Virgil’s account of Antenor’s and his Trojans’ journey to Europe from fallen Troy refers to the emigration of the father of the Frankish chief Sunno at the head of a tribe of Franks. And as Gesta’s predecessor, the so-called Fredegar, appeals to Virgil as his authority for this Frankish emigration, and as the wanderings of Antenor are nowhere else mentioned by the Roman poet, there can be no doubt that the lines above quoted were the very ones which were regarded as the Virgiliau evidence in regard to a Frankish emigration from Troy.

But how did it come to be regarded as an evidence

Virgil says that Antenor, when he had escaped the Achivians, succeeded in penetrating Illyricos sinus, the very heart of Illyria. The name Illyricum served to designate all the regions inhabited by kindred tribes extending from the Alps to the mouth of the Danube and from the Danube to the Adriatic Sea and Hsemus (cp. Marquardt Rom. Staatsvervmlt, 295). To Illyricum belonged the Roman provinces Dalmatia, Paunonia, and Mcesia, and the Pannonians were an Illyrian tribe. In Pannonia Gregorius of Tours had located the Franks in early times. Thus Antenor, with his Trojans, on their westward journey, traverses the same regions from which, according to Gregorius, the Franks had set out for the Rhine.

Virgil also says that Antenor extended his journeys to the Liburnian kingdoms (regno Libumorum). From Servius’ commentary on this passage, the middle age knew that the Liburnian kingdoms were Rhetia and Vindelicia (Rhetia Vindeliei ipsi sunt Libimii). Rhetia and Vindelicia separate Pannonia from the Rhine. Antenor, accordingly, takes the same route toward the West as the Franks must have taken if they came from Panuonia to the Rhine.

Virgil then brings Antenor to a river, which, it is true, is called Timavus, but which is described as a mighty stream, coming thundering out of a mountainous region, where it has its source, carrying with it a mass of water which the poet compares with a sea, forming before it reaches the sea a delta, the plains of which are deluged by the billow’s, and finally emptying itself by many outlets into the ocean. Virgil says nine; but Servius interprets this as meaning many: “finitus est numerus pro infinito “. these battles was not the Mceotian marshes and Pannonia, as Gesta supposes, but the regions on the Rhina

We must pardon the Frankish scribes for taking this river to be the Rhine; for if a water-course is to be looked for in Europe west of the land of the Liburnians, which answers to the Virgilian description, then this must be the Rhine, on whose banks the ancestors of the Franks for the first time appear in history.

Again, Virgil tells us that Antenor settled near this river and founded a colony—Patavium—on the low plains of the delta. The Salian Franks acquired possession of the low and flat regions around the outlets of the Rhine (Insula Batavorum) about the year 287, and also of the land to the south as far as to the Scheldt; and after protracted wars the Romans had to leave them the control of this region. By the very occupation of this low country, its conquerors might properly be called Batavian Franks. It is only necessary to call attention to the similarity of the words Patavi and Batavi, in order to show at the same time that the conclusion could scarcely be avoided that Virgil had reference to the immigration of the Franks when he spoke of the wanderings of Antenor, the more so, since from time out of date the pronunciation of the initials B and P have been interchanged by the Germans. In the conquered territory the Franks founded a city (Ammian. Marc., xvii 2, 5).

Thus it appears that the Franks were supposed to have migrated to the Rhine under the leadership of Antenor. The first Frankish chiefs recorded, after their appearance there, are Markomir and Sunno. From this the conclusion was drawn that Sunno was Antenor’s sou; and as Markomir ought to be the son of some celebrated Trojan chief, he was made the son of Priam. Thus we have explained Fredegar’s statement that Virgil is his authority for the Trojan descent of these Franks. This seemed to be established for all time.

The wars fought around the Moeotian marshes between the emperor Valentiuianus, the Alamanni, and the Franks, of which Gesta speaks, are not wholly inventions of the fancy. The historical kernel in this confused semi-mythical narrative is that Valentinianus really did fight with the Alamanni, and that the Franks for some time were allies of the Romans, and came into conflict with those same Alamanni (Ammian. Marc, libs, xxx., xxxi.). But the scene of

The unhistorical statement of Gregorius that the Franks came from Pannonia is based only on the fact that Frankish warriors for some time formed a Sicambra cohors, which about the year 26 was incorporated with the Roman troops stationed in Pannonia and Thracia, The cohort is believed to have remained in Hungary and formed a colony, where Buda now is situated. Gesta makes Pannonia extend from the Moeotian marshes to Tanais, since, according to Gregorius and earlier chroniclers, these waters were the boundary between Europe and Asia, and since Asia was regarded as a synonym of the Trojan empire. Virgil had called the Trojan kingdom Asia: Postquam res Asic e Priamique evertere gentem, &c. (AVneid, iii. 1).


Iarcuri [Cornesti] 1782 hectares, 1400 bc

So saying, the dark-haired god led the way to the heaped-up wall of godlike Heracles, the high wall that the Trojans and Pallas Athene had builded for him, to the end that he might flee thither and escape from the monster of the deep, whenso the monster drave him from the seashore to the plain.

Iarcuri superimposed on Rome

Dudestii Noi

‘He who brought it into existence can also cause it to disappear, as the poet did the wall of the Achivi. The wall mentioned in Iliad, vii. 436, et seq. Gosselin says that in the time of Aristotle the commentators of the Iliad, having vainly sought for the ruins or other traces of the wall, the Philosopher came to the conclusion that the wall was altogether a fiction of Homer’s Strabo speaks further on this subject in the 13th Book.

Apollo temple at Vinga

The date of Troy VIIa’s destruction probably lies within the half-century ca. 1230-1180 B.C., although Blegen ultimately placed it a generation or so earlier and Podzuweit has recently suggested that it should be set a good deal later.

On the basis of the Iliad and Odyssey specifically and of Greek tradition in general, the destroyers of Troy VIIa have traditionally been identified as Mycenaean Greeks from the central and southern Greek Mainland. However, there is nothing in the archaeological evidence to identify precisely who the attackers were. Indeed, there is at least some archaeological evidence which suggests that the attackers were not Mycenaeans. For example, are the Mainland Greeks likely to have destroyed Troy at more or less the same time as their own centers in the Peloponnese were being destroyed? It is possible to answer this question in the affirmative if the Peloponnesian destructions were due to natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes, as most recently argued in the cases of Tiryns and Mycenae) or if they were a direct result of the absence of large numbers of potential defenders who were away besieging Troy, although both scenarios do seem to stretch coincidence to its limits. Perhaps more significant is the fact that the “Coarse Ware” of Troy VIIb1, a class of pottery which makes its first appearance at Troy immediately after the destruction of Troy VIIa, is very closely related to the handmade and burnished pottery which appears in more or less contemporary contexts of the early LH IIIC period at a number of sites on the Greek Mainland as well as in Cyprus, southern Italy, and Sicily. In none of these areas does this pottery have local antecedents, and it has been argued by Deger-Jalkotzy that such pottery is to be derived ultimately from ceramic traditions at home in the Middle Danube area of central Europe. The “Coarse Ware” of Troy VIIb1 may be interpreted as identifying the sackers of Troy VIIa, a population group who crossed the Hellespont at the end of their journey from the Middle Danube through Rumania to Turkish Thrace. Similar groups may have been involved with the sacking of numerous major Mycenaean sites in the Peloponnese at the end of the LH IIIB period. One of several weaknesses of such a reconstruction of events, it must be confessed, is the fact that the quantities of “Coarse Ware” in Troy VIIb1, like those of the related handmade and burnished pottery at Mainland Greek Mycenaean sites in the early LH IIIC period, are relatively small. Did the makers of such pottery indeed play as important a role in the political and military history of the end of the Aegean Bronze Age as some authorities impute to them?

Desborough (1964)

Desborough cautiously suggested the possibility of an invasion by land from the north, although at the time he wrote he was acutely conscious of the fact that there was virtually no evidence, except for the destruction levels and widespread abandonments themselves, for the presence of such invaders. He did point out that a few new classes of bronze objects, the {fibula} [or safety-pins] and the cut-and-thrust swords of the so-called “Naue II” type, make their first appearance in the Mycenaean world ca. 1200 B.C. However, these objects always appear in “good Mycenaean” contexts such as chamber tombs with otherwise standard Mycenaean funeral assemblages. They consequently do not appear to have belonged exclusively to an intrusive, non-Mycenaean population element. As a result, Snodgrass (1974) concluded that objects of these kinds need not be taken as evidence of the invasion or immigration of northern peoples from the western Danube basin into the Aegean (as argued by Grumach, Milojcic, and Gimbutas, among others) because they could be considered simply as “good ideas” which “caught on” in the Aegean area at much the same time as similar objects first appeared in northern Italy and in the early Urnfield cemeteries of the Danube basin. All such objects, Snodgrass argued, could have been imported initially and locally copied thereafter by peoples indigenous to the areas in question, rather than necessarily being the belongings of invaders.

Rutter (1975, 1990), Walberg (1976), Deger-Jalkotzy (1977, 1983), Small (1990, 1997), Pilides (1994), Bankoff, Meyer, and Stefanovich (1996)

Rutter, following in the footsteps of E. French, identified a non-Mycenaean handmade and burnished class of pottery in early LH IIIC contexts at Korakou, Mycenae, Lefkandi, and a few other sites in central and southern Greece. Since this pottery was locally made, it constituted evidence for the presence of a non-Mycenaean population element within Mycenaean Greece in the period immediately following the destruction of the major Peloponnesian centers. This handmade and burnished pottery, in Rutter’s view, had its closest parallels in the “Coarse Ware” of Troy VIIb1 and in the pottery of the Final Bronze Age Coslogeni culture of southeastern Rumania. Rutter therefore suggested that there might be a connection between the makers of this non-Mycenaean pottery and the destroyers of both Troy VIIa and of the Mycenaean centers in the Peloponnese.

Deger-Jalkotzy, publishing similar non-Mycenaean ceramics from early LH IIIC contexts at the coastal site of Aigeira in Achaea, argued that similar pottery was to be found not only in Troy and Rumania but also in Sicily and southern Italy. In all cases, this pottery had no local ancestry and was presumably evidence for intrusive population groups. Such groups were probably not large (i.e. not comparable in scale to the migrating tribes who contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D.), but rather small bands of pirates, freebooters, and unemployed mercenaries. The original homeland of these groups, from which they filtered down into various areas of the Mediterranean by a number of different routes, was the central Danube. These warrior bands, comparable in terms of their activities and organization to the Vikings of the 7th to 10th centuries A.D., may indeed have constituted the nucleus of the raiders known later to the Egyptians as the Sea Peoples.


However, he (Posidonius) is right in attributing to earthquakes and other similar causes, which we also have enumerated, the risings, slips, and changes which at various periods come over the earth. He did well, too, in citing the opinion of Plato, ‘that the tradition concerning the Island of Atlantis might be received as something more than a mere fiction, it having been related by Solon on the authority of the Egyptian priests, that this island, almost as large as a continent, was formerly in existence, although now it had disappeared.’ Posidonius thinks it better to quote this than to say, ‘He who brought it into existence can also cause it to disappear, as the poet did the wall of the Achivi.’ He (Posidonius) is also of opinion that the emigration of the Cimbrians and other kindred races from their native territory, was gradual, and occasioned by the inundation of the sea, and by no means a sudden movement.



PREHISTORIC research shows us that in the troubled section of Europe known as the Near East there existed as early as the neolithic period several culture groups which may be classified under four heads as follows :- (1) The Aegean, Minoan-Mycenaean group. (2) The Thessalian. (3) The Upper Balkan and Dannbian. (4) The South Russian and allied groups.

The first of these is so familiar that we need only emphasize its continuity from the neolithic period through the Bronze Age, and the fact that, although eventually it was widely diffused through the Mediterranean from Spain to Cyprus and the coast of Palestine, in the Aegean area itself the northern limit on the west coast was Thessaly, which it reached in the L. M. period, and on the opposite shore the single site toward the north is Troy, where L. M, is contetnporary with the VIth city. The sporadic examples on the coast from Thessaly to Troy are very late and apparently had little influence.

The excavations by Messrs. Wace and Thompson in prehistoric Thessaly, which included considerably more than one hundred sites, have led them to differentiate large number of styles of pottery, including red monochrome, red or black incised, or else painted either light on dark or dark on light in many varietiesal The designs are predominantly rectilinear and more closely akin to the northern groups than to the Minoan.

These styles extend from the Neolithic, through Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age, vith gradual changes and no violent break until the close of L. M.111. This tallies with what had already been known of Minoan influence on the Thessalian coast. The terracotta figurines are also quite different from the island or Aegean type and belong to the short and stumpy styles of the mainland.2 The excavators believe that except for the Creto-Mycenaean vases (L. M. 11. and 111.) there seems to be hardly any direct connexion between Thessaly and the south-eastern regions of the mainland,s neither did the Cycladic (Island) styles have much influence?

Even when at the close of the Minoan period that civilization came into contact with Thessaly, it did not replace the local wares but continued side by side with them and what influence there was resulted in a somewhat hybrid sty1e.j I t is, therefore, not to the south but to the north that the excavators have looked for connexions with Thes~aly.~ On the basis of a few sherds, one cup and one bowl, Dr. Tsountas is inclined to note a relationship between Thessaly and Troy, bu6 Messrs. Wace and Thompson do not agree with this view and regard the Trojan vases as unlike the Thessalian in most respects.

The occurrence of Minyan ware at T r ~ yV I, and TTII,and in Thessaly need not prove any direct communication although it may be inferred. The origin of Minyan ware is still uncertain.’ The Thessalian pottery seems to be affiliated with the north Balkans through a ware which may possibly be of Macedonian origin. Adequate information is not yet to hand about Macedonia, but so far the connexions of Thessaly lie northward. The figurines have their closest analogies in Thrace and the decorative motives of the Dhimini ware, a combination of spiral and geometric, unite Thessaly with Thrace, Itoumania, Galicia, Bessarabia, and South R u s ~ i a . ~ Thessaly continued in the neolithic or sub-neolithic period when the Aegean and the Serbian-Troy areas had reached the Bronze Age. Troy, which was situated on very important trade routes (as we shall see later), was connected with the Anatolian district on the east, and on the west through Serbia with other parts of Europe, but Thessaly lay too far south for this line.9 She was also off the Mycenaean trade routes, thus forming an isolated sort of backwater between these two great metal-using areas, and serving as a buffer State to keep central and southern Greece protected against the Dsnubian peoples. Later on, when the Mycenaean people removed the barrier (by trade or conquest),1° or when the restlessness and pressure from t,he rear sent more and more invaders into the Greek peninsula, Thessal~w as in their path and many of the northerners followed that route. In fact, in the days of the Achaeans, Thessaly was one of the Ibid. p. 227. evidence both in the Cyclades and on the “bid, ch, xiv. mainland of Greece. Mr. R. J. Formdyke (J.H.S. 1914, pp. Mr. V. G. Childe’s study (J.H.S. 1915, pp. 126.-156) regards it as a Trojan fabric, and 196-207) of the stratification at sites in Phoc~s suggests that Greece was once a Trojan pro- which show Minyan ware in all stages of vince and that the Trojan War records a development leads him to believe the vases struggle for the possession of both sides of were not imported from Troy. Neither does the Aegean. He believes that the power lie believe in a Trojan conquest, but he thinks which kept the Minoans from the coast of that Minyan ware, if made in Troy, could have Asia Minor was a people whose most formid- been passed along via the northern Cyclades able ~ i twe a s Troy. where some finds in Syra and Naxos similar This brilliant and interevting hypothesis to Troy 11.-V. show that contact had been can liardly be maintained since the Minyan established. ware has not been proven Trojan, there are 8 Wace azid Thompson, Prehhtoric Y’hasno remains like the Trojan anywhere along saly, p 232. the coast of Asia Minor, and the theory runs Ihzd. p. 233. Q counter to a great deal of archaeological lo Ibid. p. 249. great centres of the Hellenes, and it is quite possible that the shaggy Pheres and barbarous substratum which Homer suggests afford a real hint of internal wars. The contrast between north and south Greece which we find in Homer corresponds with the facts as far as we know them. An interesting by-product of the discussion of Thessalian civilization is a suggestion about the Pelasgians. There is no intention of entering on the Pelasgian controversy : ~ tth is point particularly in the face of the most reasonable explanation made by Dr. Leaf,ll but if Pelasgian implies ancient, out-of-date and uncivilized, it well describes the Thessalian people, the barbarous Pheres, Magnetes and Centaurs. The crude remains, such as the ithyphallic and steatopygous figurines, ~ o i nitn this direction. It seems at any rate a great mistake to make Pelas~ian equal Mycenaean as Professor Ridgeway does, for Wace and Thompson show that the most Pelasgian spots are exactly those which are the least &Iycenaean.le Father Browne13 mentions the fact tthat there is a gap in Homer’s geography which corresponds to Macedonia and that the poet knows the Trojan-Thracian group and the Greek, but not that which comes between. There is a corresponding blank spot in Homer’s Asia Minor (all along the coast) explained as the probable possessions of the Hittites, whose power had been flourishing since Minoan days and had prevented the Cretan mariners from settling in numbers on that littoral.14 One need not suppose an equally powerful people on the Greek side of the Aegean, and Father Browne suggests that this north-western gap may indicate a thrust of barbarians whoin the bards either did not know or preferred not to recognize. I think if there is a blank spot in Homer’s record it lies farther south, as Macedonia is accounted for by the Paeonian allies who formerly occupied more territory than they did in historical times. And while it is still premature to say much about Macedonia, the excavations tend to bridge over the gap between Thrace and Thessaly. Thessaly, rather than Macedonia, appears to have been the backward barbarous area.*5 It is not, however, with the Aegean or Thessalian areas that this paper proposes to deal, but with the peoples who inhabited the Danube Valley and kindred regions. In the interesting eleventh chapter of The Discoveries in Crete, Professor Burrows gives an admirable summary of the finds in certain districts of South Russia and its vicinity, an area, which he conlpares to a triangle the base of which extends from Kiev to northern Bohemia, the western side through Au~triato Trieste and Bosnia, the eastern through Podolia and Bessarabia into Roumania; an east-central line comes through Bukovina and Transylvania, a west-central line through Hungary into Serbia. The eastern line may be extended through Eastern Roumelia, Troy and Yortan in Mysia.l6 Not all the culture in this area is of exactly the same type, and it may be classified as indicated on the map (Fig. I),which shows the close relation- ship between Troy and the Balkan district in what Professor Myres has described as the Great Diagonal Line. The first group, marked on the map by squares, shows the area of the remarkable polychrome painted pottery with spiral and naturalistic designs which belongs to the neolithic period, side by side with the incised fabrics which ordinarily characterize that age. This group may be further subdivided into : (1) The Kiev-Tripolje culture, and (2) The sites with pottery of similar styles. The first is marked by solid squares, the others by hollow squares ; those which lie furtheat west have fewer points in common with Kiev than have the Galician sites. The areas about Kiev, often described as the Tripolje culture (from Tripolje which is forty miles below Kiev on the Dniepr) are arranged in circular groups on high ground which slopes to the water on the south side. These areas were dug out to a depth of from two to four feet and are rectangular in shape, varying from five to ten yards in length and from six to eight in breadth, or occasionally as large as twenty by twelve. The walls were of wattle and clay, sometimes whitewashed and painted red or adorned with a cornice. The floor was apparently of hardened earth and the many lumps of clay which were strewn over it may have been parts of the roof. Amongst these clay fragments were found pottery of distinctive types to be described later, axes of horn or flint, sling stones, grinders, shells, bones of animals, tortoise shells, and small clay figures ‘ that distinctly recall those from Hissarlik.’ l7 Characteristic shapes of pottery are the opera-glass, and ccnical pots with a foot or with angular outline. Spirals or wavy patterns in ribbon-like effects are made by four or five parallel grooves or else painted in reddish or brownish colour on a yellow or red Leaf designs are painted in brown on white or cream, and sometimes a light-coloured design is outlined in brown or black.19 The rare human figures recall the Dipylon style but are less attenuated.%O The figurines show progress from cruciform or slab-like idols to well rounded forms. Many have bird-like faceseZ1 Although most of the axes are of stone, copper is beginning to be used. I t seems improbable that these areas can have served as dwellings as there are no remains of food, discarded pottery, or a permanent hearth. Chvoika believed them to be tombs, although no bones have yet been found. Later discoveries, however, have furnished evidence of both cremation and inhumation.22 Podolia and Petreny belong to this group. One vase from Podolia represents goats, a deer and a dog on the upper zone. Others have backgrounds of black, light brown, yellow or grey with spirals and curves in white, red, orange or brown.23 The same colours and patterns occur at Petreny where in some cases the designs have been painted in black or violet brown on the natural red or yellow surface of the clay; in other instances there is a slip of red or brown (polished) or yellow or white (dull). Though the animals and human figures are not so good as at Tripolje or Podolin, the general effect must have been rich and varied. Knobs and small handles are found, but there is little incised 1vork.24 This pottery may have been evolved in Russia or have been derived from elsewhere. Some scholars advocate an Aegean origin, but as far as one can judge frorn illustrations the resemblances are slight. I t seems rather strange that so much effort has been wasted in endeavouring to derive either the Aegean styles frorn the Russian-Danubian or vice versa. Both sides of the case have been well sumrr~arized by Professor burrow^,^’ and the third view, namely, that of a parallel and independent development, is also presented. This is the view preferred by Dr. ~ o i r n e s a’ ~nd Messrs. Wace and Thompson 27 and appears the most reasonable explanation. Besides the fact that there is almost nothing con~n-~oton the two except painted pottery and the spiral, there is the fact that between them there intervenes a fairly broad zone which includes Thesealy and the upper Balkans, each with rather distinctive styles of their own, and had this painted spiral motive passed through the Balkan peninsula either in a northward or southward direction, it surely would have left some traces. There remains the alternative of a sea-route, b l ~ t insuperable objections to this are that few traces of Aegean civilization have been found on the coast anywhere between Volo and Troy, and no remains of Minoan pottery in South Russia or Thrace, and that it would have had topass right through the Serbian-Trojan zone. In any case, we find it superior in style to most other places in the neolithic period. As in Scandinavia the isolated position allowed fuller developnlent of the neolithic technique in stone objects, so here the lateness of the knowledge of metal afforded the neolithic artists opportunity to develop the pottery which was their forte. Dates are hardly safe, or perhaps even desirable, but Nierderle’s suggestion 28 that it belongs to about 2000 H.C. seems a reasonable one. Of course the Aegean area had been using metal long before this, but there is no reason why even at the height of M.N. this district could not still have been in the stone age. While the origin is still obscure the afiliation is close with Transylvania and Galicia, where the sites at Bilcze Zlote2Q and Horodnicaw furnish many beautiful examples of painted pottery in the Kiev style. These are described by Hoernes as Ukrainian ‘ and include the characteristic opera-glass, the variations of spiral, and use the same rich colours. Another Galician site, K ~ s z ~ l o w cheas~ ~ grey incised pottery and painted ware. Its neolithic period is said to furnish many resemblances to the Thesvalian and to afford a close parallel to Butmir. In the Carpathian district or Transylvania, where both the incised and painted styles occur, Tordos and Kronstadt are two of the most fruitful sites. At Tordos the pottery designs are rectilinear and spiral, red or violet-red on a yellow-ground. In terracotta there are small short-legged animals and female idols with arms horizontally outstretched or placed on the Kronstadt 3Vurnishes many examples of pottery in which the straight and curved bands are drawn with great neatness and exactness. Although white on dark occurs, the converse technique is much more general. As at Y’ordos there are many figures of animals and female idols, but the Kronstadt variety is very steatopygous and fat in the legs. The breasts are small, the navel and knee caps modelled in relief and the head often pierced through with holes. In Rounlania Cucuteni (near Jassy) affords some good examples of polychrome styles.” The earlier neolithic group includes a large number of the fruit-stand type whose shape and certain features of whose decoration recall the wares of Thessaly II., but are by no means identical and may easily be distinguished, since those from Cucuteni are dull and dusty’while those from Thessaly are polished. The later vases which belong to the Chalcolithic or early Bronze Age recall those from Petreny in the use of spirals, and in the placing of the decoration on the upper part of the pots which slope rapidly to a small base. The terracotta figures from Cucuteni are very striking ; the upper part of the body seen in profile is flat and slablike, the head insignificant, and the steatopygy very marked ; seen from the front or back they are broad shouldered and broad across the hips. They are covered with incised decorations, spiral and meander motives, curving lines, semi-circles and a peculiar arrangement giving the effect of drapery drawn very tight about the lower part of the body. 35 These sites then furnish a group which, though not homogeneous, is closely affiliated. When we cross the Danube into Bulgaria we find connexions with Serbia and Bosnia and also with the group just described.B6 There are incised wares with a combination of spiral and geometric designs, parallel lines in ribbon style, impressed chequer patterns arid, less commonly, painted ware akin to the Moldavian and some use of graphite technique;S7 there are flat bone idols with incised decorati0n3~li ke the clay Ukrainian idols,3@f igurines reminiscent of the Cucuteni *O and Russian 41 styles as well as seated figures covered with incised designs whose relationships cannot get be determir~ed.~?O ne rather interesting fragment of a terracotta shows the upper part of a bird, presumably an owl, whose eyes are ellipses with a straight line through the centre, the mouth a cross, the nose beaked, the plumage incised. I t is suggested that it may be meant for a human being clad in an animal’s skin, as we learn from Xenophon and Herodotus that the Thracians dressed in this fashion.43 Bulgaria then seems to have some relation to the Xoldavian district north of’ the Danube and some with Serbia. Messrs. Wace and Thompson point out that in the Sofia museum are many weapons of the usual central European shapes. The bored celts which may imitate metal axes are characteristic of Troy as well and indicate a connexion between Troy and the central Danube valley, but as Troy affords no examples of Moldavian painted pottery the trade route probably branched off and followed the route taken later by the Roman road from Kish to the Hellespont. In Bulgaria the principal finds have been on the Danube at Rasgrad and near Silistria; in the Shum!a district, at Janiboli and Tell Ratcheff near Jamboli; and at ~arioussi tes near Philipp~polis.”~ In the Shumla district the painted Jloldavian pottery is more frequent than near Philippopolis where incised wares are particularly plentiful. The wares of Ratcheff and Metchkur are, however, said by Messrs. Seure and Degrand to be almost identical, although the examples at the latter are a little more carefully done.45 These authors particularly note the resemblances to the Bosnian and Serbian fabrics. The so-called Tomb of Protesilaus, two and and a half nliles north of Sedd ul Bahr across the Hellespont from Troy, and the adjacent gardens were strewn with thick lustrous pottery characteristic of Troy I.; in the tomb were fabrics of Troy I. and 11. styles, stone axes, hammers, querns and balls, a small bronze knife and baked bricks like those from the second and third Trojan cities.4G This was the only tumulus in which Trojan pottery was found by Schliemann, but later discoveries in Thr~ce and Bulgaria have furnished more examples. These help to confirm the statements of Herodotus and Strabo about the connexions between the Phrygians and Trojans and the migrations from southern Europe to Asia. Phrygians and Xysians had both taken the Bosporus route and had left at home in their native Thrace certain of their kinsmen known later as Rryges and Moe~ians.~Q~u ite probably the expansion of these tribes into North-western Asia Minor was part of the same movement which drove their kinsmen the Achaeans southward into the Greek peninsula.48 The centre of distribution evidently lay somewhere in the district towards the Danube and the lines forked of from each other so that t,he Achaeans went southward to the west of the Phrygians. S t r a b ~s’a~ys also that the Phrygians passed from Thrace, killed the king of Troy . . . . . . and settled here, that there was much cornpetitlon for the rich lands and that this had all happened before the Trojan War. Homer’s Phrygian allies come chiefly from Asia Minor. The Phrygians seem to have had cor~nexions to the south-westward also, as the Bryges belonged to Macedonia artd according to Strabo50 the Paeonians were a colony of the Phrygians. Bulgaria forms an easy transition to Group 4, the Bosnian-Serbiap- Trojan line (marked with a triangle). Here the pottery found with neolithic objects is not painted but incised or stamped, though the designs include spiral and curvilinear as well as rectilinear motives. Figurines of human bnings are very plentiful; they are rnostly female and commonly steatopygous. Biha6 and Butmir represent the western extremities of this line, which extends through Serbia, particularly along the Danube as far as Radujevac, including the noteworthy sites of KliEevac and Zuto Brdo, and in the Morava valley as far as In this district VinEa and Jablanica are especially important stations. At Butmir the spiral, curved, straight or rectilinear designs are incised, dotted or stamped on the soft clay of the handmade pottery. Among the figures the simplest form is a slab-idol with outstretched stumps for arms ; others end in pedestalled bases insteat of arms, legs or feet. The necks are long, the faces inclined backward and have sharp noses, no chins, sloping foreheads, eyes with heavily ridged brows which often form a T with the nose. Incised patterns nre frequent on the torsos, which are generally nude, although sometimes they seen1 to have a garment fitting tightly about the hips or are adorned with necklace and garlands in dots.52 At the Bosnian pile village of Ripai: near Bihac anti at Gresine on Lake Bourget have been found hermaphroditic terracottas, and at Ripai: also pyramidal aniconic idols.53 In Serbia along the blorava valley there are remains of dwellings more or less rectangular in plan and constructed of wattle and clay.54 The incised designs on the pottery are both rectilinear and spirals, the closest affinities are with those of Butmir and the Pannonian group of Hoernes. Another favourite technique was decoration by impression or stamping and a third was ‘ highly polished black designs applied to the surface of the vase on the greyish-white slip’ (evidently the graphite style). The incised decorations of the late periods are often filled in with white,55 e.g. KliEevac. Although the well-known figurine from KliEevac is familiar through illustrations, the significance of the site as a whole cannot be too frequently emphasized.jO The red or black pottery incised and filled with white puts this site into connexion with places froin Bosnia to Troy. Dr.’Vassits is inclined to value it for the combination of what he identifies as geometric and Mycenaean elements although the spirals which he derives from Mycenae are characteristic of the very group marked with a triangle on the map. The neighbouring site of Zuto B r d i~s r~ich~ i1 1 figures with incised decorations and hand-made vases, dotted, stamped or incised in the usual style. While at KliEevac some metal occurs even in the lower strata, a true which Dr. Vassits says stands in the same relation to KliEevac as pre-Mycenaean to Mycenaean. Even he sees no southern influence here and the affinities with the other sites in this group are remarkable, especially with Kubin in Hungary, Bosnia, Troy and BOS-0jiik. This is clearly one of the most important sites which has yet come to light. Professor Myres 59 regards it as a site of the utmost significance, enabling one to fill in a missing link between neolithic Butmir and Troy since hitherto there had been only the Thracian ti~muli which were too near Troy to be really intermediate. M. Reinach 60 calls it another link in the chain which connects Bosnia to the Troad and Phrygia, Hungary and Kiev. This he regards as a unified civilization with local differences, but thinks that an attempt at an ethnic name like Thraco-Illyrian or Phrygo-Scythian would be premature. It is with some diffidence that I venture to disagree with this distinguished authority, but it seetns to me that the difference in the two groups is clearly marked, although there doubtless was contact between them. The classification of about 1,000 statuettes in the Belgrade Museum shows that they extend from the earliest nude figures with flat triangular faces to the decadent type with bird’s head and nionstrous nose. Incision is plentifully used to mark the features, necklaces and clothing on the later examples. Standing figures wear a garment like two loin-cloths, square in cut, hanging from the belt, sometimes drawn like a sheath about the hips as at Cucuteni, or with ends hanging in front fastened to the belt with buttons which are represented by little clay knobs. Horizontal bands around the leg may represent boots. A fragmentary bone statuette recalls those from Bulgaria, Troy and T h e s ~ a l y . ~ ~ The attempt made by Dr. Vassits to prove direct connexion between the Aegean and the Serbian cultures mixst be regarded as a failure; the affinities of Serbia certainly seem to lie else where.