Troy in Recent Perspective

35 Pages·2016·3.34 MB·English

by  Easton D.F.

Anatolian Studies 52 (2002): 75-109
Troy in recent perspective
D.F. Easton1,J .D. Hawkins2,A .G. Sherratf and E.S. Sherratt3
'Independents cholar, 2Universityo f London, 'Universityo f Oxford
Abstract1
The historic series of excavations of Hisarlik-Troyh ave been continued over the last 15 years by a collaboration
between teams from the universitieso f Tiibingena nd Cincinnatiw ith fruitfulr esults. Over the year 2001 however the
director,M anfredK orfmann,a ttracteds harp criticism from colleagues, largely throught he medium of the press, for
his methods and publications. He was accused of exaggeratingt he importanceo f the site in the Late Bronze Age,
particularlya s a political capital and tradingc entre of Anatolia, and more specifically of unduly inflating the results
of his investigationso f the lower city. A symposium was convened by the University of Tuiibingeinn February2 002
with a view to discussing these criticisms and the defence in an academica tmosphere. The four authorso f this article
attendedt he Tilbingens ymposium. After listening to the contributionsi t seemed to us that an assessmento f the issues
from our respective view-points would be timely: thus a detailed considerationo f the archaeological questions, a
review of the notable recent progress in Hittite sources firming up the historical geography of western Anatolia, and
an evaluation of Troy's position in Late Bronze Age trade. In all these areas we conclude that the criticisms of
Korfmanna re themselves considerablye xaggerated.
Ozet
Hisarlik-Troya'das iirdiiriilmekteo lan onemli kazilann son 15 yili Tiibingen ve Cincinnati iiniversitelerineb aghl
ekiplerini ?birligii le suiirdiiruiilmevket ev erimli sonu,lar elde edilmektedir. Ancak, 2001 ylllnda kazi ba?kaniM anfred
Korfmann,c ogunlugu basin yoluyla olmak iizere, uyguladigi yontemler ve yayinlanyla ilgili olarakm eslekta?lannin
keskin ele?tirilerinem aruz kalmi?tir. Korfmann,G ec Bronz (agda yerle?imino nemini abartmaklas uclanmi?tir.B u
suclamalarao zellikle Troya'yiA nadolu'nunp olitik ba?kentiv e ticaretm erkezi olaraks unmasiv e a?agi? ehirdey aptigi
incelemelerins onu9lannihl aksiz olaraka bartmasin eden olmu?tur.2 002 yli ?ubat ayinda,b u su9lamalannt artl?ilmasi
ve akademik bir ortamda savunulmasi icin Tiibingen Universitesi tarafindanb ir sempozyum duiizenlenmi^tirB. u
makalenind ort yazan da bu Sempozyumak atllmi?tir. Katilimcilarid inlediktens onra, herbirimizing 6ri aisindan
sorunlannd egerlendirilmesininu ygun oldugunud uii?undUkB.6 ylece, arkeolojiks orularld etayll olarakd egerlendirdik,
Bati Anadolu'nun tarihsel cografyasiyla ilgili bilgilerimizi saglamla?tiranv e yeni yayminlanmio?n emli Hitit
kaynaklarni yeniden inceledik ve Ge9 Bronz fag donemi ticaretindeT roya'mnidnu rumunuy eniden degerlendirdik.
Turnb u alanlarday aptigimiz gallmalar sonucundae sasen Korfmann'ie le?tirenlerina barttigis onucunav ardik.
T he ruins of Hisarlik/Troya re without question one of Malatya-Arslantepea nd Tarsus,h ave not received such
the great archaeologicals ites of Anatolia. With a intensive attention or yielded such results. Troy's high
sequence of occupations panningt he entire Bronze Age, public recognitioni s obviously due partly,b ut not solely,
ca. 3000-1000 BC, and a history of investigation to its literarya ssociations. Its first full scale excavator,
extendingb ack to 1870, the site has few rivals, let alone Schliemann,m ust for all his faults be reckonedt he father
equals: perhaps Bogazk6y/Hattusa investigated since of Anatoliana rchaeology,a nd probablyr emainst he most
1906 for the Middle-Late Bronze Age and publicly recognised of all Anatolian archaeologists,
Kiiltepe/Kaneshi nvestigated since 1925 for the Middle certainlyi n his native Germany.H is excavationsf rom the
Bronze Age. Other potential comparables, such as period 1870-1890 were extended and brought to a
conclusionb y D6rpfeldi n 1893-1894. Thereaftera team
1 ProfessorK orfmannk indly read and commentedo n the fromt he Universityo f Cincinnatiu nderB legen undertook
manuscripbt,u tt he opinionse xpressedh erer emaino uro wn. a campaigno f soberr eassessmenti n the years 1932-1938.
75
Anatolian Studies 2002
More recently since 1988 a major international with an alternative:t he reluctancet o talk up and explain
expedition has resumed work at the site under the in context the significance of particulare xcavations, and
direction of Manfred Korfmann of the University of the failure to publicise, sometimes alas even to publish
Tuiibingenw ith the collaboration of a team from the the results. There can be no question as to which style is
University of Cincinnatia nd other specialists in the field. likely to win most support and the associated level of
Korfmannc ame to Troy with an establishedr eputationi n funding.
Anatolian archaeologya nd an excellent record of scien- Public interesti n mattersT rojana rousedi n Germany
tific publication. Besides his funding received from his led to the mounting of a major exhibition under the title
university and the German state, and the funds Troia, Traum und Wirklichkeit (Troia, Dream and
contributed by his collaborators, Korfmann has been Reality), as a companion to which a bulky and lavishly
successful in winning very substantial support from illustratedv olume has been produced. This ranges well
German industry, in particularf rom the firm Daimler- beyond the limits of the present excavations on to such
Chrysler. This has enabled him to run very properly mattersa s Schliemann'sl ife and work, 'Priam'st reasure'
funded operations for more than 15 seasons on a scale and its eventful history, and Troy in literaturea nd art,
which less efficacious colleagues may well envy. Classical, medieval and modem. The text consists of
Korfmann'sg oals in his currentr ound of investiga- over 50 essays by Korfmann,m embers of his team and
tions at Troy have been generally to apply modem other collaborators,a nd other specialist scholars, on the
methods and techniques to old problems as left by various aspects of the subject.
Blegen, and Schliemann and Dorpfeld. This has A notable featurei n Korfmann'sm ore popularp ubli-
involved painstakingr e-examinationa nd reassessmento f cations has been reconstructionso f various parts of the
the excavateda reaa long with scientific conservationa nd city, often set within its landscape,p ainted by the artist
restoration. Environmentalr esearch and survey have C. Haussner. Walls and houses are reconstructedf rom
also formed a prominent part of the effort. But one the surviving plans, and the appearanceo f the structures
specific and declared goal has from the start been the up to theirr oofs and battlementsi s suggested on the basis
intentiont o investigate the Bronze Age lower city. of archaeologicale vidence combined with a knowledge
A regular,n ot to say predictable,r eaction of tourists of traditionall ocal building techniques. Thus far this is
visiting the site, particularlyp erhapst hose knowing only regular archaeological practice, and indeed notable
Homer,h as always been: 'Oh, but it is so small!'. But it advances are being made by the introduction of
has always been clear that the site as excavated by computer-generatedim ages into this field. Where the
Schliemann and Blegen is only the citadel. These practicem ay stray on to more controversialg round is in
excavators themselves were well aware of this and did the additional restoration of buildings not attested by
not doubt the probable existence of a contemporary survivingr emainsi n ordert o complete the picture. In the
lower town, though they hardlyi nvestigatedt his feature. case of Troy, this results from the well established fact
The more that our knowledge of Middle-Late Bronze that the entire central area of the Troy VI citadel, its
Age archaeologyo f Anatolia has expanded,t he cleareri t upperp art where doubtless the most importantb uildings
appears that Troy represents a typical citadel of the stood, was razed by Classical builders in order to level
period, for which lower towns are a typical feature. the site for the construction of the temple of Athena.
Thus, before Korfmann's operations, no Anatolian Thus the only surviving foundations within the citadel
archaeologist would have doubted the presence of a enclosure are those of the large buildings immediately
lower town. Its investigation then may well be under- within the citadel wall. This total destructiono f the most
stood as having been one of the principalg oals. important part of the Late Bronze Age citadel, both
Korfmann'sc ampaigns of the 1990s have been very buildings and contents, is a grievous archaeologicall oss.
successful and what may be termed 'high profile'. They The painted reconstructions however show a
have generated substantial publications, scientific and hypothetical central palace and a tier of surrounding
popular. As example of the former, the annual Studia buildings for which no evidence survives.
Troica,n ow boasting 11 volumes, records all the yearly This is even more marked in the case of the lower
work and technical reports. Korfmann and his city. The excavators have found limited evidence for
lieutenants lecture widely in Europe and the United this, in the form of partso f a Late Bronze Age defensive
States, meetings which are always well attended and system with a possible wall, a palisade and two ditches,
populari n the best sense of the word makings cientific enough to speculate on its probable course around the
results accessible to the public in interestinga nd intelli- settlement,a nd remainso f buildingsb oth aroundt he foot
gible form, and generatinga n atmosphereo f excitement of the citadel wall and furthero ff. On the basis of this
and support. This archaeologicals tyle may be contrasted very limited evidence, the paintings reconstructed an
76
Easton, Hawkins, Sherratta nd Sherratt
entire fortified lower city, complete with buildings. comment after each paper, but as always this depends
While this may be defended as simply offering a on the speakers keeping to time, which is of course the
suggestion of what may well have been the appearanceo f exception rathert han the rule. The hopes of the Rector
the Late Bronze Age city, it may just as well be criticised and convenors of the symposium for a calm academic
for greatly exceeding the available evidence. debate of the important questions where personalities
A step further was taken in the exhibition, which and invective would be set aside were only very
presented a large model or maquettes howing the entire partially fulfilled.
restoredc itadel and lower town. This seems to have had The site of Troy has the misfortune to stand on not
the effect of bringing into the open a strando f academic one but two academic fault-lines, one on either side of
dissatisfactionw ith Korfmann'sw ork. This was articu- the Aegean: the Homeric problem concerned with the
lated principally by a Tiibingen university colleague of historicity( or otherwise) of the Iliad; and the problemo f
Korfmann, the ancient historian Frank Kolb, who in a Anatolian historical geography of the Arzawa lands as
book published in 1984 had characterised Troy as a reconstructable( or not) from the Hittite texts. Both
'miserable little settlement', which could not 'raise a topics have been known to evoke strong emotions from
claim to the designation as a city'. Interviewed on the those involved, and anyone working at Troy will have
subject of the Troy exhibition by the Berliner difficulty in keeping clear.
Morgenpost,h e defended his position against the impli- The authorso f this article attendedt he symposiuma s
cations of Korfmann'sr econstructions,d escribing them invited observers, and had some opportunityt o make
in such terms as 'fiction', 'figments of fantasy' and 'the their English voices hearda mid the often heated German
media hot air balloon of the Troy excavations', and exchanges. Since each of us is a specialist in one aspect
accusing Korfmann of deliberately misleading the of the subject, we thought that it would be of interest to
public. His remarksf ound a ready audience in the same readers of this journal to see our assessment of the
media at the start of a long hot summer, and Kolb was respective debates and our own views on the issues. We
encouraged to sharpen his offensive and language, thus offer our presentations under the headings (with
brandingK orfmannt he 'von Daniken of Archaeology', authors'i nitials):
and employing other such unacademic barbs. All this
The archaeology of the site: citadel (JDH) and lower
took place while Korfmannw as out of the country, on
town (DFE)
excavation at Troy.
The historical geography of western Anatolia in the
Kolb claimed to be speaking for a significantn umber
Hittite texts (JDH)
of German academics, who kept their views to
Bronze Age trade in western Anatolia (AGS/ESS)
themselves for fear of accusations of envy, clearly not a
charget o which he felt himself vulnerable. His offensive While each of us has obviously draftedo ne section,
was joined by Dieter Hertel, Privatdozenta t the Institute we have each read the others' contributionsa nd offered
for Classical Archaeology in Munich, who had worked comments which have been incorporateda s appropriate.
with Korfmann at Troy and now published a booklet,
Troia. Archdologie, Geschichte, Mythos (2001). This The archaeology of the site
work plays down the significance of the site of Troy and The citadel
of Korfmann'so perationst here. The 'prosecution'h as devoted effort to denying that the
Kolb's aggressive and intemperatel anguage more or site of Troy could represent a 'Residenzstadt'. Their
less speaks for itself. It did not find favour with the argumenti s generallyc onductedb y setting up criteriaf or
Rector of Tiibingen University who demanded a public such an entity and then demonstratingt hat Troy does not
retraction and apology. The university further meet these.
convened a 'scientific symposium' under the title 'The The groundso n which Troy is denied this status are:
meaning of Troy in the Late Bronze Age', which took (1) the size and character of the walls, gates and
place on 15-16 February 2002 before a large and surviving buildings; (2) the lack of finds of materials
excited public audience, and was attended by consid- expected of a palatial centre, such as written documents,
erable media coverage. There were 13 invited speakers, seals and sealings, luxuryg oods, traces of wall paintings,
approximately paired to put the cases for the 'prose- sculpturee tc. This line of argumenti s advancedp rinci-
cution' and 'defence' in the spheres of archaeology and pally by Kolb 2002b, and by Hertel in his paper at the
excavation, trade and the environment, the historical- Tiibingens ymposium (Hertel 2002). They are of course
geographical background of the Hittite texts and the much aided in this argumentb y the total disappearance
Homeric problem. Theoretically at least, ample time of the greater and most significant part of the citadel,
had been allowed for audience participation and which has been noted above.
77
Anatolian Studies 2002
To establish Troy's failure to qualify as a Residenz- burntp alace (Middle Bronze Age) as offered by Kolb is
stadt, it is comparedw ith the other palatialc entres of the the megaron complex of Beycesultan level II, the so-
Late Bronze Age: Bogazkoy, Alaca, Kiiltepe, Beyce- called 'Little Palace' (fig. 4). Indeed furtherc omparable
sultan, and outside Anatolia with Mardikh,R as Shamra, both in size and characteri s the IronA ge royal citadel of
Knossos, Mallia, Phaestos, Mycenae, Tiryns. Gordion (fig. 5). Thus the comparison of these three
Considerable special pleading is evident in these citadels, Troy level VI, Beycesultanl evel II and IronA ge
arguments. In the context we must, for example, ask Gordion, suggests what we should expect of western
whether it is purely coincidental that Kolb's article royal citadels against those of central Anatolia and
prints all the plans offered for comparison at a larger furthere ast.
scale, sometimes much larger,t han that of Troy (fig. 1). Hertel's 'proof' that Troy cannot be a Residenzstadt
Hertel 'cherry-picks' discoveries of the types noted relies heavily on the absence of monumentals culpture,
above as criteria,a nd emphasises Troy's deficiencies in wall painting traces, written documents and seals or
these respects. In general this line fails to compare like sealings. Grantedt hat the absence of writtenm ateriali s
with like. a problem, we may well consider other explanations
besides lack of status and importance. We also note the
similara bsence of such criteriao f rankf rom Beycesultan
Troy
(both levels V and III-II) and Gordion. Let us however
Alaca .. persist with the Biiyiikkalec omparison.
Knossos We note there that the uppermostt erraceo f buildings
on the east side of the upper court has disappeared
Ugarit I . ,
entirely leaving only the rock-cutb eddings for masonry.
Pylos (These buildings are however restored in the wooden
Beycesultan . model of Biiyiikkalec urrentlyi n the Germane xcavation
Thermi house at Bogazk6y.) Written material on Biiyiikkale
comes only from the tablet archiveso f buildings A, E, K,
Fig. 1. Scales at which the various city plans adduced by and sealings only from the south corridoro f building D.
Kolb (2002b) for comparison with Troya re reproduced. We may ask, what if these four sites, a small part of the
Each scale is 40m whole, had been lost? Other material finds from
Biiyiikkale level 3a, the imperial period, are notably
By way of some corrective, we may consider the sparse: a stele of TudhaliyaI V and other fragments of
comparison of Troy with Bogazk6y, with special inscriptions, probably of the same king, and some
attentiont o the two citadels Hisarlik and Biiyiikkale. It fragmentso f lion sculpture,b ut no wall painting traces.
should be hardly necessary to emphasise that this is a It would seem that the criteriaa ssembled to define a
comparisonb etween an imperialA natolianc apital of the Residenzstadta re less a coherent group of features of
late 14-13 centuriesB C and what would never have been universal application than a collection of some of the
claimed to be more than a regional capital. We should finer recoveries from the Minoan-Mycenaeanw orld on
also bear in mind the shape and extent of Hattusat hrough the one hand and the Hittite on the other,p ut togethert o
all its second millenniumh istory until it was overlaidb y deny Troy that character. Now it may well be that the
this imperial expansion, i.e. the citadel plus lower city, civilization of western Anatolia did not reach the
perhapsa lso some of the slope between, but without the splendouro r grandeuro f the Minoan-Mycenaeano r the
vast circuit of the upper city (fig. 2). Hittite worlds, but that is not really the point. The
Rather than following Kolb's practice, we shall question actuallyi s whethert he archaeologicals ite could
reproduce the plans of the imperial citadel Biiyiikkale represent the seat of an Arzawan king, as Wilusa is
and the Troy citadel at the same scale (fig. 3). Making recorded to have been. Here it could be that the term
allowances for the contrast between imperial and 'Residenzstadt' might be taken to imply more than it
regional, we note that Troy is not as inferior in size of actually means, if for example 'Residenz' conjures up
walls, gates, houses etc. as has been suggested. The style the opulent display found in those palaces of the German
of course is very different: construction of the walls, Lander. 'Provincial/regionalc apital' is perhaps a less
layout of the gates and the Troy free-standingm egaron- heavily chargedt erm and may more exactly describe the
type buildings as against the Biiyiikkale building units site of Troy. For furtherc onsiderationo f what this might
grouped round a series of courts. A more appropriate mean in Anatolian terms, comparedw ith the recovered
comparison for Troy VI than the Beycesultan level V remainsa t Hisarlik,s ee below.
78
Easton, Hawkins, Sherratta nd Sherratt
i
II
ri
1I
~~~~J ~~~~~j
s
,,. J
Ib , / I/
b .
" ' , ,-- ...
I
A
e
0 500m e
0 500m
Fig. 2. Schematic site plans of Bogazkoy showing areas of occupation in (a) pre-Hittite period; (b) Old Assyrian
colony period; (c) Hittite Old Kingdom; (d) Late Empire (final Hittite phase); (e-j) early and late Phrygianp eriods
(fromN eve 1992: Abb. 15)
79
Anatolian Studies 2002
.
0 503 100m
iI a i i I i i
Fig. 3. Plans of Troy citadel and Biyikkale reproduced at the same scale (Easton 2002. fig. 202; Neve
1992: Abb. 18)
80
Easton, Hawkins,S herratta nd Sherratt
Fig. 4. Plan of Beycesultan, east summit level II (end of Late BronzeA ge). The basic plan of the individualb uilding
units is the megaron. The lowerf igure, though unclear,s hows thep lan reducedt o the same scale as fig. 3 (fromL loyd
1972: fig. 3)
81
Anatolian Studies 2002
Fig. 5. Gordion,c itadelplan, reproduceda t the same scale asfig. 3. Note the monumentagl ate and the megaronu nits
which comprise the citadel (from Youngn o date. 5)
The lower city idea was first developed in extenso in 1992 (Korfmann
Introduction 1992b) and has since been amplified in the light of
Since the discovery of the site by Franz Kaufferi n 1793 excavation results. As presented in the exhibition
it has been recognised that on the sloping plateau to the catalogue it supposes a settled area covering ca.
south of the citadel therew ere the remainso f a lower city 270,000m2 and stretchingc a. 400m southwardsf rom the
of Hellenistic and Roman date. Korfmann has now citadel. The population is estimated at 5,000-10,000
posited in quite concrete terms the existence also of a depending on the degree of crowding and whether the
Late Bronze Age lower city on the same terrain. The houses were multi-storeyed. Haussner'sr econstructions
82
Easton, Hawkins, Sherratta nd Sherratt
and the model show a bustling, built-up city surrounded It is partly the disparityb etween the comprehensive
by a heavy, crenellated fortification wall and, about scale of the reconstructionsa nd the limited size of the
100m furthero ut, a defensive ditch bridged by periodic areas so far dug (2-3% of the lower city area)w hich has
causeways. Each causeway is straddledo n the inner side led Hertel and Kolb to characteriset he former as 'pure
of the ditch by a short palisade with a central gate fantasy', 'a dream', 'fiction' (Hertel 2001: 44; Walter
(Korfmanne t al. 2001: 397, figs 23, 26, 77, 462, 465). 2001; Kolb 2002b: 8; 2002c: 3), accusationsr epeateda t
The reconstructions depend partly on surface and the symposium. They support this by contesting
geophysical survey, and also on excavated evidence from Korfmann'si nterpretationsa t many points, maintaining
a number of areas: several trenches immediately around that the middle part of the plateau was only sparsely
the outside of the Troy VI citadel, the largestb eing on the occupied, the southernp artn ot at all, that the lower town
west side, two trenches ca. 150m to the south (H17, IKL wall did not exist, and that the ditches and palisade were
16-17), a trench ca. 400m to the south (yz 28-9) and a not defensive (Hertel2 001: 44-6; 2002: 17; Kolb 2002b:
number of supplementarys oundings on that southern- 13-21; 2002c). Korfmann'sp opulatione stimate should,
most fringe of the plateau (fig. 6; Korfmanne t al. 2001: they argue, accordingly be reduced to a maximum of
fig. 425; Korfmann2 001 a: fig. 1). 3,000 (Kolb 2002b: 19) or even 1,000 (Kolb at the
Fig. 6. Areas excavated, 1988-2002 (plan courtesy of Dr Peter Jablonka, TroiaP rojekt, TiibingenU niversity)
83
Anatolian Studies 2002
symposium). But they go beyond such discussable town not so very differentf rom Korfmann's( Schliemann
matters to assert that the reconstructions represent a 1884: Plan 3). He associated it at that time with the
deliberatea ttemptb y Korfmannt o inflate the importance remainso f Troy II (Schliemann 1884: 62-3). A massive
of his site with the object, Hertel suggests, of ensuringa stone wall leading away from the northeastc omer of the
continued flow of funding for his excavation (Walter Troy II citadel he took to be one end of a circuit wall
2001). To disguise the thinness of his evidence he has surroundingt he lower town (D6rpfeld 1902: Taf III, wall
been 'confusing the layers' (Berliner Morgenpost;K olb BC), an explanationw hich is still very plausible. After
2002a; Hertel 2002: 3, 7-8; Kolb repeatedly in the the discovery in 1890 of Mycenaeanp otteryi n a building
symposium) and is guilty of 'misleading the public' of Troy VI, and the consequentr evision to the dating of
(BerlinerM orgenpost;K olb 2002b: 13; 2002c: 3). all the prehistoric strata, he resolved to investigate the
At the symposium the attack in this area was led by lower city of Troy VI in 1891 (Schliemann 1891: 24).
Dieter Hertel in his lecture. There were reasonedr eplies Death robbedh im of the chance.
from Peter Jablonka,w ho has himself excavated two of Dorpfeld and his team did, however, carry out some
the critical areas in the lower city, and from Hans Peter modest investigations in 1893-1894. Soundings on the
Uerpmann, who is leading the bio-archaeological westernp art of the plateau, 140m and 200m south of the
researcha t Troy. It was very unfortunatet hat Jablonka's Troy VI citadel, produced strata of VI directly above
paper,p erhapst he most crucial of the whole symposium, bedrock (D6rpfeld 1902: Taf. III, points A and B. Both
was allowed only 20 minutes by the organiser. Support areas have been investigated again by Korfmann).
from the floor came notably from Brian Rose, who has Dorpfeld's opinion was that 'with regard to the VIth
been leading the post Bronze Age researcha t Troy,m uch stratum,. .. the settlemento f a large parto f the lower city
of it in the lower city. It is evident from Kolb's website, is demonstrated' (D6rpfeld 1902: 238). G6tze felt
however, that none of the argumentsp ut forward have justified in concluding that the extent of the Troy VI
caused him to change his opinion in any materialw ay; lower city closely matchedt hate nvisaged by Schliemann
indeed all such contributions are there described as in his Troja plan, if anything stretching further to the
having been 'laughable' (Kolb 2002c: 7). This reaction south (D6rpfeld 1902: 236-8). A limit appearedt o be set
contrasts starkly with the satisfaction generally felt by by some Troy VI cremationb urials found 400m to the
the prehistoriansa nd Korfmanns upporterst hat the criti- south of the citadel,j ust beyond the Hellenistic city wall
cisms had been thoroughlya nswered. Plainly there was (D6rpfeld 1894: 123; 1902: 536).
no meeting of minds, and an exposition of the issues for Blegen likewise recognised the probablee xistence of
a wider public seems called for. a Late Bronze Age lower city of undetermineds ize, and
exposed significant remains of it in areas around the
Previous investigations outside of the citadel walls (in z5, A7, GH9, K6-8).
According to Kolb (BerlinerM orgenpost)K orfmannh as
It has thus become clear that the area occupied by the
been tryingt o find evidence to substantiatea n (irrational)
inhabitantso f the site at the end of Troy VI extended
conviction that Late Bronze Age Troy was a capital city.
out beyond the limits of the fortress,a nd ... there can
Since 1988 he and his colleagues have been digging be no doubtt hata n extramurallo wer town of undeter-
for traces of Bronze Age Troy. And in the meantime mined size really existed (Blegen et al. 1953: 351).
they have become convinced that the city of that
He did little to investigate it elsewhere, but did
period, in which people also chronologically place
establish that the Troy VI cemetery found in 1893
the Trojan War, was a metropolis, a great trading
outside the Hellenistic city wall was much more
centre with everything that goes with it: a defensive
extensive than D6rpfeld had been able to show. He did
installationo n the top of the mound( which in the first
not, however, discuss the relationshipb etween the two
years was further investigated) and, according to
(Sperling 1991: 155). Korfmann'so wn initial investiga-
Korfmann,a n enormous lower city (of which he has
tions showed grey Minoan and Mycenaeanw ares widely
for the last five years been searchingf or evidence).
scatteredo ver the plateau together with Hellenistic and
This waspish accusation completely overlooks the Romanp ottery. Systematict akingo f cores along a north-
fact that Korfmann, like all good archaeologists, is south axis producedr epeatedi ndicationso f Late Bronze
building on the work of his predecessors. In his earliest Age settlement just above bedrock as G6tze had
seasons Schliemann made numerous soundings on the previously found (Korfmann1 991: 26). Reconsideration
plateaut o the south of the citadel (Schliemann 1874: Taf. of Blegen's unconvincing 'crematorium'2 00m west of
213; 1875: Plan 1). In 1884, having studied the topog- the Troy VI cemetery suggested much more plausibly
raphy and the pottery scattered across the surface, he that it might be a burntT roy VI house cut by Byzantine
sketched out the possible limits of a 'Homeric' lower pits (Korfmann1 992b: 128).
84