimed by the Ahhiyawans and its ruler Atpa pledges allegiance to Ahhiyawa.

    The Arzawan ruler who rebelled against Muwatallis was also one of the architects of the revolt against his father Mursili II. Possibly also with some Ahhiyawan support in that time as well (about the 1310's?). Although the Ahhiyawans appear to have gone all in in the 1290's because not only are they mentioned directly fighting the Hittites, but the conflict involved Wilusa, Arzawa and all the lands in West Anatolia, presumably also fighting in the Aegean islands. Muwatallis II boasts that he defeated the Ahhiyawans, at the very least he defeated the Arzawan coalition and subjugated them. The Iliad mentions the powerful Memnon of Asia as being the key supporter of the Trojans. I can't help but think that Memnon is cultural memory of the Hittite Empire (although it seems to also be a reference to Ramesses II). The Iliad also mentions the conflicts against other Anatolian states, albeit mostly in passing, some of these states were allied to the Greeks. The only issue is that Wilusa is not mentioned as having been destroyed and peace is concluded some 30 years later when Hattusili II takes the throne of Hatti. In the treaty Millawanda is ceded to the Ahhiyawans and their king is recognized as "Great King", at least by the Hittites. Although their King is never mentioned in person, instead the king's brother Tawagalawa goes to Millawanda and negotiates the treaty. Tawagalawa seems to have been in charge of Ahhiyawan affairs in Anatolia. The Great King doesn't go to negotiate the treaty himself and the implication is that Ahhiyawa is too far away, so the only assumption is that it is all the way in Greece.

    Only issues I am seeing... there is no mention of the destruction of Troy and the destruction of TroyVIIb isn't dated until the early 1100's BC. While a lot of statements made by Homer are corroborated (such as the Trojans worshiping Apollo, which the Wilusans did worship Appaliunas), the actual details of the Iliad are not supported. There is no mention of an Achilles or Odysseus, or even Menelaos or Agamenon. Alaksandu of Wilusa could be a reference to Paris (Alexander of Troy). But a battle hardened and self made king like Alaksandu hardly matches the description of the cowardly Paris. There is also no reference to a King Priam, closest match might be the notorious pirate from Lesbos (I hesitate to say Lesbian) Piyama Radu, but he is mentioned as having fled to Ahhiyawa when the Hittites defeated him. Some of the details are eerily similar though, the "Great King" of Ahhiyawa strikes me as too similar to Agamemnon's attempt to become a High King over the Greeks. Although the brother Tawagalawa is nothing like Menelaos of Sparta. I think the most egregious problem is that the Ahhiyawans do not appear to win this war. What is more it seems that, although Wilusa was important, the war centered around control of Millawanda, and the Ahhiyawans supporting the Arzawan coalition. Where as the Iliad makes it appear that this is primarily a war of the Greeks, and the Anatolians are just there to give support.

    So presumably Ahhiyawa is not in Anatolia, seeing as that place has never been identified and according to their correspondence the Great King is unable to meet the Hittites in person. That means that Ahhiyawa has to be somewhere in the Aegean Sea, which is unlikely because none of these islands could support an actual empire... the only other candidate has to Mycenae. Although Mycenae did not actually rule all of Bronze Age Greece (hence why I say that the term Mycenaean Greece is misleading). It does appear that Mycenae had hegemony over the Peloponnese, maybe stretching as far as Attica, and they quite likely had control over the Aegean islands. The main reason that scholars tie Ahhiyawa to Bronze Age Greece, is because of the large quantities of Mycenaean wares discovered at Millawanda. That city being what we call Miletus and which is specifically mentioned by the Hittites as the place which the Ahhiyawans control. The Ahhiyawans cannot be the Miletans themselves, because Miletus was ruled by a governor or puppet king called Atpa. It is clear that Millawanda was part of an Ahhiyawan empire, an assertion which is supported by the fact that the Hittites were willing to cede Millawanda and recognize the Ahhiyawan ruler as a Great King. Surely the Ahhiyawans must have been somewhat formidable if they are not only recognized as a great power, but also that they were willing to fight the Hittites (by supporting the Luwians).

