Migration and Integration at Troy from the End of the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age

25 Pages·2016·0.95 MB·English

by  Aslan C.C.

Migration and Integration at Troy from
Part 2
the End of the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age CHaPtEr 7
CAROLYN CHABOT ASLAN — PAVOL HNILA
Abstract Acknowledgments
During the transition from the LBA to the Iron Age, a migration of The authors would like to
people from Thrace, the Balkans or the Lower Danube region thank several scholars for their
came to Troy and transplanted their ceramic and architectural help with various aspects of
traditions. They must have interacted with the remaining people our research, including Mau-
of the earlier LBA culture, because local Anatolian Gray and reen Basedow, Ralf Becks, Geb-
Tan wares continued to be produced and used alongside the hard Bieg, Peter Jablonka, Moni
handmade pottery of the newcomers. In the following PG pe- Möck−Aksoy, Penelope Mount-
riod, the inhabitants began conducting religious rituals at the joy, Wendy Rigter, and Diane
ruins of a structure called the Terrace House, which probably Thumm−Doğrayan. We are also
functioned as a religious building in the LBA. In the Geometric grateful to Ernst Pernicka and
period, the inhabitants reused some walls of this LBA building C. Brian Rose for permission
in a new cult building. The combined evidence indicates that to study the material and for
despite the large degree of disruption from the LBA to the Iron their support and guidance.
Age at Troy, there were still strands of continuity.
MIGRATION 185
186 | CAROLYN CHABOT ASLAN — PAVOL HNILA
The transitional period from the LBA to the Iron Age at Troy
(Fig. 1) was a time of instability and change. A destruction event at the end of the
LBA Troy VIIa phase was followed by a time of slow recovery, and then a migration
of people began to arrive from Thrace, the Balkans, or the Lower Danube region in
the Troy VIIb2 phase. The inhabitants once again encountered problems at the end
of the VIIb2 phase causing many of them to abandon their houses. Some habitation
did continue into the Protogeometric phase and new shapes were incorporated into
the ceramic assemblage. The destruction, migration, and other changes experi-
enced at the settlement resulted in the integration of older and newer elements of
material culture. Further, we will be presenting new evidence that there was some
continuity in community memories about sacred space from the LBA through the
PG and Geometric periods.
Around 1200 BC, Troy consisted of a heavily fortified citadel surrounded by a
lower town. The houses in the citadel were closely built and they had an impressive
storage capacity thanks to the many large−size pithoi set below their floors. This
settlement, Troy VIIa, 1 was part of Aegean trade networks. Ceramic developments
in Mycenaean pottery were followed and locally imitated. 2 Contacts or exchange
with other areas of Anatolia or with the Balkans are very probable, but have not
been satisfactorily demonstrated with archaeological evidence.
The Troy VIIa settlement came to an end with a devastating conflagration (c.
1180 BC). 3 The citadel was reoccupied after the catastrophe, but on a much more
limited scale – this phase is known as VIIb1. 4 We had previously questioned whether
the VIIb1 phase, originally defined by Carl Blegen, truly existed. 5 Careful reexam-
ination of the evidence showed that there are a few places where stratified VIIb1
contexts can be identified, but these contexts are scattered and few, attesting to
limited habitation by some survivors of the destruction. It is likely that most houses
remained in ruins and the new ones were limited to the area of the citadel. In the
citadel, some VIIa walls were still visible and were rebuilt. It is by no means easy
to understand how the Troy VIIb1 settlement would have looked, since many walls
cannot be dated with certainty due to frequent reconstructions and additions. It is
not by chance that no plan of the Troy VIIb1 settlement has ever been published.
1 For Troy in the VIIa period, see Blegen et al. 1958, 6–13; Becks 2003, 42–4; Easton et al.
2002, 77–94; Mountjoy 1999, 295–321.
2 For Mycenaean pottery from Troy, see Mountjoy 1997; 1999; 2005; 2006; Mountjoy and
Mommsen 2006.
3 Blegen et al. 1958, 11–2. Evidence for this destruction was also found in the Terrace
House, see Becks et al. 2006, 46–7. For critique of the destruction evidence, see Basedow
2007, 53–5.
4 Blegen et al. 1958, 141–4.
5 Aslan 2009, 144–6.
MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION AT TROY | 187
Fig. 1. Map
showing location of
Troy (Troia Project,
prepared by J.
Wallrodt).
Prokonnesos
Parion
Abydos
Elaious
Sigeon Troia
Achilleion Daskyleion
Alexandria Troas
Assos
Pergamon
Smyrna
Ephesos
Outside of the citadel in the West Lower Town, only pits and a ditch filled with
organic matter and refuse were found (Fig. 2).
The material culture of Troy VIIb1 shows two striking changes in the pottery
assemblage. The first change was the discontinued use of large storage pithoi omni-
present in the previous phase. The second change was the introduction of Handmade
Coarse ware, mostly in the form of burnished jars decorated with applied bands with
finger imprints (Fig. 3). This pottery class, with recognized parallels in the Balkans, 6
replaced the earlier Trojan wheelmade cooking pottery, called Gritty ware. 7 Gritty
ware had been used for cooking pots during the LBA for a period of more than 400
years. It is important to stress that Troy VIIb1 handmade pottery was used exclusively
for cooking and low−volume storage vessels. At the same time that handmade vessels
6 See Koppenhöfer 1997, 334–7; 2002; Hänsel 2008, 57–65. Most of the following infor-
mation about Troy VIIb ceramics is based on the research done by Pavol Hnila (2009)
for his dissertation.
7 Blegen et al. 1958, 24.
188 | CAROLYN CHABOT ASLAN — PAVOL HNILA
West Lower Town (Troy VIIb1)
Earlier walls still standing
Earlier walls, visibility uncertain Organic deposit
with numerous
Reconstructions fallow deer bones Troy VI
Pits citadel
wall
Deposits
Deposits, excavated parts
Pit with
restored
vessels
Ruins of the Terrace House
(Troy VIIa)
Fig. 2. Plan of the West Lower town/West Sanctuary in the Troy VIIb1 phase (Troia Project,
prepared by P. Hnila).
were introduced, Trojan table vessels including cups, bowls, jugs, and kraters continued
to develop in the previous tradition of the VIIa period in wheelmade Gray and Tan
wares. In other words, cooking and storage vessels changed, but not fine table wares.
The VIIb1 phase did not have a long duration. Blegen estimated one generation; 8
Penelope Mountjoy has proposed a somewhat longer range, between Transitional
LH IIIB2/IIIC Early and the LH IIIC Middle Phase, 9 approximately 60 years. The
settlement probably developed gradually into the following Troy VIIb2 phase. In
the VIIb2 phase, houses and structures densely covered the area of the citadel,
but the streets continued to follow the previous communication courses (Fig. 4).
The area immediately outside of the LBA fortification wall was built over with
multi−cell stone structures without doors, which served as basements and cellars
for ground−level structures (Fig. 5). 10 Even the lower town was settled again. As
far as two hundred meters away from the citadel are the remains of settlement
activities – refuse pits and huts with wattle−and−daub walls. 11
8 Blegen et al. 1958, 143.
9 Mountjoy 1999, 323–4.
10 In squares A7, D9, and KL4 (Hnila 2009, 128–53).
11 In squares KL16/17 and H17 (Hnila 2009, 167–70).
MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION AT TROY | 189
Fig. 3. Handmade Coarse ware
jar with finger impressed band
(Troia Project).
The material culture of Troy VIIb2 has been well known since Blegen’s publi-
cation, 12 and it is widely recognized that new elements in pottery and in architec-
ture appeared at Troy, which have comparanda in the area of Thrace, the Balkans,
and the Lower Danube region. 13 The builders made ample use of the orthostate
technique. Orthostates occasionally occur before and after Troy VIIb2, but their
frequency in this phase is certainly unmatched. A new variety of handmade pottery
was introduced, which we now call Handmade Lustrous Ware, previously known
as Knobbed Ware or Buckelkeramik. 14 We prefer the descriptive designation Hand-
made Lustrous Ware, since this kind of pottery was only rarely decorated with knobs.
Handmade Lustrous ware was usually used for cups, jugs, and krater−like vessels
with a nicely polished, often lustrous or at least semi−lustrous surface with incised,
stamped, or channeled decoration (Fig. 6). The Handmade Coarse ware jars with
finger−impressed bands continued to occur in this phase as well. When viewed
together, the two classes of handmade pottery made a complete assemblage, with
12 Blegen et al. 1958, 137–81.
13 Blegen et al. 1958, 144–5; Hänsel 2008, 61–75; Koppenhöfer 1997, 337–47; 2002. See
Pieniążek−Sikora 2002, 2003, 33 for similarities between Troy VIIb2 architecture and
the Northwest Pontic region.
14 Blegen et al. 1958, 158; Hnila 2009, 27–9; Hänsel 2008, 60–1.
190 | CAROLYN CHABOT ASLAN — PAVOL HNILA
VIIb2
VIIa
Fig. 4. Plan of the Troy VIIb2 citadel (Troia Project, prepared by R. Becks).
Handmade Lustrous ware used for finer table vessels and the Handmade Coarse
ware jars for cooking and storage. 15
In this respect it is odd that handmade jars appeared at Troy at least one gen-
eration earlier than handmade cups. This fact is occasionally explained with two
waves of migration, 16 yet the scarce evidence from the VIIb1 period indicates low
population levels, and certainly not any large scale migration at this time. Change
of diet and cooking practices in response to the breakdown of the previously
more complex subsistence system, combined with a small influx of individuals
from nearby Thrace, is currently the best explanation for the disappearance and
replacement of Gritty ware by Handmade Coarse ware in Troy VIIb1. 17
15 The same conclusion can also be found in Lis 2009, 156 and Hänsel 2008.
16 Blegen et al. 1958, 143–4.
17 Attempts to derive the shapes and the decoration of the handmade pottery from
local Trojan LBA prototypes (Bloedow 1985, 168–72) are not convincing. The shape
repertoire is different enough to imply different cooking habits and preferences, and
although occasionally the finger−impressed rope appliqués indeed occur already in
Troy VI Late and VIIa contexts, the examples remain exceptional and their scarcity
might even cast doubt on their local origin.
MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION AT TROY | 191
Fig. 5. Multi-cell basements of the Troy VIIb2 phase in square KL4 (Troia Project, dia 24687).
In contrast, we are confident that the VIIb2 phase provides strong evidence
for a migration. As opposed to one preliminary study, 18 the recent mineralogical
and chemical analyses show that the VIIb handmade pottery was produced lo-
cally at Troy. 19 This fact, when combined with the quantity of handmade pottery
at Troy, and with evident parallels to pottery from Thrace, the Balkans, and the
Lower Danube region supports a movement of people from the north, who settled
at Troy and began to produce their handmade wares with local clay. The changes
at the site also included architectural forms and construction methods, storage
facilities, and also perhaps cooking practices. Therefore, there were changes in an
entire constellation of cultural features. Troy is one of the few sites in the Troad
with evidence for this migration – despite more than twenty years of surveys. 20
Preliminary results from the new excavations at Maydos/Kilisetepe located across
the Hellespont on the Gallipoli peninsula suggest that migrants may have also
settled there in the Troy VIIb phase. 21
Despite all the changes, there is still evidence for significant continuity of the
18 Guzowska et al. 2002, 241–9.
19 Pintér 2005; 2006.
20 Bieg and Aslan (2003, 189) give two uncertain exceptions of handmade Troy VIIb
vessels from their survey.
21 Sazcı 2012.
192 | CAROLYN CHABOT ASLAN — PAVOL HNILA
Fig. 6. Handmade Lustrous
ware cups (Troia Project, dia
57166).
ceramic tradition of the earlier Trojan population. Alongside handmade production,
the production of wheelmade shapes in Gray and Tan ware continued during the
Troy VIIb2 phase. Certain shapes, such as the kylix, dropped out of the assemblage
while shorter cup shapes became popular. These wheelmade wares were primarily
used for fine table vessels, but at the same time there were also fine table vessels in
Handmade Lustrous ware. In Troy VIIb2, the amount of the new handmade types
in the ceramic assemblage either equaled the traditional ones or, in some deposits,
the handmade ceramics were the majority. The percentages of the different wares
in each phase are presented in figure 7. In Troy VIIa, Gray and Tan wares accounted
for nearly 70% of the total, with all coarse wares used for cooking pots c. 15%. In
Troy VIIb1, the Gray and Tan wares dropped to 59% and the handmade pottery,
marginal before, jumped to 23%, more than all classes of coarse cooking pottery
in the previous phase. This trend is even more pronounced in the VIIb2 phase,
when the Gray and Tan pottery fell to 39% and the handmade pottery reached 38%
(Fig. 7). The uniform composition of the pottery assemblages over the entire site
suggests that the two ceramic groups were not segregated. In other words, almost
all contexts have a mix of handmade and wheelmade wares – it is not that some
households were using all wheelmade or all handmade wares.
This evidence indicates favorable conditions for an acculturation process to
take place, especially when we consider the fact that handmade pottery at Troy
is not a short−lived phenomenon, since it continued to be produced for over 150
years. There are examples of pots from Troy where it appears that the potters were
exchanging or borrowing certain shapes or decoration between the wheelmade and
handmade pottery traditions. The duration of contact and the mutual influences
MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION AT TROY | 193
Proportional Chart of Ware Groups
100%
90%
80%
70%
nt
u
o
C
ds 60%
er
h
S
al
ot 50%
T
of
e
g
a 40%
nt
e
c
er
P 30%
20%
10%
0%
VIIa VIIb1 VIIb2 PG
Unidentified 123 2,1% 245 4,2% 982 5,0% 119 3,4%
PBA 29 0,5% 40 0,7% 259 1,3% 161 4,5%
Protogeam. or Transit. 1 0,0% 9 0,0% 65 1,8%
Mycenaean 36 0,6% 85 1,5% 143 0,7% 46 1,3%
Tr. VIIb Handmade Lustrous 102 1,8% 204 3,5% 208 10,5% 468 13,2%
Tr. VIIb Handmade Coarse 303 5,3% 1139 19,7% 5457 27,7% 493 13,9%
Tr. VI Coarse 459 8,0% 249 4,3% 1179 6,0% 367 10,3%
Pithol 173 3,0% 59 1,0% 510 2,6% 218 6,1%
Earlier (Tr. I-VI Middle) 142 2,5% 110 1,9% 353 1,8% 122 3,4%
Plain (Tr. VI-VIII) 372 6,5% 205 3,5% 1055 5,3% 111 3,1%
Tan and Brown Slip 2536 44,3% 977 16,9% 2276 11,5% 349 9,8%
Anatolian Grey 1445 25,2% 2471 42,7% 5419 27,5% 1032 29,1%
Total sherds 5733 5784 19722 3551
Fig. 7. Proportional chart of ware groups, Troy VIIa – PG. Counts based on selected
stratified deposits (prepared by P. Hnila).
194 | CAROLYN CHABOT ASLAN — PAVOL HNILA
Northeast
Bastion
LBA Citadel Wall
Place of Burning
Wall B
West Sanctuary
House 814/815 Wall P
Quadrant
D9
Walls
Fill
Fig. 8. Plan of Troy in the Protogeometric, Geometric, and Archaic phases (Troia Project,
prepared by P. Hnila).
imply that the acculturation process at Troy was likely a bidirectional one. It is by
no means clear what the resulting identity might have been.
Unknown factors caused a decline at Troy at the end of the VIIb2 period (c.
1070/1040 BC). The VIIb2 buildings appear to have been abandoned. Only three
excavated rooms have a preserved ceramic inventory, the others were cleared
and deserted. Carl Blegen had earlier concluded that Troy had been abandoned
at the end of the VIIb2 phase and was uninhabited for 400 years. 22 Sherds of PG
amphoras were some of the first clues that this previous interpretation needed to
be revised. 23 The subsequent excavation of stratified PG and Geometric contexts
in square D9 showed that although the population level was probably low, there
was some activity at Troy during these periods. 24
The discovery of PG and Geometric ceramics at Troy has caused scholars
to revisit the question of the Aeolian migration. In the account given by Strabo
22 Blegen et al. 1958, 147–8.
23 Hertel 1991; 1992; Lenz et al. 1998, 190–7; Catling 1998, 154–5.
24 For PG and Geometric pottery from square D9, see Aslan 2002, 97–106.