^^ We may tabulate Groups 3 and 4 as follows :- I. North of the Danube : A. East of Carpathians : 1. ( a ) Kiev-Tchernigov-Tripolje-Poltava-Kherson in the Dniepr valley, (b) Podolia-Petreny-in Dniestr, 2. Galicia (headwater of Dniestr), Cucuteni, Pruth, Bukowina, ,, B. West of Carpathians : 1. Transylvania : Tordos, Kronstadt. 2. Pannonian : Lengyel, Attersee, Mondsee, Trieste. 11. In the Danube Valley or South of Danube : 1. Bosnian : Butmir, Rihad. 2. Serbian : Danube, Morava. 3. Bulgarian : Rasgrad, Silistria-on Danube, Shunlla, Sultan Selo-Upper Maritza, W. branch, Jarnboli-Upper Maritza, E. branch (Tundja), Philippopolis. To sum up: to the north of the Danube the culture along the valleys of its tributaries like the Pruth and the Theiss is closely akin to that in the neighbouring river basins of the Dniepr and the Dniestr; on its southern side as well as along its tributaries the Save, the Drin and the Morava, the connexion is with the Bosnian group. Bulgaria seems to have been the meeting place of both civilizations. But in order to discuss the connexions with Troy, where the remains of the second city afford many close resemblances to this fourth group (triangles on the niap), and where the Balkan-Danubian connexion becomes again evident in the seventh city of the Early Iron Age, we must consider the possible routes from the southern bank of the Danube to the Aegean area. There are three of these, access to all of which is via the Morava. Following up this river to Nish one may go through the mountains and (1) down the Maritza, (2) down the Strymon or (3) across the watershed and down the Axios or Vardar. The first of these routes was taken by the Roman road and also by the Orient Express, and it leads into the parts oF Bulgaria where remains have been discovered on both the upper branches of the Maritza as well as nearer to its mouth in the Aegean, whence there is ant easy connexiorl with Troy. The Strymon route seems not to have been as important as the others in ancient or modern times and the unsettled conditions in the country have made excavations impossible. It is not so accessible from the headwaters of the Morava, but can be reached with little difficulty and is one of the natural outlets from near Sofia to the Aegean in spite of the elevation of the land through which it flows for part of its course. 0 2 196 IDA CARLETON THALLON The map of present and projected railwayss%hows that a road has been proposed through this valley. We shall have to regard it as a route of secondary importance along which there is no good road even now, putting the Orient Express route and the Morava-T7ardar I-oute as the two really. significant passageways. The Romans seem not to have utilised the Axios valley, which was natural enough as they were not so much concerned with north and south as with east and west. Their point of departure was Dyrrachium, thence north-east to Naissus and south-east to Byzantium, roughly two sides of a triangle the base of which was formed by the Via Egnatia, which went as nearly due east and west as the character of the country allowed. As far as Pella or Thessalonica it must have been an exceedingly difficult and uncomfortable journey, but east of the mouth of the Axios it followed the coast in the narrow strip lying south of Rhodope. For various reasons it seems thht such a caravan route must have existed from a very remote period, or at any rate from the days of Homer, as we shall see. The great Morava-Vardar route has been from titne immemorial the corridor between the Danube and the Aegean, whether the tide of travel set from north to south, as in the case of the earliest invaders, or from south to north, as in the case of our allied armies. I t would be absurd to think that the civilization which extended up the Morava stopped short at Nish and did not go down the other side of the mountains via the Axios. ‘ Macedonia,’ to give it its old name, is sure to be a rich field for excavators, for the travels of Messrs. Wace and ThompsonM have brought to their notice a fairly large number of tumuli and settlements in the Salonica district alone. Their researches in Thessaly had fixed the Vale of Tempe as the northern boundary of the Thessaliam culture, although sporadic examples of the wares had been found in Thrace. Thnt northern boundary has now been pushed as far as the Haliacmon valley where sherds of Thessalian I. and 11. were discovered at Serfije, while the investigations in the vicinity of Salonica make it probable that Macedonian culture partook of the character of its neighbours both to south (Thessaly) and to north (Danube-Balkan). In this neighbourhood they observed thirty-four funeral turnuli of a type unknown in south Greece but conlnlon in Thrace and extending also to Pergamon and to Kertch, and twenty-six prehistoric settlements furnish painted pottery which resembles the Thessalian II., 111. and IV., as well as a thin spreading of L. 11. 111. of a type identified as mainland (not Cretan). There is also incised pottery of a simple geometric type, but according to Mr. Wace there was not enough of it to tell its relations to Thessaly, Thrace or Bosnia. 65 These excavations are as yet unpublished and one must not draw premature conclusions, but we can at least connect Macedonia with Thessaly, Thrace, Serbia and Bosnia. 87 Before considering the connexions between Troy and this area we may note that the Bosnian-Serbian line does not stop at Troy. Yortan on the upper valley of the Caicus in Mysia 68 and BOS-0jiik near Phrygian Dorylaion on the S a n g a r i u ~h~av~e furnished pottery similar to the Trojan, although some weapons of bronze show that the former site belongs to the Chalcolithic Age. Mr. Ormerod’s recent discoveries have added several sites which show some connexion with Troy and the Balkans. 70 Broin Thyatira a seated female figurine with flat disc-like face and crossed bands on the breast recalls the lead figurine fi-om Troy as well as one from Selendj (near Thyatira), and is even reminiscent of Bos~iiaa,~nd~ three small vases with animals’heads and beaked forms are said to conie from this vicinity.’li Further researches in riorthern Lycia, south-western Pisidia and southern Phrygia have supplied important material. Tchai-Kenar T3 near the Taurus is connected with both Troy and Cyprus by its pottery which includes burnished black, red-glazed and black-glazed incised wares which belong to the first and second cities at Hissarlik, and ‘ red Cypriote’ painted ware of the early Iron Age. There is also some degenerate Mycenaean tradition and sorne non-Aegean influence which may perhaps have come via Cappadocia from the geometric areas of Western Asia. Two flat little headless figures of coarse white marble from this vicinity are difficult to assign to any particular group, but perhaps belong to the Island type.74 On the basis of the pottery from Senirdjei5 (near Isbarta in north Pisidia) which is chiefly dark grey burnished ware like that from Cyprus and Hissarlik in general style and shapes, decorated with broad, flat scorings, little lumps, or flutings, or rarely with incisions filled with white, the Hellespontine-North Phrygian area is extended further south-eastward. Similar pottery was found at Bounarbashi Giol 76 (near Apamea) together with five early bronze implements, two flat celts, two Cypriote daggers and one unfinished object, presunlably a celt. Other connexions are suggested by two small stone steatopygous figures from T~hukurkenda,s~ t~h is type does not occur at Troy, or at Yortan (where the figures are flat), nor is it characteristic of the Aegean in spite of a few examples. I t is, however, as we have seen, very common in south-west Europe, Thrace and Thessaly. A flat, slablike torso of bucchero with crossed incised bands and punctured decoration from Kul Tepe near Caesarea recalls the Tchai-Kenar figure published by Mr. Peet, and the flat marble figures from Fulga in the Istanoz plain, and may be a crude example of the violin-shaped type found in the cyclades and Hissarlik and at Y0rtan.7~ To sum up: the line may be extended south-east on the evidence of the pottery and figurines while at the same time a counter-influence from Cyprus was making itself felt. We are hardly yet in a position to tell which came first. Certainly the Cypriote influence continued into the Iron Age. Dr. Leaf,79 when discussing the Lycians among the Trojan allies, lays great stress on their commerce, which he believes was carried on principally by sea (see Map, Fig. 2), lout for other purposes the overland route was doubtless FIG.9.-TRADE ROOTEPCOSVERGOIXN GTROY. (1) Paphlagonians and Halizones – – —- – – – – (2) Mysians and Phrygiuns -.-.- .- .-.-.-.- (3) Maeonians, Carians and Lycians -..-. .-.. (4) Thracians and Paeonians –…- – . . .–. . . used. Elsewheres0 he has some very instructive remarks about the difference between routes for commerce and for other purposes which should be borne in mind when one is tempted to a hasty conclusion as to one (and only one) way to reach a place. Naturally it all depends on what you want to transport. Long ago Professor Myres pointed out the connexions between Cyprus and Hissarlik and suggested an overland route. Hissarlik combines European and Asiatic, Danubian and Cypriote elements in pottery, implements, bronze and copper.s1 The recent discoveries have gone a good way towards confirming this view and give us milestones on the route. Contemporary with the Balkan neolithic period was the second city at Troy with its face-urns, its jars with suspension holes, its white-filled incised pottery, its wealth of metal-copper and bronze and the golden royal treasure-as well as the continued use of stone, which bears witness to foreign trade extending from Melos to China, its northern type of megaron and the evidences of great prosperity of the city during its long occupati~n.~~ An important point to be noted regarding strata 11.-V. which succeeded the great second city after its destruction by fire is the possible indication of the first arrival of a fresh civilization before the end of Period V., when painted pottery makes its first appearance.83 The sixth city is of course contemporary with L. 31. and was destroyed in the Trojan war. In the seventh stratum there are records of fusion of the successors of the older city with another wave of invaders. Early Greek geometric pottery is found with crude barbarous ‘knob ware ‘ and with metal axes, hammers, chisels, needles and rings which are neither Trojan nor Greek, but typically Danubian. These may perhaps be attributed to the Treres, a Thracian tribe, who with the Cimmerians crossed the Bosporus in post-Homeric times, probably about the eighth century. A mould for a battle-axe of Danubian type shows that these people were metalworkers and practised their art at Troy itself.84 If we turn next to the testimony of Honler we shall see that the valleys of the Strymon and the Axios belonged to the Paeonians who were numbered among the allies of the Trojans. The Map (Fig. 2) shows in graphic form the four lines which Dr. Leaf takes to ‘ represent the four trade routes which converged on Troy,’ starting from the four groups of allies given in the Trojan c a t a l o g ~ e . ~ ~ The three of these which lie in Asia Minor need only passing mention ; they are (1)the Yaphlagonians and the Halizones from far-away Alybe who dwelt along the shore of the Black Sea, tapped the country lying to the south and shipped their goods via the Bosporus and the Helle~pont.~~ (2) There were the Mysians and Phrygians, the near neighbours of the Trojans, who lived up in the back country and who had doubtless crossed from Thrace at a remote peri0d.~7 (3) There were the Maeonians, Carians and Lycians, who probably were traders rather than fighters and who followed a line up the coast inside the islands by what was known as the ‘ inner lead.’88 (4) Another group of lines which led to Troy particularly concerns us. ‘But Akamas and Peiroos led the Thracians, ever1 all them who are bounded by swift-flowing Hebruu. ‘ And Euphemos was captain of the war-like Kikones.’ ‘ Pyraichmes led the Paeonians of the crooked bow from far-away An~ydon, from the wide-flowing Axios, Axios whose water is the fairest that flows upon the earth.’ 89 In a word, they are Thracians bounded by the EIellespont, Paeonians from the Axios, and Kikones between them. No Thracian tribes are specified and no town named in the catalogue, but Peiroos, one of their leaders, comes from Ainos, the harbour at the mouth of the Hebrus and the obvious port for that valley?O exactly the Maritza on which we found there were plentiful remains. Next to them came the Kikones with no specific boundaries mentioned, but other evidence connects them with Mount Ismarus, which separated them from the Hebrus valley. It is not easy to say where was the ancient port; it was probably at Dede A g a t ~ h . ~ l The Paeonians, as Professor Macurdy Q2 has shown, originally occupied far more extensive territory than they did later when the Macedonians drove them back to the upper Axios. They doubtless extended from the Nestos to the Axios, including on the way the Strymon and the Pangaeus range. That they were people of great wealth and importance is clearly manifest, for they had the gold and silver mines of Pangaeus and rich fertile country for corn-growing. Probably a large part of what was later Macedonia mas formerly inhabited by the Paeonians, whether they bebonged to the Thracian or Illyrian stock. These I think, anyway, were branches of the same people from the Danube district. The Thracians are specially mentioned for their metal work, goblets, and great swords, and also for their white horses, which were famous from the time of Rhesus throughout classical antiquity. If we include in Paeonian territory the mouths of the Axios and Strymon, we should undoubtedly connect them by a road via Lake Bolbe cross the top of Chalcidice. From Troy the sea route to Salonica would have been both long and dangerous, as Xerxes learned to his cost. From the mouth of the Strymon the route to Troy might be overland via the coast towns already mentioned, or across the sea by a straight south-east course, or by the stepping-stones of Thasos, Samothrace, Imbros and Lemnos. This connexion seems more than likely in view of Professor Macurdy’s researches, which are based chiefly on names and religion. The Dardanians gave their name to the Dardanelles and seem to have followed the route to Troy via Samothrace, the island which Pausanias says had originally been called Dardania.9″ardania-Paeonia, was from early times an important commercial centre, right on the trade-route from the Danube and much metal must have passed that way. In historic times the coinage of that region was remarkably rich, as the researches of Af. Svoronos have shown.g4 Hardly enough excavation has taken place to prove much about remains, but there must have been some contact as the references to 1,enlnos and Imbros in the lliad show. Moreover, Lemnos kept up relations with both Trojans and Greeks ; Dr. Leaf describes the Letllnian attitude to the Greeks as one of ‘ friendly neutrality’ ; it was a base of supplies and a market for slares, but also maintained commercial relations with the Trojans, acting as brokers for the ransom of important prisoners.95 Maybe its position was like that of the present Switzerland, which has had to keep on friendly terms with both sides in the war. These converging lines ind~cate that Troy was a meeting place for people from both sides of the Aegean, and that the whole Hellespontine district must be regarded as a geographical unit. One is tempted to conclude that at one time all roads led to Troy whether they were land routes or over the wet sea ways. Dr. Leafs view, now familiar to all scholars, is that Troy’s wealth was due to her control of the Dardanelles, and that with the fall of Troy and the opening of the Straits to the Greeks her glory departed. This would give a reasonable explanation of why she never rose again to any importance after the destruction of the Homeric city. The fact that the book Troy, a Study in Homeric Geography, was published in 1912 will show that this suggestion was based on independent evidence and in no wise influenced by recent events, which have demonstrated so clearly the infinite importance of the control of the Dardanelles. And it was not only the Dardarielles which contributed to Troy’s dominant position. Salonica, that other strategic point of such value to the Allies-at first during a long period of apparent inactivity and then as a base for a great movement northward which reached to the Danube and beyond-Salonica seems also to have had close connexions with Troy. We find that Troy was but slightly influenced by the Aegean civilization, and if we believe that the Greeks of history represent the fusion of northern or Achaean conquerors with their Mycenaean subjects, and that the northern element was Greek or Hellenic par excellence, then we nlay not only accept Professor Bury’s suggestion that the Trojans were Greeks,96 but also, paraphrasing Hibernis ipsis Hiberniores, we may say that they were more Greek than the Greeks themselves. Thio would be of course but an absurd half truth, for to Troy as to Hellas many elements contributed. We do not know what was the original stock at Troy, but we know that the Danubian element came early and came often, that there was connexion with Cyprus and with the Anatolian districts, but that the Aegean influence was temporary and apparently rather superficial, and that after it had passed the old European kinsmen once more poured into the city of their ancestors

The Trojans were doubtless early immigrants from the Balkan peninsula.How comes it that their rulers have Greek names? The name of Priamhimself is not indeed obviously Greek, but in its Aeolic form Perramos it maywell be so ; and Prism’s father was Laomedon. Hector is Greek as Kestor,and was in later time the name of a prince of Chios. Paris has the secondname of Alexandros; and the natural assumption is that “9aris” was aPhrygian name given him by his Phrygian mother, Hecuba. The names ofthe other children of Prianl who come into the story-Cassandra, Helenus,Deiphobus, etc.-are Greek. We have to choose between two inferences.Either the bards deliberately substituted Greek for foreign names, or therulers of the Troad were Greek. The second alternative, startling as it mayappear, seems to us to accord with other evidence and to afford the mostsatisfactory explanation of the data of the Iliad. If there had been anygreat or radical distinction between the Achaean and Trojan civilizations it isdifficult to see how these could have been completely ignored, or successfullyconcealed by poets who gave such a faithful ,representation of the topographyand evidently were fully acquainted with the character and resources of theenemy. . . . Is there any good reason to resist the simplest and most logicalconclusion that Greeks had conquered the Troes and settled in the Troad,and that Mycenaean Troy was a Greek outpost.’ Further on Professor Burywrites : ‘ The Achaeans had reduced the great Greek states of the peninsula ;in attacking Troy they go on to reduce a great Greek state which hadestablished itself in Asia Minor. Can we corljecture whence the Greekfounders of Troy came ? Was it possibly from Attica ? ‘ Professor Buryrefers’to the appearance of the Attic Poseidon, Erichthonios, in the Trojangenealogy and to the legend that Poseidon helped to build the walls ofTroy as possible support for his theory.The connexion of Troy with the Balkans and the Danube has beenpointed out by a number of writers in recent years and I have discussedsome aspects of this connexion in several papers. I wish to present a pointwhich so far as I know has not been urged before and one which seems to meto strengthen the northern clam as against that of Attica. This is the coincidence between the typical Trojan names and those which are foundmost commonly in the ruling tribes of the northern part of the Balkanpeninsula. The fact that Priam’s son Paris has the Greek name of Alexanderhas attracted universal attention and only second to this in interest has beenthe fact that Prinm’s daughter Cassandra is the feminine of a well knownname, Cassander, in the Macedonian royal line. (See Hoffnlnnn, ~Vakedonen,208-209.) In his study of the Macedonians Hoffmann shows (p. 119) thatWilarnowitz has been unfortunate in his choice of names used to illustratehis theory that the royal house of Macedon in its eagerness for Greek cultureadopted Greek heroic names in order to make connexions with the earlyGreek tradition. Hoffmann rightly points out that the son of Priam was nota Hellene in the eyes of Macedonians any more than in those of Greeks, andmoreover that the names of Alexander and Cassander could not possiblyhave been given to the Macedonian heirs-apparent in remembrance of the’ Weiberheld ‘ Paris or the ‘ Ungliicksseherin ‘ Cassandra.I quote Hoffmann further in order to use his argument to strengthen myown thesis.-‘It is precisely the names of the great (Greek) heroes of Homerthat are rare in the Macedonian families and this should give us pause. Ifour convincing evidence testifies that the ‘BIacedonians were Greeks, whyshould not the names comtnon with them which also appear in Greek heroiclegend have been true and autochthonous Macedonian names ? ‘ (p. 20).I hope to show iu the following examination of Trojan names that thesame names or names of the same type prevail in and are characteristic ofthe northern parts of Greece, which are in immediate contact with theDanubian region and trade-route.The compounds Alexandros, Cassandra, Lusandros, Peisandros, Alkandros(a Lycian ally), names of Trojans in the Iliad, are by-forms of Alexanor,Kassanor, Lusanor, Peisanor, etc. (Fick-Bechtel, pp. 5s and 60). Such namesare especially characteristic of Macedon and North Greece. (See Hoffmannand Fick-Bechtel, loc, cit.) In the Iliad the great majority of names of thistype belong to Trojans and to chieftains, or, in one instance, to a priest’s son,whose ancestry belongs to the north directly or in irrlmediately traceableconnexion. The one exception is Hypgenor, son of Hippasos, who appears asa Greek in one of those casual lists of the slain in which Homer disregardsdistinctions made elsewhere. Hypsenor in 12. 5. 76 is a Trojan priest ofSkamander, to the account of whose death several lines are given, and thesons of Hippasos in the eleventh book (428) are Trojans, Charops and Sokos. The names of this formation which are consistently Tro,jan are Agenor,Antenor, Bienor, Deisenor, Hyperenor, Peisenor. Hypsenor is also Trojanwhen the name is of any real significance, as already noted. There remain inthe I l i a d Agapenor, Elephenor, Prothoenor, and Euchenor. Of these thefirst, Agapenor, is lord of the Arcadians, who dwell about the tomb ofAepytos. Wilarnowitz (Phil. linterszcchungen, ix. 59 ff.) has shown theconnexion of this tribe with Thessaly, and I have in other papers (T.A.P.R.1915, 121-128; C.J. 1917, 587-592) called attention to then] as sharing theepithet ‘close-fighting’ with the Dardnnians, the Mysians in Europe, and the Myrmidons. Elephenor belongs to the royal family of the tribe of Abantesin Euboea. Their northern method of fighting is noted by Plutarch(Theseus, 1.5) and in the Catalogue their fashion of dressing their hair ismentioned in a way recalling the Thracian and Achaean mode. We learnfrom Aristotle, quoted by Strabo, that they were a Thracian tribe that hadbeen resident in Phocis before coming to Euboea (Strabo, x. 445;Herodotus, i. 146 x). We evidently have to do with persistent racialcharacteristics surviving among iiumigrants. The next name of this typeis that of Prothoenor, who is mentioned in the Catalogue as leader of theBoeotians. His death occurs in the fourteenth book. He is n~entionedi nthe catalogue along with Arkesilaos and Klonios, two names of markedlyMacedonian character (see Hoffmann’s list of Macedonian names, pp. 278 ff.).There is one Boeotian patronymic of this type, Alegenorides, belongingto Promachos in 14. 503. There remains the name Euchenor of 11. 13. 663.He is the son of the seer Polyidos, about whom Sophocles wrote his playentitled MC~VT4BLIIFo X~L~OanFd, is of the stock of Melampus, who, accordingto the firm of the legend preserved by Pindar and Diodorus, came fromThessaly.Of the names of this formation then seven nre Tro,jan, one is given to aleader of the Thracian Abantes, an immigrant tribe with northern characteristicsin the island of Euboea, one is a Corinthian whose family comes fromThessaly, one is a leader of the close-tighting Arcadians, another immigrationfrom Thessaly. There is left but one, Hypsenor, who is really Trojan whenHomer stops to think, bnt dies in a casual list of Greeks, a livt marked withthe carelessness characteristic of books in which the great battles occur.Another group of names which is almost exclusively Trojan are thoseending in -damas. They are Adamas, Amphidamas, Eurydamas, Chersidamas,Hippodamas, Laodamas, Poulydamas. These have but one exceptionto their overwhelmingly Trojan character, namely Amphidamas, which in thetenth book, that book of so many exceptions, is applied to a Cytherean, whilein the twenty-bhird (87) the name is given to a north Greek from Opus,father of the boy slain by Patrocius. These names again show Dardanianconnexions and often belong to a priest or mantis. The most celebrated ofthese is the great Dardanian seer, Poulydamas. There is also Eurydamas,the Dreamer, and Iphidamas, the son of Theano ths priestess, and broughtup in Thrace. These names do not appear in the royal house of Macedon, as the -anor, -andros, group does, but they are also characteristic of northGreece. The name Polydamas belongs to Thessalian tyrants of Pherae inhistorical times and a Polydamas of Pharsalos. was envoy to Sparta in375 BC. Xenophon describes him as hospitable and magnificent in trueThessalian manner (Hellen. 6. 1. 3). Another Poulydamas of Skotussa inThessaly was victor at Olympia in the pancration in 408 B.C. His statue wasmade for Olympia by Lysippus and legend grew rapidly about his name.(See Frazer, Paus. 4. 17 ff.)I should judge the name Polydamas to be like Alexandros, Alexanor,Amynandros, Amyntas, Aleuas, originally a name for a northern deity, after wards given to kingly and priestly personages. The names Laodameia,Eurydarneia, Eurydice, and Eurykreousa, have the same history according toGruppe and other writers on Greek religion. The place names Antandrosand Skamandros (the river) belong here.Another group of names which is prevailingly Trojan is that in whichLao- forms the first member. These are Laodamas, Laokoon (not in Iliccd),Laodike Ilaomedon, Laodikos (son of Antenor, in A.4. 87, but comrade ofAntilochos in 17.699), Laogonos (16.604 ; 20. 460) son of the priest of IdaeanZeus in the sixteenth book and son of Bias in the twentieth, and Laodike,daughter of Priam, who bears a name famous in the Seleucid family.Laodameia is the Thessalian heroine and with the second of these names,Laodikos, forms the exception to the rule that these compounds in the Iliadare Trojan names. There is a Leiokritos, son of Arisbas, whose name appearsin the Ionicized form A~LCAIC~LaTndO Fis believed by Hoffmann to come fromXeio-, not Xu&.The names in which -1aos forms the last part vary between Greek andTrojan, Menelaos being Greek, Erylaos Trojan, Agelaos Trojan in 8. 257 andGreek in a miscellaneous list of Greeks slain in 11. 303, in which appearothers who elsewhere are Tro,jan, i.e., Opheltes, Doiops, and Autonoos.Arkesilaos, a strongly Macedonian name, is leader of the Boeotians with twoothers, Prothoenor and Klonios.The frequency of the tribal names in -ops among the north Greek stocksis noted by Hoffmann (op. cit. p. 131), diting Eduard Meyer and Fick. Hequotes Ellopes, Dryopes, Dolopes, Deuropes, the town in Macedon Douriopos.With these names he connects the name of Aeropos, the grandfather ofAmyntas. Of this type in the Iliac1 are the Trojan names Dryops (20. 455),Charops, son of Hippasos (11.426), Merops (2.831), Enops (16.401 ; 14.445),Phaenops (5. 152; 17. 312). This last natne is used of two or more people,always Trojans. Dolopion is priest of Skarnander in 5. 77 and father ofEurydamas. Apollo takes the shape of Phaenops, son of Asios, in 17. 583,and of Asios, son of Dymas, in 16. 718. The Charops of the Catalogue 672,husband of Aglaia and father of Nireus, is not a Trojan. Dolops is Greek inthe miscellaneous list in 11.303.Among the single names that take us to Macedon is that of ArgeadesPolymelos, an unknown Trojan slain (16. 416) by Patroclus. His name isthe one by which the members of the royal family of Macedon, the Argesdae,designated themselves. Hoffmann cominents on the specially Macedonian character of the ending4or. The name Amyntor is noted by him as a true Macedonian formation.Hector is of course of this type as well as Alastor and Damastor, the first ofwhich denotes a Trojan in 5. 677 and in patronymic form is used with Trosin 20. 463, though elsewhere used of a Greek, while the second is used inpatronymic form of a Trojan in 16. 416. Well known names among theGreeks of this type are Nestor and Kastor. In 16. 401 Thestor, son ofEnops, is a Trojan, but the epithet Thestorides belongs to Kalchas.The ending -Icoon, which appears as a single name as son of Antenor inJ.H.S.-VOL. XXXIX. 11. 249 and 256, appears to have Thracian connexions. Koon is the son ofThcano and is killed, in the eleventh book, defending his brother Iphidamas,who was brought up in the home of their Thracian grandmother. Hiswounding of Agamemnon at this time is referred to again in 19. 52.Demokoon is a bastard son of Prianl, who comes from Abydos. His swifthorses are mentioned. Hippokoon in 10. 518 is a councillor of the Thracians and a noble nephew of Rhesos. DePkoon in 5. 534 is in the company ofAeneas and is called the son of Pergasos, a Thracian-sounding name. He issaid to have been honoured by the Trojans as much as the sons of Priam,because he was swift to fight among the first. The priest Laokoon, the bestknownbearer of this type of name, is not mentioned by Homer. He iscalled by later writers a brother of Antenor, the Dardanian leader, or ofAnchises.Usener (Rh. MUS. 1896, 354) regards these names as compounded withthe verb ~co~itvo, hear, and translates Hippokoon as ‘ Der Rosse wartend.’ Ithink this unlikely, and would suggest that the name may possibly have todo with the word Ica6~~fqo und in Greek inscriptions in Lydia and discussedby D. M. Robinson in the American Journal of Philology for 1913, pages362 following. Two glosqes of Hesychius may bring these names inconnexion with the god Koas (see A.J.A. 1913, p. 366), i.e. Eitpv~das=E6p6r~opova nd rh rc6ov = pQyaamong the Laconians (Hes. S.V.Eitpvtc6woa).Deikoon is mentioned as son of Pergasos, a name which would have thesame meaning as Priamos according to the etymology suggested for Priamoson page 47 of the American Jozwnal of Archaeology for 1912. I quote asfollows from the article on the first instalment of Greek inscriptions fromSardes, published by Professors Butler and Robinson :-‘ Bria or Berga occursfrequently in the Phrygo-Macedoniitn languages, and there was a cognateform pria or perga, the first in Priamos and perhaps in Priene, the latter inIldpyapos and 1r6pyoq.These groups of names, which are so overwhelmingly Trojan in Homer’suse of them, which also have such a foothold in the legend and history of theBalkan area, confirm other evidence whlch points to that part of Europefrom Epirus to Thessaly and the countries along the Danube and the Vardar,which are known by the archaeological remains to have been in contact withGreece, as the European home of the Trojans. Professor Bury rests hisargument on the genealogy in the twentieth book and on the later activities of Athens in the Troad. For the Phrygo-Macedonian connexion we havethe indisputable tradition of Dardanrls and his migration and that of’ theclose-fighting Dardanians and their neighbours, the metal-working Paeonians.Dr. Walter Leaf says in Homer and History (p. 72 f.) :-‘ The Phrygianlanguage was closely akin to the Greek and the two nations had doubtlesscome down together or nearly together fro111 the Danube \.alley. TheDardanians had taken the south-eastern road, while the Achaeans hadpassed on south-westwards.’ HoEnlann argues that the Dlacedanians wereGreeks. Kretschmer, with the same view as that of Leaf, states the case morejustly than Hoffmann. He says (Eilzleittmg, p. 288) that we should regard the Macedonians as a people closely related with the Greeks, who if they hadturned toward the sout,h could have become Hellenic no leas than theDorians, Thessalians, and Boeotians. But they spread out toward the northan$ absorbed a number of non-Greek races and so became alienated fromthe Hellenic race as it developed within the southern peninsula, and thereforethey were denied the name Hellenic. The names of the northern areaappear in Sparta especially.The most interesting group of northern names corlsists of those which areobviously connected with deities. No name is more firmly rooted in Macedon,Epirus, and Thessaly than Alexander. The by-form of this, Alexanor, is adeity worshipped in connexion with Asklepios and in the form Alexenor isquoted by Hesychius from Aristophanes as an epithet of Asklepios. Anotherverb of apotropaic meaning, i.e., &j.~6uw,gives the names Amyntor, Amyntas,and Amynandros in Macedon, Thessaly, and E p i r ~ ~wsh, ile a tribe Atnyntaeis quoted as living is Thesprotia. In Athens the ~ m ~ n e i oannd the godArnynos worshipped with Askle~iaste stifj. to the religions value of the word.The great Thessalian family of Aleuadae have their name from Aleuas fromthe apotropaic verb L ~ e d o ,and I have discuhsed the verb ~ E X C K ~inClassical Philology for June, 1918, in considering the derivation of theword c E ~ b s ~ o p .Names of this sort are appropriate to the time when,as Halliday says in his book on Greek Divination, the connexion betweenmantosun6 and royalty was close. I quote hirn on this subject :-‘ lndeed thekings of the legendary past were manteis, and t’hey possessed the otherfunctions of that office no less than the power of cleansing from blood'(p. 68); ‘. . . . And like Saluioneus and Atreus the manteis were connectedwith the weather, or the sun. . . . The parentage of Medea and Circe showsthe children of the sun as magiclans itnd prophets’ (p. 70).Herodotus tells a story of the founding of the kingdom of Macedon bya bit of sun-magic on the part of Perdiccas, the l ~ t t l es hepherd who becamethe founder of the Mscedonian house of kings. It is probable that the nameof the Sun Elektnr comes from the verb AXQICO.which has also produced thename for that notable amulet, ~ ~ X E K T ~aOmVbe, r.These sacred and royal names, Alexandros, Cassandra, Eurydamas,Poulydamas, and others, which could be shown to have the same psychologicelmeaning in origin, are characterietic of the Balkan area as well as ofTroy. I believe that they indicat,e that Homer preserved a genuine traditionof Tro-jan names and that the coincidence with north Greek names, especiallyof the Macedonian type, cannot be accidental, but adds weight to the otherevidence for the Danubian provenance of the Trojans, or at least of theDrtrdanian inhabitants of Troy during the splendid time of the sixth stratumand at the time of the Trojan war.I have not givon a complete list of all the distinctively Trojan names,but rest my case chiefly on the names of the Antenor-Antandros, Alexenor-Alexandros, etc., type, together with those of the Poulydarnas type and thosewhich show the ending -ops. I attach importance also to the appearance ofthe name Argeades among the Trojans. The names are interesting, not only from the historical, but also from thereligious aspect.The northern gentile names Dardanus and Paeonides are used naturallyby Homer for individuals on the Trojan side.The great name of Hector does not appear in the royal house or amongthe noble families of Macedon. A Macedonian of that name, ‘ Parmenionisfilius, in paucis Alexandro carus,’ is mentioned in Curtius 4. 8. 7 ; 6. 9. 27(Hoffmann, op. cit. 207). An intentional choice of the name of the weakAlexander-Paris cannot be imputed to the Macedonians, and the greatfrequency of the name of Hector’s brother, while his own does not appear,must be due to the strong religious meaning (protector) which is seen inAlexandros, Amyntas, and Aleuas, epithets attached in one form or anotherto many deities of healing whose worship originates in the Balkan and Danubian region.

The Trojan Origin of Roman Civilization
Students have long struggled, often in vain, with the rules of Latin grammar. It’s not the parsing out of the various endings of nouns, adjectives, and verbs that causes the main trouble. One eventually memorizes them or learns to recognize them. Rather, the structure of sentences seems strange to the mind of an Indo-European native speaker. Also, Latin’s heavy use of gerundive and absolute constructions: all those verbal nouns entail a very different pattern of thinking than goes on in modern European languages.
But in the eyes of a Hungarian or Turk, the grammar of classical Latin should seem oddly familiar. Their languages are rich in gerundive and absolute constructions. A sentence structure in which certain words are encapsulated within others in an order that confounds Indo-Europeans makes everyday sense (verbs in Germanic and Slavic languages form a partial exception). Yet Latin is the mother of the Romance languages and the fons et origo of grammatical studies in Europe.
An intriguing scenario might help explain this apparent paradox.
Some Greek writers held that the Etruscans were Trojans; and a great deal of myth, echoed by Vergil, claimed that Aeneas and other escapees from the destruction of Troy were the founders of Rome (the alternative to the myth of Romulus and Remus). Yet the Etruscans have come down in history as mysterious invaders from the East, or as autochthonous types (according to some scholars), whose language defies translation and seems related only to the remnants of Lemniac once spoken on the island of Lemnos.
Here is an explanation.
Let us assume that the “horse-taming” Trojans were a people who originated in the steppes and spoke a Ural-Altaic language like those in the modern world: Finno-Ugric languages, Turkic languages, Mongol, and Manchu–and their more distant cousins Korean and Japanese. Perhaps a few generations before the fall of Troy (traditionally 1184 B.C. but likely somewhat later), the Trojans settled on both banks of the strategic Straits leading from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.
The Trojans possessed an instinct for domination and great military prowess (equal to the task of destroying the Hittite cities and the Mycenaean palaces, for which they must be considered the prime suspect, as well as becoming one of the Peoples of the Sea who attacked Egypt and eventually settled as the Philistines on the coast of Canaan). They would have intermingled genetically with the peoples they subjected, and presumably they picked up some local vocabulary and customs as well. The Trojans’ superior might enabled them to control the trade through the Straits, either via attacking merchant ships or by levying a toll. Presumably they also engaged in trade themselves and thereby amassed the wealth that went into building the fortress city of Troy with the “topless towers” that withstood a Greek siege for a long time. Control of both banks of the Straits was essential to this strategy, and it fits much better the realistic demands of a rich kingdom such as Troy’s than the picture of an isolated, inexplicably powerful city that emerges from the Iliad. For the sake of argument, we can posit that the Trojans were roughly equally divided between the European and Asian banks, with smaller numbers occupying islands like Lemnos.
Meanwhile, the Greeks (Achaeans) had begun to expand their range, venturing into the Black Sea, the Balkans, and throughout the Mediterranean, primarily as traders and with the greatest seafaring capability of all the regional peoples. But they were divided into warring clans.
At some point, the Greeks must have become fed up with the depredations and/or exactions of the Trojans on their shipping through the Straits. They overcame their incessant quarrels in a bid to smash the Trojan monopoly of the Straits and to get their hands on the rich booty that the city of Troy offered. The Greeks were able to put many tens of thousands of men on the field for years on end. This gave them a significant numerical superiority over the Trojans on the Anatolian side because the Greek fleet could blockade the Straits area and thereby split the Trojan forces in three, preventing the European and island contingents from coming to Troy’s aid. Also, naval superiority permitted the Greeks immediately to open the Black Sea to shipping and thereby obtain supplies and trading advantage to help ease the financial burden of the long war.
Once Troy fell, the “European” Trojans had three options: fight–probably to the death against superior numbers, permit themselves to be subjugated or enslaved by the triumphant Greeks, or escape. Their merchants and adventurers must have been familiar with Balkan trade routes, so it was natural that they should escape through present-day Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia. Settling in the Balkans was not an attractive option: too close for comfort to Greece. So the Trojans had a choice between heading north into Central Europe or turning west into northern Italy, and they chose the latter. Their military prowess and relatively advanced technology permitted them to dominate the less organized local Italian peoples. In turn, the locals did not have a clue who these “Etruscans” were (although many observers have noted the linguistic similarity of the words “Trojan” and “Etruscan”). The Greeks, however, knew very well that they were escaped Trojans.
The Trojans on Lemnos and other islands were stranded by the Greek fleet and so eventually succumbed to Greek conquest, colonization, and assimilation, as did any remnants of Anatolian Trojans who survived the Greek victory.
In other words, the highly plausible assumptions that the Trojans were roughly equally present on the two banks of the Straits and that the Greeks wielded naval superiority provide a major reason why the Greeks won the war (by dividing the Trojan forces), why the Trojans could have been so severely defeated yet show up not long thereafter in sufficient numbers to conquer northern and central Italy, and why the only language traditionally connected with Etruscan is Lemniac.
In Italy, it is not clear how long it took the Etruscans to reach the hills of Rome; but whether it was a year or two, or a generation or two, eventually they did. Even if the Roman accounts of the rule of the Etruscan kings in Rome leave much to be desired, Etruscans clearly played a dominant role in Rome for a long time. But this Etruscan role went deeper than merely providing a source of cultural artifacts that the Romans “borrowed”. How exactly the Etruscans related to their more numerous Latinii underlings remains shrouded in obscurity, but a logical explanation would be that the hundreds or several thousand Etruscan warriors who enforced the kings’ rule gradually intermarried with Latinii, and these Etruscan-Latinii spoke among themselves a parlance that grafted an Italic, Indo-European vocabulary onto an Etruscan grammar, forming the basis of the classical Latin spoken by the patrician class. These patricians also retained the Etruscan military and cultural ethos, though the leaders of the “Romans” who subsequently overthrew the Etruscan king Tarquin the Proud were not eager to remind people that they themselves had descended from the Etruscan elite. They were in effect Etruscans under the veneer of their Italianate vocabulary.
In other words, the fundamental, distinctive characteristics of Rome that led to its disciplined, aggressive, enormously successful military expansion and its well-organized civic life were neither home-grown nor borrowed from the Etruscans but rather were part-and-parcel of the Trojan-Etruscan inheritance of the Roman people, and specifically of the close-knit patrician class.
In this context, the befuddlement of poor Indo-Europeans–whether the Roman plebs or modern students–over classical Latin makes profound sense. Latin has a grammar that clearly places it within the large Ural-Altaic family.
In fact, we can be more specific.
For a long time Hungarian scholars have argued that Etruscan was related to Hungarian (Magyar). A recent book by a senior Italian linguist (Alinei, 2003) refines and buttresses this argument. Alinei finds a remarkable resemblance between Etruscan and ancient Magyar magistrature names as well as similarities in typologies, vocabulary, and historical grammar between Etruscan and Hungarian. Like some Hungarian scholars, he posits a “theory of continuity” that places Hungarians as inhabiting the Carpathian-Danubian area from a much earlier time than other evidence suggests.
But the argument here is that in fact the Trojans/Etruscans were Ugric-speaking cousins of the Hungarians, not Hungarians themselves. The Hungarians continued to live in the steppes north of the Black Sea during the long centuries of the histories of the Trojans, Etruscans, and Romans. The Ugric branch of the Finno-Ugric language group (itself a subset of the Ural-Altaic language family) thus included four languages: the languages of the Khanty and Mantsi peoples of Siberia, Magyar, and Trojan/Etruscan. In terms of grammar, the Ugric branch included a fifth language as well: Latin.
This account of the origin of Latin lends the study of Latin greater value than it would otherwise possess, for a student actually learns the basic grammar of one major group of languages and the vocabulary of another one.
And the pattern went deeper than linguistics. Via this cultural transmission belt, a specific disciplined, aggressive steppe/Central Asian pattern of ordering human society came to form the template for much of what came later in the history of Western Civilization. Obviously, the Roman way of doing things remained but one of competing traditions–yet an especially prevalent and recurringly dominant one.

A historic hunt for the origins of the Etruscans and the Thracians

Lets attempt to trace them backwards in time and see where that takes us. The Etruscans are generally associated with the Villanovan Culture of Italy. This culture entered Italy from the south, from the direction of the Balkans, where traces of the Etruscans were also found. Several early Greek writers even stated that the Etruscans were related to the pre-Greek aboriginals of Greece, known as the Pelasgians. The American archeologist Hencken has stated that the Italian Villanovan Culture that entered Italy is Balkan in origin. This area was for a long time inhabited by the people known as the Thracians, whose very name sounds much like “Tursci”, which is the local Latin name of the Etruscans. Thrace had a very long history from about 1800BC to the start of the Christian Era. Later they also spread to the Eastern Carpahian Basin under the name of Dacian, a name which sounds a bit like the early ethnic designation of the Scythian tribe known in the east as Daha, who lived in western Asia.
The origin of the Etruscans is a hotly debated subject, especially since Italians have a historic tie to them and wish to keep them close to their origins. The theories about their origins often tends to just repeat the old disproven or misunderstood ideas. Some have claimed that they were in Italy before the coming of the Latins, while many other classical writers claim their origin from Anatolia. They were an ally of Troy. There is no agreement. Some claim their known presence in northern Italy from about 1600BC to late references as late as 400AD, while others claim only 700BC to 14AD. The Etruscans also had many ties also with the land of Greece, whose culture was based to a large extent upon the non Greek Pelazgians, who are also often mentioned by the Greeks, as relatives or even identical to the Etruscans. Both of these cultures provided the foundation of the later Greco – Roman civilization, without whom it never would have attained the levels that it did.

It is believed by such scholars as Beekes that they came to Italy around 1200 BC, after the Latins, who were already living there from about 1850 BC. Some classical writers such as Dionysus of Halicarnassus, argued that the Etruscans were the original people of the peninsula while others like the Greek Herodotus, claimed that they were colonists of the Lydians. However, since their language wasn’t like Lydian that cannot be true, even though Lydian had the most loan words from Etruscan according to Steinbauer. The more likely explanation of this misunderstanding is explained very well by the Dutch historian/linguist Beekes who proves that the Meonians and Mysians of Asia Minor, became the subjects of the Lydians and eventually they were forced to leave their homelands because of various famines and foreign invasions that ravaged this area around prior to 1200BC. They had however lived as neighbors with the Lydians for about 800 years, prior to this. The Lydians were a became a mixed people of partly IndoEuropean origin that crossed to Asia Minor and adopted even the names of some of their subjects, and assimilated their culture and language to the point that their vocabulary was less then 20% IndoEuropean, because many of their subjects were the people of local non IndoEuropean origin. Hellanicus of Lesbos however wrote that Tyrrhenians, were previously called Pelasgians, the pre Greek inhabitants of Greece and surroundings. The term Pelasgoi however, was also used as an ethnic designator at this time in north west Anatolia. Similarly the Tyrrhanians (Etruscans) are also attested on the Kumdanli inscription, in Anatolia near lake Askania, which is modern Lake Burdur. This Etruscan link with the Pelasgians therefore is quite likely, because there were quite a few pre-Greek place names in Greece also that are not Greek in origin, nor are they IndoEuropean, but which have Etruscan twins, or Etruscan etymologies. {Spur=city & also citizenry/Etruscan, Sparta/Greece; Corithos/Etruscan, Corinthos/Greece; Curtun/Etruscan, Gurton/Greece; tepa=hill/Etruscan, Thebes/Greece, etc.[also in FinnUgor tempe and Turkic tepe], Knosos is also a non-Greek name. The foundation of the Parthenon in Athens is called Pelasgian, since they probably built it, before the Greeks took it over.}
According to the Phoronis: “Phrastor was the son of Pelasgus, their king, and Menippe, the daughter of Peneus; his son was Amyntor, Amyntor’s son was Tutamides, and the later’s son was Nanas. In his reign the Pelasgians were driven out of their country by the Greeks, and after leaving their ships on the river Spines in the Ionian Gulf, they took Croton, an inland city and proceeding from there, they colonized the country (later) called Tyrrhenia.” It should be noted that the Greeks made a lot of claims to things they didn’t actually do, but which was near to them or adopted by them, including the conquest of Troy, which was the work of the Phrygians./Beekes/. The Etruscans also lived in various “Greek” lands and were generally called Pelazgian, and Thucedetes [4.109,2] writes that the peninsula of Akte (Chalkidike), is inhabited by Tyrrhenians, showing that they weren’t just from Anatolia. The town of Gergitha in the Troad, is tied to Hargita in Transylvania, inhabited by the Sicul (Hungarian Székelys) , a tribe also associated with the Etruscans and mentioned on the victory Stella near Thebes. Their name appears to be a variation of Scythian which was originally “Saka”.
Because their unique culture and their many technical innovations weren’t present in earlier times on the Italian peninsula, they probably weren’t there yet and came and brought them in later. Some archeologists like Hugh Hencken claim they came from the area of Hungary. Barfield called this area of Europe the “heartland of technology of the Bronze Age”. The American archeologist, Hugh Hencken have claimed their origin was from Hungary due to the similar type of Urn burial customs and metallurgy, which was present there much earlier, and the bronze technology they brought from there, as well as their equestrian customs. Hugh Hencken [1968, 612, 614] also claimed, that originally the Trysenoi came from the north, settled on the Lydian coast (before the Lydians came) and then fled several hundred years later to Italy, because of a long lasting famine and wars. There must have been a very considerable timeline from the first event to the last. Hencken also believes that the Etruscans were part of the people who attacked Egypt under the confederation known as the “Sea People” along with several other closely related peoples. They ruled Egypt for several generation from their capital Avaris. They are named by the Egyptians by their actual later known name, as “T(w)r(w)s’ “ [Mernpetah, 1214BC].
According to the Victory Stela found near Thebes, the Sea Peoples destroyed the Hittite kingdom, and consisted of the following peoples or tribes:
1. Shardana =Sardinians? However references also claim that Shar=10 in Etruscan and the Danoi of Greece were a branch of the Pelasgians
Sardes was also a place name in Anatolia near the homeland of the Etruscans.
2. Lukka =Lycians, who also took over that name from the locals, but are likely a mixture with Etruscan.
3. Meshwesh =Myonians, Misians who according to Beekes are the original ancient Anatolian Etruscans.
4. Teresh =Tyrhaneans, who are also Etruscans found in both Anatolia and Italy.
5. Ekwesh =Acheans?
6. Shekelesh =Siculs, a term commonly used by the Hungarian Székely, who were in Hungary before the Magyars came, but whose language has shown little signs of being ever different from Hungarian.

The Etruscans also had a settlement on the island Lemnos, where their writing is recorded, and other islands in the Aegian Sea and Anatolia, but they had allies also from the European side as well, like the Peonians, who were probably distantly related to them, from among the Thracian tribes living there. I have seen no trustworthy proof that the Thracians were IndoEuropean, since their language cannot be classified without more known words and without the knowledge of the morphology of their language. Names for the most part don’t lend themselves to any consclusions, only speculations. Yet the idea is sold to unsuspecting people who want to believe it. The whole idea that old territory of Hungary was once the homeland of the IndoEuropeans is also unproven, even if short periods of their rule is known, the common people and their language are often not identical to their rulers and the aboriginals are rarely mentioned by historians. The same can be said of the later Macedonians, who were ruled by Greek colonist, but weren’t Greek in origin.
The ties to Hungary and Hungarian, according to Mario Alinei

The most recent linguistic origin theory, claimed by Mario Alinei, which ties the Etruscan language to Hungarian-Ugrian, had several previous champions, besides Alinei, such as J.Martha of Paris University, who simply claimed it to be related to FinnoUgrian and Felix Pongracz Nagy of Hungary whose presentation to the Hungarian Academy of Science on Etruscan claimed that both Etruscan and Hungarian languages are related to Sumerian. In the 1973 International Congress of Orientalists, Paris, Madame G.Enderlin also presented a paper on the ties of Etruscan runes to Hungarian runic writing, including translations tying it to Hungarian. (Coloques – Le De Chiffrement des Ecritures et des Languages”.
The senior Italian linguist Mario Alinei has done extensive comparisons of all European languages in general and the has studied the language of the Etruscans and has come to the conclusion that it was an archaic form of Hungarian, perhaps an early branch of it and its predecessors the Ugrians. He had studied this link for over 10 years before publishing it in Italian. His theory of origin was that the ancestors of the Hungarians were living in Hungary by the end of the 3rd millenium BC, long before they supposed to have arrived from the Ukraine nearby in 896AD when the Magyar confederacy moved in. Personally I don’t see that they all had to be within the Carpathian basin for these linguistic ties to be valid, but it is importatnt to say that they probably didn’t come from the Ural Mountain area either. Even the well known Hungarian archeologist Gyula László has stated that the Hungarian language place names were in the Carpathian Basin, before the Magyars came in, and the locals were a lot more numerous than these incoming Magyars, who generally left the locals stay in place and they settled around them. Their language may or may not have been also Hungarian like the locals. A totally independent American researcher Grover Kranz had recently also claimed that the whole FinnoUgrian language family had originally come from Hungary and its surroundings, which is not that different from the Uralic Continuity Theory, except for the fact that Kranz claimed that the Hungarians never left the basin as is generally thought, while Alinei believed that they came in with the early Kurgan invasions from the Ukraine during the bronze age.
The earlier theories about Etruscan-Hungarian ties, were much less detailed and multifaceted than the new theory proposed by Mario Alinei. Hugh Hencken [1968, 612, 614] also claimed, that originally the Trysenoi came from the north, settled on the Lydian coast and then fled several hundred years later to Italy, because of a long lasting famine and wars. There must have been a very considerable timeline from the first event to the last. Alinei’s theory still has a lot of biases to overcome in the linguistic community, which is infamous for its extreme conservatism and reluctance to change as well as its willingness to persecute those who stray from the “established” facts without even checking them out. It has already been reported by others, that the FinnoUgrianists snubbed his theory. In reading their criticisms from the “Szemle” periodical “Magyar lenne a mai etruszk”, I didn’t find any earthshaking errors, but plenty of unprovable criticisms and assumptions about what Hungarian grammar in the bronze age was supposedly like, with many unconvincing arguments of errors, that weren’t that major. Blank statements that this couldn’t have been this way in old Hungarian, which obviously couldn’t be prooven. The criticism that words like “tezen” should be written as tegyen in modern Hungarian, also show that the level of criticism is one which is at the level of not a historic linguist, but a modern Hungarian grammar teacher, because it refuses to observe the presence of sound changes or different orthography, that occur in an ancient language over a long period of time. The orthography of Etruscan used the z to indicate similar sounds that are found in Hungarian as ch and gy, and at this early time it is unlikely that Hungarian even had the unique ‘gy’ sound which often evolved from “ch”, as indicated by historic comparisons. Also the very idea which was proposed, that all Hungarian like sister languages, must have evolved in an identical way to the surviving modern Hungarian, even after a huge long period of total isolation from each other and that these dialects all had to call themselves Magyar to be considered Hungarian, is all very ludicrus since even in the 9th century A.D. they were divided into at least 7 major tribes plus their Sicul relations already living in eastern Hungary, known collectively as the Székely today. The criticism that most FU ethnic groups including the Ugrians are mentioned by various classic writers like Herodotus, but Magyar wasn’t mentioned, should have been a clue to the critic, that the name originally wasn’t an ethnic name at all, but a very generic term that no one could use for a tribal designation or else they simply didn’t live in the areas where he presumes they lived at. At the same time quite a few eastern branches of the Hungarian language died out following the early Middle Ages. A few illustrations of the Etruscan z vs Hungarian cs and gy is actually better proof than some ideantical words are, since they follow a systematic rule of change. Normally the z serves the function of ch at the start of the word and x shows its evolution inside the word.
Etruscan Modern Hungarian
zat =battle csata=battle
zam-(athi)= gyám-(anya) =adopting/protective mother
zilac-al=stars csilag-ok=stars
zicu=write gyök-ik=engrave, cut or stabb into;
zilat=community head gyula=military commander
zin=make, leader csin-ál=make, due
cexa =love,benevolence kegy=love, benevolence
ix=like this igy=like this
i-x-eme=I should drink i-gy-am=I should drink “drink-should-I”
mex=leading clans megy-er=ruling clan >> Magyar

The presently proposed timeline of Hungarian prehistory is so full of problems that it serves only as a deterent to understanding and to prevent the many other associations with other languages and cultures that occurred in its early history. My criticism of the critics of Alinei doesn’t imply however that Mario Alinei’s work is totally perfect and without fault. What pioneer of a new theory is perfect in every way, especially if his specialty isn’t Uralic languages? Even I take some of his statement with criticism, even though most of what he wrote appears reasonable, balanced, logical and proven. There are however several false assumptions, originating from the FinnoUgrian school that need to be reevaluated to correct their biases, which Alinei also accepted at face value. The idea that we can draw a direct line from Hungary to Toscany (Etruria) is also among those oversimplifications, as is evident from the review of early Etruscan history. At the same time I find fault with many of Alinei’s critics, who criticize trivial linguistic differences, which could very well have existed in another closely related language, and saying things like, Etruscan “maru” can’t be linked to modern Hungarian “mérö”=”one who measures”, since it uses backvowels rather than frontvowels, even though other FinnUgor languages like Komi also use backvowels (Komi “muru-tu”). To me é (pronounce like a) and ö are a backvowels! Tying too close of a link to modern Hungarian is a mistake, but a looser association can become a valuable guide in understanding Etruscan, even if there are known differences also, due to at least 4,000 years of separation, if we accept the timeline of Etruscan history and their first move to Anatolia from Europe and later to Italy.
There is no reason to believe that the Etruscans couldn’t have had ties to several other places and had separate branches and tribes, such as Troy (Ilios), the island of Lemnos, the Balkans as well as the Carpathian Basin in their early history. Each of these branches probably had their own dialects. They spread in various places due to being forced out of their previous homelands due to famine, taking with them not just warriors, but women and children, when they settled on the Italian peninsula. This has also been proven by genetic research of Etruscan women corpses, who do carry Asiatic-Anatolian genes. When we try to trace their origins through Europe back through their source nations, it becomes very likely that there was a link through different branches of these related earlier people.


0 Responses to “Balkans: “Troy””

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: