Вторжения народов моря, Египет, империя хеттов, ее ахейские союзники, Лукка/Пелесет,
Троянская война, преднамеренная ложь Гомера и современная европейская подделка
«Древняя Греция»
Book review of the
book 'Trojan Horse of Western History' by Anatoly V. Belyakov and Oleg A.
Matveyshev
Рецензия на книгу Анатолия В. Белякова и Олега А.
Матвейшева «Троянский конь западной истории»
Содержание
Введение
I.
Цивилизованный восточный мир и южно-балканская периферия
II. Хеттский
имперский порядок и беспорядочные варвары Западной Анатолии, Южных Балкан,
Крита и Анатолийского моря
III.
Нашествия народов моря как определяющий исторический факт и Троянская война как
бесполезная ложь
IV. Что
скрывается за фальшивым термином «ахейский мир»?
V. Без глубокого
понимания египетской, хеттской, анатолийской, ханаанской и месопотамской
цивилизаций невозможно понять их отсталую периферию
VI. Почему
исторические источники Диона Златоуста заслуживают доверия, а отговорки Гомера
оказались отвлекающим маневром
VII.
Абсолютное очернение позднеантичных греков древнеегипетским первосвященником
как цели человеческой истории.
VIII. Египетский
жрец, собеседник Диона Златоуста, читал «Анналы» Рамзеса III.
IX. Фальшивый
термин «Древняя Греция» мешает нам оценить разрушительную неудачу Гомера.
Х. Заключение
Contents
Introduction
I. The civilized
Oriental World & the South Balkan periphery
II. The Hittite
imperial order and the disorderly barbarians of Western Anatolia, South
Balkans, Crete and the Anatolian Sea
III. The Sea Peoples'
invasions as a determinant historical fact and the Trojan War as a worthless falsehood
IV. What is hidden
behind the false term 'Achaean World'?
V. Without an in-depth
comprehension of the Egyptian, Hittite Anatolian, Canaanite and Mesopotamian
civilizations, no one can possibly understand their
backward periphery
VI. Why Dio Chrysostom's
historical sources are trustworthy and Homer's pretenses are proven red herring
VII. The absolute
denigration of the Late Antiquity Greeks by the Ancient Egyptian high priest as
the destination of Human History
VIII. Dio Chrysostom's
Egyptian sacerdotal interlocutor had read Ramses III's Annals
IX. The fake term
'Ancient Greece' prevents us from assessing Homer's devastating failure
X. Conclusion
Introduction
What follows is an
extensive discussion of the topics presented and the approaches employed in the
aforementioned, passionately and impressively elaborated book (St. Petersburg:
Piter, 2015 - 256 p.: pic / ISBN 978-5-496-01658-2) that I came to know through
an astute Russian friend, shrewd thinker and avid reader.
Links to the Russian and
English Wikipedia do not constitute an approval of the texts of the respective
entries, but are offered for those among the non-specialized readers of my book
review, who wish to launch their own search, starting with the references and
the bibliography available of those entries.
Throughout the present
article, I use the term 'Anatolian Sea', instead of 'Aegean Sea' which is
certainly a historically valid appellation and form of reference. However, the
latter term is academically inaccurate. This is so because throughout the last
five millennia, we have attested that civilizations, forms of spirituality,
religious faiths, cultural trends, ethnic migrations, cults, esoteric beliefs,
intellectual movements, artistic and aesthetic tendencies spread from Anatolia
to the sea in question, and thence to the South Balkans, and not vice versa.
When it comes to Anatolian Sea, which is undeniably a semi-closed sea, we
observe that, although various influences and diverse ethnic groups arrived
there from the South (Libya), the Southeast (Egypt and Canaan/Phoenicia), and
the North (Thrace, Macedonia and the central part of the Balkan Peninsula), the
local evolution, historical creativity, and their main factors and aspects
depended on Anatolia.
All these scattered islands
constitute therefore the Anatolian archipelago and they consist in sheer
projection and prolongation of the Anatolian civilization. This was
particularly ostensible whenever both lands, Anatolia and South Balkans,
belonged to the same empire. Within the Eastern Roman Empire and the Ottoman
Caliphate, Anatolia constituted the epicenter and the South Balkans represented
a marginal circumference. All the islands in-between depended on Anatolia and
never formed an entity of their own.
------- Response to a
friend and comments about the aforementioned book ---------
Dear Fedor,
Now, I will write down
several remarks and comments about the book of Anatoly V. Belyakov and Oleg A.
Matveyshev that I have just read thanks to your email; I did not know either
the book or the authors, that's why I found a genuine interest in searching
about the authors before reading the book. So, I realized that both are younger
than me; Belyakov was born in 1971 (Анатолий Владиславович Беляков) and
Matveyshev (Олег Анатольевич Матвейчев) one year earlier; the latter happens
also to be a deputy in the Russian Parliament. Both have worked together on
several other publication projects, and both have published many books and
articles. About:
https://www.koob.ru/belyakov_a_v/
https://litvek.com/avtor/106780-avtor-anatoliy-vladislavovich-belyakov
http://duma.gov.ru/duma/persons/1055983/
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Матвейчев,_Олег_Анатольевич
https://matveychev.ru/
Their topics cover
History and Politics in general, and they seem to have an interest in finding
attractive topics to which they intentionally offer rather alternative
approaches. They did the same with the 'Trojan Horse of Western History'. Despite
the fact that they are not field specialists, they did their best to offer
readers a truly comprehensive presentation about how
a- the modern science
of Philology (Classics) discovered Homer and his epics,
b- Archaeology was used
by amateurs for the sake of their delusions,
c- the Ancient Ionian
epic tradition was transformed into Alexandrian librarians' tasks in the
Antiquity, and
d- a multitude of
topographical-geographical details can drastically change our reading and
perception of the narratives.
It is clear that they
apparently visited the area they spoke about. In addition, they offered readers
(in the unit 'In lieu of an afterword') a theoretical polarization around
Modern European academic considerations and philosophical postulations. Being
well knowledgeable in a varied number of topics (which is still not easy to
encounter nowadays in Western Europe and North America), they contextualized
their work in an admirable manner. Their book is certainly rewarding for the
general readership, and also for the people who have the suspicion that things
may not have been as they have been narrated in modern times' schools and
universities.
In fact, I don't have
crucial remarks to make for the book itself, but this does not end but it
rather starts my response. As you can guess, the research you first undertake
predestines and predetermines the book that you will write afterwards. There
lies the major problem. As a matter of fact, there are also other critical
issues for the authors, and even more serious troubles for the entire Russian
academic-intellectual class. You will see why while reading what follows. From
now on, I will concentrate my review on several specific points.
I.
The civilized Oriental World & the South Balkan periphery
First
Point: lack of study of Ancient Egyptian, Ugaritic Canaanite, and Assyrian
Babylonian sources
The authors are
evidently unaware of the existence of critical historical sources pertaining to
the History of the Anatolian Sea (also known as Aegean Sea) around the end of
the 2nd millennium BCE. This fact dramatically narrows the effort undertaken to
show an alternative interpretation of the Trojan War.
Both authors are well
versed in Ancient Greek literature and they occasionally mention Hittite
historical texts. It is clear that they did not study Hittite historical
sources (in translation since they are not specialists) as extensively as they
should have had. The problem is that they did not acquire a sufficient
background in Hittite History which would enable them to fully comprehend the
nature of the historical developments that took place in the western confines
of the Hittite Empire and beyond; I say so, because the Hattusha-based emperors
did not always control the western circumference of Anatolia. About:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тудхалия_IV
https://all-generals.ru/index.php
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ассува
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assuwa
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Арцава
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arzawa
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ахейцы#Аххиява
https://web.archive.org/web/20131104112704/http://www.hittites.info/history.aspx?text=history%2fLate+Late+Empire.htm#Tudhaliya4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#New_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tud%E1%B8%ABaliya_IV
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вилуса
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilusa
Кто сказал «нет» тухкантису хеттского царя?
Ещё раз о главном действующем лице начальных пассажей «Письма о
Тавагалаве»*
http://ancientrome.ru/publik/article.htm?a=1459579492
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawagalawa_letter
https://dzen.ru/media/adygiru/aheicy-i-troiancy-v-hettskih-tekstah-5c4e1e696823bc046572fa44
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milawata_letter
https://dzen.ru/media/id/5e9e91e3c03183795a156c2b/hetty-i-ahhiiava-problemy-vzaimootnoshenii-5ea34fcf9f8dc519e8675519
There is also a serious
lack of Ugaritic Canaanite cuneiform documentation, and the authors seem to
believe that Canaan did not play an important role in the maritime trade
throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, the Anatolian and the Black Seas; this is
wrong. Ugaritic texts are the first to document the fall of the Hittite Empire.
Even more importantly, similar Ugaritic Canaanite epics antedate by several
centuries the Ancient Greek epics. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic_texts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_Keret
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danel
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Угарит
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Угаритская_литература
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Угаритский_язык
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Угаритское_письмо
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Легенда_о_Керете
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Акхит
Good knowledge of the
Assyrian-Babylonian and Elamite sources of the 13th and the 12th c. would help
the authors to better assess all the facts that took place at the epicenter of
the then known world, i.e. the triangle between Susa (Elam), Niwt (Thebes of
Egypt), and Hattusha; in fact, only when you know what happens in the center of
the civilized world, you can approximately grasp the reasons for what occurred
in the periphery and the margins. However, the authors did not explore these
historical sources.
https://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/niwt-symbol-ancient-egyptian-city-determinative-hieroglyph/
Хеттское царство и страны Верхней Месопотамии в правление Тудхалии IV и его сыновей
(2-я половина XIII —
начало XII в. до
н. э.): новые гипотезы и источники
https://istina.msu.ru/publications/article/2738421/
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тукульти-Нинурта_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tukulti-Ninurta_I
The Edict of Tudhaliya
IV
https://www.jstor.org/stable/602893
Хеттские походы на Кипр во второй половине 13 В. До Н. Э
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/hettskie-pohody-na-kipr-vo-vtoroy-polovine-13-v-do-n-e
The Trials of Tudhaliya
IV
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/153293
Копии хеттских международных договоров
https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=41045350
And indisputably, the
Iranian plateau, South Balkans, and the Horn of Africa constituted the fringes
of the great Oriental Empires of the 2nd millennium BCE where the then world's
most advanced civilizations flourished. Indicatively, Kerma in Sudan (earlier
an independent Cushitic kingdom but incorporated in Kemet / Egypt during the
2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE) was more important than Mycenae and Dur
Untash (presently Chogha Zanbil) was more important than Troy.
About Chogha Zanbil:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дур-Унташ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chogha_Zanbil
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Эламская_мифология
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Зиккурат
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Унташ-Напириша
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshushinak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untash-Napirisha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat
About Kerma:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Керма_(городище)
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Керма_(царство)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerma_culture
https://www.biblio.com/book/kerma-kingdom-kush-2500-1500-bc/d/1394529885?sscid=51k7_ac92d
Kerma and Egypt: The
Significance of the Monumental Buildings Kerma I, II, and XI
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40000957
История древней Африки и Южной Аравии
https://civilka.ru/afrika/afrika.html
The worst deficiency in
the authors' research, documentation collection, and study is the lack of
consideration of Ancient Egyptian sources pertaining to the fact that they
examine. Yet, there is a vast documentation in Egyptian hieroglyphics about the
great variety of peoples and nations that lived in Western Anatolia and in the
islands of the Anatolian and the Eastern Mediterranean seas.
Рамсес III —
последний великий правитель Древнего Египта
https://diletant.media/articles/45279028/
http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_r/ramses3.php
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Рамсес_III
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мединет-Абу
https://landioustravel.com/ru/egipet/yegipetskiye-khramy/khram-medinet-abu/
https://web.archive.org/web/19970605022021/http://www.oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/EPI/Epigraphic.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_III
https://www.inside-egypt.com/the-temple-of-medinet-habu.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medinet_Habu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortuary_Temple_of_Ramesses_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#Etymology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denyen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meshwesh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tjeker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekelesh
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кафторим
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ливийцы_(древние)
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Техену
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мешвеш
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тевкры
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пеласги#Филистимляне_и/или_«народы_моря»
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шекелеш
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шерданы
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Данайцы#Ранние_контакты_с_египтянами
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ахейцы#Аххиява
https://paleocentrum.ru/science/kaftoryane-potomki-mitsraima-i-problema-krito-egipetskikh-svyazey.html
What comes as an even
worse outcome of the lack of study of Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian Babylonian,
and Ugaritic Canaanite cuneiform historical sources by the authors is the fact that
the associated documentation relates to another event far more important than
the Trojan War that the authors totally ignore, namely the invasions of the Sea
Peoples.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Народы_моря
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Девять_луков
https://dzen.ru/media/id/5bc46560dca03c00aba381e5/zagadochnye-narody-moria-ili-kto-razrushil-drevnie-civilizacii-bronzovogo-veka-5f06df42b810364d03378bbb?utm_referer=www.google.ru
«Девять Луков»: Египет и окружающий мир. Часть I.
https://victorsolkin.livejournal.com/47096.html
Битвы с народами моря
https://all-generals.ru/index.php?id=1473
https://scientificrussia.ru/articles/byli-li-narody-moria
Почему могущественные хетты покинули свою столицу
https://nplus1.ru/material/2023/02/08/the-end-of-hattusa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_bows
This situation
generates an enormous contrast of which the authors are unaware: we have historical
(: contemporaneous) sources for a major event, whereas we have only posterior,
mythological and literary sources for a minor, and in any case ambiguous and
controversial, fact. This situation, in and by itself, concludes the case of
the entire literature about the Trojan War; yet the authors of this book know
nothing about it.
As a matter of fact,
the invasions of the Sea Peoples determined the World History.
Contrarily, the Trojan
War is a historically insignificant circumstance that impacted first, the
imagination of people many hundreds of years after it happened and second, the
delusion of present day European and Greek racists, chauvinists, revisionists
and extremists, who want to rewrite World History as per the false narrative of
an otherwise obscure figure, namely Homer. That's why they take his
controversial narratives at face value whereas the authors intelligently enough
denounce them as utterly false.
So, what I want to say
in brief, as regards Point I, is that the argumentation presented in this book
would be much stronger and more convincing, if the authors had spent time
reading Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Ugaritic-Canaanite historical
sources and focused more on Hittite historical documentation.
II.
The Hittite imperial order and the disorderly barbarians of Western Anatolia,
South Balkans, Crete and the Anatolian Sea
Second
Point: lack of knowledge (let alone mention) of the Sea Peoples' invasions
By failing to study,
examine, and integrate this topic (Sea Peoples' invasions) in their research,
the authors did not simply omit one of the most important worldwide events of
the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE. They mainly proved to be unable to
correlate the two events which were linked to one another in terms of cause and
effect; this is so because the Trojan War (and by using the term, I don't mean
Homer's narrative but the original fact of which the Homeric epic was certainly
an intentional distortion) triggered the invasions of the Sea Peoples.
I expanded on the topic
twice back in the early 1990s; in my speech in the Second International
Congress (1991), I presented in French the topic: "The Sea Peoples and the
End of the Mycenaean World":
Les Peuples de la Mer et la Fin du Monde Mycénien. Essai de
Synthèse Historique
Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia
(Roma-Napoli, 14-20 Ottobre 1991); (published by the Gruppo Editoriale
Internazionale, Roma, 1996) My speech is available online here:
https://www.academia.edu/26344357/Les_Peuples_de_la_Mer_et_la_Fin_du_Monde_Myc%C3%A9nien_Essai_de_Synth%C3%A8se_Historique
Then, in the academic
periodical JOAS, I published (in 1994) a comprehensive contextualization of the
invasions of the Sea Peoples; the article was written in Greek:
Η Ευρύτερη Περιοχή της Ανατολικής Μεσογείου κατά τον 13ο και τον 12ο Αιώνα και οι Λαοί της Θάλασσας (The wider region of Eastern
Mediterranean during the 13th and the 12th c. and the Sea Peoples)
Journal of Oriental and
African Studies, vol. 6 (1994), p. 1-50 (with French résumé)
https://www.academia.edu/26287366/Η_Ευρύτερη_Περιοχή_της_Ανατολικής_Μεσογείου_κατά_τον_13ο_και_τον_12ο_Αιώνα_και_οι_Λαοί_της_Θάλασσας_κείμενο_και_σημειώσεις_
In brief, I will now describe
the sequence of the historical developments that took place at the time, pinpointing
the most determinant situations and facts.
I- There were no
'Greeks' in the wider region of South Balkans, Anatolian Sea, Western Anatolia,
Crete, and Cyprus, during the 3rd or 2nd millennium BCE; there were many
different nations of indigenous (Anatolian and Balkan), Semitic, and Hamitic
('Libyan'/Berber) backgrounds. And there were few Indo-European invaders (the
Achaeans). So, the term 'Greek' is mistaken, if not distorted. This is so
because the Achaeans constituted only one of the Ancient Greek tribes.
II- The establishment
of a powerful imperial capital in Hattusha, at the center of the Anatolian
plateau, generated several reactions among the diverse populations that lived
in the Eastern (Hayasa, Azzi, Ishuwa), Northern (Kashka) and Western (Masa,
Wilusa, Seha, Arzawa, Lukka) confines of Anatolia, because these regions were
inhabited by barbarian, disparate and disorderly elements that did not want to
accept the imperial order. This is a constantly encountered topic in the
historical sources of the Hittites.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ишува#Хеттский_период
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seha_River_Land
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_regions_of_Anatolia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapalla
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Киццуватна
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Каски_(народ)
III- The Hittite Empire
was a multiethnic empire with several official languages and writings; there
was one imperial religion and several local spiritual variants; this already
means that there were several nations that wholeheartedly contributed to the
imperial rise of Anatolia (Hittites/Nasili, Hatti, Luwians, Pala) and other
ethnic groups or tribes that escaped the imperial order. Southern provinces
(Kizzuwatna, Tarhuntassa, and even the Amurru/Amorrites in today's NW Syria) accepted
the imperial more easily.
IV- The indigenous
populations of the Western confines (the term 'Lukka' covers a great number of
tribes) rebelled quite often, notably when the Hittite armies were engaged in
the empire's most important war fronts opposite the Hurrians of the Mitanni
Empire (and after the middle of the 13th c. the Assyrians) and the Egyptians in
the territory of today's S-SE Turkey and NW Syria.
V- The indigenous
populations of the South Balkans seem to have been of the same ethnic and
cultural background as the indigenous Anatolian Lukka and therefore allied with
them. They were called 'Peleset' in Ancient Egyptian texts; this term is
identical to the Pelasgians as mentioned (or rather mythologized) in the
posterior sources of the 1st millennium BCE Ancient Greeks.
VI- Populations of
diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds inhabited Crete, Alasia (Cyprus) and
the islands of the Anatolian Sea; this is not only highlighted by the numerous
names of peoples and ethnic groups that the Ancient Egyptian sources mention
with respect to this region, but it is also evidenced by the existence of many different,
hitherto undeciphered, writings that have been unearthed in the periphery in
question: Linear A, the so-called 'Cretan' hieroglyphic writing, another
'Cretan' hieroglyphic writing, the 'Eteocretan' alphabet, the Phaistos disc
writing, the so-called Cypro-Minoan syllabary, and the Cypriot syllabary; all
of them antedate the Linear B, which was the (already deciphered in the early
1950s) writing system of the 2nd millennium BCE Achaeans. Archaeological
findings (many different small palaces in those islands) and interdisciplinary
discoveries of historico-religious nature (reference to the 'Horus of Kaeftiu'
made in Ancient Egyptian inscriptions) bear witness to why the Ancient
Egyptians used also the collective description 'Nine Bows' for this region
where African Berbers, Anatolian Luwians, Semitic Canaanites, and Egyptians
were amalgamated with indigenous Peleset/Pelasgians. There were many tiny
kingdoms and no centralized authority with some ethnic groups being spiritually
and culturally guided from Egypt, and others from Anatolia, Canaan and Libya. About:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Эгейское_письмо
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Линейное_письмо_А
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretan_hieroglyphs
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Критские_иероглифы
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eteocretan_language
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Этеокипрский_язык
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc
h ttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фестский_диск
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypro-Minoan_syllabary
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кипро-минойское_письмо
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кипрское_письмо
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_syllabary
http://www.cyprusexplorer.globalfolio.net/rus/history/writing/rossi-writing/index.php
https://www.academia.edu/7870351/_At_the_Edge_of_the_World_The_Keftiu_as_a_Liminal_People_in_Early_New_Kingdom_Egypt_
VII- The Ahhiyawa
(Achaeans or Achaians) were a rude foreigner invader in the South Balkans, and
as such they were reviled by the indigenous Pelasgians/Peleset and their Lukka
allies, who constituted the outright majority of the local population. The Hittite
- Achaean linguistic proximity suggests a conceptual kinship with the Hittites;
however, one has to notice that the tremendous difference is that the
Indo-European Hittites managed to impose an imperial authority in the central
plateau of Anatolia and thus become a major power of the then known world,
whereas their Achaeans relatives in South Balkans were always divided in many
small and instable kingdoms that were overwhelmingly but rightfully loathed by the
subjugated local populations, namely the Pelasgians/Peleset.
VIII. The rise in force
of the Hittites in the Oriental chessboard (particularly after the sack of
Babylon by Mursili I at the very beginning of the 16th c. BCE) coincides with
the liberation of Kemet/Egypt from the Hyksos barbarians and the foundation of
the 18th dynasty of Egypt, which brought about a period of incessant rivalries
among the major powers and alliances of the then known world, namely the
Hittites, Assyria, and Elam against the Hurrians (Mitanni kingdom), Cassite
Babylonia, and Egypt. It is during that period that the Achaeans, always as
allies of the Hittites, seem to prevail in the South Balkans, the Anatolian
Sea, and Crete.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/venus-and-the-hittite-sack-of-babylon
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мурсили_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mursili_I
IX. With the focus of
the Hittite military machine made on the East and mainly opposite the Hurrians
and the Egyptians, the Hattusha-based Emperors needed their Achaean allies in
the West to take the initiative and secure the local order throughout the South
Balkans, the Anatolia Sea, Crete, and the western confines of Anatolia. For
this to be done, the Ahhiyawa had to establish (which they did) settlements in
the Anatolian coastland in order to intervene in favor of their Hittite allies
every time a Lukka rebel would cause instability. It was clear that Hattusha
did not have enough soldiers to transfer to a second front when all the stakes
were placed on Amurru, i.e. today's Syria's northwestern provinces where the
major battles used to take place at the time (notably the famous Battle of
Kadesh).
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Битва_при_Кадеше
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Египетско-хеттский_мирный_договор
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Hittite_peace_treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amurru_kingdom
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Амурру
X.
The disorderly forces of Western Anatolia, South Balkans, Crete and the
Anatolian Sea were in a position to control several maritime trade routes,
particularly after making an agreement with Egypt, at the detriment of the
Hittites and their Achaean allies. At this point, I have to state that,
although it is plausible and reasonable to identify the 'king of Ahhiyawa with
the Achaean ruler of Mycenae, this cannot be conclusively accepted, as long as
we don't find the name of the Ahhiyawa capital in Hittite sources. Ancient
Egyptian texts mention many cities in the region in question, but in the Boğazköy
(Hattusha) Archives, we attest only a few, notably Miletus and Ephesus. And it
is quite clear that there was never a major Achaean kingdom in the wider area;
quite contrarily, and according to the posterior descriptions of the Homeric
epics, there were many petty kings and tribal chieftains in those narrow
valleys and constricted plains in-between the south-Balkan mountains. All the
same, for the time being, we have to content ourselves with the assumption that
the imperial Hittite documents refer merely to the most important among all
these trivial warlords. About:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Богазкёйский_архив
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogazk%C3%B6y_Archive
III.
The Sea Peoples' invasions as a determinant historical fact and the Trojan War
as a worthless falsehood
XI.
The urgent demand of the Hittite Emperor addressed to the Ahhiyawa king
concerned a badly needed Achaean intervention in Western Anatolia against the
rebelled forces of the Lukka and their allies. This means that the Anatolian
Empire was being financially asphyxiated because of the Lukka-Egypt commercial alliance.
Wilusha (Ilion) and Taruisha (or Taruiyah/Troy) was a critical part of the
Lukka confederation. It is to be noted that all the disorderly elements have
customarily been regrouped in confederations, avoiding the establishment of a
unified and unitary empire. It is therefore clear that it is this Achaean
intervention in Western Anatolia that was later mythologized as Trojan War;
although undertaken for the benefit of the Emperor at Hattusha, the epic
literature later developed around the military campaign did not mention the
Hittites anymore, because soon after an initial Achaean success, the disaster
fell on both, the Hittites and the Achaeans. The troublesome situation appears
clearly in-between the lines of the Hittite treaty between Muwattalli II and
Alakšandu (Alakshandus) of Wiluša (Ilion). From this Anatolian Luwian origin
name originates the well-known Macedonian and Greek name Alexandros, which was
the true name of Paris, prince of Troy, according to the Homeric epics.
However, it is improbable to identify the historical ruler of Ilion with the
mythological person to whom so many extraordinary and dubious stories have been
attributed in the myth. About:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Алаксандус
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1913-1011-22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaksandu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apaliunas
Отвергнутый бог: Аполлон от греков и до наших дней
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/otvergnutyy-bog-apollon-ot-grekov-i-do-nashih-dney
XII.
Last, whatever the Trojan War may have been in the historical reality (and not
in the posterior mythologization), the end result was truly calamitous for the
Achaeans.
In
fact, the overwhelming historical phenomenon that we call, according to the
Ancient Egyptian texts, 'Invasions of the Sea Peoples' deleted from the surface
of the Earth every remnant and every trace of Achaean kingdom. As a matter of
fact, on the basis of the existing historical sources, the invasions of the Sea
Peoples can be portrayed as a thunderous reaction to an earlier, antagonistic
and calamitous, event (and by this I mean the Trojan War); as protracted war
activities, this enormous historical development lasted about two decades and
constituted the most brazen attack of Barbarity against the World Civilization.
At the end, only Egypt was able to resist to their attacks, and Mesopotamia
remained intact; but civilization in Hittite Anatolia, Canaan, and the Achaean fortresses
collapsed. The Sea Peoples' invasions involved the following:
a-
a well-prepared 'conspiracy' in their lands of origin (Western Anatolia,
Anatolian Sea, Crete and South Balkans): this textual reference suggests
clearly that some local ethnic groups turned violently against others;
b-
a series of formidable and ultimately successful rebellions against several
local kingdoms that they collapsed: this only confirms the veracity of several
conclusions of many specialized archaeologists according to whom the 'Mycenaean
world' fell to pieces due to the 'burning of the Mycenaean palaces';
c-
a precipitated attack against Hattusha and destruction of the capital of the
Hittite Empire: this sudden, unexpected, and earlier unimaginable development
took place apparently, when the bulk of the Hittite army was not there, and had
a devastating psychological impact that determined the historical evolution;
d-
the continuation of attacks against Amurru (in today's NW Syria), Canaan and
Alasia/Cyprus, which involved also the destruction of Ugarit, the then world's
most advanced, multilingual center of academic learning and translation;
e-
the devastation of the Canaanite coast lands, and
f-
three successive attacks against Kemet/Egypt, during which Ramses III managed,
by means of detrimental spiritual superiority (according to the Ancient
Egyptian texts) to vanquish the Sea Peoples in three successive land and sea
battles, thus dispersing them once forever.
IV.
What is hidden behind the false term 'Achaean World'?
Completing
this unit, I have to highlight on a common mistake made by many historians and
archaeologists who attempt to carry out the very difficult task of
reconstructing and representing the historical reality of 2nd millennium BCE
Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, Crete, and South Balkans; I define the entire
work as difficult because, despite the abundance of the material record, the
historical sources are scarce because -as I already said- this region was
peripheral to the center of the then civilized world. The scarcity of
historical sources' references to this area has to also be associated with the
existence of several undeciphered writings, which -if decrypted, read and
studied- would shed more light on the topic.
The
repeatedly made common mistake is that, by using the absolutely false term
'Mycenaean Greece' (instead of '2nd millennium BCE South Balkans, Anatolian
Sea, and Crete'), historians and archaeologists get confused and seem to
believe that only one nation or ethnic group lived in the said region. This is
extremely wrong and misleading. Quite unfortunately, many different nations and
ethnic groups coexisted in the said circumference, and this did not happen
peacefully, but involved many strives, clashes, insurgences, riots, rebellions,
destructions, population relocations, migrations, and -last but not least- scores
of casualties.
When
we use the expression the 'Achaean world', we therefore don't mean all the
populations of Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos, Sparta, Orchomenos, Salamis, etc., but only
the Achaean inhabitants of those locations, who were safely accommodated within
their fortresses, whereas the outright majority of those places were the
Pelasgian / Peleset natives, who were oppressed and enslaved by their Achaean
masters, whom they vehemently loathed. At this point, I have to make clear that
the absurd term 'Mycenaean world' is totally wrong, because certainly Mycenae
was not the capital of a unified empire, but of an independent and rather
minuscule kingdom.
In
fact, the wider region of Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, Crete and South
Balkans was a most tormented area during the 2nd millennium BCE. Scholars, who depict
the then daily life in those peripheries as an 'idyllic' environment,
deliberately misrepresent the historical reality in a most fallacious and
vicious manner. It was not actually one 'world', but many opposite entities;
the deep enmities, the incessant hostilities, the foreign involvement (Hittite
and Egyptian), the different religions, the diverse spiritual concepts, the
deeply opposite symbols, the ferocious hatred against one another, the
anti-Hittite, anti-imperial odium of the disorderly barbarians, and their evil
attitude (to strike an alliance with Kemet/Egypt only for their anti-Hittite
purposes) did not bode well for the extremely small Achaean minority in the
South Balkans.
The
Achaean effort to establish a foothold in Miletus and Ephesus and thence to support
their major allies in Hattusha was a heroic deed, and without it there would
have never been Homeric epics. This is so because the transportation of army in
the Western confines of Anatolia would certainly weaken the tight control that
they had to maintain in South Balkan mainland, thus critically endangering the
safety of their fortresses. Unfortunately, the brazen and admirable effort was
predestined to doom due to the fact that the populations of the Lukka-Peleset
alliance (i.e. the Sea Peoples before the beginning of their invasions)
outnumbered the Achaeans 10 to 1 or even more.
V.
Without an in-depth comprehension of the Egyptian, Hittite Anatolian, Canaanite
and Mesopotamian civilizations, no one can possibly understand their backward
periphery
No
one can properly and pertinently study the History of Western Anatolia,
Anatolian Sea, Crete and South Balkans during the 2nd millennium BCE without
having first passed several postgraduate degrees in Assyriology, Egyptology,
Hittitology and Northwest Semitic Studies (Ugaritic, Canaanite, Phoenician,
etc.). The spiritual, mystical and religious differences among the different
pharaohs only reflected the deep socio-religious divisions that existed in 2nd
millennium BCE Kemet/Egypt, subsequently projecting them onto the peripheral
lands that depended on the Valley of the Nile.
The
rise and fall of the monotheistic religion proclaimed by Akhenaten (Atonism or
Atenism) divided Egypt in an irreparable manner. The strong counter-revolutionary
reaction of the Amun clergy and their military pawns, as well as the white
terror released by Ay, Horemheb and their successors of the 19th and the 20th
dynasties turned Egypt into a horrendous dictatorship and a deeply and irrevocably
split up society. This situation is the reason for which the Hebrews and, along
with them, many Egyptian monotheists left the country under Moses and crossed
the Red Sea to reach the Sinai in what is today the northwestern confines of
Saudi Arabia (Sinai is not what we now call the Sinai Peninsula!). About:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_фараонов
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_фараонов#XIX_династия
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_правителей_Древнего_Египта
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs#New_Kingdom
https://www.academia.edu/34439637/In_Ancient_Egypt_at_any_given_moment_there_was_never_one_Egyptian_Religion
Still,
after the Amun polytheistic restoration, there were few monotheistic pharaohs
(like Ramses II and Ramses III), who managed to encrypt their spiritual and
mystical choices in their five Pharaonic names, which constituted a superior
and hitherto unmatched level of personal ideology, moral theory, and imperial
spirituality; this is so because each name was an entire sentence that served
as a most sophisticated field of semantics and semiotics, and after his
ascension every Pharaoh was expected to live and deliver according to the
values, virtues and principles solemnly declared in his five names. About:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Титул_фараона
https://www.bibalex.org/learnhieroglyphs/Home/Page_En.aspx?name=RoyalNamesTitles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_royal_titulary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Рамсес_II
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Рамсес_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_III
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Рамсес_III#Имя
All
these divisions were reflected outside Egypt, wherever Egyptians arrived,
settled, traded with local populations, and diffused their cults and crafts
among the natives. If Atenism was a rationalization of the Iwnw Heliopolitan
dogma (also known as the Ennead), the polytheistic Trinity of Amun of Thebes
(first established in the early 16th c. BCE) was an imperial religious dogma traced
on the ancient, Memphitic polytheistic religion of Ptah. About:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Атонизм
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Эннеада
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гелиополь_(Древний_Египет)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ennead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliopolis_(ancient_Egypt)
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Амон
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мут
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Хонсу
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фиванская_триада
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Верховный_жрец_Амона
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khonsu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban_Triad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Priest_of_Amun
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Птах
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptah
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мемфис_(Египет)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis,_Egypt
Consequently,
it is absolutely pointless, if not foolish, to perceive the Egyptian
ascendancy, influence and impact on the various peripheral lands and regions as
unitary or unidimensional; every Egyptian priesthood promoted at home and
abroad their own spirituality, worldview, dogma, theology and cult. This
situation clearly transported internal Egyptian spiritual divisions abroad; it
was therefore only normal that numerous local conflicts, wars and destructions
took place in those peripheral circumferences.
Thus,
we can understand that, if in case of turmoil, a destitute Achaean king, like
the later mythologized Menelaus, ran away to save himself in Egypt under the
auspices of the Heliopolitan priesthood (which remained always powerful down to
the time of Christianization of Egypt), he would certainly be offered support
and protection; then, this development would be enough to turn against Egypt
that king's enemies and opponents, who would organize a maritime campaign to
attack the country, which -they would think- treacherously supported or
protected their archenemy.
VI.
Why Dio Chrysostom's historical sources are trustworthy and Homer's pretenses
are proven red herring
Third
Point: the authors' innovative approach to, and interpretation of, the
mythological event existed since the Late Antiquity
This
has certainly to be considered as one of the strengths of the research made and
the book published by the authors; in fact, what they conclude, namely that the
Achaeans did not truly win but they actually lost the Trojan War (which lets us
conclude that Homer was a deliberate liar), was already said by ancient
authors. Then, this means that, in support of merely a different narrative and
alternative interpretation, which existed already since the Roman times, the
two authors (Belyakov and Matveyshev) managed to elaborate an entire book. This
is certainly a remarkable achievement that goes against the colonial tradition
of Western European historiography, as per which the texts of Dio Chrysostom
and of anyone else who 'would challenge Homer's authenticity' have to be
considered as untrustworthy.
In
the first four chapters {ch. 1, Mega-mall to megaron: Pilgrimage to the land of
Homer: p. 7; ch. 2, The Adventurer who tripped over Troy: p. 27; ch. 3, The War
for Troy, 20th century: p. 57; ch. 4, And they came back in disgrace: p. 87}, Anatoly
V. Belyakov and Oleg A. Matveyshev comprehensively educate their readers. Then,
in the fifth chapter of their book (ch. 5, The Poet who composed Greece: p.
121), they expand on the topic, referring to Dio Chrysostom and many other
ancient authors. The postface ('In
lieu of an afterword': p. 169) offers both authors the chance to contextualize their
approach and to widen the discussion about the topic, while also questioning
the veracity, the honesty, and the usefulness of the modern colonial
historiography and deploring the conventional schemes that Western universities
(or simply 'Schools of Falsehood') have propagated worldwide.
The
two authors convey very accurately to their readers Dio Chrysostom's narrative
(p. 147: "Dio was told about this by a priest from Egyptian Anufis, who in
his turn, had learned this from an inscription on the stele based on a story
told by Menelaus, who had visited this place"). The ancient Anatolian
orator, thinker, historian and erudite scholar (originating from Prusa/Bursa)
Dio Chrysostom (literally 'Dio the golden-mouthed'; Δίων Χρυσόστομος; Дион
Хрисостом или «Златоуст»; 40-115 CE) was an influential public figure in the
Roman Empire, known for his strong convictions, meticulous researches, and enthusiastic
supporters or enemies. Indefatigable traveler, Dio crisscrossed the
Mediterranean basin and spoke with authoritative priests and mystics, being
brazen in his criticism of Domitian; he was a close personal friend of both, Nerva
and Trajan.
It
is surely worthwhile to refer to his texts and concepts, interpretations and suggestions,
contemplations and postulations, but today, one scholar must also take into
account and, in addition, highlight and elucidate the very significant position
that Dio Chrysostom held in Roman Anatolia. This makes an enormous contrast
with the epic poets, Hesiod, Homer, and others, who were merely popular bards
in small cities known to be ruled by a petty local authority and therefore
deprived of any significant literary, valuable archives, academic/educational
and scientific resources or an outstanding historical documentation. I intentionally
underscore this point because Dio Chrysostom must be considered as a far more
trustworthy source of information about Homer than Homer about the Trojan War. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dio_Chrysostom
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дион_Хрисостом
All
the discourses (Λόγοι) of Dio
Chrysostom can be found here:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/home.html
Russian
translations are available here:
http://myriobiblion.byzantion.ru/dion/dion-ind.htm
In
his 53rd discourse, Dio Chrysostom expands briefly on Homer (ΠΕΡΙ ΟΜΗΡΟΥ).
The
Ancient Greek text and an English translation, one can find here:
http://mercure.fltr.ucl.ac.be/Hodoi/concordances/dion_Chrys_homere_53/lecture/default.htm
An
English translation can be found here:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/53*.html
A
Russian translation can be found here:
http://myriobiblion.byzantion.ru/dion/Dion-LIII.htm
http://myriobiblion.byzantion.ru/dion/Dion-prim.htm#LIII
In
his 55th discourse, Dio Chrysostom expands briefly on Homer and Socrates (ΠΕΡΙ
ΟΜΗΡΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΣΩΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ)
The
Ancient Greek text can be found here:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/H/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/55*.html
An
English translation is available here:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/55*.html
A
Russian translation can be found here:
http://myriobiblion.byzantion.ru/dion/Dion-LV.htm
In
his 11th discourse (or 'Trojan Discourse'), Dio Chrysostom discusses
extensively about the Trojan War; the title of the discourse reads:
"Maintaining that Troy was not captured" (ΤΡΩΙΚΟΣ ΥΠΕΡ ΤΟΥ ΙΛΙΟΝ ΜΗ
ΑΛΩΝΑΙ.) A modern English translation totals around 17500 words.
The
Ancient Greek text and an English translation can be found here:
http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/
(BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA SELECTA (BCS): cover page)
http://mercure.fltr.ucl.ac.be/Hodoi/concordances/intro.htm
(list of links to various authors' works / scroll down: Dion Chrysostome)
http://mercure.fltr.ucl.ac.be/HODOI/concordances/dion_Chrys_Troye_11/default.htm
(cover page with links to text & translation, list of the vocabulary and
additional lexicographical research)
http://mercure.fltr.ucl.ac.be/HODOI/concordances/dion_Chrys_Troye_11/lecture/default.htm
(links to pages with only five paragraphs each)
http://mercure.fltr.ucl.ac.be/HODOI/concordances/dion_Chrys_Troye_11/lecture/1.htm
(the very beginning of the text)
A
Russian translation can be found here:
http://myriobiblion.byzantion.ru/dion/Dion-XVIII.htm
http://myriobiblion.byzantion.ru/dion/Dion-prim.htm#XVIII
In
paragraph 37 (out of 154) of his 11th discourse, Dio Chrysostom, interrupts his
narrative to state the origin of his knowledge. His discourse follows the
pattern 'in medias res', because he starts his narrative straight away, well
before giving details about the source of his information and the way he acquired
full consciousness of Homer's forgery and historical distortion.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_medias_res
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_medias_res
More
specifically, Dio Chrysostom states: " I, therefore, shall give the
account as I learned it from a certain very aged priest in Onuphis, who often
made merry over the Greeks as a people, claiming that they really knew nothing
about most things, and using as his chief illustration of this, the fact that
they believed that Troy was taken by Agamemnon and that Helen fell in love with
Paris while she was living with Menelaus; and they were so thoroughly convinced
of this, he said, being completely deceived by one man, that everybody actually
swore to its truth. My informant told me that all the history of
earlier times was recorded in Egypt, in part in the temples, in part upon
certain columns, and that some things were remembered by a few only as the
columns had been destroyed, while much that had been inscribed on the columns
was disbelieved on account of the ignorance and indifference of later
generations. He added that these stories about Troy were included in their more
recent records, since Menelaus had come to visit them and described everything
just as it had occurred. When I asked him to give this account, he hesitated at
first, remarking that the Greeks are vainglorious, and that in spite of their
dense ignorance they think they know everything. He maintained that no
affliction more serious could befall either individual or community than when
an ignoramus held himself to be most wise, since such men could never be freed
from their ignorance".
http://mercure.fltr.ucl.ac.be/HODOI/concordances/dion_Chrys_Troye_11/lecture/8.htm
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/11*.html
The
Ancient Greek text reads: "ἐγὼ οὖν ὡς ἐπυθόμην παρὰ τῶν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἱερέων ἑνὸς εὖ μάλα γέροντος ἐν τῇ Ὀνούφι, ἄλλα τε πολλὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων καταγελῶντος ὡς οὐθὲν εἰδότων ἀληθὲς περὶ τῶν πλείστων, καὶ μάλιστα δὴ τεκμηρίῳ τούτῳ χρωμένου ὅτι Τροίαν τέ εἰσι πεπεισμένοι ὡς ἁλοῦσαν ὑπὸ Ἀγαμέμνονος καὶ ὅτι Ἑλένη συνοικοῦσα Μενελάῳ ἠράσθη Ἀλεξάνδρου· καὶ ταῦτα οὕτως ἄγαν πεπεισμένοι εἰσὶν ὑφ´ ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐξαπατηθέντες ὥστε καὶ ὀμόσαι ἕκαστος. ἔφη δὲ πᾶσαν τὴν πρότερον ἱστορίαν γεγράφθαι παρ´ αὐτοῖς, τὴν μὲν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς, τὴν δ´ ἐν στήλαις τισί, τὰ δὲ μνημονεύεσθαι μόνον ὑπ´ ὀλίγων, τῶν στηλῶν διαφθαρεισῶν, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ἀγνοεῖσθαι τῶν ἐν ταῖς στήλαις γεγραμμένων διὰ τὴν ἀμαθίαν τε καὶ ἀμέλειαν τῶν ἐπιγιγνομένων· εἶναι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ἐν τοῖς νεωτάτοις τὰ περὶ τὴν Τροίαν· τὸν γὰρ Μενέλαον ἀφικέσθαι παρ´ αὐτοὺς καὶ διηγήσασθαι ἅπαντα ὡς ἐγένετο. δεομένου δέ μου διηγήσασθαι, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον οὐκ ἐβούλετο, λέγων ὅτι ἀλαζόνες εἰσὶν οἱ Ἕλληνες καὶ ἀμαθέστατοι ὄντες
πολυμαθεστάτους ἑαυτοὺς νομίζουσι· τούτου δὲ μηθὲν εἶναι νόσημα χαλεπώτερον μήτε ἑνὶ μήτε πολλοῖς ἢ ὅταν τις ἀμαθὴς ὢν σοφώτατον ἑαυτὸν νομίζῃ. τοὺς γὰρ τοιούτους τῶν ἀνθρώπων μηδέποτε δύνασθαι τῆς ἀγνοίας ἀπολυθῆναι".
Onouphis
(Ὄνουφις; Onuphis; Онуфис) is merely the Ancient Greek rendering of 'Aa
Nefer' (: the very good), a usual designation of the bull who manifested as
Osiris Incarnate. As a locality, Onouphis belonged to the fourth ('twenty first')
'nome' (: district) of Egypt, being currently located ca. 10 km from Tanta in
the Western part of Delta (Mehallet Menouf). About:
https://www.trismegistos.org/geo/detail.php?tm=3093
https://imperium.ahlfeldt.se/places/28498.html
https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/727179
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onouphis
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Ancient_Egypt_map-hiero.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menouf
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Минуф
Sylvain Dhennin, (Per-) Inbou, Per-Noubet et
Onouphis. Une question de toponymie
https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01769471
Also:
Dio
Chrysostom (a brief, though interesting and up-to-the-point comment)
https://luwianstudies.org/dio-chrysostom/
Austin,
Norman. "5. Herodotus and Helen in Egypt". Helen of Troy and Her
Shameless Phantom, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008, pp. 118-136.
https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501720703-009
VII.
The absolute denigration of the Late Antiquity Greeks by the Ancient Egyptian
high priest as the destination of Human History
It
is not my intention at this point to analyze the devastating denigration of the
Ancient Greeks, as it was made by the Ancient Egyptian sacerdotal interlocutor
of Dio Chrysostom, but I have to state that it consists in one of the many
solid proofs about the absolute inferiority of the so-called Ancient Greek
civilization as regards Egypt, Cush (Ancient Sudan), Canaan, Anatolia,
Mesopotamia and Iran. This topic is at the epicenter of today's worldwide polarizations
with respect to Spirituality, Cult, Mysticism, Genius, Wisdom, Intellect,
Knowledge, Moral, Art, Science, Governance, and Culture. Every effort and
concertation in view of a multipolar world hinges on this very issue.
Either the numerous different countries, traditions
and cultures will eliminate and utterly delete the fallacy and forgery of
Ancient Greece, as stipulated by the racist, colonial intellectuals of Western
European Renaissance (1400-1600) and repeated by all the posterior, colonial,
academics down to our days, …
… or the entire Mankind will disappear in the
forthcoming nuclear annihilation that the corrupt values, the absurd mentality,
the pathetic ignorance, the villainous attitude, the lowly behavior, the
profane character, and the sacrilegious mindset of the modern Western nations
(as impacted by the fallacious Greco-centric and Euro-centric education,
academic life, and intellectual endeavors of their blind, paranoid and
dictatorial elites) will inevitably cause.
Christianity
irreversibly deleted the pernicious, evil, barbarian, nonsensical and uncouth 'culture'
of the so-called Ancient Greeks; it took some time for several Christian Roman
Emperors to physically exterminate those among the Ancient Greek speaking
populations who did not accept Christianity, but around the time of Justinian I
(527-565), the disreputable and blasphemous profanity named 'Greece' was
already extinct – thank God!
But,
starting with the Renaissance, all the Anti-Christian forces of Western Europe
started deploying a colossal effort to revive the dead culture of the world's
most infamous past. This is the reason for which the Western European
conquistadors and other colonial officers and armies perpetrated so many
physical and spiritual genocides throughout the world. In fact, the Western
European effort to revive the defunct pseudo-civilization of the Ancient Greeks
is tantamount to and absurd and intentional worldwide Zombification, which will
end up with the revelation of their eschatological agenda that provides for the
presentation of the Antichrist as the true Christ or Messiah or Mahdi or
Savior.
Although
they presented their topic in a pertinent and persuasive manner, Anatoly V. Belyakov
and Oleg A. Matveyshev failed to realize that the Ancient Egyptian priest's
words (as preserved in Dio Chrysostom's text) "… are vainglorious, and
that in spite of their dense ignorance they think they know everything. He
maintained that no affliction more serious could befall either individual or
community than when an ignoramus held himself to be most wise, since such men
could never be freed from their ignorance" are at the very origin of
every racism, barbarism, Nazism, odium and inhumanity. But, I must admit that
this was not the real focus of their research.
VIII.
Dio Chrysostom's Egyptian sacerdotal interlocutor had read Ramses III's Annals
Now,
when it comes to the contents of the lesson that the Ancient Egyptian priest
gave to Dio Chrysostom, we can conclude about what it may approximately have
been. The Anatolian Roman orator mentions a specific point, which proves the
veracity of the encounter that he describes; the Ancient Egyptian priest states
that "the history of earlier times was recorded in Egypt, in part in the
temples, in part upon certain columns"; this is absolutely true. Major
historical acts, Pharaonic campaigns, significant battles, remarkable
expeditions, what modern Egyptologists call the 'Annals' of the Pharaohs, and
the indispensable libations to gods that took place at the end of each great
event, all were narrated, inscribed and depicted on spiritually selected parts
of the walls and on some of the columns of the Ancient Egyptian temples.
Every
Ancient Egyptian temple was considered as a minimal representation of the
Universe; the architectural parts of the temples corresponded to the sections
of the macrocosm. In fact, every single temple was (and had to be) an
interpretation of the Creation or, if you prefer, an adaptation of the parts of
cosmos into the theoretical background that the sacerdotal architects of the
temple envisioned, taught and propagated. This consists in one more reason for
which I constantly refer to the unmatched superiority of the Ancient Egyptian,
Mesopotamian, Hittite Anatolian, Canaanite and Iranian civilizations and to the
unfathomable inferiority of the so-called Ancient Greek civilization {where the
temples had only to be 'beautiful' brothels for fallen, pathetic priests,
prostitutes ('priestesses'), and ignorant, idiotic laymen to perform orgies in
veneration of their fake gods}.
So,
and this is quite significant, the historical deeds of the pharaohs, however
critical they may have been, along with the final libation that consecrated their
successes, were written on the external walls and on some architectural members
of the outer courtyard and the columned hall of mortuary temples. In very few
cases, such deeds were narrated on the walls of cult temples. And in extremely
rare cases, the annals of a pharaoh were inscribed on the internal walls of the
chamber housing the Holy of Holies where supreme spiritual acts were performed.
This depended exclusively on the relationship that the pharaoh in question had
with the specific temple's high priest and hierophant (the two most influential
sacerdotal figures during the mystical performance of cult). An example of
Pharaonic Annals written in internal parts of cult temples is offered in the
case of Thutmose III (in the temple of Amun at Karnak, Luxor/Thebes of Egypt). About:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тутмос_III#Памятники,_повествующие_о_войнах_Тутмоса_в_Азии
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_Thutmose_III
An
example of Pharaonic Annals inscribed on walls and colonnades of mortuary
temples is given in the case of Hatshepsut's temple at Deir el Bahri (Thebes
West). The Expedition to Punt (near Ras Hafun in today's Somalia) was narrated
on the walls and the columns of the second colonnade (southern or left side).
About:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пунт#Экспедиции_Хатшепсут_и_Тутмоса_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortuary_Temple_of_Hatshepsut#Terraces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatshepsut#Trade_routes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Punt
What
Dio Chrysostom's sacerdotal interlocutor may have had in mind when speaking
about texts inscribed on walls and columns that related to historical facts
associated to what his suppliant called 'Trojan War' we can easily assess by
studying and comprehending the Ancient Egyptian narratives of the three battles
that Ramses III fought in order to save Egypt and the world civilization from
the barbarian and unholy Sea Peoples. The texts and the bas-reliefs of his
mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (Thebes West) offer the proper
contextualization of the conversation that took place in Onouphis (more than
1300 years after the battles were fought), according to what we read in
paragraph 37 of Dio Chrysostom's 11th discourse.
The
Ancient Egyptian texts and bas-reliefs were first written on papyri and then
engraved on walls and columns; the final text corresponded to spiritual,
sacerdotal and Pharaonic norms, but it was elaborated on the basis of various
reports, earlier records, and several drafts that offered abundant if not
nauseating details that were not necessary (or even permissible) in the final
narrative. Apparently what was later mythologized by Homer and others as the
'Trojan War' was an unimportant event, a skirmish or a foolish attempt, which
caused the thunderous reaction of the majority of the populations of Western
Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, Crete, and South Balkans, thus terminating not only
the weak authority of the tiny Achaean kingdoms but also the formidable preponderance
of the Hittite Empire.
In
fact, the expedition (poetically overmagnified and viciously exaggerated to fully
unacceptable levels) may have involved the capture of a fortress, but the
Achaeans paid dearly for their loyalty to the Hittites, and this was the reason
for which what modern archaeologists call 'Mycenaean world' vanished from the
surface of the Earth. Even Egypt was exposed for the protection offered to
escapees like Menelaus, and after the destruction of Hattusha and Ugarit, the
Sea Peoples attacked with vehement odium the weakened empire of Ramses III,
which was only a shadow of Thutmose III's Kemet.
IX.
The fake term 'Ancient Greece' prevents us from assessing Homer's devastating
failure
Fourth
Point: the authors' overall evaluation of the impact the Homeric epics had on
Ancient Greece is correct, but inaccurate.
When
it comes to Homer and all the Ionian poets of epics and rhapsodies, their
intentional distortion of historical facts had one main target: the erase the
memory of the Sea Peoples' invasions and of the subsequent collapse of the
Achaean kingdoms.
At
this point, we have also to take into consideration what would have happened if
the Sea Peoples were not dispersed by Ramses III, but won the battles fought
against Egypt and returned home. A totally different culture, diametrically
opposed to that of the militarily strong Hittites and Achaeans, would have prevailed.
The notion of empire would have been replaced by the petty confederations of
the Lukka, the Peleset, and their likes. And there would have never been any
Homer and any poet willing to commemorate the brazen Achaean attempt that
finally failed. The Sea Peoples' invasions, as a major historical event that
plunged the wider region of Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, Crete and South
Balkans to darkness, ended up in total failure after the dispersed components
of the attackers settled in different locations throughout the Mediterranean
(Sardinia, Sicily, Palestine, Phoenicia) and lived there in -comparatively with
earlier strata- primitive conditions.
It
would be perhaps correct to say that Homer created 'Ancient Greece', but
unfortunately, neither Homer nor Ancient Greece ever existed; Homer, as one
specific poet, was the creation of the imagination (and the result of lack of
necessary documentation) of several South Balkan historians, whereas Ancient
Greece, as a hypothetical past entity, was fabricated intentionally by
Renaissance intellectuals.
In
several points throughout their book, the two authors examine the topic and
ponder whether Homer lived as an independent historical individual or he is
merely the product of a legend concerning the author or the authors of the
epics, which were finally attributed to one person. Anatoly Belyakov and Oleg Matveyshev however
claim that the epics were used in different cities-states as the foundation of
their local culture, education and national identity. This is true, but still it
does not fully reveal the real intentions of the early Ionian epic poets. In
addition, the role played by the epics in the formation of what the two authors
call 'Ancient Greece' is questionable to significant extent.
What
Homer and the other epic poets tried apparently to revive was the feeling of
the Achaean unity, commonwealth, and values; but we must not forget even for a
moment that their audiences were mainly the Ionians and the Aeolians of Western
Anatolia, the Anatolian Sea and the South Balkans. Not all the predominantly
Pelasgian and Dorian populations of the wider region! In their outright
majority, they would vehemently reject these epics. And this is quite well
known!
Homer
did not use the filthy and unholy name of Selloi (i.e. the Pelasgian/Peleset
class of polytheistic priests of the non-Achaean shrine at Dodona: Iliad, 16:
233–235) as an ethnonym for the forces that attacked Troy. It is only several
centuries later, and due to continuous strives, clashes, conflicts and wars,
that the term Selloi or Hellenes ('Greeks') was imposed by the Dorians onto all
the other tribes and settled populations as a recapitulative name to describe the
diverse South Balkan clans of significantly different ethnic, cultural and
religious backgrounds. Contrarily to Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle
and others, Homer called the participants of the anti-Trojan expedition either
Achaeans or Danaans. This certainly makes an enormous difference. The extremely
scarce use of the term 'Hellenes' in the epics is a notable problem per se; no
one can really understand in depth the essence of the narrative, before fully
comprehending the fact that for Homer this name was an abomination.
How
can we assess the Trojan War epics' impact on the different tribes of the wider
region? An early approach will certainly flood us with fabulous references,
splendid mentions, and hyperbolic praises of the mythical author(s); it is
certain that many intellectuals and authors in Ionia, Argos, Thebes, Sparta,
Attica, and Magna Graecia (Southern Italy and Sicily) expressed an unequaled
respect and an unprecedented admiration for the author(s) of the epics. This
situation continued among certain Greek-speaking and Roman authors of the Late
Antiquity. However, flattering words consist only in a fraudulent
representation of the historical reality. And we have good reason to believe
that Homer did not truly trust these 'words': 'hepea pteroenta' (winged words).
About:
Françoise
Letoublon. Epea Pteroenta ( " Winged Words " ). Oral Tradition, 1999:
Oral Tradition, 14 (2), pp. 321 – 335; https://hal.science/hal-01469426
The
only straightforward and substantial question that we have to make in order to
evaluate the approximate impact that Homer and the epics attributed to him had
on the various tribes, which inhabited parts of Western Anatolia, the Anatolian
Sea, South Balkans and Crete during the period 700-300 BCE, is the following:
-
Did Homer or did he not achieve to pass onto the Ionians and the Aeolians (and eventually
onto other tribes and populations) of the 7th c. BCE the fundamental spiritual,
moral, royal, military, religious, socio-behavioral, cultural, literary, and
artistic values and principles of the 2nd millennium BCE Achaeans?
The
only possible response to such a question is a flat 'no'.
The
Achaean world, as attested on excavated palaces, temples, fortresses and tombs
and as documented on deciphered texts (Linear B), could not be resurrected from
the dead, and actually it never did.
Many
modern scholars, and in the case of the present book both authors, have correctly
concluded that Homer could not and actually did not have access to a genuine representation
of the Achaean world. It goes without saying that what you fail to first represent
to yourself in an authoritative and truthful manner, you cannot possibly
communicate to others in a trustworthy way. Homer could not read any Linear B
inscription, if he happened to ever find one, and the Achaean scribes, who used
to write these texts, were all killed mercilessly by the thunderous rebellion
of the Sea Peoples (Lukka, Peleset/Pelasgians, Tjekker/Teucroi, etc.) before
their Hittite counterparts and allies underwent the same fatal experience.
Only
a vague reminiscence of the Achaean world was left among poets, priests and
elder mystics, when the author(s) of the epics were born. So, the conclusion is
that we cannot possibly evaluate Homer's impact onto the Ionians and the
Aeolians, before first identifying his true intentions. Most of the scholars,
who address this issue, commit a catastrophic error; they project their wrong
viewpoint on 5th and 4th c. BCE 'Greece' onto the situation that prevailed
throughout Western Anatolia, the Anatolian Sea, Crete, and South Balkans at the
end of the 8th and the 7th c. BCE, when the epic poets of the Ionians composed
their rhapsodies.
The
biased colonial scholars have already perceived 5th and 4th c. BCE 'Greece' as
an ethnic, linguistic, spiritual and cultural entity whereas it was not; even
what they consider as the boundaries of their fictional 'Ancient Greek world'
never existed in reality. I have to be specific now with respect to 5th and 4th
c. BCE 'Greece'.
Caria
was not 'Greece'.
Lycia
was not 'Greece'.
Ionia
was not 'Greece'.
Aeolia
was not 'Greece'.
Lydia
was not 'Greece'.
Phrygia
was not 'Greece'.
Thrace
was not 'Greece'.
Macedonia
was not 'Greece'.
Illyria
was not 'Greece'.
Crete
was not 'Greece'.
The
Anatolian Sea was not 'Greece'.
And,
more importantly, the purely geographical entity 'Greece' did not constitute an
ethnic, linguistic, spiritual and cultural entity; when it comes to governance,
the numerous tiny kingdoms and petty republics were multi-divided, reviled one
another, and, even worse, they were ceaselessly waging wars one upon another,
committing execrable atrocities almost in every spot of the wretched land. You
cannot possibly call those shabby statelets 'Greece' for a very good reason:
they did not call themselves that way.
The
aforementioned reality was attested in the fallaciously taught, academically
distorted, and educationally mythologized 'Greek-Persian Wars' that the Carian
traitor and bogus-historian Herodotus wrote and titled 'Median Wars' due to his
malignancy, confusion, and ignorance. In those events, the majority of the
Ancient Greek states rejected to participate and did not side with the
barbarian rascals of Athens and Sparta, who opposed the annexation of the South
Balkan extremities to the Achaemenid Iranian Empire.
Even
more meaningfully, during and after the end of those wars, one after the other,
most of all these trivial tyrants, leaders, pretenders and oligarchs moved to
Parsa (Persepolis), the great imperial capital of Iran, and in a most docile,
shameless and disreputable manner, implored the support and the favors of the
Iranian Emperor against their rivals, relatives, former friends, neighbors,
competitors, associates and assistants. So disgustingly treacherous and
felonious they were that they turned the wider region into a wasp nest. Soon afterwards,
they started quarreling, ruining and devastating one another in the so-called
Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE). Further wars among them continued for more
than 60 years also involving three 'holy wars' (355-346 BCE), until a foreign
king, Philip II of Macedonia, defeated the alliance of Thebans and Athenians in
the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BCE). And as it is known, Alexander the Great
failed to annex to Macedonia all these petty statelets, because Sparta and its
allies opposed and rejected the Macedonian rule. About:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban%E2%80%93Spartan_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Sacred_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Macedon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
In
the light of these facts, one can effectively identify the epic poets' and
Homer's intentions; as it is well known and as Anatoly Belyakov and Oleg Matveyshev state repeatedly
in their informative and resourceful book, after the Trojan War, all the
Achaean kingdoms were destroyed and the wider region of Western
Anatolia, the Anatolian Sea, Crete, and South Balkans was plunged into decay,
barbarism, multi-divisions, chaos and endless wars. Those centuries were
called, not without reason, by modern scholars 'the Dark Ages'. This was due to
the destructions caused due to the Sea Peoples' rebellions ('in their land of origin' as per the
Ancient Egyptian texts), their invasions, and the final annihilation of the
invaders at the gates of Egypt (in three land and sea battles). However,
although extensively recorded in the Ancient Egyptian Annals, this major event
cannot be attested in any Ancient Greek source.
This, in and by itself,
explains very well what the epic poets' intentions were. The Achaeans had
almost entirely disappeared. The Ionians and the Aeolians were a minority among
the indigenous Pelasgians. Then, the so-called 'descent of the Dorians' added new
rivals to the diverse inhabitants of the wider region. Certainly, the
Pelasgians had their own epics and narratives detailing their own achievements:
they had rebelled and burned the Achaean fortresses and palaces; they had
attacked the Hittite Empire and destroyed its sizeable and famous capital,
Hattusa; they had also proceeded further to Syria and Canaan, further spreading
terror and fire. And at the end, they had also attacked Egypt, brazenly pursuing
there the last remnants of the Achaean world who had managed to escape. This is
the narrative that Homer's folk tales managed to eclipse.
In fact, most of the
endless wars that took place in the wider region of Western
Anatolia, the Anatolian Sea, Crete, and South Balkans were due to the continuation of the
two irreconcilable traditions and opposite alliances of the 2nd millennium BCE:
the Achaeans with the Hittites vs. the Peleset/Pelasgians with the Lukka and
the Taruisha/Trojans. Finally, a minor operation, namely the capture of a
fortress, i.e. a historical detail, obscured the historical reality, i.e. the
fact that the conquerors of Troy were destroyed in a most irreversible manner,
after their useless victory. As the Hittite Empire had collapsed and the
Hittites had relocated from Cappadocia to NW Mesopotamia and Northern Syria, there
was apparently no reason for an Ionian epic poet to praise the Hittite-Achaean
alliance; that's why another specific reason about the Achaean military
campaign had to be invented. But the concealment of the Sea Peoples' invasions
was absolute among the Ionians, the Aeolians, and the Dorians of the 1st
millennium BCE.
There
is however a major reason due to which Homer's effort marked finally a certain success.
The Sea Peoples in their totality had not developed a sophisticated
civilization; it seems that few among them had scribes and priests able to
write and keep records. Some of the non-deciphered writings of the region may
eventually belong to them, but their disastrous defeat in Egypt and dispersion
around the Mediterranean put an end to those colleges of learned men. The fact
that these populations did not have an outstanding writing system to keep their
records written prevented them from saving their narratives and traditions and
from opposing Homer's clearly false narratives.
Quite
contrarily, with the introduction of the Phoenician alphabet among Ionians, the
conditions were made available for the supporters of Homer's rhapsodies to
diffuse their narrative. As their opponents failed to properly react, the
Ionians managed to form the basis of an Epic History, positioning themselves as
the successors to the Achaeans. That's why they were also able to erase the
Pelasgian / Lukka / Trojan narrative, which constituted the historical truth
and was ultimately saved in Egypt.
But
the Achaean legend was not reconstituted, and the Ionians, Aeolians and Dorians
were not united. Fallacious when it comes to the historical past, Homer's epics
proved to be purely futile for posterior generations. Being proud about a
tradition that they could not follow or reproduce, the Ionians were contented
with literary forms, being however totally deprived of imperial substance. That
is why they were lower than the Ancient Oriental empires and the great civilizations
of those centuries (Sargonid Assyria, Nabonid Babylonia, Achaemenid Iran),
pretty much like the Achaeans were lower than their Hittite allies; this is
confirmed by the undeniable fact that no imperial annals, no cosmogonies, no
cosmological myths, no eschatological revelations, and no spiritual wisdom
texts have been found in Linear B – in striking contrast with the Hittite
cuneiform and hieroglyphic documentation.
X. Conclusion
At the end of this very
lengthy book review and discussion of the topics presented in the passionately
elaborated book 'The Trojan Horse of Western History' by Anatoly V. Belyakov
and Oleg A. Matveyshev, I have to add few points, although they are not
directly related to the matter. If I do so, this is due to the fact that both
authors wanted also to highly contextualize their approach to and research
about the Trojan War, and the hidden realities behind it (notably in their
postface: 'In lieu of an afterword', p. 169).
The two authors are
correct in their suggestion that, by saying lies about the Trojan War, Homer
created Ancient Greece and that by saying lies about Ancient Greece, Modern
Europeans created European History. This issue is definitely crucial because the vicious
and racist historical distortion, which was undertaken by the colonial
historiographers and intellectuals during the Western European Renaissance,
hinges on the Trojan War forgery, since it has been the first to fully epitomize
the divisive falsehood 'East vs. West' (Orient vs. Occident).
Without
this entirely Manichaean invention, the criminal murderers and inhuman conquistadors
of Western Europe would have never caused the unprecedented bloodshed for which
they must be exemplarily punished. As a matter of fact, there was never a
division 'East vs. West' in the History of Mankind. The evil Western European
revisionists produced it in order to vilify the Orient and thus present the
shame of Western barbarism as a potential 'civilization'. The execrable forgery
of Herodotus also contributed to this malignantly intentional divide, but it
all started with the inclusion of the Trojan War in the mythical 'history' of
the post-Renaissance Western revisionists. In fact, Nazism starts with the lies
about the Trojan War.
Anatoly V. Belyakov and
Oleg A. Matveyshev, throughout their fascinating book, seem not
to fully realize that
the only possible criteria and measures that we can apply in our evaluation of the
so-called Ancient Greek civilization are those of the earlier civilizations of
Anatolia, Canaan, Egypt and Mesopotamia. Never ever does the posterior define or predetermine
the anterior; the Achaeans are therefore to be viewed, evaluated and rated as
per Hittite criteria. The ethnically, linguistically and culturally different
populations of 2nd millennium BCE Crete are to be assessed and judged as per
Egyptian terms and measures.
And
the 1st millennium BCE Western Anatolia, Anatolian Sea, South Balkan, and Crete
constituted a multi-divided environment of tiny states without an imperial
concept, worldview and order; when compared with Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia,
all these quarreling states of the so-called 'Greek world' look marginal,
peripheral, underdeveloped, destitute and ignorant, as they were deprived of a
millennia-long tradition of spirituality, world conceptualization, unsurpassed
wisdom, advanced science, and imperial worldview and order.
In
fact, what was considered as the top human achievement in Mesopotamia, Egypt,
Anatolia and Iran, i.e. the analytically described and highly revered concept
of Empire, was impossible to be understood (let alone reproduced) by the clueless,
backward, uncultured and inconsistent Ancient 'Greeks'. These are the criteria
according to which the 'Ancient Greeks' are to be evaluated and rated;
furthermore, all hitherto considered Ancient Greek criteria are to be
obliterated as erroneously selected and absurdly used by mindless scholars, who
failed to understand that the posterior is defined as per the terms of the
anterior.
Yet,
Alexander the Great realized very well that the only measures, terms, and
criteria that mattered to him were those of the Babylonians, the Egyptians and
the Iranians. That is why he selected Babylon as capital, he wanted his wife to
be Iranian, and he considered the blessing of the Egyptian high priests as
important to him – not that of the unimportant, ignorant and worthless Athenian
priests.
The two authors
evidently understood that 'Ancient Greece' constitutes merely a false element
of the Modern European version of History, which is entirely forged. Refuting
this fallacious version across the board would necessitate a long series of
volumes elaborated by an entire team of scholars; from this standpoint, the
valuable contribution of Anatoly Belyakov and Oleg Matveyshev marks a
remarkable first step in the Russian historiography.
We can therefore safely claim that their approach, research and conclusion have to show the way to all Russian academics and intellectuals, scholars, historians and explorers; this book is also an alarming warning. It urgently imposes on all Russian scientists specializing in Humanities, Orientalism and Classics a major educational, academic, intellectual and ideological reconsideration and an overwhelming de-Westernization; only then, the rightful and heroic fight of the Russian soldiers in Ukraine will be fully justified, actively endorsed, and consciously consecrated.
-------------------------------
Download the book review as text only or as text and 130 pictures & legends:
https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2023/05/25/sea-peoples-invasions-egypt-the-hittite-empire-its-achaean-allies-lukka-peleset-the-trojan-war-homers-intentional-falsehood-and-the-modern-european-forgery-ancient-greece/
https://www.academia.edu/102359203/Sea_Peoples_Invasions_Egypt_the_Hittite_Empire_its_Achaean_allies_Lukka_Peleset_the_Trojan_War_Homers_Intentional_Falsehood_and_the_Modern_European_Forgery_Ancient_Greece
https://www.academia.edu/102359622/Sea_Peoples_Invasions_Egypt_the_Hittite_Empire_its_Achaean_allies_Lukka_Peleset_the_Trojan_War_Homers_Intentional_Falsehood_and_the_Modern_European_Forgery_Ancient_Greece_with_pictures_and_legends_
https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_9213%2Fall
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/sea-peoples-invasions-egypt-the-hittite-empire-its-achaean-allies-lukkapeleset-the-trojan-war-homers-intentional-falsehood-and-the-modern-european-forgery-ancient-greece
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/sea-peoples-invasions-egypt-the-hittite-empire-its-achaean-allies-lukkapeleset-the-trojan-war-homers-intentional-falsehood-and-the-modern-european-forgery-ancient-greece-with-130-pictures-legends
https://www.docdroid.net/3XpuSLE/sea-peoples-invasions-egypt-the-hittite-empire-its-achaean-allies-lukkapeleset-the-trojan-war-homers-intentional-falsehood-and-the-modern-european-forgery-ancient-greece-pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/2yftcxL/sea-peoples-invasions-egypt-the-hittite-empire-its-achaean-allies-lukkapeleset-the-trojan-war-homers-intentional-falsehood-and-the-modern-european-forgery-ancient-greece-pictures-legends-pdf
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/muhammad-shamsaddin-megalommatis-677982143_sea-peoples-invasions-egypt-hittites-activity-7067603963721728000-XVS8
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/muhammad-shamsaddin-megalommatis-677982143_sea-peoples-egypt-hittites-the-trojan-activity-7067606754682953728-dszK
https://www.calameo.com/read/00715689782228364dbe7
https://cupdf.com/document/sea-peoples-invasions-egypt-the-hittite-empire-its-achaean-allies-lukkapeleset-the-trojan-war-homers-intentional-falsehood-and-the-modern-european-forgery-ancient-greece.html
https://www.4shared.com/web/preview/pdf/bNlifTMlku
https://www.patreon.com/posts/sea-peoples-its-83571995
No comments:
Post a Comment