This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 19 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Historicity of the Homeric epics to Historicity of the Iliad. The result of the discussion was moved. |
"Historicity the Iliad" makes little sense on its own. 203.214.112.124 11:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"The more we know about Bronze Age history, the clearer it becomes that it is not a yes-or-no question but one of educated assessment of how much historical knowledge is present in Homer. The story of the Iliad is not an account of the war, but a tale of the psychology, the wrath, vengeance and death of individual heroes that assumes common knowledge of the Trojan War to create a backdrop. No scholars assume that the individual events in the tale (many of which centrally involve divine intervention) are historical fact; on the other hand, no scholars claim that the scenery is entirely devoid of memories of Mycenaean times: it is rather a subjective question of whether the factual content is rather more or rather less than one would have expected."
Did a grad-school psych student write this? It makes little sense, and violates NPOV.
209.6.162.130 12:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
THE HISTORICITY OF THE ILIAD?
Maybe I missed the section whereby we are informed with information concerning the discovery of the first and I suppose,the only ancient written copy of the ORAL tale? We are told that the ORAL version supposedly was the only source for a couple of hundred years, yet no one can tell us whom or who first is credited with placing this "15,000 Line" missive onto parchment, etc.! It would be a very time consuming effort if the literate author(s) actually had to listen to the ORAL version, and write down the words! Someone, somewhere, and at sometime, had to have done it? So, if we know the answer, then why is it not mentioned in the article? Does anyone really know any clue to the first recorded written version of this EPIC TOME? In just what century do we place it? 69.92.23.64 ( talk) 15:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Answering my own question; See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetus_A 69.92.23.64 ( talk) 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
What the heck does "planification" mean? It's not in the dictionary. Something like "steam rollering"?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.216.98.16 ( talk) 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
The Homeric tradition that every inhabitant was killed or enslaved finds no confirmation in the archeological record.
In Book 20 of the Iliad Poseidon saves Aeneas from death at the hands of Achilles for the specific reason that Aeneas is fated to live beyond the Trojan War and his descendants will rule over Troy. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the paragraph that contained that statement, since it didn't seem like there was anything worth saving in it. --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that Athens appears on the map of Homeric Bronze Age Greece, but I thought that Athens was no where mentioned by Homer. -- Michael C. Price talk 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware that the Epic of Gilgamesh is "striking similar" to the Iliad. I have put a citation needed tag on this statement. -- Michael C. Price talk 13:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The article needs a Notes section and referenced statements with some pithy quotes, to help get away from our essays on the subject and move towards reports on the published development of argument on this topic. -- Wetman 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Minor observation, which I realise borders on OR, but might be worth pursuing. Under the Artefactual evidence section, we have:
However, on the Phaistos Disc, which apparently predates the Trojan War by something like 3 centuries, one of the commonest symbols (No. 12) is invariably interpreted as a round shield. Either this interpretation is wrong, or the Disc is badly misdated (or fake), or round shields were extant in the Eastern Mediterranean area in the Bronze Age, somewhat before if not actually contemporary with the (presumed) date of the War.
Note that although the Disc was found on Crete in a Minoan palace (under apparently datable debris), it's considered possible that it may have originated elsewhere, such as Anatolia, due to the non-Minoan style of some of the symbols depicting human figures. Minoan art, I understand, itself usually depicts hourglass/figure-of-eight shields.
Further, the Shield article states:
and their own article Sherden begins:
This places bronze-age round shields even closer to Home(r) (sorry, couldn't resist!), and suggests that the claimed anachronism of the Iliad's round shields is insecure. 87.81.230.195 ( talk) 07:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Future historians will doubt the existance of New York because of Spidey's accounts. At least they will have got Gotham and Metropolis right...-- Draco ignoramus sophomoricus ( talk) 17:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Sir, please explain the point of this statement. 184.159.128.154 ( talk) 16:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it means “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water”. Just because one aspect is obviously fantastical, doesn’t mean another is. 2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB ( talk) 01:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Why no links to the Bronze Age collapse of which the fall of Troy seems to have been the most northern example? John D. Croft ( talk) 19:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
"With Plato's Atlantis the less comparable case is the extent to which myth has been manipulated or created, to illustrate philosophical generalizations."
That "With … is" construction doesn't flow. Perhaps:
"Plato's Atlantis is a less comparable case but likewise shows the extent to which myth has been manipulated or created to illustrate philosophical generalizations."
Although I find the "less comparable" here (or the reference to Arthur above it) a bit too editorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.27.69 ( talk) 03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Odd that there is mention of Britain's mythical roots in Troy, but not Rome's. Geoffry's account is clearly derivative of Virgil's, and Virgil's should be given more weight. Rwflammang ( talk) 19:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody know of any support for any parts of the following speculation (basically my own pet theory for a decade or two, but poorly researched and with only a little evidence and a bit more abstract logic to back it up), and is that support from sources sufficiently reputable and relevant to deserve inclusion in the current article? Basically the idea is that the story originally resulted from the Greek conquest or takeover of the glorious Minoan capital of Knossos on the island of Crete around 1400BC (a takeover for which there is plenty of evidence, and which would presumably have required at least one naval expedition). Knossos is its Greek name, so it was quite likely known as something like Troy to the Minoans. After the growing Dark Age from around 1200BC onwards, caused by the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (which would have resulted in much violence as people lost their bronze-related income and had to resort to things like piracy to survive), the Greeks still orally remembered their glorious victory over Troy centuries before but no longer knew where Troy was. As the economy recovered after about 900BC, some Greeks found the abandoned site at Hissarlik, and decided to turn it into a profitable tourist trap by claiming it was Troy. As it happens, its actual name was probably Wilusa (according to the Hittite records), and, like many cities of the Eastern Mediterranean at the time, it had been sacked during the Dark Age, presumably by some piratical people similar to the Sea Peoples recorded by the Egyptians at the time, with its inhabitants taking refuge further inland at the site now known as Bunarbashi. As a result the Greeks got some useful info from the Bunarbashans, and 'Troy' got a second name, Wilios (from Wilusa), which later become Ilios, and later still Roman Ilium. And poems about the Trojan war began to reflect the geographical details around Hissarlik, and continued to change until about 300BC (even after the poems got written down as the Iliad around 750BC, allegedly on the orders of the Athenian dictator Peisistratos), to reflect the fact that the site was silting up and thus getting further from the coast. They also included other scraps of info from Bunarbashans and other locals. That's why there are now bits of the poem that agree with the geography of Hissarlik and the Hittite diplomatic records, while other bits are similar to details found in the Greek Linear B records on Crete, why the place was known as both Troy and Ilios, and why there is seemingly no famous Greek mythology about the glorious conquest of Knossos. This would mean that Hissarlik is the site of the poem (the Iliad), something in a sense known since inscriptions found around 1800 identified it as Roman Ilium, over half a century before Heinrich Schliemann largely destroyed the place in digs which he mistakenly claimed proved it was the site of the Trojan War, which it wasn't, or at least not the site of the Greek Trojan War (some details of the poem may reflect Bunarbashan and other local memories of one or more quite different Wilusan 'Trojan' wars). But of course under Wikipedia rules none of these speculations can appear in the article except where they are already mentioned in reliable and relevant references, and I know too little on the subject to know of any, but perhaps other editors might. Tlhslobus ( talk) 11:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If you read the Iliad, Homer refers to many places, islands and people (known) in and around Wilusa which the Acheans visit prior to and after the siege (Odyssey). The siege of Troy (Wilusa) is most definitely nowhere near Crete.
2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB (
talk)
01:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian ( talk) 15:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Historicity of the Homeric epics → Historicity of the Iliad – This was the stable title until a 2017 move to Historicity of Homer. In 2018, the page was rightly removed from that title to the current one. Homeric Question discusses the historicity of Homer himself. The article remains chiefly focused on the Iliad, and barring some truly historic discovery, there will never be much to say about the historicity of the Odyssey specifically; the word is not used in the Odyssey article, nor in Odysseus. Because the two epics are often treated together, I have no objection to the current title continuing to redirect, but believe the more longstanding Historicity of the Iliad title is most appropriate. -- BDD ( talk) 14:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)