"Ancient palace discovery challenges Spartan myth" Topic

New historical research suggests that one of the most legendary cities in history did not start out as a conquering warrior state — poking a hole in its founding myth…

Fox News: link

You know, a hundred years ago, this might have been news. Or does our understanding of the creation of Sparta by a merging of four villages actually go back to Classical times?

Who are you, and what have you done to Tango?
"Challenging myth" and "Rewriting history " are HIS Topics!

Umm, everybody's founding myths are actually myths.

Lacadaemon never really cut down a cherry tree neither.

Almost all conquering warrior states didn't start that way

Rome was a bunch of little villages around the Capitoline Hill

The Golden Horde started off as a bunch of rag-tag Mongol tribesmen who were more dangerous to each other than anyone else

The ancient Egyptians were a bunch of farmers and herders who settled along the Nile

The Assyrian Empire began as a bunch of farmers who over time created a city to protect themselves from nomadic raiders and their neighbours

Not exactly with respect breaking news

I found the story quite interesting.

I really don't understand the collective snide "harrumphing."

Thanks Bill

Parz, you really don't understand the reason, or was that tongue in cheek? 🤔

I believe Bill mistakenly left in a 3 letter word. 😉

My understanding of Late Bronze Age Greece—the palatial period—is that elite centres and their impressive residences were widespread.

When the palaces collapsed, for whatever reason, much of Greece appears to have reverted to a social and economic structure closer to that which had existed before the rise of the palatial kingdoms. Population levels may not have fallen as dramatically as was once thought, there was little or no displacement and there was considerable continuity beneath the apparent cultural decline.

Given that, it would be more surprising if there wasn't a Bronze Age palace site in Laconia and if the Classical Spartans were not largely descended from the inhabitants of the Bronze Age communities that preceded them.

I think the "harrumphing" stems from a different issue. The archaeological discovery itself is interesting, but some of the reporting seems to inflate its significance. Finding a Bronze Age elite centre in Laconia is noteworthy; presenting it as if it overturns our understanding of Spartan origins is rather more questionable. The "Harrumphers" are justified.

Hmm, there are these 'books" called the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" that deal with a Spartan king and queen of note during the Bronze Age. Menelaus and Helen were there before the "Dorians" arrived.

Here is the actual article on which this news report was based: link

I would not call it exciting reading, or definitive. It's an academic's language without much grace or for that matter clarity. It does seem to suggest an argument for reconsidering the origins of Sparta in certain senses, but it's hardly very assertive. Read, but be prepared for your eyes to glaze over.

Thank you for the link, Pazival.

" It's an academic's language without much grace or for that matter clarity." I guess that depends on your background. I found it riveting & well argued.

You and I have different standards for "riveting."

A few too many (actually frequent) uses of "could" "should" and "might have" for me in the argument, but a counter position wouldn't be much better. Plausible interpretation, yes. Proven? I dunno. But I'm hardly an expert on Sparta, mythical or otherwise.

Shagnasty, Mr. Nolan and his minions (or myrmidons?) have carefully explained to us that those books are fantasy--though he and they do seem sure that the area we now call Greece was inhabited by very different people in pre-classical times.

Still, who are you going to believe? An author whose work is still studied after 3,000 years? some stuffy archeologist? Or The Last Person in Hollywood Who Can Still Open a Movie?

I have always believed in the exact literal truth of both the Iliad and the Odyssey.
The Aeneid, not so much. But close.

DNA evidence:
link

Next they'll be telling us the Spartan kings weren't really descended from Herakles! When will it end? Sob!!

"the Spartan kings weren't really descended from Herakles! "

Of course they were. It just happens though, Herakles was an Anatolian pig-farmer.

Haha! Touche!

But he was really big and tough, right? Slept on nails, ate Anatolian haggis, wore lots of red?

Really big guy – nearly 5'2".
(things grow in the telling).

The Italian "Sons of Hercules" sword and sandal movies were not … accurate??? 😱
But, my local TV channel showed them Sunday at 12:00!

By golly, there's already been a game on this.

Plus: Sexy Queen Gorgo!

Everything I thought I knew about ancient history has been turned upside down!

miniMo
"Umm, everybody's founding myths are actually myths"

The word "actually" is an appeal to consensus because all stories are "myths". That the universe began with an explosion or that you're descended from a rock are likewise "myths". What matters is if they are useful and have meaning. Archeology, for example, would be nothing without the "myths" that inspire research and collation. Without the myths, artifacts would be merely isolated specimens in a catalogue. So, I'm quite happy with King Arthur, and that the Trojan Brutus was the first King of Britain.