Of Greeks and Turks

[Arslan]

Kemal Ataturk's statement "We took the revenge of Hector and all the Tojans." could not be more false in meaning.

The city of Troy was a Greek city-state. They spoke Greek, worshipped Greek gods, and their culture was Greek. So, infighting amongst the Greeks 2500 years ago constitutes revenge? Typical Turkish thought.

Xeno, Ataturk knew what he was saying, if you don't know make a short search for Trojans. Trojans were not Greek in any way. Most of the historians think that they were Hittite or Luwian speaking Indo-Europeans. Taking a myth that was written centuries after the events as referance is ridiculous. There is no proof to suggest that Trojans or any other eastern Aegian people were Greek in that time, but there are some proofs in Hittite tablets for the existence of Troy as an allied city-state against westerns.
Besides ancient Greeks usually depicted Trojans as non-Greeks who wore Phrygian hats. Also Romans used the terms Trojans and Phrygians interchangably.

 

[Red Threat]

Xeno, Ataturk knew what he was saying, if you don't know make a short search for Trojans. Trojans were not Greek in any way. Most of the historians think that they were Hitite or Luwi speaking Indo-Europeans. Taking a myth that was written centuries after the events as referance is ridiculous. There is no proof to suggest that Trojans or any other eastern Aegian people were Greek in that time, but there are some proofs in Hitite tablets for the existence of Troy as an allied city-state against westerns.
Besides ancient Greeks usually depicted Trojans as non-Greeks who wore Phrygian hats. Also Romans used the terms Trojans and Phrygians interchangably.

OK, so what's the link between the ancient Indo-European peoples of Anatolia and the Turks, who came from central Asia 2500 years after and are not Indo-European?

 

[Arslan]

I can't talk in the name of Ataturk cos I don't know what was in his head, but he probably meant that, with the cleaning of Trojan lands from Greeks, from now on all those massacred and oppressed Trojans could sleep in peace. So there is no need for a link, it's that simple.

 

[Red Threat]

I can't talk in the name of Ataturk cos I don't know what was in his head, but he probably meant that, with the cleaning of Trojan lands from Greeks, from now on all those massacred and oppressed Trojans could sleep in peace. So there is no need for a link, it's that simple.

It's never so simple when it's matter of interpretation.

 

[Arslan]

That's not just my interpretation but also the most common one. There are also some sources which explain it with East/West conflict, Trojans symbolizing the East and Hellens the West. Also there are some fanciful theories with Trojans being ancestors of Turks through Priam's grandchild Tourkos, fleeing to east and returning as Turks.

 

[atreas]

That's not just my interpretation but also the most common one. There are also some sources which explain it with East/West conflict, Trojans symbolizing the East and Hellens the West. Also there are some fanciful theories with Trojans being ancestors of Turks through Priam's grandchild Tourkos, fleeing to east and returning as Turks.

When one reads about mythology, he needs open mind and also not blind believing in modern politicians in general.
Then perhaps he might understand what does it mean the fact that in this mythological war the Greek gods were divided equally between the two sides (btw, sides that spoke the same language, worshiped the same gods, and had the same habits). In modern terms, this is what we call civil war. It is not an accident that Thucidides said the same thing (and his opinion is much more valid on these subjects).

 

[Arslan]

When one reads about mythology, he needs open mind and also not blind believing in modern politicians in general.

That was what I was trying to say. I mean, yes, myths aren't totally worthless, on the contrary, they give clues about believes, habits, customs and living conditions of ancient people at a specific time. But projecting contemporary conditions to the events of centuries before is the problem of every myth. As they are told throughout generations they are exposed to strong changing pressures. Kingdoms are established and collapsed, neighbours change, geographies change, living sources change and of course overall wealth changes. For ex. Homeric myths reflect the conditions of 8th century colonialist, proto-classic Greece. For these reasons, scholars observe myths with high criticism. You can't take a myth and say, "this proves my theories about blah blah several centuries ago". Myths aren't time machines, they are what is left to us from far ancestors after eons. Always must be cautious when evaluating them.

As I said before, there is a worldwide scholarly consensus that Trojans are a native Anatolian people, not Greek. You can't challenge that unless you have a counter proof.

 

[atreas]

As I said before, there is a worldwide scholarly consensus that Trojans are a native Anatolian people, not Greek. You can't challenge that unless you have a counter proof.

There are many "worldwide scholarly consensus" things, some payed by governments and some other real. One thing that was never into dispute is the fact that Turks weren't there at that time. Proof: very simply, the language they speak, on top of the historic records that show their arrival in the territory about 2000 later than the myth you call.

As for the specific "consensus" you call, I can't recall many serious historians who are willing to take as evidence one myth (Trojian wars) without also taking into account the other, very serious myths of the same era. For example, Troy was counted as a Greek city in the Hercules myths also.

PS. You must first, of course, define "Greek". It is very difficult, because there was not a unified Greek kingdom, and the ancient Greeks didn't use the version of nationalism we use. It is a fact that the ancient Greeks invented myths for whoever they wanted to include into the Greek "nation", usually involving some nasty stories about Zeus. But definitely the Trojan war was described as a kind of "civil war", in the loose meaning the word "civil war" would have for such a non-nationalistic situation.

 

[Arslan]

Atreas, there are a few questions that I want to ask you.

1. You keep saying "civil war" for TW. I wonder, in what historical sources are found the hints of a civil war?

2. You also mentioned the Greekness of Trojans. In what sources Greekness of Trojans are emphasized without dispute? Today, even the Greekness of Macedonians is controversial.

3. What do you think about the origin of Greeks? Where did they come from? When did the Greek language begin to be spoken in the east Mediterranean basin? How did they spread? This is important for this debate, some mention Anatolia for Greek origins.

Btw I have no doubt about non-Turkishness of Trojans.

 

[atreas]

1. You keep saying "civil war" for TW. I wonder, in what historical sources are found the hints of a civil war?

Trojan war isn't history, it is mythology. That's where most of the pitfalls start. Of course, as is the case with most myths, there must have been some kind of war that triggered the myth - but you can't count on Homer to define history. The important difference is the following:

Did Homer's war was described "as it happened", or did he try to make a story tailor-made to his time? Whether the real Trojans were or weren't Greeks, did Homer describe them as non-Greeks?

But for more understanding about the case of civil war, you must first and foremost understand how ancient Greeks distinguished themselves from the barbarians, so it will be clearer after your second question.

2. You also mentioned the Greekness of Trojans. In what sources Greekness of Trojans are emphasized without dispute? Today, even the Greekness of Macedonians is controversial.

I don't want to enter into debates about "Greekness" of anything, especially when based on (more than controversial) current "translations" of our understanding towards an era of 3000 years ago. Let's keep some facts first:

1. Troy was built near the Aegean sea, and it is very well proved that these areas were inhabited and/or colonized by Greeks (at least at the time Homer wrote his myths).
2. Greeks called all non-Greeks as Barbarians - you can't find such a characterism for Trojans, which distinguishes them very clearly.
3. It's clear that the myth is talking about a war between two extremely similar cultures, in any way we can define culture.
4. (this is a very critical point) The Greek gods were divided EQUALLY. That means, in any serious interpretation of myths, that here we have a war between people with exactly the same religion. Finding exactly the same religion between people of different nations was extremely rare at that time.
5. Troy wasn't mentioned first by Homer. The Hercules myths, that define the area where you can find "Greeks", include Troy. That means there must have been at least a Greek colony in that area.

But we mustn't forget that we are talking about a time when in mainland Greece there hasn't even happened the entrance of people (like Dorians) who we now define as Greeks. That makes the whole debate "Greeks - non-Greeks" very naive, since you must define many things beforehand, including whether you want to discuss about the Homeric myths or the real Troy. For example, why couldn't these people be some Mycenian colonists, blended of course with people from the area?

As for the "controversiality" for Macedonians, money can buy anything in our time but (fortunately) they haven't been able to alter completely both logic and history. Especially after the discoveries in Vergina.

3. What do you think about the origin of Greeks? Where did they come from? When did the Greek language begin to be spoken in the east Mediterranean basin? How did they spread? This is important for this debate, some mention Anatolia for Greek origins.

This is, as I already said, the most difficult question since in what we call as "Greeks" you see a blend of far too many tribes, some earlier and some later than the period we discuss. That's why I don't enter into that topic - from that perspective it's clear that Athenians and Spartans couldn't both belong in the same nation (which is different from what they thought for themselves).

Logic dictates that there should have been blends of people in several time periods, including (of course) people from Anatolia. But I don't think that we can talk about Greek consciousness before the start of the Olympic games. As for the Greek language, that's the only area we know more things. Counting for the necessary and inavoidable evolution, we can still say that the language is spoken in this area for more than 3000 years. Even some earlier forms, which were thought to be a different language, were finally found to be just earlier forms of this language.

 

[Arslan]

Trojan war isn't history, it is mythology. That's where most of the pitfalls start.

Atreas, I didn't mean to say that Trojan War represented the history, sorry for any confusion. By historical I meant ancient historians. Ancients regarded the war as history. I hope I've made it clear now.

Of course, as is the case with most myths, there must have been some kind of war that triggered the myth.

I think there is no need for a specific war, it may be a bundle of old conquest tales presented in an Anatolian setting to serve the needs of colonists. Anyway, let's skip this for now.

But for more understanding about the case of civil war, you must first and foremost understand how ancient Greeks distinguished themselves from the barbarians, so it will be clearer after your second question.

Actually, the word barbaros is used only once in Iliad and it is only for linguistic purpose. Carians are defined as barbarophonos. No mention about others except for one statement about language difference among Anatolian/Thracian allies.

I don't want to enter into debates about "Greekness" of anything, especially when based on (more than controversial) current "translations" of our understanding towards an era of 3000 years ago.

What do you mean by "translations" of our understanding?

Greeks called all non-Greeks as Barbarians - you can't find such a characterism for Trojans, which distinguishes them very clearly.

I made this point clear above. Btw Archaic Greeks didn't have a developed sense of Greek/Barbarian division as is the case in the classical era.

It's clear that the myth is talking about a war between two extremely similar cultures, in any way we can define culture.

Atreas, you can also find many similarities between Greek and Hittite cultures. Hittites had a chief god associated with the sky like Zeus, they both had many earthly mother/fertility type goddesses, they had very similar theogonies, both worshiped anthropomorphic gods, furthermore both cremated their deads, both of them were depicted long haired, not to mention IE roots. This list goes on continuously.

(this is a very critical point) The Greek gods were divided EQUALLY. That means, in any serious interpretation of myths, that here we have a war between people with exactly the same religion. Finding exactly the same religion between people of different nations was extremely rare at that time.

You can't refer to Roman myths to learn about Celtic gods. Myths are always single-sided. One may liken Iliad to a Hollywood film about Vietnam War, everyone speaks the same language, events are interpreted through one side's view skipping cultural differences.

This is, as I already said, the most difficult question since in what we call as "Greeks" you see a blend of far too many tribes, some earlier and some later than the period we discuss. That's why I don't enter into that topic - from that perspective it's clear that Athenians and Spartans couldn't both belong in the same nation (which is different from what they thought for themselves).

This is not an answer to my question. Nations are defined according to one aspect SOLELY, their language. Kingdoms and city states may have dialectal differences but I don't think that this would be problematic for ancient Greeks. I'll give you an example from Turks. Anatolian and Cypriot Turks speak the same languge with minor differences. On the other hand Azeri Turks speak a different dialect but still a Turk of Turkey and an Azeri can mutually understand each other if they carefully listen to each other. If you go to Central Asia however, western Turkish will do little help for you. You must either learn the local dialect or speak English. We may liken the case of ancient Greek dialects to that of western Turkish dialects because they were spoken at a relatively small geography and we know a lot deal about them and their close relationships.

Logic dictates that there should have been blends of people in several time periods, including (of course) people from Anatolia.

Still no answer. Btw we must admit that Mycenaean Greeks weren't prolific colonists, unlike their grandchildren. Maybe a small spore in the Miletus region but apart from it, nowhere in Anatolia we see them.

 

[atreas]

Atreas, you can also find many similarities between Greek and Hittite cultures. Hittites had a chief god associated with the sky like Zeus, they both had many earthly mother/fertility type goddesses, they had very similar theogonies, both worshiped anthropomorphic gods, furthermore both cremated their deads, both of them were depicted long haired, not to mention IE roots. This list goes on continuously.

You can't refer to Roman myths to learn about Celtic gods. Myths are always single-sided. One may liken Iliad to a Hollywood film about Vietnam War, everyone speaks the same language, events are interpreted through one side's view skipping cultural differences.

I suggest a closer study of myths. They are very descriptive about the way ancient people thought - and here you ignore the obvious: gods weren't "universal" in the ancient world, it was "their" gods against the gods "of the opponents". If the opponents had a different god, he would have been named (ancient Greeks were far too afraid not to insult some unknown deity to risk such a thing). Since no foreign god is named, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO IMAGINE THERE WAS ANY. Thus we are talking about the same religion. Remember that here we are talking about a culture that remembered to include a place even for the "unknown god"!

Additionally, if you study a bit the ancient Greeks, you will immediately notice how proud they were for being DIFFERENT than the other civilizations, like Hittites. If there was such a difference, they would immediately try to pinpoint it in the myth, not conceal it.

This is not an answer to my question. Nations are defined according to one aspect SOLELY, their language. Kingdoms and city states may have dialectal differences but I don't think that this would be problematic for ancient Greeks. I'll give you an example from Turks. Anatolian and Cypriot Turks speak the same languge with minor differences. On the other hand Azeri Turks speak a different dialect but still a Turk of Turkey and an Azeri can mutually understand each other if they carefully listen to each other. If you go to Central Asia however, western Turkish will do little help for you. You must either learn the local dialect or speak English. We may liken the case of ancient Greek dialects to that of western Turkish dialects because they were spoken at a relatively small geography and we know a lot deal about them and their close relationships.

Although this argument would be extremely suitable for the case of seeing Greeks alone in that area, since it is clear that this was the dominating language of the area, it is more than inadequate (for example, you forget other aspects of culture, like religion). But still, ancient Greeks didn't use such "modern ideas" (that's why I am talking about a translation of current understandings). They used the idea of nation in a kind of "archaic" form, i.e. the presence of a common ancestor - they called themselves Hellenes, because their common ancestor was named Hellen.

Of course, since that person was mythological, they were free to invent convenient myths for all those that they wanted to be included. From one point this is even more liberal and modern than your interpretation (for example, by your standards Canadians and Swiss are not and will never be a nation, and also Americans will have similar problems).

Taking into account that throughout history language was enforced by the conquerors on the defeated, using language as a tool for defining nations is extremely simplistic. Even for today I really prefer the way the ancient Greeks handled this problem - leave everybody free to choose who he is, based on the myth he creates for himself. That way we will avoid meaningless questions, like "how much Greek do you feel after 400 years of occupation" or "how much Turkish are the descendants of jannisaries or the converted Christians".

 

[Arslan]

I suggest a closer study of myths. They are very descriptive about the way ancient people thought - and here you ignore the obvious: gods weren't "universal" in the ancient world, it was "their" gods against the gods "of the opponents". If the opponents had a different god, he would have been named (ancient Greeks were far too afraid not to insult some unknown deity to risk such a thing). Since no foreign god is named, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO IMAGINE THERE WAS ANY. Thus we are talking about the same religion. Remember that here we are talking about a culture that remembered to include a place even for the "unknown god"!

By the time Homer wrote these myths Trojans were history for 500 years and the site of Troy was desolate for a well 300 years. All knowledge about Trojan religion and language had been lost. This is even apparent from the narration. If we are to deal with the TW as history then it is fitting to say that Homer had no chance but to embelish the scanty material he had with all flavors of fiction according to the delight of his time.

Additionally, if you study a bit the ancient Greeks, you will immediately notice how proud they were for being DIFFERENT than the other civilizations, like Hittites. If there was such a difference, they would immediately try to pinpoint it in the myth, not conceal it.

They were so proud that they couldn't see how similar they were to other cultures, especially in Hellenistic times. But things weren't so simple in pre-classical era. Until defeated by invaders Greeks admired Anatolian peoples like Phrygians and Lydians. They imported their art, music, architecture, gods etc. With the arrival of Persians and subsequent military victories in Greece however, Greeks began to see Anatolians as slaves of the shah. Greeks on the other hand were free people with their democracy. I advise you to read about Hittite religion, you'll see how similar they are.

Of course, since that person was mythological, they were free to invent convenient myths for all those that they wanted to be included. From one point this is even more liberal and modern than your interpretation (for example, by your standards Canadians and Swiss are not and will never be a nation, and also Americans will have similar problems).

Remember that we are talking about an age when such modern ideas like nation-state didn't exist. So don't confuse the term "nation" with its modern meaning. I am using it with its original meaning (ethnos) to imply speakers of a specific language as first language. This is how ancients understood it. Anyone could join Olympics as long as his first language was Greek, even if he was from Marsilia or Bactria.

Taking into account that throughout history language was enforced by the conquerors on the defeated, using language as a tool for defining nations is extremely simplistic. Even for today I really prefer the way the ancient Greeks handled this problem - leave everybody free to choose who he is, based on the myth he creates for himself. That way we will avoid meaningless questions, like "how much Greek do you feel after 400 years of occupation" or "how much Turkish are the descendants of jannisaries or the converted Christians".

I admit I am being a little simplistic here. Of course speaking Greek wasn't enough, it came with certain believes and culture. It is certainly true for Turks too.

Addendum: According to the archaeological excavations, there is no trace of any Greek settlement in the site of Troy or nearbies dating to the bronze age or early iron age. More significant than that, the so-called Balkanian "coarse wares" put forward as the proof of Greek existence in some circles are no more than central European objects appearing in Greece and Anatolia at the same time in insignificant numbers, according to the latest studies. They are now attributed to the sea peoples or any other northern populace. Furthermore, no sign of cultural discontinuity was found until the desolation of Troy at the end of the bronze age.

http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/27.html

 

[atreas]

I think that we are now very close in thinking - the real point for me is the clear distinction between myths and history. As long as we all remember that Homer wrote his songs (that are myths, and not history) using anachronism, the interpretation can't be very wrong. Just two small notes:

Until defeated by invaders Greeks admired Anatolian peoples like Phrygians and Lydians. They imported their art, music, architecture, gods etc. With the arrival of Persians and subsequent military victories in Greece however, Greeks began to see Anatolians as slaves of the shah. Greeks on the other hand were free people with their democracy. I advise you to read about Hittite religion, you'll see how similar they are.

Not really close. There are far too many aspects that are entirely different, especially concerning the very "human like" behavior of gods, the much more "earthly" architecture, etc. Unfortunately we don't know much about music, the Greek art is quite unique (but art is also a result of evolution), and certainly they didn't admire AT ALL the general philosophical thinking of these people. Overall, the differences were MUCH more than the similarities, even before the Persian wars. As I have already written in another place, a big impact was made by the difference in topology of the countries - Greece doesn't favour BIG things, whether they are kingdoms, gods, buildings etc.

Remember that we are talking about an age when such modern ideas like nation-state didn't exist. So don't confuse the term "nation" with its modern meaning. I am using it with its original meaning (ethnos) to imply speakers of a specific language as first language. This is how ancients understood it. Anyone could join Olympics as long as his first language was Greek, even if he was from Marsilia or Bactria.

But here you are completely wrong. Since we are talking about a Greek word (ethnos), I believe we can take as more eligible the definition given already by Herodotus:

Ethnos is a set of people that have same blood, same language, same religion, and same "ethos" and customs (i.e. same culture).

Ethnos NEVER meant only language. Still, the ancient Greeks used much more often the term "gender".

 

[Arslan]

Cultural similarities and differences between Greeks and Anatolians is a far-stretching subject involving many dimensions, (location, time, ethnicities, politics, economics, climate and of course geographical conditions) that we need to start a new thread to reach the core of the subject and make satisfying conclusions. In any case, Anatolians themselves were very diverse people with local and ethnic peculiarities. There was hardly any unity. What I claim is this: There is a cultural continuity coming from the Middle East, passing through Anatolian plateau and stretching out to the Aegean basin.

Individual cultures aren't concrete entities, they, like the winds blowing through all sides, are constantly influencing and being influenced through all sides. Remember spreads of Phoenician alphabet and coinage, we know them with precision because they are archaeologically verifiable. But unfortunately, in most cases, cultural exchanges are imperceptible whether through material culture or textual records. In such cases, the best method is to find similarities and differences through cross-cultural comparisons.

About the ethnos issue, I can't find anything to add. I already gave its definition in my last post similarly to that of Herodotus. It is not only linguistic but also cultural. I only excluded blood in this equation, because blood ties were less siginificant throughout much of antiquity and middle ages in the case of Greeks. I emphasized language omitting other constituents, because you seemed to turn a blind eye to the primary role of language in the formation of national consciousness among early Greeks. I also emphasized the difference of definitions ascribed to the concept of nation in antiquity and modernity. Englishmen vs Americans, Croatians vs Serbians vs Bosnians, Germans vs Austrians are all examples of state-oriented national divisions -although in the case of former Yugoslavians, religion too is determinant- as a result of nation-statism. But in antiquity, nation was independent from politics. A Greek was Greek, whether from Seleucid Syria or Ptolemaic Egypt, as long as he fulfilled minimal Greek cultural requirements.