Troy in the Bronze Age

This was my final paper for my History 487: Senior Colloquium class last winter semester. I pretty much worked my brains out on it. :)

Perhaps one of the most well-known and controversial sites in the history of archeology is that of Troy. It is commonly accepted to have been located at a hill now called Hisarlik. The site is located in northwestern Turkey, about four miles from the base of the Hellespont. It was probably closer to the sea in the Bronze Age, but the area has since become silted up.¹

The site's first excavator, Heinrich Schliemann, was not motivated by scholarship, but romance. He claimed to have been inspired at a young age to find the historical location of Homer's Troy, but his recklessly eager excavations at the hill of Hisarlik considerably damaged the site. Several excavation campaigns have taken place since Schliemann's excavations in 1871-73 and 1878-9: Wilhelm Dörpfeld (1893-4), Carl Blegen (1832-8), and, most recently, Manfred Korfmann (1988-2003). The city is composed of nine layers, ranging in date from Troy I, starting around 2900 BC, to Troy IX, which ended around AD 550 during the time of the Romans. Schliemann's goal in excavating Hisarlik was to find the Troy of Homer, and he assumed that the city he was looking for would be at the bottom of the hill, near the bedrock. He dug an enormous trench through the center of the hill, essentially destroying much of the upper layers, until he found treasure in Troy II that he declared was the “Treasure of Priam.” Unfortunately for Schliemann, Troy II was over a thousand years too early to be Homer's Troy. The Troy of the Trojan War (if such a war did actually take place) is most likely to have been either Troy VI (c. 1700-1250 BC) or Troy VIIa. Troy VIIa could really be considered part of Troy VI, as there is no major cultural alteration between the end of Troy VI and Troy VIIa, although the quality of Troy VIIa is considerably less than that of Troy VI.²

The main question here is, what was the situation of Troy relative to other civilizations in Anatolia and the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age? Troy has traditionally been viewed through a Greek lens because of its association with Homer's Iliad. However, recent excavations and scholarship have shown that Troy may have had a stronger connection with the Anatolian world, particularly the Hittites, than it did with the Mycenaeans. Because of the historical preoccupation with Troy and its relationship with Homer's Iliad, no discussion of the site can avoid at least some mention of Homer, and scholarly views on Troy and its situation in the Bronze Age are inevitably shaped by Homer's description. The city that Homer describes is a great power, a “shining city,” and rich in treasure. Schliemann's excavations at Troy were driven by this idea of Troy as a great city. He was convinced that Homer's description was of reality, and this presupposition ultimately led him to plow straight through the layers of Hisarlik that actually dated to the Late Bronze Age and declare that Troy II was the great city of Priam. Although Schliemann's mistake has since been rectified, many scholars find themselves subject to a presupposition that the civilization at Hisarlik simply must have been a significant and powerful Bronze Age city. Until recently, this has been difficult to argue for because the site of Troy was simply too small to be any kind of great power. However, the most recent excavation campaign at the site of Hisarlik led by Manfred Korfmann has unearthed evidence that was Troy much larger than had been originally thought.

In 1996 Korfmann discovered a lower city outside the main citadel of Troy VI. According to Korfmann's estimate, this lower city was around 200,000 square meters—ten times larger than previously thought.³ This discovery, if real, eliminated the difficulty that the small size of Hisarlik had previously posed, making it more plausible that Troy was a significant city in the Late Bronze Age. Korfmann believed that Troy was an important Bronze Age trading center. Its strategic location allowed it to control trade up and down the Hellespont, and it had sea trade connections in the Aegean and Black Sea regions.⁴ Korfmann even went so far as to say that troy was a “pivotal city” in northwestern Anatolia.⁵ He asserted that Troy lay at the center of a vast trading network solidified by intermarriage, and that the members of this trading might easily have come together to form the coalition of allies that Homer describes in the Iliad.⁶

Korfmann's view of Troy as a trading hub, however, has come under criticism for being overly optimistic, even fantastic, because of lack of evidence. Among the sharpest of these critics are Dieter Hertel and Frank Kolb.⁷ Hertel and Kolb accuse Korfmann of altering maps of Late Bronze Age trade routes in spite of any evidence for doing so, and of stretching the limits of the existing evidence in order to support his thesis.⁸ They point out that no Mycenaean pottery has ever been found in the Black Sea region of Anatolia, which it certainly would have been if Troy had really been a trading hub between the Aegean and the Black Sea.⁹ Further, Hertel and Kolb argue that Korfmann's estimate of a population of 10,000 for Troy is extravagant. If Troy was really that big, then it would have been larger even than the Hittite capital Hattuşa, which was only 3000-6000 large. By comparison, the geographical size of Hattuşa was 180 hectares, and the size of Korfmann's Troy is only 11 hectares.¹⁰

In addition, Hertel and Kolb point out that the citadel at Troy does not have the same structure as Mycenaean palatial estates; that is, it does not have a central building surrounded by subordinate buildings, nor does it have the ordered and elaborate structure that is common to important centers of civilization.¹¹ This lack of palatial organization implies that Troy was not a great center of trade, as Korfmann suggested, but a much smaller and less significant settlement. ¹²

As the case stands, archaeological evidence is never as conclusive as one might like it to be. Korfmann certainly was overeager in his assessment of Troy's importance in the Late Bronze Age; he, like many other scholars and archaeologists, appears to have fallen into the trap of seeing what one wants to see at Troy, simply because of its traditional importance as the site of fabled Ilion and as a major Anatolian archaeological site. While the civilization that existed at Hisarlik did likely have connections with other civilizations, the characterization of Troy as a “trading hub” is likely an exaggeration. There is simply not enough evidence to warrant such an assertion, and the city of Troy itself is not structured like a palatial trading center.

One of the main questions about Troy concerns its cultural relationship with the other peoples in Anatolia and the Aegean. In the Iliad, Homer portrays the Trojans as essentially Greek—speaking the same language, worshiping the same gods, and observing the same cultural mores. But how accurate is this? Troy, after all, is not situated in Greece, but in Anatolia at the base of the Hellespont. Was Troy really a Greek city, or was it Anatolian?

One important point of comparison between cultures is fortification styles. The fortifications of Troy VI are in a completely different style from that of the previous layers, which suggests the beginning of an entirely new cultural era at Troy.¹³ The Trojan fortifications in this era are much stouter and more advanced than those of the previous inhabitants. The fortification walls of Troy are also distinctly different from typical Mycenaean walls. The gently sloping walls of Troy are made of huge blocks of stone that later peoples were convinced could only have been moved by the supernatural Cyclopes prompted the use of the name the name “Cyclopean” to describe the walls. However, the Cyclopean masonry of Troy differs from that at Mycenaean sites. Mycenaean Cyclopean masonry typically had two layers of stone which were then filled with smaller stones and rubble, and this type of construction is noticeably absent from Troy. The walls of Troy are curtain walls, which are solid, single-layer stone constructions. Mycenaean walls were also typically built on bedrock or virgin soil, but the builders of Troy left a layer of soil between the walls' foundations and the bedrock. This may have been a precaution to protect the city from earthquake, but ultimately failed because Troy VIh was destroyed by earthquake.¹⁴ The main construction material at Troy was mud-brick.¹⁵ The Hittites also used mud-brick in their constructions, including in their fortifications.¹⁶

However, the walls of Troy do bear some similarity to those at Mycenaean sites in some aspects. One of these is a defensive feature which can be described as a “killing box”: a gateway constructed by building two overlapping sections of wall, creating a small space in between. Since gateways are always a weak point in any fortification system, this “killing box” would put any invaders under fire from both sides as they attempted to storm the city.¹⁷ This type of feature is also found at the Mycenaean site of Tiryns.¹⁸

As mentioned previously, one important difference between the construction of Troy and that of Mycenaean sites is the lack of any kind of palatial structure. Mycenaean sites have a very distinct palace structure, centered around the megaron or throne room. This throne room had a circular fireplace at its center with four pillars around it, a throne on the right-hand side of the room, and elaborately painted walls and floors. There is no evidence of any such structure at Troy. To be fair, much of Troy was destroyed when Heinrich Schliemann conducted his demolition of the upper cities of Hisarlik. This means that evidence that may once have existed is now gone; however, it is pointless to speculate upon what might have existed at Troy when one has absolutely no evidence upon which to base that speculation.

The legend of the Trojan Horse may shed some light on Troy's relationship with the Anatolian world in a military sense. It is possible that the legend of the Trojan Horse may have originated with some sort of siege engine. The siege engines of the Assyrians usually had long shafts or drills and were operated by three men, who used the shaft to stab at the defenders and knock them off the walls. The men were protected by a kind of movable hut, and these siege engines were often named after animals. Consequently, it is conceivable that the Trojan Horse was originally a siege engine, and when this military technology became obsolete, the Greek poets improvised a story that would make sense to their audience.¹⁹ If this is the case, then the culture at Troy was significantly influenced by Anatolian culture. It is important to remember that for centuries, everything known about Troy had been filtered through a Greek lens. The evidence, however, strongly indicates that the greatest cultural influences on Troy were Anatolian, not Greek.

Trojan religion shows a strong connection to Anatolian culture. Korfmann finds several important relationships between the two cultures in the cultic and religious sphere. First, the Trojans adopted the Anatolian practice of cremating and burying their dead in large urns, called pithoi. Second, there are stelai at Troy that indicate similarity between Anatolian and Trojan religious practices. Stone and pillar cults were common in Anatolia at the time, and the presence of the stelai at Troy indicates a cultural connection.²⁰ A third possible religious connection exists between the Greek god Apollo, who is a guardian of Troy in the Iliad, and the Anatolian god Apalunas or Apaliunas, who was worshiped among the Luwians and a god of Wilusa.²¹

Arguably the most important aspect of archeology, and the most ubiquitous indicator of civilization, is pottery. Where there are pots, there are people. Where there is Mycenaean pottery, there is Mycenaean civilization, or at least contact with Mycenaean civilization, and there is some Mycenaean pottery at Troy both in the citadel and the lower city.²² However, the quantity of Mycenaean pottery found at Troy VI is vastly overshadowed by the amount of Grey Minyan Ware, or Anatolian Grey Ware, found at the site.²³ This and other evidence strongly suggests that while Troy has traditionally been identified with Greek culture because of Homer's treatment of it as such, its strongest ties were with the Anatolian culture. One of the most important finds at Troy was Korfmann's discovery at Hisarlik of a two-sided seal with writing on it. The language has shown to be Luwian, a language related to that of the Hittites. The seal is of a type found in many Hittite-influenced cities, which implies that Troy had contact with the Hittites, and, further, that there was at least some level of literacy in Late Bronze Age Troy.²⁴

There is evidence in Hittite documents of a relationship between Troy and the Hittite Empire. An archaic name for Troy is “Ilios,” or “Wilios.” (It is from this name that the Homeric Iliad derives its title.) In a Hittite document from the 13th century BC now called the Millawanda Letter, King Tudhaliya IV mentions a place called “Wilusa” as a previously contested territory. Several scholars, including Machteld Mellink and Frank Starke, drew a connection between the Hittite “Wilusa” and “Wilios.”²⁵ The content of the Millawanda Letter indicates that Wilusa/Ilios had diplomatic relations with the Hittite empire. In the letter, Tudhaliya tells an ally in Millawanda that he will install a man called Walmu as the king of of Wilusa.²⁶ Wilusa is mentioned in several other Hittite documents, as well: for example, the Tawagalawa Letter, addressed from King Hattušili to the king of Ahhiyawa—a name accepted by most scholars to be a Hittite version of “Achaea,” Homer's name for the Greeks. In the Tawagalawa Letter, Hattušili complains about the exploits of the rogue Piyamaradu in raiding Hittite lands. Hattušili mentions that he had been “at enmity” over Wilusa with the King of Hatti, and that this dispute has been resolved.²⁷ From this, we can infer that Wilusa—or, if we accept the linguistic connection, Troy—was actually an Anatolian city and a part of the Hittite empire. Just how important Troy was in the Hittite picture is, of course, still a point of controversy.There is evidence in Hittite documents of contact between Troy and the Hittite Empire. An archaic name for Troy is “Ilios,” or “Wilios.” (It is from this name that the Homeric Iliad derives its title.) In a Hittite document from the 13th century BC now called the Millawanda Letter, King Tudhaliya IV mentions a place called “Wilusa” as a previously contested territory. Several scholars, including Machteld Mellink and Frank Starke, drew a connection between the Hittite “Wilusa” and “Wilios.”²⁸ The content of the Millawanda Letter indicates that Wilusa/Ilios had diplomatic relations with the Hittite empire. In the letter, Tudhaliya tells an ally in Millawanda that he will install a man called Walmu as the king of of Wilusa.²⁹ Wilusa is mentioned in several other Hittite documents, as well: for example, the Tawagalawa Letter, addressed from King Hattušili to the king of Ahhiyawa—a name accepted by most scholars to be a Hittite version of “Achaea,” Homer's name for the Greeks. In the Tawagalawa Letter, Hattušili complains about the exploits of the rogue Piyamaradu in raiding Hittite lands. Hattušili mentions that he had been “at enmity” over Wilusa with the King of Hatti, and that this dispute has been resolved.³⁰ From this, we can infer that Wilusa—or, if we accept the linguistic connection, Troy—was actually an Anatolian city and a part of the Hittite empire.

To summarize, the position of Troy in the Late Bronze Age was likely that of an Anatolian or Anatolian-influenced settlement. Although its importance as a center of trade has likely been exaggerated by Manfred Korfmann and others, it was an important enough territory to be the subject of several conflicts in Anatolia. Culturally, the Late Bronze Age Trojans shared much with their Anatolian neighbors. The traditional view of Troy has been shaped and filtered through the lens of the Greeks, and consequently the Greek connection to Troy has been overestimated. Because of the importance of the Homeric epics, including the Iliad, in Western culture, the significance of Troy as a center of civilization has likely also been exaggerated. Troy itself was likely a relatively minor and peripheral city in Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age, as evidenced by the small size of the site. Troy's location at the base of the Hellespont is theoretically advantageous, but it seems doubtful that Troy utilized this advantage in the Late Bronze Age; as mentioned above, there is no Mycenaean pottery north of the Hellespont in the Black Sea region, as there would be if there had been significant trade between that area and the Aegean and Anatolia.

With respect to Troy and the historicity of Homer, one must be careful to avoid falling into the trap of black-and-white thinking. While it is somewhat romantic to imagine that the Ilion of Homeric legend was a real “shining city” of great importance, that is simply not borne out by the evidence, and there is no merit in creating yet another layer of legend and attempting to pass it off as historical fact. [2923]

1 James C. Wright, “The Place of Troy among the Civilizations of the Bronze Age,” The Classical World 91, no. 5 (May – Jun. 1998): 357.

2 Nic Fields, Troy c. 1700-1250 BC (Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2004), 25.

3 Manfred Korfmann, “Troia, an Ancient Anatolian Palatial and Trading Center: Archaeological Evidence for the Period of Troia VI/VII,” The Classical World 91, no. 5 (May – Jun. 1998): 371.

4 Ibid., 380.

5 Ibid., 382.

6 Ibid., 382, 383.

7 Hertel and Kolb's article, “Troy in Clearer Perspective”, is one of several in a back-and-forth between supporters and critics of Korfmann's work. The authors give an extensive argument against Troy's status as a palatial estate or center of trade, arguing against four of Korfmann's main arguments—pottery sherds lower down the hill of Hisarlik, a settlement wall outside the citadel wall, a defensive ditch, and the existence of houses outside the main citadel.

8 Dieter Hertel and Frank Kolb, “Troy in Clearer Perspective,” Anatolian Studies 53 (2003): 73.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid., 74.

11 Ibid., 76.

12 A rebuttal to Hertel and Kolb's criticism has been published by Peter Jablonka and C. Brian Rose, who were both involved with Hisarlik at the time Korfmann was excavating there: Peter Jablonka and C. Brian Rose, “Late Bronze Age Troy: A Response to Frank Kolb,” American Journal of Archaeology 108 no. 4 (Oct. 2004): 615-630.

13 Fields, Troy, 23.

14 Ibid., 36.

15 Ibid., 29.

16 Konstantin S. Nossov, Hittite Fortifications c. 1650-700 BC (Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2008), 17.

17 Ibid., 38, 44.

18 Nic Fields, Mycenaean Citadels c. 1350-1200 BC (Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2004), 33-36.

19 Fields, Troy, 52-53.

20 Korfmann, 373-374.

21 Ibid., 376.

22 D.F. Easton et al., “Troy in Recent Perspective,” Anatolian Studies 52 (2002): 87.

23 Korfmann, 373.

24 Ibid., 379.

25 Ibid., 373.

26 The Millawanda Letter, in Carol G. Thomas and Craig Conant, The Trojan War (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2007), 142-143.

27 The Tawagalawa Letter, in Carol G. Thomas and Craig Conant, The Trojan War (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2007), 140-141.

28 Korfmann., 373.

29 The Millawanda Letter, in Carol G. Thomas and Craig Conant, The Trojan War (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2007), 142-143.

30 The Tawagalawa Letter, in Carol G. Thomas and Craig Conant, The Trojan War (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2007), 140-141.