bronze age environment and economy in the troad - Universität ...

chapter 1: environment and archaeology
1.2.2 Troy
1.2.2.1 Chronology
The dating of the different periods in Troy is one of the focal
points of chronological discussions. Since Blegen (1963)
many, often divergent dates for the different phases have
evolved (Korfmann and Kromer 1993). The results of the new
excavations tend to an older dating.
The matching of the different periods of Troy with the
common terms of Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age, is part
of the problem. While the traditional approach places,
according to differences in material culture, Troy I to Troy V
under Early Bronze Age, the recent investigations put at least
Troy IV and V in the Middle Bronze Age. In the meantime it
has been suggested that there is a chronological overlap
between Troy I and Troy II, and radiocarbon dates show
overlap also from other periods. A cultural break between Troy
III and IV was also recognised. Recently Korfmann has
matched the different periods from Troy with cultural
definitions (Korfmann 1996). According to him, Troy I-Troy
III represent close relations to the coastal eastern
Mediterranean region, Troy IV and Troy V show clear
connections to Anatolian cultures and Troy VI and Troy VIIa
represent a very advanced civilisation of Troy. In Troy VIIb he
claims a ‛Troy-Culture’, determined by Balkan influences.
The archaeobotanical work concentrates on the periods Troy I
until Troy VII. The later periods, i.e. the Greek-Hellenistic and
the Roman, were not part of the archaeobotanical research
project, but will be mentioned from time to time in contrasting
the Bronze Age results with the whole settlement period. From
the thickness and preservation of the archaeological layers, the
periods are not represented equally in the site and were not
excavated to an equal degree. Therefore no samples were obtained
from periods Troy III and Troy V. The remaining periods
(Troy I/II, Troy IV, Troy VI and Troy VII) are represented
unequally in archaeobotanical samples for the same reasons.
To deal with a relatively equal amount of samples for each
time period and to have a sensible amount of samples for a
statistical analysis, it was decided to group the samples for the
general view of the plant remains in the Bronze Age, i.e. Troy I
and Troy II under Early Bronze Age Troy, Troy VI and VII
under Late Bronze Age Troy. Middle Bronze Age Troy is
represented almost exclusively by Troy IV samples. Because
the samples from Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic period
were not part of the question they were summarised for the
data analysis as Post–Bronze AgeTroy.
1.2.2.2 Archaeological research history and
results from the early excavations
First mentioned in writing by Homer in the Iliad, the city of
Troy has been under discussion since antiquity. Interpretation
of the Iliad, a research problem in its own right, was the
impetus for further mythologising in later and historical time,
and this remains the case (Latacz 1990). The myth of Troy, i.e.
the fall of a wealthy and powerful city, might have been the
main impelling force on Schliemann’s search for Troy and his
first excavations (Schliemann 1881, 1884, 1890 und 1891).
With four excavations (1871-1873, 1878-1879, 1882, 1890) he
provided the basis for further investigations, and dug out the
famous treasures. At that point he was not aware of the correct
chronostratigraphy of the site. The Mycenaean Troy layers he
was looking for, because of their supposed equivalence with
the Homeric Troy, were mainly excavated by his successor
Dörpfeld from 1893, who also developed the chronostratigraphical
system of Troy I to Troy IX (Dörpfeld 1902).
Between 1932 and 1938 a team of American archaeologists
excavated at Troy under the leadership of Blegen, who improved
the chronology of the site (Blegen 1950a and 1963).
What follows is a summary of the main results from these early
excavations, selected for their relevance to the archaeobotany.
With the find of the fortification wall of Troy I (from c. 2920
BC) Schliemann and Dörpfeld demonstrated that the site was
of the ‛fortress’ type from its inception. Blegen divided Troy I
into 10 (a-j) architectural phases. They will not be discussed,
because, apart from the problem of chronological classification
of the soil samples, it is not possible to apply a chronological
system of 47 settlement phases to a sensible number of
samples.
The main architectural features in Troy I are large, freestanding
houses, built of mudbrick on a stone socle, but no
complete plans were recovered. The well-known ‛rectangular
megaron’ or ‛house 102’ (where six infant burials were discovered
by the Blegen team) that is visible in the ‛Schliemann
trench’ is one of the oldest buildings in Troy. Typical pottery
for the early phases is dark monochrome burnished ware.
Later Aegean ceramic imports appear, including fragments of
EH/EC II Urfirnis which show that the middle of Troy I overlaps
in date with EH/EC II on the Greek Mainland and on the
central Aegean islands. At the end of Troy I, Aegean imports
are recognisable by sauceboat fragments. Instruments of common
handcrafts (needles, pins, awls from metal and bone,
querns and grinders from stone, spindle whorls and loomweights
from terracotta) are strongly represented. The end of
Troy I bears evidence for destruction by fire.
Parallels to other Aegean sites exist with the Early Bronze Age
site Thermi I-V, which has traditionally been equated with
Troy I. The ceramic analysis suggests that the Thermi sequence
is contemporary with all of Troy I-II (Podzuweit 1979a and
1979b).
The deposits of Troy II (2600-2450 BC) have eight architectural
phases (a-g). In Troy II the fortification walls are extended
and provided with two gateways flanked by towers.
One of these gateways is approached by a ‛ramp’. The top of
the fortress is dominated by the huge parallel megara, of which
the largest is Megaron IIA. Its walls were made of mudbrick
set within a half-timbered framework on top of a massive stone
socle. Inside a large circular hearth (dia. 4 m!) was found,
which must have needed huge amounts of fuel to keep burning.
In the south-east of the citadel lies a multi-roomed structure.
The number of monumental megara declined in favour of more
obviously residential dwellings taking the form of blocks or
‛insulae’, and the middle of Troy II is characterised by extensive
rubbish pits (‛bothroi’), perhaps designed originally as
emplacements for large pithoi (Blegen 1950b). As Troy II
progresses, more of the pottery is red to tan in colour instead of
black, although black-polished ware is still common. There is
also evidence for the use of the fast wheel with its succession
8