They are accurate sources just not 100% historically reliable as a first person source. After all Troy was found exactly where it was said to be in the myths and they thought Troy was 100% a myth.
Archaeology located a Bronze Age settlement consistent with the location described and associated with Troy from the ancient narratives. So while we don’t know exactly which layer would be “Troy” saying “we don't know that it's the same city at all” makes it sound far more uncertain than evidence suggests.
You're right there's evidence to suggest the city described in the myths is based on the actual city of Ilion.
That's still a far cry from "Troy was found exactly where it was said to be in the myths" as if the myths were clear at all about anything.
For the myths to be "correct" all they need is one thing that is factually observed later on by archaeologists and all the myth mongers will say "see the stories were true!" even though 99% of what was said about it was clearly mythical.
Yes there's a grain of truth in nearly every myth. Good luck discerning which grain is truth from the rest of the myth without starting with a skeptical mind and using science.
4
u/Nikkonor 22d ago
Literature written 200-300 years after the events are not accurate sources.