> > You should substantiate that if you can.
>
> Being wrong isn't fraud,
Publishing false information is. *Making* a site fit a description
is.
> although Schlieman appears to have had doubts
> about whether or not he had the correct site. More to the point there
> is more than a century of archaeologists who argue that it is not the
> correct site.
And how many of them actually worked there?
> > > Many doubts have been expressed about whether or not it
> > > is the right sight both before and after it was purchased
> > > by Schlieman.
> >
> > Doubts are not evidence. Especially when they're associated
> > with academic grants.
>
> Neither is belief.
The evidence that gives rise to is.
> The most telling point is that it is very difficult to fit
> Homer's story into the site as we now know it was.
Not true, as I see it. Look at the map on the U Delaware page.
> The strength of Lowe's argument for Pergama/Pergamon is that
> he can more easily fit the story as told by Homer into the
> psite.
That's nonsense. Pergamon is avout 35 km from the nearest
point on the coast.
> He claims also to identify some of the landmarks referred
> to by Homer.
He claims.
> > > The biggest objection in my mind is that
> > > Hissarlik as a site cannot be made to fit the story of
> > > Troy without considerable distortion.
> >
> > Irrelevant. No site in the world can be made to fit the
> > tradition without alteration.
>
> Now that is an assertion without justification.
Should be easy to prove it wrong, then.
> > The alterations envisaged
> > for Ilion are 3,000 years of sedimentation by the rivers
> > across the plain. There is no question about the validity
> > of the estimates made in that investigation of the topology.
>
> There is much more than that. Read Zangger et al.
No. I've had enough of the fake scjolarship surrounding this issue.
Too much grant money is being spent on crackpot notions that suck
in amateurs like you and me.
AFAIC, Hissarlik is Triy, and I'll budge from that opinion IFF
a definitive find somewhere forces me to it.
> > > But such attempts fall by the wayside on the basis the
> > > details of the clutter of various ancient works on the site
> > > reported by Zangger et al in 'The Archaeology of Mediterranean
> > > Landscapes 2'.
> >
> > False. Read it again. Pay careful attention to the discussions
> > of the movements of the shoreline.
>
> Which means what, exactly?
There've were two major changes in sea level in that area before
and around the time of the Trojan war: one a drop, the other a
rise, both about two metres. In both cases the shoreline went
seaward, which is the opposite of what you'd expect of a rise.
It is conjectured tha the shoreline went the "wrong" way
because of human intervention.
(In addition, *I* have a conjecture about that too: un the final
battle in the Iliad, the gods get involved. There is lightning,
fige and flood, the earth shakes, Skamndrios bursts his banks...
sounds like an earthquake to me. And a rise or fall in the land
level would be the same as a fall or rise in the sea level from
a human perspectibe. I think that maybe Homer has recorded an
ancient natural disaster for us,)
There's quite a lot in that publication . If you can't get a copy
from the net I have a PDF, 2.3 MB: I can put it on my website if
you like.
> > > Unfortunately this his recently retreated behind
> > > Google's and Facebook's walls but it is well worth reading.
> >
> > Huh?
I mean it, I can't make sense of that.
For my money, that map's a clincher.
If you click on it, a much larger xopy coime up.
> > Giigle want me to subscribe. Fuck that. And anyway isn't that
> > outdated? 1993?
>
> 1999. In any case it is by far the most comprehensive publication on
> the subject.
But where's there a catch-free copy?
> > > > 1. Where is there room for the location of the real Troy?
> > >
> > > Not in the immediate vicinity. John Crowe in his Volume 1
> > > 'The Troy Deception' makes a case for Troy having been sited
> > > at Bergama/Pergamon.
> >
> > He *thinks* he makes a case. There is no way of reconciling the
> > tolpology of that area with Homer's description.
>
> His attempt is more successful than any I have seen for Hissarlik.
Doesn't even come close IMO.
> > > See
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w3VM3tDPj4Q/S-KceIq3AaI/
> > > AAAAAAAAABg/r6I1tbqz7hM/s1600/map1.jpg
> > > or
http://tinyurl.com/ybvuujjr
> > > ... but that is only one side of his story. I would like to
> > > see it critically reviewed.
> >
> > Do it yourself. Start by asking yourself how far Pergamon is
> > from the sea, and how far THomer puts Troy from the sea.
>
> There is a an ancient port, the remains of which are still there.
At the mouth of the tiver? That puts it about 35 km from the sea,
which is too far, and why does Homer not mention the river?
And don't sday Skamandrios: it's too far away from the Greek
stochade. Which, BTW, would be placed where?
> > > Now Professor Frank Kolb of Tubingen University is advocating Troy
> > > having been located in Greece. See
http://tinyurl.com/ybslcw3s
> >
> > Shit. When are we moving to Italy?
> >
> > > I have recently read that somebody advocated a site further up the
> > > Dardanelles.
> >
> > That's idiotic. Hissarlik's location is ideal for putting the
> > squeeze on traders. Farther up the channel means that it couldn't
> > "service" them while they waited for favourable winds.
>
> I agree, but who said this is an essential element of the story?
I say it. There has to be a reason for the site and for the Greek
attack on it; given only sail and oars, Hissarlik is a trade
bottleneck. It would be a very lucrative possession. Farther
upstream would be no more than a place to grow olives and goats.
----snip----