Between the Aegean and Anatolia: The Shifting Character of Troy in the Middle and Late Bronze Age - FULLTEXT (original) (raw)
Related papers
White painted pottery is a widespread phenomenon in prehistoric Western Anatolia both in Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age times. From the beginning, the investigations at Troy have yielded white painted fragments in the time of the Trojan first settlement in particular. Due to their relatively scarce occurrence it has been argued that the technique and style of this kind of decoration has been imported or at least influenced from outside, especially from the Yortan region where white painted vessels are known to be typical burial gifts. In this contribution all the hitherto known fragments found at Troy will be presented and discussed in the context of the emergence, distribution and development of the technique of decorating pottery with white painted ornaments in Anatolian prehistory.
The impact of early Troy on Western Anatolia is discussed by presenting the problems and opportunities experienced while attempting to establish a relative and absolute chronology for Çukuriçi Höyük, a site recently excavated in the lower Kaystros Valley. Following a short description of the settlement and its stratigraphic sequence, the discussion focuses on selected pottery assemblages from rooms 19 (phase ÇuHö IV) and 1 (phase ÇuHö III), and from parallel sites. The result of the analysis is a synchronisation of both settlement phases with Troy I, Beycesultan XIX-XVII, Aphrodisias Pekmez LC4-EB1/2, Yortan, Emporio V-IV, Thermi and Poliochni blue and the relative dating of Çukuriçi Höyük IV-III to EBA 1. An independent absolute chronology for this site is possible thanks to 10 radiocarbon dates presented here. The actual date for both phases can be fixed between 2900 and 2750 calBC, which corresponds to Troy I early in particular. In a next step, the results are used as a basis for the re-evaluation of surveys previously carried out in the Kaystros valley. Finally, the possible consequences for the chronological integration of the so-called Yortan group are discussed with the addition of recent findings from surveys conducted in the lower Kaykos Valley.
Despite its manifold innovations, Troy IV is to be seen as an immediate continuation of the local Early Bronze Age culture; Troy V, however, marks the transition to the Middle Bronze Age. In addition to influences from the Aegean region, in both periods various new social and technological elements make their first appearance at Troy, which show that the settlement has become more closely connected to the southeastern and central parts of Anatolia. Based on recent excavation results obtained from Troy, this paper attempts to determine the relevant interregional contacts from a more chronological perspective, with the aim of creating a broader view of the cultural developments that took place in Northwest Anatolia between ca.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The regions around the northern edge of the Aegean have long been recognised as the interface between cultural influences from Southern Greece and those from SE Europe at the end of the Bronze Age. The nature of these influences and the relative date of that from each direction is only now becoming clear as the results of new excavations and research in each region, from Central Macedonia to the Troad, illuminate the character and sequence of the native cultures. Older views that the Iron Age of Macedonia, for example, was heralded by large-scale migrations from the Balkans, have given way to more moderate analyses of mutual exchange and influence. In this paper we have set out first the evidence for the relative dates of the two culture sequences at this transitional period (part I) and then new evidence for their absolute date (part II). The relative dates of the Aegean and Balkan sequences at this time have long depended on key stratigraphic correlations between pottery of Mycenaean style but „provincial“ manufacture and new pottery styles with Balkan associations – channelled ware in Macedonia and Buckelkeramik at Troy. This correlation suggested that the Iron Age in Macedonia started before the end of the Mycenaean period and that the Balkan elements, represented by the Buckelkeramik at Troy, also predated the end of that period. New evidence from Assiros and Toumba Thessalonikis in Central Macedonia and a reassessment of that from Troy VIIb2 indicates that this correlation is mistaken and that these Iron Age characteristics first appear after the end of the Mycenaean period. The absolute date of the arrival of these new wares has traditionally been related to the date of the Mycenaean LH IIIC pottery thought to be associated with them and placed in the twelfth century BC. The new correlation would, on the basis of the currently accepted absolute chronology for the end of the Greek Bronze Age and the appearance of Protogeometric pottery, place the arrival of these new wares in the second half of the eleventh century BC. New dendrochronology and wiggle-matched 14C determinations from Assiros, however, show that this accepted absolute chronology, (which is based on inference rather than any precise correlations with historical dates), places the start of the Protogeometric period 50–100 years too late. Building timbers associated with an amphora of advanced Protogeometric style have been dated with remarkable precision to 1080 +4/–7 BC and both are sealed below a new building level dated in the same way to 1070 +4/–7 BC. Since this particular style is derived from Attic Protogeometric, it is evident that the Protogeometric period in Attica started around 1100 BC or earlier. See also Dating the End of the Greek Bronze Age: A Robust Radiocarbon-Based Chronology from Assiros Toumba, Kenneth Wardle, Thomas Higham, Bernd Kromer, September 2014 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0106672
W-Books Publishers, 2012
A monograph on the archaeology and, especially, the 'Nachleben' of Troy in European and Turkish / Ottoman times. Contributions include discussions of the archaeological remains at Troy, the relation between Troy and its Bronze Age neighbours (the Hittites and Mycenaeans), the language of Troy, Roman and Byznatine perceptions on the Trojan War, Ottoman interest in Troy, the Treasure of Priam, Schliemann, Attaturk and Troy, Homer and Troy in the Turkish Republic. English, Dutch and Turkish editions. Reviews: e.g. Athens Review of Books (by A. Kotsonas: http://www.academia.edu/2938794/\_Review\_of\_J.\_Kelder\_G.\_Uslu\_and\_O.\_F.\_Serifoglu\_eds.\_Troy\_City\_Homer\_and\_Turkey\_W\_Books\_Amsterdam\_2012)"