[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Anyone else want to show off their intellect by pointing out to me that it was presented orally not in writing (even though I said that in my first post?)
When you say Homer couldnāt write, who exactly are you talking about? There is no proof that there was actually an historical figure of Homer. Even if there was an actual figure, it is not clear whether it was this person or someone else who finally wrote down the epics which had been transmitted orally for years.
And if you think that someone who was basically earning a crust by telling stories to rich nobles wouldnāt try to earn extra by throwing in relevent references, perhaps you could explain why not?[/quote]
You didnāt quote anyone, so I donāt know if you were referring to me. I tried to sum up a semesters worth of greek lit in a post. The prof. said that bards would change stories depending on where they were. They would hype up the local heroes and their roles in the story, if they were telling the story to a naval power they would focus on the sea, and a lot of hyping up of the local smaller dieties (one of the reasons there are so many gods mentioned in these stories that were minor).
You are correct in that, these bards earned their pay with entertaining people, and what better way to draw in your audience than make their local people major parts of the story.
and lord knows, im not trying to show off intellect. But this guy actually made something I have no interest in, pretty interesting going through all the stuff I listed above. Definately puts a different spin on the story i think.
[quote]TBoZ1244 wrote:
And OG, my professor was not a huge fan of that german guy. He basically said that the guy sold out, and there is no way the mound he found could have been troy (not in the right spot, doesnāt fit any description of troy, etc.) but the guy just wants recognition and fame. Not trying to say anything one way or another about your post, just always find it funny when academics fight.[/quote]
Oh I donāt think anyone could establish with a certainty that Schlieman(sp?) found Troy.
I donāt know if the guy was a sell-out or if he really was just pursuing a passion.
There was no one āHomerā. (I donāt remember if homer was a nonsensical greek word, or just some real generic title). Homers works were probably pulled together after 100s of yrs of oral story telling.
[/quote]
Thatās cool. I hadnāt heard that before. It makes sense that Homer could just be a generic title for traveling storytellers.
Thatās funny. Itās like the guitar solo of ancient storytelling.
There almost certainly was a Troy, or rather Ilion, as the Hittite/Hittite- allied town of Wilusa (corresponding to Ilion with language shifts)is mentioned in several Hittite manuscripts. I sincerely hope the prof mentioned didnāt claim that the Iliad rhymes. Than would be what in academic circles is known as a booboo.
As for the identification of Schliemannās Troy, although he blew it by a few layers, he is probably right about the location. Troy is where you should locate a bronze age city with the aim of controlling the trade on the Hellespont, while securing local food supplies.
All Near East bronze age civilisations (except Egypt, serously weakened) were destroyed during the 12th century BCE. Foreign invasions, pestilence exhaustion of natual resources have all been cited. inceidentally,this power vacuum enabled a minor chieftain in the Levant to declare independence as King Saul.
The wide-ranging trading civilisations were replaced with feuding city states. Ironically these barbarian invaders were the audience of Homeric epic, a bit like the American fascination with British history.
