Trojans

were they Hellenes or Anatolians?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Greeks had cities in anatolia

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no one in asia minor called themselves "anatolian", and none of them had any cultural solidarity, whereas the greeks did

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They have been Identified with the Arzawa that in turn seem to have been an offshoot of the Luwians/Luvians, an idoeuropean people living in south-central anatolia

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      isnt troy way higher than where teh arzawa are on that map?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes.
        >Once upon a time labarna, my ancestor, had conquered the whole country of Arzawa and the whole country of Wiluša. Therefore the country of Arzawa later waged war;
        >since this happened a long time ago, I don’t know any king of the land of Hattuša, from whom the country of Wiluša had separated.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wilusa is the city, they were still an arzawa people

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >indoeuropean
      Indoeuropeans come from the caucasian migrants that went up north. Anatolians are a different group.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Anatolian languages (e.g., Hittite) were Indo-European. The native population of Asia Minor (Hattians) were non-Indo-European and were conquered by Anatolian or Proto-Anatolian speaking warriors with steppe ancestry.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Meanwhile in reality all haplogroups the steppoids had were R1 variations lmao. So basically stronk menanoid womyn dominated european EHG men and kickstarted aryans kek

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      cringe

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Troy is in North West Anatolia and Luwians were all over Anatolia, especially in the South East where they founded the Hittite successor states during the early iron age

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The strong criticism of Schliemann’s initial brute force has made legislators and excavators in Turkey and Greece overly cautious. Because excavations potentially destroy cultural heritage, today archaeologists are increasingly regarded as conservators rather than researchers.
    >They are allowed to dig down to the first preserved architectural floor plans and expose these, but removing them is often not permitted. The underlying layers thus lie hidden forever. Precisely for this reason, the Luwian culture remains undiscovered to this day.
    >In the case of a 20-meter high settlement mound, like the one in Kadıkalesi on the Aegean coast of Turkey, archaeologists know little more than the top buildings dating to the Byzantine period. Layers recording thousands of years of settlement history remain invisible below, despite ongoing excavations. In order to explore those earlier deposits, one would have to remove some of the walls above.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What do you think the war was for OP? They were conquered and hellenized in this order

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were Romans

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If Armenians and supposedly Phrygians came from Thrace then why the hell are both peoples and kingdoms located in Central/Eastern Turkey instead of the Western part of Turkey?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's no way Armenians came through the Balkans. There was a big migration of steppe people through Caucasus in the Bronze Age.

      There's no way they weren't proto-Armenians.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > There was a big migration of steppe people through Caucasus in the Bronze Age.
        Yes... the Anatolians.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, these guys are from middle/late bronze age.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anatolians

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We also have this

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anatolians

        This literally tells us nothing except Herodotus was right when he said that populations had migrated from the Balkans to the Caucasus.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It tells us we have EEF populations emulating Steppe culture during the relevant timeframe (4000BC). In other words, there's no need for a proto-Anatolian to spread with significant Steppe geneflow.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anatolians are from 3000 BC or so. 4000 BC is too old. Troy I is from 3000 BC.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're talking about the Schliemann site. There's no evidence that this particular site is Troy whatsoever.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anatolians separate from core PIE by 4000BC.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Finns. Troiya is literally in Finland. There is no evidence of a place named "Troy" or "Ilium" or "Ilion" anywhere in Turkey.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hellenes didn't exist then. Greeks orangized themselves by tribe then. It's like asking if suebi and thurungi saw themselves as Prussians and Saxons.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They existed, they were Achaen and according to Hittite sources they were united under one king at least for some time

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >by tribe
      After the bronze age collapse, yes. But greeks were already a thing by the mycenian period.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    TVRC

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *