4 ms·

>> His team assumed the Trojan War happened Stop there and try to prove that, first.

cannonpr 2y ago
So literally ? Hard to, however there are many records of continuous invasions of Persia by Greeks of the era that are well substantiated and many torched cities that were rebuilt frequently. It might be more pertinent to say which events of over 20-30 major campaigns inspired the texts of the Iliad.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > there are many records of continuous invasions of Persia by Greeks of the era that are well substantiated Persia won't come into existence for at least 600 years if "the era" is Mycenaean Greece. If you're talking about the region of the Persian homeland, there are zero records of invasions by Greeks of the era. It's on the other side of Mesopotamia from them. Troy is located in Anatolia both according to classical tradition and modern belief. The best currently known evidence for the Trojan War is stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    I suspect OP is thinking of the Sea Peoples, some of whom are conjectured to have been Greeks (e.g. Acheans).
    - wwtrv 2y ago
      Do we know anything at all about any contact between the "Sea People" and Persia? e.g. the distance between ancient Persia and Egypt significantly (~50%) larger than between Egypt and the Greek mainland and sea travel was much faster in the first place.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        Well, again, the concept doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as Persia in the time of the Sea Peoples. Distinctively Iranian languages would have existed at the time - in fact, distinctively Indic and Iranian languages are both documented for the period - but there was no polity identified with Persians and there was certainly nothing identified with Persia. Terminology of the region tends to use different ethnic identifiers for different Iranian groups. (Medes / Persians / Parthians etc. etc.) This means that referring to "Persia" is a lot more specific than just a geographical designator. It's kind of weird, since in other historical contexts you do see ethnically similar groups treated as if they were the same. But if you do want to just consider the people broadly construed, you're stuck with the fact that the relevant state in the late Bronze Age was Elam, which isn't Iranian at all, and "Persia" still doesn't apply. If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire, then it included Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the homeland of the Iranian plateau, Afghanistan, and everything in between, and there are indeed lots of records of contact between the Sea Peoples and "Persia" by that definition. But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" in a Bronze Age context. We'd have to stop referring to "Egypt" at all! At the time, there was no relevant concept that would relate to "Persia", the regions were not politically or culturally unified, none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian"...
        wwtrv 2y ago
        > But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" Is it necessarily that much (to an extent it is of course) more absurd than to call the Bronze Age Mycenaeans/Achaeans Greek though? Yes they were a lot more concentrated geographically and the link between them and classical Greeks/Hellenes is strong but still seems like an anachronism. > If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap. > But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" Certainly, that why I wasn't sure why did they mention Persia in the first place. > none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian" Considering that the word is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?
- wwtrv 2y ago
  Persia? What about China? I don't think there is any evidence of any contact between bronze age Greece and Persia.
Archelaos 2y ago
From the actual paper: "Our hypothetical date for the Trojan War (1300–1200 BC) was needed to enable estimates of the environmental conditions (temperature, day-night cycle, etc.) but should not be considered as a contribution to the continuing discussions about the date of the War. Moreover, the Trojan War cannot be taken as a historical event, at least in the form described in the Homeric epics [...]. There is no way to know whether it reflects a single event or a period of turmoil that was triggered during an alleged migration from Greece to the eastern Aegean, a narrative that has been also put into question [...]" Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301494 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  That should be put to the attention of the author of the article above, then (on Ars Technica).
smegger001 2y ago
well we did find the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy also there are burned remain, anti-chariot defensive works, and bronze arrow heads radio carbon dated to the right era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Korfmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Korfmann
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  To be precise, what "we" (Heinrich Schliemann) found were the ruins of multiple cities, in multiple archeological layers, in a region that is rife with such things. We... well, he, then proceeded to declare one of those cities "Troy" and even took pictures of his wife with some jewels he found which he proclaimed to be "the jewels of Helen of Troy" [1]. That should suffice to underline the uncertainty, from a purely scientific point of view, of what, exactly, was found by Schliemann. My opinion is that this man has caused no end of damage to any attempt to find the historical truth, if any, of the Homeric epic. I've had a few fights with fellow Greeks who were convinced that Schliemann really-really found Troy, the actual city from the Iliad, which was a true story then. A friend once told me that not only Troy was found, but that it was "seven cities", as Troy is described in the Iliad; most likely a reference to the multiple layers of ruins at the place excavated by Schliemann. Some of whom were indeed destroyed by fire, suggesting war, if memory swerves, but not all and in any case there have been so many wars in the thousand years since the first city was built there that we might as well assume it was aliens who first destroyed it. ... which some people inevitably will. ___________ [1] Some of the history of those excavations is on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Excavation_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Excavation_history The rest I know by dint of being born Greek and having read my fair share of ancient history (extracurricularly, obviously) as a child. I might misremember some things.

So literally ? Hard to, however there are many records of continuous invasions of Persia by Greeks of the era that are well substantiated and many torched cities that were rebuilt frequently. It might be more pertinent to say which events of over 20-30 major campaigns inspired the texts of the Iliad.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> there are many records of continuous invasions of Persia by Greeks of the era that are well substantiated Persia won't come into existence for at least 600 years if "the era" is Mycenaean Greece. If you're talking about the region of the Persian homeland, there are zero records of invasions by Greeks of the era. It's on the other side of Mesopotamia from them. Troy is located in Anatolia both according to classical tradition and modern belief. The best currently known evidence for the Trojan War is stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  I suspect OP is thinking of the Sea Peoples, some of whom are conjectured to have been Greeks (e.g. Acheans).
  - wwtrv 2y ago
    Do we know anything at all about any contact between the "Sea People" and Persia? e.g. the distance between ancient Persia and Egypt significantly (~50%) larger than between Egypt and the Greek mainland and sea travel was much faster in the first place.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      Well, again, the concept doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as Persia in the time of the Sea Peoples. Distinctively Iranian languages would have existed at the time - in fact, distinctively Indic and Iranian languages are both documented for the period - but there was no polity identified with Persians and there was certainly nothing identified with Persia. Terminology of the region tends to use different ethnic identifiers for different Iranian groups. (Medes / Persians / Parthians etc. etc.) This means that referring to "Persia" is a lot more specific than just a geographical designator. It's kind of weird, since in other historical contexts you do see ethnically similar groups treated as if they were the same. But if you do want to just consider the people broadly construed, you're stuck with the fact that the relevant state in the late Bronze Age was Elam, which isn't Iranian at all, and "Persia" still doesn't apply. If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire, then it included Egypt, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the homeland of the Iranian plateau, Afghanistan, and everything in between, and there are indeed lots of records of contact between the Sea Peoples and "Persia" by that definition. But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" in a Bronze Age context. We'd have to stop referring to "Egypt" at all! At the time, there was no relevant concept that would relate to "Persia", the regions were not politically or culturally unified, none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian"...
      - wwtrv 2y ago
        > But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" Is it necessarily that much (to an extent it is of course) more absurd than to call the Bronze Age Mycenaeans/Achaeans Greek though? Yes they were a lot more concentrated geographically and the link between them and classical Greeks/Hellenes is strong but still seems like an anachronism. > If you want to consider the geographical extent of the Achaemenid Empire Not sure why would anyone want to considering the 700 year gap. > But it's completely absurd to call that "Persia" Certainly, that why I wasn't sure why did they mention Persia in the first place. > none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian" Considering that the word is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?
wwtrv 2y ago
Persia? What about China? I don't think there is any evidence of any contact between bronze age Greece and Persia.

Archelaos 2y ago

From the actual paper: "Our hypothetical date for the Trojan War (1300–1200 BC) was needed to enable estimates of the environmental conditions (temperature, day-night cycle, etc.) but should not be considered as a contribution to the continuing discussions about the date of the War. Moreover, the Trojan War cannot be taken as a historical event, at least in the form described in the Homeric epics [...]. There is no way to know whether it reflects a single event or a period of turmoil that was triggered during an alleged migration from Greece to the eastern Aegean, a narrative that has been also put into question [...]" Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301494 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
That should be put to the attention of the author of the article above, then (on Ars Technica).

smegger001 2y ago

well we did find the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy also there are burned remain, anti-chariot defensive works, and bronze arrow heads radio carbon dated to the right era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Korfmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Korfmann

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
To be precise, what "we" (Heinrich Schliemann) found were the ruins of multiple cities, in multiple archeological layers, in a region that is rife with such things. We... well, he, then proceeded to declare one of those cities "Troy" and even took pictures of his wife with some jewels he found which he proclaimed to be "the jewels of Helen of Troy" [1]. That should suffice to underline the uncertainty, from a purely scientific point of view, of what, exactly, was found by Schliemann. My opinion is that this man has caused no end of damage to any attempt to find the historical truth, if any, of the Homeric epic. I've had a few fights with fellow Greeks who were convinced that Schliemann really-really found Troy, the actual city from the Iliad, which was a true story then. A friend once told me that not only Troy was found, but that it was "seven cities", as Troy is described in the Iliad; most likely a reference to the multiple layers of ruins at the place excavated by Schliemann. Some of whom were indeed destroyed by fire, suggesting war, if memory swerves, but not all and in any case there have been so many wars in the thousand years since the first city was built there that we might as well assume it was aliens who first destroyed it. ... which some people inevitably will. ___________ [1] Some of the history of those excavations is on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Excavation_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Excavation_history The rest I know by dint of being born Greek and having read my fair share of ancient history (extracurricularly, obviously) as a child. I might misremember some things.