Of course there was, says Manfred Korfmann director of excavations at Troy. And he asks an excellent question:
On the basis of my years of experience and knowledge of Troy, I feel the question ought to be: "Why should the scholars who won't rule out a possible degree of historicity in the basic events in the Iliad have to defend their position?" In light of the remarkable amount of discovery that has taken place over the last ten to fifteen years, the onus to defend positions should now be on those who believe there is absolutely no historical association between what happened at Late Bronze Age Troy and the events in the Iliad.
It's always a trick of the skeptics to stay on the offensive, make their claims and demand you prove your position in the face of their statements. They rarely are interested in accepting the burden of proof for their own arguments.
This, in case you hadn't noticed, is exactly the tack taken by Biblical skeptics. In the face of the overwhelming evidence to back the Biblical accounts, of which the Bible itself is not inconsequential, why don't you prove the Bible wrong?