Were the Trojans Greek?

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
What I meant is, that the Troyans of the Ilias were regarded as Barbarians. True, the Ilias never said this. However these Troyans were regarded as Barbarians by the ancient Greek.
 
What I meant is, that the Troyans of the Ilias were regarded as Barbarians. True, the Ilias never said this. However these Troyans were regarded as Barbarians by the ancient Greek.

But "barbarians" did not carry the meaning of "uncivilized" to the Greeks in Pre-Classical and (most of) Classical times. However, Herodotus certainly saw the Trojans of the Trojan War as non-Greeks.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
But "barbarians" did not carry the meaning of "uncivilized" to the Greeks in Pre-Classical and (most of) Classical times. However, Herodotus certainly saw the Trojans of the Trojan War as non-Greeks.

Of course not. But to all Greek "Barbarians" were all of non-Greek descendent.
 
Of course not. But to all Greek "Barbarians" were all of non-Greek descendent.

This is problematic regarding Troy, since in Greek myths (Archaic and Classical, so five centuries after the Trojan War at best) Trojans are widely regarded as partaking of some Greek ancestry. Which, as stated above, did not actually prevent Classical Greeks to see them as "Barbarians".
However, this is more about later Greek perceptions of a largely mythical troy than about the actual Troy of the Bronze Age. We can guess, however, that regardless of later perceptions the real "Trojans" (maybe we should call them "Wilusans" to avoid confusion) were not "Greeks" and likely did not speak Greek in daily life.
 
Then again, didn't at least some Greeks regard the Macedonians as not Greek too?

Yes, but there's a thousand years between the period of the Trojans outlined in the Iliad and Macedonian ascendency. It's such a long time that it's nearly impossible to use such a later period to try to discern what the earlier Greeks would have thought of as barbarians.
 
Only one passage in the Iliad refers to people of "outland" speech, and that is a reference to the Carians. I would infer that the other people involved in the war were at least Indo-european. And since it was not long after the break up, the Myceneans may have recognized the Trojans as speaking a related language.
 
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the "Etruscans originating from Troy" theory. It is what the Etruscans themselves believed about their origins, and there is actually some evidence in support of it, most famously the Lemnos Stele written in a language very similar to that of the Etruscans, on an island just offshore from Troy. From the Wikipedia article on the Lemnian language:

The Lemnian language was a language spoken on the island of Lemnos in the 6th century BC. It is mainly attested by an inscription found on a funerary stele, termed the Lemnos stele, discovered in 1885 near Kaminia. Fragments of inscriptions on local pottery show that it was spoken there by a community. In 2009, a newly discovered inscription from Efestia was reported. Lemnian is accepted as being closely related to Etruscan.

[...]

The inscriptions are in an alphabet similar to that used to write the Etruscan language and the older Phrygian inscriptions, all derived from Euboean scripts

A relationship between Lemnian, Etruscan, and Raetian as a Tyrsenian language family is widely accepted due to demonstrations of close connections in vocabulary and grammar. For example, both Etruscan and Lemnian share two unique dative cases, type-I *-si and type-II *-ale, shown both on the Lemnos Stele (Hulaie-ši "for Hulaie", Φukiasi-ale "for the Phocaean") and in inscriptions written in Etruscan (aule-si - "To Aule" - on the Cippus Perusinus as well as the inscription mi mulu Laris-ale Velχaina-si, meaning "I was blessed for Laris Velchaina").

They also share the genitive in *-s and a simple past tense in *-a-i (Etruscan -⟨e⟩ as in ame "was" (< *amai); Lemnian -⟨ai⟩ as in šivai, meaning "lived").

Like Etruscan, the Lemnian language appears to have had a four-vowel system, consisting of "i", "e", "a" and "o". Other languages in the neighbourhood of the Lemnian area, namely Hittite and Akkadian, had similar four-vowel systems, suggesting early areal influence.

DNA evidence apparently also shows close links between the Etruscans and northwestern Anatolia. From European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 15 supp. 1 June 2007, session C.17, pg. 19.

