Did Troy Exist ?

[Stormer]

i always wondered did troy exsisited and did the war bettween troy and greece really happen?

[CBR]

Couldnt you just do a websearch? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

http://www.royalty.nu/legends/Troy.html


CBR

[Red Peasant]

Yes, Troy existed. But, as for the Trojan War with its 10 year siege, well I think it's almost impossible to prove. The Iliad was written probably in the 8th century BC, yet the events it relates occurred during the Bronze Age Mycenaean period some 350-500 years before. The Mycenaean civilisation collapsed big style for reasons still not fully understood c.1100-1000 BC, which was followed by a virtually impenetrable 'Dark Age'. Archaeological finds at Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns originally seemed to confirm the conflict, but hopes have since proved illusory as the dates of the evidence do not tally. Things are not helped by the fact that the archaeology has been almost irredeemably spoiled by Schliemann's execrable excavation methods, being a mere glory and treasure hunter.

[Mount Suribachi]

well, I am no expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, but I thought that for centuries the Iliad was regarded as myth/legend, then they found out it was actually true. But I'm pretty ignorant on the whole subject compared to Red Peasant http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[bighairyman]

troy exist in moreden time Turkey http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Teutonic Knight]

even if proof says it didn't, I probably wouldn't be able to accept it because I grew up with the Illiad and all that.....or something


god I'm tired.....

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Stormer @ Sep. 05 2003,06:05)]i always wondered did troy exsisited and did the war bettween troy and greece really happen?
In 1985 Michael Wood (British Historian) did a 6 part series for the BBC - "In Search of the Trojan War".

The accompanying BBC book that accompanied the series was reprinted a few years ago -

http://www.amazon.com/exec....s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520215990/qid=1063293809/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-6140345-7215357?v=glance&s=books)

Wood not only considered Homers Illiad but much more evidence that had only recently come to light (eg: Linear B decipherments) and found there was 'overwhelming' evidence for the Trojan War being a real occurence.

Wood also managed to ascertain where certain places (quoted in the Illiad) actually where in present day Turkey/Greece.

I found the series and teh book eye-opening. The Illiad is NOT a fable. It is History.

Troy did exist. The Trojan War did occur. The book is outstanding (one of my favourites - buy it - you won't be dissapointed).

Welly.

[Red Peasant]

Sorry Welly, the Iliad is a historical document as well as a work of literature, but it is not a work of historical writing. It is literature, and poetic literature at that, with its roots in an oral tradition many generations removed from the events it purports to relate (anthropologists have shown that such kinds of oral tradition are extremely unreliable even within two or three generations).

Personally, I believe there is the'germ' of an original historical event in the story, it being entirely possible there was a conflict of some sorts during the Mycenaean period, probably with its roots more in economic rivalry for control of Aegaean trade routes than in some fanciful tussle over an international slapper. But, that is just speculation.

[DBS]

One of the more interesting possibilities is that raised by a group of archaeologists, led by Peter James, who have advanced the theory that the chronology of ancient history, especially the Dark Age at the end of the Bronze Age, is seriously skewed, distorting dates by about two centuries. Too detailed an argument to do full justice to here, but in essence goes:

1) Egyptologists have cocked up dating the Pharaohs, tending to assume, in accordance with the ancient authority Manetho, that dynasty followed neatly on from dynasty, when in fact some dynasties may well have been in parallel during the more anarchic periods of Pharaonic history.

2) Other archaeologists, unaware that the Egyptologists had a big row on this subject in the first half of the 20thC, assume that when the Egyptologists say "This pot was made in the reign of Ramesses II, dates blah", that they are 100% accurate. So when they find a Ramesses II pot sitting in a Mycenaean grave, they assume that they know the date accurately.

3) If James et al are correct, the Dark Age never existed, but represent an artificial hole created by trying to link together the Bronze Age, based around Egyptian dating, perhaps 200 years out, and the Iron Age, based around much better, multi-source dating from Persian, Greek, Babylonian sources, etc.

As my old professor says in the foreword to their book, Centuries of Darkness, they may not have got it right in explaining how the periods should be redated, but they certainly have proved that the basis for the Egyptian dating is very dodgy indeed, and nowhere as sound as even most archaeologists think.

Anyway, the point is that if one were to knock a couple of hundred years off most Bronze Age dates, the possibility of there being a germ of truth in the Iliad and other Greek legends suddenly becomes far more credible. As Red Peasant says, they are literary masterpieces, and should never be mistaken for anything else.

My personal opinion: the Trojan War, if there was any truth in it as a fairly major confrontation, is perhaps most likely as a fight between the Ahhiyawa and the Hittites, for control of the western seaboard of modern Turkey.

[Wellington]

RP/DBS,

Yes, I know what you are saying. The Illiad is indeed a collection of poems by different different authors, but it does detail Historical events.

Until the 1920s everyone considered them as fables with no basis in fact. That all changed after Schliemanns Knossus excavations, which served to proove there was a germ of truth in these poems. It's this "truth" that I call History - because it is.

In the 1980's Wood collected 'new' evidence from various sources for his program/book and cross-referenced this new material with the works of Homer. This had not been done before but the results tended to confirm several events detailed in The Illiad are corroborated by other ancient sources.

Check the book - it's a great read. You may not be convinced but you certainly won't be dissapointed.

[Kalle]

Quote[/b] ]Things are not helped by the fact that the archaeology has been almost irredeemably spoiled by Schliemann's execrable excavation methods, being a mere glory and treasure hunter.

Well, it is prolly true that Schliemanns excavations did not help modern archeology in drawing their conclusions beacuase of the reason he lacked methods and understanding that exists today.

But it is also true that without Schliemann Troy prolly would not have been found at all or at least not for a long time.

As it was his doíng finding Troy and his enthusiasm and believe in the old homeric stories that helped him i think it is wrong to just call him a "mere glory and treasure hunter". His interest in history and knowledge prolly was at least as great as of those that wright in this forum.

Im no archeologist, being a humble historian instead, and lack the detailed knowledge of this event that some of u show that u have - but wasnt Schliemann if not the first so at least one of the first to use this method and didnt it start numerous such expeditions to find other historical places that so far only had been thought to be legends?

Kalle

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Kalle @ Sep. 12 2003,15:25)]But it is also true that without Schliemann Troy prolly would not have been found at all or at least not for a long time.
It would have been better for Troy to be uncovered by professional archaeologists at a later date, and it would have been discovered, no doubt about it. Schliemann didn't even adapt the best methods of his era, he virtually annihilated some 2000 years (edit: sorry c.3-3500yrs ) of archaeological record...he was a vandal. Wasn't he some kind of circus impresario?

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Sep. 12 2003,07:29)]Check the book - it's a great read. You may not be convinced but you certainly won't be dissapointed.
I've read the book about four times in total mate, not including the excerpts I had to study for a university module http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif My admiration for 'Homer' is unbounded, I just had to pull you up on the implication of your statement that it was a work of 'history'. Many eminent scholars would not agree with many of Woods' findings, which doesn't make them false but highlights the controversial nature of this ancient document. The case is 'not proven' for the Trojan War as detailed in the Iliad, and most would probably be sceptical. The romantic in me hopes that it is mostly true, but the scholar is doubtful.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

A few remarks:

BDS,

concerning the Dark Ages, there is still a hole in history... a few pointers, though I am not an expert.

The Linear B alphabet dissapears and then later the "modern" Greek alphabet pops up, apperantly while other developments (like pottery ad such) are contnuous..
Suddenly Greek speaking people appear in Ionia (Turkish west-coast). There is a big gap, which leaves it unknown where they are coming from.
[/list]

Indeed the gap can well be shorter then assumed.

The funny part is that most of Homers Iliad is anachronistic (at least when looking at whar archeological evidence and interpretations have come up with). That, in order to make the epic understandable for the audience, the epic evolved during the ages.



Red Peasant,

supposedly, again I am no expert at all, Schliemann himself later in life realised his errors, and went back. And excavated with much more scrutiny then before.
It is an undisputed fact that if discovered later, much more probably could have been found out, because of evolving technology. But that goes for every archeological discovery...

What was, IMHO, the most important thing Schliemann did was prove to the rest of the world that there can be a solid basis to many folk-stories and legends from the past.

This led the way for many discoveries made later that never would have been made, because they are based on old legends and literary sources.
Knossos is one such example. There is even more and more evidence popping up to what is the source of the Atlantis legend (the vulcanic eruption of Thera (Santorini) where Atlantis would have been located). And the stories about the Seven Plagues of Egypt, and events during the Exodus.

[Kalle]

Quote[/b] ]Schliemann himself later in life realised his errors, and went back. And excavated with much more scrutiny then before.
It is an undisputed fact that if discovered later, much more probably could have been found out, because of evolving technology. But that goes for every archeological discovery...


The last part very true it seems to me.




Quote[/b] ]It would have been better for Troy to be uncovered by professional archaeologists at a later date, and it would have been discovered, no doubt about it. Schliemann didn't even adapt the best methods of his era, he virtually annihilated some 2000 years of archaeological record...he was a vandal. Wasn't he some kind of circus impresario?

Ah yes, i agree with most of what u say but who says that if anyone had found it at a later stage in time it would have been archeologists? Of course it would have been better for all ancient ruins or other ancient things to be found by archeologists but that is rarely the case it seems to me.

And calling him a vandal sounds a bit strong to me. He can not have been totally stupid and ignorant of history when indeed he manage to locate this place with the help of nothing but himself and his homeros. I have to read a bit on this though to talk more of it.

Kalle

[Red Peasant]

Well, I'll leave you guys with your romantic view of Schliemann. He certainly made a name for himself, that's about all I can say of him. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Stormer]

so basiclly the awnsar to my question is no one knows weather the trojan war happend.

[Urban Legend]

Digging around and making up stuff is what they do. Don't believe them just because they have degrees, call themselves experts and use big words.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Urban Legend @ Sep. 13 2003,09:37)]Digging around and making up stuff is what they do. Don't believe them just because they have degrees, call themselves experts and use big words.
You have a point really, there have been many excellent 'amateur' archaeologists, however, they have worked in a professional manner, utilising the soundest methodological techniques available. It is time-consuming, painstaking work that would try the patience of a saint, yet worth it in the end.

Then, the controversies only really begin with the interpretation of the findings, that's when the arguments begin and the fun starts

Schliemann had no methodology, he used what I would call the 'bulldozer' approach. GAH CRETIN

[Efrem Da King]

Troy did exist.

[Scipio]

ive been to turkey and trust me it exists but some of the "artifacts" found there are not like there trojan horse

[DojoRat]

Stormer, My understanding of the archeological record is that there were a succession of "Troys" each built one on top of each other. Some were large, others weren't that significant, and some met violent ends while others didn't. The trouble in proving the "Trojan War" is that you have to match up the physical evidence of a large, vibrant, trading city that met a violent end with the time frame of the war suggested by the Illiad. Dating one or the other with certainty would be difficult, getting the two to align will keep people writing papers for years.

[LadyAnn]

It is rare to have a city vanish. The reason one seige the city was that the city is valuable. Once won over, the new owner would certainly renovate and build on top of it.

My point of view:

The oral tradition is quite inaccurate but at the same time quite reliable source. Something must have been happened to have both Iliad and Odyssy talking about Troy. Even a Roman legend about founding of Rome talked about settlers going from the East after the war of Troy.

Ilyad and Odyssy, although both written down on paper by Homer, were part of the Greek oral tradition before that.

So, Trojan war must have been a real event affecting many "tribes" around the area, who probably would fight on one side or the other.

In my opinion:

Trojan War and Troy exists. But don't count on Ilyad to find all your answers about what really happened.

Now, let's talk about the rage of Achille and the face that launch a thousand ship.

Annie

[Wellington]

The oral tradition is quite inaccurate but at the same time quite reliable source. Something must have been happened to have both Iliad and Odyssy talking about Troy. Even a Roman legend about founding of Rome talked about settlers going from the East after the war of Troy.

Ilyad and Odyssy, although both written down on paper by Homer, were part of the Greek oral tradition before that.

I agree totally.

However, does that make such sources History? I would say yes, perhaps not in the sense of the word that we in the 21st Century would consider to be Historical documents/text but certainly in terms of what was possible at that time.

Herodotus is considered to be the "Father of Historians", due to the fact that his work "The Histories" is the earliest recorded text that we, in the 21C, can reasonably decipher in terms of Historical timing and events. However, any one who has read The Histories will know just how difficult it is to follow due to Herodotus defining events in terms of the ruling period of some King (or suchlike) that was reigning at the time of the specific event.

Horodotus doesn't use dates to record events.

However, consider Thucydides whose work "The Peloponnesian War" was written and recorded in terms of dates. Well, ok, not really dates as such but seasons within years - which is very similar. Therefore, to my mind, Thucydides was the real "Father of Historians" as his work was the first we know to have survived that documents events in a chronalogical timed order.

What about Homer? Well, whether of not 'Homer' is one or several people is irrelavent. The works attributed to him are not really considered by 21C Historians to be History in our sense - but such events are recorded in a similar chronalogical order to what we understand - albeit in a poetic manner.

Does that make poetry unreleastic if such a medium is used to document Historical fact?


Now, let's talk about the rage of Achille and the face that launch a thousand ship.


I read somewhere that other ancient texts (Babylonian?) also alluded to a beautiful women, at around the same time period as Homers and the same location, that was the cause of a major war at the time.

Considering we are told that the events contained in the Illiad spanned a time period of 10-12 years, I suspect it's not unreasonable to assume these were major events in the known world at that time. It's also not unreasonable to assume other texts may also allude to such events if they were indeed 'Earth shattering' in there scope for that time period.

Is it fair to say that the Illiad may well document the first major recorded military amphibious operation (1,000 ships ) in History, that was over 10 years in the planning and preparation? In comparison it makes D-Day sound like a stroll in the park

I would love to know

Welly

[Pellinor]

Quote[/b] (Kalle @ Sep. 12 2003,18:18)]And calling him a vandal sounds a bit strong to me. He can not have been totally stupid and ignorant of history when indeed he manage to locate this place with the help of nothing but himself and his homeros. I have to read a bit on this though to talk more of it.
From reading Schliemann's account of his work at Troy it is hard not to regard him as a vandal. His sole aim was to find the Troy of the Iliad. He found the site to have a dozen or more cities on top of one another, so he ripped off the top ones until he found the one he wanted: he basically regarded everything on top of Priam's city to be inconvenient rubbish, with no value whatsoever. He says so in as many words; he also regrets that he ripped up some of the one he wanted by mistake before he realised what he was doing.

He is much more in the 18th-19th century treasure-seeker mould than an archaeologist. "Ooh, a nice statue The British Museum will pay a lot for that: quick, chuck all those bits of clay tablet in the river so we can dig it out."

[DojoRat]

With the oral tradition it's good to remember the old line, "The story grew in the telling." The Iliad is a useful source not only for what it says directly about the Achaens but for the insight it gives on how they saw themselves and their past. The "real" story might have had only a few dozen ships and hundreds of warriors. It might have been about a women but maybe it centered on the Trojans failure to live up to their contract obligations in terms of dowry or inheritance. The poem glorifies the past and so helps raise the esteem of those who claim to be descended from these great kings.

The Iliad may also be a mixture of stories. The Menelaus/Helen/Paris triangle is found throughout heroic literature. Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot is just one example. This may be the older strand.

The theme of Achilles seems more sophisticated. His rage at the death of Patrokolos leads him to disercrate Hector's body. This angers the gods and they rat out his weakness. He is being punished for his pride, for thinking his loss allows him to break the rules of Heroic conduct.

An interesting message for the King who hears it. Even you, my lord, have limits.

[Red Peasant]

In the words of a leading scholar of ancient Greek history, Prof J K Davies, 'the Iliad is next to useless as a historical document' ...no matter how much one might love it. Of course, you can accept it on faith, that's anyone's right, and quite an attractive proposition for such a wonderful work. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif