In article , Derrick Everett   
    wrote:   
      
   > Schliemann found a city that was (probably) Ilium, a Greek city founded in   
   > the 7th century BC on the ruins of an older city that the Aeolian Greeks   
   > identified with Homer's Troy.  Later the Romans patronized Ilium and its   
   > temple of Athena, because of the legend that Rome had been founded by   
   > refugees from Troy.  They believed Ilium to be on the site of Troy,   
   > although there was no evidence to support this belief.   
   > Neither Schliemann nor anyone else has been able to prove that Ilium was   
   > founded at Troy.  Or that the city of Troy ever existed, except in Homeric   
   > tradition.   
      
   all correct. the problem is that you are asking for too much proof,   
   relative too the subject matter.   
      
   we are discussing a time and place for which no translated contemporary   
   records exist. by this i mean the mound generally regarded as troy, at   
   the approximate time of 1200bc.   
      
   making statements about such a place requires knowing the context in   
   which you are writing. it is established that we are writing about a   
   time which only yields legendary recived traditions, no translated   
   texts and physical remains.   
      
   therefore, all identification of all place-names is suspect. is the   
   city now called athens really the same city of heracles? are the sites   
   thought to be sparta and mycene really proven to be those sites? maybe   
   the historical spartans were only building over ruins that they thought   
   were bronze age sparta. maybe there was no city named sparta in the   
   bronze age.   
      
   it becomes an endless regress of paranoia. it is more efficient to just   
   say bronze-age sparta, not   
   the-mound-thought-by-some-to-be-sparta-but-we-really-can't-be-sure-so-i'   
   m-going-to-clutter-my-writing-with-stuff-like-this.   
      
   in order to write about history in a sane manner, the context of one's   
   statements must be a given. if you are writing about 18th century   
   history, the standards of proof are different than for 20th century   
   history. the degree of documentation available is very different.   
      
   we are also discussing homer's work, which is best described as fiction   
   with a semi-historical setting. the goal of proving troy's existance   
   has to center around a definition that is a little more concrete.   
      
   that definition could be a bronze-age city that inspired homer's troy.   
   or for common parlance, just troy.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)