The Mystery of Troy

[grapheus]

Prof. Barry Strauss who teaches History and Classics at the Cornell
University has recently published "A New History of Troy". One would
have expected an up-to-date study of the problem, taking into account
the most recent works on the subject...
Alas, Prof. Strauss seems to ignore the "Proto-Ionian Theory" (maybe he
cannot read French ?), which has brought the solution to the numerous
"mysteries" he examines : "Who were the Trojans ? Why their kings were
bearing double names (e.g. Pâris/ Alexandros) ? Why were they
worshipping the same Gods as the Greeks, while they were allies of the
Hittites? And why were they attacked by the Mycenaeans Greeks ? Etc."
The result of all this ? A big step backwards concerning the matter,
and a book trying to reinvent the wheel !..

You will see from his website that he is passionate about foreign
languages, so I'm sure he can read French.
http://www.barrystrauss.com/author.html

Thanks for the information.

Have you considered the following possibilities?
1. He has never heard of the Proto-Ionian Theory or its author. (How
many people have?)

This is a possibility. The Proto-Ionian Theory's author has always been
reluctant to make it really known (Publication in relatively
confidential journals, etc. And I know he has refused to make public
lectures about it, saying that "a true theory doesn't need to be
publicized"). So, we are only four or five guys to talk about this
theory on the NET or to mention it in Wikipedia.

2. He has heard of it but did not consider it worth investigating.

Then, he is really stupid !.. Any *true scholar* investigates the work
of others dealing with the same problem, or he is not a true scholar
!...

3. He has read the books but was not convinced. (How many people have
been? Apart from you?)

If not convinced, why not saying why ?... I don't know how many people
have been convinced by the Proto-Ionian Theory, but what I know is that
ALL the scholars I know who have seriously studied it have been
convinced, me the first !...
BTW, have you read yourself at least a few books and papers (there are
some 50 of them !) of J.Faucounau about his Proto-Ionian Theory ?
Curious to know...

grapheus

[A.]

Prof. Barry Strauss who teaches History and Classics at the Cornell
University has recently published "A New History of Troy". One would
have expected an up-to-date study of the problem, taking into account
the most recent works on the subject...
Alas, Prof. Strauss seems to ignore the "Proto-Ionian Theory" (maybe he
cannot read French ?), which has brought the solution to the numerous
"mysteries" he examines : "Who were the Trojans ? Why their kings were
bearing double names (e.g. Pâris/ Alexandros) ? Why were they
worshipping the same Gods as the Greeks, while they were allies of the
Hittites? And why were they attacked by the Mycenaeans Greeks ? Etc."
The result of all this ? A big step backwards concerning the matter,
and a book trying to reinvent the wheel !..

You will see from his website that he is passionate about foreign
languages, so I'm sure he can read French.
http://www.barrystrauss.com/author.html
Have you considered the following possibilities?
1. He has never heard of the Proto-Ionian Theory or its author. (How
many people have?)

Then that's a shame. Someone teaching in his position should do their
homework. I don't know how many people have heard of it - but I have -
and it's not just random webpages where the information can be found.
Large parts of this apparently startling point of view are available in
many different publications (from linguistics to prehistory) if one is
actually attempting to read broadly in the field.

Anyway, shame on Strauss if he didn't bother to at least mention any of
it.

2. He has heard of it but did not consider it worth investigating.

Still should have cited it - if he looked at it at all. If he is
arguing against something that exists in academia, I think he has an
obligation to cite it - if he's seen it.

3. He has read the books but was not convinced. (How many people have
been? Apart from you?)

Lots of people - at least outside of America. I don't spend that much
time going to American-based conferences any more, but I do manage to
communicate with some scholars through the USA - and in England and on
the Continent. While no one wants to publish and risk a career while
oldsters are still thrasing about with their viewpoints - and
controlling tenure - it's much more loose and insecure (tenurewise) in
Europe - and people simply publish what they believe is correct, much
of the time.

I've been amazed at the stuff in Italian and Romanian that, little by
little, are supporting vastly different theories of prehistory. Much
of it is quite tentative, and while some writings leapt ahead of the
cart, I think that as the backfilling is done - especially in
linguistics and in art history and the history of extra-somatic systems
of meaning storage (where did the study of that go, exactly, in the
USA? What happened to it? The fact that it had to give itself such a
peculiar name is a clue) - the European viewpoint is changing to a very
different one than the one in the USA.

We usually permit locals to have input into their own prehistory -
going so far as to test and treat congenially the views of all manner
of indigeneous groups, but apparently, when it is Europeans who are
involved, Americans feel that courtesy need not be extended.

I'm not European, btw.

A.

My money is on number 1.
June