Troy

The Trojan War: Legend or Reality?

Discussion about the Ahhiyawan influence in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in Western Anatolia raises the old question of the Homeric Trojan War, c.1200 B.C. The question can be resolved in part from now available Hittite sources, as well as the archaeology of the ancient site of Troy, and comes down to three questions:

1. Can the site of Troy be identified from Hittite texts?

In the course of his discussions about the Ahhiyawa Forrer identified two place-names mentioned in the Hittite texts (Annals of Tudhaliya I/II) which seemed to correlate to names in the Homeric tradition, viz. Wilusiya and Taruisa, respectively Wilios (Ilios) and Troia (Troy), the two being designations for the same place in the Homeric tradition. Several other references to Wilusiya occurred in the Hittite texts, notably the treaty between the Hittite king Muwatilli II and the Wilusiyan king Alaksandu (cf. Alexander Paris in the Iliad). Other equations of Hittite names with those of Homer have also been suggested.

While other scholars over the years often dismissed Forrer new evidence is now at hand which establishes the link between the Hittite Wilusiya and Ilios/Troy. According to a newly-discovered join in a letter from the time of Muršili II, that from Manapa-Tarhunda in the Seha River Land in Western Anatolia, Wilusiya lay beyond the River Seha (Caicos), i.e. to the north of Seha, and near the island of Lazpa (Lesbos) off the NW coast of Anatolia.

Furthermore, geologists Kraft and Luce in 2001 conducted a geological survey of the site, and concluded that the landscapes and coastal features of the Trojan region described in classical sources (including the Iliad) on one hand display a regular consistency with the Hissarlik site, the geological evidence, and general topography on the other.

There is therefore little doubt that ancient Troy is to be identified with the mound of Hissarlik on the NW corner of Anatolia, but which of the nine major occupation levels is that of Homer’s Iliad is more problematic. Schliemann in the 1870s identified it with Troy II, then for a long time during the C20th Troy VIIa seemed to be the best candidate. Bryce champions the view that it should be identified with Troy VIh, an imposing structure with towers and sloping walls. Others have disputed this, however, and Troy VIIa remains a viable alternative. The latter, in the light of the 1988 excavations, was a large city of 200,000 m², and a population of around 10,000. Korfmann found considerable numbers of arrow-heads, indicating a battle, and evidence that the city was destroyed by fire. None of this is conclusive, of course, and TroyVIIb₁ also remains a viable, if later, option.

2.Is there evidence of a conflict between the Ahhiyawan kingdom and Troy in the C13th or C12th B.C?

Taking the Ahhiyawa-Mycenae equation as settled, and likewise the Wilusa-Troy identity, from Hittite texts it is clear that Wilusa suffered a series of attacks during the C13th B.C., possibly supported by the king of Ahhiyawa. These attacks, during the reigns of Hattušili III or Tudhaliya IV, resulted in the overthrow of Walmu, king of Wilusa. One or several of these attacks mayconstitute the foundation of the Trojan War tradition.

However, were these conflicts precipitated by the abduction of a femme-fatale Mycenaean princess, as Homeric legend would have us believe? We cannot say, but the possibility cannot be discounted. There may have been more prosaic reasons for a conflict, such as disputes over trade routes to the Black Sea through the Hellespont, or over access to copper resources. These too remain speculative.

Whatever, one of these attacks most likely resulted in the destruction of the city, whether of Troy VIh or Troy VIIa, and the
dethronement of a Trojan king. Even if this conclusion involves jumping to a conclusion to some degree, the evidence does seem to point in that direction.

3.In the light of the evidence, both textual and archaeological, can the Homeric account be substantiated to any degree?

A consensus of historical and literary scholarship has now proposed a “growth of tradition” in the Homeric legends, possibly dating back to a century or more prior to the traditional date for the Trojan War, reaching a final form in the C9th B.C. Hence according to this view one must begin when Attarsiya, “the man of Ahhiya” warred against the Hittites to carve out a small kingdom on the Anatolian mainland. Attarsiya has been identified with Atreus, an early ruler of Mycenae in Greek tradition, and while many stoutly reject such identification, it remains a possibility.

With all literary traditions, however, the accumulation of evidence has demonstrated time and again that a historical core underlies these so-called legends, and that undue scepticism is unwarranted. Thus for example Gilgamesh, the legendary king of Uruk and hero of the Gilgamesh Epic, was an actual king in the early period of Sumer, a younger contemporary of Mesannepadda of Ur in the Third Millennium B.C., whose exploits are attested by a number of early inscriptions.

Likewise, the story of Dido (Elissa), sister of Pygmalion of Tyre and her flight to Cyprus, and thence to Carthage to found there the later mistress of Phoenician colonial cities, is historically well-founded, even if once regarded by certain scholar as pure legend.

To return to Homer, while due allowance must be made for accretions and “heroic tales”, we may nevertheless with some confidence credit the account of a Trojan War, at roughly the time that that tradition indicates, even if there are a number of aspects and details to clarify from the mists of time.

Watch this space for an assessment of the recent book by Barry Strauss, The Trojan War, Arrow Books, 2007.