Friday, November 1, 2024

Herodotus on the Causes of the Trojan War

These are the first lines of Herodotus' Histories.  So these lines are known as Histories I, 1-6. They tell an alternative story about the outbreak of the Trojan war. 

This is the text of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man may not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other.

The Persian learned men say that the Phoenicians were the cause of the dispute. These (they say) came to our seas from the sea which is called Red,1 and having settled in the country which they still occupy, at once began to make long voyages. Among other places to which they carried Egyptian and Assyrian merchandise, they came to Argos, [2] which was at that time preeminent in every way among the people of what is now called Hellas. The Phoenicians came to Argos, and set out their cargo. [3] On the fifth or sixth day after their arrival, when their wares were almost all sold, many women came to the shore and among them especially the daughter of the king, whose name was Io (according to Persians and Greeks alike), the daughter of Inachus. [4] As these stood about the stern of the ship bargaining for the wares they liked, the Phoenicians incited one another to set upon them. Most of the women escaped: Io and others were seized and thrown into the ship, which then sailed away for Egypt. 2.

In this way, the Persians say (and not as the Greeks), was how Io came to Egypt, and this, according to them, was the first wrong that was done. Next, according to their story, some Greeks (they cannot say who) landed at Tyre in Phoenicia and carried off the king's daughter Europa. These Greeks must, I suppose, have been Cretans. So far, then, the account between them was balanced. But after this (they say), it was the Greeks who were guilty of the second wrong. [2] They sailed in a long ship to Aea, a city of the Colchians, and to the river Phasis:2 and when they had done the business for which they came, they carried off the king's daughter Medea. [3] When the Colchian king sent a herald to demand reparation for the robbery and restitution of his daughter, the Greeks replied that, as they had been refused reparation for the abduction of the Argive Io, they would not make any to the Colchians. 3.

Then (they say), in the second generation after this, Alexandrus, son of Priam, who had heard this tale, decided to get himself a wife from Hellas by capture; for he was confident that he would not suffer punishment. [2] So he carried off Helen. The Greeks first resolved to send messengers demanding that Helen be restored and atonement made for the seizure; but when this proposal was made, the Trojans pleaded the seizure of Medea, and reminded the Greeks that they asked reparation from others, yet made none themselves, nor gave up the booty when asked. 4.

So far it was a matter of mere seizure on both sides. But after this (the Persians say), the Greeks were very much to blame; for they invaded Asia before the Persians attacked Europe. [2] “We think,” they say, “that it is unjust to carry women off. But to be anxious to avenge rape is foolish: wise men take no notice of such things. For plainly the women would never have been carried away, had they not wanted it themselves. [3] We of Asia did not deign to notice the seizure of our women; but the Greeks, for the sake of a Lacedaemonian woman, recruited a great armada, came to Asia, and destroyed the power of Priam. [4] Ever since then we have regarded Greeks as our enemies.” For the Persians claim Asia for their own, and the foreign peoples that inhabit it; Europe and the Greek people they consider to be separate from them. 5.

Such is the Persian account; in their opinion, it was the taking of Troy which began their hatred of the Greeks. [2] But the Phoenicians do not tell the same story about Io as the Persians. They say that they did not carry her off to Egypt by force. She had intercourse in Argos with the captain of the ship. Then, finding herself pregnant, she was ashamed to have her parents know it, and so, lest they discover her condition, she sailed away with the Phoenicians of her own accord. [3]

These are the stories of the Persians and the Phoenicians. For my part, I shall not say that this or that story is true, but I shall identify the one who I myself know did the Greeks unjust deeds, and thus proceed with my history, and speak of small and great cities of men alike. 6.

As you can see, Helen is still the issue in Herodotus' version of events, but she is just one in a series of abductions.  A Phoenician ship abducted Io, and then a Greek ship abducted a Phoenician princess called Europa. Then another Greek ship abducted Medea from Colchis. This is followed by the abduction of Helen by a Trojan prince, in retaliation for the abduction of Medea.  Thus there were retaliatory abductions of high status women going on.  

The usual story of how Medea left Colchis is, of course, the story of Jason and the Argonauts, in which Medea uses her magical powers to help Jason steal the golden fleece from her father, a powerful sorcerer, then flees to Greece aboard the Argos with Jason and her brother. This is no abduction because she goes willingly, eventually marrying Jason and becoming his queen when he takes the throne.  Similarly, the usual story is that Helen, the queen of Sparta, fell in love with Paris, a mere prince, via the agency of Aphrodite, and went with him willingly to Troy.  

Meanwhile, Io is one of many mortal women with whom Zeus fell in love. He turned her into a cow to hide her from his jealous wife. After many adventures he turned her back into a human. 






Thursday, June 27, 2024

On Atlantis, Graham Hancock and Ignatius Donnelly

Perhaps the most pernicious habit of Atlantis interpreters is the one pointed out by Dr Miano on Youtube: The typical Atlantis interpreter adopts the "8000-9000 years ago" time frame and very nearly NOTHING ELSE from the original story.  In fact, aside from believing Plato on the date, they seem to have little or no interest in Plato's Atlantis.  Lots of interpreters take up the description of the city with its alternating rings of water and earth. But plenty leave that out.  Those who do will usually concentrate on other matters, such as the size and shape of the plain of Atlantis, or its location.  

The war against the Greeks?  Rarely emphasized.  The ten kings of Atlantis?  Rarely mentioned. The bull ritual that the kings perform?  Rarely mentioned.  The large, oddly shaped temple of Poseidon in the center of town? Rarely mentioned. The loss of Greek literacy? Rarely mentioned. The Egyptian priest's claim that his people wrote down the story of Atlantis contemporaneously with the actual events?  Rarely mentioned.  The destruction both of Greek elites and of Atlantis on the same day in the same "flood from heaven"?  Rarely mentioned.  

Another irritating aspect of Atlantis talk is that there are several widely-shared ideas about Atlantis that do not come from the story by Plato. They come from a bastardization of the story that was invented by Ignatius Donnelly.  Plato never said that Atlantis was "advanced." Donnelly did. Plato never said that Atlantis traded with all the continents, but Donnelly did. Plato never mentioned or talked about survivors of Atlantis, but Donnelly did.  

Perhaps we should judge Atlantis interpretations by how much of Plato they can actually interpret. The best interpretations take in the most statements from the original story. The worst interpretations ignore the greatest number of remarks from Plato. 

If that were the standard, interpreters working in the shadow of Donnelly would suffer severely.  Hardly a word of Plato is found in them.  This is not because Donnelly did not discuss Plato. He did.  His 1882 book, The Antediluvian World, opens by reciting the entire Atlantis tale, including the full text from both Timaeus and Critias.  

A quick perusal of Donnelly's table of contents will show good readers exactly what he was up to.  







I don't know why this wikibook does not have links for Part V, but there it is.  

Donnelly includes Plato's entire tale of Atlantis on pages 5-22 of his book.  After that, Plato steps away and Donnelly's speculations take center stage.  

The main reason Donnelly's followers do not discuss Plato is probably that they have taken from Donnelly (and the zeitgeist he inspired) a completely wrong-headed approach to the Atlantis tale. Donnelly treats the Atlantis tale as if it is a story about a lost world.  That is a wrong emphasis.  The tale is about a war.  The loss of Atlantis is not the reason for telling the story.  The reason to tell it is to recall a great war.  

In addition, Donnelly treats the tale as a platform for his own speculations.  He does not seek to understand it or to interpret it.  He aims to promote his own ideas about it.  

Followers of Donnelly have fallen for both of these wrong headed approaches.  They treat all of Plato's remarks as though they boil down to saying there is a lost world, then they bring their own ideas into the story and talk about its location or influence.  

In Part II above, Donnelly teaches the world to conflate all ancient mentions of floods from around the world and to imagine that they all refer to a single event.  The Atlantis tale alone mentions several distinct and important floods, but that does not phase Donnelly.  He ignores the details of the story.  

Dr Miano has commented at length on Graham Hancock's depressing habit of conflating all flood myths from around the world, from all times and places, as if they all attempt to recall or warn about a single ancient event.  



Hancock learned this trick from Donnelly.  Or better, it was Donnelly who made the world ready to believe that all ancient flood myths might refer to the same event. Hancock gets an easy skate on this matter because Donnelly's ideas have been around for 140 years.  

The rest of Donnelly's table of contents demonstrates that Hancock gets almost his entire world view from Donnelly.  Or better: Donnelly made the world ready to recognize and not contest the rest of Hancock's story.  Donnelly came up with the idea of pretending to discover Atlantis as a forgotten meaning behind ancient literature and religion.  Donnelly came up with the idea of looking for similarities in artifacts from around the world and explaining them as derivatives from Atlantis. He began the habit of treating similarly shaped buildings around the world as if they might all have a single origin in Atlantis. Donnelly came up with the idea of treating ancient cultures as colonies of Atlantis. Hancock has dropped the unpopular word colony.  Aside from that, his thinking is very much in the groove laid down by Donnelly.  His vaguely defined advanced civilization in North America is nothing more than Atlantis moved to the shores of North America.   

In his work of 1883, Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel, Donnelly defends at length the hypothesis that a comet hit the earth and destroyed a high civilization ~12,000 years ago, or ~10,000bce.  This puts its date close to that of Atlantis as dated by Plato's tale, ~9560bce.  In this work, Donnelly compiles and blurs his eyes over a large collection of ancient myths and tales about fires, concluding that they all discuss a single event, namely, his proposed comet strike.  

So, all ancient stories about floods are or might be about one flood, and all ancient stories about fires are or might be about one fire. 

Hancock follows Donnelly down the comet strike trail as well.  This move lets him point to almost any ancient artifact that can be construed as astronomical and treat it as if its original motive and meaning has to do with an ancient comet strike during the younger dryas.  This is the form Hancock applies to Gobekli Tepe.  He looks at a carving on a pillar, imagines that it has to do with constellations, then connects his imaginary star map with a comet strike.  It is pure Donnelly.  

In fact, Hancock has been doing Donnelly and almost nothing but Donnelly for a long, long time. The ancient aliens crowd have been doing almost nothing but Stichen and Von Daniken for a long, long time. Hancock is no more original than those clowns.  


Wednesday, March 20, 2024

24 Anomalies in the Plain of Troy



"From Hısarlık, we can see several other mounds."

In Search of the Real Troy 

https://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/200501/in.search.of.the.real.troy.htm



Below is a list of the anomalies discussed so far on this blog.  All of them have been discussed already, either on the page about the Top Ten Anomalies (A) in the plain, or on the page adding Six More Anomalies (B).  I also have a page about Declivities in the Plain (C) where some of these are discussed.  Others were discussed in posts specific to them individually.  This list demonstrates the thesis that the plain of Troy is heavily distorted by what appear to be human interventions



1 The large mound in front of Hisarlik.  

2 The marsh in the mound in front of Hisarlik

3 The Kesik Cut through the coastal cliffs at Lisgar Marsh* (A)

4 The large berm SW of Kalafat (A)

5, 6 The two mounds west of Kalafat (A)

7 The large declivity west of Kalafat (A,C)

8 The smaller declivity between the mound and the berm SW of Kalafat (A,C)

9 The cut through the inland ridge at Besik Bay* (B)

10 The marsh SW of Kalafat  (A,C)

11 The structure in the marsh SW of Kalafat  

12, 13 The two mounds below Pinarbasi (B)

14 Judan Lake** (B, C)

15 The raised area east of Lisgar Marsh (B)

16 The strange shapes at the top of the plain (B)

17 The odd shapes near Kalafat (B)

18 The berm on Kamer Creek

19 The mound NW of the great mound 

20 The waterway that starts in the middle of the plain 

21, 22 The two sand deposits at two ends of the great mound. 

23. The raised straight line NW of the great mound. 

24. The 2.5 kilometer long mostly straight, raised line near the top of the plain.  


* technically not in the plain 

** no longer exists

________________________________

2024 UPDATE: I have placed Judan Lake too far down the plain. It was further up, near Akshi Kioi. 

I have also explained the lake: it was caused by a fallen bridge that blocked the outflow of three springs. Frank Calver removed the bridge and the lake drained away into the Asmaks.  















Wednesday, November 29, 2023

Two more anomalies in the Plain of Troy

I noticed both of these a long time ago but have never mentioned them.  

The first anomaly is a long, straight, raised area going NW from the great mound's north end. I've circled it in the first photo below. 










I have already discussed the raised mound to the north of this anomaly.  About this one I just wonder why is it so straight, and why is it raised like that?  Could there be an ancient wall or something there? 


The second anomaly lies between Pinarbasi and Kalafat, along the eastern side of the Scamander.  .  







This is another long, straight, raised area, but this one turns a bit at each end.  It sits upriver from the great berm near Kalafat.  It is 1.5 miles, or 2.5 kilometers in length.  



Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Google Satellite View Improves our view of Ancient Troy

Last year I noted that Google had inserted a new photo of the northern part of the plain of Troy into its display of the area  This update cut across the mound in front of Hisarlik, leaving its northern half differently colored from its southern half.  

That update has been followed by another that replaces the photo representing the southern half of the mound, so that most of the plain is now represented by the newer exposure. This seems like an improvement to me.  


The image below is from last year.  Google inserted a new image of the northern part of the plain that was more green and gold colored than the older images, which are of a more more brownish reddish hue to the south, and more yellow to the west.  





The image below shows the recent update at Google Satellite View.  Google has extended then newer, more green and gold images both south and west.  We can now see the Aegean coast much more clearly.  The upper plain and Hisarlik remain in the older, more reddish brown hue.  



Below is the most recent Google image of the tell and Hisarlik.  


Below is the most recent Google image of the structure in the marsh.  









Tuesday, July 11, 2023

Links, Links, Links


Internal Links


Latest Evidence and Arguments 

Aerial drones reveal elevation changes in the plain of Troy

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2022/08/aerial-drones-reveal-elevation-changes.html

On the status of the argument for a city in the plain at Troy 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2022/12/on-status-of-argument-for-city-in-plain.html


Two sand deposits in the plain of Troy 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2023/03/two-sand-deposits-in-plain-of-troy.html

The weird waterway in the plain of Troy

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2023/03/the-weird-waterway-in-plain-of-troy.html 

Documented growth of the marsh in the plain of Troy   

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2022/08/documented-growth-of-marsh-in-plain-of.html

The problem of Kalafat and Kumkale 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2022/07/the-problem-of-kalafat-and-kumkale.html

An unexplained structure in the plain of Troy 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2021/05/an-unexplained-structure-in-plain-of.html

Pictures of the tell at Troy    
                                       


Top Ten Anomalies in the Plain of Troy 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2022/01/top-ten-anomalies-in-plain-of-troy.html

Six More Anomalies in the Plain of Troy 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2022/05/6-lesser-anomalies-in-plain-of-troy.htm

Two More Anomalies in the Plain of Troy 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2023/11/two-more-anomalies-in-plain-of-troy.html


Ideas 

A theory about the Greek camp in the Illiad

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2022/08/a-skeptical-theory-about-greek-camp-in.html

Is this Homer's Throsmos?  

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2021/01/the-mound-at-foot-of-hisarlik-is-it.html


How the Trojans diverted the Scamander River 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2022/06/how-trojans-diverted-scamander-river.html

How the Trojans diverted Kamer Creek 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2022/06/how-trojans-diverted-kamere-creek.html


Philosophy of Science

Why this blog is not archaeology 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2021/09/is-this-archeology-blog.html

ChatGPT agrees that this blog is not science 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2023/05/chatgpt-agrees-that-this-blog-is-not.html


Legends of Troy 

Troy Towns 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2021/01/legends-of-troy-troy-towns.html

Brutus of Troy

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2021/01/legends-of-troy-brutus-of-troy.html

Hercules sacks Troy 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2021/01/legends-of-troy-hercules-sacks-troy.html

Roman and other lineages 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2021/03/legends-of-troy-roman-and-other.html

Troy Game, Troy Dance 

https://www.realcityoftroy.com/2021/03/legends-of-troy-troy-game-troy-dance.html



External Links

Was Troy a Metropolis? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/science/was-troy-a-metropolis-homer-isn-t-talking.html#:~:text=It%20was%20nothing%20like%20his,space%20and%20created%20early%20civilizations.

In Search of the Real Troy 

https://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/200501/in.search.of.the.real.troy.htm

Ian Morris

Review of Joachim Latacz’s book Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery (2004), focusing on the archaeological issues. 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1426836


Akin Curser, et al. 

An Assessment of the Earthquakes of Ancient Troy, NW Anatolia, Turkey

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/37848

Ilhan Kayan

Holocene Geomorphic evolution of the Besik plain and changing environment of ancient man

https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/PLACES/Turkey/Troy-Kayan1991.pdf

Geoarchaeological research at Troia and its environs

https://www.academia.edu/8568499/75_2014_Geoarchaeological_research_at_Troia_and_its_environs

The Troia bay and supposed harbour sites in the Bronze Age 

https://www.academia.edu/4620035/_24_The_Troia_bay_and_supposed_harbour_sites_in_the_Bronze_Age 

Geomorphic Reconstructions in the Environs of Ancient Troy 

https://www.academia.edu/5645443/_08_Geomorphic_reconstructions_in_the_environs_of_ancient_Troy

Frank Kolb 

Troy VI: A Trading Center and Commercial City?
Manfred Kormann
Was there a Trojan War?
Manfred Korfmann et al. 

Th/U dating of the Trojan water quarries

https://www.academia.edu/63712645/230Th_U_dating_of_the_Trojan_water_quarries

Eberhard Zangger, et. al. 

Searching for the Ports of Troy 

https://www.academia.edu/23835291/Searching_for_the_Ports_of_Troy

Artificial Ports and Water Engineering at Troy

https://www.academia.edu/25727071/Artificial_Ports_and_Water_Engineering_at_Troy_A_Geoarchaeological_Working_Hypothesis



Kesik Cut drone footage 

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/item/147060497-field-and-coast-troy

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/item/147061590-field-and-coast-troy

Cemsaner drone footage

https://videohive.net/item/ancient-city-troy/36742929

https://videohive.net/item/troy-city-overall-view/38111624 

Bumblebee520 drone footage

https://videohive.net/item/ruins-of-the-ancient-city-of-troy/37437553

https://videohive.net/item/ruins-of-the-ancient-city-of-troy/37437558?s_rank=168








Now there is before the city a steep mound afar out in the plain, with a clear space about it on this side and on that; this do men verily call Batieia, but the immortals call it the barrow of Myrine, light of step.  There on this day did the Trojans and their allies separate their companies. 

Now a sharp ridge rises out in front of Troy,
all on its own and far across the plain
with running-room all around it, all sides clear.
Men call it Thicket Ridge, the immortals call it
the leaping Amazon Myrine’s mounded tomb, and there
the Trojans and allies ranged their troops for battle.  

Iliad, Book II 814f  


Wednesday, May 17, 2023

ChatGPT agrees that this blog is not science

I finally thought to ask ChatGPT something helpful. 


If a person describes what they see in a photograph, are they doing science?

ChatGPT

Describing what one sees in a photograph is not necessarily considered science on its own. However, it could be a part of a scientific investigation or analysis if it is done in a systematic and rigorous way as part of a scientific method.

For example, if a scientist is studying the anatomy of a particular species of insect and is using photographs to document the various features of the insect's body, describing what they see in the photograph would be part of their scientific analysis. In this case, the description of the photograph would be part of a broader scientific investigation, and the scientist would likely be asking research questions, formulating hypotheses, and testing those hypotheses through experiments or further observations.

On the other hand, if a person is simply describing what they see in a photograph for personal or aesthetic reasons, without any scientific questions or investigation, then it would not be considered science.


If a person describes what they see in a photograph including trees, rivers, and a settlement mound, are they doing science?

ChatGPT

Describing what one sees in a photograph of a landscape, including trees, rivers, and a settlement mound, is not necessarily considered science on its own. However, it could be a part of a scientific investigation or analysis if it is done in a systematic and rigorous way as part of a scientific method.

For example, if a geologist is analyzing a photograph of a landscape to identify the types of rock formations and geological features present in the area, describing what they see in the photograph would be part of their scientific analysis. In this case, the description of the photograph would be part of a broader scientific investigation, and the geologist would likely be asking research questions, formulating hypotheses, and testing those hypotheses through experiments or further observations.

Similarly, if an archaeologist is analyzing a photograph of a landscape to identify and document the features of a settlement mound, describing what they see in the photograph would be part of their scientific analysis. In this case, the description of the photograph would be part of a broader scientific investigation, and the archaeologist would likely be asking research questions, formulating hypotheses, and testing those hypotheses through further observations or archaeological fieldwork.

On the other hand, if a person is simply describing what they see in a photograph of a landscape for personal or aesthetic reasons, without any scientific questions or investigation, then it would not be considered science.


Suppose an amateur examining a photograph spots what they think is a settlement mound. Is that science?

ChatGPT

If an amateur examining a photograph spots what they believe to be a settlement mound, it can be seen as a preliminary step or an observation that could potentially contribute to a scientific investigation. However, the act of spotting it alone does not constitute full-fledged science.

In scientific practice, observations and hypotheses are typically subject to further investigation, testing, and analysis. For the amateur's observation to be considered part of a scientific process, it would require additional steps such as:


Verification: The amateur's observation would need to be verified through further evidence, such as comparing the photograph with other sources, consulting experts, or conducting fieldwork to confirm the presence of a settlement mound.

Research questions: The amateur's observation could prompt the formulation of research questions, such as the age or significance of the settlement mound, the cultural context, or its potential relationship to other archaeological features in the region.

Collaboration: To advance the investigation, collaboration with experts or professionals in the relevant field, such as archaeologists or geographers, may be sought to provide expertise, guidance, or further analysis.

Documentation and analysis: The amateur's observation could lead to a systematic documentation and analysis of the photograph and the potential settlement mound, including measurements, mapping, and comparisons with known archaeological features.


In summary, while an amateur's observation of a potential settlement mound in a photograph can be an initial spark for scientific investigation, it would need to be followed by further steps and collaboration with experts to be considered part of a scientific process.

______________

There you have it.  ChatGPT is making roughly the same point I made when I argued that this blog is not archaeology.  I argued that spotting tells is not really science.  ChatGPT thinks it is not "full-fledged science".   I dread seeing it described as partially fledged science, so, I think it is important to just say it is not science, even if it can be understood as part of a scientific undertaking.  







Notes on the Kalifatli Asmak

If I could fund a study, it might be a professional study of the Asmaks in the plain of Troy, including a live walking-scientist type search...