Anatolia and the Eastern Aegean at the time of the Trojan War

44 Pages·2016·15.66 MB·English

by  Benzi M.

STORIA E LETTERATURA
RACCOLTA DI STUDI E TESTI
---- 210 ----
OMERO
TREMILA ANNI DOPO
a cura di
FRANCO MONTANARI
con la collaborazione di
PAOLA ASCHERI
ROMA 2002
EDIZIONI DI STORIA E LETTERATURA
•
MARIO BENZI
ANATOLIA AND THE EASTERN AEGEAN
AT THE TIME OF THE TROJAN WAR
The tide of my paper implies some sort of answer to a num
ber of basic questions, which have always been the core of the
so-called Homeric archaeology. Did the Trojan War ever take
pIace? When and where did it take pIace? At which time with
in the (largely unreliable) range of dates preserved in later
Greek tradition for the war (1334-1184 BC) 1, the Mycenaeans
would have been able to set up the joint expedition described
in Greek epic poetry? If we accept that the war took pIace at
Hissarlik, with which destruction level at the site can it be
equated? Was the destruction in question caused by human
agency and can it be attributed to Mycenaean attackers? Of
course, it is not my intention to discuss all these issues. I will
deal only with those relevant to the subject of my papero
In order to give an answer to such questions, we have to re
ly on three sets of evidence of very different nature and char
acter: 1) The Greek epic poetry; 2) The Hittite written sources
which provide evidence for the geopolitical conditions of west
ern Anatolia in Late Bronze III; 3) The archaeological evidence
for Troy itself, the eastern Aegean, and Mycenaean Greece at
the supposed time of the Trojan War. Unfortunately these
sources speak different and conflicting languages.
1) Being an oralliterary genre conceived to entertain audi
ences, Greek epic poetry was handed down fram one singer to
the next and underwent successive additions and changes.
Therefore, though providing the main reason for the whole
question, it cannot be regarded as a historical source stricto sen
su. Indeed, were it not for Homer, modern scholars would re-
l On thismuch debated issue seenow Burkert 1995.
/I
344 MARIO BENZI
gard Hissarlik as one of the many BA cultural areas in Anatolia
with an interest in the Aegean trade and a special taste for
Mycenaean pottery. What cannot be expected is that epic poet
ry provides such an accurate picture of Troy and the Troad as
that available to modern scholars after more than a century of
archaeological research. Although many scholars are sceptical in
Front of missing or conflicting archaeological evidence, I believe
that some inaccuracy must be allowed. After all poetry is not an
archaeological report. Nevertheless it has often been remarked
that Homer's description of the landscape of Troy is considera
bly accurate 2. Recently F. Starke has convincingly argued that
Homer's description of Trojan state and society demonstrates
that he (and the old oral tradition he relied upon) was well ac
quainted with alocal Anatolian-Luwian milieu preserving a sec
ond millennium structure 3. By contrast, the extensive Troy VI
and VII lower town and defensive ditch brought to light in re
cent excavations are unknown to the poet 4.
2) The Hittite written documents refer to short-timed po
litical events, which in most cases did not leave any recognisable
trace in the archaeological record and are not hinted at by
Homer. Unless we accept the much controversial explanation of
the Amazons as clean-shaved, robed Hittite warriors 5, the only
reference to the Hittites in epic poetry is to be found in Od.Qç
521, where Neoptolemus is said to have killed Eurypylus, son of
Telephus, who died with his companions the Ki]'t"EtOt or
Xi]'t"EtOt 6.
3) Conversely, the archaeological evidence provides us with
long-timed information about the many aspects of material cul
ture, most of which tend to remain unchanged over more or less
long time-spans and are not necessarily affected by political
events.
2 See the paper in this volume by M. Korfmann.
3 Starke 1997, pp. 460 ff.
Korfmann 1996, pp. 32-39; 1997, pp. 38-45.
4
5 On this debated issue see Watkins 1986, p. 52 and note 13.
6Huxley 1960, p. 40.
ANATOLIA AND THE EASTERN AEGEAN ATTHE TIME OF THE TROJAN WAR 345
L The Historicity 0/ the Trojan War.
Following Blegen, D6rpfeld, Schliemann and others, most
scholars today agree that Hissarlik is the site of Homeric Troy
and that the eventful Trojan saga reflects events going back to
the Bronze Age 7. But the basic problem is in which phase of
the Bronze Age the Achaean sack of Troy may have taken pIace.
There is a widely shared tendency to believe that such an event
cannot have occurred but before the fall of the Mycenaean
palaces. Some scholars, however, have argued in favour of a
LHIIIC destruction of Troy, pointing out that the culture and
society described in the Homeric poetry reflect the Mycenaean
world as it was after rather than before the collapse of the
palaces.
The main reasons for suggesting a LHIIIC Mycenaean ex
pedition against Troy have been clearly stated by S. Hood 8. No
trace of the literate palatial society is preserved in Homer 9, nor
there is any reference to the Hittites and their conflict with the
Ahhiyawa. Likewise, no mention of a destrùction of Troy is pre
served in the extant Hittite documents (see below Section IV).
Although the objects aswell as the customs described in the po
ems evidently go back to different historical periods none of
lO,
the material objects need be dated before the end of LHIIIB.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the silver-studded swords
and the large body-shields widely documented in the Iliad are
scarcely attested in Mycenaean contexts after LHIIIA:ll1. Sim
ilar is the case of Meriones boar's tusk helmet described in the
For a summary yet stimulating note on recent development in the debate
7
about the Mycenaean background to Homer see Shelmerdine 1996.On the his
toricity of the Trojan War see also Hampl 1962;Hanchmann 1964;Finley 1969;
Geiss 1975;Meyer 1975;Coindoz 1982;Cobet 1984;Hiller 1991b.
8 Hood 1995;seealso Dickinso-n 1986.
9 Musti 1996, however, calls attention on the "bureaucratic" character of
many Iistsof goods in Homer suggesting that they preserve the memory of the
scribal practices of the Bronze Age.
Sherrat 1990suggests that the earliest elements maygo back to the 16th
lO
century.
Il Chadwick 1976, p. 171.The sword from the Late Minoan IIIB-C Tomb
A at Mouliana has four gold-capped rivets; the LHIIIC sword from Perati Tomb
12has a gold ribbon below the pommel, Sandars 1963, pp. 150,151, pi. 25:33;
Iakovidis 1970,pp. 359 ff.,figs. 158, 160,pi. 95b.
346 MARIO BENZI
Doloneia. Though a few such helmets come from late Myce
naean contexts in relatively peripheral areas such as Achaia,
Aitolia, Phokis, and Miletus, and fragments of boar's tusk pos
sibly belonging to an heirloom helmet have come to light in the
Subminoan Tomb 201 1050) at Knossos there is no doubt
(C. 12,
that the heyday of this most characteristic of all Mycenaean
weapons was the Early Mycenaean periodo According to
Shelmerdine's recent assessment or the finds more than 2/3 of
boar's teeth come from early Mycenaean contexts (MH to LHI
IB/IIIA: 1);by contrast about 2/3 of the artistic representations
come from LHIII contexts; no evidence for boar's tusk helmets
is to be found in the LHIIIB tablets from Knossos and Pylos,
which perhaps indicates that by that time such helmets were no
longer in common use Echoing Webster's suggestion that
I3.
LHIIIA:2-B Mycenaean works of art cannot depict reallife, but
must be mythical scenes, Shelmerdine suggests that «they may
represent tales about early Mycenaeans, with the transformation
into myth already in progress»
14.
According to Hood the best candidate to be the Homeric
Troy «hlust be Troy VII, and perhaps Troy VIIb2 rather than
Troy VIIa». For most scholars, however, it is unthinkable that
the expedition against Troy took pIace on the eve, let alone af
ter, the collapse of the Mycenaean palace system. For the sup
porters of the palatial hypothesis the standard candidates for
being the Homeric city have always been Troy Vlh and Troy VI
la. Their respective assets to be Priam's Troy have been listed
several times One of the main arguments in favour of Troy
15.
Vlh is that it was a much more majestic city than Troy VIIa.
However, since in any epic poetry worthy of the name every
thing must be great, good and glamorous, we cannot expect
that even Troy VII would have been described by Homer as a
Shelmerdine 1996,pp. 479 ff.;Catling 1995,p. 127,fig.8.6. For compre
12
hensive studies ofthe boar tusk helmet, seeBorchhardt 1972,pp. 18ff.;Varvari
gos 1981; for representations in art see Cassola-Guida 1973,pp. 85 ff.; Morgan
1988,pp. 109-115.Seealsobelow note 77.
lJ Shelmerdine 1996,pp. 475-477, 479-492 with list of finds.
Webster 1964,p. 100;Shelmerdine 1996,p. 478. On myth and history in
14
Pylos paintings seeLang 1987;Yalouris 1989.
Hiller 1991b,p. 146;Vanschoonwinkell991, pp. 40 ff.
15
ANATOLIA AND THE EASTERN AEGEAN ATTHE TIME OF THE TROJAN WAR 347
poor city! The main arguments in favour of Troy VIIa are that
the houses are far more densely packed than in Troy VI, that in
many of them large storage pithoi were placed in pits dug be
low ground level (both regarded as evidence for threat and
preparation against siege), and that the settlement was eventu
ally burnt down in a great conflagration caused by human
agency, while Troy VIh was supposedly destroyed by an earth
quake.
The cause for the destruction of Troy VIh is stili a matter for
debate. To the earthquake hypothesis supported by G. Rapp and
C.W. Blegen M. Wood opposes Blegeri own view expressed in
16,
a 1963 interview -though never stated in his final publications
that Troy YI-In ended in a conflagration and Dorpfeld's state
ment that traces of fire indicating human agency were detected
at several spots in the area of Troy VIh According to Dorpfeld
17.
the thorough destruction of Troy VIh was the result of a delib
'erate demolition of the citadel by an enemy. Easton and others
have since supported this view Mellink in her postscript to
18.
the Bryn Mawr conference stated that siege engines and batter
ing rams were known devices in Anatolia as well as the Aegean
at the time of the destruction of Troy VI. She also underlines
that the myth of the Trojan horse was explained in this way by
some ancient writers such as Pliny and Pausanias 19.
M. Korfmann has emphasised the importance of Troy as a .
major trading centre keeping under control the access to the
straits and/ or the overland transportation of goods from the
Aegean coast of the Troad to the Marmara and eventually the
Rapp 1982;Blegen -Caskey-Rawson 1953,pp. 14f.,331f.;Blegen 1963,
16
pp. 143f.
Wood 1985,pp. 268 ff.
17
D6rpfeld 1902,p. 181;Easton 1985,p. 195.
18
M.J. Mellink in Mellink, ed.,"1986, pp. 99-100. Of quite different char
19
acter isthe explanation put forward bySchachermeyl' 1950,pp. 189ff.,who sug
gested that the wooden horse cannot be but the symbol ofthe earth-shaking god
Poseidon, though admitting that no hint of a dose relation between the horse
and the god isto be found in the Homeric poems. AnHorse God I-qo was iden
tified by Palmer in two Linear B tablets from Pylos and a number of theri
omorphic gods are attested in the recently discovered tablets from Thebes. The
Pylos tablets, however, do not provide anyevidence that Poseidon and I-qo were
connected. SeePalmer 1963,pp. 277-278; Aravantinos -Godart -Sacconi 1995,
pp,29-30.
348 MARIO BENZI
Black Sea Thus, though suggesting that the Trojan War might
20.
have taken pIace at the time of the newly discovered 13th cen
tury cemetery at Be~ikBay,he has also pointed out that because
of Troy's strategie location «there must have been many Trojan
Wars, which could have served as a basis for Homer's epics».
The memory of Heracles earlier expedition against Laomedon's
Troy is in fact well attested in Greek mythology and was already
known to Homer himself. Some*modern scholars have con
nected that early war with the destruction of Troy VIh or with
21
some earlier traces of destruction from Troy VIf and VIg (now
dated by Mountjoy to late LHIIB and IIIA:l respectively), as E.
Vermeule has suggested
22.
If the prosperity of Troy may provide the historical reason
for the Trojan War(s) hidden behind the love story of Paris and
Helen, the strong cultural continuity throughout Troy VI and
VII does suggest that Troy was never occupied by its con
querors. Not unlike the Homeric Achaeans, the enemies of Troy
were apparently more interested in sacking the city than in tak
ing possession of a major trading centre.
Korfmann, Hiller and other scholars have pointed out that
the pair of anklets of Caucasian type found in Be~ik Bay ceme
tery hints at some sort of involvement of the Black Sea in the
Aegean/Eastern Mediterranean LBA trading system with Troy
playing the key role as the site controlling the navigation in the
Dardenelles 23. The evidence supporting this fascinating hy
pothesis is very meagre. It consists of a few bronze ingots,
swords and axes scattered over a very large area and distributed
over a wide time-span. Furthermore, the Aegean origin of some
of them has been doubted It is possible that the Mycenaean
24.
20 Korfmann 1986a; 1986b; 1995. See also Neumann 1986; 1991.
21 On the two Trojan Wars see Schachermeyr 1982, pp. 93-112; Hiller
1991b, pp. 146-148.
22 Vermeule 1983, pp. 142-143; 1986, pp. 87-88. For the dating of House
VIG, Mountjoy 1997b, pp.' 287 fE.
23 Korfmann 1987; Latacz 1986, p. 111; Hiller 1991a; Doumas 1991a; 1991b;
Lassen 1994; Camassa 1999. See also Mee 1998, pp. 143-145 with some comment
and further references. For the involvement of Troy in long-distance trade see
Apakidize 1999.
24 Mee 1998, p. 144; in the discussion following Mee's paper (Ibid., p. 147)
G. Bass reports he was told by Bulgarian archaeologists that the small ingot from
off Kaliakra in Bulgaria is not of the oxhide type.
ANATOLIA AND THE EASTERN AEGEAN ATTHE TlME OF THE TROJAN WAR 349
pottery at Mashat H6yiik carne from the Black Sea, but as Mee
has pointed out «this was surely a single consignment and is
uniqùe» However, an Aegean connection with the northern
25.
Balkans and the Black Sea is suggested by the surprising recov
ery from the shipwreck at Ulu Burun of a stone ceremonial
sceptre axe (with bronze and stone parallels from Romania and
Bulgaria) as well as a bronze pin and some leaf-shaped spear
heads with solid-cast socket which seem to originate from that
area and are generally thought to have been introduced into
Greece much later. Unfortunately, as Pulak has pointed out, it
is impossible to saywhere exactly the Aegean destination of the
ship was: whether it was due to the northern Aegean, Troy and
the Black Sea or to a "gateway community" on the Greek main
land, whence ~',Jmeof the goods would have been shipped
through an overland route to the western and/ or northern
Balkans In any case, rather than suggesting a steady flow of
26.
goods, the Aegean objects from the Black Sea area as well as
those coming from the opposite direction seem to hint at spo
radic and far between contacts and cannot substantiate the hy
pothesis that trading with that area was so vital to the Myce
naeans as to compel them to attack Troy.
Another fact that must be taken into account in discussing
the historicity of the Trojan War and the antiquity of the Greek
epic tradition is the appearance in Aegean art from about
MMIII onward of scenes depicting a coastal town attacked by
enemies coming from the sea and employing a fleet. Examples
include the Town Mosaic from Knossos, the silver Siege Rhyton
from Mycenae, the miniature wall paintings from Akrotiri as
well as some fragmentary relief stone rhyta from Knossos and
Epidauros. Morris and other scholars have suggested that these
works of art reflect a contemporary literary (presumably epic)
source and have underlined a number of Homeric topoi already
appearing in such works. Whatever their meaning and reason,
such paintings indicate that in the Aegean the theme of a coastal
town attacked from the sea preceded the Trojan War as usually
Mee 1998,p. 144.Far the pattery from Mashat, cf. Ozgiiç 1982,pp. 31,
25
102-103,pl. 47:5-6;Ozgiinel1996, 8, pls. 15:7; 16:3·4.
26 Pulak 1997,pp. 251, 253-255, figs.22, 23.
350 MARIO BENZI
dated by many centuries According to Hood, the view that
27.
substantial elements in Homer may date back to the non-liter
ate Shaft Graves Period has the merit of «reconciling Homer
.with the age of literate bureaueracies on the Greek mainland»,
but is hard to reconcile with the «long time span between then
and the date of composition of the Iliad» We must, however,
28.
bear in mind that in the Shaft Grave Period writing was known
on Crete and the Cyclades and th~t Homer relied upon a very
old oral tradition. By contrast, it must be underlined that the
theme of the besieged city, though enjoying a considerable pop
ularity during LBI, is hardly, if at all, attested in Mycenaean
palatial art. The badly preserved battle scenes from the megaron
at Mycenae most likely depict a walled city before which the
combat takes pIace, but nothing suggesting a coastal setting is
preserved 29. Fragments of wall painting from Orchomenos de
piet horses, parts of chariots as well as two prostrate figures
with extended arms. S.A. Immerwahr has rightly pointed out
that the prostrate figures could well be swimmers (or drowned
figures?) to be perhaps connected to an attack of a citadel from
the sea The Pylos battle scenes seem to draw on a different
30.
tradition than those at Mycenae and Orchomenos. Though the
broad bands of checkerboard framing the paintings from South
western Building Hall 64 «may suggest a remote conneetion
with the theme of the defence of a citadel» 3I, nothing hinting
at a seashore landscape is preserved.
IL Dating the destruction oJ Troy VIh and VII.
CentraI to any consideration of the historicity of the Trojan
War is the dating of the destruction of Troy Vlh and Troy VI
Ia-VIIb2. The dating of their destruction -which rests largely
upon the assessment of Mycenaean style pottery found in the
debris and the absolute dating assigned to Mycenaean ceramic
Morris 1989;Hiller 1990;Thomas 1992.
27
Hood 1995,26.
28
Immerwahr 1990,pp. 123-125.
29
Immerwahr 1990,pp. 127, 195(Or no. 2),217 note 13.
30
3! Immerwahr 1990,pp. 128, 197(Py no.W).
ANATOLIA AND THE EASTERN AEGEAN ATTHE T1MEOF THE TROJAN WAR 351
phases- has been hotly debated and a wide range of dates has
been put forward 32.
Blegen's identification of Troy VlIa with Homeric Troy
rested upon the assumption that the city was destroyed well be
fore the end of 13th century when the Mycenaeans could have
still been able to undertake the military expedition described
by Homer. Blegen dated the end of Troy VIh to Transitional
LHlIIA:2/B and Troy VlIa at ca. 1240, but later raised this to
ca. 127033. His proposed dates have met with much criticism
and later dates are now commonly accepted, in particular for
the destruction of Troy VlIa. On the basis of Furumark's analy
sis of the pottery from Troy VlIa, C. Nylander was the first to
suggest a LHlIIB Late/lIIC Early dating for the destruction of
Troy VlIa followed more or less closely by G. Mylonas and
34,
E. Vermeule 35. Desborough dated the destruction of Troy VIh
early in LHIlIB (ca. 1280) and Troy VlIa not long before the
end of LHIIIB 36.
More recently several scholars including E. French, C. Mee,
C. Podzuweit, E. Bloedow and P. Mountjoy have discussed the
destruction date of Troy VIIa. In a stili unpublished paper pre
sented at the 1977 Sheffield colloquium, E. French placed the
destruction of Troy VIh within the first phase of LHIIIB and
that of Troy VlIa in the early phase of LHIlIC; C. Mee carne to
similar conclusion 37. The most radical attempt at dating Troy
was made by C. Podzuweit in 1982. He suggested that Troy VI
was destroyed at the beginning of LHIIIC and Troy VIIa late in
LHIIIC. Podzuweit's dating has been largely criticised and
seems unacceptably low Bloedow dated the destruction of
38.
32 For recent comprehensive reviewsoE the whole problem seeHiller 1991b,
pp. 150-154;Vanschoonwinkel1991, pp. 39-52; 1998.
Blegen changed his dating several times, cf. Vanschoonwinkel 1998, pp.
33
237-238. ,
Nylander 1963, p. 7.
34
Mylonas 1964,p. 363; Vermeule 1964,pp. 276 f.
35
36 Desborough 1964,pp. 163EE.
37 French 1977;Mee 1978,pp. 146Ef.; 1984,p. 53.
Podzuweit 1982. Podzuweit's statement that LHIIIC pottery appears as
38
early as Troy Vlh has been rejected by KorEmann 1986b, pp. 25-27; Bloedow
1988,pp. 26 and note 27,35 and note 93;Ersoy 1988, p. 78; Vanschoonwinkel
1991,p. 51; 1998,pp. 242-243; Mountjoy 1999a,pp. 256 f.; 1999b, pp. 299-300.