Terrell Should Purchase The Site Of Troy

898 Words2 Pages

In 1894, the University of Texas was presented with the opportunity to purchase the alleged site of Troy along with a vast collection of antiquities. Judge Alexander Watkins Terrell, the United States’ minister to the Ottoman Porte, believed it was imperative that the University of Texas capitalize on this opportunity. Terrell felt the site was teeming with academic possibilities; however, the University did not purchase the site or antiquities. The decision to not obtain the antiquities was a mistake on the part of the University, as the site held the potential to broaden its archaeological resources and reveal truths pertaining to ancient civilizations for all archaeologists.
Judge Terrell visited the site, located on Hissarlik Hill, that …show more content…

Calvert himself owned portions of the land and its contents; however, because Calvert had undergone “financial straits,” he tried to sell his land and antiquities (“Terrell to Walton” 4). In an attempt to keep the land and its belongings in “competent hands,” Calvert offered his collection to Terrell (“Calvert to Terrell” 4). Terrell felt the collection was worth “four times the cost he [Calvert] asks” (“Terrell to Walton” 5). As a result, Terrell thought the University should purchase the collection because it would make for “a nucleus of a Texas museum,” which would have benefited the University financially by bringing in revenue from visitors and academically by allowing the University to examine the collection and lead the discussion on Homeric Troy (5). His motivations were quite sound in that he only wanted to see the University “succeed,” and he believed that acquiring the collection was a way to do so (4). Terrell then approached the University of Texas with the offer, which was declined (“Minutes for the Meeting” …show more content…

The argument against the site can supported by saying that the site could have belonged to civilizations other than Troy. However, the lack of definitive answers on the historicity of Troy is reason the University should have purchased the collection. With such “a rare and valuable collection of Trojan, Greek, and Roman antiques,” the University would have been able to validate the historicity of the site as being or not being Troy (“Terrell to Walton” 4). Subsequently, this would have allowed scholars at the University to make progress in answering the age old question: did Homeric Troy exist? If the site was not Troy, the University would have still aided archaeologists by ruling this site out, narrowing the search window, and allowing the search for Troy to move

Open Document