Historicity of Myths

1

Homer's Iliad contains historical aspects. The myths in the epics comprised all knowledge about heroes and gods from a previous age: an age both mythical and remote (Lang, 1906:84). Homer in particular, is looking back to a preceding age (Nilsson, 1968:1). Persons living at the time of the bards (and Homer as well) believed the myths to be true. They apportioned them the value of history. These stories were events that took place in the past. Hence, the oral tradition of pre-historic Greece prompts one to consider that due to the fact that mythology, in connection with the oral tradition, was history to the Greeks, poems such as The Iliad and The Odyssey ought to be seriously examined for historical content and validity.

One of the problems plaguing the historian is the frequent vagueness of historical detail in The Iliad and The Odyssey. These obscurities are due in large part to the fact that as the author, Homer assumed his readers would have been familiar with the smallest details of his works (Jebb, 1905:56). Therefore, he would logically have had no reason to expand on these elements, such as Agamemnon receiving a breastplate from the king of Cyprus, or Priam offering Akhilleus a Thracian cup (Jebb, 1905:56).

The science of archaeology has given insight into the historicity of the Homeric poems. Where details in the poems are obscure, or external written records are absent, archaeological data have been of great import to the historian. The task of dealing with the historical value of the Homeric poems is made less daunting with the aid of archaeological interpretations. Both Mycenaean and Anatolian sites have yielded artifacts and features that strengthen some historical arguments for the poems, and weaken others. Heinrich Schliemann was the archaeologist who excavated the site of Troy, on the mound of Hissarlik, in Turkey (Bryce, 1998:393). His work, in addition to that of archaeologist Frank Calvert, was the foundation for historical verification of the possibility of a Trojan War. Carl Blegen continued Schliemann’s work and revealed further evidence for a historical Troy. Blegen also discovered and excavated King Nestor’s Palace in 1939 (Frost, 1997:3). In many ways, Schliemann and Blegen demonstrated the historicity of the Homeric poems archaeologically (Finley, 1954:37).

The Trojan War, as recounted in The Iliad and The Odyssey, was paramount subject matter. Homer’s literary indulgences aside, there are elements from archaeological and textual analyses that further support the historical validity of a conflict between Greeks from the mainland and a Trojan coalition. Although Homer’s description of the hostilities between the two Mediterranean powers is not exactly congruent with archaeological findings, it is a starting point (Finley, 1954:186). There are several things that are important in archaeologically and historically associating Troy with Mycenae. Level VI of the excavations at Troy reveals pottery remains that indicate contact between Mycenae and Troy (Bryce, 1998:396). Hittite sources recovered elsewhere in Anatolia make mention of names and places that are linguistically similar to Greek renderings of names and places Homer recounts. Scholar Emil Forrer claimed to have found references to two vassal kingdoms in western Anatolia in the letters of Tudhaliya I: Wilusiya and Taruisa (Bryce, 1998:394). He interpreted these as the Hittite renderings of Ilios and Troy, respectively. Forrer also found reference to the king of the Ahhiyawa, which Forrer took to be the Hittite spelling for Achaea (Akhuoi)—ancient Mycenae (Bryce, 1998:394). Among the other names that resonated with personages of the Homeric poems were Alaksandu (Alexander Paris) and Pariya-muwa or Piyamiradu (Priam) (Bryce, 1998:395). Forrer’s conclusions gave further credibility to the notion of a historical Troy, and relations between Troy and Mycenae

The archaeological record attests to the fact that some force destroyed Troy in the thirteenth century. Blegen contested that Troy VIIa was Homer’s Troy, and that its earliest destruction was 1200 B.C. (Bryce, 1998:398) However, Troy VIIa appears to have been a relatively poor community; not at all like the description of Troy in the Homeric poems (Finley, 1954:168). Troy VIh reveals occupation that is consistent with the Troy that Priam ruled (Bryce, 1998:398) Given the evidence, it is likely that Troy VIh was Homer’s Troy, instead of Troy VIIa.

Mycenaean archaeological finds have both confirmed certain details of The Iliad and The Odyssey, and refuted others. For instance, with regard to supportive data, the boar-tusked helmets that Homer mentions in The Iliad were verifiable military equipment in use in Mycenae (Finley, 1954:176-77). Also, the fact that Agamemnon was the head of the Mycenaean coalition is also supported (Finley, 1954:185). Archaeologists have also found broaches similar to the one Odysseus used to fasten his cloak (Nilsson, 1968:123-24).

Conversely, there are some aspects of Mycenaeans in the Homeric poems that are not confirmed by archaeology. In the Homeric poems, the slain heroes are burned on pyres. This practice is inconsistent with shaft burial customs of the Mycenaeans (Lang, 1906:86). Forrer also examined another document that contained further evidence for a Trojan War. He studied the Manapa-Tarhimda letter and found that it gave the location of Walusiya

With regard to the Trojan War itself, it seems more plausible that the Trojan War was actually a series of engagements, given the gradual decline in Aegean economy that was occurring. The occupants of Troy VIIa were left very poor, perceptibly from the battles. Evidence for several raids in the archaeological record of Troy supports the notion of a number of Trojan Wars, as opposed to one single war (Pomeroy, et al, 1999:37). The Iliad and The Odyssey are first and foremost, poetry. However, as illustrated herein, they do have a good deal of historical merit.

2

In antiquity, educated Greeks of the 5th century BC continued to accept the truth of human events depicted in the Iliad, even as philosophical scepticism was undermining faith in divine intervention in human affairs. In the time of Strabo topological disquisitions discussed the identity of sites mentioned by Homer. There was no break when Greco-Roman culture was Christianised: Eusebius of Caesarea offered universal history reduced to a timeline, in which Troy received the same historical weight as Abraham, with whom Eusebius' Chronologia began, ranking the Argives and Mycenaeans among the kingdoms ranged in vertical columns, offering biblical history on the left (verso), and secular history of the kingdoms on the right (recto).[1] Jerome's Chronicon followed Eusebius, and all the medieval chroniclers began with summaries of the universal history of Jerome.

The discoveries made by Heinrich Schliemann at Hisarlik reopened the question in modern terms, and recent discoveries have fueled more discussion across several disciplines.[6] The events described in Homer's Iliad, even if based on historical events that preceded its composition by some 450 years, will never be completely identifiable with historical or archaeological facts, even if there was a Bronze Age city on the site now called Troy, and even if that city was destroyed by fire or war at about the same time as the time postulated for the Trojan War

The modern dispute over the historicity of the Iliad has been very heated at times.[7] Modern discourse has turned from questions of the historicity of the particular human events that transpire in the Iliad; Moses I. Finley, in The World of Odysseus (1954), which sets out a coherent picture of the society reflected in the Iliad and the Odyssey, deflects the question as "beside the point that the narrative is a collection of fictions from beginning to end"[8] Finley, for whom the Trojan War is "a timeless event floating in a timeless world",[9] breaks down the question of historicity, aside from invented narrative details, into five essential elements: 1. Troy was destroyed by a war; 2. the destroyers were a coalition from mainland Greece; 3. the leader of the coalition was a king named Agamemnon; 4. Agamemnon's overlordship was recognized by the other chieftains; 5. Troy, too, headed a coalition of allies. Finley finds no evidence for any of these points.[10]

The more we know about Bronze Age history, the clearer it becomes that it is not a yes-or-no question but one of educated assessment of how much historical knowledge is present in Homer, and whether it reflects a retrospective memory of Dark Age Greece, as Finley concludes, or of Mycenaean Greece, which is the dominant view of A Companion to Homer, A.J.B. Wace and F.H. Stebbings, eds. (New York/London: Macmillan 1962). The particular narrative of the Iliad is not an account of the war, but a tale of the psychology, the wrath, vengeance and death of individual heroes, which assumes common knowledge of the Trojan War to create a backdrop. No scholars now assume that the individual events in the tale (many of which centrally involve divine intervention) are historical fact; on the other hand, no scholars claim that the scenery is entirely devoid of memories of Mycenaean times: it is rather a subjective question of whether the factual content is rather more or rather less than one would have expected

The Iliad as essentially legendary

In recent years scholars have suggested that the Homeric stories represented a synthesis of many old Greek stories of various Bronze Age sieges and expeditions, fused together in the Greek memory during the "dark ages" which followed the fall of the Mycenean civilization. In this view, no historical city of Troy existed anywhere: the name derives from a people called the Troies, who probably lived in central Greece. The identification of the hill at Hisarlık as Troy is, in this view, a late development, following the Greek colonisation of Asia Minor in the 8th century BC.

It is also worth comparing the details of the Iliadic story to those of older Mesopotamian literature - most notably, the Epic of Gilgamesh. Names, set scenes, and even major parts of the story, are strikingly similar.[15] Most scholars believe that writing first came to Greek shores from the east, via traders, and these older poems were used to demonstrate the uses of the alphabet, thus heavily influencing early Greek literature.

The Iliad as essentially historical

Another view is that Homer was heir to an unbroken tradition of oral epic poetry reaching back some 500 years into Mycenaean times. In this view, the poem's core could reflect an historical campaign that took place at the eve of the decline of the Mycenaean civilization. Much legendary material would have been added during this time, but in this view it is meaningful to ask for archaeological and textual evidence corresponding to events referred to in the Iliad. Such an historical background gives a credible explanation for the geographical knowledge of Troy (which could, however, also have been obtained in Homer's time by visiting the traditional site of the city, which was in fact New Ilium, built at the base of the hill at Hisarlık) and otherwise unmotivated elements in the poem (in particular the detailed Catalogue of Ships). Linguistically, a few verses of the Iliad suggest great antiquity, because they only fit the meter if projected back into Mycenaean Greek, in part due to the classical loss of the digamma; this trace of archaic language suggests a poetic tradition spanning the Greek Dark Ages. On the other hand, there are well-known interpolations in the text we have. Even though Homer was Ionian, the Iliad reflects the geography known to the Mycenaean Greeks, showing detailed knowledge of the mainland but not extending to the Ionian Islands or Anatolia, which suggests that the Iliad reproduces an account of events handed down by tradition, to which the author did not add his own geographical knowledge.

The Iliad as partly historic

As mentioned above, though, it is most likely that the Homeric tradition contains elements of historical fact and elements of fiction interwoven. Homer describes a location, presumably in the Bronze Age, with a city. This city was near Mount Ida in northwest Turkey. Such a city did exist, at the mound of Hisarlık. Homer describes that the location was very windy, which Hisarlık almost always is, and several other geographical features also match; so it appears, therefore, that Homer describes an actual place, although this fact does not in itself prove that his story is true.

Homeric evidence - Also, the Catalogue of Ships mentions a great variety of cities, some of which, including Athens, were inhabited both in the Bronze Age and in Homer's time, and some of which, such as Pylos, were not rebuilt after the Bronze Age. This suggests that the names of no-longer-existing towns were remembered from an older time, because it is unlikely that Homer would have managed to name successfully a diverse list of important Bronze Age cities that were, in his time, only a few blocks of rubble on the surface, often without even names.

Mycenaean evidence - Likewise, in the Linear B tablets, some Homeric names appear, including Achilles (which was also a common name in the classical period), noted on tablets from both Knossos and Pylos.[16] The Achilles of the Linear B tablet is a shepherd, not a king or warrior, but the very fact that the name is an authentic Bronze Age name is significant. These names in the Homeric poems presumably remember, if not necessarily specific people, at least an older time when people's names were not the same as they were when the Homeric epics were written down. Some story elements from the tablets appear in the Iliad.[17]

Local evidence - It is very likely, then, that Homer records some information of a factual nature, things that refer to something in real life, even if it is not clear that they record history. But what of the war itself? There is nothing inherently unlikely about a large battle or even a war over the city of Troy. That general area has always been extremely valuable and hotly contested, since it is at the mouth of the Dardanelles. Istanbul, the city on the other side of the straits connecting the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea, has been the site of many confrontations for exactly the same reason. However, there is not a great deal of positive evidence at Hisarlık, the best candidate for Troy, of a destruction by war. The chronologically appropriate layers, Troy VIh and Troy VIIa, both appear to have been destroyed by fires, the former more likely because of an earthquake or natural disaster, but it is harder to identify what destroyed the latter. It is possible that Troy VIIa was destroyed in battle, but it is not certain.

Hittite evidence - The first person to point to the Hittite texts as a possible primary source was the Swiss scholar Emil Forrer in the 1920s and 1930s. In discussing an ethnic group called the Ahhiyawa in these texts, Forrer drew attention to the place names "Wilusa" and "Taruisa", which he argued were the Hittite way of writing "(W)ilios" (Ilios) and "Troia" (Troy). He also noted the mention of a Wilusan king Alaksandu, who had concluded a treaty with the Hittite king Muwatalli; the name of this king closely resembled Alexandros/Alexander, the alternative name of Paris, the son of king Priam. Other identifications Forrer offered included Priam with Piyama-Radu, and Eteocles, king of Orchomenos, with one Tawagalawa. However despite his arguments, many scholars dismissed Forrer's identification of Wilusa-(W)ilios/Troia-Taruisa as either improbable or at least unprovable, since until recently the known Hittite texts provided no clear indication where the kingdom of Wilusa was located beyond somewhere in Western Anatolia.[18]

General scholarly opinion about this identification changed with the discovery of a text join to the Manapa-Tarhunda letter, which located Wilusa beyond the Seha River near the Lazpa land. Modern scholars identify the Seha with the Classical Caicus River, which is the modern Bakırçay, and the Lazpa land is the more familiar isle of Lesbos. As Trevor Bryce observes, "This must considerably strengthen the possibility that the two were directly related, if not identical."[19]

Despite this evidence, the surviving Hittite texts do not provide an independent account of the Trojan War. The Manapa-Tarhunda letter is about a member of the Hittite ruling family, Piyama-Radu, who gained control of the kingdom of Wilusa, and whose only serious opposition came from the author of this letter, Manapa-Tarhunda. King Muwatalli of the Hittites was the opponent of this king of Troy, and the result of Muwatalli's campaign is not recorded in the surviving texts.[20] The Ahhiyawa, are generally identified with the Achaean Greeks,[21] are mentioned in the Tawagalawa letter as the neighbors of the kingdom of Wilusa, and who provided a refuge for the troublesome renegade Piyama-Radu.[22]

Artefactual evidence - Depiction of soldiers on the Warrior Vase krater, Mycenae, 12th century BC. On the other hand, there are parts of Homer's story that appear not to match a Bronze Age war over the site of Hisarlık. The armor that he describes is most likely more from his era than from the Bronze Age, although it is somewhat mixed. Ajax's tower shield makes sense in the context of the shields depicted in Bronze Age artwork, which are very tall and either rectangular or shaped somewhat like a curved hourglass. However, most of the other shields are described as circular, which is an anachronism, as far as modern scholars can tell. The body armor is similarly mixed.

Thus, the details recorded in the Homeric epics appear to be a mix of fact and fiction, and separating the two is likely to be the work of many future generations of archeologists, as it has been the work of many preceding ones.

Geological evidence - In November 2001, geologists John C. Kraft from the University of Delaware and John V. Luce from Trinity College, Dublin presented the results[23] [24] of investigations into the geology of the region that had started in 1977. The geologists compared the present geology with the landscapes and coastal features described in the Iliad and other classical sources, notably Strabo's Geographia. Their conclusion was that there is regularly a consistency between the location of Troy as Hissarlik (and other locations such as the Greek camp), the geological evidence, and descriptions of the topography and accounts of the battle in the Iliad.