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

Re: [ANE-2] On the Historicity of Troy (with address)

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Verenna
    Michael, Thank you for this. I m not sure I understand your argument though. I am sure that comparatively 1/5 is quite larger than most areas (and certainly
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 22, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Thank you for this. I'm not sure I understand your argument though. I am
      sure that comparatively 1/5 is quite larger than most areas (and certainly
      the prestige of the site being 'THE Troy' helps bring in investors to
      support the digs there) and of course I'm sure tourists love it. But this
      in no way produces for us the evidence that this is 'Troy', in the sense of
      a 'Homeric Troy'. I certainly don't agree that Homer had this location in
      mind when Troy appears in the epics. And I'm not so sure I'd be quick to
      rush in and say 'Homer composed' anything since even that is a little
      sketchy and, at best, we might say that he is a traditional figure the way
      Moses in traditionally said to have composed the Pentateuch. But aside
      from that, how anyone can say 'the Troy of the Iliad' is the 'Troy at VII'
      seems more a concocted fantasy than something based in science. And in no
      way should that reflect negatively upon the excavations at the site, which
      I'm quite positive have been carried out professionally (especially over
      the last 70 years or so), but I am in no way convinced by the
      interpretations of those excavations which, I'm sorry to say, reflect the
      same mentality seen in biblical archaeology (like with the interpretations
      at Qeiyafa most

      I hope that is more direct with my meaning here. But perhaps future
      publications on the subject will be more convincing in this regard.


      Thomas Verenna
      Rutgers, New Brunswick

      On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Michael Banyai

      > **
      > 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]


      Thomas S. Verenna

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