Troy debate

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Troy Debate or Troy Discussion is a discussion within German antiquity related to the exploration of ancient Troy , which caused a sensation in 2001/02 in particular.

prehistory

Since 1988 the Tübingen prehistoric man Manfred Korfmann has led the excavations in Troy. The research results have been controversial since Heinrich Schliemann's excavations in the 19th century. On the one hand, there were and are the scientists who also see the Troy described in Homer's Iliad in the found Troy and regard the events described there as essentially historical. On the other hand, there were and still are the doubters who deny the supraregional importance of Troy and see the Iliad not as a description of a real historical conflict, but as a poem that only allows isolated conclusions to be drawn about the Bronze Age reality; the Troy of the Epics probably never existed.

Since 1993, Korfmann, initially a skeptic, was one of the proponents of the first theory: he now believed in the fundamental historicity of the events Homer sung about and that he could also prove this on the basis of his excavations. In 1994 the geophysicist and archaeologist Helmut Becker discovered an unexpectedly large area by means of geomagnetic measurements, which he and Korfmann interpreted as an extensive lower town below the Acropolis , which seemed to support this theory. Other researchers refused and disapprove of this interpretation of the results, arguing that the evidence for the existence of a significant Lower City is lacking.

Another problem related to this is the question of the importance of the Bronze Age city. In the scientific discussion, questions about equating the settlement with places in ancient oriental sources and its integration into the world of ancient Near East, especially ancient Anatolia and the Greek-Aegean world, are still controversial:

  • There are researchers who see Troy as an important trading center, which in the Bronze Age not least ruled the Dardanelles . Other researchers do not consider the city big, important or powerful enough for that. Before 1993, Korfmann himself called Troy a “pirate's nest”. In the eyes of these researchers, Troy could not have been anything more than a regionally important trading center; for a supraregional importance of the city around 1200 BC The evidence was missing.
  • Another dispute broke out over the equation of Ilios or Ilion with Wilusa . Was the place mentioned in Hittite sources Wiluša (sometimes also Wilušija) the same as Homer's Ilion and does Troy correspond to Taru (w) iša / Tarwisa, which is also documented in Hittite sources?
  • Another point of contention was the classification of Troy. Was it part of the Aegean-Greek world, as assumed since Schliemann, or did the city belong to the ancient oriental world after all? Was the city even assigned to one of the cultural groups? The interest of some Turkish politicians, who wanted to see the importance of Anatolia for world history emphasized, also played a role here.

Course of the debate

trigger

On July 17, 2001, the ancient historian Frank Kolb , who also teaches in Tübingen, gave an interview to the Berliner Morgenpost . Kolb himself had carried out excavations in Asia Minor and had previously visited Troy repeatedly. In this interview, which was published under the title "Traumgebilde", Kolb attacked his colleague Korfmann sharply. He doubted the methodological correctness of several of Korfmann's statements. A model of the city of Troy was particularly criticized here, of which Kolb claimed that at least so far there has been no evidence of the existence of such a settlement: "The model is a fiction: a dream, not a reconstruction". Regarding the image of the city Korfmann had in mind, Kolb said: “Schliemann did not find Homer's Troy, but at most the place on which the myth was based. The cityscape described by Homer is fiction. Any further interpretation finds no basis in the findings. ”He describes the excavations in Troy and their representation as a“ media hot air balloon ”.

In the Schwäbisches Tagblatt on July 24th, Kolb added his remarks: "Many archaeologists know that Korfmann's picture of Troy is a fiction". He said that Korfmann's image of the Troy was "completely absurd". He even went so far as to claim: "What Mr. Korfmann is doing is misleading the public". Kolb complained that Korfmann had used his good contacts to national media in the run-up to the dispute to suppress technical criticism of his work: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ( FAZ ) had refused to print an unexpectedly negative review that Kolb had written; Only after this experience did he - Kolb - decide to look for the public in another way.

Since Kolb was of the opinion that Korfmann wanted to silence his critics, he adopted an aggressive tone from the start. Probably the most serious accusation was the statement: "Korfmann is a ' Däniken ' of archeology", with which Kolb consciously took up a formulation that Korfmann himself had used a few years earlier with regard to Eberhard Zangger . In the days that followed, these accusations were carried on by several other regional newspapers, such as the Stuttgarter Nachrichten and the Stuttgarter Zeitung (“Korfmann makes fools of people.” - “Korfmann's digs are fine, technically. Also what he finds out about the chronology. But the interpretation is a fiction. ”).

Reactions and backlashes

On July 27, 2001, Korfmann responded to Kolb's allegations in a statement. Korfmann tried to react objectively to Kolb's objections and to explain how, in his opinion , conclusions and analogies can be reached in prehistoric archeology . He concluded his remarks by offering to discuss this matter objectively within the University of Tübingen - also with Frank Kolb. Korfmann received support from the classical archaeologist Charles Brian Rose from the University of Cincinnati , who also supported Korfmann's working methods in a statement on July 30, 2001. Kolb, on the other hand, complained that behind the scenes Korfmann was anything but objective, and that he was consciously distorting the situation and was only superficially open to discussion, but was actually taking action against critics. Kolb received support from several respected ancient historians, including Hans-Joachim Gehrke and Peter Funke .

The discussion quickly reached a point where both sides began to argue irrelevantly. After this controversy became public, newer books also became topical, which otherwise would hardly have been noticed by the general public. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung used statements from two books by Dieter Hertel and Joachim Latacz to create a fictional debate between the two on July 23, with the archaeologist Hertel representing Kolb and the classical philologist and Homer expert Latacz representing Korfmann. In the course of this renewed interest in Homer and Troy literature, a conversation between Korfmann and the literary critic Sigrid Löffler appeared in the journal Literaturen in October 2001 . Here Korfmann renewed the offer of talks to Kolb and other critics, but previously demanded Kolb's apology, without which he saw no basis for a technical-scientific dispute.

On September 12th and October 9th, the FAZ gave one opponent and one supporter of Korfmann's theories space to present their view of things. It started with the critic Wolfgang Schuller , who, like most ancient historians, like Frank Kolb, rejects Korfmann's theories. It seemed to crystallize that in this dispute the ancient historians stood against the prehistorians, ancient orientalists and archaeologists. The answer came from Joachim Latacz, who became one of Korfmann's most important supporters. Latacz, however, remained the only renowned German classical scholar who sided with Korfmann.

In this phase of the dispute it can be seen that all those involved tried to get back to an objective level. Nevertheless, Kolb's statements had a broad media coverage, especially in Germany, but also abroad. Christian Meier addressed the debate in his editorial in the November issue of Damals magazine and sarcastically described the situation as a summer hole filler . Even in the British newspaper The Times there was a large article on the subject, which resulted in two letters to the editor from the Graecist Martin L. West and the Hittite scientist J. D. Hawkins , who clearly sided with Korfmann. Based on the letters to the editor, it was found that a lot of things only reached second or third hand with the foreign specialist colleagues and that the debate thus led to damage to the reputation of German classical studies.

Symposium "The Significance of Troy in the Late Bronze Age"

On February 15 and 16, 2002, a public symposium took place at the University of Tübingen , where supporters and critics were to discuss objectively with one another and each branch of science could present its view of the problem. First the prehistorians presented their work. Manfred Korfmann went back to the allegations and attacks. Other speakers were Peter Jablonka , Harald Hauptmann , Hans-Peter Uerpmann and Bernhard Hänsel . This was followed by the classical archaeologists, represented by Dieter Hertel and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier . In the third section, Frank Starke and Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer spoke for the ancient orientalists . This was followed by the ancient historians, who were represented by Gustav Adolf Lehmann and Frank Kolb. The Homer researchers, represented by Joachim Latacz and Wolfgang Kullmann , formed the end as the fifth group . Richard Kannicht and Wolfgang Röllig acted as moderators .

At the end there was a panel discussion broadcast by SWR .

Aftermath and further progress of the research

This section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

After the session, public interest in the debate waned.

Outside of academic circles, Korfmann's position has largely prevailed, not least because of Korfmann's offensive media presence and some popular supporters; Among ancient historians, however, Kolb's view dominates, and archaeologists and ancient orientalists are still divided.

The dispute between Kolb and Korfmann continued, but with Korfmann's death in 2005 the technical discussion stalled. During the excavation campaign in 2006, according to the excavators - they were students and former employees of Korfmann - the continuation of what Korfmann had interpreted as the Bronze Age fortification trench of the lower town could also be proven in the east with a change of direction to the north. The existence of the larger lower town, which Kolb has questioned, is at least possible - however, definitive proof is still pending, as this interpretation of the findings is still by no means shared by all experts. In 2010, Frank Kolb's monograph Tatort “Troia” was finally published , in which he dealt with the interpretations of the Tübingen Troia project.

literature

Web links

  • Presentation of the Troy controversy on the homepage of the Institute for Prehistory and Early History and Archeology of the Middle Ages at the University of Tübingen - Manfred Korfmann's perspective: 2001 ( Memento from November 17, 2014 in the Internet Archive ).
  • Presentation of the Troy controversy on the homepage of the Institute for Ancient History at the University of Tübingen - Frank Kolb's perspective: 2001–2011 .
  • Review: The Tübingen struggle for Troy. ( Memento from September 24, 2015 in the Internet Archive ). In: Schwäbisches Tagblatt , August 12, 2005.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ See also a. Heinhold-Krahmer 2004, especially p. 30f.
  2. ↑ Stefanie Samida: Heinrich Schliemann (Tübingen, Basel 2012) p. 111.