    However early campaigns by Atarsiya look as though they were direct invasions of the Luwian states, and have much more emphasis on raiding. The Hittites did not have much control over West Anatolia in the 1400's BC. Once they chased out Atarsiya, they used these attacks as a pretext to establish their control and bring states over to their side. The text mentions a lot of double dealing between the Luwians and Atarsiya (for instance Madduwatta who flees to the Hittites, they give him a new kingdom, and then Madduwatta rebels against the Hittites with the help of Atarsiya who chased him out). Atarsiya's attempt was likely an earlier expedition to establish some kind of foothold in Anatolia. Although it is not clear if Atarsiya was a king in Ahhiyawa (as the text only refers to him as a man of Ahhiyawa) so we can't know if he was doing this of his own accord (as a sort of viking) or if he went on behalf of the Ahhiyawan authority. At the very least we can be sure that Ahhiyawan raids were a frequent occurrence, as were Anatolian raids. Such that it is not surprising if there existed sufficient material with which to string together a narrative in the form of a great epic. Since the Iliad contains anachronisms (names of peoples, place names, weaponry which appears to be from earlier in the Bronze Age) I think that it makes sense to conclude that the Iliad contains multiple events and that are woven together into a single story, an exaggerated story most likely. Now did the Greeks come back in the 1100's BC to burn down Troy? Possibly, although the state of affairs in Greece was likely one of civil war, so I am unsure how the Greeks were able to invade Anatolia again. Perhaps Troy VIIb was sacked by the Sea People (mostly Anatolian Luwians).

    In what book can one read about the Hittite-Achiyawan wars? Ryan Stitt had one podcast episode about them in the History of Ancient Greece and this is the first time I became aware of the existence of the letters you mention and of the existence of Hittite records about Achiyawans in general. We never learnt about any of this at school and, if I recall correctly, we were still being taught the problematic theory of 3-waves migration from the North, around 1900BC, 1600BC and 1200BC (I mean, until very recently I had always thought that the Ionians were the ones who entered Greece first, then Aeolians, then the Dorians, but it turns out that linguistic analysis suggests that all the classical dialects of Greek emerged IN Greece as local variations, the Ionian one being the last to be formed!). I have read Chadwick's book "The Mycenaean World" and I hated it, because all he was doing was discuss stupid boring entries about wool and olive oil in Linear B tablets, never providing an overarching narrative. Drews' books are much more entertaining and insightful, but they focus on explaining the birth and the destruction of the Mycenaean and Hittite kingdoms, glossing over the 4 centuries of trade and warfare that happened in between.
    Last edited by Timoleon of Korinthos; July 11, 2020 at 08:03 PM.
    "Blessed is he who learns how to engage in inquiry, with no impulse to hurt his countrymen or to pursue wrongful actions, but perceives the order of the immortal and ageless nature, how it is structured."
    Euripides

    "This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which avails us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."
    Augustine

  10. #90
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,931

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanny View Post
    Q, Was Troy in Baltic Sea?


    A, No. Archology tells us where it was and roughly when it was.
    How would you explain the weather though?

  11. #91

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by AqD View Post
    How would you explain the weather though?
    What is it that you think needs explaining?

    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  12. #92
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    If the Hittites, instead of just doing mindlessly rote exercises of copying, wrote actual commentaries about the grammar and vocabulary of another language like that of the Hatti, that is remarkably impressive for a Bronze Age culture. Do you have an online academic ".edu" site that perhaps mentions or explains this? I'd love to see that. I'm familiar with this and that about Bronze Age literature going back to the first known poetic author known by name, the Sumerian poet priestess Enheduanna, but to be honest I didn't think any kind of grammarian existed until the Iron Age. You basically just opened up an idea that I didn't even think existed, Oda. Thanks a lot, you little jerk. Now I have to go learn about it.
    The Hittites did translations of words and sentences. They also adopted some of the Hattic words into their Hittite language. The Hittites may have also influenced the adoption of Hattic terms into Luwian, or the Luwians directly adopted these words from the Hattians. There is also the suggestion that the Hattian language was influenced by Proto-Luwian and Proto-Hittite. Due to what the Hittites recorded about the Hattian language, scholars were able to determine that it was a Caucasic language with similarities to Abkhazian, Georgian, Circassian, Armenian etc. It appears that Hittite interest in the Hattic language was tied to their religious interests. The language was used in the rituals involving Hattic gods. Since the Hittites were known for adopting the gods and cults of conquered people, they were careful to make it as good as the real thing and not just a cheap imitation. The worship of these gods was mandated by the king to his priests, who were required to create and maintain the cults of these gods. There are even cases of the priests not wanting to worship a certain god and the king punishing them.

    The Hattians and the Hattic Language

    Short Grammar of the Hattic Language

    Reconstructing Languages and Cultures

    Go to page 452 on this last one. Unfortunately not that many tablets have survived, so what we have are some examples of Hattic grammar but only in fragments. The best thing we have are actual Hattic ceremonies recorded by the Hittites on tablets. The rest are basically word lists and sentences. There are a few other journals and articles but I don't want to overload this. I think to start off those are decent enough.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; July 13, 2020 at 09:18 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  13. #93
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    The Hittites did translations of words and sentences. They also adopted some of the Hattic words into their Hittite language. The Hittites may have also influenced the adoption of Hattic terms into Luwian, or the Luwians directly adopted these words from the Hattians. There is also the suggestion that the Hattian language was influenced by Proto-Luwian and Proto-Hittite. Due to what the Hittites recorded about the Hattian language, scholars were able to determine that it was a Caucasic language with similarities to Abkhazian, Georgian, Circassian, Armenian etc. It appears that Hittite interest in the Hattic language was tied to their religious interests. The language was used in the rituals involving Hattic gods. Since the Hittites were known for adopting the gods and cults of conquered people, they were careful to make it as good as the real thing and not just a cheap imitation. The worship of these gods was mandated by the king to his priests, who were required to create and maintain the cults of these gods. There are even cases of the priests not wanting to worship a certain god and the king punishing them.

    The Hattians and the Hattic Language

    Short Grammar of the Hattic Language

    Reconstructing Languages and Cultures

    Go to page 452 on this last one. Unfortunately not that many tablets have survived, so what we have are some examples of Hattic grammar but only in fragments. The best thing we have are actual Hattic ceremonies recorded by the Hittites on tablets. The rest are basically word lists and sentences. There are a few other journals and articles but I don't want to overload this. I think to start off those are decent enough.
    That's pretty incredible. Thanks for sharing. I obviously already knew about the bilingual peace treaty between the Hittites and Egyptians following the Battle of Kadesh, but I was completely unaware of this sort of scholarly translation work by Hittites. Makes sense that it would be driven in part by religious concerns. Pretty cool how we used it to determine Hattic was a Caucasian language like Circassian. Technically Armenian forms its own branch of the Indo-European family (with loanwords from Caucasian languages) and Georgian is Kartvelian (another primary language family). However, I'm sure that both Armenian and Georgian contain old loanwords that stem from Hattic despite all three of these languages belonging to different language families.

