Troy
See Main article The Historicity of Myths 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. [1]
It is referenced in the following articles
| Arete |
| Herakles |
| Historicity of Myths |
| Homer's Odyssey |
| Jason and the Argonauts |
| Kleos |
| Lemnos |
| Mysia |
| Samothrace |
| The Iliad, Troy - History and Myth |
| The Odyssey and Sequels |
| The Odyssey and the Argonauts |
