The True History of Troy

The True History of the Trojan War

This site now has a mailing list A mailing list for the discussion of the true history of the Trojan War, and Iman Wilken's book Where Troy Once Stood, is located at egroups.com. For more information, send your request to join the list to wheretroyoncestood@egroups.com.

I wish I could draw credit for this site, but most of it's really just a review of Iman Wilken's Where Troy Once Stood and a webversion of some of his primary thesises.
I am happy to report that Mr Wilkens now has a website of his own set up to make it easier to learn more about his research and writtings. You may connect to his site at: www.troy-in-england.co.uk
Also, small amounts of this page are also drawn from M. I. Finley's Aspects of Antiquity

Finley's theories on why and how the Trojan war as presented in The Illiad is wrong. Finley does not provide an alternative, and simply concludes that the works of Homer are largely fictitous.
Wilken's theories on who the Achaeans really were, how the names from the Illiad were transposed onto the mediterranean, and the subtext/hidden story of what the Illiad and Oddessy are really telling us.
If, after following those two links, you're still not convinced, read this short soapbox.

Iman Wilkens'

Where Troy Once Stood

I've recently finished reading a book that I picked up from my local used bookstore, called Where Troy Once Stood: The mystery of Homer's Illiad and Odyssey Revealed by Iman Wilkens. It's very captivating. I thought maybe there'd be a few sites about it on the web, but couldn't find any at the time (Wilkens own website www.troy-in-england.co.uk, was only created in spring of 2001) , so I decided it was up to me to write an on-line review of it. The book was originally published in 1991 by St. Martin's Press in the U.S., and is currently out of print. If you do stumble across a copy at a used bookstore or library, I HIGHLY reccommend it.

The thesis of the book is that the Illiad was originally a celtic epic passed on verbally by thier bards, which was eventually written down in Greek. As such, it places the site of Troy as being in England. That's a bit much to swallow without some evidence provided to back it up... But Mr. Wilkens provides plenty of evidence, and he's very convincing.

So I think I'll make a list of some of his arguments for Troy being where it was, in the Cambridge area of England, and not in Turkey as has often been assumed.

The Illiad and Odyssey both make reference to great tides and tidal variations. The tides are far less pronounced in the Mediterranean than on the Atlantic coast of Europe.
The climate as described in the Illiad is plagued with "ceaseless rains" and also great banks of fog and snow.
Much of the battling in the Illiad takes place on chariots. There is little evidence to suggest that the Greeks ever used this as the mainstay of thier military forces, whereas the celts most certainly did. (comments also derived from Caesar in his The Conquest of Gaul)
Many of the current Homer-derived names of countries and regions in the mediterranean can be shown to have not been called by Homer's names during the time of the Illiad. For example, it is documented that the area now known as Egypt was given that name after it's conquest by Alexander in 332 b.c. The Trojan war took place at least as early as 700 b.c., and probably far earlier than that.
The site in Turkey often thought to be Troy (discovered in 1873 by Hienrich Schlieman) is far too small. By Schliemann's own admission, it could hold perhaps 5,000 people. Homer's Illium had an army of 50,000; add to that allies, women, children, elderly and non-combatant males (such as weaponsmiths) and you're approaching a figure that could easily be 150,000 inhabitants.
Schliemann's city sits only 5km from the ocean, and it would have been even closer to the shore at the time of the Trojan war, for the rivers flowingout have deposited silt and debris extending the shore. Homer's Illium sat on a great plain, with enough distance between it and the shore for two massive armies to battle, and to have thier camps distant from eachother.
The Turkish site doesn't have the 14 rivers mentioned in the Illiad as being near the Trojan Battlefield.
The Cambridge area does have these rivers, most still bearing names that are strikingly similar to the ones in the Illiad (Compare the Rhee, the Roding and the Thames to Homer's Rhesus, Rhodius, and Temese).

In the book, he covers a lot of more of evidence, comparing the culture, art, philosophy, funeral ceremonies, geography, vegetation, etc. of the Illiad and the navigation of the Odyssey to that of the celts and the classic greeks. As I said he makes a very compelling case for The Illiad's celtic heritage and the placement of Troy, Egypt, Ithaca, et al on the Atlantic coast. By the end of the book, he identifies the homeland of each unit of the war with the region of Europe they hailed from.

He further documents the many cases of Alexander and other later Greek (and Roman) conquorers naming various locales in the Mediterranean after the sites mentioned in the Illiad and Oddessy, directly in tribute to Homer.

Again, if you find the book anywhere, read it.

To return to the index at the top of this page, click here.

M.I. Finley's

Aspects of Antiquity:

Discoveries and Controversies

In the second chapter (entitled Lost: the Trojan War) of his book Aspects of Antiquity, M.I. Finley addresses the issues of Schliemann's "Troy" site, Homers Illiad, known ancient greek history, and the ways in which these three sources of information do not reconcile with each other.

Some of his more important points are summarized here.

Schliemann's "Troy" site had been over the ages razed and rebuilt many times, and the various rebuildings are commonly refered to by numbered names such as "Troy I" or "Troy VIIa".
Schliemann's "Troy" site has only one stage of it's history that has any resemblance of greece. That is Troy VIIa, which contains pottery shards and other evidence that it had contact with greece. All the other "Troy" ruins at Schliemann's site have no remains that even suggest they ever had contacts with the greeks.
Troy VIIa is actually one of the smallest constructions at Schliemann's "Troy" site. To quote Finley:
"a shabby, impoverished huddled in one small sector of the ridge, as unlike the Homeric picture of the large and wealthy city of Priam as one could imagine."
Schliemann's great treasures which are held to prove his site was a country of vast power and influence, were found at Troy II. Troy II dates to 2500-2200 bc, long predating the greeks.
In fact, Finley contends on pages 37-38 of his book that our historical concept of the greeks of the homeric age being a continental power capable of staging such a massive expedition is based wholely upon the description of it as such in The Illiad, and not upon archaeological evidence from the greek civilizations of the Homeric era. In otherwords, rather than the undeniable existance of the Achaean empire serving as a proof of the events depicted in Homer, instead the existance of the Achaean Greek empire is based solely upon it's being mentioned in The Illiad
There are no surviving written records of the Achaeans or Trojans from the Homeric era. Both the Egyptians and the Hittites did keep historical records, legal documents, treaties, etc, that have survived for modern archaeologists to translate. Neither the Hittites not the Pharoahs make any reference to the Achaeans or the Trojans.

Finley documents several more inconsistancies, and then proceeds to make a rather uninspired conclusion from them: He declares that Homer is not to be trusted, having been biased and overly dramatic, and obviously making a big deal over the destruction of a small turkish village by a small band of greek pirates.

One last quote from Finley, that reinforces Iman Wilkens theories: "during the middle ages it was commonly believed that English history began with Brute (or Brutus) the Trojan, and that the Franks were descended from Francus, son of Hector."

To return to the index at the top of this page, click here.

Still not convinced?

Wilken's theories take a little getting used to. To some, the concept is hard to believe that the origin and meaning of Homer's epics could be so badly confused and misunderstood by so many.

Myself, it seems to me that it would be easy for the world to become mistaken on such an issue. History is a puzzle. Even today, Americans can't agree on whether or not Leif Erickson landed on this continent 400 years before Columbus; whether Colombus himself was a hero or the creator of a horrible establishment of racism, slavery and murder; and who pulled the trigger in deally plaza: a lone nut, the Mafia, the CIA, the FreeMasons, or maybe the Cubans.

To return to the index at the top of this page, click here.