Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

SV: [ANE-2] On the Historicity of Troy

Expand Messages
  • Thomas L. Thompson
    Isn t the term nihilist position far too tendentious for a scholarly list? Thomas Thomas L. Thompson Professor emeeitus, University of Copenhagen
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 18 2:52 AM
      Isn't the term nihilist position far too tendentious for a scholarly list?
      Thomas

      Thomas L. Thompson
      Professor emeeitus, University of Copenhagen
      ________________________________________
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Jean-Fabrice Nardelli [jnardellis36@...]
      Sendt: 17. oktober 2012 17:37
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: [ANE-2] On the Historicity of Troy

      The name of the philologist and ringleader of the Homeric /Neoanalytiker
      /Wolfgang Kullmann springs to the mind ; a summary of his objections
      appears in his review,/Gnomon /73, 2001, pp. 657-653, of Joachim
      Latacz's seminal /Troia und Homer/ (English translation, Oxford, 2004) ;
      see http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002-02-15.html for a comprehensive
      smackdown. The archaeologist Dieter Hertel has been Kolb's acolyte in
      the latter's offensive against Korfmann ; see, of late, Hertel, /Das
      frühe Ilion. Die Besiedlung Troias durch die Griechen (1020-650/25
      v.Chr.)/, München, 2008, especially pp. 25-30 against Korfmann (this
      book, the most comprehensive exposition of the nihilist stance, does not
      really answer to D. F. Easton, J. D. Hawkins and E. S. Sherratt, 'Troy
      in Recent Perspective', /Anatolian Studies/ 52, 2002, pp. 75-109, where
      archaeology is far from looming large - see on 103-106). Though cool
      skepticism as advocated, e.g., by K. A. Raaflaub (in Foley (ed.),
      /Blackwell Companion to Ancient Epic/ [2005], pp. 58-60) remains the
      most scientific posture, my own conviction as an Homeric scholar is far
      closer to those of Latacz (/Troy and Homer/, pp. 166-205) or Bryce (/The
      Kingdom of the Hittites/², pp. 357-371).

      J.-F. Nardelli
      Université de Provence

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Thomas L. Thompson
      Isn t the term nihilist all too tendentious for this list? It awakens very unpleasant memories for the ANE list. Thomas Thomas L. Thompson Professor
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 18 2:56 AM
        Isn't the term 'nihilist' all too tendentious for this list?
        It awakens very unpleasant memories for the ANE list.

        Thomas

        Thomas L. Thompson
        Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen

        ________________________________________
        Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Jean-Fabrice Nardelli [jnardellis36@...]
        Sendt: 17. oktober 2012 17:37
        Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Emne: Re: [ANE-2] On the Historicity of Troy

        The name of the philologist and ringleader of the Homeric /Neoanalytiker
        /Wolfgang Kullmann springs to the mind ; a summary of his objections
        appears in his review,/Gnomon /73, 2001, pp. 657-653, of Joachim
        Latacz's seminal /Troia und Homer/ (English translation, Oxford, 2004) ;
        see http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002-02-15.html for a comprehensive
        smackdown. The archaeologist Dieter Hertel has been Kolb's acolyte in
        the latter's offensive against Korfmann ; see, of late, Hertel, /Das
        frühe Ilion. Die Besiedlung Troias durch die Griechen (1020-650/25
        v.Chr.)/, München, 2008, especially pp. 25-30 against Korfmann (this
        book, the most comprehensive exposition of the nihilist stance, does not
        really answer to D. F. Easton, J. D. Hawkins and E. S. Sherratt, 'Troy
        in Recent Perspective', /Anatolian Studies/ 52, 2002, pp. 75-109, where
        archaeology is far from looming large - see on 103-106). Though cool
        skepticism as advocated, e.g., by K. A. Raaflaub (in Foley (ed.),
        /Blackwell Companion to Ancient Epic/ [2005], pp. 58-60) remains the
        most scientific posture, my own conviction as an Homeric scholar is far
        closer to those of Latacz (/Troy and Homer/, pp. 166-205) or Bryce (/The
        Kingdom of the Hittites/², pp. 357-371).

        J.-F. Nardelli
        Université de Provence

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
        Dear Thomas, though obviously a strong word, probably too much so, I have used nihilist in print before, since, in my mind, Kolb, Hertel, Kullmann and so
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 18 4:12 AM
          Dear Thomas,

          though obviously a strong word, probably too much so, I have used
          'nihilist' in print before, since, in my mind, Kolb, Hertel, Kullmann
          and so forth refuse to believe _anything_ with respect to the Troyan
          question, whether linguistic equations, geopolitical context, or
          archaeological probabilities. To give a not inconsequential example,
          Hertel persists in disallowing the relatively sturdy evidence for LBA
          trade between the Black Sea and the Agean ; /Das fr�he Ilion/ went so
          far as to suppress the crucial O. H�ckmann, 'Zu fr�her Seefahrt in den
          Meerengen', Studia Troica 13, 2003, pp. 133-160, so that he could
          maintain that Troy VII(a) = VIi was not the important, international
          emporion hypothetized by Korfmann, Latacz, Easton-Hawkins-Sherratt. Is
          this reasonable science or partisan scholarship ? Hertel also used to
          speculate that the unimpressive amount of arrowheads found to date
          disproves the claim that this level of Troy was ever taken over through
          enemy action but merely destroyed by fire, a position that found no
          followers and which he tacitly renounced in his later book. In such
          instances I like to quote the great Aristotle scholar Ingram Bywater : �
          negative criticism has its limits by transgressing which it degenerates
          into a senseless and unprofitable exercise in logic � (�On a Lost
          Dialogue of Aristotle�, Journal of Philology 2, 1869, p. 68).

          J.-F. Nardelli
          Universit� de Provence


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Thomas Verenna
          There is a distinct difference between refusing to believe and just not convinced. It is important to make such a distinction, though trying to prove your
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 18 5:35 AM
            There is a distinct difference between 'refusing to believe' and 'just not
            convinced.' It is important to make such a distinction, though trying to
            prove your claim that Kolb, Hertel, and Kullmann are just flat-out
            denialists seems to me to be a difficult task to accomplish. Frankly, I am
            not convinced by the arguments for Troy either. I find them extremely
            maximalistic, rather conservative interpretations. For example, the fact
            that Troy VIIa has larger walls than its later settlements does not ipso
            facto mean that there was an external threat they were guarding against
            (such a concept is concocted with Homer in mind) and the fact that
            Mycenaean pottery becames scant towards later layers does not therefore
            mean that the external threat was Mycenaean. But these are the typical
            arguments <http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Eprehistory/aegean/?page_id=630> I've
            read from those who suggest that there exists evidence for a historical
            Troy here. Also, around Troy IIb you see a decline in the Mycenaean
            civilization which probably accounts for some of that pottery vanishing
            from trade to the settlement. And earthquake/fire seems rather consistent
            with the destruction of VIIa and the resettlement makes a lot more sense
            from such a perspective (like with Pompeii, where an earthquake devastated
            the city, but was rebuilt and reinhabited continuously--a fact that is
            quite perplexing in my mind).

            So while I can understand your disliking their positions, I cannot
            understand the total dismissal of their opinions as 'nihilistic'. They
            aren't convinced; neither am I. Of course, I could be convinced, but so
            far I haven't seen any sound grounding for it. When Korfmann released his
            model of Troy years ago, and Kolb called him out on its exaggerations,
            Korfmann reduced the size of his model. That smells funny, if you ask me.
            It suggests, in my mind, that he was exaggerating the state of the evidence
            for his own agendas and when he was (rightly) called out on it, all of a
            sudden Kolb becomes the 'nihilist' and Korfmann the 'sensible scholar'. I
            just don't buy it. Sorry. This whole thing just reads 'red-flag'.

            Thanks,

            Thomas Verenna
            Rutgers, New Brunswick

            On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jean-Fabrice Nardelli <
            jnardellis36@...> wrote:

            > Dear Thomas,
            >
            > though obviously a strong word, probably too much so, I have used
            > 'nihilist' in print before, since, in my mind, Kolb, Hertel, Kullmann
            > and so forth refuse to believe _anything_ with respect to the Troyan
            > question, whether linguistic equations, geopolitical context, or
            > archaeological probabilities. To give a not inconsequential example,
            > Hertel persists in disallowing the relatively sturdy evidence for LBA
            > trade between the Black Sea and the Agean ; /Das fr�he Ilion/ went so
            > far as to suppress the crucial O. H�ckmann, 'Zu fr�her Seefahrt in den
            > Meerengen', Studia Troica 13, 2003, pp. 133-160, so that he could
            > maintain that Troy VII(a) = VIi was not the important, international
            > emporion hypothetized by Korfmann, Latacz, Easton-Hawkins-Sherratt. Is
            > this reasonable science or partisan scholarship ? Hertel also used to
            > speculate that the unimpressive amount of arrowheads found to date
            > disproves the claim that this level of Troy was ever taken over through
            > enemy action but merely destroyed by fire, a position that found no
            > followers and which he tacitly renounced in his later book. In such
            > instances I like to quote the great Aristotle scholar Ingram Bywater : �
            > negative criticism has its limits by transgressing which it degenerates
            > into a senseless and unprofitable exercise in logic � (�On a Lost
            > Dialogue of Aristotle�, Journal of Philology 2, 1869, p. 68).
            >
            > J.-F. Nardelli
            > Universit� de Provence
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >


            --
            Cordially,

            Thomas S. Verenna


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
            Dear T. Verenna, the difference you point out would impress me more had Hertel not conveniently deleted important contributions that weaken his own case : this
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 18 6:07 AM
              Dear T. Verenna,

              the difference you point out would impress me more had Hertel not
              conveniently deleted important contributions that weaken his own case :
              this is what I call 'partisan scholarship'. Nothing more, nothing less.
              As for the remainder of your message, I am basically in agreement with
              its arguments, though you appear to be somewhat more strident than a
              layman who cites only derivative scholarship has any right to be and
              though the way you phrase things smacks of old-style skepticism à la
              Finley, a man who was ridiculed by philologists in Germany for his shaky
              grasp of the Homeric tradition and one who denied that the /Odyssey/ had
              anything to tell us about the Mediterranean : suffice it to mention here
              Carol Dougherty (/The Raft of Odysseus/ [Oxford, 2001], pp. 12-13,
              95-101) or M. Gras, P. Rouillard and J. Teixidor (/L'univers phénicien/
              [Paris, 1989], pp. 106-107) as to the contrary, viz. for the view that
              the poem takes us back to the late 8th century and the competition
              between Greek colonists and Phoenician merchants/pirats.

              Sorry if it hurts.

              J.-F. Nardelli,
              Université de Provence



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Richard Seager
              I tend to agree Thomas, the idea that ancient Hisarlik was able to withstand the combined efforts of the Mycenaeans and their friends for ten years is hard to
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 18 1:45 PM
                I tend to agree Thomas, the idea that ancient Hisarlik was able to withstand the combined efforts of the Mycenaeans and their friends for ten years is hard to believe.

                Richard Seager
                Australia

                On 18/10/2012, at 11:35 PM, Thomas Verenna <tsverenna@...> wrote:

                > There is a distinct difference between 'refusing to believe' and 'just not
                > convinced.' It is important to make such a distinction, though trying to
                > prove your claim that Kolb, Hertel, and Kullmann are just flat-out
                > denialists seems to me to be a difficult task to accomplish. Frankly, I am
                > not convinced by the arguments for Troy either. I find them extremely
                > maximalistic, rather conservative interpretations. For example, the fact
                > that Troy VIIa has larger walls than its later settlements does not ipso
                > facto mean that there was an external threat they were guarding against
                > (such a concept is concocted with Homer in mind) and the fact that
                > Mycenaean pottery becames scant towards later layers does not therefore
                > mean that the external threat was Mycenaean. But these are the typical
                > arguments <http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Eprehistory/aegean/?page_id=630> I've
                > read from those who suggest that there exists evidence for a historical
                > Troy here. Also, around Troy IIb you see a decline in the Mycenaean
                > civilization which probably accounts for some of that pottery vanishing
                > from trade to the settlement. And earthquake/fire seems rather consistent
                > with the destruction of VIIa and the resettlement makes a lot more sense
                > from such a perspective (like with Pompeii, where an earthquake devastated
                > the city, but was rebuilt and reinhabited continuously--a fact that is
                > quite perplexing in my mind).
                >
                > So while I can understand your disliking their positions, I cannot
                > understand the total dismissal of their opinions as 'nihilistic'. They
                > aren't convinced; neither am I. Of course, I could be convinced, but so
                > far I haven't seen any sound grounding for it. When Korfmann released his
                > model of Troy years ago, and Kolb called him out on its exaggerations,
                > Korfmann reduced the size of his model. That smells funny, if you ask me.
                > It suggests, in my mind, that he was exaggerating the state of the evidence
                > for his own agendas and when he was (rightly) called out on it, all of a
                > sudden Kolb becomes the 'nihilist' and Korfmann the 'sensible scholar'. I
                > just don't buy it. Sorry. This whole thing just reads 'red-flag'.
                >
                > Thanks,
                >
                > Thomas Verenna
                > Rutgers, New Brunswick
                >
                > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jean-Fabrice Nardelli <
                > jnardellis36@...> wrote:
                >
                >> Dear Thomas,
                >>
                >> though obviously a strong word, probably too much so, I have used
                >> 'nihilist' in print before, since, in my mind, Kolb, Hertel, Kullmann
                >> and so forth refuse to believe _anything_ with respect to the Troyan
                >> question, whether linguistic equations, geopolitical context, or
                >> archaeological probabilities. To give a not inconsequential example,
                >> Hertel persists in disallowing the relatively sturdy evidence for LBA
                >> trade between the Black Sea and the Agean ; /Das fr�he Ilion/ went so
                >> far as to suppress the crucial O. H�ckmann, 'Zu fr�her Seefahrt in den
                >> Meerengen', Studia Troica 13, 2003, pp. 133-160, so that he could
                >> maintain that Troy VII(a) = VIi was not the important, international
                >> emporion hypothetized by Korfmann, Latacz, Easton-Hawkins-Sherratt. Is
                >> this reasonable science or partisan scholarship ? Hertel also used to
                >> speculate that the unimpressive amount of arrowheads found to date
                >> disproves the claim that this level of Troy was ever taken over through
                >> enemy action but merely destroyed by fire, a position that found no
                >> followers and which he tacitly renounced in his later book. In such
                >> instances I like to quote the great Aristotle scholar Ingram Bywater : �
                >> negative criticism has its limits by transgressing which it degenerates
                >> into a senseless and unprofitable exercise in logic � (�On a Lost
                >> Dialogue of Aristotle�, Journal of Philology 2, 1869, p. 68).
                >>
                >> J.-F. Nardelli
                >> Universit� de Provence
                >>
                >>
                >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> ------------------------------------
                >>
                >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                > --
                > Cordially,
                >
                > Thomas S. Verenna
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Thomas L. Thompson
                Dear Professor Nardeli, I do not disagree at all with your academic judgment. Perhaps an expression like dismissive , but nihilist demonizes and refuse to
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 19 2:01 AM
                  Dear Professor Nardeli,
                  I do not disagree at all with your academic judgment. Perhaps an expression like 'dismissive', but 'nihilist' demonizes and 'refuse to believe' questions their
                  integrity rather than their conclusions. Just such personal attacks in regard to disagreements about
                  the historicity of ancient figures of narrative once threatened to destroy the liist as such. Perhaps we should
                  submit our disagreement to the moderators for a judgment on whether such rhetorical
                  strategies are permissable.

                  Sincerely,
                  Thomas

                  Thomas L. Thompson
                  Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen


                  Dear Thomas,

                  though obviously a strong word, probably too much so, I have used
                  'nihilist' in print before, since, in my mind, Kolb, Hertel, Kullmann
                  and so forth refuse to believe _anything_ with respect to the Troyan
                  question, whether linguistic equations, geopolitical context, or
                  archaeological probabilities. To give a not inconsequential example,
                  Hertel persists in disallowing the relatively sturdy evidence for LBA
                  trade between the Black Sea and the Agean ; /Das frühe Ilion/ went so
                  far as to suppress the crucial O. Höckmann, 'Zu früher Seefahrt in den
                  Meerengen', Studia Troica 13, 2003, pp. 133-160, so that he could
                  maintain that Troy VII(a) = VIi was not the important, international
                  emporion hypothetized by Korfmann, Latacz, Easton-Hawkins-Sherratt. Is
                  this reasonable science or partisan scholarship ? Hertel also used to
                  speculate that the unimpressive amount of arrowheads found to date
                  disproves the claim that this level of Troy was ever taken over through
                  enemy action but merely destroyed by fire, a position that found no
                  followers and which he tacitly renounced in his later book. In such
                  instances I like to quote the great Aristotle scholar Ingram Bywater : «
                  negative criticism has its limits by transgressing which it degenerates
                  into a senseless and unprofitable exercise in logic » (‘On a Lost
                  Dialogue of Aristotle’, Journal of Philology 2, 1869, p. 68).

                  J.-F. Nardelli
                  Université de Provence


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                  ------------------------------------

                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • Thomas Verenna
                  Good morning, Thanks for your note. There is no need to get defensive, I am again just asking questions to get a better understanding of how one draws
                  Message 8 of 19 , Oct 22 4:48 AM
                    Good morning,

                    Thanks for your note. There is no need to get defensive, I am again just
                    asking questions to get a better understanding of how one draws historical
                    conclusions from cultural memory. It makes little sense to me to claim
                    that someone has ignored or neglected evidence when only 1/5 of a site has
                    been excavated. I am not giving anyone a free pass here--if Hertel has
                    purposefully left out evidence of something, then by all means provide us
                    evidence of such a misstep. So far I have seen you make a lot of personal
                    claims about motive, but I haven't seen it demonstrated--which concerns me
                    greatly (even though I am only an amateur, so I imagine this may concern
                    the more learned amongst us even more than it bothers me).

                    Thanks for responding.

                    Thomas Verenna
                    Rutgers, New Brunswick


                    On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jean-Fabrice Nardelli <
                    jnardellis36@...> wrote:

                    > **
                    >
                    >
                    > Dear T. Verenna,
                    >
                    > the difference you point out would impress me more had Hertel not
                    > conveniently deleted important contributions that weaken his own case :
                    > this is what I call 'partisan scholarship'. Nothing more, nothing less.
                    > As for the remainder of your message, I am basically in agreement with
                    > its arguments, though you appear to be somewhat more strident than a
                    > layman who cites only derivative scholarship has any right to be and
                    > though the way you phrase things smacks of old-style skepticism � la
                    > Finley, a man who was ridiculed by philologists in Germany for his shaky
                    > grasp of the Homeric tradition and one who denied that the /Odyssey/ had
                    > anything to tell us about the Mediterranean : suffice it to mention here
                    > Carol Dougherty (/The Raft of Odysseus/ [Oxford, 2001], pp. 12-13,
                    > 95-101) or M. Gras, P. Rouillard and J. Teixidor (/L'univers ph�nicien/
                    > [Paris, 1989], pp. 106-107) as to the contrary, viz. for the view that
                    > the poem takes us back to the late 8th century and the competition
                    > between Greek colonists and Phoenician merchants/pirats.
                    >
                    > Sorry if it hurts.
                    >
                    > J.-F. Nardelli,
                    >
                    > Universit� de Provence
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    --
                    Cordially,

                    Thomas S. Verenna


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Trudy Kawami
                    One of the (usually) unspoken problems with classical text like the Iliad is the lack of any versions at all near the time it was supposedly composed or
                    Message 9 of 19 , Oct 22 12:08 PM
                      One of the (usually) unspoken problems with classical text like the Iliad is the lack of any versions at all near the time it was supposedly composed or written down or edited or… In other words using a text whose oldest copy is centuries & centuries after the time it purportedly describes to date an archaeological site that is even older is very, very difficult, to say the least.

                      In the ANE we can trace a fair amount of how the Gilgamesh stories went from the historical kernel of a king/strongman/local hero of Uruk to an epic of man’s search for immortality to Star Trek. It would be a bit naïve to assume that this natural creative mutability did not apply to the stories focused around the city states during the turbulent times at the turn of the millennium (broadly considered).

                      Trudy S. Kawami

                      From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Banyai
                      Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 9:07 AM
                      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: AW: [ANE-2] On the Historicity of Troy (with address)



                      Dear Verenna,

                      we cannot be sure about anything concerning the bigger sites in the ANE. At least not if we take an excavation of 1/5 as insufficient to make a statement pertaining to the dimension of a site despite surveys completing the archaeological data.

                      1/5 of a site excavated could look as relatively little but is huge when compared to the percentage of excavated areal at other big sites. The least sites of comparable dimensions or even bigger have been excavated to 20%. This is very much in reality. Besides, we must differentiate also concerning the depth to which areals are inspected archaeologically.

                      Concerning whether this was Homers Troy – this is the wrong question. It is for sure Homers Troy, if you mean the site wearing the name Troy in the 8th century as Homer composed his epos. Going a bit farther with your question– whether the site by the name Troy in the 8th century had the same name in the 13th century – this is a little more difficult to specify.

                      I would personally answer this question affirmatively, but not on grounds of the research done already on the subject, but instead on grounds of research that will be published in the near future. I´m into that subject and this must be regarded just as a private view till going to press. It is huge work to be done with the Hittite archives of the period – many documents relevant to the Ahhijawa dossier are still misunderstood and misdated.

                      Best regards,

                      Michael Banyai

                      Oberursel

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Michael Banyai
                      Sorry Trudy, there are problems also with primary sources even if they are not outspoken. It is generally a bit naïve to disengage from solving problems
                      Message 10 of 19 , Oct 22 12:13 PM
                        Sorry Trudy,



                        there are problems also with primary sources even if they are not outspoken.



                        It is generally a bit naïve to disengage from solving problems because they exist. Most of us are working simply because problems exist.



                        Michael Banyai

                        Oberursel



                        Von: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Trudy Kawami
                        Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2012 21:08
                        An: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                        Betreff: RE: [ANE-2] On the Historicity of Troy





                        One of the (usually) unspoken problems with classical text like the Iliad is the lack of any versions at all near the time it was supposedly composed or written down or edited or… In other words using a text whose oldest copy is centuries & centuries after the time it purportedly describes to date an archaeological site that is even older is very, very difficult, to say the least.

                        In the ANE we can trace a fair amount of how the Gilgamesh stories went from the historical kernel of a king/strongman/local hero of Uruk to an epic of man’s search for immortality to Star Trek. It would be a bit naïve to assume that this natural creative mutability did not apply to the stories focused around the city states during the turbulent times at the turn of the millennium (broadly considered).

                        Trudy S. Kawami

                        From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Michael Banyai
                        Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 9:07 AM
                        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com>
                        Subject: AW: [ANE-2] On the Historicity of Troy (with address)



                        Dear Verenna,

                        we cannot be sure about anything concerning the bigger sites in the ANE. At least not if we take an excavation of 1/5 as insufficient to make a statement pertaining to the dimension of a site despite surveys completing the archaeological data.

                        1/5 of a site excavated could look as relatively little but is huge when compared to the percentage of excavated areal at other big sites. The least sites of comparable dimensions or even bigger have been excavated to 20%. This is very much in reality. Besides, we must differentiate also concerning the depth to which areals are inspected archaeologically.

                        Concerning whether this was Homers Troy – this is the wrong question. It is for sure Homers Troy, if you mean the site wearing the name Troy in the 8th century as Homer composed his epos. Going a bit farther with your question– whether the site by the name Troy in the 8th century had the same name in the 13th century – this is a little more difficult to specify.

                        I would personally answer this question affirmatively, but not on grounds of the research done already on the subject, but instead on grounds of research that will be published in the near future. I´m into that subject and this must be regarded just as a private view till going to press. It is huge work to be done with the Hittite archives of the period – many documents relevant to the Ahhijawa dossier are still misunderstood and misdated.

                        Best regards,

                        Michael Banyai

                        Oberursel

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Thomas Verenna
                        This is quite profound. The question is not whether we can trace the Iliad back to the historical kernel. That, I believe, starts with a presupposition
                        Message 11 of 19 , Oct 22 12:19 PM
                          This is quite profound. The question is not whether we can trace the Iliad
                          back to the historical kernel. That, I believe, starts with a
                          presupposition (i.e., that we have knowledge of such a kernel--which we do
                          not, by the way, have; we may never have it). Instead you have to go where
                          the evidence goes. I do not believe we can say, for example, that the
                          flood story of Deucalion and Pyrrha is rooted in history. Like the other
                          flood narratives we see, they carry with them an edifying narrative that
                          was most likely more important to the ancient cultures who took from them
                          and fabricated from them whole new narratives that reflected their own
                          cultural situations. It is unlikely, for example, that the flood of Noah
                          is history (it doesn't flood in Palestine) but it is equally unlikely that
                          such a story would have any use to a culture of that region for the same
                          reason we might say it didn't originate there. So there are other reasons
                          why such a story is useful, and the flood is just an example of such a
                          reason (in this case, god's divine judgement upon his creation, granting a
                          second chance to his chosen people--those who follow the straight path,
                          i.e., the Israelites according to the Biblical narratives). I believe the
                          same is true of the Iliad. With literature, where certain tropes and
                          motifs come from may have been from a mixture of ancient events--some from
                          as far away as Mesopotamia and others more locally rooted. One may find
                          some day that the origins of the Trojan war best reflect the real
                          historical wars that took place locally between competing poleis rather
                          than something that happened across the Aegean. But that is the crux of it
                          all, isn't it? And that is why I remain skeptical about the claims made
                          about this settlement in Hisarlik.

                          Thanks,

                          Thomas Verenna
                          Rutgers, New Brunswick

                          On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Trudy Kawami <tkawami@...
                          > wrote:

                          > **
                          >
                          >
                          > One of the (usually) unspoken problems with classical text like the Iliad
                          > is the lack of any versions at all near the time it was supposedly composed
                          > or written down or edited or� In other words using a text whose oldest copy
                          > is centuries & centuries after the time it purportedly describes to date an
                          > archaeological site that is even older is very, very difficult, to say the
                          > least.
                          >
                          > In the ANE we can trace a fair amount of how the Gilgamesh stories went
                          > from the historical kernel of a king/strongman/local hero of Uruk to an
                          > epic of man�s search for immortality to Star Trek. It would be a bit na�ve
                          > to assume that this natural creative mutability did not apply to the
                          > stories focused around the city states during the turbulent times at the
                          > turn of the millennium (broadly considered).
                          >
                          > Trudy S. Kawami
                          >
                          > From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                          > Michael Banyai
                          > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 9:07 AM
                          > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: AW: [ANE-2] On the Historicity of Troy (with address)
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Dear Verenna,
                          >
                          > we cannot be sure about anything concerning the bigger sites in the ANE.
                          > At least not if we take an excavation of 1/5 as insufficient to make a
                          > statement pertaining to the dimension of a site despite surveys completing
                          > the archaeological data.
                          >
                          > 1/5 of a site excavated could look as relatively little but is huge when
                          > compared to the percentage of excavated areal at other big sites. The least
                          > sites of comparable dimensions or even bigger have been excavated to 20%.
                          > This is very much in reality. Besides, we must differentiate also
                          > concerning the depth to which areals are inspected archaeologically.
                          >
                          > Concerning whether this was Homers Troy � this is the wrong question. It
                          > is for sure Homers Troy, if you mean the site wearing the name Troy in the
                          > 8th century as Homer composed his epos. Going a bit farther with your
                          > question� whether the site by the name Troy in the 8th century had the same
                          > name in the 13th century � this is a little more difficult to specify.
                          >
                          > I would personally answer this question affirmatively, but not on grounds
                          > of the research done already on the subject, but instead on grounds of
                          > research that will be published in the near future. I�m into that subject
                          > and this must be regarded just as a private view till going to press. It is
                          > huge work to be done with the Hittite archives of the period � many
                          > documents relevant to the Ahhijawa dossier are still misunderstood and
                          > misdated.
                          >
                          > Best regards,
                          >
                          > Michael Banyai
                          >
                          > Oberursel
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >



                          --
                          Cordially,

                          Thomas S. Verenna


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
                          Trudy, what about the process of textual canonization of the main lines of the /Iliad/ (both at the microcultural and macrostructural levels : number and
                          Message 12 of 19 , Oct 22 3:11 PM
                            Trudy,

                            what about the process of textual canonization of the main lines of
                            the /Iliad/ (both at the microcultural and macrostructural levels :
                            number and succession of the episodes as well as conventions of
                            storytelling, adherence to one main plot and shaping of the characters
                            as well of the finer points of epic diction and dialect) that begun at a
                            time preceding our earliest Iliadic testimonies ? The number of the
                            lines may have varied somewhat with a few accretions before the time of
                            the Alexandrine editors, but no wholesale books of the Iliad ever crept
                            in nor were there ever transpositions of episodes or entire books,
                            unlike what happens in the textual tradition of the Mahâbhârata (even if
                            you take into account the Doloneia). See M. W. Haslam, in a synthesis
                            which remains the best survey of the Textüberlieferung to date ('Homeric
                            Papyri and the Transmission of the Text', in I. Morris and B. Powell
                            (edd.), A New Companion to Homer [Leiden, New York & Cologne, 1997], pp.
                            55-100) at 79-84 ; such 'crystallization', or 'linguistic arrest',
                            cannot be put later than 560 B.C. when the Athenians used Iliad 2.
                            257-258 as evidence against the Megarians, see A. C. Cassio, 'Early
                            Editions of the Greek Epics and Homeric Textual Criticism in the Sixth
                            and FIfth Centuries BC', in F. Montanari and P. Ascheri (edd.), Omero
                            tremila anni dopo. Atti del Congresso di Genova, 6-8 luglio 2000 (Rome,
                            2002), pp. 105-136 at 114-119, and is likely to be considerably older,
                            especially if one puts credance in the demonstrations that the Iliad and
                            Odyssy are orally-derived compositions (L. E. Rossi, 'I poemi omerici
                            como testimonianza di poesia orale', in R. Bianchi Bandinelli (ed.),
                            Storia e Civiltà dei Greci, I. 1 [Milano, 1978], pp. 73-147 ; R. Janko,
                            'The Homeric Poems as Oral Dictated Texts', Classical Quarterly 48,
                            1998, pp. 1-13 ; etc). As for "using a text whose oldest copy is
                            centuries & centuries after the time it purportedly describe", may I
                            remind the list that while the oldest complete copies of the Iliad are
                            two mid-tenth century AD manuscripts, the Laurentianus D and the Venetus
                            A, some seventeen or eighteen centuries later than Homer, we own over
                            1500 papyri of the poem, the oldest of which approach the third century
                            BC ? I trust that Bible scholars would be happy to have even a tiny
                            fraction of such harvest instead of relying on the Septuagint, the
                            Targumim, etc, to supply the Leningrad codex. See further my papers
                            'Editer l'Iliade" : "I La transmission et ses débats : Perspectives
                            critiques", /Gaia. Revue interdisciplinaire sur la Grèce archaïque /5,
                            2001, pp.41-118 ; 'II Manuscrits et affiliations manuscrites dans
                            l'Iliade XIII-XV', ibid. 6, 2002, pp. 47-144 (stemma p. 130).

                            J.-F. Nardelli
                            Université de Provence



                            Le 22/10/2012 21:08, Trudy Kawami a écrit :
                            >
                            > One of the (usually) unspoken problems with classical text like the
                            > Iliad is the lack of any versions at all near the time it was
                            > supposedly composed or written down or edited or… In other words using
                            > a text whose oldest copy is centuries & centuries after the time it
                            > purportedly describes to date an archaeological site that is even
                            > older is very, very difficult, to say the least.
                            >
                            > In the ANE we can trace a fair amount of how the Gilgamesh stories
                            > went from the historical kernel of a king/strongman/local hero of Uruk
                            > to an epic of man’s search for immortality to Star Trek. It would be a
                            > bit naïve to assume that this natural creative mutability did not
                            > apply to the stories focused around the city states during the
                            > turbulent times at the turn of the millennium (broadly considered).
                            >
                            > Trudy S. Kawami
                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Graham Hagens
                                ....what about the process of textual canonization ....succession of the episodes as well as conventions of storytelling, adherence to one main plot and
                            Message 13 of 19 , Oct 24 11:23 AM
                               
                               
                              "....what about the process of textual canonization ....succession of the episodes as well as conventions of
                              storytelling, adherence to one main plot and shaping of the characters
                              as well of the finer points of epic diction and dialect  that begun at a
                              time preceding our earliest Iliadic testimonies ? The number of the
                              lines may have varied somewhat with a few accretions before the time of
                              the Alexandrine editors, but no wholesale books of the Iliad ever crept
                              in nor were there ever transpositions of episodes or entire books,
                              unlike what happens in the textual tradition of the Mahâbhârata ...... 'crystallization', or 'linguistic arrest',
                              cannot be put later than 560 B.C. when the Athenians used Iliad 2.
                              257-258 as evidence against the Megarians,....and is likely to be considerably older,
                              especially if one puts credance in the demonstrations that the Iliad and
                              Odyssy are orally-derived compositions ....As for "using a text whose oldest copy is
                              centuries & centuries after the time it purportedly describe", .... own over
                              1500 papyri of the poem, the oldest of which approach the third century"

                              While this reply is interesting, surely it does no more than reduce Trudy's "centuries & centuries" to just "centuries" 
                              A   ~560 BC testimony of   utilization of  text from the Iliad, says nothing about the state of textual canonisation at that time
                              Snodgrass (Archaic Greece 1980: 72) wrote of the "great web of unsystematic oral mythology which existed throughout Greek history without being enshrined in verse form," and of the evidence that mythical scenes during the Archaic period  departed from the ‘official version’ of  the epic.   Also (Dark Age Greece  2001: 429, 431), with respect to diffusion of epic and the Homeric poems.  "in Ionia it is certain that an unbroken tradition ran from the time of the Ionian migration down to Homer" and that "before the Homeric poems can have been diffused we should infer that there was first an era of general interest and pride in the heroic age"  
                               
                               
                              > One of the (usually) unspoken problems with classical text like the
                              > Iliad is the lack of any versions at all near the time it was
                              > supposedly composed or written down or edited or… In other words using
                              > a text whose oldest copy is centuries & centuries after the time it
                              > purportedly describes to date an archaeological site that is even
                              > older is very, very difficult, to say the least.
                              >
                              > In the ANE we can trace a fair amount of how the Gilgamesh stories
                              > went from the historical kernel of a king/strongman/local hero of Uruk
                              > to an epic of man’s search for immortality to Star Trek. It would be a
                              > bit naïve to assume that this natural creative mutability did not
                              > apply to the stories focused around the city states during the
                              > turbulent times at the turn of the millennium (broadly considered).
                              >
                              > Trudy S. Kawami
                              >

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                               Isn't  this ~half millennium of undocumented activity more to Trudy's point?
                               
                              Graham Hagens
                              Hamilton, ON
                               In response to Trudy Kawami, Jean-Fabrice Nardelli wrote October 22, 2012 6:11 PM:


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
                              Graham, you do not understand what the Athenian use of these two Iliadic lines from the Catalogue of the Ships (sorry for the wrong reference ; my only excuse
                              Message 14 of 19 , Oct 24 3:20 PM
                                Graham,

                                you do not understand what the Athenian use of these two Iliadic
                                lines from the Catalogue of the Ships (sorry for the wrong reference ;
                                my only excuse was the very late hour in Frence) demonstrates as to the
                                textual canonization of the poem. Aristotle, Rhetoric, I, 1375 b 28-30
                                (p. 69 Kassel [1976]) tells us that "by ancient witnesses I mean the
                                poets and all famous figures whose decisions [KRISEIS] are notorious,
                                like the Athenians who invoked Homer as witness with respect to Salamis"
                                in 560 BC, which is confirmed by Plutarch (Life of Solon, 10) and
                                Diogenes Laertius (I, 48), both of whom declare that the Attic
                                leader-poet Solon cited Iliad 2. 557 with verse 558 of his own invention
                                to bolster the claims of Athens on the great island against the rival
                                ones of the Megarians. Though that story has been shown to lack
                                credibility, the spuriousness of 558 was unquestioned in later times and
                                is nearly universally admitted by modern scholars (contra, R. Hope
                                Simpson and J. F. Lazenby, The Catalogue of Ships in Homer's Iliad
                                [Oxford, 1970], pp. 59-61, see E. Visser, Homers Katalog der Schiffe
                                [Stuttgart & Leipzig, 1997], pp. 449-452, who concludes that "fasst man
                                alle Gesichtpunkte zusammen, so spricht doch mehr dafür, in B 558 einen
                                Vers zu sehen, der nicht vom Iliasdichter stammt" ; the same Visser
                                wrote the commentary on the Catalogue in Latacz's Basler
                                Gesamtkommentar, vol. II [Munich & Leipzig, 2003], here at pp. 179-180,
                                which replaces the badly defective G. S. Kirk, The Iliad. A Commentary,
                                I [Cambridge, 1985], pp. 208-209). The line was omitted by Aristarchus
                                in his epoch-making editions, in all probability because he only found
                                it in a few of his chosen manuscripts (a point demonstrated beyond
                                reasonable doubt by M. J. Apthorp, The Manuscript Evidence for
                                Interpolation in Homer [Heidelberg, 1980], pp. 165-177 [text], 188-194
                                [notes]), and it re-entered the textual tradition later on an unsecure
                                footing (as it is omitted by six papyri and roughly one half of the
                                best-known mediaeval manuscripts ; an instructive tale is told by the
                                comparison of the apparatuses of G. M. Bolling's Ilias Atheniensium
                                [Lancaster, 1950] , p. 39, and West's Teubner eddition, I [1998], p.
                                71). The problem is highly complex and cannot be sketched in a few
                                sentences - see Apthorp for a complete, if heavy-going, unravelling of
                                it -, but, unless the interpolation was well-known by Solon's time, viz.
                                textually fixed orally and in some exemplars of the poem, it is
                                inconveivable that the Athenians could ever have invoked it and the
                                judges of the quarrel with the Megarians accepted it. Homeric scholars
                                were thus lead to posit an updating of the geographic-mythical map of
                                heroic Greece as preserved by the Catalogue and some interpolations in
                                Hesiod with a view to the interests of Athens and other regional powers
                                of the middle of the 6th century (M. Finkelberg, 'Ajax's Entry in the
                                Hesiodic Catalogue of Women', Classical Quarterly 38, 1988, pp. 31-41 at
                                35-38) - if this is not an airtight sign of canonized textualization,
                                then what can it be ?

                                I can only hope that, tonight, I suceeded in making my point
                                crystal-clear.
                                Yours,
                                J.-F. Nardelli
                                Université de Provence
                              • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
                                As my last words on the topic, unless the debate bounces back with new arguments going beyond mere generalities, I would like to commend the view that the text
                                Message 15 of 19 , Oct 25 4:42 AM
                                  As my last words on the topic, unless the debate bounces back with new
                                  arguments going beyond mere generalities, I would like to commend the
                                  view that the text of the Homeric epics was submitted to a gradual
                                  process of textualization from the archaic period until the the middle
                                  of the sixth century, not my own creed, for I am rather convinced that
                                  we have in all essentials a ca. 750 BC Iliad, not the poem of some
                                  anonymous sixth century oral singers / arrangers (reasons in S. T.
                                  Teodorsson, 'Eastern Literacy, Greek Alphabet, and Homer', Mnemosyne
                                  LIX, 2006, pp. 161-187, and my Motif de la paire d'amis héroïque à
                                  prolongements homophiles. Perspectives odysséennes et proches-orientales
                                  [Amsterdam, 2004], pp. 170-180), yet a model that I find impossible to
                                  confine to silence (an interesting account of that progressive
                                  textualization can be found in L. E. Rossi, 'Dividing Homer. When and
                                  How Were the Iliad and the Odyssey Divided into Songs ? (Continued)',
                                  Symbolae Osloenses 76, 2001, pp. 103-112). Of course, the implications
                                  of the oral-traditional mechanisms on the textual criticism of the poem
                                  are far from assessed, witness, e.g., N. Kelly, A Referential Commentary
                                  and Lexicon to Homer, Iliad VIII (Oxford, 2007), pp. 378-384, who "is
                                  concerned to find out whether the feature under discussion is the kind
                                  of thing a traditionally trained poet would have produced" (p. 385),
                                  beyond the conspicuous fact that "von Anfang an hatten die Rhapsoden
                                  zweifellos dazu tendiert, den Text euphonischer und geschmeidiger zu
                                  machen, indem sie logisch überflüssige Partikeln zufügten, um Hiat oder
                                  andere metrische Anomalien auszuschalten (die häufig als Ergebnis des
                                  Digamma-Verlusts entstanden waren), und indem sie ungewöhnliche
                                  archaische Formen durch modernere ersetzten. Das war ohne Zweifel ein
                                  Grundzug der mündlichen Tradition schon lange bevor die Ilias geschaffen
                                  wurde" (West, in the Basler Gesamtkommentar, Prolegomena [Munich &
                                  Leipzig, 2003 ; 3rd ed., Berlin & New York, 2009], p. 31). The genious
                                  of the poet should not be downgraded or lost sight of in the
                                  appreciation of this process, if only because Homer may very well have
                                  brought out crucial modifications to the meter and dialect he inherited
                                  (N. Berg and D. Haug, 'Dividing Homer (continued). Innovation vs.
                                  Tradition in Homer - An Overlooked Piece of Evidence', Symbolae
                                  Osloenses 75, 2000, pp. 5-23, cf. p. 21 : "it is hard to see how a
                                  metrical change like the introduction of the equivalence between one
                                  long and two short syllables in thesi can have evolved gradually. For
                                  reasons shown above, these changes cannot have happened during the
                                  Aeolic phase and we see no way that they can be connected with an Ionian
                                  tradition which is but poorly supported by facts and contradicted by
                                  analyses of the epic diction like that of Hoekstra. That is why we would
                                  like to ascribe them to the monumental composer himself, or in Latacz’s
                                  words 1989, 26) : the “Begründer der abendländischen Textualität”) ; now
                                  the very existence of an Aeolic slice of the Greek dialectal continuum
                                  has been demolished by H. N. Parker, 'The Linguistic Case for the
                                  Aiolian Migration Reconsidered', Hesperia 77, 2008, pp. 431-464 at
                                  443-459, cf. 460 "the idea of an Aiolic dialect group itself falls
                                  apart. Boiotian is an archaic dialect, most closely related to West
                                  Greek, which underwent the First Compensatory Lengthening but retained
                                  *r° (with later independent change of *r° > ρο) and the labiovelars
                                  (with the default change to labials), and which underwent various later
                                  minor changes of its own. Lesbian and Thessalian are both archaic
                                  branches of Greek that did not undergo the First Compensatory
                                  Lengthening. They share no demonstrable common innovations, and nothing
                                  argues for a relationship between them. They are best viewed as two
                                  relic areas of a relatively unaltered early Greek" (I shall only declare
                                  here that I, like most Homerists with enough philological and linguistic
                                  expertise, remain unconvinced ; it has been trendy, for the past five
                                  decades, to minimize, or even rule out, the impact of Aeolic on both
                                  Homer and the dialectal map of Greece, with disastrous consequences ;
                                  cf. rather Finkelberg, 'The Dialect Continuum of Ancient Greek', Harvard
                                  Studies in Classical Philology 96, 1994,, pp. 1-36). Nor should the
                                  relevant technicalities in Homeric textual poetics and narratology, of
                                  which list members hardly suspect the level of intricacy and
                                  sophistication - sometimes oppressive, if not counterproductive : see
                                  further my Aristarchus Antibarbarus, pp. LXI-LXII note ************ - be
                                  ignored by all those who invoke Homer or the Iliad around Troy, lest
                                  what they say be heavily naive ; see C. Tsagalis, 'Towards an Oral,
                                  Intertextual Neoanalysis', Trends in Classics 3, 2011, pp. 209-244 at
                                  211-228, paper of which I must remark : es ist auf einem
                                  Spekulationsgebäude erbaut, ein neues schönes Beispiel dafür, wie
                                  produktiv unsere Irrtümer und fixen Ideen sein können.

                                  J.-F. Nardelli
                                  Université de Provence
                                  > _,_._,___




                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.