Home
Project-details
News
Contact
Troia-Team
Sponsors
  FRIENDS OF TROY
  TROIA-FOUNDATION
Publications
   STUDIA TROICA
    VIDEOS
    DISSERTATIONS
Troia-Exhibition
   CONTROVERSY 2001
    SYMPOSIUM 2002
      (TÜBINGEN)

_____________

Imprint

   Prehistoric Archaeology deals with the early phases of mankind and therefore has normally no written sources available. As a consequence it has to employ quite varying methods to gain knowledge. It has to make the “soil speak”, to describe the findings objectively and then to interpret. To this end analogue conclusions, ethnological comparisons, “common sense”, and last but not least the so called neighbouring sciences are employed at equal ranks. The Archaeobiologist Uerpmann, a colleague of mine at Tübingen, emphasises this fact by calling Prehistoric Archaeology a kleptomaniac science. A t any rate the Troia-Project encompasses numerous sciences, among them Ancient History. Our arguments do not necessarily follow solely the standards of historical science.

   Excavating requires a certain technique which liken it to a medical operation. This operation can be performed well or not so well. Mr.Kolb thinks, so I hear, that in Troia this practice is in “good order – technically”. Likewise the methods of analysis concerning dating are said to be in good hands. This, I think, is quite a good starting point for anybody who wants to produce his own interpretation of our material. This can be done quite independently from the opinions of the Troia-Project and relatively continuously - rather than years later – since our rapid publication of excavation results in the yearly volumes of Studia Troica hardly leave room for complaints of delay.

   Our or my problem, as Kolb claims, is interpretation. Troia, he says, was no commercial centre of any importance, hence our picture of a densely populated Lower City a fantasy. 

   If this Troia were no settlement of such prominence in Historical Science (“Troian War” – yes or no) but simply a site by the name of Hisarlik, our activity including our weighing interpretations would be deemed quite adequate. Surely one would always have a range of interpretations in this difficult field, even contradictory opinions. Among prehistorians, however, one would almost always find an agreement on the possible latitude of interpretation.

   Understandably the starting point for clarifying the importance of any site is the geographic location. In the case of Troia this is no doubt a geopolitically very important place. Therefore it was continuously inhabited in prehistoric times for about 2000 years. Furthermore it was strongly fortified throughout this period. Therefore it is an outstanding site in the whole landscape. This implies the question: For what ? A logical answer would be: shipping, that is: trade. I personally can see no other source for the prosperity of this place and for the efforts to keep it fortified through thousands of years. Should the adversaries of such assessment, like Mr. Kolb, name their reasons for the obvious power (economy included) of Troia´s rulers. What were the potential objects of such trade ? Judging from earlier periods (treasure finds of the 3rd M. BC) and later times (Greek period of the 1st M. BC) we may conclude that here in the Dardanelles and in the Bosporus far reaching trade took place, where the Black Sea region including Caucasia has to be considered strong partner. If we had the cemeteries of the 2nd M. BC at Troia, the answer for this period would also have been relatively easy, as the usually valuable burial objects would have indicated. (It is also for this reason that we have tried to define the exact borders of the Lower City of Troia VI in order to promote a well-aimed search for the cemetery region. To identify this region will be the next research task for Tübingen.)

   The Black Sea region always had to offer metals, especially copper. A massive belt of  copper deposits stretches from the Carpathians through Bulgaria into Northern Anatolia and Caucasia. This is augmented by silver from Northern Turkey, by silver and gold from Caucasia and last but not least by tin from Central Asia, which was the prerequisite for bronze production. There are only few major tin sources on earth, one is in Afghanistan. Contacts of whatever kind to Afghanistan were manifested as early as the 3rd M. BC by a ceremonial axe made from lapis lazuli. This is the only source for this material in the Old World. Why should these contacts not have existed in the 2nd M.B.C.? Analyses of  Troian metal objects in Freiberg / Saxonia (Prof.Pernicka) repeatedly point in these directions beyond the Black Sea. 

   In the 2nd M.B.C. suddenly the horse emerges in Troia (precisely with the beginning of Troia VI), actually a (steppe-) animal preferring cold climate. As draught animal for the new Bronze Age warfare device, the two-wheeled chariot, it was a valuable trade object. This is being studied by Archaeobiology (Prof. Uerpmann in Tübingen).

    I find it surprising that apparently the citadel wall in Troia which is fascinating in many respects is already regarded too commonplace as to warrant special notice. Nevertheless, its massiveness and the craftsmanship of every single building block so far was sufficient enough to identify this site as Troia. Millions of tourists have wondered at this installation dating from a period in which the technology for producing iron tools was still unknown and having no companion north of Tiryns and Mycenae. The prehistoric Archaeologist is bound to think only of power, wealth, and trade in this geographical and structural context. Who, by the way, would rank Tiryns and Mycenae - which (so far) are lacking a Troia-like lower city - as only locally significant ? Their central buildings are not more impressive than those at Troia. 

   If Mr. Kolb is of the opinion that Troia “no doubt has been an important residence of a prince“ we are indeed already quite close. But he claims that there was no lower city. He likens me with Mr. von Däniken due to the “idea that Troia was surrounded by a densely populated settlement“, which for him is “sheer fantasy”. He has to be aware that this is an insult not only for the numerous scientists in the excavation team, but for all supporters of the Troia-Projekt, among them the University of Tübingen, various scientific supporting institutions, and all official organisations involved in the exhibition. “There are no indications for an extended dense settlement outside of the citadel“, claims Kolb. Of the houses “found in that area he (Korfmann) can produce no ground plan, but he offers them in his publications“. Therefore Kolb sees no reason to withdraw his expression of Korfmann to be the “Däniken of Archaeology“. Here Kolb is wrong: these indications do exist. How else could the archaeologist could build his arguments if not with the areas excavated by him ? Anyone who is sincerely interested is invited to visit Troia and to inspect the quarter recently uncovered near the two Hellenistic temples and the Roman sanctuary (refer to orientation plan). The stone foundations are solid, the regularly built houses have internal hearths, pedestals, and other installations. They are fairly well preserved because of reduced building activity inside the Hellenistic temenos in contrast to the constant restructuring throughout eight hundred years of Greek and Roman settlement elsewhere in the lower city. Naturally we cannot excavate directly underneath the Hellenistic-Roman buildings and altars of the sanctuary, hence we have to live with certain gaps.

   But even in other areas of the Greek and Roman city quarters where preceding walls were usually robbed of their stones for the reconstruction of new houses down to bedrock we have adequate indications for similar Bronze Age constructions of massive stone houses.

   The whole lower city was surrounded by a small ditch cut into the bedrock but wide enough to stop attacking chariots. A 10 m wide interruption of the ditch served as a thoroughfare with a two-winged wooden door. The necessity for such thoroughfares is obvious. So far the archaeological situation.

   As mentioned above, Prehistoric Archaeologists, more than other Ancient Scientists, are obliged to work together with other disciplines and in this process to combine and to interpret.

   At the important threshold of entering history our discipline overlaps that of the Historians who work with written sources. Interest in our work automatically leads to conflict within the disciplines of Classical Philologists, of Ancient Historians, and lately, of Ancient Anatolists. This problem - also its severity - is familiar to us since Schliemann. One encounters a clash of „schools“ or rather dogmas. We and our work on the site are amidst the disputes. The easiest way to justify ones position in such a dispute seems to question not our work but our “tendency“ instead, especially if it goes public - as it does, thanks to the organisers of the Troia-Exhibition.

   Indeed, there is a tendency on my part. It has evolved through the years. There once was a time, when Troia/Ilios was completely denied the rank of a town (Kolb 1984), and there were and are many who maintain the Iliad´s city of Troia to be nothing more but „a poetical creation“ (Kolb 2001). Others did, since Schliemann, and still do understand Homer´s scenario to be historic and that the Iliad could also be read as a history book.

   We never strove to verify or to falsify Homer. But after a total of 21 summers of campaign in the Troad we cannot do without Homer in Troia´s history of four millenia. In Troia we are directly confronted with all ideas on this topic, however, without our demanding the final word. We leave that up to others, if they ever want. We archaeologists at least find the stage for a Troia/Ilios - scenario as visualised by Homer around 720 BC when he connected his epic to the place then in ruins. This, however, is no statement about the reality of a „Troian War“. For this complex one should refer to the modern (!) Homer Philologists (e.g. Joachim Latacz, Basel) and the Ancient Anatolists (e.g. Frank Starke, Tübingen) not to the Archaeologist. Excavating at the site which they claim to be obviously (W)Ilios / Wilusa we find no reason to contradict the conclusions from their disciplines. In the last three to five years they have found increasingly strong arguments both for a historical kernel and for equating (W)Ilios with the Wilusa known from Hittite sources. Only: one has to know this latest level of research and to discuss it with these specialists.

   In summary we leave it up to other disciplines to judge whether Homer´s Troia is not more than „a poetical creation“ or in addition has something like a historic substrate. At „Troia/Wilusa“ we now would like to continue working with stones, bones and sherds. Scientists and journalists are welcome to familiarise themselves with the complex on the site. In addition I welcome a factual discussion of this topic at the occasion of my presentation of the latest excavation results on October 27, 2001 in Tübingen.

Troia, July 27, 2001
Manfred Korfmann
Director of Excavations

(This is a translation by the editor - authorised but unchecked by the author - of the German original in the version of August 8) 

Additional commentary by the Classical Archaeologist Prof.Ch.B.Rose (University of Cincinnati)
concerning the Late Bronze Age structures and finds in the Lower City. This is the English original, the German translation is available on the German page. ( Prof. Rose is responsible in Troia for the Post Bronze Age layers Troia VIII to X )

   RESPONSE TO PROF. FRANK KOLB’S ACCUSATIONS

         The Unterstadt of Greek and Roman Ilion measures approximately 606,900 sq. meters (judging by Dörpfeld’s reconstruction of the city wall). Less than one percent of the Unterstadt have been excavated. Even within such a limited area, late Bronze Age occupation deposits have appeared in each trench. There are cooking vessels, table wares, and water jugs- in other words, debris from households, specifically kitchens.

          Only one part of the Unterstadt (ed.: besides the area of the sanctuary) has been opened up on a large scale- the I/K/L17/18 area- and this region has yielded a considerable number of late Bronze Age walls and occupation deposits. This is especially remarkable, because later Roman builders frequently robbed the earlier walls rather than quarrying new stones. Indeed, nearly all of the Hellenistic and early Imperial walls have been taken away by the late Roman builders.

          If we did not have written sources indicating that Ilion was a well occupied city during the Roman period, we would have difficulty proving it on the basis of the existing walls. So it is particularly noteworthy that we have so many Bronze Age walls in an area that had been so heavily robbed. What these trenches have shown, and shown very clearly, is the enormous potential of the Unterstadt as a source of late Bronze Age housing. The discovery of so many late Bronze Age houses in the Sanctuary has demonstrated the same thing.

         I would like to add that in the civic and religious areas of Ilion– the West Sanctuary, the Sanctuary of Athena, and the agora– many late Bronze Age buildings have been preserved, including part of the fortification wall of the Unterstadt. This is primarily because the buildings in those areas lasted for hundreds of years, and the earlier structures beneath them were less disturbed. But in the Unterstadt, where houses were destroyed and rebuilt every few decades, the earlier architecture was constantly disrupted.

Prof. Dr. Charles Brian Rose
Professor of Classical Art and Archaeology
Head, Dept. of Classics,
University of Cincinnati

Back to the top

Back to the starting page. 
 

Date Last Modified: 01/Sep/01
By: HGJ