  14. #94
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Hattic also has words in common with Greek and Luwian branches like Carian. It does appear that Caucasic languages were influential, and probably the original language family that was wide spread in that entire region. Although the possibility that Proto-Luwian and Proto-Hittite could have influenced the Hattic tongue is astounding. It could suggest that earlier Indo-Europeans had relations with Anatolia, if not that they actually migrated into the area even earlier than we assume (normally about 1800 to 1600 BC, but if an earlier migration then it could have been prior to 2000 BC even). I am not completely certain that the tablets written by the Hittites were in cuneiform. But since I am pretty sure that the Hittites didn't use any sort of Hattic script (or maybe the Hattians used cuneiform themselves, or never developed a script) that these are transliterations from Hattic into cuneiform. Most of the Hattic tablets are also in Old Hittite (also called Nesite or the Nesa Dialect) and this shows that the Hittite study of the Hattians was largely in their early period. The Hittites also preserved all or most of what we know about the Palaic Language, which is an Indo-European language of the Anatolian branch that died out earlier in the Bronze Age.

    The Hattic religion is composed of mainly local Anatolian deities, the most famous example being the Sun Goddess of Arinna (Ariniti) which the Hittites equate to the Hurrian Hebat, or the Semitic Asherah (Hera to the Greeks). They also seem to have been influenced by Mesopotamian deities (not sure if directly Sumerian or if Semitic variants). Assyrian texts mention that Sharrukinu of Akkad and his sons had campaigned as far as Central Anatolia. They also mention trade disputes between a Hattic ruler and merchants all the way from the Tigris as the primary cause. If true then networks from Mesopotamia stretched quite far, and influence was wide spread, even going back to 2300 BC or earlier. Now my assumption is that if these are Semitic variants of Sumerian gods then the cultural exchange must have happened around the time of the Akkadian Empire or the Amorite conquests. There is always the possibility that a Sumerian deity was transferred into the Hattic pantheon regardless of whether the influencer was Sumerian or not. But we don't have to rule out the possibility that it could have been done directly by the Sumerians, which would be more remarkable.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; July 14, 2020 at 12:49 AM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  15. #95

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    That's pretty incredible. Thanks for sharing. I obviously already knew about the bilingual peace treaty between the Hittites and Egyptians following the Battle of Kadesh, but I was completely unaware of this sort of scholarly translation work by Hittites. Makes sense that it would be driven in part by religious concerns. Pretty cool how we used it to determine Hattic was a Caucasian language like Circassian. Technically Armenian forms its own branch of the Indo-European family (with loanwords from Caucasian languages) and Georgian is Kartvelian (another primary language family). However, I'm sure that both Armenian and Georgian contain old loanwords that stem from Hattic despite all three of these languages belonging to different language families.
    Hattic may have been Northwest Caucasian. Armenian has some very old loanwords from Northeast Caucasian (like Lezgic) and Kartvelian, but it is most influenced by its Hurro-Urartian substratum. Which is not surprising since what is now called the Armenian Highlands was the Kingdom of Urartu until is was destroyed in the mid to late Seventh Century BCE, by some steppe associated group. You may read that this was the Scythians, the Cimmerians, and/or the Medes, but all these are assumptions based on unlikely hypotheses about particular arrowhead forms. In any case, there is no mention of Armenia or Armenians until the late Sixth Century BCE.

    It might be tempting to suggest that the Kingdom of Urartu was destroyed by the Armenians who arrived from elsewhere at that time, but if so, there is no genetic evidence of a major demographic shift at that time. Not that we should assume there would be when a nomadic population establishes themselves as a ruling class over a settled population. Nevertheless, there was already ancestry from the Pontic Steppe in the Armenian Highlands in the Middle Late Bronze Age. MLBA people from the area can be modeled as ~75% Kura-Araxes and ~25% Yamnaya. The reality is presumably a bit more complicated than that model, but if those two are seen as representative populations, then the model should be roughly correct.

    It seems possible to me that the distinctness of Armenian from other Indo-European languages may be a product of its substratum or substrata rather than phylogenetic distance from nearby Indo-European languages, and that this is difficult to identify because the languages of the substratum/substrata are not well-known.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  16. #96
    Vladyvid's Avatar Wizard of Turmish
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Athkatla
    Posts
    2,132

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Last time i checked, Troy was in Turkey (its a name of a country, not an animal). Is this some flat earther corner in here with such outlandish theories? smh...

  17. #97
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,242

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Hattic may have been Northwest Caucasian. Armenian has some very old loanwords from Northeast Caucasian (like Lezgic) and Kartvelian, but it is most influenced by its Hurro-Urartian substratum. Which is not surprising since what is now called the Armenian Highlands was the Kingdom of Urartu until is was destroyed in the mid to late Seventh Century BCE, by some steppe associated group. You may read that this was the Scythians, the Cimmerians, and/or the Medes, but all these are assumptions based on unlikely hypotheses about particular arrowhead forms. In any case, there is no mention of Armenia or Armenians until the late Sixth Century BCE.
    That is an oddly late date given the prominence of previous Indo-European civilizations stretching back to the middle of the Bronze Age, but I'm sure they existed in the region much earlier anyways given the large percentage of the population's genome belonging to the Yamnaya (as you've mentioned). Thanks for clarifying about the issue of loanwords, which I wasn't entirely sure about and was more or less making an educated guess. Should have figured that Armenian was mostly influenced by Hurro-Urartian languages and it does make sense that the Indo-European language of the Armenians wouldn't have risen to prominence until the Kingdom of Urartu was toppled by some Indo-European group, whoever they were.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    The Hittites also preserved all or most of what we know about the Palaic Language, which is an Indo-European language of the Anatolian branch that died out earlier in the Bronze Age.
    Damn! The written works and scholarship of the Hittites was more prolific than I had previously thought. My knowledge of Bronze Age scribal traditions and literature is usually restricted to Egypt given the abundance of papyri and ostraca that have survived, plus their prominence in academia over most other contemporary civilizations. However, I'm not even sure the Egyptians bothered to systematically record foreign languages, let alone make an attempt to get the pronunciations just right. It is impressive that the Hittites were concerned about getting the exact pronunciation right for the Hattic deities instead of relying on loosely transliterated titles that most civilizations would use, either out of arrogance, laziness, or the verbal limitations of their respective native tongues. For instance, it is truly frustrating to lack native linguistic sources for the Mongolic Xiongnu while receiving every title they used through the filter of Classical Chinese (such as the word "Chanyu" for their ruling khans).

  18. #98
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Hattic may have been Northwest Caucasian. Armenian has some very old loanwords from Northeast Caucasian (like Lezgic) and Kartvelian, but it is most influenced by its Hurro-Urartian substratum. Which is not surprising since what is now called the Armenian Highlands was the Kingdom of Urartu until is was destroyed in the mid to late Seventh Century BCE, by some steppe associated group. You may read that this was the Scythians, the Cimmerians, and/or the Medes, but all these are assumptions based on unlikely hypotheses about particular arrowhead forms. In any case, there is no mention of Armenia or Armenians until the late Sixth Century BCE.

    It might be tempting to suggest that the Kingdom of Urartu was destroyed by the Armenians who arrived from elsewhere at that time, but if so, there is no genetic evidence of a major demographic shift at that time. Not that we should assume there would be when a nomadic population establishes themselves as a ruling class over a settled population. Nevertheless, there was already ancestry from the Pontic Steppe in the Armenian Highlands in the Middle Late Bronze Age. MLBA people from the area can be modeled as ~75% Kura-Araxes and ~25% Yamnaya. The reality is presumably a bit more complicated than that model, but if those two are seen as representative populations, then the model should be roughly correct.

    It seems possible to me that the distinctness of Armenian from other Indo-European languages may be a product of its substratum or substrata rather than phylogenetic distance from nearby Indo-European languages, and that this is difficult to identify because the languages of the substratum/substrata are not well-known.
    The term "Armenia" is generally associated with the Achaemenid Empire. Although the Nabonidus Chronicle uses a term in Babylonian which might refer either to Lydia or Urartu (it is debated which one). If it does mention Urartu then this is good evidence that the term was still being used on the eve of the Fall of Babylon. But either way it stands to reason that Armenia was the name used around the time of, or after the Achaemenid conquests.
    For example people such as Xenophon and Ctesias etc wrote admittedly poor histories of the Achaemenid Empire. But they use the term Armenia and they refer to the first Armenian dynast as "Orontes" or "Tigranes" (not to be confused with Tigranes I of the Artaxiad house). Herodotos, Xenophon and Ctesias all claim that when Cyrus overthrew the Medes he allowed many kings and chiefs to retain their power under Achaemenid rule. It is also generally accepted that the Medes ruled over that area as far south as Arbela and as far to the West as Cappadocia. But in the histories of Xenophon he refers to three figures: "Orontas", "Tigranes" and "Tiribazus" which he refers to as satraps or kings over Armenia. Herodotos does not refer to the Armenians specifically, but since his history largely glosses over the life of Cyrus and focuses solely on the main events, we can probably meet these other accounts half way. Xenophon's account mentions Tigranes who was king of the Armenians and who was an ally of Cyrus against the Medes. According to Xenophon, Cyrus campaigned in that north western area when he was in the service of the Medes, and pardoned Tigranes for withholding tribute. After that Tigranes became indebted to Cyrus and supported him when the Persians overthrew the Medes. Moses of Chorene (Khorenatsi) also mentions a Tigranes who supported Cyrus and was rewarded with kingship over Armenia. I will assume that Moses Khorenatsi was basing his account on Xenophon but there is also a likelihood that this involved oral histories as well. In all likelihood the change from "Urartu" to "Armenia" was some sort of internal shift. Moses Khorenatsi does mention that this Orontid line ruled from the fortress at Van... well this is corroborated because apparently Achaemenid Armenia was administered from the ancient city of Tushpa, which is roughly the location of Van. Maybe the Armenians were some sort of tribe in Urartu and the Persians used them to govern that area, regime change as the Persians often did (similar to what they did in Anatolia, Egypt, Babylon, and Greece). The association of Armenia with the Persians overthrowing the Medes is probably true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    That is an oddly late date given the prominence of previous Indo-European civilizations stretching back to the middle of the Bronze Age, but I'm sure they existed in the region much earlier anyways given the large percentage of the population's genome belonging to the Yamnaya (as you've mentioned). Thanks for clarifying about the issue of loanwords, which I wasn't entirely sure about and was more or less making an educated guess. Should have figured that Armenian was mostly influenced by Hurro-Urartian languages and it does make sense that the Indo-European language of the Armenians wouldn't have risen to prominence until the Kingdom of Urartu was toppled by some Indo-European group, whoever they were.

    Damn! The written works and scholarship of the Hittites was more prolific than I had previously thought. My knowledge of Bronze Age scribal traditions and literature is usually restricted to Egypt given the abundance of papyri and ostraca that have survived, plus their prominence in academia over most other contemporary civilizations. However, I'm not even sure the Egyptians bothered to systematically record foreign languages, let alone make an attempt to get the pronunciations just right. It is impressive that the Hittites were concerned about getting the exact pronunciation right for the Hattic deities instead of relying on loosely transliterated titles that most civilizations would use, either out of arrogance, laziness, or the verbal limitations of their respective native tongues. For instance, it is truly frustrating to lack native linguistic sources for the Mongolic Xiongnu while receiving every title they used through the filter of Classical Chinese (such as the word "Chanyu" for their ruling khans).
    The simple explanation is that Indo-European peoples tended to insert themselves into an existing culture. At the very least this is what occurred in the East. However in Europe it seems that during the early migrations the Indo-Europeans ran around genociding the local Neolithic farmers. They've uncovered mass graves in that entire stretch from Poland down to Romania. The remains have been identified as Neolithic farmers and the perpetrators as Indo-Europeans. What is important about these graves as that they include women and children as well. It is common to kill off the men, but these Indo-Europeans didn't even take the women and children as slaves, they just killed them all. Although these graves are dated to the early part of the Indo-European migrations. It is easy to come to the conclusion that gradually, and the more they expanded into Europe, that these Indo-Aryans began to assimilate some of their conquered subjects and interbreed with the local women. Especially because genetically the Europeans share DNA which is associated with both the Neolithic farmers and the Indo-European steppe conquerors (that is both males and females). However in India the Vedic civilization which they created was based on castes and segregation, if they did finish off Indus Valley Civilization, they certainly did not do much interbreeding with the conquered inhabitants until much later. The Vedic Civilization is probably the purest expression of Indo-European cultures and the Vedic religious texts shed light on earlier Indo-European culture. Surprisingly the Mitanni mention gods which are almost identical to those of the Vedic religion (even in name). Where as the Hittites, Greeks, Romans etc do not mention these Vedic deities. But still many of the religious archetypes are the same. Well with Greece and Anatolia at least, they took in a lot of local Middle Eastern influences as well, so this could account for the discrepancy.

    I do find the Hittite culture strange because on the one hand they are extremely militant. Their whole society appears as though it originated from militant tribal cultures. For example they used terminology to refer to a militarily successful ruler, similar to the term "Imperator". Their Empire was divided into feudal states and vassal states and this is already inherently associated to militarism. Their society was also carefully organized by law codes, there were even laws which the vassal kings and "Great Kings" were expected to obey. The society was also extremely pious and not without a sense of justice and compassion. In fact no king dared to called themselves "Sharrukinu/Sarruken" since this was a title reserved only for the gods, instead they used words equivalent to "ensi" and "Lugal", or very specific Hittite terms such as "Tabarna". A lot of the religious texts, including those composed by the kings themselves, involve the rulers begging the gods for forgiveness (including things like not observing sacred feasts, not giving sacrifice to the gods, ordering soldiers to carry out mass slaughter, and sacking cities and temples). A famous example is Mursili II asking the gods to not kill his subjects, and to forgive Hatti because his father Suppiluliumas killed many people and executed many kings, also for despoiling Amurru and burning down cities and temples. The Hittites practiced some extreme form of polytheism in which they had hundreds of gods from all sorts of places. They were very cultured people but I have yet to see any poetry that was not some form of prayer or in praise of the gods. Their organization was very good as well since they kept many records of all sorts of things. Their military ability surpassed that of ordinary barbarians. Their armies were well organized into units of 10, 100, 1000 and 10000. Also having ample knowledge of military methods, formations, siege warfare, weaponry, chariots, and field maneuvers. I remember reading in one text that "whats his face recommends avoiding battle as ambush is the preferable method of fighting, especially in mountainous terrain, using axes instead of spears" and "when fighting on flat terrain it is necessary to rely on spears and chariots" (of course I am paraphrasing). Hittite armies were generally composed of a military class, rather than conscripts, like all Aryan societies they were very hierarchical. That insane Hittite maneuver during the Kadesh campaign, together with information manipulation and deception, will always go down in history as one of the most impressive military displays of all time. Heck they were capable of building cities up in the mountainous plateau and manage a whole empire from the most mountainous place in the Middle East. They built a vast empire with only a portion of the population and grain surplus that Egypt had.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; July 15, 2020 at 03:10 AM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  19. #99
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,121

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    @Lord Oda: The Different approach of the Indo-Europeans may have to do with the different level of culture they found in their new lands. While the Cultures (and population density) in the fertile Crescent had already an impressive level, the neolithic Farmers in Middle and western Europe where still on a relative low level. It may be, that it simple wasn`t possible to do the Aryankilleveryone-thing in the region around of the fertile Crescent.

    About the Hittites your totally right, this culture is very fascinating and Kadesh was a Masterpiece.

  20. #100
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,406

    Default Re: Was Troy in Baltic Sea? (a weird theory)

    The simple explanation is that Indo-European peoples tended to insert themselves into an existing culture. At the very least this is what occurred in the East. However in Europe it seems that during the early migrations the Indo-Europeans ran around genociding the local Neolithic farmers. They've uncovered mass graves in that entire stretch from Poland down to Romania. The remains have been identified as Neolithic farmers and the perpetrators as Indo-Europeans. What is important about these graves as that they include women and children as well. It is common to kill off the men, but these Indo-Europeans didn't even take the women and children as slaves, they just killed them all. Although these graves are dated to the early part of the Indo-European migrations.
    Sorry, but that is lay archaeology.

    With a quick search i found only this about neolithic massgraves:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04773-w

    The Linearbandkeramik (LBK) Culture is from 5600-4900 cal BC, it spreaded from Southeastern Europe into Central Europe.

    Those massacres were committed by different communities of the LBK itself.

    Reasons for those massacres were probably less fertile land because of climate change and growing social tensions because of a differentiating hierachy:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The number of LBK sites showing unusual burial practices and lethal collective violence is slowly but steadily growing20,21,22,23,24, 28, 35. The mass grave of Halberstadt represents the most recent addition in this regard that can be placed into the general context of Early Neolithic warfare, defined here as violent organised conflict between independently acting and likely territorial groups42, 43. Although the general occurrence of warfare in the Early Neolithic of Central Europe is now largely accepted25, 44, 45, its scope and overall impact are still sometimes disputed18, 19, 46. It is therefore important to briefly consider the general context in which LBK warfare likely occurred. In the Early Neolithic, political power was not centralised. Rather, local communities, or groups of communities, or maybe even subgroups within settled communities, probably connected by kinship ties regardless of the level of organisation47, very likely acted independently from each other as separate political units. Therefore, Early Neolithic warfare as such was necessarily restricted to the same local or regional level and local LBK communities, or possibly alliances of communities, are thought to have been perpetrators and victims alike of the massacres known so far. These also represent the best physical and only direct evidence for actual LBK warfare. In this general context, the massacres have to be taken primarily as separate instances of warfare occurring largely independently from each other and not as part of an all-encompassing, simultaneously occurring pan-LBK conflict. However, as the massacres are not randomly distributed through time, but apparently cluster near the end of the LBK sequence in the decades before 5000 cal BC, it is very likely that they have to be regarded as stark symptoms of profound changes that affected the interlinked social and natural landscapes of large parts of the LBK universe during this time24, 44. Climate-induced drops in agricultural production, the mounting consequences of inherited claims to agricultural land and increasing hierarchical differentiation are among the likely factors for furthering the rise of social tensions and, ultimately, of lethal conflicts between independently acting groups3, 9, 10, 24.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04773-w


    It has nothing to with the Corded Ware culture (75 % shared genetical ancestry with Yamnaja Culture, still disputed, if the Corded Ware people were really the first indo-european people...) as this culture expanded around 2800 BC...

    Another argument against genocidal Indo-Europeans:

    Genocidal Yamnaja men switched culturally to Corded Ware Culture and then to from Spain to Central Europe spreading non-Yamnaja Bell Beaker Culture?

    A entertaining article:

    https://indo-european.eu/2019/03/how...itch-cultures/

    The replacement of 90% of the the british neolithic gene pool with genes from Bell Beaker people from the Lower Rhine Area instead of the former british neolithic farmers is not necessarily happened by genocide.

    More likely the decline of the western european neolithic farmer cultures has something to do with the first spreading from yersinia pestis from Eastern Europe to Central and Western Europe:

    https://indo-european.eu/2018/12/spr...ithic-decline/

    The Corded Ware People / Yamnaja people could expand in already depopulated areas and their offspring was already better immunizised against the pestis bakteria.

    Last Argument is that Stonehenge was still in use and development after the coming of the Bell Beaker People.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

    Which wouldn't have happened, when the Bell Beaker people would have genocided the neolithic farmers.

    "Oh those Brits were so worthless brownies, but let took their religious monuments..."
    Last edited by Morticia Iunia Bruti; July 15, 2020 at 02:58 AM.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •