Site Of Troy Research Articles

A New Suggested Site for Troy (Yenibademli Höyük)

Nearly all archaeologists identify the remains of Troy with Hisarlik. This article in contrast looks at some alternative suggested locations and finding them to be implausible suggests a Bronze Age site – Yenibademli Höyük – on the North Aegean Island Imbros (Gökçeada). The popular identification of Hisarlik with Troy is questioned and doubted. It is argued on the basis of an ancient tradition Hisarlik cannot be the site of Troy and reveals descriptions from the Iliad are not compatible with Hisarlik.

New perspectives on stone bead technology at Bronze Age Troy

AbstractStone beads from the site of Troy, Turkey, have been studied in order to understand better the nature of lapidary technology and trade during the third to second millennium BC in this part of Anatolia. Eighteen carnelian and two rock crystal beads were documented through visual examinations, measurement and photography to identify the raw material, as well as general aspects of manufacture and style. Silicone impressions of the drill holes as well as some of the engraved surfaces were made in order to study the nature of drilling and abrasion under a Scanning Electron Microscope. Through these studies, it is possible to identify the presence of different types of bead production and drilling technology during each major chronological period at the site. Some of the beads may have been produced at Troy or at nearby sites in Anatolia while others have links to the southern Aegean and eastern Mediterranean regions as well as the more distant regions of Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley.

Cultural landscapes and troy; an old Anatolian settlement

Troy which is located on the straits dividing the continents of Europe and Asia have retained its geographical significance till prehistoric times. Troia/Troy/Truva was excavated by Schliemann, Dorpfeld and Blegen. Troy mound was formed of a series of fortified settlements built one upon another. Not only the site of Troy itself, but also the surrounding terrain has played an important role in the cultural history of mankind. It has been also one of the best known landscapes in the world since prehistoric times. According to the data obtained from the excavations, the city of Troy must have comprised a total at least 200 000m2, ranking it as one of the largest cities of its period within western Anatolia and Eagean realm. Due to the calculations based on area occupied and productivity of the region, reach about 6000-7000 inhabitants. In view of the increasing assets of natural and cultural heritage of the area, the proposals to take care of the Troy, to protect the surrounding landscape and establish a historic national park have received national support. Association with the national park of Gallipoli (Canakkale) Peninsula on the other side of Dardanelles in an integrated planning approach can be a good solution both for the protection and the sustainability of the area. In this article, the city of Troy as one of the best examples of prehistoric settlements of Anatolia was presented. Troy and its near environs was introduced with its natural, historical and cultural aspects. Settlement formation, urban development, building types, construction material and techniques, spatial organizations in the urban fabric were discussed for different layers of the settlement. And the present situation of the area was analyzed in the frame of cultural landscapes and landscape qualities.

J. G. Von Hahn's report of his excavations at Balli Dağ in 1864: The Finlay translation

In May 1864, J. G. von Hahn sought to prove by excavation that the summit of Balli Dağ behind Pinarbasi was the citadel of Homeric Troy. This was the first systematic attempt to identify the site of Troy by archaeological rather than merely topographical evidence. Assisted by J. F. Julius Schmidt and Ernst Ziller, von Hahn excavated stretches of walling, including parts of the perimeter wall. These appeared to range in date from very early (‘Cyclopian’) to the second century BC. But he found no evidence that the site had been occupied in the pre-classical period. He concluded, however, that since Balli Dağ matched so perfectly the indications given in the Iliad, Homer must have visited the site and chosen it as the location for his poem. Von Hahn reported on his excavations in two letters (in German) to George Finlay, later publishing them in that form. Finlay's careful English translation of these reports, published here for the first time, follows a brief introduction.

Pioneer, Scholar, and Victim: an Appreciation of Frank Calvert (1828–1908)

For over a century, the names “Schliemann” and “Troy” have been virtually synonymous, and the story of Schliemann's boyhood dream to discover Troy has gripped the imagination of millions. This romantic tale, though created for a different purpose, effectively obscures the fact that Schliemann would never have excavated Hissarlik—then the suspected site of Troy—had it not been for Frank Calvert, a man of whom, thanks in large part to Schliemann's misrepresentations, few people had ever heard. Only in recent years, when Schliemann's claims were finally examined impartially, has there been any appreciation of the debt Schliemann owed to Calvert, and of Calvert's own archaeological achievements. Today, Calvert's contributions to other fields of scientific study are beginning to be mentioned, but Calvert himself still remains virtually unknown.Frank Calvert was a pivotal figure in the history of the Troad. He deserves recognition for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he prepared the ground for Schliemann and, by his generosity and constant assistance to Schliemann, enabled him to transform himself with such spectacular success from a businessman into an archaeologist.

The Making of an Homeric Archaeologist: Schliemann's Diary of 1868

This paper, based on Schliemann's correspondence and on his travel diary of 1868, fills in an important gap regarding Schliemann's beginnings in archaeology. Schliemann's awakening interest in archaeological excavation is traced throughout his sojourn in Rome and Southern Italy, where Pompeii provided perhaps the decisive impetus for Schliemann's own first archaeological endeavours in Ithaca. Interesting differences between the diary and the published account of Schliemann's itinerary in Itaque, le Péloponnèse et Troie are analysed in the context of his subsequent studies in Paris that obliged him to revise many assumptions he had held uncritically during what was originally planned as a ‘pleasure trip’. The section dealing with the Troad (where the diary is summarised and excerpted at length) considers the allegations made by David Traill on Schliemann's having removed a page from the diary to hide what would have been embarrassing comments rejecting Hissarlik as the site of Troy. It will be shown that this section of the diary is complete and that Traill's account of Schliemann's movements must subsequently be rectified. Furthermore, the sources of Schliemann's information on the Troad at this specific juncture will be examined, together with his eventual adoption of the Hissarlik theory after meeting Frank Calvert at the Dardanelles. The charge of intellectual robbery leveled against Schliemann by Traill will be reconsidered.

“Priam's Treasure”

In Antiquity 57 David Traill claims to have exposed Schliemann's discovery of “Priam's Treasure” as a fraud (Traill, 1983). By this he means that it was not a single find as Schliemann represents, but an artificial collection put together from several different sources. The collection was formed around a group of bronzes (not identified exactly, but presumably including some of the spearheads, daggers, and flat axes) which was genuinely found on the site of Troy near the end of the 1873 season, but whose precise findspot and date of discovery Schliemann falsified. To this were added more valuable items which Schliemann had been setting aside from his excavations for just such a purpose over a period of months “or even years”. This theory was first put forward in outline in a BBC Chronicle programme on 20th January, 1982 and at that time included the further suggestion that some items were not even excavated at Troy but were bought from dealers in Constantinople or Athens. It is not clear how far Traill still holds to this notion: he acknowledges that all the pieces contained in the Treasure are appropriate to the Early Bronze Age at Troy, but at the same time hints that the purchase-theory would be a legitimate speculation (Traill, 1983, 185).

Homeric Epithets for Troy

The publication of the fourth volume on the excavations conducted at Troy by the University of Cincinnati in the years 1932–1938 enables us to review with more confidence the historical events which lie, no matter at how great a distance, behind theIliadand to reconsider the Homeric epithets for Troy in the light of new knowledge. We may at the start agree with the writers that no other city in the Troad except Hisarlik has any reasonable claim to be the site of Troy, and it is now clear that Troy VI, which was gravely damaged by an earthquakec. 1275 B.C., was succeeded by Troy VIIa, which had a real continuity with VI and was largely a rebuilt version of it, until it perished itself from firec. 1240 B.C. VIIa has thus a substantial claim to be the Homeric city, and the date of its destruction agrees with that given by Herodotus for the Trojan War as κατὰ ὀκτακόσια (ἔτεα) μάλιστα ἐς ἐμέ (ii 145.4). We may ask how relevant the Homeric epithets are to Troy as we now know it and when they may have been introduced into the oral tradition which Homer inherited and used in the eighth century. At the start we may say that, while all of them are at least adequate for a walled city on the site of Hisarlik, and some are much to the point, not all are equally individual, and we may classify them according to their use for cities in general and for Troy in particular. In doing this we must remember that in the Homeric poems cities need epithets as much as gods and heroes do, and that there is bound to be a certain overlap between one city and another in the epithets applied to it. Though we may postulate a pool of adjectives suitable for cities from which the poet draws those that meet his needs most adequately, there are some which are confined to Troy and others which are specially appropriate to it.

The Historical Sack of Troy

The site of Troy was first occupied by men at some time not long before or after 3000 B.C. Whatthey built on the bedrock was the fortress of a chieftain, a few large wellfurnished houses within an oval of stout walls. After some 500 years the stronghold was consumed by a great fire; and the same people rebuilt a far bigger and stronger Troy, the Second City, with massive walls and monumental gates, and a great palace or temple on the summit of the enclosed hill. Some 300 years elapsed before this fortress, like the first, was totally destroyed by fire. The next settlement, Troy III, was relatively insignificant; Troy IV was not much more progressive; but Troy V rose to a higher level, performing much and promising more.

The Site of Troy

The name of Troy, more touched with glamour than any other name in history, brings to the archaeologist, the literary critic and the ordinary man, associations so widely different that they are in danger of becoming altogether divorced. In the mind of the archaeologist, it calls up a series of unsolved problems that produce a faint sensation of irritation and anxiety. Can that tantalizing group of objects from Schliemann’s excavations, most of which have been arranged more according to style than to stratigraphy, be regarded as a safe guide to the development of prehistoric Asia Minor ? Which of the stone battle axes come from Town I and which from Town II ? What really happened between the second and the sixth settlement ? How does the material fit in with that from other early settlements in Asia Minor and adjacent lands ?