Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"The Troy Deception" by John Crowe
94 views
Skip to first unread message
Eric Stevens
Jun 8, 2012, 10:24:53 PM6/8/12
to
The works of Homer have been analysed and argued over for more than
2500 years. Numerous ideas and opinions have emerged from all this
turmoil. The location and reality of the Battle of Troy has been at
the heart of many of these. It is nearly 150 years since Schliemann
began his work which led to the modern conclusion that Troy was
situated at Hissarlik but even then not all agree.
In 2002 John Crowe was given a draft copy of a book by John Lascelles
which suggested that Troy was not at Hissarlik but further south, in
the vicinity of Pergamon. Crowe has continued the work of Lascelles
and is publishing his conclusions in two volumes, only the first of
which has yet been printed.
John Crowe has a web page at http://www.thetroydeception.com/ which
sets out aspects of his ideas. He has also written the following as
general summary on page 221 of his Volume 1:
Begin quote
------------------------------------
The main objective of my studies has been to show that Pergamon may
now be identified with Ilios, the holy citadel of ancient Troy as
described in the Iliad and Odyssey. My findings are presented in two
volumes. Here in Volume 1 my purpose is to show, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the Trojan plain upon which the Homeric Trojan War was
fought has now been found in the lower Bakir Cayi valley below
Pergamon and Bergama. If we accept the findings of Volume 1, then
logic demands that both Ilios and Troy must once have stood at the
head of this plain. In Volume 2 I will show that the descriptions of
Ilios, in both the Iliad and Odyssey, offer a near perfect match with
the acropolis of Pergamon. The site of Troy should therefore be sought
in the northern suburbs of Bergama just south of the Asklepion, where
warm and cold springs were once found close together. In Volume 2 I
will also explain the Troy deception, the ruse which led the world,
for some 2,500 years, to believe that Troy was once at Ilion. This was
the work of the Pisistratid tyrants of Athens, who altered the text of
the Iliad to show that Troy was visible from Samothrace. This endorsed
their claim that Troy once stood at Classical Ilion, beside the
Straits of the Dardanelles, on the site we know today as Hisarlik.
They then claimed entitlement to the lands of Troy around Ilion for a
much needed new colony, saying it was awarded to them by the Achaeans
as their share of the spoils of the Trojan War.
Volume 1 is divided into two parts. The first looks carefully at the
site of Hisarlik and shows that it offers a very poor match when
compared to the descriptions in the Iliad. All the landscape
descriptions in the Iliad are collected together, and used to produce
a reconstructed plan of the Trojan plain. This plan is then compared
with the plain at Hisarlik, a comparison which leads to the conclusion
that Schliemann was wrong to claim that his excavations there had
uncovered the site of Homer's Troy.
The second part of Volume 1 explores the possibility that the link
between Troy and Samothrace could be a later insertion into the Iliad,
and that Troy should be sought somewhere else. A number of off-site
signposts are identified which point towards Troy lying to the east of
Lesbos. These, together with the Mysian War legend, which tells of
Achaeans fighting at Teuthrania in the region of the lower Bakir Cayi
valley, makes this a more likely location for Troy than Hisarlik.
A site visit to the region of Pergamon and Bergama, in what was once
ancient Mysia, reveals a landscape that almost perfectly matches that
of the Trojan plain. Yet more supporting evidence is then found from a
study of the nearby countryside, and from Walter Leaf's study of the
Troad. Collectively, this evidence is, I believe, sufficient to claim,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the Trojan War of the Iliad took place
on the plain of the Bakir Cayi below Bergama.
------------------------
End quote
Crowe appears to have read widely of sources ranging from Strabo to
The Oxford History of the Classical World. He has analysed the
geography of the related texts and visited the sites of which he
writes. This does not appear to be a book by yet another crank
revisionist and Crowe's thesis should be taken seriously.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
2500 years. Numerous ideas and opinions have emerged from all this
turmoil. The location and reality of the Battle of Troy has been at
the heart of many of these. It is nearly 150 years since Schliemann
began his work which led to the modern conclusion that Troy was
situated at Hissarlik but even then not all agree.
In 2002 John Crowe was given a draft copy of a book by John Lascelles
which suggested that Troy was not at Hissarlik but further south, in
the vicinity of Pergamon. Crowe has continued the work of Lascelles
and is publishing his conclusions in two volumes, only the first of
which has yet been printed.
John Crowe has a web page at http://www.thetroydeception.com/ which
sets out aspects of his ideas. He has also written the following as
general summary on page 221 of his Volume 1:
Begin quote
------------------------------------
The main objective of my studies has been to show that Pergamon may
now be identified with Ilios, the holy citadel of ancient Troy as
described in the Iliad and Odyssey. My findings are presented in two
volumes. Here in Volume 1 my purpose is to show, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the Trojan plain upon which the Homeric Trojan War was
fought has now been found in the lower Bakir Cayi valley below
Pergamon and Bergama. If we accept the findings of Volume 1, then
logic demands that both Ilios and Troy must once have stood at the
head of this plain. In Volume 2 I will show that the descriptions of
Ilios, in both the Iliad and Odyssey, offer a near perfect match with
the acropolis of Pergamon. The site of Troy should therefore be sought
in the northern suburbs of Bergama just south of the Asklepion, where
warm and cold springs were once found close together. In Volume 2 I
will also explain the Troy deception, the ruse which led the world,
for some 2,500 years, to believe that Troy was once at Ilion. This was
the work of the Pisistratid tyrants of Athens, who altered the text of
the Iliad to show that Troy was visible from Samothrace. This endorsed
their claim that Troy once stood at Classical Ilion, beside the
Straits of the Dardanelles, on the site we know today as Hisarlik.
They then claimed entitlement to the lands of Troy around Ilion for a
much needed new colony, saying it was awarded to them by the Achaeans
as their share of the spoils of the Trojan War.
Volume 1 is divided into two parts. The first looks carefully at the
site of Hisarlik and shows that it offers a very poor match when
compared to the descriptions in the Iliad. All the landscape
descriptions in the Iliad are collected together, and used to produce
a reconstructed plan of the Trojan plain. This plan is then compared
with the plain at Hisarlik, a comparison which leads to the conclusion
that Schliemann was wrong to claim that his excavations there had
uncovered the site of Homer's Troy.
The second part of Volume 1 explores the possibility that the link
between Troy and Samothrace could be a later insertion into the Iliad,
and that Troy should be sought somewhere else. A number of off-site
signposts are identified which point towards Troy lying to the east of
Lesbos. These, together with the Mysian War legend, which tells of
Achaeans fighting at Teuthrania in the region of the lower Bakir Cayi
valley, makes this a more likely location for Troy than Hisarlik.
A site visit to the region of Pergamon and Bergama, in what was once
ancient Mysia, reveals a landscape that almost perfectly matches that
of the Trojan plain. Yet more supporting evidence is then found from a
study of the nearby countryside, and from Walter Leaf's study of the
Troad. Collectively, this evidence is, I believe, sufficient to claim,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the Trojan War of the Iliad took place
on the plain of the Bakir Cayi below Bergama.
------------------------
End quote
Crowe appears to have read widely of sources ranging from Strabo to
The Oxford History of the Classical World. He has analysed the
geography of the related texts and visited the sites of which he
writes. This does not appear to be a book by yet another crank
revisionist and Crowe's thesis should be taken seriously.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Italo
Jun 25, 2012, 10:57:35 AM6/25/12
to
Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schreef:
> The works of Homer have been analysed and argued over for more than
> 2500 years. Numerous ideas and opinions have emerged from all this
> turmoil. The location and reality of the Battle of Troy has been at
> the heart of many of these. It is nearly 150 years since Schliemann
> began his work which led to the modern conclusion that Troy was
> situated at Hissarlik but even then not all agree.
>
> In 2002 John Crowe was given a draft copy of a book by John Lascelles
> which suggested that Troy was not at Hissarlik but further south, in
> the vicinity of Pergamon. Crowe has continued the work of Lascelles
> and is publishing his conclusions in two volumes, only the first of
> which has yet been printed.
>
> John Crowe has a web page at http://www.thetroydeception.com/ which
> sets out aspects of his ideas. He has also written the following as
> general summary on page 221 of his Volume 1:
>
> Begin quote
> ------------------------------------
> The main objective of my studies has been to show that Pergamon may
> now be identified with Ilios, the holy citadel of ancient Troy as
> described in the Iliad and Odyssey.
"high, tall, lofty, elevated", parganusi 'tower', Luwian parray-
'high', Gr. pyrgos 'tower') may be synonymous in meaning with
Gergis/Gergitha (Karkiša), Gargara, etc.
Where Homer has Apollo descending from Pergamon to join the battle
he perhaps confused Gargaron (summit of mt.Ida) for the citadel of the
city.
> My findings are presented in two
> volumes. Here in Volume 1 my purpose is to show, beyond reasonable
> doubt, that the Trojan plain upon which the Homeric Trojan War was
> fought has now been found in the lower Bakir Cayi valley below
> Pergamon and Bergama. If we accept the findings of Volume 1, then
> logic demands that both Ilios and Troy must once have stood at the
> head of this plain. In Volume 2 I will show that the descriptions of
> Ilios, in both the Iliad and Odyssey, offer a near perfect match with
> the acropolis of Pergamon. The site of Troy should therefore be sought
> in the northern suburbs of Bergama just south of the Asklepion, where
> warm and cold springs were once found close together. In Volume 2 I
> will also explain the Troy deception, the ruse which led the world,
> for some 2,500 years, to believe that Troy was once at Ilion. This was
> the work of the Pisistratid tyrants of Athens, who altered the text of
> the Iliad to show that Troy was visible from Samothrace. This endorsed
> their claim that Troy once stood at Classical Ilion, beside the
> Straits of the Dardanelles, on the site we know today as Hisarlik.
before the Athenians conquered the area.
> They then claimed entitlement to the lands of Troy around Ilion for a
> much needed new colony, saying it was awarded to them by the Achaeans
> as their share of the spoils of the Trojan War.
war. In reply then are given some counterexamples of Athenian
contributions to the war.
> Volume 1 is divided into two parts. The first looks carefully at the
> site of Hisarlik and shows that it offers a very poor match when
> compared to the descriptions in the Iliad. All the landscape
> descriptions in the Iliad are collected together, and used to produce
> a reconstructed plan of the Trojan plain. This plan is then compared
> with the plain at Hisarlik, a comparison which leads to the conclusion
> that Schliemann was wrong to claim that his excavations there had
> uncovered the site of Homer's Troy.
> The second part of Volume 1 explores the possibility that the link
> between Troy and Samothrace could be a later insertion into the Iliad,
> and that Troy should be sought somewhere else. A number of off-site
> signposts are identified which point towards Troy lying to the east of
> Lesbos.
as to Lesbos. Troy -> Tenedos -> Lesbos -> Euboia -> Peloponnese.
> These, together with the Mysian War legend, which tells of
> Achaeans fighting at Teuthrania in the region of the lower Bakir Cayi
> valley,
(but left Menelaos in place, even defending his rule against the
Ketos). Later, the Mysians under Eurypylos, who also commands the
Keteoi, were again with the Trojans in one alliance.
Telephus (father of Tyrsenos) seems Greek only because Korythos
(Kurunta/Rutas) was substituted with Herakles.
> makes this a more likely location for Troy than Hisarlik.
>
> A site visit to the region of Pergamon and Bergama, in what was once
> ancient Mysia, reveals a landscape that almost perfectly matches that
> of the Trojan plain. Yet more supporting evidence is then found from a
> study of the nearby countryside, and from Walter Leaf's study of the
> Troad. Collectively, this evidence is, I believe, sufficient to claim,
> beyond reasonable doubt, that the Trojan War of the Iliad took place
> on the plain of the Bakir Cayi below Bergama.
> ------------------------
> End quote
>
> Crowe appears to have read widely of sources ranging from Strabo to
> The Oxford History of the Classical World. He has analysed the
> geography of the related texts and visited the sites of which he
> writes. This does not appear to be a book by yet another crank
> revisionist and Crowe's thesis should be taken seriously.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
b o y c o t t a m e r i c a n p r o d u c t s
Eric Stevens
Jun 25, 2012, 10:06:34 PM6/25/12
to
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:57:35 +0200, Italo <italo...@operamail.com>
wrote:
The most important aspect of what you written is that you suspect that
the point from which Apollo supposedly descended has not been
correctly identified. That Illiad is delibertely packed with errors of
this kind is at the heart of Crowe's thesis.
wrote:
the point from which Apollo supposedly descended has not been
correctly identified. That Illiad is delibertely packed with errors of
this kind is at the heart of Crowe's thesis.
Italo
Jun 26, 2012, 7:09:51 AM6/26/12
to
Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schreef:
substitute for a 'gerg-' toponym (keeping in mind what Strabo and
Herodotus say about Gergis and its people). But there is no problem
with the location of Apollo's temple at Troy's Pergamos. And Homer
already has a Zeus altar at Gargaron.
Yusuf B Gursey
Jun 26, 2012, 8:41:55 PM6/26/12
to
On Jun 8, 10:24 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
which makes me suspicious
I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
which makes me suspicious
Eric Stevens
Jun 26, 2012, 11:02:43 PM6/26/12
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
>which makes me suspicious
It may be a bit soon. Only volume 1 has only just been published as
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
>which makes me suspicious
yet.
Nevertheless, his arguments appear at least superficially attractive.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Jul 1, 2012, 8:51:46 PM7/1/12
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
>which makes me suspicious
I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
>I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
>which makes me suspicious
to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
The thesis that Troy may be found at Hissarlik (Wilusa) was not well
accepted when it was first proposed and still is not, even now.
http://www.varchive.org/nldag/idtroy.htm Even so, it seems to have
become the 'official' stance almost by default. Many scholars have
spent their lifetime analysing the events described by Homer in terms
of them occurring in the plains below the remains of the city.
So established has this become that when a recent geological survey
discovered that, at the time of the Homeric events, the plains of Troy
had in fact been a harbour
(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2736059.stm ) the
battles, the competitions, the chariot races were shoe-horned into the
space that was left. This has always made little sense to me.
Following along the leads of Lascelles, Crowe has gone looking for a
site in the region where the events described by Homer can be made to
fit more easily than they do with Hissarlik as Troy.
That Homer at Hissarlik has to be shoehorned into the local geography
with some difficulty is almost incontrovertible. I am surprised at so
little interest in a theory that appears to be more consistent with
the evidence than does having Troy at Hissarlik.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Yusuf B Gursey
Jul 1, 2012, 11:26:22 PM7/1/12
to
On Jul 1, 8:51 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
> >which makes me suspicious
>
> I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
> to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
where did you find this comment? the author's website?
> >I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
> >which makes me suspicious
>
> I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
> to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
>
> The thesis that Troy may be found at Hissarlik (Wilusa) was not well
> become the 'official' stance almost by default. Many scholars have
> spent their lifetime analysing the events described by Homer in terms
> of them occurring in the plains below the remains of the city.
>
> So established has this become that when a recent geological survey
> discovered that, at the time of the Homeric events, the plains of Troy
> had in fact been a harbour
> (seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2736059.stm) the
> spent their lifetime analysing the events described by Homer in terms
> of them occurring in the plains below the remains of the city.
>
> So established has this become that when a recent geological survey
> discovered that, at the time of the Homeric events, the plains of Troy
> had in fact been a harbour
Eric Stevens
Jul 2, 2012, 5:27:45 AM7/2/12
to
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:26:22 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 1, 8:51 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>>
>> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
>> >which makes me suspicious
>>
>> I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
>> to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
>
>where did you find this comment? the author's website?
It's my own.
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 1, 8:51 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>>
>> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
>> >which makes me suspicious
>>
>> I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
>> to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
>
>where did you find this comment? the author's website?
>
>>
>> The thesis that Troy may be found at Hissarlik (Wilusa) was not well
>> accepted when it was first proposed and still is not, even now.http://www.varchive.org/nldag/idtroy.htm Even so, it seems to have
>> become the 'official' stance almost by default. Many scholars have
>> spent their lifetime analysing the events described by Homer in terms
>> of them occurring in the plains below the remains of the city.
>>
>> So established has this become that when a recent geological survey
>> discovered that, at the time of the Homeric events, the plains of Troy
>> had in fact been a harbour
>> (seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2736059.stm) the
>> battles, the competitions, the chariot races were shoe-horned into the
>> space that was left. This has always made little sense to me.
>>
>> Following along the leads of Lascelles, Crowe has gone looking for a
>> site in the region where the events described by Homer can be made to
>> fit more easily than they do with Hissarlik as Troy.
>>
>> That Homer at Hissarlik has to be shoehorned into the local geography
>> with some difficulty is almost incontrovertible. I am surprised at so
>> little interest in a theory that appears to be more consistent with
>> the evidence than does having Troy at Hissarlik.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens
Regards,
>>
>> The thesis that Troy may be found at Hissarlik (Wilusa) was not well
>> accepted when it was first proposed and still is not, even now.http://www.varchive.org/nldag/idtroy.htm Even so, it seems to have
>> become the 'official' stance almost by default. Many scholars have
>> spent their lifetime analysing the events described by Homer in terms
>> of them occurring in the plains below the remains of the city.
>>
>> So established has this become that when a recent geological survey
>> discovered that, at the time of the Homeric events, the plains of Troy
>> had in fact been a harbour
>> (seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2736059.stm) the
>> battles, the competitions, the chariot races were shoe-horned into the
>> space that was left. This has always made little sense to me.
>>
>> Following along the leads of Lascelles, Crowe has gone looking for a
>> site in the region where the events described by Homer can be made to
>> fit more easily than they do with Hissarlik as Troy.
>>
>> That Homer at Hissarlik has to be shoehorned into the local geography
>> with some difficulty is almost incontrovertible. I am surprised at so
>> little interest in a theory that appears to be more consistent with
>> the evidence than does having Troy at Hissarlik.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Yusuf B Gursey
Jul 2, 2012, 6:00:54 AM7/2/12
to
On Jul 2, 5:27 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:26:22 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:26:22 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 1, 8:51 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
> >> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
> >> >which makes me suspicious
>
> >> I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
> >> to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
>
> >where did you find this comment? the author's website?
>
> It's my own.
>
>
>
it doesn't count until published in a reffereed journal.
> >On Jul 1, 8:51 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
> >> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
> >> >which makes me suspicious
>
> >> I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
> >> to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
>
> >where did you find this comment? the author's website?
>
> It's my own.
>
>
>
Eric Stevens
Jul 2, 2012, 7:13:16 PM7/2/12
to
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 03:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 2, 5:27 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:26:22 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>>
>> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 1, 8:51 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>>
>> >> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
>> >> >which makes me suspicious
>>
>> >> I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
>> >> to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
>>
>> >where did you find this comment? the author's website?
>>
>> It's my own.
>>
>>
>>
>
>it doesn't count until published in a reffereed journal.
(1) I think we ar cross purposes. When you wrote "where did you find
<ygu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 2, 5:27 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:26:22 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>>
>> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 1, 8:51 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>>
>> >> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
>> >> >which makes me suspicious
>>
>> >> I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
>> >> to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
>>
>> >where did you find this comment? the author's website?
>>
>> It's my own.
>>
>>
>>
>
>it doesn't count until published in a reffereed journal.
this comment? the author's website?", to what were you referring?
(2) As it is at present, Crowe's theory is being published as a
two-volume series, only the first volume of which has yet been
published.
(3) I doubt that Crowe will be able to publish in a refereed journal
but somebody better qualified may be able to pick up his theory and do
something with it. But first, they will have to read it.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The thesis that Troy may be found at Hissarlik (Wilusa) was not well
>> >> accepted when it was first proposed and still is not, even now.
>> >> http://www.varchive.org/nldag/idtroy.htm
>> >> Even so, it seems to have
>> >> become the 'official' stance almost by default. Many scholars have
>> >> spent their lifetime analysing the events described by Homer in terms
>> >> of them occurring in the plains below the remains of the city.
>>
>> >> So established has this become that when a recent geological survey
>> >> discovered that, at the time of the Homeric events, the plains of Troy
>> >> had in fact been a harbour
>> >> (seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2736059.stm) the
>> >> battles, the competitions, the chariot races were shoe-horned into the
>> >> space that was left. This has always made little sense to me.
>>
>> >> Following along the leads of Lascelles, Crowe has gone looking for a
>> >> site in the region where the events described by Homer can be made to
>> >> fit more easily than they do with Hissarlik as Troy.
>>
>> >> That Homer at Hissarlik has to be shoehorned into the local geography
>> >> with some difficulty is almost incontrovertible. I am surprised at so
>> >> little interest in a theory that appears to be more consistent with
>> >> the evidence than does having Troy at Hissarlik.
>>
>> >> Regards,
>>
>> >> Eric Stevens
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens
Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The thesis that Troy may be found at Hissarlik (Wilusa) was not well
>> >> accepted when it was first proposed and still is not, even now.
>> >> http://www.varchive.org/nldag/idtroy.htm
>> >> Even so, it seems to have
>> >> become the 'official' stance almost by default. Many scholars have
>> >> spent their lifetime analysing the events described by Homer in terms
>> >> of them occurring in the plains below the remains of the city.
>>
>> >> So established has this become that when a recent geological survey
>> >> discovered that, at the time of the Homeric events, the plains of Troy
>> >> had in fact been a harbour
>> >> (seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2736059.stm) the
>> >> battles, the competitions, the chariot races were shoe-horned into the
>> >> space that was left. This has always made little sense to me.
>>
>> >> Following along the leads of Lascelles, Crowe has gone looking for a
>> >> site in the region where the events described by Homer can be made to
>> >> fit more easily than they do with Hissarlik as Troy.
>>
>> >> That Homer at Hissarlik has to be shoehorned into the local geography
>> >> with some difficulty is almost incontrovertible. I am surprised at so
>> >> little interest in a theory that appears to be more consistent with
>> >> the evidence than does having Troy at Hissarlik.
>>
>> >> Regards,
>>
>> >> Eric Stevens
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Yusuf B Gursey
Jul 2, 2012, 8:26:04 PM7/2/12
to
On Jul 2, 7:13 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 03:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
>
>
>
>
> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 2, 5:27 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:26:22 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
> >> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 1, 8:51 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
> >> >> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
> >> >> >which makes me suspicious
>
> >> >> I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
> >> >> to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
>
> >> >where did you find this comment? the author's website?
>
> >> It's my own.
>
> >it doesn't count until published in a reffereed journal.
>
> (1) I think we ar cross purposes. When you wrote "where did you find
> this comment? the author's website?", to what were you referring?
>
> (2) As it is at present, Crowe's theory is being published as a
> two-volume series, only the first volume of which has yet been
> published.
>
> (3) I doubt that Crowe will be able to publish in a refereed journal
> but somebody better qualified may be able to pick up his theory and do
> something with it. But first, they will have to read it.
>
>
at least a *review* published in a refereed journal would lend more
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 03:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
>
>
>
>
> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 2, 5:27 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:26:22 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
> >> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 1, 8:51 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey
>
> >> >> <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >I haven't been able to find one single scholarly review of the work,
> >> >> >which makes me suspicious
>
> >> >> I had hoped to receive some informed comment from informed subscribers
> >> >> to Usenet but to say there has been little is an understatement.
>
> >> >where did you find this comment? the author's website?
>
> >> It's my own.
>
> >it doesn't count until published in a reffereed journal.
>
> (1) I think we ar cross purposes. When you wrote "where did you find
> this comment? the author's website?", to what were you referring?
>
> (2) As it is at present, Crowe's theory is being published as a
> two-volume series, only the first volume of which has yet been
> published.
>
> (3) I doubt that Crowe will be able to publish in a refereed journal
> but somebody better qualified may be able to pick up his theory and do
> something with it. But first, they will have to read it.
>
>
credibility to it.
Matt Giwer
Jul 29, 2012, 9:39:35 PM7/29/12
to
popular location that matched the Iliad description. That would not
exclude it but it would say if it were Ilium then forget using the Iliad
to find it. Two-three years ago now a lower was was found whose
circumference is such that it would take as long as in the story to drag
a body around it. Before then the only wall found was much smaller and
could not match Achilles' chariot dragging time.
That is not conclusive but it is one very important discovery in favor
of the story and this location. I have not come across the other issue
which back then was not showing signs of having been plundered and
burned. If that is found then it is at the right time, about the right
place, it is the right size and was burned. If those three things are
found then the Iliad is about it or another nearly identical city which
begs the question.
The Iliad could still be total fiction and the city sacked by
non-Greeks from the east. That is still a possibility but with
discovering the outer wall it clearly beyond the wishful thinking stage
as being the city in the story. (That is, there is no Batman or Superman
and may not have been any of the heroes of Homer but there was a New
York City rather than Gotham city or Metropolis.)
Crowe was far from alone. I was prominent here in skeptical views of
the claims for Troy until until the wall was found. Of course there is
still no Welcome to Ilium sign found but it is certainly much more worth
continuing digging there than moving on at this time. And moving on at
any time would have required raising money and interesting real arkies
which was never very likely. This place will have to bust completely
before people look for another location.
--
The theology of salvation requires only that Jesus dies.
The whole cross messy death is just production values.
The Iron Webmaster, 4406
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Sun, Jul 29, 2012 9:06:47 PM
Martin Edwards
Jul 30, 2012, 1:49:55 AM7/30/12
to
know there was a submarine pen at Flensburg because my Dad (still alive)
lived in the barracks in the occupation. The Bronze Age? Often the
best you can do is that it is the kind of thing that went on.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
Matt Giwer
Aug 3, 2012, 8:56:24 PM8/3/12
to
don't you simply don't know rather than a negative.
Consider if it were declared Ilium without a match. That would lead to
all kind of wasted time and effort digressing on the exaggerations of
Homer and why. That is the kind of mental masturbation that attracts an
entire breed of "scholars" but it would be compounding the original
nonsense of declaring identity without evidence.
If no match can be found then that is the breaks of the game. That is
never an excuse to say something is good enough just because it is the
best found.
The worst case of it is in bibleland where so many "biblical" cities
have been identified yet the basis is solely that they are located where
they can be called "close" without giggling to the vague location
descriptions found in the Septuagint. That is because they "have to be"
found and naming them is usually the only way to raise money for the
dig. Next to no one is interested in the real history and believers have
religious and political reason to suppress the real history.
--
If there is massive global warming in the next century our society will
change beyond comprehension. That will also happen if there is no warming.
-- The Iron Webmaster,4394
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Fri, Aug 03, 2012 8:40:42 PM
Martin Edwards
Aug 4, 2012, 2:56:51 AM8/4/12
to
based on something that may have happened. I take scholars' word for
that, as my Greek is not good enough to judge. In the case of the
Bible, I am regularly surprised by what is not there. There seem
(according to scholars) to be things in the Hebrew Bible that are not in
the Septuagint, and other things are contradictory. Much of the New
Testament can mean anything or nothing. This is probably why the Roman
Church killed people for reading it, and is still not keen.
Matt Giwer
Aug 5, 2012, 10:26:41 PM8/5/12
to
On 8/4/2012 2:56 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
...
surprised by poetic license?"
The fact that the DSS is a shorter form of the Septuagint and the
Masoretic a shorter form of the DSS shows the direction of
"development." In the other direction that there is nothing in the
Masoretic that is not in the DSS and nothing in the DSS that is not in
the Septuagint shows there was no source material other than the
Septuagint.
If one takes the NT seriously then there is so little different
material in the gospels that what is there could only be a few prepared
sermons given over and over. There isn't enough different material for
even the one year of preaching in Mark. So we can only conclude he said
everything he thought it necessary to say.
Then we come to the epistles. Their authority comes from the claim that
they got the teachings of Jesus correct. So we examine that claim. They
all have the working presumption that Jesus was coming back real soon.
As they got that one big thing wrong there is no reason to assume they
got anything right.
So if you want to be a Jesusite you throw out everything that is not in
the gospels. With the gospels you have a chinese menu, a smorgasbord to
choose from. Because of so many contradictory things you can't have
everything.
--
The difference between a particle and a god is the difference between a
scientist and a priest. The scientist works to rationalize the theory and
the priest the genealogy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4396
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Sun, Aug 05, 2012 10:16:59 PM
...
> I don't dissent from that. In the case of Homer it is just great poetry
> based on something that may have happened. I take scholars' word for
> that, as my Greek is not good enough to judge. In the case of the
> Bible, I am regularly surprised by what is not there. There seem
> (according to scholars) to be things in the Hebrew Bible that are not in
> the Septuagint, and other things are contradictory. Much of the New
> Testament can mean anything or nothing. This is probably why the Roman
> Church killed people for reading it, and is still not keen.
To repeat what I said a decade ago, "Yes, it is poetry. Why is anyone
> based on something that may have happened. I take scholars' word for
> that, as my Greek is not good enough to judge. In the case of the
> Bible, I am regularly surprised by what is not there. There seem
> (according to scholars) to be things in the Hebrew Bible that are not in
> the Septuagint, and other things are contradictory. Much of the New
> Testament can mean anything or nothing. This is probably why the Roman
> Church killed people for reading it, and is still not keen.
surprised by poetic license?"
The fact that the DSS is a shorter form of the Septuagint and the
Masoretic a shorter form of the DSS shows the direction of
"development." In the other direction that there is nothing in the
Masoretic that is not in the DSS and nothing in the DSS that is not in
the Septuagint shows there was no source material other than the
Septuagint.
If one takes the NT seriously then there is so little different
material in the gospels that what is there could only be a few prepared
sermons given over and over. There isn't enough different material for
even the one year of preaching in Mark. So we can only conclude he said
everything he thought it necessary to say.
Then we come to the epistles. Their authority comes from the claim that
they got the teachings of Jesus correct. So we examine that claim. They
all have the working presumption that Jesus was coming back real soon.
As they got that one big thing wrong there is no reason to assume they
got anything right.
So if you want to be a Jesusite you throw out everything that is not in
the gospels. With the gospels you have a chinese menu, a smorgasbord to
choose from. Because of so many contradictory things you can't have
everything.
--
The difference between a particle and a god is the difference between a
scientist and a priest. The scientist works to rationalize the theory and
the priest the genealogy.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4396
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Sun, Aug 05, 2012 10:16:59 PM
Martin Edwards
Aug 6, 2012, 2:24:58 AM8/6/12
to
> So if you want to be a Jesusite you throw out everything that is
> not in the gospels. With the gospels you have a chinese menu, a
> smorgasbord to choose from. Because of so many contradictory things you
> can't have everything.
>
may happen.
Matt Giwer
Aug 7, 2012, 1:37:16 AM8/7/12
to
favorites.
--
If Israel is not the result of an international, jewish conspiracy then how
did it come into existence?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4390
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Tue, Aug 07, 2012 1:36:01 AM
0 new messages