Archaeology Of Troy

Vpád morských národov do priestoru starovekého sveta neustále láka pozornosť bádateľov. Je to jeden z najpozoruhodnejších a najtragickejších komplexov udalostí v dejinách ľudstva. Nešlo iba o inváziu bojovníkov na dané územie. Do pohybu sa dali celé
národy, etnické a kultúrne zoskupenia, aby na sklonku doby bronzovej najmä vo východnom Stredomorí, ale aj v iných častiach Eurázie, zmenili dávny svet. Ten už bol po tomto veľkom sťahovaní národov iný.

in Roman times an aqueduct brought water to Ilion from a source in the mountainous interior of the Troad. This article describes the physical remains of the water system and proposes a course for the aqueduct between 20 and 30 km long. The best known segments of the aqueduct include a large masonry bridge across the Kemerdere valley and part of an underground masonry conduit near the village ofTevfikiye. The aqueduct had an initial segment of terracotta pipelines which later carried water into a subterranean channel. The link between the these two systems has not been located, but the engineers may have put it at a transitional point in the topography between mountains and plateau, which is today marked by the village of Gökçali. Neither the source of water in the mountains nor the point at which the aqueduct entered the city has been found, but the loss in height over the entire length of the water system can be estimated at 400 m. The bridge across the Kemerdere valley is the largest of several bridges on the aque duct. It is also among the largest aqueduct bridges in Turkey, with a span of 16 m and a water channel elevated 27.5 m above the valley. Evidence for accurate dating is sparse, although the bridge's construction materials and technique point to the Julio-Claudian or Hadrianic period. The keystone was decorated with a bust which has weathered beyond recognition. The bust may have depicted Apollo Thymbraeus, who supposedly had a nearby sanctuary that was tied to the legendary fail ofTroy as the setting for Apollo's gift of prophecy to Cassandra and Achilles' abduction and murder ofTroilus.

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.

Anthropomorphic figurines, observed in the world since the Upper Palaeolithic, and their earliest appearance in Anatolia is in the Neolithic. Figurines shaped in different forms and made of various raw materials (baked clay, stone, bone, metal etc.), and idols, which start to be seen from the Early/Middle Chalcolithic, are among the find groups that could provide information about the beliefs, relationship networks, positions within the socioeconomic organisation, and art of the human communities to which they belong. The differences seen among the idols, the types of which varied between geographical areas, stem from regional beliefs and understanding of art. The increase in the settlements excavated in Anatolia after the earlier excavations of Troy has furthermore enabled the recovery of called 'Owl-Faced Idols', in other regions of Anatolia. In Küllüoba, located in the Seyitgazi District of Eskişehir Province, seven owl-faced idols were found as a result of excavations carried out since 1996. As in Troy and Seyitömer, the fact that the number of idols recovered in Küllüoba is larger than in other settlements makes its chrono-typological development more definable. In the light of the Küllüoba examples, evaluated here for the first time, this article aims to determine the origin and development of owl-faced idols in Anatolia.

This paper uses ancient geographical, mythological, and literary information to expand the interpretation of the reverse design of a small ancient bronze coin type issued by Ophrynion in Troas. The evidence indicates that the coin shows the infant Dionysos as usually described, but in addition that Dionysos is represented as an impersonator of the Trojan War prince Paris who was also known by the name Alexander, and in local legend may have been exposed as an infant on the steep hill at Ophrynion.

SUMMARY: Lecture 8 provides a brief summary on the geographic setting and the findings from Early Bronze Age II-III Troy (Hisarlik). This lecture is designed mainly as an educational resource for college students (i.e., normally posted only on my institution's course website), the public (e.g., people auditing my course), and interested colleagues from other disciplines (to whom I provide copies privately).  I am posting it here, both as a broader access, educational tool, and especially to promote the study of this region and its past societies.  For further knowledge about this region and period, I refer interested parties to the textbooks and other sources from which the materials were extracted (see syllabus), and/or the bibliographies in these works and my online resource guides (see other files in my academia folders).  The lecture summarizes the pertinent materials in the course textbook(s), adding in other data, and furnishing numerous images to clarify information encountered within the textbook(s).  Some generic imagery (usually indicated as such) is posted to aid in transmitting various concepts visually, and/or when a specific image remains not located (temporarily).  I update and revise such lectures each time, with such elective courses normally being taught once every two years.  I try to cover the most current, mainstream views, and usually place summary notes at the end of each lecture alongside some of the key sources used for compiling the ppt.  Over time, each lecture is improved, errors rectified, and additional data placed within the lecture.  These ppt. lectures take many hours to compile, but they have proved useful to many of my more serious students and I hope they can be of benefit to others as well.  My apologies for any errors I may have made, and my liberal usage of educational imagery from professional sources and vetted internet sources. REVISED: Many new slides, new text, new sources, revised text and images, Feb., 2024.

SUMMARY: Lecture 7 summarizes the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia, beginning with the Secondary Products Revolution, copper working, and the nature of EB I-II and EB III occupation across different parts of Anatolia. This lecture is designed mainly as an educational resource for college students (i.e., normally posted only on my institution's course website), the public (e.g., people auditing my course), and interested colleagues from other disciplines (to whom I provide copies privately).  I am posting it here, both as a broader access, educational tool, and especially to promote the study of this region and its past societies.  For further knowledge about this region and period, I refer interested parties to the textbooks and other sources from which the materials were extracted (see syllabus), and/or the bibliographies in these works and my online resource guides (see other files in my academia folders).  The lecture summarizes the pertinent materials in the course textbook(s), adding in other data, and furnishing numerous images to clarify information encountered within the textbook(s).  Some generic imagery (usually indicated as such) is posted to aid in transmitting various concepts visually, and/or when a specific image remains not located (temporarily).  I update and revise such lectures each time, with such elective courses normally being taught once every two years.  I try to cover the most current, mainstream views, and usually place summary notes at the end of each lecture alongside some of the key sources used for compiling the ppt.  Over time, each lecture is improved, errors rectified, and additional data placed within the lecture.  These ppt. lectures take many hours to compile, but they have proved useful to many of my more serious students and I hope they can be of benefit to others as well.  My apologies for any errors I may have made, and my liberal usage of educational imagery from professional sources and vetted internet sources. REVISED: New formatting, some text revisions, a few new images (Feb., 2024).

Troas Bölgesi, İlk Tunç Çağı'ndan itibaren stratejik konumu nedeniyle farklı bölgelerden gelen kültürlerin göç hareketiyle karşı karşıya kalmıştır, ancak bölgenin siyasi ve kültürel olarak yazılı belgelerle tanımlanması ise Son Tunç Çağı ile olur. Son Tunç Çağı'nda Hitit İmparatorluğu'nun siyasi etkisini Batı Anadolu'ya kadar gösterir. Bu nedenle Son Tunç Çağı'nda (yaklaşık M. Ö. 1400-1200) bölgede Hititçenin bir tür Batı Anadolu'da konuşulan lehçesi olan Luwice konuşulduğu genel olarak kabul edilir. Son Tunç Çağı'nın sonrasında ise Balkan kökenli grupların Troas'a geldikleri gözlemlenmektedir. Bu dönemde Troas'da Balkan ve Anadolu kökenli yerli halkın bir arada yaşadığı kabul edilmektedir. Arkaik Dönem'le başlayan koloni çağında ise, bölgeye gelen Greklerin bir akkültürasyon süreci geçirdiklerini antik kaynaklardan anlaşılabilinmektedir.

«In order to unearth the world of Homer». Gaetano
Chierici and Heinrich Schliemann
The close relationship between Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890) and the wider Italian scientific comunity is still scarcely investigated, despite the rapid popularity gained after the discovery of Troy. The recent reassessment of the Schliemann Archive, stored in the Gennadius
Library in Athens, including thousands of letters, travel/excavation diaries, and personal notebooks, allows new researches on Schliemann’s life and career in his historical context.
A selective group of letters written by important Italian archaeologists represents the archivial sources to reconstruct Schliemann’s personality and the influence that some scholars had on his early career as archaeologist. Among them Gaetano Chierici (1819-1886) is one of the most distinctive and significant personality in the field of the new discipline of Prehistory.
The aim of this paper is to investigate the long-time relationship between the two scholars, focusing on the long period which starts with the first travel of the German rich businessman to Emilia Romagna in 1868, before the beginning of the exploration at Hisarlık/Troy,
until the last phase of his career.
An unpublished Chierici’s paper, housed in the Panizzi Library at Reggio Emilia, reveals the interest of the Italian scholar for the first exploration carried out by Schliemann at Troy. The manuscript, considered to be
proof of the existence of a paper never published, shows that the scholar’s attention was mainly focused on the stratigraphic questions raised in Troy rather than on the identification of the Homeric city. Chierici focused on the importance of relationship between the archaeological record and its context, in terms of sequence of layers and
deposits. In the second part of the paper, the Italian scholar
investigates possible connections between some Anatolian
finds and the typological repertoire of Terramare culture in North Italy. The analysis considered the pottery assemblage and the collections of bronze items from the earliest phases of Troy, furthermore it is highligthed the evidence of a level containing copper items suggests to
introduce a new horizon, i.e. Calcholithic or Copper Age, between the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age phases.
The last documentation includes a letter by Chierici to Schliemann dated June 1883, when the Italian scholar was gifted a group of Trojan objects for the Museum in Reggio Emilia.

Über Schliemanns Ausgrabungen in Hisarlık wurde sowohl während seiner Lebenszeit als auch nach seinem plötzlichen Tod im Jahre 1890 in Neapel viel geschrieben und diskutiert. Besonders über den ›Schatz des Priamos‹ folgte nach Schliemanns erstem Bericht am 5. August 1873 in der ›Augsburger Allgemeinen Zeitung‹ eine rege Auseinandersetzung. Hauptsächlich konzentrierte sich die Diskussion dabei auf folgende Themen: Wann, wie und wo fand Schliemann den Schatz? Und wie schmuggelte er ihn später außer Landes? Handelte es sich um einen Hortfund oder wurde er aus verschiedenen Fundgruppen von Schliemann nachträglich zusammengestellt? Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, wurde bislang vor allem das Schliemann-Archiv in Athen konsultiert. Mit Hilfe bislang unbekannt gebliebener osmanischer Dokumente soll hier die ›Fundge-schichte‹ des ›Priamos-Schatzes‹ aus neuer Perspektive betrachtet werden.

Ancient Coin Found to Commemorate Trojan War Hero Pandaros
Robert M. Cutler, 2016
Abstract: An ancient bronze coin reverse of the city-state of Zeleia in Troas shows a geometrical design, sometimes called a monogram, whose significance has long been considered as uncertain. Reconsideration leads to a suggestion based on the Iliad of Homer that the design may represent a famous bow. This was the bow that the Trojan War leader and archer Pandaros used to defend Troy by wounding Menelaus and Diomedes, though the latter eventually slew Pandaros. If this design interpretation is correct, Zeleians retained considerable pride in Pandaros many centuries after his heroics in the supposed Trojan War and after Homer sang about him in the Iliad.