| |
| | Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.02.15 |
 | | When no basis for supposing that Troia must be identical with the Mound of Hisarlik can be found in the epic itself or in other sources, then there are no possibilities at all for proving this since archaeology itself provides no indications that this was so. |
 | | First there is a description of the renewed archaeological exploration of Hisarlik, beginning in 1988, by the Korfmann team. |
 | | In compliance with an agreement reached at the 1st International Hisarlik Conference in 1988, the various different spellings, depending on which language is being used ('Troy', 'Troja', 'Troye[s]', etc.), are henceforth to be written uniformly as 'Troia'. |
| ccat.sas.upenn.edu /bmcr/2002/2002-02-15.html (11891 words) |
|