Abstract: Here we show the genetic relationships of modern Etrurians, who mostly settled in Tuscany, with other Italian, Near Eastern and Aegean peoples by comparing the Y-chromosome DNA variation in 1,264 unrelated healthy males from: Tuscany-Italy (n=263), North Italy (n=306), South Balkans (n=359), Lemnos island (n=60), Sicily and Sardinia (n=276). The Tuscany samples were collected in Volterra (n=116), Murlo (n=86) and Casentino Valley (n=61). We found traces of recent Near Eastern gene flow still present in Tuscany, especially in the archaeologically important village of Murlo. The samples from Tuscany show eastern haplogroups E3b1-M78, G2*- P15, J2a1b*-M67 and K2-M70 with frequencies very similar to those observed in Turkey and surrounding areas, but significantly different from those of neighbouring Italian regions. The microsatellite haplotypes associated to these haplogroups allow inference of ancestor lineages for Etruria and Near East whose time to the most recent common ancestors is relatively recent (about 3,500 years BP) and supports a possible non autochthonous post-Neolithic signal associated with the Etruscans.

The enigma of Italy's ancient Etruscans is finally unravelled

They gave us the word "person" and invented a symbol of iron rule later adopted by the fascists. Some even argue it was they who really moulded Roman civilisation.

Yet the Etruscans, whose descendants today live in central Italy, have long been among the great enigmas of antiquity. Their language, which has never properly been deciphered, was unlike any other in classical Italy. Their origins have been hotly debated by scholars for centuries.

Genetic research made public at the weekend appears to put the matter beyond doubt, however. It shows the Etruscans came from the area which is now Turkey - and that the nearest genetic relatives of many of today's Tuscans and Umbrians are to be found, not in Italy, but around Izmir.

The European Human Genetic Conference in Nice was told on Saturday the results of a study carried out in three parts of Tuscany: the Casentino valley, and two towns, Volterra and Murlo, where important finds have been made of Etruscan remains. In each area, researchers took DNA samples from men with surnames unique to the district and whose families had lived there for at least three generations.

They then compared their Y chromosomes, which are passed from father to son, with those of other groups in Italy, the Balkans, modern-day Turkey and the Greek island of Lemnos, which linguistic evidence suggests could have links to the Etruscans.

"The DNA samples from Murlo and Volterra are much more highly correlated to those of the eastern peoples than to those of the other inhabitants of [Italy]," said Alberto Piazza of the University of Turin, who presented the research. "One particular genetic variant, found in the samples from Murlo, was shared only with people from Turkey."

This year, a similar but less conclusive study that tracked the DNA passed down from mothers to daughters, pointed to a direct genetic input from western Asia. In 2004, a team of researchers from Italy and Spain used samples taken from Etruscan burial chambers to establish that the Etruscans were more genetically akin to each other than to contemporary Italians.

The latest findings confirm what was said about the matter almost 2,500 years ago, by the Greek historian Herodotus. The first traces of Etruscan civilisation in Italy date from about 1200 BC.

About seven and a half centuries later, Herodotus wrote that after the Lydians had undergone a period of severe deprivation in western Anatolia, "their king divided the people into two groups, and made them draw lots, so that the one group should remain and the other leave the country; he himself was to be the head of those who drew the lot to remain there, and his son, whose name was Tyrrhenus, of those who departed".

It was a Roman who muddied the waters. The historian Livy, writing in the first century BC, claimed the Etruscans were from northern Europe. A few years later, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek writer living in Rome, came up with the theory that the Etruscans were, on the contrary, indigenous Italians who had always lived in Etruria.

The Lydian empire had by then long since passed into history. Its inhabitants were said by Herodotus to have been the first people to make use of gold and silver coins and the first to establish shops, rather stalls, from which to trade goods. They gave the world the saying "as rich as Croesus" - Croesus was their last king.

Herodotus's story about the drawing of the lots may or may not be true, but the genetic research indicates that some Lydians did, as he wrote, leave their native land and travel, probably via Lemnos, to Italy.

There, they were called "tuscii" in Latin. The obvious explanation for this has always been their fondness for building tower-like, walled, hilltop towns like those still to be seen scattered across Umbria and Tuscany.

But the latest conclusions may add weight to a rival, apparently more fanciful, theory that links their name to Troy, the "city of towers" and a part of the Lydian empire. The most likely date for the fall of Troy, as described by Homer, is between 1250 and 1200 BC.

The Etruscans' contribution to Roman civilisation is still debated. They provided Rome with some of its early kings, and maybe even its name.

The "fasces", the bundle of whipping rods around a double-bladed axe that became an emblem of authority for the Romans, was almost certainly of Etruscan origin.

