"Geoarchaeologist Proposes There Was a “World War Zero”" Topic

"During the late Bronze Age, the eastern Mediterranean was dominated by the "Group of 8," the Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Cypriots, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Assyrians and Babylonians. But around 3,200 years ago all of these civilizations went into steep decline—besieged by war, famine, corruption and bickering.

Archaeologists still debate why the disruption happened and whether it was a caused by an external event like an earthquake or climate change or the result of civil unrest.

Now, as Colin Barras at New Scientist reports, a geoarchaeologist named Eberhard Zangger is proposing a much grander cause for the collapse: an extended series of ancient conflicts that he dubs "World War Zero."

Last week, Zangger, head of the Luwian Studies foundation, which is based in Zurich, Switzerland, launched a book, as well as an extensive website, arguing that another culture he calls the Luwians began a series of invasions that eventually collapsed the other Bronze Age powers…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Zangger has been around for a long time – I've got all of his books (both in German and in English).

Basically, his hypothesis is that Troy/Wilusia was a part of the Luwian Confederation, a group that should be considered contemporary with the Hittites and Mycenaeans. He also argues (or did at one point) that the myth of Atlantis is based on the Trojan War and his book "A Flood from Heaven" argues the point quite convincingly. Finally, he argues that the infamous 'Sea People' raids were the result of attacks by the Luwian Confederation on Hittite's allies in the Levant and then on the Hittite interior, with forays into Egypt.

The Trojan War, according to his chronology, happened after the fall of the Hittites when the Luwians were themselves attacked by a confederation of Greeks led by Mycenae.

Interesting arguments but without documents, almost impossible to prove. However, I do find his recreation of Troy and its environs reasonable.

Fascinating stuff, the Late Bronze Age collapse is one of those topics I feel is very important to understand but so much is unknown and will probably always remain so.

-Will

Interesting article and links out form it – thanks.

There would be no decline, and no world war, were the period circa 1200BC to 700BC removed as a false "dark ages" period, and the remaining timeline stitched back together.

For all of his faults, I do believe that Velikovsky was absolutely right in his theories that Egyptologists made a great mistake in their dating system.

Velikovsky makes some excellent arguments in his works beginning here:

varchive.org/dag/index.htm

Interesting, but almost completely unsubstantiated, and not even obviously the best explanation for the data we do have. As a campaign setting, though, it sounds like fun.

And as usual when Tim brings up Velikovsky, I feel moved to say that I find his arguments utterly unpersuasive. If you care why, have a look at this thread, wherein I slightly go off on one:

TMP link

TL;DR: Modern conventional Aegean chronology does not rely very much, let alone completely, on Egypt; and even if it did, Velikovsky would still be creating more problems of interpretation than he solves.

Ben

\ You can go off all you like, but to date, only Velikovsky has tied together numerous archeological finds that explain why the "dark age" wasn't, and why the Mycenaean civilization, as well as the Trojan war belong closer to the 8th-7th centuries BC.

The tangled, convoluted, pretzel-twist explanations that so many archeologists use to explain artifacts that shouldn't exist, or are associated with finds 400-500 years, allegedly, apart would be pitiful if they weren't taken without protest by so many others.

Lol. Really? A "World War Zero"?

Is that like Wife Number Zero, the wife you never had? Or Child Number Zero, the one you wish you'd had?

They've got to work a little bit harder on coming up with those names.

Dan

I don't want this to dominate the thread, but I've done my best to explain why I think Velikovsky's picture is less convincing than the conventional narrative as it has developed over the last 40 years or so. To me, reading that site, it looks as though Velikovsky is the one who was engaged in pretzel-making. But if he's actually right, then it's *really* important to me and for what I do – which is why I followed your recommendation to look into it further. I realise that my old post reads a bit rant-y, (and I apologise for that), but I meant what I said at the end. If you can address the specific concerns I raised there, then I'd be grateful. Perhaps I've just misunderstood something.

Thanks!

Ben

Glad you enjoyed the reading boys.

Amicalement
Armand

Seems like the important point should be that this is a great campaign scenario!

Well even if it happened it's not a world war. If it is being counted as one, it's not Zero but at least -4 and probably a number more.

Agree with boy wundyr x !!! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand