Troy! (will contain spoilers)

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: A word of caution though: the Iliad is designed to be recited aloud by a bard, it was not designed to be 'read' as a piece of literature. Thus, there is alot of repitition of phrases and paragraphs in order to give the bard enough time to organise his thoughts to think about which verse comes next (it's a huge poem, my hat goes off to all of the ancient bards that were able to recite it by heart) [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well, yes and no. After the greek dark ages period following the Trojan War era ended (circa 5th Century BC), it is actually hypothesized that the Iliad and the Odyssey, the primary works to survive the 500-yr dark ages through the oral tradition (and the works commmemorating greece at its "height"), we actually the inspiration for the creation of the greek alphabet. As well, it is thought that these were the primary works used in schools to teach the langauge for almost all of the 5th Century (through the Pelopenesian Wars).

[Faceman]

don't want to spoil nice stories, but the greek alphabet was inspired by inventory lists of merchants (and derived from the phoenician alphabet which spread through inventory lists of merchants)

[Timber Loftis]

I'd love to see links regarding such info, Faceman. I'm just getting into the topic. Aren't there multiple periods of alphabet development in Greece? There was a phoenician-related system that apparently was used circa 1200-1000 BC, around the time of the Trojan war. Evidence was found in one of the far west/south Mycanean lands -- namely, the purported palace of Niceus. However, the greek language as we know it was also developed circa 5th century BC, during the time of Plato. Are you sure that you aren't referring to the earlier alphabet that existed before the dark ages.

Not that your explanation doesn't make sense. In fact, we could both be part right.

[Faceman]

I'm sorry I can't link anything. My info comes from Ancient History Basics which was in my first year at university.
But I'll check out the library during the next week and try to find out if we're talking two different things here.
What I can tell you right now is that Homeric Greek is a bit different from the classic Attic Greek.
The alphabet however is about the same and only one letter from the early days (the Digamma "F" spoken as "v" or "w") has disappeared.
Of course the image of the scripture may have been different but a completely different old alphabet is nothing that I know of.
I'll check on it and get back to you in about a week.

[Link]

Greek civilization originated on Crete with the Minoan civilization. The Minoans eventually travelled to the mainland of Europe (modern day Greece) and these mainland Greeks founded Mycenae. After some time, the Mycenaeans travelled back to Crete to utterly destroy the Minoan civilization.
IIRC the original Greek linear-B writing indeed originated from the Phoenician writing system somewhere around the Mycenaean period (somewhere around 1100-800 B.C. I believe). I don't know if the Minoans had a writing system; I believe they did have some sort of inventory list as Faceman described but this still more or less worked like the Middle Eastern writing (I don't know what it's called in English; here in the Netherlands it's called the "spijkerschrift" --> roughly translated the "nail-writing system"). Prehistory did end with the coming of this writing system, however; the Minoan culture was definitely the one pushing the Greek into the light of civilization.

Rebuttal from my side:

Originally posted by Faceman: Dead Wrong! Aineias shows up on several occasions in the Iliad always mentioning him as the hero "second only to Hector among the Trojans" he even gets in a battle with Achill which is about to turn out lethal for both of them before Poseidon steps in and saves Aineias. Many historians believe that Homer was somehow connected to the family of Aineias because several times he mentions that Aineias will become the ruler of new Troy (i.e. rebuilt after the war). This is why Aineias became the founding hero of many a city in their myths because thus they could claim to be the new Troy. The Aeneias cult finally expanded westwards and arrived at Rome where Aeneas was believed to be the founding hero (like a son of Odysseus was) long before the story of Romulus and Remus was thought up. Later they harmonised the myths and Aeneias thus became the ancestor of the Roman twins. In Vergils Aeneis only the chapter about Dido (in Carthago) is made up by himself. Everything else is part of the great number of myths that existed about Aeneias at that time.

While you truthfully point out that Aeneas is in fact a 'large' (or mediocre at worst) Trojan character in the Iliad, I beg to differ about his part in the story. After all it isn't even accepted if the whole person we know as Homerus has ever lived. For a fact, there are numerous clues that make us believe the Iliad has been changed in the course of years. An example: the Dark Ages of the Greek civilization (800-500 B.C. I believe) was a period of decline of population, battles between the cities in the country: in short, it was a hectic period, and is widely accepted as (more or less) a decline of the Greek civilization as a whole. The Iliad is set in this particular time (many evidence in the story points this out), but there are also a lot of things that point to the ages after the Dark Ages (Athens/Sparta/city states) and even some things that point to the Mycenaean period. While we cannot ever know for sure, it is widely accepted that Homer's Iliad has been changed through the course of years, which at least is a plausible reason for the many facts deriving from different periods in Greek civilized history.
It is therefore also not unbelievable that the Romans made their changes in the epic tale that we know now. The Romans, after all, desperately wanted their culture to be the best of them all, in all possible aspects. Culture, music, literature, knowledge, military force. You name it, and they wanted to be the best in it. Needless to say that the Aeneas was a literary work that was made to glorify Roman civilization.
<font color=white>
--------
Taken from my Classical History [Greek & Roman] reader:

"[...] the Minoans had developed a pictographic writing system to keep records of their palace economies, which was in use from about 1900 B.C. THe pictographs were mostly incised on small stones used as seals (when pressed on wax or clay they leave an impression of the symbols) and were probably used as labels or marks of ownership. This picture writing, which could convey only minimal information, was replaced by a syllabic writing system incised on small clay tablets, used from about 1800 B.C. [...]
In the destruction level at Knossos, Arthur Evans [archaeologist] found a huge number (around three thousand) of clay tablets insicribed with a more elaborate version of the linear script. Evans named the earlier script "Linear A" and this later one "Linear B". He asssumed without question that the language of both was Cretan. The discovery in 1939 of many hundreds of the Linear B tablets at the palace complex of Pylos on the southwestern Greek mainland seemed to strengthen his theory that mainland Greece was controlled by the Minoans. [...]
-----------------
</font>

[ 05-17-2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Link ]

[Luvian]

Wow! Interesting Thread! I always liked history!

[Faceman]

I'm very aware of the discussion about Homer's existence and I myself am follower to the theory that the Iliad and the Odyssee were written/created by two different authors (if not more). I just stated that there is the theory that the poet of the Iliad (to be more correct this time ) could have been linked to Aineias family or their successors politically.
Also there is dispute about whether the Mycaenans (hope that's the right English spelling, but I spare you the Ancient Greek unicode ) were actually successors of the Minoans or if they were a complete different people from the mainland (the old established theory) who conquered Crete and the Minoan empire (which has been linked to the story about Perseus and Ariadne by many historians).
While I agree that the Iliad has probably been altered through the ages I don't believe that the Romans did so. For my part because I know of no Roman poet that had the quality of Greek epic poetry and could have copied Homer's style that perfectly but mainly because the myths of Aineias existed long before the Roman empire and were ground for the religion, (hi)stories and names of many cities in "magna graecia". It seems rather unlikely to me that the Romans would have renamed minor Greek cities just to make their argument stick. There's also archaeological evidence (coins and statues) from the Etruscans and early Romans (clearly pre-dating Oktavian) which indicates Aineias as a cult figure. It is assumed that he had been a river-god in Minor Asia before the myth developed to the point which culminated in the founding of Rome (named after the Trojan girl Rhome who incited the Trojan women to burn their ships so they would have to settle down in Italy instead of keep travelling on) and later on Vergil's Aeneis.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, yes and no. After the greek dark ages period following the Trojan War era ended (circa 5th Century BC), it is actually hypothesized that the Iliad and the Odyssey, the primary works to survive the 500-yr dark ages through the oral tradition (and the works commmemorating greece at its "height"), we actually the inspiration for the creation of the greek alphabet. As well, it is thought that these were the primary works used in schools to teach the langauge for almost all of the 5th Century (through the Pelopenesian Wars).

Well, yes and no [img]smile.gif[/img]
The Iliad and Odyssey are two particular legends orally circulated for roughly the 500 years after the Trajon War. The stories probably would have undergone many changes as there was no static form written down to be rote-learned and each new generation of bards would have to have picked it up from their mentors by ear.
In about 700 BC (well, we can say 'The Eighth Century' BC) someone, or some group of people, to whom history has attributed the name 'Homer', wrote the stories down, thus changing the nature of epic storytelling forever. Now there was a concrete text by which bards could train themselves. It also meant that the legends were not subject to the constant generational bard-to-bard changes that used to occur.
The written 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey' were handed down as part of Greek nationalist identity for centuries. As you say, Homer was taught in schools, and a knowledge of 'his' (could very well have been 'their') epics was the sign of a well-educated citizen.

Which brings me back to my gripes with this movie. I really should just shut up. People have been altering legends for thousands of years. Why should we be any different? Sometimes I act more like a scary religious fundamentalist than I care to admit...

[Faceman]

actually back in those days people (not only in Greece, but also in France or India) considered oral tradition to be far more reliable than written texts.
There may have been changes but let yourself not be fooled that they were easy to make and that they had been major. The Homeric epics are written in verses (like the Veda) and therefore you can't just change one word or alter a sentence to your liking without ruining the whole song. So at least the according song/book or a large paragraph of it would have had to be rewritten to actually make an alteration work.
I think there might have been minor changes but if you really wanted to create a new myth you would just write a new poem or prosaic text. It would have been a lot easier AND a lot more actual.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Faceman: I think there might have been minor changes but if you really wanted to create a new myth you would just write a new poem or prosaic text. It would have been a lot easier AND a lot more actual.

Oh yeah. I'm not saying they redid the entire poem or anything. But many of the names given to (very) minor heroes in the story seem to reflect a bard's desire to give kudos to local tribes when he is travelling the countryside singing for his supper. Sort of like 'Well, your ancestors didn't do all THAT much, but at least they were there. And by jingo they were brave Achaens! Can I have a bed and a meal now?' [img]smile.gif[/img] So subtle bits and pieces like that would have been very subject to change, as the bard would find himself in many different places in a relatively short space of time.