In article , Derrick Everett
wrote:
> Ventris was a scholar. The difference between Ventris and Hood was that
> Ventris was right. By spitting on his achievements, you only proof what
> an ignorant jerk you are.
wow, i can't argue with that. ok, you win the argument. although i
don't think anyone on this thread had previously mentioned ventris.
> Troy and the Trojan War do not appear in any of the
> linear B tablets, which is strange considering that they date from the
> period in which the Trojan War is supposed to take place..
> Since it is not mentioned in any
> contemporary writings, including the linear B tablets, then either there
> was a massive cover-up (ho-ho) or there was no such event.
for starters, we can't be sure that the names troy/ilium do not appear
in linear b tablets. linear b has not been conlusively translated. not
to the extent that would allow ruling it out.
but why would the absense of the name troy rule anything out? the
scenario you are proposing is almost too silly to address.
think about the implications of what you are saying: the linear b
tablets that have been found by modern scholars describe their world so
completely and lucidly that any place or event not mentioned by them
must not exist.
> ...If the
> occupation at Hisarlik known as "Troy VI" was Homer's Troy, then the
> Trojan War ended about 1270 BC..
>
> Ilium was a name introduced by the Greeks much later. We do not know what
> the inhabitants of "Troy VI" called their city...
both statements depend upon homer and related trojan-war legends. if we
ignore the legends, there is little reason to see a discontinuity
between bronze-age and iron-age troy.
thus, there is no rational reason to assume it was called something
else but troy or ilium.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
