Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-gcfkn Total loading time: 0.444 Render date: 2021-09-22T06:59:55.311Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Troy in recent perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

D.F. Easton
Affiliation:
Independent scholar
J.D. Hawkins
Affiliation:
University of London
A.G. Sherratt
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
E.S. Sherratt
Affiliation:
University of Oxford

Abstract

The historic series of excavations of Hisarlik-Troy have been continued over the last 15 years by a collaboration between teams from the universities of Tübingen and Cincinnati with fruitful results. Over the year 2001 however the director, Manfred Korfmann, attracted sharp criticism from colleagues, largely through the medium of the press, for his methods and publications. He was accused of exaggerating the importance of the site in the Late Bronze Age, particularly as a political capital and trading centre of Anatolia, and more specifically of unduly inflating the results of his investigations of the lower city. A symposium was convened by the University of Tübingen in February 2002 with a view to discussing these criticisms and the defence in an academic atmosphere. The four authors of this article attended the Tübingen symposium. After listening to the contributions it seemed to us that an assessment of the issues from our respective view-points would be timely: thus a detailed consideration of 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 Korfmann are themselves considerably exaggerated.

Özet

Hisarlık-Troya'da sürdürülmekte olan önemli kazıların son 15 yılı Tübingen ve Cincinnati üniversitelerine baǧlı ekiplerin işbirliǧi ile sürdürülmekte ve verimli sonuçlar elde edilmektedir. Ancak, 2001 yılında kazı başkanı Manfred Korfmann, çoǧunluǧu basın yoluyla olmak üzere, uyguladıǧı yöntemler ve yayınlarıyla ilgili olarak meslektaşlarının keskin eleştirilerine maruz kalmıştır. Korfmann, Geç Bronz Çaǧda yerleşimin önemini abartmakla suçlanmıştır. Bu suçlamalara özellikle Troya'yı Anadolu'nun politik başkenti ve ticaret merkezi olarak sunmasi ve aşaǧi şehirde yaptıǧı incelemelerin sonuçlarını haksız olarak abartması neden olmuştur. 2002 yılı Şubat ayında, bu suçlamaların tartışılması ve akademik bir ortamda savunulması için Tübingen Üniversitesi tarafından bir sempozyum düzenlenmiştir. Bu makalenin dört yazari da bu Sempozyuma katılmıştır. Katılımcıları dinledikten sonra, herbirimizin görüş açısından sorunların deǧerlendirilmesinin uygun olduǧunu düsündük. Böylece, arkeolojik soruları detaylı olarak deǧerlendirdik, Bati Anadolu'nun tarihsel coǧrafyasiyla ilgili bilgilerimizi saǧlamlaştıran ve yeni yayınlanmış önemli Hitit kaynaklarını yeniden inceledik ve Geç Bronz Çaǧ dönemi ticaretinde Troya'nin durumunu yeniden deǧerlendirdik. Tüm bu alanlarda yaptiǧimiz çalişmalar sonucunda esasen Korfmann'ı eleştirenlerin abarttıǧı sonucuna vardık.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 52 , December 2002 , pp. 75 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R M 1981: Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Allen, SHeuck, , 1991: ‘Late Bronze Age grey wares in Cyprus’ in Barlow, J A, Bolger, D, Kling, B (eds), Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record (University Museum monograph 74). University of Pennsylvania: 151–67Google Scholar
Alp, S 1980: ‘Die hethitischen Tontafelentdeckungen auf dem Maşat-höyükBelleten 44: 2559Google Scholar
Barber, E J W 1991: Prehistoric Textiles: the Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton.Google Scholar
Becker, H, Fassbinder, J, Jansen, H G 1993: ‘Magnetische Prospektion in der Untersiedlung von Troia 1992Studia Troica 3: 117–34Google Scholar
Beckman, G 1996: Hittite Diplomatic Texts. AtlantaGoogle Scholar
Becks, R 2002: ‘Bemerkungen zu den Bestattungsplätzen von Troia VI’ in Asian, R, Blum, S, Kastl, G, Thumm, D (eds), Mauerschau: Festschrift fur M. Korfmann I. Remshalden-Grünbach: 295306Google Scholar
Berliner Morgenpost 2001: ‘Traumgebilde’, interview with Professor Frank Kolb, 17 JulyGoogle Scholar
Blegen, C W, Caskey, J L, Rawson, M 1953: Troy: Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati 1932–1938. Volume III — The Sixth Settlement. PrincetonGoogle Scholar
Blindow, N, Jansen, H G, Schröer, K 2000: ‘Geophysikalische Prospektion 1998/99 in der Unterstadt von TroiaStudia Troica 10: 123–33Google Scholar
Bona, I 1975: Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstliche Beziehungen. BudapestGoogle Scholar
Bryce, T R 1974: ‘Some geographical and political aspects of Mursilis' Arzawan campaignAnatolian Studies 24: 103–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchholz, H-G 1999: ‘Ein auβergewöhnliches Steinzepter im östlichen MittelmeerPrähistorische Zeitschrift 74(1): 6878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büyükkolanci, M 2000: ‘Excavations on Ayasuluk Hill in Selçuk/Turkey. A contribution to the early history of Ephesus’ in Krinzinger, F (ed.), Die Agäis und das westliche Mittelmeer. Vienna: 3741Google Scholar
Chadwick, J 1976: The Mycenaean World. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Dinçol, A M 1998a: ‘Die Entdeckung des Felsmonuments in HatipTÜBA-AR 1: 2735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinçol, A M 1998b: ‘The rock monument of the Great King Kurunta and its hieroglyphic inscription’ in Alp, S, Süel, A (eds), Acts of the Third International Congress of Hittitology. Ankara: 159–66Google Scholar
Dörpfeld, W 1894: Troia 1893. Bericht über die im Jahre 1893 in Troja veranstalteten Ausgrabungen. LeipzigGoogle Scholar
Dörpfeld, W 1902: Troia und Ilion. AthensGoogle Scholar
Easton, D F 2002: Schliemann's Excavations at Troia 1870–1873. Mainz am RheinGoogle Scholar
Frantz-Szabó, G, Ünal, A 1983: ‘LalandaReallexikon der Assyriologie 6: 437Google Scholar
Garstang, J, Gurney, O R 1959: The Geography of the Hittite Empire. LondonGoogle Scholar
Gates, M-H 1996: ‘Archaeology in TurkeyAmerican Journal of Archaeology 100: 319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetze, A 1933: Die Annalen des Muršiliš. LeipzigGoogle Scholar
Goetze, A 1940: Kizzuwatna and the Problems of Hittite Geography. New HavenGoogle Scholar
Gonnet, H 2001: ‘La ville hittite de Puranda a-t-elle été découverte?Orient-Express 2001/4: 120–1Google Scholar
Greaves, A M, Helwing, B 2001: ‘Archaeology in TurkeyAmerican Journal of Archaeology 105: 506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güterbock, H G 1986: ‘Troy in the Hittite texts?’ in Mellink, M J (ed.), Troy and the Trojan War. Bryn Mawr: 3344Google Scholar
Hawkins, J D 1990: ‘The new inscription from the Südburg of Boǧazköy-Hattusa’ Archäologischer Anzeiger: 305–14Google Scholar
Hawkins, J D 1995: The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (StBot Beicheft 3). WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J D 1998: ‘Tarkasnawa king of MiraAnatolian Studies 48: 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinhold-Krahmer, S 1977: Arzawa. Untersuchungen zu seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen. HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
Heinhold-Krahmer, S 1983: ‘KuwalijaReallexikon der Assyriologie VI/5–6:397Google Scholar
Heinhold-Krahmer, S 1994a: ‘Milawa(n)daReallexikon der Assyriologie VIII/3–4: 188–9Google Scholar
Heinhold-Krahmer, S 1994b: ‘MiraReallexikon der Assyriologie VIII/3–4: 218–20Google Scholar
Hertel, D 2001: Troia. Archäologie, Geschichte, Mythos. MunichGoogle Scholar
Hertel, D 2002: ‘Troia VI eine Residenz(stadt)? — Der archäologische Befund von Burg und Untersiedlung (leicht veränderte Fassung des beim Tübinger Symposium gehaltenen Vortrags)’ available as Anlage 8 at Kolb 2002cGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, H A 1982: ‘The Milawata letter augmented and reinterpretedArchiv fur Orientforschung Beiheft 19: 130–7Google Scholar
Horden, P, Purcell, N 2000: The Corrupting Sea: a Study of Mediterranean History. OxfordGoogle Scholar
van den Hout, T P J 1998: Der Ulmitesub-Vertrag: eine prosopographische Untersuchung. WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
Houwink ten Cate, P H J 19831984: ‘Sidelights on the Ahhiyawa question from Hittite vassal and royal correspondenceJaarbericht ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ 28: 3379Google Scholar
Hueber, F, Riorden, E 1994: Plan von Troia 1994. Published as a supplement to Studia Troica 4Google Scholar
Jablonka, P 1995: ‘Ausgrabungen südlich der Unterstadtvon Troia im Bereich des Troia Vl-Verteidigungsgrabens. Grabungsbericht 1994Studia Troica 5: 3980Google Scholar
Jablonka, P 1996: ‘Ausgrabungen in Süden der Unterstadt von Troia im Bereich des Troia Vl-Verteidigungsgrabens. Grabungsbericht 1995Studia Troica 6: 6596Google Scholar
Jablonka, P, König, H, Riehl, S 1994: ‘Ein Verteidigungsgraben in der Unterstadt von Troia VI. Grabungsbericht 1993Studia Troica 4: 5174Google Scholar
Jansen, H G, Kienlin, T, Patzelt, A O, Waldhor, M, Wilhelm, J 1998: ‘Geophysikalische Prospektion 1996/97 in der Unterstadt von TroiaStudia Troica 8: 275–86Google Scholar
Kayan, I 1997: ‘Geomorphological evolution of the Çiplak valley and geo-archaeological interpretations concerning the lower city of TroiaStudia Troica 7: 489508Google Scholar
Klengel, H 1990: ‘Anatolische Königtümer der Hethiterzeit’ X. Türk Tarih Kongresi. Kongreye sunulan bildiriler II Cilt. Ankara: 565–76Google Scholar
Kolb, F 2002a: ‘Vor Troia sinken alle Fiktionen in den Staub’ Süddeutsche Zeitung 8 January 2002Google Scholar
Kolb, F 2002b: ‘Ein neuer Troia-Mythos? Traum und Wirklichkeit auf dem Grabungshügel von Hisarhk’ in Behr, H-J, Biegel, G, Castritius, H (eds), Troia: Ein Mythos in Geschichte und Rezeption. Braunschweig: 840Google Scholar
Kolb, F 2002c: Website at www.uni-tuebingen.de/dekanatgeschichte/ag-ag_aktuel, as at 21 May 2002Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 1986: ‘Troy: topography and navigation’ in Mellink, M (ed.), Troy and the Trojan War: a Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984. Bryn Mawr: 116Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 1991: ‘Troia — Reinigungs- und Dokumentationsarbeiten 1987, Ausgrabungen 1988 und 1989Studia Troica 1: 134Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 1992a: ‘Troia — Ausgrabungen 1990 und 1991Studia Troica 2: 141Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 1992b: ‘Die prähistorische Besiedlung südlich der Burg Troia VI/VIIStudia Troica 2: 123–46Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 1993: ‘Troia — Ausgrabungen 1992Studia Troica 3: 138Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 1994: ‘Troia — Ausgrabungen 1993Studia Troica 4: 150Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 1996: ‘Troia — Ausgrabungen 1994Studia Troica 6: 164Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 1997: ‘Troia — Ausgrabungen 1996Studia Troica 7: 172Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 1998: ‘Troia — Ausgrabungen 1997Studia Troica 8: 170Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 1999: ‘Troia — Ausgrabungen 1998Studia Troica 9: 134Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 2000: ‘Troia — Ausgrabungen 1999Studia Troica 10: 152Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 2001a: ‘Troia — Ausgrabungen 2000Studia Troica 11: 150Google Scholar
Korfmann, M 2001b: ‘Troia als Drehscheibe des Handels im 2. und 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend’ in Troja: Traum und Wirklichkeit. Begleitband zur Ausstellung ‘Troia — Traum und Wirklichkeit’. Stuttgart: 355–68Google Scholar
Korfmann, M et al. 2001: Troia — Traum und Wirklichkeit. Begleitband zur Ausstellung ‘Troia - Traum und Wirklichkeit’. StuttgartGoogle Scholar
Koşak, S 1981: ‘Western neighbours of the HittitesEretz-lsrael 15: 12*16*Google Scholar
Kovacs, T 1977: The Bronze Age in Hungary. BudapestGoogle Scholar
Kovacs, T 1999: Prähistorische Goldschätze aus dem Ungarischen Nationalmuseum. BudapestGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, S 1972: Beycesultan III. 1. LondonGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, S, Mellaart, J 1965: Beycesultan II. LondonGoogle Scholar
Macqueen, J G 1968: ‘Geography and history in western Asia Minor in the second millennium BCAnatolian Studies 18: 169–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messmer, E und Mitarbeiter, 1998: ‘Troia — Topographischer PlanStudia Troica 8: inside back coverGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J 1968: ‘Anatolian trade with Europe and Anatolian geography and culture provinces in the Late Bronze AgeAnatolian Studies 18: 187202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J, Murray, A 1995: Beycesultan III.2. LondonGoogle Scholar
Meriç, R, Mountjoy, P 2002 forthcoming: Istanbuler Mitteilungen 52Google Scholar
Momigliano, N 2000: ‘Bronze Age Carian lasosAnatolian Archaeology 6: 12Google Scholar
Momigliano, N 2001: ‘Bronze Age Carian lasosAnatolian Archaeology 7: 15Google Scholar
Mommsen, H, Hertel, D, Mountjoy, P A 2001: ‘Neutron activation analysis of the pottery from Troy in the Berlin Schliemann collectionArchäologischer Anzeiger Heft 2: 169211Google Scholar
Neve, P 1992: Hattuša - Stadt der Gotter und Tempel. Antike Welt Sondernummer. Mainz am RheinGoogle Scholar
Niemeier, W-D 1997: ‘Milet 1994–1995’ Archäologischer Anzeiger: 189248Google Scholar
Niemeier, W-D 1999: ‘Mycenaeans and Hittites in war in western Asia MinorAegaeum 19: 141–55Google Scholar
Niemeier, B, Niemeier, W-D forthcoming: ‘Milet’ Archäologischer AnzeigerGoogle Scholar
O'Shea, J 1992: ‘A radiocarbon-based chronology for the Maros Group of southeast HungaryAntiquity 65: 97102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otten, H 1961: ‘Zur Lokalisierung von Arzawa und LukkaJournal of Cuneiform Studies 15: 112–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otten, H 1988: Die Bronzetafel aus Boǧazköy. Ein Staatsvertrag Tuthaliyas IV (StBot Beiheft 1). WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
Otten, H 1989: ‘Die 1986 in Boğazköy gefundene Bronzetafel. 1. Ein hethitischer Staatsvertrag des 13. Jh. v. Chr.Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 42: 720Google Scholar
Özgüc, T 1988: İnandiktepe. An Important Cult Centre in the Old Hittite Period. AnkaraGoogle Scholar
Penner, S 1998: Schliemanns Schachtgräberrund und der europäische Nordosten: Studien zur Herkunft der frühmykenischen Streitwagenausstattung (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde; Bd. 60). Bonn.Google Scholar
Poetto, M 1993: L'iscizione luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt (Studia Mediterranea 8). PaviaGoogle Scholar
Price, R P S 1993: ‘The west Pontic maritime interaction sphere: a long-term structure in Balkan prehistoryOxford Journal of Archaeology 12(2): 175–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulak, C 1995: ‘Das Schiffswrack von Uluburun’ in Deutsche Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Unterwasserarchäologie (eds), In Poseidons Reich: Archäologie unter Wasser. Mainz: 4358Google Scholar
Röllig, W 1988: ‘LukkaReallexikon der Assyriologie VII/3–4: 161–3Google Scholar
Rose, C B 1997: ‘The 1996 post-Bronze Age excavations at TroiaStudia Troica 7: 73110Google Scholar
Schliemann, H 1874: Atlas Trojanischer Alterthümer. LeipzigGoogle Scholar
Schliemann, H 1875: Troy and its Remains. Smith, P (ed.), translation Schmitz, D. LondonGoogle Scholar
Schliemann, H 1884: Troja: Results of the Latest Researches and Discoveries on the Site of Homer's Troy. LondonGoogle Scholar
Schliemann, H 1891: Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Troja im Jahre 1890. LeipzigGoogle Scholar
Sherratt, A 1993: ‘What would a Bronze Age world system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistoryJournal of European Archaeology 1(2): 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schliemann, H 1995: ‘Fata morgana: illusion and reality in Greek-barbarian relationsCambridge Archaeological Journal 5(1): 139–56Google Scholar
Schliemann, H 1997: ‘Troy, Maikop, Altyn Depe: Bronze Age urbanism and its periphery’ in Sherratt, A (ed.), Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Perspectives. Edinburgh: 457–70Google Scholar
Sherratt, A, Sherratt, S 1998: ‘Small worlds: interaction and identity in the ancient Mediterranean’ in Cline, E H and Harris-Cline, D (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18–20th April 1999. Aegaeum 18. University of Liège: 329–42Google Scholar
Sherratt, S 2000: ‘Circulation of metals and the end of the Bronze Age in the eastern Mediterranean’ in Pare, C (ed.) Metals Make The World Go Round. The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. Oxford: 8298Google Scholar
Sherratt, S 2001: ‘Potemkin palaces and route-based economies’ in Voutsaki, S and Killen, John (eds), Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference held on 1–3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge (Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume 27). Cambridge: 214–38Google Scholar
Singer, I 1983: ‘Takuhlinu and Haya: two governors in the Ugarit letter from Tel AphekTel Aviv 10: 325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperling, J 1991: ‘The last phase of Troy VI and Mycenaean expansionStudia Troica 1: 155–8Google Scholar
Starke, F 1997: ‘Troia im Kontext des historischpolitischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. JahrtausendStudia Troica 7: 447–87Google Scholar
Starke, F 1999: ‘LukkaDer neue Pauly 7: 505–6Google Scholar
Starke, F 2000a: ‘MiletosDer Neue Pauly 8: 170–3Google Scholar
Starke, F 2000b: ‘MiraDer Neue Pauly 8: 250–5Google Scholar
Steiner, G 1964: ‘Die Ahhiyawa-Frage heuteSaeculum 15: 365–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, F 1998: ‘“Grosskonige” in Anatolien von LabarnaHattusili I bis zu den AchaimenidenEothen 9: 151–81Google Scholar
Stuttgarter Nachrichten 2001: ‘Korfmann wehrt sich’ 26 JulyGoogle Scholar
Süel, A 1999: ‘The name of Ortaköy in the Hittite period’ XII. Türk Tarih Kongresi. Kongreye sunulan bildiriler. I. Cilt. Ankara: 118–28Google Scholar
Treister, M 1996: ‘The Trojan Treasures: description, chronology and historical context’ in Antonova, I, Tolstikov, V, Treister, M, The Gold of Troy: Searching for Homer's Fabled City. London: 197234Google Scholar
Walter, U 2001: ‘Winning Helen - myth, history or invention?’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (English edition) 26 July: 7Google Scholar
Whitelaw, T 2001: ‘From sites to communities: defining the human dimensions of Minoan urbanism’ in Branigan, K (ed.), Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield: 1537Google Scholar
Wilhelm, G 1995: ‘Die Tontafelfunde der 2. Ausgrabungskampagne 1994 in KuşakiMitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 127: 3742Google Scholar
Wilhelm, G 1997: Kuşakli-Sarissa, Band 1/1. Rahden/Westf.Google Scholar
Young, R S no date: Gordion. A Guide to the Excavations and Museum. AnkaraGoogle Scholar
15
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Troy in recent perspective
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Troy in recent perspective
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Troy in recent perspective
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *