Fall of Troy VII: New ArchaeologicalInterpretations and Considerations

Swept into their city like a herd offrightened deer. the Trojans dried thesweat off their bodies. and drank andquenched their thirst as they leantagainst the massive battlements.while the Achaeans advanced on thewall with their shields at the slope.But Fate for her own evil purposeskept Hector where he was. olltside thetown in front of the Scaean Gate(Homer. Iliad 22.1-6).

This passage is from Homer's Iliad, anepic poem believed to have been composedduring the middle of the eighth century B.C.that accounts the last few weeks of the Greeks'ten-year siege on the city of Troy. This poemcontinued through the centuries of classicaltradition to fire the hearts of the Greek people,and also initiated an interest in Troy that for thelast two mil1ennia, "has occupied the minds ofmany, archaeological1y and scientifical1y aswell as emotionally" (Korfmann 1984a: 1;Marrou 1956).

The primary objective of this paper isfounded on such interest and is specifical1yconcerned with the historical reality of an actualtwelfth century B.C. battle between themainland Greeks and the city of Troy locatedoff the coast of Asia Minor, as maintained bythe poet Homer. Although some authors are sobold as to state that the Trojan War, "asarchaeological investigations have proved, wasnot simply a myth or a tradition but an actualhistorical fact" (Mavromataki 1997:231), mostof the literature suggests that the archaeological

evidence regarding the question of a Trojan Waris by no means conclusi ve (Sperling 1984:29).

After a summary of the Homeric versionof the Trojan War, I will give a brief explanationconcerning the Homeric topography of the Trojanplain; in other words, I will explain whyarchaeologists have come to accept modem dayHisarlik as the site of ancient Troy.Subsequently, having established the necessarybackground information, the plimary section ofthis paper wil1 be devoted to presenting theevidence believed to be indicative of an actualTrojan War. To this end, using post-processualmethodology, I hope to clitical1y evaluate suchevidence as being either suppOitive, contrary, orat present, inconclusive as to the validity of ahistorical Trojan War.

It should also be noted, that if I am tocarry out such an attempt under the precepts ofpost-processual archaeology, the issue of biasshould be addressed. As "post-processualarchaeologists have pointed out, there are noneutral methods: how one carries out anarchaeological study is intimately related to whyone does so, both theoretical1y and institutional1y"(Robb 2000:476). Of course, this paper is noexception to the rule, but realizing one's bias andaccepting all possible lines of information,whether it is supportive of one's hypothesis ornot, is perhaps the first step towards objectivity.Therefore, in this paper an attempt at objectiveinterpretation wil1 be made by accepting all theevidence presented; although certainly, not all theevidence will be accepted with equal enthusiasm.

Homer's IliadAs mentioned above, the Iliad only

encompasses the last few weeks of the TrojanWar; however, owing to flashbacks by thenarrator, the origins of the ten-year struggle arerevealed. In accordance with an earlier pact, al1the Greek kings and princes took part in the

TOTJ':~I \'OJ 11211112-21111.'(opvright © 21111.1 T<rIV~I: The UWO .Journal of .\mhropolo!-,,,·

campaign led by the Mycenaean King,Agamemnon. in an attempt to repossess the fairHelen who had been kidnapped by Paris, princeof Troy. The Iliad is characterized by astubborn quarrel between Agamemnon andAchilles, resulting in the latter's abstention fromthe battle, At the blink of the Greeks' totaldestmction at the hands of the Trojans, Achillesjoined the fight and, as alluded to in the openingpassage, eventually turned back the Trojanassault. The Iliad concludes with the death ofthe Trojan champion Hector, and consequently,all hopes of Troy's salvation perish,

Although this is the point in the TrojanWar where Homer's Iliad concludes, it is by nomeans the end of the tale, Preserved in variousforms of art and Homer's Odyssey, tradition hasit that after the prophesized death of Achilles.the ever-resourceful Odysseus contrived theinfamous plan of the Trojan horse. Seeing thatthe Greeks had left their beach, the Trojansbelieved the war had finally ended and deemingthe horse to be a peace offering they wheeled itinside their city. When the Trojans were asleepthe Greeks emerged from the belly of the horseand unlocked the gates for their comrades whohad returned unobserved during the night. TheGreeks sacked the city of Troy and razed it tothe ground - they left no man alive. and everywoman was enslaved (Graves 1962:Mavromataki 1997). This was the fate of Troyat the unpitying hands of the Greeks, and this isthe destmction that is sought by archaeologists.

Topography of the TroadAncient histolians have 10Jlg been

interested in the location of Homer's Troy.Herodotus, Xenophon, Arrian, and Plutarch allwrote detailed accounts on the topography ofthe Troad - the region in northwestern AsiaMinor that surrounds the ancient city of Troy.By far the most comprehensive account comesfrom Strabo, a Greek geographer and historianwho wrote around the time of Augustus Ifor adetailed description see Strabo 19LU~8-90I,All of these ancient scholars attempted toreconcile Homer's topographic descriptionswith actual sites in the Troad, hut werespecifically concerned with locating a site thatmatched the poet's description of Troy: a featthat would finally be accomplished almost2,000 years later.

Most nineteenth and twentieth centuryliterature on the subject leads us to bclie\'e thatHeinrich Schliemann was the one whodiscovered that ancient Troy lay heneath a

mound at Hisarlik. In fact, in the preface ofSchliemann's Troja (1884), Professor Sayce goesso far as to say that the location of Troy had,"been solved by the skill, the energy, and theperseverance, of Dr. Schliemann" (1884:vii). Togive Schliemann his due, it was a result of hisenergy, personal finance, and indeed hisperseverance that drew such attention and interestto Troy (Allen 1999; Startin 1993). However. theerror in this statement lies in creditingSchliemann's 'skill' in the discovery of Troy,The reality is that Frank Calvert, an expert on thetopography of the Troad and the owner of a largepart of the site, had made uial excavations atHisarlik, believing it to be Homer's Troy, sevenyears before Schliemann had any knowledge ofthe site (Allen 1995: Luce 1998).

With Calvert's expertise andSchlieman's capital, excavations at Hisarlik beganin 1870 with the objective of finding Homer'sTroy (Allen 1996). To address the earlierquestion, what did such excavations reveal thathas led archaeologists to accept "beyond allreasonable doubt" (Luce 1998:81), that Hisarlik isthe site of Troy? The answer to this question istwo-fold.

The first aspect is concerned directlywith Homer's accurate description of the Trojanplain. Luce (1984, 1998) maintains that it is notunlikely that Homer. who was presumed to havelived during the middle of the eighth centuryB,C., actually visited the site. The foundation forthis argument rests on the accuracy of the settingand the absence of any arbitrarily inventedlandmarks in Homer's prose. The problemadherent in this hypothesis is that although Homeraccurately describes the Trojan plain, his actualdescription of the city of Troy is imprecise. Toaccount for such inaccuracy, Luce insists that themid-eighth century B.C. Troy that Homer visitedwas at that time a Greek colony. Allen (1999)and Finley (1974) echo such sentiments, andwhile reminding us that Homer is a poet and not ahistorian, they maintain that twelfth century B.c.Troy, as it is presented in the Iliad, had beencovered by several settlements dllling the elapsed400 years. In other words, "Homer could nothave seen buried Troy, but he could, and did, seethe plain of Troy, and he desclibed it withremarkable accuracy" (Finley 1974:9).

The second aspect removes anyuncertainty pel1aining to the location of Troy.Even if one is not willing to equate Hisarlik withTroy, in all of western Anatolia there is no otherprehistOlic site that compares to it. Korfmannstresses this point in mentioning that Hisarlik

'I () 1'1'\1 ",I 11211112-211<1,>Co>pl1'1ghl' 21111, II III \1: Th, l'\X'<)Jo>urnal of,\nthropo>io>gl'

"boasts a continuous stratigraphical sequence of41 architectural levels, constituting animpressive deposit of more than twenty meters"and that "the fOltifications are truly massiveamong prehistoric defenses" (l984a: I). If thiswere not enough, excavations have revealed thatHisarlik complised a vast wealth, was relativelylarge in size, and had a long duration ofsettlements (Luce 1998). Although determinedskeptics often cling to the possibility that analternative site will be discovered, all thearchaeological and literary evidence points toHisarlik as the Bronze Age capital of the Troad(Luce 1998:81).

Evidence of a Trojan WarExcavations at Hisarlik during the last

120 years by Calvert, Schliemann, Dorpfeld. aswell as teams led Blegan and Korfmann fromthe University of Cincinnati. have yielded ninechronological strata for the ancient city of Troy(Allen 1999). Cultural remains on the bedrocklevel have been called Troy I, and this stratumranges from approximately 2920-2450 B.c.The latest stratum of settlement has been namedTroy IX, and covers a period fromapproximately 85 B.c. onwards (Luce 1998).The stratum that has been identified asencompassing Homeric Troy, and consequently,the one of most interest to this paper, is TroyVII, which extends from approximately 1250 to1020 B.C. (Luce 1998; Blegan 1963; Korfmann1984b; Page 1972).

There have been many calculationsmade from the literature to ascertain whenHomer's version of the Trojan War occurred.Tracing the line of Spartan kings, the Greekhistorian Herodotus dates the event to 1250B.c., while the ancient Greek Eratosthenes,more specifically places the date at 1183 B.C.(Allen 1999). Although these and othercalculations are, "all rather insecure to say theleast" (Korfmann 1984b:28), most of thecalculations produce a date that fits into thechronological stratum of Troy VII.

After reviewing the literature on thesubject, I found three main categolies ofevidence pertaining to Troy VII's ruin. whichsome believe to be indicative of a historicalTrojan War, and I will therefore structure thissubsequent sections accordingly. The firstsection will be concerned with Mycenaeanpottery found in Troy; the second, withevidence of fire and destruction; and finally, thelast section examines the possible link betweenthe Greeks and Hittite texts.

Mycenaean Pottery and TradePottery from the seventh stratum at

Hisarlik does suggest that there was significantcontact with the Mycenaeans to the west duringthe late Bronze Age. In fact, commercial contactbetween Greece and the Troad can be confirmedfrom as far back as 1400 B.C. by Mycenaeanpottery found in Troy VI (Luce 1998). It isinteresting to note that on mainland Greece noevidence exists of Trojan exports in retum. Luce(1998) believes there could have been exports inthe form of textiles but they would not have beenpreserved in the archaeological record.

After examining the Greek pottery foundat Troy, Blegan (1963: 159) maintains that therewas a noticeable decline in Mycenaean potteryfrequency at the end of Troy VI through Troy VII.Furthermore, by using the established andaccepted sequence of Mycenaean ceramic styles,Blegan argues that the overthrow of Troy VIImust have occurred between 1270 and 1250 B.C.Conveniently, this range of dates coincides withthe peak of Mycenaean supremacy on mainlandGreece, which Pedley (1993) places between1450 and 1200 B.C. Therefore, according toBlegan, the pottery evidence establishes that therewas contact between Troy and Mycenae, and thatthe fall of Troy VII fits within the timeframe ofMycenae's dominance of the Greek mainland.

Fire and DestructionIt is believed that the end of Troy VI was

a result of a devastating earthquake that hit thearea around 1300 B.C., but it appears that "repairswere made, and the life of the place continuedwithout a major culture break into the phasenamed Troy VII" (Luce 1998:99). The beginningof this phase is characterized by a new andstrange architectural appearance; large storagejars were now being sunk into the floors of manyhouses and were fitted with stone lids so thatresidents could walk over top of them. However,this stratum was short lived and it appears thatTroy VII, "met its end in a great conflagration"(Luce 1998:101).

The destruction of Troy VII ischaracteristically marked by a burnt stratum,which Blegan (1963) and Korfmann (I 984b )believe to be indicative of a war, if not the war.Because the appearance of the destruction of thegreat walls of Troy VII differed so much from theearthquake that had damaged the walls of TroyVI, Blegan boldly states that, "the destruction wasundoubtedly the work of human agency, and itwas accompanied by violence and fire"

TOTI·:,\! \'01 !I 211112-21111,)

Cop\Tight © 2tHI,) TOT! ':~[:The 1I\X'<) Journa! of ,\nthropo]og\'

(1963:161). According to carbon-14 dating,this catastrophe occurred circa 1180 B.C. - adate that is very close to the one given byEratosthenes of 1183 B.c.

Moreover, this stratum containedcel1ain human and cultural remains thatapparently point to military action. In thestreets and near one of the main walls,archaeologists excavated an arrowhead ofmainland Greek type, abandoned piles of slingstones, the skeleton of a man, fragments of ahuman skull, and the hastily buried skeleton of agirl (Blegan 1963; Luce 1998; KOlfmann1984b). Concerning the male skeletonuncovered, Blegan (1963: 161) insists that, "itseemed not to lie in the normal manner of aproper burial: it looked as if the man had beenstruck down there and, left as he fell, beencovered by debris from above. The skull hadbeen crushed."

Hittite TextsExcavations at the Hittite capital

Bogazkoy in 1906-1907 brought to light tenthousand clay tablets that aided in thereconstruction of Hittite laws, religion,literature, and history (Page 1972: I). Becauseof Troy" s location on the edge of the ancientHittite empire, and the apparent similaritiesbetween Hittite words and their possible Greekcounterparts, these tablets caught the attentionof Troy scholars. For example, one suchsimilmity is the Hittite word Wi/usa (Wi lias)referring to a city somewhere in the proximityof the Troad, which is comparable to the ancientname for Troy, /lias (Guterbock 1984).

Almost all the locations of the citiesand nations mentioned in these tablets havebeen identified by literary and archaeologicalstudy, except for one: the city/nation ofAhhiyawa. Since these texts identify a detailedpolitical association between the land ofAhhiyawa and the Hittites, the question ofwhether the name Ahhiyawa refers to the landof the Greeks certainly has a bearing on thehistorical background of a Trojan Wm"(Guterbock 1984:33).

Page (1972) adamantly andpersuasively argues that the land of theAhhiyawa is none other than Greece,specifically the island of Rhodes. Assumingthat this is true, it becomes clear that thediscourse in the tablets regarding the location,politics, trade, and religion of the land ofAhhiyawa (Rhodes) is incredibly accurate. Tofurther strengthen his case, Page reveals that the

main city on Rhodes was called Akhaiwa. Toshow it is not just a coincidence and to cement hisargument he states that , "the only otherconsiderable Achaean settlement on the westcoast of Asia Minor at this time was Mi/atas, andthe only settlement on that coast assigned by theHittite documents to the realm of the Achaeanswas Mi/awatas" (Page 1972: 18).

Finally, if One continues to assume thatthe land refeITed to by the Hittites as Ahhiyawawas indeed a Greek colony on Rhodes, then ahistorical Trojan War becomes more plausible.First of all, the dates of the tablets would indicatethat the Greeks and the Hittites, "were in contactfor a hundred and fifty years (more or less)preceding the sack of Troy VII" (Page 1972: 19).This date, as mentioned above, is confirmed byMycenaean pottery found in Troy IV dating toaround 1400 B.c. In addition, the island ofRhodes was a wealthy trading colony thatdominated the sea-lanes around Asia Minor.Therefore, if you consider Rhodes' wealth andnaval supremacy, combined with its closeproximity to Troy, then Page's assertion that therich and powerful land of Ahhiyawa was indeed aGreek colony becomes conceivable.

SynopsisThe evidence revealed above, was drawn

almost exclusively from the work of Blegan,Korfmann, and Allen, archaeologists who have allactually excavated at Troy. It may initially seemproblematic that I have not alluded to any of theinfamous work done by Heinrich Schlie mann, butthis becomes logical when considering that duringhis years of excavating at Troy, he never did anysubstantial work on Bronze Age strata, and infact, had mistakenly identified Troy II as Homer'sTroy (Allen 1999). To summarize the evidenceso far, we can make a few assertions based on thework of Blegan and Korfmann:

I. There was contact between Troy andMycenae as revealed by potteryfound in Troy VII. Furthermore,there was a decline in Mycenaeanpottery frequencies from Troy VI toTroy VII. Finally, by using anestablished and accepted sequenceof Mycenaean ceramic styles,Blegan dates the fall of Troy VII toapproximately 1250 B.C., whichcoincides with the peak ofMycenaean power.

2. A burnt stratum of ash and debrisdated to approximately 1180 B.C.

TOTI':~[ 1"01 11 2111/2-21111.)Copvright <[', 200.) TOTI ':~): ThL' U\X'() Journal of. \nthropo)ogr

characterizes Troy VII. Bleganmaintains that the damage to thewalls of Troy VII denotes humanagency and not a natural disaster.Finally, the presence of certainhuman remains (skeletal material,hastened burial, etc.) and culturalremains (mainland Greek stylearrowhead, abandoned piles ofsling stones) ce11ainly makes amilitary action plausible.

3. Following Page. if the Hittite wordAhhiyawa was their word for theGreeks (Rhodesians), then thismight be evidence that Hittite andGreek contact goes as far back as1400 B.C. - a date verified byMycenaean pottery found in TroyVI. Fm1hermore, based on thissame assumption. the location,strength, relative naval superiOlity,and wealth of the Greek colony onRhodes makes it a reasonableagent for the destruction of TroyVII.

Interpretations and ConsiderationsStanding on the shoulders of giants

like Blegan and KOlfmann. I will attempt tocritically analyze and interpret the evidencesummarized above as being, in my opinion,supportive, contrary, or at present, inconclusiveconcerning the validity of a historical TrojanWar. For convenience I will keep the threecategories as the base of the structure for thissection.

Mycenaean Pottery and TradeI agree with Blegan that the

Mycenaean pottery found in the strata of TroyVI and VII conclusively represents tradebetween the two cities and that this trade had itsorigins at least as far back as 1400 B.C.Furthermore, regarding the decrease inMycenaean pottery frequency from Troy VIthrough Troy VII, I agree that this represents "afalling-off in the quantity of imported vessels ascompared with locally produced imitations"(Blegan 1963: 159). The real question is whywas there a decrease in imported Mycenaeanpottery. Two possible explanations come tomind.

First, since it has been shown that anearthquake destroyed Troy VI, I believe that thedecrease in imported property at this time mayreflect a sh0l1age of capital. It is not unlikely

that the inhabitants of Troy VI would spend allavailable resources on the necessities related torebuilding the city, and simply could not affordthe luxury of Mycenaean imports. Oralternatively, Troy VI may have been left soimpoverished by the destruction that they were nolonger attracting such traders. The result is thesame regardless of which explanation is favoured.

Second, we cannot rule out thepossibility that the decrease in Mycenaeanimports may reflect increased hostilities betweenthe two cities. One could take this evidence toimply the possibility of a trade embargo thatcould have misen from Mycenaean pressure forcontrol of the Hellaspont region. Indeed, Troyoccupied a very valuable location in terms oftrade. Again. it is not unlikely that a tradingpower such as Mycenae would be interested incontrolling the Hellaspont and consequently, allof the trade from around the Black Sea and inlandAnatolia.

Turning our attention to the date of 1250B.C. given by Blegan as the date of the fall ofTroy VII, a problem becomes apparent: he states:

There are some minordisagreements in detail -inevitable, since the evidenceitself is at best somewhattenuous and conflicting - mostfield archaeologists accept thesedates in general, sometimesrounding them out forconvenience and simplicity"(1963: 160) [emphasis mine).

To say that this statement is imprecise andunclear is obvious, but what is less obvious isthat his date of 1250 B.c. is misleading. Luce(1998) mentions that in view of recent expertanalysis of the accepted sequence of Mycenaeanceramic styles, the fall of Troy VII could be aslate as 1140 B.C. The problem that immediatelybecomes apparent with this new date is that itplaces the fall of Troy VII out of the range ofMycenaean dominance in Greece. Korfmann(1984a:26) states that, "it is practically beyondthe realm of imagination that the Mycenaeanswould still have been able to rally to such a full-scale unde11aking at this time when their owncities were clearly in decline."

In my opinion, the pottery evidenceclearly reflects that there was contact betweenMycenae and Troy, but the decline in Mycenaeanpottery frequency could have simply been theresult of Troy VI's depleted capital in an attempt

TOTI·:,\I ml 11211112-21111,1Copnight © 21111,1TOTI':,\!: The U\X'O Journal of, \nthmpology

to rebuild their city after an earthquake hit thearea in approximately 1300 B.C. Finally, inlight of new dates provided by Luce (1998), itappears unlikely that the fall of Troy VII wasthe result of Mycenaean agency.

Fire and Destructio/1Based on carbon-14 dating of the ash

stratum, I agree with Allen' s date ofapproximately 1180 B.C. for the destruction ofTroy VII. Furthermore, the fact that this dategenerally coincides with the pottery evidence0140 B.C.), and the date given by Eratosthenes0183 B.C.), makes it a plausible inference.The abundance of ash in this stratum clearlyshows that Troy VII underwent a significantcatastrophe, but it still does not answer thequestion of how. Was it the result of a militaryevent as Blegan and Korfmann argue, or was itthe result of an earthquake, similar to the onethat leveled Troy VI? Truly, neither option canbe conclusively disregarded.

Since the destruction of Troy VI wasdeemed to be the result of an emthquake, andgiven that natural scientists have confirmed thehigh probability of earthquakes in this region. Ido not believe it to be improbable that Troy VIIcould have met a fate similar to its predecessor.Moreover, Troy's proximity to the coastexposes the plain to fierce ocean winds andeven Homer speaks often about the onslaught ofthe wild west winds (Maclm'en 1863). In lightof such environmental conditions, I believe afire caused by an earthquake could spreadrapidly throughout the city and account for suchwidespread destruction.

And what of Blegan's "human agency"0963:161) behind the destruction of the walls?Besides simply referring to the probability ofhuman agency, Blegan mentions no evidencethat would conclusively show that these wallswere brought down by "invading hostile forces"0963:162). At present, let's consider the maleskeleton uncovered in an abnormal position thatBlegan maintains, "had been struck down thereand, left as he fell, been covered by debris fromabove. The skull had been crushed"0963:161). In light of this statement, again, Iam drawn to the plausibility of an earthquake.Considering that after the destruction of TroyVII it was rebuilt and occupied (Troy VIIl), it isunlikely that a man killed in battle would be leftto rot in the streets. On the other hand, if hewas crushed from a crumbling buildingresulting from an earthquake, his body mightnever have been recovered for a proper burial.

The last hole in the siege hypothesis isBlegan's (963) interpretation of the large storagejars (pit/wi) that were sunk into the floors ofmany houses in Troy VII. He maintains that thepresence of these pit/wi denotes a concern forsupplies because there was possibly an impendingemergency of some kind. Again. I find thishypothesis improbable. This kind of preparationby the inhabitants of Troy VII would indicate thatthey had an advance warning of an impendingattack and fmthermore, that such a warning hadprovided a significant amount of time to prepare.In my opinion this architectural oddity is betterexplained as a measure to conserve living space ina city that already characterized by, "the crowdingtogether of numerous small houses everywhere"(Blegan 1963:161). Or alternatively. thisarchitectural feature may simply have been seenas a supelior method of storage: that is, forkeeping water and food cool, while freeing upvaluable household space.

Finally, regarding the arrowhead ofmainland Greek type and the abandoned piles ofsling stones found, it can be said with certaintythat these elements are clearly military in nature.But what cannot be said conclusively is that theyplayed a role in the destruction or defense of thecity. Surely, if a city were under attack, it isunlikely that a defending slinger would abandonhis ammunition. On the other hand, one cannotrule out the possibility that they were used toprotect Troy VII. It is just as reasonable tobelieve that they were not abandoned by choicebut by necessity.

Let us consider the Greek typeanowhead found on the streets of Troy.Certainly, it must be proof of a siege? In myopinion, it is not. As a result of the potteryevidence mentioned above, it is clear that theGreeks and the Trojans had an extensive tradenetwork. Besides pottery, Luce (998) mentionsthat the Trojan imports of Mycenaean productsincluded weaponry, and therefore, the arrowheadcould have been a Trojan weapon. Furthermore,since the sacking of Troy VII would require alarge force of men, certainly more than oneenemy arrowhead should be present.

Notwithstanding my Cliticism ofBlegan' s interpretations, I am hesitant tocompletely dismiss his hypothesis that, "fightingand killing must have accompanied thedestruction of Troy VII" 0963: 161). Heaccurately determined that an earthquake ruinedTroy VI, so it appears that he identify thedifferences between earthquake and militarydamage. Therefore, it is my opinion that Troy

'['()TJ.:,\! \'01 II 211112-211111Copyright 10 21111,>T( l'lVH ThL' 1I\\'() .Journal of, \nthropo)o!-,,,'

VII was destroyed around 1180 B.C., but thecause of such destruction is at present,inconcl usi ve.

Hittite TextsThe hypothesis regarding the mention

of Troy and the Greeks in Hittite texts certainlywalTants caution on the part of thearchaeologist. In fact, it is important to notethat most authors writing on the subject of aTrojan War seem to all but ignore the Hittitetexts. This may be because any reconciliationbetween ancient Greeks and the Hittite wordAhhiyawa, "is still a matter of faith," accordingto the Hittite linguist Hans Giiterbrock( 1984:33).

Although Page (1972) puts forth a veryconvincing case that the Greek colony onRhodes was the Hittite land of Ahhivawa, it isstill based on an assumption and nothing more.In his attempt to persuade the reader, he makesnote of several striking coincidences. These. Imust admit, drew my attention and even caughtmy imagination. Again, in spite of suchplausible coincidences, until further evidencecan be uncovered that is not based onspeculation or assumption, then they willremain just that, coincidences.

These texts are, nonetheless, intriguingand full of possibility, but are useless to Trojanscholars until an accurate reconciliation can bemade between the text and actual geographicallandmarks. Therefore, in my opinion, theHittite texts do not attest to the validity of ahistOlical Trojan War.

Conclusion"The heroes of the Iliad and the

Odyssey have become to us men of flesh andblood; we can watch both them, and olderheroes still, in almost every act of their dailylife" (Schliemann 1884:vii). These are thewords from the preface of Schliemann's Troja,written in 1884. For a man who hadmisidentified the stratum of Homeric Troy atHisarlik, this statement is presumptuous to saythe least. Similarly, almost 130 years later, Ibelieve that it would be just as presumptuous toclaim that there was an actual historical TrojanWar.

In my opinion, the conclusive evidenceproduced by Blegan and Korfmann can besummarized as such: 1) there was contactbetween Troy and Mycenae from at least 1400B.c. up to and including the fall of Troy VII;and 2) Troy VII was destroyed around 1180

B.C. by either an earthquake or human agency inthe form of a military operation. These are theonly two points that I am comfOltable claiming asinefutable.

Luce states that, "the strength of one' sbelief in the historicity of the Trojan War dependson one' s estimate of the overall reliability ofancient Greek tradition and its particularembodiment in the poetry of Homer" (1998:3). Iwould disagree. The strength of my belief in thehistoricity of the Trojan War depends onarchaeological fact. And at present, such facts (orlack thereof) lead me to conclude that theevidence pertaining to the historicity of a TrojanWar is at present, inconclusive. My position isbased on the fact that, just as archaeology cannotprove the arguments put forth by Blegan andKOlfmann that there was a Trojan War,archaeology cannot disprove them either.

Allen states, as echoed in much of theliterature: -

to lift the veil of prehistory onceand for all, the excavators willneed to find the palace archiveor some other written proof ofthe identity of the ancient townand its inhabitants, for withouttexts. the association ofarcheological finds withspecific histOlical events isnotoriously difficult (1999:258).

Indeed, I believe the only conclusive evidencepertaining to the hiStOlicity of a Trojan War thatwill ever smface will be in the form ofdocuments that give detailed and precisedescriptions concerning the participants. Untilsuch documents are excavated, we must. likeHomer's Achaeans who waited ten years to sackwindy Ilium, be patient.

Further ResearchOne idea of interest is concerned with

the fall of the Mycenaean Empire during the latethirteenth century B.c. This date is suspiciouslyclose to the one attributed to the fall of Troy VII.I believe that this is more than a coincidence. Twotopics for further research immediately come tomind: first, could the destruction of both cities,within a relatively ShOlt peliod. denote that thesame enemy attacked them both? Second. if therewas a histOlical Trojan War and the Greekcoalition was led by Mycenae, could theeconomic and demographic losses from fighting a

