Sea People, Dorians and Invasions.

Sargon of Akkad said:

I'm not sure about it at all, I'm entirely speculating.

Click to expand...

OK now I understand your comparison of Iliad and culture of palace centres...

beorna said:

I wrote about the mycenians and the hellenes in another thread. Linguistically both are greeks, but I pointed already out, that there was a gap, these so-called dark ages, in which populations of the North of greece or from Little Asia or those sea people migrated to greece too. I don't know where it was, but I wrote as well something about the Leleges and pelasgians. Meanwhile I suppose, that they are not the native population of Greece, but immigrants during the dark ages, which were later subjected and assimilated by the hellenes. so by that mycenians wouldn't be Hellenes.

Click to expand...

You mean the Pelasgian and the Leleges were immigrants? But most ancient authors consider the Pelasgians as indigenous people of the general area, like the Leleges in southwestern Anatolia and the Aegean islands.

Yaunâ said:

You mean the Pelasgian and the Leleges were immigrants? But most ancient authors consider the Pelasgians as indigenous people of the general area, like the Leleges in southwestern Anatolia and the Aegean islands.

Click to expand...

yes, that's correct. But we have to think about this!
First we have the Pelasgians mentioned by Homer in different regions, from the borders of Thracia to Crete, even in Thessaly and Epirus.
They are mentioned by Aeschylus in Argos, they are mentioned under the name of Tyrrhenoi. heketaios and Akousilaos called them pelopponesians. another source is Herodot, who reports them as well in Attika. The "best" is Ovid, who calls the mycenians Pelasgians. and i could go on. I found a nice map at the english wiki


The Lelegians are reported in Little asia, the Aegaeis and even in the Lokris, Boiotia, thessalia and Messenia.


So let's suppose they were the native population before the Greeks arrived. Their arrival is supposed to be in the beginning of the 2nd millenium BC. The mycenian culture originated around 1750 BC and lasted to around 1000 BC. The only linguistic evidence we have is an old form of Greek. Of course we may believe, that a Greek nobility ruled about Pelasgian subjects and explain the greek linguistic relicts by such explanation, but shouldn't we expect a Mycenisation, even linguistic? Is it possible, that greek Mycenians rule a country for 700-1000 years and the main parts remain their native ethnic structure? the only thing that could be possible is, that the Mycenian culture was polyethnic and that the greeks were just in a minority, but is this the most probable explanation?

So if we believe, that the mycenians were greeks, how can e.g. the pelargikon be of pelasgian origin, if it is from around 1300 BC? at those time we should expect already mycenian greeks. what did the hellenes after 700 BC really know about the native population? Did they really had informations about times, dating around 1000 years back?
So here my consideration starts, what is, if the Pelasgians and lelegians are not the native population before the Mycenians, but the non-greek population of Greece, before the hellenic ethnogenesis after the 8th century BC? that would perfectly explain, why they weren't wiped out by Greek mycenians and are nevertheless known by post-homeric hellenes.

There's something that the map doesn't mention, there were Pelasgians near Troy in Larissa, according to Homer (Iliad 2.840) Ἱππόθοος δ' ἄγε φῦλα Πελασγῶν ἐγχεσιμώρων τῶν οἳ Λάρισαν ἐριβώλακα ναιετάασκον· (Hippothoos led the tribes of Pelasgian spearsmen, who dwelt in fertile Larissa)

beorna said:

yes, that's correct. But we have to think about this!
First we have the Pelasgians mentioned by Homer in different regions, from the borders of Thracia to Crete, even in Thessaly and Epirus.
They are mentioned by Aeschylus in Argos, they are mentioned under the name of Tyrrhenoi. heketaios and Akousilaos called them pelopponesians. another source is Herodot, who reports them as well in Attika. The "best" is Ovid, who calls the mycenians Pelasgians. and i could go on. I found a nice map at the english wiki

The Lelegians are reported in Little asia, the Aegaeis and even in the Lokris, Boiotia, thessalia and Messenia.


So let's suppose they were the native population before the Greeks arrived. Their arrival is supposed to be in the beginning of the 2nd millenium BC. The mycenian culture originated around 1750 BC and lasted to around 1000 BC. The only linguistic evidence we have is an old form of Greek. Of course we may believe, that a Greek nobility ruled about Pelasgian subjects and explain the greek linguistic relicts by such explanation, but shouldn't we expect a Mycenisation, even linguistic? Is it possible, that greek Mycenians rule a country for 700-1000 years and the main parts remain their native ethnic structure? the only thing that could be possible is, that the Mycenian culture was polyethnic and that the greeks were just in a minority, but is this the most probable explanation?

So if we believe, that the mycenians were greeks, how can e.g. the pelargikon be of pelasgian origin, if it is from around 1300 BC? at those time we should expect already mycenian greeks. what did the hellenes after 700 BC really know about the native population? Did they really had informations about times, dating around 1000 years back?
So here my consideration starts, what is, if the Pelasgians and lelegians are not the native population before the Mycenians, but the non-greek population of Greece, before the hellenic ethnogenesis after the 8th century BC? that would perfectly explain, why they weren't wiped out by Greek mycenians and are nevertheless known by post-homeric hellenes.

Click to expand...

We don't know actually how the Mycaeneans called themselves. The classical Greeks kept some texts-traditions that survived during the dark ages, they knew about the Trojan heroes for example, and honour them.

I believe that Homer knew that at the time of the Trojan War, during the Mycaenean era, most people weren't called Pelasgians, he just mentions few Pelasgian settlements in Epirus and Asia Minor and considers them as an ancient group (earlier than the Trojan War?).

Yaunâ said:

We don't know actually how the Mycaeneans called themselves. The classical Greeks kept some texts-traditions that survived during the dark ages, they knew about the Trojan heroes for example, and honour them.

I believe that Homer knew that at the time of the Trojan War, during the Mycaenean era, most people weren't called Pelasgians, he just mentions few Pelasgian settlements in Epirus and Asia Minor and considers them as an ancient group (earlier than the Trojan War?).

Click to expand...

No, that's correct. we have no 100% proven name. I would suppose, that Achaioi and Danaoi are good candidates.
Yes, I would support, that myth from the mycenian era survived, but that's not evidence for an unbroken ethnical descendance.
It is the question, what he really knew and what not. We can't be sure that there even was a war. perhaps Homer wrote just a historical novel or poem, like prince valiant or Artus, with a true core and a lot of fiction?

It is the same with the Dorian migration. I do not support the opinion, that they migrated from the North to the Doris and then to the Peloponnes. It is my opinion, that Illyrian or other groups moved south and melted together with the post-mycenian population on the Peloponnes and the surroundings of Doris to the later known Dorians.

beorna said:

No, that's correct. we have no 100% proven name. I would suppose, that Achaioi and Danaoi are good candidates.
Yes, I would support, that myth from the mycenian era survived, but that's not evidence for an unbroken ethnical descendance.
It is the question, what he really knew and what not. We can't be sure that there even was a war. perhaps Homer wrote just a historical novel or poem, like prince valiant or Artus, with a true core and a lot of fiction?

Click to expand...

Achaioi and Danaoi are acceptable and logical since they are mentioned by the Hittites (Danaoi-Denyen?).

We can't be sure from Homer, that's a fact. It is possible though, that he was based on real events (like some novelists do in their books). The war after all is mentioned in 13 century BC by Hittite texts and Tawagalawa letter as a conflict over Wilusa (Ilion). Before that, they also refer to Alaksandu as a king of Wilusa, possibly Alexander's of Homer? (known as Paris).

The Hittite Milawata letter, which appeared later, mentions the city Atriya (Troia?) as dependant of Milawata (Miletus). Since Miletus is an Achaean city in Anatolia, Atriya could be the recently conquered Troy. I support this theory.

beorna said:

It is the same with the Dorian migration. I do not support the opinion, that they migrated from the North to the Doris and then to the Peloponnes. It is my opinion, that Illyrian or other groups moved south and melted together with the post-mycenian population on the Peloponnes and the surroundings of Doris to the later known Dorians.

Click to expand...

It's possible, Herodotus mentions that the Dorians took the name after their migration to Peloponessus.

With regard to Atrija, Hattusili III mentions the places he visited on the way from Hattusa to Millawanda in order. Atrija is listed somewhere around Alabanda (Alinda), placing it in southern Anatolia around the Lukka lands rather than around Troy.

Yaunâ said:

We can't be sure from Homer, that's a fact. It is possible though, that he was based on real events (like some novelists do in their books).

Click to expand...

I would not dismiss Homer as a credible source. After all, Iliad was thought to be just fiction ...and then Troy was found.

Sure he can not be taken at face value, no source alone can.

arras said:

I would not dismiss Homer as a credible source. After all, Iliad was thought to be just fiction ...and then Troy was found.

Sure he can not be taken at face value, no source alone can.

Click to expand...

But think e.g. of Sparta. In sparta we have settlements around 1000 BC.
The polis of Sparta was made by four villages, Kynosura, Mesoa, Limnai and Pitane. they were probably united during the 9th century. The rise of sparta began with the victory over Amyklai around 800 and after the cvictory over messenia in the end of the 8th and in the 2nd half of the 7th century. if we look to the temporary sources, we cannot find much detailed or verifiable before 600 BC.
That means, that menelaos cannot be king of Sparta, as well all kings of sparta from lelex down to the Atrides. That Homer speaks of menelaos of Sparta shows, that his knowledge of the 13th/12th century was at least partial.

beorna said:

But think e.g. of Sparta. In sparta we have settlements around 1000 BC.
The polis of Sparta was made by four villages, Kynosura, Mesoa, Limnai and Pitane. they were probably united during the 9th century. The rise of sparta began with the victory over Amyklai around 800 and after the cvictory over messenia in the end of the 8th and in the 2nd half of the 7th century. if we look to the temporary sources, we cannot find much detailed or verifiable before 600 BC.
That means, that menelaos cannot be king of Sparta, as well all kings of sparta from lelex down to the Atrides. That Homer speaks of menelaos of Sparta shows, that his knowledge of the 13th/12th century was at least partial.

Click to expand...

There was a Bronze Age settlement at Therapne, which was supposed to have been Menelaus's seat of power.

Yaunâ said:

You mean the Pelasgian and the Leleges were immigrants? But most ancient authors consider the Pelasgians as indigenous people of the general area, like the Leleges in southwestern Anatolia and the Aegean islands.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression, like Gilbert Murray, that the name "pelas-go" meant "neighbouring land", that it is not an ethnicon.
Pelasgian is therefore a term for neighbouring peoples but they could already have their own ethnic identity, it is just a generic term for "those peoples nearby"?

It's a theory, many historians are trying to find the etymology of the word in fact. In my opinion the term Pelasgian has been used by the Greeks in order to describe the pre Greek populations in general. A popular theory says that the Pelasgians got Hellenized, but at the time of the Trojan war they were still inhabiting Asia Minor. There were still Pelasgians in NE Aegean during the 5th century BC according to the Greeks of that era.

Helen's Daughter said:

There was a Bronze Age settlement at Therapne, which was supposed to have been Menelaus's seat of power.

Click to expand...

yes, that's right. maybe Homer knew that menelaos was from that region, but he didn't know where exactly from. so that supports the thesis, that Homer had informations about the mycenian era, but just partial and mixed with tales and myths.

beorna said:

yes, that's right. maybe Homer knew that menelaos was from that region, but he didn't know where exactly from. so that supports the thesis, that Homer had informations about the mycenian era, but just partial and mixed with tales and myths.

Click to expand...

Menelaus was from Mycenae, and came to Sparta to marry Helen.

Helen's Daughter said:

Menelaus was from Mycenae, and came to Sparta to marry Helen.

Click to expand...

yes,, that's what Homer told us, but sparta didn't exist at those days.

beorna said:

yes,, that's what Homer told us, but sparta didn't exist at those days.

Click to expand...

Yes, it did. It wasn't Sparta as we know it from later times, but there was a Mycenaean kingdom in Lakedaemon.

What are the chances that these incomers were from india , after one of their great wars , they were great traders , and therefore great sea farers , there is a lot of discussion that the phoenicians were originally from the Afghanistan/Pakistan/indian borders, and one of the earliest attested Hittite names is Assuwa , and one of the caste names of the losing side in the great battles of the Pani and the Angoras was the Assuras . one of their premier gods was Ti or iT , and he Titans name could have come from their god . there were also many Greeks living in India at the start of the war , and if they left with the phoenicians, panis and assuras this could be where the stories of greeks fighting greeks come from the indo/ greeks wanting to re-settle in greek lands . this is not my area of knowledge but your thread was interesting and i thought this may be a possibility.

ib-issi said:

What are the chances that these incomers were from india , after one of their great wars , they were great traders , and therefore great sea farers , there is a lot of discussion that the phoenicians were originally from the Afghanistan/Pakistan/indian borders, and one of the earliest attested Hittite names is Assuwa , and one of the caste names of the losing side in the great battles of the Pani and the Angoras was the Assuras . one of their premier gods was Ti or iT , and he Titans name could have come from their god . there were also many Greeks living in India at the start of the war , and if they left with the phoenicians, panis and assuras this could be where the stories of greeks fighting greeks come from the indo/ greeks wanting to re-settle in greek lands . this is not my area of knowledge but your thread was interesting and i thought this may be a possibility.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what the original roots of the Canaanites were but the Phoenicians are Canaanites. They were pushed to the coast of the Levant by Hebrew tribes; we all know this from the Old Testament. The book "Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism" talks about this.

As far as I have read the Hittites were an Indo European people but maybe theories have changed-????