Ancient and Archaeology permalink
The Wooden Horse of Torjan
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Susanna huang (U5377085) on Friday, 26th March 2010
Who was the frist writer that wrote about"The Wooden Horse of Torjan"?
I fond out very few paragraphs in ±«Óãtvr's "Odesseus",as far as "Illiad is concered,I couldn't find out any words!
Besides, in Virgil's "Aneaid" there was a short section about it.
Why so many dramas re-interpret it into a very long story?
If any morden historical writers added new idea in it?
Besides,if the war of Torjan truely happened,or it is only a legend?
If any archaeologist can prove the existence of"The Wooden Horse of Torjan"? -
Message 2
Posted by colinclout (U1717776) on Friday, 26th March 2010
The first mention of it in any text is ±«Óãtvr's Odyssey, as you said. Specifically Book 4 around line 700 where Menelaus mentions it, specifically mentions a wooden horse, is the first ever mention of it in history (to my knowledge).
No, it is not mentioned in the Iliad, but since the Iliad was about Achilles' virtue/arete/anger, the horse would not have been mentioned because it was more about cleverness than about anger.
There is no historical evidence of a wooden horse, though since Schliemann, there have been archeological digs and there is a location that has been found that contains a city that seems to fit, though there was no sign on it indicating it was called Troia.
I recall National Geographic had an edition on it about ten years ago with a map (thought I cannot recall any details because I tossed it out). There were definitely wars, and later writers take for fact that the general details of ±«Óãtvr are fact, but the text also mentions gods which most people would discount as existing, so I believe most people accept it based upon a war, but with many poetic additions.
As for why it has been dramatised so many, I cannot say, except that the Trojan War was the great drama of Greece that united them, made them from city-states into one Greek unity, for love as some say. And the horse was what gave them their victory. -
Message 3
Posted by WickerMan (U14275309) on Friday, 26th March 2010
Some scholars have hypothesized that the Trojan Horse was based on a known battering-ram design.
Either an actual battering-ram was used or the 'horse' in the story was influenced by something known.
The example given was an Assyrian type from the 9th century BCE. These war machines also carried soldiers within the body.
-
Message 4
Posted by Susanna huang (U5377085) on Saturday, 27th March 2010
colin
Thanks a lot!
If the Torjan War truely happened,how about the Olympus' gods and godess?
They charged the fate of human-beings in ±«Óãtvr's epic!
Besides,the location of Torjan might be in Turkey now!If there is truely any historical remains?
What did the lately archaeologists find out?
Besides,if no more morden Greece take Zues and Athena their god? -
Message 5
Posted by Susanna huang (U5377085) on Saturday, 27th March 2010
wickermen
How do you think about the morden tanks!??
They are very similiar,aren't they?
Hearsaid,the Wooden Horse was a fake surrendence gift from the Acheans alliance!!
colin and wickermen
Therefore,I have a big question about the Wooden Horse,if they sent the horse to show fake surrendence,why in the Illiad Achilles killed Hector and destory Torjan alliance?
Achilles destory Torjan in Illiad.
And,the Wooden Horse destory Torjan in Odyssey.
If these two reasons conflic??? -
Message 6
Posted by Susanna huang (U5377085) on Friday, 18th June 2010
If Achilles had already killed Hector,why should
Odyssey fake surrendered,and built the wooden Horse?
Who began this rumor and named with ±«Óãtvr? -
Message 7
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Friday, 18th June 2010
My Dear . . .
Would you settle for a simple answer or demand pages of Booknotes after it ?
HOMER( dd 750 bc.) was not the only or best writer on Troyan War(-s)
HESIOD (dd. 900 bc.)is sonmewhat older but doesn't mention a Troyan War.
Herodotus (dd. 450 bc.)and Euripides: The Egyptian Hellen.( 200 ad?)
mention the only cause of the Troyan War(-s)
the Girl Hellen of Troy(= of Sparta.)
They probably had read the " PALINODE of STECIGORUS "( dd. 600 bc.) who apparently wrote two different Stories about Helen as "Cause for War".
a negative one that blinded his (in-)sight and a positive one, that is largely forgotten due to the present phenomenon of Media-shortening.
The case is that ±«Óãtvr shortened (or his Latin compilers did.)The Seajourney of Hellen + Paris from Sparta to Troy in 3 days, just embarking briefly at the Firehouse on Pharos in Egypt.
But the real-fact was that Hellen discovered" Spanish"=bullion gold, in the treasure-house of her newly-wed King of Sparta, Menelaos who as an indian Nabob alike did nothing with it it was justsitting there gathering dust.
So as a cunning bussiness woman she send her royal husband on a familyvist errand and cleared the treasuryhouse of the bullion, chartered the largest( -empty-) freightship aviable, which just happened to have mr Prince-Paris, as the board-Captain.
So they sailed not to Troy and not to unclear destinations but straight to the South Arabic Port city of Aden, wher the annual AUCTION of the fresh FRANKINCENSE of year 861 bc was due.
Can't you guess what happened next ? ?
None of the contenders had the amount of money to spend that SHE had and so she bought the entire Frankincense-harvest of year 861 bc.
It didnot cost her or Sparta a penny and comming home the value of this Frankincense did not double but tripple, but she did get home safely with her aquired treasure, here is why it went wrong.
She was an (Egyptian.) monopoly buster! and whilst in the harbour of Memphis( now Cairo.)( via the then not yet sedimented older, Suez-Canal.)Her crew who disliked cunning females
tried to emulate her by selling some of the really whalming stuff to wholesalers in that port
At the wrong time ! in the Wrong country
So Hellen was seized as a trade tax avoiding criminal by the customs authorities a headman named THOONIS, who reported her to the Pharaon/King of Egypt a man named Proteos in greek, but better-known as the "Mighty-Sun Emperor": Amenhotep-3.
Who did not jail her however but was so impresse atr her social skills that he immdeiately married her as" Kiya"(= Venus/Aphrodite ) and even made her an empress-Goddess of Egypt under the name of New- Hathor.
Meanwhile at home, King Menelaos found his treasurehouse AND his bed empty so he turned to Troy to ask his belongings back.accompanied only by a herault/herold Stentenus or Thalbius-I forget- and of all men Odysseus who happend to know how to navigate quickly to Troy. a skill, which Menelaos did not master.
King Priamos Paris' father denied having neither treasure nor Hellen within his sand-cast walls.
But a Mail Pidgeon just arrived telling that Hellen and Paris were " safely" (in golden cages) in Pharos with the old king Proteos.
So Priamos could not be held responsable for Hellen's scalled " Abduction" by Paris.
At the time Menelaos went to Pharos but was told that he could not get his wife back who was now a Goddess
However he could get the spoils of the FRANKINCENSE if he would attack Troy with a Greek fleet and burn the place down.
Because Troy was then a world trade center in FIEF from Asurnasipalus-2 of ASSUR who had a quarrl with King Amenhotep-3 and so boycotted egyptian trade in Troy
To lift the Assyrian embargo on Egyptian products, the only option seemed to occupy Troy
But in peacetime he egyptian army was to small and even Menelaos had to bag other kings for naval assitance because he himself owned 50 ships whilst he required 1.000.
So he devised a ploy-by which Hellen former suiter plighted to help Menelaos destroy Troy.
In Troy Menelaos found Helens CourtLady which pleased him more than His own Hellen and that would be it
But whilst back in Pharos collecting this money, and confronted with Hellen he decided to play a trick with the new King Amenhotep-4( in greek Radhamathus.)and abducted his former wife.
Leaving the poor gullible Radhamanthus/Amenhotep-4 with their son (in Greek Eteokles.) or THUT-Ankh- AMON.
The rest of that story is poetic embroidement.
Most Historians did not like resourcefull women and so this real story was banned from public reading and quickly forgotten.
Only at Oxcyrhynchos a Greek Nile-colony( dd. 300 bc,.) has some older not tampered original stories from which I quoted.
DEVIANT CANNON,
So you can imagine that the other Topic-Posters will protest that this is an" invented untrue"/impossible made-up etc. story deviant from the official " Hellen is War of Troy" Canon."
Sincerely,
Prof. Muster, Delft Univ./Holland dd 18 June 2010
Currently the Mayor of my town wants to burn my text books with the pretexts that my 40 m2 house is too small to containt 2.000 ( ancient-) history books.
So my reward as a 'Mythbuster' is -cultural-proscription from my fair hometown of Delft.
But I am an autistic socially handicapped person
so i cannot get an injunction to protect my Uraban survival recluse lifestyle nor my Textsbooks. -
Message 8
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Friday, 18th June 2010
WOODEN HORSE was a SE Camel because Troy had Riverbank Dunes for walls only a Ships" Camel" could get at over thiose walls at Hightide flood time
Troy is not the one found by Schliemann if he had payed more attention at the Story than learning Greek he would have read that All Troyans left the burning city and founded 5 New Troys:
Bythrotum, Dyrriachum, Venice, Pergamon and TRUVA but the original Troy was TARSUS(30 layers of Earthquake-destroyed cities.)While TRUVA had only 10 Layers of Cities.
Dardanus was the Founder of Troy( dd.1055 bc.) but his real name was SAR of DAN meaning the king of Aden.
Ps the dates are from the REVISED Chronology of dr Velikovsky who waqs demonized foer discovering 500 years to much in Canon Timelines -
Message 9
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Saturday, 19th June 2010
±«Óãtvr mentioned it and Herodotus. Perhaps not Hesiod who was the eldest Greek mythology writer, but Stechigorus went into that subject in more detaills.
Most modern commentaries beat about the bush about ±«Óãtvr cutting-off the Chapter where Paris & HELLEN DID not RETURN IMMEDIATELY TO TROY BUT STAYED DAYs upon end in the Egyptian Port of Memphis.
±«Óãtvr did not mention Hellen's SEA-Voyage to southern Arabia-FoELIX which was considdered Egyptian territory back in 855 bc.
So when ±«Óãtvr briefly said that the Couple toched the shore opf Egypt, everybodey thought of Memphis
which Paris'ship must have entered from the North
That his sip went thtough the older fissure of the unsedimented Suez-Canal was also not understood. -
Message 10
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Saturday, 19th June 2010
Dear. . .
It is not often that a schoolgirl deperately is seeking an answer on greek mythology on a Topic website like this.
I think that this Chinese woman was a schoolgirl that neededa direct hit answer for an ancient history examn
For instead of commenting on the first reply she continued with a second question.
Either she did not read my reply or she went off line permanently.
Battering Ram is a good hint,
But as we all should know, Apollo helped built the walls of Troy, which were originally built by Poseidon.
Meaning that the Sea andRiver-TIDES affluent built the walls or rather EMBANKMENTS bif not River-terasses of Troy
The only way to circomvent Sand dunes or dikes is
to built a Ship's camel that lifts battleships at high tide over Sea-walls !
Remember that the Greeks had to tie ytheir shipsup in a protective gully noyt to let them go to sea with the Tidee! and the Troyans tried to burn the tie-up ships hulls. -
Message 11
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Saturday, 19th June 2010
If you are still listening:
"OLYMPIAN GODS-origin"
These " Olympian Gods" were not the first creators of World or mankind,
Even the Gods themselves have been created by the socalled Pre-Gods or TITANS,
These Titans were Egyptian Kings that lived during natural Catasrophies like the oPENING
of the World river named OCEAN or Okeanos.
When TITAN Okeanos married TITANNESS Thetys, they begat the Titan Son: Poseidon. ( ACTUALLY NOT A PERSON BUT THE CITY-of RAS - Aden, peronallised as Poseidon.)RAS=-Aden is derived from POS-Aidon.
OKEANOS was the egyptian King known under the name: SEKEN en RE Thot-2( in Greek: Agenor.)
TETHYS was his wife/queen Aahothep.
Their 'Son' Poseidon was the successor-king Ahmoses.
The first splitting of the Red Sea was in 1055 bc -
Message 12
Posted by WickerMan (U14275309) on Saturday, 19th June 2010
I think that this Chinese woman was a schoolgirl that neededa direct hit answer for an ancient history examn..Â
She's obviously realised she isn't getting any help here... -
Message 13
Posted by Wyldeboar (U11225571) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Don't be so cynical. Don't you know The Prof runs the ONLY childrens museum in Holland.Who could possibly be MORE qualified?????????
-
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Susanna huang, these questions of yours are quite often in the study of ±«Óãtvr's poems. Dear Prof.Munster might has his theories on that but then he is quite often on allegations (like those around the city of Aden) which are really difficult to be proven.
Since you asked certain things on Greeks, what better than take a consise response by a Greek which knows 1-2 things on the history of his nation and the region of Eastern Mediterranean. I might not be a professional historian but I know well the general outline which might given you a good picture.
I will commence from your last question on the modern evolution of the area which of course today bears no resemblance to what was there more than 3000 years back when these events are said to have happened. To understand well the story first of all open the map of Greece & Minor Asia where Troy was said to be in all ancient texts including first of all that of ±«Óãtvr. Asia Minor falls in modern Turkey but of course Turkey is a modern creation 90 years back out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire founded during Renaissance after the dissolution of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire and as such Turks have historically culturally and to a large extend even anthropologically nothing to do with those ancient cities and states being people that later came and organised themselves in the area (though mingling with the local Minor Asian population - but mainly the inner one: most coastal populations remained Greek & christian). On the opposite side, Greeks have very much to do being practically the modern continuation of those ancient cultures (as attested linguistically, anthropologically etc.). In terms of religion of course they did not retain their ancient religion, the 12 gods as it was gradually replaced by christian religion during the Middle Ages like elsewhere in Europe. However the 12theism ancient Greek religion had to great extent shaped christianity and the examples are endless: 12 Gods = 12 Apostles, 25 December birth of Dionysus = birth of Christ and so on and early christians actually spoke openly of that. More interesting in Greek christian orthodox tradition all Saints took directly the role of 12 Gods in being protectors of some profession like Saint Nikolaus saint of mariners in place of Poseidon etc. while in Greek medieval and modern tradition there is no heaven & hell but Hades (the main concept of the ancient religion) - in fact there is not a single reference to any heaven and hell apart purely theological analysis texts (that also do not speak exactly of heaven and hell but about differential "conditions") all that while for common people it was still Charon who lead the dead to Hades. Note also that the poems of ±«Óãtvr continued to be for Greeks the most popular text after the bible even in times of high religious fervour and it was used as a text to learn reading as well as the ancient language (though ±«Óãtvr's Greek is an even more ancient form of "ancient Greek" and quite very very elaborate).
Now, if we follow the ancient texts which mention the city as being near to the mouth of the Hellespont (i.e. the passage from the Aegean sea diagonally up to the Bosporus and Black sea) the position the most plausible is in the region where Schliemann, a reknowned archaiologist of the late 19th-early 20th century period found the remains of an ancient city. Googlemap: "Schliemman's Troy". It is indeed near the mouth of the Hellespont overlooking from the Hills the beach. Back then it could be even nearer the sea - while of course ±«Óãtvr clearly mentioned that there was a plain between the beach where Achaians set their camp and the city of Troy. Nearby you can see the 2 little islands too and ±«Óãtvr mentions that the Achaian ships had hid behind the islands opposite to Troy while the Wooden Horse was being taken inside the city of Troy. What is interesting is that the city Schliemann found had been sieged repeatedly over the time, known as Troy I, Troy II... Troy IV showing that it was both a rich as well as strategically important city and it is actually Troy III if I remember well that mostly approaches the 1200 B.C. date (i.e. 3200 years back) that is mostly said this war had happened. There is no proof either for the date or for the actual site but on the one hand there was indeed an agitation in that era of 1200 B.C. (the Greek kingdoms had reached their top-power and expansion but were strained by lack of ressources, there is proof of high concentration of weaponry in Greek palaces), then for the actual site, some researchers have read carefully ±«Óãtvr's descriptions and they found analogies with the geomorphology of the area and what it used to be 3000 years back. Nontheless there is nothing proven, possibilities are open as for both date and actual location (which as per the myth necessarily is near the Hellespont & Aegean sea by all means). -
Message 15
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 21st June 2010
Now let us leave the precise location (which most probably than not is in the nearby region we have just seen) and actual date (which cannot be more recent and not so much more ancient than the 1200 A.D. date) and let us see the poet and the poem.
It might sound funny but indeed many people in the past had indicated that ±«Óãtvr was not 1 poet but many poets who were later given place to an imaginary poet, ±«Óãtvr. However the first known written copies of the poem (none of which are physically saved of course, we have only their copies) are in Peisistratus days (Athenian tyrant, i.e. dictator who ruled around 550 B.C., i.e. some 200 years after ±«Óãtvr). Since the poem has nothing much to do with the city of Athens other than the king of Athens Idomeneas participated along many other kings in that campaign - who was an average-power king (and it does not praise Athens in any way) and of course it is written in a mix of older forms of Ionian and Aeolic dialects (quite different to Attic Ionian dialect) showing its coastal Minor Asian ancestry (i.e. where ±«Óãtvr came from), it is obvious that it was not Athenian writers that had done the job, but rather done a job of preserving ±«Óãtvr's poem. From there on, the poetic but artificial language of ±«Óãtvr is obviously the work of 1 man (you can't have 10 poets working together to arrive to such a result) as the complexity of the story which is told in flahback and absolutely non linear chronology could not be the work of many writers (otherwise it would be whatever...). However, given the 200 years of distance between Peisistratus' times (around 550 B.C.) and ±«Óãtvr's times (around 750 B.C.) none can exclude minor alterations here or there.
Going to the poem itself, first of all you might have noticed that none told you till now that the actual Iliad is a poem written by ±«Óãtvr NOT to tell the story of the city of Troy and NOT to tell the story of the military campaign of any Greek. Here one needs to clarify that ±«Óãtvr speaks of no Greeks in particular. The name itself did not exist in the time though some notion of certain ethnicity certainly existed despite the absence of political unity (ethnicity and political unity are 2 things clearly different in the Greek nation throughout its history). Those that we identify as "Greeks" were mentioned by ±«Óãtvr as Achaians or Danaans or Argives. Achaians were a powerful tribe of Peloponese. Danaans were a tribe habitating in general south Greece and islands. And Argives are the citizens of Argos, a city in Peloponese (but there was another one in Macedonia probably predating it) thus the names of these powerful Greek tribes were used to describe the lot - however that does not include possibly the most important Greek tribe, the Dorians (actually a branch of the group of northwestern Greeks Macedonians-Epirots-Aetolians) who actually came down from the northern Greek mainland (passing the mountains of Olympus & Pindos) some decades later, commencing possibly from 1150 B.C.). Note too that ±«Óãtvr mentions only the coastal and islandic kingdoms that participated in the campaign: logical since the inner Greek tribes had obviously no ships to arm and sent there (logical!)... let alone having any nterests to be occupied with sea-based warfare!
On the other hand, contrary to common misconceptions, ±«Óãtvr never mentioned the Troyans as being different to Achaians (i.e. what people called later as Greeks). They speak the same language as Achaians, have the same Gods, the same customes, the same fighting culture, and even their names are all Greek. One might mention that ±«Óãtvr did it to ease the narration of the poem but then that cannot be necessarily true when ±«Óãtvr goes in detail to call other tribes as "foreign" as well as to mention that Troyan's immediate neighbours, the Phrygians (a possibly Thraecian originated tribe), spoke a quite different language (and note that ancient Thraecian and ancient Greek were cousin languages in a continuum which makes us imagine that Troyans could be possibly something in the middle - let alone back then both the ethnogenesis of what later was recognised as Greeks and Thraecians was not completed (thus we can only think of a continuum of tribes and cultures). Note that the fact that Troyans bear Greek names is not any conclusive because even the names of the Achaians are quite artificial - some people for example point out that Agamemnon = great king, Menelaos = wrath of the people... i.e. the people where angry (Menelaos) at Troyans who (from their nicely positioned city in the mouth of the channel) were getting all the riches of the sea commerce (beautiful Helen) and campaigned against them under the leadership of a great king (Agamemnon).
Now whatever Achaians and Troyans were - and they were above all seafaring habitants of the Aegean region occupied mostly with commercial seafaring activities - they were not the main issue of ±«Óãtvr's poem!!! I mean, ±«Óãtvr might had as a side objective to tell us about the story of Troy (Ilion as was the other name), it might had as a side objective to tell us about the campaign of Achaian it might even had as a side objective to add some salt and pepper telling in "Cosmopolitan-like" details about how the war started because of prince Paris stealing Beautiful Helen with the help of goddess Aphrodite... BUT none of these was the key objective: the main issue of the poem was vastly different to both of these:
The topic of the poem was what the poem clearly states in the first lines of poem!!! I.e. to tell the story of the bitter fight between king Agamemnon (king of Mycynaes), the leading king of the Achaians, and king Achiles (king of Myrmidones), the main military hero of Achaians. And the main objective was to tell the story of this bitter fight to act as a moral lesson as to what bad things it brought upon the Achaians and how it almost caused their destruction avoided at the last moment by the reconciliation of the 2 leaders.
Thus, the actual poem refers merely to events that actually occured in the span of 2-3 months of the last of the 10 years of the siege of Troy and actually prior to the death of Achiles which came prior to the final conquest of Troy with the smart plot of king of Ithaca, Oddyseus. Events which are "ontime" only include the fight of Agamemnon and Achiles and everything between that and their reconciliation.
All the rest of the story is actually being told on the sides using the flashback technique, a very elaborate and difficult technique which only ±«Óãtvr has used with such dexterity keeping up with the pace of this marvellous poem.
Hence - to go to your initial question - even the Wooden Horse, is mentioned as a flashback (actually flashforward) phrase.
Was it true? Who knows? Was it true all that about Helen being abducted by Paris? Was Menelaos a real name of a real king? Did Troyans have the same gods and same culture and similar language with Achaians? Who knows? -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 21st June 2010
So we can speak only generally. We can accept the historic existence of a poet called ±«Óãtvr who lived around 750 B.C. and who collected various pre-existing (and mostly orally transmitted) stories existing in both Ionian and Aeolic Greek dialects of his times combining them to contruct a nice story about the fight of two kings. His text being a poem narrated more as art rather than factual history naturally includes fantastic scenes of human Heros & semi-Gods & Gods all intervening in the course of events with Gods actually playing with the fate of humans (as it is Gods that commenced the whole affair - the fight between 3 female Gods, Hera, Athena & Aphrodite - and humans, both Achaians and Troyans being implicated in the fight due to the course of events...).
However, do not be fooled by the "poetic allowance", the presence of difficult to believe explanations like that of the abduction of Helen for the start of war and the Wooden Horse for the end of war let alone the implication of Gods!!! Both ±«Óãtvr as well as later Greeks were 100% knowledgeable that the poem actually refered to real events and real people whatever their name & dating: a real war, a real campaign that lasted a decade and which was organised by western Aegean Achain kingdoms against a powerful rich coastal Minor Asian city.
And down to the basics there are many hints to it.
First of all, one cannot be blind but see that in the region there are two main strategic points: 1 is the entrance from Aegean to Hellespont, controlled by the city of Troy and the other is the exit to Black sea, controlled by Byzantium (a later colony founded 200 years after ±«Óãtvr, later named Konstantinople, modern day Istanbul as it is called by Turks out of the Greek phrase "eis thn polh" pronounced "ees teen polee" which mean "to the city" - since Turks were hearing Greeks saying "I am going to the city"). Hence it is bound that back in those early times, the location in the mouth of Hellespont was used by the locals to control the access the Black Sea and control all sea-commerce.
Now one can easily imagine that such a city there controlling the Aegean-Black Sea commerce would naturally be the key target for Aegean sea-faring people not only eyeing its riches but mostly its geostrategic location. This coincides with the 5 times sacked city Schliemman found there - not that this can be any absolute proof of course (also one must note that the city that was sacked 5 times was not habitated necessarily by the same tribe!!). The 1200 B.C.. also coincide with the apex of the Mycynaeans named after the city of Mycynaes from Eastern Peloponesus (these were the Achaians ±«Óãtvr mentions). The poem clearly speaks of the power of the kingdom of Mycynaes and indeed we have found the city of Mycynaes in Eastern Peloponesus as a key city of that era so it is not difficult to imagine them leading a major alliance in the region. We have also found the remains of the cities of Argos and of Pylos in Peloponesus as major city centers of the era so ±«Óãtvr has been corect on these too - and note that while Argos continued to be an important city Mycynaes and Pylos were destroyed some time after 1200 B.C. and reduced to litle powerless villages by the time of ±«Óãtvr. Even more intersting, we have found Mycynaean tablets written in Linear B, the alphabet of Mycynaeans (and ancestor of the later Phoenician & classical Greek alphabets) and which give us lists of things and we find that those dating around 1200 B.C. are often talking about a large concentration of arms not justified by anytihng else than a large military campaign.
If anything we know that around 1200 A.D. there was a lot of agitation in the whole of Mediterranean. On the south side of it, Egyptians fought with the sea-peoples. Apparently many people took it to the sea for commerce, piracy or conquests. Mycynaean kingdoms had reach by 1200 B.C. a population limit that was unsustainable by local production (as Greek is a poor mountainous landscape) and they were largely dependent on Black Sea wheat and other provisions which they were bying by selling them wine and other luxury products they produced. In fact Greek people (i.e. Achaian back then) were already established along the coastline of Minor Asia both in the Aegean as well as Black Sea sides - something difficult to prove today since it must had been the same locations Greeks built their huge cities later but easy to imagine as during the alledged colonisation of western Minor Asia both Ionians and Aeolians seem to had been taken the lands extremely easy for... fugitives fleeing the Dorian raids (i.e. Ionians & Aeolians preexisted in bases in the region prior to their massive colonisation) - unless of course local Minor Asians such as Phrygians and the quite maritime Carians and Lyceans were idiot enough to permit them there which is not the case.
Hence, it is not difficult to imagine such a large campaign of western Aegean against Eastern Aegean. In fact, that campaign might had been part of the effort of western kingdoms to expand and colonise the Minor Asian coastline. It is natural to imagine that Troyans - even if really being just another Greek tribe - would ally with all local Minor Asian tribes (such as the Phrygians, the Lycians etc. - note tribes not by any means radically different to Greek tribes of that time anyway...) to prevent the expansion of western Achaian tribes to the east.
Given the interests played, it is natural to imagine that the war would be of large scale, thus the number of 1000 ships is not irrational given the fact hat Mycynian kingdoms had large navies that actually served commerce not just of the area, not just of Egypt and Eastern Mediterranean but all over the Mediterranean. Given that the Black Sea commerce for Achaian tribes was super-important for their survival one can easily imagine the sending of 1000 ships carrying about 70,000 troops which of course would had been more than the 80% of the kigndoms' forces. ±«Óãtvr also states it: the kings themselves went there with all their armies. Troyans had good fortifications and since the Achaians had not carried any siege machines on their ships the siege became long... very long... 10 years. Which is only natural to imagine since the target of Achaian tribes was not just to conquer Troy but to subdue the whole region: ±«Óãtvr also clearly states that most of the 10 years Achaians sieged Troy they had actually spent most of the time sieging nearby cities & tribes, subduing people and stealing their ressources and conquering whole areas. All that is very natural to imagine.
And of course, the fact that most of the Achaian army was there in Minor Asia leaving vulnerable the kingdoms back in mainland Greece is actually 100% fitting with the eruption of violence and the descend of Dorians, a mountainous Greek tribe that derived from Macedonians (in Greek Makedones, identified by ±«Óãtvr as Maked(o)noi - who are stated by ±«Óãtvr that did not participate in the campaign themselves - and indeed Dorians were generally accepted as having not participated in that campaignt) who were a branch of the western Greek tribes (Aetolians, Epirots, Macedonians). It was bound that Macedonians, a land-based mountainous tribe would jump on the opportunity to conquer the weakened Mycynaean kingdoms. ±«Óãtvr indicated with all the unfateful stories of the kings (particularly that of Agamemnon...), that they had tough lucky when they returned back home. It was natural to imagine that local aristocrats would try to gain power while the army and king owuld be away and that raiding tribes would exploit all that upheaval to invade and conquer.
In general, the whole story fits in the timeline we find both in the stories as well the excavation. From there on to know whether Schliemann's troy is indeed ±«Óãtvr's Troy or wether the king found in his grave in Mycynaes is Agamemnon himself or wether his brother was indeed called Menelaos who ruled in Sparta (back then an Achaian kingdom, later conquered by Dorians) and who had a most beautiful wife, Helen stolen by Troyan prince Paris, thus starting the war that lasted 10 years finally won by Achaians with a Wooden Horse... well...
... we can stick the basics: that there was a general upheaval around 1200 B.C. all over the Mediterranean with movement of populations, expansion of commercial traderoutes and wars to control them, among which there must had been a major inter-Aegean campaign that laster years and which weakened both sides of the Aegean with Dorian tribe finally conquering much of the Achaian tribes in the Greek mainland.
It is also noteworthy that "fugitive" Ionian and Aeolian Greek tribes installed themselves quite easily in the Minor Asian coastline so we can imagine that their first installaiton predates the era of colonisation (which officially starts from 900 B.C.i.e. 300 years after the Troyan war... which makes little sense). Even most noteworthy is that after 1200 B.C. and despite the proof that later "Troys" IV and V seemed to be quite rich cities, there is no major power controlling the Aegean access to Black Sea and no local tribe ever tried to rise in power & close the passage again - while the next big city in the region was... Byzantium which was of course on the other side, bordering to the Black Sea, simply shows that in those earlier times, the incessasant warfare had devastated the area and cut the appetite of anyone to built a control point in the Hellespont closing the access...
Funnily I think ±«Óãtvr himself (or another ancient writer) makes talk of a previous siege of Troy by Achaians, this time by hero Hercules and his lot who had succesfully sieged and ocnquered in a rather brief time the city and looted it, thus 100% in accordance to what we find.
... in a few words, the appetite of people of Scliemmann's Troy (possibly real Troy, who knows?) to live out of controlling the passage was the reason that brought their demise, time and time again, till they no more could have any forces to do it.
That is the basic line about the reality behind the story. The rest is literature & poecy. -
Message 17
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Monday, 21st June 2010
OLD NICK or NICOLAUS,
Is an christian 'replacement' for Poseidon or Posaidon.
NICK means demon and so Poseidon wqas changed into the Demon HADES ( meaning King-of-Aden.)
Dieus-Pater or Dis ios also Hades/Hadis
Thus ZEUS- Jupiter is the same person as Zeus/hades/Poseidon.
What few if none Histoerians realise is that the socalled WAR of the GODSwas an Earth-Axis Shift in the year 855 bc. when Stasign changed/trades places.
This came along with giant Tsunamies but the landlocked Assur kingdom was able to oust the Egyptians from Araby( which has a LONG coastline
Thusd the wicked King of ASSUR: Salmanasser-3 usurped the Place of God Poseidon and placed himself above this Water-Deity as his socalled" older brother Zeus"
TIMELINE Chronology:
for the Greeks colonizing their" ±«Óãtvland" is wrong
CANON-chronology is 3.500 bc for the older MINOANS, 1650 for Mycenans and 1200 for ionians and 800 for the Dorian invadors
The Dorian invadors came from Asia but not from Asia-Minor but Asia major.
3.500 bc for Minoans and 1600 bc for Mycenaens is wrong, these figuers should be 1055 bc and 855 bc
When Schliemann thought that Hissarlik should be Troy he forgot one thing, that the Trojans LEFT Troy after the burning
In order to found 5 new Troys, Pergamum, Buthrotum, Dyrriacum, Venice and Rome !
TRUVA on the Dardanelles was but one of the " new-Troys"
Troy supposedly was on the river sehan or Ceyhan
TARSUS is also on two rivers by that name ( later re-named Pyramus and I forget the other one.
ILLIOS( new-illion.) or Whallusia is none other than the present River HALYS or kirzil-Irmak
CONCLUSION:
Troy/Tros older name was TAURUSIA or Taursehan
which is also the -older-name of Tarsus/Tarsos,
thus the original TROY was TARUS in Cillicia/Kilikien. or KULLUKULU.
Radiocarbon dating with Velikovsky's 500 years in mind, too much in Greek history is a falsh /faulty time representation.
And the siegetime of Troy was not 10 but only 1=ONE Year.
The counterFact that King Agamemnon returned after 10 years from Troy with 2 children aged 10
coroborates that" wilde-Assumption!"of mine -
Message 18
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Monday, 21st June 2010
So Troy was Tarsus and the Date of the one year Siege was NOT 1200 bc but 855 bc.
Agamemnon after burning Troy( accidentally ofcourse.)took his reward from king Proteos of Egypt and thus went on an 8 year Jouney to Aden in the service of King Proteus(= Amenhotep-3
Amenhotep-3"Proteus" officially lived around 1350 bc but in revised Chronology he existed from 900-853 bc( at age 50 he did not die but was pensioned off to make wqay for his son Amenhotep-4
Who we know in Greek Myth as Radhamantus who married Alcmene( his grandmother.)Lateron Amenhotep-4 changed his name to Achnaton and TheoKlimenes. -
Message 19
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
Prof Munster, I really do not know where you find all that stuff. I am the last to criticise people for trying to have a critical eye on what is believed of history but really I am the first to pinpoint when this is done on allegations they cannot base.
Let me take some points here. First, even me that says that the 1200 B.C. date is the most probable cos it fits with much evidence we have, do not claim to know exactly on which event the poem talks and on which exact location and city. Above you claimed a later date, around 855 B.C. I find it a bit hard to believe. Why? Because we know that Athenians complied ±«Óãtvr's poems around 550 B.C. It is more than evident by even a quick linguistic study that there is a minimum distance of some centuries between 550 B.C. and ±«Óãtvr's time (most probably around 750 B.C.) and that even if taken for granted that ±«Óãtvr anyway copied more ancient Ionian and Aeolian texts (and thus the more ancient mix of dialects present in the text). However if Troy was sacked arounf 850 B.C. and ±«Óãtvr had written about events that occured just 100 years before his time he could even have the chance to talk with people that in their youth met some veterans of that war at their very old age. Even given that ±«Óãtvr indeed was interested to tell a nice story loosely based on historic facts of that siege, it is evident that he speaks of a more distant past at least 400 years. If ±«Óãtvr lived around 750 B.C., the 1200 B.C. date is quite fitting since we know that a lot of upheaval occured around that date, both in the Aegean world as well as the Eastern Mediterranean - still that is no proof that the Trojan war occured then, it could had been even earlier; however, later is less and less probable.
You said that probably Troy was not in Minor Asia but in Asia proper, i.e. Palestine or somemthing. While Greeks (Aegean populations if you like) were - at latest by 1350 B.C. present in large numbers on the island of Cyprus as well as colonising Palestine (Philistines were mixed Aegean - local Middle Eastern populations, Jewish called them interchangeably "Cretans", then just... "Ionians") but there is absolutely nothing in ±«Óãtvr's poem that can aid in claiming so: ±«Óãtvr speaks of the Aegean, of Minor Asia, of northern Thraecian tribes, of Lycians, of Phrygians... all these were in north-western Minor Asia. Aegean sailors had already sailed all over the Mediterranean (if not occasionally out of it), so give them a break: these people knew where they referred, they did not do such blatant mistakes.
Cretan king Radamanthys was son of Cretan king Minos or other myths said of god Hephaistus etc. Alcmene was princes of Mycenes, mother of Hercules etc. I cannot see how Radamanthys was grandson of Alcmene. There is no connection to Middle East of all that and there is nothing particularly weird in most of those myths who are for the most of them local myths of localised low scale events (like animal stealing between towns etc.) within relatively little kingdoms (compared to Egypt or Babylon). -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 22nd June 2010
Important correction (apologies for the mistake):
I mixed your positions on Aden & Middle East and the location of Kilikia (Cilicia) which is of course in south Minor Asia (modern day south Turkey), above Cyprus. Yes, in that location you could have neighbouring Phrygians & Lyceans, it is true. Troy could be indeed a mispronunciation of Taurus & Ilion of Walusha which sounds a bit Hittite (Hittites were a nearby eastern strong kingdom that included Kilikia in their heyday). Aegean tribes that installed in Cyprus could face competition from the north and thus the interest to do the campaign.
I do not have any basic problem with your chosen location. It is just that I find the location in the mouth of Hellespont more probable as it was more important geostrategically and it fits more rightly the descriptions. Cilicia has no little islands for Greek ships to had hidden (unless Cyprus is a little island which is not) and then the more close Thraecian tribe was the Phrygians and none else, but ±«Óãtvr speaks of Greeks having sieged other Thraecian tribes along the coastline. So under such details, and while I have no huge objection to the Cilicia location, I still favour the Hellespont one.
You understand that the names Poseidon, Hades are actually predating even the times of ±«Óãtvr as most names of God are found already in 1500 B.C. old Linear B Tablets. These are religious names, names of god that can predate even several 1000 years that date!!! While for some Gods there are easier explanations, like Hestia, Hephaistus, Dionysos etc. for most of them it is difficult to know the exact explanation of their names. Zeus comes from Deus and Deus sounds too much like Theus, i.e. Theos i.e. God. And Theos = the one who can look all things from his position. As simple as that...
Now I have basically no objection in you saying that possibly Zeus was initially one person with Poseidon, other that we have no clue about it. Hades on the other hand, was not a person but a place for the dead. It was Pluton, brother of Zeus & Poseidon that ruled there along with stolen wife Persephone, daughter of Demetra goddess of plants and agriculture.
"""What few if none Histoerians realise is that the socalled WAR of the GODSwas an Earth-Axis Shift in the year 855 bc. when Stasign changed/trades places.""""
An earth axis shift, while not killing most of life, would vastly destroy the planet's surface and few if any civilisations would survive. We have such a date and that is around 11,500 B.C. i.e. 13,500 years before our era. There is no known axis-shift in 855 B.C. unless you meant magnetic field shift - however these happen quite commonly (and the field had been inversed even in historic times with some influence but which was not dramatic by any means).
""""This came along with giant Tsunamies but the landlocked Assur kingdom was able to oust the Egyptians from Araby( which has a LONG coastline""""
It is known that coastal Middle East was an Egyptian kingdom outpost for some time and the Assyrians took the upper hand, roughly in the time scale you give, 850 B.C. But I am not aware of it happening at that time.
""""TIMELINE Chronology:
for the Greeks colonizing their" ±«Óãtvland" is wrong""""
""""CANON-chronology is 3.500 bc for the older MINOANS, 1650 for Mycenans and 1200 for ionians and 800 for the Dorian invadors""""
These chronologies are telling nothing about whether these people arrived or were living there since basically since prehistory. They simply tell about the appearence of known kingdoms/cultures. The heyday of Minoans is from around 3000 to 1600 B.C., the heyday of Myceneans is from 2000 to 1200 B.C. and the Dorian invasions occur by 1150 B.C.
"""The Dorian invadors came from Asia but not from Asia-Minor but Asia major."""
There is a theory about Dorians coming from southwestern Minor Asia which was formed by 1 historian I do not remember (unimportant...) who simply sought to give his own version rather than really study well that part of history. He found strange that Dorians after prevailing in south Greece they conquered the southern Aegean but leaving the northern Aegean to Ionians & Aeolians and then installing themselves in southwestern Minor Asia. Hence he thought it smart to propose the inverse wave, i.e. Dorians coming from southwestern Minor Asia (i.e. being neighbours of Carians), then conquering first neighbouring Rhodes, then Crete and Santorini and the south Aegean islands and then jumping to Peloponesus.
... which of course not only contradicts every single myth and every single ancient writer but also every single archaiological finding. While considered a major tribe, Dorians today are known to be simply the southern sub-branch of the northwestern Greek tribes which include Macedonians, Epirots & Aetolians. More specifically Dorians are a sub-branch of Macedonians. Linguistic findings in both Macedonia , Epirus and Aetolia all support that along with Dorians they formed 1 common dialect family and thus Macedonian, Dorian, Epirot & Aetolian can be seen as sub-dialects of that group in the same sense Attic is a sub-dialect of the general Ionian dialect group and Beotian is a subdialect of the Aeolic dialect group. To be mentioned that the Aeolic dialect group is the one more close to Dorian - and that in Minor Asian coastline Aeolians were in the north divided from Dorians with the multiply more numerous Ionians in the middle... a blatant detail that this historian missed!!!
Now your affirmation saying that Dorians came from the Middle East is even more absurd. If they did so they would speak a middle Eastern language. Even if they were Middle Easterners of Aegean origins and thus Greek-speaking, they would again find it hard to establish in all those random places (including the mountainous central-north Greece between Epirus and Macedonia... it just does not make sense!!!!). What you claim is that they came from middle East, thus on ships and then they established as mountainous people and they spoke the same language with Ionians and Aeolians? Nice!!! I want to see you explaining this to me!!!
""""3.500 bc for Minoans and 1600 bc for Mycenaens is wrong, these figuers should be 1055 bc and 855 bc""""
I want to remind you that the eruption is placed - at latest, note that this is at latest - at 1650 B.C. And we can affirm by archaiological finding that no more than 100 years after the eruption Minoans were conquered by the already rising and powerful navies of the Myceneans. Now, can you argue with geology? Or will you claim that Minoans continued for more than 500 years after the eruption (and I do not claim here tsunamis and such, I just claim that Minoan palaces were conquered by Mycenean less than 100 years after the eruption...).
""""When Schliemann thought that Hissarlik should be Troy he forgot one thing, that the Trojans LEFT Troy after the burning""""
As I said, that does not exclude the site of the city being taken by other neighbouring or invading tribes. Schliemann's Troys I,II,III etc. were not ruled necessarily by the same people. For example Sparta was an Achaian city which later became Dorian.
"""In order to found 5 new Troys, Pergamum, Buthrotum, Dyrriacum, Venice and Rome !
TRUVA on the Dardanelles was but one of the " new-Troys""""
The theory of the relationship of Minor Asian tribes and Rome or Venice is not proved. Durrachium was a Greek colony as far as I know and Buthroto was a Greek city in the region of the Greek Epirot tribe of Chaones which was practically the same group but independent of the Molossian Epirots (named Molossion after the sirname of their royals).
"""And the siegetime of Troy was not 10 but only 1=ONE Year."""
No clue on that. The poem is a poem. It talks about 10 years, what can we say more on it? Why make it 1 year? Why not 5 years? Why not 2,5?
"""The counterFact that King Agamemnon returned after 10 years from Troy with 2 children aged 10
coroborates that" wilde-Assumption!"of mine"""
How? He could not have children from enslaved local princesses all those 10 years? Agamemnon like Achiles seemed to be a fan of princesses (they would not be satisfied with common women) and thus both of them fought over such one. Really I cannot understand where you get all those ideas.
""""...Radiocarbon dating with Velikovsky's 500 years in mind, too much in Greek history is a falsh /faulty time representation....""""
Do not tell me you embrace Velikovsky's theories. I do really question also myself the dating of parts of early human history but the experience shows that in 9 out of 10 cases, the "official" dating given was very very late and that things were built and events occured earlier than previously thought. The Mycenean & Minoan cultures are such examples. I still do have books that claim Minoans to have lost to Mycenaeans around 1400 B.C. The corrected date is between 1650 & 1550... and so on.
Note that radiocarbon cannnot easily give wongly a more ancient date but can very very easily give a more recent one. You only have to light up a fire next to your object and it suffices to provide it enough carbonic deposits to make it look 200-300 years younger. And I guess many objects were subject to a nearby fires in their lifetime. I ignore any such process of having the inverse effect.
True that the 1200-800 B.C. middle Ages are a period of upheaval about which we know little, however if that had been shorter, we would have much more details, even in ancient texts which we do not and which shows that this period had a considerable length to provoked the loss of almost all memory of those ancient Minoan and Mycenean kingdoms apart remnants within simplistic myths. -
Message 21
Posted by Susanna huang (U5377085) on Saturday, 26th June 2010
Headache!!!!!
-
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 26th June 2010
Hehe... in these threads more often than not we pass perhaps too many informations.
Anyway you may remain to the basics:
1) ±«Óãtvr is a poet who lived in western Minor Asia and wrote around 750 B.C. 2 works of his are known to us, the Iliad whuch deals with events during the 10th year of the 10 year siege of Troy and Odyssey which deals with the return of Odyssey that lasted another 10 years!
2) The poems were written by ±«Óãtvr on the basis of a collection of pre-existing poems and stories in both Ionian and Aeolian dialects of Minor Asia. ±«Óãtvr thus wrote his works in an poetic dialect mixing both Ionian and Aeolian dialects and quite . The poems were the most popular and had circulated around all the Greek world for the 2 folowing centuries often giving way to local variations and such.
3) By 550 B.C. Athenians (probably after order of tyran Peisistratus) decided to record the original (or what they thought as the original) form of the poems of ±«Óãtvr and from there on they are the only copies remained down to us.
4) Now, the Iliad - contrary to common belief of people that did not read it - does not aim to describe the siege of Troy but it tells us the story of the fight between great leader king of Mycenes Agamemnon and his best war-mate, king of Fthia, Achiles aiming at describing how a stupid anger between 2 great leaders led to such bad events for the whole army. All other events around the war are given in side-stories with the use of the flashback method that ±«Óãtvr mastered (being the best example till today).
5) The war itself most probable case of war is that it occured around 1200 B.C. i.e. 450 years prior to the times of ±«Óãtvr (750 B.C.). Apparently it occured between the western Aegean maritime tribes and the eastern Aegean mainly land-based tribes and it was a campaign of the western agains the eastern and more specifically against the city of Troy that controlled the passage to the Black Sea. Western Aegean tribes later were identified as Greeks and eastern ones as Thraecians, Lydians or whatever other tribe lived in Minor Asia which is technically not correct since although ±«Óãtvr mentioned "barbarians" (i.e. foreigners) he never classified Trojans in that: Trojans in his poems had the same language, same culture, same gods, same customs with western Aegean tribes. -
Message 23
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Wednesday, 30th June 2010
Radamantys or Rhadamanthys
was =not really, a son of Alcmene and this was her grandson, the child of hert daughter Psamathe/ Meriamun. was her son that she supposedly had married after her Daeth or journey to the underworld of Hades.
This refers tio the period that Alcmene was appointed queen guardian or Goddess of Elysion she there married her son Rhadamantys who supposedly was made Judge of the Underworld after his death.
But I take it that both Aclmene at age 60 and Rhadhamantys at age 20 were well alive functioning as civil servants in a country that was popularilty named " Underworld" Hades or Dis>> Aden.
Them beiing dead after marriage is a way of saying that they were later-on demonised by a new king e.g. Salmanasser-3 -
Message 24
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Tuesday, 6th July 2010
Three, things spring to mind to contradict OFFICIAL CANNON history for ancient Greeks.
ASIA Minor ,
doesn't exist prior to 133 bc when the Romans FIRST named Pergamum so.
I keep telling this but my recipients wonder why that is so important since the GEO-name Asia is known longer than that and no other Country is known as Asia-Minor.
ASIA = ARABIA.
Originally the whole of Asia Minor was named Pergamum and Anatolia/ Antigonia/ Kilikia not Asia.
Arabia was named by the Greek Herodotus, ASIA- Major and indeed Palestine was named Asia Minor.
The Romans in their pretence that they got the WHOLE of Asia/Middle-East presumtiously renamed Pergamum to roman-ASIA-Minor only in 133 bc.
ASIA is ASSUR,
ASIA-Major was the original name for the WHOLE of Araby
Only Alexander the Great warrior, partitioned ASIA- Major onto two parts named north-Araby Petrea, and south-Araby -Deserta.
On ancient maps ARABY is also named INDIA- MAJOR, Somalia was INDIA- Major and INDIA just INDIA-Minor.
Ther etymology for ASIA is simple tghe Assyrians called South-Araby after their own country: Assur
ESSARA/ ISARAR, known to the Greeks as as ESCHERIA/ ACHAIA /ISARA or egyptian Holy land of Ammon-Ra, The Land of THOT-SETHOT, punician ETH became ATHE now ADEN. POSAIDON is a corruped word from: Ras- Aden.
GREEK GEO-names are actually from South-Araby.
The Nine rivers of Hades now despersed in Greece were originally imported names by immigrants from the Coastal South-Araby with their likewise named Waddies.
For Example: the River of Carchemish on the River ORONTES meaning, Charon's-Lands, was originally named THYPON.
The River of Aden had different names but the longest rtemaining name was: THYPHON, Teban.
The story of Troy was not in 1200 bc but 861-860 bc
Aeneas visited Diddo in 860 bc but this is no wrong date- mistake by ±«Óãtvr.
The whole of the Aenas story develloped on the South Arabian Coast and went to the Present site of Rome about 700 bc not 753 bc.
Cartage was founded by Dido, not in *85 8665 nor 914 bc, but around 860 bc not in north-Africa but in South- Araby named RAS FARTAK.
No Punic foundations wer found in the present Carthage prior to 700 bc. whilst it is said that Cartage is older than Rome. -
Message 25
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010
AFTER Dr.Velikovsky,
Other scholars came to the same conclusions, amongst them are noteworthy,
Prof.( of Economy-) Gunnar Heinsohn,
from Bremen Univ. Germany and
Damien Mackay,
who spotted doublures/doubletts in chronological sequences wherte the same deeds an stories were re-told under differend names
Gunnar Heinsohn, discovered that The biblical patriarch NOACH was none -other than the King SARGON-1 of Akkad,( Book 1989' Sargon's Mirror.)
Damien Mackay discovered that some Assyrian Kings usurped the deed of their Fathers, but to do so they had to add non-existing years to their own reign, since some of their predecessor's deeds were performed before the deeds-usurper'
s birth.
You like to forget that Dr.Velikovsky had good arguments for this theory of duplicated ehgyptian Dynasties
Dr. V. discovered 500 non-existing years in egyptian Dynasties because 3 dynasties were actually ONE and so the chronology HAD to be reduced with 500 years inbetween 1500/ 1.000 bc
MEANING that year 1500 bc actually was year 1.000 bc
The 12-th/ 18-th and 22-th Egyptian Dynasties were the same as the 18-th Dynasty.
and the reign of Aknaten around 1555 bc should be 855 bc.
Assyrian King, in 1555 bc, Suppiluliumas who's second name was Burnaburias, as both King of Assur and King of Hatti was actually King Salmanasser-3 living or reigning from 859-824 bc.
However even this official date may be wrong
Because a king of Argos(=ASSUR/ Escheria/ isaraR archosia)NAMED ADRASTUS/DRITTARASTHA, INTERVENED IN THEBAN POLITICS ( the war against Thebes and the Seven against Thebes .)In 820 AND 810-bc, 20 years after his supposed death as a reigning monarch. -
Message 26
Posted by Susanna huang (U5377085) on Thursday, 9th September 2010
I must study harder!!!
-
Message 27
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Thursday, 28th October 2010
Dr Velikovsky concluded that no information is lost from the scrap-filled 500 non-existing years inbetween 1200-800 or as he says inbetween 1500 and 1000 bc.
-
Message 28
Posted by Mckay1402 (U5278290) on Friday, 21st January 2011
This is possibly the funniest history thread ever. I'm glad there are people on here capable of "facts"...
-
Message 29
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Friday, 21st January 2011
Research indicates that Prof Muster is related to Eric Brewster 44th. Hmmmmmm.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
±«Óãtv iD
±«Óãtv navigation
±«Óãtv links
±«Óãtv © 2014 The ±«Óãtv is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.