HHI·:i\1 \'01 11211112-21111.1Coprright <D2111n TO'IVi\I: The U\X'() .Iollrn~1 of .\nthropo!o!,'y

war so far from home have stretchedMycenaean resources and capital too thin andthus catalyzed the decline of the empire and thebeginning of Greece's Dark Age? 1 believethese questions have the potential to solve manyunanswered questions that plague contemporaryscholars,

Another line of interest that would bewOlth investigating would be the location of theGreek camp, as maintained by Homer. Surely,attempting to siege a city so far from homewould require a large contingent of men andthus, necessitate a camp of significant size andresources. Korfmann (1984b) and Luce (1984)briefly touch on this idea, but there is littleliterature on the subject. Searching Bronze Agestrata at likely harbours around Troy would be astep in the light direction and has the possibilityof producing very interesting results.

Allen, S. H, 1995. Finding the Walls of Troy:Frank Calvert, Excavator. AmericanJoumal of Archaeology 99:379-407.

---, 1996. Principally For Vases, etc: theFormation and Dispersal of theCalvert Collection. Anatolian Studies46:145-166,

1999. Finding the Walls of Troy: FrankCalvert and Heiruich Schliemann atHisarlik. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Blegan, C. 1963. Troy and the Trojans. NY:Frederick A. Praeger Publisher.

Finley, M. 1974. Schliemann's Troy - OneHundred Years After. MortimerWheeler Archaeological Lecture,London: Oxford University Press.

Graves, R. 1962. 1962. The Siege and Fall ofTroy. London: Cassell and Co. Ltd.

Guterbock, H. 1984. Troy in Hittite Texts? /11

Troy and the Trojan War: ASymposium Held at Bryn MawrCollege October 1984. M. Mellink,eds. Pp. 33-44. Bryn Mawr: TheDepartment of Classical and NearEastem Archaeology Bryn MawrCollege.

Homer. 1950. The Iliad. E.V. Rieu, trans.London: Penguin Group.

Korfmann, M. 1984a. Troy: Topography andNavigation. /11 Troy and the Trojan War:A Symposium Held at Bryn MawrCollege October 1984. M. Mellink, eds.Pp. 1-16. Bryn Mawr: The Departmentof Classical and Near EasternArchaeology Bryn Mawr College.

1984b. Besik Tepe: New Evidence For thePeriod of the Trojan Sixth andSeventh Settlements. /11 Troy and theTrojan War: A Symposium Held at BrynMawr College October 1984. M.Mellink, eds. Pp. 17-28. BrynMawr: The Department of Classicaland Near Eastern Archaeology BrynMawr College.

Luce, J. V. 1984. The Homelic Topographyof the Trojan Plain Reconsidered.Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 3:31-42.

1998. Celebrating Homer's Landscapes:Troy and Ithica Revisited. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

Maclaren, C. 1863. Plain of Troy DesClibed.Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.

Marrou, H. 1956. Education in Antiquity. NY:Mentor Books.

Mavromataki, M. 1997. Greek Mythology andReligion. Athens: Haitalis Editions.

Page, D. 1972. History and the Homeric Iliad.London: University of California Press.

Pedley, J. 1993. Greek Art and Archaeology.New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Robb, J. 1999. Analyzing Human Skeletal Data./11 Human Osteology: In Archaeologyand Forensic Science. Margaret Cox andSimon Mays, eds. Pp. 475-490. London:Greenwich Medical Media Ltd.

Schliemaru1, H. 1884. Troja: Results of theLatest Researches and Discovered onthe site of Homer's Troy, 1882. NY:Benjamin Bloom, Inc.

'1'0'1'1·:,\1 ,01 11211112-21111,)CO[1Hight © 211111 '1'< )'1'1·:,\1: The U\\!<) .Journal ot- .\nthro[1olog'

Sperling, J. 1984. Reminiscences of Troy. /nTroy and the Trojan War: ASymposium Held at Bryn MawrCollege October 1984. M. Mellink,eds. Pp. 29-31. Bryn Mawr: TheDepartment of Classical and NearEastem Archaeology BrynMawr College.

Startin, Bill. 1993. Preservation and theAcademically Viable Sample.Antiquity. 67:421-426.

Strabo. 1913. The Geography of Strabo:Volume II. H. Hamilton, trans.London: G. Bell and Sons Ltd.

'IUlv~r mill 2(1(12-211(1.,\