However, not many words in Latin are thought to derive from Etruscan. An exception is "persona" from "phersu".

The Etruscans unquestionably created glorious art. Among their most celebrated works is the so-called Sarcophagus of the Bride and Bridegroom (or Married Couple), which is in a Rome museum. It shows two people with slightly tip-tilted noses and pixie-like features.

It is known the Etruscans tried to predict the future by reading the patterns of lightning. It is thought that they introduced the chariot to Italy. They almost certainly ate good meat. Tuscany is famed for its beef, particularly that from the Chiana valley, which has been celebrated since classical times.

Another recent genetic study, of "chianina" and three other Tuscan cattle strains, found they were unrelated to Italian breeds. Yet matches were found in Turkey and the Balkans, along the supposed route of some of ancient Italy's most enigmatic immigrants.

Timeline

1200BC First traces of Etruscan civilisation

700BC Etruscans borrow alphabetic writing from Greeks, and become first people in Italy to write

616-579BC Rome ruled by its first, legendary Etruscan king, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus

550BC Etruscan power at zenith. Three confederations hold Po valley and coast south of Rome, heartland of southern Tuscany, and western Umbria. Allied with Carthaginians, Etruscans trade across the Mediterranean

535BC At Alalia, off Corsica, fleet of Carthaginians and Etruscans defeat Greek fleet. But Carthaginians, not Etruscans, assert control over seas

510BC Last Etruscan king, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, is expelled from Rome

474BC At Cumae, off Naples, Greek fleet defeats Etruscans, who start to lose grip on area south of Rome

396BC Romans capture Veii, an Etruscan settlement north of Rome; destruction of settlement marks start of long period in which Romans gradually annex towns of Etruscan heartland. By start of first century BC, all of Etruria has been absorbed by Rome republic

So Livy's tale of a Trojan migration to Italy may have been based on a core of historical truth, but with the Trojans changed to being ancestral to the Latins instead of the Etruscans, to suit his nationalist propagandizing tendencies. Meaning that the Etruscans, who actually were descended from northwestern Anatolian immigrants, had to have their origins shifted from Troy to north of Italy -- we cannot have rival claims of Trojan origins, can we?

So presumably the Trojans would have spoken a language akin to Etruscan/Lemnian, which apparently was a West Anatolian language related to Carian or Lycian..
 
Last edited:
So Livy's tale of a Trojan migration to Italy may have been based on a core of historical truth, but with the Trojans changed to being ancestral to the Latins instead of the Etruscans, to suit his nationalist propagandizing tendencies. Meaning that the Etruscans, who actually were descended from northwestern Anatolian immigrants, had to have their origins shifted from Troy to north of Italy -- we cannot have rival claims of Trojan origins, can we?

The Etruscans were supposed (by some authors) to have come from Lydia, not Troy. Whilst the Troad was later part of the Lydian Empire, this was centuries after the city had been destroyed, and no ancient author (AFAIK) claimed that the Trojans and the Lydians were the same people. Nor was the theory of the Etruscans' Asian origin incompatible with that of the Romans having come from Troy: in the Aeneid, for instance, the Etruscans are several times described as Lydii. Claiming that Livy deliberately suppressed the Etruscans' true origins to bolster some sort of nationalistic propaganda goes beyond the limits of what legitimate speculation can tell us.

So presumably the Trojans would have spoken a language akin to Etruscan/Lemnian, which apparently was a West Anatolian language related to Carian or Lycian..

Well, it was "related" in the sense that the languages affected each other through areal proximity, but not in the sense of being part of the same language family. Hence all the similarities prove is that speakers of the various languages were living near one another for a long period of time, which we could have worked out anyway.
 
The Etruscans were supposed (by some authors) to have come from Lydia, not Troy. Whilst the Troad was later part of the Lydian Empire, this was centuries after the city had been destroyed, and no ancient author (AFAIK) claimed that the Trojans and the Lydians were the same people. Nor was the theory of the Etruscans' Asian origin incompatible with that of the Romans having come from Troy: in the Aeneid, for instance, the Etruscans are several times described as Lydii. Claiming that Livy deliberately suppressed the Etruscans' true origins to bolster some sort of nationalistic propaganda goes beyond the limits of what legitimate speculation can tell us.



Well, it was "related" in the sense that the languages affected each other through areal proximity, but not in the sense of being part of the same language family. Hence all the similarities prove is that speakers of the various languages were living near one another for a long period of time, which we could have worked out anyway.

There is evidence that the legend of Trojan origins was known to Southern Etruscans centuries before Livy. It is a reasonable (but not proven) possibility that it entered Roman tradition from Etruscan legends. For both Romans and Etruscans, it appears to have functioned giving them some "pedigree" within the growing and increasingly international commercial world of the Iron Age Mediterranean.
 
Too bad that Claudius's works on the Etruscans did not survive to the present. From Wikipedia:

Besides the history of Augustus' reign that caused him so much grief, his major works included an Etruscan history and eight volumes on Carthaginian history, as well as an Etruscan dictionary and a book on dice playing. (Claudius is actually the last person known to have been able to read Etruscan.)

If the history and dictionary had survived, we would know so much more about the Etruscans and their language, and in particular about their relationship to the various groups in western Anatolia (as well as possible early alliances between Etruscans and Carthaginians against the Greeks, of which only hints remain in surviving records).
 
Last edited:
There is evidence that the legend of Trojan origins was known to Southern Etruscans centuries before Livy. It is a reasonable (but not proven) possibility that it entered Roman tradition from Etruscan legends. For both Romans and Etruscans, it appears to have functioned giving them some "pedigree" within the growing and increasingly international commercial world of the Iron Age Mediterranean.

What is the evidence, exactly, if you don't mind my asking?
 
Too bad that Claudius's works on the Etruscans did not survive to the present. From Wikipedia:



If the history and dictionary had survived, we would know so much more about the Etruscans and their language, and in particular about their relationship to the various groups in western Anatolia (as well as possible early alliances between Etruscans and Carthaginians against the Greeks, of which only hints remain in surviving records).

Indeed. But that it is equally true for an awful lot of Ancient literature, in the broadest sense. Of the hundreds of plays represented in Greek and Roman theatres, we only have a few tens. All Pre-Platonic philosophy is fragmentary. Most ancient historians are little more than names to us. Carthaginians must have had some rich literature, of which we have nothing. We managed our way to understand extant Etruscan inscriptions, but we'd know a hell of a lot more if Claudius' work survived or, better yet, if actual Etruscan literature did.
 
And these tomb paintings say that the Etruscans themselves were descended from the Trojans, do they?

Not precisely, but, IIRC, they featured Aeneas prominently. I tried yesterday to locate the book and passage where the point is discussed, but without success.
 
And these tomb paintings say that the Etruscans themselves were descended from the Trojans, do they?

Googling "Etruscan tomb paintings" brings up a lot of scenes from the Trojan War, so the story in some form was certainly familiar to them. And while it does not prove anything, they do seem to present the Trojan warriors, especially Aeneas, in a more positive way, so I believe that they are more sympathetic to the Trojans than to the Greeks.
 
Not precisely, but, IIRC, they featured Aeneas prominently. I tried yesterday to locate the book and passage where the point is discussed, but without success.

Googling "Etruscan tomb paintings" brings up a lot of scenes from the Trojan War, so the story in some form was certainly familiar to them. And while it does not prove anything, they do seem to present the Trojan warriors, especially Aeneas, in a more positive way, so I believe that they are more sympathetic to the Trojans than to the Greeks.

Given that the origin of the Etruscans was brought up by several ancient authors, we'd expect at least one of them to raise the Trojan origins theory if it were a live one at the time. Something as subjective and impressionistic as "They made a lot of pictures of Aeneas" or "They seem to present the Trojans positively"* isn't really enough to show that the Etruscans claimed Trojan ancestry, and it certainly isn't enough to show that the Romans deliberately suppressed this claim for nationalistic propaganda reasons.**

Besides, Greek culture was very much de rigeur in this time period, so it's not surprising to find Etruscan artists copying Greek themes and styles. Heck, the Romans did pretty much the same thing, and they never claimed to be descended from Greeks. Nor is it surprising that one of the major Greek myths, and one full of action and excitement and adventure, should prove particularly popular.

(* Positively compared to what, BTW? It's not like the Trojans in the Iliad are on the whole any worse than the Greeks are.)

(** Incidentally, the Romans were generally the first to acknowledge that they were descended from a hodgepodge of different tribes and peoples. Trying to twist the record to make it seem like Rome was the one true descendant of Troy doesn't really seem in character for them.)
 
Top