Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

turks and etruscans are TROAN?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 12>
Author
arfunda View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote arfunda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: turks and etruscans are TROAN?
    Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 07:00

The settlement of Italian Peninsula by Etruscans is in 900- 800 BC in this web:http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/ETRUSCAN.HTM

Trojan War is in 1184 BC. So  can we say that Enets and Trojans had gone to Italy earlier than Etrucans?

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 07:24
Originally posted by Alkiviades

Originally posted by Maju

I did read it but instead of copying and pasting, I made a synthesis in a single sentence.

Not quite. You suggested, between the lines, that the Anatolian hypothesis is emphasized by the alphabet,


That wasn't my intention: I mean to emphasize that Etruscan is easy to read because they used the precursor of our Latin alphabet. Just that.

True about the alphabet. On the migration, what is clear is that the culture of Vilanova (since 1300 BCE) is already there in the same settlements and with the prototypes of what would be the Etruscan culture we know about. There's no break-up in Tuscany since 1300.

I am aware of that. Meaning, that any migration should have occured rather in the 14th century BC ...not very likely, wouldn't you agree?[/quote]

Why not? Mycenenan, Hittite, Egyptian and Trojan cultures (Eastern Late Bronze Age cultures) were flourishing in the 14th century BCE. Contacts with the Aegean are atested in at least some Western Mediterranean  regionsfor earlier and later dates.

Anyhow you could also concede that a native culture could have been conquered later by Aegeans, though this is my second preference. Succesive migrations (one c. 1300, another c. 1000 maybe) could be accepted also.

The article at Wikipedia dates Vilanova culture later: at 1100 BCE for pre-Vilanova and only 900 for Vilanova proper. It also says it was the first Iron culture of all Italy, what should favor their oriental origin. If these dates are correct, then Etruscans could have arrived in the midst of the Sea Peoples' mess and even in coincidence with the destruction of Troy by the Greeks.

So far, the exact explanation can only be speculative but the notion of contact and genetic flow seems quite well attested by the study, so there must be something to it. I find more likely an Anatolia>Etruria flow than the opposite in any case.

Notice that while Minoans did have an script before Mycenean (Greek) invasion (Linear A), the same can't be said about Troyans or possibly other Anatolian or Egean peoples.

As I said before, both theories: that of Asian origin and that of native Italian origina have existed since ancient times. The presence of the Lemnian language is highly striking, as it's clear that, like Italian Etruscans, Lemnian ones were there since always (as far as memory could recall). Lemnians used Greek alphabet and not Etruscan one, what means that probably they hadn't migrated from Italy, at least in literary times. The fact that Lemnos is right in front of where Troy once stood adds weight to the Trojan connection.

You are ommiting the close ties to Rhaetian (a central European tongue) and to the southern Italian tongue it also resembbles.


I know nothing about that southern Italian tongue connection but Rhaetian is not any "Central-European" tongue, rather an Italo-Alpine one. It's thought that Rhaetians could well be a remnant of Etruscan or Etruscizied refugees that gathered in the safety of the mountains when Celts invaded the region. You know that Etruscans controlled and colonized for some time the Po valley, don't you?

Anyhow I can be wrong too.

So, certainly, it either implies a much more wide connection, or something we can't quite figure out right now. Also, the whole Lemnian thingy is kind of vague and quite puzzling. We have only one single finding of that language and that has actually not been translated anyway! By the phonetic transliteration of the text, it seems to bear some resemblance to the Etruscan language, but again one single finding can be interpreted in various other ways that presuming that a host of native people spoke that language. Lemnos though was hellenized in historical times (late 6th century BC by the Athenians) and the inscription comes from the mid 6th century (so it certainly cannot be linked to any "trojan migration" or whatever theory).

As far as I can recall, ancient Greeks were perfectly aware of the Etruscan-Lemnian connection. Some thought that Lemnians were Etruscans that had migrated eastward and others thought it was the other way around.

I can't find my book on the Etruscans right now but the Etrurian nature of the Lemnian language seems rather beyond doubt: A related language is the language once spoken on the island of Lemnos, before the Athenian invasion (6th century BC), where a stone tablet written with a script related to Etruscan was found. We know that the inhabitants actually spoke this language due to the plethora of ceramic pieces with inscriptions written with the same alphabet, similar to the western ("Chalcidian") Greek alphabet. However, we do not know when or how speakers of this dialect arrived at this island. See Lemnos stele. (Wikipedia again)

Look at Cretan hairdress and Etruscan early hairdress: they are identical. Look at the position of women in Etruscan and Cretan civilizations. Then look at hairdress and position of women in IE Roman and Greek cultures: it's "another planet". Something deep in culture has changed with the arrival of the new Patriarchal warriors.

The Minoan culture - one I know extremely very well, since it's my homelands ancient history - bears no resemblance to the Etruscan culture at all.


If you look at the statues of ancient Etruscans and the murals of Crete, the people do look very alike, specially with their "rasta" hairdresses. The position of women, as I stated before also seems quite better than in Greek or Roman cultures.

Also, if you go as far as link the Anatolians to the Etruscans, you should notice that Anatolian cultures have very, very little in common with their contemporary Minoan and Aegean cultures and that they were a notably patriarchical society.

I'm not knowledgeable but you tell me.

Actually, the Etruscans were a patriarchical society as well.

Nothing compared with Romans. Romans considered them some kind of libertines because of the freedom women had in Etruscan society.


The whole non-Aryan mitriarchy is seriously flawed generally and I think it's mostly wishful thinking on behalf of some archeologists and ethnologists, than anything close to reality.

You will never read from me the term Matriarchy: I don't think its has ever existed save in Patriarchal minds. Matrifocality has indeed existed though it would be too speculative to say it applied to Cretan society. But what is clear is that in diferent Patriarchal societies the status, role and freedom for women can be very diferent: just look at modern Scandinavia and modern Arabia. Both are Patriarchal but there's no comparison.

The position of the woman in Minoan Crete is no different than any Doric society - from what we know, of course. The Ionian Greeks, yes, those had not much high esteem for their women. Not the Dorians though. What does that prove? That Dorians are in reality pre-Greeks? I'd say the Minoan culture bears more resemblance than anything to the two cultures it had strong ties with: Egyptian and Myceanean.

I don't know about those diferences, except in militarist Sparta, where women could do sports and such but anyhow were chosen by men when it came to marriage. Nothing to do with Etruscan and probably Minoan societies.

Anyhow, please feel free to ilustrate me about the diferences and extension of the Dorian sociology. Had Thebes or Corinth the same customs as Sparta? I don't think it is the case but you surely know better.

There is no actual proof of a mass migration from the North in the Greek world, period. No proof at all. Not even linguistic proof. The whole IE invasion theory is based on vague premises and flawed hypothesis and a linguistic link that can be explained in many other ways than the "invasion theories". The modern archeology speaks about cultural continuity in the Aegean basin and surrounding areas from the 6th millenia BC and on, right up to the classical times. Small-scale migration surely has occured, but nothing as massive or as devastating as the IE thing.



Curiously the same negation of IE invasion is found among some Indians and Iranians (and some time ago from Germanics too). It is self-obvious that IEs could have not sprung from the three countries at the same time and all points to these IEs being original from the Eurasian steppes. Where did they arrive to Greece, I can't tell but, as I know more about Neolithic and Chalcolitic than Bronze Age archaeology, I'd tend to think that in the Bronze age.

Anyhow, you tell me: when is it possible that these Greek-speakers arrived to Hellas? In the eve of Mycenean civilization maybe?

...

On a side-note, the Wiki-article on etruscan language also mentions some gold tablets with Etruscan script found in Bulgarian context. Could they be Thracian?

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 07:35
While I would like the Enets (Eneas?) thing to be real, as part of my family comes from the Veneto and Padova region and their genealogies claim to descend from Trojan Hector . I fear it makes not much sense, as Veneti spoke a Italic language (sometimes associated with Illyrian too). They must be related to Latins and Samnites, not to Etruscans, and therefore probably not to Troy. Latin/Italic closer relative is known to be Germanic, what makes the Aegean connection very unlikely - unless you add Etruscan cultural dominance and potential Aegean link into the mix. 

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 12:00

I found this article in Wikipedia, the last they said on their orgins with further research now think they were actually indigenous to Italy.

Another question I have, I heard the Romans were indegenous also and actually were a small village in Italy of nothing but farmers.

Sorry Maju I couldn't find anything about Augustus have blonde hair, but I know I read it and heard about it from a historian in  documentary. The reason I remember it is because they always depicted him with dark in hollywood, and now hearing he's blonde makes that kind of thing more noticable. In the show Rome on HBO they depicted Augustus, well in the show still Octavian as blonde which made like the show more because it shows they have done their research.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 12:42
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I found this article in Wikipedia, the last they said on their orgins with further research now think they were actually indigenous to Italy.


It's been the dominant theory lately but if new paleogentic studies contradict it at least partly, we should reconsider, don't you think?

Another question I have, I heard the Romans were indegenous also and actually were a small village in Italy of nothing but farmers.

Rome was originally a group of three villages of Latins and Sabines (they were gathered by Etruscans, who drained the forum). Latins, whose early capital was Alba Longa, were a tiny people among several other Italic tribes of IE language. It's been assumed that the these Italic peoples, including Latins, Samnites, Umbrians, Veneti and others, came from Central Europe in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1350 BCE, according to Wikipedia) replacing or rather dominating other pre-IE native peoples.

Sorry Maju I couldn't find anything about Augustus have blonde hair, but I know I read it and heard about it from a historian in  documentary. The reason I remember it is because they always depicted him with dark in hollywood, and now hearing he's blonde makes that kind of thing more noticable. In the show Rome on HBO they depicted Augustus, well in the show still Octavian as blonde which made like the show more because it shows they have done their research.

I actually don't know and I don't think it's important. You go to Rome now and you will surely find many blondes. The most clearly Mediterranean part of Italy is the south, while the North is quite Alpinic, with plenty of fair types. The center is somehow intermediate. It was surely that way in the Roman period. If Latins came originally from the North, it's likely that the elite were somehow fairer than the average Roman but this is just an speculation.


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 01:53
One telling thing about Troy itself.  Recent investigation of artefacts recovered from past Troy excavations has revealed a bronze seal inscribed in Luwian.  If the Trojans were Luwians there is a consistency with other known circumstancial evidence.  The land of Troy whom Homer called Wilios is comparable with the name of a distant land to the west of the Hittites they knew as Wilusa.  One of the kings of Wilusa was known as Alaksandush which looks similar to the other name of the Trojan prince Paris, Alexandros.  The name Alaksandush has the element -sandush, which is the name of a Luwian deity.  The later Greeks knew this deity as either Sandon or Santas.  The name of the father of Paris, Priam, king of Troy, has a name comparable to a Luwian one, namely Pryamuwa.  Lastly, Wilusa was considered an "Arzawa land" by the Hittites.  Since we know that Arzawa itself was Luwian-speaking and that another name for it was Luwiya, Wilusa being an "Arzawa land" may have denoted an ethno-linguistic connection. 
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 03:47
Originally posted by Sharrukin

One telling thing about Troy itself.  Recent investigation of artefacts recovered from past Troy excavations has revealed a bronze seal inscribed in Luwian.  If the Trojans were Luwians there is a consistency with other known circumstancial evidence.  The land of Troy whom Homer called Wilios is comparable with the name of a distant land to the west of the Hittites they knew as Wilusa.  One of the kings of Wilusa was known as Alaksandush which looks similar to the other name of the Trojan prince Paris, Alexandros.  The name Alaksandush has the element -sandush, which is the name of a Luwian deity.  The later Greeks knew this deity as either Sandon or Santas.  The name of the father of Paris, Priam, king of Troy, has a name comparable to a Luwian one, namely Pryamuwa.  Lastly, Wilusa was considered an "Arzawa land" by the Hittites.  Since we know that Arzawa itself was Luwian-speaking and that another name for it was Luwiya, Wilusa being an "Arzawa land" may have denoted an ethno-linguistic connection. 


That's very interesting. I did know about the Wilusa and Arzawa thing but not about the seal and the other linguistic connections. Luwian is Lydian, isn't it?

This possibly means that if the Etruscan-Anatolian (or rather Etruscan-Aegean probably) connection is real they must have come from another people. Lemnos still stand as a Etruscan-speaking community in that region. What about the Thracian connection? (just guessing)

It could also be the the case that Troyans were only Luwizied but with a diferent substratum.

Another obscure point is the Sea People's connection. We think that some of the Sea Peoples were Mycenean Greeks but others are unidentified. A name very simmilar to Rassena (Etruscan in their language) appears in some cases.


Edited by Maju

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
  Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 07:29
Hmmm, well actually there is no reference to a Sandon in any texts I've read, but most acknowledge the Hellinic Herakles to be that  diety..

Interesting that Priam, who's original name was Podargos (obviously connected to his "running for his life", or as others believe, since Podarges is a synonym to "leukopous" and white was connected to cowards, in contrast to dark discriptions.
For example, Herakles was  proverbially melampugos (having a black behind) as indicative of his bravery, as opposed to 'pugargos' (having a white behind), a coward . Irwin, E., 1974, Colour Terms in Greek Poetry, Hakkert, Toronto..

How it can be attested to be Luwian, when the myth surrounding his life mentions that he acutally bribed Herakles (priato= bribe)... anyway.. I'm open to other theories..
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 23:07

It seems kind of weird for people to try to claim a history of a people who are no longer around. I have a Italian backround, but does that make me Roman, a Samnite, or even a Etruscan? Even if one of my ancestors were from one of these groups, the genetics passed on is so small I really couldn't claim the history of the people. My blood is very mixed, even Native American, which I don't claim any of their history, it's nice to know I had a ancestor that was one of these great people.

By the logic shown here, that Turks are Trojans because they occupy the land, wouldn't that also make all Americans, Native Americans?

And wasn't Troy just a city, so do we actually know the genetics of the Trojans? So many groups of people moved through that area that their lineage could be just wiped out.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Artaxiad View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 488
  Quote Artaxiad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 00:00
Weren't the Trojans ethnic Hittites?
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1199
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 00:59

That's very interesting. I did know about the Wilusa and Arzawa thing but not about the seal and the other linguistic connections. Luwian is Lydian, isn't it?

No.  Lydian is closer to Hittite (perhaps Hittite-derived) then to Luwian.  For instance, the Hittite prince Madduwattash bears a name similar to that of Lydian kings such as Sadyattes and Alyattes.  The Lydian Heraclid king (Hellenized form) Myrsilus bears a name like that of the Hittite king Murshilish.  The irony is that classical Lydia seems to have been where Hittite-era Arzawa was, considering the equivalence of Arzawan Apasas with classical Ephesus. 

Another obscure point is the Sea People's connection. We think that some of the Sea Peoples were Mycenean Greeks but others are unidentified. A name very simmilar to Rassena (Etruscan in their language) appears in some cases.

Of those peoples identified as "Sea Peoples" two names stand out as probably being Greek peoples, the Akawasha and the Daniuna.  What the Egyptians called the Akawasha is probably the same as what the Hittites called the Ahhiyawa.  In Hittite records they were at times a thorn in their side in western Anatolia as well as on friendly and intimate terms.  They have been identified with the Akhaiwoi as Homer would call the Greeks in their war with Troy.  One of the Ahhiyawan kings, by the name of Attarshiyash bears a name resembling that of king Atreus of Mycenae, and a "brother" of the king of Ahhiyawa by the name of Tawagalawas bears a name similar to that of a name in Mycenaean Greek known as Etewoklewes, the classical name, Eteocles.  It is generally agreed on now that this name is probably that of the Mycenaean Greeks.  The other name, Daniuna, resembles that of the name Danaioi, a name of the Argives, as well as another name of the Greeks in the Illiad.  The Egyptians were aware of the Greeks at least since the 16th century BC having referred to their land as either Haunebu or Danaya.  These two names probably referred to the same people in that in an earlier "Sea People" incursion, in the time of the Egyptian king Merneptah (c. 1232 BC), the list of the confederates mentioned the Akawasha but not the Daniuna, but in the later invasion in the time of king Rameses III (c. 1191 BC), the Daniuna are mentioned but not the Akawasha

Other "Sea Peoples" seem to denote either Anatolian peoples like the Lukka, "Lycians" and the Tursha (Hittite, Taruisha), "Trojans" or Aegean peoples such as the Shekelesh "Sicilians", and the Sherden, "Sardinians" at a time when they still had not as yet migrated to the islands named after them. 

Hmmm, well actually there is no reference to a Sandon in any texts I've read, but most acknowledge the Hellinic Herakles to be that  diety..

Yes, as a matter of fact, the Heraclid Dynasty of Lydia is sometimes called the Sandonid Dynasty.

How it can be attested to be Luwian, when the myth surrounding his life mentions that he acutally bribed Herakles (priato= bribe)... anyway.. I'm open to other theories..

Heracles also served the Queen of Lydia.  Since we know that Lydian was not Greek, more than one answer can suffice.  There were either official interpreters to make Heracles and each of his listeners understand each other, or Heracles knew how to speak Luwian, or both Priam and Omphale knew how to speak Greek.  The Hittites were known to have intimate ties with the royalty of the Achaeans.  There is even a mention of members of the Hittite royal family riding chariots with the nobility of the Achaeans.  How did they understand each other?  Luwian was probably the lingua franca of western Anatolia, and we know that the Hittites kept Luwian texts.  Since the Hittites regarded the Achaeans as equal to themselves in terms of political power, but possessed most of Anatolia, any of the above situations may have occurred. 

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 04:22
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

It seems kind of weird for people to try to claim a history of a people who are no longer around. I have a Italian backround, but does that make me Roman, a Samnite, or even a Etruscan? Even if one of my ancestors were from one of these groups, the genetics passed on is so small I really couldn't claim the history of the people. My blood is very mixed, even Native American, which I don't claim any of their history, it's nice to know I had a ancestor that was one of these great people.

By the logic shown here, that Turks are Trojans because they occupy the land, wouldn't that also make all Americans, Native Americans?

And wasn't Troy just a city, so do we actually know the genetics of the Trojans? So many groups of people moved through that area that their lineage could be just wiped out.



I don't think that the paper or even the starter of the topic meant to claim Trojan inheritance for Turks or whoever. The title is very wrongly chosen though.

Yet, unlike with Native Americans, it is most likely that Trojan or Trojan-related lineages have never been supressed and replaced by any other people. What applies to the extreme replacement of populations in North America and Australia, does not apply for the rest of history and geography. While people's or rather armies were continuously passing by Anatolia, modern inhabitants are surely about 90% decendans of the peoples who dwelt there in Antiquity. We have no reason to believe that any in-depth ethnic cleansing or genocide was ever done before the 20th century. Only Greek migration to coastal Anatolia may have locally changed significatively the population of some specific locations but, being Greeks and Anatolians so close genetically it's dificult to determine.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 13:44

We are talking over three thousand years. If your talking about the Trojan citizens of Troy, and if the legend of the city is true that they were pretty much wiped out from the Greeks, then I doubt there genetic lineage would have lived on, especially if they mixed. It's like with a cousin, you share 50% of your genetic code with them, by 2nd cousin about 25%, but 4th cousin your basicly not even family anymore. After Troy fell if there were survivors my guess is they'd be a hand full and any group coming in would basicly just wash there identity away because it's no more a isolated population so to speak.

But you can find the the group of people that made up the Trojans. If they were Hitittes, wouldn't the Armenians have a better chance of being the decendents, as Hititites are the ancestors of the Armenians right? This is just a question here, nothing I can really claim as being true or even possible.

 

 

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 16:00
It's understood that, first, Troy wasn't just the city but also the surrounding region (Troade) and that they had many allies (some of which would probably be ethnically akin), and, second, that they could have migrated prior to the destruction of the city. Regarding the first point there's a whole legend of Aeneas, who supposedly survived (outside the city) and founded Rome. Arfunda also noted that there are other legends regarding other Anatolian peoples migrating to Italy.

Anyhow, if you read the article, it doesn't talk of Troyans as such but Anatolians. They could be Luwians or Hittites or Lycians or Mysians or Carians...

... actually the Anatolian "parentage" is just a reference, they could well be from other nearby regions with simmilar genetics, like Greece.

The scope for the actual meaning of the study is wide enough for us to speculate in the hope that further archaeological findings or comprehensive studies give a better light to the issue.

By the moment we have that:
  1. Etruscan aristocrats had a much greater level of Anatolian MtDNA (maternal lineage) than modern Italians, including modern Tuscans.
  2. There is an island near ancient Troy (Lemnos) that was speaking and writing an Etruscan dialect.
  3. There are two traditions of legendary Anatolian heroes that reached Italy and founded nations there (Aeneas -> Latins, Enets -> Veneti). These two western IE nations, probably original from what's now Germany, were strongly influenced by Etruscans.
  4. Etruscan is not IE.
  5. Ancient references also talk of Etruscans possibly being Anatolian (Lydian) in origin.
  6. In the obscure period of the foundation of the proto-Etruscan culture of Vilanova and the destruction of Troy, there was a not less obscure phenomenon known as the Sea Peoples that seem to have been the Vikings of the Ancient Mediterranean and whose names can be identified partly with Greeks but partly resemble rather Italian pre-IE peoples, including the Rasnal (Etruscans).
Get your own conclussions. Not easy to decide, I must say.

Btw, I'm not sure that Armenians have much relation with Hittites. They are rather said to have been Phrygian colonists. Lydians were Hittite speakers.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 17:25

The Legend of Aeneas is just that, a legend. Augustus had it written to give the Romans a better identity and by the book I have was written for the new era of the empire to create a national hero for "the race destined to hold the world beneath its rule".

So back then they were going on much of anything except political propaganda when Augustus had ended a civil war, turned around a bankrupt empire, and had a period of peace.

The whole legend seems far fetched, when the Trojans landed and founded Rome they had also stole the women of a neighboring people. In all actualality the Romans were probably just a small village of native people that grew from farmers to the citizens of a empire.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 18:10
Even if you're right in that, you still have 51/2 points left to think about.

Now, on the legend of Aeneas, we have the first part, which is from the Iliad, that clearly states that Aeneas and his family escaped helped by Poseidon, as Aeneas was predestined to become king of the Trojan people.

Then, the second part, which is the association of Aeneas to Italy (and specifically to Rome) doesn't seem to be just an invention of Virgil (not of Augustus in any case) but actually was dwindling in the imaginary of the incipient Greco-Roman civilization from before. At least Apollodorus seems to refer to that connection, and so does Ovid. Anyhow, Virgil himself was a non-Roman Italian born near the Etruscan city of Mantua. Maybe from that he gets his fascination for Aeneas and his connection to Italy.

It could well be an old Etruscan asociation that was transfered to Rome. At least there's more room to speculate than just attributing the major literary work of the Aeneid to a political decision from Augustus. Augustus pushed for the work to be published even if unfinished, with all its literary defects like the vulgar pluralization with -s, etc., but he didn't decide to write it and much less  added a single word to it. It was Virgil's work, his unfinished work of 10 years.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 20:46

Thats what my book of Mythology says, it was written by Virgil, but was ment to give the Romans a hero.

heres what the book says-

Originally posted by Edith Hamilton, Mythology Timeless Tales of Gods And Heroes. pg 230, introduction

]

The Aeneid, the greatest of Latin poems, is chief authority for this story. It was written when Augustus had taken over the bankrupt Roman world after the chaos that followed Caesar's assassination. His strong hand ended the furious civil wars and brought about Pax Augusta, which lasted nearly half a century. Virgil and all his generation were fired with enthusiasm for the new order, and the Aeneid was written to exalt the Empire, to provide a great national hero and a founder for "the race destined to hold the world beneath its rule" Virgil's patriotic purpose is probably responsible for the change from human Aeneas of the first books to theunhuman prodigy of the last. The poet was finally caried away into the purely fantasticby his determination to create a hero for Rome that would make all other heroes seem insignifcant. A tendency to exaggeration was Roman trait. The latin names of the gods are, of course, used; and the Latin forms in the case of any personage who has a Latin as well as a Greek name. Ulysses, for instance, is Latin for Odysseus.

Honestly I don't think this story can be held accountable as historical. It was just a tale to amuse the populace and give a sense of pride.If the Trojans did manage to come over, I doubt it had anything to do with them knowing about it and just took the character from the Greek poem and added more on him.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 06:34
I'm sure that Virgil's Aeneid was created largely out of his imagination, yet the ultimate source for the legend is older (Apollodorus lived one century before him and Ovid's references are also often considered to have older lost backgrounds). Virgil also recycled some Greco-Italian mythological items to build up his stuff.

And, as I said before, you still have other 5 points to consider. I would never build a theory only on mythological materials.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 06:35
I havent read most of the posts on this thread, but even if Trojans migrated to Italy, what does that have to do with Turks?

There is also a theory that the Trojans migrated East after the Trojan war, setting up shop in the Caucasus and giving steam to what would become the Armenian culture. Its only a theory, though, but i have heard it from some historians. I dont buy into that stuff, myself.


Edited by ArmenianSurvival
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 11:26
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

I havent read most of the posts on this thread, but even if Trojans migrated to Italy, what does that have to do with Turks?



Nothing actually: read the posts.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 1.172 seconds.