Archaeology and Heinrich Schliemann 2012

42Homer, Mycenae and Troy: Problems and Aspects 1Egert PöhlmannIn 1795, Friedrich August Wolf initiated a discussionconcerning the unity of the Iliad and theOdyssey with his Prolegomena ad Homerum. Fornearly one hundred years, this discussion was confinedto purely philological arguments and was eventuallyviewed as unsolvable on this level. The philologistssplit into Analysts, whose goal was to reveal thegenesis of the two epics, and Unitarians who examinedthe composition of both epics with the intentionof proving their artistic unity. 2Homeric research later received new encouragementfrom outside the discipline of philology.Through Schliemann’s excavations in Troy (started1870), Mycenae (1876), and Tiryns (1884/85), the vitalbackground of the Iliad and the Odyssey seemed tohave been uncovered. In 1900, Evans discovered theso-called palace of Minos at Knossos, soon followedby other residences in Phaestos and Hagia Triada. Itthen became obvious that Mycenaean culture with itsarts and crafts was to a large extent dependent uponMinoan culture. However, the huge Mycenaean megaronbuilt into the Minoan palace of Hagia Triadaproved that the Mycenaeans had taken over power inCrete during the last phase of Minoan culture. Thepicture emerging of the Cretan-Mycenaean culturewas at first indiscriminately adopted to form an imageof the Iliad and the Odyssey. 3Then in 1928, Milman Parry’s thesis gave researcha new direction by turning attention toward conventionalaspects within the Iliad and the Odyssey. In themeantime, oral poetry research demonstrated thatthere are numerous elementary parallels between theSerbocroatic Guslar epic and the Homeric epics,which can be explained by the needs of improvisation.This was achieved by close observation of thetext of the Iliad and the Odyssey, as well as the comparisonof oral epic poetry of modern times. 4Of course, in their final versions the Iliad and theOdyssey exhibit qualities that raise them far abovethe level of the Serbocroatic epic, despite the commontechniques of Oral Poetry. Nevertheless, both epicsare heirs to a tradition that is as tempting as it is problematicto trace back.As a result of Evans’ excavations, two systems ofa syllabic script, Linear A and B, are known fromKnossos. Linear B was also found in Pylos, Mycenae,Tiryns, Thebes and Orchomenos. Michael Ventrissucceeded in deciphering Linear B in 1952, provingthat the language of the Mycenaeans was indeedGreek. Of course, the preserved texts were usedexclusively for administration and the exchange ofgoods between the Mycenaean palaces, which limitstheir literary evaluation. 5The whole field of Homeric reality is displayed inthe Archaeologia Homerica. An important contributionin this series is Heinrich Drerup’s monograph,Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit. Anotherimportant contribution is Alfred Heubeck’s Schrift.He demonstrates that pre-alphabetic writing systemsof the Aegean, including Linear B, disappeared duringthe attacks of seafaring people around 1200 B.C.,apart from remnants in Cyprus. Following this,Heubeck deals with the Greek alphabetic script,which was created by the Greeks after more than fourcenturies without writing, and was based on themodel of the Phoenician alphabet. 6Beginning in the 1960s, a new consensus on Homericphilology was formed: Albin Lesky was one ofits pioneers, and Joachin Latacz gave an excellentsummary by adding valuable aspects for the future.1. This paper is a summary of “Homer, Mykene und Troia.Probleme und Aspekte”, Studia Troica 2, 1992, 187-200.Translated into English by Brigitte Otto, Erlangen.2. Heubeck 1988.3. Nilsson 1933.4. Latacz 1979.5. Heubeck 1966.6. Drerup 1969; Heubeck 1979.