Troy in Regional and International Context

Home , Limantepe, Manfred Korfmann, Megaron

Oxford Handbooks Online

Troy in Regional and International Context Peter Jablonka The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE) Edited by Gregory McMahon and Sharon Steadman

Print Publication Date: Sep 2011 Subject: Archaeology, Archaeology of the Near East Online Publication Date: Nov DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376142.013.0032 2012

Abstract and Keywords

This article presents an overview of Troy's place in the larger Aegean/Anatolian world, highlighting the continued important role this settlement played over three millennia. From the point of view of archaeology, Hisarlık–Troy ranks high among important sites of the Anatolian and Aegean Bronze Age. Both its Early and Late Bronze Age architecture, the treasures as well as ceramics and other finds reflecting long-distance contacts, the size of the site, its layout comprising a fortified stronghold surrounded by a larger, outlying settlement, and its strategic position clearly show that Troy served as the center of the surrounding region.

Keywords: Hisarlık–Troy, archaeological sites, Aegean, Bronze Age

Location and Discovery

The archaeological site of Troy (Turkish Hisarlık, Homer’s Ilios, Greek and Roman Ilion/Ilium) in northwestern Turkey occupies a spur on a low ridge five kilometers from the present coastline on the Asiatic side of the Dardanelles (ancient Hellespont). The site overlooks an alluvial plain at the mouth of the rivers Karamenderes Çayı (ancient Scamander) and Dümrek Deresi (ancient Simoeis). Originally, this plain was a wide but shallow bay that has silted up with river sediments over the past 6,000 years (Kayan et al. 2003; Kraft et al. 2003). Early Bronze Age Troy was founded as a coastal settlement. Troy’s geographical position between two continents and seas, at the crossing point of land routes from Anatolia to the Balkans and sea routes from the Aegean to the Black Sea, may help explain its prosperity (Höckmann 2003; Korfmann 1986; Wright 1997).

The site consists of a 300 × 200 m wide mound (“citadel”) and a surrounding settlement (“lower town”) covering the plateau and its slopes to the south and east. It was occupied continuously from ca. 3000 B.C.E. to 600 C.E. Fifteen meters of deposits on the mound contain the ruins of superimposed and frequently enlarged Bronze Age citadels, the sanctuary of Athena Ilias, and other public buildings of Greek and Roman Ilion (see Greaves, chapter 21 in this volume). Although excavations have always concentrated on the citadel mound, parts of classical Ilion and Bronze Age settlement remains have also been discovered in the area of the lower town. The stratigraphic sequence has been subdived into nine major periods, Troy I–IX, called “cities” by the early excavators Schliemann and Dörpfeld. Revised, (p. 718) refined, and radiocarbon dated, this chronology is still valid today (Korfmann and Kromer 1993; Kromer, Korfmann, and Jablonka 2003).

Hisarlık was first noted in 1703 by Franz Kauffer and identified as classical Ilion in 1801 by Edward Daniel Clarke. Coins (Bellinger 1961; Mannsperger 2006) and inscriptions (Frisch 1975) confirm this identification. Charles MacLaren (1822) concluded that according to ancient tradition, Ilion must also be Homer’s Troy. Nevertheless, the search for Troy was continued at other sites in the vicinity, influenced by the ancient geographer Strabo, who believed that the Troy of the Iliad was not the Ilion of his own time. After first excavations by the British naval officer John Brunton in 1856, Frank Calvert—a British expatriate and amateur scholar living in the region—excavated prehistoric deposits at Hisarlık/Ilion in

Page 1 of 13

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: Brown University; date: 28 January 2016 Troy in Regional and International Context

1863 and 1865. When Heinrich Schliemann, a retired German merchant considering a second career as scholar and archaeologist, arrived in the Dardanelles in 1868, Calvert pointed the site out to him (Easton 1991; Heuck Allen 1999; Robinson 2007). Schliemann continued excavations from 1870 until his death in 1890 (Easton 2002; Traill 1995). Finding treasures in what looked like the remains of a burned citadel, he mistakenly took this for evidence that the Trojan War had actually taken place at Hisarlık. Later it became clear that his finds belong to the Early Bronze Age, at least 1,000 years older than any possible date for the events related by Homer. Nevertheless, Schliemann’s excavations and publications (e.g., Schliemann 1881, 1884) firmly established the site as Homeric Troy in the public mind.

Wilhelm Dörpfeld continued excavations in 1893 and 1894 and subsequently published his own as well as Schliemann’s results (Dörpfeld 1902). From 1932 to 1938 Carl W. Blegen and a team from the University of Cincinnati returned to Troy (Blegen 1963; Blegen et al. 1950; Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1951, 1953; Blegen, et al. 1958). In 1988, Manfred Korfmann of the University of Tübingen resumed excavations with Charles Brian Rose and an international team. After Korfmann’s death in 2005, Ernst Pernicka, also from the University of Tübingen, continued the work at Troy with Peter Jablonka and others (Korfmann 2006; Studia Troica 1991–2009).

Apart from the archaeological museums in İstanbul and Çanakkale, the main collections of finds from Troy are in Berlin, Moscow, and St. Petersburg (Antonova, Tolstikov, and Treister 1996; Schmidt 1902; Tolstikow and Trejster 1996). In 1996 the northern Troad was designated a Turkish Historical National Park, and in 1998 Troy was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Stratigraphic Levels at Troy

No doubt the attempt to find the setting of the Iliad has been the incentive for the large-scale research that has continued at the site for the past 140 years. During this long history of research, however, Troy—its legendary associations aside—has (p. 719) become an important archaeological site in its own right. With its unique, continuous sequence covering the entire Bronze Age and later periods, Troy is certainly among the most prominent sites in Anatolia and the Aegean.

Troy I (ca. 3000–2550 B.C.E.)

Click to view larger Figure 32.1 . Plan of Early Bronze Age Troy. Citadel, lower town area with reconstructed ancient topography (© Peter Jablonka and Troia-Projekt, University of Tübingen).

Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic (Starting from ca. 6000 B.C.E.; Kumtepe A, 5000–4750 B.C.E.; Kumtepe B, 3300–3000 B.C.E.) sites have been discovered in the vicinity of Troy and on the island of Imbros (Erdoğu 2011; Gabriel 2000; Harmankaya and Erdoğu 2003; see also Özdoğan, chapter 29, Özbaşaran, chapter 5, and Schoop, chapter 7 in this volume). The earliest settlement at Troy from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age was a small village built on terraces above the coast (see figure 32.1). Houses with stone and mudbrick walls were attached to each other. Some were already

Page 2 of 13

megaron-type buildings consisting of a large rectangular room with a smaller anteroom. The village was surrounded with stone ramparts that were repeatedly reinforced. Troy I has fourteen known phases (Korfmann 1999:9). Pottery was mostly dark, handmade, often burnished, and sometimes decorated with white encrustation. Although most metal objects were still made from copper, bronze artifacts have been found in Troy I Levels at nearby Beşiktepe (Begemann 2003).

Troy II (ca. 2550–2300 B.C.E.)

Troy II had three successive fortification walls, now consisting of mudbrick walls crowning stone ramparts (see figure 32.1). A monumental gateway was constructed on the southeast side. To the southwest, another gate was approached by a stone-paved ramp. In Middle Troy II five parallel, free-standing megaron buildings, up to forty meters long, possibly used for assemblies, audiences, or religious ceremonies, were erected inside a courtyard at the center of the citadel (Ünlüsoy 2006). Both Middle and Late Troy II ended in a conflagration. Schliemann’s “burned city” comprises both of these. We now realize that Blegen’s division of the period into eight phases needs adjustment (Easton 2002:307–8). After the first destruction, monumental buildings were replaced by densely clustered blocks of smaller houses during Late Troy II. A similar development can once again be observed in Late Bronze Age Troy VI and VIIa. An area of nine hectares to the south of the citadel was protected by a palisade uncovered during recent excavations (Jablonka 2001, 2006). Houses have been discovered immediately outside the citadel (Sazcı 2005). For the first time, the citadel of Troy II was surrounded by a larger settlement.

Although there was much continuity in pottery shapes and wares throughout Troy I–V, Troy II exhibits several innovations; Wheelmade Plain Ware, notably large quantities of plates, appears in Early Troy II, along with two-handled cups, tankards and goblets (depas amphikypellon) during Middle Troy II. The first pots and lids decorated with a face in relief can be dated to Late Troy II. Red-Coated Ware begins in Troy II but continued to be used until Early Troy VI.

(p. 720) In the Troy II Levels Schliemann found sixteen hoards, of which treasure A (“Priam’s Treasure”) is the largest. Their integrity is debated (Easton 1994; Traill 2000). The hoards include thousands of objects made from gold, silver, electrum, bronze, carnelian, and lapis lazuli (Easton 1994; Korfmann 2001a; Sazcı and Treister 2006; Tolstikow and Trejster 1996). Unfinished objects and raw materials are evidence for metalworking on the site (Tolstikow and Trejster 1996:231–34).

(p. 721) Troy III (ca. 2300–2200 B.C.E.), IV (ca. 2200–2000 B.C.E.), and V (ca. 2000–1750 B.C.E.)

The following settlements were seemingly less prosperous, but the impression that Troy III–V were rather modest villages may partly be due to the current state of research (see Blum 2006; Sazcı 2001). Exposing the center of Troy II, Schliemann removed large parts of these levels without sufficient documentation. Blegen ascribed much of what Dörpfeld had called Troy III to a late phase of Troy II. As a result, chronology and interpretation of these periods are still somewhat ambiguous. Similar in style to late Troy II, the area of the citadel in Troy III was covered by densely packed houses with stone and mudbrick walls, but on different alignments. Domed clay ovens appear from Troy IV onward. During Troy III, the ramparts of Troy II may still have been in use. Houses from Troy V have been excavated to the west of the citadel, a clear sign that the settlement was growing again. Pottery from Troy III is almost indistinguishable from that of Troy II. Wheelmade pottery and Red-Coated Ware become more frequent during Troy III–V. Red-Cross bowls are characteristic of Troy V.

Troy VI (ca. 1750–1300 B.C.E.) and VIIa (ca. 1300–1180 B.C.E.)

Page 3 of 13

Click to view larger Figure 32.2 . Plan of Late Bronze Age Troy. Citadel, lower town with reconstructed ancient topography, rock-cut ditch, and gate (Troy VI) (© Peter Jablonka and Troia-Projekt, University of Tübingen).

Troy VI (eight phases) and VIIa (two phases) represent the peak of Troy’s prosperity in the Late Bronze Age (see figure 32.2). The citadel by far surpassed its predecessors in size and workmanship. Regrettably, its center was removed when the mound was leveled in the Hellenistic period to make room for the sanctuary of Athena. Still more was dug away, undocumented, by Schliemann.

At the end of the period, the fortification walls (Klinkott 2004) enclosed an area of two hectares. The walls, built of large limestone blocks, with small “sawtooth” offsets every seven to ten meters, were five meters wide, and stood up to ten meters high. Several towers were built against the walls. The fortification walls continued to be used during early Troy VIII and remained partly visible until the Roman period. From the south gate, a paved and drained street led into the citadel. Inside the walls, large, two-storey, free-standing buildings up to thirty-five meters long, with stone walls that resemble the fortification, were built on terraces rising toward the center, exhibiting a variety of layouts: megaron houses, halls with pillars or columns, and irregular floor plans. The massive house walls without ground-floor windows may have served defensive purposes, possibly indicating conflicts among leading families.

Both VI and VIIa were destroyed by unknown causes. There are masses of fallen stones (especially VI), traces of burning (especially VIIa), and some subsidence and other damage in the southeast corner of the citadel, which Blegen attributed to an earthquake at the end of Troy VI. When the citadel was rebuilt in Troy VIIa, some of the buildings inside were reused. Empty spaces were filled with smaller houses. In many rooms, storage vessels (pithoi) were sunk into the ground. This replacement of the almost palace-like buildings of Troy VI almost certainly reflects changes in society. Towers and mudbrick breastworks were added to the citadel walls in Troy (p. 722) VIIa, but at the same time new houses were also built outside (Becks, Rigter, and Hnila 2006).

The Late Bronze Age citadel was surrounded by a larger settlement called the “lower town” (or “lower city”) (Becks, Rigter, and Hnila 2006; Jablonka 2006; Jablonka and Rose 2004; Korfmann 1997). Its ill-preserved remains are covered by Hellenistic and Roman Ilion. This larger settlement was surrounded by a rock-cut (p. 723) defensive ditch filled up at the end of Troy VI. A stretch of another rock-cut ditch has been discovered to the south of the first one. This might reflect continuing growth of the settlement during Troy VIIa.

The area inside the first ditch, covering about thirty hectares, was rather densely built up close to the citadel, but some houses have also been found farther away. A systematic surface find collection demonstrated that Late Bronze Age pottery is scattered across a wide area south and east of the citadel (Jablonka 2005). A small cemetery from Late Troy VI, excavated by Blegen, 450 m south of the citadel is situated outside the area protected by a gate bridging the ditch.

Considerable effort was made to secure the settlement’s water supply. A system of artificial tunnels and shafts 200 m southwest of the citadel tapping two aquifers was already known to Schliemann but has only recently been excavated. Its beginnings have been dated to the Bronze Age (Frank, Mangini, and Korfmann 2002; Korfmann, Frank, and Mangini 2006). The citadel’s northeast bastion was built around a rectangular well accessible through a gate from the “lower

Page 4 of 13

town” outside, and there were more wells within the citadel.

Troy VI is not only marked by innovations in architecture. At the beginning of the period, horses were introduced. A gray, wheelmade type of burnished pottery virtually identical with the Middle Helladic Gray Minyan Ware of Greece became predominant (Pavúk 2005). With changing shapes, production of this West Anatolian Gray Ware continued until Troy VIIb. From mid-Troy VI onward, Tan Ware was produced from the same clays using different firing techniques. Mycenaean shapes were imitated in both wares. Although only a small fraction of the pottery was imported, Minoan, Mycenaean, Cypriot, and Levantine pottery occurred throughout Troy VI and VII (Mountjoy 2006; Mountjoy and Mommsen 2006). However, pottery or other finds from Hittite Anatolia are missing.

Troy VIIb (ca. 1180–950 B.C.E.)

During the first phase of VIIb houses were rebuilt inside and outside the citadel, and the citadel walls repaired. In later phases houses outside the citadel had multiroomed cellars with no doorways. A new building technique—walls using upright stones (orthostats)—was introduced.

At the beginning of the period pottery remains similar to that of Troy VIIa continue, but some handmade wares (Barbarian Ware) begin to appear. Handmade Knobbed Ware (“Buckelkeramik”) similar to pottery from southeastern Europe is typical of later phases. Toward the end, Mycenaean imports from Greece are followed by Protogeometric pottery (Catling 1998). Troy VIIb therefore extends into the Iron Age.

Inside a house from the first phase of Troy VIIb a biconvex bronze seal has been found, so far the only evidence of writing at Bronze Age Troy (Hawkins and Easton 1996). The Luwian hieroglyphic inscription gives the names of a woman and a man whose profession is specified as scribe. The seal itself may be earlier than its find context.

(p. 724) Post–Bronze Age Troy

At the end of Troy VIIb there is evidence for some destruction by fire while other houses look as if they have been left intact. Excavations to the south of the citadel indicate that limited activity continued at Troy, maybe connected to a sanctuary (Chabot Aslan 2002). Greeks colonized the area in the eighth century B.C.E. at the latest (Rose 2008). Southwest of the citadel, votive offerings were deposited beginning in the ninth century B.C.E., and in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. Archaic temples were built. During the Classical Period, the city came under the domination of the Persian Empire (see Harl, chapter 34 in this volume). After Alexander’s visit in 334 B.C.E., Troy-Ilion became the center of a confederation of cities in the Troad. A theater, a temple of Athena, and other public buildings were erected. The city soon recovered from destruction by Fimbria’s troops during the Roman civil war in 85 B.C.E. and flourished once again until the Late Roman period, not least by exploiting its ties with a mythical past. After all, even Roman emperors, especially the Julio-Claudians, believed their ancestors descended from Troy’s royal family. After two earthquakes around 500 C.E., occupation came to an end, but there are also Late Byzantine finds and cemeteries.

Troy Between the Aegean and Anatolia

Troy has been regarded as the scene of the Trojan War, a legend told in Homer’s Iliad and still part of popular culture. Because the same story also lies at the heart of ancient and modern Greek ethnic identity, Troy, although actually a site on the Anatolian mainland, has been considered Aegean and has been excavated by, among others, Carl W. Blegen, a scholar primarily specializing in Mycenaean Greece. But even in the epic, the Trojans were probably not Greeks, and Homer himself might have been born in one of the Ionian Greek cities on the coast of Anatolia.

The link between the Greek epic tradition and the ruins at Hisarlık-Troy is by no means self-evident. Obviously, the stage of the Iliad is a place on the Dardanelles, at or near Troy. But in any discussion of the historicity of the Trojan War, the following questions have to be answered: does the Greek epic reflect historical events? If so, where did they take place, and when? Some scholars argue that the epic tales are an amalgamation of traditions, partly mythological, partly containing distant memories of historic events; these derive from several parts of Greece and more than one period, and were collected and transferred to Hisarlık during the Aeolic expansion during the eighth century B.C.E. or not long before (Carpenter 1956; Hertel 2008:194–221). On the other hand, scenes illustrating the sack of a town with attackers arriving by ship have been popular in Minoan and Mycenaean art since the first half of the second millennium B.C.E. (Morris 2007), long before any possible connection with Late Bronze Age Troy.

Page 5 of 13

However, an attempt has been made to reconcile all available sources—archaeology, second millennium B.C.E. written sources, and Greek epic tradition—in (p. 725) one consistent scenario. Given the fragmentary, sometimes ambiguous, nature of the surviving evidence, this is all that can be done. As early as 1923–24, Emil Forrer and Paul Kretschmer noted that some names on cuneiform tablets from the Hittite capital Ḫattuša were similar to names known from the Iliad: Wiluša (a country)- (W)ilios, Alakšandu-Alexandros (the Trojan prince Paris’s other name), Aḫḫiyawa-Achaioi (Greeks) (Latacz 2004:95f.; and see Bryce, chapter 15 in this volume). Most, but not all, scholars agree that Aḫḫiyawa was Mycenaean Greece or a part of it, Wiluša was a country in northwest Anatolia, and Troy most likely its capital (see Beckman 1999 for an English translation of relevant Hittite sources; Bryce 2006 and chapter 15 in this volume; Latacz 2004; Starke 1997). Remembrance of conflicts between this kingdom of Wiluša and Mycenaean groups during the period of unrest at the end of the second millennium B.C.E. may have survived the fall of Troy, the Hittite Empire, and the Mycenaean palaces. This could have become the core of the story of the Trojan War (Latacz 2004).

Since neither inscriptions confirming the Iliad nor definite proof for a violent destruction by invaders from Greece have been discovered at Troy, we will probably never know for certain. However, Heinrich Schliemann could well have found nothing beneath the ruins of Greek and Roman Ilion. But what he and his successors discovered was certainly a Bronze Age regional center. It was always a well-fortified stronghold, and its walls were renewed and enlarged after each of several destructions. Schliemann himself was convinced that the burned citadel of Troy II with its treasures was King Priam’s city. In part as a result of Schliemann’s own excavations in Greece, it soon became clear that these finds were a millennium older than the civilization of Mycenaean Greece. After excavating the Late Bronze Age citadel, Dörpfeld advocated for Troy VI being Homer’s Troy. Blegen argued that the densely packed houses of Troy VIIa with their storage jars showed that the population sought protection behind the citadel walls (Blegen et al. 1958:10–13). However, houses from Troy VIIa have now also been found outside the citadel, and Blegen’s interpretation using some burning and a few human bones remains is far from conclusive. But what is Troy’s significance beyond Homeric questions? What was its function within the region, and what links did it have with territories beyond?

Troy I was founded as a coastal settlement. Architecture and finds are similar to contemporaneous sites on the shores and islands of the northern Aegean, for example, Poliochni on Lemnos or Thermi on Lesbos (Kouka 2002; Séfériadès 1985). Rows of terraced houses with a main room and a porch-like anteroom similar to Troy or nearby Beşiktepe (Korfmann 1988) are not confined to the Aegean but have also been found in inland and southern Anatolia, for example, in Demircihöyük near Eskişehir (Korfmann 1983a) or Bademağacı Höyük north of Antalya (Duru 2004; see Steadman, chapter 10 in this volume, for discussion of these sites). Sloping fortification walls (glacis) with projections (bastions) to the side of a gate as in Late Troy I have been excavated at Limantepe near İzmir (Erkanal 2008).The pottery of Troy I is strongly related to the Babaköy-Yortan group and other sites in western Anatolia. There are only very few imports from Early Helladic/Cycladic II (“Urfirnis” Ware and sauceboats). Finds from the Ezero culture in present-day Bulgaria (p. 726) also bear some resemblance to Troy I and II (see Özdoğan, chapter 29 in this volume). Troy I appears to belong to a distinctively west Anatolian–northeast Aegean–Thracian cultural sphere—already firmly anchored at the intersection of those neighboring regions that continue to be significant throughout its later history.

After several phases of rebuilding and enlargement, what had started as a fortified village had evolved into the monumental citadel of Middle Troy II with a settlement surrounding it. Although the ground plan of the central megaron buildings is similar to that of the earlier terraced houses, the idea of placing one or more monumental halls inside a walled courtyard, which in turn is surrounded by at least one more fortification wall, is new at the site. This plan may go back to Late Neolithic Sesklo and Dimini in Greece. The site of Kanlıgeçit (Özdoğan 2006 and chapter 29 in this volume) in Turkish Thrace looks like a scale model of Troy II. Küllüoba near Eskişehir was another center comparable to and even larger than Troy (Efe 2006). Far away, the layout of the temples in antis in Early Bronze Age cities of Syria resembles the citadel of Troy II. In Halawa A, even details of the courtyard walls are the same (Orthmann 1989:63–84). In the Aegean, places like Lerna, Aegina, or Poliochni served similar functions, even if their architecture looks different.

From Troy II onward, some of the copper and all of the tin used for bronze objects were imported (Pernicka et al. 2003). Raw materials for artifacts from the treasures of Troy II came from regions as far away as Afghanistan and central Asia. Vessels like the two-handled cup (depas amphikypellon), jewelry, and other objects have been found in Bulgaria, Greece, Anatolia, Syria, and Mesopotamia (Tolstikow and Trejster 1996).

During the course of the third millennium B.C.E., cities, states, and writing had already been established in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria. At the periphery, from Anatolia to Greece, secondary centers acted as nodes in a network of exchange and contact with these more developed areas (Korfmann 2001b; Maran 1998; Rahmstorf 2006; Sherratt

Page 6 of 13

1997). Toward the end of the third millennium B.C.E., however, Troy was only one among many places destroyed by a crisis striking the wider region. This may have made room for the subsequent ascent of Minoan Crete.

In Troy IV, domed ovens were introduced. Like the “Red-Cross Bowls” of Troy V (Korfmann 1983b), this seems to be an influence from Anatolia. Similar bowls occurring in the Early Helladic II period at Lerna seem to be an independent phenomenon. At or after the end of Troy V, however, the first Minoan imports appear at Troy and other places in the northeast Aegean (Guzowska 2002).

Some architectural details of Late Bronze Age Troy resemble Mycenaean citadels, such as megaron buildings and “sawtooth” vertical offsets that divide walls into sections. The ground plan of the “Pillar House” is similar to the megaron at Midea. Rectangular towers as well as the concept of a citadel combined with a town or city show influence from Hittite Anatolia. Taken as a whole, however, the layout of the site is without parallels.

The shapes and surface treatment of the gray pottery of Troy VI and VII (Pavúk 2005) have been influenced by Middle Helladic fashions to an extent that it has, like the pottery found in Greece, long been called “Gray Minyan.” Although this ware is (p. 727) no longer used after the Middle Helladic Period in Greece, West Anatolian Gray Wares and the Tan Ware made from the same clays continue to be produced until the end of Troy VIIb. Minoan, Mycenaean, and Cypriot, as well as a very few sherds of Levantine, pottery have been found at Troy. On the other hand, West Anatolian Gray Ware has been found as far away as Cyprus and the Levant (Mommsen and Pavúk 2007). Much of the Mycenaean pottery is local imitation, and Mycenaean shapes were locally produced in Gray and Tan Wares. The majority of the pottery is always locally made. No Mycenaean pottery has been found anywhere inside the Dardanelles, whereas Aegean metal types occur in the Black Sea region, and a stone scepter from Romania has been found on the Uluburun shipwreck (Höckmann 2003). Unlike farther south on the west Anatolian coast, where archaeological evidence for a strong Minoan and Mycenaean presence at Miletus, Müsgebi, and other places is supported by Hittite documentary sources (Niemeier 1999; Bryce, chapter 15 in this volume), Mycenaean influence at Troy was limited.

On the other hand, with the exception of the Luwian seal, no Hittite objects have been found at Troy or anywhere west of Eskişehir (Seeher 2005), although west Anatolian Hittite vassal states are known from Hittite documents, and Troy itself may have been the capital of one of them. Exploiting its favorable position at the entrance into the Dardanelles, Late Bronze Age Troy may have served as a gateway between the Mediterranean and the world beyond. Regional centralization processes will also have contributed to its rise.

Toward the end of the Bronze Age, the Knobbed Ware and orthostat architecture of Troy VIIb are both similar to finds from southeastern Europe and along the shores of the Black Sea. This has been thought to reflect the arrival of immigrant population groups, maybe corresponding to “Thracian” invasions of Anatolia remembered in ancient Greek traditions.

Late Bronze Age Troy therefore shows distinctly northwest Anatolian cultural traits. During Troy VI and VIIa, for the second time in its long history, it had several characteristics of a central place, urbanized at least in comparison to its regional setting: monumental architecture, a citadel surrounded by a large settlement, finds that reflect craft specialization, and foreign contacts. Late Bronze Age Troy was as large as medium-sized Hittite cities. On the other hand, several characteristics of Bronze Age civilizations seem to be absent: sculpture or wall paintings, and, with the exception of one seal, writing or other administrative practices. Although this has recently been disputed (see Easton et al. 2002; Hertel and Kolb 2003; Jablonka and Rose 2004; Kolb 2004; Korfmann 1997), it certainly was the center of the surrounding region, most likely the capital of a city state that became a vassal of the Hittite Empire.

Not surprisingly, and in accordance with its geographical position, archaeological Troy represents a regional northwest Anatolian cultural development with strong ties to other parts of Anatolia, the Aegean, and Thrace. To construct “Anatolian,” “Aegean,” or “Thracian” archaeologies corresponding to present-day political boundaries between Turkey, Greece, and Bulgaria is meaningless. If these divisions exist as academic specializations, it is primarily because, for practical or political reasons, individual scholars have tended to work in only one of those countries.

(p. 728) Conclusion

From the point of few of archaeology, Hisarlık-Troy ranks high among important sites of the Anatolian and Aegean Bronze Age. Both its Early and Late Bronze Age architecture, the treasures as well as ceramics and other finds reflecting

Page 7 of 13

long-distance contacts, the size of the site, its layout comprising a fortified stronghold surrounded by a larger, outlying settlement, and its strategic position clearly show that Troy served as the center of the surrounding region.

Unlike central and southeast Anatolia, regions that formed the heartland of the Hittite Empire and are close to literate Syria and Mesopotamia, written sources relating to Bronze Age west Anatolia are few and far between. However, if the hypothesis that Troy was the capital of the Land of Wiluša is correct, at least faint light is thrown on its history.

Persons and places named in Hittite written sources may further connect the site, and Bronze Age history, to similar names in the Greek epic tradition. No doubt Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are among the most influential texts ever written. For the ancient Greeks, never politically united, their city-states frequently in conflict with each other, being Greek meant to share a common language, tradition, and religion. Homer formed the core of this cultural and ethnic identity. But the story could also be used in many other ways. Political leaders as varied as the Persian king Xerxes, Alexander the Great, Roman emperors, and Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror all visited Troy in memory of the Greek and Trojan heroes. Even the allied landing at the Dardanelles in 1915 was staged as a new Trojan War. The legends have inspired innumerable works of literature, art, music, and—recently—film.

The situation at Troy bears some resemblance to the archaeology in the lands of the Bible. Three complementary strands of evidence pertaining to roughly the same area and period in time draw very different pictures; archaeology and epigraphic sources have been eclipsed by a culturally highly significant and extremely popular text that has undergone a considerable amount of scholarly deconstruction.

This will always leave ample room for a variety of interpretations. But with the discovery of new archaeological evidence and more contemporaneous written sources, our reconstruction of the history that underlies the tradition will become more reliable.

References

Antonova, Irina, Vladimir Tolstikov, and Michail Treister. 1996. The Gold of Troy: Searching for Homer’s Fabled City. London: Thames and Hudson.

Beckman, Gary. 1999. Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2nd ed. Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World, vol. 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Becks, Ralf, Wendy Rigter, and Pavol Hnila. 2006. Das Terrassenhaus im westlichen Unterstadtviertel von Troia. Studia Troica 16: 87–88.

Begemann, Friedrich. 2003. On the Composition and Provenience of Metal Finds from Beşiktepe (Troia). In Troia and the Troad: Scientific Approaches. Natural Science in Archaeology, ed. Günther A. Wagner, Ernst Pernicka, and Hans- Peter Uerpmann, 173–201. Berlin: Springer.

Bellinger, Alfred Raymond. 1961. The Coins. Troy Supplementary Monograph 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Blegen, Carl W. 1963. Troy and the Trojans. Ancient Peoples and Places. London: Thames and Hudson.

Blegen, Carl W., Cedric G. Boulter, John L. Caskey, and Marion Rawson. 1958. Troy. The Settlements VIIa, VIIb, and VIII. Volume 4. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Blegen, Carl W., John L. Caskey, and Marion Rawson. 1951. Troy. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Settlements. Volume 2. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Blegen, Carl W., John L. Caskey, and Marion Rawson. 1953. Troy. The Sixth Settlement. Volume 3. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Blegen, Carl W., John L. Caskey, Marion Rawson, and Jerome Sperling. 1950. Troy: General Introduction: The First and the Second Settlements. Volume 1. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Blum, Stephan W. E. 2006. Troia an der Wende von der frühen zur mittleren Bronzezeit: Troia IV und Troia V. In Troia: Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft, ed. Manfred O. Korfmann, 145–54. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Page 8 of 13

Bryce, Trevor R. 2006. The Trojans and Their Neighbours. London: Routledge.

Catling, Richard. 1998. The Typology of the Protogeometric and Subprotogeometric Pottery from Troia and its Aegean Context. Studia Troica 8: 151–88.

Carpenter, Rhys. 1956. Folk Tale, Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics. Sather Classical Lectures no. 20. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chabot Aslan, Carolyn. 2002. Ilion before Alexander: Protogeometric, Geometric, and Archaic Pottery from D9. Studia Troica 12: 81–129.

Dörpfeld, Wilhelm. 1902. Troia und Ilion: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen Schichten von Ilion 1870–1894. Athens: Beck and Barth. Reprint, Osnabrück: Zeller, 1968.

Duru, Refik. 2004. Bademağacı Kazıları 2002 ve 2003 Yılları Çalışma Raporu. Belleten 68: 519–60.

Easton, Donald F. 1991. Troy before Schliemann. Studia Troica 1: 111–29.

Easton, Donald F. 1994. Priam’s Gold: The Full Story. Anatolian Studies 44: 221–43.

Easton, Donald F. 2002. Schliemann’s Excavations at Troia 1870–1873. Studia Troica Monographien no. 2. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Easton, Donald F., J. David Hawkins, Andrew G. Sherratt, and E. Susan Sherratt. 2002. Troy in Recent Perspective. Anatolian Studies 52: 75–109.

Efe, Turan. 2006. Anatolische Wurzeln—Troia und die frühe Bronzezeit im Westen Kleinasiens. In Troia: Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft, ed. Manfred O. Korfmann, 15–28. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Erdoğu, Burçin. 2011. A Preliminary Report from the 2009 and 2010. Field Seasons at Uğurlu on the Island of Gökçeada. Anatolica 37: 45–65.

Erkanal, Hayat. 2008. Liman Tepe: New Light on Prehistoric Aegean Cultures. In The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age. Proceedings of the International Symposium Urla–İzmir (Turkey) 1997, ed. Hayat Erkanal, Harald Haptmann, Vasif Şahoğlu, and Riza Tuncel, 179–90. Ankara: Ankara University Press.

Frank, Norbert, Augusto Mangini, and Manfred Korfmann. 2002. 230TH/U Dating of the Trojan “Water Quarries.” Archaeometry 44: 305–14.

Frisch, Peter. 1975. Die Inschriften von Ilion. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien no. 3. Bonn: Habelt.

Gabriel, Utta. 2000. Mitteilungen zum Stand der Neolithikumforschung in der Umgebung von Troia (Kumtepe 1993– 1995; Beşik-Sivritepe 1982–1984, 1987, 1998–1999). Studia Troica 10: 233–38.

Guzowska, Marta. 2002. Traces of Minoan Behavioural Patterns in the North-East Aegean. In Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, ed. Rüstem Aslan, Stephan Blum, Gabriele Kastl, Frank Schweizer, and Diane Thumm, 585–94. Remshalden-Grunbach: Greiner.

Harmankaya, Savaş and Burçin Erdoğu. 2003. The Prehistoric Sites of Gökçeada, Turkey. In From Villages to Towns. Studies Presented to Ufuk Esin, ed. Mehmet Özdoğan, Harald Hauptmann, and Nezih Başgelen, 459–79. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat.

Hawkins, J. David and Donald F. Easton, 1996. A Hieroglyphic Seal from Troia. Studia Troica 6: 111–19.

Hertel, Dieter. 2008. Das frühe Ilion. Die Besiedlung Troias durch die Griechen 1020-650/25 v. Chr. Zetemata no. 130. München: C. H. Beck.

Hertel, Dieter and Frank Kolb. 2003. Troy in Clearer Perspective. Anatolian Studies 53: 71–88.

Heuck Allen, Susan. 1999. Finding the Walls of Troy: Frank Calvert and Heinrich Schliemann at Hisarlık. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Page 9 of 13

Höckmann, Olaf. 2003. Zu früher Seefahrt in den Meerengen. Studia Troica 13: 133–60.

Jablonka, Peter. 2001. Eine Stadtmauer aus Holz: Das Bollwerk der Unterstadt von Troia II. In Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit. Begleitband zur Ausstellung, ed. Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg, 391–94. Stuttgart: Theiss.

Jablonka, Peter. 2005. Vorbericht zum archäologischen Survey im Stadtgebiet von Troia. Studia Troica 15: 27–43.

Jablonka, Peter. 2006. Leben außerhalb der Burg: Die Unterstadt von Troia. In Troia: Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft, ed. Manfred O. Korfmann, 167–80. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Jablonka, Peter and Charles Brian Rose. 2004. Late Bronze Age Troy: A Response to Frank Kolb. American Journal of Archaeology 108: 615–30.

Kayan, İlhan, Ertuğ Öner, Levent Uncu, Beycan Hocaoğlu, and Serdar Vardar. 2003. Geoarchaeological Interpretations of the Troian Bay. In Troia and the Troad: Scientific Approaches, ed. Günther A. Wagner, Ernst Pernicka, and Hans-Peter Uerpmann, 379–401. Berlin: Springer.

Klinkott, Manfred. 2004. Die Wehrmauern von Troia VI: Bauaufnahme und Auswertung. Studia Troica 14: 33–85.

Kolb, Frank. 2004. Troy VI: A Trading Center and Commercial City? American Journal of Archaeology 108: 577–613.

Korfmann, Manfred. 1983a. Architektur, Stratigraphie, und Befunde: Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978, no. 1. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Korfmann, Manfred. 1983b. Red Cross Bowl-Angeblicher Leittyp für Troja V. In Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, ed. Rainer Michael Boehmer and Harald Hauptmann, 291–97. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Korfmann, Manfred. 1986. Troy: Topography and Navigation. In Troy and the Trojan War: A Symposium Held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984, ed. Machteld J. Mellink, 1–16. Bryn Mawr, Pa.: Bryn Mawr College.

Korfmann, Manfred. 1988. Beşik-Tepe. Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabungen von 1985 und 1986. Grabungen am Beşik-Yassıtepe und im Beşik-Gräberfeld. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1988: 391–404.

Korfmann, Manfred. 1997. Troia, an Ancient Anatolian Palatial and Trading Center: Archaeological Evidence for the Period of Troia VI/VII. In The World of Troy: Homer, Schliemann, and the Treasures of Priam, ed. Deborah Boedeker, 51–73. Washington, D.C.: Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage.

Korfmann, Manfred. 1999. Troia—Ausgrabungen 1998. Studia Troica 9: 1–34.

Korfmann, Manfred. 2001a. Der “Schatz A” und seine Fundsituation: Bemerkungen zum historischen und chronologischen Umfeld des “Schatzfundhorizontes” in Troia. In Beiträge zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Winfried Orthmann gewidmet, ed. Jan-Waalke Meyer, Mirko Novák, and Alexander Pruß, 212–35. Frankfurt: Archäologisches Institut der Universität.

Korfmann, Manfred. 2001b. Troia als Drehscheibe des Handels im 2. und 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends: Erkenntnisse zur Troianischen Hochkultur und zur Maritimen Troiakultur. In Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit. Begleitband zur Ausstellung, ed. Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg et al., 355–68. Stuttgart: Theiss.

Korfmann, Manfred. ed. 2006. Troia: Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Korfmann, Manfred, Norbert Frank, and Augusto Mangini. 2006. Eingang in die Unterwelt: Die Höhle von Troia und ihre Datierung. In Troia: Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft, ed. Manfred O. Korfmann, 337–42. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Korfmann, Manfred and Bernd Kromer. 1993. Demircihüyük, Beşik-Tepe, Troia: Eine Zwischenbilanz zur Chronologie dreier Orte in Westanatolien. Studia Troica 3: 135–72.

Page 10 of 13

Kouka, Ourania. 2002. Siedlungsorganisation in der Nord-und Ostägäis während der Frühbronzezeit. Internationale Archäologie, no. 58. Rahden (Westfalen): Marie Leidorf.

Kraft, John C., İlhan Kayan, Helmut Brückner, and George Rapp. 2003. Sedimentary Facies Patterns and the Interpretation of Paleogeographies of Ancient Troia. In Troia and the Troad: Scientific Approaches, ed. Günther A. Wagner, Ernst Pernicka, and Hans-Peter Uerpmann, 361–77. Berlin: Springer.

Kromer, Bernd, Manfred Korfmann, and Peter Jablonka. 2003. Heidelberg Radiocarbon Dates for Troia I to VIII and Kumtepe. In Troia and the Troad: Scientific Approaches, ed. Günther A. Wagner, Ernst Pernicka, and Hans-Peter Uerpmann, 43–54. Berlin: Springer.

Latacz, Joachim. 2004. Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery. New York: Oxford University Press.

MacLaren, Charles. 1822. A Dissertation on the Topography of the Plain of Troy, Including an Examination of the Opinions of Demetrius, Chevalier, Dr. Clarke and Major Rendell. Edinburgh.

Mannsperger, Dietrich. 2006. Vom Zahlungsmittel zum Leitartefakt—Münzen und Münzfunde. In Troia: Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft, ed. Manfred O. Korfmann, 265–74. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Maran, Josef. 1998. Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im späten 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Studien zu den kulturellen Verhältnissen in Südosteuropa und dem zentralen Mittelmeerraum in der späten Kupfer- und frühen Bronzezeit. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, no. 53. Bonn: Universität Bonn.

Mommsen, Hans and Peter Pavúk. 2007. Provenience of the Grey and Tan Wares from Troia, Cyprus and the Levant. Studia Troica 17: 25–41.

Morris, Sahra P. 2007. Troy between Bronze and Iron Ages: Myth, Cult and Memory in a Sacred Landscape. In Epos. Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology, ed. Sarah P. Morris, Robert Laffineur, and Emanuele Greco, 59–68. Aegeum no. 28. Liège and Austin: Université de Liège and University of Texas at Austin.

Mountjoy, Penelope A. 2006. Mykenische Keramik in Troia–Ein Überblick. In Troia: Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft, ed. Manfred O. Korfmann, 241–52. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Mountjoy, Penelope and Hans Mommsen. 2006. Neutron Activation Analysis of Mycenaean Pottery from Troia (1988– 2003 Excavations). Studia Troica 16: 97–123.

Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich. 1999. Mycenaeans and Hittites in War: Western Asia Minor. In Polemos. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’áge du bronze, ed. Robert Laffineur, 141–55. Aegeum no. 19. Liège and Austin: Université de Liège and University of Texas at Austin.

Orthmann, Winfried, ed. 1989. Halawa 1980–1986. Vorläufiger Bericht über die 4.–9. Grabungskampagne. Saarbücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde no. 52. Bonn: Habelt.

Özdoğan, Mehmet. 2006. Yakın Doğu Kentleri ve Batı Anadolu’da Kentleşme Süreci. In Cultural Reflections. Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal, ed. Armağan Erkanal-Öktü, 571–78. İstanbul: Homer Kitabevi.

Pavúk, Peter. 2005. Aegeans and Anatolians: A Trojan Perspective. In Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Robert Laffineur and Emanuele Greco, 269–79. Aegeum no. 25. Liège and Austin: Université de Liège and University of Texas at Austin.

Pernicka, Ernst, Clemens Eibner, Önder Öztunalı, and Günther A. Wagner. 2003. Early Bronze Age Metallurgy in the North-East Aegean. In Troia and the Troad: Scientific Approaches, ed. Günther A. Wagner, Ernst Pernicka, and Hans- Peter Uerpmann, 143–72. Berlin: Springer.

Rahmstorf, Lorenz. 2006. Zur Ausbreitung vorderasiatischer Innovationen in die frühbronzezeitliche Ägäis. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 81: 49–96.

Robinson, Marcelle. 2007. Schliemann’s Silent Partner: Frank Calvert (1828–1908). Pioneer, Scholar, and Survivor. Philadelphia: Xlibris.

Page 11 of 13

Rose, Charles Brian. 2008. Separating Fact from Fiction in the Aiolian Migration. Hesperia 77: 399–430.

Sazcı, Göksel. 2001. Gebäude mit vermutlich kultischer Funktion: Das Megaron in Quadrat G6. In Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit. Begleitband zur Ausstellung, ed. Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg et al., 384–90. Stuttgart: Theiss.

Sazcı, Göksel. 2005. Troia I–III; die Maritime und Troia IV-V, die Anatolische Troia-Kultur: eine Untersuchung der Funde und Befunde im mittleren Schliemanngraben (D07, D08). Studia Troica 15: 35–98.

Sazcı, Göksel and Mikhail Treister. 2006. Troias Gold: Die Schätze des dritten Jahrtausends vor Christus. In Troia: Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft, ed. Manfred O. Korfmann, 209–18. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Schliemann, Henry (Heinrich). 1881. Ilios. The City and the Country of the Trojans: The Results of Researches and Discoveries on the Site of Troy and throughout the Troad in the years 1871–1872–1873–1878–1879. Including an Autobiography of the Author. London: Murray, and New York: Harper.

Schliemann, Henry (Heinrich). 1884. Results of the Latest Researches and Discoveries on the Site of Homer’s Troy, and the Heroic Tumuli and other Sites made in the year 1882; and a Narrative of a Journey in the Troad in 1881. London: Murray, and New York: Harper.

Schmidt, Hubert. 1902. Heinrich Schliemann’s Sammlung Trojanischer Altertümer. Berlin: Reimer.

Seeher, Jürgen. 2005. Überlegungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem hethitischen Kernland und der Westküste Anatoliens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. In Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet, ed. Barbara Horejs, Reinhard Jung, Elke Kaiser, and Biba Teržan, 33–44. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie no. 121. Bonn: Habelt.

Séfériadès, Michel. 1985. Troie I: Matériaux pour l’étude des sociétés du Nord-Est égéen au début du bronze ancien. Cahiers (Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations) no. 15. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations.

Sherratt, Andrew G. 1997. Troy, Maikop, Altyn Depe: Bronze Age Urbanism and its Periphery. In Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives, ed. Andrew G. Sherratt, 457–70. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Starke, Frank. 1997. Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend. Studia Troica 7: 447–88.

Studia Troica. 1991–2009. Vols. 1–18. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Vols. 1–15, ed. Manfred Korfmann; vols. 16–18, ed. Peter Jablonka, Ernst Pernicka, and Brian Rose.

Tolstikow, Wladimir P. and Michail J. Trejster. 1996. Der Schatz aus Troja: Schliemann und der Mythos des Priamos- Goldes: Katalogbuch Ausstellung Puschkin-Museum Moskau 1996/97. Stuttgart: Belser.

Traill, David A. 1995. Schliemann of Troy: Treasure and Deceit. New York: St. Martin’s.

Traill, David A. 2000. “Priam’s Treasure”: Clearly a Composite. Anatolian Studies 50: 17–35.

Ünlüsoy, Sinan. 2006. Vom Reihenhaus zum Megaron—Troia I bis Troia III. In Troia: Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft, ed. Manfred O. Korfmann, 133–44. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Wright, James C. 1997. The Place of Troy among the Civilizations of the Bronze Age. In The World of Troy: Homer, Schliemann, and the Treasures of Priam, ed. Deborah Boedeker, 33–43. Washington, D.C.: Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage.

Peter Jablonka Peter Jablonka is an Archaeologist at the Institute of Prehistory and Archaeology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, and Co- Director of the Troy Excavations.

Page 12 of 13

Page 13 of 13