New Light on the Bronze Age Ceremaics from H. Schliemann's excavations at Troy: Studies on the Munich and Pozna Collections within the Anatolian-aegean Cultural Context 9781407304823, 9781407336589

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
II. AN OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE CERAMICS UNDER CONSIDERATION
III. THE HISTORY AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLECTIONS
IV. THE CATALOGUE
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
REFERENCES
ARCHIVES
ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
DRAWINGS
PHOTOGRAPHS

Citation preview

MALISZEWSKI: BRONZE AGE CERAMICS, SCHLIEMANN’S TROY EXCAVATIONS

In that book the author – analyzing fabrics, wares, typology, chronology and function – shed new light on the unpublished Trojan ceramic artefacts not only within the Anatolian-Aegean cultural context, but also beyond it. The studies carried out contributed, inter alia, to improving the knowledge of precise technique of production of many Trojan pottery forms and extended, on the basis of careful analysis of wares, their chronological distribution within that site. Moreover, examination of the pottery pointed out contacts of Troy with other areas and in this context turned attention to the need for a re-assessment of its imports, which would change prevailing views on them and thus provide new research opportunities. Finally, the undertaken investigations also show prospects concerning reconstruction of the textile production at Troy, as well as the non-utilitarian function of spinning and weaving implements.

BAR S2119 2010

Dr Dariusz Maliszewski is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Archaeology of the Mediterranean Civilisations of the Institute of Prehistory of the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland. His main field of research and teaching interests is Aegean Archaeology, in particular Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Cyprus, as well as Bronze Age Troy and its relationship with the neighbouring areas. For many years he has been conducting a field survey in the northwestern part of the “Island of Aphrodite”. Results of this fieldwork and artefact studies, including Trojan ones, were published in Anatolian Studies, Meander, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus and Thetis.

B A R

New Light on the Bronze Age Ceramics from H. Schliemann’s Excavations at Troy Studies on the Munich and Poznań Collections within the Anatolian-Aegean Cultural Context

Dariusz Maliszewski BAR International Series 2119 2010

New Light on the Bronze Age Ceramics from H. Schliemann’s Excavations at Troy

New Light on the Bronze Age Ceramics from H. Schliemann’s Excavations at Troy Studies on the Munich and Poznań Collections within the Anatolian-Aegean Cultural Context

Dariusz Maliszewski BAR International Series 2119 2010

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2119 New Light on the Bronze Age Ceramics from H. Schliemann’s Excavations at Troy © D Maliszewski and the Publisher 2010 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407304823 paperback ISBN 9781407336589 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407304823 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by John and Erica Hedges Ltd. in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2010. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

To my little daughter Marysia and wife Agnieszka with love and gratitude for understanding and patience

I

II

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................

1

I. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

............................................................................

3

1. Troy I ......................................................................................................................................................... 2. Troy II ....................................................................................................................................................... 3. Troy III ..................................................................................................................................................... 4. Troy IV ...................................................................................................................................................... 5. Troy V ....................................................................................................................................................... 6. Troy VI ..................................................................................................................................................... 7. Troy VII .................................................................................................................................................... 8. Post-Bronze Age Troy VIII-X .............................................................................................................

4 10 19 22 24 27 34 40

II. AN OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE CERAMICS UNDER CONSIDERATION ............................................................................................................ 49 1. Pottery ....................................................................................................................................................... 2. Whorls ...................................................................................................................................................... 3. Loom weights .......................................................................................................................................... 4. Pierced pottery disc sherds ..................................................................................................................

49 61 67 68

III. THE HISTORY AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLECTIONS .......................... 71 1. From Troy to Europe ............................................................................................................................. 2. The State Collections of Antiquities, Munich ................................................................................. 3. The Archaeological State Collection, Museum of Pre- and Protohistory, Munich ................ 4. The National Museum, Poznań ..........................................................................................................

71 76 83 85

IV. THE CATALOGUE .......................................................................................................................... 95 1.Pottery ........................................................................................................................................................ 96 1.1. Fine Wares ...................................................................................................................................... 96 Polished Ware .................................................................................................................................... 96 Grey and Black Polished Ware 1 .................................................................................................... 97 Luster Ware 2 (Jet-black) ................................................................................................................ 98 Red-Coated Ware .............................................................................................................................. 98 Grey and Black Ware 1 .................................................................................................................... 118 Grey and Black Ware 2 .................................................................................................................... 120 Grey and Black Wares ..................................................................................................................... 120 Plain Ware ........................................................................................................................................... 121 Grey Ware ........................................................................................................................................... 122 Anatolian Grey Ware ....................................................................................................................... 123

III

1.2. Coarse Wares ................................................................................................................................. 124 Unpolished Ware ............................................................................................................................... 124 Nubbly Ware ...................................................................................................................................... 125 Polished Ware .................................................................................................................................... 125 Gritty Ware ......................................................................................................................................... 126 Knobbed Ware ................................................................................................................................... 127 2. Whorls ...................................................................................................................................................... 128 2.1. Decorated ........................................................................................................................................ 128 2.2. Undecorated ................................................................................................................................... 136 3. Loom weights ......................................................................................................................................... 142 4. Pierced pottery disc sherds .................................................................................................................. 143 4.1. Fine Ware ........................................................................................................................................ 143 Red-Coated Ware .............................................................................................................................. 143 4.2. Coarse Ware ................................................................................................................................... 144 Unpolished Ware? .............................................................................................................................. 144 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS ...................................................................... 147 1. Pottery ....................................................................................................................................................... 147 1.1. Fabrics .............................................................................................................................................. 147 1.2. Wares ............................................................................................................................................... 158 1.3. Typology and chronology ............................................................................................................ 173 1.4. Function .......................................................................................................................................... 199 2. Whorls ...................................................................................................................................................... 209 2.1. Fabrics ............................................................................................................................................. 209 2.2. Typology and chronology ........................................................................................................... 210 2.3. Function .......................................................................................................................................... 232 3. Loom weights ......................................................................................................................................... 253 3.1. Typology and chronology ............................................................................................................ 253 3.2. Function .......................................................................................................................................... 257 4. Pierced pottery disc sherds .................................................................................................................. 271 4.1. Typology and chronology ............................................................................................................ 271 4.2. Function ......................................................................................................................................... 273 5. Problems and prospects ......................................................................................................................... 279 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 283 ARCHIVES ................................................................................................................................................ 329 ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 331 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... 333 MAP ............................................................................................................................................................. 335 DRAWINGS .............................................................................................................................................. 341 PHOTOGRAPHS ..................................................................................................................................... 371

IV

INTRODUCTION

The geographical position of Troy at the cross-roads between Anatolia, the Aegean, Black and Marmara Seas, as well as the eastern Balkans, has made it a focal point of cultural, economic and political relations for these regions. One aspect of this huge, multidimensional subject, being investigated for many years, is the collections of artefacts from H. Schliemann’s excavations in Troy kept at many museums. Examination of the archaeological material from older excavations has always been, for various reasons, a challenge for archaeological research, but this is the ground on which old practices and new theories test their limits and find their justification. Unfortunately, in my studies I was not able, first of all for financial reasons, to reach all the Trojan items stored at many museums, mainly in Germany, Turkey and Greece. Also from a logistical point of view this is really a gigantic task – beyond the capabilities of one person. For instance, only Schliemann’s collection at Berlin, even if one takes into consideration the enormous number of artefacts, has been the topic of a well established team research project.1 This is why the project focused only on the artefacts kept at Munich and Poznań, which had been catalogued on the basis of my own, firsthand examinations. But again due to financial and first of all technical limitations they had not been a subject of specialized analyses. All observations concerning that aspect of both the collections were gained using a magnifying glass. Since the bulk of the studied material is homogeneous and belongs to

the Bronze Age, the project focuses mainly on Troy II-VII. The chronology of Bronze Age Troy is closely linked with those of the neighbouring areas, namely the Aegean, Anatolia, the Balkans, Egypt and Levant, and complete presentation of these relations would excessively expand the composition of the book; in the past it was the subject of separate studies.2 Therefore, the main aim of Chapter I is to present the general archaeological background of the discussed artefacts within the stratigraphy and chronology of Troy.3 However, the precise attribution of examined finds to particular archaeological context/s was not possible. In the same chapter Greek, Hellenistic and Roman Troy VIII-X are also characterized in order to present a more comprehensive archaeological picture of the site. Chapter II focuses on an overview of the previously undertaken studies on Trojan Bronze Age pottery, whorls, loom weights and pierced pottery discs, but only those related to the items from Munich and Poznań. Chapter III is devoted to the history of both collections and Chapter IV contains the catalogue including, apart from a description of the artefacts, the published reference materials. Finally, in Chapter V various aspects of artefacts within the Anatolian-Aegean cultural context are discussed. I am much obliged to my mother Halina and late father Grzegorz, Mr M. Piniacha, as

1

3

2

Hertel 1997; Hertel 1998. Unfortunately in the text there is no reference to Wemhoff et al. (eds) 2008, because it appeared when this book was at a very advanced stage of preparation for publishing.

1

For instance Warren, Hankey 1989; Parzinger 1993; Manning 2001. For general and detailed plans of Troy I-X, including numerous structures, see Dörpfeld et al. 1902; Blegen et al. 1950-1958; Easton 1990b; Easton 2002; Studia Troica 1-17, 1991-2007.

well as Professor dr hab. A. Lesicki, Pro-Rector of the Adam Mickiewicz University (Poznań) for financial aid which helped me to complete this project. I also have to express my thanks to Professor dr hab. J. Witkoś, Pro-Rector of the same university, for covering the costs of the text’s preparation for publishing. For permission to study and to publish Trojan artefacts, as well as for the photographs, I am very grateful to Dr G. Zahlhaas (the Archaeological State Collection, Museum of Pre- and Protohistory, Munich), Prof. dr hab. W. F. Hamdorf, Dr F. S. Knauss (the State Collections of Antiquities, Munich), Doc. dr H. Kondziela, Mr J. Szymkiewicz (the

the Jagiellonian University, Kraków), Prof. dr hab. T. Majda (the Department of Turcology and Inner Asian Peoples of Warsaw University, Warsaw), Dr M. Popiołek and Mr L. Bobiatyński (the Institute of Classical Philology of Warsaw University, Warsaw). I also wish to thank the following institutions for the opportunity to use their library facilities: the Institute of Classical Archaeology and the Institute of Near Eastern Archaeology of the LudwigMaximilian University, the Ludwig-Maximilian University Library, the Bavarian State Library, the Library of the Archaeological State Collection, Museum of Pre- and Protohistory (Munich), the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute

National Museum, Poznań) and Dr M. Kwapiński (the Archaeological Museum, Gdańsk). Moreover, for invaluable assistance during my studies, I would like to express my warmest thanks to these individuals, as well as to bon vivant Mr M. Egger, Ms S. Pongratz, Dr H. P. Uenze (the Archaeological State Collection, Museum of Pre- and Protohistory, Munich), Dr B. Kaeser (the State Collections of Antiquities, Munich), Prof. dr hab. H. Kühn, Dr M. Benz-Zauner, Dr W. Hauser (the German Museum, Munich) Ms S. Dietz (the International Ceramics Museum, Weiden), Dr M. R. Belgiorno (the Institute for Mycenaean and Aegean-Anatolian Studies of the National Council for Research, Rome), Prof. dr J. Yakar (the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv), Mrs M. Romanowski (the Library of the University of Applied Science, Berlin), Mr T. Grabski (the National Museum, Poznań), Dr E. Bugaj (the Institute of Prehistory of the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań), Ms A. Krzyżaniak (the Archaeological Museum, Poznań), Dr A. Ćwiek (the Archaeological Museum, Institute of Prehistory of the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań), Dr R. Rosół (the Institute of Classical Philology of

(Nicosia), the Institute of Prehistory and the Institute of History of Adam Mickiewicz University (Poznań), the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, as well as the Department of Mediterranean Archaeology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Archaeology, the Institute of Classical Philology and the Department of the Ancient East of Warsaw University, Warsaw University Library, the National Library (Warsaw). Last, but not least, I am greatly obliged to my wife A. Czeczot-Maliszewska for her inestimable help and support during my research work.

Villa Avalon, Starżno July 14, 2009.

2

I. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

analysis and discussion6, which in fact offers a new corpus of comprehensive principal radiocarbon data not only to the EBA chronology of Troy, Anatolia and southeastern Europe, but also to the Aegean, because the site is central to its relative chronology. Another problem is matching of different periods of Troy with E-M-LBA. In earlier works, on the basis of differences in material culture, Troy I-V was placed under EBA. According to recent investigations Troy I-III is attributable to the EBA, Troy IV-V to the MBA, Troy VI to the M-LBA and Troy VII to the LBA-EIA. There is perhaps, because not accepted by all scholars, an overlap between Troy I and II7 and radiocarbon dates have also evidenced

Troy, one of the Bronze Age key mound sites, is an approximately 16 m hight accumulation of strata situated in northwestern Anatolia on a low ridge about 6 km from to the Aegean coast on its west, over 4.2 km from the Dardanelles to its north and 32 km southwest of modern Çanakkale. The central part of the site was artificially accumulated by horizontal settlement levels built one above the other. The gradient of the mound’s slopes varied – from very steep on the north to gentle on the south, which determined expansion of the site in that direction. Knowledge on the stratigraphy and chronology of Troy has been gathered over the course of more than a hundred years thanks to dedicated excavations of teams under H. Schliemann, W. Dörpfeld, C. W. Blegen, M. Korfmann and Ch. B. Rose, as well as the efforts of many other scholars involved in research on various aspects of the Aegean, Anatolia and the Balkans. However, due to the varied scope and methods of excavations, as well as different thickness and preservation of the layers, recorded periods are not represented equally. Of special value for stratigraphy and chronology of Troy are the works of Blegen, who noticed across the centre of the settlement the E-MBA deposits accumulated regularly and more or less horizontally.4 The dating of numerous periods at Troy is one of the most difficult and focal points in publications concerning the site. There have been many proposals in this respect, but the results of recent excavations tend to favour an older dating.5 An important achievement of these works is the publication of a large set of radiocarbon samples along with 4 5

overlaps from other periods. On the other hand, a cultural break between Troy III and IV has also been recorded. Recently, the cultural features have been used as the background for division of different periods within Troy. According to this point of view Troy I-III shows close relationships with the coastal eastern Mediterranean region, Troy IV-V represents links with Anatolia, Troy VI-VIIa is defined as a very advanced Trojan civilization and Troy VIIb as bearing Balkan influences.8 Subsequently, Troy VIII was occupied from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period, Troy IX in Roman times and Troy X during the LByz period.

6 7

Blegen et al. 1950, figs 449-50, 465. Blegen 1964, 173-74; Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 138 fig. 1, 164-69.

8

3

Korfmann, Kromer 1993. Pro op. cit., 65-68; contrary Manning 1997a, 499, 505-10. Korfmann 1996a, 5-7; Korfmann 1996b, 83-95.

1. Troy I

and recently re-examined by Korfmann15; it had a main gate in EF5-6.16 The architecture of Late Troy I is incomplete, but in northern squares C2-3, D2, F3, eastern G3-4 and the southern part of the site in CDE5-6 there was a 3 m high Wall IZ and Gate MR in EF5-6 flanked with projecting towers, which served as a principal gateway. Gate MR and Wall IZ were perhaps used until the end of Troy I, which suggests the continued existence of that type of structure into Troy II.17 Fortification of perhaps Late Troy I has been evidenced by Schliemann’s sloping Wall 14 in square CDE 218, situated along the edge of the North Platform; it corresponds to structures brought to light by the later excavations

Among earlier field works, despite some limitations, Schliemann’s achievements should be taken into consideration.9 Later Dörpfeld differentiated within Troy I two “Bauphasen” of which the later one consisted of the re-built houses and erected circuit wall.10 Blegen’s excavations were crucial in that he distinguished, on the basis of architecture, ten strata (a-j). Subsequently, he arranged strata a-c into the Early Troy I sub-period with a defence wall as its characteristic feature,11 d-f into the Middle Troy I sub-period with a more solid circuit-wall and gates12, and g-j into the Late Troy I sub-period with a defence wall situated 5 m outside of the previous one.13 We owe a new interpretation of Dörpfeld’s Wall C in square D5 to Korfmann, who due to “Sägezahnvorsprung” regarded it as possibly a small section of the Early Troy I fortification wall with parallels in the EBA Anatolian defence structures.14 Among one of the earliest fortifications of Troy I should be mentioned the massive defence Wall IW, over 3 m high and more than 100 m long, which was recovered in the course of Blegen’s works in squares from C5 on the west to G4 on the east, but earlier encountered by Schliemann and Dörpfeld,

in squares C3 and G3-419, CD2-3, F320, and recent ones.21 Probably it was a stone-faced protection encasing the north slope of the mound, but its date seems uncertain.22 At Late Troy I fortifications were strengthened at certain points and measured 5 m high, and additions comprised battered earth 15 Schliemann 1874a, 167-69; Schliemann 1880, 213, 270; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, 38, 118, 126, 133, 145-46, 198, fig. 436; Korfmann 1989, 312-13; Korfmann 1991, 8 fig. 8; Korfmann 1992a, 12, 13 fig. 10, 14, fig. 13b – underneath was recovered older Wall C; Easton 2002, 191, 204. 16 Blegen et al. 1950, 38. 17 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 43, fig. 7 as Wall s, 45, 55 fig. 11, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, 39, 118, 126-27, 162, 175-76, 185, 188-96, figs 183-84, 437, 439, 444, 446; Easton 2002, 306. 18 Schliemann 1874a, 47-48; Schliemann 1875, 100; Easton 2002, 306. 19 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 55 and fig. 11, pl. 3. 20 Blegen et al. 1950, 39, 188, 194-96, figs 57, 209, 21113, 423. 21 In D2-3 the discussed wall was not an independent structure, but only the outer face of a group of radially arranged houses similar to those of Demircihöyük and Pulur – Korfmann 1992a, 12, 13 fig. 10; Korfmann 1993a, 12 fig. 10. 22 Blegen et al. 1950, 195.

9 Easton 2002. 10 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 48. 11 Blegen et al. 1950, 37. He accepted the presence of a defence wall after Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 43 fig. 7, 44 (Wall c). 12 Blegen et al. 1950, 38. 13 Op. cit., 39; however, according to the published data the proposed division is not so obvious. 14 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 43 fig. 7, 44, pl. 3; Korfmann 1989, 312-13. The Early Troy I remains in squares D4-5 had already been earlier investigated, mentioned and tentatively published – Schliemann 1880, 65, pl. 3; Schliemann 1884, 27, plan 7; Schliemann 1891, 39-40.

4

Ramparts IX and IY in E5-6, faced with stones.23

3.28 The Late Troy I House 129 in D2 represents the same type of house.29 To Schliemann we owe recovery of some walls at the eastern end of the North Platform, which could be linked with Ij deposits known from later excavations in square F3, where a possible storehouse, the so-called Granary, was unearthed.30 On the same platform he recorded a series of other walls and a drain perhaps of Troy I31, as well as some or all of three pavements of possible Middle Troy I, made of white pebbles.32 Thanks to his work there came to light an early cist grave with an infant burial situated among ashy deposits over the northern stretch of Wall 70.33 The beginning of the earliest Trojan settlement

In this context should also be mentioned Towers S in G5 and T in G4.24 Summing up, the fortification wall of Troy I was constructed of different size smashed stones, stabilized thanks to its inclined exterior face, as well as by the weight of utilized material joined with earth mortar; its upper part was perhaps surmounted with mudbrick and/or wooden breastwork.25 Among domestic remains of Early Troy I very characteristic are only fragmentary known large, free-standing mudbrick houses erected on a stone socle. The oldest remnants of this settlement include the Apsidal House 103 of Troy Ia, recovered in CD3 and the large House 102 of Ib constructed on a megaron plan. Under the floor and outside of the latter one there were unearthed six infant burials – two inside a pit and the rest inside jars. There were also noted much smaller Houses 101 and 114.26 To possible, but not free-standing domestic architecture of the same period one can ascribe parallel Walls d-l recorded in squares D4-5 of the North-South Trench dug by Schliemann and continued by his successors.27 Likewise, the Middle Troy I domestic remains are indicated by the large and free-standing Houses 112, 113, 115, 116, 117 recorded in CD2-

also became evident in Wall m, which appeared as a 2 m high retaining wall, situated on the north side of the settlement in square D3.34 Along with the backed stone fill it was a part of a platform in the centre of the site.35 Wall m of the North Platform was one of numerous terrace walls constructed along the northern edge of the citadel of Troy I-II, which has been confirmed by recent excavations.36 28 Blegen et al. 1950, 133-35, 137-40. 29 Op. cit., 167. 30 Schliemann 1874a, 48, 61-62, 102-103; Meyer (ed.) 1936, 119; Blegen et al. 1950, 117, 170-71; Korfmann 1992a, 14; Korfmann 1998, 19; Easton 2002, 11012, 307. 31 Schliemann 1874a, 61-62; Easton 2002, 111, 307. 32 Schliemann 1874a, 61-62; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Korfmann 1993a, 12 fig. 10, 13 fig. 11; Easton 2002, 111-12, 118, 139, 307. 33 Schliemann 1874a, 107-108; Easton 2002, 164, 307. 34 Schliemann 1874a, 282; Schliemann 1880, 24, 40, 268-69; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 43 fig. 7, 44, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, 162-63, figs 421-22; Korfmann 1996a, 18 and fig. 12, 19 fig. 13; Easton 2002, 13738, 164, 306. 35 Blegen et al. 1950, figs 422, 424; Easton 2002, 306. 36 Korfmann 1992a, fig. 13a; Korfmann 1996a, 18 and fig. 12.

23 Op. cit., 39, 126, 162, 175, 182-83. 24 Op. cit., 186, 188, 198. 25 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 49-53, 54 fig. 10, 55-56, 57 fig. 12, 60 fig. 13, 61 fig. 14, 63 fig. 15, 64 fig. 16, 66 fig. 17, 67 fig. 18, 69 fig. 19, 70 fig. 20, 71 fig. 21, 73 fig. 22, annexes 7-10; Naumann 19712, 62, 243 fig. 311, 244-45; Korfmann 1989, 309-10; Klinkott 2004, 74. The recent excavations within the circuit wall of Troy I-II recorded eight major re-building renovations – Korfmann 1995, 3; Korfmann 1996a, 5. 26 Blegen et al. 1950, 37, 82-83, 89-95, 100-101, 103. 27 Virchow 1890, 337-38; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 43 fig. 7, 44-49; Blegen et al. 1950, 92, 108-10; Mellaart 1959, 133 and fig. 2; Schirmer 1971, 4 fig. 3; Korfmann 1989, 307, 308 fig. 1.

5

Schliemann also uncovered in E3 other remains more accurately dated to the Late Troy I settlement, i.e. easterly continuation of Blegen’s Wall m in Wall 7037; he might also have come across the abovementioned stone fill.38 Moreover, Walls 54-55 that he recorded in square E6 could belong to a sallyport of the earlier Second Settlement fortifications or perhaps derived from building remains of Troy I or II Lower Town.39 One of the valuable achievements of the recent excavations is re-assessment of the former megaron of Troy I, now considered as a sequence of houses joined together along the longer side, examples of which are known from the EBA Anatolia and the northern Aegean.40 Another aim

is now called Wall 57 in F6 parallel to the eastern side of Gate FN; its dating to Troy I or Early II has been proved to some degree by the recent German excavations in square D7.43 Moreover, in the area of Blegen’s previous excavations of human bones in Troy VI strata, i.e. northwest of the citadel in vw3, there recently came to light rubble and midden levels of Troy I-II, including human bones, but no graves.44 Troy I in the end was destroyed by fire.45 The progressing excavations yielded a lot of evidence helpful for a new understanding of the sites’ chronologies. Among them there is an increasing number of high precision calibrated radiocarbon dates, which along with dendrochronological ones

of the Troia Project was to clarify the stratigraphy of Troy I in the course of many years’ excavations of Schliemann’s trench, from the bottom upwards. It was necessary to connect this sequence with the stratigraphy in the area to the east of Megarons IIA and IIB. Also the problem of the relationship between Late Troy I and Troy II was studied in the field; this resulted in three new phases before Blegen’s Troy IIa being distinguished.41 In this context should be mentioned a newly discovered megaron of a possible cultic function dated to Troy I-II, situated northwest of Gate FO in G6.42 The existence of probably early building outside of the citadel wall was evidenced thanks to Schliemann’s find of what

shed new light on the absolute chronology of the Bronze Age Anatolian and the Aegean sites.46 Especially the dendrochronological method of dating, thanks to creation of a long tree-ring Master Chronology, has been dynamically developed with the hope of establishing rational order to Anatolia, the Balkans, Greece and the East Mediterranean chronology from the Neolithic to the present.47 On the other hand, absolute chronology of many Bronze Age Anatolian and Aegean sites is still based on traditional dating methods, mainly comparative stratigraphy of sites along with pottery correlations and synchronizations with the historical periods of Mesopotamia and Egypt.48 The mentioned non-

37 Schliemann 1874a, 282; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Schliemann 1875, plan 2; Schliemann 1880, 24, 40, 268-69, plans 1, 3; Easton 2002, 137-38, 306. 38 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 43 fig. 7; Blegen et al. 1950, figs 422, 424; Korfmann 1992a, fig. 13a; Korfmann 1996a, 18 and fig. 12; Easton 2002, 100, 162, 164, 306. 39 Schliemann 1874a, 257; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 225, 249-50. 40 Korfmann 1991, 7, 8 fig. 8, 9. 41 Korfmann 1999, 7-9. 42 Op. cit., 10-13.

43 Schliemann 1874a, 257; Korfmann 1993a, 11; Korfmann 1996a, 21; Korfmann 1997, 24-25; Easton 2002, 226, 250, 307. 44 Blegen et al. 1953, 14; Jablonka 2006, 9. 45 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 49; Blegen et al. 1950, 39. 46 Delibrias et al. 1986, 23; Steventon, Kutzbach 1986, 1213; Warren, Hankey 1989; Mellink 1992; Manning 2001; Yakar 2002, 445-46. 47 Kuniholm 1995; Kuniholm 1996a, 332-34; Kuniholm 1996b, 403-404; Kuniholm 2001, 79-83; Yakar 2002, 445. 48 Yakar 1979, 57; Hassan, Robinson 1987; Warren, Hankey 1989; Easton 1990a, 440-43; Mellink 1992,

6

traditional and traditional dates taken together allow one to roughly delineate the chronology of Anatolia and the Aegean in the Bronze Age. In light of this, establishing Troy I-VII chronology within the Bronze Age is also tentative until the final publication of results from the new excavations.49

EC I (Grotta-Pelos cultures) in 3000 B.C. ± 100 years, which on the basis of the Aegean relative synchronisms is simultaneous with pre-Troy to Early Troy I.51 These similarities indicate that Early Troy I (phases a-c) should be assigned to the end of EB I (c. 3000-2900 B.C.). Nevertheless, calibrated radiocarbon readings suggest a slightly later period for Troy Ia-c occupation, i.e. a few decades before 2900 B.C.52 or more recently c. 2850-2650 B.C. with 2699 ± 15 for a maximum age of Ic (plus missing rings toward the bark).53 According to an earlier point of view Troy Ia was a relatively long phase dated to c. 3000-2800 B.C. Troy Ia-c data from Beşik-Yassıtepe indicate

Early Troy I belongs to the ceramic phase of Poliochni Black-Blue, Beşik-Yassıtepe and Kumtepe Ib, which correspond to EM I and EC I.50 Additionally, significant accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) chronological determinations from the excavations at Markiani support conventional chronology and place 213-20; Manning 2001. 49 Nevertheless, taking into consideration all cultural parallels and synchronisms, the following absolute time frame has been postulated: Early Troy I (c. 3000/2900 - c. 2900/2800 B.C.) = EBA I (c. 3400 - c. 2900 B.C.), Middle Troy I (c. 2900/2800 - c. 2700/2600 B.C.), Troy I-II transitional (c. 2700/2600 - c. 2600/2500), Early Troy II (c. 2600/2500 - c. 2400/2300 B.C.) = EBA II (c. 2900 - c. 2400 B.C.), Middle Troy II (c. 2400/2300 - c. 2200 B.C.), Late Troy II (c. 2200 - c. 2120 B.C.), Troy III (c. 2120 - c. 2000 B.C.) = EBA III (c. 2400 - c. 2000 B.C.), Troy IV (c. 2000 - c. 1850 B.C.), Troy V (c. 1850 - c. 1700 B.C.) = MBA (c. 2000 - c. 1700 B.C.), Troy VI (c. 1700 - c. 1330 B.C), Troy VIIa (c. 1330 - c. 1180 B.C.), Troy VIIb (c. 1180 - c. 950 B.C.) = M-LBAEIA (c. 1700 - c. 950 B.C), Troy VIII (750 B.C. or earlier - 85 B.C.), Troy IX (85 B.C. - c. 500 A.D.), Troy X (the first half of the 13th century A.D.) – Easton 2002, 336, 344; Efe 1988, 117 fig. 98 (for the EBA eastern Aegean and the Near East, but later dating for the beginning of the EBA I and II, and earlier for Troy III-V). 50 Renfrew 1972, 208-209; Warren 1976, 205; Warren 1980, 493; Warren 1984, 59-60; Yakar 1979, 62; Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 141-44, 149-54; Parzinger 1993, 204. For the pottery types of Troy I-V see Blegen et al. 1950-1951 and Easton 2002, figs 12628. There are also links between pottery of Troy Ia-c and Protesilaos I-II – Parzinger 1993, 204.

a broad range for Early Troy I from c. 3000 down to the beginning of Troy Ic at c. 2700 B.C.54 Also the dendrochronological sample would call for Troy Ic at the start of 2700 B.C.55 Changes in the repertoire of pottery shapes, as well as in the relative proportions of fine and coarse wares, were crucial for distinguishing the beginning of Middle Troy I c. 2800 B.C., which roughly corresponds with 14C reading.56 Its pottery is related to Yortan Class A Ware and Beycesultan XVI-XIIIa and contemporary with Demircihöyük G-P rather than its earlier phases, and thus fits into the EBA II.57 51 Davis 1992, 752-53; Manning 1997a, 513; Manning 2001, 74-77, fig. 2. 52 Weninger 1995, 451. 53 Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 155-57; Manning 1997a, 503; Kromer et al. 2003, 47-48. 54 Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 164-65 (samples from squares D3-4). 55 Manning 1997a, 503. 56 Podzuweit 1979, 22-23; Easton 2002, 316, 336. 57 Kâmil 1982, 14-18, 25-48, 56 table 1; Efe 1988, 95-103. On the other hand Demircihöyük D-F similarities to Yortan are not so evident – Seeher 1987, 159-60. There are also some links with pottery from Protesilaos III-IV – Parzinger 1993, 204.

7

Despite the long-lasting discussion,58 the appearance of imported EH II59 and EC II60 pottery in Middle-Late Troy I along with the EH II materials in equivalent levels at Poliochni and Thermi indicate synchronization between EH II and mentioned phases of the First Settlement.61 Moreover, a cylindrical pot-stand and a globular pyxis show similarities to the EC II and EH II materials.62 A silver pin with fluted head of ED III type recorded in Early Troy II suggests the end of Troy I c. 2650 B.C., i.e. during the transition from ED II to ED III.63 For the end of Troy I was proposed the calibrated radiocarbon date 2719 B.C.64, which

is controversial since the stratigraphic position of the examined timber fragment was not certain; therefore, this date was suggested for Late Troy I or I-II Transitional.66 Recently for Middle-Late Troy I calibrated radiocarbon dates give roughly the time frame 2785-2480 B.C.67 Earlier, there were more detailed proposals to date Troy Id to c. 2600 B.C. or slightly later, Troy Ie to the fi rst half of 2600 B.C., Troy If-g from the middle of 2600 B.C. to c. 2500 or slightly later, Troy Ii from c. 2500 onwards and Troy Ik within 2500 B.C. This indicates the end of Troy I at perhaps c. 2450 B.C. or somewhat later, which depends on the duration of the Troy Ih-k phases.68 In light

does not differ much from date 2699 ± 15 B.C. estimated many years ago.65 However, a radiocarbon date of 2700 B.C. for Late Troy I

of this, it seems that Troy I ends within the 25th century B.C. Moreover, a few radiocarbon dates from the EC II cemetery at Dhaskaleio Kavos, offering the date in or c. 2600 B.C., are roughly contemporary with Late Troy I into Early Troy II, which is also supported by the sauceboat sherds from the southern Aegean recorded in MiddleLate Troy I.69 Also important AMS chronological determinations from the excavations at Markiani support the conventional chronology and place EC II (Keros-Syros culture) in 2700-2600 B.C. ± 50 years, which indicates its contemporaneity with Middle-Late Troy I to Early Troy II.70 The start of the EBA at the beginning of the first half of the 3rd millennium B.C. can be

58 Weinberg 1947, 165-67; Mellink 1952, 151; Mellink 1953, 57; Mellaart 1957, 79-84; French 1961, 118-20; French 1968, 154-56; Weinberg 1965, 303; Renfrew 1972, 209. 59 For sauceboat and “Urfirnis” pottery fragments see – Blegen et al. 1950, 186, 193; French 1961, 11820. The latter was especially characteristic for the middle and late phases of EH II Lerna III – Caskey 1968, 314. 60 Possibly one black-on-buff EC II sherd was found by Schliemann and two other ones by Blegen, all at Late Troy I –Blegen et al. 1950, 184-85, fig. 252 nos 1-2; Easton 2002, 315, fig. 136. 61 Warren, Hankey 1989, 23-24. 62 Easton 2002, 164, 207, 336, figs 150, 166. Cf. comparative material from the EC II Ayia Irini – Caskey 1972, 366, 367 fig. 4 nos B48-51 and from EH II Zygouries – Blegen 1928, 115 fig. 108, 116. Also ovoid and globular jars of the ED Akkadian date first appeared at Troy I and they were longlived types – Blegen et al. 1950, 99, 105, 112, figs 237 no. 21, 241 no. 30, 266 no. 7. 63 Easton 1990a, 441. 64 Kuniholm 2001, 80. 65 Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 149-57, 165-68; Kuniholm 1996b, 404.

66 Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 155-56, 157 and fig. 12 (sample from square D5), 165-68. 67 Op. cit., 149-54 (samples from squares C3, D2-4), 165; Kromer et al. 2003, 48. 68 Manning 1997a, 505. For Troy Ii also date c. 2500 B.C. or slightly later was proposed – Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 165, 168 fig. 23; Weninger 1995, 453, 454 and fig. 8. 69 Hedges et al. 1992, 350-51; Manning 2001, 26 no. 12, 79-80. 70 Davis 1992, 752-53; Manning 1997a, 513; Manning 2001, 79-81, fig. 2.

8

confirmed by radiocarbon calibrated dates from Beşik-Yassıtepe, Demircihöyük, Emporio, KarataşSemayük and Thermi.71 Another short-lived

sample dated to 2705 B.C. that village may have lasted at least until the mid-3rd millennium B.C.78 In other words, dating of Demircihöyük via a large wiggle-matched radiocarbon chronology provides further confirmation of the Troy I period at the first half of the 3rd millennium B.C.79 Dendrochronological data are also available from a beam relevant to Troy Ib-c (probably c); its date c. 2900-2500/2450 B.C. correlates with the time span of the overall Troy I period and especially with the time of the building construction around Troy Ic, i.e. c. 2680-2660 B.C. or slightly later.80 Also thermoluminescence dating of ceramics from Beşik-Yassıtepe for Troy I, as well as broad relations

sample from Poliochni Blue seems contemporary with its find context and indicates a similar date at c. 2910-2672 B.C.72 There are also some other data useful for establishing the beginning of the EBA in broadly speaking western Anatolia. For instance at Limantepe calibrated 14C measurement yielded a time frame of 3350-3050 B.C. This result along with traditional evidences, namely fortifications of a thick stone defence wall with outside buttress and stone ramp, fit into the EBA I picture. During EBA II that town was reinforced by a constructed citadel with bastions and an extramural lower town additionally emerged.73 Also excavations of the mound settlement Küllüoba brought to light cultural sequence from pre-3300 B.C. to c. 1800 B.C., established mainly on the basis of pottery correlation with that of Troy, Beycesultan and Demircihöyük.74 Phases 5-3 of western sector of that site have been dated to 3300-3000 B.C., i.e. as transitional LCh/EBA I.75 During EBA II-III the settlement developed into the upper, fortified part and lower town.76 Published radiocarbon dates from Demircihöyük H and E indicate the beginning of the fortified settlement at c. 3000 B.C.77 In light of the chronology read from an oak

of artefacts to the sequence at Demircihöyük, demonstrate that Troy I belongs to the first half of the 3rd millennium B.C.81 Generally, 14C calibrated dates from Demircihöyük, Beşik-Yassıtepe and Troy, as well as from eastern and southeastern Anatolia, suggest the start of the EBA at the beginning of the 3rd millennium B.C.82 There is, however, a possibility that Kumtepe Ib and Poliochni Black directly precede Early Troy I and Poliochni influenced both these sites. Thus Kumtepe Ib belongs to EBA I and Troy I considerably to the EBA II.83

71 Korfmann 1987 (ed.), XVIII fig. 4; Begemann et al. 1992, 221. 72 Begemann et al. 1992, 220-21. 73 Erkanal 1996, 77-79; Kuniholm 1999, 43. 74 Efe, Ay-Efe 2001, 45, 52-54. On the other hand, it is difficult to accept the suggested distant similarity in concept between roughly rectangular layout of Küllüoba settlement and the early 3rd millennium B.C. radial planned Demircihöyük village – op. cit., 57 plan 1; Yakar 2002, 449. 75 Efe, Ay-Efe 2001, 46-47. 76 Op. cit., 58 plan 2, 59 plan 3. 77 Linick 1984, 101.

78 Kuniholm 1994. 79 Weninger 1987; Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 139-40; Manning 2001, 154, 156. 80 Manning 1997a, 503. 81 Seeher 1987; Efe 1988; Wagner, Lorenz 1992; Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 139-140, 143. 82 Efe et al. 1995, 376-77. 83 Warren, Hankey 1989, 9, 23-24; Korfmann et al. 1995, 261; Manning 2001, 98.

9

2. Troy II

settlement (phases c-g) was confirmed by the new excavations of Pinnacle E4-5, which survived undisturbed despite building activity during Troy VI and IX.91 Moreover, in that Pinnacle phase IIh was also distinguished and in squares FG6 exposed remains of megaron buildings in the vicinity of Gate FO.92 At the beginning of Troy II, due to levelling operations of Troy I, settlers established a new level at c. 30 m a.s.l. It became a base for further very intensive building activity, including levelling and re-erecting, of which only the last phase IIg survived in full depth (c. 1-2 m).93 The citadel of Troy IIa with extended fortification wall – with, recovered by

Troy II was preceded by three building phases between Ik and IIa. This recently distinguished transitional period in squares EF 4-5 begins later than phase Ik but earlier than IIa; it consists of at least three phases marked only by the ends of walls visible in the northern scarp of the old North Platform uncovered by Schliemann.84 Moreover, to this transitional I-II period we can attribute the deposit with the material of Troy II type found by Schliemann just over Wall m in square D3-4.85 In that area in the course of recent works there were unearthed deep transitional deposits with ceramics, which demonstrate the continuity of development.86 Further south, in squares DE6 and between Dörpfeld’s Wall IId and Blegen’s Wall IW, was found pottery of Troy II type along with a stone channel, which suggest early buildings in this area.87 These finds presumably show cutting down of Troy II deposits into the Troy I ramps and debris overlying its circuit wall.88 Previously Dörpfeld divided Troy II into three chronological phases 1-3.89 Later, within Troy II there were distinguished eleven or at least nine building phases and due to these numerous field works this is the most complicated, sometimes puzzling settlement among all those discovered on the Hisarlık.90 Part of Blegen’s division of the

Dörpfeld in BC5-6, EF6-7 two Gates FL and burned FN flanked by massive projecting towers – was built over that of Troy I94 at least on the northern, steep part of the hill, but less probably on the south where the land sloping gently away provides more space for expansion of successive fortifications in that direction.95 At Troy IIb defensive walls were extended and reinforced, but only a few remains of houses have been founded.96 To Early Troy II belongs everything from the ‘Palace’ IIA in F4-5 onwards, but pre-dating the erection of Megaron IIA in E5.97 This sequence is complicated, but the present evidence suggests that it consists probably of at least six phases, and not

84 Korfmann 1996a, 19, 20 fig. 14, fig. 18; Korfmann 1999, 9. 85 Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 422; Korfmann 1992a, fig. 13a; Easton 2002, 162-63, 308. 86 Korfmann 1992a, 14; Korfmann 1996a, fig. 18; Korfmann 1998, 19; Korfmann 1999, 9. 87 Schliemann 1874a, 167; Schliemann 1880, 270; Blegen et al. 1950, 175-76, 245, fig. 437; Easton 2002, 191, 203-204, 308. 88 Easton 2002, 308. 89 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 49-98. 90 Blegen et al. 1950, 204-208 distinguished seven

91 92

93 94 95 96 97

10

phases (a-g) of which a-c correspond with Dörpfeld’s phases II. 1-3; Korfmann 1999, 9; Easton 2002, 307. Mansfeld 2001, 190, 193-97, fig. 12:13. Korfmann 1992a, 20; Korfmann 1999, 10-13; Korfmann 2000, 11-16; Sazcı, Korfmann 2000, 97; Sazcı 2001, 387, 389; Mansfeld 2001, 272. Blegen et al. 1950, 207, 320-21; Easton 2002, 305. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 56, 57 and fig. 12, 58-59. Blegen et al. 1950, 244-45, 253-54; Easton 2002, 305. Blegen et al. 1950, 205. They were recovered by Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 81 fig. 23, pl. 3.

two as earlier supposed.98 Among structures which constitute this new picture are Dörpfeld’s Megaron IIR in FG3-4 and Blegen’s phases IIa-b below it99, walls II.2 originating from more than one phase recovered by Dörpfeld in the eastern half of the citadel100 and the recently exposed phase below Megaron IIA.101 To Early Troy II must also be attributed Dörpfeld’s II.2 complex of buildings in the western half of the citadel.102 Among them was a colossal megaron of imprecise dimensions, possibly contemporary with the first stage of Gate FO and linked with the new structure found below Megaron IIA.103 The most northern defence Wall 15, totally removed by Schliemann, should also be added to Early Troy II.

a likely continuation of a stratum of large stone blocks, evidence for a platform within the citadel of Early Troy II.106 Some other features of Early Troy II inside the citadel (square F3) we owe to Schliemann, i.e. fragments of building IIa along with a drain later investigated by Blegen107 and an accumulation of loose small stones, probably of IIb pavement.108 Of Early Troy II is perhaps also Wall 96 in D5, another part of Dörpfeld’s Wall Ic, which is a possible continuation of the retaining wall observed south of ‘Palace’ IIA.109 Of a somewhat later date within Troy II seems an additional cross wall, i.e. Wall 32 of Megaron IIR110 and a drain on its northern side111, both exposed by Schliemann in square F3. Moreover, in

It was situated on the glacis’ top of Late Troy I and connected with the Troy II circuit wall in squares C3 and G3.104 Another, perhaps large retaining Wall 17 in DE3 linked with the North Platform, on which were placed the main Troy II structures, was found in many places.105 On the south it was backed by

the fortification wall of Troy IIa-b has been recovered a pit burial of a young adult female.112 Schliemann’s excavations brought to light several distinctive Middle Troy II structures, namely fragments of Dörpfeld’s later huge Megaron IIA with four-metre diameter hearth (Walls 21-67,

98 Korfmann 1999, 9; Korfmann 2000, 6; Easton 2002, 307. 99 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 307. 100 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Korfmann 1996a, fig. 18; Easton 2002, 307. Walls II.2 overlie Megaron IIR and thus it cannot be contemporary with Megarons IIA, B, H as earlier suggested – Blegen et al. 1950, 265. 101 Korfmann 1992a, 13 fig. 10, 15-16, 17 fig. 15; Korfmann 1996a, 19, 20 fig. 14, fig. 18; Easton 2002, 307. 102 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 307. 103 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Mellaart 1959, 141 and fig. 5, 142; Easton 2002, 307. 104 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3, this wall is visible at least in square C3, but he marked its course 10 m too far to the north; Blegen et al. 1950, 195-96, figs 209, 211-12; Easton 2002, 109-110, 308. 105 Schliemann 1874a, 61-62, 83, 90, 282; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Schliemann 1875, plan 2; Schliemann 1880, 24, 40, 268-69, plans 1, 3; Blegen et al. 1950, 248, fig. 273; Korfmann 1992a, 13 fig. 10, 15-16, fig.

13a; Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 165-68; Korfmann 1994, 12 fig. 10, 14; Korfmann 1995, 11-12; Korfmann 1996a, 18 and fig. 12, 19-20 figs 13-14; Easton 2002, 102, 112, 117, 137-38, 141, 162, 308. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 43 fig. 7; Blegen et al. 1950, 109-110, fig. 431; Easton 2002, 141, 162, 172-73, 308-309. Blegen et al. 1950, 251-52, figs 276-78, 434; Easton 2002, 101, 119, 309. Schliemann 1874a, 61-62; Blegen et al. 1950, 25859, figs 279-81, 435; Korfmann 1993a, 12 fig. 10, 13 fig. 11; Easton 2002, 101, 112, 309. Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214 no. 23; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 43 fig. 7, 44, pls 3, 8; Schirmer 1971, 15-16; Korfmann 1992a, 12, 13 fig 10; Korfmann 1993a, 12 fig. 10; Easton 2002, 141, 174, 309. Schliemann 1874a, 188; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 96, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, 251, 258, 265, figs 432, 435; Easton 2002, 102, 125-26. Schliemann 1874a, 61; Easton 2002, 102, 104. Angel 1951, 6-7.

106

107 108

109

110

111 112

11

89, 94)113 and perhaps Megaron IIB (Wall 69)114, sections of the extended defence system (Walls 5253, 56, 81, Building 3, Gate FM)115 and an impressive stone-paved ramp lying southwest outside of Gate FM.116 Middle Troy II is roughly contemporary with Dörpfeld’s Troy II.3 and Blegen’s phase IIc with erected Megarons IIA and IIB but without Megaron IIR and with Megaron IIK in Dörpfeld’s phase.117 During Troy IIc at the citadel were erected Propylon IIC118, Megarons IIE and IIH, as well as fortification walls with Bastion and Gate FH

in B4 extended and two double gateways added. Moreover, outside of the interior-walled area was constructed Megaron IIF along with a multiroomed structure west of it.119 To Middle Troy II also belong features of Blegen’s phases IId-e. It is uncertain if they are independent phases or subphases of IIc, but in the latter case Troy II consists of nine building phases. The most important seems to be attribution of structures to IId-e. To Blegen’s IId belong the re-built Propylon contemporary with the great megarons and to his phase IIe Dörpfeld’s large structures IIM and IIN and his and Blegen’s Wall II 18.120 They were all contemporary either with the great megarons (thus constituting a

113 Schliemann 1874a, 37-38, 43-44, 89, 110; Schliemann 1874b, pls 214-15; Schliemann 1880, 21; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 81 fig. 23, 85, 89-93, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 437; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 196 no. 164, 197 no. 166, 198-99 no. 168, 332-33; Easton 2002, 102, 134, 137, 141, 148, 162, 307. It was built of mudbrick set within a half-timbered framework on top of a massive stone socle. 114 Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 81 fig. 23, 93-95, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 102, 138. Below Megarons IIA and IIB, there were numerous older, five or six-phase buildings of similar size with impressive foundations; one of them showed traces of fire – Korfmann 1994, 12 fig. 10, 14; Korfmann 1996a, 5. 115 Schliemann 1874a, 253-54, 256-58, 270-71, 289; Schliemann 1874b, pls 169, 211-12, 214-16; Schliemann 1880, 33-34, 36, 265-66; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 68-72, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 225, 249, 252, 26768, 283, 291-92, 304 (it seems that Wall 56 is not no. 27 in Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214). Wall 52 of Troy II, overlying the western half of Gate FN, survived into Troy III – Easton 2002, 225, 248-49. 116 Schliemann 1874a, 253-54; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 68, 69 and fig. 19, 70-71 figs 20-21, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 268, 283. The ramp consisted of two building phases of which the second one had narrower paving and in contrast to the earlier one was not used – Korfmann 1994, 2. 117 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 96, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, 205-206; Mansfeld 2001, 194; Easton 2002, 307. 118 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 81 and fig. 23, 82-83, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, 206.

sub-phase of IIc) or with the smaller buildings overlying them and dated to Late Troy II. Also in light of recent observations it seems plausible that Megarons IIA and IIB were destroyed by fire at the end of phase IId but not later121; anyway traces of burning have been well recognized from the end 119 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 66, 67 and fig. 18, 81 fig. 23, 82, 93, 96-97, pls 3-4; Blegen et al. 1950, 270, but in fig. 417 dated Bastion FH to Troy IIb. Immediately north of this structure recent excavations have exposed a part of the “postern gate” – Korfmann 2000, 20. 120 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 77-78, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, 302; Easton 2002, 307. 121 Easton 1997, 194; Easton 2000, 79, 81; Easton 2002, 307. In light of recent field works in Pinnacle E4-5 there were not synchronic architectonic remains in Troy IIe and IIf, because those of IIe were limited to ‘Island’ E6. In Pinnacle E4-5 the remains of Troy IIf overlay Megaron IIA and those of IIg underlay Troy IIIa – Mansfeld 2001, 194, 200. These important stratigraphic determinations verified earlier and opposite views presented in Mellaart 1959, 148 and fig. 8, 149-50, 151 fig. 9, 152, 153 fig. 10 and later repeated, inter alia, by Traill 1983, 185; Easton 1984b, 146-49. Against J. Mellaart’s point of view was also a differentiation proposed by Schirmer 1971, 35-43.

12

of Middle Troy II.122 It should also be added that recent excavations brought to light new results concerning the architecture and thus the function of these megarons, which seem to be free-standing temples rather than houses.123 Likewise in G6, just northeast of Gate FO and behind the IIg burnt mudbrick wall, a megaron was excavated, whose position and finds indicate a cultic function. To the north of it came to light two other contemporaneous ones. The discussed structure was destroyed by fire later than Megarons IIA and IIB.124 Also the construction of a new Gate IIN might have been linked with architectural changes made northeast of Gate FO.125 Outside of Megaron VIB and northeast

of Wall 82, in the debris overlying the circuit wall of Middle Troy II, Schliemann uncovered Treasure B situated close to the later exposed Treasure A, which suggests that originally it was a single hoard only separated into the two parts in the course of excavations.126 An interesting feature of Middle Troy IId was also the bothros found in square E5 and a lot of rubbish pits, perhaps originally arranged as emplacements for large pithoi.127 Finally, c. 200 m south of the citadel in İ-L1617 the new excavations recorded the ‘negative’ of the defensive palisade and South Gate of the Lower Town of possible Early-Middle Troy II date.128 During Late Troy II, Gate FO was rebuilt and the large Building IIS, recovered by Schliemann, perhaps a part of the fortifications, was constructed west of it in EF7-8.129 Also just northeast of this gate in G6 Blegen’s excavations brought to light the defence wall of mudbrick on the stone foundation.130 Subsequently, Gate FO went out of use, the site’s centre was abandoned and new houses were constructed in the vicinity of Gate FM.131 Also Schliemann’s Wall

122 Traces of burning are observable for the megarons (Schliemann 1884, 75; Mansfeld 1993a, 40; Mansfeld 2001, fig. 12:13; Frirdich 1997, 155, 157 – “Schicht 12”), the Colonnade and courtyard (Blegen et al. 1950, 279), areas F4-6 (Blegen et al. 1950, 264, 267), Gates FM and FO (Schliemann 1880, 311; Schliemann 1884, 79-80), defence Wall IIb (Schliemann 1880, 305-306; Schliemann 1884, 63; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 76, annex 10 d); Easton 2000, 80; Easton 2002, 308. 123 Mansfeld 2001, 80-117. This point of view was earlier represented by Schliemann and Dörpfeld – Schliemann 1884, 83, 86, 90-92. Later there were doubts if they were houses or temples – Schliemann 1891, 19-20. Finally, Dörpfeld after excavations at Tiryns regarded both buildings as main rooms of the ruler’s palace – Schliemann 1891, 52-54; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 85, 94, 98. 124 Korfmann 1999, 1, 12-13 – according to calibrated 14 C dating this could have happened quite late, i.e. between 2290 and 2200 B.C., but on the other hand, there was recorded pottery of Troy I and II. Korfmann 2000, 11-16. 125 Korfmann 2000, 14. In G6 the citadel wall has three bastions, two of which have been excavated. Moreover, in G7 almost the entire wing of Gate FO was uncovered and there were attested three building phases, as well as that the antae of the gate did not have a mudbrick superstructure – Korfmann 2001a, 7-9.

126 Easton 1984b, 165-67; Easton 2002, 252, 259. On problems concerning dating of accumulation and deposition of Treasure A see Makkay 1992, 199203; Korfmann 2001e, 220-25. 127 Blegen et al. 1950, 206, 277-78, 297. 128 Jablonka 2001; Korfmann 1998, 49-56; Korfmann 2001b, 347. On the other hand, pottery fragments from the post-holes indicate Troy I-II – Korfmann 1999, 21; Jablonka 2001, 393. Proposed 14C calibrated dates cover the time frame c. 2860-2490 or c. 2700-2500 B.C. and thus roughly correspond with mentioned settlements – Korfmann 1999, 33; Jablonka 2001, 393. 129 Schliemann 1891, plan 3; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 73 fig. 22, 99, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, 374-76; Easton 2002, 57, 176-77, 261, 264, 308-309. 130 Blegen et al. 1950, 377. 131 Korfmann 1992a, 20; Korfmann 1996a, 21; Korfmann 1999, 10-13; Korfmann 2000, 11-14; Mansfeld 2001, 272; Sazcı 2001, 387, 389. On the

13

83 in B5-6, situated outside of Dörpfeld’s Wall IIb, enormously supplemented knowledge about the southwest defensive structures of Late Troy II. It was also evidenced by Dörpfeld’s excavations and recent ones in D7. The stratigraphy of D7 combined with that of Blegen in square E6 indicate the origin of the newly discovered structure in Late Troy II (= Blegen’s IIg) and this is also a possible date for Wall 83. In light of these data it seems that Wall IIb was not part of the final defences of Troy II, but fell out of use and was covered over after Middle Troy II was burned.132 In G7 on the eastern side of Gate FO was

To Late Troy II, resembling phases IIf-g distinguished by Blegen, with high probability are attributable Houses HS (“House of the City King”), HT and House of Treasure D discovered by Schliemann in squares C4-5, D4, as well as a complex of multi-roomed small houses, partly divided by small streets, recorded by Blegen in squares E6, F4-5 and Mansfeld in E4-5.135 Also a continuation of these structures in or beneath the small houses, illustrated in an older publication, derived from Late Troy II.136 Within the citadel in square D6 were also exposed Building 5 with related Walls 72-74, and unrelated Walls 71, 75-76, as well as Walls 99-100 belonging to a small room

a platform of Late Troy II recovered by Schliemann, which implies, contrary to the earlier interpretation, its function as a gatehouse shrine due to the horned altar placed there and a small drain in the vicinity; the possibility of such function is evidenced by a similar cult structure known from Tower VIi of Troy VI.133 Generally, as at Troy I, to the main features of the fortification wall of Troy II one can ascribe inclination of its exterior face providing solidity, as well as a possible mudbrick and/or wooden breastwork. The first feature was achieved through the use of smashed stones of different size as the principal material, stabilized thanks to its weight and joining with the earth mortar.134

in C5137; all these features along with the citadel wall and paved ramp were covered by a 2-3 m thick layer of burned deposits of black, red and yellow ash, mudbricks and bits of stone, which yielded a huge number of artefacts, which make Troy II one of the richest settlements of the mound.138 It should be mentioned that for the first time within the citadel perhaps a new phase IIh has been recognized by the recent excavations in Pinnacle E4-5.139 Moreover, in square D7 they exposed the 135 Schliemann 1880, 324-27; Blegen et al. 1950, 303, 308-10, 312-13, 321-67; Mansfeld 1993a; Frirdich 1997, 150-53 (“Schicht 11”); Easton 2002, 308. 136 Schliemann 1880, plans 1, 3 (T). 137 Schliemann 1874a, 269-70, 274, 302-303; Schliemann 1874b, pls 169, 211-12, 214-16; Schliemann 1880, 36-38, plan 1; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 102; Blegen et al. 1950, 372; Easton 2002, 268, 283, 292, 304. 138 Schliemann 1874a, 255, 270, 290, 308; Schliemann 1880, 33-34, 40-41; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 8; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 235 no. 213, 242 no. 221; Meyer 1962, 83 no. 1; Easton 2002, 268, 275, 288. 139 Korfmann 1992a, 21. This point of view was questioned on the basis of Megaron IIA destruction by fire probably during Troy IId. Thus overlying it Mansfeld’s “Schicht 11” (= IIh), with traces of the second burning, seems more likely connected with

other hand, it is not certain whether Gate FM was still used – Easton 2002, 308. 132 Schliemann 1874a, 288-89; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214 no. 35; Schliemann 1880, 40; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 68, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, 321-22, figs 44950; Korfmann 1992a, 17, 18 and fig. 16; Korfmann 1993a, 11; Korfmann 1996a, 21; Korfmann 1997, 23-24; Easton 2002, 181, 261, 264-65, 309. 133 Schliemann 1874a, 244-45; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 215; Schliemann 1880, 30-31 no. 6; Schliemann 1884, 199-200; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 133 and fig. 44, 134, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1953, 99, figs 55, 452; Easton 2002, 225-26, 246-47, 308-309. 134 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 50-56, annexes 7-10; Korfmann 1989, 309-10; Klinkott 2004, 74.

14

remains of domestic architecture outside of the Troy II fortifications.140

to be a fortified outer settlement or at least casematelike building concentrically aligned with the citadel.146 Dateable to the same settlement are walls linked with Building 3147 and nine pithoi exposed by Schliemann in square E7 under Building 2.148 To Troy II can also be attributed a Spring Cave cut into the rock, situated west of the Lower Town.149 On the other hand, within Troy II there are some structures of imprecise date, for instance the northeastern end of the colossal, possible defensive Wall 30 (Dörpfeld’s Wall BC) of the Lower Town in squares GH3-4, whose northwestern end may perhaps be sought in C3150, several walls of Troy I or II on the North Platform151, as well as Schliemann’s

In 1988 north of the citadel’s Gate FO in square G6 was recovered a megaron of Troy IIg-h or early III along with cult objects, including a very interesting pottery vessel.141 To Late Troy II or perhaps III belong a stone-lined cist recovered in square B5 below Wall 82 in debris covering the Middle Troy II citadel wall; it contained Treasure A and perhaps B.142 Moreover, burials of children under a house floor have also been unearthed – one at Troy IIf and two others in a contracted position at Troy IIg.143 Late Troy IIg was totally burned and this is why Schliemann acknowledged it as the “Priam’s City”.144 Troy IIh, if accepted, was also destroyed by conflagration.145 Generally, of Troy II is a very interesting structure recently recovered in A3-4, which seems

so-called Tower in D7, i.e. Dörpfeld’s citadel Walls IIb-c, of which the first one was re-investigated by Korfmann.152 Moreover, it is not evident whether Building 3 and overlying it Building 2, both situated over Gate FN, derive from Middle-Late Troy II or Early III, and whether Wall 52 dating

Blegen’s Troy IIg – Easton 2000, 79-81. 140 Korfmann 1997, 9. 141 Korfmann 1999, 10-13; Korfmann 2000, 11-16; Sazcı, Korfmann 2000, 97. 142 Schliemann 1874a, 289-303; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 215; Schliemann 1880, 40-41, 453-92; Borlase 1878, 236; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 326-31, pl. 3; Schmidt 1902, 225-37; Meyer (ed.) 1936, 135; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 231-32 no. 210, 233 no. 211, 234 no. 212, 235 no. 213; Meyer 1962, 83 no. 1; Traill 1983; Traill 1984; Traill 1986; Traill 1988; Traill 1992; Traill 1995, 111-24; Easton 1981, 179-81; Easton 1984a, 200, 202; Easton 1984b, 146-47, 165-68; Easton 1992, 195-96; Easton 1994a; Easton 2002, 252, 25859, 266, 296; Korfmann 2001e. 143 Blegen et al. 1950, 207, 315-16, 329. The scarce sepulchral data from Troy II suggest that child burials were intramural and adult ones extramural – op. cit., 255. 144 Op. cit., 321; Mansfeld 2001, 196, fig. 12:13. A lot of objects assigned by Schliemann to the “Burnt City” probably came also from Late Troy II deposits – Easton 2000, 80; Easton 2002, 308. 145 Korfmann 1992a, 20; Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 165, 168; Mansfeld 2001, 272.

146 Jablonka 2006, 10-11. 147 Schliemann 1874a, 243-44; Easton 2002, 225, 242, 246. 148 Schliemann 1874a, 258; Easton 2002, 225, 248. 149 Korfmann 2001b, 347; Korfmann 2001d, 404-405. 150 Schliemann 1874a, 157-58; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Schliemann 1880, 24 no. 2 (Wall B); Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 6, 59, 60 fig. 13, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 83, 92-93, 309. The function of the discussed structure as the northeastern end of the defensive wall around the Lower Town of Troy II was to some extent confirmed by recent works, which exposed in squares D7-8 perhaps some remains outside of the citadel – Korfmann 1992a, 17; Korfmann 1993a, 11; Korfmann 1995, 13; Korfmann 1996a, 21; Korfmann 1997, 24-27. 151 Easton 2002, 110. 152 Schliemann 1874a, 159-60; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Schliemann 1880, 265, plans 1, 3; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 6, 61-63, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 437; Korfmann 1997, 23 fig. 11; Easton 2002, 191-92, 203-204.

15

to Troy II, despite its enormous height, was reused in Troy III.153 Outside of the citadel, the Troia Project

one of the earliest forms of depas (A45/1)161, which, together with jewellery of possible Akkadian date recorded there, confirm the dating of Middle Troy II.162 In the context of the Akkadian synchronism the Naṣiriya stele from south Iraq with the representation of a possible two-handled tankard (A43) should also be mentioned.163 Perhaps from that phase of Troy derive an imported sherd of EC III (probably incised)164 and a sherd of very early EH III.165 The first appearance of new forms of depas (A45/4, 6) enabled Late Troy II to be distinguished; they have parallels in Amuq J, Kültepe 12 and Beycesultan IX.166 From Troy IIf originated one possible MM import.167 To Late Troy II can also be attributed the alabastron-shaped flasks of late ED Ur III type168, known also from Tarsus EB IIIB-C, and the latest artefacts of Treasure A perhaps dated to ED Ur III, namely shell earrings with fine granulation and a long-handled ridged pan.169

recovered the rest of Troy II solid houses in D7.154 The most evident change in pottery production distinguishing Early Troy II from Troy I was the introduction of wheelmade one-handled tankards (A39) and plates (A2); the latter along with bowls increased towards the end of that period.155 To this phase of Troy are attributable the seal impressions resembling those from the EH II House of Tiles at Lerna156, imported ovoid and globular jars of ED Akkadian type157 and perhaps the silver pin with fluted head in ED III style.158 At Middle Troy II were introduced twohandled tankards (A43) and depa (A45), and the production of Plain Ware suddenly increased.159 Moreover, sudden appearance of these two forms has been recorded at the beginning of EBA III in related Anatolian and Aegean sites and it allows Middle Troy II to be synchronized with this phase.160 Thus it should be mentioned that at Kültepe 13 there have been found a two-handled tankard (A43) and

161 Easton 2002, 322, 337. 162 Öktü 1973, 262, pl. 54 no. I-c/05; Özgüç 1986a, 40-43. 163 Mellink 1963b, 101-14, pls 28-29. 164 Easton 2002, 244, 337, fig. 174. 165 Op. cit., 125, 337, fig. 138 – sherd no. 73-107, but not 73-181. 166 Op. cit., 322, 337, fig. 194. In the Anti-Taurus EBA IIIb, i.e. after c. 2300 B.C. (14C reading from Arslantepe VIC) appeared the first eastern analogues of the Cappadocian Ware introduced at Kültepe 12 – Mellink 1963a, 175; Mellink 1965b, 113; Alessio et al. 1976, 338-39; Griffin 1980, 6667; Van Loon (ed.) 1980, 274. However, recently for Arslantepe VIC there has been proposed the much earlier absolute date 2612-2461 B.C. – Yakar 2002, 451. 167 Hood 1961, 402. 168 Schliemann 1880, 394, 396 no. 408; Kühne 1976, 63-66, fig. 65. On the other hand later dates cannot be excluded – Zettler 1978, 349-50. 169 Schliemann 1874b, pls 196 nos 3563-3565, 197

153 Schliemann 1874a, 243-44, 258; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214 nos 8, 13; Easton 2002, 225, 242, 246, 248-49, 309. Presumably, the surface of fragments of Gate FN has also been exposed along with Dörpfeld’s later citadel Walls IIb-d to the east of it – Easton 2002, 225, 236. Over the same gate may have lain some other walls of Troy II with signs of intensive burning – Schliemann 1874a, 256-57; Easton 2002, 225, 242, 248-49, 309. 154 Korfmann 1993a, 2, 11. 155 Blegen et al. 1950, 225-27, 229. 156 Op. cit., 256, fig. 408 no. 37-1134; Heath 1958, 110, pl. 22 nos S46-47. 157 Blegen et al. 1950, 99, 105, 112, figs 237 no. 21, 241 no. 30, 266 no. 7. 158 Easton 1990a, 441; Easton 2002, 111, 337, fig. 134. 159 Blegen et al. 1950, 225 table 12, 229-30; Easton 2002, 317-18, 337. 160 Mellink 1986, 144 pl. 16, 146, 150; Easton 2002, 337.

16

Contemporaneity and precise radiocarbon dating of Middle-Late Troy I (phases d-k) with early phases of Troy II is of special interest. The calibrated

According to another point of view, based only on the radiocarbon determinations, the contemporaneity of Middle-Late Troy I with Troy IIg-h utilized only five questionable radiocarbon determinations from Megarons IIA and IIB, including three obtained from beams of the IIg phase. Especially, the two nonbeam charcoal samples from Late Troy II suggest a placement of this settlement after Troy I, i.e. from c. 2450-2400 B.C. onwards. Thus, it seems that instead of Troy Id-k only Ii overlaps into 2500 B.C.174 Despite the shortness of the overlap175 this point of view should not be discredited.176 Moreover, it is worth remembering that Korfmann’s hypothesis was based also on differences in the material culture between

C dates up to 3000 B.C. from Megaron IIB of Troy IIg tend to demonstrate the “old-wood” problem, i.e. younger structure than the long-lived trees used for its construction.170 There is also another point of view based on the assumption that the wood was not reused and the structure was not a pre-existing building. So, likely c. 2645-2565 B.C. or c. 2505-2495 B.C. radiocarbon data were suggested for Troy IIg, which excluded the “old dates” problem.171 According to calibrated radiocarbon readings the beginning of Troy II has been dated to 2793 B.C., which means 14

perhaps its short, seventy-four year overlap (about three generations) with Troy I, which perhaps ended 2719 B.C.172 Thus it seems that perhaps two groups of inhabitants coexisted in two distinct parts of the settlement. Differences between these settlers are observable in the material culture, more sophisticated at the beginning of Troy II than the indigenous one of Troy I. In light of this it was suggested that a new, more socio-economically advanced elite came at the end of Troy I from the nearby abandoned settlement Beşik-Yassıtepe. This community occupied the citadel and ruled over autochthonous residents living in the lower settlement and continued producing its traditional burnished handmade pottery.173

170 171 172

173

inhabitants of Troy I and II, which had been omitted by S. Manning. On the other hand, a more recent study of the pottery seriation dating does not support Korfmann’s and B. Kromer’s earlier point of view on the contemporaneity of certain phases of Late Troy I and Troy II.177 The median calibrated date of samples taken from the megarons dates Middle Troy II to 2695 B.C., but the timbers could be derived from Troy I and later re-used; thus the calibrated

no. 3586a; Schliemann 1880, 487 nos 830-831; Maxwell-Hyslop 1970, 227; Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, 58-59, 71; Easton 2002, 337. Kromer et al. 2003, 48. Manning 1997a, 509. Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 165-68; Kuniholm 2001, 80. It differs from the historical date c. 2600 B.C. for the beginning of Troy II – Warren, Hankey 1989, 122. Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 137; Korfmann 1997, 8. A lot of pottery of Troy I and II was recorded in D7 and this for the first time led to formulation of the conception of the mentioned coexistence –

174

175 176 177

17

Korfmann 1993a, 11; Korfmann 1997, 9. Likewise transitional strata between these two settlements were recorded in G6 – Korfmann 1999, 13. Also in the area of Troy II megarons, in EF3-4 there were recovered eleven construction phases (massive stone foundations) of Late Troy I and transitional end of Troy I or II along with contemporaneous pottery – Korfmann 1996a, 5-6; Korfmann 1998, 7; Korfmann 2000, 5-6. Manning 1997a, 499, 505, 509. Dating of Troy II after c. 2500 B.C. was proposed on the basis of possible correlation of its evidence with later EB II Aegean and Anatolian contexts – Manning 2001, 28, 145-50, 157-59. Kuniholm 2001, 80. Yakar 2002, 448. Weninger 2002, 1051.

radiocarbon reading seems very likely.178 On the other hand for the beginning of Middle Troy II the traditional parallel method suggests a date of c. 2400 B.C. or more probably c. 2350 B.C., or even 2335 B.C.179 Absolute dating of Late Troy II destruction to c. 2300-2200 B.C. was achieved on the basis of 14 C calibrated readings of samples derived from Schliemann’s “Burnt City”.180 However, it seems that these samples when set against the new 14C series now in fact belong to Troy III-V contexts.181 This led to dating the end of Troy IIh to c. 2500 B.C.182 On the other hand, mentioned series yielded the inner quartile range 2300-2120 B.C. and the

According to Mansfeld 14C readings of Troy II, derived from examined wood samples recovered in Pinnacle E4-5, have to be considered with reservations; he proposed an average calibrated date of 2600 B.C. for Troy IIe and 2200 B.C. for Troy IIId.186 There is also another quite different point of view, based on 14C samples from the new excavations, on the beginning of Late Troy II at the end of 2600 or even 2500 B.C. and its implications for the chronology of Troy III (perhaps no hiatus between it and Troy II), as well as links of Troy II with EH II and coherence of Troy IV with EH III on the Greek mainland.187 Recently, for Troy II minimum calibrated ages of 2300-2200 B.C. have been proposed.188 Additionally,

median date 2170 B.C., which suggested quite a different interpretation.183 Also another recently proposed date of 2290-2200 B.C. for Troy IIh fits with this time span.184 Moreover, the investigations of Markiani brought to light AMS chronological determinations, which support traditional dating of EC III (Kastri group) to 2500-2300 B.C. and thus its parallelism with Late Troy II to Troy III.185 This would exclude dating of Late Troy II prior to 2500 B.C., which seems to be linked with the subsequent Cycladic Kastri phase.

according to the other more recently published 14C calibrated determinations the end of Troy II can be dated to 2455-2379 B.C.189 To sum up, it seems that in the late 28th or early 27th century B.C. Troy became a local polity with centralized administration in the form of a ruling elite class occupying the citadel and perhaps controlling the production, distribution and exchange of goods. Similar but smaller scale socioeconomic development around that time and towards formation of the so-called Aegean type coastal site has also been observed in western Anatolian Limantepe, Küllüoba and Demircihöyük.190 In destroyed Late Troy II the large amount of gold and silver artefacts, architecture, huge variety of pottery types and wares, very common whorls and loom weights suggest continuation of wide contacts with the Aegean and Anatolia, as well as developed metal

178 Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 147-49 (samples from squares E4-5). 179 Easton 2002, 341. 180 Quitta 1978, 27-30; Quitta 1981, 21-23, 27. 181 Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 135-37, 148-150, 162-64. 182 Op. cit., 168 fig. 23. 183 Op. cit., 147-49, 158, 161, 163-64, fig. 9 (samples from squares D7, E4-5); Easton 2000, 73, 79-81. The proposed median date is slightly too early to correlate Troy IIf with the MM period and IIg with the Ur III period, but it is in the right general area. Alternatively a date of c. 2120 B.C. can be suggested – Easton 2002, 341. 184 Sazcı 2001, 384. 185 Davis 1992, 752-53; Manning 1997a, 513; Manning 2001, 81-86, fig. 2.

186 187 188 189

Mansfeld 2001, 201-203. Maran 1998, 425-26; Manning 2001, 159-60, 172. Kromer et al. 2003, 48. Sazcı 2005. 86. This roughly corresponds with Troy IIg-h dated from c. 2400 to 2300 B.C., if the megaron phase was a long-lived cultural phase – Manning 1997a, 509. 190 Yakar 2002, 452.

18

and textile production, which along with fishing created enormous population prosperity.191

IIb in square D7 there existed a multiphase gate burned two or three times.197 To the fortifications also belong remains outside the citadel in EF7-8. They take the form of an annex similar to Building IIS and may, like this building, have originated in Troy IIg.198 In the citadel Schliemann noted various walls with signs of burning in squares EF6-7 and also some other walls of perhaps Troy III origin visible in DE34 and re-built in Troy IV.199 Later he also recorded houses that stood in blocks separated by narrow streets or lanes; they consisted usually of several small rooms irregularly grouped and often with walls not parallel.200 Blegen recorded that the new houses and

3. Troy III Within “ärmliches Dorf”, as Dörpfeld called Troy III, not a lot of remains have been found.192 Nevertheless, his successor Blegen was able to distinguish three to four strata (a-d) grouped into three phases, namely Early (a), Middle (b-c) and Late (d) Troy III.193 These phases fit into the features noted in the course of the recent excavations of Pinnacle E4-5.194 At Troy III a small part of the fortifications has been recorded in the course of the older excavations, but thanks to the recent works a stretch of the circuit wall came to light in square D8; it lies somewhat further to the south.195 In other words, the two-phase citadel wall of Troy III seems to be an addition to that of Late Troy II and the final installation in the gateway; perhaps even the stone ramp of Troy II was utilized during Troy III.196 There is a possibility that outside the line of Wall

streets were laid out with a general shift of orientation and over areas earlier occupied by houses. In square E6 he recovered two intersecting Streets 308 and 309 bordered by blocks of Houses 300, 301, 302, 303, 304 separated by party walls.201 Moreover, recently outside of the citadel in A3-4 there came to light houses with small rooms and mudbrick walls dated to Troy III.202 It should also be added that within the citadel recent excavations have revealed the introduction of a domed oven already in Late Troy III, an important domestic installation indicating an influence from the Anatolian interior.203

191 Blegen et al. 1950, 207-19; Podzuweit 1979a, annex 27. Parallels between Trojan jewellery and that of Poliochni Yellow have already been evidenced – Pernicka et al. 1990, 263-98. 192 Dörpfeld et al. 1894, 84-87, 99-100; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 99-102. 193 Blegen et al. 1951, 6-8, 37-97, figs 264-67, 285 (Pinnacle F4-5); Blum 2002b, 106. 194 Mansfeld 2001, 197-98, fig. 12:13. 195 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 102; Blegen et al. 1951, 5; Korfmann 1995, 12; Korfmann 1996a, 22, 23 fig. 17; Korfmann 1998, 24 (possible also in G6); Easton 2002, 176, 309; Sazcı 2005, 58 and fig. 24, 87. It seems that one of the main features of the fortification wall of Troy III was inclination of its exterior stone face, whose pressure into the wall’s core provided stability of the structure – Klinkott 2004, 74. 196 Korfmann 1996a, 6; Korfmann 1998, 7.

197 Korfmann 1992a, 17-18; Korfmann 1993a, 11. 198 Easton 2002, 176. It seems there was a short duration of the circuit wall, which did not extend far outside the latest defence wall of Troy II – Korfmann 1995, 3. 199 Schliemann 1874a, 243-44, 282; Schliemann 1874b, pls 214-15; Easton 2002, 137-38, 174-75, 225, 24042, 310. Other walls came to light in G6 – Korfmann 1998, 21, 23-27. Moreover, in D8 were recovered two-room buildings with joint separation walls of Anatolian settlement scheme – Korfmann 1994, 15; Korfmann 1995, 12. 200 Schliemann 1880, pl. 1; Schliemann 1884, 176. 201 Blegen et al. 1951, 4, 6, 37-89; Blum 2002b, 108-23. 202 Jablonka 2006, 10. 203 Çalış-Sazcı 2002, 62.

19

To Troy III or II can be perhaps assigned Wall 59 exposed in squares C5-6, running parallel to the street of Gate FM of Troy II; probably its continuation was Wall 70 on the northwest side of that gate.204 Of Troy III or even IV is nearby Building 4 with traces of burning situated in CD56, on the top a 2-3 m thick layer of debris overlying Gate FM.205 Generally, the area inside the citadel of Troy III was dominated by complexes of small, one-to-three or four roomed houses. Their interior walls were generally of clay brick, but the exterior ones were constructed mainly of stone on a stone socle and faced with orthostatai.206 This is evidently in contrast to the huge megarons of

bowls, and depa with narrow ring base (A45/7).210 A bowl (A16) typical for Troy III became common at Beycesultan IX onwards211 and depas (A45/8) at its level VIa.212 Some other similarities from Tarsus EBA IIIC are also known, namely the brownish shade of the platters213 and the jar with spreading neck and pedestal (C219) additionally recognized at Gedikli EBA III.214 In the Aegean basically four new forms (A16, 22, 225, C14) of Troy III were produced in the early MH Matt-Painted pottery.215 It seems that also much of the materials from Schliemann’s Troy IV belong to what is now recognized, on the basis of a comparison of the altitudes, as Troy III.216

Troy II commonly constructed of mudbricks on stone foundations and reinforced with timbers. Traces of an earthquake have been observed at Troy IIIa, but structures of the last IIId phase were burned and collapsed as is known from Mansfeld’s excavations.207 Outside of the citadel, the Troia Project excavated in D7-8 remains of megaron-like houses of Troy III-IV.208 Also deposits of Troy I-III came to light northwest of the fortification wall; they perhaps derive from dumping possibly associated with similar materials found on the slope’s ledge.209 Troy III fits into the later part of Anatolian EBA III thanks to pottery parallels in Beycesultan VIIIVIa and Tarsus EBA IIIC. To innovations belong bead-rim bowls, volute attachments, Red-Cross

Among that assemblage there are jars with wide disc-like rims recalling those from MH Lerna217, jars with a swollen neck repeated in the fragment from MH Eutresis218, as well as pottery decorated with motifs similar to those known from the MH Matt-Painted pottery.219 Moreover, some cups might also be of Grey Minyan Ware.220 Connections of Troy III with EC III, overlapping with the MH, have also been evidenced.221 In this 210 211 212 213 214 215

204 Schliemann 1874a, 255; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Easton 2002, 267, 283, 288. 205 Schliemann 1874a, 269-71; Schliemann 1874b, pls 169, 214; Schliemann 1875, 287 pl. 10; Schliemann 1880, 34-37; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 245 no. 223; Easton 2002, 267, 287. 206 Blegen et al. 1951, 37-90. 207 Mansfeld 2001, 198, fig. 12:13. 208 Korfmann 1993a, 2; Korfmann 1996a, 6. 209 Blegen et al. 1950, 270; Easton 2002, 306.

216 217 218 219 220 221

20

Easton 2002, 338. Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 212 fig. P.52 no. 16, 213. Op. cit., 242 fig. P.67 no. 2, 243. Mellink 1965b, 116. Goldman et al. 1956, 150, fig. 274 no. 579; Alkim, Alkım 1966, 51, fig. 45. Wace, Thompson 1912, 180, 182 fig. 126 d (A225); Buck 1964, 242, 248, 301-303, pls 39, 41 (A1, 4, 5, C2). Among them A16 is not a new type of Troy III, but it is a very characteristic form. Easton 2000, 75 fig. 1; Easton 2002, 338. Schliemann 1880, 545-46 nos 1135-1136; Schmidt 1902, 130 no. 2522; Caskey 1955, pl. 14 a. Schliemann 1880, 552-53 no. 1170; Goldman 1931, 146-49, fig. 203, pl. 13. Schliemann 1880, 527-28 nos. 1015, 1017, 529 nos 1020, 1024. Op. cit., 538-39 nos 1095-1100. Caskey 1960, 302-303; MacGillivray 1984, 74-75;

context should be mentioned imported EC III cylindrical pyxis and lid 222, introduction in EC III of Trojan jugs (B20) with long, deep-grooved beak-spouts223, trefoil mouths224, oddly-shaped

EC III (Kastri group) ‘gap’ on the Cyclades.232 In light of the more recently published 14C calibrated data Troy III was occupied within the period 2370/2355-2225/2207 B.C.233

handle225, and conical, squat jars/pyxides (C205) in EC III and Troy III.226 The c. 100-year-long hiatus between Troy II and III suggested on the basis of 14C calibrated determinations seems problematic.227 For Troy III calibrated radiocarbon dates from charcoal cover the time span c. 2400-2200 B.C.228 The recently published calibrated dates indicate a possible minimum of 2200-2150 B.C., even with the end at c. 2020 B.C.229 For the beginning of Troy III a date

Due to the common features in architecture and finds, including pottery, Troy III belongs to the same cultural development as Troy I-II. Thus these settlements, in terms of material culture, have to be considered as a one-thousand-year unity, named Maritime Troy Culture according to its pattern of distribution along the coasts of the Marmara and the Aegean Seas. Likely common elements have also been noted at Iasos, Emporio, Poliochni and Sitagroi, as well as in the Anatolian inland up to the

of c. 2350-2300 B.C. has also been proposed230, and for its end c. 2200 B.C. or slightly later.231 It should be noted that in the Near East and the Aegean around the latter date there is evidence of a significant short-term climate change (warmer, more arid) and a cultural-chronological break, namely the end of the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period in Egypt, the end of the EH II corridor houses on the Greek mainland and the post

plain of Balıkeşir.234 Finally, it should be added that the aboveproposed western Anatolian EBA time frame – for Troy, Limantepe, Demircihöyük, Karataş-Semayük – created on the basis of radiocarbon readings and traditional middle chronology, generally corresponds with dates from most sites in central (Çadırhöyük, Acemhöyük, Karahöyük), eastern and southeastern Anatolia (Soshöyük, Arslantepe, Korucutepe, Norşuntepe, Titrişhöyük).235

222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230

231

Waren, Hankey 1989, 27. Easton 2002, 188, 324, 339, fig. 157. Barber 1984, 91 – ‘Geometric Ware’ of EC IIIB; Easton 2002, 339. Atkinson et al. 1904, 92, pl. 4 no. 12; Barber 1984, 92; Easton 2002, 121, 339, fig. 136. Schliemann 1880, 544-45 no. 1132; Atkinson et al. 1904, 92, pl. 4 no. 12; Easton 2002, 339. Atkinson et al. 1904, 87, pl. 4 nos 1-3; Barber 1984, 90; Easton 2002, 155, 339, fig. 145. Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 168; contrary Maran 1998, 425. Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 147-49, 158 fig. 13, 167 fig. 21, 168 fig. 23 (from squares D7, E4-5). Kromer et al. 2003, 48. They are historical – Warren, Hankey 1989, 122, 125 and 14C – Manning 1997a, 511; Manning 2001, 27. Manning 1997a, 511.

232 Rutter 1979; Rutter 1983a; Rutter 1984; Forsén 1992, 157-70, 241-42; Weiss et al. 1993; Dalfes et al. (eds) 1997; Manning 1997b. 233 Sazcı 2005. 86. 234 Korfmann 1996a, 5-6, 22-23; Korfmann 2001c, 355-68; Sazcı 2005, 37, 95. The cultural continuity of Troy I, II and III was for instance recorded in D7-8, G6 – Korfmann 1998, 7; Korfmann 2000, 1314; Sazcı 2005, 39, 49, 52 fig. 18 no. 2, 87, pl. 5 no. 5. Lack of major differences between material culture, including architecture, had already been observed by Blegen et al. 1950, 204. 235 Yakar 2002, 447, 449-54.

21

4. Troy IV

extended in squares x7, z5, zAB7-8, D8 and K8, i.e. outside the citadel walls of Troy VI, even far from it.241 Also to the recent works we owe recovery of

Structures of Troy IV-V within the citadel were so extensively destroyed by Schliemann’s and Dörpfeld’s excavations that they were not even identified as levels.236 Later Blegen distinguished a sequence of five (a-e) architectonic phases and the new excavations of Pinnacle E4-5 exposed the same picture.237 At the early field works the beginning of the MBA was marked by two fragments of the south course of the citadel wall, namely Schliemann’s fortification Wall 44 in H7, which exactly corresponds with the circuit wall exposed by Blegen in squares Hİ6-7, F8, and perhaps in H7, C7, and CDE7-8.238 Moreover, in D8 Schliemann found Wall

terrace walls outside of the citadel in A3-4.242 Generally, the structural layout of Troy IV is not very different from that of Troy III243, but new features in the architecture were already pointed out long ago.244 Residential structures are represented by introverted long houses built of mudbrick on a foundation of unworked stones, arranged in a row of four two-room units possessing a main space and a vestibule, and fronting on the same street. The buildings were systematically divided from one another by narrow streets and passageways. Another specific feature of these houses is to share a common wall and have a mudbrick roof coming from two sides.245 These features have been defined as the Anatolian settlement scheme recorded at LCh Beycesultan XXXIV-XXIV, EBA I Pulur X, EBA I-II Demircihöyük, EB II Thermi I-V, as well as EBA IIIA Alişarhöyük 7M.246 Remains of buildings within the citadel had already been discovered by Schliemann in squares D4 and EF6-7247 and in terms of the tapering rooms plan they are very similar to domestic architecture of

27, a possible circuit or retaining wall, and later its continuation was brought to light by Blegen.239 On the other hand it cannot be excluded that it was a westward continuation of perhaps a Middle Troy VI fortification wall exposed by the new excavations.240 We owe the reconstruction of the new position of the fortification walls to Korfmann’s excavations, which show that the walls of Troy IV-V should have 236 Schliemann 1880, 518-21, 573-74; Schliemann 1884, 206-208, 210-12, plan 7; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 33, 102-107, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1951, 101, 221. It seems, however, that a part of at least strata eight and seven had been recovered in CD6-7 outside the walls of Troy II – Dörpfeld et al. 1894, 85-87, 89-93, 98. 237 Blegen et al. 1951, 104-107, 167; Mansfeld 2001, 198-200, fig. 12:13. For more recent assessment of Blegen’s excavations see Thumm 2002, 91-98, 101-102. 238 Schliemann 1874a, 213-215, 258; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Schliemann 1875, plan 2; Blegen et al. 1951, 102, 105, 139, 167, 216; Easton 2002, 215, 221-23, 310. 239 Blegen et al. 1951, 104, 139, fig. 309 nos 3-4 (likely concentration of stones); Easton 2002, 177, 190, 310. 240 Korfmann 1994, 15 fig. 15; Korfmann 1995, 13-14, 17 fig. 12; Easton 2002, 177, 190, 310.

241 Easton, Weninger 1993, 55, 56 fig. 15, 57; Korfmann 1995, 3, 13, 17 fig. 12; Korfmann 1997, 34 fig. 27, 37; Korfmann 1998, 31, 32 and fig. 27a, 33-35; Korfmann 1999, 16 fig. 14a; Korfmann 2000, 22 fig. 17, 27; Korfmann 2002, 12 fig. 10. This achievement refuses the earlier hypothesis on continuous growth of the circumference of the fortification walls through the subsequent periods. 242 Jablonka 2006, 10. 243 Blegen 1964, 100; Korfmann 1993a, 14. 244 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 102. 245 Blegen et al. 1951, 103; Korfmann 1995, 12-13. 246 Lamb 1936, 5-52; Von der Osten 1937a, 112, 114, 117; Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 21-25; Koşay 1976, 122, 132-38, 155; Korfmann 1983, 189, 222-41. 247 Easton 2002, 154-55, 232, 310.

22

the Karum period at Kültepe.248 Additionally, the plan of Schliemann’s above-mentioned fragments of buildings in DE3-4, if they derive from Troy IV, seems to be close to that of structures in the EBA IIB Complex I in Alişarhöyük 11T.249 House

earlier investigations at the beginning of Troy IV there appeared a domed oven, regarded then as an innovation.256 In fact, the number of domed ovens, introduced already in Late Troy III, had increased enormously.257 Outside of the citadel, in z5 worth mentioning are at least four pits of Troy IV and V sunk in the rock face below the foundation of Troy VI citadel wall.258 The new excavations in squares D7-8 certified that Troy IV was affected by an earthquake and seven conflagrations in succession through its different areas; signs of burning were also observed at the end of phase IVe.259 The chronology of roughly Troy IV-V equal with MBA can be tentatively accepted until occurrence

Walls 42-43 from square G7 may also belong to the discussed settlement.250 Moreover, other remains of Troy IVa came to light from Blegen’s excavations of ‘islands’ in E6 and F4-5, 7-8.251 Domestic architecture of Troy IVb-e exposed by the American excavations was dominated by rebuilt houses with traces of burning.252 Also the new excavations brought to light some remains of the MBA Troy IV two-room buildings with several major conflagrations uncovered in squares D7-8, as well as walls of houses in FG5-6 and G5.253 To Troy IV can also be ascribed Schliemann’s deep stratum of red and yellow ashes interspersed with mudbrick walls in square D8, attested by finds and massive burnt strata derived from later excavations.254 There have also been observed other strata of yellow ‘wood-ash’ in squares EFG6-7, a possible stratum of burnt mudbrick overlying occupation debris in EF7 and walls built of small stones joined with mud in EF6-7.255 It is worth adding that according to the

of the fully published results from the recent excavations. According to the architecture and the pottery the earliest occupation of Troy IV coincides with the beginning of the MBA in Anatolia. At Troy IV and Beycesultan V simultaneous innovations are observable in several pottery shapes (A8, 20, 44, C36, D203) and so are the sharply carinated bowls often with bead rims. Five other pottery innovations, known from Troy IV, but sometimes slightly modified, were recorded in the MBA Tarsus (A8 wheelmade and string-cut, A20, 36 with a slight base, D203-204). Cups (A33) very common at Troy IV were numerous at the MBA Tarsus, and other shapes (A20, 28, 36, 44) appeared in the MBA strata of the central Anatolian sites. From Kültepe Karum

248 Cf. Blegen et al. 1951, figs 268-73 (plans of buildings in square E6) with Özgüç 1986b, 1-11, plans 2-4; Easton 2002, 310. 249 Von der Osten 1937b, 14, fig. 35; Easton 2002, 310. 250 Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Easton 2002, 215. 251 Blegen et al. 1951, 139-63 – for instance Houses 450-457, 480, 482, Rooms 401-402, Streets 458, 481, figs 268-74, 287-88, 297-302. 252 Op. cit., 105-106, 168-210. 253 Korfmann 1993a, 2, 14, 18 fig. 17; Korfmann 1994, 2, 15, fig. 14; Korfmann 2003, 8. 254 Blegen et al. 1951, 140, 180, 205, 207; Korfmann 1994, 15, 16 figs 16-17; Korfmann 1995, 13, 14 fig. 8; Korfmann 1996a, 23-24, 25 fig. 19; Easton 2002, 177, 186-87. 255 Easton 2002, 224, 229, 232, 240.

256 Blegen et al. 1951, 107 – this led him to suggest a link between Troy IV and the MH period. On the other hand similarity to the one from Kültepe Karum II cannot be excluded – Özgüç, Özgüç 1953, 132, pl. 20 no. 74. 257 Çalış-Sazcı 2002, 62. 258 Korfmann 2000, 27 and fig. 23, 28; Korfmann 2001a, 19. 259 Korfmann 1994, 15, 16 figs 16-17; Korfmann 2001b, 348; Mansfeld 2001, 199-200, fig. 12:13; Blum 2002a, 74. These traces were also observed by Blegen et al. 1951, 104-105, 172, 174, 176, 187, 215.

23

and conical jar (C205)270 possibly linked with MH, MM and EC IIIB types. The very common cups (A33) close to those of the MH period suggest the Trojan-Aegean koine rather than an Aegean influence.271 Generally,

are known shapes somewhat similar to Trojan A229, B202 and C210.260 To the northeast Aegean shape repertoire perhaps belong shallow lids with two perforated lugs (D203-204), which appeared simultaneously at Troy IV, Beycesultan V and the MBA Tarsus.261 There

artefact linkages between Troy IV and Anatolia, the Aegean and Cyprus indicate its occupation from the beginning of EH III through MM IA.272 According to the recently published radiocarbon calibrated dates it seems that Troy IV is not younger than Troy III. Most of them indicate a possible minimum of 2200-2150 B.C., with the end even at c. 2020 B.C.273 There has also been suggested an older date for the beginning of this phase, from c. 2300-2200 B.C. with the end at

are also attested parallels between Troy IV and MH pottery forms (A28, 36, B23, C38)262 and from Blegen’s excavations derived two perhaps Grey Minyan Ware sherds.263 Also an incised tankard (A219) is MH in style and possible in manufacture.264 Affinity with tankards of MBA Thessalian style have been demonstrated by the two-handled ‘hour-glass’ tankards (A228).265 Related to the EH III type seems to be a piriform twohandled tankard (A229)266, but links with Kültepe II are also apparent.267 There are some other pottery shapes, namely ovoid jar-like hydria (C12?)268, teapot-spout269

c. 2000 B.C.274 Other, more recent published dates cover the period 2250/2200-1980/1950 B.C.275 There is only one sample confirming the possibility of a transition from Troy IV to V.276

260 For numerous examples see Easton 2002, 339. 261 Schmidt 1902, 145 nos 2987-2988; Goldman et al. 1956, 180, fig. 372 nos 921-922; Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 97 fig. P.8 no. 8; Bernabò-Brea 1976, 245 pl. 225 h; Hood et al. 1981, 412 fig. 188 nos 1300, 1302, 413; Hood et al. 1982, 455 fig. 205 nos 1659-1661, 456, 525 and fig. 230 nos 2306-2307. 262 Easton 2002, 339. 263 Blegen et al. 1951, 186, 196, figs 170 nos 9, 12, 181 no. 16. 264 Schmidt 1902, 112 no. 2327; Buck 1964, 246, pl. 40 (MH shape B8). For decoration see – Atkinson et al. 1904, 88, pl. 5 no. 3 (EC IIIB); Goldman 1931, 146, 147 fig. 202, 149 and fig. 205, 166 and fig. 232, 170, pl. 14 (MH); Goldman et al. 1956, 182, fig. 300 no. 935. 265 Hanschmann, Milojčić 1976, 65-66, 82, 116 annex 11 no. 12, pl. 46 no. 3 (from “Brandschicht” overlying the EBA settlement). 266 Kunze 1934, 35, pl. 11 no. 3a; Sampson 1985, 180, 254 fig. 58 no. 9. 267 Emre 1963, 89, fig. 10 no. Kt.m/k 202. 268 Easton 2002, 294, 325, fig. 189. Cf. Buck 1964, 248, pl. 41 no. C6. 269 Easton 2002, 232, 325, fig. 170.

5. Troy V Blegen’s excavations make it possible to divide Troy V into poorly represented architectonic phases. In square F8 his team exposed four strata (a-d) and in E6 three strata (V1-3), which along with recorded materials enabled phases Early V (Vab, V1), Middle (Vc, V2) and Late (Vd, V3) to be somewhat arbitrarily distinguished.277 The stratum V1 identified by the new excavations in Pinnacle 270 Easton 2002, 325. Cf. Atkinson et al. 1904, 87, pl. 4 nos 1-3; Barber 1984, 90. 271 Easton 2002, 325. 272 Manning 2001, 86-90. 273 Kromer et al. 2003, 48. 274 Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 167 fig. 22, 168 fig. 23 (samples from squares E4-5); Manning 1997a, 511, 513; Maran 1998, 425. 275 Sazcı 2005, 86. 276 Kromer et al. 2003, 51. 277 Blegen et al. 1951, 224-26, fig. 303.

24

Within the citadel Schliemann removed almost everything, especially in its central part. Nevertheless, he found deposits of Troy V material in a few places and his descriptions focused on the prevalence of the remains of the clay brick houses and spread of the settlement beyond the circuit walls of Troy II.287 Dörpfeld in CD6-7 recorded

E4-5 shows traces of burning, which along with an earthquake, evidence of which was recorded nearby by Blegen, was responsible for its destruction.278 Troy V shows the beginning of a revision of the settlement plan and extensive traces of new structures erected in the traditional style of construction resembling that of Troy IV, but the houses themselves seem to reflect greater orderliness and more spacious planning.279 Among the very scarce structural features of Troy V there is Wall 26 of irregular masonry, already distinguished by Schliemann in square D8.280 According to Dörpfeld fragments of it were also visible in A5-7 and H7.281 In light of the later excavations that wall could

perhaps layer six of Troy V.288 Blegen excavated in F8 the large House 501, in E6 Houses 550-554 and Street 556 dated to Early Troy V.289 Most of these structures were more or less re-built during Middle Troy V and perhaps another house complex in A8 added.290 At Late Troy V House 501 was replaced by the new House 504 and bits of house walls came

exist in square F8 and with certainty was partly identified in C8, z5 and A4-5.282 It could be the southern circuit wall of Troy V constructed on the fortifications of the previous settlement.283 In this context Dörpfeld’s Wall Ve in square H7 should also be mentioned.284 The recent investigations did not add much to the picture of Troy V defence architecture; in squares CDE7-8 they brought to light a terrace or fortification walls derived perhaps from Troy V or Early VI.285 Finally, it is worth mentioning that the scarce remains of Troy IV and V recovered in F8-9 show that inclination of the defence wall’s exterior stone face, whose pressure into the core provided stability, was a typical construction of these settlements.286

to light on the very eastern edge of the hill in İ6 and Hİ6-7.291 Further remains of Troy V, including stone walls, were recovered in G2-3 and in the area of the western Gate VIV.292 Additionally, some remains of two-room buildings were exposed by the new excavations in D7-8.293 Also in H6 Troy V strata and finds came to light and at least five building phases were confirmed there.294 Finally, immediately in front of the entrance of Megaron VIB in A5-6 a mudbrick building of Troy V was exposed.295 The construction technique observed in Troy IV-V sharply differs from that of previous periods. The long houses were built close to each other with a party wall on which lay the flat roof of both sides; this along with the plan suggests the Anatolian

278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286

Op. cit., 271; Mansfeld 2001, 200, fig. 12:13. Blegen et al. 1951, 223. Easton 2002, 186, 311. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 103-104. Blegen et al. 1951, 222, 252, 295, 297, figs 230-31, 233. Easton 2002, 310. Schliemann 1874a, 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 103, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 214, 220. Korfmann 1992a, 19, 29 fig. 24; Korfmann 1993a, 14, 18 fig. 17; Korfmann 1994, 15 and fig. 15, 17. Blegen et al. 1953, fig. 460; Klinkott 2004, 74.

287 Schliemann 1874a, 9, 40-41, 215; Schliemann 1880, 573-74; Schliemann 1884, 210-12; Easton 2002, 82, 86, 89, 145, 219, 221, 311. 288 Dörpfeld et al. 1894, 85-86. 289 Blegen et al. 1951, 224-25, 252-68. 290 Op. cit., 225, 271-80. 291 Op. cit., 225-26, 283-84. 292 Blegen et al. 1953, 107, 158. 293 Korfmann 1993a, 15 fig. 13; Korfmann 1995, 13. 294 Korfmann 2003, 8. 295 Korfmann 2001a, 10.

25

settlement scheme.296 During the discussed period domed ovens were still utilized.297 A new feature of the interior architecture is the addition of wide benches along the walls.298 For the MBA of Troy V

leading to this gate.304 From x7, to the east of the temenos wall, are known remains of Troy V houses, later covered by the pavement of Troy VI extending westward in y7.305 Worthy of mentioning in D9 is

there are similarities between its houses in square E6 and those of EBA IIB-IIIA Alişarhöyük 10T, as well as a possible uncovered part of the casemate wall in the area of the citadel wall in F8, which resembles the structure known from EBA III-MBA I-II Alişarhöyük II.299 Only one infant burial was found in a pit below the house floor.300 It should be mentioned that the poorly represented architectural remains of Troy IV-V are the result of very dynamic building activity in antiquity, inter alia in the area

a cylindrical pit of Troy V.306 In D20, c. 200 m south of the citadel for the first time were discovered cremation burials, which indicate the possible area of the cemetery.307 In the scarce material of Troy V there have been observed relationships with the MBA Tarsus, the Karum period, as well as the MH and MC. The carinated bead-rim bowl (A23), an innovation of Troy V was found at MBA Tarsus, Beycesultan and Aphrodisias.308 From Tarsus are also known

of the Temple of Athena, as well as Schliemann’s excavations. Due to the sparse evidence there is a lack of knowledge about the end of Troy V.301 The MBA deposits (Troy IV-V) recorded in the northwestern part of the mound, but outside the walls, are perhaps the result of dumping, which may be related to similar finds found on the slope’s ledge.302 Additionally, transition from Troy V to VI has been recorded in A7, just inside the outer front of the citadel Gate VIU.303 Close to it, in zA7-8 there came to light the remains of four small Troy V houses situated directly beneath the Troy VI street

a fragment of a bowl’s rim (possible Trojan A19) recorded only at Troy V309 and pottery decoration similar to Trojan patterns.310 The vessels, including bowls with volute handles, are very characteristic of Kültepe Karum II, Troy V and Poliochni Brown.311 In the same period of Kültepe appeared a bowl close to the Trojan type (A23) but with a different base (a pedestal or tripod)312 and a similar, perhaps incised pattern of two sets of horizontal lines.313 Also 304 305 306 307

296 Korfmann 1995, 12-13; Korfmann 1996a, 23-24; Korfmann 2001b, 348; Korfmann 2001c, 364. 297 Blegen et al. 1951, 265-67, 278, 280. 298 Op. cit., 223, 225, 258, 272, 279, fig. 191. 299 Von der Osten 1937b, 4-83, 25-30 figs 19-24, 27-28, 36; Blegen et al. 1951, 263-68, 278-80, figs 280-81, 308; Easton 2002, 311. 300 Blegen et al. 1951, 273. 301 Op. cit., 226. 302 Blegen et al. 1950, 270-71; Easton 2002, 306. 303 Korfmann 2002, 18 – it is worth pointing out that the trial trench, begun there by Blegen, was dug into the bedrock, which resulted in exposure of the entire stratification sequence from Troy I to IX.

308

309 310 311

312 313

26

Korfmann 1997, 9. Korfmann 2000, 21-24; Korfmann 2001a, 15. Korfmann 2001a, 23. Korfmann 1994, 2; Korfmann 1995, 3. The graves may provide an approximate extension of the Troy V circuit wall. Goldman et al. 1956, 166-71, figs 286 nos 759-761, 367 nos 750, 758, 764-765, 804, 807, 813, 368 nos. 787, 790, 795, 814, B. Op. cit., 168, figs 286 no. 770, 367 A. Easton 2002, 275-76, 340, fig. 181. Cf. Goldman et al. 1956, 181-82, fig. 300 no. 934. Blegen et al. 1951, 257, figs 249 nos 1-3, 251 nos 19-21, 23; Özgüç, Özgüç 1953, 165, pl. 48 no. 418; Özgüç 1959, 64 fig. 83, 112, pl. 42 nos 1-3; BernabòBrea 1976, 320-22, 326, pls 267 h-j, 268 d-i, 269 e, g, 272 a. Özgüç 1950, 180-82, pl. 46 nos 208-209, 211, 214. Easton 2002, 186, 325, 340, fig. 156. Cf. Özgüç,

closer, than in earlier times, connections and orientation towards the interior of Asia Minor, and thus this period is called Anatolian Troy Culture.321

storage jars from the Boğazköy Karum Ib period are reminiscent of those of Trojan ones (C20).314 From the late MH Greek mainland is known a new form, to which may perhaps be related a Trojan deep bowl with a foot (A22).315 Similarity is also visible between a Trojan lid (D4) and the Matt-Painted cup from Gonia.316 Among island sites MC affinities have been noted from the first half of Ayia Irini IV in Keos, where an innovation of Troy V (domed lid D16) was characteristic.317 At Ayia Irini IVb (roughly MM IIA) occurred the smoothstemmed form with simple rim resembling that of a Trojan pedestalled goblet (A209).318 Recently, for Troy V radiocarbon calibrated dates of c. 1950-1750

With reference to the site’s stratigraphy and relative chronology it should be mentioned that there are various divisions within Troy II-V proposed by Schliemann, Dörpfeld and Blegen, but that of the latter one is still commonly accepted. His Troy IIg (Blegen et al. 1950) is equivalent to Troy III (Schliemann 1884) and the lower deposits of Troy III (Dörpfeld 1902). Troy III (Blegen et al. 1951) is comparable with the earlier part of Troy IV (Schliemann 1884). Finally, Troy IV (Blegen et al. 1951) is equivalent only to the later part of Troy IV

B.C. have been proposed.319 That range generally correlates with a date for Troy V from about 1850 to 1700 B.C.320 Despite fragmentary preservation, Troy IV-V according to the results of new excavations evidently differs from the previous settlements. These novelties introduced at Troy IV are observable in the architecture, the domestic implements (domed oven), the use of organic material in tempering pottery, the occurrence of two new wares (Coarse Ware 451, Coarse Ware with organic admixture 452), the vessel’s shapes of a central Anatolian origin (mainly coarse storage pots, “Schnabelkannen”, jugs with trefoil mouths, Red-Cross bowls) and increased consumption of wild game in the diet. This all suggests a change in life-style and indicate

314 315 316 317 318 319 320

(Schliemann 1884).322 More recent investigations of development of the pottery’s forms from limited and close, but independent from Blegen’s stratigraphy, complexes (houses, rooms, bothros, pits, streets) have confirmed, except for transition from the First to the Second Settlement, his scheme of Troy I-V on the basis of seven distinguished pottery groups.323

6. Troy VI Building operations of Troy VI are responsible for destruction of the upper MBA strata, but they are very scarce themselves due to levelling during Troy VIII noticed by the recent excavations.324 Blegen distinguished at Troy VI eight architectural phases (a-h) and grouped them into the somewhat arbitrary sub-periods Early VI (VIa-c), Middle VI (VId-e) and Late VI (VIf-h).325

Özgüç 1953, 157, pl. 24 no. 102. Orthmann 1963, 44, pl. 34 no. 356. Buck 1964, 242, pl. 39 (A3). Blegen 1921, 27, 28 fig. 38. Caskey 1972, 380 fig. 10 nos D59-60, 381, pl. 88 no. E19; Overbeck 1984, 110. Caskey 1972, 376, 377 fig. 8 no. D4; Overbeck 1984, 111. Kromer et al. 2003, 48. Easton 2002, 336, 344.

321 Gejvall 1937-1938, 53; Blegen et al. 1951, 103; Korfmann 1993a, 14, 18 fig. 17; Korfmann 1995, 12-13; Korfmann 1996a, 6, 23-24; Sazcı 2005, 63, 65-66, 68-69, 74, 76, 81-82, 87, 96. 322 Easton 2002, 80. 323 Parzinger 1993, 200, 201 fig. 12, 202-204. 324 Korfmann 1998, 27-28. 325 Blegen et al. 1953, 11-15.

27

To Dörpfeld and his team we owe verification of Schliemann’s works and discovery, during two heroic campaigns of 1893-1894, the section of 300 m long southern defence wall of Troy VI along with four gateways (VIR, VIS, VIT, VIU) and three towers (VIi, h, s) situated in the band from square A5 to K3.326 To this should be added the later discovered gateway VIV.327 It seems that the wall enclosing the hill had already been erected in late Middle Troy VI. Its remains have been recorded under the Late Troy VI Pillar House and Buildings VIF, VIG, VIQ, as well as in the north part of the hill.328 The latter ones were evidenced by the citadel Wall 13 recorded by Schliemann around the north

also recorded by the American excavations.332 Noteworthy is also an over 6 m deep sloping deposit of Troy VI in squares GH2-3, on the north slope of the mound, uncovered by Blegen’s team.333

side of the mound in squares CDE3.329 He also in A4 and FGH3, as well as Dörpfeld in FG3 and Blegen in A4-5 and FGH3, identified its sections dated to Early and Late Troy VI.330 Additionally, according to these and later excavations in İK8, the fill of a foundation trench confirms the altitude and alignment of this wall.331 Moreover, in squares AB4 another section of discussed circuit wall has probably been found in Wall 99, later perhaps

Dörpfeld and Blegen, which resulted in plotting stone by stone the entire fortification wall with particular attention to the dressing of the stone and the sequence of the wall’s construction. This led to the conclusion, as already Dörpfeld realized, that different segments of the wall were erected not at the same time.335 Moreover, more detailed excavations of Gate VIU in B7 resulted in exposure of its three different structures before the paved ramp lost its function.336 Also excavations in D9 confirmed previously established dates on the construction of the citadel wall at the close of Middle Troy VI at

Schliemann also discovered 3 m high southern circuit Wall 19 of the citadel in CD9 and cut across the fortification wall in K4-5.334 The best preserved and recognized eastern, southern and western line of the extended citadel wall of Troy VI roughly follows a similar course to that of the previous settlement, but it differs in terms of its offset, number of bastions, towers, gates and the style of masonry. In this context should be mentioned a recent investigation based on extensive works of

326 The main task of the three-month campaign in 1893 was to link Troy VI with the Mycenaean pottery and Homer. Thus, contrary to the results of the earlier excavations, Troy II was regarded as older than VI. Moreover, for the first time nine settlements were distinguished on Hisarlık – Dörpfeld et al. 1894, 8687; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 17-20, 26-35. The exposure of the fortifications was the main aim of the over two-month 1894 field season – Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 20-25, pl. 3. 327 Blegen et al. 1953, 104-105. 328 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 105; Blegen et al. 1953, 112, 177; Klinkott 2004, 79. 329 Easton 2002, 99, 104, 311. 330 Dörpfeld et al. 1894, 45; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 11213, 206; Blegen et al. 1953, 5, 12, 107-109, 158-59, 363, figs 84-86, 447, 501; Easton 2002, 99, 104, 311. 331 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 218; Easton, Weninger 1993, 51, 61; Easton 2002, 82, 86, 88-89, 311.

332 Meyer (ed.) 1953, 167 no. 131; Blegen et al. 1958, 133, fig. 320; Easton 2002, 252, 254-55, 311. 333 Blegen et al. 1953, 158, figs 83, 502. A similar feature was also discovered by Dörpfeld in İK3 – Easton 2002, 85. 334 Schliemann 1874a, 82; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Korfmann 1992b, 140, 141 fig. 19; Korfmann 1994, 20, 21 and fig. 23; Korfmann 1995, 10, 11 fig. 5; Easton 2002, 177, 17980, 311. 335 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 107-51, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1953, 81-109; Klinkott 2004, 79-80. 336 Korfmann 2002, 9. During Late Troy VI it was moved to the west along with the citadel wall – Korfmann 2000, 26.

28

and D4343, as well as possible tumbled masonry, including the building’s Wall 11 at two places in B6.344 In square C6 was exposed the building

the earliest and its end at the close of Late Troy VI.337 Finally to Easton’s reconstruction of the northern stretch of the Late Troy VI defence wall should be added a more recent one, which moved it 10 m further to the north.338

Wall 58 of presumably Troy VI345, earlier phases of building Walls 49-50 and in CD5 Wall 51 – all of the same date.346 Another structure recorded by him was the ‘Hellenic Tower’, but in fact it was the northeast end of Dörpfeld’s later Megaron VIB (Walls 5, 79, 80) erected in squares AB4-5, i.e. outside of the Troy II circuit wall.347 To the south of it he also exposed foundations of Megaron VIA in AB6348, the southeast corner of perhaps two-floor House VIM in CD8349, Wall 28 – likely a piece of Megaron VID later unearthed by Dörpfeld in GH4

Summing up, as the principal architectural features of Troy VI should be ascribed the citadel circuit wall with four chronologically different building phases distinguished, five gateways and three towers projecting at irregular intervals from its exterior face.339 The towers do not flank the gates where the walls are set one ‘inside’ the other, so that access to the city is strategically indirect. In Late Troy VI much of the mudbrick fortification wall was replaced with a stone one that uses as its base the battered portion of the earlier wall.340 At the very end of Troy VIh, c. 1300 B.C., the citadel wall was reduced to a ruin by an earthquake.341 Within the citadel a series of concentric steplike terraces rose toward the middle of the mound, which unfortunately was removed in Hellenistic and Roman times. Schliemann revealed on them Wall 20 in D4 forming part of the building of Troy VI orientated parallel to the northern citadel wall and at the west end of the North Platform.342 We owe to him another feature confirming Troy VI occupation, namely two wells in squares C4-5

– as well as the other structures VIP and VIQ in squares J4-5.350 Schliemann also recorded the very massive Wall 41 of Megaron VIG in H7-8 and the less monumental Wall 37b of the southwest part of 343 Schliemann 1874a, 9, 40; Schliemann 1874b, pls 117, 214; Meyer (ed.) 1936, 117; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 192 no. 160; Korfmann 1993a, 14, 18 fig. 17; Korfmann 1994, 15, 16 figs 16-17; Easton 2002, 140, 145, 153, 185, 311. The third well in D8, earlier attributed also to that settlement, originated from HellenisticRoman times – see ref. 507. 344 Meyer (ed.) 1953, 166 no. 131, 326; Easton 2002, 193, 261, 263-64, 311. 345 Schliemann 1874a, 255; Easton 2002, 266-67, 28283. On the other hand this wall could belong to Troy III-IV – Easton 2002, loc. cit. 346 Schliemann 1874a, 229, 255; Easton 2002, 267, 271, 275. 347 Schliemann 1874a, 283; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Schliemann 1880, 40; Schliemann 1891, plan 3; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 153-55, pl. 3; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 167 no. 131; Easton 2002, 252, 254, 257, 259. 348 Schliemann 1891, plan 3. 349 Schliemann 1874a, 180; Schliemann 1874b, pls 117, 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 155-61, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 177, 185. 350 Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214 no. 30; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 82, 90.

337 Korfmann 2001a, 24. 338 Easton 2002, fig. 202 (Walls 13 and 99). In light of that a new proposal of its total length was 532 m and it enclosed an area of 17 878 m2 – Becks 2005, 115 fig. 16, 116. 339 Gate VIV was excavated as last – Blegen et al. 1953, 5. 340 Klinkott 2004, 73-81. 341 Blegen et al. 1958, 7; Mountjoy 1999a, 256-58; Klinkott 2004, 80-81. The responsibility of the earthquake for the end of Troy VIh has also been evidenced by the geophysical investigations – Rapp 1982, 53-58. 342 Schliemann 1874a, 88; Easton 2002, 99, 131, 311.

29

this building.351 The area of the citadel expanded to the south and with the utilized terraces the plan of the city appears to have been reconceived as dwellings built along radii and concentrically. We owe the roughly complete picture of the occupation of two terraces to Dörpfeld, who investigated on the lower one Houses VIA, B, E, F, G, J, K, M, Q, the broad space between them and the circuit wall, and on the upper one Houses VIC, D, O, N; these works also included buildings earlier excavated by Schliemann.352 The American excavations revealed

E8-9 are an important contribution to the division between strata of Troy VI and VII.357 Additionally, the new excavations recorded in squares D8-9 and E8, after the removal of Schliemann’s east terrace, the principal features of Troy VI-VII buildings and the defence wall of the first one.358 In E8, between the south front of House VIM and the south front of the Pillar House, the Troia Project recovered a stone terrace in several phases, including a wall with the saw-tooth projection of Late Troy VI, a Middle Troy VI paved terrace with drainage and an alley 2 m wide leading at a steep incline into the citadel.359 North of the Roman Odeion (Theatre C), in E9 houses and courtyards attested occupation during

other important structures in the south area of the citadel, namely in G8 House 630 of Early Troy VI, the Pillar House in FG8-9 dated to Late Troy VI and the main street of the Sixth Settlement in G7-9 leading from Gate VIT into the citadel.353 House VIF earlier recovered in Hİ6-7 has been investigated and dated to Middle Troy VIe.354 Moreover, further excavations of Gate VIU and Megarons VIA, B, C, E, G, M have indicated their erection during Late Troy VI.355 This is an important period since splendid houses are constructed on variations of the megaron plan, for instance VIA, B, C, G, as well as the Pillar House and House VIF – both with perhaps a second story. On the other hand, there are rectangular free-standing domestic buildings as for instance L-shaped in plan House VIM with an open court. Moreover, possible religious structures of a raised and rounded paved area with two columns set in the middle have been recovered inside of Tower VIi, as well as outside of it as a structure with four pillars.356 Also, Blegen’s finds in squares F7-9 and

Troy VI-VII.360 Also in FG5-6 was excavated Late Troy VI street paving overlaid by another street or alley of the Late VI period.361 A section of the other street running to the south and utilized in the same period has been excavated in G9-10.362 Finally, from Troy VI or VIIa is a limestone and plastered silo recovered in square EF7.363 Dörpfeld had postulated the existence of a Lower Town and later the American team indirectly marked its limits by discovery of the Troy VI cemetery.364 Moreover, the latter expedition

357 358

351 Schliemann 1874a, 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 16162, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1953, 255-62, figs 472-73, 477-78; Easton 2002, 214, 219-20, 311. 352 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 151-74, pl. 5. 353 Blegen et al. 1953, 4, 12, 14. 354 Op. cit., 13. 355 Op. cit., 4, 14, 100-104. 356 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 133 and fig. 44, 134, 151-74, pls

359

360 361 362 363 364

30

3, 5; Blegen et al. 1953, 99, 219-29, figs 55, 447, 452. Blegen et al. 1953, fig. 453; Blegen et al. 1958, 48, fig. 332-33; Easton 2002, 224, 228-29. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Korfmann 1991, 14, 15 fig. 13; Korfmann 1993a, 15 fig. 13, 18 fig. 17, 19 fig. 18; Korfmann 1994, 15 fig. 15, 17-18; Korfmann 1995, 13, 17 and fig. 12; Korfmann 1996a, 23 fig. 17; Easton 2002, 181. Korfmann 2005, 7-8; Jablonka 2006, 7. Of special importance is the rarely, even within the citadel, encountered Middle Troy VI feature. Korfmann 1998, 7. Korfmann 2003, 9-10. Op. cit., 14. Schliemann 1874a, 246; Easton 2002, 224, 239, 311. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 238-39; Blegen et al. 1953,

VI or at the beginning of Troy VIIa.371 Immediately west of the citadel within the residential quarter in yzA6-8 there was a burnt layer towards the end of Troy VI caused perhaps by an earthquake and the end of Troy VIIa destroyed by war.372 Additionally,

recovered remains of three buildings just east, south and west of the citadel wall, namely in K8, the House in Antis in GH9 and House 661 in z5.365 The new excavations in square KL4 brought to light the wall fragment of the Late Troy VI Lower Town joining the citadel at the northeast Bastion VIg erected in the same period and containing the water reservoir.366 Moreover, Korfmann’s team gradually ascertained the circumference of this extensive town, its houses with solid foundations, as well as less stable ones with an oval or apsidal plan exposed in squares K6-8, 13, 17, 18, M18, O11, y7-8. Numerous other remains of Troy VI stone or wooden domestic architecture in the Lower Town

in the middle part of the Lower Town in square H17, close to the remains of Early-Late Troy VI-VIIa houses in KL16-17, there were excavated interesting residential structures, i.e. posts of the buildings and strata from Early Troy VI to VIIa, which, along with ‘negative architecture’ of the South Gate cut into the limestone bedrock, a defence rock-cut ditch with a gap (gateway) and defensive palisade of Middle Troy VI-Late Troy VII in y28-29, indicate

were found in squares D9, H9-10, Hİ17 and İK8367; in D9 they were quite close to the outside face of the citadel’s fortification wall.368 In z8 beneath the Courtyard House came to light a building of Troy VIh devastated by an earthquake and fire369 and in A8, beneath the South House, a floor, pits and hearths of Early and possible Middle Troy VI.370 From zA78 is known the paving of a street leading to Gate VIU, which was closed off towards the end of Troy 365 366

367

368 369 370

good availability of construction wood.373 About 400 m south of the citadel in z29, A29 and C29 the new excavations discovered another section of a defence rock-cut ditch of Late Troy VI, as well as another one of Troy VI or VIIa excavated 80-100 m south of the previous one in g28.374 The site of the 371 Korfmann 1996a, 7; Korfmann 1997, 10 – in the same period also the street went out of use. Other possible street paving was recorded in x7, later paved during Troy VII – Korfmann 2001a, 15. 372 Korfmann 1998, 8. 373 Jablonka 1996, 66; Jablonka 2006, 15; Korfmann 1994, 2; Korfmann 1996a, 6; Korfmann 1998, 8-9; Korfmann 2002, 13. However, in light of the more recent investigation it seems that the mentioned palisade was used during Troy I-II – Korfmann 1999, 21-22, 33. Investigations in y28 and z29 showed that the palisade wall only occurred around the five metres wide gate behind the ‘bridge’ of the ditch – Korfmann 1997, 11. 374 Korfmann 1994, 2; Korfmann 1995, 3; Korfmann 1996a, 6; Korfmann 2001d, 397; Jablonka 1994; Jablonka 1995; Jablonka 1996, 66. These features as well as limits of the Lower Town of Troy VI have been allocated by the extensive use of geomagnetic prospecting – Jansen 1992; Becker 1993; Becker et al. 1993; Becker, Jansen 1994; Jablonka 2006, 5. However, eastern and western sections of both

370-90. Blegen et al. 1953, 14, 352. Korfmann 1996a, 6, 42, 43 and fig. 36; Korfmann 1997, 9, 49-51; Korfmann 2004, 15-16. So far, it seems to be the only recovered section of this circuit wall. The nearby well, according to PG and Late Troy VIIb pottery, had been abandoned by c. 1000 B.C., which is important for dating of the final LBA settlement on Hisarlık – Korfmann 1998, 8. Korfmann 1991, 26; Korfmann 1992b, 124, 138-44; Korfmann 1993a, 2, 14-21; Korfmann 2001a, 18, 2324; Korfmann 2002, 14-19. On the Hisarlık mound square D9 is the only area of the sequence of strata ranging from Troy VI-VII on into the Hellenistic period – Korfmann 2000, 32; Korfmann 2001a, 23, 26. Korfmann 2001a, 23-24. Korfmann 2003, 13. Korfmann 2001a, 20-22.

31

a few also contain adults and children. This all, along with the very few offerings, dated the cemetery to the end phase of Troy VI; two areas with similar remains have also been recorded by Blegen on the west and southwestern slopes of the citadel.380

potential gate of Troy VI-VII Lower Town in w9 was destroyed by later, particularly Roman, quarrying activity.375 In İKL16-17 the Troia Project exposed a 40 m long stretch of the palisade’s ‘negative architecture’ and in K16 a fragment of the street connecting the citadel Gate FO of Troy II and Gate VIT of Troy VI with the newly exposed gate in the southeast part of the Lower Town.376 Finally, in p12 another section of a ditch with a fill including Late Troy VI or VIIa pottery marked the western limit of the Lower Town.377 Northeast of the citadel in square Y59 a massive Troy VI and VIIa stone house wall with a hearth and a lot of Anatolian Grey Ware attested to the extent of the Lower Town’s intensive

Additionally, in the southwestern part of the Lower Town in squares u15, st14 and z16 came to light a c. 36 m deep cave with spring and shafts. The exact date of this very interesting find is unknown, but excavators tentatively link part of it also with Troy VI and the Hittite KASKAL.KUR.381 This Spring Cave was defended by the palisade running above of it in İKL16-17 and the ditch situated c. 100 m to the west in p12.382

occupation.378 Also c. 300 m to the east of the citadel in the course of the field survey the bounds of Troy VI and VII Lower Town were preliminarily delineated.379 Moreover, c. 550 m southwest of the citadel Gate VIT and outside of the Lower Town was discovered the only major Trojan cemetery of cremation burials in 200 jars closed with a stone slab or plates and set into shallow pits packed with small stones. Most of the burials are multiple, but

375 376 377 378 379

Blegen proposed many different absolute dates for the occupation of Troy VI-VII.383 More recently, in square A7 has been found the MM 380 Dörpfeld et al. 1894, 124; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 536, pl. 2; Blegen et al. 1953, 14, 370-90, fig. 445. Recently, northwest of the citadel in vw3 there have also been found rubble and midden levels of Late Troy VI, including human bones perhaps dislocated from the slope, but no graves – Korfmann 2001d, 397; Korfmann 2004, 13; Jablonka 2006, 9. Moreover, outside of Gate VIU in A7 there came to light two skeleton-graves of Troy VI – Korfmann 2002, 18. 381 Korfmann 1998, 9; Korfmann 1999, 23-24; Korfmann 2001a, 36-40; Korfmann 2002, 23. However, recent dating of the sinter from the Spring Cave indicate that it was used from the first half of the 3rd millennium B.C. to the Roman period – Korfmann 2000, 35; Korfmann 2001a, 38. 382 Korfmann 2001a, 38. 383 Blegen et al. 1953, 18-20, 229; Blegen et al. 1958, 8-9, 12, 143, 147; Blegen 1964, 160, 163, 174; Caskey 1964, 10-11. These changes were criticized by Finley 1974, 394-95. Blegen et al. 1953, 18 – tried to correlate the beginning of Troy VI with the start of the MH period in Greece on the basis of simultaneous introduction of Grey Minyan Ware (in fact Anatolian Grey Ware in Troy), but his idea went out of use.

ditches so far have not been found and thus their connection to the circuit wall of the citadel remains an open question – Blindow et al. 2000, 127-29. Nevertheless, it seems that such an extension of the Lower Town could have inspired the fundamental re-building of the citadel, including a new plan and structures, and three or four phases of the circuit wall distinct in date and situation. Korfmann 1998, 8. Korfmann 1997, 11; Korfmann 1998, 8; Korfmann 2000, 28, 36. Korfmann 2000, 28. Korfmann 2005, 13-16. Korfmann 2004, 11. The LBA pottery from the field survey, including Anatolian Grey Ware and Tan Ware, suggest possible extension of the Lower Town during that period in all, except northern, directions – Jablonka 2005, 30-33.

32

to LM I.391 On the other hand, the earlier date for Early Troy VI (c. 1700 B.C.) confirms the Tarsus correlation by its links with Kültepe. However, it should also be kept in mind that pottery with pattern-burnishing sporadically occurring at Troy V is characteristic of Early Troy VI and possibly VIc and thus the latter lasted slightly beyond 1600 B.C.392 This feature of the pottery has been

IIIA jug inside the tomb dug into the top of Troy V deposits.384 This fi nd provides a more reliable terminus post quem for the beginning of Troy VI, which is slightly later than 1700 B.C. and thus seems to correspond with the beginning of the LBA.385 Supporting such dating of Early Troy VI are pottery parallels with the later MBA phases of Ayia Irini V, which are contemporary with the MM III period.386 They are represented by the simultaneous occurrence of the Grey Minyan and Anatolian Grey Wares rims with thickened supports of the handle’s upper part.387 Additionally, one sherd of perhaps MM III dating from Troy VIc388 and the fi rst LH I imports (c.

observed at Tarsus LBA IA, but mainly in LBA IB and at Beycesultan IVb-a.393 If we accept that Tarsus LBA IB extends beyond the fall of Babylon in 1594 B.C.394 and Beycesultan IVa seems to be contemporary with the LM I period, then for Early Troy VI there would be a possible time frame of c.

1600 B.C. or later) from Troy VId also show links with the Aegean.389 To the East, there are numerous affinities providing data on the beginning of Troy VI around the above-mentioned time. From Early Troy VI are known a lot of new pottery forms paralleled mainly in Tarsus LBA I, especially B (A47-49, 56-57, 57/62, 64, 73, D46), Beycesultan IVb (A56, 60, 70, 73, 94, B25, C64/65, 68, 78-79), but less in MBA Tarsus (A47, 56-57, B35), Beycesultan IVa and c (A60-61) and Boğazköy (A89, C48).390 These links are valuable because the transition from Beycesultan IVb to IVa around 1600 B.C. is synchronic with that from the period MM III

1700-1580 B.C. Middle Troy VI pottery innovations have a few weak parallels in Tarsus LBA II and Beycesultan IVa (A81, 83-84, 98, C72).395 For many years the end of Troy VI has been a subject of broad discussion, which focused on a revision of dating proposed by Blegen.396 However, the recent re-examination of the Mycenaean pottery from the American excavations supports his view on the destruction of Troy VI at the end of LH IIIA2, i.e. about 1300 B.C.397 Pottery seriation from squares İ8 and K8 of Troy VI Lower Town suggests the 391 Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 74-75; Mellaart 1970b, 61. 392 Blegen et al. 1951, 249, 251; Blegen et al. 1953, 34, 36, 45, 76-77, but not all items have been precisely stratified. 393 Goldman et al. 1956, 188-90, 192, 194, 196, figs 311, 374 no. 1045 (LBA IA), 303, 377 no. 974, 305 nos 990, 1028, 308, 377 no. 1008 (LBA IB); Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 80. 394 Goldman et al. 1956, 63. 395 Easton 2002, 342. 396 Blegen et al. 1953, 20, 229; Blegen et al. 1958, 12; Bloedow 1988, 24, 30; Sandars 1971, 17; French 1978, fig. 2; Mee 1978, 146-47; Mee 1984, 45; Podzuweit 1982, 75-79, 82-83; Schachermeyr 1982, 99. 397 Mountjoy 1998, 35, 46 table 1; Mountjoy 1999a, 253, 258, 262 fig. 2; Mountjoy 1999b, 298 table 1.

384 Korfmann 1997, 33. 385 Also the pottery sequence from İ8 and K8 of Troy VI Lower Town indicate c. 1700 B.C. – Easton, Weninger 1993, 84-85. Earlier c. 1712 B.C. was proposed as an initial date for Troy VIa – Easton 1990a, 442. 386 Overbeck 1984, 108. 387 Blegen et al. 1953, 129, 155, figs 359 nos 1-2, 363 nos 1-8; Caskey 1972, 387. 388 Blegen et al. 1953, 195. 389 Op. cit., 19. 390 Easton 2002, 342.

33

The new excavations defined a lot of evidence dated to Troy VIIa-b1-3 in squares A7, E8-9.405

following tentative dates: Early Troy VI (c. 1700 - c. 1570 B.C.), Middle Troy VI (c. 1570 - c. 1470 B.C.), Late Troy VI (c. 1470 - c. 1395 B.C.).398 On the other hand, the majority of the calibrated radiocarbon dates suggest the beginning of Troy VI between 1700 and 1500 B.C. According to four accessible later dates its end extended to 1300 B.C. or even 1200-1100 B.C.399 Thus the earlier suggested, on the basis of 14C calibrated determinations, problem of a c. 200-year long hiatus between Troy V and VI still seems open.400 Despite the recent excavations also the end of the latter settlement remains uncertain.401

Troy VIIa, distinguished on the basis of six investigated Houses 700, 701, 721, 722, 741, 749 and two re-investigated Houses VIIγ and VIIθ along with their deposits, has been generally assumed to be a short-lived settlement because no subphases have been recorded.406 The fortifications of the citadel are evidenced by northern Wall 13 and southern Wall 19 recovered by Schliemann.407 During this period there were hectic reparations and changes within the Troy VI southern fortification line, namely the small northeast Gate VIR in K4 and southwest Gate VIU in B7 were

7. Troy VII

negligently closed with stones, and east Gate VIS in K6 perhaps re-built. Moreover, the south Gate VIT in G9 was repaved and a drainage system constructed under the ramp, but no architectural remains of its shutter have been recorded. Also Street 710 cleared in G8-10 was again the main communication line to the centre of the citadel. Generally, the construction works were never finished, which enabled easier conquest of the citadel.408 The recent excavations dated the activity in the area of Gate VIT, including construction of Tower VIi409, especially to period c. 1250 - c. 1190

Building operations of Troy VII destroyed the earlier strata, but they are very scarce themselves due to levelling during Troy VIII noticed by the recent excavations.402 Schliemann from the beginning of his excavations on Hisarlık assigned to the seventh layer from the bottom the remains of Classical, Hellenistic and Roman times. Also his last book expressed a similar point of view since the third level from the top was ascribed to Classical and Archaic periods.403 Dörpfeld modified this scheme during the 18931894 campaigns and regarded Troy VII as a preGreek settlement. On the basis of the architecture, as well as local and Mycenaean pottery, he divided it into VII1-2, which subsequently Blegen in his fundamental publication divided into VIIa-b1-2.404

405 Koppenhöfer 1997, 296. 406 Blegen et al. 1958, 6, 8. Of them should be mentioned the multi-functional Terrace House (= Blegen’s House 749) situated west of Troy VI-VII citadel in z7-8, A7, earlier only somewhat investigated, but recently comprehensively excavated and published (architecture, stratigraphy, pottery); due to it there was also recorded activity during Troy VIIb1-3 – Blegen et al. 1958, 130-31; Korfmann 2002, 12 fig. 10, 15-18; Becks et al. 2006. 407 Easton 2002, 311. 408 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 184-86, pl. 6; Blegen et al. 1958, 5, 48, 88, 122-23; Korfmann 1998, 8; Korfmann 2002, 9, 14; Klinkott 2004, 81. 409 Klinkott 2004, 80.

398 Easton, Weninger 1993, 84. 399 Kromer et al. 2003, 50. 400 Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 168 fig. 23. 401 Koppenhöfer 2002a, 319. 402 Korfmann 1998, 27-28. 403 Schliemann 1891, 14-17. 404 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 184-201, 296-303; Blegen et al. 1958, 139.

34

B.C. (= VIi ‘new’ phase).410 Finally, of particular interest are four stelai possibly dated to Troy VIIa, situated to the west of Gate VIT and immediately south of the south Tower VIi in G10; it seems they would shed light on some kind of divine protection of the town.411

a lot of large house walls lying crookedly above the citadel wall in CD8-9 and dateable to Troy VIIa, but their precise location, as well as other ones, seems to be impossible.417 To Troy VIIa can be dated with high probability Wall 4 overlying the northeast end of Dörpfeld’s Megaron VIB in squares B4-5.418 His excavations brought to light a lot of houses from A5 to C8, in H7, İK5-6, İ7 designated with VIIα to ω, i.e. in the wide space (the former street) between the wall and the first terrace, as well as on the first terrace and above the large buildings of Troy VI. In many cases they were mainly small buildings separated only by party walls.419 Blegen cleared to the floors Dörpfeld’s Houses VIIγ and VIIθ. Moreover, he recovered

During Troy VIIa Houses of Troy VI within and outside of the citadel were reconstructed. Within the citadel the large free-standing Troy VI houses were covered by many small buildings, constructed from re-used blocks of this period. They were one to two-room, more densely packed structures of irregular plan, which could indicate an increase in the population occupying the citadel.412 Schliemann had recorded that at several places within the citadel of Troy VIIa there was rebuilding of structures of Troy VI, to which belong Megarons VIB and VIG413 and Walls 49-51.414 Building Walls 49-50 in square C6 and possibly also Wall 51 belong to the same structure.415 He also mentioned Wall 23 in E8416 and

Houses 700, 701, 703, 705, 721, 722, 725, 726, 727, 728 southwest of House VIF in EFG8-9, as well as House 730 in J7-8, between House VIG and the interior face of the circuit wall. Above Houses VIF-G he unearthed their successor Houses 732 and 731 with a lot of sunken pithoi and smaller buildings over House VIE.420 Also in E8 the recent excavations recovered the stratum of Troy VIIa.421 Similar residential domestic architecture was exposed to the west of the citadel Gate VIU in y7, z6-8, zA7-8, A7-8, including House 749, South House and two building phases of Courtyard House utilized further into VIIb1-3 with very interesting finds (six pithoi, Tan Ware bowl) can be regarded as an example of the settlement’s expansion in this period outside of the circuit wall.422

410 Phase VIi had already been postulated by Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 184-85, 296-300. This point of view is continued by Korfmann 2004, 14-15 on the basis of no cultural break between VIh and the beginning of VIIa. However, prior to the final publication of the recent works, for the purpose of this text Blegen’s scheme has been utilized. In fact, due to the mentioned lack of cultural break, Blegen also accepted phase VIi, but for practical reasons kept in use VIIa – Blegen et al. 1958, 6. 411 Korfmann 2003, 14-17; Korfmann 2004, 14. 412 Blegen et al. 1958, 6. 413 Schliemann 1874a, 214; Schliemann 1874b, pls 116, 214; Schliemann 1880, 40; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 162, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1953, 256, 259, fig. 473; Blegen et al. 1958, 94-99, figs 338, 353; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 167 no. 131; Easton 2002, 214, 216-20, 254, 259, 311. 414 Schliemann 1874a, 229, 255; Easton 2002, 266, 271, 275. 415 Schliemann 1874a, 229, 255; Easton 2002, 266, 271, 275. 416 Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl.

417

418

419 420 421 422

35

3; Easton 2002, 177, 184. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, annex 24, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1958, figs 338-39, 353; Easton 1985, 190-91; Easton 2002, 177, 180, 216-17, 224, 228-29, 311. Schliemann 1874a, 283; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 116; Schliemann 1880, 40; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 153-55, pl. 3; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 167 no. 131; Easton 2002, 252, 254, 257, 259. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 186-92, pl. 3. Blegen et al. 1958, 5, 48-51, 56-117. Korfmann 2005, 7-8. Blegen et al. 1958, 5, 129-31; Korfmann 1996a, 7;

As at Troy VI one can generally attribute Schliemann’s northern Wall 13 and southern Wall 19 to fortifications of Troy VIIb.429 Evidence for

Likely east of the citadel in K7-8 remains of Houses 740 and 741 were cleared by Blegen.423 South and southwest of the citadel, in D9 and y7, other remains and buildings of Troy VIIa were excavated.424 To the

division into Troy VIIb1 and b2 brought to light Blegen’s excavations of Street 750, Houses 761, 768, 769, and Areas 786 in İJ6-7 and 789 in İK5. Also recent works in the western half of House 761 and the adjacent area have produced 3 m deep stratigraphy with two floors dating to VIIb1 and two to VIIb2.430 Troy VIIb1 was re-occupied by survivors from the previous settlement. Its fortification walls were again re-built and the main passage leading through the south Gate VIT to the north was replaced by Street 750.431 The remains of Troy VIIb within the

water supply system of the citadel belong the Well Bc of Troy VIf origin, established in a paved, possible public court to the east of the overbuilt foundations of House VIF in square İ7 and the large Well Bb at northeast Bastion VIG in square K4, already used in Troy VI.425 Also non-architectural features, i.e. numerous pithoi noted by Schliemann mainly in strata overlying Wall 19 and underneath the re-used House VIG (= House 731), enriched knowledge about occupation of Troy VIIa; they were sunk to the rim into the house floors to save space.426 Moreover, a few human skeletons, not burials, but victims of fire devastation and/or violence, including that in A3-4, are associated with the discussed settlement.427 At the end of Troy VIIa, c. 1200 – c. 1180 B.C., its fortifications and buildings on terraces within and outside of the citadel (Houses 740, 741, 749) were destroyed by perhaps a second earthquake, as well as general conflagration caused by an enemy attack evidenced by the finds of long-range weapons from the new excavations.428

423 424 425

426

427 428

citadel’s centre are scarce due to the later levelling operations and also to Schliemann’s disturbances.432 However, some house walls encountered by him southwest of Building IXA in square B5 do not correspond with rebuilding in Megaron VIB of Troy VIIa and thus their use in Troy VIIb can be roughly accepted.433 Moreover, Dörpfeld discovered in the areas from İK3 to HİK8 and from A5-6 to E7-9 a lot of small houses of Troy VIIb1 along with local diagnostic pottery.434 New works undertaken by Blegen resulted in observations of Troy VIIb1 based mainly on Houses 761 in EF9, 762 in F8, 768 in EF8, 769 in F8, lower strata in H7 and İK5, as well as Streets 751 West in EF9 and 750 in G8-10;

Korfmann 1997, 10, 34 fig. 27, 41, 42 and fig. 38, 43; Korfmann 2001a, 20; Korfmann 2002, 15-19; Korfmann 2003, 11-12; Korfmann 2004, 14. Blegen et al. 1958, 5, 88, 120-22. Korfmann 1992b, 124; Korfmann 2001a, 23; Korfmann 2002, 15. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 144-47, 176-77, 198-99, pls 3, 6; Blegen et al. 1953, 313-14, 320; Blegen et al. 1958, 106. Schliemann 1874a, 215; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1953, 256, 262; Blegen et al. 1958, 7, 96; Easton 2002, 177, 180, 214, 217-18, 220-21, 229, 312. Blegen et al. 1958, 134. Op. cit., 12-13; Korfmann 1996a, 7, 38 – with a marked burnt layer from the end of Troy VIIa in

429 430 431 432 433 434

36

the residential quarter in zA7-8; Koppenhöfer 1997, 346; Klinkott 2004, 81. Chronologically this event happened in the time frame of the military activity of the so-called Sea Peoples in the eastern Mediterranean – Sandars 1985. Easton 2002, 311. Hawkins, Easton 1996, 115. Blegen et al. 1958, 140, 143, 182. Op. cit., 140 Meyer (ed.) 1953, 167 no. 131; Easton 2002, 252-53, 257-58, 264, 311. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 195 fig. 75, 197, 198 fig. 77, 296-97, pl. 3.

but the east Gate VIS in square K6 was no longer in use.444 Moreover, occupation areas within and outside of the city walls have been attested. To the citadel’s architecture belong the above-mentioned Troy VIIb1 houses (except 761), streets and area in

the latter served as the main access to the citadel.435 Of this period seems to be also the re-investigated House VIIθ.436 These structures tend to be mainly re-built from those of Troy VIIa and there are no great differences in plan between them.437 Generally, occupation was still on the concentric terraces, but buildings were more complex than in Troy VIIa, with several rooms. The town seems to have been composed of irregular blocks separated by streets and crooked lanes. In A7, outside of the citadel, Blegen’s team brought to light a mixed stratum and Korfmann’s excavations recovered a burnt one of the same period.438 Additionally, in A7 underneath the recently exposed burnt part of Blegen’s House 791

İK5.445 Examples of two building phases within one house of Troy VIIb2 are known from E8, of which the older one was destroyed by fire in the general conflagration.446 Additionally, newly constructed Buildings k, n, o, p on Gate VIS and its entrance way in K6, cell-like structures covering Gate VIR in K4, chamber structures situated just east of the northeastern Bastion VIg, as well as House 791 in A7 should be mentioned.447 These structures

of Troy VIIb2, there was recorded a Troy VIIb1 burnt layer with numerous finds such as pins and beads.439 In D9 the wall of Troy VIIb1 was excavated very close to the outside face of the citadel’s fortification wall.440 Moreover, in E8-9 the recent works have exposed Troy VIIb1 building phases with two burnt levels.441 At the end of this possibly short-lived settlement there is a trace of destruction by fire of unknown cause c. 1150 - c. 1100 B.C., but on a much smaller scale than in Troy VIIa.442 We owe the first traces of Troy VIIb2 to Schliemann, who recorded a lot of Knobbed Ware, but due to a lack of exact stratigraphy he ascribed it erroneously to “Six or Lydian City”.443 At Troy VIIb2 the fortification walls continued to be serviceable,

were modified and enlarged, possibly in order to increase the size of the individual dwelling units. In J8, to the east of the citadel, Dörpfeld’s possible burnt House 787 with orthostatai and a good stone pavement has been re-investigated, and a new Wall 788 made of a single row of small orthostatai has been found in K7 – both possibly of VIIb2 date.448 Outside of Gate VIU in A7 accumulated earth and debris with a lot of Knobbed Ware was found. To the north of it came to light House 791 of perhaps two or more building phases and comprising twelve or more small rooms with orthostatai, as well as Wall 792 with orthostatai indicating a building aligned roughly with the northern edge of the gate.449 Also Area 786 in Hİ6-7 yielded walls with

435 Blegen et al. 1958, 142-43, 182-84, 188, 196-99, 203, 209-10, 225, 230-31; Korfmann 2003, 14. 436 Blegen et al. 1958, 228-29. 437 Op. cit., 139-140, 143, 182. 438 Op. cit., 238; Korfmann 1997, 10, 42-45. 439 Korfmann 2001a, 19-20. 440 Op. cit., 23-26. 441 Korfmann 1997, 9, 30; Korfmann 2005, 7-8. 442 Korfmann, 1997, 30, 32. 443 Schliemann 1880, VII, 587-88; Schliemann 1891, 17-19.

444 Korfmann 1992b, 124. 445 Blegen et al. 1958, 142-43, 182-84, 188, 196-99, 203, 209-10, 230-31. 446 Korfmann 1996a, 24, 26 fig. 21. 447 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 194-97, fig. 75, pl. 3; Blegen et al. 1958, 241-43, fig. 366; Korfmann 1997, 42-43, 44 fig. 40, 45, 50 fig. 48, 52; Korfmann 2004, 18; Klinkott 2004, 81. 448 Blegen et al. 1958, 235-237; Mountjoy 1999b, 334. 449 Blegen et al. 1958, 238, 241-42. The closed in this time Gate VIU and further part of House 791 were recently investigated – Korfmann 1997, 10, 42-45;

37

well as Geometric sherds, was also recorded at the recently excavated “Zentralraum” of the Terrace House. That material shows continuity of occupation into the Iron Age.458 Among newly recovered Troy

orthostatai constructed over VIIb1 walls.450 These structures are good examples of the introduction of orthostatai placed vertically at the base of walls and a new type of building with small rooms, perhaps stories. Close to it in E8-9, i.e. within and above the Troy VI citadel wall, the recent works have exposed Troy VIIb2 building phases with two burnt levels.451

VIIb3 domestic structures and other remains are also for instance a fragment of Wall 94/2 in z7, South House, the Courtyard in zA7, as well as those in D9, E8-9459 and in D9 remains of VIIb3 houses or a house directly joined to the outside face of the fortification wall.460 The cultural affinities between Troy VIIb2 and VIIb3 have been pointed out, with the end of the latter at c. 950 B.C.461 Troy VIIb3 was perhaps destroyed by fire.462 Generally, to Troy VIIb should also be

During Troy VIIb1-2 in K4 large wells at northeast Bastion VIg were filled up with rubble and utility refuse, and Gate VIR leading to them was built over with cellar rooms.452 Troy VIIb2 was destroyed by conflagration possibly caused by a siege453 at c. 1000 - c. 950 B.C.454 However, it seems that there was not a break between it and the subsequent Troy VIII.455

attributed numerous other structures, namely Street 751 East in FG8-9, House 771 in FG8, Houses 730, 731, 781, 784, 785 and Street 780 in Hİ78.463 In this period there disappeared a concentric, inner walkway earlier used for by-passing the defence wall. Moreover, there is an apparent lack of central supervision in planning and construction works, which resulted in hectic repairs and chaotic occupation. A good example of this activity is the small houses built on the eastern defence wall, which already was used as the back wall of houses at Troy VIh, as well as other houses erected very

In square z7 the new excavations distinguished also the Troy VIIb3 phase with houses constructed in the old tradition and without orthostatai.456 The newly built house in E9 of this phase contained apart from “Buckelkeramik” and Coarse Ware also some imported early PG pottery.457 The latter pottery, as

450 451 452 453 454

455 456 457

Korfmann 2001a, 19-20. Blegen et al. 1958, 143. Houses VIIψ and ω had orthostatai too – Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 197. Korfmann 1997, 9, 30, 33 fig. 26; Korfmann 2005, 7-8. Korfmann 1997, 9, 50 fig. 48, 52; Korfmann 1999, 19; Klinkott 2004, 81. Blegen 1964, 172; Mountjoy 1999b, 333. Hertel 1991a, 140; Hertel 2003, 92. An earlier date at c. 1100 was postulated according to the late Mycenaean pottery, but no PG to EG sherds were recorded – Blegen et al. 1958, 147; see also Hertel 1991a, 131; Hertel 1992, 74, 88. On the basis of Aeolic Grey Ware and Painted Ware the end of Troy VIIb2 and possible beginning of Troy VIII was dated at c. 900 B.C. – Bayne 2000, 229-30. The end of Troy VIIb2 was also dated to c. 800 B.C. – Podzuweit 1982, 82. Hertel 2003, 92 Korfmann 1995, 22, 23 fig. 20. Korfmann 1996a, 25; Koppenhöfer 1997, 304; Catling 1998, 155, 176. This early and related

458 459 460

461 462 463

38

pottery was also recorded during other earlier and later excavation seasons – Korfmann 1995, 22; Korfmann 1996a, 24; Korfmann 1997, 27; Korfmann 2000, 32. Becks et al. 2006, 69, 81. Koppenhöfer 1997, 306-10; Korfmann 1997, 9; Korfmann 2000, 30; Korfmann 2001a, 23, 26. Korfmann 2001a, 23, 26. There was recorded early PG and other painted pottery from the 11th to 10th century B.C.– op. cit., 26. Underneath this wall, but above VIIb1 wall, came to light Knobbed Ware of Troy VIIb2 – op. cit., 23, 26. Koppenhöfer 1997, 346. Op. cit., 295, 346. Blegen et al. 1958, 185-86, 190-93, 219-24.

phase of Troy VIIb3 has been regarded as an import and attributed to the sanctuary surviving from the Dark Ages. Moreover, Korfmann opted for the arrival of the Aeolic Greeks and thus for the beginning of Troy VIII at c. 750 B.C.471, but it is doubtful in light

close to the fortifications. Other ones are the entrance to the wells in northeast Bastion VIg and Gate VIR blocked by newly constructed houses of Troy VIIb2.464 Within the Lower Town should also be mentioned remains of Troy VIIb buildings in K68, as well as in EF10 about 5 m wide stone paving partly of large slabs to the south of the Roman Odeion (Theatre C) dated to Troy VII and possibly VI.465 Finally, there came to light two pithoi in x7, as well as remains situated c. 200 m southeast of the citadel in KL16-17, which are attributable in general to Troy VII Lower Town.466 Its domestic houses with solid foundations, and more stable ones with oval or apsidal plan, have been exposed in squares

of the more recent research. On the basis of the PG pottery, a continuation from Troy VIIb3 to 800 B.C. was suggested.472 Moreover, according to D. Hertel’s point of view formulated through an examination of the stratigraphy, the PG, SG and Geometric pottery, as well as Aeolic Grey Ware, indicate the foundation of Troy VIII already at 950 or likely 1050-1000 B.C. This might indicate an earlier date for Troy VIIb2 and continuation between this phase and Troy VIII473 with

y8 and K8, as well as stone or wooden domestic architecture in H9-10, Hİ17 and İK8.467 On the basis of the Mycenaean pottery Troy VIIa was dated to LH IIIB (c. 1300 - c. 1210 B.C.) with destruction probably in transitional LH IIIB2IIIC Early (c. 1210 - c. 1190 B.C.) and Troy VIIb1placed in LH IIIC (c. 1190/1120 - c. 1050/1030 2 B.C.)468; Knobbed Ware was characteristic among VIIb2 pottery.469 The recently recognized final LBA phase VIIb3 is associated with the early PG sherds dated to c. 1025 - c. 950 B.C., but there is also an opinion that the entire Troy VIIb should be dated to this period.470 The PG pottery recorded at the building

exclusion of the last Bronze Age phase VIIb3474 and rejection of very limited occupation during c. 950 - c. 750 B.C. Troy VIIb3 seems to be the earliest phase of

471

464 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 193-97, pl. 6; Klinkott 2004, 81. 465 Korfmann 1992b, 124; Korfmann 1998, 8. 466 Korfmann 2001a, 16; Korfmann 2002, 13. 467 Korfmann 1992b, 124; Korfmann 1993a, 2; Korfmann 2002, 15. 468 Mountjoy 1999b, 298 table 1, 300, 324, 333-34. This fits with the recent field works, which identified at least five architectural phases within Troy VIIb and thus show its much longer occupation than Blegen supposed – Blegen et al. 1958, 143; Koppenhöfer 1997, 346; Korfmann 1997, 27. 469 Koppenhöfer 1997, 337-41. 470 Korfmann 1996a, 24-25; Koppenhöfer 1997, 296,

472 473

474

39

304, 325-28, 346; Catling 1998, 155, 176; Lenz et al. 1998, 194-97. According to recently achieved 14 C calibrated dates and the pottery sequence from D9 the end of Troy VIIb3 must be placed at about 1000 B.C. or at the latest in the 10th century B.C. – Korfmann 2001a, 27. Korfmann 1998, 11-12. From the citadel also known is evidence of coexistance of the PG sherds together with pottery of Troy VIIb2-3 (Handmade Burnished, Knobbed, Anatolian Grey Wares) – Korfmann 1996a, 7, 24-25. Hertel 1991a, 131, 134, 140; Koppenhöfer 1997, 346-47. Hertel 2000, 312-13; Hertel 2003, 92; also Rose 1993, 113; Rose 1995, 82-83, 91; Rose 1996, 99. A possibility of such continuation was also expressed by Korfmann 1994, 19-20; Korfmann 1995, 22; Korfmann 1996a, 24-25; Korfmann 1997, 27, 30, 32; Korfmann 1998, 11-12. Koppenhöfer 1997, 296-98, 346-47. Continuation of occupation is also supported by Grey Ware of Troy VIII related in production technique, clay and decoration to Anatolian Grey Ware of Late Troy VI and VIIa-b1-2. Likely Tan Ware of Troy VIII is similar to that of VI-VII – op. cit., 347.

Troy VIII dated to the end of the 11th and first half of 10th century B.C., which continued to the beginning of the 7th century B.C.475

region are defined as Trojan High Culture.480 The material culture of both settlements is generally homogeneous, except a slight change in smaller and differently spaced rooms. Variations in building techniques in Troy VI (Lower Town’s post-buildings) are interpreted as social differences within the population. Troy VIIb1-3, mainly on the

Summing up, if the end of Troy VIIa was around 1200 B.C., the most recent investigations indicate from this time the existence of at least five building phases up until the end of Troy VIIb. On this basis in the second half of the 11th century B.C. it is possible to distinguish the PG period with appearance of Knobbed, Anatolian Grey Wares and occasionally PG pottery. This suggests that despite the lack of architectural remains, also in the 9th century B.C., a small population always continued occupation of such a propitious site.476

basis of Handmade Burnished and Knobbed Wares, has been regarded as Trojan Culture with the imprint of Balkan influences, but contacts with Greece are evidenced by the PG pottery.481 The main features of Troy VII are a mingling of citadel and Lower Town and the disintegration of the divided society.482

8. Post-Bronze Age Troy VIII-X

Supporting this point of view, to some extent, are finds from D9, where local Iron Age pottery was recorded between a destroyed Troy VIIb house and a house erected c. 700 B.C.477 However, there is still an open question of whether the PG pottery could be linked with the arrival of the Aeolic Greeks. Presently there are accessible a few radiocarbon readings for dating of Troy VII.478 The radiocarbon calibrated dates from samples of Troy VIIb indicate the beginning of VIIb1 at c. 1208 - c. 1160 B.C. and the end of the Bronze Age during the period 984-961 or 938-906, or even c. 840 B.C. However, it seems that with 14C it is not possible to precisely identify the lower limit of this phase.479 Troy VI-VIIa due to their important strategic and thus economic and political position in the

After Troy VII the mound of Hisarlık was perhaps abandoned for some time, at least part of it. Subsequently, it has been occupied by Aeolic Greeks. However, there is a paucity of architectural remains dated from the 7th to the 1st century B.C., because the strata, as well as those of Troy VI-VII, were enormously destroyed by preparation for the construction of Roman Ilion. Dörpfeld observed in squares A6-7 and İK37 a lot of Troy VIII additions built of small stones against the outer face of the fortification wall of Troy VI, in order to restore and/or strengthen it.483 To these reparation works belong so-called rounded bastions recognized in K4 and İK7. Moreover, we owe to him the discovery of a stairway of over forty steps in İK3, which provided secure access to the Well Bh situated outside and below the citadel.484

475 476 477 478

Hertel 2003, 95. Korfmann 1997, 11; Korfmann 2001a, 27. Korfmann 2000, 30-32; Korfmann 2001a, 26-27. Korfmann 1995, 19; Korfmann, Kromer 1993, 159; Koppenhöfer 1997, 314-16. 479 Koppenhöfer 1997, 296, 315, 346; Kromer et al. 2003, 50. For an overview of discussion on the chronology of Troy VII see Koppenhöfer 1997, 341-47.

480 481 482 483 484

40

Korfmann 1996a, 6. Op. cit., 7. Korfmann 1995, 3. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 201-206. Op. cit., 203-204, appendices 20-21, pl. 6. The ‘round bastion’ in A7 was recently re-investigated and dated to the 6th century B.C. – Korfmann 2001a,

house walls of Troy VII-VIII in B5, including Wall 10 and the adjacent Wall 8 in B6, both perhaps of Troy VIII.490 Other remains of domestic architecture

Inside the citadel Schliemann excavated the main features now attributed to Troy VIII485, i.e. the platform of the Hellenistic Temple of Athena with its gateway, pavement, portico and retaining walls, and works in that area were continued by his successors.486 The sanctuary was founded c. 700

were recovered by Dörpfeld in ABC5-7 and Hİ47.491 A lot of walls and patches of undisturbed floors were excavated by Blegen’s expedition in EF7-9492, including the greater part of House 814 with its floor deposit in EF8.493 Recently, Troia Project excavated in D9, i.e. just to the south of the citadel’s wall, remains of the Geometric period (800-700 B.C.), including a small house, tamped floor, stone paving and hearths or ovens.494 Schliemann recorded as belonging to Troy IX walls across the North Platform in squares CDEF3,

B.C. and used through the Archaic and Classical periods, then totally re-built in the EHel period and destroyed during Fimbria’s invasion of 85 B.C., but after it in the Roman period a new marble altar and grandstand were constructed above the debris of the former structure.487 The principal remains of Troy VIII also include, recognized by Schliemann as a cistern or reservoir, Propylon IXD, found intact in square G7.488 Schliemann in 1882 and Blegen’s team in 1932–1933 tested the skene of Theatre A, which was later exposed by Rose in squares PQR59-60, 1. That structure was erected during the EHel period and after Fimbria’s devastation re-built in the Roman period.489 Moreover, to Schliemann we owe the

485 486

487 488

489

which perhaps along with the exposed Roman Wall 78 linked Dörpfeld’s Wall IXW in F3 with the Roman circuit Wall RM in A4.495 The main architectural remains of Troy IX include Schliemann’s north Wall 39 of Dörpfeld’s later Roman Building IXB in squares EF7-8.496 Among other features discovered by him there is also Wall 18 revealed in square D9 forming part of the west wall of the Roman Odeion (Theatre C) excavated by Dörpfeld.497 To Schliemann’s contribution to documentation of Roman Troy IX

19. The name Troy VIII was introduced in Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 29-31, 32 fig. 6, 34. Schliemann 1874a, 200, 212, 216, 246; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Schliemann 1880, 29, plan 4 a; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 206-211, pls 3, 7; Blegen et al. 1958, 247-48; Easton, Weninger 1993; Rose 1997, 96-101; Easton 2002, 103, 192, 214, 217-18, 226, 228, 231, 250, 312. In fact Schliemann took over the identification of the Athena Temple from F. Calvert, who already in 1865 recognized it in the course of his excavations. In the same year the latter had also found a fragment of the retaining Wall IXW of the temple’s platform in GH3-4, but named it the city wall “built by Lysimachus” – Easton 2002, 81, 86. Rose 1993, 98. Schliemann 1874a, 212, 216, 246; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 212, pl.3; Easton 2002, 224, 231, 250. Schliemann 1884, 234, 235 and no. 121; Blegen 1932, 447-48; Blegen 1934, 246-47; Rose 1991, 73, 75.

490 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pl. 3; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 166 no. 131; Easton 2002, 258, 260, 262-64, 312. 491 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 206-207, pl. 6. 492 Blegen et al. 1958, 287-99. 493 Op. cit., 248, 291-92. 494 Korfmann 2001a, 26-27. 495 Schliemann 1874a, 283; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Schliemann 1875, plan 2; Schliemann 1880, 40; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, pls 3, 7; Rose 1998, fig. 1b; Easton 2002, 103, 251, 256-57, 259, 312. In fact Walls 78 and RM can be accepted as one wall. 496 Schliemann 1874a, 200, 245-46; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Schliemann 1880, 29; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 234, pls 3, 7; Easton 2002, 224, 227, 231. 497 Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 234, pl. 3; Easton 2002, 177, 179.

41

these structures, as well as the Bouleuterion were investigated by Dörpfeld. Moreover, he discovered Building IXM in K4-5.505According to Blegen the

is attributable the partly uncovered, large Building 1 – a stone chamber made of rectangular stones in squares CD4-5 and dated on the basis of one coin no earlier than to the 2nd century A.D.498 Moreover, he also revealed various walls in ABC5-6 (Walls 6-7, 82) along with a lime floor and mosaic floor of Building IXA (the Roman Stoa)499, as well as, overlying it, later Walls 1-2 of unknown structure.500 On the other hand, tops of Building IXA walls in AB5-6 were surrounded by a thick deposit of Troy VIII-IX objects.501 Additionally, during his field operations to the southeast of the Roman Stoa, there came to light a building plausibly of Troy IX with a floor of polished red flagstones502 and two terracotta

remains of walls in square E6 are perhaps parts of a row of shops behind the temple’s West Portico.506 Moreover, Well 3 thanks to its recent re-discovery in D8 was dated to Hellenistic-Roman times. From Troy IX were also recovered three other wells in squares c29 (one from the Hellenistic period) and w28 (two from the Roman period), but it is plausible that they originated in Troy VI-VII.507 Northwest of the citadel, in vw3 the Troia Project exposed the remains of, partly discovered by Blegen, an EA house on an oval ground plan, its

pipes close to Wall 34 (“Wall of Lysimachus”) in Hİ8, later identified by Dörpfeld as the north wall of the Bouleuterion (Theatre B), whose erection in the ER Imperial period was confirmed by the new excavations.503 Among the most monumental remains of Troy IX are the Bouleuterion in Hİ8-9 recovered by Schliemann, who also encountered sections of the Temple of Athena in GH3-4, Portico IXG in E6-7, GH7 and the Odeion in DE9.504 Later,

adjacent terrace wall and several pits.508 In K7, to the east of the fortress, Blegen’s expedition exposed curving retaining Wall P accompanied by pottery of Troy VIII.509 Also outside of the citadel, in A7, c. 10 m north of the Upper Sanctuary came to light House 850 dated to the 8th century B.C. along with numerous stone-paved circles overlying it.510 In the same area Blegen’s team excavated two sanctuaries encircled by a temenos wall, namely Upper in AB7-9 and Lower in A8-9. They were erected during Troy VIII and continued into IX, i.e. from the first half of the 7th century B.C. to the end of the Hellenistic period.511 Recently, in yz6-8 there came to light a succession of three Archaic sanctuaries dated to the 7th-6th century B.C., but terracotta objects suggest cult activities at

498 Schliemann 1874a, 6, 9, 40; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 116; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 164 no. 131; Easton 2002, 142-44, 312. 499 Schliemann 1874a, 288-89; Schliemann 1874b, pls 116, 214; Schliemann 1880, 40; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 166 no. 131, 235 no. 213, 242 no. 221; Meyer 1962, 83 no. 1; Easton 2002, 251, 260, 262-66, 294, 312. 500 Schliemann 1874b, pl. 116; Meyer (ed.) 1953, 165-66 no. 131; Easton 2002, 251, 253, 312. 501 Easton 2002, 260, 262. 502 Schliemann 1874a, 219; Easton 2002, 266, 268, 313. 503 Schliemann 1874a, 192, 200; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 9, 233; Rose 1992, 49, 52; Easton 2002, 214-16, 218, 313. 504 Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Schliemann 1884, 234, 235 and fig. 121; Schliemann 1891, 15; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 9; Easton 2002, 11, 42, 48, 51, 81-82, 86, 89, 93, 96, 54, 179, 213-18, 224, 226-27, 253, 257, 260, 262, 264-65, 305, 306, 312-13, 343, figs 34, 83-

505 506 507

508 509 510 511

42

82, 87-88, 205, 206. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 211-34, pl. 7. Op. cit., 214, pl. 7; Blegen et al. 1953, 172; Easton 2002, 191-92. Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Korfmann 1993a, 14; Korfmann 1994, 16 figs 16-17; Korfmann 1995, 4 (the fourth well only mentioned), 26-27; Easton 2002, 177, 185. Jablonka 2006, 9. Blegen et al. 1958, 248, 285-86. Op. cit., 248, 273-74. Op. cit., 247, 259-63, 303-307.

least since the 8th century B.C.512 Moreover, in the entrance area of Troy VIIa Courtyard House of the adjacent squares z7-8 three Hellenistic sanctuaries have been exposed; the Mosaic Temple, perhaps linked with the mystery cult of Samothracian gods, was used from about the mid-3rd to the 2nd century B.C., and

during 240-175 B.C. has been exposed in y5, just to the west of its previously discovered remains in z5.519 In L5, northeast of the citadel the same project recovered the Hellenistic city chamber gate. In L4, to the north of its outside side there came to light a mixed deposit of small stones, Bronze Age pottery (Troy II, V-VI) and some Archaic sherds.520 There were also discovered a Roman v-shaped ditch in g28 and a Hellenistic one in s34.521 To this should be added Troy VIII-IX sloping deposits of 3.8 to nearly 5 m deep noted by Blegen’s team on the north slope of the mound in square GH2-3.522 Finally, the geophysical prospection and field survey conducted in 2002-2005 shed light on the Hellenistic and Roman occupation in

Temples A and B were erected c. 125 B.C.513 In x7, to the southeast of Temple B the Troia Project recovered the long section of the foundation of a temenos wall.514 In z6-7 Korfmann’s team exposed the Archaic levels and the scattered fibulae from the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 7th century B.C.515 To the southeast, in EF10 Temple C has been investigated, and its final version, according to ceramics and coins, could be dated to the reign of the emperor Caracalla (211-217 A.D.), but the building south of the skene was destroyed by Goths in 267 A.D.516 To the south of the citadel in D20 have been excavated parts of the Roman buildings with remains of wall painting and geometric floor mosaics.517 Moreover, within and above the gate of Troy VI Lower Town in y28-29 have been recovered Hellenistic remains of the insula-type structure and above it a similar building of the Roman period, as well as for each of these periods a street with water channels. Additionally, in K17 there came to light the large LR insula and other houses of the 3rd century A.D. constructed over the ER structures, including a terracotta figurine workshop.518 A section of the Hellenistic wall of the Lower Town erected

the Lower Town523; even c. 300 m east of the citadel possible pottery of the latter period came to light.524 To occupation of the LR and Byzantine Troy X one can attribute the foundation trench of the Athena Temple previously recognized by Schliemann as the fosse of a small Byzantine fort.525 The date of 519 520 521 522

Korfmann 1997, 12, 48-49. Op. cit., 12; Jablonka 2006, 12-14. Korfmann 1996a, 6-7. Blegen et al. 1953, 158, 248, figs 83, 502 (different thickness given in the text and the latter fig.). A similar feature was discovered by Dörpfeld in İK3 – Easton 2002, 85. 523 Jansen 1992; Becker et al. 1993; Becker, Jansen 1994; Korfmann 1993a, 3; Korfmann 1997, 13; Jablonka 2006, 4-7. The finds of the Geometric and Archaic periods are very scarce, but what there was extended to the southern edge of the city. The entire city area was settled during the Hellenistic period, but the difference between it and the Roman occupation consists solely in intensity of settlement density; no growth of the city could be ascertained. Of the Roman period are the open water channels, which carried the town’s waste water away to the surrounding fields. 524 Korfmann 2004, 11. 525 Schliemann 1874a, 195; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 21819; Cook 1973a, 102; Easton 2002, 96, 313.

512 Korfmann 1997, 12; Korfmann 1998, 9. 513 Korfmann 2002, 19-20. In the ER period Temple B was covered over, as were the Upper and Lower Sanctuaries – Korfmann 1997, 12. 514 Korfmann 2000, 21. 515 Korfmann 1995, 4, 21. 516 Korfmann 1997, 12. 517 Korfmann 1994, 3. 518 Korfmann 1997, 12. The Roman and sporadically Hellenistic foundation walls are also known from KL16-17 – Korfmann 1998, 10. Another ER kiln has been excavated east of Theatre A in x2 – op. cit., 9-10.

43

y7-8, as well as cemeteries in tu15 and northeast of Theatre A in VWXYZ 57-60.530 Additionally, about 300 m east of the citadel the Byzantine glazed pottery of non-burial provenance tentatively indicates occupation during this period.531 Evidence

the sanctuary’s destruction and the re-use of its elements, already observed by Schliemann, are not precisely known. It seems, however, that the temple was in use at least until the second half of the 4th century A.D., which was confirmed by the report from the visit of the Emperor Julian.526 To Troy X also belongs, encountered by Schliemann, Wall 33 cut into the Bouleuterion in H8. The wall was constructed, inter alia, of large re-used fragments of Corinthian columns and the 1st century B.C. inscription honouring Gaius Caesar. Nevertheless, accurate dating of this wall is problematic since it might post-date the foundation of that building around the time of Augustus Octavian or post-date

of quite a large LByz settlement has been recorded by the field survey on the western rim of the plateau.532 Summing up, the Byzantine settlement removed earlier architecture and its houses were erected into and around the mound of Hisarlık, but they made extensive use of structures of earlier periods. However, they were themselves destroyed by inhabitants of the medieval and modern villages and this is why our knowledge of this period is

its demolition by Herulian attack in 267 A.D., by the earthquake in the second half of the 5th century A.D. observed later by the American archaeologists in square G8, but recently ascribed to Byzantine unrest in the 6th century A.D.527 In the Lower Town the orthogonal plan of the streets was reconstructed by geomagnetic prospection, and the LR, Hellenistic and E-LByz habitation in squares İK17-18, C29, w28, p28 was subsequently excavated.528 The new excavations have also exposed the remains of a possible LR glass workshop in H17. They also shed some light on the discontinuity of occupation from the LBA to the MHel period, at least within the limited excavations of the Lower Town.529 Moreover, from the Byzantine period there are known a house in x7, a domed kiln in y8, several pits with material (pottery, bones) in

limited mainly to the burial grounds. Generally, there have been three proposals of division of the very long post-Bronze Age period following Troy VII. For Dörpfeld the division point was the beginning of the Roman period, for Blegen the time of Alexander the Great and his successors.533 Recently, on the basis of the first discovery of the destruction-horizon the date of the city’s destruction by the Roman legate Fimbria in 85 B.C. was accepted. Thus remains earlier than that event belong to Troy VIII and those erected after it are ascribed to Troy IX.534 The earliest post-Bronze Age human presence on the site has been evidenced by PG and Archaic 530 Korfmann 1998, 10; Korfmann 2000, 24; Korfmann 2002, 20, 22; Korfmann 2003, 14. The latter burial ground was utilized during the LByz period – Korfmann 1995, 4. 531 Korfmann 2004, 11. 532 Jablonka 2006, 7. Moreover, in p28 at the defensive ditch came to light eleven bell-shaped storage pits cut into the rock and filled at the beginning of the 14th century; this also indicates the existence of the settlement in this area – Korfmann 1995, 4. 533 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 201; Blegen et al. 1958, 249. 534 Rose 1992, 44; Korfmann 1993a, 2; Korfmann 1995, 3.

526 Goethert, Schleif 1962, 10, 12, 18, 20, 23, 37; Easton 2002, 313. 527 Schliemann 1874a, 191-93; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 214; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 234; Schmidt 1902, 316 no. 9662; Blegen et al. 1958, 183, figs 322-23; Rose 1992, 53; Rose 1997, 100; Easton 2002, 214-15, 313. 528 Rose 1992, 55-56; Rose 1994, 93; Rose 1995, 99-100. 529 Rose 1992, 56; Rose 1993, 110.

44

Troy VIIb3 and the earliest phase of Troy VIII begin at the end of the 11th and first half of the 10th, and then continue to the beginning of the 7th century

pottery encountered in the area of the Athena Temple. These finds became a starting point for the reconstruction of the history of the Trojan population at the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. Nevertheless, it seems difficult to judge whether such a limited number of materials indicates occupation of the site.535 However, in light of the new excavations the time frame c. 950 - c. 750 B.C. seems possible, with only scarce construction activity in the area of ‘Kybele Sanctuary’ in square AB8, which may have been the nucleus of the settlement.536 Its lower limit corresponds generally with the time when the Homeric epics were being written down. On the other hand, the above-mentioned detailed

B.C.539 Troy VIII itself developed in the other area of Hisarlık from c. 900 B.C to c. 400 B.C., strongly marked by Greek influences from about the mid10th century B.C.540 The new locality of Troy VIII has been evidenced by the pottery, as well as House 850, dated to the second half of the 10th and perhaps 9th century B.C., situated outside of the defence wall in square A7.541 The date 700 B.C. is hardly supported by the calibrated radiocarbon dates for Troy VIII, whose lower limit is constrained by the rapid decline from

stratigraphy and pottery research suggests c. 950 or even 1050-1000 B.C. for coming of the Aeolic Greeks and the beginning of Troy VIII, without a break after Troy VIIb2.537 Anyway, in both cases the earlier proposed nearly 400-year occupation gap between Troy VII and VIII, i.e. from c. 1100 to c. 700 B.C., has been much reduced.538 It seems that

c. 840 B.C.; they seem to be 50-100 years too old, which might be caused by the presence of old wood. On the other hand, samples of Troy VIIb and VIII deriving from the same stratigraphic sequence would shed new light on the mentioned gap, which seems shorter than recently proposed 14C dating.542 In square z6-7 religious Archaic Buildings 2-3 of the 7th century B.C., discovered beneath the North Building of the Sanctuary, are the earliest architectonic structures dated to Troy VIII.543 One coin indicates destruction of the Bouleuterion by an earthquake and thereby the end of Troy IX after 498 A.D.544 The same disaster was probably responsible for demolition of the Odeion and the facing of the temenos wall of the Temple of

535 There are: several PG and Geometric sherds of the 10th and 9th centuries B.C. – Hertel 1991a, 134-40; Rose 1994, 86; Koppenhöfer 1997, 325, 327-31; Lenz et al. 1998, 197; Korfmann 2000, 32; bronze fibulae of the 8th to 7th centuries B.C. – Korfmann 1995, 4; Rose 1995, 91; a Geometric pottery votive deposit of the end of the 8th century B.C. – Rose 1997, 82; G2-3 Ware of the early 7th century B.C. – Hertel 1991b, 64-65, 66 figs 27-28; McMullen Fisher 1996, 130. Grey Ware pottery – Rose 1997, 83 (Iron Age); Catling 1998, 178-79 (MPG-SPG I). 536 Koppenhöfer 1997, 346-47; Lenz et al. 1998, 197. 537 Podzuweit 1982, 81-82; Hertel 2000, 312-13; Hertel 2003, 92. 538 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 298-99, 645; Blegen et al. 1958, 147, 247, 249-50 (with reservation); Blegen 1964, 172, 174. Blegen did not turn attention to coexistence of the Coarse, Anatolian Grey and Trojan Tan Wares alongside the early PG (= ‘EG’) pottery – Koppenhöfer 1997, 296, 304. Contrary to him Dörpfeld recorded that phenomenon, but

did not use it to reduce the gap – Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 199-200, 645. For more details concerning relationships between Troy VIIb2-3 and VIII see also pages 39-40. 539 Hertel 2003, 95. 540 Hertel 1991a, 139-40; Hertel 1991b, 17, 63-67; Hertel 1992, 74, 88-103; Hertel 1997, 84-86; Hertel 2003, 95; Korfmann 1998, 8, 44, 48. 541 Lenz et al. 1998, fig. 7; Hertel 2003, 95, 118-27. 542 Kromer et al. 2003, 50-51. 543 Rose 1997, 73, 80-82. 544 Rose 1992, 53.

45

Athena. The marl foundations of the latter structure’s portico were destroyed by a later earthquake, even after decades in time.545 There are no remains on Hisarlık from the 6th to 9th centuries A.D. Much later, in the first half of the 13th century A.D., its occupation was attested by the Byzantine cemetery situated c. 200 m northwest of Theatre A.546

545 Rose 1994, 91; Rose 1997, 98-100. 546 Böhlendorf 1998, 263, 271. However, perhaps EByz graves came to light south of the Odeion in the area of the Lower Town – Blegen 1934, 244-45; Korfmann 1991, 33; Böhlendorf 1998, 263.

46

47

48

II. AN OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE CERAMICS UNDER CONSIDERATION 1. Pottery

for advice and then followed the French scholar in recording the archaeological contexts of uncovered vessels.551 Thanks to this cooperation he recorded “(...) une masse de tesson de magnifique poterie noire ou peinte noir et blanc avec des representations d’arcs et de flêches, tandis que jusqu’à une profondeur de 17 m jamais la moindre trace de coleur ou de peinture, aussi un δέπας άμφικύπελλον mais trop abimé (...)”.552 Gradually, but already in 1873, he got involved in restoration, classification and taking photographs of the vessels kept at his house in Athens. Nevertheless, Schliemann realized he had to learn all by himself and thus he expected indulgency from M. Müller in reading his book Trojanische Alterthümer.553 All these contacts and experiences resulted in Schliemann’s important observations: the depth at which every object was found was stated on the plates of his Atlas554; and the pottery of Troy III-V represented by many new forms was worse and coarser than that of the LBA.555 On the other hand, gaps in his proper assessment of the pottery are still visible since “(...) the small terra-cottas in the form of volcanoes [i.e. whorls – D.M.] and tops [i.e. lids – D.M.] (...)” were used along with the ‘Arian’ motifs incised on them for establishing the sequence of strata at Troy.556

H. Schliemann’s contribution to the study of pottery, despite certain limitations, is worth mentioning. However, one should realize that at the time of the beginning of his excavations at Troy in 1870-1871 the knowledge of pottery and awareness of its importance in establishing and recording the archaeological context were very slight.547 In this respect Schliemann was not an exception, but one of an entire generation of archaeologists who began to learn about pottery. As a field archaeologist he was a self-taught person, because at those times scientific methods of excavations were in their first stage of existence. However, already in 1866 during his visit to the Museum of Taganrog in Russia and the excavations of the Tomb of Mithradates conducted there he considered pottery to be visible evidence of habitation.548 Moreover, in August 1868 during the first visit to the Troad, on the basis of sherds and bricks recorded in thirty sites, he rejected location of Troy in these spots.549 Also in 1871 at Troy Schliemann linked the pottery of the ‘Stone Age’ with c. fifty destroyed houses.550 For his aware attitude to pottery note his correspondence with E. Burnouf of the French School at Athens, because already during spring 1872 (his third field season at Troy) he asked

The understanding of the importance of pottery can also be seen at Mycenae, where Schliemann halted an attempt to throw away sherds.557 Additionally, in

547 Instead official 1871 should be 1870, but Schliemann in publications did not mention the latter date for the first season, because his excavations were unauthorized and lasted only from 9th to 19th April with the assistance of c. twenty workmen – Easton 2002, 27-28. 548 Bloedow 1992, 211-12. 549 Meyer (ed.) 1958, 31 no. 6. 550 Bloedow 1992, 212.

551 Op. cit., 213. 552 Meyer (ed.) 1953, 210 no. 181. 553 Op. cit., 220 no. 196, 247 no. 226, 249 no. 228, 253 no. 233, 348. 554 Schliemann 1874b. 555 Schliemann 1875, 27. 556 Op. cit., 34-35 no. 7. 557 Kyrieleis 1978, 82.

49

June 1875, September 1876 he reported fine pottery and vessels of white clay differentiated there, as well as contemporaneity of the oldest pottery with the Cyclopean walls and the Lion Gate.558 It is clear that the beautiful Mycenaean pottery impressed and inspired him to develop interests in this class of material, which was evidenced in the letters of 1 and 28 November 1876 to The Times.559 Further progress of Schliemann’s understanding of pottery is visible in 1879 since he regarded sherds as the key to chronology of tumuli at Udyektepe and Beşiktepe.560 This year was also crucial for his awareness of the major role of pottery at Troy, which resulted from his openness to suggestions from his collaborators.

and thus to interpret certain of its forms. In particular, his treatment of depas amphikypellon is one of the most notable.564 Additionally, he turned his attention to the function of pottery, as well as its fabric quality and shapes as reflecting the degree of development of the people in Troy.565 In 1890 significant quantities of Mycenaean pottery were found at the upper elevation at Troy. It is worth noting that Schliemann regarded this pottery as basic for chronology of the upper levels of Troy, which at least was able to shed some light on the lower situated five settlements.566 This observation along with recovered architectural remains and comparative evidence from Mycenae and Tiryns led him to change his twenty-year-old

Consequently, his experience and overall maturity are clearly apparent in his acceptance, on the basis of pottery, of two sub-cities (lower and higher) within Troy I.561 Obviously, Schliemann was not consistent in his treatment of pottery, but open to the criticism of other scholars, and in consequence developed further cooperation, including the engagement of architects. Already in 1881 there worked for him the Polish engineer Gorkiewicz [originally rather Górkiewicz – D. M.], who was in Turkish service, and the Austrian architect J. Höfler.562 In 1882 he again employed Höfler and additionally W. Dörpfeld563; the latter became Schliemann’s very close collaborator. This led him to record and observe the relationship between pottery and architecture,

theory on Homer’s Troy being located at or near the bottom of the mound. It should be added that Schliemann’s new view was inspired by Dörpfeld’s remarks.567 In other words, after the last field campaign and shortly before his death in 1890 he began to link Troy VI instead of II with the Trojan War. Nevertheless, despite the nearly year-by-year progress in the treatment of pottery, Schliemann’s corpus of wares is not complete and the description is very general – for instance, the pottery of Troy II-III was characterized as more elegant (possibly polished) than the wares from the higher levels568 – but some of them can be recognized, namely the grey and black wares of Troy I-V, red, brown and buff wares of Troy II onward, as well as the yellow ones of Late Troy 564 Schliemann 1880, 299-302; Meyer (ed.) 1958, 128 no. 101. However, basic arguments for this form were already presented in Schliemann 1875, 313-14. For an extensive overview on the development of Schliemann’s interest in depas see Mühlenbruch 2001. 565 Schliemann 1880, 213-14. 566 Meyer (ed.) 1958, 358-59 no. 336, 359-60 no. 337, 374 no. 349. 567 Schliemann 1891, 18, 58-60; Sperling 1986, 29-30; Saherwala et al. 1993, 142; Easton 1994b, 174. 568 Schliemann 1874a, 34, 42; Easton 2002, 147, 314.

558 559 560 561

Meyer (ed.) 1958, 34 no. 7, 54 no. 26. Op. cit., 58 no. 27, 65-66 no. 33. Op. cit., 77 no. 47. Op. cit., 82 no. 55. The basic role of pottery in studies on human activity was also expressed in Schliemann 1880, 213-14. 562 Meyer (ed.) 1936, 189 no. 101; Saherwala et al. 1993, 83-85, 241. 563 Meyer (ed.) 1958, 142 no. 116. In fact the idea of having architects at Troy came from R. Schöne – Saherwala et al. 1993, 81.

50

II, IV-V.569 In Schliemann’s diaries there is also no basic characterisation of the pottery from Troy VIVII, and even the colours of artefacts have not been recorded properly.570 Moreover, although during the period 1st-25th April 1872, i.e. from the beginning of work on the North Platform of Troy, Schliemann initiated drawing of the artefacts he found, they were unprofessional. His recently published diaries of excavations in 1872 and first of all in 1873 contain drawings of the huge corpus of various items. Most of the finds from the 1870-1873 excavations were taken by Schliemann to Athens, but only those from the 1873 season (nearly all of them) were illustrated, some of them even twice.571 Nevertheless, the Atlas

At the end of the nineteenth century was initiated re-organization of Schliemann’s collection kept at the Museum of Ethnology in Berlin along with separation of duplicates (Ger. Dubletten), i.e. artefacts of the same type. These efforts, initiated in 1895, resulted in division of the entire pottery collection, on the basis of technique of production and method of firing, into three main groups, but without connections with doubtful stratified contexts. The material acknowledged by Schliemann as derived from Troy I was attributed to the same period. The artefacts of Troy II-V were grouped as one assemblage divided into early wheelmade and handmade, as well as advanced wheelmade and rare handmade techniques of production.578 In 1896 H. Schmidt took over this project and in 1902 published the results. His book is still valid since it provides the basic references for everyone involved in studies on the materials from Schliemann’s excavations. Unfortunately, the proposed division of materials within Troy II-V was based only on the technique of production and distinguished forms, but there are no links to the site’s stratigraphy. The pottery of Troy VI-VII was presented from a Hellenocentric point of view, i.e. as strongly dominated by Mycenaean influences, which in the light of modern research cannot be accepted.579 Dörpfeld’s book published in 1902 focuses not only on his own fieldwork conducted at Troy in 1893 and 1894580, but also refers to excavations in 1870-1873, 1878-1879, 1882 and 1890.581 It contains, thanks to an attempt to establish a sequence of finds, the first modern re-assessment of Trojan pottery, including drawings of the profiles. The

was an important achievement towards presentation of Trojan pottery to the public. Moreover, there also appeared other publications concerning the five field campaigns of 1871-1872572, 1873573 and 1878-1879.574 In particular, the materials published in Ilios were excellently illustrated and chronologically divided into Troy I-VII, but profiles were missing.575 Also in the next two publications the pottery became the subject of more detailed studies according to the kind of clay, firing process and decoration.576 On note, in the second one there was an attempt, on the basis of successive strata, to work up the first typology of Trojan pottery.577 569 Easton 2002, 314. 570 Op. cit., 325. 571 Schliemann 1874b; Schliemann 1880; Easton 2002, 21. 572 Schliemann 1874a; Schliemann 1880. 573 Schliemann 1874a; Schliemann 1880; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 7-9. 574 Schliemann 1880; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 10-12. 575 Schliemann 1880. 576 Schliemann 1884. For the report from the sixth season in 1882 see also Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 12-14; Schliemann 1891, passim – the report from his last, seventh campaign. 577 Schliemann 1891, 14-19, 21-22.

578 Poppelreuter 1896, 105-106. 579 Schmidt 1902, VII-XVIII, 12-179. 580 For results of the eighth season in 1893 see Dörpfeld et al. 1894 and Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 17-20, and for the ninth season in 1894 see Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 20-25. 581 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 1-17.

51

main types of pottery, as well as material from Troy I, were distinguished. The pottery of Troy II-V was grouped together and as a basis for dating divided into three technical phases of development.582 Moreover, there are indications that a continuation of earlier MBA pottery forms into Troy VI was also observed.583 A fresh look at Trojan pottery we owe to the excavations conducted by C. W. Blegen and his team in 1932-1938. These works resulted in a monumental, multi-volume publication, which offers, for the first time, among other things the pottery’s typology, chronology and function established within the stratigraphy of recovered structures. The entire

many years, in these publications still valuable are first of all the proposed typologies, distribution of forms and close comparanda over the mentioned territories. As the first appeared the contribution of P. Z. Spanos dealing mainly with the depas form, but also with other related vessels for drinking (cups, tankards).586 Also Ch. Podzuweit’s study is laudable due to its broad scope and for those times an upto-date discussion of the complete corpus of the EBA Trojan forms. He attributed them to particular strata and provided a discussion on the chronology supplemented with materials from Poliochni and Thermi.587 Moreover, J.-L. Huot proposed the classification and distribution of four main forms

corpus of the pottery was divided into two broad fine and coarse classes and within each of them many wares were distinguished. Blegen and his collaborators, despite a rather Hellenocentric tendency, established more sophisticated sequences of objects useful for dating, but the number of forms was limited in order to maintain a unified terminology. Nevertheless, the proposed typological scheme is well known and still broadly accepted since it was developed and used on-site.584 Blegen also recorded a continuation of the MBA shapes into Troy VI.585 Ceramic materials from Schliemann’s, Dörpfeld’s and Blegen’s excavations formed a starting point for research initially focused on the EBA chronological relationships based on the comparative studies of pottery forms recorded at sites throughout Anatolia and adjacent areas. After

(“bols”, “cruches” “vases fermes”, “couvercles”) along with their variants, as well as one group of various vessels; they all had been produced in broad and variously smoothed monochrome class, constituting many fine wares. In this respect his publication differs from the two previously mentioned since it does not deal only with shapes.588 The pottery seriation dating at EBA Troy, based on the Cincinnati vessel shape classification system, has been a topic of another, more recent study using correspondence analysis, which resulted in reconstruction of the entire ceramic and architectural sequence for Troy I-V. It is worth pointing out that three to five new architectural phases unknown to Blegen have been recorded between Late Troy I and Early Troy II. They may likely correspond to some 586 Spanos 1972. 587 The proposed typology seems limited since it based on Blegen’s finds, being only a part of the entire Trojan material, which are not always well documented (sometimes merely photographs without profiles). However, it has at least some course resolution for Early-Late Troy I, but is unsatisfactory for the sub-periods of Troy II-V – Podzuweit 1979a. 588 Huot 1982.

582 Op. cit., 243-303. 583 Op. cit., 289-94. 584 Blegen et al. 1950-1958, passim. The excavators realized that the proposed typology was far from complete and very often slight variants of one form had been grouped under one type – Blegen et al. 1950, 23-24, 26. 585 Blegen 1953, 35-36.

52

or all of Troy I and/or Troy II architectural units unearthed by the recent excavations. Moreover, the seriation results do not support the earlier point of view that certain phases of Late Troy I and Troy II were contemporaneous. Finally, it should be stated that the seriation results fit well with major historical events and many details of everyday life at Troy recovered by Blegen’s team.589 D. F. Easton’s recent publication of Schliemann’s diaries concerning his excavations in 1870-1873 supplemented the corpus of forms with ninetythree new types, mainly for Troy I-V, placed within a re-examined stratigraphy of the site; this greatly increased the possibilities for comparative studies.590

data sets cannot be drawn upon for constructing a detailed fine chronology for Troy II-III.592 Likewise, as in Podzuweit’s publication the proposed dating resolution is limited to the level of sub-periods at Troy I, but with lower resolution for Troy II-V. Of special value is the final pinnacle’s publication, which contrary to the preliminary one focused on complete preserved vessels.593 The current excavations at Troy have also inspired other research projects focused on different aspects of pottery. So, the LBA pottery of Troy VI was used as the basis for the reconstruction of the site’s relations with the contemporaneous neighbouring cultures; the comparison was done by a comprehensive study of the respective related

Unfortunately, there are almost no comments on fabrics and wares, which obviously resulted from the lack of this kind information in the diaries. From the end of the 1980s excavations in Troy and Troad conducted by the German expedition led by M. Korfmann shed new light on many aspects of the Bronze Age culture in northwestern Anatolia. Thanks to new excavation techniques and the documentation of stratigraphic and geographical contexts, there arose opportunities for more accurate processing of pottery. Consequently, this will improve comparative studies with ceramic assemblages from the earlier excavations. The final publication of the pottery from the recent excavations is under study within the Troia Project.591 However, the results of some mainly preliminary works have already been published. It this context should be mentioned classification of shapes and wares on the basis of three sets of data, namely the material from Blegen’s excavations, the pottery from the new excavations and sherdage of Pinnacle E4-5, but the latter one in light of two other

ceramic materials derived from excavations and surveys.594 Recent work has also increased interest in a re-assessment of the pottery shapes of Troy VI-VIIa, introduced already by Blegen, in order to enrich knowledge on their origin and chronological position within the site’s stratigraphy. Apart from the re-interpretation of the published Cincinnati material, a tentative discussion of the artefacts from the current excavations was added, where possible. This resulted in an attempt to present a new definition of the individual sub-periods, but with limited confidence due to difficulties in correlation of the strata outside the citadel from recent works with Blegen’s architectonic phases for the citadel.595 Progress in research along with the recent fieldwork at Troy and western Anatolia inspired examination of the burnished wheelmade fine grey pottery regarded as one of the most important elements in this area during the 2nd millennium B.C. One of the principal tasks was determination of its 592 Frirdich 1997, 111. This article was strongly criticized in Mansfeld 2001, 243-47. 593 Mansfeld 2001, 230-43. 594 Koppenhöfer 2002a. For the complete topic including the architecture see Koppenhöfer 2000. 595 Pavúk 2002a.

589 Weninger 2002. 590 Easton 2002, 314, figs 126-28. 591 E-mail letter of 30th October 2003 from Korfmann.

53

place of origin, and this problem was broadly discussed within the Aegean-western Anatolian realm in the M-LBA.596 It has been commonly called Grey Minyan Ware, but recently, with reference to the typical pottery of Troy VIh-VIIa, also Grey or Anatolian Grey Ware.597 Schliemann for the first time found and described that pottery at Orchomenos, which he linked with the mythical king Minyas.598 At Troy, since he was convinced that the Second Settlement was described by Homer, he named it “Lydian” and set it together with Handmade Burnished and Knobbed Wares, also attributed to that broad term.599 However, during the 1880s excavations and thanks to Dörpfeld he realized his

a trend to link it with the Mycenaean culture with hope for its affiliation with the coming of the first Greeks. So, Troy604 and on the other hand central Greece, as well as both sides of the Aegean605 were regarded as the place of origin. The earlier studies indicated that Grey Ware and Matt-Painted Wares were the most important products in MH Greece, but not in the EH period.606 Fieldwork from the 1930s to the 1960s had a new impact on the problem, but even then connections with the Aegean were also established on the basis of links of transitional Troy VI-VII with the Greek myth. Moreover, Blegen developed a theory of the common origin of Grey Minyan Ware, which was based on the migration

mistake and gradually regarded contemporaneity of the local commonly used monochrome ware with the Mycenaean pottery.600 Moreover, on the basis of Trojan finds, Schliemann along with Dörpfeld reclassified grey pottery into “monochrome, meist graue Topfware” or “einheimische, troischmonochrome Keramik”601 and attributed the latter one to Troy VI-VII.602 A. J. B. Wace and M. S. Thompson still keep in use the term Grey Minyan and they were convinced that this ware came from Orchomenos to Troy.603 In those years the challenge was to find the place of its origin and there was

wave of people at c. 2000 B.C., who brought it to Greece and Troy.607 According to him this new wheelmade ware appeared suddenly at Troy VIa and had no connections with the previous settlement608, but in fact there is a continuity in shape and technique from Troy II-V into VI.609 604 Forsdyke 1914, 152. 605 Childe 1915, 204, 207. 606 Blegen, Wace 1918, 176. In other words, Trojan Grey Ware was regarded at the outset as close to that in Greece – Blegen et al. 1953, 9. 607 Blegen et al. 1953, 9-11, 15. Also this name was still in use due to conviction of simultaneous occurrence of both wares in Greece and Anatolia, as well as a Hellenocentric view of Trojan culture – op. cit., 15-19. On the other hand, the excavations on Lesbos brought to light its influences on the west – Spencer 1995, 271, 273-75. 608 Blegen et al. 1951, 235; Blegen et al. 1953, 9, 19, 34-35. However, there is observable continuation of other wares (Red-Coated, Grey and Plain) – Blegen et al. 1953, 34-35. 609 Mellaart 1964, 47-49; French 1967, 62, 64; French 1969, 70; Schachner 1994-1995, 97-99; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 316-17 and table 2a-b, 360-61. Contrary to it, separation of the EBA pottery elements from those of the early MBA had been recorded at Limantepe and Bayraklı sites situated within the Grey Minyan

596 Schachner 1994-1995, 97-113; Bayne 2000, 15-130; Hertel 2000, 308-15; Schachner 2000, 299-307. 597 For an overview of different names see Allen 1994, 39-40. 598 Schliemann 1881a, 17-18, 24, 40-44; Schliemann 1881b, 152. 599 Schliemann 1880, 587-88, 720; Meyer (ed.) 1958, 359 no. 336, 374 no. 349. 600 Meyer (ed.) 1958, 359 no. 337, 374 no. 349; Döhl 1986, 106; Emele 1993, 241-44; Korfmann 1993b, 257; Saherwala et al. 1993, 142; Easton 1994b, 174. 601 Dörpfeld et al. 1894, 10, 97, 108, 114; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 299-300; Schachner 2000, 300. 602 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 281, 294-95, 299-300. 603 Wace, Thompson 1912, 251-52.

54

Nevertheless, crucial were the efforts of numerous field surveys conducted in the broad hinterland of Troad focused on the relationship between that ware and Troy, as well as the Aegean.610 Based on inaccurately dated survey material J. Mellaart placed the beginning of the production of Grey Minyan Ware in the area of western Anatolia between İnegöl and Tavşanlι, which subsequently in the EH III was transferred by migrants to central Greece.611 In this respect Mellaart was not the only follower of this theory612, but thanks to the later research he rejected it.613 A modified version of migration at the end of the EH III was also applied for Lerna IV.614 However, later investigations

consideration discoveries at Lerna IV, suggested EH III as transitional to MH due to the appearance of Grey Ware and a new wheelmade technique. He linked the new pottery along with that innovation with the migration wave at the end of the EH III; they developed at the MH Lerna V, which also brought Matt-Painted Wares.618 However, as Caskey suggested, it seems that the EH II-III and MH I transition was more complex, also in term of influences.619 Nevertheless, Blegen’s argument on the crucial connection of the MH with the introduction of Grey Minyan Ware has broken down.620 D. H. French observed no essential difference in technique of production between

rejected this point of view since Grey Ware from Lerna had been regarded as the ancestor of Grey Minyan Ware in Greece. Despite this some forms came from Anatolia via Euboea to Peloponnese, but at EH III Lefkandi I their surfaces were red, black, brown and buff.615 Further detailed comparative studies of Lerna IV pottery with materials from Troy resulted in a low number of formal parallels.616 This option was also developed by A. Schachner, who on the basis of the appearance of common forms in the first half of MH II and at Early Troy VI located the origin of Grey Minyan Ware in Greece and Anatolia.617 J. L. Caskey, taking into

İnegöl and MH Grey Minyan Wares, but according to him the latter may have been developed locally in central and southern Greece. Moreover, there were no direct affinities between the forms of these wares, but the Anatolian technique of making grey ware and certain shapes may have inspired workshops in mainland Greece to make their own wheelmade grey pottery as for instance at Late Lerna IV during the late EH III. According to him the “Lianokladhi gobled” of Grey Ware introduced in the MH in the same parts of Greece has only been found at Troy VI, but not in western Anatolia. Likewise, the two-handled kantharos known from Lerna IV and common during the MH was not recorded in that area.621 In light of this, there were not numerous formal connections between İnegöl and the MH Grey Wares.622 During the next years

610

611 612 613 614 615 616 617

Ware zone in western Anatolia – Akurgal 1950, 5558; Akurgal 1971, 345. Mellaart 1955, 53-54, 74-75, 79, 81-83; Driehaus 1957, 76-77, 93-100; French 1967, 49-51, 62, 64; French 1969, 41-43, 70. Mellaart 1958, 15-21; Mellaart 1960, 147-48, 153-54. Blegen, Haley 1928, 141-43. Mellaart 1969, 172-73. Caskey 1960, 302. Rutter 1983b, 327-29, 348-49; Dickinson 1994, 107-108. Rutter 1995, 475, 477 Schachner 1994-1995, 90.

618 Caskey 1960, 295-98. 619 Op. cit., 286-303. 620 Blegen et al. 1953, 15, 18; contrary Caskey 1960, 296-97; Rutter 1983b, 327-55. 621 French 1967, 63-64, 68. 622 However, certainly at Limantepe III and Panaztepe IIb more recent research has brought to light the “Lianokladhi goblet” in Anatolian Grey Ware – Günel 1999a, 186-87; Günel 1999b, 55. Moreover,

55

the correlation between Anatolian Grey Ware and Grey Minyan Ware of MH Greece was negated on the basis of chronological and formal inconsistencies; in EH III-LH I Greece there were recorded a new formal features from that of MH II-LH IIIC in northwestern Anatolia.623 Therefore, reconsideration of the Grey Ware was postulated, especially the chronological links between different Aegean areas.624 In the LBA there was strong development of the local tradition, but even the scarce influence of Mycenaean pottery changed the types of Grey Wares in Anatolia, as also evidenced by the survey materials. In this context should be mentioned the recently examined Mycenaean pottery from Troy,

forms in Grey Ware known from the area of İzmir have not been recorded at Emporio.627 N. Bayne was the first, despite domination of the Hellenocentric tendency, to opt for the Anatolian origin of the discussed ware. His research, based on examined Grey Ware without connection with the Greek mainland, resulted in a presentation of the dominance of Anatolian features among the shapes and rejection of the term Grey Minyan. Moreover, he indicated the Anatolian origin of this pottery through its evolution and relationships from Troy III-VI to the beginning of the Iron Age.628 This point of view along with the new term Anatolian Grey Ware was acknowledged by M. Korfmann629, while

of which the majority was locally manufactured.625 The imitation of the Mycenaean forms in Anatolian Grey Ware began at Middle Troy VI and from that time there was noted an enormous reduction of its distribution, finally in the LBA to northwestern Anatolia (Beşiktepe, Hanaytepe, Troy) and Lesbos (Thermi). This contrasts with the Anatolian Grey Ware commonly recorded during Early and Middle Troy VI in western Anatolia, up to İzmir in the south.626 Additionally, the excavations at Emporio brought to light Grey Wares in forms parallel to Early-Middle Troy VI material, but generally the cultural development of the site in the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C. was closer to that of the İzmir region. On the other hand, the LBA Mycenaean

also other scholars turned attention to the problem of the new name.630 From LBA Troy and other western Anatolian-eastern Aegean sites, namely Beşiktepe, Panaztepe, Limantepe, Thermi, Antissa and Poliochni, there are also known Aegean shapes in this ware.631 This is why the new name for the discussed pottery has not been emphatically accepted.632 Bayne was the first to shed light on the

623 624 625 626

627 Hood et al. 1982, 579-82. 628 Bayne 2000. There have also been pointed out similarities in the technique of production, clay and decoration between the LBA Grey Ware and the Iron Age Aeolian Grey Ware at Troy and in the northern Aegean – Blegen et al. 1958, 251-53 with references to the older publications; Hertel 1991a, 139; Koppenhöfer 1997, 347. For an overview of the coexistence of the latter one with other EIA wares in western Anatolia see Hertel 2000, 308-16. 629 Korfmann 1997, 27; Korfmann 2001d, 399, 403 figs 453-54. Moreover, within the Troia Project there was suggested manufacture of this ware at Troy, and distribution in Troad and northwestern Anatolia, but without closer territorial definition – Koppenhöfer 2002a. 630 Buchholz 1973, 180-81; French 1973, 51-53; Allen 1994, 40; Schachner 1999, 23; Pavúk 2002b, 106. 631 Pavúk 2002a, 65; Pavúk 2002b, 103-105. 632 Schachner 1999, 23; Schachner 2000, 300-301,

kantharoi are reported from western Anatolia and Greece – Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 83, 90 fig. P.4 nos 1-2, 118, 122 fig. P.25 nos 18-20; Dietz 1991, 149-54; Maran 1992a, 88; Maran 1992b, 121-23; Schachner 1994-1995, 92-96. French 1969, 68-71; Bayne 2000, 15-20, 125, 127, 129; Korfmann 2001d, 399, 403. Maran 1992a, 301-78. Mountjoy 1997a; Mountjoy 1997b, 278, 287, 291-92. Schachner 1994-1995, 102-104, 110-113; Schachner 1999, 32.

56

evidenced on a larger scale.634 Additionally, his detailed survey of the stratigraphy and development of the 2nd and the early 1st millennium B.C. pottery at Bayraklı is laudable, since he ascertained not only links between ceramic material from this site and Troy V-VI, but also noted evident local features which placed it as transitional within different pottery regions defined in western Anatolia.635 In the most recent studies the problem of the place of origin of Grey Ware in Anatolia still remains open. It is unknown whether this ware appeared for the first time in the coastal area or further inland. However, in light of the fieldwork the earliest examples derived from Limantepe,

problem of the relationship between regions of northwestern Anatolia and the distribution of certain forms of pottery633, which later was 305-306. 633 Bayne 2000, 37-121. This inspired direction of research developed on the basis of the material from the large scale field surveys conducted in the hinterland of western Anatolia. There were distinguished different regional pottery groups within the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C. and one local group within Grey Wares of this region, i.e. the above-mentioned İnegöl Grey Ware. For the first time it was recorded between İznik Lake and İnegöl in the north of western Anatolia, roughly dated to the very end of the 3rd millennium B.C. and later incorrectly regarded as the direct ancestor of Grey Minyan Ware (Anatolian Grey Ware) – Bittel 1942, 160-62; Mellaart 1955, 61-64, 74; French 1967, 55, 61-65; French 1969, 68-72. Despite the similar production technique of both wares this point of view has been questioned on the basis of formal and decorative dissimilarities – Schachner 1994-1995, 112-13; Pavúk 2002b, 103. Moreover, the fabric of İnegöl Grey Ware seems closer to Grey Minyan Ware from Greece, but there are not formal affinities between them – Pavúk 2002b, 103. More recently the İnegöl Grey Ware has been linked, thanks to polishing marks, with “Politurmuster” Ware of Troy VI – op. cit., loc. cit.; for an illustration see Blegen et al. 1956, fig. 356 nos 1-9. There are also differences in distribution, since it was limited to the more inland transitional area from western to central Anatolia, while Anatolian Grey Ware is more linked with the west coast and its hinterland (except Demircihöyük) – French 1967, 63 fig. 4; French 1969, 71 fig. 6; Schachner 1994-1995, 113. Another problem is dating of the İnegöl Grey Ware, because the results of comparative studies with materials from Troy, Beycesultan and even Demircihöyük are not conclusive. On the mound of İnegöl was also recorded Anatolian Grey Ware and according to this attribution of the İnegöl Grey Ware to the very end of the 3rd millennium B.C. seems tentatively possible – Özgüç 1946, 606 pl. 29 no. 30; Kull 1988, 69; Schachner 1994-1995, 113.

Panaztepe, Troy and Bayraklı, while those recorded on the coast were strongly influenced by Mycenaean pottery. On the other hand, the majority of the material from inland western Anatolia originating from surveys seems to be LBA and thus later than pottery from the coastal sites. There is a possibility that in Anatolia during the MBA the firing process in reduced condition was improved, which resulted in the production of grey pottery.636 In my opinion the local fabrics are the key to regarding Anatolian Grey Ware as originating in Anatolia, but produced in different forms depending on the period of occupation and geographical position of a particular site. This is why both Aegean and Anatolian shapes were manufactured in this ware. In the 1970s and 1980s excavations of Demircihöyük, Limantepe, Panaztepe, Beşiktepe, the field surveys in Propontis and Ionia, as well as recent works at Troy, inspired broader studies 634 Özdoğan 1993, 160. 635 Bayne 2000, 61-80; contrary Akurgal 1950, 55-58; Akurgal 1971, 345; Akurgal 1983, 7. 636 Pavúk 2002b, 106. The earliest Grey Minyan Ware in western Anatolia was recorded at Panaztepe and dated to the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C.– Günel 1999a, 190.

57

on the distribution of Anatolian Grey Wares. So, on the basis of visual assessments Trojan Grey Ware was recorded in the Eastern Mediterranean, namely Cyprus, Syria and Israel.637 Also a few examples of Anatolian Grey Wares were found at cemeteries in Kos and Rhodos with association of the LH IIIA-C wares638, as well as Antissa, Methymna, Mytilene, Pyrrha and Thermi settlements in Lesbos.639 But first of all should be mentioned studies of S. H. Allen focused on distribution of the LBA Northwestern Anatolian Grey Wares outside of Anatolia, namely in the central Mediterranean, the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. She made use of Bayne’s achievements, but neither modified Blegen’s point of

Finally, it should be added that according to another point of view Grey Minyan Ware originated independently in Greece, but roughly at the same time as Grey Ware in western Anatolian İnegöl and Panaztepe, i.e. during the transition from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium B.C. However, it further developed in different directions.644 Both handmade and wheelmade Grey Minyan Ware came to light at EH III Lefkandi II-III along with some Anatolian forms.645 It continues at Lefkandi III and MH I-III Lefkandi IV-VI, and is also known from MH Mycenae, Orchomenos, and M-LH Lerna V-VI. Examined sherds from Lefkandi, Mycenae and Orchomenos in terms of surface treatment

view nor referred to the regional groups of pottery proposed by French.640 Also worth mentioning are the materials from Hanaytepe along with their position within the historical geography of Troad.641 The recent excavations also yielded a related ware surviving from Troy V into VI and tentatively called Pattern Burnished Grey Ware.642 To the north some examples of Anatolian Grey Wares were gathered in south Thracia up to the Gelibolu Peninsula.643

are close to those of Early Troy VI or Panaztepe, but only some of them are ‘soapy’.646 Moreover, 644 Koppenhöfer 2002a, 365-67. 645 Popham, Sackett 1968, 9 and fig. 8; Rutter 1983b, 337 table 3, 339. However, already at Lefkandi I (beginning of EH III) there appeared brownish or reddish pottery, whose mainly wheel and also handmade forms seem unknown in Greece, but show affinities with EBA II-III Anatolia and also Troy II-V – Popham, Sackett 1968, 7 fig. 7, 8. 646 Koppenhöfer 2002a, 346-52. The Grey Minyan Ware, mainly from Lerna IV-V, its House M, Lefkandi II-VI and Deiras II-III at Argos, on the basis of stylistic features was divided into five phases – Dickinson 1977, 17-23. At Lerna IV its direct precedent was Fine Grey-Burnished Ware and with the occurrence of that pottery there was introduced the potter’s wheel. Some forms of this ware are related to Trojan ones. It also came to light at Berbati, Gonia, Kolonna, Lefkandi, Nemea, Olympia, Pevkakia Magoula, Pelikata and Tiryns, but the origin of its colour is unknown – Rutter 1983b, 336-43, 349; Rutter 1995, 23-24 However, at the same time Grey Wares developed in western Anatolia, including İnegöl Grey Ware, which thanks to indirect [and/or direct – D. M.] links could have inspired production of Fine Grey-Burnished Ware in Greece in the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C. – Koppenhöfer 2002a, 370. Influences from

637 French 1969, 70; Buchholz 1973, 182-84; Schachner 1997, 220-22. 638 Schachner 1997, 219; Schachner 2000, 304. 639 Allen 1992, 70-77; Allen 1994, 42 fig. 3, 45; Bayne 2000, 94-109. There are also finds from the field surveys around the island at Sigri, Palaiokastro and Perama – Allen 1992, 70. 640 Allen 1991, 151-54; Allen 1992, 56-206. In fact, on the basis of neutron activation analysis (NAA) confirming Trojanocentric production, she introduced the name Trojan or more generally Northwestern Anatolian Grey Wares – Allen 1994, 40, 46. 641 Schachner 1999, 23. 642 Pavúk 2002a, 35, 40, 65. 643 Özdoğan 1986, 62. On distribution see also Allen 1990; Allen 1991; Allen 1994; Schachner 1997; Schachner 2000; Schachner, Meriç 2000; Bayne 2000; Mommsen et al. 2001; Koppenhöfer 2002a; Pavúk 2002a; Pavúk 2002b.

58

in M-LBA Greece and Anatolia, including Troy, there are noted common forms in Grey Minyan and Anatolian Grey Wares.647 It should be added that as in western Anatolia also in Greece there are variants of Grey Minyan Ware, but only one of them, produced likely at Boeotia (perhaps at Orchomenos or another site) and exported to Peloponnesus, has been acknowledged as “True Grey Minyan”.648 The origin of the new Knobbed Ware at Troy VIIb2 was a topic of other studies. Already Schliemann had recognized handmade coarse pottery at Troy and defined it broadly as “Lydian”.649 This term included, inter alia, “Buckelkeramik”, differentiated and named by him and later also

Hungary as the place of origin.650 Subsequently, the first proper definition along with the name Knobbed Ware, equivalent to the German term, was given by an American team.651 Recently, on the basis of statistical affinities, the lower part of the Danube valley was proposed as the area of influence.652 In this respect D. Koppenhöfer follows, to some extant, earlier opinions on the newcomers who brought this ware from Thrace to Troy.653 However, according to more recent specialized analysis there has been distinguished just one, perhaps imported, sherd of that ware, but only chemically related to pottery from the area of Stara Zagora.654 Research has also focused on the influence and

recorded and described by Dörpfeld and Schmidt, who dated it to Troy VII indicating the area of

export of Trojan EBA pottery. This is evidenced, to some extent, by results of the new excavations in northwestern Anatolia and Bulgarian Thrace.655 However, so far these investigations have not been developed in a satisfactory manner and the existing gap needs to be filled. Export of the abovementioned LBA Anatolian Grey Ware, mainly to the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea areas, has been recorded more comprehensively. Petrographic and other specialized analysis also constitutes an important direction in the examination of Trojan pottery. It was preceded and thus initiated by simple observations of the surface of sherds. As early as in 1875 at Mycenae Schliemann was aware of the abrasive process affecting sherds caused by sun, rain and wind, but he was convinced

western Anatolia on the earliest MH Grey Minyan Ware in Greece were also suggested – French 1973, 51-52 (excluding of İnegöl Grey Ware); contrary Rutter 1997 (quotation of his point of view from the web site after Koppenhöfer 2002a, 371); contrary Dickinson 2000, but some decorative patterns and handles are similar to those of Troy VI (quotation of his e-mail of 15 February after Koppenhöfer 2002a, 354, 371). Also forms of Lerna V are little comparable with those of Troy. Moreover, Grey Minyan Ware at Lerna V-VI was mainly handmade – Zerner 1993, 42; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 354. It should also be added that on the Greek mainland there was produced Yellow Minyan Ware, only somewhat close to Trojan Tan Ware, but regarded as the ancestor of Mycenaean Ware – Vermule 1964, 75; Rutter, Rutter 1976, 9; Schachner 1994-1995, 96; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 351-52, 370 (quotation of O. T. P. K. Dickinson’s oral opinion). For instance it was developed at MH II Lefkandi V and at its end it supplanted the Grey Minyan one, which disappeared at Lefkandi VI – Dickinson 1977, 18 fig. 1, 21. 647 Schachner 1994-1995, 99-104; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 358-67. 648 Zerner 1993, 43, 47. 649 Schliemann 1880, 587-88, 720; Schliemann 1884, 215-16.

650 Schliemann 1880, 592-93; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 297, 300-303, 594-600. 651 Blegen et al. 1958, 154, 158. 652 Koppenhöfer 1997, 337-41; Koppenhöfer 2002b, 702. 653 Blegen et al. 1958, 144-45, 154; Bankoff, Winter 1984, 25 – they suggested the eastern part of the lower Danube area; Bloedow 1985, 186-87, 198. 654 Guzowska et al. 2003, 248. 655 For instance see Parzinger, Özdoğan 1996, 28-29; Özdoğan 2003a, 82-86; Özdoğan 2003b, 113-15.

59

that the pottery fragments were far more durable than architectural structures.656 In spring 1879 he tried more precisely to describe some aspects of the manufacturing process of the painted pottery recorded by him at Beşiktepe.657 Moreover, he was one of the first to introduce a scientific approach to pottery and thus he drew on the expertise of X. Landerer, Professor of Chemistry at Athens, in his attempt to analyze the pottery’s technology.658 He also discussed pottery with other experts, namely Burnouf, G. Ch. F. Lisch and R. Virchow.659 Despite errors in his treatment of pottery, Schliemann was aware of its importance, as well as the necessity for collaboration with mentioned and other

Dümrek (Simoeis) river flood plains were indicated as sources of clay and aplastics. On the other hand, some sherds of Troy VI and IX contained, according to the author, aplastics atypical for Troad and on this basis they were regarded as imports, but without indication of the place of origin.661 In the final publication of the American excavations Felts’ efforts were not continued and even attribution of sherds examined by him to particular wares was not undertaken. However, the entire pottery, on the basis of features visible on the sherds’ surface, was divided into two principal groups, namely micaceous of the Early-Middle Troy VI and non-micaceous or slightly micaceous dated

specialists.660 Moreover, he employed architects, and this all placed him in the rank of pioneers of Aegean archaeology, including the first attempts towards studies of pottery. W. M. Felts, shortly after completion of Blegen’s excavations in 1932-1938, gave a general petrographic characterisation and its chronological development, as well as some aspects of manufacture of pottery from Troy I-III, VI, VIII-IX, and the Byzantine period, including shaping and firing. Over those periods the author observed a trend to the use of higher burning temperature, better levigated clay, decreasing porosity and introduction of the wheel at the beginning of Troy II on the basis of orientation of pores and aplastics. The Karamenderes (Scamander) and perhaps also the

to the Early-Middle and especially Late Troy VI.662 R. E. Jones published the results of a chemical analysis of twenty-one sherds of local fine and coarse wares from Troy I-IV, VI-VII conducted in Oxford.663 According to recognized chemical elements he distinguished three local groups. The source of one of them, due to high content of Ca, Mg, Cr, Ni and more calcareous clay, was situated south of Troy.664 This led to specification of at least one of the sources of clay in the plain drained by the Karamenderes river. Moreover, in the course of examination perhaps five imported sherds of the EH II and LM III periods were identified.665 The main aim of the more recent isotopegeochemical, chemical and petrographic analyses was to distinguish locally produced from imported pottery. Moreover, an attempt was made towards reconstruction of the burning temperature of pottery. These investigations were based on 120 pottery sherds from Troy I-VIII along with rich reference materials of seventy sediment samples

656 Meyer (ed.) 1958, 36 no. 7. 657 Op. cit., 78-79 no. 48. 658 Schliemann 1874a, XLIX-L; Schliemann 1880, 219-20. 659 Schliemann 1880, 220. 660 The letter of 12th June 1879 from Virchow to Schliemann clearly evidenced unusual and largescale cooperation between archaeology and science in this very early stage of field archaeology – Briegleb 2003, 293-95, 298-300.

661 Felts 1942, 237-42. 662 Blegen et al. 1950-1958; Blegen et al. 1953, 35-36. 663 Jones 1986, 302-303. 664 Op. cit., 303. 665 Op. cit., 302-304.

60

from Troad and eight sherds from other sites (Mycenae, Tiryns, Demircihöyük, Kāmid el-Lōz); the number of analyzed Bronze Age wares was thirty-five of forty-two recorded in 1992. It resulted in chemical and mineralogical characterisation of sherds, which confirmed the two above-mentioned sources of clay, imitation of high quality Mycenaean pottery at Troy and its import from Argolid in Greece, as well as an import of White Slip II Ware, perhaps from central Cyprus.666 Also in the most recent investigation of the Trojan Bronze Age pottery the principal goal was, with geochemical and mineralogical methods, to determine its chemical composition and compare it

fragments of the entire investigated pottery from Troy VI-VII (45 328 sherds from excavations during 1988-1991).670 Also, analysis of samples from Schliemann’s excavations at Troy and Hanaytepe kept in Berlin yielded interesting results explaining its homogeneous grey colour and glossy, even metallic surface.671 Moreover, in light of results of NAA the majority of the eighty-seven examined wheelmade burnished Anatolian Grey Ware sherds of 13th-12th century B.C. found in Cyprus and Israel were imported from Troy.672 Finally, one should mention the geochemical analysis of twenty-two sherds of Knobbed Ware from Troy VIIb compared with material from

with those of local sediments from the Biga Peninsula. This enabled four groups to be established for the local Trojan pottery production. Moreover, once again two sources of clay were confirmed, namely the flood plains of the rivers Karamenderes and Dümrek. Additionally, it enabled the provenance of imported wares, including the Mycenaean one from Argolid, to be constrained.667 According to the earlier observations the Anatolian Grey Wares along the coast and in northwestern Anatolia were of high quality668 and with the slip containing silver mica they were identified in the drainage basin of the larger river valleys between the coast and the area dominated by the Inegöl Grey Ware.669 The Anatolian Grey Ware from recent excavations at Troy became the subject of new, from a methodological point of view, studies and other specialized analyses, which led to the definition of geochemical characteristics of its clay. It should be mentioned that the special interest in this ware is reflected by 41.7% of examined

southern Bulgaria. According to the authors, the examination indicated that despite the local production at least some of that material was imported, but as mentioned above the exact area of its origin still remains unknown.673 However, this point of view is hardly acceptable since it is based only on one or two analyzed ‘imported’ sherds; there is also a need to examine more extensive comparative material from the eastern Balkans.

666 Knacke-Loy 1994, VI-VII, 36-41, Knacke-Loy et al. 1995, 146. 667 Satır, Zöldföldi 2003, 223-29. 668 French 1967, 62, 64; French 1969, 68. 669 Schachner 2000, 306.

2. Whorls Cultivation and animal husbandry initiated in the Neolithic brought stabilization not only in food supply, but also in access to natural fibres basic for textile production. There is already evidence for sheep breeding from Troy I onwards, because such bones came from the citadel and the Lower

670 Easton, Weninger 1993, 69, 71 fig. 30, 72 fig. 31, 73 fig. 32, 76-77, 78 fig. 35, 79, 80 and fig. 36, 81 fig. 37; Knacke-Loy 1994, VI-VII, 57, 59; Knacke-Loy et al. 1995, 52 table 1, 154, 161 and table 1, 162, 171-72. 671 Schachner 1994-1995, 91, 104-105. 672 Mommsen, Pavúk 2007, 25, 29-30, 32-34. 673 Guzowska et al. 2003, 241-48.

48-60;

61

Town.674 One of the first mechanical forms of yarn manufacturing was hand spinning using a spindle with a whorl. This simple and very common technique survived over millennia in different areas of the Mediterranean. During the Bronze Age Troy hand spinning has been recorded mainly by a large amount of whorls, which constitute one of the biggest groups among all excavated small finds. These persistent remains of that activity recorded by archaeologists were employed as turning flywheels and weights for spindle ‘shafts’. From the beginning of excavations on Hisarlık this class of artefacts raised a lot of attention. The biggest assemblage of whorls derived from

His interest in “Terrakottas”, especially decorated ones, developed rather gradually. Already in the report of 26th October 1871 Schliemann had differentiated first of all clay whorls of various forms (“Bergen”, “Brummkreisel”, “Halbkugeln”, “Karussells”, “Kegeln”) and sizes with an incised circular decoration on one side.679 From that year he also tried to establish links between the depth at which decorated items were recovered and the hill’s top.680 However, this was complicated by artefacts falsified by his workmen, but Schliemann realized these dealings.681 Later, from 15th May 1872 onwards he was particularly interested in drawing whorls, which often opened and closed a daily diary entry.

Schliemann’s works conducted with breaks from 1870 to 1890. During that time c. 8000 items, mostly made of clay, came to light675, but he mentioned from over 18 000 to at least 22 000 whorls.676 On the other hand, Blegen estimated that Schliemann at Troy II recovered some 8000 to 10 000 whorls.677 In light of this, even if one takes into consideration the different numbers of whorls given by both authors, Troy was in this respect an exceptional site in the area of at least the Eastern Mediterranean. It should also be added that, in contrast to the very large group of whorls, the only fragment of carbonized wooden spindle with linen or woollen thread wound on it had been found by Schliemann within “Fund M”, dated by him to Troy II-V.678

In some cases, for instance in a diary entry from 12th June 1872, this is useful for reconstructing which trench was dug during the day and which group of objects derived from it. In other words, when in a long series of drawings a new set of whorls appears it may suggest the beginning of a new group of finds from a newly opened trench.682 In the diaries Schliemann illustrated a lot of whorls, namely 1224 of Troy I-V and 129 of Troy VI-VII.683 In most cases his documentation focused mainly on decoration, but profiles were less important. Whorls of Troy I-V usually bear curved lines forming four fields and those of Troy IV-V were patterned with three, five

679 680 681

674 Uerpmann 2003, 252-59. 675 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 424. At Berlin the same author recorded 7 737 whorls – Schmidt 1902, IX. 676 Schliemann 1884, 303. Clay whorls were also often mentioned in Schliemann 1874a, almost on each page from IX to 308; Schliemann 1880, 416-22; Schliemann 1884, 45-47, 130-31, 335-46; Schliemann (ed.) 19362, 58; Easton 2002, 75-303, figs 130-75, 179-82, 184-86, 188-89, 193. 677 Blegen 1964, 88. 678 Schliemann 1880, 327 (as a “distaff”); Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 340. More recently this find has been

682 683

62

dated to Troy II or III – Barber 1991, 54. Schliemann 1874a, 10-11. Op. cit., loc. cit.. Op. cit., 149-50. It seems that all mistakes in that respect resulted from his inexperience in directing large scale excavations – Balfanz 1995b, 118. Easton 2002, 75, 86, 102-103. Op. cit., 333. Only drawings from 1872-1873 seasons survived – op. cit., 13, figs 9-10, 130-73, 175, 17986, 188-89, 193. Unfortunately, the notebooks with outlines from campaigns 1878, 1879 and 1882 have been lost – op. cit., 19. An enormous number of discussed artefacts were illustrated in Schliemann 1874b and later nearly repeated in Schliemann 1880.

and six fields of decoration. Over 60% of Troy VI-VII in fact derive from Troy VII. In Troy VIII-IX a small number of discussed artefacts were recorded.684 The diaries show Schliemann’s special attention to these objects. This interest along with doubts concerning their function was also expressed in his first book focused on Troy.685 Later he continued to attribute whorls to particular levels of Troy, on the basis of forms and fabrics close to those of pottery.686 It seems that the origin of that interest was his fascination with patterns of decoration, which he interpreted as cult symbols. This determined Schliemann’s view on the function of whorls as votive offerings, idols of the sun or sun rays. Subsequently

There is also observable a strong trend to decipher various motifs as signs of different scripts, even Chinese, which was criticized by Virchow.693 Other scripts suggested were: Cypriot syllabary, common Eastern Mediterranean script, “gräcoasiatische Localalphabet”, Phrygian script and Hittite hieroglyphs.694 Quite recently, there has been an attempt, but with reservations, to interpret some signs as those of Linear A.695 Nevertheless, recent epigraphic examination of these two whorls with ‘script signs’ within the broader stratigraphic and chronological context of Troy excluded the possibility of Linear A script’s existence. Both artefacts, dated to the EBA Late Troy II or III,

he linked “Idole” with Apollo, god of the sun.687 He considered the common swastika motif as a symbol of sun rays linked with four holy fires in ancient India and as a symbol of happiness.688 The presence of this motif also inclined him to recognize Trojan inhabitants as representatives of the Aryan race.689 Floral and comb patterns according to Schliemann were symbols of offering altars with firing flames.690 Less controversial and still acceptable seems to be his interpretation of depicted four-footed animals as antelope and deer691, although the latter are also perceived as hinds.692

are much older than introduction of this script in Crete. Moreover, the same repeated signs on these two items more likely indicate commonly used decorative motives of the local tradition, rather than signs of script.696 Taking into consideration all pro and contra arguments it seems that, mainly from a chronological point of view, the mentioned local tradition of incised decoration is only superficially similar to the Aegean script. Also links with ‘scripts’ or symbolic systems from Hungary and 693 Schliemann 1874a, LII; Herrmann, Maaβ (eds) 1990, 106 no. 25, 110 no. 29. 694 For an overview of these proposals see Zurbach 2003, 113-14, 116. 695 Godart 1994a; Godart 1994b, 722-24. These interpretations were acknowledged as controversial by Olivier 1999, 431. Signs of Linear A script on perhaps only two whorls were also suggested by Balfanz 1995b, 135. 696 Zurbach 2003, 115-16, 118. On the other hand, identical ‘script signs’ incised on two different items cannot be excluded. Both whorls were illustrated in Schliemann 1874b, pl. 6 no. 208, pl. 13 no. 432, who generally regarded this kind of signs as “(…) keine Buchstaben, sondern nur symbolische Zeichen (…)” – Schliemann 1874a, 29-31, 92-93, and hardly accepted script on no. 208 – Schliemann 1874b, 2.

684 This chronological re-assessment we owe to Easton 2002, 333-34. 685 Schliemann 1874a, V. In this publication he also discussed other aspects of whorls, i.e. patterns of decoration, raw material and development of forms within the site’s stratigraphy – op. cit., 23-24, 90-94. 686 Schliemann 1880, 228-29, 416-20, 573-74, 596. 687 Schliemann 1874a 127. 688 Op. cit., 49-57. 689 Op. cit., 93, 127. 690 Schliemann 1874a, 165-66; Herrmann, Maaβ (eds) 1990, 146 no. 73. 691 Schliemann 1874a, 91, 143; Schliemann 1874b, pl. 121 no. 2393; Schliemann 1880, 418, 573. 692 Balfanz 1995b, 132.

63

the Balkans (Vinča Culture, Tordos Culture, Dikili Tash, Dispilio) are doubtful, since they derived from Neolithic sequences, and similarities in the form of signs, as well as objects themselves, are to superficial to the Trojan ones. Perhaps only clay tablets from Romanian Tartaria, if dated to the Cotofeni phase, chronologically fit with the Trojan EBA.697 Even if there is no Aegean script on the Trojan whorls and other artefacts (pottery, seals698), a symbolic meaning of signs is highly possible, especially in the case of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic representations.699 Likewise, undecorated whorls in the form of “Vulkan” fascinated Schliemann, who connected

other words, mentally he was not able to accept that people living in the Bronze Age had a need to employ such a rich repertoire of motifs for the decoration of simple, but well worked utilitarian artefacts. 704 There is also another explanation why he did not want to recognize “Symbolen” just as very simple decorative patterns. Perhaps such an interpretation would severely limit the space for his speculations and need for discovery of sensations. However, later, perhaps due to critical voices and visits to many European museums705, he changed his mind and attributed undecorated stone whorls from Tiryns and Mycenae to spinning activity.706 Schliemann, convinced that “Pallas” Athena was

it with the Greek god Hephaistos.700 Generally, religious and linguistic interpretations occupied his mind, but he also mentioned the possibility of using whorls for other purposes, including spinning and weaving.701 Interestingly, he recorded that the upper side of some “Vulkan” whorls bears traces of wear, which enabled him to link this form with those two mentioned activities.702 This way of thinking was supported by the term “whorl” later introduced by Schliemann in connection with this class of artefacts.703 This all suggests that he likely realized the proper function of the recovered items. The question is why he did not go further in the sensible direction of interpretation. It seems that we owe it to Schliemann’s lively imagination, which over-reached his level-headed thinking. In

depicted as a goddess holding a distaff in one hand and a spear in the other, attributed whorls recovered in the area of Trojan Temple A to the same kind of manufacture.707 He also gained knowledge on the use of whorls for hand spinning on the Greek mainland, in Spain and in North Africa.708 Schliemann was also interested in the material used for filling of incised patterns depicted on the whorls and employed a chemist to undertake analyses. The collaboration resulted in development of his knowledge on the filling material, from “weiβe Thonerde” through “weiβer Thon” to, thanks to Virchow’s suggestion, “Kreide”.709 In light of recent examinations this is calcium carbonate (CaCO3).710 The first classification of whorls from the 704 705 706 707

Schliemann 1874a, 24. Hilse 2001, 140, 142. Schliemann 1878, 21, 88. Schliemann 1884, 130-31, 345. The twenty-four decorated whorls found there would indicate a little spinning workshop – Herrmann, Maaβ (eds) 1990, 309 no. 292. 708 Schliemann 1884, 346. 709 Schliemann 1874a, L; Herrmann, Maaβ (eds) 1990, 194 no. 130, 196 no. 133, 199 no. 134. 710 Balfanz 1995b, 121, 138.

697 Zurbach 2003, 116-17. 698 Schliemann 1880, 369 no. 305, 412-13 no. 484, 41416 nos 492-503, 582-83 nos 1337-1340; Blegen 1964, pl. 32 lower end. 699 Balfanz 1995b, 124-35. 700 Schliemann 1874a, 30. 701 Op. cit., XXXIX, 144; Herrmann, Maaβ (eds) 1990, 106 no. 25, 110 no. 29; Hilse 2001, 147-48. 702 Schliemann 1874a, XXXIX, 144. 703 Schliemann 1880, 229, 421-22; Hilse 2001, 142.

64

1870-1894 excavations at Troy proposed by Schmidt contained remarks only on some sections and fabrics. In the case of the latter he only referred to Schliemann’s observations. Also the proposed spectrum of forms was limited to fourteen examples. Schmidt, based on Schliemann’s re-organized collection, first of all focused on the division of whorls into undecorated and decorated, and within the latter distinguished geometric, naturalistic (humans, animals) and script-like motifs. The author also turned attention to the conical shape of perforations as important for proper fixing of whorls to spindles. In his opinion the stone artefacts, due to their weight, could be used as beads, but he

of terracotta716, which indicates his knowledge of the raw materials. His improved typological scheme was based on general division of artefacts into undecorated and patterned. The latter, according to various motifs, were further divided in a very detailed manner with the hope of establishing the development of decoration. However, his interpretations of comb patterns as four-footed motifs are doubtful, but a swastika as a symbol of man seems to be possible.717 The second aim was to distinguish principal forms and their variants. Unfortunately, all proposed divisions arranged in order to attribute whorls to the stratigraphy of Troy are presently useless. Moreover, the author

rightly suggested the same function for at least some terracotta whorls.711 To this publication we also owe a note on the fragment of bone spindle with stuck into it the terracotta whorl recovered in 1894 at Troy II. This convinced the author that at least some of these numerous artefacts were used as spinning tools.712 Moreover, it is worth mentioning that in the same year another bone spindle came to light from the well of Troy VI Lower Town.713 Of special value in this account is also a remark that in Troad in the last decade of the nineteenth century the local people still used wooden whorls similar in form to the terracotta ancient ones.714 This seems to correspond well with the already quoted mention of a carbonized wooden spindle with a linen or woollen thread wound on it, which perhaps was found at Troy.715 Schmidt’s fuller contribution to the whorls was published in a book on Trojan antiquities. There are listed 1713 whorls, including 1516 made

also rightly turned attention to the conical shape of perforation as important for understanding the spindle’s shape and thus the way of its set-up with the whorl.718 In the course of Blegen’s excavations of Troy I-VIII there were recorded over 1195 whorls719,

716 717 718 719

711 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 424 and fig. 455, 425-28, annexes 47-48. 712 Op. cit., 390. 713 Op. cit., 400. 714 Op. cit., 428. 715 Schliemann 1880, 327 (as a “distaff”); Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 340.

65

Schmidt 1902, 204-23. Balfanz 1995b, 130-31. Schmidt 1902, IX-XI. Blegen et al. 1950, 49 table 5, 50-51, 213 table 7, 215 table 9, 216, 217 and table 11, 218; Blegen et al. 1951, 15 and table 5, 16 and table 6, 116 and table 12, 117 and table 13, 233 and table 19, 234 and table 20, 305 table 27; Blegen et al. 1953, 24 table 3, 27, 30-31, 32 and table 8, 33; Blegen et al. 1958, 13, 14 and table 2, 17 and table 7, 18 and table 8, 19, 150 and table 12, 152 and table 16, 153 and table 17, 154, 250-51. This number does not include functionally problematic pierced disks made of potsherds. Moreover, eight items of uncertain function, i.e. “spindle whorls or buttons” have been excluded – Blegen et al. 1953, 24 table 3, 27; Blegen et al. 1958, 15 table 3, 16. On the other hand, excavators have not listed all artefacts and because of that the proposed number may be higher – Blegen et al. 1953, 31 table 7, 32 table 8; Blegen et al. 1958, 17 table 7, 18 table 8, 152 table 16, 153 table 17.

including over 1188 terracotta ones (Table 12).720 The

which shed light on their chronology.726 The results of examination of 2243 whorls pointed out the dependence between their size, weight and kind of produced yarn. Moreover, especially in the case of undecorated objects, smaller items or those with larger perforations, she suggested different functions such as votive offerings, amulets, beads, wheel models, stoppers and weights. Necklaces of clay beads, containing at least some potential whorls, had been evidenced for instance at the cemeteries of Demircihöyük-Sarıket, Tarsus and Beycesultan. Thus the limits between the functional purposes of whorls are very fluent. It seems that some of them could have been multi-functional and initially used

majority of items were professionally catalogued, drawn and photographed.721 Over sixty whorls turned up in Rooms 200, 202, 203, 205 and 206 of the Troy IIg building excavated in square E6. Along with the remains of two warp-weighted looms they indicate textile production in that area.722 From Troy VI are known over 385 whorls, including a deposit of 219 items in phase VIh within the area of Pillar House dateable to Troy VIf-h; this suggests the existence of a spinning workshop.723 Moreover, from Troy VIIa-b are derived over 181 whorls.724 This large assemblage became the basis for so far the most comprehensive, broadly used typology.

in everyday life for spinning, but later as beads recorded at tombs.727 Perhaps such a possibility is evidenced in the area of Troy VIh Lower Town by six terracotta whorls found at a woman’s grave (two women?), as well as two possible artefacts recorded together with anthropological remains of another woman and child.728 However, it could be a part of an unpreserved spindle of organic material, which together as the spinning kit furnished the spinner’s grave. To the same author we owe comprehensive work on the patterns of decoration depicted on the Trojan whorls. She distinguished altogether fourteen main motifs, naturalistic representations, single marks and a row of signs. The most important in the discussed study is an attempt to interpret the symbolism of the mentioned patterns, as well as their chronology. In this context of special value are

Recorded items, according to shapes, have been divided into six groups and thirty-one types within them.725 However, within each type the whorls differ from each other in detail, i.e. shape, shape of perforation, cavity at the top or at both ends, and collar-like projections at the top or at both ends. An important step toward understanding of various aspects of the Trojan whorls was taken thanks to more recent studies undertaken by K. Balfanz, who examined not only artefacts from Schliemann’s excavations, but also one hundred items from recent, well documented investigations, 720 Blegen et al. 1950, 49 table 5, 50-51, 213 table 7, 216, 217 and table 11, 218; Blegen et al. 1951, 15 and table 5, 16 and table 6, 116 and table 12, 117 and table 13, 233 and table 19, 234 and table 20, 305 table 27; Blegen et al. 1953, 30-31 32 and table 8, 33; Blegen et al. 1958, 17 and table 7, 18 and table 8, 19, 152 and table 16, 153 and table 17, 154, 250-51. 721 Blegen et al. 1950-1958. 722 Blegen et al. 1950, 323, 326-27, 330, 333, 337-38, 344, 349, 352-53, 359-60, 362, 364, 368-69, 371, 373, figs 461-62. 723 Blegen et al. 1953, 31-32, 219-29, 233-37; Balfanz 1995b, 137. 724 Blegen et al. 1958, 17, 152. 725 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128.

726 Balfanz 1995b, 117-38. 727 Op. cit., 119-20. 728 Angel 1951, 12-14; Blegen et al. 1953, 372-74. Similar objects of unknown context are known from the earlier excavations, but their function as beads (Schliemann’s amulets), due to large size and weight, seems hardly acceptable and even the German archaeologist rejected that possibility – Schliemann 1874a, XXXIX, 144-45.

66

notes on the earliest appearance of motifs within the cultural context of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Neolithic to the end of the Bronze Age.729 It should also be mentioned that not only

cannot be excluded that at Troy lightweight spinning kits were employed to produce a very thin woollen thread. But if not, they could have been supported by a second whorl, which enabled a thicker yarn to be manufactured. Another valuable observation in the presented publication concerns the dependence of the yarn’s strength on the size and weight of the whorl.736 The author also rightly pointed out that

mass produced clay objects, but also a completely preserved ivory kit from Troy VIIa, i.e. the middlewhorl spindle recovered in situ in 1994 in quadrate z7, indicate that even tools from luxury raw material were used for the manufacture of yarn.730 G. Mansfeld’s publication of the excavated Pinnacle E4-5 contains a valuable contribution to studies on various aspects of forty-eight whorls recorded there.731 Of special interest are his remarks on the conical shape of perforations of whorls and thus

attribution of patterned or undecorated forms to particular “Bauschicht” shows a certain tendency in distribution, but is of less value for dating.737 Finally, one should also mention several comprehensive ethnographic and archaeological scientific descriptions very useful for an

the method of their set-up with the spindles. However, existence of such a shape of perforation cannot be a criterion in defining whether the item was a whorl or not because straight holes were also recorded.732 In light of this, the artefact with a straight perforation recognized by Mansfeld as likely a bead, could be a whorl, but set up in a way other than he proposed.733 It seems that the diameters of perforations are more important. A spindle of the minimum diameter 0.20.3 cm734 could be produced from materials available at Bronze Age Troy (wood, bone, ivory, antler, metal), but it is very hard to imagine that thinner ones were also used. Even if it were possible the question is whether such thin spindles could properly serve this purpose outside of cotton territory.735 Nevertheless, it

understanding of various aspects of hand spinning with special reference to the function of spindles and whorls.738

3. Loom weights Schliemann recorded at Troy II-IX a lot of pendant weights of various shapes. Among them there are terracotta loom weights lentoid in profile, discoid, more or less flat on one side with two perforations below it and sometimes stamped or incised.739 Easton’s re-assessment of discussed finds from Schliemann’s excavations is important since it sheds some light on their dating.740 Over 100

729 730 731 732 733

Balfanz 1995b, 121-37. Balfanz 1995a, 107-16. Mansfeld 2001, 216-25. Barber 1991, 304, 307. Mansfeld 2001, 221 fig. 15:4. For instance for that purpose splinters would be very useful – Crewe 1998, 12, as well as unspun fibre or wax – Liu 1978, 97; or even resin. 734 For instance Mansfeld 2001, 219 inv. no. 277, 220 inv. no. 229. 735 However, even in parts of the Near East in Islamic times the smallest whorls used to spin cotton thread

736 737 738

739

740

67

had holes at least 0.3-0.4 cm in diameter – Liu 1978, 90-91, 97. Mansfeld 2001, 221-22. Op. cit., 222-25. Crowfoot 1931, 8-46; Forbes 1956, 149-71; Liu 1978; Hochberg 1980; Anderson 1987, 221-24, 24451; Barber 1991, 41-44, 51-70, 78; Barber 1994, 31, 38; Crewe 1998, 5-14, 23, 28-32, 59-62. Schliemann 1874a, 118. For decorated items see op. cit., 260, 279; Schliemann 1880, 619; Schmidt 1902, 297-98. Easton 2002, 82, 84, 87, 92, 99, 113-14, 144, 150, 177, 179, 182, 254, 256, 263, 266, 273, 274, 276.

lentoid discoid loom weights turned up in square D9 during current excavations of the late 4th century

possible whorls.747 Of that mass of artefacts Easton was able roughly to date only several examples to Troy II, II-V, IV-V, VII-IX.748 At Troy I-II, IV-VI

B.C. Classical Ilion and they are the most common shapes among this class of objects found at the site.741

American excavations recorded c. nine perforated discs of stone749 and at least thirty-four artefacts cut from potsherds.750 Generally, their descriptions are quite laconic, because usually there is no information about fabric, ware and utilized part of the vessel (base, body sherd, rim). However, the ware of several artefacts was mentioned, as well as diameter and sometimes thickness, but no weight.751

To this number belong a deposit of fifteen artefacts including five undecorated lentoid discoid items with a flattened edge and two perforations below it, which along with four whorls are most likely associated with the Temple of Athena Ilias.742 Detailed examination indicated a possible use of these tools in cultic spinning and weaving of the robe for the goddess.743 Unfortunately, so far a typology of Trojan loom weights has not been established, despite over 1103 formally various items having been recorded, mainly

747 Schmidt 1902, XI, 204, 223. 748 Easton 2002, 85, 108, 152, 231, 282. 749 Blegen et al. 1950, 215 table 9, 368, fig. 363; Blegen et al. 1951, 113 and table 10, figs 147-48; Blegen et al. 1953, 24 and table 3, 26, fig. 300. 750 Blegen et al. 1950, 49 and table 5, 50, figs 221, 237, 242; Blegen et al. 1951, 116 and table 12, 233 and table 19, figs 151, 236; Blegen et al. 1953, 31 table 7, figs 352, 362, 366, 370, 400. This number does include artefacts with unfinished perforations, but two unpierced items were excluded – Blegen et al. 1953, 173, fig. 370. 751 Blegen et al. 1950, 96 nos 25 (D. c. 3.4 cm, D. of hole c. 0.6 cm, Troy Ib), 26 (D. c. 3.2 cm, D. of hole c. 0.5 cm, Troy Ib), fig. 237, 105 no. 9 (D. c. 6.4 cm, D. of hole c. 0.6 cm, Troy Ic), fig. 242, 114 nos 33-157 (D. 4.5 cm, D. of hole c. 1.0 cm, T 1.7 cm, Troy Ic), 33158 (D. 5.1 cm, T. 0.6 cm, Troy Ic, no fig.), 33-160 (D. 5.8 cm, D. of hole c. 0.7 cm, T. 1.1 cm, Troy Ic), 143 no. 33-151 (D. 4.2 cm, D. of hole c. 0.5 cm, T. 0.8 cm, Troy If), fig. 221; Blegen et al. 1951, 150 – two discs (no inv. no., D. of one artefact 5.7 cm, Red-Coated Ware, Troy IVd), no. 32-488 (D. 5.2 cm, D. of hole c. 0.6 cm, Troy IVc), 171 no. 37-547 (D. 3.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.3 cm, T. 0.5 cm, Troy IVb), 188 no. 32-397 (D. 6.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.6 cm, Red-Coated Ware, Troy IVc), fig. 151, 269 nos 32-83 (D. 2.8 cm, D. of hole c. 0.5 cm), 32-191 (D. 5.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.5 cm, Red-Coated Ware), 32-192 (D. 4.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.4 cm, fragment of bowl in Red-Cross Ware; the ware not characterised), 32-471 (D. 7.7 cm, D. of hole c. 1.0 cm, Red-Coated Ware) – all of Troy V1, 281 nos 32-80 (D. 7.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.8 cm, Brown

of terracotta and unbaked clay, and seven of stone.744 To this number also belong at least fifty-one different lentoid plain rounded artefacts including those with a flattened side and two perforations below it.745

4. Pierced pottery disc sherds Schliemann recovered 444 perforated discs cut from potsherds and linked their function with spinning or weaving. They were very laconically mentioned, but diameters were given.746 Schmidt also interpreted “durchlochten Gefässscherben” as 741 Wallrodt 2002, 181-82, 187, 190, 194. 742 Op. cit., 188-89 nos 3, 6, 8-9, 12, pl. 1 nos 3, 6, 8-9, 12, pl. 3 nos 3, 9. 743 Op. cit. 744 Schmidt 1902, 294-98; Blegen et al. 1950, 48, 49 table 5, 50, 215 table 9, 219, 338, figs 221, 324, 369; Blegen et al. 1951, 15 and table 5, 113 table 10, 11415, 116 and table 12, 233 and table 19, figs 53, 55, 148, 150, 236; Blegen et al. 1953, 9, 31 and table 7; Blegen et al. 1958, 17 and table 7, 18, 152 and table 16; Wallrodt 2002, 181-82, 187, 190, 194; Becks, Guzowska 2004, 107-11. 745 Schmidt 1902, 297; Wallrodt 2002, 188-89. 746 Schliemann 1874a, 26, 108; Schliemann 1880, 231; Schmidt 1902, 223 nos 5619-5637.

68

Following Schliemann’s interpretation they were also recognized as whorls.752

Finally, the picture of Trojan ceramics has been supplemented by catalogues published on the occasion of many exhibitions. During the last thirty years there has been a flow of such publications. They are of various levels of scholarship, but all have provided at least some information about existing collections of Schliemann’s antiquities and basic documentation along with illustrations of the artefacts, but usually without determination of wares. They are also valuable since in many cases the finds were displayed for the first time.755

Recently, Mansfeld published six perforated disc-shaped sherds with rounded edges, dated to Troy II-III. What is interesting, for the first time these items were fully documented, since not only diameter and thickness were given, but also weight; additionally, the ware of three examples was recognized. These artefacts were acknowledged as net weights.753 Unfortunately, the author did not turn attention to some very small attritional marks, namely worn indentations, which could indicate that the items had been strung horizontally. These wear marks, if preserved, seem to be the principal

However, as tentatively published one can regard only duplicates from Bonn, Poznań, Rome, Tubing and Würzburg.756

criterion supporting Mansfeld’s proposal on their function.754 Polished Ware; the ware not described), 32-81 (D. 6.0 cm, D. of hole c. 1.0 cm, Cross Painted bowl with lustrous red slip; the ware not characterised), 32-82 (D. 5.6 cm, D. of hole c. 0.8 cm), 32-193 (D. 7.0 cm, D. of hole c. 0.6 cm, Red-Coated Ware), 32-296 (D. 4.4 cm, no fig.) – all of Troy V2, 285 no. 33-41 (D. 3.9 cm, D. of hole c. 0.4 cm, Red-Coated Ware, Troy Vd), fig. 236; Blegen et al. 1953, 125 no. 15 (D. c. 6.8 cm, D. of hole c. 0.6 cm, Grey Minyan Ware, Early Troy VI), fig. 352, 154 no. 9 (D. c. 5.4 cm, D. of hole c. 0.8 cm, form A/bottom of a cup or dish, Grey Minyan Ware, Troy VIc), fig. 362, 159 no. 12 (D. c. 9.6 cm, D. of hole c. 1.0 cm, form C/jar, Grey Minyan Ware, Troy VIc), fig. 366, 168 nos 21 (D. c. 4.8 cm, D. of hole c. 0.8 cm), 24 (D. c. 5.0 cm, D. of hole c. 0.8 cm), 25 (D. c. 5.6 cm, D. of hole c. 0.6 cm), 26 (D. c. 6.8 cm, D. of hole c. 0.8 cm), no. 27 (D. c. 5.0 cm, D. of hole c. 0.5 cm) – all of Early-Middle Troy VI or from earlier periods, fig. 370, 173 no. 32-194 (fragments of three items, D. 2.5 cm, Red-Washed Ware, Troy VIc, no fig.), 346 no. 12 (D. c. 7.6 cm, D. of hole c. 0.8 cm, Grey Minyan Ware, Late Troy VI), fig. 400. 752 Blegen et al. 1950, 49. 753 Mansfeld 2001, 215-16, pl. 7 – the author also takes into account the shape of the perforation. 754 This type of use attrition was suggested for whorls, beads and pendants – Crewe 1998, 61. In my opinion

it can also be applied to perforated discs cut from potsherds. 755 For instance Settgast (ed.) 1978; Zahlhaas 1978; Zahlhaas 1990; Hühn (ed.) 1981; Mahr (ed.) 1981; Fitz, Kühn 1982; Troy 1985; Demakopoulou (ed.) 1990; Cobet, Borsdorf (eds) 1991; Geominy (ed.) 1991; Von Freytag gen. Löringhoff, Mannsperger 1991; Menghin (ed.) 1992; Tolstikov, Treister 1996; Piotrovskij (ed.) 1998; Latacz, Theune-Groβkopf (eds) 2001; Işın (ed.) 2002; Brzeziński (ed.) 2006. For other references see pages 76, 83, 85, 92 on the fate of Schliemann’s collection. Catalogues of exhibitions were associated by conferences organized on the occasion of the centenary of Schliemann’s death – Calder, Cobet (eds) 1990; Herrmann (ed.) 1992. 756 Güntner 1992, 479-85; Hertel 1991b; Maliszewski 1997; Mangani 1997, 610-17; Von Freytag gen. Löringhoff, Mannsperger 1991.

69

70

III. THE HISTORY AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLECTIONS 1. From Troy to Europe The archaeological excavations on Hisarlık by Frank Calvert and later continued on a larger scale by H. Schliemann and W. Dörpfeld in the second half of the nineteenth century recovered remains of the monumental architecture along with many thousands of artefacts. Among the latter the largest group consisted of ceramics, which became the bulk of Schliemann’s collection. Its fate was very complicated and thus it seems difficult to reconstruct the passage of the artefacts, which later were handed over from Berlin to Munich and Poznań. In other words, the question is when, with which transport and whether directly or not they passed from Turkey to Berlin. It should be stated that Schliemann from the beginning shared his finds with different institutions, friends and distinguished visitors of the site and this is the main reason for the difficulties concerning reconstruction of the collection. Among them should be mentioned the Imperial Museum in İstanbul, which granted to Schliemann the permit to dig the Turkish-owned part of Hisarlık757, as well as Frederick Calvert and his brother Frank, from whom he bought the eastern part of the mound.758 A part of the Trojan collection was sold by the latter one at Sotheby’s in 1877; it enriched the British Museum. Other objects were acquired by the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Worcester Art Museum and the Çanakkale

Archaeological Museum, which also possess some of his material. The Calvert Collection, also containing Trojan artefacts, was partly destroyed in an earthquake in 1912 and perhaps in the great fire of İzmir in 1922. Fortunately, long prior to these tragic events this assemblage was catalogued by H. Thiersch in 1902.759 To the other beneficiaries of Schliemann’s spoils belonged for instance Prince K. Schwarzenberg and A. Polovcow, but both received small quantities of items.760 Schliemann took most of his finds to Athens and photographs of them were published for the first time in 1874 and engravings of some of them based on photographs appeared again six years later.761 Initially Schliemann planned to keep the collection at his houses in İstanbul and Athens.762 Nevertheless, from as early as 1872 he tried to use the collection to achieve various aims. The first was to receive from the Greek government the license to excavate Mycenae, Olympia and Delos. In return service he planned to hand over to the Greek nation not only the collection, but also his entire, substantial fortune. The perspective of the license just for Mycenae had been one of the reasons why he abandoned this idea. Moreover, at the end of May or the beginning of June 1873 he discovered “Priam’s Treasure” and subsequently smuggled it from Turkey to Greece. This provoked a conflict with the Turkish government, which claimed a half of the entire collection, but especially the treasure.

757 Schliemann 1875, 53; Easton 2002, 19. 758 Schliemann 1875, 144; Easton 2002, 19-20. Nevertheless, Schliemann bought from Frank several earlier shared objects of the Classical period – Meyer (ed.) 1953, 212 no. 185, 227 no. 204; Easton 2002, 19.

759 Cook 1973a, 9, 54; Lascarides 1977, 64; Allen 1995a, 385-86; Allen 1995b, 57; Easton 2002, 19-20. 760 Gavrilov 1990, 393; Bouzek 1992, 142-43; Jähne 1997, 70, 73-76. 761 Schliemann 1874b; Schliemann 1880. 762 Geupel 1981, 19; Sahervala 1981, 39.

71

Therefore, between 1873 and 1876 Schliemann was quite interested in donation or sale of the collection to one of the greatest European museums in Paris, London or Naples, with the hope that a well established institution would help to win the lawsuit with the Turkish government. In March 1874 Schliemann obtained the license just for a short test excavation at Mycenae, but it seems that due to the lawsuit with Turkey it was not extended. In the same years also museums in Vienna and perhaps St. Petersburg were interested in his collection. The lack of acknowledgement from the German scholars and the Great Prince of Schwerin had been a reason for his indisposition to passing of the collection to

Antiquaries of London, as well as a new license and successful digging at Mycenae from 7th August to December 1876 facilitated the collection’s transfer to England. At the end of 1876 perhaps Schliemann had the idea of presenting the Trojan collection, in order to make it better known, at the British Museum in London, but it was impossible due to limited display space. Finally, thanks to the help of Sir W. E. Gladstone, the British scholar of Homer’s output and statesman, in 1877 he handed over 4416 Trojan objects from his 1870-1873 excavations to the South Kensington Museum in London, where they were on display until 1880.765 R. Virchow played an important role in

any museum in his homeland. After Schliemann’s agreement with the Turkish government on 15th April 1875763 also France was seriously interested in exhibition of the collection; one year earlier the French minister of culture did not even respond to Schliemann’s offer of donation. However, negotiations with the French government collapsed due to the very complicated French-German relationships after 1871 and the difficult personality of Schliemann, who felt hurt by the cool reception of his lecture on Troy at the Geographical Society in Paris.764 It seems that a new permit for excavations at Troy obtained on 5th May and works (with difficulties) to the end of June, his famous lecture “On the site of Homeric Troy” on 24th June 1875 to the Society of

ameliorating the bad relationships between Schliemann and the German authorities, as well as scholarly society. Already in 1877 thanks to his initiative Schliemann received honorary membership of the German Anthropological Society. Moreover, in April and perhaps the beginning of May 1879 Virchow attended excavations at Troy. As a result of his good relationship with Schliemann the latter and, financially supported by him, Calvert donated sixteen cases of the finds from Hisarlık and 1878-1879 excavations at Hanaytepe (dug also in 1880), which in the middle of December 1879 arrived from Dardanelles to the Museum of Handwork Art in Berlin. Among them there were seven cases with, inter alia, whorls and the large pithos from Troy. The rest were filled with materials from Hanaytepe, mainly anthropological, as well as some bronze and stone artefacts, and a lot of pottery, including a mass of sherds. The materials from both sites became a nucleus of the future Trojan collection in Berlin and heralded further donations.766

763 The Greek export permit was granted in February 1874 and “Priam’s Treasure” along with the other finds imported from Troy in 1870-1873 officially left Greece in 1877 – Sahervala et al. 1993, 107. It should be mentioned that illicit export of Trojan artefacts from Turkey and Greece was also organized through diplomatic-aristocratic channels with the involvement of Italians E. Vitalis in 1882, A. de Caravel in 1890 and the German Crown Prince of Sachsen-Meiningen in 1884 – op. cit., 36, 99, 105, 112, 142-43. 764 Op. cit., 11-17, 30.

765 Saherwala 1981, 39; Bertram 1992a, 43; Saherwala et al. 1993, 17-18. 766 Schliemann 1880, 214-647; Cook 1973a, 122; Bertram 1992a, 43; Saherwala et al. 1993, 20-24, 26; Allen 1999, 189, 192-200; Schachner 1999, 9-10;

72

In the letter of 9th September 1879 Schliemann for the first time informed Virchow about his intention to donate the collection to Germany. In the letters of 11th December 1879 and of 4th November 1880 to Virchow he stated this decision more clearly and under certain conditions.767 In light of this, we owe it to Virchow’s influence that in December 1880 Schliemann bequeathed in his changed testament the entire collection to “(…) dem deutschen Volke zum ewigen Besitze und ungetrennter Aufbewahrung gegeben (…)”, but formally to, at that time under construction, the Museum of Ethnology in Berlin.768 On the other hand, his decision to move the collection somewhere else had also been hastened by the

Berlin, the collection aroused the interest of the Emperor Wilhelm I, who agreed, due to a lack of exhibition space, to its provisional storage at the Museum of Handwork Art.770 Schliemann in the letter of 31st December 1880 from London to Schöne wrote:

authorities of the South Kensington Museum, which demanded, for reasons unknown to us, its withdrawal by the end of January 1881. This fact is known from Schliemann’s letter of 8th December 1880 to J. Fergusson.769 Soon, thanks to the endeavours of R. Schöne, the Director of the King’s Museums in

größer ist. Bis 5. Jan(ua)r. Incl(usive). ist meine Adr(esse). im Grand Hôtel Paris; später in Athen. mit vorzügl(icher). Hochachtung Hy. Schliemann”.771

“Hochgeehrter Herr Generaldirector Die ganze Sammlung ist jetzt – 5 Uhr Abends – in 40 riesige Kisten verpackt und wird am 3. Jan(ua) r. durch hiesige Elkan & Co. an deren Haus Elkan & Co. in Hamburg verladen. Der Schatz geht mit den übrigen Sachen; er ist mit £ 4000, der Rest mit ebensoviel versichert, obwohl der Wert 100mal

In January 1881 thanks only to the personal involvement and energy of Schöne the collection reached Berlin.772 Nevertheless, around that time it was not obvious that the entire Trojan collection would be donated to Berlin, because still in February of the same year Schliemann did not exclude America as the next recipient of the remaining finds kept at his house in Athens.773 Finally, on 7th February 1882 the exhibition was opened at the Museum of Ethnology in Gropiusbau.774

Bloedow 2000-2001; Briegleb 2003, 293-95, 300. Calvert dug Hanaytepe also in 1853, 1856 and 1857 – Calvert 1859, 1-6; Schliemann 1880, 709; Cook 1973a, 122; Cook 1973b, 38; Allen 1999, 59-62, 76; Harmankaya, Burçin 2002; Briegleb 2003, 295. 767 Despite this, in April 1879 and January 1880, as earlier in 1873 and 1876, he was interested in selling at least the gold part of the collection to Ermitage in St. Petersburg – Saherwala et al. 1993, 15, 26. He also planned to hand over Trojan objects to the museum in Neusterlitz, which finally happened in October 1882 – op. cit., 25. 768 Op. cit., 29-30. For the first time Schliemann promised it to Virchow on 26th April 1879 during a horse excursion from Troy via the Ida Mountains to Assos – Briegleb 2003, 294. Not without importance for that decision was also an invitation of Schliemann for dinner on 10th August 1880 to Potsdam by Prince Friedrich, the protector of the King’s Museums, and his wife Victoria – Saherwala et al. 1993, 28. 769 Saherwala et al. 1993, 29.

770 Schöne’s great involvement and support had been especially expressed in his letter of 31st December 1881 to Wilhelm I – op. cit., 8-10. 771 Op. cit., 66. 772 Döhl 1981, 41-42; Geupel 1981, 19; Bertram 1992a, 43; Bertram 1992b, 397-98; Saherwala et al. 1993, 31. 773 Saherwala et al. 1993, 32. Finally, Schliemann in his testament of 10th January 1889 bequeathed these antiquities also to the “neu National-Museum” (King’s Museums) in Berlin – op. cit., 228. 774 Op. cit., 34.

73

In 1882 Schliemann donated twenty-four cases of various Trojan finds (human bones, tools and other artefacts of stone, objects of bronze and gold) derived from his excavations in the same year. Among them, there were four or five cases with the prehistoric sherds “aus der ersten Stadt”.775 From March 1884 he tried to buy, with the help of the German authorities, two-thirds of the objects from excavations at Troy conducted in 1878, 1879 and 1882, which as a result of partition were in the possession of Turkey. In November 1885 he reacquired finds from the Imperial Museum in İstanbul and in December, after half a year of negotiations, twenty-five cases with pottery and sherds arrived in Berlin.776 The next

packing of the artefacts in Athens. Thanks to this we know that the cases contained, inter alia, also Bronze Age ceramic materials, namely: 6000-8000 whorls (including decorated ones), c. 120 depa, c. 275 one-handled cups, c. 160 two-handled pots, c. 170 shallow bowls (including two-handled), c. forty spouted pots (“Gefäße mit Schnabelausguß”), four cylindrical vessels, forty-fifty large vessel lids, c. forty large pithoi with two vertical handles, three large four-handled open vessels and two without handles, c. 100 large vessels of various form (?), c. 100 small vessels of various form (?), 250 clay loom weights, fifty different anthropomorphic vessels, sherds of the First Settlement, other clay artefacts

transport of thirteen cases from the same purchase, mainly with Trojan items from Settlements One to Seven, including pottery, reached Berlin on 12th May 1886.777 In May 1885 the collection was moved to the newly constructed Museum of Ethnology and on 18th December 1886 it was opened to the public. Two days later Schliemann’s last donation of 3513 Trojan artefacts was officially taken over by the authorities of this institution.778 In November 1891, nearly one year after Schliemann’s death in Naples, with the permission of the Greek government the transport from Athens of fifty-eight large cases with Trojan objects arrived in Berlin.779 It is worth pointing out that in June and July 1891 W. Dörpfeld supervised registration and

(?), vases (?) and dried bricks (“Luftziegeln”), as well as thousands of pottery sherds.780 Excavations of Hisarlık after 1890 brought to light many new items. The last assemblage (pottery sherds, stone tools) to enrich the Schliemann collection in Berlin came from the Imperial Museum in İstanbul. These finds derived from the fieldwork conducted by Dörpfeld in 1893-1894.781 This last donation enlarged the Berlin collection to 8455 items in 1896, excluding “Priam’s Treasure”.782 This all shows that among the thousands of items transported from London, İstanbul and Athens to Berlin were the ceramic artefacts under consideration. Schöne realized the importance of the Trojan artefacts for comparative studies. This is why, already in the letter of 8th July 1889 to Schliemann, he suggested separation and donation of duplicates (Ger. Dubletten), i.e. artefacts of the same class, from Berlin to the other collections in Munich, Karlsruhe, Dresden, Leipzig, Bonn, Getting and Breslau (now Wrocław in Poland).

775 Op. cit., 36, 99, 104-105, 176, 178. 776 Op. cit., 37, 114-15. However, by that time many of the gold artefacts had long since disappeared, namely those mentioned in Schliemann 1881, nos 905, 924-926 and a lot of beads – Saherwala et al. 1993, 224-25. 777 Op. cit., 37, 117-18. 778 Op. cit., 38, 227-28. 779 Bertram 1992a, 43; Saherwala 1981, 43; Saherwala et al. 1993, 46, 228, 231-32.

780 Saherwala et al. 1993, 46, 231-32. 781 Schmidt 1902, IV; Bertram 1992a, 43; Saherwala et al. 1993, 46. 782 Saherwala 1981, 43; Saherwala et al. 1993, 46.

74

He expressed a similar idea on partition of the artefacts kept at Schliemann’s house in Athens.783 Also Dörpfeld, in the letter of 2nd June 1890 to G. Treu, concerning the donation of Trojan finds to Dresden, mentioned that he advised Schliemann to change his testament in order to authorize the Museum of Ethnology in Berlin to share a mass of duplicates with the other German museums. Moreover, Virchow, in the letter of 11th May 1894 to Schöne, stated that Schliemann positively reacted to his frequently suggested idea concerning selection and distribution of duplicates.784 Nevertheless, A. Michaelis, from 1872 Professor of Archaeology at the University of Strasburg, was the first to

noted a need for reorganization of the somewhat old-fashioned display of the collection. Its arrangement in light of new discoveries at Troy in 1893-1894 was outdated and inconsistent with the new requirements; obviously an integral part of this enterprise had been selection of duplicates. The results of these efforts completed in years 1895-1900 were impressive and appeared in the catalogue, which became and remains until today an important published reference. The collection was divided into four sections and all artefacts catalogued. Moreover, 9704 Trojan duplicates were distinguished. Of this amount 7487 duplicates (pottery vessels and fragments, whorls, single

officially (already in 1893) encourage authorities’ interest in duplicates.785 This idea was also expressed early on by Chlodwig Prince of HohenloheSchillingsfürst, the Governor of Alsace-Lorraine and later Chancellor of the German Reich, in his request addressed at the beginning of 1894 to R. Bose, the Minister of Culture, for donation of unneeded Trojan objects to the other state collections, including that of the University of Strasburg. However, Schliemann did not change the testament, and his wife Sofia only on 18th July 1894, i.e. four years after her husband’s death, allowed the selection of duplicates to be initiated. Finally, thanks to the good will of Schliemann’s heirs and Emperor Wilhelm II’s order of 7th January 1895, in April of the same year the work began. The most important was cataloguing of finds already initiated in 1882, continued in 1883 and later completed by H. Schmidt.786 After several years there was also

finds) and thirty-eight cases of unregistered items in 1902 were handed over to sixteen museums, twenty universities and academies, as well as an institute in Germany and Greece.787 However, the artefacts were not transferred to all the institutions at the same time, because for instance already in 1901 they reached Tubing.788 On the other hand, the National Museum in Athens received the Trojan finds within an exchange not until 1904.789 The listed donations enormously enriched the collections of the mentioned institutions with finds from the site far-reaching for European culture. The entire collection survived the First World War in quite good condition. In 1922 the Prehistoric Department with the Trojan artefacts was moved back to the Gropiusbau, which in 1931 was transformed into the State Museum of Pre- and Protohistory. Part of the collection was kept there until the end of the Second World War.790 During the war the collection was divided into a number

783 Saherwala et al. 1993, 48, 216. 784 Op. cit., 48. In fact Schliemann encouraged the donation of duplicates from Berlin after his death – op. cit., 119-20. 785 Namely, the Ministry of Religious, Education and Medical Affairs in Strasburg – Schmidt 1902, VI. 786 Op. cit., VI-VII, XII-XIII; Saherwala et al. 1993, 48.

787 Schmidt 1902, VI-XVIII, 331-36; Bertram 1992a, 44. 788 Von Freytag gen. Löringhoff, Mannsperger 1991, no p. no. 789 Bertram 1992a, 44. 790 Saherwala et al. 1993, 48, 247.

75

objects, including those made of gold, are in the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow and they went on public display in April 1996.797 Finally, it should be added that during the last three decades many other exhibitions of Trojan artefacts, including ceramic material, have also been organized.798

of groups for safe keeping. The most precious items were stored in a bomb-proof anti-aircraft tower in the zoological garden in Berlin, which was surrendered to the Russians on 1st May 1945. Subsequently, they were confiscated and transported by air to Moscow.791 The rest of the collection was scattered in other buildings in Berlin and in various safe locations in Germany, but less than half of it survived the war.792 After 1945 they returned from the Western Allies to the museum of West Berlin. In May 1955, for the first time after the war, these objects were displayed in the re-built Gropiusbau. In 1958 East Berlin received back from the Soviet Union a portion of the Trojan objects sequestered by

2. The State Collections of Antiquities, Munich Already Virchow, inspired by Schliemann, suggested in his letter of 8th January 1883 to the German Foreign Office that Munich should also possess a second large collection of Trojan antiquities.799 Finally, among recipient institutions was the King’s Vase Collection in Munich, established in 1824800, now an integral part of the State Collections of Antiquities.801 Unfortunately, no documents survived confirming the date of items’ arrival in Munich, but it could have happened between 1898 and 1902. During the Second World War discussed items along with other antiquities were stored at the New Pinakothek in Munich. During one of the many air-raids a bomb destroyed a large number of artefacts and part of the inventory files.802 On 15th December 1977 almost all ceramic and several stone artefacts were transferred to the Prehistoric State Collection (now the Archaeological State Collection), Museum of Pre- and Protohistory in Munich. Twenty-four

the Red Army in captured Berlin793; these artefacts were frequently exhibited, more recently in 1990 and 1991.794 However, some finds are still in the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, while other ones vanished or were damaged.795 After 1990 c. 4000 saved artefacts from East and West Berlin were re-catalogued and unified. The first presentation of the entire Trojan collection from the Museum of Pre- and Protohistory (State Museums, East Berlin) and Museum of Pre- and Protohistory (State Museums of the Prussian Cultural Heritage, West Berlin) was organized in the spring and summer of 1991 in Essen and Krefeld. Selected items are now exhibited at the Museum of Pre- and Protohistory in Berlin.796 The most precious 791 Unverzagt 1988, passim and 352, 354-56, 371 respectively; Akinsha, Kozlov 1991, 131-32; Goldmann 1992, 379-90; Easton 1994a, 233-36; Easton 1995, 12. 792 Goldmann 1992, 381-83; Saherwala et al. 1993, 10. 793 Saherwala et al. 1993, 57. 794 Demakopoulou (ed.) 1990; Cobet, Borsdorf (eds) 1991. 795 Easton 1995, 12. On the more detailed fate of Trojan artefacts during the Second World War and after May 1945 – see also Saherwala et al. 1993, 48-57 796 Griesa 1992a; Griesa 1992b; Saherwala et al. 1993,

10, 57; Hertel 1997. 797 Easton 1995; Antonova et al. 1996; Tolstikov, Treister 1996. 798 For instance displays mentioned on pages 69, 83, 85, 92. 799 Saherwala et al. 1993, 36. 800 Ohly 1986, 10. 801 Schmidt 1902, 331. 802 I wish to thank Dr B. Kaeser of the SAS for this information.

76

pottery vessels returned on 25th October 1998 to the State Collections of Antiquities.803 The provenance and reconstruction of the entire collection (including missing artefacts) can be more precisely cleared up only thanks to attribution of each find – according to its approximate dimensions, technique of production (hand, wheelmade), fabric, shape, ware, decoration and state of preservation – to the groups distinguished in Schmidt’s catalogue. Unfortunately, the incomplete state of preservation and often extensive restoration work, as well as lack of the old inv. nos on the majority of items make this assessment very difficult.804 There is no information about who restored the vessels, where

all reservations one can observe that objects from Munich, even those extensively restored, are to a large extent close to the original forms. However, their assessment is additionally difficult due to very general, sometimes laconic descriptions of groups in Schmidt’s catalogue, where often the same form has several names. For instance, for the description of nearly the same type of vessel there were used two (“Kanne”, “Becher”)806 or three names (“Kännche”, “Becher” or sometime even “Tasse”).807 Another difficulty is that in the catalogue all depa were classified as wheelmade, but in Munich there are also handmade ones. It seems that this divergence can be explained by ‘oversight’ of the museum’s

and when they were restored or whether during this process they had access to similar original and completely preserved artefacts. In other words, the question is whether the restoration works were done in Berlin, i.e. prior to transfer, or later at the King’s Vase Collection in Munich.805 Bearing in mind

staff during work on the catalogue and duplicates’ separation.808 On the other hand, the handmade depa could also have derived from the aforementioned assemblage of unregistered objects. Nevertheless, according to this publication it is possible to reconstruct what types of objects were transferred to Munich. In the typologically differentiated collection, despite reservations concerning the proposed function of some artefacts, the largest number constitute ceramic items, namely pottery (seventy-two groups), loom weights

803 For these details I am grateful to Dr G. Zahlhaas of the AS (the e-mail letter dated 27th October 2005). 804 The hand-written old inv. nos on the small stacked pieces of paper had been preserved only on four ceramic artefacts: lid cat. no. 60 (“I 7 762/7” = “I. Abteilung. Gruppe 7. 6 Flachdeckel” nos 762-767 in Schmidt 1902, 12, 32, 39), miniature vessel cat. no. 59 (“I 14/1509/11” = “I. Abteilung. Gruppe 14. 3 Miniatur-Schnurösengefässe” nos 1509-1511 in op. cit., 12, 64, 66), neck fragment cat. no. 53 (“I 13 1299/1302” = “I. Abteilung. Gruppe 13. 4 Halsstücke” nos 1299-1302 in op. cit., 12, 55, 57), tankard cat. no. 46 (“I 19 2001/2” = “I. Abteilung. Gruppe 19. 2 doppelhenklige Becher” nos 20012002 in op. cit., 12, 83, 89). Moreover, these inv. nos are visible on several unpublished stone tools, as well as four marble idols, for example the idol SAS 10.378 (“EV 7438/7512” = “Einzelfunde. Abtlg. V. 75 Idole” nos 7438-7512 in op. cit., 277, 279) – Maliszewski 1993, 112-13, pl. 16. 805 It should be stated that in Berlin there was well established “Gipsformerei” of the King’s

Museums. For instance E. Majewski (1858-1922), a Polish collector and archaeologist, during one of his visits to Berlin on 17th September 1902 perhaps bought or ordered there ten replicas of Trojan vessels, which are in possession of the PMA – Majewski, Dziennik nr 52. 806 For instance Schmidt 1902, 51, 98. 807 For instance op. cit., 21, 26. 808 At Troy depa and their variants were usually wheelmade, but handmade examples are also known – op. cit., 31 no. 595, 36 nos 661, 668; Blegen et al. 1950, 333 no. 35-425, fig. 382 (probably handmade). Handmade depa have possibly been recorded in Karataş-Semayük (Spanos 1972, 51) and certainly in Beycesultan (Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 201, 202 fig. P.47 no. 61, 203, 212 fig. P.52 no. 23, 213).

77

(seven groups), various small objects (five groups), decorated whorls (one group), undecorated whorls (one group), pierced pottery sherds (one group), net weights (one group), ‘bobbins’ (one group), decorated balls (one group), fragments of bricks (one group) and perhaps clay ‘bobbins’ (one group). There were also listed much fewer stone artefacts, i.e. tools (twenty-five groups), marble idols (four groups), net weights (one group) and discs (one group). The bronze pins (one group) represent the only metal artefacts (Table 1). Unfortunately, it seems very difficult to estimate how many of the finds the Munich museum received. Even if the number of duplicates was

could have received more than one artefact. Such a possibility had been evidenced by duplicates from several groups listed by Schmidt, for instance nos 677-687, 1635-1652, 2701-2722 (“Tassen”), 901928 (“Tellers”), 958-997, 1097-1128, 1421-1450 (“Bechers”), 1139-1155 (“Kannen”), 4103-4495, 4496-5607 (“Wirteln”), 5619-5637 (“durchlochte Gefässscherben”), 7438-7512 (“Idole”), 8616-8619 (“Sägen, Messer, Schaber oder Abfallsplitter”), 8656-8674 (“Schleifsteine”), 8684-8764 (“Poliersteine”), 8870-8908 (“Thonkugeln”), 91629202 (“Mahlsteine”), 9203-9247 (“Klopfsteine”).809 However, in this case it cannot be excluded that objects from the main groups and/or unregistered

the same as the number of benefiting institutions we can only assume that each of them received at least one duplicate. To Munich duplicates from 125 groups were handed over, and thus the entire collection consisted of at least that number of artefacts. However, it seems that it was much larger, since in many cases there were more duplicates than benefiting institutions, and thus some of them

809 This is especially well exemplified at the Inventar of the SAS, to which were handed overall 225 items ascribed to group 9203-9247 (“Klopfsteine”) with the intention to distribute them among thirty-three institutions, including that in Munich – Schmidt 1902, 306, 336. In light of this there might be at least thirty-two more duplicates for the rest of the institutions.

Table 1. Trojan artefacts donated to the KV-S in Munich. Schmidt 1902 Pp.

Cat. nos (groups)

Type

Number of items

Number of duplicates

Number of institutions, including the KV-S

12-13, 331

274-280.

“Halbförmiges, kugelförmiges Gefäss”

7

6

9

16, 331

331-339. 331.

“Flachdeckel der Gesichtsvase mit zipfel-artigen Griffen”

9

9

9

17, 331

375-389.

“Kugelförmige Kännchen”

15

19

19

19, 331

405-411. 405.

“Schnurösenkrüge mit kugelförmigem Bauche”

7

3

3

21, 331

426-428. 426. 427.

“Weithalsige Kännchen”

3

4

4

23, 331

460-468. 460.

“Stülpdeckel zur Deckelamphora”

9

12

12

78

24, 331

475-484.

“Stülpdeckel zur Deckelamphora”

10

12

12

26, 331

522-524.

“Kleine weithalsige Kannen”

3

6

6

32, 331

611.

“Kugelbauchige Kanne”

1

3

3

34-35, 332

638.

“Kugelbauchige Deckelamphora”

1

1

1

36, 332

661-669.

“Kelchförmiger Becher”

9

8

8

37, 332

677-687.

“Tassen mit ausladendem Rande”

11

43

33

37, 332

691-700.

“Tassen mit 2 Henkeln u. hohlem Fusse”

10

25

23

37-38, 332

715-719.

“Tassen mit kleinem Dreifuss u. 2 Henkeln”

5

5

4

44-45, 332

891-900.

“Teller”

10

36

30

45, 332

901-928.

“Teller”

28

82

30

45, 332

929-935.

“Teller”

7

7

7

45, 332

958-997.

“Hoche Becher mit einem Henkel”

40

169

35

46, 332

1008-1015.

“Einhenklige Krüge”

8

8

12

46, 332

1016-1020.

“Doppelhenklige Krüge”

5

4

4

46, 332

1030-1032.

“Röhrenförmige Schöpfegefässe”

3

2

2

47, 332

1033-1040.

“Gesichtsvase”

1

15

15

51, 332

1097-1128.

“Becher mit einem Henkel”

32

40

25

51, 332

1129-1138.

“Tassen”

10

17

16

51, 332

1139-1155.

“Kannen meist mit eingekehltem Henkel”

17

34

25

54, 332

1218. 1219. 1218.

“Tassen”

2

3

3

54, 332

1220-1230.

“Einhenklige Kannen”

11

16

16

54, 332

1232.

“Einhenklige Kanne”

1

2

2

57, 332

1299-1302.

“Halsstücke von Kannen mit Schnabelmündung”

4

4

4

59-60, 333

1372-1380.

“Stülpdeckeln zur Deckelamphora”

9

6

6

61, 333

1407. 1408.

“Glockenförmige Becher mit niedrigen Fuss”

2

2

2

61-62, 333

1421-1450.

“Trichterförmiger, doppelhenklinger Becher”

30

25

16

66, 333

1509-1511.

“Miniatur-Schnurösengefässe”

3

2

2

67, 333

1531-1533.

“Kugelbauchige Kannen mit 3 Henkeln”

3

2

2

68, 333

1542-1547.

“Kleine Kannen u. Kännchen”

6

12

10

79

71, 333

1602-1623.

“Tassen”

22

29

24

71, 333

1626-1634.

“Tassen”

9

28

30

71, 333

1635-1652.

“Tassen”

18

35

26

74, 333

1728. 1729.

“Eiförmige Flaschen”

2

3

3

75, 333

1741.

“Deckelbüchse mit 3 kleinen Füssen”

1

2

2

76, 333

1767-1771.

“Kleine, weithalsige Kannen”

5

4

4

77, 333

1802.

“Hohe Tasse, einhenklig”

1

3

3

78, 333

1811-1821.

“Doppelhenklige Becher”

11

26

22

81-82, 333

1868-1878.

“Einhenklige Becher”

11

15

14

85-86, 333

1925-1943.

“Kannen u. Kännchen”

19

6

6

89, 333

1990-1995.

“Einhenklige Becher”

6

4

4

89, 333

2001-2002.

“Doppelhenklige Becher”

2

-

1

89, 333

2003. 2004. “Doppelhenklige Becher”

2

20

14

93-94, 333

2084-2104.

“Schnabelkannen”

21

5

5

127, 333

2490-2492.

“Eiförmige Krüge”

3

7

6

129, 333

2510.

“Grosses Mischgefäss”

1

1

1

135, 333

2569-2572.

“Kleine Schnurösengefässe”

4

10

9

136, 333

2585-2587.

“Schnurösengefässe, napfartig”

3

2

2

137, 333

2602.

“Plumpe Kanne”

1

3

4

137, 333

2603. 2604. “Plumpe Kannen” 2603.

2

2

2

137, 334

2611-2614.

“Kleine Kannen”

4

5

5

137, 334

2622-2626.

“Enghalsige Kannen”

5

9

9

138, 334

2645-2670.

“Kännchen”

26

31

24

140, 334

2698. 2699.

“Doppelhenklige Becher”

2

5

6

140, 334

2701-2722.

“Tassen, einhenklig”

22

44

26

140, 334

2736-2738.

“Doppelhenklige Näpfe”

3

2

2

140, 334

2747. 2748.

“Einhenklige Näpfe”

2

3

4

140, 334

2749-2756.

“Flaschenartige Gafässe”

8

8

8

142, 334

2801. 2802. “Einhenklige Näpfe”

2

2

2

143, 334

2836-2841.

“Tassen, einhenklig”

6

4

4

144, 334

2853-2856.

“Becherförmige Gefässe auf 3 Füsse”

4

5

5

144, 334

2868-2883.

“Miniatur-Schnurösengefässe”

16

16

13

144, 334

2888-2899.

“Miniatur-Kännchen”

12

17

23

80

147-63, 334

2997-3367.

“Bruchstücke von schnurösen Gefässen; Kannen, Teller, Schüsseln, Schalen, Depas amphikypellon, Tassen, Flasche, Amphoren, Mischgefässe, Kessel, Untersätze, verschiedenes, Tierköpfe als Gefässansätze, ornamentierte Bruchstücke”

71

-

24

172, 334

3565-3574.

“Näpfe”

10

6

8

173, 334

3585-3592.

“Kännchen”

8

14

15

180-201, 334

3650-4090.

“Kratere, Deinoi, Amphoren. Kannen, Becher, Näpfe, Schalen, verschiedenes, Teller, Miniaturgefässe, Thonlampen”

440

-

11

204-208, 334

4103-4495.

“Die nicht verzierten Wirtel”

392

2351

36

208-23, 334

4496-5607.

“Die vierzierten Spinnwirtel”

1112

1155

24

223, 334

5619-5637.

“Durchlochte Gefässscherben”

19

114

34

252, 334

6262-6271.

“Nadeln aus Bronze”

10

-

34

271, 334

6930-6951.

“Walzenförmige Steinbeile”

22

-

6

275, 334

7294.

“Bruchstücke von Steinhämmern”

31

-

5

277-79, 334

7348-7407.

“Idole aus Marmor”

60

15

16

279, 334

7408-7435.

“Brettartige Idole”

28

9

7

279, 334

7438-7512.

“Idole, meist aus Marmor”

75

50

35

279, 335

7518-7546.

“Idole oder Bruchstücke, meist aus Marmor”

29

8

8

294, 335

7987-7998. 7989. 7990.

“Webstuhlgewichte”

2

3

3

294, 335

7999-8006. 7999-8004.

“Webstuhlgewichte”

6

5

5

294, 335

8009-8023. 8019-8023.

“Webstuhlgewichte”

5

11

11

294, 335

8071-8090.

“Webstuhlgewichte”

20

17

17

294-95, 335

8103-8131.

“Webstuhlgewichte”

29

10

16

295, 335

8144-8153.

“Webstuhlgewichte”

10

8

8

295, 335

8168-8175.

“Webstuhlgewichte”

8

4

4

296, 335

8203-8210.

“Thonrollen”

10

3

8

297, 335

8245-8257.

“Thongeräte, linsenförmig”

46

32

31

297, 335

8258-8260.

“Thongeräte, linsenförmig”

22

12

11

297, 335

8263-8268.

“Thongeräte, linsenförmig mit 2 Löchern”

21

10

16

81

297, 335

8269-8273.

“Thongeräte, linsenförmig”

34

25

25

298, 335

8361-8363.

“Netzsenker scheibenförmig”

5

3

3

299, 335

8374-8379.

“Netzsenker aus Stein”

19

17

17

229, 335

8416-8428.

“Geräte aus Thon”

13

7

5

299-300, 335

8439-8445.

“Thonröllchen”

7

7

7

300, 335

8447-8463.

“Messer aus Feuerstein, Quarz”

33

25

24

300, 335

8464-8476.

“Messer aus Obsidian”

24

16

14

300, 335

8477-8489.

“Sägen aus Feuerstein, Quarz”

46

34

33

300, 335

8490-8512.

“Sägen aus Feuerstein, Quarz”

23

20

20

300, 335

8513-8526.

“Sägen aus Feuerstein, Quarz”

24

15

14

300, 335

8527-8537.

“Sägen aus Feuerstein, Obsidian, Quarz”

11

6

7

300, 335

8538-8548.

“Sägen aus dünnen Feuersteinplatten”

11

4

4

300, 335

8549-8569.

“Sägen aus Feuerstein, Quarz, Obsidian”

21

14

12

300, 335

8570-8599.

“Sägen aus Feuerstein, Obsidian, Quarz”

30

31

30

301, 336

8616-8619.

“Sägen, Messer, Schaber oder Abfallsplitter aus Feuerstein, Quarz”

94

134

34

301, 336

8624-8655.

“Schleifsteine”

31

36

35

301, 336

8656-8674.

“Schleifsteine”

19

? + 16

4

301, 336

8666-8674.

“Schleifsteine”

9

16

16

301-302, 336

8684-8764.

“Poliersteine”

142

97

27

302, 336

8767-8775.

“Reibsteine”

9

8

8

302, 336

8777-8785.

“Reib- oder Glättesteine”

19

20

25

302, 336

8786.

“Reib- und Glättesteine”

17

26

31

303-304, 336

8870-8908.

“Verzierte Thonkugeln”

39

52

23

306, 336

9091-9096.

“Mahlsteine”

6

1

1

306, 336

9112-9129.

“Mahlsteine”

18

11

8

306, 336

9130-9149.

“Mahlsteine”

20

27

29

306, 336

9150-9161.

“Mahlsteine”

12

7

9

306, 336

9162-9202.

“Mahlsteine”

41

70

34

306, 336

9203-9247.

“Klopfsteine”

547

225

33

307, 336

9313-9324. 9313-9323.

“Steinscheiben mit centralem Loch”

12

20

19

309, 336

9415-9470.

“Bruchstücke von Lehmziegeln”

56

-

23

82

forms (Table 2). So far, idols have preliminarily been examined and then published813, but the pottery only mentioned.814 Permanently exhibited are only two vessels at the German Museum in Munich (cat. nos 16, 40).815

ones from the mentioned thirty-eight cases were also added. There are also known examples where the number of duplicates was less than the benefiting institutions or there were no duplicates at all. In such circumstances the only solution was donation of unregistered artefacts and/or those from the main groups. This can be evidenced e.g. by groups 1008-

3. The Archaeological State Collection.

1015 (“einhenklige Krüge”), 2997-3367 and 36504090 (various pottery forms), but despite this an unknown number of artefacts were transferred to twelve, twenty-four and eleven institutions, including the King’s Vase Collection in Munich.810 Even if the number of artefacts from the main group along with duplicates was the same as the number of institutions,

Museum of Pre- and Protohistory, Munich

there is no certainty that each of them received only one object, because the donation could be supplemented also by unregistered items. Analysis of Schmidt’s catalogue still makes detailed estimation of the number of donated artefacts impossible, but despite the mentioned limitations it shows that the Munich museum received a lot of interesting ceramic items, surely over 124. The remaining inventory book reports that the museum possessed 145 stone artefacts, including 134 tools, but only some of them survived the Second World War.811 In spite of the enormous losses during that war the State Collections of Antiquities still possess twenty-eight pottery vessels and fragments (twenty-two vessels, one vessel neck, two lids, three sherds812), four marble idols, six ground stone tools and a handful of chipped obsidian pieces. In regard to the Bronze Age pottery there are altogether nineteen

The Archaeological State Collection, despite having been founded in 1885816, did not receive duplicates. Trojan artefacts presently kept there are an integral part of the former assemblage transferred from Berlin to the King’s Vase Collection (Table 1). An analysis of Schmidt’s catalogue confirms that the majority of objects kept there since 15th December 1977 derived from donation to the King’s Vase Collection. Only some items, due to general and laconic descriptions, are very difficult to ascribe to the catalogue. Perhaps they could belong to the above-mentioned large group of unregistered artefacts, not included in the catalogue. After the last partition on 25th October 1998 the Archaeological State Collection possesses sixtyeight items, including fifty-nine ceramic artefacts (forty-four pottery vessels, one lid, thirteen terracotta whorls, one loom weight), one marble idol, five ground and four chipped stone tools. Today there are twenty-two Bronze Age pottery forms, six types of whorls and one type of loom weight (Table 3). So far, only some ceramic artefacts817 and one idol have

810 Op. cit., 147-63, 180-201, 334. 811 Inventar, nos 10.244-10.290, 10.299, 10.378-10.381. 812 They are fragments of Anatolian Grey Ware vessels with the name Troja handwritten in pencil on the interior surface; the handwriting seems to be the same as that used in Inventar. These sherds, without any inv. no., could have derived from the group of unregistered items or from another unknown source.

813 Maliszewski 1989; Maliszewski 1993. 814 Zahlhaas 1978, 4-8; Zahlhaas 1990, 20-21, 24-25; Fitz, Kühn 1982, 11 no. 12, 20 no. 38. 815 Fitz, Kühn 1982, 11 no. 12, 20 no. 38. 816 Wamser 2000, 322. 817 Zahlhaas 1978, 4-8, 7 fig. 3; Zahlhaas 1990, 20-21, 24-25.

83

Table 2. Trojan pottery presently in possession of the SAS in Munich. Schmidt 1902 SAS (cat. no.)

Type (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

Pp., cat. nos (groups with duplicates for the KV-S )

Pp., cat. nos (groups with duplicates, but not for the KV-S )

Pp., cat. nos (other analogous objects)

5

Pyxis D209

75, 1741

-

-

16

Cup A37

37, 691-700

-

-

17

Cup A211

68, 1542-1547 or 137, 2611-2614

-

-

18

Cup A224

37, 715-719

-

-

19

Cup A224

37, 715-719

-

-

20

Depas A45

61, 1421-1450? or 78, 1811-1821?

-

-

21

Depas A45

61, 1421-1450

-

-

22

Depas A45

61, 1421-1450? or 78, 1811-1821?

-

-

23

Depas A45

61, 1421-1450

-

-

39

Tankard A39

45, 958-997

-

-

40

Tankard A39

45, 958-997

-

-

41

Tankard A39

54, 1220-1230

-

-

42

Tankard A39

138, 2645-2670

-

-

43

Tankard A39

45, 958-997

-

-

44

Tankard A41

81-82, 1868-1878

-

-

46

Tankard A43

89, 2001-2002

-

-

47

Tankard A221

36, 661-669

-

-

48

Tankard 9DIV

-

-

142, 2808 143, 2809

51

Tumbler A206

61, 1407-1408

-

-

53

Jug B20

57, 1299-1302

-

-

54

Jar C6

-

60, 1382

56

Lid D5

59-60, 1372-1380

-

-

57

Lid D8

24, 475-484

-

-

63

Bowl A2

45, 901-928

-

-

66

Tankard A228

82, 1880-1884

-

-

68

Bowl A70

-

-

-

69

Jar C68

-

-

-

70

Jar C68

-

-

-

73

Tankard A39

-

-

-

17, 375-389? 84

been mentioned.818 Prior to the last partition in 1998 the Trojan collection was temporarily exhibited in 1978 and 1992.819 At present three vessels are permanently displayed at the International Ceramics Museum in Weiden (cat. nos 10, 24, 65 ).820 Comparing Tables 2 and 3 with 1 one can notice differences – in number, number of class and forms of items – between the assemblage from the King’s Vase Collection and the current state of possession. There were handed over at least 125 objects, but only over 107 survived, or some more if one includes a handful of chipped obsidian pieces. This also refers to the Bronze Age pottery group, but on the basis of Schmidt’s catalogue it is impossible to count precisely

two cases of the Trojan duplicates were registered as no. 441 in the inventory book of the German Museum of the Province in Posen (now Poznań in Poland).822 822 Zugangsbuch 1894-1903 – 1902. Lfde. № 441; Tag des Eing. 25.X; Namen und Wohnort des Einsenders. Gen.-Verwaltung Kgl. Museen Berlin; Gegenstand. 2 Kisten enthaldt Dubletten aus des SchliemannSammlung; Datum des Dankschreibens. G (= Geschenk); Bemerkungen. 100,00 am 28.II.1941 abgegeben an das Landesamt für Vorgeschichte. Szymkiewicz 2004, 104-105. This museum was established in 1894 on the basis of the Historical Society for the Province of Posen organized in 1885 – Szymkiewicz 1983, 11. It should be added that also other German institutions, in towns now situated in Poland, obtained Trojan antiquities, namely Braniewo (Ger. Braunsberg), Gdańsk (Ger. Danzig), Wrocław (Ger. Breslau) – Schmidt 1902, 331. Independently already in 1897, perhaps in the middle of September, Majewski received from A. Voss, the Director of the Prehistoric Department of the Museum of Ethnology in Berlin, thirtytwo Trojan pottery fragments in exchange for the assemblage of the Paleolithic tools from Brzozówka in the administrative district Busk – Majewski, Dziennik nr 52; Majewski, Katalog, 17 – Numer katalogu 4962-4983; Ilość przedmiotów lub kawałków 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1; Nazwa przedmiotu Brzeg od naczynia, Kawałek dna, Szyjka od naczynia, dno od naczynia, dno od naczynia, brzeg naczynia z uchem, uszko od nacz., uszko duże od nacz. cienkiego, uszko od duż. nacz., Kawałek ucha, ucho od duż. nacz., Brzeg płask. nacz. z uchem pionowem, ,,płask. nacz. z uchem szerok. poziomem; Materyał glina, gl. czarniawa, ,,czerwona, ,,szaro-żółt., ,,czarniawa, glina szara; Miejsce znalezienia Troja; Od kogo i kiedy otrzymano Muz. Berl. ze Zbiorów Schliemana w r 1897; Uwagi n. I. 944, n. I. 947, n. I. 946, n. I. 951, n. I. 950. Unfortunately, this collection had only been very perfunctorily published – Guzowska 2006; see also review article of this contribution – Maliszewski 2009. Finally, it should be added that towards the end of the Second World War a part of the Berlin archaeological collection, perhaps

how many artefacts and forms were donated. One can assume that there were at least the same number of items as today, i.e. seventy-three. However, judging from the very general descriptions in the catalogue it seems there were at least another eleven more Bronze Age pottery forms not recognized among the thirtythree presently kept in Munich, and this indicates a larger number of donated objects.821 Likewise, in the case of terracotta whorls, bearing in mind the large assemblage of duplicates (over 3500), the present state of possession is far from that at the beginning of the last century. Moreover, a lot of other ceramic, stone and some metal artefacts have not survived at all to our times.

4. The National Museum, Poznań On 25th October 1902, as a result of partition, 818 819 820 821

Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 8. Zahlhaas 1978; Zahlhaas 1992. Zahlhaas 1990, 20-21, 24-25. Among missing forms there are “Flachdeckel der Gesichtvase mit zipfel-artigen Griffen, eiförmige Flaschen, Schnabelkannen, Grosses Mischgefäss, Schnurösengefässe (napfartig), becherförmige Gefässe auf 3 Füsse, Schüsseln, Kessel, Untersätze, Tierköpfe als Gefässansätze, Näpfe”.

85

Table 3. Trojan ceramics presently in possession of the AS in Munich. Schmidt 1902 AS (cat. no.)

Type (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

Pp., cat. nos (groups with duplicates for the KV-S)

Pp., cat. nos (groups with duplicates, but not for the KV-S)

Pp., cat. nos (other analogous objects)

1

Jug 4FIIa

137, 2622-2626

-

-

3

Tankard A43

36, 661

-

-

4

Bowl A214

140, 2747-2748

-

-

6

Cup A33

54, 1218-1219

-

-

7

Cup A33

140, 2701-2722

36-37, 670-672

-

8

Cup A33

37, 677-687 or 71, 1602-1623

-

-

9

Cup A33

37, 677-687 or 71, 1602-1623

-

-

10

Cup A33

37, 677-687 or 71, 1602-1623

-

-

11

Cup A33

37, 677-687 or 71, 1635-1652

38, 722-726

-

12

Cup A33

40, 2701-2722

36-37, 670-672

-

13

Cup A33

71, 1635-1652

-

-

14

Cup A37

37, 691-700

-

-

24

Depas A45

61, 1421-1450?

-

-

25

Tankard A39

51, 1139-1155

-

-

26

Tankard A39

51, 1139-1155

-

-

27

Tankard A39

138, 2645-2670

-

-

28

Tankard A39

51, 1129-1138 or 77, 1802

-

-

29

Tankard A39

68, 1542-1547?

-

-

30

Tankard A39

45, 958-997

-

-

31

Tankard A39

45, 958-997

-

-

32

Tankard A39

45, 958-997? or 51, 1097-1114? or 51, 1139-1155

-

-

33

Tankard A39

45, 958-997? or 51, 1097-1114? or 51, 1139-1155

-

-

34

Tankard A39

51, 1129-1138 or 77, 1802

-

-

35

Tankard A39

76, 1767-1771

-

-

36

Tankard A39

51, 1139-1155

-

-

86

37

Tankard A39

45, 958-997

-

-

38

Tankard A39

45, 958-997

-

-

45

Tankard A41

81-82, 1868-1878

-

-

49

Tankard 3FIVb

89,1996-1999

-

-

50

Tankard 3HIIc2

85-86, 1925-1943 or 93-94, 2084-2104

-

-

52

Jug B17

17, 375-389

-

-

58

Jug B222

32, 611

-

-

59

Jar 7CIIIb

66, 1509-1511

-

-

60

Lid D15

-

24, 488-489

61

Jug B20

57, 1299-1302

-

-

62

Jar 7BIIa1

19, 405-411

-

-

64

Tankard A39

45, 958-997

-

-

65

Jar C30

47, 1033-1040?

-

80, 1846-1849 81, 1860

67

Jug B24

93-94, 2084-2104

-

-

71

Jug B13

138, 2645-2670

-

-

74

Jar C202

136, 2585-2587

-

-

75

Tankard A43

46, 1016-1024

-

-

76

Jug B3

46, 1008-1015

-

-

78

Cup A106

173, 3585-3592

-

-

80

Whorl 16

210, 4633-4645

-

207, 4390-4398

81

Whorl 17

210, 4633-4645

-

207, 4399-4401

85

Whorl 23

208, 4496-4520

-

205, 4214-4222 204, 4142-4150

86

Whorl 16

-

207, 4399-4401 212, 4796-4798 212, 4802

87

Whorl 23

209, 4528-4534

-

204, 4142-4150

89

Whorl 23

217, 5140-5143

-

204, 4142-4150

90

Whorl 23

-

206, 4309-4333 221, 5394-5396

95

Whorl 4

204, 4103-4111

-

-

97

Whorl 11

205, 4214-4222

-

-

102

Whorl 16

207, 4390-4397

-

-

103

Whorl 17

207, 4360-4363

-

-

106

Whorl 21

205, 4188-4192

-

-

110

Whorl 23

205, 4214-4222

-

-

114

Loom weight

297, 8263-8268

-

-

-

-

-

87

The Trojan collection added to the prestige of this institution, which on 3rd November of the same year

Unfortunately, the older register number 1902.441 has not been preserved on some of the artefacts. In light of this, the Trojan provenance of the Jar C25 (cat. no. 77) seems to be problematic. In Schmidt’s catalogue the main group of spherical and half-spherical vessels (nos 274-280) has only six duplicates, which were handed over to nine institutions, but Poznań was not listed there.828

was given a new name – the Museum of the Emperor Frederic.823 In 1919 Poland regained independence and the Museum of Great Poland (the name of the western part of the country) was founded in Poznań.824 Between 1919 and 1939 the whole of Schliemann’s collection was kept there. Until the outbreak of the war the University of Poznań had the run of the Trojan objects, using them as teaching aids for specialist archaeology classes. In 1945, due to military operations, most of the Trojan antiquities were either scattered or seriously destroyed. After 1945, the Trojan objects were separated from the archaeological collection and handed over to the

Within that group, according to the description, the closest seems to be artefact no. 275.829 If we accept the Trojan origin of this specimen, then the only explanation of its presence in Poznań is that it has been added from the main group or possibly from the large number of unregistered finds derived

Department of Ancient Art, founded within the reestablished Museum of Great Poland. Only one facepot has remained at its Department of Prehistory, which in 1950 became an autonomous institution – the Archaeological Museum.825 In 1953 the Jar C30 (cat. no. 2) was sent as a deposit to the Archaeological Museum in Gdańsk826, but finally on 20th March 1989 it returned to Poznań.827

823

824 825

826 827

from the above-mentioned thirty-eight cases. Much easier is to reconstruct the provenance of five decorated whorls (cat. nos 79, 82, 83, 84, 88). According to the pattern of decoration they belong to Schmidt’s groups 4496-4503, 4521-4527, 45284534, 4565-4580 and 4633-4644 (entire group 44965607). These groups had 367 duplicates, which were handed over to twenty-four institutions, but once more Poznań was omitted.830 Certainly among them were the discussed five items, because their shapes also fit very well with groups distinguished in Schmidt’s publication, namely nos 4185-4187, 43434359.831 Finally, the strongest argument confirming that decorated whorls belong to the collection donated to Poznań is that all bear the same inv. no. (1902.441) of the Provincial Museum, like the rest of the Trojan whorls kept there. In light of this, despite the absence of mention on the duplicates, it seems that the discussed artefacts derived from the large assemblage of unregistered items or from the main groups listed in Schmidt’s catalogue. Among

including Trojan antiquities, was hidden in the palace grounds of Pierusza (Ger. Peruscher), now Wrocław province in Poland. At the end of 1986 this place was found, but subsequent excavations and studies did not record Trojan artefacts among other ceramic fragments – Szymkiewicz 1991, 26. The order of Wilhelm II of 3rd November 1902 giving to the Museum of the Province the name of Emperor Frederic III (but III did not exist in its official name) – Grabski 2004, 24, the photo of the document from the Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin Dahlen, UIV 5173 (the microfilm at the Archive of the MN in Poznań, 28). Szymkiewicz 1983, 12-13. Kondziela 1986. Also in 1950 the Museum of Great Poland was transformed into the MN – Szymkiewicz 1983, 13. Kwapiński 1986. I owe this information to Mr J. Szymkiewicz of the

828 829 830 831

88

MN in Poznań. Schmidt 1902, 12-13, 331. Op. cit., 12. Op. cit., 208-23, 334. Op. cit., 205, 206.

Table 4. Trojan artefacts donated to the P-M in Poznań. Schmidt 1902 Pp.

Cat. nos (groups)

Type

Number of items

Number of duplicates

Number of institutions, including the P-M

23, 331

460-468. 460.

“Stülpdeckel zur Deckelamphora”

9

12

12

37, 332

677-687.

“Tassen Rande”

11

43

33

44-45, 332

891-900.

“Teller”

10

36

30

45, 332

958-997.

“Hoche Becher mit einem Henkel”

40

169

35

47, 332

1033-1040.

“Gesichtsvase”

8

15

15

71, 333

1626-1634.

“Tassen”

9

28

30

127, 333

2485-2488.

“Eiförmige Krüge”

4

9

8

135, 333

2569-2572.

“Kleine Schnurösegefässe”

4

10

9

204-208, 334

4103-4495.

“Die nicht vierzierten Wirtel”

392

2351

36

223, 334

5619-5637.

“Durchlochte Gefässscherben”

330

114

34

252, 334

6262-6271.

“Nadeln aus Bronze”

10

-

34

279, 334

7438-7512.

“Idole, meist aus Marmor”

75

50

35

294, 335

8071-8090.

“Webstuhlgewichte”

20

17

17

297, 335

8245-8257.

“Thongeräte”

46

32

31

299, 335

8374-8379.

“Netzsenker aus Stein”

19

17

17

299, 335

8383-8397.

“Steinhammer, Steingeräte”

15

7

11

300, 335

8464-8476.

“Messer aus Obsidian”

24

16

14

300, 335

8477-8489.

“Sägen aus Feuerstein, Quarz”

46

34

33

300, 335

8490-8512.

“Sägen aus Feuerstein, Quarz”

23

20

20

300, 335

8570-8599.

“Sägen aus Feuerstein, Quarz”

30

31

30

301, 336

8616-8619.

“Sägen, Messer, Schaber oder Abfallsplitter aus Feuerstein, Quarz”

94

134

34

301, 336

8624-8655.

“Schleifsteine”

31

36

35

301-302, 336

8684-8764.

“Poliersteine”

142

97

27

302, 336

8786.

“Reib- und Glättensteine”

17

26

31

306, 336

9097-9111.

“Mahlsteine”

15

20

18

306, 336

9130-9149.

“Mahlsteine”

20

27

29

306, 336

9162-9202

“Mahlsteine”

41

70

34

mit

ausladendem

89

vessels only on one item (Jar C30, cat. no. 2) had been, but perhaps incorrectly, written the old inv. no.832 It should also be noted that the first old inv. no.

over duplicates from twenty-seven groups, but presently there are thirty objects. This means that one or more duplicates from one or more group was donated. In light of this in 1902 the entire collection consisted of over twenty-seven artefacts, because it seems that more duplicates were transferred. This was most likely if their number exceeded the number of institutions, which is well illustrated by several groups in the catalogue, namely nos 677-687 (“Tassen”), 891-900 (“Tellers”), 958-997 (“Bechers”), 4103-4495 (“Wirteln”), 56195637 (“durchlochte Gefässscherben”), 7438-7512 (“Idole”), 8616-8619 (“Sägen, Messer, Schaber oder Abfallsplitter”), 8684-8764 (“Poliersteine”), 9162-

hand-written in Berlin on the small stacked piece of paper was preserved only on the two pierced discs (cat. nos 116, 117).833 Bearing in mind all difficulties the reconstruction of the collection’s provenance (including missing items) can be made more precise thanks to attribution of each find – according to its approximate dimensions, technique of production (hand, wheelmade), fabric, shape, ware, decoration and state of preservation – to the groups distinguished in Schmidt’s catalogue (Table 4).

9202 (“Mahlsteine”). On the other hand, it does not rule out that items from the main groups and/ or unregistered ones from the-above mentioned thirty-eight cases could have also been donated – especially in cases where there were fewer duplicates than institutions (nos 1626-1634: “Tassen”; nos 8383-8397: “Steinhammer, Steingeräte”; no. 8786: “Reibsteine”; nos 9130-9149: “Mahlsteine”) or they were not distinguished at all (nos 6262-6271: “Nadeln aus Bronze”). One can assume also then that an unknown number of unregistered objects and/or those from the main groups were given to different institutions, including that of Poznań.834

Despite the lack of the Berlin inv. nos and mentions on the duplicates all artefacts were attributed, without serious problems, to groups distinguished in this publication. Its analysis shows the typological variety of the assemblage and doubts concerning the function of some artefacts. The collection consists mainly of ceramic items, including pottery (eight groups), undecorated spindle whorls (one group), pierced pottery sherds (one group), loom weights (one group) and other items (one group). There were also numerous different types of stone tools (thirteen groups). Finally, it seems that Poznań received only some bronze pins (one group), marble idols (one group) and stone weights (one group). Unfortunately, according to Schmidt’s catalogue it seems impossible to ascertain how many of the artefacts were transferred to Poznań. If the number of duplicates was the same as the number of institutions, then each of them received at least one item. To Poznań there were handed

Finally, even if the number of artefacts from the main groups along with duplicates was the same as the number of donated institutions there is no certainty that each institution received only one artefact, because also unregistered ones could have been added. Despite the indicated limitations, the analyzed catalogue is a principal source of information for reconstruction of what survived in Poznań. At present there are thirty ceramic artefacts, including four vessels, one lid, twenty-two whorls, two

832 Instead 1802-441 should be 1902-441. 833 Old inv. no. 5619/37 = “Spinnwirtel. B. Durchlochte Gefässscherben nos 5619-37” – Schmidt 1902, 204, 223.

834 Op. cit., 71, 252, 299, 302, 306, 333-36.

90

Table 5. Trojan ceramics presently in possession of the MN in Poznań. Schmidt 1902 MN (cat. no.)

Type (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

Pp., cat. nos (groups with duplicates for the P-M )

Pp., cat. nos (groups with duplicates, but not for the P-M )

Pp., cat. nos (other analogous objects)

2

Jar C30

47, 1033-1040

-

79, 1831

15

Cup A37

37, 677-687 or 71, 1626-1634

-

37, 691-700

55

Lid D3

23, 460-468

-

-

72

Jar C10

127, 2485-2488

-

-

77

Jar C25

-

12-13, 274-280

-

79

Whorl 12

-

210, 4633-4645

205, 4185-4187

82

Whorl 17

-

208, 4496-4503

206, 4343-4359

83

Whorl 23

-

208-209, 4521-4527

206, 4343-4359

84

Whorl 23

-

209, 4565-4580

206, 4343-4359

88

Whorl 17

-

209, 4528-4534

206, 4343-4359

91

Whorl 21

206, 4292-4308

-

-

92

Whorl 23

206, 4343-4359

-

-

93

Whorl 23

206, 4343-4359

-

-

94

Whorl 16

206, 4292-4308

-

-

96

Whorl 4

204, 4103-4111

-

-

98

Whorl 15

206, 4292-4308

-

-

99

Whorl 15

206, 4292-4308

-

-

100

Whorl 16

206, 4292-4308

-

-

101

Whorl 15

206, 4292-4308

-

-

104

Whorl 17

-

205, 4168

105

Whorl 19

207, 4399-4401

-

-

107

Whorl 21

204, 4112-4120

-

-

108

Whorl 21

206, 4309-4333

-

-

109

Whorl 22

206, 4343-4359

-

-

111

Whorl 23

204, 4142-4150

-

-

112

Whorl 23

205, 4185-4187

-

-

113

Whorl 23

206, 4343-4359

-

-

115

Loom weight

297, 8248-8257

-

-

116

Pierced disc

223, 5624-5629

-

-

117

Pierced disc

223, 5619-5623 223, 5630-5637

-

-

-

91

pierced pottery disc sherds and one terracotta loom weight (Table 5). Comparing the two tables (4-5) one can note there is an enormous difference between what was given in 1902 and what is now in Poznań. There are only five of the previous eight pottery forms. Moreover, no bronze needles, idols (mainly of marble), clay items, stone net weights, or ground and chipped stone implements have survived. In other words the current collection has been diminished by several important classes of artefacts. So far, only selected objects have been mentioned835 and catalogued836; finally, in 1997 the entire collection was preliminarily published.837 Notwithstanding the very complicated history and great losses, the collection was displayed for the first time as early as in 1947-1948 at the Museum of Great Poland in Poznań.838 Later, in 1983-1984 the National Museum in Poznań organized only one temporary exhibition of ancient art, including the Trojan finds.839 From 1988 to 2004 five items were exhibited at Gołuchów Castle, a branch of the Poznań National Museum.840

835 Szymkiewicz 1984, 39; Szymkiewicz 1990, 113 fig. 2, 115 fig. 3, 117 fig. 4, 119; Szymkiewicz 1991, 2930, pls 1-4. 836 Kubczak (ed.) 1983, 45, 47 cat. 62, cat. 63 fig. 25, cat. 64, 96-97 cat. 325-329, 99 cat. 325-327, cat. 328 fig. 24, 100 cat. 329. 837 Maliszewski 1997, 42-50, figs 1-7. 838 Szymkiewicz 1984, 30-31. 839 Kubczak (ed.) 1983. 840 Cat. nos 55, 72, 79, 89, 84 – this information I owe to Mr Szymkiewicz.

92

93

94

IV. THE CATALOGUE If the vessel’s AI is greater than 100, then it is considered a closed form while it is an open one if AI is 100 or less.842 However, that formula ‘does not fit’ some Trojan vessels for drinking (A45, 206, 221) acknowledged rather as closed forms. Moreover, within the well recognized closed category some artefacts with rim diameter a few millimetres greater than the body one were regarded closed instead of open. Within the two mentioned categories each form arranged alphabetically bears a typological notation, for instance to the closed one are ascribed C. W. Blegen’s cups A33, 37, 211, 224, depa A45, tankards A39, 41, 43, tumbler A206, jugs B17, 20, jar C6, lids D3, 5, 8. The capacity of vessels was estimated mathematically taking into account the thickness of their walls and bases. However, due to that factor and the sometimes very extensive reconstruction work it was given approximately. In that procedure the following formulae were used:

The catalogue contains four classes of objects, namely pottery, whorls, loom weights and pierced disc sherds. From the beginning the studied collections created a lot of problems. First of all, not all pottery had a current or previous inv. no. and it was necessary to apply them.841 There was also a problem with reconstruction of the shape of some vessels. However, most of the items were properly reconstructed and this enabled their attribution to employed typological schemes. Nevertheless, the enormous reconstruction works limited the basis for examination and thus research possibilities. So, only often poorly preserved fragments of original vessels ‘surovoided’ by modern gypsum could be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, due to this it was not possible to describe the core of most of the items. Moreover, in some cases it was very difficult to ascertain whether the object was slipped or washed and then only the general term coat was applied. The pottery wares were divided into fine and coarse, and within each of them listed chronologically, i.e. from the earliest onwards. Within respective ware vessels were divided into two categories, namely open and closed. That was based generally on the Aperture Index (AI), which reflects the relationship of the rim size to the maximum body diameter according to the following formula, where MBD = the maximum body diameter and AP = the rim diameter: AI =

V = rR 2 H For A39, cat. nos 25-35, 37-39, 40, 43, 64; A43, cat. nos 3, 46, 75; A45, cat. nos 20-24; A106, cat. no. 78; A206, cat. no. 51; A221, cat. no. 47; B3, cat. no. 76; D209, cat. no. 5; 7CIIIb, cat. no. 59. 4 V = 3 rR 3

MBD $ 100 AP

For A33, cat. nos 6-13; A37, cat. nos 14-16; A211, cat. no. 17; A214, cat. no. 4; A224, cat. nos 18-19; C25, cat. no. 77; C202, cat. no. 74; 9DIV, cat. no. 48. 4 V = rR 2 H + V = 3 rR 3

841 They are: SAS Troja 1, SAS Troja 2, SAS Troja 3, SAS T27, SAS T32, SAS T69, AS 1, AS 2, AS T3, AS T4, AS T13, AS T21, AS T58, AS T62. Other artefacts possess those attributed at the museums, for instance AS 8219, MN A807 and SAS 8203.

842 Aston 1994, 179-81.

95

1. Pottery

For A39, cat. nos 36, 41-42, 73; B13, cat. no. 71; B17, cat. no. 52; B20, cat. no. 61; B24, cat. no. 67; B222, cat. no. 58; C6, cat. no. 54; C10, cat. no. 72; C30, cat. nos 2, 65; 7BIIa1, cat. no. 62; 3FIVb, cat. no. 49; 4FIIa, cat. no. 1; 3HIIc2, cat. no. 50.

1.1. Fine Wares Polished Ware

1 V = 3 r^ R 2 + Rr + r 2h H

Closed form

For A2, cat. no. 63.

Jug 4FIIa

1 1 V = 3 r^ R 2 + Rr + r 2h H + V = 3 r^ R 2 + Rr + r 2h H

1. AS 8219. H. 15.5 cm with reconstructed rim. D.r. 7.4 cm. D.by 13 cm. D.be 4.3 cm. Cap. 640 cm3/0.64 l. Handmade.

For A41, cat. nos 44-45; A228 cat. no. 66.

Fabric very hard and very compact, a lot of grey aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm and organic inclusions ≤ 1.3 cm, pale brown (10YR 6/3). The exterior surface smooth, but lumpy, slightly shining only on the shoulder where there are visible horizontal burnishing marks, coat light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), changing. High, wide cylindrical neck, globular body, slightly concave base. Reconstructed plain slightly splaying rim, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from neck below the rim to the shoulder, as well as part of the neck and the body. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 137 nos 2622-2626 (nine duplicates), 334 (nine institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 57. Analogous objects: Easton 2002, 284 no. 73-733, fig. 185 (shape, but as B29?). Function: for pouring. Dating: Troy I.841 Remarks: variant of 4FIIa since only its body’s shape is close to AS 8219.842

Whorls were divided into decorated and plain. Scarcity of the same shape loom weights prevented typological division. Two pierced disc sherds were classified like pottery, namely according to ware. Of the many thousands of whorls recorded at Troy only a small number were weighed. So, in the presented contribution this very important data, contrary to the other publications, is given more precisely, i.e. to two decimal points instead of one. The weight of whorls, loom weights and pierced disc sherds was obtained using a laboratory balance accessible at the MN in Poznań and the AS in Munich. All maximal dimensions of all artefacts were taken, with slide caliper or anthropological compasses, from their original parts, as well as colour notations according to Munsell 1994. The latter were recorded in natural light in the rooms of museums, immediately next to the windows. All macroscopic features of fabrics were attained with the use of a hand lens. Finally, the cat. nos 1-117 correspond to the numbers used in drawings and photographs.

841 Blegen et al. 1950, 52-53 (ware). 842 Podzuweit 1979a, 177 – analogies quoted in this publication refer to forms with much narrower and longer neck published in Schliemann 1880, Schliemann 1884; Blegen et al. 1950-1951.

96

Szymkiewicz 1991, 29-30, pl. 1; Szymkiewicz 2004, 105. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 42-43 no. 1, 44 fig. 1. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 79 no. 1831 (almost identical face representation). Function: for storage.843 Dating: Troy II.844 Remarks: forms C7-8 had also been regarded as anthropomorphic since they bear basic human features (knobs in relief imitated breasts and navel). The shape of the preserved handle does not resemble that on the majority of anthropomorphic jars. Typical handles of this shape are so-called vertical wing-handles, for instance Schliemann

Grey and Black Polished Ware 1 Closed form Jar C30 2. MN A807, old inv. nos 1802-441 (should be 1902441) and 1960:23/48. H. 31.1 cm. D.r. 11 cm. D.by 28 cm. D.be 9.7 cm. Cap. 10 000 cm3/10 l. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, quite well levigated, a lot of silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm and other brownish aplastics ≤ 0.05 cm, greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2) to dark greyish brown (2.5Y 4/2), changing. The core same as fabric, break rough. The exterior surface smooth, but uneven, back of head lumpy, slightly shining, visible vertical (head, handle) and horizontal (body) burnishing marks, slip thin, greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2) changing to dark grey (10YR 4/1), also c. 3 cm deep on the interior neck’s surface. Anthropomorphic form with splaying horizontally plain rim, narrow and cylindrical neck, globular body, right vertical loop-handle made of very slightly ribbed band on the shoulder and flat base. On the neck a schematic face in relief: the eyes in the form of small knobs; the eyebrows, parallel to the rim almost reach the ears in the shape of a half-moon, which are made of rollers with sharp edges; the nose is slightly widened in its lower part. Mended from many fragments, all of whose features observed on their exterior surface (colour, contamination, burnishing marks and their directions) indicate that they belong to the same item. Reconstructed c. three-fourths of vessel, including left handle, left breast, navel and lower part of the face. The ears and rim slightly broken off. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 47 nos 1033-1040 (especially no. 1034; fifteen duplicates), 332 (fifteen institutions); Szymkiewicz 1990, 113 fig. 2, 119;

1874b, pls 145 no. 2846, 151 no. 3020, 167 no. 3269, 188 no. 3439, 189 nos 3455, 3456; Schliemann 1880, 291-92 no. 159, 339-40 no. 227, 341-42 nos 232, 342-43 no. 234, 521-23 nos 986, 988, 989, 990, 993, 574-75 nos 1291, 1292; Schliemann 1884, 208 no. 97, 209 no. 98, 212 no. 100; Schmidt 1902, 79 no. 1831; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 256, annex 33 nos 4-5; Blegen et al. 1951, 199 nos 37-1001, 37-1023, fig. 168; Easton 2002, 95 no. 73-37, fig. 131, 120 no. 73-123, fig. 136, 123 no. 73-47, fig. 137, 127 no. 73-147, fig. 138, 186 no. 72-1103, fig. 156, 195 no. 72-1835, fig. 159, 201 no. 72-1443, fig. 163, 237 no. 73-406, fig. 172, 278 no. 73-601, fig. 182, 284 no. 73-684, fig. 185. On the other hand there are only generally close examples with vertically arranged roll loop-handles in Schliemann 1874b, pls 44 no. 1050, 167 no. 3262, 191 no. 3483; Schliemann 1880, 290-91 no. 157, 339-40 no. 229, 342 no. 233, 343 no. 235, 522-23 nos 991-992; Blegen et al. 1951, 45 no. 33-218, figs 61, 74; Easton 2002, 166, 168 no. 72-1020, fig. 150, 175 no. 73-892, fig. 153, 186 no. 72-1071, fig. 156, 199 no. 72-1777, fig. 162. There were also very rare items with both types 843 Blegen et al. 1950, 236, fig. 370b. 844 Op. cit., 220 (ware).

97

Red-Coated Ware

of handles – Easton 2002, 235 no. 73-342, fig. 171, 237 no. 73-383, fig. 172.

Open form Luster Ware 2 (Jet-black) Bowl A214 Closed form 4. AS T4. H. 6.3/with reconstructed handle 7.3 cm. D.r. 9.7 cm. D.by 9.0 cm. Cap. 160 cm3/0.16 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, a lot of gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.1 cm and other grey aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6). The exterior surface gritty, uneven and very lumpy, matt, wash light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), also c. 3 cm deep into the

Tankard A43 3. AS 8221. H. 10.5 cm. D.r. 8.0 cm. D.by 7.1 cm. D.be 3.0 cm. Cap. 180 cm3/0.18 l. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, few grey and dark grey aplastics ≤ 0.3 cm, grey (2.5Y 5/1). The exterior surface very smooth, but lumpy, shining, visible vertical burnishing marks, slip from black (2.5Y 2.5/1) to very dark grey (10YR 3/1), also c. 8 cm deep into the interior surface, but not burnished there. Plain splaying thinned rim, high neck, bulging thin-walled (0.7 cm) body, flat base. Reconstructed almost the whole rim, part of the neck and two ovoid in section vertical loop-handles from the rim to lower part of the body. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 36 no. 661 (two duplicates), 332 nos 661-669 (eight institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 75. Analogous objects: Easton 2002, 169 no. 72-1285, fig. 151 (shape). Function: for drinking.845 Dating: Troy II.846 Remarks: rather distant variant of A43847 and formally closer to A44, which however has only been recorded at Troy IV.848

interior, but very poorly preserved, changing. Plain rim, small and slightly marked spout, half-spherical body, ovoided base. Reconstructed vertical, ovoid in section loop-handle attached at the rim and the middle part of body, as well as the rim in several spots and part of the spout. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 140 nos 2747-2748 (three duplicates), 334 (four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 4. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1880, 394-95 no. 405 (roughly shape); Easton 2002, 233 no. 73-284, fig. 170 (shape). Function: for drinking. Dating: Troy III?849, Troy IV.850 Remarks: rare form, so far recorded perhaps only at the Third Settlement. Pyxis D209 5. SAS 8203. H. 8.1 cm. D.r. 11.2 cm. D.by 11.3 cm. D.be 13 cm. Cap. 320 cm3/0.32 l. Handmade. Fabric hard,

845 846 847 848

Op. cit., 229, fig. 370a. Op. cit., 220-21 (ware). Op. cit., 229, fig. 370a. Blegen et al. 1951, 127, fig. 154a.

849 Easton 2002, 233 no. 73-284/plausible, fig. 170 (shape). 850 Blegen et al. 1951, 119-20 (ware).

98

tapering toward bottom, flat base. Decorated with three horizontally incised lines in the lower part of the neck. Reconstructed c. one-third of the body, the high and ovoid in section loop-handle attached at the rim and the shoulder, as well as attached to it rim’s fragment. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 54 nos 1218-1219 (three duplicates), 332 (three institutions). Analogous objects: Easton 2002, 169, 339 no. 721235, pl. 151 (shape, but as A33?). Function: for drinking.853 Dating: Troy IVc.854 Remarks: variant of A33. Fabric of AS 2 is very close to that of cat. no. 11.

compact, a lot of silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm and other grey, brown aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, some organics ≤ 0.7 cm, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3). The exterior surface partly worn, where better preserved smooth but uneven, slightly shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks, slip from yellowish red (5YR 5/6) to brown (7.5YR 4/3), changing. Flanged pyxis with slight incline to interior plain rim, cylindrical body and three rolled-up feet. Reconstructed almost half of the body and two feet, the third one somewhat broken off. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 75 no. 1741 (two duplicates), 333 (two institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 31. Analogous objects: Easton 2002, 188 no. 72-1186, fig. 157 (possible shape; illustrated upside down). Function: a container. Dating: Troy IV.851 Remarks: variant of D209.852

6. AS 2. H. 7.3/with reconstructed handle 8.3 cm. D.r. 7.2 cm. D.by 7.9 cm. D.be 2.4 cm. Cap. 160 cm3/0.16 l. Wheelmade. The fabric very hard and very compact, well levigated, a few silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, brown (7.5YR 5/4). The core same as fabric, break difficult to describe. The exterior surface very smooth and very shiny, visible some vertical and horizontal burnishing marks, very highly polished, slip from red (2.5YR 4/6) to reddish brown (5YR 4/4), also c. 3.5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing and partly black due to over-firing. A little splaying plain rim, convex body’s side, the body

7. AS T3. H. 6.3/with reconstructed handle 6.9 cm. D.r. 7.7 cm. D.by 8.5 cm. Cap. 180 cm3/0.18 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, few silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.5 cm, some organics ≤ 0.6 cm, brown (10YR 5/3). The exterior surface badly worn but where preserved compact, smooth, but uneven and lumpy, shining, some visible burnishing marks, fragmentarily preserved slip from red (2.5YR 4/6) to strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), changing; the interior surface also slipped and burnished. The slightly retreating plain rim, convex body’s side, somewhat convex base. Cracked and glued, reconstructed high and ovoid in section loop-handle attached at the rim and the lower part of the body, as well as the rim in two spots. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 140 nos 2701-2722 (forty-four duplicates), 334 (twenty-six institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 3. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 36-37 nos 670-672 (particularly illustrated form no. 670; three duplicates, but none for Munich), 332 (two institutions).

851 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware). 852 Easton 2002, 95, 188, 289, 303, fig. 128.

853 Blegen et al. 1951, 125-26, fig. 154a. 854 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware).

Closed form Cup A33

99

Function: for drinking.855 Dating: Troy IVb, d.856 Remarks: variant of A33. 8. AS 8175. H. 6.3/with reconstructed handle 7.5 cm. D.r. 7.8 cm. D.by 8.0 cm. D.be 2.7 cm. Cap. 160 cm3/0.16 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, some silver and gold mica seeds ≤ 0.05 cm, a few other grey and white mineral aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, a lot of organic inclusions ≤ 1.0 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/4), changing. Core same as fabric, break slightly gritty, reddish grey (5YR 5/2). The exterior surface smooth, but somewhat lumpy and uneven, slightly shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks, slip partly preserved, yellowish red (5YR 4/6), also c. 2 cm deep into the cup’s interior, changing. The slightly splaying plain rim, convex body’s side, the base small and somewhat concave at the centre. Mended from several fragments, reconstructed high and ovoid in section loop-handle attached at the rim and the shoulder, as well as the part of the rim attached to the handle; two small wastages of the rim. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 677-687 (fortythree duplicates), 332 (thirty-three institutions) or 71 nos 1602-1623 (especially nos 1609-1616; twentynine duplicates), 333 (twenty-four institutions). Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 153 no. 33119, figs 159, 185 (ware, shape). Function: for drinking.857 Dating: Troy IVa.858 9. AS 8178. H. 5.8/with reconstructed handle 6.9 cm. D.r. 6.8 855 856 857 858

Op. cit., 125-26, fig. 154a. Op. cit., 119-20 (ware). Op. cit., 125-26, fig. 154a. Op. cit., 153 no. 33-119, figs 159, 185 (ware, shape).

cm. D.by 6.7 cm. D.be 2.3 cm. Cap. 110 cm3/0.11 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, very few gold mica inclusions on the interior surface ≤ 0.025 cm, some grey and white aplastics, including limestone ≤ 0.7 cm, pale brown (10YR 6/3). The core very hard, break smooth, very pale brown (10YR 7/4). The exterior surface smooth, but slightly lumpy, cracked, partly horizontal burnishing marks visible, slightly shining, slip from yellowish red (5YR 5/6) to brown (7.5YR 4/3), also c. 1.5 cm deep into the interior surface. The splaying plain rim, convex body’s side, flattened base. Reconstructed high and ovoid in section loop-handle attached at the rim and the widest part of body; the rim slightly broken off. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 677-687 (fortythree duplicates), 332 (thirty-three institutions) or 71 nos 1602-1623 (especially nos 1609-1616; twentynine duplicates), 333 (twenty-four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 24. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 189 no. 3254, fig. 159 (shape). Function: for drinking.859 Dating: Troy IVc.860 10. AS 8199. H. 6.3/with with reconstructed handle 7.8 cm. D.r. 8.2 cm. D.by 8.2 cm. D.be 3.7 cm. Cap. 200 cm3/0.20 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, few silver mica seeds and some other white limestone aplastics ≤ 0.9 cm, and organic inclusions ≤ 1.0 cm, red (2.5YR 5/6). The core same as fabric, the break gritty. The exterior surface smooth, but slightly lumpy and uneven, matt, partly visible horizontal burnishing marks, poorly preserved reddish brown slip (2.5YR 4/4), also on the interior surface with the 859 Op. cit., 125-26, fig. 154a. 860 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware), 189 no. 32-54, fig. 159 (shape).

100

Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 38 nos 722-726 (especially illustrated form no. 722; eight duplicates, but none for Munich), 332 (three institutions); Blegen et al. 1951, 208 no. F8-9.141, fig. 159, 208 no. 4, fig. 187 (ware, shape). Function: for drinking.863 Dating: Troy IVe.864

marks of burnishing, changing. Splaying plain rim, convex body’s side, flat base. Reconstructed high and ovoid in section loop-handle attached at the rim and the shoulder, and part of the rim attached to it; a small wastage of the bottom. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 677-687 (fortythree duplicates), 332 (thirty-three institutions) or 71 nos 1602-1623 (especially nos 1609-1616; twentynine duplicates), 333 (twenty-four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 50. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 146 no. 16, fig. 177, 146 no. 1, fig. 187 (shape). Function: for drinking.861 Dating: Troy IVa.862

12. AS 1970, 1757a. H. 5.7/with reconstructed handle 6.4 cm. D.r. 7.0 cm. D.by 8.7 cm. D.be 2.9 cm. Cap. 230 cm3/0.23 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, very few gold and silver mica seeds ≤ 0.5 cm, and some organic inclusions ≤ 0.9 cm, brown (10YR 5/3). The exterior surface heavily worn, but where preserved smooth and slightly shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks, slip dark grey (5Y 4/1), also on the interior surface, but not burnished. Slightly retreating plain rim, convex body’s side, flat base. Glued from several fragments, reconstructed high and ovoid in section loop-handle attached at the rim and the shoulder, as well as half of the body. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 40 nos 2701-2722 (fortyfour duplicates), 334 (twenty-six institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 64. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 36-37 nos 670-672 (particularly illustrated form no. 670; three duplicates, but none for Munich), 332 (two institutions). Function: for drinking.865 Dating: Troy IVd.866 Remarks: variant of A33.

11. AS 8201. H. 6.0/with reconstructed handle 7.7 cm. D.r. 7.4 cm. D.by 8.7 cm. D.be 3.0 cm. Cap. 240 cm3/0.24 l. Handmade. The fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated only a few grey aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm and organic inclusions ≤ 0.5 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/4). The core same as fabric, break smooth. The exterior surface smooth, but slightly lumpy and uneven, shining, partly visible horizontal burnishing marks, slip red (2.5YR 4/8), also on the interior surface with the marks of burnishing, changing. Splaying plain rim, angular body’s side, somewhat concave base. Reconstructed high and ovoid in section loophandle attached at the rim and the shoulder, as well as part of the rim attached to it; several wastages at the rim. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 677-687 (fortythree duplicates), 332 (thirty-three institutions) or 71 nos 1635-1652 (particularly nos 1637-1643; thirty-five duplicates), 333 (twenty-six institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 63.

863 Op. cit., 125-26, fig. 154a. 864 Op. cit., 208 no. F8-9.141, fig. 159, 208 no. 4, fig. 187 (ware, shape). 865 Op. cit., 125-26, fig. 154a. 866 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware).

861 Op. cit., 125-26, fig. 154a. 862 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware), 146 no. 16, fig. 177, 146 no. 1, fig. 187 (shape).

101

13. AS 1970, 1757b. H. 5.8/with reconstructed handle 7.5 cm. D.r. 5.8 cm. D.by 7.4 cm. D.be 3.1 cm. Cap. 130 cm3/0.13 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, very well levigated, pale brown (10YR 6/3), changing. The exterior surface smooth, but somewhat uneven, matt, covered with patina, fragmentarily preserved brown slip (7.5YR 5/4), also c. 2 cm deep into the interior surface. The splaying plain rim, convex body’s side. Reconstructed c. three-fourths of the cup, including the high and ovoid in section loophandle attached at the rim and the shoulder, as well as the flat base. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 71 nos 1635-1652 (especially nos 1637-1643; thirty-five duplicates), 333 (twenty-six institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 65. Function: for drinking.867 Dating: Troy IV.868 Cup A37 14. AS 8200. H. 8.2/with reconstructed handles 10.1 cm. D.r. 7.4 cm. D.by 8.2 cm. D.be 3.6 cm. Cap. 140 cm30/0.14 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, some grey aplastics ≤ 0.1 cm, a lot of organic inclusions ≤ 0.65 cm, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4). The exterior surface smooth, but uneven and somewhat crumbly, partly slightly shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks, wash from pale brown (10YR 6/3) to greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2), also c. 3 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Splaying plain rim, convex body’s side, small and low pedestal-base hollow underneath. Reconstructed over half of the rim, the two high and ovoid in section loop-handles attached to the rim and to the 867 Op. cit., 125-26, fig. 154a. 868 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware).

shoulder, as well as c. one-fourth of the foot. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 691-700 (twentyfive duplicates); 332 (twenty-three institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 66; Fitz, Kühn 1982, 11. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pls 40 no. 976, 42 no. 1005, 43 nos 1018, 1021, 1027, 47 nos 1130, 1143, 50 no. 1214, 82 no. 1735 (shape); Schliemann 1880, 538-39 nos 1094, 1101 (shape); Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 691-700, especially illustrated form no. 694; Blegen et al. 1951, 145 no. 37-882, fig. 160 (shape). Function: for drinking.869 Dating: Troy IVa.870 15. MN A271. H. 9.3 cm. D.r. 8.8 cm. D.by 8.6 cm. D. of foot 3.5 cm. Cap. 250 cm3/0.25 l. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, as well as other white and grey aplastics ≤ 0.5 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/3). The exterior surface smooth, but uneven, slightly shining, visible horizontal (body) and vertical (handle) burnishing marks, slip from red (2.5 YR 4/6) to red (2.5YR 5/8), also on the interior surface, changing. Splaying plain rim, convex body’s side, half-globular body, low pedestal-base hollow underneath, ovoid in section vertical high-swung loop-handles from the rim to the shoulder. On the body, just below the low ends of each handle, two incised short radial lines. Reconstructed right handle together with part of the rim; mended nearly half of the body’s wall. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 677-687 (fortythree duplicates), 332 (thirty-three institutions) or 71 nos 1626-1634 (twenty-eight duplicates), 333 (thirty institutions); Kubczak (ed.) 1983, 45, 47 no. 63, fig. 869 Op. cit., 126, fig. 154a. 870 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware), 145 no. 37-882, fig. 160 (shape, but foot less developed).

102

25; Szymkiewicz 1984, 39; Szymkiewicz 1990, 119; Szymkiewicz 1991, 29-30, pl. 3B; Szymkiewicz 2004, 106 fig. 5. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 43 no. 3, 45 fig. 3. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pls 40 no. 976, 42 no. 1005, 43 nos 1018, 1021, 1027, 47 nos 1130, 1143, 50 no. 1214, 82 no. 1735 (shape); Schliemann 1880, 538-39 nos 1094, 1101 (shape); Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 691-700, especially illustrated form no. 694; Blegen et al. 1951, 145 no. 37-882, fig. 160 (shape, ware). Function: for drinking.871 Dating: Troy IVa.872 16. SAS 8176. H. 8.0/with reconstructed handles 10.5 cm. D.r. 7.8 cm. D.by 8.2 cm. D.be 3.8 cm. Cap. 190 cm3/0.19 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, very well levigated, greyish brown (10YR 5/2). The core same as the fabric, break difficult to describe. The exterior surface smooth, slightly lumpy and partly worn, shining, horizontal burnishing marks somewhat visible in the upper part of the body, fragmentarily preserved very dark grey coat (10YR 3/1), also c. 2.5 cm deep into the interior surface and partly visible on the entire interior, changing. Splaying plain rim, convex body’s side, small and low pedestal-base hollow underneath. Mended from several fragments; reconstructed almost whole rim and majority of two high and ovoid in section loop-handles from the rim to the shoulder. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 691-700 (twentyfive duplicates), 332 (twenty-three institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 8 no. 81; Fitz, Kühn 1982, 11. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pls 40 no. 976, 42 no. 1005, 43 nos 1018, 1021, 1027, 47 nos 1130, 1143, 50 no. 1214, 82 no. 1735 (shape); Schliemann 871 Op. cit., 126, fig. 154a. 872 Op. cit., 145 no. 37-882, fig. 160 (shape, ware).

1880, 538-39 nos 1094, 1101 (shape); Schmidt 1902, 37, especially illustrated form no. 694; Blegen et al. 1951, 145 no. 37-882, fig. 160 (shape, ware). Function: for drinking.873 Dating: Troy IVa.874 Cup A211 17. SAS 8218. H. 10 cm. D.r. 6.7 cm. D.by 9.5 cm. D.be 3.5 cm. Cap. 240 cm3/0.24 l. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, a lot of silver and some gold mica particles ≤ 0.05 cm, and some other brown aplastics ≤ 0.45 cm, as well as organics ≤ 0.6 cm, brown (7.5YR 4/3). The core same as fabric, somewhat rough. The exterior surface very worn, but where better preserved smooth and slightly lumpy, matt, coat very fragmentarily preserved from reddish brown (5YR 5/4) to brown (7.5YR 5/4), also on the neck’s interior surface, changing. Plain rim, very short and wide neck, globular body, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body, somewhat concave base. Reconstructed handle; the rim broken off in several spots and the body in one spot. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 68 nos 1542-1547 (particularly no. 1545; twelve duplicates), 333 (ten institutions) or 137 nos 2611-2614 (five duplicates), 334 (five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 23. Analogous objects: Easton 2002, 209 no. 72-1949, fig. 166 (shape). Function: for drinking. Dating: Troy IV.875

873 Op. cit., 126, fig. 154a. 874 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware), 145 no. 37-882, fig. 160 (shape). 875 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware).

103

Cup A224 18. SAS 8177a. H. 9.5 cm. D.r. 9.1 cm. D.by 9.7 cm. Cap. 330 cm3/0.33 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, a lot of gold and silver mica particles 0.05 cm, some grey and other white aplastics, including limestone ≤ 0.25 cm, reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6). The exterior surface smooth and uneven, slightly lumpy, shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks, coat from brown (7.5YR 5/3) to dark grey (2.5Y 4/1), in one area black due to over-firing, changing; coated also c. 2.3 cm deep into the interior surface. Somewhat splaying plain rim, convex body’s side, high and ovoid in section loop-handles attached to rim and to shoulder, foot in the form of three small rolled-up legs. Mended from several fragments, left handle reconstructed, one leg partly broken off. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 715-719 (five duplicates), 332 (four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 5 no. 38. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1880, 540 no. 1106 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 193 no. 37-1126, fig. 160 (ware); Easton 2002, 115-16 no. 72-203, fig. 135, 196 no. 72-1658/1659, fig. 160, 241 no. 73-448, fig. 173 (shape). Function: for drinking. Dating: Troy IVc.876

black (2.5Y 2.5/1), also c. 2 cm deep into the interior surface, changing; half of the body over-fired (not visible on the photograph). Slightly splaying plain rim, convex body’s side, the foot in the form of three small rolled-up legs. Mended from several fragments; reconstructed one leg and c. half of other one, as well as fragments of rim and lower part of the two high and ovoid in section loop-handles attached to the rim and to the shoulder. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 37 nos 715-719 (five duplicates), 332 (four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 67. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1880, 540 no. 1106 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 193 no. 37-1126, fig. 160 (shape); Easton 2002, 115-16 no. 72-203, fig. 135, 196 no. 72-1658/1659, fig. 160, 241 no. 73-448, fig. 173 (shape). Function: for drinking. Dating: Troy IV.877 Depas amphikypellon A45

19. SAS 8177b. H. 8.5/with reconstructed handles 10.3 cm. D.r. 8.7 cm. D.by 9.0 cm. Cap. 270 cm3/0.27 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, a lot of silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, a few other white aplastics, including limestone ≤ 0.2 cm, pale brown (10YR 6/3), changing. The exterior surface smooth and uneven, slightly lumpy, shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks, coat from dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2) to

20. SAS T69. H. 18.6 cm with reconstructed upper part. D.r. 7.9 cm/reconstructed. D.by 5.5 cm. D.be 3.6 cm. Cap. 240 cm3/0.24 l. Wheelmade. The fabric hard and compact, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, some other grey and brown aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4). The exterior surface worn, but smooth, shining, vertical burnishing marks visible, slip red (10R 5/6), changing; on the interior surface of the preserved part clearly visible deep grooves from rotation. Tall cylindrical body, ovoid in section lower parts of both handles, flat and ovoid base. Reconstructed upper half of the body along with the splaying plain rim, as well as the two high vertical loop-handles set to the form of a heartshaped ensemble. Very heavy artefact.

876 Op. cit., 193 no. 37-1126, fig. 160 (ware).

877 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware).

104

Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 61 nos 1421-1450? (particularly 1429-1443; twenty-five duplicates), 333 (sixteen institutions) or 78 nos 1811-1821? (twentysix duplicates), 333 (twenty-two institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 69, 7 fig. 3. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 345 no. 35442, fig. 382 (ware, partly shape), 364 no. 35-842, fig. 382 (partly shape), 370 no. 37-995, fig. 381 (ware, partly shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33-180, figs 60, 67 (ware, partly shape). Function: for drinking.878 Dating: Troy IIg879 or IIId.880 21. SAS 8206a. H. 19.5 cm with reconstructed upper part. D.r. 7.9 cm/reconstructed. D.by 5.7 cm. D.be 3.3 cm. Cap. 210 cm3/0.21 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.1 cm and a lot of other greyish and brownish aplastics ≤ 0.3 cm, brown (10YR 5/3), changing. The exterior surface very worn and as a result gritty, but where better preserved smooth and shining, vertical burnishing marks visible, coat brown (7.5YR 4/3). Tall, slender, almost cylindrical body, somewhat convex base. Reconstructed splaying plain rim, half of the body, as well as both high, vertical and ovoid in section loop-handles set to the form of a heartshaped ensemble. Very heavy artefact due to the high contamination and walls’ thickness. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 61 nos 1421-1450 (particularly nos 1429-1443; twenty-five duplicates, but wheelmade), 333 (sixteen institutions); Zahlhaas 878 Blegen et al. 1950, 230, fig. 370a; Blegen et al. 1951, 26, fig. 59a. 879 Blegen et al. 1950, 345 no. 35-442, fig. 382 (ware, partly shape), 364 no. 35-842, fig. 382 (partly shape), 370 no. 37-995, fig. 381 (ware, partly shape). 880 Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33-180, figs 60, 67 (ware, partly shape).

1978, 6 no. 53. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1880, 371-72 no. 322 (shape); Blegen et al. 1950, 284 no. 36-856, fig. 381 (shape), 360 no. 35-581, fig. 382 (shape), 364 no. 35-842, fig. 382 (shape). Function: for drinking.881 Dating: Troy IV.882 Remarks: perhaps among twenty-five duplicates there were also handmade item/s, but not recognized by the staff of the museum. 22. SAS 8206b. H. 22.4 cm with reconstructed upper and lower parts. D.r. 9.0 cm. D.by 5.2 cm. D.be 4.0 cm/reconstructed. Cap. 310 cm3/0.31 l. Wheelmade. The fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated, only a few white and grey aplastics ≤ 0.1 cm, very pale brown (10YR 7/4). The exterior surface smooth, shining, visible vertical burnishing marks and horizontal rotation ones of fingerprints, coat from red (2.5YR 5/6) to reddish brown (5YR 4/4), also c. 2.5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Splaying plain rim, tall, slender and almost cylindrical body, the high vertical and ovoid in section loop-handle set to the form of a heart-shaped ensemble. Mended only small and thin fragments of part of the body, neck and rim. Reconstructed almost entire object, including handles and the base. Perhaps not heavy artefact, but it is difficult to estimate due to enormous restoration work. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 61 nos 1421-1450? (twentyfive duplicates), 333 (sixteen institutions) or 78 nos 1811-1821? (twenty-six duplicates), 333 (twenty-two institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 51, 7 fig. 3. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 354 no. 35-580, fig. 381 (ware, partly shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 55 no. 34-277, 63 no. 35-416, figs 60, 67 (ware, partly shape). 881 Blegen et al. 1950, 230, fig. 370a; Blegen et al. 1951, 127, fig. 154a. 882 Blegen et al. 1951, 119-20 (ware).

105

Function: for drinking.883 Dating: Troy IIg884 or IIIa, c.885 23. SAS 8213a. H. 19 cm with reconstructed upper part. D.r. 6.7 cm/reconstructed. D.by 4.2 cm. D.be 2.0 cm. Cap. 130 cm3/0.13 l. Wheelmade. The fabric very hard, very compact, very well levigated, light brownish grey (10YR 6/2). The exterior surface smooth, shining, visible vertical burnishing marks, slip brown (7.5YR 4/4), also c. 3 cm deep into the interior surface, slightly changing. Tall, slender and almost cylindrical body, flat base. Reconstructed splaying plain rim, part of the neck, two high vertical and ovoid in section loop-handles set to the form of a heart-shaped ensemble, as well as fragment of the base. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 61 nos 1421-1450 (especially nos 1429-1443; twenty-five duplicates), 333 (sixteen institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 5 no. 40. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 296 no. 371141, pl. 381 (ware, partly shape), 345 no. 35-442, pl. 382 (ware, partly shape), 354 no. 35-580, pl. 381 (ware, partly shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33180, figs 60, 67 (ware, partly shape). Function: for drinking.886 Dating: Troy IId, g887 or IIId.888

883 Blegen et al. 1950, 230, fig. 370a; Blegen et al. 1951, 26, fig. 59a. 884 Blegen et al. 1950, 354 no. 35-580, fig. 381 (ware, partly shape). 885 Blegen et al. 1951, 55 no. 34-277, 63 no. 35-416, figs 60, 67 (ware, partly shape). 886 Blegen et al. 1950, 230, fig. 370a; Blegen et al. 1951, 26, fig. 59a. 887 Blegen et al. 1950, 296 no. 37-1141, fig. 381 (ware, partly shape), 345 no. 35-442, fig. 382 (ware, partly shape), 354 no. 35-580, fig. 381 (ware, partly shape). 888 Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33-180, figs 60, 67 (ware, partly shape).

24. AS 8213b. H. 21.6 cm with reconstructed upper and lower parts. D.r. 8.2 cm/reconstructed. D.by 4.7 cm. D.be 2.7 cm/reconstructed. Cap. 230 cm3/0.23 l. Very likely handmade. The fabric very hard and very compact, well levigated, some gold and silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.025 cm, brown (7.5YR 5/3). The exterior surface smooth, visible vertical burnishing marks, shining, red wash (10R 4/6), also c. 10.5 cm deep into the interior surface and horizontally burnished. Tall, slender, almost cylindrical body. Reconstructed splaying plain rim, nearly half of the neck and half of the body, totally two high vertical and ovoid in section loop-handles set to the form of a heart-shaped ensemble, as well as base. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 61 nos 1421-1450? (particularly nos 1429-1443; twenty-five duplicates, but wheelmade), 333 (sixteen institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 5 no. 39; Zahlhaas 1990, 20-21. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 354 no. 35-580, fig. 381 (ware, partly shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33-180, figs 60, 67 (ware, partly shape). Function: for drinking.889 Dating: Troy IIg890 or IIId.891 Remarks: very good, almost ‘metallic’ quality of fabric. Perhaps among twenty-five duplicates there were also handmade item/s, but not recognized by the museum’s staff. Tankard A39 25. AS 1, old inv. no. 7. H. 11.4 cm with reconstructed rim. D.r. 7.9 cm. 889 Blegen et al. 1950, 230, fig. 370a; Blegen et al. 1951, 26, fig. 59a. 890 Blegen et al. 1950, 354 no. 35-580, fig. 381 (ware, partly shape). 891 Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33-180, figs 60, 67 (ware, partly shape).

106

D.by 9.2 cm. D.be 5.3 cm. Cap. 480 cm3/0.48 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, very well levigated, very pale brown (10YR 7/3). The exterior surface smooth, but uneven due to rotation marks, shining, slightly burnished, visible some vertical and horizontal burnishing marks, slip from red (2.5YR 4/6) to brown in several areas (7.5YR 4/3), changing; on interior surface visible also rotation marks. High, cylindrical and widening neck, bulging body, somewhat convex base. Reconstructed splaying plain rim, half of the neck and vertical, ovoid in section loop-handle from the neck to the shoulder. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 51 nos 1139-1155 (thirty-

four duplicates), 332 (twenty-five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 13. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33-199, fig. 68, 52 no. 33-197, fig. 69 (shape). Function: for drinking.894 Dating: Troy IV.895

four duplicates; burnished, but slightly different form), 332 (twenty-five institutions). Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33239, fig. 68 (ware, shape). Function: for drinking.892 Dating: Troy IIId.893

(2.5YR 5/6) to brown (7.5YR 4/4), also c. 2 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Miniature item with splaying plain rim, high, cylindrical and somewhat widening neck, bulging body, flat base. Reconstructed majority of the rim and whole vertical, ovoid in section loop-handle from the neck to the shoulder. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 138 nos 2645-2670 (especially nos 2650-2657; thirty-one duplicates), 334 (twenty-four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 21. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 52 no. 33-197, fig. 69 (shape). Function: for drinking.896 Dating: Troy IV.897

26. AS T13. H. 12.5 cm with reconstructed neck and rim. D.r. 9.2 cm. D.by 12.2 cm. D.be 5.6 cm. Cap. 960 cm3/0.96 l. Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, some grey and brown mineral aplastics ≤ 0.4 cm, brown (10YR 5/3), changing. The exterior surface smooth, but somewhat lumpy, slightly shining, visible burnishing marks, wash light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3), also c. 6 cm deep into the interior surface, changing; on the interior surface visible rotation marks. High, cylindrical and widening neck, bulging body, somewhat convex base. Reconstructed splaying plain rim, the upper part of the neck, as well as ovoid in section, vertical loop-handle from the neck to the shoulder. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 51 nos 1139-1155 (thirty892 Op. cit., 25-26, fig. 59a. 893 Op. cit., 51 no. 33-239, fig. 68 (ware, shape).

27. AS T21. H. 6.5 cm. D.r. 4.8 cm. D.by 5.2 cm. D.be 3.3 cm. Cap. 80 cm3/0.08 l. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, only a few organic inclusions ≤ 0.6 cm, crudely made, light brown (7.5YR 6/4). The exterior surface very worn and thus slightly gritty, matt, very fragmentarily preserved coat from red

28. AS T62. H. 7.3 cm with reconstructed rim. D.r. 6.0 cm. D.by 6.8 cm. D.be 3.9 cm. Cap. 170 cm3/0.17 l. Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, some silver and gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, and other grey and brown aplastics ≤ 2.5 cm, brown (7.5YR 5/4). 894 895 896 897

107

Op. cit., 126-27, fig. 154a. Op. cit., 119-20 (ware). Op. cit., 126-27, fig. 154a. Op. cit., 119-20 (ware).

The core same as fabric, break difficult to describe. The exterior surface very badly worn, but where preserved smooth and uneven, matt, slip from brown (7.5YR 5/4) to dark grey (2.5Y 4/1), changing. High, cylindrical and widening neck, bulging body, flat base. Reconstructed splaying plan rim, half of the neck and almost entire vertical, ovoid in section loop-handle from the neck to the shoulder. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 51 nos 1129-1138 (seventeen duplicates), 332 (sixteen institutions) or 77 no. 1802 (three duplicates), 333 (three institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 62. Function: for drinking.898 Dating: Troy IV.899 29. AS 8170. H. 12 cm with reconstructed rim. D.r. 9.1 cm. D.by 9.9 cm. D.be 3.7 cm. Cap. 710 cm3/0.71 l. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, few silver mica particles ≤ 0.025 cm, some grey aplastics ≤ 0.1 cm and organics ≤ 0.75 cm, dark grey (2.5Y 4/1). The core same as fabric, but no. organics, somewhat gritty. The exterior surface smooth, but lumpy and uneven, slightly shining, partly visible vertical burnishing marks, wash from brown (7.5YR 4/3) to dark greyish brown (2.5Y 4/2), also c. 5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. High widened neck, bulging body, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body, flat base. Mended from several fragments. Reconstructed splaying plain rim and neck in two spots, as well as part of the body. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 68 nos 1542-1547? (twelve duplicates, but wheelmade), 333 (ten institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 11. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 285 no. 36898 Op. cit., 126-27, fig. 154a. 899 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware).

845, 300 no. 37-969, fig. 378 (shape)900; Blegen et al. 1951, 52 no. 33-197, fig. 69 (shape). Function: for drinking.901 Dating: Troy IV.902 30. AS 8182c. H. 11 cm with reconstructed rim. D.r. 7.5 cm. D.by 8.8 cm. D.be 4.3 cm. Cap. 310 cm3/0.31 l. Wheelmade. Fabric medium hard and compact, some silver mica particles ≤ 0.05 cm, a lot of other grey and some white aplastics ≤ 0.3 cm, reddish brown (5YR 6/4). The core hard, compact, mineral aplastics and colour same as fabric, break smooth. The exterior surface smooth, but lumpy and uneven, matt, very poorly preserved light brown wash (7.5YR 6/4), also c. 7.5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing; on both surfaces visible rotation marks. High widened neck, bulging body and ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body, convex base. Reconstructed splaying aslant cut rim, part of the neck and handle. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 958-997 (169 duplicates), 332 (thirty-five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 49. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33239, fig. 68, 78 no. 33-191, fig. 69 (shape). Function: for drinking.903 Dating: Troy IIIc-d.904 31. AS 8182g. H. 10 cm with reconstructed neck and rim. D.r. 7.4 cm. D.by 8.0 cm. D.be 4.6 cm. Cap. 320 cm3/0.32 l. 900 Slightly different shape of the body (no. 36-845) and attachment of the handle (no. 37-969). 901 Blegen et al. 1951, 126-27, fig. 154a. 902 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware). 903 Op. cit., 25-26, fig. 59a. 904 Op. cit., 19 (ware), 51 no. 33-239, fig. 68, 78 no. 33191, fig. 69 (shape).

108

Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, few silver mica particles ≤ 0.05 cm, some other brownish aplastics ≤ 0.4 cm and organic inclusions ≤ 1.0 cm, brown (10YR 5/3). The core very hard, very compact, break smooth. The exterior surface smooth, but very uneven and very lumpy, visible fingerprints on the base’s exterior surface, as well as rotation marks on both surfaces, matt, wash brown (10YR 5/3), changing. Bulging body, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body, flat base. Reconstructed splaying plain rim and neck. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 958-997 (169 duplicates), 332 (thirty-five institutions); Zahlhaas

Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 958-997? (169 duplicates, but not burnished), 332 (thirty-five institutions) or 51 nos 1097-1114? (forty duplicates, but not burnished), 332 (twenty-five institutions) or nos 1139-1155 (thirty-four burnished duplicates, but slightly different form), 332 (twenty-five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 74. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33-199, fig. 68 (shape). Function: for drinking.907 Dating: Troy IIIb.908 Remarks: handles of A39 were not grooved at Troy I-II, IV-V.

1978, 6 no. 60. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 77 no. 33150, fig. 68, 78 no. 33-191, fig. 69 (shape). Function: for drinking.905 Dating: Troy IIIc-d.906

33. AS 8186b. H. 11.9 cm. D.r. 7.9 cm. D.by 9.1 cm. D.be 4.7 cm. Cap. 510 cm3/0.51 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard and very compact, very well levigated, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4), changing. The exterior surface smooth, partly worn, very shiny, intensively burnished, clearly visible horizontal and vertical burnishing marks, slip dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/3), also c. 5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing; on the interior surface visible rotation marks. Plain splaying rim, bulging body, high widened neck, somewhat convex base. Reconstructed three-fourths of the item, including ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 958-997? (169 duplicates, but not burnished), 332 (thirty-five institutions) or 51 nos 1097-1114? (forty duplicates, but not burnished), 332 (twenty-five institutions) or nos 1139-1155 (thirty-four burnished duplicates, but slightly different form), 332 (twenty-five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 14. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 50 no. 33-242

32. AS 8186a. H. 9.2 cm with reconstructed rim. D.r. 7.2 cm. D.by 7.9 cm. D.be 4.2 cm. Cap. 360 cm3/0.36 l. Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, quite well levigated, few gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.025 cm, some grey and white aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/4). The exterior surface smooth, shining, visible vertical burnishing marks, slip partly preserved from red (2.5YR 4/8) to strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), also c. 3 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. High widened neck, bulging body, ovoid in section vertical and slightly grooved on the top loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body, flat base. Mended from many fragments. Reconstructed splaying plain rim and part of the neck. Heavy artefact. 905 Op. cit., 25-26, fig. 59a. 906 Op. cit., 19 (ware), 77 no. 33-150, fig. 68, 78 no. 33-191, fig. 69 (shape).

907 Op. cit., 25-26, fig. 59a. 908 Op. cit., 19 (ware), 51 no. 33-199, fig. 68 (shape).

109

marks visible, matt, wash light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), also c. 4.5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Splaying plain rim, somewhat widened cylindrical neck, bulging body, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to the widest part of the body, somewhat concave base. Reconstructed half of the object including rim and body. Light artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 76 nos 1767-1771 (four duplicates), 333 (four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 12. Function: for drinking.913 Dating: Troy V.914

(shape), 51 no. 33-239 (ware, shape), fig. 68. Function: for drinking.909 Dating: Troy IIId.910 34. AS 8187. H. 7.9 cm. D.r. 6.7 cm. D.by 7.3 cm. D.be 3.9 cm. Cap. 220 cm3/0.22 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard and very compact, quite well levigated, few gold mica particles ≤ 0.15 cm, some particles of white limestone ≤ 0.3 cm, from brown (7.5YR 5/4) to greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2), changing. The exterior surface smooth, but uneven, shining, visible vertical and some horizontal burnishing marks, as well as rotation ones on both surfaces, wash yellowish red (5YR 5/6), also c. 4 cm deep into the interior surface. Plain splaying rim, very bulging body, high widened neck, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to the widest part of the body, flat base. Reconstructed almost the whole rim and part of the neck. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 51 nos 1129-1138 (especially 1136; seventeen duplicates), 332 (sixteen institutions) or 77 no. 1802 (not illustrated; three duplicates), 333 (three institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 20. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 52 no. 33240, fig. 69 (shape). Function: for drinking.911 Dating: Troy IIIc.912

36. AS 8210. H. 8.9 cm with reconstructed neck and rim. D.r. 6.4 cm. D.by 9.3 cm. D.be 4.9 cm. Cap. 370 cm3/0.37 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, a lot of silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm and other grey aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, brown (7.5YR 5/4). The exterior surface smooth, visible rotation marks, matt, slip red (2.5YR 5/6), changing. Ovoid body, somewhat grooved on the top vertical ovoid loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body, slightly convex base. Reconstructed somewhat splaying plain rim and neck. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 51 nos 1139-1155 (thirtyfour duplicates), 332 (twenty-five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 61. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 77 no. 34364, fig. 68 (shape). Function: for drinking.915 Dating: Troy III.916

35. AS 8204. H. 12.4 cm. D.r. 9.0 cm. D.by 10.5 cm. D.be 5.4 cm. Cap. 820 cm3/0.82 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, very well levigated, very pale brown (10YR 7/4). The exterior surface very smooth, very compact, on the interior rotation

913 Op. cit., 242, fig. 238, but A39 at Troy V much differs from AS 8204. 914 Op. cit., 235-36 (ware). 915 Op. cit., 25-26, fig. 59a, but illustrated shape for unknown reasons varies enormously; closer is that in fig. 154a. 916 Op. cit., 19 (ware), 77 no. 34-364, fig. 68 (shape).

909 Op. cit., 25-26, fig. 59a. 910 Op. cit., 50 no. 33-242 (shape), 51 no. 33-239 (ware, shape), fig. 68. 911 Op. cit., 25-26, fig. 59a. 912 Op. cit., 19 (ware), 52 no. 33-240, fig. 69 (shape).

110

37. AS 8236. H. 11.3 cm. D.r. 7.1 cm. D.by 9.1 cm. D.be 4.6 cm. Cap. 440 cm3/0.44 l. Wheelmade. Fabric medium hard, compact, a lot of gold and silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, some other greyish aplastics ≤ 0.4 cm, reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6). The exterior surface even, but slightly gritty, matt, wash light brown (7.5YR 6/4), also c. 5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing; on both surfaces visible rotation marks. Plain slightly splaying rim, quite high neck, bulging body, somewhat convex base. Reconstructed ovoid vertical loop-handle from the neck to the shoulder and small fragment of the rim. Heavy artefact.

Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 958-997 (169 duplicates), 332 (thirty-five institutions). Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 51 no. 33239, fig. 68, 78 no. 33-191, fig. 69 (shape). Function: for drinking.919 Dating: Troy IIIc-d.920

Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 958-997 (169 duplicates), 332 (thirty-five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 17. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 285 no. 36845, fig. 378 (shape). Function: for drinking.917 Dating: Troy IV.918

rotation marks, also on the interior surface, matt, very poorly preserved strong brown slip (7.5YR 5/8); on the interior surface visible grooves from rotation and very fragmentarily preserved traces of slip. Splaying plain rim, high widened neck, bulging body, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body, flat base. Reconstructed majority of rim and part of body; the handle’s upper part slightly broken off. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 958-997 (169 duplicates), 332 (thirty-five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 18. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 77 no. 33150, fig. 68, 87 no. 34-332, fig. 69 (shape). Function: for drinking.921 Dating: Troy IIIa, d.922

39. SAS 8182b. H. 9.2 cm. D.r. 8.1 cm. D.by 7.8 cm. D.be 4.5 cm. Cap. 360 cm3/0.36 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, a lot of gold and silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, and other grey, brownish aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, very pale brown (10YR 7/4), changing. The exterior surface smooth, but uneven due to visible

38. AS 8282g. H. 10.4 cm. with reconstructed rim. D.r. 7.3 cm. D.by 8.4 cm. D.be 3.9 cm. Cap. 310 cm3/0.31 l. Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, a lot of gold and silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, some other grey aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/4). The core same as fabric, break gritty. The exterior surface smooth, but uneven, matt, visible rotation marks, which also occur on the interior surface, wash brown (7.5YR 5/4), also c. 5.5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Quite high widened neck, bulging body, somewhat pointed base. Reconstructed splaying plain rim, part of the neck and the whole ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body. Heavy artefact.

40. SAS 8182b1. H. 11 cm. D.r. 8.1 cm. D.by 8.4 cm. D.be 4.5 cm. Cap. 370 cm3/0.37 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard and very 919 Blegen et al. 1950, 25-26, fig. 59a. 920 Blegen et al. 1951, 19 (ware), 51 no. 33-239, fig. 68, 78 no. 33-191, fig. 69 (shape). 921 Op. cit., 25-26, fig. 59a. 922 Op. cit., 19 (ware), 77 no. 33-150, fig. 68, 87 no. 34-332, fig. 69 (shape).

917 Op. cit., 126-27, fig. 154a. 918 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware).

111

compact, a lot of silver and a few gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, and other grey aplastics, as well as some white ones ≤ 0.25 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/4). The core same as fabric, but aplastics invisible, slightly gritty. The exterior surface heavy worn, uneven due to the rotation marks, which are visible also on the interior surface, a lot of aplastics are stretching out of the surface and have fallen out leaving it pitted and lumpy, matt, only very fragmentarily preserved yellowish red wash (5YR 5/6), also c. 5.5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Spaying plain rim, high widened neck, bulging body and flattened, but somewhat convex base. Reconstructed nearly entire ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to

changing; on both surfaces visible rotation marks. Straight, height and cylindrical neck, ovoid body, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body, flat base. Reconstructed splaying plain rim and part of the neck; handle somewhat broken off. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 54 nos 1220-1230 (sixteen duplicates), 332 (sixteen institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 47. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 193 no. 371127, fig. 160 (shape). Function: for pouring. 925

widest part of the body and part of the rim attached to it; the upper part of the object mended from several fragments. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 958-997 (169 duplicates), 332 (thirty-five institutions); Fitz, Kühn 1982, 20. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 77 no. 33150, fig. 68, 87 no. 34-332, fig. 69. Function: for drinking.923

42. SAS 8198. H. 10.9 cm. D.r. 7.2 cm. D.by 10.4 cm. D.be 4.0 cm. Cap. 440 cm3/0.44 l. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated, only some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/3). The core very hard, very compact, break difficult to describe. The exterior surface smooth, but uneven, shining, visible vertical and horizontal burnishing marks, coat from reddish brown (5YR 4/4) to dark greyish brown (2.5Y 4/2), also c. 3.5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Spaying plain rim, high cylindrical neck, globular body, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to the widest part of the body, flat base. Reconstructed fragment of rim and part of body; rim somewhat broken off in two spots. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 138 nos 2645-2670 (especially nos 2648-2649; thirty-one duplicates), 334 (twenty-four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 59. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 193 no. 371127, fig. 160 (ware, shape).

Dating: IVc.926

Dating: Troy IV.924 Remarks: in unknown circumstances, perhaps by mistake, the same inv. no. was applied to two artefacts and therefore to the discussed one after b no. 1 was added in order to differentiate it from SAS 8182b. 41. SAS 8190. H. 12.5 cm. D.r. 8.0 cm/reconstructed. D.by 11.9 cm. D.be 4.8 cm. Cap. 800 cm3/0.80 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, a lot of silver and some gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, and other grey and brown aplastics ≤ 0.25 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/4). The exterior surface smooth, but uneven, partly slightly lumpy, matt, coat yellowish red (5YR 4/6),

925 Blegen et al. 1950, 126-27, fig. 154a. 926 Blegen et al. 1951, 119-20 (ware), 193 no. 37-1127, fig. 160 (shape).

923 Op. cit., 126-27, fig. 154a. 924 Op. cit., 119-20 (ware).

112

Function: for drinking.927

smooth, but one side worn, shining, slip red (2.5YR 4/6), also c. 0.7 cm deep on the neck’s interior surface. Splaying plain rim, narrow waist marked by two horizontally incised lines, hourglass body shape, flat base. Reconstructed part of rim, vertical, ovoid in section loop-handle from the rim to the lower part of body, as well as base. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 81-82 nos 1868-1878 (fifteen duplicates), 333 (fourteen institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 7 no. 79. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 269 no. 3260, 287 no. 32-47, fig. 241 (ware, body’s shape). Function: for drinking.931

Dating: Troy IVc.928 43. SAS 8238. H. 11.9 cm. D.r. 9.4 cm/reconstructed. D.by 9.3 cm. D.be 4.8 cm. Cap. 610 cm3/0.61 l. Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, a lot of silver and some gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, some other grey and a few brown aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6). The exterior surface very worn, gritty, matt, only very fragmentarily preserved light brownish grey coat (10YR 6/2), changing; rotation marks visible on both surfaces, but less on exterior one. Bulging body, somewhat convex base. Reconstructed

Dating: Troy V1, Vd.932

splaying plain rim, neck and ovoid in section, vertical loop-handle from the neck to shoulder. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 958-997 (169 duplicates), 332 (thirty-five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 48. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 285 no. 36845, fig. 378 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 42 no. 34381, fig. 69 (shape). Function: for drinking.929 Dating: Troy IV.930

44. SAS 8208a. H. 10.1/with reconstructed base and handle 11.4 cm. D.r. 5.8 cm. D.by 7.8 cm. D.be 3.5 cm/reconstructed. Cap. 150 cm3/0.15 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm and a lot of other grey and brownish aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/3). The exterior surface

45. AS 8208b. H. 6.4/with reconstructed neck and rim 9.0, with reconstructed neck and handle 10.2 cm. D.r. 4.6 cm. D.by 6.8 cm. D.be 2.5 cm. Cap. 150 cm3/0.15 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated, some gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, reddish brown (5YR 5/4). The exterior surface very smooth, shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks, slip red (10R 4/6). The narrow waist marked by two horizontally incised lines, hourglass body shape, flat base. Reconstructed splaying plain rim, neck and vertical, ovoid in section loop-handle from the rim to the lower part of the body. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 81-82 nos 1868-1878 (fifteen duplicates), 333 (fourteen institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 7 no. 80. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 269 no. 3260, 287 no. 32-47, fig. 241 (ware, body’s shape). Function: for drinking.933

927 928 929 930

931 Op. cit., 242-43, fig. 238. 932 Op. cit., 269 no. 32-60, 287 no. 32-47, fig. 241 (ware, body’s shape). 933 Op. cit., 242-43, fig. 238.

Tankard A41

Op. cit., 126-27, fig. 154a. Op. cit., 193 no. 37-1127, fig. 160 (ware, shape). Op. cit., 126-27, fig. 154a. Op. cit., 119-20 (ware).

113

Dating: Troy V1, Vd.934

Tankard A221

Tankard A43

47. SAS 8174. H. 8.5 cm. D.r. 7.0 cm. D.by 5.9 cm. D.be 3.2 cm. Cap. 140 cm3/0.40 l. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, few silver and gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm and a lot of other grey aplastics ≤ 1.1 cm, pale brown (10YR 6/3). The exterior surface smooth, but slightly lumpy, visible vertical and horizontal burnishing marks, slip from yellowish red (5YR 4/6) to brown (10YR 4/3); also very thin slip c. 3.4 cm deep into the interior surface. Splaying plain rim, tall, concave body’s sides, evidently marked lower part of the body, short and slightly concave

46. SAS 8212, old inv. no. I 19 2001/2. H. 10.5 cm. D.by 7.6 cm. Cap. 350 cm3/0.35 l./preserved part. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard and very compact, well levigated, few gold mica particles ≤ 0.025 cm, due to over firing black (2.5Y 2.5/1). The core same as fabric, break straight and gritty, very sharp edges, ‘metallic’. The exterior surface even and smooth, but somewhat lumpy, slightly shining, visible vertical and horizontal burnishing marks, wash from brown (7.5YR 4/3) to very dark grey (2.5Y 3/1), changing and partly over-fired into black; on the interior surface visible rotation marks. Body extensively reconstructed; preserved only part of the neck, half of the body and fragment of the handle attached to the neck. Weight difficult to estimate. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 89 nos 2001-2002 (especially no. 2002; no. duplicates), 333 (one institution). Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pl. 58 no. 1331 (shape); Schliemann 1880, 537 no. 1091 (shape); Blegen et al. 1950, 354 no. 35-558, fig. 380 (ware, shape). Function: for drinking.935 Dating: Troy II.936 Remarks: this is a good example of an artefact (non-duplicate) handed over from the main group. Old inv. no. I 19 2001/2 = “I. Abteilung. Gruppe 19. 2 doppelhenklige Becher” nos 2001-2002 in Schmidt 1902, 89.

foot. Reconstructed two ovoid in section vertical loop-handles running from the spot below the rim to the lower part of the body, as well as half of the rim and the body. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 36 nos 661-669 (eight duplicates), 332 (eight institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 76, 7 fig. 3. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1880, 372 no. 325 (shape); Schmidt 1902, 23 no. 451, 31 no. 594 (shape); Easton 2002, 276 no. 73-555, fig. 181, 280 no. 73-538, fig. 183. Function: for drinking. Dating: Troy IV.937 Remarks: due to the less developed foot possible variant of A221. Tankard 9DIV 48. SAS 8029. H. 14.8 cm. D.r. 6.7 cm. D.by 7.6 cm. Cap. 140 cm3/0.14 l. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, some organic inclusions ≤ 0.9 cm, reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6). The exterior surface smooth, but lumpy, partly encrusted, shining, extremely small vertical and

934 Op. cit., 269 no. 32-60, 287 no. 32-47, fig. 241 (ware, body’s shape). 935 Blegen et al. 1950, 229, fig. 370a. 936 Op. cit., 221 (ware).

937 Blegen et al. 1951, 119-20 (ware).

114

horizontal polishing marks visible only with the use of a magnifying glass, coat red (2.5YR 4/8), also c. 2.3 cm deep into the interior surface, slightly changing. Very splaying plain rim, ovoid body with three short spreading legs, high and ovoid in section loop-handle attached from the rim to the shoulder. Decorated with incised line on the handle’s top and small knob opposite the handle, just below the rim. Only one leg extensively reconstructed. Very heavy artefact. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1880, 544 no. 1130 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 292 no. 35-1090, fig. 243 (shape, but as D24); Easton 2002, 121 no. 73-105, fig. 136, 243-44 no. 73-499, fig. 174 (shape). Function: for drinking.938

1999, especially illustrated form no. 1996; Easton 2002, 229 no. 73-241, fig. 169 (shape, but as A228). Function: for drinking. Dating: Troy II.940

Dating: Troy II.939 Remarks: variant of 9DIV.

to burning, coat brown (7.5YR 5/3), also c. 5.5 cm deep into the interior surface, changing; on both surfaces visible rotation marks. Plain splaying rim, neck widening and cylindrical, globular body, slightly convex base. Mended from many fragments. Reconstructed five-sixths of rim and entire ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck below the rim to widest part of the body. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 85-86 nos 1925-1943 (especially no. 1929; six duplicates), 333 (six institutions) or 93-94 nos 2084-2104 (particularly nos 2096-2098; five duplicates), 333 (five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 10. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 172 no. 37872, fig. 161 (shape, but as B3). Function: for pouring.941 Dating: Troy III.942

Tankard 3HIIc2 50. AS 8191. H. 13.7 cm. D.r. 7.6 cm. D.by 11.9 cm. D.be 5.8 cm. Cap. 760 cm3/0.76 l. Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, light brown (7.5YR 6/4), changing. The exterior surface smooth, but uneven, partly shining with visible horizontal burnishing marks, partly matt, one side black due to exposure

Tankard 3FIVb 49. AS 8211. H. 5.8/with reconstructed neck and rim 9.0, with reconstructed neck and handles 9.9 cm. D.r. 6.8 cm. D.by 8.9 cm. D.be 3.3 cm. Cap. 280 cm3/0.28 l. Wheelmade. The fabric very hard and very compact, very well levigated, grey (2.5Y 6/1). The exterior surface smooth but cracked, shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks, slip from reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4) to brown (7.5YR 4/4), changing. Bi-conical and truncated body, somewhat convex base. The body mended from several fragments, reconstructed straight plain rim and neck, as well as the two high and ovoid in section loop-handles attached to the rim and to the shoulder. Light artefact. Mentioned: Zahlhaas 1978, 5 no. 37. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 89 nos 1996-

Tumbler A206 51. SAS 8194. H. 8.4 cm. D.r. 8.4 cm. D.by 7.2 cm. D.be 4.1 cm.

938 Blegen et al. 1950, 75-76, fig. 223b (the closest shape). 939 Op. cit., 221 (ware); Easton 2002, 243-44 no. 73499, fig. 174 (shape).

940 Blegen et al. 1950, 221 (ware). 941 Blegen et al. 1951, 26, fig. 59a. 942 Op. cit., 19 (ware).

115

Cap. 250 cm3/0.25 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard and very compact, well levigated, a lot of silver and some gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, and some other grey aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/4). The exterior surface badly worn, but where better preserved, smooth, shining, slip yellowish red (5YR 5/8), also c. 3.5 cm deep into the interior surface, slightly changing; rotation marks visible on both surfaces. Splaying plain thinned rim, bellshaped body, base somewhat concave with slightly marked base-ring. Mended from several fragments. Reconstructed over half of the upper part, including rim. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 61 nos 1407-1408 (two

6.0 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Straight cylindrical neck, globular body, vertical and flattened in section loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body and with rib on the top, flat base. Reconstructed very splaying plain rim and part of the neck. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 17 nos 375-389 (nineteen duplicates), 331 (nineteen institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 73. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 357 no. 35559, fig. 388 (shape); Mansfeld 2001, 236 no. 47, 237, pls 13 no. 1, 23 no. 3 (ware, shape). Function: for pouring.947

duplicates), 333 (two institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 77. Analogous objects: Isler 1973, 173 fig. left (possible shape); Easton 2002, 237 no. At. 136-2728, 323, figs 126, 172 (possible shape). Function: for drinking. Dating: Troy II?943 or Late II?.944

Remarks: AS 8165 was not properly reconstructed (too long neck, everted rim instead of spout) and this is why it slightly differs from items listed in Schmidt 1902, 17 nos 375-389. Nevertheless, on the basis of diagnostic body shape and the flattened loop-handle it was attributed to form B17.

Remarks: variant of A206.945 It has distant metal parallels in Treasure A.946

Jug B20

Dating: Troy IV.948

Neck fragment Jug B17 52. AS 8165. H. 12.8 cm. with reconstructed rim. D.r. 8.4 cm. D.by 11 cm. D.be 4.2 cm. Cap. 650 cm3/0.65 l. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, a lot of grey aplastics ≤ 0.25 cm, some organics ≤ 0.05 cm, very pale brown (10YR 7/4). The exterior surface very lumpy and uneven, on the base somewhat worn, slightly shining, visible mainly vertical burnishing marks, wash strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), also c.

53. SAS 8192, old inv. no. I 13 1299/1302. H. 8.4 cm. D. 4.1 cm. Cap.?. Handmade. Fabric hard and compact, well levigated, some gold and a few silver mica particles ≤ 0.03 cm, very pale brown (10YR 7/4). The core same as fabric, break irregular. The exterior surface smooth, but slightly lumpy, somewhat shining, visible vertical burnishing marks, reddish brown thin wash (5YR 4/4), also c. 4.0 cm deep into the interior surface, changing; on the interior surface clearly visible a long and 0.4 cm wide damp

943 Easton 2002, 237, no. At. 136-2728, 323, figs 126, 172 (possible shape). 944 Blegen et al. 1950, 221 (ware). 945 Eston 2002, 237, 323, fig. 126. 946 Schmidt 1902, 230-31 no. 5864-5866.

947 Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 130. 948 Blegen et al. 1951, 119-20 (ware) or even Troy IVa according to Mansfeld 2001, 236 no. 47, 237, pls 13 no. 1, 23 no. 3 (ware, shape).

116

patch. A piece of neck with possible long spout and attached fragment of the vertical and ovoid in section loop-handle being a part of the “Schnabelkanne”. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 57 nos 1299-1302 (four duplicates), 332 (four institutions). Analogous objects: Schliemann 1880, 548-49 no. 1152; Blegen et al. 1951, 170 no. F8-9.149, fig. 161 (shape); Easton 2002, 276 no. 73-673, fig. 181 (shape). Function: for pouring.949

Dating: Troy IV.952 Lid D3 55. MN A272, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 7.0/with reconstructed handle 11.8 cm. D.r. 11 cm. D.by 10.3 cm. D. of flange 10.8 cm. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, some gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.1 cm and other grey aplastics ≤ 0.1 cm, brown (7.5YR 5/4). The core same as fabric, break gritty. The exterior surface smooth, but lumpy, slightly shining, visible horizontal and diagonal burnishing marks, thin brown slip (7.5YR 5/4), changing. The body cylindrical and slightly

Dating: Troy III.950 Remarks: old inv. no. I 13 1299/1302 = “I. Abteilung. Gruppe 13. 4 Halsstücke” nos 1299-1302 in Schmidt 1902, 57.

widened in the lower part, flat top, ovoided flange. Reconstructed ovoid in section basket-handle and left part of the body’s back wall. Edges of the body and flange broken off and lower body’s part cracked on the right side. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 23 nos 460-468 (twelve duplicates), 331 (twelve institutions); Kubczak (ed.) 1983, 47 no. 64; Szymkiewicz 1991, 29-30, pl. 3A. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 43-45 no. 4, 45 fig. 4. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pls 48 no. 1179, 85 no. 1780 (shape); Schliemann 1880, 375 no. 332 (shape); Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 268, annex 36 no. 1 (shape). Function: for covering closed shape vessel.953 Dating: Troy II.954 Remarks: this form of lid usually has a band-like handle – Schliemann 1881c, 419 no. 332, 420; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 268. The discussed item was probably illustrated earlier, which confirmed closed dimensions and a small crack on the body’s lower edge.955

Jar C6 54. SAS T27. H. 10.4/with reconstructed neck 15.2 cm. D.r. 5.6 cm/reconstructed. D.by 12.5 cm. Cap. 830 cm3/0.83 l. Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, some silver and a few gold mica seeds ≤ 0.1 cm, a lot of other brown, grey aplastics ≤ 0.25 cm, light brown (7.5YR 6/4), changing. The exterior surface badly worn, but where preserved smooth, slightly shining, visible vertical burnishing marks, very fragmentarily preserved light yellowish brown coat (10YR 6/4). Globular body, two vertical arch-like shaped and pierced lugs from shoulder to body; between them there is decoration of two low knobs. Reconstructed chimney neck, rim, half of body, two lugs and two knobs. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 27. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 60 no. 1382 (body’s shape, but flat base). Function: for storage.951

952 953 954 955

949 Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 130. 950 Blegen et al. 1951, 19 (ware). 951 Op. cit., 130, fig. 154b.

117

Op. cit., 119-20 (ware). Blegen et al. 1950, 238, fig. 370b. Op. cit., 221 (ware). Schliemann 1874b, pl. 48 no. 1179 – its handle, as well as that of MN A272, was reconstructed, but

Lid D5

cm. D.r. 12.7 cm/reconstructed. D.by 11 cm/ reconstructed. D. of flange 12.6 cm. Preserved upper part handmade. Fabric hard, compact, few silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.2 cm and a lot of other dark grey aplastics ≤ 0.15 cm, as well as some organics ≤ 0.35 cm, brown (7.5YR 5/3). The core same as fabric, gritty. Exterior surface lumpy, but smooth and slightly shining, visible burnishing marks, coat brown (7.5YR 4/4). The so-called crown-handle formed by two bands in section basket-handles intersecting at right angles. Reconstructed body and knob; the flange broken off in many spots. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 24 nos 475-484 (twelve

56. SAS T32. H. 9.2/with reconstructed handle 16 cm. D.r. 10.9 cm. D.by 10.9 cm. Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.1 cm, a lot of other grey and brown aplastics ≤ 0.35 cm, few organics ≤ 0.3 cm, light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3). The exterior surface smooth, but lumpy, slightly shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks and rotation ones, coat from red (2.5YR 5/6) to yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), changing; also on the interior surface visible grooves from rotation and coat c. 6.0 cm deep into it. Bellshaped body with splaying plain rim, horizontal slot and convex upper part. Reconstructed over half of the body and the entire rectangular in section baskethandle topped by a knob. Preserved part of the item seems to be heavy. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 59-60 nos 1372-1380 (particularly nos 1374-1375; six duplicates), 333 (six institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 32. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 292 no. 37996, fig. 405 (shape, ware). Function: for covering closed shape vessel.956

duplicates), 331 (twelve institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 33. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 342 no. 35522, fig. 405 (shape). Function: for covering close shape vessel.959 Dating: Troy IIg.960 Grey and Black Ware 1 Closed form

Dating: Troy IId. Remarks: almost identical shape of basket-handle with knob is known from Troy III.958 957

Jug B222 58. AS T58. H. 16 cm with reconstructed rim. D.r. 6.3 cm. D.by 13 cm. D.be 6.9 cm. Cap. 730 cm3/0.73 l. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.1 cm, a lot of other grey and light brownish aplastics ≤ 0.3 cm, crudely made, grey (5Y 5/1). The exterior surface on the shoulder, part of the body and neck smooth, but uneven and very lumpy, matt, the rest of the body and base badly worn, fragmentarily preserved brown coat (10YR

Lid D8 57. SAS 8169. H. 4.4/with reconstructed body and knob 15.6 the handle of the latter is more bulky and it could have been changed later, after the photograph had been taken. 956 Blegen et al. 1950, 238, fig. 370b. 957 Op. cit., 292 no. 37-996, fig. 405 (ware, shape). 958 Easton 2002, 209 no. 72-1958, fig. 166, but for unknown reasons described as with three superposed strap-handles.

959 Blegen et al. 1950, 239, fig. 370b. 960 Op. cit., 342 no. 35-522, fig. 405 (shape).

118

5/3 and 4/3), changing. The neck long, cylindrical and tapering toward the top, globular and squat body with distinctly marked shoulders, flat base. Reconstructed splaying plain rim, entire ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck below the rim to the shoulder and half of the neck. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 32 no. 611 (three duplicates), 331 (three institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 58, 7 fig. 3. Analogous objects: Easton 2002, 199 no. 72-1774, fig. 161 (roughly close shape, but as B3). Function: for pouring.961

715, figs 168, 185 (shape, but as C32); Easton 2002, 243 no. 73-443, fig. 174 (shape, but as C32?). Function: a container. Dating: Troy III.963 Remarks: perhaps it could be a double pot. Old inv. no. I 14/1509/11 = “I. Abteilung. Gruppe 14. 3 Miniatur-Schnurösengefässe” nos 1509-1511 in Schmidt 1902, 12, 64, 66. Lid D15 60. AS 8369, old inv. nos 3780 and I 7 762/7. H. 1.8 cm. D. 5.4 cm. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, some silver mica seeds ≤ 0.1 cm, as well

Dating: Troy III-IV.962

as other grey and white aplastics ≤ 0.15 cm, dark grey (2.5Y 4/1), changing. The core same as fabric. The exterior surface smooth, but uneven and lumpy, matt. Crudely made, disc shaped, concave below and convex above, two string holes symmetrically placed near the edge of the rim. The rim damaged in one spot. Heavy artefact. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 24 nos 488-489, 39 no. 768 (shape); Blegen et al. 1950, 374 no. 35455, fig. 405 (shape, but as D14); Blegen et al. 1951, 53 no. 34-328, fig. 80 (shape)964; Easton 2002, 230 no. 73-250, fig. 169 (shape). Function: for covering closed shape vessel.965 Dating: Troy III-IV.966 Remarks: old inv. no. I 7 762/7 = “I. Abteilung. Gruppe 7. 6 Flachdeckel” nos 762-767 in Schmidt 1902, 12, 32, 39.

Jar 7CIIIb 59. AS 8196, old inv. nos 4540 and I 14/1509/11. H. 6.3 cm. D.r. 3.6 cm. D.by 4.5 cm. D.be 1.6 cm. Cap. 33 cm3/0.033 l. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, very well levigated, few gold mica particles ≤ 0.05 cm, crudely made, greyish brown (10YR 5/2). The exterior surface lumpy, slightly shining with some visible vertical burnishing marks, coat from reddish brown (5YR 4/3) to strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), also c. 5.0 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Miniature item, splaying horizontally plain rim with two holes just below it, ovoid body, wide cylindrical neck slightly tapering in the middle; small, low foot hollow underneath; two horn-like shaped lugs pierced with string holes set low on the shoulder. Half of rim reconstructed; part of the body from the shoulder to the foot, as well as the rim, are broken off in one spot. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 66 nos 1509-1511 (two duplicates), 333 (two institutions). Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 208 no. 36-

963 Op. cit., 19 (ware). 964 Very closed shape of Troy IIIa. 965 Blegen et al. 1950, 239-40, fig. 370b; Blegen et al. 1951, 33, fig. 59b. 966 Blegen et al. 1951, 19 (ware), 53 no. 34-328, fig. 80 (shape), 118-19 (ware).

961 Blegen et al. 1951, 26, fig. 59a. 962 Op. cit., 19, 118-19 (ware).

119

Grey and Black Ware 2

very close to B19 of Troy I 971, as well as to B20 of Troy IV.972

Closed form Grey and Black Wares Jug B20 Closed form 61. AS 8231. H. 9.3/with reconstructed neck and rim 18 cm. D.r. 4.1 cm. D.by 10.4 cm. D.be 3.5 cm. Cap. 470 cm3/0.47

Jar 7BIIa1

l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, quite well levigated, a lot of silver and some gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, grey (5Y 5/1). The exterior surface partly worn, but where well preserved smooth, slightly shining, partly lumpy, visible some rotation

62. AS 8233. H. 10.4/with reconstructed neck and rim 16.2 cm. D.r. 6.1 cm. D.by 10.6 cm. D.be 4.8 cm. Cap. 470 cm3/0.47 l. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, some

marks, coat black (2.5Y 2.5/1) and changing in some areas to greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2). Globular body, slightly convex base. Reconstructed beak-like spout with plain rim, neck, vertical and ovoid in section loop-handle from neck just below rim to shoulder, as well as the body in two spots. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 57 nos 1299-1302 (particularly no. 1299; four duplicates), 332 (four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 34. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1880, 551 nos 1161, 1162 (body shape). Function: for pouring.967 Dating: Troy III.968 Remarks: possible variant of B20. The extensive restoration work complicates attribution of AS 8231 “Schnabelkanne” to a particular form, but the closest seems to be the body shape of B20 from Troy III969 or B23 from Troy IV-V.970 On the other hand, the body shape of the discussed item is

≤ 0.9 cm, greyish brown (10YR 4/2). The exterior surface extensively worn, but where preserved smooth, somewhat lumpy and slightly shining, very fragmentarily preserved dark grey coat (10YR 4/1). Globular body with three short spreading legs, on the shoulder two vertical low horn-shaped pierced lugs. Reconstructed splaying horizontally plain rim, neck, part of the body and half of the two longer legs. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 19 nos 405-411 (three duplicates), 331 (three institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 2. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1880, 295-96 no. 163 (body shape); Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 259, annex 34 no. 5 (shape); Blegen et al. 1950, 333 no. 35-427, fig. 403 (shape, but as C35). Function: for storage.973 Dating: Troy IV.974

967 Op. cit., 27-28, fig. 59a. 968 Op. cit., 19, 23 table 7, 27-28 (ware, shape); only in that settlement wheelmade form B20, with slightly different shape of the body than AS 8231, was produced in Grey and Black Wares, but without mica. 969 Op. cit., 27-28, fig. 59a. 970 Op. cit., 129-30, fig. 154a, 244, fig. 238.

grey aplastics ≤ 0.3 cm and organic inclusions

971 Blegen et al. 1950, 68, fig. 223a. 972 Blegen et al. 1951, 129, fig. 154a. It should be added that almost identical body shape is also known from the EBA Soma (stray find) – Bittel 1934, 30, pl. 3 no. 2; Orthmann 1966a, 8, 9 fig. 4 no. 24. 973 Op. cit., 31, fig. 59b. 974 Op. cit., 118-19 (ware).

120

Plain Ware

Tankard A39

Open form Plate A2

64. AS 8182d. H. 11 cm. D.r. 8.2 cm. D.by 7.9 cm. D.be 4.2 cm. Cap. 330 cm3/0.33 l. Wheelmade. Fabric medium hard and

63. SAS 1970, 1756d. H. 5.2 cm. D.r. 17.7 cm. D.be 6.8 cm. Cap. 450 cm3/0.45 l. Wheelmade. The fabric hard, compact with a lot of silver and a few gold mica particles ≤ 0.1 cm, and some other brownish aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, very pale brown (10YR 7/4). The exterior surface uneven, pitted, visible lines caused by rotation and aplastics, matt; the interior surface same as exterior,

compact, some silver and gold mica particles ≤ 0.025 cm, a lot of light grey and some white aplastics ≤ 0.6 cm, very pale brown (10YR 7/4). The exterior surface lumpy and uneven, visible some lines upon the finger, matt, wash light brown (7.5YR 6/4), also c. 7.0 cm deep into the interior surface; on both surfaces there are a lot of rotation marks. Somewhat splaying aslant cut rim, very high widened neck, bulging body, and ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck

but smoother; both surfaces coated with brown wash (7.5YR 5/3). The widened side with plain somewhat inclined inside rim, the base slightly convex. Reconstructed c. two-thirds of the body. Due to the substantial reconstruction work heaviness of the item difficult to estimate. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 901-928 (eightytwo duplicates), 332 (thirty institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 70, 7 fig. 3. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 287 no. 36823, 293 no. 37-986, fig. 372 (shape). Function: for eating.975 Dating: Troy V.976 Remarks: for this later dating perhaps note the lower proportion of diameter to height (17.7 cm : 5.2 cm = 3.4) observable also for formally related Plain Ware bowls from the recent excavations. It decreased from 4.8-4.5 in Troy IIc-e, g to 4.2-3.2 in Troy IIIa-b, d. 977 Closed form

975 Blegen et al. 1950, 225-26, fig. 370a. 976 Blegen et al. 1951, 236 (ware due to micaceous clay recorded only in the Plain Ware of Troy V). 977 Mansfeld 2001, 233 and fig. 17:1.

to widest part of the body, flattened but somewhat convex base. Mended handle. Reconstructed half of the rim and part of the neck. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 45 nos 958-997 (169 duplicates), 332 (thirty-five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 16. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 52 no. 33178, 87 nos 34-332, 34-403, fig. 69 (ware, shape). Function: for drinking.978 Dating: Troy IIIa, d.979 Jar C30 65. AS 8207. H. 12.7 cm with reconstructed neck and rim. D.r. 7.7 cm. D.by 11.2 cm. D.be 3.5 cm. Cap. 580 cm3/0.58 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, a lot of silver and some gold mica particles ≤ 0.05 cm, and a lot of other grey and white aplastics ≤ 0.5 cm, reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6). The exterior surface, due to the particles stretching out, slightly lumpy and uneven with visible rotation marks on 978 Blegen et al. 1951, 25-26, fig. 59a. 979 Op. cit., 19-20, 52 no. 33-178, 87 nos 34-332, 34403, fig. 69 (ware, shape).

121

the lower part of the body, matt, wash light brown (7.5YR 6/4). Anthropomorphic form with body pear-like shape decorated with breasts in the form of knobs and a navel in a coin-like shape, two rectangular in section vertical wing-like handles, flat base. Reconstructed splaying horizontally plain rim, neck, as well as partly both handles. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 47 nos 1033-1040? (fifteen duplicates, but handmade), 332 (fifteen institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 29; Zahlhaas 1990, 24-25. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 80 nos 18461849, 81 no. 1860 (shape); Forsdyke 1925, 12, pl.

gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2). The exterior surface partly worn, but where preserved smooth, very shiny, slip very dark grey (2.5Y 3/1). The narrow waist marked by two incised horizontal lines, hourglass body shape, flat base. Reconstructed rim, part of the neck and both vertical, ovoid in section loophandles from the rim to lower part of the body. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 82 nos 1880-1884 (particularly illustrated no. 1880; one duplicate), 333 (perhaps by mistake this group along with institutions was not listed); Zahlhaas 1978, 7 no. 78, fig. 3. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pl. 51 no.

2 no. A68 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 199 no. 371001, fig. 168 (shape except face), 288 no. 33-110, fig. 242 (shape except handles). Function: for storage.980

1236 (shape); Schmidt 1902, 82 no. 1885 (shape); Easton 2002, 154 no. 72-600, fig. 145 (shape). Function: for drinking.982

Dating: Troy Vd.981 Remarks: presumably among handmade duplicates listed in Schmidt 1902, 47, 332 there was also wheelmade AS 8207 or it belongs to unregistered objects mentioned in Chapter III. Due to extensive restoration work it is impossible to ascertain whether AS 8207 had a face or not.

Dating: Troy V.983 Jug B24

66. SAS 8209. H. 13.3/with reconstructed handles 13.6 cm. D.r. 6.2 cm/reconstructed. D.by 8.8 cm. D.be 3.6 cm. Cap. 160 cm3/0.16 l. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated, some

67. AS 8214. H. 18.5 cm with reconstructed neck and rim. D.r. 5.6 cm/reconstructed. D.by 12.4 cm. D.be 5.6 cm/ reconstructed. Cap. 780 cm3/0.78 l. Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, a lot of silver mica particles ≤ 0.02 cm, greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2). The exterior surface very badly worn, but where preserved smooth, matt, fragmentarily preserved dark grey coat (10YR 4/1). High, narrow, cylindrical neck, ovoid body, vertical and ovoid in section loop-handle from lower section of neck to the shoulder, flat base. Decorated with sets of two horizontally engraved lines on the neck, shoulder and perhaps on the lower part of the jug. Reconstructed splaying and spouted plain rim, half of the neck and lower part of the body along

980 Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 131b. 981 Blegen et al. 1951, 236 (ware).

982 Easton 2002, pl. 126. 983 Blegen et al. 1951, 235 (ware).

Grey Ware Closed form Tankard A228

122

with the base. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 93-94 nos 2084-2104 (particularly almost identical no. 2093; five duplicates), 333 (five institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 5 no. 35. Analogous objects: Mansfeld 2001, 236 no. 347/1, 237, pls 13 no. 3, 23 no. 5 (shape). Function: for pouring.984 Dating: Troy V.985 Remarks: variant of B24. It is impossible to ascertain whether AS 8214 had a trefoil lip or not, but B24 had it very often.

Function: for eating and drinking.988 Dating: Early Troy VI.989 Remarks: perhaps not from Berlin’s donation or passed from a group of unregistered items. On the interior surface is written Troja in old handwriting, to which I added no. 1. According to more recent investigations the way of treatment of the interior surface was linked with the vessel’s shape.990 In light of this, the both-sided well worked rim is a fragment of an open form. Closed form

Anatolian Grey Ware (601)

986

Jar C68 Open form Body fragment Bowl A70

68. SAS Troja 1. H. 3.2 cm. L. 4.8 cm. T. 1.4 cm. D.r. 24 cm. Cap.?. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, very well levigated, few gold mica particles ≤ 0.03 cm, light grey (1 for gley 7/). The core same as fabric, break straight and very gritty. Both surfaces even and very smooth with a soapy feeling, shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks, very ‘metallic’, slip grey (5Y 5/1); the interior surface with visible rotation marks. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1953, nos 17-18 fig. 426 (shape).987

69. SAS Troja 2. H. 4.7 cm. L. 7.8 cm. T. 0.9 cm. Cap.?. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, very well levigated, light grey (1 for gley 7/). The core same as fabric, break straight and very gritty. The exterior surface even and very smooth, slightly shining, very ‘metallic’, slip very dark grey (2.5Y 3/1); the interior one unslipped with visible rotation marks. An incised decoration: the zone bordered by one horizontal band of two parallel lines and the other one with fragmentarily preserved, perhaps also two horizontal lines; between them there is a motif of one band of two wavy ones. Function: for storage.991 Dating: Early-Middle Troy VI.992

984 Op. cit., 244, fig. 238. 985 Op. cit., 235, 244, fig. 238 (ware, shape); the closest form appears at Troy V. 986 Within Troia Project thus is called Blegen’s Grey Minyan Ware – Aslan et al. 2003, 166. It seems in this case we are dealing rather with Ware 601 – Koppenhöfer 2002a, 290-91. 987 Identical profiles of rims, but due to much smaller

diameter (c. 14 cm and c. 17 cm) classified as a cups. Blegen et al. 1953, 49, fig. 292a. Op. cit., 36, nos 17-18 fig. 426 (ware, shape); Koppenhöfer 2002a, 290-91 (Ware 601). Knacke-Loy 1994, 57. Blegen et al. 1953, 67-68, 71, fig. 294. Op. cit., 36, 77 (ware, decoration); Koppenhöfer 2002a, 290-91 (Ware 601). However, it should be

Rim fragment

988 989 990 991 992

123

Remarks: probably not donated from Berlin or from a handed over assemblage of unregistered artefacts. On the interior surface is written Troja in old handwriting, to which I added no. 2. 70. SAS Troja 3. H. 6.4 cm. L. 5.9 cm. T. 1.2 cm. Cap.?. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, very well levigated, light grey (2.5Y 6/1). The core same as fabric, break straight and gritty. The exterior surface even and very smooth, slightly shining, very ‘metallic’, slip dark grey (2.5Y 4/1); the interior one unslipped with visible rotation marks. An incised decoration: the zone bordered by two horizontal bands of three parallel lines, containing a motif of two horizontal, parallel lines and on it a double wavy line. Function: for storage.993

Remarks: perhaps not Berlin’s gift or derived from a donated group of unregistered objects. On the interior surface is written Troja in old handwriting, to which I added no. 3. More recent research indicates that he manner of the interior surface’s treatment was linked with the vessel’s form.995 Therefore, the unslipped interior surface of SAS Troja 2-3 makes it possible to ascribe them to a closed form. 1.2. Coarse Wares Unpolished Ware Closed form Jug B13

Dating: Early-Middle Troy VI.994 mentioned that such patterns of decoration are typical for vessel of type A65 and characteristic of Late Troy VI – Blegen et al. 1953, 40 table 9, 77; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 310-11, 313 fig. 16 no. 2. Likely, but not exact pattern of decoration appears on several open forms at Troy VI-VII – Blegen et al. 1953, 310 no. 4 (type C68), fig. 395, 355 no. 371096 (type C82), fig. 328; Blegen et al. 1958, 69 no. 5 (type C), fig. 241, 79 no. 6 (type C69), 93 nos 7-8 (type C75 or similar), 100 no. 1 (type C41), fig. 239, 185 no. 3 (type C), fig. 275, 185 no. 8 (type C80), fig. 274, 189 no. 2 (type C), fig. 275, 197 no. 6 (type C), 200 nos 5, 10 (type C75), fig. 274, 202 no. 5 (type A), fig. 271; Hertel 1991b, 60 cat. no. 69, 61 fig. 25 no. 69. Some examples of close decoration are also known from Troy VIII – Blegen et al. 1958, 264 no. 2 (type 31/dinos or krater), fig. 291, 276 nos 3 (type 31/dinos or krater), 11 (large vessel), fig. 301. 993 Blegen et al. 1953, 67-68, 71, fig. 294. 994 Op. cit., 36, 77 (ware, decoration); Koppenhöfer 2002a, 290-91 (Ware 601). However, it should be mentioned that such patterns of decoration are typical for vessels of type A65 and characteristic of Late Troy VI – Blegen et al. 1953, 40 table 9,

71. AS 8220. H. 9.7 cm. D.r. 3.5 cm. D.by 6.3 cm. D.be 3.2 cm. Cap. 90 cm3/0.09 l. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, a lot of silver mica particles ≤ 0.05 cm, light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3). The exterior surface smooth but lumpy, matt, coat brown (10YR 5/3), changing. Miniature item with 77; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 310-11, 313 fig. 16 no. 2. Likely, but not exact pattern of decoration appears on several open forms at Troy VI-VII – Blegen et al. 1953, 310 no. 4 (type C68), fig. 395, 355 no. 371096 (type C82), fig. 328; Blegen et al. 1958, 69 no. 5 (type C), fig. 241, 79 no. 6 (type C69), 93 nos 7-8 (type C75 or similar), 100 no. 1 (type C41), fig. 239, 185 no. 3 (type C), fig. 275, 185 no. 8 (type C80), fig. 274, 189 no. 2 (type C), fig. 275, 197 no. 6 (type C), 200 nos 5, 10 (type C75), fig. 274, 202 no. 5 (type A), fig. 271; Hertel 1991b, 60 cat. no. 69, 61 fig. 25 no. 69. Some examples of similar decoration are also known from Troy VIII – Blegen et al. 1958, 264 no. 2 (type 31/dinos or krater), fig. 291, 276 nos 3 (type 31/dinos or krater), 11 (large vessel), fig. 301. 995 Knacke-Loy 1994, 57.

124

plain rim ending in a beak-like spout, high, narrow and somewhat tapering cylindrical neck, globular body, slightly convex base. Reconstructed part of the body and neck, as well as vertical and ovoid in section loop-handle from rim to the shoulder. Not heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 138 nos 2645-2670 (especially nos 2664-2666; thirty-one duplicates), 334 (twenty-four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 6. Analogical objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 96 no. 36760, fig. 228 (shape); Easton 2002, 154 no. 72-601, fig. 145 (shape). Function: for pouring.996

Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 127 nos 2485-2488 (nine duplicates), 333 (eight institutions); Kubczak (ed.) 1983, 45, 47 no. 62; Szymkiewicz 1984, 39; Szymkiewicz 1990, 115 fig. 3, 119; Szymkiewicz 1991, 29-30, pl. 2. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 43 no. 2, 44 fig. 2. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pl. 50 no. 1224 (shape); Blegen et al. 1950, 330 no. 35-430, fig. 394 (shape). Function: for storage.998 Dating: Troy II-III.999 Polished Ware

Dating: Troy Ib.997 Remarks: variant of B13.

Closed form

Nubbly Ware

Tankard A39

Closed form

72. MN A270, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 45.6 cm. D.r. 10.8 cm. D.by 30 cm. Cap. 12 000 cm3/12 l. Handmade. Fabric hard and compact, quite well levigated, a lot of silver and a few gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.1 cm, some organics ≤ 1.4 cm, dark grey (10YR 4/1). The exterior surface very lumpy, but smooth, slightly shining, visible a lot of very thin vertical burnishing marks, thin slip from dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2) to reddish brown (5YR 4/4), also c. 6 cm deep on the interior neck’s surface. The rim straight, the neck short, cylindrical and narrow, oval body, ovoid in section vertical loop-handles set on the body, slightly ovoid base. Reconstructed rim in a few spots and entire right handle behind which the body is cracked. Very heavy artefact.

73. SAS 8188b. H. 11.4 cm. D.r. 7.3 cm/reconstructed. D.by 9.6 cm. D.be 3.2 cm. Cap. 450 cm3/0.45 l. Handmade. Fabric soft and compact, a huge amount of greyish and brownish aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm (miniature ‘pebbles’), dark grey (2.5Y 4/1), changing. The exterior surface very badly worn, but where better preserved smooth and shining, visible vertical and some horizontal burnishing marks, slip from dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2) to very dark grey (10YR 3/1), also c. 3.2 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Slightly splaying plain rim, high straight cylindrical neck, globular body, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck to widest part of the body, flat base. Reconstructed two-thirds of the neck and the rim. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 17 nos 375-389? (nineteen duplicates), 331 (nineteen institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 22.

996 Blegen et al. 1950, 66, fig. 223a. 997 Op. cit., 56 (ware), 96 no. 36-760, fig. 228 (shape).

998 Op. cit., 234, fig. 370a. 999 Op. cit., 223 (ware); Blegen et al. 1951, 21 (ware).

Jar C10

125

Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 77 no. 34373, fig. 68 (shape). Function: vessel for drinking.1000 Dating: Troy IIIa.1001 Remarks: likely variant of A39. Despite the very close body shape SAS 8188b cannot be attributed to Blegen’s type B17 due to the lack of the original slight spout situated opposite the upper part of the handle. So, it was reconstructed as A39 and consequently classified as this type. On the other hand it cannot be excluded that among nineteen duplicates there were also examples without a little spout typical for B17. Jar C202 74. AS 8215. H. 5.5 cm. D.r. 3.8 cm. D.by 5.1 cm. D.be 1.4 cm. Cap. 30 cm 3/0.03 l. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, a lot of grey, brown and white aplastics ≤ 0.5 cm on the exterior surface, crudely made, brown (7.5YR 5/3). The exterior surface smooth, but very lumpy and uneven, slightly shining, visible vertical burnishing marks, coat from brown (7.5YR 4/4) to dark grey (2.5Y 4/1), changing. Miniature item with plain, incurving rim, hole mouth, globular body, perforated lugs set on shoulder, somewhat concave base. Reconstructed left knob; rim somewhat broken off. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 136 nos 2585-2587 (two duplicates), 333 (two institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 5. Analogous objects: Easton 2002, 243 no. 73-425, fig. 174 (shape). Function: a container.

1000 Blegen et al. 1951, 25-26, fig. 59a. 1001 Op. cit., 21 (ware), 77 no. 34-373, fig. 68 (shape).

Dating: Troy III.1002 Gritty Ware Closed form Tankard A43 75. AS 8184. H. 17.6 cm. D.r. 10.6 cm. D.by 11.9 cm. D.be 4.3 cm. Cap. 1380 cm3/1.380 l. Wheelmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, a lot of gold and very few silver mica particles ≤ 0.1 cm, pale brown (10YR 6/3). The exterior surface even, slightly gritty, matt, wash brown (7.5YR 5/4), also c. 8.0 cm deep into the interior surface, changing. Splaying plain rim, very high cylindrical neck, bulging body and ovoid in section vertical loop-handles from the neck to the widest part of the body, flat base. Mended from several fragments. Reconstructed the entire right handle; very large part of the rim broken off in several spots. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 46 nos 1016-1020 (four duplicates), 332 (four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 5 no. 36. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 287 no. 36743, fig. 380 (shape). Function: for drinking.1003 Dating: Troy IV.1004 Remarks: due to less bulging body and different ended base possible variant of A43. Jug B3 76. AS 8183. H. 18.9 cm. D.r. 8.8 cm. D.by 13.1 cm. D.be 6.8 cm. Cap. 1810 cm 3/1.810 l. Wheelmade. 1002 Op. cit., 21 (ware). 1003 Blegen et al. 1950, 229, fig. 370a. 1004 Blegen et al. 1951, 121 (ware).

126

Fabric very hard and very compact, a lot of gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.2 cm and some other white limestone aplastics ≤ 0.45 cm, greyish brown (10YR 5/2). The core same as fabric, break difficult to describe. The exterior surface slightly gritty, very lumpy, matt, wash reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6), also c. 6.0 cm deep into the interior, changing; rotation marks visible on both surfaces. Slightly splaying plain rim, high and cylindrical neck, ovoid body, ovoid in section vertical loop-handle from the neck just below the rim to the shoulder, flat base. Mended from several fragments. Reconstructed almost the whole rim and part of the base. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 46 nos 1008-1015 (eight duplicates), 332 (twelve institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 4 no. 1. Analogous objects: Easton 2002, 234 no. 73-287, fig. 171 (shape). Function: for pouring.1005 Dating: Troy IV.1006 Jar C25 77. MN A410, old inv. no. 128. H. 8.5 cm. D.r. 5.5 cm. D.by 7.7 cm. D.be 4.5 cm. Cap. 160 cm3/0.16 l. Wheelmade. Fabric soft and friable, some inclusions of silver mica ≤ 0.0l cm and a lot of dark grey aplastics ≤ 0.3 cm, red (2.5YR 5/8). The core same as fabric, but compact, break rough. The exterior surface even, but slightly gritty, visible rotation marks. Projecting horizontally plain rim, spherical body, semi-ovoid in section arched handles set diagonally on the shoulder, flat base. The rim broken off in many 1005 Blegen et al. 1950, 231, fig. 370a (the closest shape is that of Troy II). 1006 Blegen et al. 1951, 121 (ware).

spots, the left handle missing, the edge of base worn. Very heavy artefact. Mentioned: Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 45 no. 5 and fig. 5. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 12-13 nos 274280, especially no. 275 (six duplicates, but none for Poznań), 331 (nine institutions). Function: a container. Dating: Troy IV.1007 Remarks: possible variant of C25.1008 Knobbed Ware Closed form Cup A106 78. AS 8230. H. 7.8 cm. D.r. 7.4 cm. D.by 9.5 cm. D.be 3.6 cm. Cap. 420 cm3/0.42 l. Handmade. The fabric hard, compact, a lot of grey aplastics ≤ 0.5 cm, greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2), changing. Core same as fabric, break difficult to describe. The exterior surface very badly worn, but where preserved smooth, slightly shining, visible some horizontal marks of slight burnish, slip greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2), also c. 4.5 cm deep into the interior surface and burnished only on the rim, changing. Splaying plain rim, high wide cylindrical neck, squat body with angular side decorated with three horn-shaped knobs on shoulder and short, vertical impressed lines between them, flat base. Reconstructed the whole ovoid in section loop-handle attached to the rim and to the widest part of the body, c. four-fifths of the rim and c. one-third of the neck. Heavy artefact. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 173 nos 3585-3592 1007 Op. cit., 121 (ware). 1008 Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 131b.

127

(fourteen duplicates), 334 (fifteen institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 8 no. 83. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1958, 221 no. 35474, fig. 260 (ware, shape). Function: for eating and drinking.1009 Dating: Troy VIIb2.1010 Remarks: according to Schmidt 1902 and Blegen et al. 1958 it seems that the handle of AS 8230 should be higher, i.e. above the rim.

2. Whorls 2.1. Decorated 79. MN A275, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 1.8 cm. D. 3.4 cm. Wt 17.57 g. D. of perforation: 0.7 cm. upper end, 0.6 cm. lower end. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, very well levigated, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, dark grey (2.5Y 4/1). The surface, even, very smooth, matt. Truncated conical shape, the ridge above the centre, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. On the shoulder incised five sets of three parallel arcs arranged in a star motif. Mentioned: Kubczak (ed.) 1983, 96-97, 99 no. 328, fig. 24; Szymkiewicz 1984, 39; Szymkiewicz 1990, 117 fig. 4, 119; Szymkiewicz 1991, 29, pl. 4B. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 46 no. 8 and fig. 6 no. 2, 48 fig. 7 no. 1. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 205 nos 41854187 (form C1b), 210 nos 4633-4645 (ninetythree decorated duplicates, but none for Poznań), 334 (twenty-four institutions); Blegen et al. 1950, 310 no. 36-23, fig. 366 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 40 no. 33-301, fig. 54 (decoration), 140 no. 37-20, figs 151-52 (shape), 145 no. 37-657, fig. 151, 147 no. 37-696, fig. 151, 150 nos 1009 Blegen et al. 1958, 165, fig. 218. 1010 Op. cit., 221 no. 35-474, fig. 260 (ware, shape).

33-59, 33-108, fig. 152, 156 no. 33-79, fig. 152 (decoration), 159 nos 33-82, fig. 152 (shape), 33-105, fig. 152, 160 no. 33-106, figs 151, 153 (decoration), 172 no. 37-540, fig. 152 (shape, decoration), 174 no. 33-31, fig. 152 (decoration), 256 no. 35-71, 277 no. 37-142, figs 236-37 (shape), 286 no. 33-28, fig. 236 (decoration); Balfanz 1995b, 124 fig. 9; Blum 2002a, 77 fig. 6 (decoration); Easton 2002, 84 no. 72-932, fig. 129, 118 no. 72-149, fig. 130, 130 nos 72-463, 72-464, 72-465, 72-466, 72-467, 72-469, 72-470, 72-472, 72-306, fig. 139, 132 nos 72-436, 72-461, 72-471, fig. 140, 134 no. 72-425, fig. 141, 152 no. 72-506, fig. 144, 155 no. 72-513, fig. 145, 169 no. 72-1365, 170 nos 72-1221, 72-1222, fig. 151, 172 no. 72-1230, fig. 153, 183 no. 72-957, 185 no. 72-1082, fig. 155, 188 nos 72-1243, 721244, 189 no. 72-1314, fig. 157, 190 nos 72-1199, 72-1202, fig. 158, 195 nos 72-1621, 72-1631, 721637, fig. 159, 197 no. 72-1573, fig. 160, 198 nos 72-1687, 72-1861, fig. 161, 200 nos 72-1464, fig. 162, 72-1600, 201 no. 72-1868, fig. 163, 209 no. 72-1904, fig. 166 (decoration).1011 Type and function: 121012, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIf 1013, II (?)1014, IIIb1015, III (?)1016, IVa-

1011 Moreover, in Easton 2002 there is no. cavity on the only illustrated patterned side of items and this could suggest a form close to that of MN A275. 1012 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1013 Op. cit., 310 no. 36-23, fig. 366 (shape). 1014 Plausibly from Troy II – Easton 2002, 134 no. 72425, fig. 141, 172 no. 72-1230, fig. 153 (decoration). 1015 Blegen et al. 1951, 40 no. 33-301, fig. 54 (decoration). 1016 Plausibly from Troy III – Easton 2002, 155 no. 72513, fig. 145, 200 nos 72-1464, fig. 162, 72-1600, 201 no. 72-1868, fig. 163 (decoration).

128

b1017, IV1018, V1, Va, c-d1019, V (?) 1020, VI (?)1021, IIVI1022, VI-VII1023, VII (?)1024, VIII-IX.1025 80. AS 1982, 751/2. H. 1.6 cm. D. 2.7 cm. Wt 10.51 g. D. of perforation: 0.65 cm upper end, 0.5 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated, some silver mica seeds (size difficult to estimate), pale brown (10YR 6/3). The surface even, smooth, worn, matt. Truncated and very flattened bi-conical form, the ridge at the centre, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. On the shoulder five poorly 1017 Blegen et al. 1951, 140 no. 37-20, figs 151-52 (shape), 145 no. 37-657, 147 no. 37-696, fig. 151, 150 nos 3359, 33-108, 156 no. 33-79, fig. 152 (decoration), 159 nos 33-82, fig. 152 (shape), 33-105, fig. 152, 160 no. 33-106, figs 151, 153 (decoration), 172 no. 37-540, fig. 152 (shape, decoration), 174 no. 33-31, fig. 152 (decoration). 1018 Balfanz 1995b, 124 fig. 9 (shape, decoration); Blum 2002a, 77 fig. 6 (decoration); Easton 2002, 132 nos 72-436/plausible, 72-461, 72-471, fig. 140, 169 no. 72-1365/plausible, 170 nos 72-1221/plausible, 721222/plausible, fig. 151, 188 nos 72-1243/plausible, 72-1244/plausible, 189 no. 72-1314/plausible, fig. 157, 190 nos 72-1199, 72-1202, fig. 158, 197 no. 721573/plausible, fig. 160, 198 nos 72-1687/plausible, 72-1861/plausible, fig. 161 (decoration). 1019 Blegen et al. 1951, 256 no. 35-71, 277 no. 37142, figs 236-37 (shape), 286 no. 33-28, fig. 236 (decoration). 1020 Easton 2002, 195 nos 72-1621/plausible, 72-1631/ plausible, 72-1637/plausible, fig. 159, 209 no. 721904, fig. 166 (decoration). 1021 Op. cit., 152 no. 72-506/plausible, fig. 144, 185 no. 72-1082, fig. 155 (decoration). 1022 Op. cit., 118 no. 72-149, fig. 130 (decoration). 1023 Op. cit., 130 nos 72-463, 72-464, 72-465, 72-466, 72-467, 72-469, 72-470, 72-472, 72-306/plausible, fig. 139 (decoration). 1024 Op. cit., 183 no. 72-957/plausible, fig. 155 (decoration). 1025 Op. cit., 84 no. 72-932, fig. 129 (decoration).

preserved sets of incised unequal double arcs with almost invisible very light brown inlay impossible to define with Munsell. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 210 nos 4633-4645 (ninety-three decorated duplicates), 334 (twentyfour institutions). Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 207 nos 43904398 (form E); Blegen et al. 1950, 306 no. 36-25, fig. 368 (shape), 318 no. 37-12, fig. 367 (decoration), 333 no. 35-227, fig. 366 (decoration); Blegen et al. 1951, 259 no. 35-502, fig. 236 (decoration), 277 no. 37-142, figs 236-37 (decoration); Blegen et al. 1953, 367 no. 37-361, fig. 307 (shape); Easton 2002, 108 no. 72-1211026, fig. 133, 130 no. 72-316, fig. 139, 132 no. 72-346, fig. 140, 134 no. 72-4451027, fig. 141, 183 no. 72-10911028, fig. 155, 189 no. 72-1093, fig. 157, 197 no. 72-1465, fig. 160, 200 no. 72-1652, fig. 163 (decoration). Type and function: 161029, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIf-g1030, II (?)1031, III (?)1032, IV (?)1033, Vb-c1034, II-V1035, Late VI1036, VI-VII (?)1037, VII (?).1038 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038

129

The patterned side with the cavity. The patterned side with the cavity. The patterned side with the cavity. Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 306 no. 36-25, fig. 368 (shape), 318 no. 3712, fig. 367, 333 no. 35-227, fig. 366 (decoration). Easton 2002, 134 no. 72-445/plausible, fig. 141 (decoration). Op. cit., 132 no. 72-346/plausible, fig, 140, 200 no. 72-1652/plausible, fig. 163 (decoration). Op. cit., 189 no. 72-1093/plausible, fig. 157, 197 no. 72-1465/plausible, fig. 160 (decoration). Blegen et al. 1951, 259 no. 35-502, fig. 236, 277 no. 37-142, figs 236-37 (decoration). Easton 2002, 108 no. 72-121, fig. 133 (decoration). Blegen et al. 1953, 367 no. 37-361, fig. 307 (shape). Easton 2002, 130 no. 72-316/plausible, fig. 139 (decoration). Op. cit., 183 no. 72-1091/plausible, fig. 155 (decoration).

81. AS 1970, 1755a/3. H. 2.7 cm. D. 4.3 cm. Wt 41.24 g. D. of perforation: 1.0 cm upper end, 0.65 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, few silver mica seeds ≤ 0.03 cm, few white limestone aplastics ≤ 0.3 cm, greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2), changing. The surface even, smooth, but the lower undecorated side slightly uneven due to fi nger impressions, matt. Truncated bi-conical shape, the ridge at the centre, the shallow cavity on the upper end, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. On the shoulder five incised sets of triple arcs of unequal sizes and a circle aovoid the cavity, visible lines upon the fi ngerprints; there are also two little

82. MN A273, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.4 cm. D. 4.9 cm. Wt 50.77 g. D. of perforation: 1.1 cm upper end, 1.0 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, a lot of silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, few other grey aplastics ≤ 0.1cm, grey (2.5Y 5/1), changing. The surface even, smooth, matt. Very truncated bi-conical shape, the ridge at the centre, on the upper end a large ovoid cavity somewhat offcentre, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. On the shoulder incised circle aovoid cavity and four sets of four flattened and parallel arcs. Lower side broken off in many spots. All edges worn. The edge of the lower end of the perforation broken off at one spot (L. 0.15 cm, Dp. 0.25 cm).

hollows made by fallen out aplastics. The lower end slightly broken off at one spot (L. 0.4 cm, Dp. 0.2 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 210 nos 4633-4645 (ninety-three decorated duplicates), 334 (twentyfour institutions). Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 207 nos 43994401 (variant of form E1); Blegen et al. 1950, 353 no. 35-340, 362 no. 35-204, fig. 366 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 48 no. 33-172, figs 54, 57 (shape); Griesa 1992b, 59 no. 111 (decoration); Easton 2002, 152 no. 72-866, fig. 143, 184 no. 72-1040, fig. 155 (decoration). Type and function: 171039, for hand spinning.

Mentioned: Kubczak (ed.) 1983, 96-97, 99 no. 325; Szymkiewicz 1984, 39; Szymkiewicz 1990, 117 fig. 4, 119; Szymkiewicz 1991, 29, pl. 4B. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 45 no. 6, 46 fig. 6 no. 5, 48 fig. 7 no. 3. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 43434359 (form D4b), 208 nos 4496-4503 (186 decorated duplicates, but none for Poznań), 334 (twenty-four institutions); Blegen et al. 1950, 139 no. 33-264, fig. 222, 320 no. 37-99, fig. 366 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 55 no. 34-247, 73 no. 35-25, fig. 57 (shape), 254 no. 35-499, figs 236-37 (decoration), 280-81 no. 32-71, fig. 237 (shape); Easton 2002, 230 no. 73-243, fig. 169 (decoration). Type and function: 171045, for hand spinning.

Dating: Troy IIg1040, IIIb, d1041, VI1042, VIIa-VIIb1 and earlier (?)1043, I-VIII.1044

1039 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1040 Op. cit., 353 no. 35-340, 362 no. 35-204, fig. 366 (shape). 1041 Blegen et al. 1951, 48 no. 33-172, figs 54, 57 (shape). 1042 Easton 2002, 184 no. 72-1040, fig. 155 (decoration). 1043 Op. cit., 152 no. 72-866/plausible, fig. 143 (decoration). 1044 Griesa 1992b, 59 no. 111 (decoration).

Dating: Troy Ie1046, IIf1047, IIIa-b, Late III1048, IVV(?)1049, Va, V2.1050 1045 1046 1047 1048

Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 139 no. 33-264, fig. 222 (shape). Op. cit., 320 no. 37-99, fig. 366 (shape). Blegen et al. 1951, 55 no. 34-247, 73 no. 35-25, fig. 57 (shape). 1049 Easton 2002, 230 no. 73-243/plausible, fig. 169 (decoration). 1050 Blegen et al. 1951, 254 no. 35-499, figs 236-37 (decoration), 280-81 no. 32-71, fig. 237 (shape).

130

83. MN A276, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 1.6 cm. D. 2.8 cm. Wt 8.48 g. D. of perforation: 0.9 cm upper end, 0.8 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact well levigated, some light grey aplastics ≤ 0.15 cm, light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2), changing. The surface smooth, but uneven, partly slightly shining, coat greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2) on the upper side and only fragmentarily preserved on the lower one, inlay pink (5YR 8/3). Truncated and flattened conical shape with the ridge above the centre, a ovoid large cavity on the upper end, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. On the shoulder four impressed sets of two irregular chevrons with

c-d1054, V1, V3, Vb.1055

poorly preserved inlay. The lower edge slightly worn and broken off. Mentioned: Kubczak (ed.) 1983, 96-97, 100 no. 329; Szymkiewicz 1984, 39; Szymkiewicz 1990, 117 fig. 4, 119; Szymkiewicz 1991, 29, pl. 4B. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 46 no. 9 and fig. 6 no. 3, 48 fig. 7 no. 2. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 43434359 (form D4b), 208-209 nos 4521-4527 (fiftyeight decorated duplicates, but none for Poznań), 334 (twenty-four institutions); Blegen et al. 1950, 283 no. 36-423, 316 no. 37-654, 338 no. 35-26, fig. 367 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 49 nos 33296, 33-298, figs 54, 58 (shape), 73 no. 33-283, fig. 54 (decoration), 89 no. 34-526, 91 no. 37-234, fig. 58, 153 no. 33-39, 156 no. 33-142, 159-60 no. 33-88, 187 no. 32-318, 199 no. 37-179, fig. 153, 259 no. 35-487, 268 no. 32-292, figs 236-37, 289 no. 32-175, fig. 237 (shape). Type and function: 231051, for hand spinning.

edges slightly worn and the middle one broken off at one spot (L. 0.45 cm, Dp. 0.15 cm). Mentioned: Kubczak (ed.) 1983, 96-97, 99 no. 327; Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 46 no. 7 and fig. 6 no. 1, 48 fig. 7 no. 4. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pls 5 nos 135, 94 no. 1990 (decoration); Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4343-4359 (form D4b), 209 nos 4565-4580 (sixty decorated duplicates, but none for Poznań), 334 (twenty-four institutions); Blegen et al. 1950, 168 no. 33-116, fig. 222 (shape), 283 no. 36-409, figs 367-68 (decoration), 360 no. 35-279, 369 no. 37-607, fig. 367 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 49 no. 33-221, figs 54, 58 (shape, decoration), 58 no. 34-239, fig. 57, 85 no. 34291, fig. 58 (decoration), 89 no. 34-526, fig. 58, 141 no. 37-692, figs 151, 153 (shape), 159 no. 33-83, figs 15152 (decoration), 160 no. 33-106, 161 no. 33-168, fig. 153, 172 no. 37-587, fig. 151 (shape), 179 no. 37-9, fig. 153, 182 no. 37-17, fig. 151 (decoration), 195 no. 36-

84. MN A274, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.1 cm. D. 3.7 cm. Wt 26.95 g. D. of perforation: 0.5 cm. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, some grey aplastics ≤ 0.4 cm, reddish brown (5YR 5/4). The surface even, smooth, the upper side slightly shining and the undecorated one very lumpy, slip on both sides brown (7.5YR 5/4), but better preserved on the upper one. Truncated bi-conical shape with the ridge above the centre and a ovoid cavity on the upper end. Three incised sets of very flattened and parallel triple arcs on the shoulder. Decorated surface slightly broken off. The upper and lower

Dating: Troy IId, f-g1052, Early III, IIIa, c-d1053, IVa,

no. 34-526, 91 no. 37-234, fig. 58 (shape). 1054 Op. cit., 153 no. 33-39, 156 no. 33-142, 159-60 no. 33-88, 187 no. 32-318, 199 no. 37-179, fig. 153 (shape). 1055 Op. cit., 259 no. 35-487, 268 no. 32-292, figs 23637, 289 no. 32-175, fig. 237 (shape).

1051 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1052 Op. cit., 283 no. 36-423, 316 no. 37-654, 338 no. 35-26, fig. 367 (shape). 1053 Blegen et al. 1951, 49 nos 33-296, 33-298, figs 54, 58 (shape), 73 no. 33-283, fig. 54 (decoration), 89

131

364, 199 no. 37-179, fig. 153, 254 no. 37-16, fig. 237, 259 no. 35-529, figs 237-36, 274 no. 35-193, fig. 236, 286 no. 33-34, fig. 237 (shape); Blegen et al. 1953, 183 no. 34-345, figs 296, 308 (shape); Easton 2002, 131 no. 72-3711056, fig. 140, 158 no. 72-528, fig. 147, 169 no. 72-1017, fig. 151, 184 no. 72-1061, fig. 155, 203 no. 72-16881057, fig. 164, 206 no. 72-1624, fig. 165 (decoration). Type and function: 231058, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy Ij1059, IId, g1060, II (?)1061, IIIa-b, d1062, IVad1063, IV (?)1064, V1, Va-d1065, Middle VI1066, VI (?).1067 85. AS 1970, 1755a/2. H. 1.5 cm. D. 2.7 cm. Wt 7.84 g. D. of perforation: 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061

1062

1063

1064 1065

1066 1067

No cavity on the patterned side. No cavity on the patterned side. Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 168 no. 33-116, fig. 222 (shape). Op. cit., 283 no. 36-409, figs 367-68 (decoration), 360 no. 35-279, 369 no. 37-607, fig. 367 (shape). Plausibly from Troy II – Easton 2002, 158 no. 72528, fig. 147, 203 no. 72-1688, fig. 164, 206 no. 721624, fig. 165 (decoration). Blegen et al. 1951, 49 nos 33-221, figs 54, 58 (shape, decoration), 33-175, fig. 57 (shape), 58 no. 34-239, fig. 57 (decoration), 85 no. 34-291, fig. 58 (shape, decoration), 89 no. 34-526, fig. 58 (shape). Op. cit., 141 no. 37-692, figs 151, 153 (shape), 159 no. 33-83, figs 151-52 (decoration), 160 no. 33106, 161 no. 33-168, fig. 153 (shape), 164 no. 3728 fig. 153 (decoration), 172 no. 37-587, fig. 151 (shape), 179 no. 37-9, fig. 153, 182 no. 37-17, fig. 151 (decoration), 195 no. 36-364, 199 no. 37-179, fig. 153 (shape). Plausibly from Troy IV – Easton 2002, 131 no. 72371, fig. 140, 169 no. 72-1017, fig. 151 (decoration). Blegen et al. 1951, 254 no. 37-16, fig. 237, 259 no. 35-529, fig. 237-36, 274 no. 35-193, fig. 236, 286 no. 33-34, fig. 237 (shape). Blegen et al. 1953, 183 no. 34-345, figs 296, 308 (shape). Easton 2002, 184 no. 72-1061/plausible, fig. 155 (decoration).

0.85 cm upper end, 0.6 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated, a few silver mica seeds ≤ 0.03 cm, pale brown (10YR 6/3). The surface even, smooth, matt, but the lower undecorated side slightly uneven due to finger impressions. Truncated and very flattened bi-conical shape with the ridge above the centre, on the upper end a large ovoid cavity, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. Well preserved incised ovoid circle at the top and four very flattened bows – two with five, one with six and one with ten pricked short lines, which divide the shoulder into four panels, each decorated with a little pricked concavity; the entire pattern filled with well preserved pale brown inlay (10YR 8/2). The lower part close to the perforation broken off at one spot (L. 0.75 cm, Dp. 0.25 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 208 nos 4496-4520 (217 decorated duplicates), 334 (twenty-four institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 45. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 205 nos 4214-4222 (variant of form C5); Blegen et al. 1950, 283 no. 36409, figs 367-68, 333 no. 35-230, 360 no. 35-219, fig. 367 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 49 nos 33-298, 33-221, 89 no. 34-526, figs 54, 58, 159-60 no. 33-88, 187 no. 32318, fig. 153, 286 no. 33-34, fig. 237 (shape); Blegen et al. 1953, 189 no. 34-385, figs 296, 308 (shape). Type and function: 231068, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IId, g1069, IIIa, d1070, IVa, c1071, Vd1072, Middle VI.1073

1068 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1069 Op. cit., 283 no. 36-409, figs 367-68, 333 no. 35230, 360 no. 35-219, fig. 367 (shape). 1070 Blegen et al. 1951, 49 nos 33-298, 33-221, 89 no. 34-526, figs 54, 58 (shape). 1071 Op. cit., 159-60 no. 33-88, 187 no. 32-318, fig. 153 (shape). 1072 Op. cit., 286 no. 33-34, fig. 237 (shape). 1073 Blegen et al. 1953, 189 no. 34-385, figs 296, 308 (shape).

132

86. AS 1970, 1755a/4. H. 2.4 cm. D. c. 4.2 cm. Wt 18.80 g + c. 18.80 g of the missing fragment. D. of perforation: 0.8 cm upper end, 0.65 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, a lot of silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.025 cm, grey (2.5Y 6/1). The core same as fabric, but without mica, dark grey (5Y 4/1). The surface even, very smooth, slightly shining, visible burnishing marks, coat dark grey (2.5Y 4/1); the lower undecorated side uneven due to finger impressions. Truncated bi-conical shape, the ridge above the centre, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. On the shoulder incised motif of possible eight-arm double-line star filled with very

0.95 cm upper end, 0.85 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, some gold and silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, a lot of other grey and brown aplastics ≤ 0.35 cm, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4). The surface even, smooth, but the lower undecorated side uneven due to finger impressions, matt. Truncated bi-conical form with the ridge above the centre, a ovoid cavity on the upper end, the perforation slightly off-centre and tapering to the middle of the object, and then widening toward to the lower end. On the shoulder four incised groups of chevrons: three double and one triple with three impressed dots in between; well preserved remains of pale brown inlay (10YR 8/2). Visible wear marks

pale brown inlay (10YR 8/2). Wear marks partly visible on the upper extreme edge. Nearly half of the item missing. Mentioned: Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 72. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 207 nos 43994401 (variant of form E1), 212 nos 4796-4798, 4802 (decoration); Blegen et al. 1950, 353 no. 35-342, fig. 366 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 156 no. 33-79, fig. 152 (shape); Blegen et al. 1953, 213 no. 37-653, 308 no. 35-86, figs 296, 307 (shape); Easton 2002, 188 no. 72-1250, fig. 157, 197 no. 72-14121074, fig. 160

on all extreme edges. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 209 nos 4528-4534 (forty-three decorated duplicates), 334 (twentyfour institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 6 no. 56, 7 fig. 3 lower one. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 204 nos 41424150 (variant of form A3); Blegen et al. 1950, 306 no. 36-251, 333 no. 35-230, fig. 367 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 91 no. 37-234, fig. 58, 160 no. 33-102, fig. 153, 268-69 no. 32-314, fig. 237, 286 no. 33-34, fig. 237 (shape). Type and function: squat variant of 231080, for hand

(decoration). Type and function: 161075, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIg1076, IVa1077, IV (?)1078, MiddleLate VI.1079

spinning. Dating: Troy IIf-g1081, IIId, Early III1082, IVa1083, Va-b, d, V1.1084

87. AS 1970, 1755a/1. H. 2.3 cm. D. 4.8 cm. Wt 45.60 g. D. of perforation: 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078

The patterned side with the cavity. Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 353 no. 35-342, fig. 366 (shape). Blegen et al. 1951, 156 no. 33-79, fig. 152 (shape). Easton 2002, 188 no. 72-1250/plausible, fig. 157, 197 no. 72-1412/plausible, fig. 160 (decoration). 1079 Blegen et al. 1953, 213 no. 37-653, 308 no. 35-86, figs 296, 307 (shape).

88. MN A278, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.2 cm. D. 4.2 cm. Wt 34.23 g. D. of perforation: 0.65 cm upper end, 0.55 cm lower end. Handmade. 1080 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1081 Op. cit., 306 no. 36-251, 333 no. 35-230, fig. 367 (shape). 1082 Blegen et al. 1951, 91 no. 37-234, fig. 58 (shape). 1083 Op. cit., 160 no. 33-102, fig. 153 (shape). 1084 Op. cit., 254 no. 37-16, 259 no. 35-529, 268 nos 32198, 32-314, 286 no. 33-34, figs 236-37 (shape).

133

Fabric hard, compact, a lot of silver and a few gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.2 cm, some grey aplastics ≤ 0.5 cm, brown (7.5YR 4/3), changing. The surface even, smooth, but the lower undecorated side slightly lumpy, matt. Very truncated, bi-conical form with the ridge at the centre, a ovoid cavity on the upper end, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. On the shoulder four impressed sets of two irregular chevrons with four impressed dots in between. Mentioned: Kubczak (ed.) 1983, 96-97, 99 no. 326; Szymkiewicz 1984, 39; Szymkiewicz 1990, 117 fig. 4, 119; Szymkiewicz 1991, 29, pl. 4B. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 46 no. 10 and fig. 6 no. 4, 48 fig. 7 no. 5.

preserved light olive brown coat (2.5Y 5/3) on the undecorated side; the lower undecorated side uneven due to finger impressions. Truncated and flattened conical shape with the ridge above the centre, a large ovoid cavity on the upper end, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. On the shoulder two almost invisible incised circles with ten impressed dots in between. Inside of these several dots preserved light brown inlay impossible to define with Munsell. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 217 nos 5140-5143 (250 decorated duplicates), 334 (twenty-four institutions). Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 204 nos 41424150 (variant of form A3); Blegen et al. 1950, 283

Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pl. 1 no. 4 (decoration); Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 43434359 (form D4b), 209 nos 4528-4534 (forty-three decorated duplicates, but none for Poznań), 334 (twenty-four institutions); Blegen et al. 1950, 139 no. 33-264, fig. 222 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 49 nos 33-162, 33-298, figs 54, 58 (decoration), 73 no. 33-195, figs 54, 58 (shape, but as type 23), 274 no. 35-145, figs 236-37 (shape). Type and function: 171085, for hand spinning.

no. 36-423, fig. 367, 344 no. 35-206, figs 367-68 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 49 no. 33-299, figs 54, 58, 187 no. 32-318, fig. 153, 292 no. 35-129, figs 23637 (shape); Blegen et al. 1953, 173 no. 32-180, figs 296, 308 (shape); Easton 2002, 211 no. 72-1927, fig. 167 (decoration, but twenty-four dots). Type and function: 231089, for hand spinning.

Dating and function: Troy Ie1086, IIId1087, Vc.1088

90. AS 1970, 1755a/5. H. 2.5 cm. D. 4.2 cm. Wt > 33.20 g. D. of perforation: 0.75 cm upper end, 0.7 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated, a very few silver mica particles (size difficult to

89. AS 1982, 751/1. H. 1.5 cm. D. 2.8 cm. Wt 9.10 g. D. of perforation: 0.55 cm upper end, 0.5 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.025 cm, light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3). The surface even, smooth, nearly totally worn, but where preserved slightly shining, i.e. at the cavity and on the undecorated side, very fragmentarily 1085 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1086 Op. cit., 139 no. 33-264, fig. 222 (shape). 1087 Blegen et al. 1951, 49 nos 33-162, 33-298 figs 54, 58 (decoration), 73 no. 33-195, figs 54, 58 (shape, but as type 23). 1088 Op. cit., 274 no. 35-145, figs 236-37 (shape).

Dating: Troy IId, g1090, II1091, IIId1092, IVc1093, V1094, Early VI.1095

1089 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1090 Op. cit., 283 no. 36-423, fig. 367, 344 no. 35-206, figs 367-68 (shape). 1091 Easton 2002, 211 no. 72-1927, fig. 167 (decoration, but twenty-four dots). 1092 Blegen et al. 1951, 49 no. 33-299, figs 54, 58 (shape). 1093 Op. cit., 187 no. 32-318, fig. 153 (shape). 1094 Op. cit., 292 no. 35-129, figs 236-37 (shape). 1095 Blegen et al. 1953, 173 no. 32-180, figs 296, 308 (shape).

134

estimate), light grey (2.5Y 7/2). The core same as fabric, break irregular. The surface even, smooth, matt, from light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) to dark grey (2.5Y 4/1), the cavity light red (2.5YR 6/6), changing; the lower undecorated side uneven due to finger impressions. Truncated bi-conical form with the ridge above the centre, deep, large and ovoid cavity on the upper end, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. Impressed zigzag motif on the shoulder’s edge. One side extensively broken off. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 43094333 (variant of form D3), 221 nos 5394-5396 (“Kelchform”); Blegen et al. 1950, 369 no. 37-467, fig. 367 (shape).

Type and function: 211098, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIg1099, V11100, Late VI.1101

Type and function: squat variant of 231096, for hand

tapering toward the lower end. The lower edge somewhat broken off. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4343-4359 (form D4b; 140 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 47 no. 18, 48 fig. 7 no. 8. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 338 no. 35513, fig. 367 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 292 no. 35129, figs 236-37 (shape). Type and function: variant of 231102, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIg1103, V.1104

spinning. Dating: Troy IIg.1097 91. MN A285, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.8 cm. D. 3.7 cm. Wt 34.82 g. D. of perforation: 0.8 cm upper end, 0.7 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, a lot of gold and silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.5 cm, light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2). The surface uneven, but smooth, on the upper side preserved very thin light brownish grey slip (10YR 6/2), matt. Truncated bi-conical form, the ridge above the centre, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The lower edge worn. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4292-4308 (form D2b; 120 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 47 no. 17, 48 fig. 7 no. 14. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 326 no. 35229, fig. 366 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 268 no. 32294, figs 236-37 (shape); Blegen et al. 1953, 236 no. 36-218, fig. 307 (shape). 1096 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1097 Op. cit., 369 no. 37-467, pl. 367 (shape).

135

92. MN A286, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 1.8 cm. D. 3.4 cm. Wt 21.06 g. D. of perforation: 0.8 cm upper end, 0.7 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, very well levigated, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2). The surface even, but somewhat gritty (originally slipped and very smooth), slightly shining at the cavity with partly preserved very thin light yellowish brown slip (2.5Y 6/3). Truncated conical shape with the ridge above the centre, a ovoid cavity on the upper end, the perforation

93. MN A289, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.0 cm. D. 3.3 cm. Wt 19.32 g. D. of perforation: 0.8 cm upper end, 0.7 cm lower end. Handmade. 1098 Op. cit., 29, fig. 128. 1099 Op. cit., 326 no. 35-229, fig. 366 (shape). 1100 Blegen et al. 1951, 268 no. 32-294, figs 236-37 (shape). 1101 Blegen et al. 1953, 236 no. 36-218, fig. 307 (shape). 1102 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1103 Op. cit., 338 no. 35-513, fig. 367 (shape). 1104 Blegen et al. 1951, 292 no. 35-129, figs 236-37 (shape).

Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, a few silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, pale brown (10YR 6/3), changing. The surface even, but slightly gritty, poorly preserved very thin greyish brown slip (10YR 5/2), matt. Truncated and flattened biconical form with the ridge above the centre, a ovoid cavity on the upper end pass offset in the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The upper edge somewhat worn. The lower edge broken off at one spot (L. 0.7 cm, Dp. 0.25 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4343-4359 (form D4b; 140 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 47 no. 21, 48 fig.

fig. 368 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 61 no. 33-166, fig. 57, 91 no. 37-235, fig. 54, 153 no. 33-53, fig. 152, 268 no. 32-297, fig. 237 (shape); Blegen et al. 1958, 290 no. 36-64, fig. 289 (shape). Type and function: 161109, for hand spinning.

7 no. 22, 49. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 338 no. 35513, fig. 367 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 153 no. 3339, fig. 153, 292 no. 35-129, figs 236-37 (shape). Type and function: 231105, for hand spinning.

brown (10YR 7/3), changing. The surface uneven due to finger impressions and slightly gritty, matt. A half-spherical form with two very small depressions on the shoulder. The lower edge broken off at one spot (L. 0.5 cm, Dp. 0.015 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 204 nos 4103-4111 (form A; forty-three duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions). Type and function: squatted variant of 41115, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy Late I1116, IIg1117, III1118, IVa, d1119, Late VI1120, VIIb, VIIb1.1121

Dating: Troy IIg1106, IVa1107, V.1108 94. MN A293, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 1.6 cm. D. 2.6 cm. Wt 9.90 g. D. of perforation: 0.5 cm. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, very well levigated, dark grey (2.5Y 4/1). The surface even, very smooth, slightly shining, pale brown coat – perhaps very thin slip (10YR 6/3) only partly preserved on both sides. Truncated bi-conical form with the ridge at the centre. The lower edge somewhat worn. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4292-4308 (form D2b; 120 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 48 fig. 7 no. 10, 49 no. 25. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 298 no. 37-1, 1105 1106 1107 1108

Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 338 no. 35-513, fig. 367 (shape). Blegen et al. 1951, 153 no. 33-39, fig. 153 (shape). Op. cit., 292 no. 35-129, figs 236-37 (shape).

Dating: IId, f, g1110, IIId, Middle III1111, IVa,1112 V11113, VIII.1114 2.2. Undecorated 95. AS 1970, 1755b/3. H. 1.9 cm. D. 3.8 cm. Wt 24.97 g. D. of perforation: 0.75 cm. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, some gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, very pale

1109 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1110 Op. cit., 298 no. 37-1, fig. 368 (shape). 1111 Blegen et al. 1951, 61 no. 33-166, fig. 57, 91 no. 37235, fig. 54 (shape). 1112 Op. cit., 153 no. 33-53, fig. 152 (shape). 1113 Op. cit., 268 no. 32-297, fig. 237 (shape). 1114 Blegen et al. 1958, 290 no. 36-64, fig. 289 (shape). 1115 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1116 Op. cit., 49 table 5. 1117 Op. cit., 217 table 11. 1118 Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. 1119 Op. cit., 117 table 13. 1120 Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. 1121 Blegen et al. 1958, 153 table 17.

136

96. MN A280, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.6 cm. D. 3.6 cm. Wt 43.35 g. D. of perforation: 1.1 cm upper end, 0.9 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, some gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.35 cm, from brown (10YR 5/3) to dark grey (2.5Y 4/1), changing. The surface uneven, but smooth, matt. A half-spherical form truncated in the lower part, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The lower edge worn. Upper edge broken off at two spots. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 204 nos 4103-4111 (form A; forty-three duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39; Szymkiewicz 1990, 117 fig. 4, 119; Szymkiewicz 1991, 29,

(variant of form C5; 175 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 8 no. 84. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 337 no. 35273, fig. 366 (shape). Type and function: 111126, for hand spinning.

pl. 4B. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 47 no. 13, 48 fig. 7 no. 7. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 368 no. 37240, pl. 368 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 195 no. 36362, fig. 151 (shape); Blegen et al. 1953, 233 no. 36120, fig. 306 (shape, but as type 1). Type and function: 41122, for hand spinning.

centre, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The upper edge partly worn. The extreme edge slightly and the lower one broken off at one spot (L. 0.4 cm, Dp. 0.15 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4292-4308 (form D2b; 120 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 47 no. 16, 48 fig. 7 no. 19. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 368 no. 37665, fig. 366 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 61 no. 33167, fig. 57, 172 no. 37-546, fig. 151, 289 no. 32-73, fig. 237 (shape). Type and function: variant of 151128, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIg1129, IIId1130, IVb1131, V3.1132

Dating: Troy IIg1123, IVd1124, Late VI.1125 97. AS 1970, 1755b/2. H. 2.5 cm. D. 4.3 cm. Wt 32.67 g. D. of perforation: 1.05 cm upper end, 0.9 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, very well levigated, light brown (7.5YR 6/3). The surface even, very smooth, matt. Truncated conical form with a large and very deep ovoid cavity on the upper end, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The top of the upper part cracked at one spot and the lower edge broken off at one spot (L. 0.4 cm, Dp. 0.1 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 205 nos 4214-4222 1122 1123 1124 1125

Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 368 no. 37-240, fig. 368 (shape). Blegen et al. 1951, 195 no. 36-362, fig. 151 (shape). Blegen et al. 1953, 233 no. 36-120, fig. 306 (shape, but as type 1).

Dating: Troy IIg.1127 98. MN A284, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.3 cm. D. 3.6 cm. Wt 24.64 g. D. of perforation: 1.0 cm upper end, 0.75 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, very well levigated, a few silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, light grey (5Y 7/2). The surface even, but slightly gritty, matt. Truncated bi-conical form with the ridge above the

99. MN A288, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.4 cm. D. 3.5 cm. Wt 22.00 g. D. of perforation: 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132

137

Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 337 no. 35-273, fig. 366 (shape). Op. cit., 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 368-69 no. 37-665, fig. 366 (shape). Blegen et al. 1951, 61 no. 33-167, fig. 57 (shape). Op. cit., 172 no. 37-546, fig. 151 (shape). Op. cit., 289 no. 32-73, fig. 237 (shape).

0.9 cm upper and 0.65 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, very well levigated, grey (5Y 5/1), changing. The surface smooth and even, but on the lower side slightly lumpy, matt. Truncated biconical shape, the ridge at the centre, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The upper edge worn. The lower edge broken off at one spot (L. 0.8 cm, Dp. 0.2 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4292-4308 (form D2b; 120 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 47 no. 20, 48 fig. 7 no. 9. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 61 no. 33-167, fig. 57, 172 no. 37-546, fig. 151, 187 no. 32-368, fig. 152 (shape), 289 no. 32-73, fig. 237 (shape). Type and function: 151133, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIId1134, IVb-c1135, V1, V3.1136 100. MN A290, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.6 cm. D. 4.1 cm. Wt 37.08 g. D. of perforation: 0.8 cm. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, grey (2.5Y 6/1), changing and covered with a green patina. The surface slightly lumpy, gritty, matt. Irregular, streamlined and truncated biconical form with the ridge at the centre. The lower edge broken off at one spot (L. 0.7 cm, Dp. 0.25 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4292-4308 (form D2b; 120 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 48 fig. 7 no. 21, 49 no. 22. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 48 no. 33-177, fig. 57, 280 no. 32-72, figs 236-37 (shape).

1133 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1134 Blegen et al. 1951, 61 no. 33-167, fig. 57 (shape). 1135 Op. cit., 172 no. 37-546, fig. 151, 187 no. 32-368, fig. 152 (shape). 1136 Op. cit., 289 no. 32-73, fig. 237 (shape).

Type and function: 161137, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIId1138, V2.1139 101. MN A295, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 1.7 cm. D. 2.6 cm. Wt 11.06 g. D. of perforation: 0.5 cm. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, a lot of silver and a few gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, grey (5Y 5/1). The surface even, but slightly gritty, matt. Truncated bi-conical form with the ridge at the centre. The upper side broken off at two spots. The lower edge broken off at one spot (L. 0.25 cm, Dp. 0.1 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4292-4308 (form D2b; 120 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 48 fig. 7 no. 11, 49 no. 27. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 259 no. 37111, fig. 368, 352 no. 35-268, 362 no. 35-205, fig. 366 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 159 no. 33-103, fig. 152 (shape). Type and function: 151140, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIb, g1141, IVa.1142 102. AS 1970, 1755b/1. H. 2.5 cm. D. 4.6 cm. Wt 37.07 g. D. of perforation: 0.9 cm upper end, 0.75 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated, very few silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.025 cm, some other grey aplastics ≤ 0.05 cm, crudely made, light brown (7.5YR 6/4). The core same as fabric. The surface smooth, but uneven and lumpy, matt. Truncated and very flattened bi-conical form with the ridge at the 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141

Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Blegen et al. 1951, 48 no. 33-177, fig. 57 (shape). Op. cit., 280 no. 32-72, figs 236-37 (shape). Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 259 no. 37-111, fig. 368, 352 no. 35-268, 362 no. 35-205, fig. 366 (shape). 1142 Blegen et al. 1951, 159 no. 33-103, fig. 152 (shape).

138

centre, the perforation slightly off-centre and tapering toward the lower end. Wear marks visible on the edges of the upper and lower end of the perforation. The ridge somewhat broken off at several spots, as well as one spot close to the lower edge. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 207 nos 4390-4397 (form E; thirty duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Zahlhaas 1978, 7 fig. 3 upper one. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 353 no. 35-342, fig. 366 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 189 no. 32-367, figs 151-52 (shape), 277 no. 35-457, figs 236-37 (shape). Type and function: 16, for hand spinning.1143 Dating: Troy IIg1144, IVc1145, Vc.1146 103. AS 1982, 751/3. H. 3.2 cm. D. 4.5 cm. Wt 59.60 g. D. of perforation: 0.95 cm upper end, 0.8 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, a lot of silver and gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.3 cm and other grey aplastics ≤ 0.2 cm, greyish brown (2.5Y 5/2), changing. The surface smooth, but slightly uneven due to finger impressions also visible on the most extreme edge of the item, matt. Truncated bi-conical form with the ridge at the centre, slightly marked ovoid cavity on the upper end and the perforation tapering toward the lower end. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 207 nos 4360-4363 (variant of form D5a; thirty-one duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions). Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 353 no. 35267, fig. 366 (shape). Type and function: 171147, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIg.1148 1143 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1144 Op. cit., 353 no. 35-342, fig. 366 (shape). 1145 Blegen et al. 1951, 189 no. 32-367, figs 151-52 (shape). 1146 Op. cit., 277 no. 35-457, figs 236-37 (shape). 1147 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1148 Op. cit., 353 no. 35-267, fig. 366 (shape).

104. MN A292, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.3 cm. D. 3.0 cm. Wt 20.39 g. D. of perforation: 0.7 cm upper end, 0.6 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, some grey aplastics ≤ 0.1 cm, reddish yellow (7.5Y 6/8), changing. The surface even and smooth, matt. Ovoid shape, truncated at both upper and lower ends, the ovoid cavity on the upper end, the perforation slightly off-centre and tapering toward the lower end. The upper and lower edges very worn, but the latter more. Mentioned: Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 48 fig. 7 no. 6, 49 no. 24. Analogous objects: Schmidt 1902, 205 no. 4168 (form B3; no. duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions). Type and function: variant of 171149, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy Ie1150, IIc-d, f-g1151, Middle III1152, IVa1153, V1154, VI1155, VIIa.1156 105. MN A291, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 1.9 cm. D. 3.6 cm. Wt 24.03 g. D. of perforation: 0.9 cm upper end, 0.8 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, brown (7.5Y 5/2). The surface even, smooth and matt. Truncated and very flattened bi-conical form with the ridge at the centre, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The lower edge slightly worn. Broken off in several spots on the surface and the middle edge. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 207 nos 4399-4401 (form E1; thirty duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156

139

Op. cit., 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 49 table 5, 50, 217. Op. cit., 217 table 11. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. Op. cit., 117 table 13. Op. cit., 234 table 20. Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. Blegen et al. 1958, 18 table 8.

Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 48 fig. 7 no. 12, 49 no. 23. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1951, 49 no. 34-311, fig. 58, 316 no. 37-667, fig. 366 (shape). Type and function: 191157, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIf1158, IIIb.1159 106. AS 1970, 1755c/1. H. 3.6 cm. D. 2.7 cm. Wt 20.01 g. D. of perforation: 0.6 cm. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated, a lot of silver and a few gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, grey (2.5Y 6/1), changing. The surface same as fabric, even, but gritty, matt. The conical form tapering toward the lower end. The lower edge broken off (L. 0.6 cm, Dp. 0.2 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 205 nos 4188-4192 (variant of form C2a; twenty-six duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions). Type and function: 211160, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIc-d, g1161, IIIb1162, IVa, c1163, V1164, VI1165, VIIa1166, VIIb1167, VIII.1168 107. MN A279, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.9 cm. D. 4.2 cm. Wt 51.67 g. D. of perforation: 1.1 cm upper end, 0.9 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, few gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, some other grey aplastics ≤ 0.1cm, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6). The surface uneven, but smooth, 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168

Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Blegen et al. 1951, 316 no. 37-667, fig. 366 (shape). Op. cit., 49 no. 34-311, fig. 58 (shape). Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 217 table 11. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. Op. cit., 117 table 13. Op. cit., 234 table 20. Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. Blegen et al. 1958, 18 table 8. Op. cit., 153 table 17. Op. cit., 251, 264, 294, 297.

matt. Truncated bi-conical and flattened shape with half-spherical lower end, the ridge above the centre, the perforation slightly off the centre and tapering toward the lower end. The lower edge worn. The upper edge broken off at two spots (L. 0.7 cm, Dp. 0.3 cm; L. 0.8 cm, Dp. 0.2 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 204 nos 4112-4120 (form A1; twenty duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 47 no. 12, 48 fig. 7 no. 20. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 338 no. 3529, fig. 366 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 268 no. 32294, figs 236-37, 281 no. 32-70, fig. 237 (shape). Type and function: 211169, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIg1170, V1-2.1171 108. MN A294, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.8 cm. D. 3.2 cm. Wt 21.93 g. D. of perforation: 0.75 cm upper end, 0.7 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, very well levigated, a few gold and some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, very pale brown (10YR 7/3). The surface even, smooth and matt. Truncated, bi-conical shape with the ridge above the centre and the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The upper and extreme edges slightly worn. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4309-4333 (form D3; 117 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 48 fig. 7 no. 13, 49 no. 26. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 326 no. 35229, 330 no. 35-36, fig. 366 (shape); Blegen et al. 1169 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1170 Op. cit., 338 no. 35-29, fig. 366 (shape). 1171 Blegen et al. 1951, 268 no. 32-294, figs 236-37, 281 no. 32-70, fig. 237 (shape).

140

cavity on the upper end. The lower edge broken off at two spots (L. 0.55 cm, Dp. 0.015 cm; L. 0.3 cm, Dp. 0.1 cm). Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 205 nos 4214-4222 (variant of form C5; 175 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions). Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 333 no. 35230, fig. 367 (shape). Type and function: squat variant of 231177, for hand

1951, 164 no. 37-2, fig. 153 (shape); Blegen et al. 1953, 203 no. 33-23, fig. 307 (shape). Type and function: 211172, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIg1173, IVa.1174 109. MN A287, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.7 cm. D. 3.5 cm. Wt 29.16 g. D. of perforation: 0.95 cm upper end, 0.65 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, very well levigated, greyish brown (10YR 5/2), changing. The surface even and smooth, but lower side slightly lumpy, matt. Truncated, bi-conical shape with the ridge above the centre, deep ovoid cavity on the upper end, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The

spinning. Dating: Troy IIg.1178 111. MN A277, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 1.9 cm. D. 3.5 cm. Wt 22.39 g. D. of perforation: 0.85 cm upper end, 0.7 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, a very few silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2) with greenish patina on the lower side and some stains on the upper one. The upper side even and very smooth, but the lower one lumpy. The cavity slightly shining. Truncated bi-conical form with the ridge above the centre, a ovoid cavity on the upper end, and the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The lower edge somewhat broken off. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 204 nos 4142-4150 (form A3; twenty duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 46-47 no. 11, 48 fig. 7 no. 16. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 283 no. 36423, 344 no. 35-212, fig. 367 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 49 nos 33-296, 33-298, figs 54, 58, 153 no. 33-39, 159-60 no. 33-88, 187 no. 32-318, fig. 153 (shape). Type and function: 231179, for hand spinning.

upper edge worn and the lower one only slightly. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4343-4359 (form D4b; 140 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 47 no. 19, 48 fig. 7 no. 15. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 318 no. 3712, fig. 367 (shape, but as type 23). Type and function: 221175, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy IIf.1176 110. AS 1970, 1755b/4. H. 2.3 cm. D. 4.8 cm. Wt > 44.81 g. D. of perforation: 1.2 cm. Handmade. Fabric crumbly, very compact, a few silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.2 cm and some other brown aplastics ≤ 0.1 cm, brown (7.5YR 4/3), changing. The core same as fabric, break gritty. The surface extensively worn, uneven, gritty, matt, encrusted with limestone. Truncated and very flattened bi-conical form with a large, deep ovoid 1172 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1173 Op. cit., 326 no. 35-229, 330 no. 35-36, fig. 366 (shape). 1174 Blegen et al. 1951, 164 no. 37-2, fig. 153 (shape). 1175 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1176 Op. cit., 318 no. 37-12, fig. 367 (shape).

1177 Op. cit., 29, fig. 128. 1178 Op. cit., 333 no. 35-230, fig. 367 (shape). 1179 Op. cit., 29, fig. 128.

141

Dating: Troy IId, g1180, IIIa, d1181, IVa, c.1182

0.7 cm upper end, 0.6 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, well levigated, some silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.01 cm, greyish brown (10YR 5/2), changing. The surface uneven and slightly lumpy, but smooth, matt. Truncated bi-conical, but very streamlined shape with the ridge above the centre, a small ovoid cavity on the upper end, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The lower edge broken off at one spot (L. 0.85 cm, Dp. 0.25 cm), at the extreme ridge impressed point, cracked in the middle, mended. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 206 nos 4343-4359 (form D4b; 140 duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39.

112. MN A281, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 3.0 cm. D. 4.8 cm. Wt 61.44 g. D. of perforation: 0.9 cm upper end, 0.8 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric hard, compact, a few gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.2 cm, and a lot of other grey mineral aplastics ≤ 0.1 cm, light brownish grey (2.5Y 6/2), changing. The surface uneven and lumpy, gritty, matt. Truncated bi-conical shape with the ridge above the centre, a small ovoid cavity on the upper end, the perforation tapering toward the lower end. The middle edge heavily broken off at many spots and slightly worn. The lower one worn. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 205 nos 4185-4187 (form C1b; nine duplicates), 334 (thirty-six institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 47 no. 14, 48 fig. 7 no. 17. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 168 no. 33116, fig. 222 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 89 no. 34526, fig. 58, 199 no. 37-179, fig. 153, 289 no. 32-175, fig. 237 (shape). Type and function: 231183, for hand spinning. Dating: Troy Ij1184, IIIa1185, IVd1186, V3.1187

Published: Maliszewski 1997, 47 no. 15, 48 fig. 7 no. 18. Analogous objects: Blegen et al. 1950, 338 no. 35228, fig. 367 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 49 no. 34312, fig. 58, 160 no. 33-106, 199 no. 37-179, fig. 153, 281 no. 32-197, figs 236-37 (shape); Blegen et al. 1953, 173 no. 32-179, figs 296, 308 (shape). Type and function: 231188, for hand spinning.

113. MN A283, old inv. no. 1902.441. H. 2.3 cm. D. 3.3 cm. Wt 23.40 g. D. of perforation:

114. AS 1970, 1755c/2. D. 4.3 cm. T. 2.7 cm. Wt 37.00 g. D. of the left perforation: 0.35 cm upper end, 0.3 cm lower end. D. of the right perforation: 0.3 cm. Handmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, well levigated, some

Dating: Troy IIg1189, IIIa1190, IVa, d1191, V21192, Early VI.1193

3. Loom weights

1180 Op. cit., 283 no. 36-423, 344 no. 35-212, fig. 367 (shape). 1181 Blegen et al. 1951, 49 nos 33-296, 33-298, figs 54, 58 (shape). 1182 Op. cit., 153 no. 33-39, 159-60 no. 33-88, 187 no. 32-318, fig. 153 (shape). 1183 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1184 Op. cit., 168 no. 33-116, fig. 222 (shape). 1185 Blegen et al. 1951, 89 no. 34-526, fig. 58 (shape). 1186 Op. cit., 199 no. 37-179, fig. 153 (shape). 1187 Op. cit., 289 no. 32-175, fig. 237 (shape).

1188 1189 1190 1191

Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. Op. cit., 338 no. 35-228, fig. 367 (shape). Blegen et al. 1951, 49 no. 34-312, fig. 58 (shape). Op. cit., 160 no. 33-106, 199 no. 37-179, fig. 153 (shape). 1192 Op. cit., 281 no. 32-197, figs 236-37 (shape). 1193 Blegen et al. 1953, 173 no. 32-179, figs 296, 308 (shape).

142

silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.05 cm, reddish yellow (5YR 6/8). The surface even, but slightly gritty, matt. Ovoid, in cross-section lenticular form with two small perforations toward the upper end and 0.7 cm from the flattened edge. Several scratches and bruises on one surface and the edge. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 297 nos 8263-8268 (ten duplicates), 335 (sixteen institutions). Analogous objects: Easton 2002, 84 no. 72-820, fig. 129, 182 no. 72-1193, fig. 154 (shape); Wallrodt 2002, 188 nos 3 (fabric, shape), 4 (fabric), pls 1 no. 3, 3 nos 3-4. Type and function: ovoid lentoid, to load a warp. Dating: Troy VIII1194, VIII-IX.1195

Dating: Troy II-VI1196, VIII1197, VIII-IX.1198

115. MN A282, old inv. no. 1902.441. D. 5.4 cm. T. 3.2 cm. Wt 75.27 g. D. of perforation: 0.55 cm. Handmade. Fabric vary hard, compact, very well levigated, light grey (5Y 7/2) stained with green patina on both sides. The surface smooth, slightly uneven, matt. Ovoid, in cross-section lenticular form with two straight perforations toward the upper end and 0.5 cm from worn and very slightly flattened edge. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 297 nos 8248-8257 (thirty-two duplicates), 335 (thirty-one institutions); Szymkiewicz 1991, 29, pl. 4A. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 48 fig. 7 no. 23, 49-50 no. 30. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pls 133 no. 2652, 162 no. 3101 (shape); Easton 2002, 84 no. 72-887, fig. 129, 92 no. 72-1453, fig. 131, 182 no. 72-1157, fig. 154, 185 no. 72-1090, fig. 155 (shape); Wallrodt 2002, 189 no. 10, pl. 1 no. 10 (shape). Type and function: ovoid lentoid, to load a warp.

cm, light red (10R 6/6). The core same as fabric, break irregular. The exterior surface very smooth, matt, thin light red slip (2.5YR 6/6) partly worn. Convex and roughly ovoid item with an hourglass shape perforation. The fragment of the edge govoid. Visible crack on one side. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 223 nos 5624-5629 (114 duplicates), 334 (thirty-four institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39; Szymkiewicz 1991, 29. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 46 fig. 6 no. 7, 49 no. 28. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pl. 96 nos 2010-2020 (shape); Blegen et al. 1951, 150 no. 32-488, 171 no. 37-547, 188 no. 32-397, fig. 151 (shape), 269 nos 32-83 (shape), 32-471 (shape, ware), 281 nos 3280, 32-81, 32-82 (shape), 285 no. 33-41 (shape, ware), fig. 236; Blegen et al. 1953, 125 no. 15, fig. 352, 154 no. 9, fig. 362, 159 no. 12, fig. 366, 168 nos 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, fig. 370 (shape), 346 no. 12, fig. 400 (shape); Easton 2002, 152 no. 72-856, fig. 144 (shape).

1194 Wallrodt 2002, 188 nos 3 (fabric, shape), 4 (fabric), pls 1 no. 3, 3 nos 3-4. 1195 Easton 2002, 84 no. 72-820, fig. 129 (shape), 113, 114 no. 72-228, fig. 134 (shape), 182 no. 72-1193/ plausible, fig. 154 (shape).

1196 Op. cit., 92 no. 72-1453, fig. 131, 185 no. 72-1090/ plausible, fig. 155 (shape). 1197 Wallrodt 2002, 189 no. 10, pl. 1 no. 10 (shape). 1198 Easton 2002, 84 no. 72-887, fig. 129, 182 no. 721157/plausible, fig. 154 (shape).

4. Pierced pottery disc sherds 4.1. Fine Ware Red-Coated Ware Body sherd of perhaps open larger vessel 116. MN A296, old inv. nos 1902.441 and 5619/37. D. 6.0 cm. T. 1.2 cm. Wt 44.51 g. D. of perforation: 1.2 cm upper end, middle 0.7 cm, 1.15 cm lower end. Wheelmade. Fabric very hard, very compact, very well levigated, some gold mica inclusions ≤ 0.5

143

Type and function: flat disc, perhaps whorl for hand spinning, but other functions not excluded. Dating: Troy V1199-VI.1200 Remarks: old inv. no. 5619/37 = “Spinnwirtel. B. Durchlochte Gefässscherben” nos 5619-5637 in Schmidt 1902, 204, 223. Thickness and shape of this piece indicate rather large vessel. 4.2. Coarse Ware Unpolished Ware?

1951, 150 no. 32-488, 171 no. 37-547, 188 no. 32397, fig. 151 (shape), 269 nos 32-83, 32-471, 281 nos 32-80, 32-81, 32-82, 285 no. 33-41, fig. 236 (shape); Blegen et al. 1953, 125 no. 15, fig. 352, 154 no. 9, fig. 362, 159 no. 12, fig. 366, 168 nos 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, fig. 370 (shape), 346 no. 12, fig. 400 (shape); Easton 2002, 152 no. 72-856, fig. 144 (shape). Type and function: flat disc, whorl for hand spinning, but other functions not excluded. Dating: Troy I.1201 Remarks: old inv. no. 5619/37 = “Spinnwirtel. B. Durchlochte Gefässscherben” nos 5619-5637 in Schmidt 1902, 204, 223.

Base fragment of perhaps open smaller vessel 117. MN A297, old inv. nos 1902.441 and 5619/37. D. 6.4 cm. T. 0.7 cm. Wt 46.36 g. D. of perforation: 0.9 cm upper end, middle 0.5 cm, 0.9 cm lower end. Handmade. Fabric rather crumbly, compact, some gold and silver mica inclusions ≤ 0.15 cm, a lot of grey and brown aplastics ≤ 0.3 cm, reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6). The core same as fabric, break rough. The exterior surface smooth, but uneven and lumpy, matt. Fragment of ovoid base with an hourglass shape perforation. The interior surface worn. On the exterior side of the item at the perforation’s edge a little cut traced by the wedge used to set the disc on the spindle is visible. Mentioned: Schmidt 1902, 223 nos 5619-5623 and 5630-5637 (114 duplicates), 334 (thirty-four institutions); Szymkiewicz 1984, 39; Szymkiewicz 1991, 29. Published: Maliszewski 1997, 46 fig. 6 no. 6, 49 no. 29. Analogous objects: Schliemann 1874b, pl. 96 nos 2010-2020 (shape); Blegen et al. 1950, 96 nos 25, 26, fig. 237, 105 no. 9, fig. 242, 114 nos 33-157, 33160, 143 no. 33-151, fig. 221 (shape); Blegen et al. 1199 Blegen et al. 1951, 235-36 (ware). 1200 Blegen et al. 1953, 34-35 (ware).

1201 Blegen et al. 1950, 56 (ware).

144

145

146

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

1. Pottery 1.1. Fabrics Due to the preponderance of closed forms and complete preservation of vessels achieved by the enormous restoration works, observations were limited almost exclusively to the exterior surface, sometimes to the interior one, and only in some cases was the core partly accessible.1202 Diagnostic macroscopic features of fabrics were attained through scrutiny with a hand lens. Despite this, their regularity or even homogeneity can be seen in the overlap of clay matrices in different wares. This indicates that the clay is derived from the same or very close bed/s. In fact, earlier petrographic as well as recent chemical and isotope geochemical analysis indicates that potters used two chemically and mineralogically distinct clay sources. Moreover, the most recent investigations distinguished four groups (A-D) of different chemical composition within the local fine Trojan pottery. In light of these determinations the clay derives from the Dümrek valley sediment deposit and from another one deposited in the flood-plain of the Karamenderes river. Within the latter area there has also been indicated a source of clay in the vicinity of the village of Akköy and another one to the east, close to the locality of Çan.1203 In regard 1202 For more detailed descriptions of the belowmentioned fabrics and wares see Blegen et al. 1950, 51-56, 219-24; Blegen et al. 1951, 18-22, 117-21, 235-37; Blegen et al. 1953, 33-38; Blegen et al. 1958, 19-24, 154-59; Hertel 1991b, 59-60, 62; Knacke-Loy 1994, 54-71; Frirdich 1997, 121-27; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 290-92. 1203 Felts 1942, 242; Allen 1992, 207-208; KnackeLoy 1994, 140; Knacke-Loy et al. 1995, 146; Satır,

to the present topic, the achieved results are useful since at the more detailed level they indicate that for production of Plain (Troy II-VI), Red-Coated (Troy II-V) and Anatolian Grey (Troy VI-VII) Wares clay from both mentioned sediment deposits was used. On the other hand, to a separate chemical group belongs Nubbly Ware (Troy II-V), perhaps linked with the area to the south of Troy.1204 Summing up, exploitation of these clay deposits is obvious since Troy is located at the junction of the Dümrek and Karamenderes rivers. According to examination mainly of the artefacts’ surfaces the most common features of fabrics in almost all wares are basically the same hardness and compactness, good levigation, as well as content of a natural component of clay, i.e. gold and silver mica. The amount and size of gold particles varies from a very few to a lot and from ≤ 0.025 to 0.2 cm. For silver ones, the situation is similar, but the maximum size of inclusions is 0.1 cm. Also, round stone (sand) inclusions occur in size from ≤ 0.05 to 0.9 cm; the predominance of a lot or some particles is notable, but they may be few in number. Much rarer are organics visible as ‘negatives’, but if so, then mainly from some to a lot and in size from ≤ 0.05 to 1.4 cm. Some angular particles, mainly limestone, appear only in six examples in size from ≤ 0.2 to 0.9 cm. Finally, it should be mentioned that no aplastics have been noted in ten items. This all indicates a good quality of clay matrix of the whole assemblage, which was achieved by an advanced process of clay purification using water in order to separate most heavy and light contaminations (Table 6). Zöldföldi 2003, 227, 229. 1204 Knacke-Loy 1994, 55-56, 140; Guzowska et al. 2003, 246.

147

Table 6. Aplastics in pottery from the AS and SAS in Munich, the MN in Poznań.

lot, 0.2

-

lot, 0.05

-

II

-

-

few, 0.3

-

II

-

-

lot, 0.2

-

III?

lot, 0.2

lot, 0.01

lot, 1.3

I

Bowl A214

5

Pyxis D209

-

lot, 0.05

-

6

Cup A33

-

few, 0.05

-

-

-

IVc

7

Cup A33

-

few, 0.5

-

-

some, 0.6

IVb, d

8

Cup A33

some, 0.05 some, 0.05

9

Cup A33

very few, 0.025

10

Cup A33

-

11

Cup A33

-

12

Cup A33

Red-Coated

4

13

lot, 0.1

Occurrence at Troy (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

-

-

Organics

Tankard A43

3

-

Round stones

-

Angular stones

Jar C30

2

Silver mica

Gold mica

Type (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

Grey and Black Polished 1

Ware (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

-

1

Polished

Jug 4FIIa

Lustre

Cat. no.

Kind, amount and size (≤ cm)

very few, 0.5

few, 0.9 -

-

lot, 1.0

IV

IVa

some, 0.7

some, 0.7

-

IVc

some, 0.9

some, 0.9

some, 1.0

IVa

few, 0.2

few, 0.5

IVe

-

very few, 0.5

few, 0.2

some, 0.7

-

-

some, 0.9

IVd

-

-

IV

Cup A33

-

-

-

Cup A37

-

-

-

some, 0.1

15

Cup A37

-

some, 0.01

-

some, 0.5

-

IVa

16

Cup A37

-

-

-

-

-

IVa

17

Cup A211

some, 0.05 lot, 0.05

18

Cup A224

lot, 0.05

19

Cup A224

20

14

-

lot, 0.65

some, 0.45 some, 0.6

IVa

IV

lot, 0.05

some, 0.25 some, 0.25

-

IVc

-

lot, 0.05

few, 0.2

few, 0.2

-

IV

Depas A45

-

some, 0.05

-

some, 0.2

-

IIg or IIId

21

Depas A45

-

some, 0.1

-

lot, 0.3

-

IV

22

Depas A45

-

-

few, 0.1

-

IIg or IIIa, c

148

Depas A45

-

-

-

-

-

IId, g or IIId

24

Depas A45

some, 0.025

some, 0.025

-

-

-

IIg or IIId

25

Tankard A39

-

-

-

-

-

IIId

26

Tankard A39

-

-

-

some, 0.4

-

IV

27

Tankard A39

-

-

-

-

28

Tankard A39

-

some, 2.5

-

IV

29

Tankard A39

-

few, 0.025

-

some, 0.1

some, 0.75

IV

30

Tankard A39

-

some, 0.05 some, 0.3

lot, 0.3

-

IIIc-d

31

Tankard A39

-

few, 0.05

-

some, 0.4

some, 1.0

IIIc-d

32

Tankard A39

few, 0.025

-

-

some, 0.2

-

IIIb

33

Tankard A39

-

-

-

-

-

IIId

-

some, 0.3

-

-

IIIc

-

-

-

-

V

34

Red-Coated

23

Tankard A39

some, 0.05 some, 0.05

few, 0.15

Tankard A39

-

36

Tankard A39

-

37

Tankard A39

38

35

few, 0.6

IV

lot, 0.05

-

lot, 0.2

-

III

lot, 0.05

lot, 0.05

-

some, 0.4

-

IV

Tankard A39

lot, 0.05

lot, 0.05

-

some, 0.2

-

IIIc-d

39

Tankard A39

lot, 0.05

lot, 0.05

-

lot, 0.2

-

IIIa, d

40

Tankard A39

few, 0.05

lot, 0.05

-

few, 0.25

-

IV

41

Tankard A39

some, 0.05 lot, 0.05

-

some, 0.25

-

IVc

42

Tankard A39

-

-

-

IVc

43

Tankard A39

-

some, 0.2

-

IV

44

Tankard A39

-

some, 0.05

-

lot, 0.2

-

V1, Vd

45

Tankard A39

some, 0.05

-

-

-

V1, Vd

-

some, 0.05

some, 0.05 lot, 0.05

149

-

Tankard A39

few, 0.025

47

Tankard A221

few, 0.05

48

Tankard 9DIV

-

-

-

49

Tankard 3FIVb

-

-

Tankard 3HIIc2

-

-

50 51

Red-Coated

46

Tumbler A206

-

-

few, 0.05

some, 0.05 lot, 0.05

-

IV

-

some, 0.9

II

-

-

-

IIg

-

-

-

III

-

some, 0.2

-

Late II? or II?

-

lot, 0.25

some, 0.05

IV

-

III

lot, 1.1

53

Jug B20

some, 0.03 few, 0.03

-

54

Jar C6

few, 0.1

-

lot, 0.25

-

IV

55

Lid D3

some, 0.1

-

some, 0.1

-

II

56

Lid D5

-

some, 0.1

-

lot, 0.35

-

IId

57

Lid D8

-

few, 0.2

-

lot, 015

some, 0.35

IIg

58

Jug B222

-

some, 0.1

-

lot, 0.3

-

III-IV

61

Grey and Black 2

Lid D15 Jug B20

62

Grey and Black

60

Grey and Black 1

Jug B17

Jar 7CIIIb

Jar 7BIIa1

few, 0.05 -

-

II

52

59

-

-

-

-

some, 0.1 -

some, 0.1

some, 0.05 lot, 0.05

-

-

-

-

-

-

III

-

some, 0.15

-

III-IV

-

-

-

III

-

some, 0.3

some, 0.9

IV

Plate A2

few, 0.1

lot, 0.1

-

some, 0.2

-

V

Tankard A39

some, 0.025

some, 0.025

-

lot, 0.6

-

IIIa, d

65

Jar C30

some, 0.05 lot, 0.05

-

lot, 0.5

-

Vd

66

Tankard A228

some, 0.05

-

-

-

V

Jug B24

-

-

-

-

V

-

-

-

-

Early VI

68 69 70

Grey

67

Anatolian Grey

64

Plain

63

Bowl A70

few, 0.03

lot, 0.02

Jar C68

-

-

-

-

-

EarlyMiddle VI

Jar C68

-

-

-

-

-

EarlyMiddle VI

150

Unpolished

Jug B13

72

Nubbly

Jar C10

74 75 76

Gritty

73

Polished

71

few, 0.1

lot, 0.05

-

-

-

Ib

lot, 0.1

-

-

some, 1.4

II-III

-

lot, 0.2

-

IIIa

lot, 0.5

-

III

-

-

-

IV

-

some, 0.54

-

-

IV

Tankard A39

-

-

Jar C202

-

-

Tankard A43

lot, 0.1

Jug B3

lot, 0.2

lot, 0.5

few, 0.1 some, 0.01

-

lot, 0.3

-

IV

Cup A106

-

-

-

lot, 0.5

-

VIIb2

some, 0.5

-

-

-

V-VI

some, 0.15

some, 0.15

-

-

I

78

Knobbed

-

116

RedCoated

Jar C25

Pierced disc sherd

117

Unpolished

77

-

Pierced disc sherd

Standardization of clay’s quality was linked with introduction of the fast pottery wheel at the beginning of Troy II. The new technique became common and initiated mass pottery production, which raised new requirements in clay preparation.1205 This refers, especially from Troy II-III onward, to purification, which removed the coarser sand and silty elements to a considerable extent, in consequence resulting in an increase of the relative amounts of fine-grained mica, finely divided calcium carbonate, hydrated iron oxides and true clay minerals. Tempering material consisted of elements gained from the clay during the purification 1205 Mansfeld 2001, 232.

-

lot, 0.3

process and ground to finer sizes. Moreover, other materials were used, namely, fire clay, shells, grog and in some instances straw.1206 However, an exception is coarse wares, whose fabrics differ enormously. On the other hand, during Troy I and Early Troy II detrital silts were used and there was not any purification process; the clay of Troy I ceramics had a high sand content. Characteristic of Troy IV-V is the increasing proportion of organics in tempering materials, especially for production of large, coarse fabric pots at the Fourth Settlement.1207 Generally, pottery of both these settlements points to the existence of a social and cultural continuity with 1206 Felts 1942, 237, 240; Kull 1988, 132. 1207 Blegen et al. 1951, 118, 121, 235; Korfmann 1996a, 6.

151

Troy III.1208 Fabrics with gold or silver mica giving a metallic effect were also common in M-LBA western Anatolia, for instance in broadly distributed Anatolian Grey Ware, but also in Red-Washed Ware of Troy VI and wares with lustrous washes at Beycesultan IVa onwards.1209 Moreover, mica occurs in Mycenaean pottery at Troy from LH II onwards, as well as that of Miletus, which might have resulted from the similarity of the region’s geology.1210 Some other additional thoughts arise from the analysis of identified wares. There is no direct evidence of the firing techniques used by Trojan potters, because so far no kiln has come to light. However, the secondary evidence provided by

to the reduction of iron to the ferrous state and deposition of unburned carbon within small cracks of the vessel body (3Fe2O3 + CO → 2Fe3O4 + CO2). The light colours were manufactured in oxidizing conditions created by access of oxygen and its reaction with iron.1211 From Troy II onward much better control could be maintained and thus lightcoloured (various hues of red, buff, brown) vessels were fired in an oxidizing atmosphere, while grey and black ones were fired in reducing conditions. Perhaps pottery in light colours along with lustrous surface treatment imitated bronze, gold (red colour) and silver (grey colour) vessels, very precious and therefore not accessible for everyone.1212

artefacts themselves, such as homogenous firing and colours of the surface, as well as high hardness and compactness, do not exclude kiln firing. On the other hand it cannot be excluded that also nonkiln firing methods (open firing, pit firing) were employed, especially in the earlier period, and in this context should be mentioned only lightly fired Troy I ceramics. Generally, in Troy I and Early Troy II oxidation and reduction conditions of the firing process were rather loosely controlled and this is evidenced by partly oxidized and partly strong reduced mottled examples made of clay containing iron. A reducing atmosphere was achieved by halting oxygen’s access to the kiln. At the same time, at a temperature of c. 700º-900º C, a large amount of accumulated, prior to halting, carbon oxide (CO) was reacting with iron oxide (Fe2O3). It resulted in hard pottery and covering of deposited artefacts’ surface with various hues of grey and black due

Moreover, red as the colour of blood, especially important in regard to vessels for drinking, could have symbolized the colour of life. Drinking itself, from libation vessels, could have been dedicated to a deity and thus their red colour was a sign of divinity or a certain deity of Troy. On the other hand, a fashion for certain forms in certain colour cannot be excluded. A particular colour may have reinforced a certain shape/s, whose manufacture could have been monopolized. So, this phenomenon can also be explained by relationships between consumption, demand and supply in the sphere of custom, religion and art.1213 Vitrification recorded on artefacts made of purified clay is another feature linked with the firing process. This is characterized

1208 Blegen et al. 1951, 103, 223-24; Blegen 1964, 103, 108-109; Korfmann 1996a, 6. 1209 Blegen et al. 1953, 35-37; Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 128; Kull 1988, 133; Mee 1998, 138; Mountjoy 1999a, 259-60; Mountjoy 1999b, 301, 324. 1210 Mee 1998, 138; Mountjoy 1999a, 259-60; Mountjoy 1999b, 301, 324.

1211 Ziomecki 1975, 349, 357; Weiß 1985, 17-18. 1212 Mansfeld 2001, 236; Çalış-Sazcı 2002, 57-58. Such pottery, e.g. Anatolian Grey Ware, as imitating metal could have been treated as luxury goods – Korfmann 2001d, 403. However, the final judgment between colour itself and imitations needs further research. What is interesting, at Troy II and Aharköy were observed a common tendency in the treatment of pottery’s surface from dark, slipped and well polished into matt, lighter surface and ware covered with wash – Efe 1988, 98. 1213 Mansfeld 2001, 235-36.

152

by unaltered particles of mica, quartz, feldspar and some calcites, which indicate that optically isotropic glass was formed at temperatures less than the thermal dissociation point of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) since pieces of shell temper and very small (0.025 cm) crystals of calcite show no signs of having undergone thermal disintegration.1214 Additionally, regarding the surface treatment, recent isotope geochemical analyses have partly supported earlier visual observations that on the one hand differences between Plain, Red-Coated and Matt-Red Wares and on the other between Anatolian Grey, Tan and Red-Washed Wares resulted from various firing conditions.1215 In the case of Anatolian Grey

technique became a characteristic of the very broad and commonly manufactured Red-Coated Ware. Usually the exterior surface was coated, but on the interior one only a narrow band below the rim; the latter feature was not recorded in C. W. Blegen’s publication. Both surfaces of one artefact were rather rarely decorated in this manner. This kind of surface treatment was usually additionally processed by burnishing or polishing, very often noticed only on the exterior and less frequently on both surfaces of the same item. These surface techniques employed on many artefacts of different wares served aesthetic and practical purposes: for increasing lustre and also to reduce porosity and permeability of the

Ware the micaceous slip on the exterior surface is monocrystal and this is why its grey colour shines through, giving a metallic effect. Moreover, analysis of fifteen Anatolian Grey Ware sherds from Troy and Hanaytepe indicated that from the beginning of Troy VI an elevated concentration of carbon and magnetite (Fe2O4) in the clay along with smokeless reduction firing are responsible for the homogeneous colours of this ware. Since clay minerals are well preserved it could have been achieved at a temperature of c. 800º C.1216 The lower firing temperature of greyish Knobbed Ware at Troy VIIb2 was achieved perhaps thanks to different organization of pottery production performed in households equipped with simple ovens.1217 The bulk of the pottery consists of monochrome, not patterned items and the principal technique of decoration was coating applied as a slip or wash used very regularly. It is known already from Troy I1218 onwards, but especially from Troy II to V and even in Early-Middle VI this decorative

vessel surface by compacting the outermost layer of clay. This was likely applied with bits of different materials, for instance shell, bone, wooden stick, stone and sherd. Summing up, it gives a combination of surface treatment commonly employed on monochromatic, non-patterned pottery (Table 7). Moreover, coated artefacts were also patterned using different techniques in still moisture clay (Table 8). Among them burnished patterns, in the majority haphazard, as a distinct decoration are visible on a Red-Coated Ware lid and Nubbly Ware closed vessel of Troy II-III (cat. nos 55, 72). It should be mentioned that this technique of decoration as a special surface treatment was first introduced on pottery of Troy II1219, but more commonly utilized in Troy III where burnishing strokes form a definite pattern.1220 It is also often observable at Troy IV1221, but at V less frequently than in preceding settlements.1222 At Early Troy VI burnished patterns form different motifs, which appear also on wares and shapes linked with forerunners manufactured

1214 1215 1216 1217 1218

1219 1220 1221 1222

Felts 1942, 241-42. Blegen et al. 1953, 36-37; Knacke-Loy 1994, 140. Schachner 1994-1995, 91, 104-105. Guzowska et al. 2003, 239. Blegen et al. 1950, 52.

153

Blegen et al. 1950, 221. Blegen et al. 1951, 36. Op. cit., 138 Op. cit., 251.

Table 7. Coated pottery from the AS and SAS in Munich, the MN in Poznań (the general term coat is given when it was not certain if there was a slip or a wash; * = coated exterior surface; ** = coated exterior surface with band below rim on interior surface; + = both surfaces coated; be = burnished exterior surface; bb = both surfaces burnished; pe = polished exterior surface).

Cat. no.

Type (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

Ware (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

Coat

Occurrence at Troy (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

1

Jug 4FIIa

Coat *be

Polished

I

2

Jar C30

Slip **be

Grey and Black Polished 1

II

3

Tankard A43

Slip *be

Lustre Ware 2

II

4

Bowl A214

Wash **

Red-Coated

III?

5

Pyxis D209

Slip *be

Red-Coated

IV

6

Cup A33

Slip **be

Red-Coated

IVc

7

Cup A33

Slip *be

Red-Coated

IVb, d

8

Cup A33

Slip **be

Red-Coated

IVa

9

Cup A33

Slip **be

Red-Coated

IVc

10

Cup A33

Slip +bb

Red-Coated

IVa

11

Cup A33

Slip +bb

Red-Coated

IVe

12

Cup A33

Slip +be

Red-Coated

IVd

13

Cup A33

Slip **

Red-Coated

IV

14

Cup A37

Wash **be

Red-Coated

IVa

15

Cup A37

Slip +be

Red-Coated

IVa

16

Cup A37

Coat +be

Red-Coated

IVa

17

Cup A211

Coat **

Red-Coated

IV

18

Cup A224

Coat **be

Red-Coated

IVc

19

Cup A224

Coat **be

Red-Coated

IV

20

Depas A45

Slip *be

Red-Coated

IIg or IIId

21

Depas A45

Coat *be

Red-Coated

IV

22

Depas A45

Coat **be

Red-Coated

IIg or IIIa, c

23

Depas A45

Slip **be

Red-Coated

IId, g or IIId

24

Depas A45

Wash **be

Red-Coated

IIg or IIId

25

Tankard A39

Slip *be

Red-Coated

IIId

26

Tankard A39

Wash **be

Red-Coated

IV

27

Tankard A39

Coat **

Red-Coated

IV

28

Tankard A39

Slip *

Red-Coated

IV

154

29

Tankard A39

Wash **be

Red-Coated

IV

30

Tankard A39

Wash **

Red-Coated

IIIc-d

31

Tankard A39

Wash *

Red-Coated

IIIc-d

32

Tankard A39

Slip **be

Red-Coated

IIIb

33

Tankard A39

Slip **be

Red-Coated

IIId

34

Tankard A39

Wash **be

Red-Coated

IIIc

35

Tankard A39

Wash **

Red-Coated

V

36

Tankard A39

Slip *

Red-Coated

III

37

Tankard A39

Wash **

Red-Coated

IV

38

Tankard A39

Wash **

Red-Coated

IIIc-d

39

Tankard A39

Slip +

Red-Coated

IIIa-d

40

Tankard A39

Wash **

Red-Coated

IV

41

Tankard A39

Coat *

Red-Coated

IVc

42

Tankard A39

Coat **be

Red-Coated

IVc

43

Tankard A39

Coat *

Red-Coated

IV

44

Tankard A41

Slip **

Red-Coated

V1, Vd

45

Tankard A41

Slip *be

Red-Coated

V1, Vd

46

Tankard A43

Wash *be

Red-Coated

II

47

Tankard A221

Slip **be

Red-Coated

IV

48

Tankard 9DIV

Coat **pe

Red-Coated

II

49

Tankard 3FIVb

Slip *be

Red-Coated

IIg

50

Tankard 3HIIc2

Coat **be

Red-Coated

III

51

Tumbler A206

Slip **

Red-Coated

II? or Late II?

52

Jug B17

Wash **be

Red-Coated

IV

53

Jug B20

Wash **be

Red-Coated

III

54

Jar C6

Coat *be

Red-Coated

IV

55

Lid D3

Slip *be

Red-Coated

II

56

Lid D5

Coat **be

Red-Coated

IId

57

Lid D8

Coat *be

Red-Coated

IIg

58

Jug B222

Coat *

Grey and Black 1

III-IV

59

Jar 7CIIIb

Coat **be

Grey and Black 1

III

61

Jug B20

Coat *

Grey and Black 2

III

62

Jar 7BIIa1

Coat *

Grey and Black

IV

63

Plate A2

Wash +

Plain

V

64

Tankard A39

Wash **

Plain

IIIa, d

65

Jar C30

Wash *

Plain

Vd

155

66

Tankard A228

Slip *

Grey

V

67

Jug B24

Coat *

Grey

V

68

Bowl A70

Slip +bb

Anatolian Grey

Early VI

69

Jar C68

Slip *

Anatolian Grey

Early-Middle VI

70

Jar C68

Slip *

Anatolian Grey

Early-Middle VI

71

Jug B13

Coat *

Unpolished

72

Jar C10

Slip **be

Nubbly

II-III

73

Tankard A39

Slip **be

Polished

IIIa

74

Jar C202

Coat *be

Polished

III

75

Tankard A43

Wash **

Gritty

IV

76

Jug B3

Wash **

Gritty

IV

78

Cup A106

Slip **be

Knobbed

VIIb2

116

Body sherd

Slip *

Red-Coated

V-VI

at the Fifth Settlement.1223 Additionally, there are thirteen vessels, mostly slipped and adorned with incised and plastic patterns, including also an example of combined plastic and incised decoration. An analysis was undertaken in order to record their occurrence, frequency and general position on the exterior of closed and possible open vessels. It was possible to distinguish twelve decorative motifs chronologically limited mainly to E-MBA, but also occurring at the LBA. The only Grey and Black Polished Ware 1 closed vessel of Troy II (cat. no. 2) is decorated with plastically depicted schematic anthropomorphic features. Such representations of the human face on the pots’ neck are the most striking among all plastic ornaments at Troy II and it seems they are linked with the partially modelled faces on rim projections of bowls at Troy I.1224 This trend continues into Troy III in the form of knobs depicting breasts and the human face on the neck of jars and on lids, which became characteristic for that settlement.1225 Likewise in subsequent 1223 Blegen et al. 1953, 76-77. 1224 Blegen et al. 1950, 157, 242. 1225 Blegen et al. 1951, 35.

Ib

Troy IV-V plastic elements are used to depict the human face and other characteristics on jars and lids.1226 This is evidenced by the Plain Ware closed anthropomorphic vessel of Troy V, decorated with circular relief knobs marking human anatomical features such as breasts and the navel (cat. no. 65). At Troy VI these representations are possible stray finds from the earlier occupation.1227 Decorative patterns for Red-Coated Ware are limited to closed items. During Troy II they include an ovular relief knob just below the rim and an incised line (cat. no. 48). In Troy IV there are again vessels incised with short radial lines (cat. no. 15), a set of three horizontal lines on the neck (cat. no. 6) and circular relief knobs (cat. no. 54). A set of two incised lines at the waist was recorded on two vessels (cat. nos 44-45) of Troy V. Closed vessels of Grey Ware of Troy V were decorated with one or two sets of two horizontal lines (cat. nos 66-67). Decorative patterns of Anatolian Grey Ware include incised wavy lines between bands of horizontal ones depicted on possible open vessels (cat. nos 69-70). These 1226 Op. cit., 137, 249. 1227 Blegen et al. 1953, 80.

156

motifs are typical, even on the other wares, from Late Troy VI1228 through VII1229 to VIII.1230 They occur rarely already at MBA Demircihöyük and at LBA Beycesultan III, but more frequently at II, as well as in the upper strata of Antissa.1231 Horn-like 1228 Especially for type A65 – Blegen et al. 1953, 40 table 9, 77; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 310-11, 313 fig. 16 nos 2-3. 1229 Blegen et al. 1958, 21, 44-45, 155, 177. 1230 Op. cit., 264 no. 2 (type 31/dinos or krater), fig. 291, 276 nos 3 (type 31/dinos or krater), 11 (large vessel), fig. 301. 1231 Kull 1988, 132, 166.

relief knobs are the most characteristic elements of closed vessels in Knobbed Ware of Troy VIIb2, but they appear in association with incised vertical lines (cat. no. 78). Summing up, an enormous variety of surface treatment, including coating, burnishing, as well as plastic, incised, impressed, punched and painted techniques has a long tradition at Troy, reaching the First Settlement and continuing until the end of Bronze Age Troy and even beyond it.1232 1232 Blegen et al. 1950, 76-77, 241-43; Blegen et al. 1951, 34-36, 136-38, 249-51; Blegen et al. 1953, 76-80; Blegen et al. 1958, 44-47, 176-81, 251-53.

Table 8. Coated and patterned pottery from the AS and SAS in Munich, the MN in Poznań. Type (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

55

Lid D3

Slip, pattern burnishing.

Red-Coated

72

Jar C10

Slip, pattern burnishing.

Nubbly

48

plastic, incised; knob and one line on the Red-Coated Tankard 9DIV Coat, handle.

II

2

Jar C30

Slip, plastic; anthropomorphic features (face with all details, breast, naval).

Grey and Black Polished 1

II

54

Jar C6

Coat, plastic; knobs on the shoulder.

Red-Coated

IV

65

Jar C30

Wash, plastic; anthropomorphic features (breast, naval).

Plain

Vd

15

Cup A37

Slip, incised; two short radial lines below the handles.

Red-Coated

IVa

6

Cup A33

Slip, incised; three horizontal lines in the lower part of the neck.

Red-Coated

IVc

44

Tankard A41

Slip, incised; two horizontal lines at the waist.

Red-Coated

V1, Vd

45

Tankard A41

Slip, incised; two horizontal lines at the waist.

Red-Coated

V1, Vd

66

Tankard A228 Slip, incised; two horizontal lines at the waist.

Grey

V

67

Jug B24

Coat, incised; two horizontal lines on the neck and on the shoulder.

Grey

V

69

Jar C68

Slip, incised; two wavy lines between two bands of two lines.

Anatolian Grey

VI

70

Jar C68

Slip, incised; two wavy lines and two horizontal ones between two bands of three lines.

Anatolian Grey

VI

78

Cup A106

Slip, plastic, incised; three horn-shaped knobs on the shoulder with vertical lines in between.

Knobbed

Type of decoration and motif

157

Ware (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

Occurrence at Troy (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

Cat. no.

II II-III

VIIb2

There are several changes over time in the relative proportions between fine and coarse wares. In proportion to coarse wares the fine ones evidently decreased in popularity in Middle Troy I and Troy IVa. Also the relative proportions of various classes of fine wares changed over the centuries. During Middle Troy II (phase d) the increasing use of the wheel resulted in sudden augmentation of manufacturing of Plain Ware at the expense of Grey and Black Polished Wares. Moreover, during this time Lustre Ware virtually disappears, having enjoyed brief popularity in Troy IIa-b. In Troy IIe this is followed by a rapid increase in the proportion of fine wares to coarse ones. In Troy IVa Red-Coated

(Troy I-VII)1239, but as already stated their relative proportions changed over time. During Troy VI the proportion of coarse to fine wares is one to two and a similar phenomenon is notable at MBA Demircihöyük.1240 In subsequent Troy VIIa fine wares predominate by approximately three to one as compared with coarse ones. There are a few examples of Gritty Ware; in fact this is nearly all utilitarian pottery lumped together in one class.1241 Anatolian Grey Ware and Tan Ware are inheritances, with little or no changes from phase VIh.1242 Occurrence of these two fine wares continues in Troy VIIb1-3. However, parallel to them the most distinctive feature of Troy VIIb2 is the unheralded appearance,

Ware suddenly displaced the decreasing Plain Ware and production of fine wares was reduced in proportion to coarse ones.1233 These three points of

after a very long tradition of wheelmade pottery, of coarse handmade Knobbed Ware, which has no recognizable ancestors in earlier periods of Troy. This remarkable phenomenon could be linked with influences from the Balkans and continues into Troy VIIb3.1243

change in Middle I, Middle II and IVa correspond also with breaks proposed on the basis of studied forms.1234 It should be added that at these dates there were important changes beyond Troy, which can be regarded as initial for the beginnings of EBA II, III and MBA. Plain, Grey and Red-Coated Wares gradually declined in Troy VI, and Anatolian Grey Ware along with Tan Ware became predominant during that period. Gritty Ware, compared to fine ones, was much less abundant and was represented by few to a good many instances.1235 Among all examined wares four are long-lived, namely Grey and Black Polished (Troy I-V) 1236, Plain (Troy II-VI)1237, Red-Coated (Troy II-VI)1238 and Gritty

1233 1234 1235 1236 1237

Easton 1990a, 437-38; Easton 2002, 314, 316-18. Podzuweit 1979a, 17-23. Blegen et al. 1953, 19-20, 38, 40-41 table 9. Easton 2002, 318. Blegen et al. 1953, 35, 40-41 table 9; Easton 2002, 318. 1238 Blegen et al. 1953, 34-35, 40-41 table 9; Easton 2002, 318.

1.2. Wares Wares, despite overlaps observed between clay matrices, in the traditional sense of distinct constellations of fabric-shape-surface treatment, 1239 Blegen et al. 1950, 56, 223-24, 225 table 12; Blegen et al. 1951, 21, 23 table 7, 121, 123 table 14; Blegen et al. 1953, 38, 40-41 table 9; Blegen et al. 1958, 20 table 9, 24. 1240 Kull 1988, 133. 1241 Blegen et al. 1958, 20 table 9. The only exception is pithos C39 in this ware recorded in great abundance. 1242 Op. cit., 19, 20 table 9. 1243 Blegen et al. 1958, 154; Koppenhöfer 1997, 296. In older literature there was a view that Balkan influences during Troy VIIb2 are perhaps also visible in affinities between plastic decoration of Knobbed Ware and of metal implements – Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 402-403.

158

were recognized for all the examined pottery. Fifteen local categories were identified and divided into two distinct groups: fine and coarse.1244 The wares within each of the groups are presented roughly chronologically, period by period in the time span from Troy I to VII. Fine tradition Polished Ware Troy I: fabric pale brown, very hard and very compact, a lot of grey aplastics and organic inclusions; surface smooth, but lumpy, slightly shining, visible burnishing marks, light yellowish brown coat (cat. no. 1). It has been frequently recorded at Troy I1245, but very rarely at Troy IIa-c.1246 Grey and Black Polished Ware 1 Troy II: fabric greyish to dark greyish brown, hard and compact, quite well levigated, plenty of silver mica inclusions and other brownish aplastics; surface smooth, but uneven, in places lumpy, slightly shining, visible burnishing marks, greyish brown to dark grey thin slip (cat. no. 2). This ware derived from the corresponding ware of Troy I. It appeared more frequently at Troy IIa and gradually increased in phases b-d, but almost decreased in IIe. The ware has been commonly noted at Troy IIf and especially IIg.1247 1244 More recently nine fine wares of Troy I-VII were distinguished on the basis of aplastics’ size up to 0.05 cm and tempering < 10 Vol.-% – Knacke-Loy 1994, 76. However, fine wares distinguished by Blegen are manufactured of matrices with bigger tempering particles, but vessels are of good quality in terms of shape and surface treatment. 1245 Blegen et al. 1950, 52-53, 57 table 6. 1246 Op. cit., 223, 225 table 12. 1247 Op. cit., 220, 225 table 12.

Lustre Ware 2 (Jet-black) Troy II: fabric grey, very hard and very compact, few grey and dark grey aplastics; surface very smooth, but lumpy, shining, visible burnishing marks, slip from black to very dark grey, also on the interior side (cat. no. 3). It derived from the late phases of Troy I1248 and sporadically was also noted in the early phases of Troy II.1249 Red-Coated Ware Troy II: fabric brown, light brown, light yellowish brown, grey, reddish yellow, very hard and very compact, well levigated, some to a lot of silver and few to some gold mica particles, some to a lot of other grey and brown aplastics and some to a few organic inclusions; surface even and smooth, but somewhat lumpy and cracked, shining, visible burnishing marks, wash brown to very dark grey, slip reddish brown to brown, yellowish red, unidentified coat brown, red to yellowish brown, also on the interior surface (cat. nos 46, 48-49, 51, 56-57). Troy II-III: fabric brown, light yellowish brown, very pale brown, light brownish grey, hard to very hard, compact to very compact, well levigated, some gold and silver mica inclusions, a few to some other white, grey and brown aplastics; surface smooth, shining, burnishing marks visible, slip red and brown, wash red, unidentified coat red to reddish brown, also on the interior surface (cat. nos 20, 22-24). Troy III: fabric reddish brown, dark reddish brown, brown, very pale brown, light brown, greyish brown, medium to very hard, very compact, very well levigated with a few to a lot of silver and gold mica particles, but also less levigated with a lot of other grey and some to a lot of brownish, grey and white aplastics and organic inclusions; surface smooth, 1248 Op. cit., 53, 57 table 6. 1249 Op. cit., 221, 225 table 12.

159

but lumpy and uneven, matt or shining with visible burnishing marks, slip red to brown, dark reddish brown and strong brown, wash yellowish red, reddish brown, brown and light brown, unidentified coat brown, also on the interior surface (cat. nos 25, 30-34, 36, 38-39, 50, 53, 59). Troy IV: fabric reddish yellow, brown, light brown, light olive brown, pale brown, very pale brown, light yellowish brown, greyish brown, dark grey, medium hard to very hard and compact to very compact, well levigated, a few to a lot of silver and gold mica inclusions, grey, brown and white aplastics, some to a lot of organics; surface gritty, smooth to very smooth, but uneven, slightly or very lumpy,

of a material rich in iron and its colour of different hues of red and brown is the product of that metal’s oxidation during the firing process. It has a metallic sheen possibly deliberately resembling the more valuable metal artefacts. The earliest occurrence of this very broad ware has been recorded at Troy IIa. In phases IIb-d it gradually increased, but in IIe almost disappeared. This ware at Troy IIf-g became very frequent, but toward the end of the Second Settlement its quality decreased.1250 It was common in all phases of Troy

somewhat crumbly, rarely pitted, matt, slightly or very shining with visible burnishing marks, slip red, yellowish red to brown, red to reddish brown, brown to dark grey, brown and strong brown, wash red, light brown, light yellowish brown, pale brown to greyish brown, brown to dark greyish brown, strong brown, unidentified coat yellowish red, brown, brown to dark grey, red to brown, reddish brown to brown and dark greyish brown, dark greyish brown to black, grey, also on the interior surface (cat. nos 4-19, 21, 26-29, 37, 40-43, 47, 52, 54). Troy V: fabric light brown, very pale brown and reddish brown, very hard and very compact, well levigated with some silver and gold mica inclusions, but also worst quality with a lot of grey and brownish aplastics; surface very smooth, very compact, matt or shining with visible horizontal burnishing marks, slip red, wash light yellowish brown, also on the interior surface (cat. nos 35, 44-45). Troy V-VI: fabric very hard and very compact, light red, very well levigated, some very gold mica inclusions; surface very smooth, matt, thin light red slip (cat. no. 116). The most characteristic of described ware is exterior surface finished with a fine-grained coating

produced.1254

III1251 and IV, but especially in its phases a, c-d.1252 Likely at Troy V the discussed ware was also very often recorded.1253 At Troy VI it was not commonly

Grey and Black Wares 1-2 Troy III-IV: Grey and Black Ware 1; fabric grey, greyish brown to dark grey, hard, compact, very well levigated with some silver or gold mica particles, but also with a lot of other grey, white and light brownish aplastics; core same as fabric; surface smooth, but uneven and lumpy, matt or slightly shining with some visible vertical burnishing marks, coat from reddish brown to strong brown, also on the interior surface (cat. nos 58, 60). Troy III: Grey and Black Ware 2; fabric very hard, very compact, quite well levigated with a lot of 1250 1251 1252 1253

Op. cit., 221, 225 table 12. Blegen et al. 1951, 19, 23 table 7. Op. cit., 119-20, 123 table 14. Op. cit., 235-36, 238 table 21; see also Koppenhöfer 2002a, 316, 317 and tables 2a-b, 318. 1254 Blegen et al. 1953, 34-35, 40-41 table 9; see also Koppenhöfer 2002a, 316, 317 and tables 2a-b, 318, 358. This is one of the other wares (Grey, Plain) which survived from the previous settlements – Blegen et al. 1953, 119-27. In Late Troy VI it was replaced by Tan Ware, which along with Anatolian Grey Ware became the most important local ware – Schachner 1994-1995, 102.

160

silver and some gold mica inclusions; surface smooth, slightly shining, partly lumpy, visible marks of rotation, coat from black to greyish brown (cat. no. 61). Both these wares distinguished at Troy III were commonly produced in its early and middle phases, but very rarely in the late one. They were divided into handmade Grey and Black Ware 1 and wheelmade Grey and Black Ware 2, but precise occurrence/ dating of both sub-varieties within Troy III was not specified. 1255

first time appeared at Troy IIb and became the most common in its later phases c-g.1257 At Troy III the ware occurred sporadically in all phases.1258 At Troy IV it was more frequent, particularly in phases a, c and e.1259 At Troy V Plain Ware was quite common in early and middle phases, but less in the late one.1260 This ware also occurs in all sub-periods of Troy VI, but especially in the early one.1261 What is interesting the M-LBA red pottery from Panaztepe settlement/cemetery seems to be related to the Plain Ware of Troy VI.1262 The MBA Plain Ware has also been recorded at Tavşanlıhöyük.1263

Grey and Black Wares Troy IV: fabric greyish brown, hard, compact,

Grey Ware

some grey aplastics and organic inclusions; surface smooth, somewhat lumpy and slightly shining, undefined dark grey coat (cat. no. 62). They are a descendant of the wheelmade Grey and Black Polished Ware 2 of Troy II. As wheelmade Grey and Black Ware 2 of Troy III it is related, in terms of quality and composition, to the Red-Coated Ware. The discussed wares were quite common at Troy IVa, but less frequently in phases b-e.1256

Troy V: fabric greyish brown, very hard, very compact, well levigated, some gold and a lot of silver mica particles; surface smooth, matt, very shining, slip very dark grey, undefined dark grey coat (cat. nos 66-67). In small quantities it has been recorded in all stages of Troy V, especially in the middle one.1264 Several other examples occurred in handmade and wheelmade techniques only in Early Troy VI.1265

Plain Ware Troy III: fabric very pale brown, medium hard and compact, some silver and gold mica particles, a lot of light grey and some white aplastics; surface lumpy and uneven, matt, wash light brown, also on the interior surface (cat. no. 64). Troy V: fabric reddish yellow, very pale brown, hard to very hard, compact to very compact with a lot of silver and few to some gold mica particles, a lot of grey and white aplastics, and some brownish ones; surface slightly lumpy and uneven, pitted, matt, wash brown and light brown (cat. nos 63, 65). This is the earliest wheelmade ware, which for the

1257 1258 1259 1260 1261

1262 1263 1264 1265

1255 Blegen et al. 1951, 19, 23 table 7. 1256 Op. cit., 118-19, 123 table 14.

161

Blegen et al. 1950, 221-22, 225 table 12. Blegen et al. 1951, 19-20, 23 table 7. Op. cit., 120, 123 table 14. Op. cit., 236, 238 table 21; see also Koppenhöfer 2002a, 316, 317 tables 2a-b. Blegen et al. 1953, 35, 40-41 table 9; see also Koppenhöfer 2002a, 316, 317 tables 2a-b, 358. This is one of the other wares (Grey, Red-Coated), which survived from the previous settlements – Blegen et al. 1953, 34-35. Koppenhöfer 2002a, 332 and fig. 29. Op. cit., 338. Blegen et al. 1951, 235, 238 table 21; see also Koppenhöfer 2002a, 316, 317 tables 2a-b. Blegen et al. 1953, 34, 40-41 table 9; see also Koppenhöfer 2002a, 317 tables 2a-b. This is one of the other wares (Plain, Red-Coated) which survived from the previous settlement – Blegen et al. 1953, 34-35.

Anatolian Grey Ware (601)1266 Troy VI: fabric light grey, very hard, very compact, very well levigated, few gold mica particles; core same as fabric, break straight and very gritty; surface even and very smooth with a soapy feeling, shining, visible horizontal burnishing marks, very ‘metallic’, slip grey, dark grey, very dark grey on one or both surfaces (cat. nos 68-70); results of the most recent excavations at Troy indicate that exterior and interior surface processing depends on vessel form.1267 Sherds of Anatolian Grey Ware in a small number occur for the first time at Troy V.1268 They continue to appear at Troy VIa (10% of fine wares) and later into VIIa.1269 Subsequently this ware was also continuously manufactured into Troy VIIb1-3, but with a decreasing frequency and its fabric differs from the earlier products in terms of its more evident coarse particles and not so hard firing, especially in regard to the coarse variety. From Middle Troy VI it was decorated with an incised wavy-line pattern.1270 At Late Troy VI typical for that ware are bands of incised wavy and horizontal lines on the neck, shoulders and rim of the majority of larger vessels produced by a sharp tool while rotating on 1266 Within Troia Project it is called Blegen’s “Gray Minyan Ware” – Aslan et al. 2003, 166. It seems in this case we are dealing rather with Ware 601 – Koppenhöfer 2002a, 290-91. 1267 Knacke-Loy 1994, 57. 1268 Koppenhöfer 2002a, 316, 317 and tables 2a-b. 1269 Blegen et al. 1953, 19, 35-36, 40-41 table 9; Blegen et al. 1958, 20 table 9, 21; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 290-91, 316, 317 and tables 2a-b; Pavúk 2002b, 101. At the latter settlement Tan Ware takes over Anatolian Grey Ware – Blegen et al. 1958, 22-23. 1270 Blegen et al. 1953, 189, fig. 292a; Schachner 19941995, 102. However, recently excavated square E9 yielded Troy VIIb1 material with gold mica and in this area it regains popularity at the expense of Tan Ware – Mountjoy 1999b, 324.

the potter’s wheel.1271 Such a decoration was in use at Troy VII, but during VIIb2 was enriched by other incised lines and relief knobs of Knobbed Ware.1272 Coarse tradition Unpolished Ware Fabric reddish yellow, light yellowish brown, very hard, very compact, crumbly, some to a lot of silver and some gold mica particles, plenty of other grey and brown aplastics; surface smooth, but uneven and lumpy, matt, undefined coat brown (cat. nos 71, 117). It was only produced at Troy I.1273 Nubbly Ware Troy II-III: fabric dark grey, hard and compact, quite well levigated, a lot of silver and a few gold mica inclusions, some organics; surface very lumpy, but smooth, slightly shining, a lot of burnishing marks visible, slip dark greyish brown to reddish brown, also on the interior surface (cat. no. 72). This ware, regarded as local, has among aplastics angular particles of slate unknown in the vicinity of Troy. This suggests that slate was ‘imported’ from the southern situated Çemli area or that the discussed ware was manufactured there.1274 This ware, perhaps deriving from the Coarse Polished Ware of Troy I, was introduced at Troy IIc and commonly occurred in phases IId, f and first of 1271 Kull 1989, 55-56; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 310. The same decorative motif known from Hanaytepe C settlement can be dated to the LBA – Lamb 1932, 122, 124 and fig. 11, 125 fig. 12; Schachner 1994-1995, 110. Of the same period is pottery with a pattern of wavy lines recorded at Beşiktepe settlement – Aslan et al. 2003, 185. 1272 Blegen et al. 1958, 155, 156-57 table. 18; Korfmann 1996a, 7; Koppenhöfer 1997, 296, 320. 1273 Blegen et al. 1950, 56, 57 table. 6. 1274 Knacke-Loy 1994, 55-56.

162

all in g.1275 In all phases of Troy III it was still the most frequent coarse ware.1276 Polished Ware Troy III: fabric brown, dark grey, hard, soft, compact, a lot of grey, brown and white aplastics, including little ‘pebbles’; surface smooth, but very lumpy and uneven, slightly shining, visible burnishing marks, slip dark greyish brown to very dark grey, also on the interior surface, undefined coat brown to dark grey (cat. nos 73-74). It has already been observed at Troy I.1277 At Troy II it occurs occasionally only in phases a-c.1278 This ware was also produced in all phases of Troy III.1279 Gritty Ware Troy IV: fabric pale brown, greyish brown, hard to very hard, compact to very compact, but also soft and friable, very well levigated, a lot of gold and very few to some silver mica particles, a lot of dark grey and some white limestone aplastics; surface even, slightly gritty, very lumpy, matt, wash reddish yellow, brown, also on the interior surface (cat. nos 75-77). This ware derived from Unpolished Ware recorded at the end of Troy I. At Troy IIa-d, g it appeared sporadically and perhaps was absent in IIf.1280 In all phases of Troy III this ware occurred quite frequently1281 and was very popular at Troy IVa-d, but less common in its phase c.1282 At Troy VI it has been observed in all subperiods.1283 At Troy VIIa it has also been recorded.1284 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284

Blegen et al. 1950, 223, 225 table 12. Blegen et al. 1951, 21, 23 table 7. Blegen et al.1950, 55, 57 table 6. Op. cit., 223, 225 table 12. Blegen et al. 1951, 21, 23 table 7. Blegen et al. 1950, 56, 223-24, 225 table 12. Blegen et al. 1951, 21, 23 table 7. Op. cit., 121, 123 table 14. Blegen et al. 1953, 38, 40-41 table 9. Blegen et al. 1958, 20 table 9, 24.

Knobbed Ware Troy VIIb2 : fabric greyish brown, hard, compact, a lot of grey aplastics; surface smooth, slightly shining, visible marks of slight burnish, slip greyish brown, also on the interior surface (cat. no. 78). 1285 This ware was introduced and manufactured in large amounts at Troy VIIb2, but also continued during VIIb3.1286 Of the above-presented wares two fine (RedCoated, Anatolian Grey) and one coarse (Knobbed) are distinctive since they appeared in variants far outside of Troy and thus represent over local relationships. Much of the Bronze Age pottery in western Anatolia is inter-related by technique, surface treatment/colour and shape, but there are also differences according to region and area. In light of the above it is interesting to note that a wheelmade bowl or bowls of Red-Coated Ware identical to that common from Troy IIa onwards, but sporadically occurring earlier, was recorded at Grave 18 of the Kaklık Mevkii cemetery dated to the very beginning of the EBA III.1287 In this context should also be mentioned Red-Coated Ware from the nearest early EBA III Küllüoba settlement chronologically parallel with Troy II, as well as Red-Brown Ware from Araplar, Katır Kulesi and Tavşanlıhöyük.1288 Some examples indicate that 1285 This ware is handmade and adorned with plastic knobs, but often has incised, impressed or rippled decoration. Under the microscope there are visible mica, quartz, feldspar, shale, pyrite and biotite – Blegen et al. 1958, 158. 1286 Op. cit., 156-57 table 18, 158; Korfmann 1996a, 7; Koppenhöfer 1997, 296. However, earlier than Troy VIIb2 occurrence has also been proposed – Hood 1967, 124. 1287 Efe, İlaslı 1997, 603; Topbaş et al. 1998, 21, 29, 33, 39-40, 45-47, 66, 68 fig. 52 nos. 123-124, 69; 1288 Efe, İlaslı 1997, 605; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 332 and fig. 29.

163

Red-Coated Ware of Troy II-V was more broadly distributed in western Anatolia, because there are affinities between it and the so-called Washed Ware from Aharköy and Yukarı Söğütönü sites situated within the inland EBA Demircihöyük pottery zone.1289 Results of the excavations at Demircihöyük itself are of special value in elucidating the sequence and relative stratigraphy of coterminous regions and areas since the site lies at least close to the interface between the Yenişehir-İznik and Eskişehir areas, and on one of two major west-east routes from the lowlands of western to the highlands of west-central Anatolia.1290 Thus it seems highly possible that influences on Troy came from the Demircihöyük pottery zone.1291 This is especially important in 1289 Efe 1988, 82, 96; Knacke-Loy 1994, 55, 61. Similarities are also notable between pebblepolishing of pottery from Troy IIg, Emporio II, Aharköy and surface material of Demircihöyük – Blegen et al. 1950, 221, 229 no. 35-415, 345, fig. 380 (type A43, Grey and Black Polished Ware), 237 nos 35-427, 35-598, 327, 333, figs 402-403 (type C35, Grey Polished Ware); Hood et al. 1982, 444 fig. 200 no. 1544, 445, 464 and no. 1761, pl. 81; Efe 1988, 96, pls 46 no. 7, 55 no. 17, 56 nos 7, 14, 57 no. 5, 61 no. 6, 62 nos 11, 16. 1290 French 1997, 588. 1291 Efe 1988, 96. In this area the rare early tankards (A39, 43) were mainly manufactured in a new Red Ware as evidenced by examples from Bozüyük and Aharköy – op. cit., 97, pl. 63 nos 20-21. In similar ware, typical for the early Trojan depa (A45) and plates (A2), were produced more common early depas shape at Demircihöyük (perhaps handle) and a wheelmade example at Bozüyük (with orange coat) – op. cit., 97, pls 55 no. 15?, 64 no. 2. Another dark grey, highly polished example recorded at the latter site in terms of fabric has parallels with jar C35 in Grey and Black Polished Ware from Troy IIg, and its horizontal flutes recall those on the early Trojan IId depas – op. cit., 97, pl. 64 no. 1; Blegen et al. 1950, 292 no. II-143, fig. 407 (A45), 327 no. 35-598, fig. 402 (C35). Such fluting,

regard to the distribution and relationship between the discussed ware, which probably along with certain vessel forms of Troy II and the use of the potter’s wheel travelled over the Eskişehir Plain and westward to the Troad. This is why this ware reached Troy perhaps earlier than other sites on the Anatolian-Aegean coast and adjacent islands.1292 unusual at Troy, is characteristic of the area from the Pisidian lakes to the south through AfyonEmirdağ and Eskişehir to the north – Koerte 1899, 26, pl. 3 no. 34; Spanos 1972, 50; Efe 1988, 97; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 605. Depa from Bozüyük and the majority from Troy II were wheelmade while those of Aharköy were handmade. Moreover, cylindrical, long and slim objects from Bozüyük and Aharköy are known from Troy II – Spanos 1972, 59, 91, pl. 1 figs 2, 5, 6 (DII, V, VI); Efe 1988, 97. Examples from the surface of the early EBA III Küllüoba mound are wheelmade, hard fired and ‘clinky’. Due to that they reflect the same characteristics as the Trojan ones, while those from deposits are generally handmade – Efe, İlaslı 1997, 605. Moreover, two depa from the EBA III Polatlı VII and X are the earliest examples of a wheelmade technique at that settlement – Lloyd, Gökçe 1951, 42 no. 24, 43 fig. 10, 45-46, pl. 4 a). 1292 Topbaş et al. 1998, 46-47. On the other hand, the finds from transitional EBA II-III (= Late Troy I-IIa-b) Seyitömerhöyük settlement, as well as cemeteries of Demircihöyük-Sarıket and Kaklık Mevkii support an earlier suggestion on also mutual exchange between Troy and the inland sites. Trojan characteristics at the burned level of Seyitömerhöyük are much more pronounced than at Karataş-Semayük, Aphrodisias, Poliochni and the other Aegean coastal settlements. Moreover, its material represents very early development of the EBA III pottery repertory and thus suggests that certain features of the new assemblage must have originated in the Afyon-Kütahya-Eskişehir regions to the north. Subsequently they spread into the Troad and southwestern Anatolia – Efe 1988, 93-99, 101-104, 115; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 599, 603; Topbaş et al. 1998, 46.

164

It should be added that the innovation of wares with red slip could have arrived in the Demircihöyük pottery zone from central Anatolian sites, where they appeared already at the beginning of EBA II Alişarhöyük 11M and Kültepe 14 or even in EBA I Alacahöyük 14, Alişarhöyük 14M and Yazırhöyük I-II.1293 On the other hand, such pottery came to light at much closer Küllüoba, where has been attested transformation of the LCh Black Unslipped Wares into EBA IB Grey/Brown and Red-Slipped Burnished ones, which have been recorded up to the beginning of the EBA II. This pottery is not represented at Demircihöyük and thus it filled an important gap in the EBA chronology of the Eskişehir area. The other transitional pottery derived from the surface surveys of the nearby Yukarı Söğütönü and Kuştepe mounds in the Upper Sakarya basin, but it does not reflect all characteristics of the Demircihöyük material. Moreover, it is known from excavated Kaklık Mevkii in the much more southerly Afyon Plain. Red Wares have also been recorded at LCh Beycesultan and EBA I-II Kusura A. Generally, the LCh ceramic tradition appears to have been common at the beginning of the EBA throughout western Anatolia, including its northwestern part, from the inland plains to Troad and even to Lemnos.1294 Moreover, from the very end of EBA II Seyitömerhöyük there came to light Altıntaş Red-Orange Ware that was characteristic 1293 Orthmann 1963, 66-68, 97, 98-99 table 9, 100; Efe 1988, 118. 1294 Seeher 1987, 159; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 605; Efe, Ay 2000, 7-8, 17-19, 21-37; Efe, Ay-Efe 2001, 43, 45-51, 53. However, one tankard from Küllüoba more closely resembles EBA II Red-Slipped and Burnished Ware of the Eskişehir area. This form is scarce at Troy, but known from the end of Poliochni Red – Blegen et al. 1950, 260 no. 371183, fig. 378; Bernabò-Brea 1964, 639, pl. 143 a-f; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 603.

during the EBA III in that region, Beycesultan and evident in the final phases of the EBA II Kusura B. In the Eskişehir Plain this ware appears as an intrusion and had spread up to Troy during the Second Settlement.1295 Also Kaklık Mevkii and Yazılıkaya cemeteries of the very early EBA III produced a local Red-Slipped Ware proper to the Afyon region, as well as to the Altıntaş Red-Orange Ware.1296 Also the EBA II-III Yortan tombs, situated much closer to the Troad, produced pottery parallel partly with Troy I and with the beginning of Troy II, including very rare Red Wares recorded also in the Akhisar-Manisa area.1297 Moreover, the red-slipped burnished pottery has recently been recorded at the late EBA II Kanlıgeçit settlement situated a long distance to the northeast of Troy.1298 To the southwest wheelmade red-slipped plates were manufactured at EBA IIIA Aphrodisias.1299 In the Eskişehir Plain during the MBA the Red-Coated Ware developed into the Fine Red-Slipped Ware.1300 On the coastal strip facing Lesbos and Chios came to light Troy I-II or related Red Ware dated to “Western Anatolia EBA III” (late EBA) and thus in part possibly contemporary with Troy II. Particularly, at the shore site of Limantepe pottery of Troy I and of II-V Red Wares is reported, but there is no certain evidence of Troy II materials.1301 Wheelmade Red Ware of “Western Anatolia EBA III” was 1295 Efe, İlaslı 1997, 599. 1296 Op. cit., 603. 1297 French 1969, 60-61; Kâmil 1982, 15-16; Seeher 1987, 157. 1298 Özdoğan 2003a, 84; Özdoğan, Parzinger 2000, 89. It seems this is the furthest occurrence of that pottery to the northwest of the Eskişehir Plain. 1299 Joukowsky 1989, 230. 1300 Efe 1994, 8. 1301 French 1997, 579. According to H. Erkanal it is sparse (perhaps imported) along this coastal region throughout the entire EBA III – Topbaş et al. 1998, 46.

165

excavated at Aphrodisias and collected by surveys in the lower Meander valley, recovered at the Heraion, including its building phases 1-4, as well as at the Iasos settlement (period A) and cemetery (period B).1302 The more inland situated site of Gavurtepe and the area surveyed in its vicinity yielded the same ware, which provides a link not only with the western part of western Anatolia, but also with the adjacent upland around Uşak and with the area of upper Meander. The discussed ware was also found in inland regions of Elmalı and Burdur, and preeminently at Beycesultan XII-VI.1303 It should be added that along the western Anatolian coast was recorded related pottery. Namely, the reddish coat

Red-Washed Ware of the Eskişehir area or Troy.1309 This ware is also known from other parts of MBA Anatolia (Boğazköy, Norşuntepe, Tarsus), where some examples of deep bowls (A16) of Early Troy VI came to light.1310 Reddish pottery similar to the

on the majority of pottery from Ephesus is similar to the Red-Wash or Red-Coated Ware of the EarlyMiddle Troy VI or even Red-Coated Ware of Troy V.1304 Also the E-LBA Limantepe settlement and Panaztepe settlement/cemetery produced reddish wares related to Red-Coated and Red-Washed ones.1305 Likewise the M-LBA Bayraklı IV-XIV settlement yielded red pottery.1306 In MBA Miletus we are dealing rather with Red-Washed Ware related to that of Early Troy VI, but in smaller amounts it occurs also during its LBA.1307 Pottery with a thin reddish coat (Red-Washed Ware) was also recorded at MBA Beycesultan V, and continued during IVc-b, but especially IVa, regarded as a transitional period to the LBA.1308 Likewise LBA Gordion-Yassıhöyük IX-VIII produced pottery with a red coat, which seems more affiliated with the

with affinities to those from the EBA III western Anatolian sites, common also at Troy II-V.1313 MBA Emporio (= Early Troy VI) yielded reddish pottery and from its LBA settlement derived bowls similar to those of Late Troy VI or VII.1314 Also, at M-LBA Thermi (phases I-II overlying Town V) was observed Red Ware, appearance of which was chronologically comparable with Troy V, as well as Early and Late Troy VI. The surface treatment of this pottery is the same as at Troy, which it owes to Anatolian influence. Among recorded forms there are local ones, as well as Mycenaean imitations.1315

1302 1303 1304 1305

French 1997, 584, 586. Op. cit., 583-84. Koppenhöfer 2002a, 331. Erkanal 1993, 500; Erkanal, Erkanal 1983, 169; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 335, 338. 1306 Bayne 2000, 62, 68, 70; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 319-20. 1307 Koppenhöfer 2002a, 337. 1308 Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 82, 101, 118, 128.

Red-Washed Ware of Troy came to light from its nearby M-LBA Hanaytepe C settlement.1311 Moreover, sites situated on the islands of the Anatolian-Aegean interface produced pottery with a reddish coat. The pottery of the EBA II-III Poliochni Red has links with Troy II.1312 In that ware the MBA Poliochni Brown yielded vessels and handles with little volutes similar to those of Troy V. Additionally, there were recorded a lot of other forms

1309 Koppenhöfer 2002a, 333. 1310 Huot 1982, 309-12, map 27; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 364. On distribution of the M-LBA Red-Coated Ware and related ones, as well as relations between their forms in western Anatolia and eastern Aegean islands see Koppenhöfer 2002a, 291-317, 319-20, 322, 325, 331-33, 335, 337-38, 354-58, 360. 1311 Lamb 1932, 120-21. 1312 Bernabò-Brea 1964, 634, 636-40, 642-45, 648. 1313 Bernabò-Brea 1976, 315, 319-22, 326, pls 267 h, j, 268 a-i, 269 d-e, g-h; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 335. 1314 Hood et al. 1982, 574, 587-88. 1315 Lamb 1936, 136, 137 and fig. 39, 138, 139 and fig. 40, 140, 141 fig. 41, 142, pl. 18; the best parallel is Trojan Red-Washed Ware.

166

Along with other evidence this indicates that Chios, Lemnos, Lesbos and Samos were part of the western Anatolian cultural zone.1316 In sum E-LBA Red-Coated or Red-Washed Wares broadly used in western Anatolia seem generally affiliated with such wares at Troy and thus belong to the cultural zone of that region. On the more detailed level various elements basic to the western Anatolian EBA III repertory have originated at the very beginning of that period in the area stretching from the Troad to the inland Kütahya-Afyon region. The growing interests of the very Late Troy I and Poliochni Red, as well as intensification of trade eastward across the İznik-İnegöl and Eskişehir Plains, contributed to the wealth and prosperity of both sites, visible in their architecture and small finds. However, Poliochni, being a stepping stone between Troad and the Aegean, does not reflect the eastern influences as strongly as Troy. There are notably S-profile and carinated bowl forms, RedCoated Ware, and wheelmade plates, which along with the innovation of the potter’s wheel travelled from that direction. This suggests quite strong Trojan trade relations with inland western Anatolia during that period, which differentiate it from other east Aegean sites. Therefore, pottery development parallel to the succeeding phases at Troy can be traced in that part of Anatolia. In the first phase of this phenomenon, apart from already mentioned ware and wheelmade vessels, there appeared the earliest tankards. Contemporary to them are materials – immediately subsequent to the burnt level at Seyitömerhöyük – from Karataş-Semayük V:3, Beycesultan XIIIa, Troy IIa-b and Poliochni Red. Its second phase is well represented by the 1316 It was already pointed out by Bittel 1937b, 281; French 1969, 70, 71 fig. 6. On the other hand, the first author indicated one parallel between the architecture of Thermi II and Crete and linked some finds with the Cyclades – Bittel 1937b, 280-81.

distinctive depas (A45) recorded along with plates (A2) at the early EBA III Küllüoba mound.1317 Wheelmade, unpainted Anatolian Grey Ware served along with Mycenaean table and coarse wares for household purposes.1318 It was locally differentiated and thus several regional groups are distinguishable.1319 Not far from Troy it had been recorded at several sites in the Troad, namely Hanaytepe (Late Troy VI), Küçük Fığlatepe (Troy VIIa), Asarlık-Eski Hisarlık (Late Troy VI-Troy VII), Ballıdağ (LBA), Beşiktepe settlement and cemetery (Late Troy VI-VIIa).1320 Moreover, Grey Wares occurred at MBA Demircihöyük1321, but very rarely at the other sites of the Eskişehir area during the same period (Araplar, Tavşanlıhöyük).1322 Also other sites on the western Anatolian coast yielded Anatolian Grey Ware. Only one example is reported from Pergamon, which seems close to Early Troy VI Ware 603.1323 It was introduced in Limantepe already at the end of the EBA, but became more common during MBA Limantepe I (10% of all pottery; forms parallel to those of Early Troy VI and Beycesultan IVb) and LBA.1324 The discussed ware appeared rarely at the MBA Panaztepe IIb settlement 1317 Efe, Ay-Efe 2001, 43, 51-55; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 600 fig. 2, 605, 607. 1318 Mountjoy 1999a, 260. 1319 Pavúk 2002b, 100. 1320 Lamb 1932, 120, 122, 124 and fig. 11, 125 and fig. 12, 128, 129 fig. 15 nos 2-3, 130; Korfmann 1988, 397 figs 1-3; Kossatz-Pompé 1992, 175, 176 fig. 9; Schachner 1994-1995, 110; Aslan et al. 2003, 17477, 185, 201 table 3. 1321 Kull 1988, 126 and fig. 145, 127 figs 146-47, 129, 130 and fig. 149, 215; however, compared with other wares, it occurred in small numbers (5.4%). 1322 Koppenhöfer 2002a, 332 and fig. 29. 1323 Op. cit., 344. 1324 Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 118, 120 fig. P.24; Erkanal, Erkanal 1983, 166, 169-70; Schachner 1994-1995, 107; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 335.

167

comparable with Troy VI and Beycesultan V-IV of the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C., as well as at its LBA cemetery. It has a lot varieties, but is close to that of Limantepe.1325 Within the Grey Wares at Panaztepe the largest group is the Anatolian Grey one, whose forms are the same as in its repertoire of western Anatolia. Likewise at Limantepe Anatolian forms dominated, but imported MH Matt-Painted Wares is also notable. At these sites has been recorded the earliest occurrence of Anatolian Grey Ware in western Anatolia, dated to the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C.1326 Among materials from M-LBA Bayraklı VIII-XIV comparable with those of Troy VI and Beycesultan IVc-b there was also recorded discussed ware, chronologically affiliated with EarlyMiddle Troy VI.1327 The MBA Larisa II settlement on the Gediz River produced a few examples, whose forms are parallel to those of Limantepe, Bayraklı and Early Troy VI.1328 Very micaceous ware close 1325 Erkanal 1992, 449, 451-52; Erkanal 1993, 496; Schachner 1994-1995, 109; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 338-43. 1326 Günel 1999a, 188-91; Günel 1999b, 56-58. The Lianokladhi goblet is the only Aegean form in Anatolian Grey Ware certainly recorded at Panaztepe IIb and Limantepe III – Günel 1999a, 189, 191, pl. 146 nos 3-4; Günel 1999b, 54, 74 fig. 16. On the other hand, kantharoi recorded there are known from western Anatolia and Greece – Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 83, 90 fig. P.4 nos 1-2, 118, 122 fig. P.25 nos 18-20; Maran 1992a, 88, pls 11 nos 8-9, 58 no. 7; Maran 1992b, 121-23; Schachner 1994-1995, 92-96. 1327 Akurgal 1950, 55-58, pl. 8a-b; Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 75-78; Schachner 1994-1995, 108; Bayne 2000, 68-70; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 319-20. 1328 Boehlau, Schefold (eds) 1942, 16-22, pls 2-3; Schachner 1994-1995, 109; Bayne 2000, 62, 6367 figs 7-11, 68-70, 71-78 figs 12-19, 79-80, 81 fig. 20, 82, 84-85 figs 21-22, 86-88. At Bayraklı and Larisa occurred Anatolian bowls, but there were not Aegean imports or their imitations.

to that of Panaztepe and 603 from Early Troy VI came to light at Ephesus.1329 Just four sherds derived from the M-LBA Miletus, of which only three are in colour close to Trojan examples, but their surface is less soapy.1330 The quoted examples suggest the coastal area as the place of origin of the discussed ware. However, the majority of material derived from more inland surveys. It seems to be LBA and in form more affiliated with Beycesultan, but hardly accepted as older than its level V.1331 Moreover, this indicates cultural homogeneity in the region of modern İzmir, as well as to the south of it. On the other hand, as stated above it is comparable with material from the Aegean and the Greek mainland1332 and formal affinities also indicate an influence from south-western Anatolia. At nearby MBA Emporio have been recorded only a few sherds of the discussed ware chronologically comparable with Early Troy VI, which came to light along with the Matt-Painted Wares.1333 Also the MBA Heraion VI yielded Anatolian Grey Ware parallel to that of Early Troy VI.1334 Anatolian Grey Ware, in which inter alia forms of Troy VI are notable, is rare at LBA Thermi (phase II above Town V), but in the later part of that period became more abundant1335 likewise as in the upper strata of Antissa.1336 This, along with other evidence, indicates that Chios, Lemnos, Lesbos and Samos had been part of the western Anatolian cultural zone.1337 Also the common 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336

1337

168

Koppenhöfer 2002a, 291, 329. Op. cit., 337. Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 82-100; Pavúk 2002b, 104. Günel 1999a, 169; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 338. Hood et al. 1982, 571-78; Schachner 1994-1995, 109. Milojčić 1961, 51, 58, pl. 49 no. 21. Lamb 1936, 72, 136, 140, 141 fig. 41, 148 nos 644, 647, 650, pl. 18. Lamb 1931, 171 – it was decorated with stamped triangles, incised key-pattern and in the late phase with wavy lines; Lamb 1936, 143. Bittel 1937b, 281; French 1969, 70, 71 fig. 6.

pattern of decoration shows that the discussed ware originated in western Anatolia since wavy incised lines were introduced at LBA Beycesultan IVaIII and continue up to its level Ib, but much earlier at the EBA IIA Thermi I-II and perhaps also during its LBA occupation.1338 Decoration of incised lines is also known from M-LBA Panaztepe.1339 Later than at Troy VI the motif of wavy lines between sets of horizontal lines occurred on Black Slip Ware at MPG to SPG Lefkandi, which would suggest long life of this pattern or its contacts with western Anatolia.1340 At Troy VIII as the successor of the discussed ware can be regarded its late variant, whose fabric is comparable to that of Grey Eastern Bucchero Ware from the northern Aegean.1341 As presented above distribution of the Anatolian Grey Ware during the M-LBA extended from the northern Aegean up to the İzmir region to the south and even to Miletus. Moreover, to the north of Troy the field surveys recorded it on the Gallipoli Peninsula and Turkish Thrace (Keşan). In the MBA both these areas were strongly influenced by Trojan culture, but lack of the later pottery indicate the end of this phenomenon after destruction of the Sixth

1338

1339 1340 1341

On distribution of the M-LBA Grey Minyan Ware, Anatolian Grey Ware and related ones, as well as distribution of their forms and relations between them in western Anatolia and Greece see also Schachner 1994-1995, 99-104; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 290-320, 328-29, 332, 335, 337-44, 346-68; Pavúk 2002b. Lamb 1936, 139 fig. 40 no. 17a, 140, 143; Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 129, 131, 133, 136 fig. P.35 no. 3, 137 fig. P.36 no. 10, 138 fig. P.37 no. 4; Mellaart 1970b, 62; Kull 1989, 55-56; Mellaart, Murray 1995, 2; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 325, 359 (but there is no illustrated example of that pattern at LBA Thermi). Günel 1999a, 176, pls 141-46. Desborough 1980, 346 and fig. 21, 347. Blegen et al. 1958, 252-53; Hertel 1991a, 139.

Settlement. Moreover, Troy as the key site of the region must have had contacts with Thrace and the Balkans, but in the European part of Turkey Mycenaean pottery was not found. On the other hand, northern Thrace and southern Bulgaria were under Balkan influences.1342 Thanks to numerous field surveys and excavations it was possible to distinguish pottery zones in western Anatolia. One of them was located in its northwestern part, between Troy and İzmir, where the discussed pottery occurred in the M-LBA.1343 However, according to materials from excavated Bayraklı, Limantepe and Panaztepe, the region of the İzmir Bay itself can be regarded as a transitional zone.1344 North of it surveys of the plain of the Kaïkos River and the Gediz drainage also yielded pottery under consideration.1345 Its forms from the Değirmentepe settlement, as well as from the Manisa-Akhisar and Balıkesir areas, are parallel to those from Early Troy VI, Bayraklı and Limantepe1346, but also show affinities with the MH ones.1347 The poverty, in that respect, of the 2nd millennium B.C. sites in the Balıkesir area discovered in the course of the field surveys can be explained by its geographical isolation.1348 Further to the northeast, not so far from the finds from the Troad, Akhisar, Manisa and İzmir, other field prospections brought to 1342 Özdoğan 1986, 55-56, 62, pl. 1; Özdoğan 1988, 167 fig. 4; Özdoğan 1991, 369 fig. 12. 1343 Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 77 map 1; French 1967; French 1969, 75; Mellaart, Murray 1995, 99-101, 101 map 1, 102 map 2. 1344 Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 75-80. 1345 Driehaus 1957, 83, 87, 89, 91-92; French 1969, 6869. 1346 Driehaus 1957, 90 fig. 7 nos 3, 6, 92-93, 95-96; French 1969, 68-69, 85 fig. 16 nos 15-34, 86 fig. 17 nos 1-19. 1347 Schachner 1994-1995, 112. 1348 French 1968, 68-71; Özdoğan 1989, 574; Özdoğan 1991, 369 fig. 12.

169

light this pottery in the area of İznik-İnegöl. However, it is rare there and very difficult to differentiate from the İnegöl Grey Ware possibly dated to the very end of the 3rd millennium B.C.1349 Generally, according to results of the fieldwork, sites producing Anatolian Grey Ware are generally clustered on the western Anatolian seashore and in its hinterland. At sites situated in the southern part of the coast forms of Anatolian Grey Ware are related to those of the MH tradition or Early Troy VI. Moreover, at Bayraklı, Limantepe and Panaztepe there is notable a stratigraphic separation of the MBA containing Anatolian Grey Ware from the LBA with the Mycenaean pottery, which in the course of that period replaced the first ware, and this evidently shows cultural change. However, Mycenaean shapes were faithfully imitated in Anatolian Grey Ware at Panaztepe and Limantepe, i.e. sites where earlier the Lianokladhi goblet was copied.1350 This indicates strong Mycenaean influence in the area from İzmir up to the Marmaria Peninsula (e.g. Değirmendere, Miletus, Müskebi) confirmed by its pottery. Contrary to this, at Troy (where the Lianokladhi goblet is also known), Beşiktepe, Thermi, Antissa and Poliochni, during the LBA Anatolian Grey Ware appeared together with less represented Mycenaean pottery, whose forms were imitated in the first one.1351 1349 Bittel 1942, 161-62; Özgüç 1946, 606, fig. 79 no. 30; French 1967, 61-64 – he regarded the latter ware as directly preceding Anatolian Grey Ware. Contrary on the basis of formal and decorative dissimilarities – Schachner 1994-1995, 112-13. 1350 Günel 1999a, 182-83, 186, pls 143 no. 5, 144 no. 5, 165 no. 1, 166 no. 1, 169 no. 1, 170 no. 1; Günel 1999b, 58, 78 and fig. 19 nos 43-45 (pyxides); Pavúk 2002b, 105. 1351 Lamb 1936, 136, 140, 142 and fig. 42, 143, 148 nos 644, 647, 650, pl. 18; Cultraro 1997, 687; Mountjoy 1997b, 291 fig. 10 no. 34, 292; Mountjoy 1999a, 264, 265 fig. 3 nos 15-16, 288, 289 fig. 13 nos 119, 121, 123; Mountjoy 1999b, 306, 307 fig. 3 no. 13,

In light of this, north of the Gediz River there still dominated autochthonic culture in Troad with the centre at Middle Troy VI and VII.1352 It should be added that there are also coastal, but first of all inland sites, where no Mycenaean forms have been recorded.1353 On the other hand, the number of pieces of Mycenaean pottery found at western coastal and nearby island sites led to the development of a schema of the “lower or upper interface”. Those attributed to the latter one, including Troy VId to VIIb, were also from LH IIA to LH IIIC under the influence of Mycenaean culture of the East Aegean– West Anatolian Interface.1354 In sum, the problem of the origin of the Anatolian Grey Ware is still open. However, in my opinion this ware resulted from improving firing technology in a reduced atmosphere, initiated in the early MBA. Perhaps – as the pottery’s red, beige and orange colour could have imitated gold and copper vessels – the grey might have been linked with silver.1355 According to D. H. French the Anatolian Grey Ware is one of the wares in the 2nd millennium western Anatolia. The forms and surface treatment of that of Troy VI are hardly comparable with Grey Minyan Ware from the Greek mainland.1356 It seems he is partly right, since in the pottery from the other coastal Anatolian sites it is very difficult to separate Anatolian features from Aegean

1352 1353 1354 1355 1356

170

330 fig. 14 no. 59, 331-32, 338, 339 fig. 19 nos 6768, 340; Basedow 2000, 53-60, 64-109. At Late Troy VI dominated Anatolian forms (mainly bowls) while the Aegean/Mycenaean are first of all limited to drinking vessels, but also closed shapes are notable, which show their development on mainland Greece – Pavúk 2002b, 103. Schachner 1994-1995, 109, 111, 113-14. Pavúk 2002b, 105. Mountjoy 1998, 33-34, 38 fig. 1, 39, 43, 45, 46 table 1, 52 fig. 9, 60. Pavúk 2002b, 106. French 1973, 51-52.

ones.1357 Nevertheless, bearing in mind its probable Anatolian origin, it should more properly be called Anatolian Grey Ware. The discussed pottery in western Anatolia is regionally differentiated due to the lack of an identical repertoire of forms. There is also a notable contrast between the coast and inland since on the former within one hundred years there occurred new forms reflecting changes in fashion. Moreover, the pottery on the seashore was strongly influenced by the Mycenaean one. In inland western Anatolia the discussed ware was more conservative and in the LBA was produced mostly for local customers. The MBA forms disappeared during Troy VIIa and VIIb1 periods.1358 At Troy VIIb2

distinguished there as a local groups with its own distinctive assemblage of forms and decorations.1363 In these cultures mentioned influences mixed and developed in pottery decorated with knobs, flutes, as well as incised and stamped motifs. So, the Knobbed Ware recorded at Troy also came from the lower Danube area. In other words, as a result of intensified contacts during about 1300-1200 B.C. of the Balkans with the neighbouring areas a new pottery appeared in Greece and Anatolia.1364 Both

itself were introduced shapes of Knobbed Ware. On the other hand, thin-walled and highly polished examples of “Buckelkeramik” are reminiscent of Anatolian Grey Ware.1359 Knobbed Ware in terms of technological tradition is close to Handmade Burnished Ware of Troy VIIb1. For these handmade coarse wares, as a potential broad territory of origin the Ukrainian steppes, the southeastern Balkans and the northwest Pontus area have been proposed.1360 The Handmade Burnished Ware originated in the steppes and then by way of the lower Danube area (affinities with the Valikovaya pottery) arrived in Troy.1361 The beginning of the Knobbed Ware/“Buckelkeramik” can be linked with the Urnfield cultures, which influenced other cultures. The closest parallels are with EHal Čatalka, Cepina, Coslogeni, Babadağ I and Pşeničevo, but some Thracian antecedents are also known.1362 Wares with knobs have been

Ware. The first one increased up to 10% of the entire pottery, but disappeared in the course of time. The production of Knobbed Ware continued and surpassed the frequency of Handmade Burnished Ware.1365 At Troy Knobbed Ware extended into the Dark Ages since the most recent excavations in square D9 evidenced its occurrence together with the EPG pottery in newly distinguished Troy VIIb3.1366 North of Troy the Knobbed Ware has only been found at EAI Menekşe Çatağı and Monastır Mevkii.1367 To the south of the Troad, EIA GordionYassıhöyük VIIb produced handmade pottery related to Knobbed Ware of Troy VIIb. Sudden

1357 1358 1359 1360

Pavúk 2002b, 106. Op. cit., 105-106. Koppenhöfer 1997, 320, 333. For an overview of the problem see Koppenhöfer 1997, 334-41; Koppenhöfer 2002b. 1361 Koppenhöfer 2002b, 703. 1362 Hänsel 1976, 229-36, map 4; Özdoğan 1987,

wares occurred suddenly at Troy and were used along with wheelmade Tan and Anatolian Grey Wares. At Troy VIIb2 there is a fluent transition between Handmade Burnished Ware and Knobbed

1363 1364 1365

1366 1367

171

13-14; Koppenhöfer 2002b, 703. The latter area as a potential cradle of newcomers has also been suggested earlier. However, they rather peacefully infiltrated due to continuity of Anatolian Grey and Tan Wares – Blegen et al. 1958, 156-57 table 18. Hänsel 1976, 234; Bouzek 1985, 195. Koppenhöfer 2002b, 702-703. Koppenhöfer 1997, 320, 333. On the other hand, within the citadel in square E9 a house was destroyed by fire in the mid and at the end of VIIb1 – Mountjoy 1999b, 324. Korfmann 2000, 32; Korfmann 2001a, 26. Erim-Özdoğan, Işın 2002, 318; Özdoğan 1993, 162.

occurrence on the site of this quite different ware is associated with disappearance LBA pottery.1368 From the EIA tomb in Limantepe derived one vessel related to Trojan “Buckelkeramik”.1369

irregular blocks, house walls with orthostatai and little, partly plastered cells, arched walls, as well as streets replaced with crooked lines.1375 As the areas

Occurrence of both Knobbed Ware at Troy VIIb2 and earlier Handmade Burnished Ware at Troy VIIb11370 is of great value since they mark the beginning of the new ceramic tradition derived from the range to the north of the Troad, considered by many scholars as linked with the arrival of a new ethnic group/s.1371 This point of view is supported, to some extant, by Herodotos’ mention of migration of the European Briges, the neighbours of the Macedonians, who after resettlement in Asia changed

of origin of these novelties (except the crooked lines) at Troy VIIb has tentatively been proposed southern Ukraine, where the best analogies yielded the LBA Anatolevskoe and Sabatinovka settlements (the Sabatinovka culture), Voronovka II and Berislav settlements (the transitional phase from Sabatinovka to Belozerka culture), the Zmiëvka I-II settlement (the Belozerka culture), as well as the Durankulak I-III settlement (the southwestern Pontic variant of the Coslogeni culture) in Bulgarian Dobruja. On the other hand, however, there are differences and in

their name to Phrygians.1372 Chronologically, the appearance of these wares follows destruction of Troy VIIa, most probably of a warlike character. The Handmade Burnished Ware has been linked with the first wave of migration from the area of the Coslogeni culture, and the Knobbed Ware with the second, stronger one from Thrace or Romanian Dobruja.1373 Both wares represent a complete class of handmade pottery, very different from the wheelmade one of a thousand year-old tradition cultivated at Troy and in terms of quality inferior to it.1374 This inferiority corresponded with the ‘degenerated’ architecture and spatial organization within the citadel and the Lower Town, namely multi-chamber varied-plan houses crammed in

fact the mentioned parallels do not exactly reflect Trojan architecture.1376 Particularly in line with the possible phenomenon of migration, even in two stages1377, is the appearance of orthostatai – very sporadically at Late Troy VI, not occurring at VIIa, but notable as a new architectural feature at VIIb1 and common at VIIb2.1378 The new pottery along with changes in architecture led Blegen to conclude that coarse wares reached Troy not “(…) in the course of ordinary trade (…)”, but they were rather “(…) products that continued to be made by a migrating people after they had established themselves in their new home (…)”.1379 However, the problem is that although the abundant Trojan Knobbed Ware stylistically evidently shows the impact from the

1368 1369 1370 1371

1375 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 195-96; Blegen et al. 1958, 141-43, 226-27, 235-36, 241-43; Blegen 1964, 168; Koppenhöfer 1997, 309; Korfmann 1997, 29, 4245, 52. 1376 Pieniążek-Sikora 2002, 710-14. 1377 Op. cit., 706, 709. 1378 Blegen et al. 1953, 291, 325; Blegen et al. 1958, 142; Pieniążek-Sikora 2002, 710. 1379 Blegen et al. 1958, 144. Earlier H. Schmidt expressed the same point of view in Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 303.

Op. cit., loc. cit. Op. cit., 335. Blegen et al. 1958, 142-44, 158-59. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 193, 199-200; Blegen et al. 1958, 143-45; Rutter 1975, 30-32; Bankoff, Winter 1984, 25-26; Bloedow 1985, 186-87, 198; Koppenhöfer 1997, 337-41; Koppenhöfer 2002b, 702; Korfmann 1997, 29. 1372 Herodotus VII 73. 1373 Koppenhöfer 1997, 334-41. 1374 Blegen et al. 1958, 154, 158-59.

172

north, it was, except for one or two perhaps imported examples, locally manufactured.1380 So, the question of the presence of Knobbed and Barbarian Wares at Troy as an indicator of migration is really still open. Moreover, it cannot be satisfactorily answered on the basis of only pottery and thus requires more complex research on the architecture, dietary customs and anthropological remains.1381 In this context to those already listed should also be added some other indicators on the people’s movement. For instance on the non-sacral buildings of Troy VIIb there are notably stelae re-used as door thresholds, which may suggest foreigners not respecting local religious symbols.1382 Moreover, in the chipped stone industry of Troy VII there are visible typological affinities with the Noua, Sabatinovka and Coslogeni cultures.1383 The phenomenon of migration from that area had been evidenced in southeastern Bulgaria not only by close parallels in pottery, but also stone sceptres, bronze daggers, spears, axes and sickles.1384 However, it seems more probable that the appearance of the new pottery at Troy VIIb reflects pauperization of its population after a series of destructions at the end of the LBA and thus the appearance of a new social structure within the same ethnic group. This change could have resulted in demand for such pottery, but new Balkan fashion may also have played a role. The non-migration scenario is especially supported by the Knobbed 1380 Guzowska et al. 2003, 241, 247-48. In fact only a small assemblage of Trojan pottery was geochemically analyzed, namely twenty-two Knobbed Ware and four Barbarian Ware sherds. As comparative material were used 236 samples from southern Bulgaria, chronologically and typologically close to the Trojan Knobbed Ware. 1381 Cf. Anthony 1990; Anthony 1997; Anthony 2000; Burmeister 2000. 1382 Korfmann 1997, 29. 1383 Gatsov 1998, 131-39. 1384 Lichardus et al. 2000, 162-65.

Ware, which cannot be related typologically to any specific group in the eastern Balkans, but rather represents a conglomerate of shapes and decorative motifs found in that range. Also just one or two perhaps imported sherds of that ware distinguished in the course of specialized analysis do not support this point of view.1385 In light of it and bearing in mind Troy’s location at the traditional crossroads between Europe and Asia it is highly plausible that we are dealing with hardly definable links, but infiltration of a certain foreign group/s cannot be definitely excluded. 1.3. Typology and chronology On the basis of material from the American excavations in 1932-1938 a large number of vessel shapes were distinguished. Therefore, for the purpose of this contribution, Blegen’s still basic and commonly accepted typology has been adopted, along with his division of the strata.1386 However, in some cases there are very fluent limits between certain forms, which enormously complicate comparative studies. There is also difficulty in distinguishing tankards and jugs.1387 Moreover, some forms as for instance A28 generally distinguished for Troy I-V1388 are not always included in the typology of the First and Second Settlement. Moreover, there are also types derived from H. Schliemann’s excavations, but not American ones.1389 Additionally in many instances we are dealing only with variants of the main types. In sum Blegen distinguished 287 types for Troy 1385 Guzowska et al. 2003, 248. 1386 Blegen et al. 1950-1958. 1387 For instance no. 37-987 falls between tankard A39 and jug B3 – Blegen et al. 1950, 369, fig. 385. Moreover, nos 33-204, 33-199 were classified as tankard A39 – Blegen et al. 1951, 41, 51, fig. 68. 1388 Blegen et al. 1950, 24, fig. 129. 1389 Op. cit., figs 223a, 370a.

173

I-VII.1390 His typology was enormously supplemented by D. F. Easton, who on the basis of Schliemann’s diaries recognized ninety-three new forms for Troy I-V.1391 The latter typological scheme, as well that of Ch. Podzuweit1392, was also used when necessary. Moreover, one new form (B222) was added to Easton’s typology. Definition of the principal techniques of 1390 Op. cit., 56-76, figs 129-32 (Troy I: A1, 5-7, 9-10, 1217, 24-25, 31-33, 39, 42-43; B1-3, 12-19; C1-4, 16-18, 24-27, 31, 34, 37, 39; D1, 3, 9-11, 14-15, 17-20, 23-24, 28, 31), 224-41, fig. 370 (Troy II: A1-2, 5, 12, 16-18, 21, 24, 26-27, 29-30, 35, 38-39, 43, 45-46; B1, 3-4, 6-10, 17-18, 22, 24; C5, 9-13, 15-16, 19, 21-22, 28, 30-32, 34-35, 39; D1-3, 5-8, 13-15, 23-25, 27, 30, 32); Blegen et al. 1951, 22-34, fig. 59 (Troy III: A2, 1011, 16, 18, 21-22, 30, 39, 43, 45; B3, 5, 9, 17-18, 20, 22, 24; C5, 7, 10, 13-14, 19, 21, 28-30, 32, 35-36; D1, 3, 7, 12-15, 21-24, 26, 33-34), 122-36, fig. 154 (Troy IV: A2, 4, 8, 11-12, 16, 18, 20-21, 28, 33-34, 36-37, 39-40, 44-45; B3, 6, 9, 11, 18, 20-24; C5-7, 9-14, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28-30, 32-33, 35-36, 38-39; D1-2, 5, 7-8, 13, 15, 23, 29), 237-49, fig. 238 (Troy V: A2-4, 8, 11-12, 16, 18-21, 23, 33, 39, 41; B1, 3, 9, 18, 20, 2324; C5, 8 10, 13-14, 19-20, 22-23, 28-30, 38-39; D1, 4-5, 7-8, 12-13, 15-16, 23-24, 29, 33); Blegen et al. 1953, 39-76, figs 292-95 (Troy VI: A12, 16, 18-19, 21, 23, 33, 47-51, 53-54, 56-65, 68-71, 73, 75-76, 78, 81, 83-87, 89, 91-92, 94-96, 98-100; B25-26, 28, 3338, 40-42; C39-41, 48-49, 52-55, 57, 59-62, 64-68, 70-73, 76-82; D33, 37-43, 45-46), 25-44, figs 214-17 (Troy VIIa: A48-52, 55, 60, 71-75, 77, 79-81, 83, 8588, 90, 93; B25-27, 29-32, 35, 39-42; C39, 41, 43-46, 48, 50-51, 56-57, 61-63, 67-70, 74-75, 80, 82; D37, 40, 42-45), 159-76, fig. 218 (Troy VIIb: A49-52, 60, 66-67, 71-74, 83, 85-87, 93, 101-107; B25-29, 33, 35, 41-48; C39, 42, 45, 47, 50-51, 56-58, 67-69, 74-76, 78, 80, 83-86; D35-37, 42-43, 45), 257-58 (Troy VIII). 1391 Easton 2002, figs 126-28 (A200-229, B200-221, C200-223, D200-216) and 194 (for conspectus of A45). 1392 Podzuweit 1979a, 107-237, pls 1-25, especially 156, 158-59, 176, 194-95, 198, 211-12, pls 7, 9, 16, 20 (forms 3FIVb, 3HIIc2, 4FIIa, 7BIIa1, 7CIIIb, 9DIV).

vessel formation, due to ‘complete preservation’ of vessels, was limited to a statement that handmade and wheelmade manufacturing was employed. Unfortunately, in regard to handmade technique there was no opportunity to record for instance such methods as coil building or slab formation, but irregularity of shapes was observed and thus a broad range of variations. On the other hand, regularity and symmetry of wheelmade shapes has been noticed. Of all Trojan forms, among the studied pottery thirty-eight ones have been recognized. Following the catalogue they were divided into two categories, namely open A2, 70, 214, D209 and closed A33, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 106, 206, 211, 221, 224, 228, B3, 13, 17, 20, 24, 222, C6, 10, 25, 30, 68, 202, 7BIIa1, 7CIIIb, 9DIV, 3FIVb, 4FIIa and 3HIIc2. Although lids D3, 5, 8, 15 are not true vessels, their function, that of contents retainers, designates them as pottery. Judging from their diameters, shapes and known analogies they served for covering non-open vessels and thus can be attributed to the closed category. Detailed description, summarized occurrence (Table 9) and broader parallels for distinguished forms are presented below. Open forms Type A2 Plate with flaring side, plain rounded rim and flattened base (cat. no. 63). This form occurred for the first time at Troy IIb and was linked with introduction of the wheelmade technique. From phases IIb-c it was thick walled and heavy, but later in IId-g became smaller and much thinner. It was common in phase IIc and was particularly recorded in large quantities in IId, f-g. In phases IIb-c it was produced almost exclusively in Plain Ware. Also it was very popular

174

in IId-g, where it was very often coated with red or tan wash.1393 At Troy III this shape is generally somewhat thicker, deeper and larger than at Troy II; it occurs commonly in Plain Ware in phase IIIa, as well as rarely in Red-Coated Ware.1394 In all phases of Troy IV the form occurred less frequently in Plain Ware and only once in Red-Coated Ware in phase d.1395 At Troy V the discussed shape in Plain Ware was produced in the early and middle phases, and in Coarse Ware in the late one.1396 Type A70 Deep bowl with convex sides, angular shoulder, concavity above ridge, thickened rim sometimes with raised band below edge and ring-base foot; it may have had one handle (cat. no. 68). At Early Troy VI was recorded one example in Coarse Ware, one in Anatolian Grey Ware and perhaps another one in the same ware. It is rare at Late Troy VI in Anatolian Grey Ware.1397 Type A214 Deep bowl with convex base and low vertical round loop handle from plain rounded rim to body (cat. no. 4). The rare form of a half-spherical bowl with vertical loop handle was perhaps recorded at Troy III.1398 Another example in Red-Coated Ware derived from Troy IV.1399 Type D209 1393 1394 1395 1396

Blegen et al. 1950, 225 and table 12, 226. Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 24. Op. cit., 122, 123 table 14. Op. cit., 237, 238 table 21, 239; cat. no. 63. For occurrence of this form at Troy II-V see also Easton 2002, 105. 1397 Blegen et al. 1953, 36, 40 table 9, 49; cat. no. 68. 1398 Easton 2002, 233, figs 126, 170. 1399 Cat. no. 4.

Flanged, cylindrical pyxis with three rolled-up little feet (cat. no. 5). This form occurs perhaps at Troy II1400, but certainly at IV in Red-Coated Ware.1401 Closed forms Type A33 Globular cup with splaying offset rim, flat base and high round vertical loop handle from rim to body (cat. nos 6-13). This form at Troy I, where it is uncommon, occurred in Fine Polished Ware toward the end of the early sub-period and in the late sub-period, but no example was illustrated.1402 It was perhaps manufactured at Troy II1403 and III.1404 Typically it occurred at Troy IV, where it was produced in RedCoated Ware in all phases, as well as in Plain Ware in phase c, in Early Aegean Wares in phases a, d and in Coarse Ware in phase a.1405 At Troy V this form was less popular, but still quite common in RedCoated Ware in the early and middle phases, and also occurs in Coarse Ware in the early phase.1406 It was also recorded at Troy VI.1407 Type A37 Globular cup with convex side, splaying rim, short pedestal base and two vertical round, high loop 1400 Easton 2002, 303, figs 128, 193. 1401 Cat. no. 5; Easton 2002, 188/possible, figs 128, 157 (upside-down). 1402 Blegen et al. 1950, 57 table 6, 64. 1403 Easton 2002, 171, fig. 152. 1404 Op. cit., 155, fig. 145. 1405 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 125-26; cat. nos 6-13. For other possible examples of this form see Easton 2002, 169, 187, 196, figs 151, 156, 160. 1406 Blegen et al. 1951, 238 table 21, 242. Some other examples of this form, including one plausible, are in Easton 2002, 115, 185, 194, figs 135, 156, 159. 1407 Easton 2002, 152/plausible, fig. 144; Koppenhöfer 2002a, 365.

175

handles from rim to body (cat. nos 14-16). It was already recorded at Troy II.1408 In Red-Coated Ware this form appeared for the first time at Troy IVa and later in phase c.1409 Type A39 Tankard with bulging body, high straight or slightly flaring neck, out-turned rim, flattened base and vertical round loop handle from neck below rim to body (cat nos 25-43, 64, 73). More recently this broad type has been divided into four main ones HI-IV and several variants within each of them.1410 According to this scheme the discussed tankards are attributable to types Ia (cat. nos 29,

example has been recorded in Polished Ware.1415 It is popular in Red-Coated Ware in all phases at Troy IV and in Plain Ware in phases a, c, e.1416 At Troy V it was occasionally recorded in all phases in RedCoated Ware, but in Plain Ware in the early and the middle phases, and in Grey Ware in the middle and the late ones.1417 Type A41 Hourglass-shaped tankard with narrow waist marked by impressed lines, plain rim, broad flat bottom and high round vertical loop handle from rim to lower part of body (cat. nos 44-45). For the first time it occurred at Troy II.1418 Troy

33, 37, 43), Ib1 (cat. nos 25-26, 30, 34-35), Ib2 (cat. nos 27-28, 31-32, 38-40, 64, 73) and IIc2 (cat. nos 36, 41-42).1411 This form perhaps derived from the end of Troy I, where possibly it was produced in Fine Polished and Lustre Wares.1412 It was already recognized at Troy IIa, and in its phase IIb or c was produced in Grey and Black Polished Ware, in IIb in Red Luster Ware, in IIc-d, f-g in Red-Coated and Plain Wares.1413 At Troy III this shape is common in RedCoated Ware and especially in Plain one, but also occurs in Grey and Black Wares.1414 Moreover, an

V yielded three examples in Red-Coated Ware in phases a, d, as well as in V2, perhaps Vc and V1.1419 Moreover, two other items in the same ware derived from Troy V1 and Vd.1420 Only one item is known perhaps from VII.1421

1408 Easton 2002, 242, fig. 174. 1409 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 126; cat. nos 14-16. 1410 Podzuweit 1979a, 158-62, pl. 7. 1411 Op. cit., 158-59, pl. 7. 1412 Blegen et al. 1950, 57 table 6, 64, fig. 223a. 1413 Op. cit., 225 table 12, 229, fig. 370a. However, it should be pointed out that despite the shape’s description being the same as for Troy I, A39 of Troy II differs enormously, i.e. according to fig. 370a its neck was not high and flaring. For possible and certain examples see Easton 2002, 116, 156, 160, 201, 205, 210, 242, figs 135, 146, 148, 163, 165, 167, 174. 1414 Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 25-26; cat. nos 25,

30-34, 36, 38-39, 64. For other plausible examples see Easton 2002, 278, 295, figs 182, 189. Cat. no. 74. Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 126-27; cat. nos 26-29, 37, 40-43. For other examples including two possible see Easton 2002, 169, 196, 209, figs 151, 160, 166. Blegen et al. 1951, 238 table 21, 242, but due to the handle attached to the rim it enormously differs from A39 of Troy I-IV; cat. no. 35. For an example perhaps from Troy II-VI see Easton 2002, 90, fig. 130. Easton 2002, 116, fig. 135. Blegen et al. 1951, 238 table 21, 242-43. Cat. nos 44-45. Easton 2002, 183, fig. 155.

Type A43 Bulging tankard with high flaring neck, plain rim, flattened bottom and two round vertical loop handles from neck to body (cat. nos 3, 46, 75). This form was perhaps introduced at the end of the late sub-period of Troy I in Fine Polished and

1415 1416

1417

1418 1419 1420 1421

176

Lustre Wares or at Troy IIa.1422 Certainly it was manufactured in Red-Coated Ware in IId, g, in Plain Ware in IId (commonly) and g, as well as in Grey and Black Polished Ware in IIg.1423 Additionally,

occurred infrequently in Red-Coated Ware in phases a-b and in Grey and Black Wares in phase d.1430 The discussed shape was also recorded at Troy V.1431

also one item in Lustre Ware 2 (Jet-black) is known from Troy II.1424 At Troy III it is rare and produced only in phase d in Red-Coated Ware.1425 This form was also recorded at Troy IV in Gritty Ware.1426

Type A106 Squat globular cup with concave neck, everted rounded rim, elbow-handle rising from it to shoulder and flattened base. Shoulder generally decorated with knobs – one opposite handle and one on each side, as well as incised or rippled pattern (cat. no. 78). For the first time this form occurred at Troy VIIb2 in a newly introduced Knobbed Ware, while being more rarely produced in Anatolian Grey Ware.1432

Type A45 Depas amphikypellon, i.e. tall, almost cylindrical cup, with spreading plain rim and two vertical round loop handles set in the form of a heart-shaped ensemble (cat. nos 20-24). For the first time four pieces of this form occurred at Troy IIc. Later, it was produced mainly in wheelmade technique in Grey and Black Polished Ware in phases IId, g, in Red-Coated Ware in phase IIc, especially commonly in phases IId, f-g and in Early Aegean Ware in phases IId, f-g.1427 It has also been recorded in newly distinguished destroyed Troy IIh.1428 At Troy III it was commonly manufactured mainly in Red-Coated Ware in all phases.1429 At Troy IV it 1422 Blegen et al. 1950, 57 table 6, 64-65, 229. 1423 Op. cit., 225 table 12, 229; cat. no. 46. For two other examples, including one possible see Easton 2002, 171, 237, 322-23, figs 152, 172. 1424 Cat. no. 3. 1425 Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 26. For other possible example see Easton 2002, 155, fig. 145. 1426 Cat. no. 75; Easton 2002, 169/possible, fig. 151. 1427 Blegen et al. 1950, 225 table 12, 230; cat. nos 20, 22-24. However, one certain and two possible handmade items were also recorded – Blegen et al. 1950, 285, 296, 333. For other examples, including several possible ones, see Easton 2002, 147-48, 156, 171, 205, 234, 242, figs 146, 152, 165, 174. 1428 Korfmann 1992a, 20-21, 22 fig. 20 no. 2. 1429 Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 26; Cat nos 20, 22-24. For mostly plausible examples see Easton 2002, 170, 209, 278, figs 151, 166, 182.

Type A206 Bell-shaped tumbler with spreading plain rim and slightly marked base-ring (cat. no. 51). It appeared perhaps at Troy II or Late II in RedCoated Ware.1433 Type A211 Globular cup with short neck, convex base and one vertical low round loop handle from neck below rim to body (cat. no. 17). This form was recorded at Troy II-III1434 and at IV in Red-Coated Ware.1435 Type A221 1430 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 127; cat. no. 21. For mostly plausible examples see Easton 2002, 187, 196, figs 156, 161. 1431 Easton 2002, 194, 284/plausible, figs 159, 185. There are also examples from Troy II-V and roughly dated to III-IV – op. cit., 105, 140, 146. 1432 Blegen et al. 1958, 156 table 18, 165; cat. no. 78. Also possible example in Easton 2002, 150, fig. 143. 1433 Easton 2002, 237, 323, figs 126, 172; cat. no. 51. 1434 Op. cit., 209, 243, figs 126, 166, 174. 1435 Cat. no. 17.

177

Bell-shaped tankard with concave foot and two round vertical loop handles from below rim to body (cat. no. 47). Recorded at Troy II1436 and in Red-Coated Ware at Troy IV.1437 Type A224 Globular cup with three short feet and two high round vertical loop handles from rim to body (cat. nos 18-19). It was recorded at Troy III1438 and in Red-Coated Ware at Troy IV.1439 Type A228 Hourglass shaped tankard with narrow waist marked by incised lines, plain rim, broad flat bottom and two high round vertical loop handles from rim to lower part of body (cat. no. 66). This form perhaps occurred at Troy IV.1440 At the Fifth Settlement it was manufactured in Grey Ware.1441 Type B3 Ovoid jug with high and somewhat narrowed cylindrical neck, splaying plain rim, flat base, round in section vertical loop handle from the neck just below the rim to the shoulder (cat. no. 76). Its squat variant was occasionally produced at Troy Ig-j in Fine Polished Ware and perhaps also in Coarse Polished Ware.1442 As a survival from Troy I at the Second Settlement it occurred commonly, namely in phases IIa, c, f-g in Grey and Black Polished Ware, in IIb perhaps in Grey and 1436 Easton 2002, 243/possible, 280, 323, figs 126, 174, 183. 1437 Cat. no. 47; op. cit., 276/possible, fig. 181. 1438 Op. cit., 115-16, 241/possible, figs 126, 135, 173. 1439 Cat. nos 18-19; op. cit., 196/possible, fig. 160. 1440 Op. cit., 154, figs 126, 145. 1441 Cat. no. 66. 1442 Blegen et al. 1950, 66, 57 table 6, fig. 223a.

Black Polished, Red-Coated and Coarse Polished Wares, in IIc perhaps in Red-Coated, Plain and Nubbly Wares, in IId, f in Red-Coated, Plain, Early Aegean Wares and in IIg in Nubbly Ware. At Troy II it is sometimes also very squat1443, but usually more elongated in shape; it was not observed at Troy IIe.1444 At Early-Middle Troy III the shape was common in Red-Coated Ware. In Middle III it occurs also in Grey and Black, Early Aegean and Coarse Wares, and in Late III in Early Aegean Ware.1445 This form occurred sporadically in Coarse Ware at Troy IVa, in RedCoated Ware in IVb and possibly also in IVa.1446 From the same settlement derived also one item in Gritty Ware.1447 Subsequently, the shape is quite different than in earlier periods and infrequently was observed in Red-Coated Ware in the EarlyMiddle V, and possibly in Plain Ware in the Early V.1448 Type B13 Globular spouted jug with broad cylindrical or slightly spreading neck, plain rim, flat or slightly 1443 For instance op. cit., 369 no. 37-987, fig. 385. 1444 Op. cit., 225 table 12, 231, fig. 370a. For other, mostly possible examples see Easton 2002, 110, 122, 156-57, 160, 171, 234, 243, 280, figs 134, 137, 146, 148, 152, 171, 174, 183. 1445 Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 26, fig. 59a. However, occurrence in Plain (common) and Nubbly Wares was not marked in table 7. Several mostly possible examples are listed in Easton 2002, 131, 155, 170, 199, 233, 285, figs 140, 145, 151, 161, 170, 185. 1446 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 128, fig. 154a, but table 14 does not reflect the described distribution. For plausible examples see Easton 2002, 127, 168, 187, figs 138, 150, 156. 1447 Cat. no. 76. 1448 Blegen et al. 1951, 238 table 21, 243, fig. 238 and also possible examples in Easton 2002, 126, 185, figs 138, 156. An example derived from Troy II-V – Easton 2002, 105, fig. 132.

178

concave base, vertical round or oval loop handle from rim to shoulder, but flattened at point of upper attachment (cat. no. 71). This form was introduced at Troy Ia-c and continued in d-f in Fine Polished Ware. At Troy Ig-j it was produced in Lustre Ware.1449 From that settlement is also known one example in Unpolished Ware.1450 At least one example of this form is known from Troy II1451 and perhaps it occurs at Troy III1452 and IV.1453 Type B17 Globular spouted jug with broad cylindrical or slightly spreading neck, plain rim, flat or slightly concave base, vertical round or flattened loop handle from below rim to shoulder (cat. no. 52). It was certainly introduced in the middle subperiod of Troy I in Fine Polished and Coarse Polished Wares.1454 At Troy IIb it was perhaps recorded in Coarse Polished Ware1455, but became very common in Grey and Black Polished Ware 1 in phases a-d, f, in Red-Coated Ware (except phase a), in Plain Ware in phases c-d, f-g, in Early Aegean Ware in phases f-g, in Nubbly Ware in phases c-d, f-g.1456 At Troy III it occurs infrequently in Grey and Black Wares in phase a, in Nubbly Ware in phases b-d and in Rough (Coarse?) Ware in phase c.1457 The discussed shape was recorded at Troy

1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456

Blegen et al. 1950, 57 table 6, 66. Cat. no. 71. Easton 2002, 129/possible, 288, figs 139, 186. Op. cit., 295, fig. 189. Op. cit., 136, 154, figs 141, 145. Blegen et al. 1950, 57 table 6, 68. Op. cit., 225 table 12, 232. Op. cit., loc. cit. For other examples see Easton 2002, 116, 156, 160/possible, 279/possible, figs 135, 146, 148, 182. 1457 Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 27; Easton 2002, 155/ possible, fig. 145.

IVa and IV in Red-Coated Ware.1458 Possibly it was also recorded at Troy II-IX.1459 Type B20 Ovoid beaked jug with high slender neck, out-turned rim, flattened base, vertical round loop-handle from neck just below rim to shoulder (cat. nos 53, 61). At least one example occurred at Troy II.1460 In the late phase of Troy III, it was infrequently produced in Red-Coated and Plain Ware, as well as in Grey and Black Ware 2.1461 At Troy IVb-e it was occasionally recorded in Red-Coated Ware.1462 This shape was produced in Red-Coated Ware in all phases of Troy V.1463 Only one example was recorded at Early Troy VI in Red-Coated Ware1464 and probably a similar form occurred at the Seventh Settlement.1465 Type B24 Globular or ovoid jug with trefoil splaying rim, narrow neck and vertical round loop handle from neck to shoulder (cat. no. 67). 1458 Mansfeld 2001, 236 no. 47, 237, pls 13 no. 1, 23 no. 3; cat. no. 52. Two other examples perhaps also derived from that settlement – Easton 2002, 187, 294, figs 156, 189. 1459 Easton 2002, 113, fig. 134. 1460 Op. cit., 117, 302/possible, figs 136, 192. 1461 Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 27-28; cat. nos 53, 61. For other possible examples see Easton 2002, 121, 199, 233, figs 136, 161, 170. Possible form B20 can be roughly attributable to Troy III-IV – op. cit., 140, 146. 1462 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 129; Easton 2002, 276/possible, fig. 181. 1463 Blegen et al. 1951, 238 table 21, 243-44, fig. 238 – but it differs enormously from cat. no. 61; Easton 2002, 219/plausible, fig.168. There are also examples from Troy II-V and V-IX – op. cit., 105, 178, fig. 154. 1464 Blegen et al. 1953, 125 no. 9, fig. 354; Kull 1988, 164. 1465 Easton 2002, 183, fig. 155.

179

This rare form makes its first appearance at Troy IIf in Red-Coated and Plain Wares, as well as in phase g in Red-Coated Ware.1466 At Troy III it was recorded infrequently in Red-Coated, Plain and Early Aegean Wares.1467 It is common in RedCoated Ware in all phases of Troy IV, in Gray and Black Wares in phase c, in Plain Ware in phases a, c-d, in local Early Aegean Ware in phases a, e and in Coarse Ware in phases a, d.1468 In all phases of Troy V this shape was produced in Plain Ware, in the early and middle phases in Red-Coated Ware and in the early one in Early Aegean Ware.1469 Moreover, at the same settlement one example in Grey Ware has been recorded.1470 Type B222 A little jug with globular, squat body and distinctly marked shoulders, long cylindrical neck tapering toward the top, straight rim, flat base, vertical loop handle from neck below rim to shoulder (cat. no. 58). A roughly similar form probably came from Troy III1471 and another one in Grey and Black Ware 1 appeared at Troy III-IV.1472 Type C6 Globular jar with high cylindrical neck, somewhat out-turned rim, flattened base and two opposing 1466 Blegen et al. 1950, 225 table 12, 233. At least one example quoted by Easton 2002, 288, fig. 186. Other possible shape B24 derived from deposit dividing Troy II from III – op. cit., 140-41, 147. 1467 Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 28; Easton 2002, 121/possible, fig. 136. 1468 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 130; Easton 2002, 127/possible, fig. 138. 1469 Blegen et al. 1951, 238 table 21, 244; Easton 2002, 186/possible, fig. 156. For possible examples from Troy IV-V see Easton 2002, 140, 145, 229, fig. 169. 1470 Cat. no. 67. 1471 Easton 2002, 199, fig. 161 (but as B3). 1472 Cat. no. 58.

pairs of vertical small loop handles on the shoulder (cat. no. 54). This form occurs perhaps at Troy II.1473 From Troy III came to light only one example.1474 At Troy IV it was produced in Red-Coated Ware in phases b, d-e.1475 Type C10 Large ovoid jar with high narrow neck, out-turned rim, flattened or convex base, two small vertical loop handles set low on body and sometimes a third one from neck to shoulder (cat. no. 72). For the first time this form occurred in Grey and Black Polished Ware at Troy IIc. Later it was produced mainly in various fine wares, except Lustre Ware, namely in phase IId in Grey and Black Polished, Early Aegean and Nubbly Wares, in phase IIf in Red-Coated and Early Aegean Wares, in phase IIg in Grey and Black Polished, RedCoated, Early Aegean and in Nubbly Wares.1476 At Troy III the shape was produced in all fine wares, especially commonly in local Early Aegean and also in Nubbly Wares.1477 At Troy IV it occurs most commonly in local Early Aegean Ware in phases a-b and also in Red-Coated Ware in phases a-b, d, in Plain Ware in phases a, c-d, in Coarse Ware in phases a, c-d and possibly in Grey and Black Wares in phase d.1478 At Troy V this shape was frequent in Red-Coated Ware in the early and the middle subperiods, in Plain Ware in the middle and possibly 1473 1474 1475 1476

Easton 2002, 201, fig. 163. Op. cit., 285, fig. 185. Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 130; cat. no. 54. Blegen et al. 1950, 225 table 12, 234; cat. no. 72. For other, mostly possible examples see Easton 2002, 160, 171, 201, 243, 279, 289, figs 148, 152, 163, 174, 182, 187. 1477 Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 29; cat. no. 72. For at least one example see Easton 2002, 233, 246/ possible, figs 170, 175. 1478 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 131.

180

in the early sub-periods, and in Coarse Ware in the middle one.1479

early and middle phases.1486 At Troy IV it occurred in Grey Ware only in phases a, d and once in RedCoated Ware in an uncertain context.1487 At Troy V

Type C25 Globular jar with wide mouth, plain rim, flattened base and four pierced vertically horizontal lugs on shoulder (cat. no. 77). This form was identified at Troy Ib only in Coarse Polished Ware.1480 At least one example appears at

the discussed form was perhaps registered in RedCoated and Plain Wares in the early phase, but certainly in Plain Ware only in the late phase.1488 This form occurs perhaps also at Troy V-VI1489 and one example probably derived from Troy VIIa.1490

Troy II.1481 At Troy IVc it was produced in Coarse Ware1482 and one example in Gritty Ware occurred in the same settlement.1483

Type C68 Jar with ovoid bi-conical body with sharp curve, short spreading thickened rim of varying profile, two vertical arched handles round in profile rising from upper part of shoulder and ring-base. Sometimes

Type C30 Globular anthropomorphic jar with human features, concave neck, horizontally splaying or plain rim, flattened base and two vertical loop or wing-like handles (cat. nos 2, 65). Troy I yielded the earliest example of this form.1484 An example representing the human face was produced at the end of Troy IIg in Grey and Black Polished Ware and another one in Grey and Black Polished Ware 1 derived from the Second Settlement.1485 At Troy III this shape is rare and recorded in Grey and Black Wares only in the 1479 Op. cit., 238 table 21, 245; Easton 2002, 186/ possible, fig. 156. 1480 Blegen et al. 1950, 57 table 6, 71; Easton 2002, 207/possible, fig. 166. 1481 Easton 2002, 201/possible, 204/possible, 205/ possible, 289, figs 163, 165, 187. 1482 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 133; Easton 2002, 187/possible, fig. 156. 1483 Cat. no. 77. 1484 Easton 2002, 207, fig. 166. 1485 Blegen et al. 1950, 225 table 12, 236; cat. no. 2. For many other examples, including plausible ones, see Easton 2002, 123, 157, 201, 205, 237, 259, 280, 289, 302, figs 137, 146, 163, 165, 172, 178, 183, 187, 192. This form is also known from Troy II-III and II-V – op. cit., 95, 105, 147, fig. 131.

decorated with incised patterns of groups of straight and wavy lines, grooves and plastic edges (cat. nos 69-70). Contrary to Blegen1491 perhaps only one piece of this form occurs at Early Troy VI in Red-Washed Ware.1492 It is certainly present at Middle Troy VI in Anatolian Grey and less often in Red-Washed, as well as Tan Wares. Two other fragments in Anatolian Grey Ware (601) are dated to Early-Middle Troy VI.1493 Late Troy VI produced it abundantly in 1486 Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 31. For several other examples, also plausible ones see Easton 2002, 199, 247, 278, 295, figs 162, 182, 189. For another example from Troy III-V see op. cit., 146. 1487 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 133-34. Other examples, including possible ones, in Easton 2002, 127, 187, 222, 276, 284, figs 138, 156, 169, 181, 185. 1488 Blegen et al. 1951, 238 table 21, 246; cat. no. 65. There is also one example from Troy V-IX – Easton 2002, 178, fig. 154. 1489 Easton 2002, 140, 145. 1490 Op. cit., 360, but not mentioned on 219. Moreover, the upper part of possible EBA vessel turned up at the mixed deposit – op. cit., 273, 276, fig. 181. 1491 Blegen et al. 1953, 41 fig. 9, 67-68. 1492 Op. cit., 135, figs 357 no. 15, 429 no. 4. 1493 Cat. nos 69-70.

181

Anatolian Grey and frequently in Tan Wares.1494 At Troy VIIa it was produced commonly in Anatolian Grey and Tan Wares.1495 Several sherds of this form, both in Anatolian Grey and Tan Wares, have been recognized among pottery from Troy VIIb.1496 Type C202 Ovoid, miniature hole mouth jar with flattened base and vertical perforated lugs (cat. no. 74). This form was recorded at Troy II1497 and in Polished Ware at Troy III.1498 Type 7BIIa1 Globular jar with low or high neck, out-turned rim, two vertical low horn-shaped pierced lugs on shoulder and three short spreading legs (cat. no. 62). This form was recorded at Troy IIg in Grey and Black Polished Ware.1499 Moreover, from Troy IV an item in Grey and Black Wares is known.1500 Type 7CIIIb Miniature jar with ovoid body, wide and slightly flaring neck, horizontally splaying rim with two holes just below it, low foot hollow underneath, as well as two pierced vertical horn-like lugs on shoulder (cat. no. 59).

1494 Blegen et al. 1953, 41 fig. 9, 67-68. 1495 Blegen et al. 1958, 40. However, it should be stated that no complete vessel of that type dated to Troy VI was recorded during American excavations, but two well restored examples derived from VIIa – Blegen et al. 1953, passim; Blegen et al. 1958, 53-54 no. 37-1184, fig. 234, 68 no. 35-461, figs 234, 249. 1496 Blegen et al. 1958, 172. 1497 Easton 2002, 243, figs 127, 174. 1498 Cat. no. 73. 1499 Blegen et al. 1950, 333, fig. 403. 1500 Cat. no. 62.

This form occurred at Troy II.1501 At Troy III it is known in Grey and Black Ware 1.1502 One miniature object was recorded in Plain Ware at Troy IVe.1503 Type 9DIV Ovoid tripod deep vessel with out-turned plain rim, high and round in section vertical loop handle attached from it to the shoulder, rounded bottom and three short spreading legs. Decorated with incised line on the handle’s top and small knob opposite the handle, just below the rim (cat. no. 48). Thanks to the re-assessment of earlier excavations this form can be dated to Troy II1504 and III.1505 At the Second Settlement it was produced in Red-Coated Ware.1506 Moreover, Troy V produced an example of that form in coarse fabric.1507 Type 3FIVb Tankard with bi-conical and truncated body, evidently marked short, wide neck, plain rim, slightly convex base and two high round vertical loop handles from the rim to the lower part of the body (cat. no. 49). It was recorded at Troy II in Red-Coated Ware1508 and perhaps at Troy IV-V.1509 Type 4FIIa Globular jug with high, wide cylindrical neck, plain rim, broad cylindrical neck, slightly concave base and vertical loop handle from below rim to body (cat. no. 1). 1501 Easton 2002, 243, fig. 174 (but as C32?). 1502 Cat. no. 59. 1503 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 134, 208, figs 168, 185 (but as C32). 1504 Easton 2002, 243-44, fig. 174 (but as D24). 1505 Op. cit., 121, fig. 136 (but as D24). 1506 Cat. no. 48. 1507 Blegen et al. 1951, 248-49 (but as D24). 1508 Cat. no. 49. 1509 Easton 2002, 229, 324, fig. 169 (but as A228).

182

This form in Polished Ware is known at Troy I and perhaps occurred at the Sixth Settlement.1510

Coated Ware at Troy IVa and possibly in phases c, e, but with a small knob on top.1517

Type 3HIIc2 Globular tankard with slightly narrowed cylindrical neck, straight rim, somewhat flattened base, vertical loop handle from below the neck to the shoulder (cat. no. 50). This shape appeared at Troy III and IVb in RedCoated Ware. 1511

Type D8 Flanged lid with straight or concave side, flat or somewhat convex top, crown-handle formed by two basket handles intersecting at right angles and topped by a knob (cat. no. 57). The earliest certain example of it was recorded only at Troy IIg in Grey and Black, Nubbly and Red-Coated Wares.1518 Perhaps it occurs also at

Type D3 Flanged lid with straight or concave side, flat or somewhat convex top and basket handle (cat. no. 55).

Troy III.1519 At Troy IV the shape was rare and manufactured in Red-Coated Ware in phase d and possibly in phases a, e.1520 Likewise at Troy V it

For the first time it was recorded at Early and Middle Troy I in Fine Polished Ware.1512 At Troy IIb it occurred in Grey and Black Polished Ware, later in Early Aegean Ware in phase c and in Red-Coated Ware in phases d, g.1513 At Troy III this shape occurs infrequently in Grey and Black Wares.1514 Perhaps it appears also at Troy IV.1515

was noticed sporadically in the middle phase and perhaps in the early one in Red-Coated Ware.1521 The discussed shape perhaps occurred at Troy VIIa-VIIb1.1522

Type D5 Bell-shaped lid with convex top and basket handle (cat. no. 56). This form first occurred at Troy IId in Plain and RedCoated Wares, and in phase g in Nubbly Ware.1516 With certainty this shape was recognized in Red1510 Cat. no. 1; op. cit., 284, fig. 185 (but as B29?). 1511 Cat. no. 50; Blegen et al. 1951, 172, fig 161 (but as B3). 1512 Blegen et al. 1950, 57 table 6, 73. 1513 Op. cit., 225 table 12, 238; cat. no. 55. In Blegen’s typology only a form with a concave side was illustrated, but there was also described one with a straight side. For other, also possible examples see – Easton 2002, 125, 157, 171, figs 138, 146, 152. 1514 Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 32. For an example from Troy III-IV see Easton 2002, 146. 1515 Easton 2002, 188, fig. 157. 1516 Blegen et al. 1950, 225 table 12, 238; cat. no. 56.

Type D15 Discoid lid with concave underside, convex top and two string holes (cat. no. 60). It was recorded at Troy I in Fine Polished Ware.1523 At Troy II this shape is rare and occurs only in phase d in Grey and Black Polished and Plain Wares, as well as in g in Nubbly Ware.1524 Troy IIIa-b yielded it in 1517 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 135. 1518 Blegen et al. 1950, 225 table 12, 239; cat. no. 57. For examples see Easton 2002, 163, 302, figs 148, 192. Examples of D7-8 derived from a deposit lying between Troy II and III – op. cit., 147. 1519 Op. cit., 121, fig. 136. Examples of D7-8 are also known from Troy III-IV – op. cit., 146. 1520 Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 135-36; Easton 2002, 188/possible, fig. 157. 1521 Blegen et al. 1951, 238 table 21, 247-48. 1522 Easton 2002, 151, fig. 143. 1523 Blegen et al. 1950, 57 table 6, 74. It occurred only with a central conical knob, which during Troy II-V was not always applied. 1524 Op. cit., 225 table 12, 239-40, 374, fig. 405. For another

183

Nubbly Ware.1525 One item in Grey and Black Ware 1 is attributable to Troy III-IV.1526 At Troy IVa, c this shape was recorded in Coarse Ware, in phase c in Grey and Black Wares and in phase d in Red-Coated Ware.1527 It still occurs at Troy Vd in Coarse Ware.1528 All forms attributed to Troy I are handmade (A33, B3, 13, B17, C25, 30, D3, 15, 4FIIa). During Troy II certain forms are wheelmade (A2, 206/dating uncertain, B24, D5, 3FIVb), others handmade (C10, 9DIV), as well as both wheel- and handmade (A39, 43, 45, B3, 17, C30, possibly D8). Likewise, from Troy III derived wheelmade (A2, B24, C30, 3HIIc2) and handmade (B20, 222, C10, 202, 7CIIIb, D15) examples as well as those made using both techniques (A39, 43, 45, B3, 17, 20). The same phenomenon is observable at Troy IV, where several forms were manufactured on the wheel (A2, 43), by hand (A37, 45, 211, 214, 221, 224, B17, 222, 7BIIa1, 7CIIIb, D15, 209, 3HIIc2) and using both these techniques (A33, 39, B3, 20, 24, C6, 10, 25, 30, D5). From Troy V onward there is a preponderance of wheelmade artefacts (A2, 33, 39, 41, 228, B3, 24, C30) and only one was handmade (9DIV). What is interesting, within Troy II-V only one form was consistently wheelmade (A2); the majority were made using both techniques. Types A70 of Troy VI and C68 of Troy VI-VII were wheelmade. During the LBA the only exceptions are both hand- and wheelmade cups (A106) of Troy VIIb2, introduced as a result of contacts with the Balkans (Table 9).1529 It should

1525

1526 1527

1528 1529

example see Easton 2002, 123/plausible, fig. 137. Blegen et al. 1951, 23 table 7, 33. Other possible examples in Easton 2002, 137, 295/plausible, figs 142, 189. Cat. no. 60. Blegen et al. 1951, 123 table 14, 136. For a possible example from Troy IV-V see Easton 2002, 230, fig. 169. Blegen et al. 1951, 238 table 21, 248. See types’ descriptions in Blegen et al. 1950-

be pointed out that the present study contributed enormously to the knowledge of precise technique of production of many forms, namely A39, 43, 45, 206, 211, 214, 221, 224, 228, B3, 17, 20, 24, 222, C6, 25, 30, 202, D15, 209, 7BIIa1, 7CIIIb, 9DIV, 3FIVb, 4FIIa and 3HIIc2. Blegen’s distribution of types within Troy I-V has generally been confirmed by the results of Easton’s investigations. There are identical distributions for A2, B3, 24 and C10, compatible, but shorter for A39 (Troy II-V). Forms A33 (perhaps Troy II-III), C25 (Troy II) and D8 (perhaps Troy III) supplemented gaps in Blegen’s distribution. Additionally, in some cases re-assessment of Schliemann’s pottery and finds from the recent excavations extended Blegen’s distributions for A33 (Troy VI), 37 (Troy II), 41 (Troy II and perhaps VII), 43 (Troy IV), 45 (Troy V), B13 (Troy II and perhaps III-IV), 17 (IV), 20 (Troy II and perhaps VII), C6 (Troy III and perhaps II), 30 (Troy I and perhaps VI-VIIa), D3 (perhaps Troy IV) and 8 (perhaps Troy III and VIIa-b).1530 Also chronological occurrence of Podzuweit’s types recorded in Blegen’s publication widened, namely 7CIIIb and 9DIV (Troy II-III). Moreover, form 3FIVb appears at Troy II and possibly at IV-V, while 4FIIa at the First and perhaps the Sixth Settlement. Finally, type 7BIIa1 was used at Troy II and IV, and 3HIIc2 at III-IV. It is necessary to point out that the present investigation extended the chronology of a lot of these forms: A43 (Troy IV), 206 (perhaps Troy II), 211, 214, 221, 224 (Troy IV), 228 (Troy 1958. If in that publication there was not any remark about technique of production, then from Troy IIb onwards all forms were regarded as wheelmade; see also Mansfeld 2001. Due to a lack of data Easton’s new types cannot be analyzed in that respect. 1530 Table 9 and types’ description above. Mansfeld 2001, 236 no. 47, 237, pls 13 no. 1, 23 no. 3; Easton 2002, 314, 319 table 8, 357-62.

184

V), B222 (Troy III-IV), 7BIIa1 (Troy IV), C202, 7CIIIb (Troy III), D209 (Troy IV), 3FIVb (Troy II), 4FIIa (Troy I) and 3HIIc2 (Troy III). Thus it contributed to dating earlier established by Blegen and Easton. Moreover, the proposed occurrence there of A70, B17 and C68 has been confirmed by other, more recent research. Undertaken studies also corroborated dating proposed by Blegen and Easton for several types: A2 (Troy V), 33, 37 (Troy IV), 39 (Troy III-V), 41 (Troy V), 43 (Troy II), 45 (Troy II-IV), 70 (Troy VI), 106 (Troy VIIb), B3 (Troy IV), 13 (Troy I), 20 (Troy III), 24 (Troy V), C6 (Troy IV), 10 (Troy II-III), 25 (Troy IV), 30 (Troy II), 68 (Troy VI), D3, 5, 8 (Troy II), 15 (Troy III-IV) and

this should be added the other new form B222 (Troy III-IV) separated in the course of these studies. Despite the large scope of Easton’s work, the rare form D5 of Troy II, IV was not recorded, as well as, being rather outside the scope of his research, A70, C68 and possibly A106 occurring at Troy VI-VIIb/ b2. These shapes are represented in the examined

9DIV (Troy II). Finally, thanks to the present efforts there have also been introduced to the scientific literature forms manufactured in wares other than those listed, or even not recorded by Blegen, namely A39 (Polished Ware), 43 (Luster Ware 2 (Jet-black), Gritty Ware), 70 (Anatolian Grey Ware (601), 206 (perhaps Red-Coated Ware), 211, 214, 221, 224 (Red-Coated Ware), 228 (Grey Ware), B3 (Gritty Ware), 13 (Unpolished Ware), 17 (Red-Coated Ware; also confirmed by G. Mansfeld), 20 (Grey and Black Ware 2), 24 (Grey Ware), 222 (Grey and Black Ware 1), 7BIIa1 (Grey and Black Wares), C25 (Gritty Ware), 30 (Grey and Black Polished Ware 1), 202 (Polished Ware), 7CIIIb (Grey and Black Ware 1), D15 (Grey and Black Ware 1), 209 (Red-Coated Ware), 9DIV (Red-Coated Ware), 3FIVb (RedCoated Ware) and 4FIIa (Polished Ware). Among the discussed forms there are several new ones distinguished and dated by Easton, namely A206 (perhaps Troy II), 211 (Troy II-IV), 214 (Troy IV and perhaps III), 221 (Troy II and IV), 224 (Troy III-IV), 228 (Troy V and perhaps IV), C202 (Troy II-III) and D209 (Troy IV and perhaps II).1531 To

however, the recent excavations in square EF3 below Megarons IIA and IIB revealed five or six building phases of Troy I. In the fifth or sixth one after Troy Ik (i.e. Troy I o/p or q = earlier Troy IIa or b) to Troy II buff vessels also occur, mainly wheelmade plates. This newly defined “Final Troy I” period begins with the building phase of Troy II of which c. 50% of pottery production still comes from Troy I traditional manufacture.1533 Supporting introduction of the potter’s wheel at Troy I are, to some extant, two analyzed samples of Fine Black Ware with observable flow structure resulting from parallel, to the wall of sherds, orientation of pore spaces and plastic deformation within the paste as the vessel was shaped while turning.1534 Nevertheless, the flow

1531 Table 9 and types’ description above; Easton 2002, 315, 320 table 9, 358-59, 361-62. However, in op.

material (Table 9).1532 It should be added that of Easton’s new types only a few are purely Trojan, but the majority have contemporary analogies or at least antecedents in Anatolia or the Aegean. It is still broadly accepted that at Troy I and IIa there was no knowledge of wheelmade technique since the pottery was handmade. On the other hand,

cit. some data in text slightly differ from those in its table 9. 1532 Op. cit., 150, 314, 327. 1533 Korfmann 1996a, 5. For the relationship between “Late/Final Troy I” and Troy II see also Korfmann 1999, 8-9; however, this issue needs further detailed research. 1534 Felts 1942, 237-39, 241; Knacke-Loy 1994, 7677. Two wheelmade vessels of perhaps the same ware and probably from Troy I were mentioned in Schliemann 1884, 38-39.

185

structure effect could have also resulted during handmade production, namely from coiling and smoothing.1535 The innovation of the potter’s wheel at Troy IIb has been evidenced by plates (A2; cat. no. 63) from storerooms in square E6.1536 This new technique was introduced not only suddenly, but also with immediately overwhelming success.1537 1535 Knacke-Loy 1994, 76. 1536 Blegen et al. 1950, 254-55, but earlier proposed by Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 254. 1537 Around that time a rapid change in the pottery sequence occurred since more or less simultaneously to A2 a large number of new pottery shapes were introduced, including A45 and C10 – Weninger 2002, 1045. To them should

Probably along with certain vessel forms of Troy II it travelled from Cilicia over the Konya Plateau, the Eskişehir Plain and westward to the Troad. This would indicate that the potter’s wheel was in use earlier at the inland western and southern Anatolian settlements, i.e. EBA IIA Bedemğacıhöyük III, late EBA II Seyitömerhöyük, late EBA II Demircihöyük, early EBA III Küllüoba, EBA IIIA Aphrodisias, as well as late EBA II DemircihöyükSarıket, early EBA III Kaklık Mevkii and early EBA III Yazılıkaya cemeteries. Subsequently, it reached Troy earlier than Heraion, Emporio, Thermi be added at least A37, 39, 41, 43, 211, 221, B20, 24, C6, 25, 30, 32, 35, 202, D3, 5, 8.

Table 9. Summarized occurrence of discussed vessels’ types and production techniques at Troy: B = Blegen et al. 1950-1958; E = Easton 2002; + = occurrence; ? = occurrence uncertain; w = wheelmade; h = handmade; hw = hand and wheelmade. Troy Open form

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VIIa

VIIb

VII

A2

-

B+ w

B+ w

B+ w

B+ w

-

-

-

-

A70

-

-

-

-

-

B+ w

-

-

-

A214

-

-

E?

1538

+h

-

-

-

-

-

D209

-

E?

-

+h1539

-

-

-

-

-

A33

B+ h

E?

E?

B+ hw

B+ w

K+1540

-

-

-

A37

-

E+

-

B+ h

-

-

-

-

-

A39

B?

B+ hw

B+ hw

B+ hw

-

-

-

-

A41

-

E+

-

-

B+ w

-

-

-

E?

A43

B?

B+ hw

B+ hw

+w1542

-

-

-

-

-

A45

-

B+ hw

B+ hw

E+

-

-

-

-

A106

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

B+ hw

-

A206

-

E? w

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

A211

-

E+

E+

+h1545

-

-

-

-

-

A221

-

E+

-

+h1546

-

-

-

-

-

A224

-

-

E+

+h

-

-

-

-

-

Closed form

1544

B+ h

1543

1547

186

B+ w

1541

A228

-

-

-

+w1548

-

-

-

-

B3

B+ h

B+ hw

B+ hw

B+ w

-

-

-

-

B13

B+ h

E+

E?

E?

-

-

-

-

-

B17

B+ h

B+ hw

B+ hw

+ h1550

-

-

-

-

-

1551

B20

-

E+

B+ hw

B+

B+

-

-

E+

B24

-

B+ w

B+ w

B+ hw

B+ w1552

-

-

-

-

B222

-

-

+h1553

+h1554

-

-

-

-

-

C6

-

E?

E+

B+ hw

-

-

-

-

-

C10

-

B+ h

B+ h

B+

-

-

-

-

C25

B+ h

E+

-

-

-

-

-

-

C30

E+ h

B+ h1557 w

B+ w

B+ hw

B+ w

E?

E?

-

-

C68

-

-

-

-

-

B+ w

B+ w

B+ w

-

C202

-

E+

+h1558

-

-

-

-

-

-

7BIIa1

-

B+

-

+h1559

-

-

-

-

-

7CIIIb

-

E+

+h

B+ h

-

-

-

-

-

9DIV

-

E+ h1561

E+

-

B+ h

-

-

-

-

3FIVb

-

+w1562

-

E?

E?

-

-

-

-

1563

+h

-

-

-

-

E?

-

-

-

-

-

+w1564

B+ h

-

-

-

-

-

D3

B+ h

B+ hw

B+

E?

-

-

-

-

-

D5

-

B+ w

-

B+ hw

-

-

-

-

-

D8

-

B+ h

E?

B+

B+

-

E?

E?

-

D15

B+

B+

B+ h

B+

-

-

-

-

4FIIa 3HIIc2

1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551

E?

B+ h

w

B+ hw

1549

1555

B+ hw B+ hw

1556

1560

B+ h

1565

Cat. no. 4. Cat. no. 5. Koppenhöfer 2002a. Cat. no. 35. Cat. no. 75. Cat. no. 21. Cat. no. 51, but dating on the basis of ware uncertain. Cat. no. 17. Cat. no. 47. Cat. nos 18-19. Cat. no. 66. Cat. no. 76. Cat. no. 52. Cat. no. 53.

1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565

187

Cat. no. 67. Cat. no. 58. Cat. no. 58. Cat. no. 54. Cat. no. 77. Cat. no. 2. Cat. no. 74. Cat. no. 62. Cat. no. 59. Cat. no. 48. Cat. no. 49. Cat. no. 1. Cat. no. 50. Cat. no. 60.

on the adjacent islands and the coastal settlement Limantepe; at the latter site it has been attested not before the second half of EBA III.1566 The shape A2 1566 Hood et al. 1981, 130, 169; Hood et al. 1982, 545; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 318 table 99, 319 table 100, 320 table 102, 321 table 103, 322, 361 fig. 304 no. 4, 389, 390 fig. 322, 585 fig. 423 nos 2, 5 (Acropolis VI-IV); Joukowsky 1989, 230; Efe 1988, 96, 99; Efe, Ay-Efe 2001, 43, 51-55; Duru 1998, 271; Topbaş et al. 1998, 46-47. Of special interest are finds from the burned stratum at Seyitömerhöyük reflecting a transition from EBA II to III (Late Troy I-IIa-b), but later than EBA Demircihöyük P-Q. It yielded several Trojan shapes, namely plates (A1, secondarly turned on the slow wheel), beak-spouted jugs (B20), two-handled jars (C5) cylindrical necked jars (C12, 13), cylindrical lids (D7), domed lids (D6), flat lids (D18), tripod vessels (D24) and triangular brush handles – Efe, İlaslı 1997, 599-601, 602 pl. 1 nos 1-6, 8-13, 18, 603, 604 pl. 2 no. 7. Trojan forms derived also from early EBA III Küllüoba mound, namely plates (A1, 2), tankards (A39) and depa (A45) – Efe, İlaslı 1997, 605, 606 pl. 3 nos 1-11, 13. Moreover, certain pottery shapes from EBA IIA Demircihöyük M indicate possible influences from the Troad and the finds from EBA II-III Demircihöyük-Sarıket and Kaklık Mevkii reinforce earlier propositions on the mutual exchanges between Troy and the inland sites – Efe 1988, 93-99. On the intensive links between early Troy II and sites in the Eskişehir Plain see also – Efe 1994, 16. Supporting spread of the potter’s wheel from Cilicia to central Anatolia are the earliest known examples found at EBA II Kültepe 17-14 along with Syrian imports – Özgüç 1986a, 36-38. This trend was continued, along with hard fired wares, from east and southeast to the northwest through the Konya Plateau, Akşehir, Afyon, Kütahya, Eskişehir Plain, İznik and İnegöl Plains to Troy – Efe 1988, 96, 114; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 597, 598 fig. 1, 605, 607. Also, the importance of the Eskişehir Plain in the overland trade between Cilicia and the northeastern Aegean has been evidenced by two foot-shaped stamp seals from EBA II-III Küllüoba – Efe, Ay-Efe 2001, 43. Perhaps

was made in Plain Ware, the earliest one with very characteristic features in the form of wheel marks visible on both the interior and exterior surfaces.1567 During Middle Troy II the Plain Ware suddenly gained higher interest and thus it can be regarded as falling at the beginning of EBA III.1568 Likewise, the described phenomenon followed the route of the metal trade stimulating contacts between Troy and central Anatolia, especially during the Second Settlement, when golden artefacts appeared for the first time in both areas – De Jesus 1980, 136-37. Additionally, sources of tin north of the Eskişehir Plain (Bilecik, İnhisar, Mihalgazi), if they really existed, could have played an important role in trade – Efe 1988, 115. On the other hand, the first direct contacts of Tarsus with possible Late Troy II and certainly Early III indicate that the discussed innovation reached the latter site before its initial relations with Tarsus – Efe 1988, 87. This would suggest that the potter’s wheel arrived at Troy independently of Tarsus (where it had been in use since LCh), having been brought there directly from the Levant by merchants seafaring along the Mediterranean and the Aegean coasts, thanks to prevailing sea currents. However, the way-stations for such diffusion have not as yet been completely recognized. If one accepts this option, then they are limited to EBA IIA Bedemğacıhöyük III and EBA IIB Karataş-Semayük V:2-3, which produced the earliest examples of wheelmade pottery in southern Anatolia – Mellink 1965a, 244, 50-51; Mellink 1965b, 115; Efe 1988, 96; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 597; Köpcke 1990, 70-71 figs 14-15; Duru 1998, 271. In contrast, the lack of wheelmade pottery from Thermi (despite occurrence of certain Late Troy II forms) and presence of wheelmade plates at Emporio during Late Troy II argue against introducion of the potter’s wheel at Early Troy II via the sea route – Hood et al. 1981, 130, 169; Hood et al. 1982, 545; Efe 1988, 87, 99. However, a research gap cannot be excluded. 1567 Knacke-Loy 1994, 54. 1568 Easton 2002, 317 table 6, 318 table 7, 337. During that time form A2 was also produced at Çukarhisar

188

wheelmade flaring one-handled tankards (A39; cat. nos 25-43, 64, 73) make their first appearance along with A2 in Late I or Early Troy II. During that time both types were manufactured in small numbers, but became numerous in Middle and Late Troy II.1569 Type A2 is also known from EBA II Tarsus1570, and EBA II Aphrodisias Acropolis XIIVII1571, but is more frequent only towards the end of the EBA II (= end of Early Troy II) at Beycesultan XIIIa, Karataş-Semayük V:2-3, Poliochni Red (final stages), Heraion II, Lerna III, EH IIB Manika, Mt Kynthos, Lefkandi I1572, as well as during the beginning of EBA III (= Middle Troy II) at Tarsus III.1, Kültepe 13, Karataş-Semayük VI, Küllüoba,

Euboea. Also, tankards A39 represent a widely distributed diagnostic form, which for the first time occurs in EBA II western Anatolia and the Aegean.1575 It has several basic variants1576 and

Kaklık Mevkii, Poliochni Yellow, Ayia Irini III1573 and Aphrodisias Acropolis VI, where it continued towards the end of EBA IIIA1574, while spreading widely through western Anatolia, the Cyclades and

with bell-shaped goblets. Moreover, tankards were recorded together with depa in the very beginning of the EBA III contexts at Küllüoba, DemircihöyükSarıket, Kaklık Mevkii, Karataş-Semayük and slightly later at Aphrodisias.1579 This form (A39)

1569 1570 1571 1572

1573

1574

and Aharköy. There are also known handmade examples from the latter site and Demircihöyük produced in Red-Coated Ware similar to that of Troy, where both hand- and wheelmade plates were manufactured in it – Efe 1988, 96, pls 43 no. 4, 44 no. 12, 61 nos 5-12. See descriptions above. Goldman et al. 1956, 127 no. 341, fig. 261. Joukowsky et al. 1986, 359 fig. 303 no. 1, 578, 579 fig. 419 nos 12, 15, 18. Milojčić 1961, 65, pl. 44 no. 1; Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 190 fig. P.46 no. 6, 191; Popham, Sackett 1968, 7 fig. 7 nos 1-2, 8; Sampson 1985, 273, 275 fig. 65 no. 26; Mellink 1986, 144 pl. 16, 145-46; Easton 2002, 337. Goldman et al. 1956, 137-38 nos 412-429, figs 265, 272, 353, 355; Mellink 1967, 263; Mellink 1968b, 259; Mellink 1986, 144 pl. 16, 145-46, 148; Mellink 1992, 216; Caskey 1972, 370, 371 fig. 6 no. C5; Bernabò-Brea 1976, 260-61, pls 204, 205 a-c; Özgüç 1986a, 38, 39 and fig. 3-24; Efe 1988, 103, 115; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 605, 606 pl. 3 nos 2-3; Topbaş et al. 1998, 45; Easton 2002, 337. Kadish 1971, 137, pl. 30 fig. 39; Joukowsky 1991, 11.

appears at early EBA II Poliochni Red, the end of EBA II Tarsus, Karataş-Semayük V, Beycesultan XIIIa (perhaps), EBA II Yortan, EBA III Heraion II, Iasos cemetery, Emporio I, as well as during the second half of EBA III Aphrodisias Acropolis VI, III-II.1577 It also came to light from the more recently excavated late EBA II Kanlıgeçit settlement.1578 It should be added that at the end phase of EBA II type A39 derived also from the same sites as A2 and both shapes sometimes appeared together

1575 Podzuweit 1979a, 158-62, pl. 7. 1576 Manning 2001, 84 (three variants distinguished only according to the handle’s shape and way of its attachment). There is also a more comprehensive proposal arranged on the basis of all vessel elements (four basic forms HI-IV along with their numerous variants) – Podzuweit 1979a, 158-59, pl. 7. 1577 Goldman et al. 1956, 141 nos 467, 470, figs 266, 356; Milojčić 1961, pl. 47 nos 4, 6; Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 190 fig. P.46 no. 2, 191; Bernabò-Brea 1964, pl. 143 k; Orthmann 1966a, 2, 3 fig. 1 no. 1; Spanos 1972, pl. 2; Hood et al. 1982, 556; Pecorella 1984, 46-47, 48 fig. 2 nos 14-15, pl. 34 fig. 129, pl. 49 no. 198; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 392, 393 fig. 326 no. 4; Mellink 1986, 144 pl. 16, 145-46. However, at Tarsus the very beginning of the EBA III cannot be excluded – Mellink 1989, 325, pl. 63 no. 1; Manning 2001, 84. 1578 Korfmann 2001c, 365, 367 figs 404-405, 368 fig. 406 (left and right); Özdoğan 2003a, 84. 1579 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 390 fig. 323, 392, 393 fig. 326 no. 4; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 605, 606 pl. 3 nos 4-5; Manning 2001, 85. Independent occurrence of

189

was also recorded in the southern Aegean, but more often at the same time as A2 in the mixture of western Anatolian styles, also in the Cyclades (Akrotiraki, Akrotiri, Ayia Irini, Chalandriani, Mt Kynthos, Panormos, Palamari), Euboea (Lefkandi, Manika), Argolid (Lerna), Attica (Kolonna, Makronisos, Raphina, Thorikos), Boeotia (Eutresis, Orchomenos, Thebes), Ellis (Olympia) and Thessaly (Pevkakia Magoula).1580 Generally, these two Anatolian types along with jugs became increasingly common in the late EH II Aegean.1581 Also innovations of Troy I-Early II (= EBA I-II) are globular cups (A37; cat. nos 14-16), jugs (B3, cat. no. 76; B13, cat. no. 71; B17, cat. no. 52), jars (C6, cat. no. 54; C25, cat. no. 77), anthropomorphic jars (C30; cat. nos 2, 65), cylindrical lids with baskedhandle (D3; cat. no. 55) and discoid lids (D15; cat. no. 60).1582 Cups similar to A37 are known at the EBA III Beycesultan XII-XI, IX and VI, as well as at its MBA level V; the latter two levels A39 contradicts the theory that it originated with A45 at Troy and spread eastwards in a single wave of cultural influence – Topbaş et al. 1998, 46. 1580 Goldman 1931, 105 and fig. 138; Kunze 1934, 54, 55 and fig. 15, 56, pl. 22 nos 2-4; Theochares 1952, 143 fig. 10, 145 and fig. 12, 146; Theochares 1955, 288; Podzuweit 1979b, 147, 151 fig. 6 no. 2; Konsola 1981, 122, fig. 3 d; Walter, Felten 1981, 104, 155, pl. 85 no. 130; Rutter 1979, 4, 6, 8, 5 table 1, 7 table 2, 33 fig. 1 nos 3-4; Rutter 1982, 487; Rutter 1983a, 70; Rutter 1983b, 344; Spitaels 1984, 167 no. 4 and fig. 105, 168 nos 5-6, 169 fig. 106; Sampson 1985, 255, 256 fig. 59 nos 23-24; Mellink 1986, 144 pl. 16, 146-48; Theochari, Parlama 1986, 52, fig. 48 no. 3; Marangou 1990, 166, 178 no. 188; Sotirakopoulou 1990, 43; Wilson 1999, 119-20, 126, pls 30 nos III-244-45, 247, 33 nos III-316-17, 320, 322; Manning 2001, 84; Easton 2002, 337. 1581 Mellink 1986, 144 pl. 16, 146-48; Easton 2002, 337. 1582 B3, 13, 17, C25, 30, D15 (Troy I), A37, C6, D3 (Troy II) – for chronological details see types’ descriptions.

roughly correspond with their re-occurrence at the beginning of Troy IV.1583 Analogies for jugs B3 and 4FIIa appear in western Anatolian sites, including EBA Yortan, EBA III Aphrodisias Acropolis I, EBA III Beycesultan X, VII1584 and also at EBA II Thermi II, IV, as well as EBA Macedonia.1585 Likewise, jugs B13 have parallels at EBA II Thermi I-IV, EBA I-IIA, IIB-IIIA Poliochni Black, Blue and Red, EBA Protesilaos II-III, EBA II Yortan, EBA Bozüyük, Aphrodisias (dating not given), Tarsus, EH II Eutresis and Zygouries, as well as EBA Salamanle and Gona.1586 Some stylistic parallels for B17 of Early-Middle Troy I 1583 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 202 fig. P.47 nos 24, 54, 203, 204 fig. P.48 no. 2, 205, 212 fig. P.52 no. 14, 213, 240 fig. P.66 no. 19, 241, 242 fig. P.67 nos 5-7, 243; Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 85, 92 fig. P.5 nos 26, 28, 31. 1584 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 210 fig. P.51 no. 14, 211, 228 fig. P.60 nos 1-2, 229; Orthmann 1966a, 2, 3 no. 2; Kadish 1969, 55, pl. 23 fig. 1. 1585 Lamb 1936, 75 fig. 26 Class A form 8, 81 fig. 29 Class C form 5, 106 no. 129, 124 no. 418, pls 35 no. 129, 37 no. 418, Heurtley 1939, 174, pl. 12 no. 199. 1586 Koerte 1899, 30, pl. 2 no. 1; Collignon 1901, 815, pls 1-2; Forsdyke 1925, 1, 2 and fig. 1 no. A7, 3-4, pl. 1 nos A5, 10, 15, 18-19, 24; Demangel et al. 1926, 39 and fig. 46, 41 fig. 52 no. 10, 42, 54 and fig. 68, 55 and fig. 69; Pottier 1923, 4-5, pls 1 nos 5-6, 2 nos 3, 5; Goldman 1931, 103 fig. 136, 104 fig. 137, 105; Lamb 1936, 75 fig. 26 Class A forms 1, 5-6, 76, 80 fig. 28 Class B forms 1-4, 7, 81 fig. 29 Class C forms 1-3, 99 no. 18, 103 nos 70-72, 108 nos 161, 164, 111 no. 207, 113 no. 253, 132 no. 560, 115 no. 288, 116 no. 296, 118 nos 327-328, 119 no. 347, 124 nos 413, 415, 417, 133 nos 570-571, pls 8, 10, 12, 35-37 (in fact these often quoted analogies are very dissimilar to Trojan ones); Blegen 1928, 84 fig. 72 no. 191, 85, 217; Heurtley 1939, 182 no. 248, 186 no. 273; Garstang, Goldman 1947, 384, pl. 92 no. 4 (“Anatolian” levels at Tarsus); BernabòBrea 1964, 543, 567, 569, 638, pls 1 f, 42 a-b, 43 e, g-h, 44 b, 145 a-c; Orthmann 1966a, 4, 3 nos 8-10, 5 nos 11-12; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 452.

190

are known from Gavurtepe.1587 Among sites with close affinities should also be mentioned EBA IIA Demircihöyük.1588 Jars C6, a possible novelty of Troy II produced also at the Third and Fourth Settlement, have numerous parallels at EBA I-II Yortan, Bayındırköy, Babaköy, Balıkeşir, Gümüşovatepe I, Karataş-Semayük V, EBA II Beycesultan XV-XIV and EBA IIIC Tarsus.1589 Anthropomorphic jars C30 had already been recorded by Schliemann1590 and Blegen at Troy II-V, but Easton also noted their occurrence at the First and possibly at the Sixth and the Seventh Settlements (Table 9). They have parallels at EBA I-IIIA Kumtepe Ic, Thermi II, Heraion I, Karataş-Semayük VI and Aphrodisias Acropolis III.1591 Examples of face pots were 1587 Meriç 1993, 356, 361 fig. 4 left. However, simple form of the beak-spouted jug along with other new shapes already began to appear throughout western Anatolia in the second half of the 4th millennium B.C. alongside traditional LCh forms – Efe at al. 1995, 376-77. 1588 Efe 1988, 95. 1589 Collignon 1901, 815, pls 1-2; Pottier 1923, 5, pl. 1 nos 12-15; Forsdyke 1925, 10 and fig. 17 no. A59, pl. 2 nos A58, A60; Bittel 1934, 35, pl. 3 nos 5-6; Bittel 1939-1941, 6, 8, 11 fig. 9 nos 3, 6-7, 15 fig. 11 no. 1; Bossert 1942, 23 no. 114, pl. 18; Goldman et al. 1956, 152 no. 597, fig. 277, 153 no. 605, figs 277, 363; Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 164 fig. P.33 no. 9, 165, 182 P.42 nos 1, 4, 183; Schiek, Fischer 1965, 160, 170-71, pl. 25 nos 40-41; Mellaart 1966, 129, 13031 fig. 39 no. 7; Mellink 1966, 252, pl. 59 fig. 20; Mellink 1967, 264, pl. 84 fig. 49; Orthmann 1966a, 12, 11 fig. 5 nos 38-39, 13 fig. 6 nos 37, 40-41. 1590 Schliemann 1880, 290-91 no. 157, 291-92 nos 158159, 339-40 nos 227-229, 340-41 no. 231, 341-43 nos 232-235, 345 nos 240-241, 521-23 nos 986-993, 574-76 nos 1291-1294, 1299; Schliemann 1884, 208-209 and nos 97-98, 212-13 and nos 100-101. 1591 Lamb 1936, 156 no. 30-34, pl. 23; Milojčić 1961, 42, pls 34 no. 2, 35 no. 86; Mellink 1968a, 131, pl. 54 fig. 2a-b; Mellink 1968b, 252, pl. 82 fig. 15 (Megaron 3); Kadish 1969, 58-59; Easton 1976, 152;

also recorded on the surface of other Anatolian sites, namely, situated in the Konya Plain EBA II Akçaşehir, Kanaç, Karaca, Kerhane, Kizilviran, Kızlar, Kocahöyük II, Kurtbaba, Sarlak, Üçhöyük and Yanagelmez, as well as from the excavated MBA Karahöyük1592; a chance find came to light at Bolu.1593 Lids D3 occurred at the EBA Aphrodisias, Demircihöyük (stray find), EBA II-III Bozüyük, and EBA II Thermi III-IV.1594 Analogies for lids D15 appeared at EBA II Thermi I, III-IV and Yortan.1595 Occurrence of plates, tankards and goblets continued and with the transition from the late EBA II to the EBA IIIA they were joined by flaring twohandled tankards (A43; cat. nos 3, 46, 75) and depa (A45; cat. nos 20-24) – both innovations of that period. The first examples of the latter form had already been recorded at Troy II by Schliemann.1596 Modern investigations have attested both these shapes in the Middle Second Settlement and they have wide distribution in Anatolia and the Aegean.1597 The basic type A45, i.e. one of the earliest forms of depas, came to light at EBA IIIC Kültepe 13.1598 Also

1592 1593 1594

1595

1596 1597

1598

191

Sperling 1976, 353, pl. 79 nos 823-824; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 372 fig. 310, 396 and fig. 330. Mellaart 1963, 208 fig. 5, 209, 216, 218, 219 fig. 10 nos 15-24; Huot 1982, 526, map 60. Arik 1944, 345. Lamb 1936, 115 no. 290, 123 no. 398, pls 9, 36, 40; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 452; Efe 1988, 98, pls 60 no. 23, 67 no. 5. Lamb 1936, 103 no. 75 (but two pairs of holes), 115 no. 289, 121 no. 369, pl. 38 nos 75, 289; Orthmann 1966a, 19 fig. 8 no. 69, 20. Schliemann 1880, 299 and fig. 179. Spanos 1972, pl. 1; Mellink 1986, 144 pl. 16, 14546, 148-50; Manning 2001, 82-84; Easton 2002, 322-23, 337, fig. 194. Öktü 1973, 262, pl. 54 no. I-c/05. Several older studies focused on depas form, including its origin – Schliemann 1874a, VIII-IX, L, 84, 281-82, 292, 308; Schliemann 1875, 313-14; Schliemann 1880, 299-303; Bittel 1934, 13; Blegen et al. 1950, 230.

the Akkadian Naṣiriya stele from south Iraq may depict a two-handled tankard.1599 At the beginning of EBA III in related Anatolian and Aegean sites both these types have been recorded for instance at Beycesultan XIIIa, Karataş-Semayük V, Poliochni Yellow, Protesilaos III-IV, Kastri on Syros, Ayia Irini III, Lerna IV, Pevkakia Magoula VII and the late EBA IIIA Aphrodisias Acropolis III-II; at the two latter sites depa continued in use into the very beginning of the MBA. It seems that they developed somewhere else and then arrived suddenly at the transition to the EBA III at Tarsus and subsequently in its EBA III.1-6.1600 Bell-shaped lids (D5; cat. no.

56) occurred for the first time at Middle Troy II and then at the Fourth and Fifth Settlement. Also flanged lids (D8; cat. no. 57) are another popular form introduced at that settlement, also occurring from EBA II in the northeast Aegean sites Emporio II-I, Thermi IV-V, EBA II Poliochni Blue, Red and with a crown-like handle in Yellow of the EBA IIIA1601, and in southwestern Anatolia during EBA

Later, as the area of its origin had been indicated the Troad and the vicinity of the Pisidian lakes with highly developed metal handwork – Spanos 1972, 78-79. According to a more recent proposal it may be the range extending from İznik-İnegöl through the Eskişehir Plain to Afyon. This seems highly probable in light of the likely origin of its main Red-Coated Ware; depa produced in it arrived in Troy – Efe 1988, 97, 114. 1599 Mellink 1963b, 101, 106-107, 114, pls 28, 30. 1600 Goldman et al. 1956, 131, 141-42 no. 471, fig. 356, 162 no. 722, fig. 285; Bernabò-Brea 1976, 251-53, pls 191-92, 193 a-h; Podzuweit 1979b, 140, 148-49, 150 fig. 5 no. 6, 151 fig. 6 nos 4, 6; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 390, 391 figs 324, 325 no. 3, nos 1, 4 (transitional E-MBA); Joukowsky 1989, 230; Joukowsky 1991, 11; Mellink 1986, 139-43, 144 pl. 16, 145-52; Mellink 1989, 325; Parzinger 1993, 204; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 605, 606 pl. 3 nos 6-9; Topbaş et al. 1998, 47; Easton 2002, 337. For early occurrence of A43 see also the EBA IIIA Emporio I in Chios – Hood et al. 1982, 556-58. Moreover, A45 is known from EBA IIIA Heraion III, but not II (Milojčić 1961, 44, pls 28 no. 7, 47 nos 7, 9; Efe 1988, 104, 117 fig. 98; Manning 2001, 82-83) and stratified context of Palamari (Parlama 1984, 94, fig. 13 bottom; Theochari, Parlama 1986, 52, fig. 4 no. 7). The beginning of the EBA III at Tarsus (EBA III.1) is unclear since it had been attributed to the EBA IIIA (Efe 1988, 117 fig. 98), but also to

Troy II have numerous parallels: A45/4 at EBA III Tarsus, Kültepe 12, Polatlı VII, X, late EBA IIIA Aphrodisias Acropolis III-II, EC IIIA Kastri on Kythera1604, A45/5 at the late EBA IIIA Aphrodisias Acropolis III-II, 1605 and A45/6 at Tell Ta‘yinat T 8:3

III of Beycesultan XI, VIII, VI, Karataş-Semayük VI and Heraion II-III.1602 Large ovoid jars (C10; cat. no. 72) belong to another innovation of Middle Troy II previously known only from EBA III Poliochni Yellow in the northeastern Aegean.1603 The new forms of depas introduced at Late

1601

1602

1603 1604

1605

192

the transitional EBA II-III (Mellink 1986, 144 pl. 16, 149). Occurrence of both discussed forms at Tarsus EBA III.1 indicates that it is later than e.g. Karataş-Semayük V – Mellink 1989, 325. Lamb 1937, 126 no. 463, 130 no. 535, 134 no. 591, pl. 40 no. 12a; Bernabò-Brea 1964, 575-77, pls 64 a-f, 66 a-b, e, 67 a-b, d, f-g, 68 b, g-n, 645, pls 158 nos 10-13, 166 a; Bernabò-Brea 1976, 255, pl. 195 c; Hood et al. 1981, 202; Easton 1990a, 439. Milojčić 1961, 40, 48, pls 17 nos 1, 3, 43 nos 3, 12; Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 206 fig. P.49 no. 10, 207, 220 fig. P.56 nos 11-13, 221, 248 fig. P.70 no. 8, 249; Mellink 1967, 261-62. Bernabò-Brea 1955, 145, 152, pl. 15 D-E; BernabòBrea 1976, 267, pls 213 a-g, 214 b; Easton 1990a, 438. Lloyd, Gökçe 1951, 42 no. 24, 43 fig. 10, 45-46, pl. 4 a; Goldman et al. 1956, 131, 142 no. 484, fig. 356; Bossert 1967, 70, 72, fig. 5 no. 7; Öktü 1973, 45, 184, pl. 16 no. 1-C/06; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 589 fig. 426 no. 9; Özgüç 1986a, 39, 40 fig. 3-27, 41; Easton 2002, 322-23, 337, fig. 194. Joukowsky et al. 1986, 390-91, 589 fig. 426 no. 11; Easton 2002, 322-23, fig. 194.

(Amuq J), Beycesultan IX, EH III Lerna IV, Tiryns and Aegina VI.1606 The depas of Troy III with a narrow ring base (A45/7) has counterparts with Beycesultan VIII, the late EBA IIIA Aphrodisias Acropolis III-II, Kültepe 12 and Tarsus EBA III CIII-IV,1607 while A45/8 occurred at Beycesultan VIa.1608 Examples of depa dated to the late EBA IIIIIA (= Late Troy II to Troy III) are known also from Kültepe 11b, Orchomenos and Thorikos.1609 Forms of Troy II-III do continue to occur at Pevkakia Magoula in the “Übergangsphase” and overlap EH III.1610 One depas (A45/9) from Troy IV, with two constrictions in the body giving a bubbly shape, has an analogy at Protesilaos.1611 The most numerous depas amphikypellon at Troy was during the EBA III very broadly distributed far beyond it – from southeastern Bulgaria and Greece through Anatolia to northern Syria.1612 There are many variants of it (A45/1-10) 1606 Müller 1938, 77-78, pl. 32 no. 5; Caskey 1955, 37, pl. 21 i; Braidwood, Braidwood 1960, 450, 451 fig. 349; Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 212 fig. P.52 no. 21 and perhaps nos 17, 20, 213; Walter, Felten 1981, 122 and fig. 107; Easton 2002, 322, 337, fig. 194. 1607 Goldman et al. 1956, 131, 144 nos 508-513, figs 266, 357; Özgüç 1957, 79, fig. 53; Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 218 fig. P.55 no. 46, 219; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 589 fig. 426 no. 1; Easton 2002, 322, 338, fig. 194. 1608 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 242 fig. P.67 no. 2, 243; Easton 2002, 323, fig. 194. 1609 Kunze 1934, 56-57, pl. 23 no. 1; Spitaels 1984, 168 no. 7; Spanos, Strommenger 1993, 578; Manning 2001, 101. For a discussion of that problem see Carpenter 1974, 92. 1610 Milojčić 1973, 340, pl. 304 d. 1611 Demangel et al. 1926, 54 fig. 67 no. 4, 55, 56 fig. 71 no. 137; Easton 2002, 323, fig. 194. 1612 Dimitrov 1943, cols 13-15; French 1968, 53-55, 129-30, maps 50, 55; Spanos 1972, pl. 1; Podzuweit 1979a, 151-53; Huot 1982, 540-49, map 62; Hüryılmaz 1995, 178-85, 186-87 figs 1-5, 188 map

and some, as presented above, are useful for dating since they have a limited chronological span.1613 It is worth adding that the depas along with A2 and A39 of Troy II-III indicate linkages with Heraion II-III, Poliochni Red-Yellow, end of EBA II and EBA III Tarsus, the end of EBA IIIA Aphrodisias, late EBA II-early EBA III Beycesultan XIIIa, Emporio I and Karataş-Semayük V-VI.1614 On the more detailed level among examined artefacts it was possible to distinguish two forms A45/3 (cat. nos 20-21) introduced at Late Troy II and having analogies at Poliochni Yellow. 1615 The rest (cat. nos 22-24) due to poor state of preservation are roughly attributable to basic type A45/10 occurring in numerous EBA sites, namely Alacahöyük, Aphrodisias, Beycesultan, Kültepe, Tarsus. They are dated to Troy II-III and are among (except cat. no. 23) the largest depa (22 cm high or over) found at that site. Items of similar size also came to light at EC III Kastri on Syros, Ayia Irini III and ET IIB-C Pevkakia Magoula.1616

1613 1614 1615 1616

193

1, pl. 7 b-f; Schachner, Schachner 1995, 307-12, 316 figs 1-4; Özdoğan 2003b, 115. To that should be added one mid-EBA III artefact from Kaklık Mevkii cemetery – Topbaş et al. 1998, 46, 73. The most southern occurrence of depa is known from EBA II-III Tell Bi’a, Tell Ta‘yinat (Amuq J) and Tell Selenkaḥiye – Van Loon 1968, 27; Strommenger 1991, 24 fig. 16, 25; Spanos, Strommenger 1993, 573-74, 575 map 1, pl. 104 no. 1a-b. In the Aegean more recent examples came to light at Markiani, Zas Cave and Seraglio – Marketou 1990, 102; Manning 2001, 84. For distribution of three of its seven variants see Spanos 1972, pl. 3. Easton 2002, 322-23, fig. 194. Manning 2001, 85. Bernabò-Brea 1976, 252, pl. 192 c-d; Easton 2002, 322-23, fig. 194. Bossert 1967, 69, 72, fig. 4 no. 3; Caskey 1972, 373, 374 fig. 7 no. C48, 375; Podzuweit 1979b, 140, 148-49, 150 fig. 5 no. 6, 151 fig. 6 nos 4, 6; Easton 2002, 323, fig. 194.

To an innovation of Late Troy II can also be attributed two-handled tankards with a flaring rim (A43) similar to that from Kültepe 121617, two-handled cups (A221; cat. no. 47), which could alternatively have been introduced in Middle Troy II1618 and an hourglass-shaped tankard (A41; cat. nos 4445) formally similar to earlier “Trompetenkanne” from EH II and EBA II-III Argissa Magoula1619, as well as the Babaköy site (uncertain date) of the Yortan culture.1620 During Troy IV-V the latter type also had formal affinities with pottery from late MT Pevkakia Magoula II and EC III House Γ of Palamari.1621 According to previous studies it had only been recorded at Troy V, but in light of more

mouth (B24; cat. no. 67), which reached Cyclades only at the time of Troy III.1623 This means that parallels to this form1624 and beak-spouted jugs (B20; cat. nos 53, 61)1625 known from Phylakopi I indicate links with EC III regarded as overlapping with MH1626, also reinforced by the cylindrical flanged pyxis (D209; shape close to cat. no. 5) and perhaps imported painted cylindrical flanged lids of EC IIIB, identified among Schliemann’s finds.1627 A variant of a trefoil mouth jug was popular in central Anatolia during the 2nd millennium B.C.1628 and 1995 excavations of squares D7-8 on Hisarlık yielded Troy IV-V pottery shapes with a central Anatolian distribution such as trefoil mouths, cut-

recent investigations it appeared perhaps also at Troy VII. Late Troy II had strong links with distant areas, inter alia with Cilicia and Levant. During that period from Tarsus, strongly influenced by western Anatolian fashions, there came, introduced there already in EBA II1622, jugs with a trefoil

away beak-spouts and Red-Cross bowls.1629 Of Late Troy II is possible a tumbler (A206; cat. no. 51) having metal parallels with Trojan Treasure A1630 and similar to the wheelmade pottery vessel from the late EBA settlement beneath the Heraion on Samos. 1631 This form indicates links with the EBA

1617 Özgüç 1986a, 41 and fig. 3-31. 1618 This antedates occurrence of that type at EBA IIIA Tarsus and perhaps the end of EBA IIIA Aphrodisias Acropolis III-II – Goldman et al. 1956, 131, 144 nos 508-513, figs 266, 357; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 589 fig. 426 no. 13. 1619 Hanschmann, Milojčić 1976, 35, 38, 61, 70-71, 125 annex 32 nos 50, 69, pls 25 no. 1, 27 no. 4. Another examples came to light from EBA Aidiniotiki Magoula (Hanschmann, Milojčić 1976, 91, 119 annex 24 no. 31, pl. 67 no. 5) and Orchomenos (Kunze 1934, 27-28, pl. 9 nos 1, 4-5; Hanschmann, Milojčić 1976, 121 annex 27 nos 33, 40, 125 annex 32 no. 19). 1620 Orthmann 1966a, 2, 3 fig. 1 no. 4; Podzuweit 1979a, 154, pl. 6.1 (3CI). 1621 Blegen et al. 1951, 287 no. 32-47, fig. 241; Podzuweit 1979a, 154, pl. 6 type 3CI; Parlama 1990, 128 fig. 7, 131; Maran 1998, 420. There are also links between Palamari House Γ and western Anatolia in the time of Troy IV – Parlama 1987, 4. 1622 Goldman et al. 1956, 117 no. 202, fig. 248, 119

no. 228, fig. 249. It should be added that during the EBA IIIA the pottery with western Anatolian features reached not only central Anatolia, but through Cilicia also northern Syria – Özgüç 1986a, 38-39, 41; Mellink 1986, 150; Mellink 1989, 327; Mellink 1993, 504; Strommenger 1991, 24 fig. 16, 25; Spanos, Strommenger 1993, 573-74, 575 map 1, 578. Barber 1984, 92. Atkinson et al. 1904, 92, pl. 4 no. 12; Barber 1984, 92; Easton 2002, 323, 339. Barber 1984, 91; Easton 2002, 339. Caskey 1960, 303; MacGillivray 1984, 73, 75; Warren, Hankey 1989, 27. Tsountas 1899, col. 87 and fig. 14; Schmidt 1902, 74 no. 1739 or 1740; Bittel 1934, 96; Barber 1984, 90; Easton 2002, 188 nos 72-1186, 72-1187, 324, 339, fig. 157. Emre 1963, 91, 94-95, 98. Korfmann 1996a, 6. Schmidt 1902, 230-31 nos 5864-5865. Isler 1973, 173 fig. left.

1623 1624 1625 1626 1627

1628 1629 1630 1631

194

IIIB at Tarsus and appeared particularly frequently in Late Akkadian-Ur III Byblos.1632 To this should be added that during the EBA III central Anatolia also participated, to some extant, in western fashions.1633 At Troy IIg there were introduced

Moreover, tripod vessels with pointed legs have parallels at the transitional EBA II-III (= Late Troy I-IIa-b) burned level of Seyitömerhöyük.1639 Newly

lugged tripod jars (7BIIa1; cat. no. 62), which belong to the northwestern Anatolian tradition and have formal analogies at Poliochni Yellow.1634 Another rough parallel derived from the EBA IIA Demircihöyük1635 and the next one was recorded at MBA Kültepe Karum Ib.1636 As an innovation of Troy II can be regarded other tripod vessels (9DIV; cat. no. 48), which afterwards occurred at Troy III and V.1637 However, it should be added

distinguished globular cups (A211; cat. no. 17) are attributable to Troy II-III, and A224 (cat. nos 18-19) to the Second or perhaps even Fourth Settlement. Likewise, ovoid jars (7CIIIb; cat. no. 59) have been recorded at Troy II and IV. Troy III produced innovations looking towards the Aegean entering the MH period. The everted-rim cups with high handles (A33; cat. nos 6-13) occurred in that entire area,1640 while beaked jugs (B20; cat. nos 53, 61) appeared in the Cyclades, Euboea and Troy.1641 The latter ones are similar to

that the first handmade tripod vessels (D24), but for cooking, were introduced at the beginning of Troy I (= EBA I) and then they occurred during the Second, Third and in very different variants at the Fifth Settlement. This form has parallels at EBA II-III Bozüyük, EBA II Thermi I, II-III, EBA I-III Beycesultan XVIII, XIV, X, VII and in the first half of EBA IIIA Aphrodisias Pekmez mound.1638

form B19, which is widely noted in the AegeanAnatolian region from the EBA II-III, as well as in the LBA of southwestern Anatolia.1642 This suggests increasing links between Troy and the Aegean, which had already been initiated in Late Troy II, as evidenced by the possible antecedent of two-handled tankard A225 similar to a form known in EBA III Kastanas.1643 On the other hand, cups are known

1632 Goldman et al. 1956, 144 no. 519, fig. 357; Saghieh 1983, 97-98, 116-18, pls 46 c, 52 no. 3. 1633 Easton 1990, 439. 1634 Bernabò-Brea 1955, 145, 152, pl. 16 C; BernabòBrea 1976, 257-58, pls 199 a-d, 200 a-b. They are also known from EBA Babaköy (Orthmann 1966a, 13 fig. 6 nos 47-48, 51, 14-15), EBA II Yortan (op. cit., 13 fig. 6 nos 42-46, 14-15; op. cit., 17 fig. 7 no. 52 – site unknown; Pottier 1923, 5-6, pl. 2 nos 15, 22, 28-29; Forsdyke 1925, 8 and fig. 14 no. A45, 9, pl. 2 nos A48, A50-53), EBA IIA Beycesultan XV-XIV (Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 164 fig. P.33 no. 12, 165, 174 fig. P.38 no. 21, 175, 180 fig. P.41 nos 1 a-c, 3, 181), EBA II Karataş-Semayük pithos Tomb 366 (Mellink 1969, 321-22, pl. 73 fig. 13). 1635 Efe 1988, 98, pl. 35 no. 3 (but as C35). 1636 Özgüç, Özgüç 1953, 157, pl. 24 no. 105; Emre 1963, 94, fig. 12 Kt.k/k 140. 1637 See table 9. 1638 Koerte 1899, 26, 33, pl. 2 no. 9; Lamb 1936, 75

fig. 26 Class A forms 1-2, 100 nos 26-28, 108 no. 167, 111 no. 210, 114 no. 258, pls 9, 35-36; Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 122 fig. P.16 no. 16, 123, 182 fig. P.42 no. 5, 183, 206 fig. P.49 no. 11, 207, 228 fig. P.60 no. 8, 229; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 400, 401 fig. 337, 452. Efe, İlaslı 1997, 603, 604 pl. 2 no. 7; Topbaş et al. 1998, 47. Easton 2002, 324. However, as mentioned above, it was known sporadically at Troy I and perhaps II. Barber 1984, 91; Manning 2001, 85. Analogies are also known from EBA II Thermi IV – Lamb 1936, 124 nos 423-424, 81 fig. 29 Class C forms 8-9, pl. 37 nos 423-424 (but handle attached differently). Morricone 1975, 195, 196 and fig. 87, 197 and fig. 88 bottom right; Davis 1982, 35. An example exceptionally close to that shape is known from EBA Soma (stray find) – Bittel 1934, 30, pl. 3 no. 2; Orthmann 1966a, 8, 9 fig. 4 no. 24. Blegen et al. 1950, 324-25 no. 36-819, fig. 385

1639 1640 1641

1642

1643

195

from EBA III CIV Tarsus, EBA III Beycesultan XII-X, VIII-VII, and early EBA III Küllüoba, and may have also been earlier at EBA II Demircihöyük and Seyitömerhöyük, where ‘S’-profile and carinated bowls originated and developed.1644 Moreover, they also came to light at late EBA II Kanlıgeçit.1645 “Schnabelkannen” along with other wheel- and also handmade new forms had already occurred in EBA IIB western Anatolia and eastern Aegean, namely Poliochni Red, burned level of Seyitömerhöyük, Karataş-Semayük V along with the late phase of its cemetery, Aphrodisias VII-XII and Beycesultan XIII.1646 During the EBA II there are also parallels between that shape from Manika and western Anatolian examples.1647 At Tarsus it appeared in the EBA II and at the beginning of the EBA III; during the latter period it was also used at Aphrodisias VIIV.1648 Finally, an example of a rare form of bowl (A214; cat. no. 4) can be perhaps ascribed to Troy III, and a hole mouth jar (C202; cat. no. 74) is known only from the same settlement. As with architecture, the parallels for pottery forms of Troy IV-V suggest that these settlements

1644

1645 1646

1647 1648

(IIg); Aslanis 1985, 117, 121, 154, pls 52 no. 10, 65 nos 4, 7; Easton 2002, 324, fig. 126. Goldman et al. 1956, 140 nos 453-454, figs 274, 358, 141 no. 459, fig 358; Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 204 fig. P.48 no. 7, 205, 208 fig. P.50 nos 38, 45, 209, 218 fig. P.55 no. 34, 219, 226 fig. P.59 no. 5, 227; Efe 1988, 16-18, 111-14, pls 28 no. 24, 40 no. 15, 44 no. 3, 54 no. 2 (pl. 62 nos 3, 6-7 – from Bozüyük); Efe, İlaslı 1997, 605, 606 pl. 3 no. 13. Korfmann 2001c, 365, 368 fig. 406 middle; Özdoğan 2003a, 84. Mellink 1986, 144 pl. 16, 145; Mellink 1992, 21617; Efe 1988, 93, 95, 101-103, 114-16; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 601, 604 pl. 2 nos 1-6; Joukowsky 1991, 11. Mellink 1986, 144 pl. 16, 147; Efe, İlaslı 1997, 601, 604 pl. 2 no. 4. Goldman et al. 1956, 128-29 no. 356, 131, fig. 262 (EBA II), 145 nos 525, 527, figs 269, 359; Mellink 1989, 324; Joukowsky 1991, 11.

fall in the Anatolian MBA. On the other hand, there are very conservative forms of EBA origin such as cups (A33) most frequently occurring at Troy IV and numerous in MBA Tarsus1649, but also with analogies at EBA Protesilaos, EBA II Kusura B, EBA III Heraion III, EBA IIIA Aphrodisias Acropolis III-II and EBA II-III Bozüyük.1650 This very popular form, also in the MH period, should be rather regarded as a feature of the TrojanAegean koine than a western influence1651, since from Troy II onwards there is a growing tendency to look towards the West. One should also mention the hourglass-shaped two-handled tankards (A228; cat. no. 66) – an innovation of Troy IV. This form has wide affinities with the MBA Thessalian forms.1652 Typical for Troy V are hourglass-shaped tankards with one handle (A41), which have earlier parallels at EBA Babaköy.1653 During the MBA there are a number of common developments in central Anatolia and Troy (“Anatolian period”)1654, but in terms of pottery there is little in common with that site. To forms related to central Anatolian ones can be ascribed, inter alia, jugs with long spouts cut away at the rear (B20)1655, antecedent at 1649 Blegen et al. 1951, 125-26; Goldman et al. 1956, 173 nos 837-838, 848, figs 294-95. 1650 Koerte 1899, 26-27, 31, pl. 3 nos 9-10; Demangel et al. 1926, 56 and fig. 70 no. 11; Lamb 1937, pl. 7 no. 2; Milojčić 1961, 22, pl. 40 no. 19; French 1968, 129-30 (Anatolia, the Aegean); Joukowsky et al. 1986, 608, 609 fig. 439 no. 23. 1651 Easton 2002, 325. 1652 Hanschmann, Milojčić 1976, 65-66, 82, 116 annex 11 no. 12, pl. 46 no. 3 (from “Brandschicht” overlying the EBA Argissa Magoula settlement). 1653 Orthmann 1966a, 2, 3 fig. 1 no. 4. In fact, as shown in table 9, this form re-occurred after its introduction at Troy II. 1654 Korfmann 1996a, 24. 1655 Emre 1963, 88, 94, fig. 11 Kt.c/K119, Kt.e/K38, fig. 13 Kt.I/K183, Kt.f/K220; Korfmann 1996a,

196

Troy II-III. Generally, the most evident influence of central Anatolia lies in a tendency toward biconical vessel shapes observable at Troy IV-V, as well as in the decoration of two sets of incised horizontal lines on the neck and shoulder of jugs B24 (cat. no. 67) from the Fifth Settlement.1656 Moreover, hourglass-shaped tankards (A41, 228) in terms of form and decoration are linked with that tradition. The mentioned pattern of decoration is also characteristic of Troy VI-VII.1657 Perhaps tankards A228 attested at the Fifth Settlement derived from Troy IV, but it seems that tankards 3FIVb appeared already at the Second Settlement and possibly during Troy IV-V. The examined pottery shows a continuity of development since some early forms fall into Troy IV (A37,? 43,? 221,? 224,? B13, 17, C6, 25, 7CIIIb,? D3, 5), IV-V (A2, 39, 45, B3, 24, C10, D15), V (9DIV), IV-V,? VI (B20), IV-VI (A33), IV-V,? VIVIIa (C30), IV-V,? VIIa-b (D8), and V,? VII (A41); this phenomenon has already been partly recorded in older publications.1658 Deep bowls (A70; cat. no. 68) and jars (C68; cat. nos 69-70) are innovations of Troy VI. According to Blegen, C68 is one of the most distinctive forms of Late Troy VI and presumably evolved from, or is a parallel development alongside, shapes C65 and C66 derived from the traditions that produced the comparable large pots in the Minyan Ware during 24. For west Anatolian types introduced at Troy IV and V, as well as perhaps those of northeastern Aegean descent at the Fourth Settlement – Easton 2002, 324. 1656 Von der Osten 1937a, 43 and fig. 45 no. b130, pl. 8 (Alişarhöyük I); Özgüç, Özgüç 1953, 157, pl. 24 no. 102; Easton 2002, 186 no. 72-1074, fig. 156. 1657 Blegen et al. 1953, 77; Blegen et al. 1958, 44-45, 176-77. 1658 Table 9; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 287-89; Blegen et al. 1951, 122, 125-28, 130-31, 133-36, 237, 239, 242-48.

the MH period on mainland Greece.1659 However, in light of more recent investigations there are no analogies to C68 in the Aegean, which seems to be well rooted in Anatolia.1660 Vessels of comparable form with C68 have been found at the Beşiktepe cemetery of the Troy VIh-VIIa period.1661 Moreover, two examples of Late Troy VI date derived from illegal1662 and one from current excavations at Panaztepe.1663 Both jars and deep bowls have parallels at MBA Beycesultan IVb.1664 1659 Blegen et al. 1953, 68. 1660 Pavúk 2002a, 56. At Troy it was used from the Early Six to the end of the Seventh Settlement and along with jars (C65) inspired introduction of other new ones (C67, 70, 71) at Middle-Late Troy VI, also manufactured during VIIa – Schachner 1994-1995, 102-103. It has two basic types, namely ovoid bi-conical (the Late Troy VI variant of C68 and related shapes C70, 71) and sharply carinated (C72, 76, 80, 82) – Pavúk 2002a, 60. The same tendency towards large krateres is also observable at Beycesultan III-I, which is roughly contemporary with Late Troy VI and VIIa – Mellaart, Murray 1995, 5, 24, 59, 17 fig. P.9 nos 7, 10, 46 fig. P.24 nos 1-9, 12, 47 fig. P.25 nos 1-2, 73 fig. P.37 nos 11-12, 80 fig. P.44 nos 1-3 (LBA shape 29). 1661 Korfmann 1988, 397 fig. 2; Basedow 2000, 83, 116-17, pls 49 nos 17.1, 30.1, 59 no. 80.3, 77 no. 15West 1, 83 no. 68.2. 1662 Ersoy 1988, 75, 76 and fig. 8. On the basis of absence of wavy-line pattern on the shoulders they have been dated to Early-Middle Troy VI – op. cit., 75-76; Schachner 1994-95, 109. However, similar undecorated examples from Beşiktepe and the cemetery of Troy argue for the end of Troy VI – Blegen et al. 1953, 372 nos 34-260, 34262, 34-265/as C70, 34-273, 384 no. 34-282, figs 326-27; Basedow 2000, 83, 116-17, pls 49 nos 17.1, 30.1, 59 no. 80.3. 1663 Günel 1999a, 48, 348 pls 90 no. 4, 163 no. 1. 1664 Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 118, 122 fig. P.25 no. 17, 123 fig. P.26 no. 4. Possible analogies for A70 occur also at MH Eutresis and MBA Thermi (phase I

197

Squat globular cups (A106; cat. no. 78), manufactured at Troy VIIb2-3 1665, correspond to forms recorded at the EHal site Babadağ I in Romanian Dobruja, as well as in Taşlıcabayır.1666 In sum, the pottery types of Troy I-V are conservative, but some development is notable. The majority of Troy I forms are northwestern Anatolian in character (B3, 13, 17, C25) and only one (C30) can be regarded as purely Trojan. Likewise overviewed Troy II material has formal analogies in northwestern Anatolia (7BIIa11667, 7CIIIb) and shows a growing awareness of other western Anatolian traditions (A37, 39, 43, 45, 211, 221, B20, C6, 4FIIa) or Aegean influences (A41, C10, D209). Thus it began to participate in a wider cultural world though not entirely absent from Troy I (A33, B3, 13, 17, C25, 30, D15). Moreover, at Troy IIa-d occurred seventeen innovations, including A2, 39, 43, 45, B20, C6. Also northwestern Anatolian type 7BIIa1 was introduced in Early Troy II1668,

1665 1666 1667 1668

overlying Town V) – Goldman 1931, 139 and fig. 189, 140 fig. 191 no. 3; Lamb 1936, 147 no. 633, pl. 18. Blegen et al. 1958, 165, fig. 218; Easton 2002, 150 no. 72-499, fig. 143. Hänsel 1976, 229-36, map 4; Özdoğan 1987, 13-14; Koppenhöfer 1997, 339 fig. 26 nos 1-2, 340. Easton 2002, 315 (but as C32, 35). Along with several other forms, which belong to the same group of small storage vessels (types 7BIIb1-2, 7CIIa, c) – Podzuweit 1979a, 194-99, pl. 16. Also, if there is one phase in the EBA at Troy when a new trait of people may have appeared, then according to pottery shapes it is at the time of Troy IIb – Weninger 2002, 1045. However, along with forms A2, 39, 43, 45 appeared the potter’s wheel and Red-Coated Ware. This together constitutes an important new feature in pottery production at Troy IIa-c. Other large jumps in vessel shapes have been observed from Troy III to IVa and from IVa to IVb through Middle V with the end at Late V – op. cit., 1049, 1050 fig. 5.

but western Anatolian innovations of the EBA II were more numerous (B20, C6) and in many cases they survived into the EBA III.1669 During the EBA III period the mentioned consciousness of western Anatolian traditions evolved into a corporate inventiveness in this scope. On the basis of examined material Cilician and Levantine influences are evident in Late Troy II (A206, B24), but they were already initiated in its Early phase. Since the very beginning of the EBA III, due to the lack of geographical barriers and development of trade routes, there is observable intensification of contacts between northwestern and southeastern Anatolia, as well as across Taurus with northern Syria, well evidenced by broad distribution of, inter alia, tankards, depa, flasks, wheelmade plates and Syrian flasks. About the same time, in the Period of Corridor Houses there was a strong eastern Aegeanwestern Anatolian impact on the Cyclades and Greek mainland, especially notable at the House of Tiles of EH II Lerna III (seal impressions, complex society with ruling class).1670 Increasing Aegean influences are noticeable from Middle Troy II and III onward, showing a degree of common taste. However, as the time passed many of the northwestern Anatolian shapes disappeared before the beginning of the MBA. In terms of pottery, despite increased cultural 1669 Easton 2002, 315. Troy II from its beginning had a close relationship – via the Marmara Sea, its southern coast, İznik-İnegöl Plain – with the Eskişehir region to the east, as well as with the area of the Yortan culture to the south and southeast. This is notable in influences from Demircihöyük pottery zone while at Emporio, settlements of western coast up to İzmir, and southwestern highlands there are still present Troy I pottery elements chronologically comparable with Early Troy II – French 1969, 55; Easton 1976, 154-56; Efe 1988, 99; Hood et al. 1981, 130, 169; Hood et al. 1982, 545. 1670 Korfmann 2001c, 363 fig. 398, 364-65.

198

contacts between Troy IV-V and central Anatolia, there are few direct influences from that area. Both these settlements remain western and northwestern Anatolian in character, but they owe few innovations to Aegean influence.1671 From Early to Middle Troy VI there is observable continuation of Troy II-V forms, including A33 and B20, produced in wares common at those settlements (Red-Coated, RedWash), but also in introduced Anatolian Grey and, from Middle Troy VI, Tan Wares. Additionally, there appeared new shapes developing in the course of the Sixth Settlement. Profiles of pottery from the earlier periods disappeared during Late Troy VI.1672 Troy VI-VIIb1 has links with western Anatolia and the Aegean, but during VIIb2-3 certain contacts with Thrace and the Balkans are evident.1673 1.4. Function The range and development of Trojan morphological types reflect a pattern of increasing technological advancement and functional variation, namely, from a limited number of simple open and closed types of Troy I to more sophisticated and numerous ones, including the first appearance of storage vessels, in the subsequent settlements. The increasing diversity of morphological types points to advanced need over time for a greater range of functions for food preparation, storage and cooking and may ultimately stem from growing levels of sedentism, division of labour and craft specialization. Moreover, continuity of occurrence of similar or even identical shapes in different levels of Troy indicate their popularity over generations. On the basis of material from Blegen’s 1671 Easton 2002, 325. 1672 Koppenhöfer 2002a, 293-318. 1673 Schachner 1994-1995, 90.

excavations Trojan pottery had been divided into four functional categories, namely vessels for eating and drinking (A), pouring (B), storage (C) and miscellaneous (D).1674 This classification system has the advantage of clarity and ease of use, but on the other hand it is problematic in that it oversimplifies the data. This is apparent in the charts of shapes compiled for each of the eight settlements. Also capacity (Table 10) sheds light on the possibility of multi-functionalism of some vessels (A39, 43, 3HIIc2). Of all distinguished forms, among the studied pottery are represented thirty-eight ones which are attributable to category A (four open types A2, 70, 214, 202, twelve closed types A33, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 106, 206, 211, 221, 224, 228, three closed types 3FIVb, 3HIIc2, 9DIV), B (six closed types B3, 13, 17, 20, 24, 222, one closed type 4FIIa), C (six closed types C6, 10, 25, 30, 68, 202, two closed types 7BIIa1, 7CIIIb), D (one open type D209, four closed ones D3, 5, 8, 15). During Troy I there were manufactured handmade forms A33, perhaps 39, 43, as well as B3, 13, 17, 4FIIa, C25, 30, D3 and 15 being a part of its utilitarian repertoire. Around Troy IIb quite a large number of new pottery shapes were introduced, including A2, 39, 41, 43, 45, 206, 211, 221, B20, 24, 7BIIa1, C6/perhaps, 10, 202, 7CIIIb, 3FIVb, D5, 8, 9DIV, as well as A18, 21, B6, 15, C11, 19, 21, 39. Many of them, being used for serving and eating purposes, were of immediate importance for the inhabitants of Troy. According to Easton the arrival of tripod jars 7BIIa1, jugs B15, 20, jars C6 along with jugs B6 and large two-handled storage jars C10, 11 during early Troy II suggest an increased interest in drinking, even introduction of wine.1675 Also fitting well with the latter purpose 1674 Blegen et al. 1950, 56-76. 1675 Easton 2002, 315; Weninger 2002, 1045.

199

Table 10. Approximate capacity of vessels from the AS and SAS in Munich, the MN in Poznań.

Open form

Cat. no.

Capacity (cm3/l)

A43

A2 A70 A214 D209

63 68 4 5

450/0.45 > 1200/1.2 160/0.16 320/0.32

3 46 75

180/0.18 350/0.35 1380/1.38

A45

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

160/0.16 180/0.18 160/0.16 110/0.11 200/0.20 240/0.24 230/0.23 130/0.13

20 21 22 23 24

240/0.24 210/0.21 310/0.31 130/0.13 230/0.23

A106

78

420/0.42

A206

51

250/0.25

A211

17

240/0.24

A221

47

140/0.14

A224

18 19

330/0.33 270/0.27

14 15 16

140/0.14 250/0.25 190/0.19

A228

66

160/0.16

B3

76

1810/1.81

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 64 73

480/0.48 960/0.96 80/0.08 170/0.17 710/0.71 310/0.31 320/0.32 360/0.36 510/0.51 220/0.22 820/0.82 370/0.37 440/0.44 310/0.31 360/0.36 370/0.37 800/0.80 440/0.44 610/0.61 330/0.33 450/0.45

B13

71

90/0.09

B17

52

650/0.65

B20

53 61

? 470/0.47

B24

67

780/0.78

B222

58

730/0.73

C6

54

830/0.83

C10

72

12 000/12

C25

77

160/0.16

C30

2 65

10 000/10 580/0.58

C68

69 70

? ?

C202

74

30/0.03

7BIIa1

62

470/0.47

7CIIIb

59

33/0.033

9DIV

48

140/0.14

3FIVb

49

280/0.28

44 45

150/0.15 150/0.15

4FIIa

1

640/0.64

3HIIc2

50

760/0.76

Closed form A33

A37

A39

A41

200

are globular cups A37 previously known only from Troy IV, but more recently recognized already at the Second Settlement. To this repertoire should be added perhaps theriomorphic askoi D29.1676 The most important were wheelmade dishes amenable to mass production, including plates and double-handled tankards. It has been proposed, on the basis of finds from the recent excavations at squares D7-8 outside the Troy II defensive wall, that this new pottery was first used by the ruling class within the citadel, while people living outside of it continued to employ that of the previous settlement. Among the novel pottery, depa were a badge of wealth and status.1677 On the other hand, however, non-utilitarian function of listed forms cannot be excluded. Moreover, at Troy II there was a proliferation of forms useful for storage of liquid or dry foodstuffs and this points to the existence of food surpluses, for which likely depa may be taken as signs of a high level of affluence. During Troy IV the introduction of the domed oven changed cooking from over an open fire to inside of that structure, and this was continued in the subsequent settlement. This resulted in employment of new implements for cooking food, namely flat-bottomed vessels instead of earlier string-hole and footed ones, some of which fell into disuse. This points to changes in the eating habits of the people of Troy IV1678 onwards. These changes are corroborated by archaeozoological finds, since bones of game species make up more than 90% of the bones of animals killed for food. There was also recorded a significant percentage of pig’s bones, a species that 1676 Podzuweit 1979a, 229-30; Kâmil 1982, 45-46, 103104, figs 71-73, pl. 14. 1677 Çalış-Sazcı 2002, 59, 65. 1678 Korfmann 2001b, 352; Blum 2002a, 75. Blemishes and traces of soot on these vessels confirm their use for cooking directly over the fire: open or in domed ovens – Blum 2002a, 78.

is easily domesticated.1679 Moreover, sheep, goats, cattle and birds numbered among the everyday fare, as well as sea mussels, fish, turtles and an occasional lobster.1680 With the observable decline in material culture the major changes in diet also attest to impoverishment at the time of Troy IV-V. The most frequent pottery forms in these settlements are flat-bottomed bowls, only rarely rounded. They are hemispherical with a delicate rim for drinking, but also with an inverted one, partially protruding concave rim and with a set of parallel lugs.1681 Handled cups A33, 37 and tankards A39 occur less frequently1682 and thus are not thought to have been the standard drinking vessels of everyday use. Likewise, depa, particularly characteristic of Troy II-III, were used infrequently at Troy IV-V.1683 Among mentioned forms several are of special interest. Roughly standard in size plates A2 were initially manufactured without burnished wheel marks and secondary coated surface, which indicates their use for storage of dry products.1684 Subsequently, increase of coating in order to close the surface’s porosity shows the change in the vessels’ function to that of food preparation and consumption1685, but additional use for storage of wet and dry substances cannot be excluded. Also the shape of the rim was perhaps adapted to the degree of viscosity of kept contents. Therefore, it seems that plates of Troy II with straight and rounded rims 1679 Blegen et al. 1951, 103; Korfmann 1995, 13; ÇalışSazcı 2002, 63. 1680 Blegen et al. 1951, 140, 149, 152, 156, 158, 164, 176, 179, 181, 190, 202, 217. 1681 Op. cit., 122-25, 237-42, pls 154a types A2-21, 238 types A2-23. 1682 Op. cit., 125-27, 242-43, pls 154a types A28-44, 238 types A33-41. 1683 Op. cit., 127; Korfmann 2001b, 352; Easton 2002, 194, fig. 185. 1684 Frirdich 1997, 159; Mansfeld 2001, 238. 1685 Frirdich 1997, 161.

201

served mostly for dry products. Those of Troy III, thanks to the deep incision on the exterior surface, had a funnel-like rim and were more useful for liquids. Much slighter incisions, and thus rims without that feature, were observed on items from Troy IV.1686 It has also been proposed that form A2 with an elongated horizontal rim might have served mainly for liquids (e.g. soups), since it protected against slipping from someone’s hands or overflow of contents.1687 In the course of time there were also changes in dimensions, proportions and thus capacity of A2 as evidenced by examples from the recent excavations of Troy II-III.1688 Two vessels of the latter settlement corroborate the discussed plate

cm3 or more) and since they belong to the same repertoire of forms as below-described jars C68, could have served for storage.1693 Nevertheless,

(Table 10). Form A2 had perhaps the same function as bowls A16 introduced at the end of Early Troy I, because the sum of both shapes adds up to a remarkably constant value of 20% for all phases from Middle Troy I through to the end of the Fifth Settlement.1689 Generally, the sum of all Blegen bowl shapes remains a constant 50% throughout all phases of the EBA.1690 The discussed form known from northwestern Anatolia or Tarsus came to light at Kültepe, but there were not represented the early Trojan hand and wheelmade strongly burnished items with a thick coat.1691 It should be mentioned that two formally and functionally related bowls A16 arranged as a ‘box’ containing three stone tools have recently been discovered in a pit in the northwestern corner of the Troy III courtyard.1692 Bowls A70, due to their approximate capacity (1200

were one of the most popular utilitarian vessels for drinking, broadly employed in EBA Anatolia and the Aegean.1695 According to the capacity there are three groups of tankards (170-370 cm3; 440-610 cm3; 710-960 cm3). However, at least the latter ones formally ascribed to tankards could have served as sideboard jugs (“Kredenzgefäße”) for filling up vessels for drinking.1696 Such a function cannot be excluded also in the case of tankard 3HIIc2 with capacity 760 cm3. Especially cups, bowls and tankards without a base support the necessity of keeping liquid in reserve, since this enabled them to be filled with as much liquid as could be drunk at once. This sheds some light on the possibilities and customs of drinking at Troy, as well as proving the long tradition of vessels’ division into those

1686 1687 1688 1689

Mansfeld 2001, 247. Op. cit., 232, 238. Op. cit., 233 fig. 17:1, 247. Weninger 2002, 1045. However, A16 could have been used more for dry substances – Mansfeld 2001, 232. 1690 Weninger 2002, 1045. 1691 Efe 1988, 119. 1692 Mansfeld 2001, 251.

due to their very suitable shape and dimensions (H. c. 16.4-20 cm, D.by c. 14.8 cm) they could also have been used for drinking. Finally, pyxis D209, probably covered by a lid1694 with capacity 320 cm3, served as a container, perhaps also for toilet utensils and/or substances as evidenced by Classical examples. Vessels for drinking constitute the largest group among the examined pottery. Good examples are cups A33, 37 and bowl A214 with capacity 110250 cm3. Also tankards A39 with or without a handle

1693 However, since no complete example of A70 survived, that figure was obtained according to 4 the formula V = rR 3 based on the dimensions 3 from Blegen et al. 1953, 136 no. 19, fig. 425 (side of bowl; H. c. 16.4 cm), 299-300 no. 35-615, fig. 313 (half of the vessel; H. 9.6-10 cm, D.r. 14 cm, D.by 14.8 cm, D.be 6.4 cm). 1694 Easton 2002, 303 no. At. 189-3461, fig. 193. 1695 Çalış-Sazcı 2002, 59. 1696 Mansfeld 2001, 237, 238 and fig. 17:2.

202

for drinking and those for filling, observed even today in areas of vineyard cultivation.1697 Items with a single handle were fashioned even in silver, as evidenced by examples from Trojan Treasures A and B. It should be added that part of “Priam’s Treasure” (A), consisting of nearly nine thousand precious objects, was discovered inside a singlehandled silver tankard.1698 Additionally, this type has been recorded as a funeral gift at Tombs 1, 8, 12, 83, 186 of Karataş-Semayük.1699 Very similar in form tankards A41, 228 have highly standardized capacity (150-160 cm3) and probably were counted as bowl A214 (160 cm3). Also, cups A211, 224, tankards A221, 228, 9DIV, 3FIVb and tumbler A206 with capacity 140-330 cm3 were used for drinking. Another common vessel for drinking was the two-handled tankard A43, also extensively distributed during the EBA1700; however, one example may suggest another purpose (1380 cm3). Depas A45 came to light already from the excavations of Schliemann, who identified it with a vessel mentioned in Homer’s Iliad.1701 It is of special interest due to its chronological importance and broad distribution in Anatolia and the neighbouring areas. In this context one can ask what was the reason for such popularity. Certainly, it resulted from demand for that form produced in fine wares, which imitated metal items. Moreover, depa were used to drink perhaps the same, particular beverage. It seems this was a wine, which appeared at about the same time, but no chemical analysis is known to have been made and there are no remains of 1697 Op. cit., 237. 1698 Tolstikow, Trejster 1996, 96 no. 102; Çalış-Sazcı 2002, 59. 1699 Mellink 1964, 276, pls 80 figs 14-15, 81 fig. 18; Mellink 1965a, 244, pl. 61 fig. 12; Mellink 1967, 253, pl. 76 fig. 9. 1700 Çalış-Sazcı 2002, 59. 1701 Schliemann 1874a, 279-81; Schliemann 1884, 173.

a wine press at Troy. However, some say that pottery strainers could have also been used in wine and/or cheese making.1702 Some light on the function of depas and the sort of beverage they were associated with was shed by Homer, who mentioned King Nestor drinking a wine.1703 Additionally, Hera and other gods received sweet nectar poured into a kypellon. She also handed over a depas filled with a beverage to Thetis, who drank it.1704 The discussed item was also used in cultic libations.1705 Obviously, these examples are scarce, but at least they referred to the vessel in conjunction with wine or a special beverage, as well as indicating the possibility of both utilitarian and sacral purpose of the discussed form. The next question is to specify the users of depa. Perhaps they can be linked with people wealthy enough to purchase very expensive wine1706, but not metal items. In support of drinking of a rather special, costly beverage are, to some extent, the very distinctive shape of depa and lack of foot in several of its variants and thus their inability to stand upright. This suggests that the contents were not worth wasting, but were consumed to the end. Also the capacity of the examined depa (130-310 cm3), as well as those from the recent excavations (310-480 cm3)1707 support that way of drinking. 1702 Çalış-Sazcı 2002, 60-61. Likewise on the Greek mainland in the transitional EH II-III (mid-second half of the 3rd millennium B.C.) there is only indirect evidence confirming wine and/or olive production, namely storage vessels with a spout indicated keeping of liquids – Maran 1998, 462. 1703 Homerus Il. XI 632-635, 639. 1704 Op. cit., I 596-598, XXIV 101-102. 1705 Op. cit., IX 656–657, XXIII 218–221. 1706 Çalış-Sazcı 2002, 60, 65. At this time according to written sources from Carchemish one litre of wine cost one eighteenth of a shekel, i.e. 33.33 USD if one can accept 1 shekel = 600 USD, which even today is not cheap – op. cit., 65. 1707 Mansfeld 2001, 238 fig. 17:2.

203

However, it does not exclude drinking of other liquids, including water. Despite depa’s occurrence mainly in settlements, there is also some evidence for their use as funeral gifts, namely at EBA III Gedikli and Tell Selenkaḥiye.1708 Moreover, what is interesting, at EH III Lerna IV its painted variant was found most probably at the child’s Tomb BB.3.1709 Not only utilitarian employment of early Trojan pots is also confirmed by two interesting tripod vessels (D24) from the First Settlement – one with an infant burial inside and the other larger, said to contain human ashes.1710 A cup A106 made in Knobbed Ware can also be classified as vessel for drinking (420 cm3), but ritual purpose of that ware has also been suggested.1711 Due to the enormous time of labour dedicated, evidenced by the carefully burnished surface, complicated shape and elaborate decoration (knobs, incisions), it could have served as fine table ware. At Troy that shape was imitated in Anatolian Grey Ware1712 and thus it is a good example of the influence on wheelmade pottery. It should be admitted that “Buckelkeramik” indicates some division of labour and perhaps a social aspect of production, since it was handmade, contrary to parallelly manufactured wheelmade Tan and Anatolian Grey Wares.1713 Judging from the capacity of jugs B3, 17, 24, 222, 4FIIa (640-1810 cm3) they were used as sideboard vessels, while B20 (470 cm3) more 1708 Alkım 1965, 82, 86 fig. 11 nos 1-8; Alkım, Alkım 1966, 44-45, figs 33-34 (cremation burials in cinerary pots); Van Loon 1968, 25-27 (shaft grave with inhumation burial); Spanos, Strommenger 1993, 573-74. 1709 Caskey 1955, 37, pl. 21 i. 1710 Easton 2002, 164, fig. 150. 1711 Koppenhöfer 1997, 333. However, he did not mention proof confirming its non-utilitarian function. 1712 Guzowska et al. 2003, 241 fig. 2. 1713 Koppenhöfer 1997, 333.

likely served for drinking. Moreover, recent excavations brought to light an interesting example of non-utilitarian employment of jug B17. It was deposited as “Bauopfer” in wall M14 of Troy IV along with another vessel and perhaps two stone “Erntmessers”.1714 Jars were used to keep different amounts of substances. Jar C10, judging from the capacity 12 000 cm3, was used for storage purposes, both for liquid and granular substances. It was impossible, due to the round base, to set it upright; placement on a support (tripod) or into the floor was necessary. However, despite its capacity it was transportable. This jar fits with examples recently recovered at Troy II, which could contain twelve and thirty litres.1715 Such vessels were also recorded at Troy II in the area of the temple, and this suggest their links with a cult.1716 Jar 7BIIa1 with capacity of 470 cm3 was used for storage, as evidenced by its long neck, tripod foot and pierced lugs for hanging. On the other hand, a vessel very close to it in form is known from the already mentioned temple area of Troy II, and this could also indicate other, special employment of that shape.1717 Jar C6 without base (830 cm3), intended for hanging, and jar C25 with capacity of just 160 cm3 had a similar function. In many cultures there has independently arisen the idea to treat a vessel as a human figure1718 since its basic elements (neck, body) resembled the anatomical parts of a man. However, in older literature links to the Anatolian anthropomorphic jars C30 have been found in northern Syria and Mesopotamia.1719 Their distribution in the central-south Konya Plain, western Anatolia and 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719

204

Mansfeld 2001, 252. Op. cit., 243. Op. cit., 242. Op. cit., loc. cit. Huot 1982, 526-27. Frankfort 1949.

the eastern Aegean indicate, to some extent, the possibility of influences from that direction1720, but they are absent at Tarsus and Mersin. If so, late EBA II Seyitömerhöyük in the Eskişehir Plain, as an intermediate step, could perhaps have played a certain role in transmitting that idea from the Konya Plain to Troy.1721 It should also be remembered that this was one of the possible ways the potter’s wheel arrived. Nevertheless, it seems that the problem of origin of the Anatolian anthropomorphic vessels still remains open. Incised human facial features occurred already at Troy I in the form of symbolic eyes on the bowls’ rims and lugs. Moreover, a stylized human face was plastically depicted on the pottery, carved on the stone slab, and a man was likewise executed on the stone stele. The First Settlement also produced the earliest example of the discussed form, which became more common during Troy II-V. 1722 Moreover, within that period apart from anthropomorphic pots and lids there were manufactured terracotta whorls with representations of the human figure and one artefact with a depicted face.1723 These representations 1720 Lamb 1951, 79-80; Huot 1982, 524-527, table 13637, pls 231-32, maps 60, 79. 1721 Human faces appear on the vessels at that site, but stylistically they are more similar to those from the Konya Plain and most probably earlier than examples of Troy II. However, they cannot be linked with faces on vessels at Troy I since the latter were incised and totally different in concept (note that the bases of the same plates from Seyitömerhöyük have also incised or painted human faces). Nevertheless, later items in relief might represent influence from the Konya Plain, which reached Troy via the Eskişehir region – Efe, İlaslı 1997, 600-601, 602 pl. 1 nos 15-18. 1722 Blegen et al. 1950, 106, 131, 155-57, 236, 353, figs 93, 190, 241.5, 244.16, 405; Blegen et al. 1951, 31, 133-34, 246; Easton 2002, 140, 145, 207. 1723 Balfanz 1995b, 131, 132 and fig. 28 nos 1-3. Humans on whorls appeared also on one whorl

had previously been classified as executed in naturalistic and schematic fashion in order to provide more detailed dating1724, but it seems that both styles existed simultaneously. What is valuable in W. Dörpfeld’s publication, though, is the idea of distinguishing these two trends, which finds support in the archaeological material. Anthropomorphic vessels were interpreted loosely as face-urns, but no human ashes were recorded inside.1725 At Early Troy I outside House 102 north wall there had been discovered a little burial ground of four skeletons deposited inside four vessels (types C1, 2, 3), of which C1, due to two likely breasts on the shoulder, would roughly be interpreted as the earliest example of an anthropomorphic form used for funeral purposes.1726 Another item with human features was found by Schliemann near a girl’s skeleton at Troy II.1727 Face-pots along with idols had been regarded as a representation of an owl’s face symbolizing Athena Ilias.1728 Likewise, a similar function of eyeidols derived from the Grey Eye-Temple at Tell Brak in northeastern Syria – dated to the initial part of the Jemdet Nasr period (c. 3200-2900 B.C.) – was suggested, i.e. representation of some divinity, whose power was evoked by the imagery of the eye.1729 More recently, the possible cultic function of the discussed form is supported by an example recorded in the area of the temple of Troy II.1730 Moreover, in regard to special function it is worth

1724 1725 1726 1727 1728

1729 1730

205

from the late EBA settlement beneath the Heraion on Samos – Isler 1973, 174 and fig. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 256. On naturalistic style of face-pots see also Poppelreuter 1896, 106. Lamb 1951, 77-78. Blegen et al. 1950, 95. Schliemann 1880, 290 no. 157, 291. Schliemann 1880, 344. On difficulties in interpretation of marks see – Mansfeld 1993b, 437-42. Mallowan 1947, 32-39, 46, 205, 209-10, pl. 51. Mansfeld 2001, 242.

mentioning that Schliemann found part of “Priam’s Treasure” (A) inside an anthropomorphic vessel.1731 Finally, despite the very unusual decoration and function of jars C30, their capacity (10 000 cm3, 580 cm ) does not exclude storage purposes. Late Troy VI yielded seven more or less nearly complete examples of well shaped biconical jars C68, which were used as cinerary urns. This hopelessly shattered form was also used for household purposes at that settlement.1732 Judging from the approximate capacity (16 000 cm3) it could have served for storage purposes.1733 On the other hand, it was often called a krater1734, and this suggests a container for mixing wine with water 3

in suitable proportion. The discussed form made in Trojan Grey Ware fits well with the shape repertoire known from the Levant and Cyprus, which is limited, like that of its Mycenaean equivalent, to decorated krateres, jugs, storage jars and drinking cups, i.e. vessels perhaps linked with the LBA drinking ritual or protosymposion. If so, it would be natural for the elite to include that pottery with their prized possessions when preparing the grave.1735 Jars C68 were also frequently manufactured during Troy VIIa and recognized among sherds of VIIb.1736 At the nearby LBA Beşiktepe cemetery all examples of that form dated to Troy VIIa were employed as urns.1737 Moreover, from Panaztepe came to light two examples of the same form and function, and 1731 Dethier 1876, 416, 417 no. 1. 1732 Blegen et al. 1953, 68; Blegen et al. 1958, 173. 1733 However, since no complete example of C68 survived, that figure was obtained according to 4 the formula V = rR 3 based on the dimensions 3 from Blegen et al. 1953, fig. 294. 1734 Blegen et al. 1953, passim. 1735 Allen 1994, 44-45. 1736 Blegen et al. 1958, 40, 172. 1737 Korfmann 1988, 397 fig. 2; Basedow 2000, 83, 116-17.

comparable with pots of Late Troy VI or VIIa.1738 Of miniature variants of jars form 7CIIIb (33 3 cm ), due to two pairs of string holes, was hung and covered with a lid. Likewise, a little jar C202 (30 cm3) with perforated lugs was hung up. Also jug B13 and tankard A39 (cat. no. 27) are attributable to miniature variants of these forms (90 cm3, 80 cm3). The small capacity of these forms, as well as a special, isolated position provided by hanging, would suggest contents of greater importance for the users (e.g. spices, cosmetics). Within miscellaneous artefacts, covers constitute an enormous group functionally linked with vessels. There are distinguished sockets, stoppers and lids.1739 Socket lids D3, 5, 8, judging from the shape, diameter of rim and body, served to close large storage vessels with cylindrical necks. Lid D15 with two string holes was permanently attached likely to a shaped neck of much smaller diameter, but it does not exclude storage purpose of the pot. To the above overview it should be added that long- and short-lived forms (Table 9) show the practical sense of use of certain vessels for drinking, eating and storage. Moreover, there came to light the problem of precise interpretation of exact employment of some shapes, also because of their different bases (flat, round) and handles (for hanging, holding), which could suggest the vessels’ multi-functionality.1740 Another question linked with distribution of the listed vessels is to situate their production centre/s and to assess whether they were exported/ imported and/or locally imitated. In older scientific literature there are mentions of Trojan depa imports recorded at the Aegean (Chalandriani, Poliochni), southeastern Bulgaria (Baadere, Michalič), and 1738 Ersoy 1988, 75-76. 1739 Podzuweit 1979a, 216. 1740 Mansfeld 2001, 241.

206

Anatolia (Bozüyük?, Karataş-Semayük?, İlıca, Polatlı, Protesilaos, Tarsus), including even its eastern part (Gedikli), where also their locally made imitations were in use (Orchomenos, Poliochni, Protesilaos). Another area from which export of the discussed form reached the whole of Anatolia and elsewhere was recognized as its southwestern part. Imports from that area appeared at Troy?, Bozüyük, Gedikli, Gordion-Yassıhöyük, Heraion, Kültepe, Sendschirli and Tarsus. The latter site also produced one imitation and two other ones came from Kültepe, while at Gedikli locally manufactured items were recorded.1741 It seems, however, that perhaps only in the case of very characteristic depa produced in

mainland, namely at a later stratum of EH III Lerna IV there was found a jar with wing-like attachments and a plain cylindrical neck, probably from Troy IV or its vicinity.1743 An unknown number of typologically

southwestern Anatolia (in the vicinity of the Pisidian lakes)1742 and recorded at other sites we are dealing with authentic imports. On the other hand, however, their local imitations cannot be excluded. There are also mentioned Trojan imports from the Greek

kantharos form having parallels in MH Minyan Ware and at Early Troy VI.1747 Unfortunately, recognition of all these imports is based only on parallels of form, macroscopic analysis of clay and surface treatment. Therefore, only further, more specialized research along with comparative studies will be able to shed new light on the problem of occurrence of Trojan and western Anatolian imports. In contrast, our knowledge on export of the Anatolian Grey Ware to the Eastern Mediterranean is more advanced. Previously that ware was recorded, only on the basis of visual inspection, in Cyprus (Enkomi, Hala Sultan Tekke, KitionBamboula, Pyla-Kokkinokremos settlements, Kition settlement and cemetery, Pyla-Verghi cemetery), Syria (settlements Ras Shamra and uncertain Kāmid el-Lōz and Tell Kazel, cemetery Minet el Beida) and Israel (Tel Miqne, Tell Abu

1741 Spanos 1972, 48-52, 54, 74-75, pls. 1, 6; Mellink 1986, 150. Moreover, variants of depas form, both locally produced and imported, came to light in Greece and Anatolia – Spanos 1972, 55-56, 60, 63-64, 68-69, 72, 82, 86, pls 3, 7. However, at Kültepe 12 one high, slender and wheelmade fragment of depas bears typical features (fluted, vertically burnished surface) of artefacts from the Eskişehir area, even Bozüyük – Efe 1988, 110. Such items (slender wheelmade) could be regarded as imports – Orthmann 1963, 68-69. On the other hand, the mentioned example could have arrived from southwestern Anatolia, recognized as the production area of that type. Additionally, a depas from Tell Selenkaḥiye was identified as an Anatolian import – Van Loon 1968, 27. Also more recently a few depa recorded perhaps at the EBA Galabovo settlement have been regarded as imports from Anatolia or the Aegean – Panajotov et al. 1991, 180 (only a general mention on the imported ceramics); Özdoğan 2003b, 115. 1742 Well levigated greyish clay, fluted surface, grey or greyish black coat – Spanos 1972, 50.

unspecified Trojan vessels was produced by Pevkakia Magoula1744, but only one certain example of a large “Flügelamphore” dated to ET IIB-C corresponding with Troy III-IVa-c was mentioned as an import from that site.1745 At the Aegean another customer of Trojan pottery was perhaps LH I Ayia Irini IV, where there came to light imitations of Mycenaean forms in Anatolian Grey Ware.1746 The same ware, rare at MBA Emporio, was recognized there as an import from Greece or Anatolia, which is supported by the

1743 1744 1745 1746 1747

207

Caskey 1954, 23, pl. 11 b; Caskey 1960, 297. Podzuweit 1979b, 132, 144, 149, 152. Op. cit., 147-48, 150 fig. 5 no. 8. Caskey 1972, 393, 394 fig.13. Hood et al. 1982, 571, 572 fig. 255 no. 2645, pl. 113. The place of origin of imports from Panaztepe has not been specified – Koppenhöfer 2002a, 338.

Hawam, Tell ed-Duweir, Tel Keisan settlements).1748 Moreover, the most recently published results of NAA have confirmed that the majority of eightyseven investigated wheelmade burnished Anatolian Grey Ware sherds of 13th-12th century B.C. found in Cyprus and Israel were imported from Troy; only some of them are contemporary with Late Troy VI (LH IIIA), but the rest with VIIa and Early VIIb (LH IIIB and early-middle IIIC).1749 Among several forms observed in the Levant and Cyprus (jugs B25, kylikes, possible storage jars, bowls, Mycenaean stirrup jars D41-42 and kylikes) there are also krateres (C72, C82).1750 The first, biconical one is related in shape to our jar C68, which so far probably has not been recorded in these areas. Also, a few examples of Anatolian Grey Wares came to light at cemeteries in Kos (Eleona, Langada) and Rhodes (Makra Vounara) with association of the LH IIIA-C wares, and it seems that they reached this part of the Mediterranean through the agency of the Mycenaean merchants.1751 The discussed pottery is also known from Antissa, Methymna, Mytilene, Pyrrha and Thermi settlements in Lesbos.1752 Some other fragments were gathered in south Thracia up to the Gelibolu Peninsula.1753 However, in all these cases there is no mention of the production centre, but Trojan imports cannot be excluded. 1748 French 1969, 70; Buchholz 1973, 182-84; Allen 1994, 42, 44, 46-47; Schachner 1997, 220-22. 1749 Mommsen, Pavúk 2007, 25, 29-30, 32-34. 1750 Allen 1994, 40-43. 1751 Schachner 1997, 219; Schachner 2000, 304. 1752 Allen 1992, 70-77; Allen 1994, 42 fig. 3, 45; Bayne 2000, 94-109. There are also finds from the field surveys around the island at Sigri, Palaiokastro and Perama – Allen 1992, 70. 1753 Özdoğan 1986, 62. On distribution see also Allen 1990; Allen 1991; Allen 1994; Schachner 1997; Schachner 2000; Schachner, Meriç 2000; Bayne 2000; Mommsen et al. 2001; Koppenhöfer 2002a; Pavúk 2002a; Pavúk 2002b.

The broad distribution of the mentioned forms, resulting from their export/import, as well as locally produced imitations, confirms intensive trade links and exchange of ideas. There were strong connections between western Anatolia and the western border of its central part during the EBA III. Troy interest in that range was due to the trade route, which had been reconstructed on the basis of Trojan finds or of western Anatolian origin from Troy. It led over the Eskişehir Plain via Afyon and the Lake region to the Konya Plain and subsequently throughout Karaman, Mut, Silifke to Mersin, as well as Tarsus. Another way might have crossed the Taurus between Ulukışla and Pozantı. These land trade routes were important for Troy since they led to the rich layers of ore deposits, namely at Kestel in the northern Taurus. From Tarsus the trade route and thus contacts continue eastward across the Amanus mountains via the Islahiye and Gaziantep region to the Euphrates. In particular recorded two-handled tankards and depa, in addition to chronological considerations, confirm the existence of the mentioned network of trading routes.1754 To the east, examples of depas are known from MidLate EBA Titrişhöyük1755, as well as the abovementioned Gedikli, Tell Ta‘yinat, Tell Bi’a and Tell Selenkaḥiye. Apart from the southern route there was also a northern one evidenced by mentioned forms. From the region of Eskişehir it followed the Porsuk river valley to western central Anatolia with EBA III Polatlı VII, X, EBA II-III Asarcıkhöyük V1756 and Gordion sites. This route splits east of Ankara in two directions, of which the northern one leads through Karaoğlan, Alacahöyük, Alişarhöyük to the Pontic Mountains and possibly to the Black 1754 Schachner, Schachner 1995, 312-14. 1755 Algaze et al. 1992, 47, 60 fig. 16. 1756 Lloyd, Gökçe 1951, 42, 43 fig. 10 no. 24, 45-46, pl. 4 a; Orthmann 1966b, 34, 36, 63 fig. 3 nos 11-12.

208

Sea.1757 The southern route connects central and east Anatolia via Acemhöyük, Suluca Karahöyük and the Kültepe-Kayseri region.1758 Especially in the area east of Ankara, being a kind of a crossroads between East and West, there have been found a lot of locally made depa and tankards. In addition to Trojan pottery distributed in western and central Anatolia, also foreign goods, e.g. Syrian bottles and Hama goblets, reached Kültepe, Acemhöyük and Troy.1759 Thus an international network of trading routes can be traced from the Levant across Anatolia to southeastern Bulgaria, where also depa came to light.

2. Whorls 2.1. Fabrics In the case of whorls and loom weights it is impossible to distinguish wares, but fabrics can be characterized. Likewise as in pottery there is observable regularity of fabrics in the overlap of clay matrices derived from the same and/or very close bed. A brief description of macroscopic features attained through scrutiny with a hand lens led to a general description of fabrics, which are: dark grey, grey, light grey, light brownish grey, brown, light brown, very pale brown, pale brown, light yellowish brown, reddish yellow, reddish brown, hard to very hard, compact to very compact, well levigated to very well levigated, a few to a lot of gold and silver mica inclusions, a few white limestone aplastics, as 1757 Schmidt 1932, 41 and fig. 43, 42, pl. 7; Orthmann 1963, 37, pl. 49 no. 11/103; Edgü (ed.) 1983, 107 nos A234-235. 1758 Meriggi 1963, 282, 291-92; Edgü (ed.) 1983, 122 nos A276-277; Özgüç 1986a, 39, 40 fig. 3-27, 41; Schachner, Schachner 1995, 314. 1759 Strommenger, Spanos 1993, 576-78; Schachner, Schachner 1995, 314.

well as a few to a lot of grey and brown, and some light grey ones; only one visible core is irregular; surface smooth to very smooth, even or uneven, slightly gritty to gritty, somewhat or very lumpy, crumbly, slightly shining with visible burnishing marks or matt, indefinable coat dark grey, greyish brown, olive brown, possible slip pale brown, slip light brownish grey, brown, light yellowish brown, greyish brown, inlay pink, light brown, very light brown, pale brown, very pale brown (cat. nos 79-115). On the more detailed level round stone (sand) inclusions are present in several artefacts ranging in number from some to a lot and in size from ≤ 0.05 to 0.5 cm. However, there are also some differences. Among aplastics the most distinctive feature is a preponderance of silver mica particles numbering from a few to a lot and ranging in size from ≤ 0.01 to 0.5 cm. Gold mica occurs in a smaller number of objects and there are mainly a few and some particles in size from ≤ 0.01 to 0.3 cm. Moreover, no organics have been recorded and angular limestone particles only in one case. It should also be added that there were no aplastics in six artefacts. Despite some dissimilarities, one can assume that the same clay was used not only for manufacturing pottery, but also served as the raw material for production of whorls and loom weights.1760 Additionally, the detailed analysis presented below indicates the careful clay purification process utilized for production of whorls and possibly loom weights during the entire occupation of the site. In light of the analysis, the quality of clay can be classified as fine (Table 11). All thirty-seven artefacts are hard and completely fired in the same conditions as the pottery. This resulted in different hues of grey, brown and red colours (Table 13), which correspond with the mass of artefacts from Blegen’s excavations. However, it is interesting to note that whorls, as 1760 Blum 2002a, 78.

209

with the pottery, are grey to dark grey in Troy I, but those from Troy II onwards are also beige, light brown, brown and reddish. In EBA I-II and M-LBA Kusura A-C mainly grey artefacts1761 and in EBA IIIA Polatlı VIII black ones came to light.1762 A lot of black and grey items in EBA II-LBA Alacahöyük III-II outnumber beige, brown and reddish ones.1763 The good quality of clay for production of whorls in the EBA has been recorded beyond Troy. Likewise, from Beycesultan are known well made whorls, hard fired, dark grey to black and brown.1764 In EBA I Tarsus, red whorls of sand tempered clay dominated, while in II fine grey-black whorls were produced, which only slightly diminished in III, but changed into buff during the MBA.1765 Rather coarse clay was used in EBA I Alacahöyük1766, as well as Chalcolithic Beycesultan1767 and Alişarhöyük, where whorls perhaps were not originally fired.1768 A clay of very coarse quality was used in LCh Aphrodisias and therefore protected with a slip. The majority of items there, not only Chalcolithic, were found to have been smoke-blackened on one surface and it is not known if this was the result of primary or secondary firing 1769 Summing up, in light of quoted examples one can notice progress in clay preparation during the EBA. Whorls and loom weights after shaping were somewhat dried, then smoothed manually with 1761 Lamb 1938, 256. 1762 Lloyd, Gökçe 1951, 62 nos 2-3 and fig. 15. 1763 Arık 1937, 117, 134-39; Koşay 1951, 111, 150-51; Koşay, Akok 1966, 118, 209-11; Koşay, Akok 1973, 57, 113-17, 119. 1764 Lloyd, Mallaart 1962, 277. 1765 Goldman et al. 1956, 329. 1766 Koşay, Akok 1973, 119 (only two artefacts). The same quality of clay was also used there in the Copper Age (= EBA II) – Koşay 1951, 150-51. 1767 Lloyd, Mallaart 1962, 277. 1768 Von der Osten 1937a, 93. 1769 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 374.

water and the first ones also with stone, wooden or bone tools. The effect of a matt, as well as intensively polished and strip-patterned, surface was achieved by tools1770, which, however, had been identified scarcely among examined artefacts (Table 13). There is only one item with visible burnishing marks and shining surface (cat. no. 86) and several other ones with more or less lustrous surface (cat. nos 83, 89, 92, 94, 111). Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that polishing has already been noticed on whorls of Troy I1771 and on the majority of examples of EBA I-II and M-LBA Kusura A-C.1772 The surface of objects from EBA IIIA Polatlı VIII is smoothed or burnished.1773 On the rest of the items hand smoothing was recorded most commonly. This resulted in various, often combined effects visible on the surface, namely even (cat. nos 79-80, 82, 90, 92-94, 97-98, 101, 104-106, 108), uneven (cat. nos 83, 91, 96, 107, 110), uneven due to visible finger impressions (cat. nos 95, 103), even upper side and lower one with finger impressions (cat. nos 81, 8587, 89), even upper side and lumpy lower one (cat. nos 84, 88, 99, 111), uneven and lumpy (cat. nos 102, 112-113), and lumpy (cat. no. 100). Likewise, loom weights were manually smoothed, which resulted in an even surface (cat. nos 114-115). 2.2. Typology and chronology An enormous variety of shapes is observable among small terracotta finds, including whorls. This is due to plasticity of the clay and thus the opportunity of easy shaping, without the help of tools. The peculiarity of this material releases unlimited creativity, reduced only by practical employment. 1770 1771 1772 1773

210

Obladen-Kauder 1996, 213. Blegen et al. 1950. Lamb 1938, 256. Lloyd, Gökçe 1951, 62 nos 1-3 and fig. 15.

Table 11. Aplastics in whorls and loom weights from the AS in Munich and MN in Poznań.

Cat. no.

Type (Blegen et al. 1950)

Gold mica

Silver mica

Angular stones

Round stones

Kind, amount and size (≤ cm)

79

Whorl 12

-

some, 0.01

-

-

IIf; II?; IIIb; III?; IVa-b; IV; V1; Va, c-d; V?; VI?; II-VI; VI-VII; VII?; VIII-IX

80

Whorl 16

-

some,?

-

-

IIf-g; II?; III?; IV?; Vb-c; IIV; Late VI; VI-VII?; VII?

81

Whorl 17

-

few, 0.03

-

IIg; IIIb, d; VI; VIIa-VIIb1 and earlier?; I-VIII

82

Whorl 17

-

lot, 0.01

83

Whorl 23

-

84

Whorl 23

-

85

Whorl 23

-

86

Whorl 16

-

87

Whorl 23

some, 0.05 some, 0.05

-

lot, 0.35

88

Whorl 17

few, 0.2

lot, 0.2

-

some, 0.5

Ie; IIId; Vc

89

Whorl 23

-

some, 0.025

-

-

IId, g; II; IIId; IVc; V; Early VI

90

Whorl 23

-

few,?

-

-

IIg

91

Whorl 21

lot, 0.5

-

-

IIg; V1; Late VI

92

Whorl 23

-

some, 0.01

-

-

IIg; V

93

Whorl 23

-

few, 0.01

-

-

IIg; IVa; V

94

Whorl 16

-

-

-

-

IId, f, g; IIId; Middle III; IVa; V1; VIII

95

Whorl 4

some, 0.05

-

-

-

Late I; IIg; III; IVa, d; Late VI; VIIb; VIIb1

96

Whorl 4

some, 0.35

-

-

-

IIg; IVd; Late VI

97

Whorl 11

-

-

-

-

IIg

98

Whorl 15

-

-

-

IIg; IIId; IVb; V3

99

Whorl 15

-

-

-

-

IIId; IVb-c; V1; V3

100

Whorl 16

-

-

-

-

IIId; V2

101

Whorl 15

lot, 0.01

-

-

IIb, g; IVa

102

Whorl 16

few, 0.025

-

some, 0.05

IIg; IVc; Vc

lot, 0.5

few, 0.01 -

few, 0.3

Occurrence at Troy (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

Ie; IIf; IIIa-b; Late III; IV-V?; Va; V2

-

few, 0.1

-

-

some, 0.15

IId, f-g; Early III; IIIa, c-d; IVa, c-d; V1; V3; Vb

-

-

some, 0.4

Ij; IId, g; II?; IIIa-b, d; IVa; IV?; V1; Va-d; Middle VI; VI?

few, 0.03

-

-

IId, g; IIIa, d; IVa, c; Vd; Middle VI

lot, 0.025

-

-

IIg; IVa; IV?; Middle-Late VI

few, 0.01

211

IIf-g; IIId; Early III; IVa; Va-b, d; V1

103

Whorl 17

lot, 0.3

104

Whorl 17

-

105

Whorl 19

-

106

Whorl 21

few, 0.05

107

Whorl 21

few, 0.01

108

Whorl 21

few, 0.01

109

Whorl 22

-

110

Whorl 23

-

111

Whorl 23

-

112

Whorl 23

113

Whorl 23

114 115

few, 0.2

lot, 0.3

-

lot, 0.2

-

-

some, 0.1

Ie; IIc-d, f-g; Middle III; IVa; V; VI; VIIa

some, 0.01

-

-

IIf; IIIb

lot, 0.05

-

-

IIc-d, g; IIIb; IVa, c; V; VI; VIIa; VIIb; VIII

-

-

some, 0.1

IIg; V1-2

some, 0.01

-

-

IIg; IVa

-

-

-

IIf

few, 0.2

-

some, 0.1

IIg

very few, 0.01

-

-

IId, g; IIIa, d; IVa, c

lot, 0.1

IIg

-

-

Ij; IIIa; IVd; V3

-

some, 0.01

-

-

IIg; IIIa; IVa, d; V2; Early VI

Loom weight, lentoid1772

-

some, 0.05

-

-

VIII-IX

Loom weight, lentoid1773

-

-

-

-

II-VI; VIII-IX

Terracotta whorls in Troy were handmade and this is evidenced by the very often uneven surface with visible shallow depressions and sometimes with fingerprints. Due to manual smoothing after forming there are also items without these features. Shaping within the palm of the hand is suggested by the majority of forms, namely conical and biconical. However, this technique also resulted in irregularity of forms and thus a broad range of variations. The main typological criteria for whorls are principal shape/profile and ratio of

conical). Among listed features a cavity along with decorative patterns on the shoulder are the most characteristic of the upper end. It is worth adding that the cavity as a space for accumulation of yarn can bear traces of secondary wear.1776 The lower end of plain and symmetrical whorls can be recognized on the basis of small bruises, marks of the spindle’s fixing1777 and perforation tapering toward it, but there are also examples with a straight hole. Large assemblages of whorls are known from all the main sites, but there is no typology

height to diameter. Moreover, if properly analyzed, the position of decorative motifs, and also traces of utilization within the cavity and on one of the ends, indicate the upper and lower end of a whorl. This identification is especially difficult in the case of non-patterned items, those ornamented at both ends, on the side, without a cavity and those of symmetrical shape (spherical, cylindrical and bi-

of this class of items for the whole of Anatolia. However, local developments were established e.g. for Aphrodisias1778, Beycesultan1779, Demircihöyük1780, Kusura1781, Tarsus1782 and

1774 Easton 2002. 1775 Op. cit.

1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782

212

Kull 1988, 197, 198 fig. 187; Balfanz 1995b, 120. Kull 1988, 197, 198 fig. 187. Joukowsky et al. 1986, 373-78. Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 274, 277-78. Kull 1988, 197-98; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 227-30. Lamb 1937, 30-34; Lamb 1938, 253-54. Goldman et al. 1956, 328-29.

Troy. The still useful and broadly used typology of whorls from the latter site we owe to Blegen, who distinguished thirty-one types (forms) on the basis of over 1195 stratified, catalogued and illustrated artefacts including over 1188 terracotta ones (Table 12) derived from the American excavations in 1932-1938, subsequently published twenty years later.1783 Therefore, discussion of typological, statistical and chronological aspects within Troy is limited to this assemblage. There is also a huge group of artefacts from earlier excavations, which would perhaps change the proposed contribution, but it has less value due to the unsatisfactory standard of documentation. Blegen’s typological scheme can be used not only for Troy, but also for the other sites in this part of the Mediterranean. There are six principal groups of forms and within each there have been distinguished several types/shapes, namely: I) spherical (types 1-5), II) cylindrical (types 6-8), III) truncated conical (types 9-14), IV) truncated, symmetrical bi-conical with ridge at centre (types 15-20), V) truncated, asymmetrical bi-conical with ridge above centre (types 21-25) and VI) miscellaneous (types 26-31).1784 Of those, among studied whorls ten types or their variants have been recognized, namely 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23. Their general occurrence is listed (Table 12) and broader context discussed below, but a detailed description is as follows: Type 4 A half-spherical form (cat. nos 95-96). Only one plain example, but no decorated ones, appeared in Late Troy I.1785 From ten plain ones in Troy IIc the number of artefacts increased to 121 in IIg, including seventy-two plain items, reaching 1783 Blegen et al. 1950-1958. 1784 Blegen et al. 1950, 29, fig. 128. 1785 Op. cit., 49 table 5.

186 in total in this settlement.1786 In Troy III the discussed type was represented by five plain items in the early and middle sub-periods, and the patterned one in the latter sub-period.1787 Likewise, in Troy IV only two whorls (one decorated, one plain) were found in phases a and d.1788 In the late sub-period of Troy VI were recorded two plain items, but no decorated ones.1789 In Troy VIIb a plain and in VIIb1 a patterned whorl were noticed.1790 Type 11 Truncated conical form with a large and deep round cavity on the upper end (cat. no. 97). In Troy IId, g undecorated objects are very rare, but in the latter one also a decorated example was registered.1791 Only two plain artefacts occurred in the middle and late sub-periods of Troy III1792, and one in the early sub-period of Troy V.1793 Type 12 Truncated conical shape with a ridge above the centre (cat. no. 79). In Troy II decorated items appeared very sporadically in phases f-g and a plain one only once in phase g.1794 A non-patterned object occurs in the middle sub-period of Troy III.1795 In Troy IV several decorated artefacts were observed in phase a and single ones in phases b-c, e.1796 Only two decorated items came to light from the early and the middle 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796

213

Op. cit., 217 table 11. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. Op. cit., 117 table 13. Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. Blegen et al. 1958, 153 table 17. Blegen et al. 1950, 217 table 11. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. Op. cit., 234 table 20. Blegen et al. 1950, 217 table 11. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. Op. cit., 117 table 13.

sub-periods of Troy V.1797 In Troy VI an ornamented whorl occurred in the early sub-period and four other ones in the early and late sub-periods.1798 In Troy VIIb only plain item was found.1799

Type 16 Truncated and flattened bi-conical form with a ridge at the centre (cat. nos 80, 86, 94, 100, 102). Plain objects occur occasionally in Troy I, but incised ones have not been recorded.1809 In Troy II this type

Type 15 Truncated bi-conical shape with a ridge at the centre (cat. nos 98-99, 101). Undecorated objects have been well recognized in all phases of Troy I, but especially in a-c, where there also occurred some decorated ones.1800 In Troy II some plain items are known from phases a-d, f and a few more from g; in the latter also patterned artefacts have been recorded.1801 In Troy III the

was more frequent, especially in phases c-d, g, but only a patterned artefact appeared in phase d and some more in phase g.1810 Decorated and plain whorls occur commonly at Troy III, particularly in the early and middle sub-periods.1811 In Troy IV patterned items appeared much less frequently in phases a-b, d and only some undecorated ones in phases a, c, e.1812 Plain and decorated whorls have been recorded in small numbers in all sub-periods of Troy V.1813 In

plain type was frequent in the early sub-period, but less common in the middle and late ones; only three patterned items are known from the early and middle sub-periods.1802 The plain type occurs sporadically at Troy IVa-d and only a decorated whorl is known from phase a.1803 Similarly, in Troy V the plain type was not frequent and only an ornamented one appeared in the middle sub-period.1804 Over eighty plain whorls were found in Troy VI, but the majority in its late sub-period, where three decorated ones also occurred.1805 In Troy VIIa there are a lot of plain artefacts, but only some decorated ones.1806 Over seventeen examples, including two patterned, were noticed in Troy VIIb.1807 From Troy VIII are known only five whorls.1808

Troy VI over fourteen patterned items along with some plain ones occur only in the late and middle sub-periods.1814 An undecorated whorl of this type was found in Troy VIIa.1815 In Troy VIIb2 a plain and a patterned item have been found.1816 Likewise, from Troy VIII are known two undecorated whorls.1817

1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808

Op. cit., 234 table 20. Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. Blegen et al. 1958, 153 table 17. Blegen et al. 1950, 49 table 5, 50. Op. cit., 216, 217 table 11, 218. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. Op. cit., 117 table 13. Op. cit., 234 table 20. Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. Blegen et al. 1958, 18 table 8. Op. cit., 153 table 17. Op. cit., 251, 264, 269, 275, 292.

Type 17 Truncated and flattened bi-conical shape with a ridge at the centre and a shallow cavity on the upper end (cat. nos 81-82, 88, 103-104). Perhaps only a decorated whorl occurs at Troy Ie.1818 In Troy IId, f this type was occasionally recorded as patterned, but more frequently in phase g. Plain objects appear very rarely in Troy IIc-d, g.1819 In 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819

214

Blegen et al. 1950, 49 table 5. Op. cit., 216, 217 table 11. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. Op. cit., 117 table 13. Op. cit., 234 table 20. Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. Blegen et al. 1958, 18 table 8. Op. cit., 153 table 17. Op. cit., 251. Blegen et al. 1950, 49 table 5, 50, 217. Op. cit., 217 table 11.

the middle sub-period of Troy III decorated whorls were more common and also several plain objects were recorded.1820 In Troy IVa only four ornamented artefacts appeared.1821 Ten other patterned items along with a plain object were scattered in Troy V.1822 In Troy VI were recorded only six decorated whorls, but no plain ones.1823 Only two patterned whorls are known from Troy VIIa.1824 Type 19 Very truncated and very flattened bi-conical form with a ridge at the centre (cat. no. 105). Only a plain example derived from Late Troy I.1825 In Troy II a few undecorated items are known in phases d, f, g and some patterned ones in d and f. Only one decorated object occurs in the middle sub-period of Troy III1827 and in Troy IVd1828, and an undecorated one in the early sub-period of Troy V.1829 A plain whorl was noticed in Troy VIIa.1830 1826

Type 21 Truncated bi-conical shape with a ridge above the centre (cat. nos 91, 106-108). Plain objects were sporadically noticed in Troy IIc-d, g and decorated ones only in phase g.1831 From Troy IIIb derived only two undecorated items.1832 Likewise, in Troy IV only two plain objects were noticed in phases

1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832

Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. Op. cit., 117 table 13. Op. cit., 234 table 20. Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. Blegen et al. 1958, 18 table 8. Blegen et al. 1950, 49 table 5. Op. cit., 217 table 11. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. Op. cit., 117 table 13. Op. cit., 234 table 20. Blegen et al. 1958, 18 table 8. Blegen et al. 1950, 217 table 11. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6.

a and c, and patterned one in a.1833 The discussed type was somewhat more frequent in Troy V, although only three plain whorls were recorded in the early and middle sub-periods, and two others in the middle and late ones.1834 Over 170 plain whorls occurred in the late sub-period of Troy VI and several ones in the early and middle sub-periods, but only two decorated objects were noted in the late sub-period.1835 A lot of plain and only three decorated whorls were recorded in Troy VIIa.1836 Also, from Troy VIIb thirty-three plain items are known.1837 Finally, six undecorated objects were found in Troy VIII.1838 Type 22 Truncated bi-conical shape with a ridge above the centre and a deep, round cavity on the upper end (cat. no. 109). Several undecorated whorls were recorded in Troy IIg and two patterned ones in Troy IId.1839 From Troy III are known only one plain and one decorated item.1840 Two non-patterned whorls appeared in Troy VI1841, as well as in Troy VIIa-b.1842 Type 23 Truncated and flattened bi-conical form with a large, deep, round cavity on the upper end (cat. nos 83, 85, 87, 89-90, 92-93, 110-113). No plain and only two decorated whorls occur at Troy Ij.1843 In Troy II this type was recorded 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843

215

Op. cit., 117 table 13. Op. cit., 234 table 20. Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. Blegen et al. 1958, 18 table 8. Op. cit., 153 table 17. Op. cit., 251, 264, 294, 297. Blegen et al. 1950, 217 table 11. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6. Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. Blegen et al. 1958, 18 table 8, 153 table 17. Blegen et al. 1950, 49 table 5, 50, 217.

only in phase g, with a pattern of decoration in Troy IId, f and more frequently in phase g.1844 In Troy III patterned objects are common, but plain ones were noted in smaller numbers only in the early and middle sub-periods.1845 In Troy IV decorated items occurred in all phases, especially in a, and only several plain ones in a, c, e.1846 In all sub-periods of Troy V ornamented whorls are common; only two plain ones were found in the early sub-period.1847 In all sub-periods of Troy VI only several decorated objects were found, but no plain ones.1848 Schliemann found in Troy at least 7737 whorls, which later were classified according to form and decoration, but only a few are of Troy I.1849 To this settlement one can attribute sixtysix objects from the American excavations (Table 12), of which forty-nine (74.2%) are truncated symmetrical bi-conical types 15, 16, 17. Only six items (9.1%) had flat disc shape (types 3, 8, 18, 19, 20). The remaining eleven (16.7%) are spherical and half-spherical (types 1, 4), truncated conical (type 9) or truncated asymmetrical bi-conical (type 23). With forty-three items the most common was type 15 (65.1%). The first evidence for larger production of whorls derived from Troy II, where 186 turned up, including 121 from burned phase g.1850 Only twenty-six (13.9%) are flat (types 3, 8, 18, 19, 20), while seventy-nine (42.4%) truncated symmetrical bi-conical shapes 15, 16, 17 prevail. Apart from that, fifty-one (27.4%) have truncated asymmetrical bi-conical shape (types 21, 22, 23). 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849

Op. cit., 216, 217 table 11, 218. Op. cit., 16 table 6. Op. cit., 117 table 13. Op. cit., 234 table 20. Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8. Schliemann 1880, 228-29; Schmidt 1902, 204-23 nos 4103-5618. 1850 Blegen et al. 1950, 50, 216-17.

Quite numerous are spherical type 1 (six = 3.2%), half-spherical type 4 (five = 2.6%) and truncated conical types 9, 10, 11, 12 (seventeen = 9.1%). There is also one cylindrical (type 1) and one unusual type 28. The most often manufactured was type 16 (forty-seven = 25.2%). Among 177 whorls of Troy III there is a preponderance of eighty-seven (49.1%) truncated symmetrical bi-conical shapes (types 15, 16, 17). There are also fifty-four examples (30.5%) of truncated asymmetrical bi-conical forms (types 21, 22, 23), but of those fifty-one constitute type 23 (28.8%). Moreover, this settlement yielded ten (5.6%) truncated conical types 9, 10, 11, as well as thirteen spherical and half-spherical (7.3%) artefacts (types 1, 4) and nine (5.1%) flat discs (types 3, 19, 20). The spherical variant (type 5), as well as cylindrical, truncated conical and unusual types 6, 12, 27, is represented by only one artefact (2.2%). In Troy IV among ninety-one objects there are thirty (32.9%) that are truncated asymmetrical bi-conical (type 23), twenty-eight (30.7%) truncated symmetrical bi-conical (types 15, 16), twelve (13.1%) truncated conical (types 9, 12) and seven (7.6%) flat discs (types 3, 8, 19, 20). The remaning forms (1, 4, 5, 17, 21, 26, 29, 31) are very scarcely represented by fourteen items (15.3%). Troy V with its over eighty-eight whorls is dominated by thirtyeight (43.1%) truncated asymmetrical bi-conical types 21 and 23 thanks to the high contribution of over thirty-three examples (37.5%) of the latter one. In the second position there are thirty-five artefacts (39.7%) of truncated symmetrical bi-conical shapes (types 15, 16, 17), eight (7.9%) of spherical type 1, as well as two (2.2%) flat discs (types 13, 19). The other forms 6, 11, 12 and 27 are represented by only five items (5.6%). From Troy VI are known over 384 artefacts, including 211 (54.9%) truncated asymmetrical bi-conical types 21, 22, 23 and 24, 107 (27.8%) truncated symmetrical bi-conical

216

Table 12. Occurrence of types of whorls at Troy (p = plain; d = decorated).

p

d

p

d

p

d

p

d

p

d

p

d

p

d

p

d

p

d

4 1 1 2 4 40 5 1 1 1 -

3 1 2 -

6 4 5 1 3 5 1 3 1 15 39 3 1 5 3 3 7 6 1 -

5 1 2 1 3 7 8 7 4 1 3 2 30 -

4 5 5 1 1 3 5 2 1 30 23 6 1 2 1 18 -

3 2 1 3 10 15 1 1 32 1 -

1 1 2 2 11 4 1 2 4 1 -

1 1 1 2 10 1 12 4 1 1 26 1 1

6 1 1 1 9 7 1 1 3 2 1 -

2 2 1 7 10 2 >31 -

>19 2 1 2 1 >2 1 >18 1 4 2 >81 >14 3

2 1 3 3 6 2 2 8 1 1 -

4 1 1 3 30 1 1 2 49 1 2 2 -

3 2 3 -

4 1 1 10 1 1 >15 1 1 33 2 -

1 1 2 1 -

1 1 4 2 6 -

1 1 -

> 55

29

97

8

> 70

5

14

2

VIII

33

VIIb

62

VIIa

29

VI

69

V

108

IV

74

III

112

II

6

217

>190

2 >9 1 2 > 355

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

I

60

Type

Blegen et al. 1950-1958

types 15, 16 and 17, twenty-eight (7.3%) truncated conical types 9, 10, 12 and 14, twenty-four (6.2%) spherical and half-spherical types 1, 2, 4 and 5, seven (1.8%) flat discs (types 3, 8, 20), as well as two (0.5%) cylindrical (type 6) and five (1.3%) unusual forms 29, 30. At Troy VIIa were recorded 105 whorls, including fifty-five (52.3%) truncated asymmetrical bi-conical forms 21, 22 and 24, thirtysix (34.2%) truncated symmetrical bi-conical types 15, 16 and 17, five (4.7%) spherical types 1 and 2, four (3.8%) flat shapes 8, 19 and 20, three (2.8%) truncated conical form 9, as well as two (1.9%) unusual form 30. Among over seventy-five items of Troy VIIb thirty-five (46.6%) constitute truncated

with quite a high frequency of 15, 17 and 23.1851 Summing up, of the total amount of over 1188 terracotta whorls of Troy I-VIII from the American excavations, the most common were manufactured forms 21 (299 = 25.1%), 15 (259 = 21.8%), 23 (159 = 13.4%), 16 (137 = 11.5% ), and 17 (55 = 4.6%); this constitutes 76.4% of the total number of listed items. This indicates, that there were five main forms, mostly truncated and flattened, which along with the appropriate weight were the most suitable for thread making as they provided good rotation while spinning. Moreover, among the remaining twenty-six forms quite numerous is spherical type 1 (54 = 4.5%), which occurs without break from

asymmetrical bi-conical forms 21 and 25, nineteen (25.3%) truncated symmetrical bi-conical forms 15, 16, and twelve (16%) truncated conical types 9, 10, 12. There are also six (8.0%) spherical and halfspherical forms 1 and 4, as well as three (4.0%) flat types 3, 20. Finally, from Troy VIII are known only sixteen items, of which seven (43.7%) are truncated symmetrical bi-conical types 15 and 16, six (37.5%) truncated asymmetrical bi-conical form 21 and two (12.5%) flat type 3. There was also recognized only one example of spherical form 1 (6.2%). According to this analysis the most popular were forms: 15 in Troy I, 16, 23, 15 in II, 23, 15, 16, 17 in III, 23, 16, 15, 12 in IV, 23, 16, 17, 15 in V, 21, 15, 1, 9, 16 in VI, 21, 15, 9 in VII, 21, 15 in VIII. Generally, in Troy II-V shapes 23, 16, 15, 17 dominated, but in VI-VIII forms 21 and 15. Moreover, there is an evident preponderance of type 23 in Troy III-V and 21 in VI-VII. The frequency of occurrence of the other forms was much lower in Troy I-V and rapidly decreased from Troy VI to VIII. In the latter time span type 11 does not appear at all. It should also be added that the most recent excavations of the very limited area brought to light twelve of Blegen’s types

Troy I to VIII, as well as truncated conical type 9 (48 = 4.0%), but absent at Troy V and VIII. In light of the above, one can note that of thirty-one distinguished forms there was a preponderance of seven (22.6%) utilized for production of yarn. Moreover, of five Trojan conical and bi-conical forms with a cavity (types 10, 11, 17, 22, 23) four are represented among the discussed items, namely types 11 (cat. no. 97), 17 (cat. nos 81-82, 88, 103104), 22 (cat. no. 109) and 23 (cat. nos 83, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92-93, 110-113). They occur in Troy II-V and especially types 23 and 17 are very common, but they all almost totally disappear in Troy VI and later settlements (Table 12). Such whorls were introduced into mainland Greece in the EH III1852 and used in small numbers at some sites in the MH; by the LH they had largely disappeared, but continued sporadically.1853 So, in Greece they occurred later than in Troy, but there is a chronological parallel at least in the LBA. This is interesting in context of E. J. W. Barber’s suggestion about east-to-west movement of the hollowed whorls, often with 1851 Mansfeld 2001, 222, 224 fig. 15:7. 1852 Caskey 1955, 37, pl. 22 no. 1. 1853 Carington Smith 1992, 682.

218

incised decoration, distributed from Turkistan to Switzerland; however, in this proposal there are still considerable gaps, both chronological and geographical.1854 It is interesting to note (Table 12) that the evident occurrence of symmetrical bi-conical whorls (types 15, 16, 17) in EBA Troy I-II (128 = 10.8%) and III (87 = 7.3%) is also known from Demircihöyük, where up to 48.6% of all items were attributed to the same principal form, namely “Gruppe VI” including, inter alia, form 1 (= Troy type 15) and 3 (= Troy types 16, 17). In this site the forms of the largest “Gruppe VI” appear already in phase C, but from the beginning of the EBA I (phase D = Early Troy I) onward they continue and increase into the end of the EBA IIA, but with different frequency in each phase and gaps.1855 Thus quoted data indicate introduction of the discussed shapes in both western Anatolian sites during this part of the EBA. In Demircihöyük their frequency increased toward the EBA IIA, but in the MBA there were recorded only three forms (A = Troy type 23; B = Troy type 22; C = Troy type 15) represented by just twenty-four items.1856 Also the number of types 15, 16, 17 decreased toward MBA Troy IV (thirty-two = 2.7%), V (thirty-five = 2.9%), then slightly increased in VI (107 = 9.0%) and greatly decreased in VIIVIII (seven = 0.6%), except form 15 (fifty = 4.2%). Additionally, in Troy I-II types 21 and 23 (3.7%) as well as 1 and 9 (1.7%) are more scarcely represented than in Demircihöyük (“Gruppen I, IV, VII” =

1854 Barber 1991, 305-10, 391-93. 1855 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 230-32. 1856 Conical truncated artefacts (types A, B) were typical of the MBA, but did not occur in the EBA. A few bi-conical whorls (type C) in the MBA context were rather re-deposited from the EBA, but they appear in the other 2nd millennium sites – Kull 1988, 197.

26.7%).1857 However, it should be added that to the groups in Demircihöyük belong, apart Trojan forms, also other related ones, which make the numbers higher. In Aphrodisias there were excavated two mounds, Pekmez and Acropolis. Already from LCh I Pekmez VIII derived a plain elliptical whorl and this shape was used, apart from a break in LCh IV, through to the Iron Age. A patterned spherical, and after a break also elliptical, as well as symmetrical bi-conical objects were produced during the EBA IIIA occupation of Acropolis X-IX, VI.1858 Patterned asymmetrical bi-conical form first appeared at the end of the EBA IIIA Acropolis IV, II and then used along with symmetrical ones in the MBA.1859 Aphrodisias presented a frequency of five of seven forms. Of those only two are very close to Trojan shapes (2 = Troy type 15; 7 = Troy types 9, 11, 12, 30). Very popular symmetrical bi-conical items (2 = Troy type 15) occurred already in LCh II-III (1.0%) and from the end of the EBA II onwards into the 1st millennium (c. 25%). However, this form decreased from the MBA (c. 7.0%) and after a break in the LBA almost disappeared in the Iron Age (c. 2.0%). Its largest concentration is observable in the second half of the EBA III and in the E-MBA transition (c. 11%). Truncated conical whorls came to light in the second half of the EBA III, but in the E-MBA transition were more common and continued into the Iron Age (c. 26%). The highest frequency of 1857 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 227-28, 230 fig. 160, 231 fig. 161. Group I (forms 1, 3 = Troy type 1, 2 = Troy type 4), group IV (forms 1, 2 = Troy types 9 and 12), group VII (form 1 = Troy type 21, 2 = Troy type 23) – Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 128; ObladenKauder 1996, 227 and fig. 158, 228. 1858 Kadish 1969, 61, 62 and fig. 11 F, G, H, pl. 27 figs 33-35; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 374 table 127, 375 table 129, 376 fig. 312 no. 1. 1859 Kadish 1969, 58, 62 fig. 11 A, B, C, pl. 26 figs 24, 26-27; Kadish 1971, 134, 125 fig. 4.

219

this form is in the E-MBA transition and during the MBA (c. 15%), but later it gradually decreased to c. 3.0% in the LBA and less than 0.5% in the Iron Age. In Aphrodisias the EBA III is a hallmark for whorls since one form, after occurrence in LCh I, re-appeared and another one was introduced; both conical and truncated conical (types 4, 7) reached some popularity.1860 At the end of this period in the Acropolis E-D occurred a conical form with a cavity on the upper end.1861 Bi-conical and also spherical forms dominated in Thermi I-III, but flat items are scarcely represented from the latter one onward.1862 In LCh IV Beycesultan XXII appeared unshapely and relatively flat forms related to group V in Demircihöyük I-III, but symmetrical bi-conical ones already in the EBA I. They are smaller than symmetrical objects of the EBA II, where again flat, bi-conical items were produced in Beycesultan XIII.1863 An evident change, less perceptible in the other sites, occurred in EBA III Beycesultan XII with the introduction of conical and later also bi-conical truncated asymmetrical whorls with a cavity on the upper end. The latter form was likewise manufactured there during the MBA1864, as well as in MBA Demircihöyük.1865 The local development of forms in Kusura is comparable with that of EBA Troy. Apart from the flat artefacts from the earliest phases there 1860 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 373, 374 table 127, 375. Moreover, during that period unilateral design dominates bilateral one and the proportion of slipped to unslipped items increases. 1861 Kadish 1971, 135. On the formal parallels between whorls from Aphrodisias and Troy – Joukowsky et al. 1986, 378 table 130. 1862 Lamb 1936, 162-63, fig. 47. 1863 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 268 fig. F2.16-18, 274 fig. F.5, 275, 277, 278 fig. F.6; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 236. 1864 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 277, 278 fig. F.6. 1865 Kull 1988, 197-98.

are bi-conical examples from EBA I-IIB Kusura A and early B, as well as long existing spherical and transversally oval artefacts. From M-LBA Kusura C derive high conical and asymmetrical truncated bi-conical items, but unfortunately published upside down.1866 From EBA IIIA Polatlı VIII came to light symmetrical bi-conical and cylindrical whorls, of which the first one was in use until the final abandonment of the site at the end of the LBA. Asymmetrical bi-conical items incised on the upper end dominate in transitional E-MBA at Polatlı XII and there were also introduced conical ones with a cavity on the upper end.1867 From EBA II-LBA Alacahöyük III-II came to light a lot of whorls, but partly of uncertain date.1868 The earliest are two Chalcolithic (= EBA I) items, including one pearlike shape.1869 During the Bronze Age there were manufactured a lot of asymmetrical bi-conical artefacts with a broad and flattened upper end, as well as symmetrical bi-conical, spherical and oval ones.1870 In the Chalcolithic Alişarhöyük two principal forms were manufactured, i.e. elongate oval and flat bi-conical, as well as spherical and conical, the latter also with a cavity on the upper end. Forms of the Copper Age (= EBA II) are close to those from Demircihöyük. Generally, there are observed spherical, oval, as well as usually squat and flat bi-conical forms. Symmetrical bi-conical whorls are relatively rare. During the EBA III there 1866 Lamb 1937, 32 fig. 13 nos 22-31, 34; Lamb 1938, 254, 255 fig. 20 nos 13-15, 18. 1867 Lloyd, Gökçe 1951, 62 nos 1, 3 and fig. 15. 1868 Arık 1937, 134-39; Koşay 1951, 132-35, 150-51, pls 90-93, 113-15; Koşay, Akok 1966, 170-74, 209-11, pls 33-35, 57-58; Koşay, Akok 1973, 90-94, 113-17, 119, pls 49-51, 68-69. 1869 Koşay, Akok 1973, 119. 1870 Arık 1937, 134-39; Koşay 1951, 132-35, 150-51, pls 90-93, 113-15; Koşay, Akok 1966, 170-74, 209-11, pls 33-35, 57-58; Koşay, Akok 1973, 90-94, 113-17, 119, pls 49-51, 68-69.

220

dominated an asymmetrical bi-conical shape with a cavity on the upper end related to that of MBA Demircihöyük. A preponderance of conical whorls with a cavity on the upper end is observable from the EBA III Alişarhöyük III.1871 Exclusively spherical or symmetrical bi-conical forms are known from EBA II Koçumbeli1872, and at Etiyokuşu mainly spherical and oval ones are represented.1873 Symmetrical bi-conical shape is principal in EBA I-II Tarsus, but from the EBA III are evidenced conical and asymmetrical bi-conical artefacts, which continue to appear in the MBA and LBA I.1874 Original flat broad conical forms have been recorded in MCh Mersin XVI and they are close to “Gruppe V” of

III-II.1879 An asymmetrical truncated bi-conical whorl came to light at EBA II-III Bozüyük, but its precise dating is unknown.1880

EBA Demircihöyük.1875 Good M-LBA parallels to the discussed forms are known from the cemeteries of Gordion and Yanarlar.1876 At Asarcıkhöyük V the bi-conical form dominated, while in level IV a preponderance of flattened artefacts is visible.1877 The latter form was also recorded at its EBA IIMBA İlıca cemetery.1878 The conical and bi-conical forms dominated at MBA Kültepe Karum I, conical at MBA Boğazköy and Alacahöyük; at the latter two sites also bi-conical examples appeared. Conical items with a cavity, as well as bi-conical ones, were also recorded at EBA IIIB-MBA Alişarhöyük

but no more as J. Carington Smith suggested. According to this author, affinities between the whorls support relations between immigrants to both areas, earlier also evidenced by similarities of the so-called Grey Minyan Ware known from Greece to pottery of Troy VI.1882 Nevertheless, in light of recent research Anatolian Grey Ware of that settlement was locally developed from the pottery of Troy V.1883 So, despite recorded movement of people in the transitional EH-MH period, links between the whorls of MH Nichoria and Troy VI seem doubtful. Finally, the discussed artefacts are very simple and utilitarian tools and because of that their evolution

1871 Von der Osten 1937a, 93, 207, 95 fig. 98, 198, 199204 figs 198-203, 262-65 figs 273-76, 270. 1872 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 236-37. 1873 Kansu 1940, 28, 99-100, 101 and figs 89-90. 1874 Goldman et al. 1956, 329, figs 447 nos 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11, 17-21, 24, 448 nos 52-53, 449 nos 56-57, 61, 450 no. 79 (symmetrical bi-conical), 447 no. 10, 448 nos 35-42, 450 nos 73-74, 84-85, 87 (conical), 450 nos 75, 77, 80, 83 (asymmetrical bi-conical). 1875 Garstang 1953, 135 and fig. 81; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 227 fig. 158, 228. 1876 Mellink 1956, 43, pl. 24; Emre 1978, 113, figs 184-90. 1877 Kull 1988, 199. 1878 Orthmann 1967, 53, 54 fig. 6a-b.

Moreover, there was an attempt to establish formal and chronological links between whorls from MH Nichoria and those of Troy VI. This was based on lack of the EH whorls’ shapes at Nichoria and similarities of its very different new MH forms to the Trojan ones.1881 However, from a chronological point of view it is hard to accept since the E-MH transition is dated much earlier than Troy VI. Additionally, at Troy VI there was not such a radical change in repertoire of shapes as at MH Nichoria, because in fact only three new types (2, 14, 30) were introduced,

1879 Schmidt 1932, 124, 125 fig. 154 nos b1260, b2580, b2761, 203, 204 fig. 263 nos a900, a966, a1004, 205 fig. 265 nos b457, b465, b2313, fig. 266 nos a942, a 957 (conical), 124 and fig. 153 nos b1100, b2556, 125 fig. 154 no. b2163, 205 fig. 266 nos a1158, a1159 (bi-conical); Bittel 1937a, 25, pl. 18 nos 12, 15, 20; Özgüç 1950, 208, pl. 65 nos 418419; Özgüç, Özgüç 1953, 202; Fischer 1963, 75, pl. 125 nos 1155-1157, 1162-1163, 1165, 1169-1171; Kull 1988, 200. 1880 Koerte 1899, 36, pl. 1 no. 3. 1881 Carington Smith 1992, 684. 1882 Blegen et al. 1953, 9-11. 1883 See pages 56, 58.

221

tends not only to be slow and conservative, but they also develop locally and thus independently as a response to increasing demand. The aim of the above-presented comparison was to show a tendency than rather detailed differences and/or similarities in occurrence of forms. However, some affinities in that respect are noticeable between nearly all sites. An exception is Chalcolithic and Copper Age (= EBA I-II) Alacahöyük due to the little comparable material published, as well as to lower dating of the EBA artefacts. Symmetrical bi-conical whorls came from all, besides Etiyokuşu, sites including Troy, Thermi and Tarsus. Also spherical items occur

of decoration of these artefacts within Troy are based only on the published group of over 1188 terracotta whorls from the American excavations in 1932-1938, since this is the best stratified, catalogued and illustrated material.1885 A huge

in many sites apart from Beycesultan, Polatlı and Tarsus. Flat artefacts are known from EBA phases of Demircihöyük, Kusura and LCh Beycesultan, but sporadically also in early Troy and Thermi; their pre-EBA occurrence in Demircihöyük cannot be excluded. An asymmetrical bi-conical form with a cavity on the upper end was recorded already in Troy I. In many other sites there is visible its later, corresponding with MBA Demircihöyük, synchronous appearance, namely in EBA III Beycesultan and Tarsus, EBA Alacahöyük, Alişarhöyük, Aphrodisias IV, EBA II Polatlı II and M-LBA Kusura C. Judging from that, the 3rd millennium was a key period for introduction of almost all principal shapes of whorls. They were manufactured with different, but usually lower frequency toward the LBA and even later. Nevertheless, for instance in EBA III Aphrodisias there is roughly a threefold increase in their number and they are most common in the E-MBA transition.1884 Likewise in the M-LBA Troy IV-VI some forms are very frequent (Table 12). A lot of whorls were patterned and/or coated. The below-presented different aspects

mentioned that decorated whorls are relatively rare at Troy I1886, very frequent at II-VI1887 and rapidly decreased at VII-VIII1888 (Table 12). Of all examined artefacts thirteen bear traces of surface treatment other than listed above. There were recognized five decorative techniques, namely incising, impressing, pricking, inlaying, and coating, as well as combinations of them. The first four were applied to still moisture clay and correspond with those known from Blegen’s excavations, where also stamped patterns were recorded1889, but no

1884 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 373, 375.

corpus of artefacts from earlier excavations would perhaps change the proposed picture, but they are of less value due to the unsatisfactory standard of documentation. Whorls constitute the largest assemblage of patterned items excavated at Troy and thus are a good basis to study various aspects of the local decorative tradition, especially if one takes into consideration that it is not limited only to this class of artefacts. However, it should be

1885 Blegen et al. 1950-1958. 1886 Blegen et al. 1950, 50. 1887 Op. cit., 216-17; Blegen et al. 1951, 15-16, 116-17, 233-34; Blegen et al. 1953, 32. 1888 Blegen et al. 1958, 18-19, 153, 251. 1889 Impressed and incised patterns occurred already at Troy I – Blegen et al. 1950, 50. Additionally, at Troy II and III there were added stamped and inlayed decoration – op. cit., 217; Blegen et al. 1951, 16. Impressed and incised techniques were continued at Troy IV and V – Blegen et al. 1951, 117, 234. There is no mention on decorative techniques of Troy VI, but judging from illustrations incising was the most popular – Blegen et al. 1953, figs 292a-b, 294. The same one was used at Troy VII – Blegen et al. 1958, 18, 153. At Troy VIII apart

222

coating technique. Also one example of a painted spiral motif is known.1890 Patterned decoration of the discussed items is confined to the shoulder in order to provide visibility while spinning. An exception is one motif situated on the upper edge (cat. no. 90) and four coated examples (cat. nos 9194). Among the discussed artefacts there are some incised (cat. nos 79, 81-82), incised-pricked (cat. no. 85), incised-impressed (cat. nos 87, 89) and impressed patterns (cat. nos 88, 90). Moreover, incised patterns have been inlayed (cat. no. 80), and inlayed and coated (cat. no. 86). Only one incised artefact bears a slip (cat. no. 84). Likewise, incised-impressed decoration was enriched with inlay (cat. no. 87), inlay and coat (cat. no. 89). Also, the impressed pattern bears traces of inlay and coat (cat. no. 83). Finally, three whorls were only slipped (cat. nos 91-93). In the case of a coat visible on several artefacts it is impossible, due to its very fragmentary state of preservation, to determine whether we are dealing with slip or wash (cat. nos 83, 86, 89, 94). It is interesting to note that on some types one can observe an enormous variety of different techniques of surface treatment. Judging from the studied decorated types (12, 16, 17, 23) the last one was the most often adorned with all the accessible techniques (Table 13). Unfortunately, in Blegen’s publication no attention was paid to this problem. Therefore, it is an open question whether this phenomenon is linked with a certain form/s of whorl. It seems, however, that various decorative techniques on the same artefact could have been utilized on a much larger scale, but they are not attested due to different standard of knowledge/ recording in the past and artefacts’ poor state from incised also pricked technique was employed – op. cit., 251. 1890 Schmidt 1902, 171 no. 3564.

of preservation. This makes broader and more detailed comparative studies impossible. However, in this context it is at least worth noting that in EBA Demircihöyük a higher standard of surface treatment (burnishing, polishing) is limited without exception to forms of groups V and VII, while less accurate processing is observable among shapes belonging to groups I-IV and VI, but there are also polished items.1891 In EBA II-LBA Alacahöyük III-II arcs and radial line motifs are linked with asymmetrical bi-conical whorls, while the other forms are connected with multiple wavy lines and circles.1892 Moreover, slipped whorls have been observed in Aphrodisias at least from the EBA III onwards and their proportion to unslipped ones increased, but unfortunately, there is no mention of the relation of this treatment to shapes.1893

1891 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 232-33. There are some parallels between forms of this site and Troy, namely group I (forms 1, 3 = Troy type 1; 2 = Troy type 4), group II (form 2 = Troy type 2; 3 = Troy type 15; 4 = Troy type 5), group III (form 3 = Troy type 3), group IV (forms 1, 2 = Troy types 9 and 12), group VI (form 1 = Troy type 15; 3 = Troy types 16 and 17; 4 = Troy type 20), group VII (form 1 = Troy type 21; 2 = Troy type 23) – Blegen et al. 1950, fig. 128; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 227 and fig. 158, 228. At Demircihöyük some forms of groups I, V and VI are of earlier phase C, but generally they start at the beginning of the EBA I (phase D = Early Troy I) and then from E1 along with the other ones continue, apart from some exceptions, with different frequency to the end of EBA IIA – Obladen-Kauder 1996, 230, 231 fig. 161, 232. 1892 Arık 1937, 134-39; Koşay 1951, 132-35, 150-51, pls 90-93, 113-14; Koşay, Akok 1966, 170-74, 209-11, pls 34-35, 57-58; Koşay, Akok 1973, 90-94, 113-17, 119, pls 49-51, 68-69. 1893 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 375.

223

Table 13. Surface treatment of whorls and loom weights from the AS in Munich and the MN in Poznań. Type Cat. (Blegen no. et al. 1950)

Surface treatment, colour, type of decoration, motif, placement

Occurrence at Troy (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

79

Whorl 12

Even, smooth, dark grey, matt; incised five sets of three parallel arcs arranged in a star on the shoulder.

IIf; II?; IIIb; III?; IVa-b; IV; IV?; V1; Va, c-d; V?; VI?; IIVI; VI-VII; VII?; VIII-IX

80

Whorl 16

Even, smooth, pale brown, matt; incised and inlayed five sets of unequal double arcs on the shoulder.

IIf-g; II?; III?; IV?; Vb-c; II-V; Late VI; VI-VII?; VII?

81

Whorl 17

Even, smooth, greyish brown, matt; incised five sets of triple arcs of unequal sizes on the shoulder and a circle around the cavity; uneven lower side due to finger impressions.

IIg; IIIb, d; VI; VIIa-VIIb1 and earlier?; I-VIII

82

Whorl 17

Even, smooth, grey, matt; incised four sets of four flattened arcs on the shoulder and a circle around the cavity.

Ie; IIf; IIIa-b; Late III; IV-V?; Va; V2

83

Whorl 23

Uneven, smooth, shining (polished?); greyish brown coat; impressed and inlayed four sets of two irregular chevrons on the shoulder.

IId, f-g; Early III; IIIa, c-d; IVa, c-d; V1; V3; Vb

84

Whorl 23

Even, smooth, matt; reddish brown slip; incised three sets of very flattened and parallel triple arcs on the shoulder; lower side lumpy.

Ij; IId, g; II?; IIIa-b, d; IVa; IV?; V1; Va-d; Middle VI; VI?

85

Whorl 23

Even, smooth, pale brown, matt; incised circle around the cavity, four very flattened bows with pricked short lines and four dots in between them on the shoulder; uneven lower side due to finger impressions.

IId, g; IIIa, d; IVa, c; Vd; Middle VI

86

Whorl 16

Even, very smooth, burnished, shining; dark grey coat; incised and inlayed possible eight-arm double-line star on the shoulder; uneven lower side due to finger impressions.

IIg; IVa; IV?; Middle-Late VI

87

Whorl 23

Even, smooth, light yellowish brown, matt; inlayed four incised sets of chevrons on the shoulder: three double and one triple, and impressed three dots in between; uneven lower side due to finger impressions.

IIf-g; IIId; Early III; IVa; Va-b, d; V1

88

Whorl 17

Even, smooth, brown, matt; impressed four sets of two irregular chevrons, with four dots in between, on the shoulder; lower side lumpy.

Ie; IIId; Vc

89

Whorl 23

Even, smooth, shining (polished?); olive brown coat; inlayed two incised circles, with ten impressed dots in between, on the shoulder; uneven lower side due to finger impressions.

90

Whorl 23

Even, smooth, light olive brown, dark grey and red, matt; impressed zigzag on the shoulder’s edge.

91

Whorl 21

Uneven, smooth, matt; light brownish grey slip.

92

Whorl 23

Even, somewhat gritty, slightly shining; light yellowish brown slip. 224

IId, g; II; IIId; IVc; V; Early VI. IIg IIg; V1; Late VI IIg; V

93

Whorl 23

Even, somewhat gritty, matt; greyish brown slip.

94

Whorl 16

Even, very smooth, shining; pale brown coat.

95

Whorl 4

Uneven due to finger impressions, slightly gritty, very pale brown, matt.

96

Whorl 4

Uneven, smooth, brown and dark grey, matt.

97

Whorl 11

Even, very smooth, light brown, matt.

98

Whorl 15

Even, somewhat gritty, light grey, matt.

99

Whorl 15

Even, smooth, grey, matt; lower side lumpy.

100

Whorl 16

Slightly lumpy, gritty, grey, matt.

IIId; V2

101

Whorl 15

Even, somewhat gritty, grey, matt.

IIb, g; IVa

102

Whorl 16

Uneven, lumpy, smooth, light brown, matt.

IIg; IVc; Vc

103

Whorl 17

Slightly uneven due to finger impressions, smooth, greyish brown, matt.

104

Whorl 17

Even, smooth, red yellowish, matt.

105

Whorl 19

Even, smooth, brown, matt.

106

Whorl 21

Even, gritty, grey, matt.

107

Whorl 21

Uneven, smooth, reddish yellow, matt.

IIg; V1-2

108

Whorl 21

Even, smooth, very pale brown, matt.

IIg; IVa

109

Whorl 22

Even, smooth, greyish brown, matt; lower side somewhat lumpy.

IIf

110

Whorl 23

Uneven, gritty, brown, matt.

IIg

111

Whorl 23

Even, smooth, light brownish grey, slightly shining; lower side lumpy.

112

Whorl 23

Uneven, lumpy, gritty, light brownish grey, matt.

113

Whorl 23

Uneven, somewhat lumpy, smooth, greyish brown, matt.

114

Loom weight, lentoid1894

Even, slightly gritty, reddish yellow, matt.

VIII-IX

115

Loom weight, lentoid1895

Slightly uneven, smooth, light grey, matt.

II-VI, VIII-IX

Easton 2002. Op. cit. Blegen et al. 1950, 217 table 11. Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 6.

IId, f, g; IIId; Middle III; IVa; V1; VIII Late I; IIg; III; IVa, d; Late VI; VIIb; VIIb1 IIg; IVd; Late VI IIg IIg; IIId; IVb; V3 IIId; IVb-c; V1; V3

IIg Ie; IIc-d, f-g; Middle III; IVa; V; VI; VIIa IIf; IIIb IIc-d, g; IIIb; IVa, c; V; VI; VIIa; VIIb; VIII

In Troy II the most often ornamented were types 23, 16, 17 and also 151896, in III 23, 17, 161897, 1894 1895 1896 1897

IIg; IVa; V

IId, g; IIIa, d; IVa, c Ij; IIIa; IVd; V3 IIg; IIIa; IVa, d; V2; Early VI

in IV 23, 16, 12 1898, in V 23, 17 and 161899, in VI 15, 16, 17 and 23.1900 In light of this, discussed patterned types 23, 17, 16 and 12 fit very well with 1898 Op. cit., 117 table 13. 1899 Op. cit., 234 table 20. 1900 Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8.

225

the same decorated forms of mainly Troy II-V recorded within a large group of whorls yielded by the American excavations.1901 The analysis of this whole assemblage indicates that three of thirtythree of Blegen’s forms1902, namely 23, 17, 16, but especially the first one, are decorated in favour of the other ones. Also material from the recent excavations indicates that types 23 and 17 were the most frequently patterned, especially at Troy IIg.1903 Type 15 is limited mainly to Troy II and 12 to IV. This regularity is not observable in Troy I1904 or VII-VIII1905, but it also occurs along with the other patterned shapes. Of those only three examples of type 15 and two of 17 were recorded in Troy

settlements and 18.7% of over 310 patterned ones from I-VIII. It is remarkable that in Demircihöyük patterned forms 1, 2, 3 (parallel to Trojan 15, 16, 17), as well as 3 (close to Trojan 15) belong to the EBA I-IIA “Gruppen VI and II”, which constitute 76% of all ornamented whorls.1910 This shows introduction,

VIIa1906, two of 15 and one of 16 in VIIb1907, and one of 15 in VIII.1908 Altogether, Blegen’s team recorded in Troy I-VIII over 310 patterned whorls, including over 129 of type 23, as well as forty-five of type 17, forty-one of type 16, twenty-four of type 15 and sixteen of type 12 (Tables 12, 14). They together constitute 82.2% of the total amount of decorated whorls. This could be explained in that the mainly three bi-conical truncated and squat forms 23, 17, 16 provided a broad space on the shoulders, very suitable for an arrangement of decorative motifs.1909 On the more detailed level, types 15, 17 and 23 were introduced in EBA Troy I (Tables 12, 14) and in six of them they represented there the only decorated ones, which along with fifty-two examples (including eight of type 16) of Troy II constitute 65% of adorned whorls from both these

45%).1911 Additionally, a similar trend has also been observed on material from the recently excavated Pinnacle E4-5.1912 The preponderance of decorated types 23, 17, 16 and 15 fits with their much higher frequency of occurrence, both plain and adorned, and thus popularity over the other forms of Troy I-V.1913 Of those at Troy VI-VIII only types 15 and additionally 21 appear in larger numbers. Among listed patterns (Table 13) dominated mainly incised arcs (cat. nos 79, 80-82, 84-85) and chevrons (cat. nos 83, 86, 88-87). They are situated on the upper end of truncated bi-conical symmetrical and asymmetrical forms; this feature corresponds with the majority of material from Troy. In fact arcs are the most common motif

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909

Blegen et al. 1951, 305 table 27. Blegen et al. 1950, 29, pl. 128. Mansfeld 2001, 222-24, 225 fig. 15:8. Blegen et al. 1950, 49 table 5. Blegen et al. 1958, 18 table 8, 153 table 17, 251. Op. cit., 18 table 8. Op. cit., 153 table 17. Op. cit., 251. Blegen et al. 1950, 29, 218.

common occurrence and tendency to decorate the discussed forms during the beginning of the EBA at both these western Anatolian sites; this trend was continued in sixty objects (19.3%) in Troy III and also roughly in IV-V. It should also be mentioned that of all the Troy II-VI whorls recovered during eighteen campaigns between 1871 and 1989, types 17 and 23 are the most often patterned (up to

1910 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 230 and fig. 160. 1911 Mansfeld 2001, 304. However, the profiles of whorls from Schliemann’s excavations are unknown and therefore only those from Dörpfeld’s, Blegen’s and M. Korfmann’s field works can be taken into consideration. 1912 Mansfeld 2001, 222. 1913 Blegen et al. 1951, 305 table 27. This sharply contrasts with very low, but proposed on an unknown basis, number of type 23 – Kull 1988, 198, 199 fig. 189 fifth from the left.

226

Table 14. Frequency of occurrence of decorated whorls types 12, 16, 17 and 23 at Troy.

Type

Blegen et al. 1950-1958 I

IV

V

VI

VIIa

VIIb2

-

– 7 – 1 Early – 1 – 1 Middle – 1 – 1 = 2 = 10

Early

– 1

-

-

-

d –1 g –7 =8

Early – 4 Middle – 4 Late – 2 = 10

a b d

– 7 Early – 3 Middle – 2 Late =12

3 3 1 7

Middle – 1 Late – 2 = 3

-

1

Middle – 1

d –1 f –1 g –5 =7

Early – 2 Middle – 10 Late – 3 = 15

a

Early – 1 – 7 – 7 Middle Late – 2 =10

Early – 1 Middle – 3 Late – 2 = 6

2

-

Late

d –9 f –4 g –17 =30

Early – 12 Middle – 14 Late – 6 = 32

a b c d e

– 13 – 5 Early – > 9 – 3 Middle –10 – 4 Late –12 – 1 = >31 =26

Early – 3 Middle – 3 Late – 2 = 8

-

-

16

23

III a b c e

12

17

II

-

f –1 g –2 =3

– 2

in Troy, arranged convexly to the perforation, forming a star within their interior space. It is hard to judge if the star made of arcs or chevrons was intentionally designed or was just a secondary, unplanned decorative effect. Numerous variants of this motif are recognized, namely up to seven sets with up to six arcs in each, but without chronological division.1914 A chevron and its numerous variants is a decorative motif that appeared especially in the form of three to six sets of one to five chevrons in each. An incised circle motif around the perforation, as well as two circles with dots in between on the shoulder (cat. no. 89), are observable, also often arranged as a chain of impressed, pricked dots or incised short lines.1915 Finally, a deeply impressed zigzag motif on the shoulder’s edge seems to be 1914 Schmidt 1902, IX-X; Balfanz 1995b, 123. 1915 Shepard 1958, 276.

– – – =

an oddity (cat. no. 90). Design structure can be classified as static or dynamic according to its ability to convey impressions of rhythm or motion by directionality or structure of line.1916 In the case of a turning whorl the decorative elements could be used to relay this information or to take advantage of the whorl’s motion to add another dimension to the design, as often in children’s tops. The designs of analyzed whorls are generally static and thus invisible when rotated at speed. As dynamic designs one can regard oblique or horizontal lines often enriched with slanting or horizontal dashes, which convey the impression of directionality and remain visible when the whorl is spun.1917 It seems that to 1916 Balfanz 1995b, 124. 1917 Schmidt 1902, pls 1 no. 4541, 4 nos 4990, 4998, 5 nos 4997, 5000, 5063, 6 nos 5140, 5221, 9 no. 5463; Blegen et al. 1950, 282 no. 36-276, fig. 366; Blegen et al. 1951, 48-49 no. 33-173, 55 no. 34-221,

227

the dynamic designs bearing also possible symbolic connotations can be attributed motifs related to sewing such as dashed lines and lines of oblique dashes resembling stitching.1918 To this can also be ascribed, located on the shoulder, the motif of two parallel incised circles with only a partly preserved line of impressed dots between them (cat. no. 89). Additionally, there are sets of short lines forming squares or diamonds resembling embroidery1919 and checkerboard patterns related to stitched or woven fabrics. At Troy such motifs are relatively rare and the latter one is absent. At the other western Anatolian settlements such as LCh III-Iron Age Aphrodisias and E-MBA Demircihöyük they did not appear, but just a few examples occurred at EB I-III Beycesultan.1920 On the other hand, in adjacent Bronze Age Cyprus they are well represented, including the checkerboard.1921 Among patterned whorls of special interest

1918

1919 1920

1921

figs 54, 58; Blegen et al. 1953, 264 no. 36-52, figs 296, 306, 132 no. 32-308, fig. 296; Mansfeld 2001, pls 8 no. 16, 9 nos 17, 26, 20 nos 1, 3, 9; Easton 2002, figs 136 no. 73-86, 137 nos 73-117, 73-118, 144 no. 72-577, 148 no. 72-807, 150 nos 72-613, 72-997, 154 no. 72-538, 155 no. 72-971, 157 nos 721247, 72-1299, 160 no. 72-1543, 163 nos 72-1555, 72-1572, 164 nos 72-1431, 72-1490, 72-1786, 165 no. 72-1651, 167 nos 72-1936, 72-1927, 168 no. 7362, 169 no. 73-214, 182 nos 73-519, 73-562, 184 no. 73-620, 188 nos 73-781, At. 165-3226. Schmidt 1902, pls 1 no. 4533, 5 nos 4997, 5000, 5063, 6 nos 5108, 5140; Blegen et al. 1953, 308 no. 35-86, figs 296, 307, 336 no. 35-464, figs 296, 308; Easton 2002, figs 134 nos 72-128, 72-171, 143 no. 72-628, 181 no. 73-559. Schmidt 1902, pls 4 no. 4966, 9 no. 5535. Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 274 fig. F.5, 278 fig. F.6; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 376 fig. 312, 377 fig. 313, 378 fig. 314; Kull 1988, 198 fig. 188, pls 34, 38, 44-46, 48; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 229 fig. 159, pls 90-95. Crewe 1998, 50-51.

are those filled with traces of light filling, which adhere to the incised strokes (cat. nos 80, 83, 86-87, 89). They appeared already at Troy II, immediately numerously, and the same feature was observed at Troy III1922, but according to Blegen not in later settlements. The beginning of interest in the materials used for inlaying of patterns on the whorls we owe to Schliemann and R. Virchow1923, the latter of whom introduced the term “Kreide”, i.e. calcium carbonate (CaCO3). The correctness of that proposal has been confirmed by the more recent examinations of Trojan whorls, which indicated white lime as a filling material.1924 Also a certain number of whorls of E-MBA Demircihöyük were inlayed with light limestone, calcite, chalk, marble and aragonite1925, as well as those of EBA Beycesultan with a white chalk.1926 A fill of the same colour is known from EBA I-II and M-LBA Kusura A-C1927, the EBA III Aphrodisias Pekmez V and Acropolis II onwards into the MBA1928, EBA IIIA Polatlı VIII1929, EBA IILBA Alacahöyük III-II 1930 and Copper Age (= EBA II) Alişarhöyük.1931 Additionally, similar results have been obtained from analyses of the pottery, at 1922 Blegen et al. 1950, 217; Blegen et al. 1951, 16. 1923 Schliemann 1874a, XXXIX, L; Herrmann, Maaβ (eds) 1990, 194 no. 130, 196 no. 133, 199 no. 134. 1924 Balfanz 1995b, 121, 138. 1925 Kull 1988, 198; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 211, 212 fig. 141. 1926 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 277. 1927 Lamb 1938, 256. 1928 Kadish 1969, 58, 62 fig. 11 A, B, C, pl. 26 figs 24, 26-27; Kadish 1971, 125 and fig. 4; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 375 and table 129. 1929 Lloyd, Gökçe 1951, 62 no. 2 and fig. 15. 1930 Arık 1937, 138; Koşay, Akok 1966, 174, 211; Koşay, Akok 1973, 90, 93, 116, pl. 69. 1931 Von der Osten 1937a, 200 fig. 199 no. c 644, 201 fig. 200 no. c 1257, 202 fig. 201 no. c 2176, 203 fig. 202 no. d 2619, 206.

228

least that of the LBA from central Europe, where the lime filling was mixed with organic particles in order to provide the required consistency.1932 The problem is how to date the mentioned motifs. Unfortunately, neither Blegen nor his predecessors established a chronological classification of decorative patterns, and thus it seems difficult to ascribe certain motif/s or combinations of the surface treatment (Table 13) to a particular settlement and period, since according to older publications they could have been used during almost the entire occupation of Troy. Even in a recently published reconstruction of Schliemann’s excavations in 1870-1873 whorls are set only within the broad time frame of Troy II-V.1933 Nevertheless, dating of some discussed whorls, but unfortunately only on the basis of a few parallels, can be roughly more precisely restricted to one (cat. nos 83 = Troy III, 86 = Troy IV?, 88 = Troy IIId, 89 = Troy II), two (cat. no. 82 = Troy IV-V?, Va) or three (cat. nos 81 = Troy VI, VIIa, VIIb1?, 84 = IId, IIIa-b, IVa-d) settlements; obviously, it does not exclude employment of certain motif/s in other settlements. Of special interest are different and very common incised motifs noticed where a free place was accessible1934, including pottery and seals.1935 According to the published finds from the American excavations the first and rare decoration was introduced in Troy I1936, but the majority of artefacts decorated in this technique, including whorls derived from Troy II or III, i.e. Schliemann’s “verbrannten Stadt”.1937 In Troy IV

and especially V much fewer of such artefacts are known.1938 Generally, the richest repertoire, including discussed patterns, was utilized in Troy II-V1939, and the E-MBA time frame of incised whorls fits well with similarly decorated and dated pottery, as well as seals.1940 Thus typologically and chronologically they all belong to the same locally developed decorative tradition. This continues into the LBA, but the number of discussed artefacts decreased enormously in Troy VI, where only thirty incised whorls of the total of 385 have been recorded.1941 In Troy VIIa one can observe this trend as more rapid since of 105 items only eight bear incised patterns. Likewise, in Troy VIIb among seventy-one undecorated objects there were five incised, of which probably three seem to be chance finds from the EBA.1942 So, incised patterns in Troy VI-VII and also VIII1943 are scarcely represented. In light of recent excavations it seems there is no arc motif on whorls in Early Troy I. Also pottery of that time is decorated with eyes, chevrons and parallel lines, but not with arcs. Evidence from the northern (squares D2.97, D2.130) and southern (square D5) parts of “Schliemann-Graben” indicates that at least the discussed motif was introduced in Late Troy I/Early Troy II. The observed decorative pattern does not support Korfmann’s thesis on chronological simultaneity of Late Troy I and Early Troy II.1944 According to Blegen at the latter

1938 1932 1933 1934 1935

Balfanz 1995b, 121. Easton 2002. Treuil 1983, 461-62. Schliemann 1880, 354-71, 412-16, 582-83; Blegen 1964, plate 32 lower end. 1936 Blegen et al. 1950, 50. 1937 Op. cit., 216, 217 table 11, 242-43, 305 table 27; Blegen et al. 1951, 15, 16 table 6, 17, 36, 305 table 27. This fits well with similarly dated pottery and

1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944

229

seals decorated with incised motifs – Zurbach 2003, 114-16. Blegen et al. 1951, 116, 117 table 13, 137, 233, 234 table 20, 250, 305 table 27; Zurbach 2003, 116. Blegen et al. 1950, 217; Blegen et al. 1951, 16, 11617, 234. Zurbach 2003, 114-16. Blegen et al. 1953, 9, 32 table 8. Blegen et al. 1958, 18 table 8, 153 table 17. Op. cit., 251 – of sixteen whorls only two were patterned, including one incised. Balfanz 1995b, 123.

settlement (IIa-b) among recorded whorls there were no decorated items, while from Troy I six patterned objects were recorded, including two in Late Troy I.1945 Also, similarly decorated whorls of Troy I could have derived from the trench excavated by Schliemann at the depth of 14 m.1946 Summing up, arcs on whorls commonly occur mainly in Troy II-V, but also in VI-VIIb2. In different settlements one can note various percentages of variants of arc motifs. For instance, those with impressed dots between the ends of arcs are particularly characteristic of Troy II-III. Five sets of three arcs are typical for Troy IV-V (cat. no. 79).1947 The earliest similar arc motif is also known from one whorl recorded in the settlement of Kumtepe Iab1948, older than Troy I, as well as from other sites, namely Demircihöyük ID (= Early Troy I)1949, Beycesultan XVI (= roughly Troy Ig)1950 and Copper Age (= EBA II) Alişarhöyük (= Troy I/Early Troy II).1951 Patterned objects are observable in Thermi I-III, but arcs were not recorded, which is surprising bearing in mind its geographical position and links of material culture with that of neighbouring Troy. In Aphrodisias, where no decoration appears on any whorls until the LCh III, arcs were introduced in Acropolis in the second half of the EBA IIIA.1952 Moreover, they were also recorded in EBA IIIALBA Polatlı VIII, XVI, XXIII and XXXI1953, 1945 Blegen et al. 1950, 49 table 5, 217 table 11, 305 table 27. 1946 Balfanz 1995b, 123. 1947 Op. cit., loc. cit.; Mansfeld 2001, 217-20, 223, 225 fig. 15:8, pls 8 no. 5, 9 nos 3-4, 12, 16, 18-20, 22, 24. 1948 Balfanz 1995b, 123. 1949 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 228-29, 231 fig. 161, 232. 1950 Lloyd, Mallaart 1962, 274 fig. F5. 1951 Schmidt 1932, 48 and fig. 57, 49 fig. 58 no. b754; Von der Osten 1937a, 198, 200-204 figs 199-203. 1952 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 374, 376 fig. 312 no. 3. 1953 Lloyd, Gökçe 1951, 62 nos 2, 10-11, 14 and fig. 15.

EBA II-LBA Alacahöyük III-II1954 and EBA IIILBA I Tarsus.1955 The earliest occurrence of the chevron motif in the Troad was noted on the whorl from Kumtepe1956 and later on pottery of Troy Ia-c.1957 In the latter site five sets of chevrons appear mainly on whorls in settlements II-III, while four ones are known from III-IV. The discussed motif occurs up to early Troy VI, but later only in the form of bands.1958 Finds from the other Aegean-Anatolian sites indicate that it was introduced in the EBA, for instance at Lerna IV1959, Thermi I-III1960, Polatlı VIII (recorded also in XI and XXXI of the MBA)1961, Demircihöyük I-II 1962 , Poliochni Yellow 1963, Beycesultan XIII or even XIV1964, early EBA IIIA Aphrodisias Acropolis1965, EBA II Etiyokuşu1966 and occurs at EBA I, III, MBA, LBA II Tarsus.1967 Precise dating of the circle motif is impossible, but it occurs in Troy I-VII.1968 It is also known 1954 Arık 1937, 134-37; Koşay 1951, 133, 150-51, pls 90, 93, 114; Koşay, Akok 1966, 173, 209-11, pls 34-35, 57-58; Koşay, Akok 1973, 91-92, 94, 113, 116-17, pls 49-51, 68-69. 1955 Goldman et al. 1956, 329-34, figs 446-50. 1956 Balfanz 1995b, 124. 1957 Blegen et al. 1950, 88 nos 1-2, fig. 234, 89 no. 9, fig. 235, 98 nos 24-25, 30-31, fig. 234, no. 3, fig. 236, 106 nos 3, 18-19, figs 239-40, 107 no. 34, fig. 241, 131 no. 20 (A6), fig. 238. 1958 Balfanz 1995b, 124; Mansfeld 2001, 217-18, 225 fig. 15:8, pls 8 nos 6, 8-9, 9 no. 7. 1959 Caskey 1955, 37 pl. 22 no. 1. 1960 Lamb 1936, 162, 163 fig. 47 nos 6, 25. 1961 Lloyd, Gökçe 1951, 62 nos 1, 3, 6, 12 and fig. 15. 1962 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 229, 231 fig. 161, 232. 1963 Bernabò-Brea 1976, 281-82, pls 229 c, 230 d. 1964 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 274 fig. F.5, 278 fig. F.6. 1965 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 374, 376 fig. 312 no. 1. 1966 Kansu 1940, 99-100, 101 and figs 89, 90 no. 18. 1967 Goldman et al. 1956, 330-32, 334, figs 446-48, 450. 1968 Balfanz 1995b, 124.

230

from Copper Age (= EBA II) Alişarhöyük1969, Koçumbeli1970, Etiyokuşu1971, late EBA III-MBA Aphrodisias Acropolis1972, EBA II Beycesultan XVI, where it was continued in the EBA III1973, and EBA II-III Tarsus.1974 The motif of zigzags, usually arranged in a star, was recorded at Troy II-IX, but deeply impressed on the whorl’s edge has no parallels there.1975 In incised technique this element occurs in Aphrodisias1976, EBA I-II Demircihöyük1977, EBA II Beycesultan XVI1978, and EBA III-MBA Tarsus.1979 In regard to the placement of motifs, contrary to EBA Troy where in the majority upper ends were decorated, in EBA Demircihöyük I-II mainly sides and also lower ones are patterned.1980 In EBA I-II and M-LBA Kusura A-C the whole surface was used for decoration.1981 Also in EBA Thermi 1969 Von der Osten 1937a, 198, 202 fig. 201 nos b 934, b 1014, c 209, c 1803, c 1819, c 2112, c 2567, 204 fig. 203 nos d 1115, d 1585, d 1849, e 1444, d 1694, d 2174, 206. 1970 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 237. 1971 Kansu 1940, 99-100, 101 and figs 89, 90 no. 18. 1972 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 374, 376 fig. 312 nos 1-2, 6, 8-10, 14, 16, 377 fig. 313 nos 2-3, 8, 13, 16. 1973 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 274 fig. F.5, 278 fig. F.6. 1974 Goldman et al. 1956, 329-31, figs 447-48. 1975 For instance Blegen et al. 1950, 338 no. 35-343, fig. 366; Blegen et al. 1951, 40 no. 34-244, figs 54, 58, 141 nos 37-143, 37-692, figs 151, 153, 159 no. 33110, fig. 153, 167 no. 36-256, figs 151, 153, 169 no. 37-14, fig. 151, 254 no. 35-500, 274 no. 35-139, figs 236-37, 125 no. 37-93, figs 221-22; Easton 2002, 150 no. 72-606, 151 nos 72-591, 72-868, fig. 143, 183 nos 72-1079, 72-1084, 184 no. 72-1027, 185 no. 72-1047, fig. 155, 193 nos 72-1411, 72-1768, fig. 158. 1976 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 374. 1977 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 229, 231 fig. 161, 232. 1978 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 274 fig. F.5. 1979 Goldman et al. 1956, 330-31, 333, figs 447-49. 1980 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 229 fig. 159. 1981 Lamb 1937, 32 fig. 13 nos 2-16, 18-20, 33 fig. 14

and EBA I-II Beycesultan the entire surface of whorls was ornamented1982, but during the EBA III of the latter site, as in Troy, the upper end was preferred.1983 Moreover, in Beycesultan plain whorls were in the minority.1984 A preponderance of the entire decorated surface has also been observed at Tarsus from the EBA I to LBA II with the exception of several whorls patterned on the upper end and only one plain item.1985 In Aphrodisias patterned items outnumber plain examples with the exception of the LCh period; in the EBA II one or two ends were decorated, but the latter variant occurred with 25% greater frequency. During the second half of the EBA III patterns on the upper end became more popular. This dominating feature may be linked with the advent of flattened conical form with a cavity on the upper end and then increasing tenfold in the MBA. It is interesting to note that the appearance of an incised design is roughly synchronous at LCh III Aphrodisias and EBA I Beycesultan.1986 Decoration in Copper Age (= EBA II) Alişarhöyük, due to occurrence of a similar shape, was also placed on the upper end; this feature continued at that site towards the EBA III.1987 Obviously the four analyzed motifs are only a part of the very rich repertoire of decorative patterns observed in Troy. Their numerous variants,

1982

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

231

nos 1, 3-14; Lamb 1938, 255 fig. 20 nos 1-8, 19, 2125, 27-29. Lamb 1936, 162, 163 fig. 47 nos 1-25 (however, there are some exceptions since nos 26-33 are plain); Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 274 fig. F.5 no. 2, 278 fig. F.6. In this respect there are also affinities between EBA II Beycesultan XVI-XIV and EBA I-IIA Demircihöyük I-III. Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 278 fig. F.6. Op. cit., 277. Goldman et al. 1956, 330-34, figs 446-50. Joukowsky et al. 1986, 375 and table 129. Von der Osten 1937a, 198, 207, 203-204 figs 202203, 262-63 figs 273-74, 265 fig. 276, 270.

as well as elements not listed here, can also be seen in other sites. Summing up, arcs are known from Alacahöyük, Alişarhöyük, Aphrodisias, Beycesultan, Demircihöyük, Kumtepe and Polatlı. Chevrons appeared at Aphrodisias, Beycesultan, Demircihöyük, Etiyokuşu, Kumtepe, Lerna, Polatlı, Poliochni and Thermi. A circle motif occurred at Alişarhöyük, Aphrodisias, Beycesultan, Etiyokuşu, Koçumbeli and Kusura. Finally, zigzags have been recorded at Aphrodisias, Beycesultan and Demircihöyük. 2.3. Function The large assemblage of mainly terracotta whorls found at Troy, as well as much lower number of stone and bone1988, is an exceptional phenomenon that seems no to be matched at other contemporary sites in that part of the Mediterranean, and perhaps it points to a particular feature in the site’s culture. There was no reduction in the demand for terracotta whorls from Late Troy II to VII1989, and this abundance can be explained in different ways, including wearing of clothes made of distinctive fabric by the local people and/or a more systematic and specially organized spinning activity, in which each household manufactured merely for its own needs. Moreover, spun yarn or even textiles may well have been exported in exchange for desired articles from other regions. In any case, the proposed explanations suggest well developed production, 1988 Blegen et al. 1950-1958. Probably in Troy VIIa or b there was also recorded one artefact made perhaps of lead – Blegen et al. 1958, 14, 106 no. 35-292, figs 219, 221. However, one cannot forget unpreserved wooden whorls close in shape to the ancient ones and still used by the villagers of the Troad in the last decade of the 19th century – Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 428. 1989 Balfanz 1995b, 137-38.

especially from Late Troy II onwards. This was linked with sheep husbandry for wool – contrary to Troy I, where the animals were mainly butchered for consumption.1990 At Troy VI an abundance of sheep and goat bones indicates that there can have been no shortage of wool.1991 Likewise, analyzed animal bones from EBA Demircihöyük indirectly indicate sheep wool as the raw material for yarn production.1992 Moreover, in Neolithic inner Anatolia the rest of textiles from Çatalhöyük VI indicate that flax, as a second potential source of the fibre, was already known at c. 6000 B.C.1993 As one of the new crops, it was introduced on a large scale at MBA Troy IV, but examined botanical evidence derived only from the Upper Town. Additionally, a low number of seeds turned up also at nearby EBA Kumtepe Ib1994, but none at E-MBA Demircihöyük.1995 Bearing in mind the central Anatolian influences at MBA Troy evident in ceramic types, settlement patterns and dome-shaped ovens, one can presume that flax could also have arrived from that direction. The discussed thirty-five whorls belong to the largest group of Trojan artefacts. They constitute the only surviving elements of the kits and it is highly probable that they derived from the settlement context (Table 15). Indeed, terracotta whorls are known first of all from settlements and the noticed abundance is proof of well developed thread production. They were found already in M-LN Anatolian sites (c. 6000 - c. 5400 B.C.), for instance in Çatalhöyük VI1996, Suberde II, LN Hacilar VI1997, as well as 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

232

Op. cit., 137; Riehl 1999, 86. Blegen et al. 1953, 33. Obladen-Kauder 1996, 319. Ryder 1965, 175-76. Riehl 1999, 81-82, 84, 86. Obladen-Kauder 1996, 226. Mellaart 1962, 56 (items made of unbaked clay). Mellaart 1961, 46; Singh 1974, 72, 81, 102.

Table 15. Dimensions and weights of whorls from the AS in Munich and the MN in Poznań. Type (Blegen et al. 1950)

H. (cm)

D. (cm)

Hole-D. (cm)

Wt (g)

Occurrence at Troy (Blegen et al. 1950-1958)

79

12

1.8

3.4

0.7-0.6

17.57

IIf; II?; IIIb; III?; IVa-b; IV; IV?; V1; Va, c-d; V?; VI?; II-VI; VI-VII; VII?; VIII-IX

80

16

1.6

2.7

0.65-0.5

10.51

IIf-g; II?; III?; IV?; Vb-c; II-V; Late VI; VI-VII?; VII?

81

17

2.7

4.3

1.0-0.65

41.24

IIg; IIIb, d; VI; VIIa-VIIb1 and earlier?; I-VIII

82

17

2.4

4.9

1.1-1.0

50.77

Ie; IIf; IIIa-b; Late III; IV-V?; Va; V2

83

23

1.6

2.8

0.9-0.8

8.48

IId, f-g; Early III; IIIa, c-d; IVa, c-d; V1; V3; Vb

84

23

2.1

3.7

0.5

26.95

Ij; IId, g; II?; IIIa-b, d; IVa-d; IV?; V1; Va-d; Middle VI; VI?

85

23

1.5

2.7

0.85-0.6

7.84

IId, g; IIIa, d; IVa, c; Vd; Middle VI

86

16

c. 2.4

4.2

0.8-0.65

c. 37.6

IIg; IVa; IV?; Middle-Late VI

87

23

2.3

4.8

0.95-0.85

45.60

IIf-g; IIId; Early III; IVa; Va-b, d; V1

88

17

2.2

4.2

0.65-0.55

34.23

Ie; IIId; Vc

89

23

1.5

2.8

0.55-0.5

9.10

IId, g; II; IIId; IVc; V; Early VI

90

23

2.5

4.2

0.75-0.7

> 33.20

IIg

91

21

2.8

3.7

0.8-0.9

34.82

IIg; V1; Late VI

92

23

1.8

3.4

0.8-0.7

21.06

IIg; V

93

23

2.0

3.3

0.8-0.7

19.32

IIg; IVa; V

94

16

1.6

2.6

0.5

9.90

IId, f, g; IIId; Middle III; IVa; V1; VIII

95

4

1.9

3.8

0.75

24.97

Late I; IIg; III; IVa, d; Late VI; VIIb; VIIb1

96

4

2.6

3.6

1.1-0.9

43.35

IIg; IVd; Late VI

97

11

2.5

4.3

1.05-0.9

32.67

IIg

98

15

2.9

3.6

1.0-0.75

24.64

IIg; IIId; IVb; V3

99

15

2.4

3.5

0.9-0.65

22.00

IIId; IVb-c; V1; V3

100

16

2.6

4.1

0.8

37.08

IIId; V2

101

15

1.7

2.6

0.5

11.06

IIb, g; IVa

102

16

2.5

4.6

0.9-0.75

37.07

IIg; IVc; Vc

103

17

3.2

4.5

0.95-0.8

59.60

IIg

104

17

2.3

3.0

0.7-0.6

20.39

Ie; IIc-d, f-g; Middle III; IVa; V; VI; VIIa

105

19

1.9

3.6

0.9-0.8

24.03

IIf; IIIb

106

21

3.6

2.7

0.6

20.01

IIc-d, g; IIIb; IVa, c; V; VI; VIIa; VIIb; VIII

Cat. no.

233

107

21

2.9

4.2

1.1-0.9

51.67

IIg; V1-2

108

21

2.8

3.2

0.75-0.7

21.93

IIg; IVa

109

22

2.7

3.5

0.95-0.65

29.16

IIf

110

23

2.3

4.8

1.2

> 44.81

IIg

111

23

1.9

3.5

0.85-0.7

22.39

IId, g; IIIa, d; IVa, c

112

23

3.0

4.8

0.9-0.8

61.44

Ij; IIIa; IVd; V3

113

23

2.3

3.3

0.7-0.6

23.40

IIg; IIIa; IVa, d; V2; Early VI

in LN-EBA Mersin XXV-X1998, Chalcolithic-EBA Beycesultan1999, E-MBA Demircihöyük2000, LChIron Age Aphrodisias2001, E-LBA II Tarsus2002, EBA I-II and M-LBA Kusura A-C2003, Chalcolithic, EBA II-III, LBA I-II Alişarhöyük2004 and Bronze

turned up – further evidence of textile activity. To the south E-MCy settlements in Cyprus, for instance Alambra-Mouttes, Episkopi-Phaneromeni, Marki-Alonia, Sotira-Kaminoudhia and many others, produced appreciable numbers of whorls,

Age-Iron Age Troy. Likewise, to the East whorls occurred at the c. 5500 - c. 3500 B.C. ceramic Neolithic sites mostly in northern Iraq, such as Tell Shimshara IX, Hassuna I-XV, Yarimtepe V and Nineveh II, but also Ras Al ‘Amiya I-V in its southern part.2005 In Greece terracotta whorls came to light from the E-LN (c. 6000 - c. 3300 B.C.) settlements Sitagroi2006, Sesklo and Dimini.2007 They also appeared at many Bronze Age dwellings, including large assemblages of M-LH Nichoria and Malthi.2008 At a number of these sites loom weights

and during the LCy this trend was continued.2009 Moreover, they were recorded at burial grounds. In Anatolia decorated artefacts are known from the EBA Tomb 14 of Babaköy.2010 Additionally, whorls, including patterned ones, were recorded at Bozüyük, regarded at the time of its discovery as tumulus, but the exact level/s they came from is unknown.2011 Two finds of special interest turned up at MBA Demircihöyük, i.e. the stone whorl associated with the “Totgeburt” and the incised terracotta artefact at the dog’s grave.2012 Several terracotta whorls came to light from a woman’s and child’s grave, as well as from an infant’s burial in the area of Troy VIh Lower Town.2013 The discussed artefacts occurred at

1998 Garstang 1953, 33, 43, 52-53, 75-76, 81, 103, 135, 156, 177-78, 215. 1999 Lloyd, Mallaart 1962, 268, 274-75, 277-78. 2000 Kull 1988, 198-99; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 230-31. 2001 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 373-78. 2002 Goldman et al. 1956, 328-34. 2003 Lamb 1937, 30-34; Lamb 1938, 253-56. 2004 Von der Osten 1937a, 93, 95 fig. 98, 198, 206-207, 199-204 figs 198-203, 262-65 figs 273-76, 270; Von der Osten 1937b, 273. 2005 Stronach 1961, 106-107; Merpert, Munchajev 1969, 127-28; Singh 1974, 126, 132, 138, 140, 159. 2006 Barber 1991, 51. 2007 Wace, Thompson 1912, 85. 2008 Valmin 1938, 335-36; Carington Smith 1992, 675-85.

2009 Crewe 1998, 1-3, 15, 18, 20-21, 37-39. 2010 Bittel 1939-1941, 7, 8 fig. 6 no. 4, 11 fig. 9 no. 9; Kökten 1949, 814, pl. 94 fig. 8. 2011 Koerte 1899, 36. These artefacts are comparable with those from MBA Demircihöyük – Kull 1988, 165. 2012 Kull 1988, 197-98. 2013 Angel 1951, 12-14; Blegen et al. 1953, 372-74, 37779, 381. According to the latter publication two of eight artefacts could have served as buttons. Moreover, in light of new data two other items with diameter much less than 2.0 cm are hardly acceptable as whorls.

234

many Bronze Age cemeteries in Greece2014, as well as at E-LCy tombs in Cyprus.2015 Unfortunately, spindles and sets/kits (spindle with attached whorl/s) have been rather seldom recovered at settlements. From the earlier excavations of Troy II derived a fragment of a bone spindle with a terracotta whorl stuck into it2016 and a bone

III2024, Horoztepe2025 and Oymaağaç yielded middlewhorl spindles made of metals, including precious ones.2026 Another interesting silver middle-whorl

spindle from the well of Troy VI Lower Town.2017 Moreover, there is mention of a carbonized wooden spindle with its linen or woollen thread wound on it found at Troy II.2018 Additionally, the recent works recovered the middle-whorl spindle of a possible hippopotamus bone dated to Troy VIIa.2019 In the Aegean an undecorated bone spindle occurred

spindle with a bi-conical bronze or silver whorl and perhaps another one in the form of a pierced bronze disc were found at the EBA II Tomb 366 of KarataşSemayük.2027 Likewise, a bronze set with a thin disc-shaped whorl2028, as well as bronze high-whorl spindle with a thin conical whorl, derived from the mid-1st millennium B.C. cemetery of Devehöyük.2029 The bone spindles derived from a tomb or tombs of M-LBA Hittite Alişarhöyük.2030 In Greece the golden spindle turned up at the LH IB-IIA Shaft Grave III in Mycenae (Grave Circle A).2031 Two ivory low-

at LBA Phylakopi.2020 Six polished bone spindles turned up at the transitional LBA-Iron Age Kastanas IV-VI2021, two or three ornamented ivory and/or bone spindles along with whorls from the same material at the LCy II-III Enkomi IIB-IIIA settlement and Tomb 52022; from the latter settlement I, IIB, IIIA derived perhaps three bronze spindles.2023 From cemeteries are known some kits, but also spindles. In Anatolia the EBA III Royal Tombs H and L at Alacahöyük

whorl spindles were found at Perati LH IIIC Tombs 65 (Δ108) and 152 (Δ211), as well as parts of two other ones, including Δ212.2032 Two or three spindles including one of ivory or bone and an ivory kit with whorl decorated with a gold-headed bronze rivet are known from the aforementioned LCy III Tomb 5 of Enkomi.2033 At Bellapais-Vounous in Cyprus a clay model of the middle-whorl spindle derived from ECy I Tomb 92 and a low-whorl one from the ECy

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Carington Smith 1992, 675-85. Crewe 1998, 1-3, 15, 18, 20-21, 36-37, 39, 52-54. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 390. Op. cit., 400. Schliemann 1880, 327; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 340. Balfanz 1995a, 107-108, 108 fig. 1, 109 figs 2-3. Atkinson et al. 1904, 192, pl. 40 no. 9. Hochstetter 1987, 11, 78, pl. 14 nos 20-21. Dikaios 1969, 255, 277, pls 128 no. 47, 132 nos 7-9, 17-19, 27, 156 no. 42, 162 nos 4, 13, 17-18; Åström et al. 1972, 609-10; Schaeffer et al. 1952, 185, 194-95, 190 fig. 75 nos 207, 335. There was also found an ivory disc still attached to the ivory shaft by a gold-headed bronze rivet and this set can be regarded as a low-whorl spindle or distaff – Schaeffer et al. 1952, 194-95, 190 fig. 75 no. 335, 213 fig. 82 no. 4. 2023 Dikaios 1969, 233, 256, 277, pls 153 no. 12, 157 no. 10, 163 no. 24.

2024 Koşay 1951, 159, 168-69, pls 124 and 126 down, 197 fig. 1 left. 2025 Özgüç, Akok 1958, 45, 51, 16 figs 25-26, pl. 8 nos 1-3. 2026 Özgüç 1978, 90. 2027 Mellink 1969, 323, pl. 74 fig. 23. In the same tomb came to light also a plain terracotta whorl or bead recorded not too far from the simple pin. 2028 Moorey 1980, 97 fig. 16 no. 400, 98, but classified as low-whorl spindle in Barber 1991, 63, 64 fig. 2.31 lower one. 2029 Moorey 1980, 97 fig. 16 no. 399, 98. 2030 Von der Osten 1937b, 237, 242 fig. 269. 2031 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1984, 49-50, pl. 4 nos 106-110. 2032 Iakovidis 1969-1970, 54, 56, 72-73, 76, 350-52, pls 15, 23; Iakovidis 1980, 95, 96 fig. 117. 2033 Schaeffer et al. 1952, 185, 194-95, 190 fig. 75 nos 207, 335, 213 fig. 82 no. 4.

235

III Tomb 29.2034 The LBA II Tomb 1122 of Megiddo produced a nearly complete bone low-whorl spindle with two whorls, fragments of three bone spindles, as well as one steatite and several bone whorls.2035 At the same site the LBA II Tomb 877 B1 yielded a bone spindle, a fragment of another one and several whorls.2036 At that site the occurrence of spinning tools continued after 1200 B.C., as evidenced by Tomb 39 of EIA I and Tomb 27 dated to EIA II.2037 Moreover, the cemetery of Hama used from the end of the LBA to the end of the 8th century B.C. yielded five bone shafts, including two well preserved ones, dated to 1200-1075 B.C.2038 Far to the east, from Burials 11 and 21 of the central Mesopotamian Kish A cemetery, dated to the end of the ED and beginning of the Akkadian period (the end of the 3rd millennium B.C.), came to light two copper highwhorl spindles.2039 In northern Iran at the woman’s grave DG 53 X-8 of Tepe Hissar IIB was recorded 2034 Dikaios 1940, 63, pl. 56 no. 6; Stewart, Stewart 1950, 99 no. 6, pl. 100 d; Dikaios, Stewart 1962, 234 fig. 90 no. 6. There was found another clay spindle model at Tomb 164 B, but unfortunately it was not illustrated and its whereabouts is unknown – Stewart, Stewart 1950, 239 no. 41. 2035 Guy 1938, 20, 170, 171 fig. 175 nos 6 (set), 7 (steatite whorl), 8-10, 12 (bone whorls), 172, pl. 84 nos 1 (set), 2 (three fragments), 4, 8-9, 12 (bone whorls), 15 (steatite whorl). 2036 Op. cit., 36, 170, 171 fig. 175 nos 11-13 (bone whorls), pl. 95 nos 41-42, 47-48 (ivory whorls), 4346 (bone whorls), 49 (fragment of bone spindle), 50 (complete spindle). 2037 Op. cit., 117-19, 127, 171 fig. 175 nos 19-21, 26 (bone whorls), 22-24 (serpentine whorls), 25 (slate whorl), 172, pls 166 nos 16, 18-19 (bone whorls), 14-15, 17 (serpentine whorls), 171 nos 1 (slate whorl), 2 (bone whorl). 2038 Riis 1948, 173 and fig. 217 A, 174, 34 fig. 21, 202. 2039 Mackay 1925, 43, pl. 18 no. 17 (the whorl from Burial 21 was made of white glazed paste); Mackay 1929, 168, pls 40 no. 3.3, 58 no. 1.

a copper spindle with two whorls of the same material dated to just before 2500 B.C.2040 Moreover, in the same area one of the tombs at Marlik in northern Iran produced a bronze high-whorl spindle dated to the early 1st millennium B.C.2041 A single spindle or shaft with whorl/s was a tool employed for spinning. A rod that is generally slightly thicker near its centre and tapers toward each end, only tapers to the upper end or is straight can act as a spindle.2042 As recently examined whorls show, the Trojan spindles tapered toward the lower or upper end.2043 The first case confirmed the examined artefacts with perforations tapering toward the lower end (cat. nos 79-83, 85-93, 96-99, 102-105, 107-109, 111-113) and the second one those with straight holes (cat. nos 84, 94-95, 100-101, 106, 110). The wealth of carved wooden shafts preserved in EN Çatalhöyük should serve as a reminder that wood was the principal medium to make them and this is proved by modern examples. Later it was translated into precious metals and other luxury raw material.2044 During the earlier excavations at Troy there were recorded two bone spindles, including an EBA item with a terracotta whorl stuck into it and another one possibly of the LBA, as well as perhaps also a carbonized wooden shaft with its linen 2040 Schmidt 1937, 120, 136 and fig. 80, 137, pl. 29 no. H2171. 2041 Negahban 1964, 19-20, 44, fig. 43. 2042 For an overview of prehistoric to LR spindles see – Crowfoot 1956, 425, 433 fig. 273 g-l; Forbes 1956, 153 fig. 11. 2043 Mansfeld 2001, 221 and fig. 15:4. 2044 Bazin et al. 1982, 67 and fig. 43, 68; Barber 1991, 61. For spindles made of wood in modern countries see – Koşay 1952, 214-15, fig. 15 (Turkey); La Baume 1955, 37 and fig. 19 (Greece, Sardinia, Serbia, Spain and Switzerland). More recently in Turkey there have been recorded just two wooden sticks arranged in a cross in order to provide the required weight – Kull 1988, 197.

236

or woollen thread wound on it.2045 Moreover, an interesting and so far the best documented example came to light in 1994 from a domestic structure of Troy VIIa Lower Town situated in the northern part of square z7. The incised spindle (28.89 g) found in situ was perhaps made of hippopotamus long bone, but the flat whorl (4.8 g), situated roughly in the middle of the spindle, was possibly carved from the teeth of that animal.2046 The spindle, 23.5 cm long and maximally 1 cm in diameter, shed light on many technical aspects of spinning. This size roughly fits with c. 15-20 cm long items used to spin fine, thin thread, while those of c. 30-50 cm served for production of thick yarn2047; the quoted spans of length provided the required weight and enough space for winding of both threads. On the narrower upper end of the item there is a projection with a horizontal perforation. Its placement is important, since it indicates proper orientation of the spindle. Thanks to it and according to the whorl’s position the find can be regarded as a middle-whorl spindle.2048 The perforation served directly for binding of a yarn just prior to spinning or to set a hook or piece of wire for the same purpose.2049 There are examples of similar Bronze Age or Iron Age bronze hooks 2045 Schliemann 1880, 327; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 390, 400. 2046 However, in scientific literature usually the general term ivory has been applied to this class of objects, but the subject is much more complicated. According to decoration the most similar to the Trojan object are artefacts from LCy III Enkomi IIIA settlement and LH IIIC Perati Tomb 65 (Δ108) – Dikaios 1969, 277, pl. 132 no.7; Iakovidis 19691970, 72-73, 76, 351-52, pl. 23; Iakovidis 1980, 95, 96 fig. 117. 2047 Schlabow 1976, 37 and fig. 26. 2048 Barber 1991, 61; Balfanz 1995a, 109. 2049 Balfanz 1995a, 108-109. A possible fragment of another spindle with typical grooves on one end was also recovered in square D9 – op. cit., 114.

from the Dictean Cave, which could have been associated with spindles.2050 This is highly probable since Cretan artefacts are very similar to bronze spindle hooks of Classical Olynthus.2051 Moreover, hooks are visible on the middle 6th century painted pottery fragment from the Athenian Acropolis and are mentioned by Plato as part of his cosmic spindle.2052 Such an element is also evidenced on modern examples in Sudan2053, as well as Crete and Algeria, where hooks made of wire or metal sheet project from the end of the spindle furnished by the metal sheet.2054 Moreover, from Kish A are known two copper spindle whorls with a hook at the short end just beyond the whorl. Sometimes instead of hooks there were incisions or grooves on the metal furnishing.2055 These features are also recorded on one end of the bone shafts themselves, which additionally had a carved projection as objects from Hama and Megiddo2056, sometimes with a vertical2057 or even vertical and a little horizontal perforation on the same end visible on the item from Enkomi.2058 Even the narrow end of the ECy III spindle clay model from Bellapais-Vounous 2050 Hogarth 1899-1900, 111, 112 and fig. 46. 2051 Robinson 1941, 376-77, pl. 119 nos 1884, 1886, 1891. 2052 Graef, Langlotz 1925, 221, pl. 93 no. 2202; Plato Resp. X 616c. 2053 Crowfoot 1931, 10, pl. 3. 2054 Balfanz 1995a, 107. 2055 Op. cit., 107. 2056 Guy 1938, 170 fig. 175 no. 6, pls. 84 no. 1, 95 no. 50; Riis 1948, 173 and fig. 217 A-B. 2057 From the LCy III Tomb 5 in Enkomi – Schaeffer et al. 1952, 190 fig. 75 no. 335, 194-95. 2058 Dikaios 1969, 277, pls 132 no. 7, 162 no. 18; at the LCy III Enkomi IIIA settlement was also found one artefact with a vertical hole. On the other hand, mentioned vertical perforations could also have served to connect with a rod the two parts of the spindle as in Megiddo – Guy 1938, 170, 171 fig. 175 no. 6.

237

has a small horizontal perforation.2059 Finally, the silver middle-whorl spindle from the EBA III Royal Tomb L of Alacahöyük III has a gold or electrum head convenient for hitching the thread around while spinning2060, similar to those encountered on

namely introducing a hanging rock as a better and much faster flywheel. So, possibly a piece of rock was the earliest version of the whorl. Even in the last century such a ‘tool’ was used in inner Mongolia for suspending spinning of a long string from the fibre pulled from the back of a shedding camel.2068

modern hand-spindles.2061 The shafts themselves can act without the whorl, as in the photograph taken in the mid1950s in Greece, with a shepherd woman spinning while walking with sheep in a hillside field.2062 Similarly, examples of the use of only spinning sticks were recorded in the last century in Sudan and Scandinavia.2063 This is obvious since twirling a thread attached to a spindle is much faster than

In other words, the whorl initially loaded a fibre, later a spindle, and thus acted as a little flywheel on it, stabilizing and prolonging its rotation as the work of twisting the thread was done. As motion power it needs to be broad enough to help maintain the momentum, heavy enough to help with drafting, but not so heavy that it breaks the thread. Finally, it should be symmetrical about the central axis in order

working without it. Moreover, the spindle can be used as a neat bobbin for packing of the finished thread, wound up under tension. The package could have been forced to turn in order to help twist the newly forming yarn. In this case the spindle becomes a dual-purpose implement.2064 In light of this it seems amazing that in Tunisia an even more primitive spinning technique without spindles and whorls is still known, i.e. rolling the fibre on the thigh or hip with just the open hand.2065 Finally, the spindle with the packed thread can be used as a shuttle in the weaving process.2066 It seems that for the spinning itself the spindle is easier to wind onto, but in Sudan it was observed, that more yarn on the plain stick gives momentum and thus faster spinning.2067 Perhaps in the past this could be an indication inspiring the next step,

to prevent an inefficient wobble during rotation. The whorls were made of wood, bone, antler, ivory, stone, clay and metals, even precious ones. However, at the beginning, like spindles, they were made of wood. This old tradition was long continued in the Troad, where the local villagers in the last decade of the 19th century still used such artefacts, close in form to the terracotta ancient ones.2069 Dimensions, weight and shape of the whorl, as well as spindle’s weight, are important since they shed light on the sort, thickness and thus quality of manufacturing yarn. According to Blegen “The smallest and perhaps some of the more elegant ‘whorls’ (…)” of Troy VI may have been used as buttons.2070 The recent criteria of differentiation of whorls from beads are very fluid2071, but the diameter of the latter is usually less than c. 2.0 cm.2072 This is demonstrated by the

2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067

2068 2069 2070 2071

Dikaios 1940, 63, pl. 56 no. 6. Koşay, Akok 1951, 168-69, pl. 197 no. 1 left. Barber 1991, 60. Gass, Klemm 1959, photo 17; Hilse 2001, 137 fig. 2. Crowfoot 1931, 10-11, pls 4, 7; Barber 1991, 42. Barber 1991, 42. Hilse 2001, 143. Pfeiffer 1920, 275; Blümner 1912², 157. Crowfoot 1931, 11.

Montell 1941, 114, pl. 1 no. 3. Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 428. Blegen et al. 1953, 33. Lamb 1936, 161-62; Blegen et al. 1950, 29; Goldman et al. 1956, 328; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 235. 2072 Barber 1991, 51-52; Crewe 1998, 13; ObladenKauder 1996, 233, where 0.5-2.0 cm diameter and height are limited to spherical and bi-conical

238

diameter 2.6-4.9 cm and height 1.5-3.6 cm of the examined artefacts (cat. nos 79-113). Recorded data fit well with those of the other recently published, forty-seven Trojan artefacts, whose diameter falls within 2.3-5.0 cm and height 1.4-3.4 cm2073, as well as corresponding accordingly with 2.0-3.5 cm and 1.5-3.0 cm from EBA Demircihöyük.2074 Likely whorls with diameter 2.3-4.5 cm and height 1.73.0 cm were recorded at this settlement during the MBA.2075 Similar data have also been provided by an enormous number of terracotta artefacts from the American excavations.2076 Moreover, little perforations indicate function as beads, hanging or applied2077, as well as specific attrition of string on one side of the perforation. The required movement is achievable with a vertical and centric position of the perforation within the whorl. This truncated artefacts (forms I, VI). Mansfeld 2001, 221, 222 fig. 15:5. Obladen-Kauder 1996, 233, 234 fig. 163. Kull 1988, 199. Blegen et al. 1950, 85-197 (Troy I: D. 1.6-5.1 cm, H. 0.8-4.4 cm), 246-373 (Troy II: D. 1.5-5.5 cm, H. 0.7-3.8 cm); Blegen et al. 1951, 39-96 (Troy III: D. 2.0-5.2 cm, H. 1.1-5.2 cm), 140-215 (Troy IV: D. 1.8-4.8 cm, H. 0.4-3.5 cm), 254-94 (Troy V: D. 1.65.3 cm, H. 0.9-3.7 cm); Blegen et al. 1953, 125-354 (Troy VI: D. 1.4-5.6 cm, H. 1.0-4.3 cm); Blegen et al. 1958, 52-135 (Troy VIIa: D. 1.6-5.0 cm, H. 1.05.2 cm), 184-240 (Troy VIIb: D. 1.7-4.4 cm, H. 1.04.0 cm), 264-97 (Troy VIII: D. 1.9-4.2 cm, H. 1.13.35 cm). However, it seems that a certain number of artefacts, due to a small diameter, cannot be acknowledged as whorls, but the majority are over 2.0 cm. The weight of the artefacts would help to resolve this issue, but unfortunately in those years it was not taken into account. 2077 Balfanz 1995b, 119. This problem seems more complex since there were observed bead holes from c. 0.1 cm to 1.2 cm – Liu 1978, 97. Therefore, the other criteria should be employed in order to consider items as whorls. 2073 2074 2075 2076

is important, since if the hole is greatly off centre its function seems problematic2078, at least in the case of suspending spinning, but more possible in a high whorl system.2079 If a perforation is diagonally situated, employment of the whorl is excluded. The examined artefacts have vertically drilled perforations except some placed slightly off centre (cat. nos 87, 102, 104, 107). The smallest diameter for the whorl’s hole, on the basis of carried out experiments, was suggested as greater than 0.2 cm2080, 0.3-0.4 cm while most were 0.7-0.8 cm, but also 1.8 cm occurred.2081 However, at Troy it could have been 0.2 cm2082, but the hole’s diameter of the other forty-six whorls falls within 0.4-1.1 cm.2083 Very close to the latter data is 0.5-1.2 cm perforation 2078 Crewe 1998, 14. 2079 A spindle with such a whorl will spin with a counterproductive amount of wobble. Also Blegen took into account the problematic function of some whorls because of their off-centre perforation – Blegen et al. 1950, 29. On the other hand, a slightly off-centre hole does not necessarily exclude the usefulness of whorls, as observed in the work of modern rural spinners in Greece – Blegen et al. 1953, 33. This has also been confirmed by experiments in Turkey – Obladen-Kauder 1996, 235. So, it seems that a lot depended on spinners’ skill and degree of the hole’s off-centre location. 2080 Carington Smith 1992, 674, 685, 694. 2081 Liu 1978, 97; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 225 fig. 155, 233; Crewe 1998, 13. 2082 Mansfeld 2001, 220 inv. no. 229, 221, 222 fig. 15:5. Its D. is 2.3 cm, H. 1.9 cm, Wt 7.5 g and the spindle’s weight should also be added. So, with a high probability it can be regarded as a whorl rather than a bead, but apart from chips of both holes’ edges there were not observed crucial traces of use. This is contrary to the opinion that since there is no evidence of use of objects with such narrow perforations as fasteners they may have been only decorative buttons – Blegen et al. 1950, 29. 2083 Mansfeld 2001, 221, 222 fig. 15:5.

239

diameter of the discussed items (cat. nos 79-113). The holes are usually slightly tapering toward the lower end or straight, but an hour-glass shape has also been drilled, especially in the pottery discs.2084 The examined artefacts confirmed the preponderance of perforations slightly tapering toward the lower end (cat. nos 79-83, 85-93, 96-99, 102-105, 107-109, 111113), but also straight holes were recorded (cat. nos 84, 94-95, 100-101, 106, 110). The weight of analyzed artefacts varies within 7.84-61.44 g (cat. nos 79-113). Mansfeld for fortythree whorls from the recent excavations gives weight of 6.9-60.8 g.2085 K. Balfanz, on the basis of 187 items recorded an average weight between 10 and 50 g.2086 However, she also quoted 3.0-88 g, but within this range the majority of items weighed 15-35 g.2087 What is interesting, there are no great differences in diameter, height and weight between these three compared groups of Trojan artefacts. Moreover, their lower limits of weight roughly fit with Carington Smith’s proposal of a minimum 10 g required for whorls in M-LBA Nichoria.2088 Contrary 2084 However, if the taper of the hourglass-shaped hole has more than c. 20º angle, then the whorl is probably a bead, button, toggle, pot lid or another artefact, because it cannot be fixed on the shaft – Crewe 1998, 12, 14. Nevertheless, another and unknown to us way to keep the whorl on the spindle cannot be excluded. 2085 Mansfeld 2001, 221-22, 222 fig. 15:5. The ratios are: for weight 8.8:1, for diameter 2:1 and for height 2.4:1 – op. cit., 221. The latter two data fit exactly with those of the examined whorls, but their weight proportion is slightly different (7.8:1). 2086 Balfanz 1995a, 108. 2087 Balfanz 1995b, 119. Average weight for the three data is 9.3-57.6 g and the ratio 6.2:1. 2088 Carington Smith 1992, 674, 685, 694. The experiment was not completely successful since the 10 g conical steatite whorl did little to aid or prolong the rotation. The spindle kept stopping and thus the thread continually broke. Even a whorl

to this, at EBA Demircihöyük the average weight of 183 whorls falls within 5.0-25 g, but the minimum is 2.5 g and the maximum 60 g2089 and thus only the upper limit is close to that from Troy, as well as the LBA lake pile-dwellings in Switzerland (1557 g).2090 Also from MBA Demircihöyük derived different data since the weight of twenty-four whorls falls within 14-47 g. 2091 However, to very small and light items has to be added the weight of spindles made of wood of c. 3.9-8.1 g2092 or bone of c. 30 g as evidenced by a Trojan find.2093 Second, even the set may have additionally been loaded with another whorl, including a rounded and pierced flat disc of pottery, bone or wood. In this context it should be mentioned that in the last century the simple dependence between the weight of the spindle and that of the whorl, according to which a lighter shaft needs a heavier whorl and a heavy one a lighter flywheel, was already observed.2094 The weight of

2089 2090 2091 2092

2093 2094

240

of the same weight, but flatter, would provide much better turning. Nevertheless, the author did not experiment with such a discoid artefact, which is one of the easiest to spin and therefore recommended for beginners. According to experiments undertaken in Turkey artefacts below 10 g and of certain forms (spherical, truncated bi-conical, short cylindrical, flattened oval, symmetrical bi-conical) from EBA Demircihöyük can be regarded as beads – Obladen-Kauder 1996, 227 fig. 158, 235. On the other hand, whorls in modern Peru are so small they just prevent a yarn’s slipping off from a spindle – Bird 1979, 15; but their double function cannot be excluded. Obladen-Kauder 1996, 225 fig. 156, 233. Barber 1991, 392. Kull 1988, 197 and fig. 186, 198-99. Recent experiments undertaken in Turkey show such a weight for 30 cm long and 0.8 cm in diameter spindles made of five species of wood – Obladen-Kauder 1996, 235. Balfanz 1995a, 108. Montell 1941, 119.

weight indicates a change of the type and thickness of produced thread2102, because tension is critical in spinning, and is more sensitive the shorter the fibre. A heavy spindle whorl is useless for a short wool, flax tow or cotton. For instance, light whorls of c. 8.0 g were used for spinning a yarn from short and good quality wool, while medium-light ones of about 33 g were used for long-staple mediumheavy wool2103; the latter weight used for spinning

the tool determined the thickness of the thread. This is well evidenced by an experiment with a 154 g whorl employed in a low-whorl drop-spindle system. It showed that it was possible to spin both thick and comparatively fine thread. The latter was hard, smooth, very strong and impossible to break by hand. However, when a very fine thread was spun, it broke because of the whorl’s weight. What is interesting, work with such a heavy artefact becomes tiring after a while, and thus it may have been used with a supported spindle2095, for example on the thigh. Other experiments indicated higher frequency (= number of turns per unit of time) of lighter than heavier spindle and thus faster spinning. However,

of long wool suggests production of a fine thread.2104 Very light, 28.35 g or less, supported spindles are used presently in India in order to avoid breaking the thread with their weight.2105 Barber proposed for spinning of a long-staple wool a spindle 100-150 g,

it was useless for thick fibre and the spinner quickly tired due to the frequently repeated turning of the tool.2096 A lower weight limit of 4.0 g for the entire kit employed in cotton spinning has been suggested.2097 Nevertheless, the smallest whorls, under 1.0 g and 0.8 cm in diameter, for spinning presumably of very fine muslin, are also known from the Near East2098, but manufacturing from this raw material is not relevant here. The recently recorded lower limit for whorls is 10 g2099 and the upper limit 140-150 g.2100 Wooden whorls of c. 11-40 g have been commonly used in modern Greece.2101 The shifting of the

but heavier for a heavy thread of full-length flax or for plying wool yarn.2106 Additionally, according to Barber “the one way in which shape, as opposed to weight, can affect the spinning process is the diameter of the whorl […]. A broad whorl gives a long, slow spin, whereas a whorl of the same weight with a small diameter spins very fast, and for a short time. […] the whorl of smaller diameter will be selected to produce a tightly spun thread with many twists per unit of length, and the whorl of larger diameter will be used to make looser thread, with fewer twists.”2107 In light of the presented

2095 Carington Smith 1992, 694. 2096 Bohnsack 1981, 59, 60 table 2, 61. A more recent experiment with c. 9.0 g kit showed relatively infrequent rotation and a tendency to back turning; its product was a quite thin and irregular thread – Obladen-Kauder 1996, 235. 2097 Bohnsack 1981, 59, 60 table 2. 2098 Liu 1978, 90. 2099 Crewe 1998, 13. According to experiments undertaken in Turkey even such a weight of the entire kit makes spinning easier; the yarn is regular and can be produced also from a thicker fibre – Obladen-Kauder 1996, 235. 2100 Liu 1978, 90. 2101 Carington Smith 1992, 681.

2102 Balfanz 1995b, 119. This problem was broadly discussed in monographs on spinning – Hentschel 19752; Crockett 1980; Bohnsack 1981; Meertens 1981. The importance of weight was also appreciated in Ryder 1968; Barber 1991; ObladenKauder 1996. 2103 Ryder 1968, 81; Barber 1991, 52 – mentioned Afghanistan as quoted by Ryder 1968, 81, but there is no information about that country. Also a weight of at least 10 g was suggested as the lower limit for the whorl – Crewe 1998, 13. 2104 Barber 1991, 52. 2105 Op. cit., loc. cit. 2106 Op. cit., loc. cit. 2107 Barber 1991, 53. Also experiments in Turkey

241

data discussed examples (cat. nos 79-113) along with those from the recent excavations2108 indicate that rather fine to medium quality short and longstaple wool was spun with a kit maximum of c. 70 g. A similar phenomenon was observed at EBA Demircihöyük, where also use of mainly sheep wool was confirmed by experiments.2109 In this context, possible fluctuations in production of yarn types are observable at Aphrodisias, where prior to the EBA III the majority of whorls are thinner in shape than their counterparts in later periods. 2110 The same progression holds true for E-LBA Kusura A to C and proto Chalcolithic Mersin XXIV.2111 At Beycesultan symmetrical bi-conical whorls appeared already in the EBA I, but they are smaller than symmetrical objects of the EBA II, where again flat, bi-conical items related to LCh IV forms were produced in level XIII.2112 Moreover, the Copper Age (= EBA II) artefacts from Alacahöyük are of larger dimensions than later ones from that site.2113 Summing up, it seems that like today, thick yarn was produced for blankets, mats and clothing for outdoor shepherds, herdsmen and other people, who used woollen or even goats’ hair cloaks and capes. Finer home garments were made of thinner and higher quality thread.2114 One can assume that combining the stick and the stone resulted in a new simple piece of machinery

2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114

confirmed that broad and flat whorls act better than spherical or bi-conical ones of the same weight – Obladen-Kauder 1996, 235. Balfanz 1995a, 108; Mansfeld 2001, 221, 222 fig. 15:5. Obladen-Kauder 1996, 235. Joukowsky et al. 1986, 373-74. Lamb 1937, 30, 32 fig. 13, 34; Lamb 1938, 253; Garstang 1953, 52 and fig. 31. Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 274 fig. F.5, 277, 278 fig. F.6. Koşay 1951, 150-51, pls 113-15. Carington Smith 1992, 674-75.

for twisting fibres – a spindle with a whorl.2115 Thanks to the recent studies of whorls from Troy we know that the spindle tapered toward the lower or upper end and how the whorl was attached to it. In the first case the whorl with a straight hole was moved down through the lower, usually undecorated side until it was stopped by the horizontal stick or broader shaft’s end. In the second case the whorl with the perforation tapering to the lower end was moved up through its upper, usually patterned end.2116 So, whorls attached to spindles were helpful for making thread. The area for this activity varied, but was also associated with weaving space as evidenced by over sixty whorls that turned up in Rooms 200, 202, 203, 205 and 206 of a Troy IIg building excavated in square E6; in Rooms 200 and 206 they were found along with the remains of two warp-weighted looms, indicating textile production.2117 A deposit of 219 items dated to phase VIh was recorded at the Pillar House of Troy VIf-h, and this suggests existence of a spinning workshop.2118 In Troy VIIa-b the production was continued without a break. However, judging from the limited number of recorded types and much smaller amount of whorls, it gradually decreased, while in Troy VIII it almost disappeared (Table 12). In this context it should be added that the thousands of whorls from Troy do not mean employment of so many spinners. Often one individual may have owned and used several or even more kits for different purposes (e.g. as a bobbin, a shuttle). No less important was avoidance or at least delay of excessive rewinding.2119 Even so, one cannot 2115 Barber 1991, 43. 2116 Mansfeld 2001, 221 and fig. 15:4. 2117 Blegen et al. 1950, 323, 332-33, 335-38, 342-44, 349-53, fig. 461. 2118 Blegen et al. 1953, 32 table 8, 233-37; Balfanz 1995b, 137. 2119 For instance in Peru a single weaver’s kit was found to contain sixty-eight spindles – Liu 1978,

242

exclude that the Pillar House could have played a certain role in this activity. At EBA Demircihöyük twelve whorls found in situ derived from different phases. Nine turned up in the back Rooms 2 and 999, but the average was three artefacts per phase and room. Thirty-eight artefacts were recorded in the front rooms and thirty-three in the inner yard. During the EBA I thirty whorls came to light in the back rooms, thirty-one in the front rooms and fifteen at the inner yard, while in the EBA IIA only three in the front rooms and fourteen in the back yard. However, the largest number, i.e. fifty-two items, was recorded in the later section II (phases F3-K 2) of the EBA I.2120 Moreover, in the corner of

attritions and/or chips observed on the edge of one or two ends of the perforation. They might have resulted from a small horizontal rod used to block the whorl on the spindle and/or from storage of items on a bit of string.2124 A more precise explanation

a floor of MBA “Apsidenhaus” was found one whorl and in the same room came to light a group of loom weights.2121 Although it was not linked with the loom this at least indicates the same house area for spinning and weaving, also evidenced in Pharaonic Egypt and Classical Greece.2122 According to the placement of the whorl on the shaft there were distinguished three types of set, but it seems that these arrangements were determined culturally rather than functionally. The low-whorl spindle has the whorl fastened near the lower end of the shaft and thus it can be set spinning by a flick of the thumb and fingers, like a top. According to recent experiments in Turkey this placement of the whorl makes starting rotation easier and provides stability of the hanging tool in the low-whorl dropspindle variant.2123 Supporting such fixing are

and on the side (cat. no. 90). On the listed items there were observed traces of attrition on all (cat. nos 82, 112), the upper and lower (cat. no. 84), the upper (cat. nos 93, 99) and the lower (cat. nos 96, 105, 107) edges, as well as on the upper end (cat. no. 101). Some other whorls possess only attrition marks, which are found on all (cat. nos. 87, 108-109), the upper and lower (cat. no. 104), the upper (cat. no. 86) and the lower (cat. nos 91, 94) edges. They could have resulted from the thread’s attachment to the spindle.2125 Finally, there are artefacts without traces of use (cat. nos 79-80, 88-89, 103). From the beginning of textile art this tradition of spinning dominated in Europe, but occurred also in the Near East. A clay model of the low-whorl drop-spindle was found at the ECy III tomb in Bellapais-Vounous. Likewise, two sets turned up at the LH IIIC tombs of Perati. An exceptionally interesting example of the discussed spinning system, shedding light on the tool’s construction and function, came to light in Megiddo.2126 Thanks to an artefact found in situ at

2120 2121 2122 2123

98. In contrast, on the below-mentioned mosaic from Mari in northern Mesopotamia there are depicted woman skeining their thread off their spindle – Parrot 1962, 167, pl. 11 no. 1. Obladen-Kauder 1996, 231 figs 161-62, 232, 235. Kull 1988, 197. Johl 1924, 36-39; Deonna 1938, pl. 55 no. 430; Winlock 1955, 29-33, pls 25-27, 66-67. Obladen-Kauder 1996, 235.

is that the chips were produced by dropping on the ground if the whorl was attached to the very end of the shaft or even if it had the mentioned rod underneath. Anyway, the latter features observable on the lower end of the examined artefacts (cat. nos 81-83, 85, 92-93, 95, 97-102, 106, 110-111, 113) indicate this manner of use. Dropping could also have produced breakages on the middle (cat. nos 84, 98, 105, 112) and upper (cat. nos 96, 102, 107) edges

2124 Op. cit., 233. 2125 Crewe 1998, 61 and fig. 8.4 no. 1. On the other hand, high whorls cannot be excluded. 2126 Guy 1938, 170, 171 fig. 175 no. 6, pl. 84 no. 1.

243

the LBA II Tomb 1122 it was possible to reconstruct the function of vertical perforations at the ends of two shafts’ parts. Two deep holes served for setting up, with a metal pin, the whorl/s on the spindle, as well as to connect or disconnect its two parts. Such a technical solution could have enabled regulation of the length and weight of the spindle. There was also an opportunity to employ whorls not only with the diameter of the rod, but also of the shaft, as well as to combine items of different weights and perforation diameters. Additionally, connecting with the pin enabled one to manufacture the spindle from two shorter pieces and thus to save the raw material.2127 The other problem in the low-whorl system is how the thread was attached to the spindle. An interesting example of it was recovered at Grave 11 of Gurob in Egyptian Faiyum, where the Aegeanrelated burial dated to the New Kingdom yielded a spindle with a Z-spun thread groove at one end with a limestone whorl of about 150 g most of the way toward the opposite end; all these features show foreign, Aegean design, but the kit was made locally from available materials.2128 Classical Greece also belonged to the mentioned tradition since examples are evidenced in iconography of standing women working in this fashion, but never with a high-whorl spindle.2129 Nevertheless, on an Attic kylix of the 5th century B.C. there is depicted a sitting woman

2127 Relevant here is that the end of one spindle from the LCy III Tomb 5 in Enkomi was vertically perforated – Schaeffer et al. 1952, 190 fig. 75 no. 335, 194-95. During the later excavations of the LCy III Enkomi IIIA settlement there was found another artefact with a similar hole, while a further one had, along with a vertical perforation, also a small horizontal hole – Dikaios 1969, 277, pls 132 no. 7, 162 no. 18. 2128 Brunton, Engelbach 1927, 18, pl. 13 no. 8; Barber 1991, 64-66. 2129 Barber 1991, 53-54.

spinning with a high hand-held spindle.2130 Yarn production dominated by the low-whorl dropspindle is known from representations that turned up in Archaic and Classical Greek vessels’ paintings2131, as well as on the Archaic stele from Prinias2132 and as the ivory figurine from the Artemision of Ephesus, dated to the early 6th century B.C.2133 According to Barber, even the famous marble Greek statue of Aphrodite/Venus found in Melos, dated to the end of the 2nd century B.C., due to the musculature of what is left of her arms, suggests that she stood and spun with a low-whorl drop-spindle.2134 On the other hand, even in the Classical period the simplest method of spinning just with the open hand on the unclothed thigh was used, as evidenced by a painting on a Greek vessel and a terracotta figurine from Anatolia.2135 In central Europe a comparable representation of a standing woman spinning with possibly a low-whorl dropspindle is depicted on the second half of the 7th century B.C. Hallstatt vessel from Sopron in northwestern Hungary, but the whorl is not visible due to the schematic style of the incised picture.2136 In modern times the discussed system has also been evidenced in the Balkans, Greece and Turkey. 2130 Trendall 1951, 186, pl. 40 a. 2131 Blümner 1877, 52-53, pl. 6; Cloché 1931, pl. 40 no. 3; Deonna 1938, pl. 55 no. 430; Forbes 1956, 162 and fig. 15, 163 fig. 16; Payne, Dunbabin (eds) 1962, 195, pl. 81 no. 1956. There is also a representation of a sitting woman, but it might be an illustration of the beginning of spinning – Rhomaios, Papaspyridi 1932, pl. 6 no. 1. 2132 Beyer 1976, 38, 168-69, pl. 55 nos 2-3. 2133 Hogarth et al. 1908, 157-58, pl. 24 no. 1a-b; Işik 2001, 90 and fig. 7. 2134 Barber 1994, 236, 237 fig. 10.1, 238. 2135 Lang 1910, 250 and fig. 155; Blümner 1912², 113 fig. 37, 114. 2136 Barber 1991, 56 fig. 2.15; Reichenberger 2000, 237-38, pl. 39 fig. 168.

244

A detailed reconstruction of the spinning process with the low-whorl drop/suspended-spindle was done many years ago and was recently confirmed by experiments and observations carried out independently in the two latter countries. In this fashion the kit may work hanging from the thread wound on it, and its weight aids in drafting the fibres. The fibre is loosely bound to the head of the distaff, whose rod in the case of a right-handed spinner is held on the left side, tucked into the belt and held under the arm or sporadically in the hand. Then fibre sufficient to form a short thread is drawn by the left hand out from the mass. This is tied around the centre of the spindle and then attached to its top end or only to the latter by a single hitch or by means of a hook, with which it may be equipped. In the next stage a flick of the thumb and fingers of the right hand on the shaft’s top starts rotation and dropping of the kit, while simultaneously the left hand still drafts fibre out and feeds it into the right one, twisting a new section of the thread until the tool reaches the ground. So, both free hands are required and exactly this action produces the thread. Subsequently, the thread is untied and wound up onto the spindle by hand. This is the end of one spinning course in the standing position, which begins again with formation of a new short thread. So, after about one metre of thread has been spun, work has to stop. Sometimes the drop-spindle with the wound yarn was so heavy that the whorl was removed and then spinning continued only with the shaft.2137 Moreover, in work with the low-whorl spindle the rod may rest on the thigh of the sitting spinner. Then the left or right handle is involved in drafting fibre out and forming of the thread, but the right or left one only twirls the spindle. Likewise as in the spinning wheel its advantage over the drop2137 Von Kimakowicz-Winnicki 1910, 12, 14; Bohnsack 1981, 34.

spindle is that it winds the thread continuously as the work progresses. Spinning with the low-whorl supported spindle was practised in Classical Greece as shown in two terracotta votive plaques from the Athenian Acropolis depicting a seated female figure, perhaps representing Athena Ergane herself.2138 The advantage of both these variants over the spinning wheel introduced in the Medieval period is that the latter confines the operator to one spot, whereas hand spinning is eminently portable. This means that it was possible to spin while pasturing flocks, riding a donkey, walking or visiting neighbours.2139 In this context should be mentioned an exceptionally interesting example of use of the low-whorl dropspindle in Greece in the mid-1950s, namely a simple ink drawing depicting spinning women travelling on donkeys.2140 Moreover, in a 17th century woodcut from the Balkans there are women spinning with the same type of tool while travelling on foot.2141 There is also an illustration of the low-whorl supported spindle used by a sitting modern Greek peasant woman.2142 Also to K. Gass and P. Klemm we owe a photograph taken in the mid-1950s in Greece with a walking shepherd woman spinning with a spindle, but without a whorl.2143 In light of ancient and modern examples, spinning was such a time-consuming yet simple and important job that women frequently spun thread while doing other 2138 Hutton 1897, 308, 309 and fig. 1, 310, pl. 7 no. 1; Wallrodt 2002, 186, 194. 2139 Kull 1988, 197; Carington Smith 1992, 674; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 226 with reference to further literature. 2140 Gass, Klemm 1959, 55; Hilse 2001, 138 fig. 3. 2141 Barber 1994, 32 fig. 1.1. 2142 Barber 1991, 43 fig. 2.3. 2143 Gass, Klemm 1959, photo 17; Hilse 2001, 137 fig. 2. For a 19th-century photograph of a Greek woman from Delphes standing and spinning wool perhaps only with a spindle see – Blinkenberg 1931, 131 and fig. 13.

245

things. It meant that in everyday life almost every opportunity/situation providing free hands was used for this activity. In the rather occasionally employed middlewhorl spindle the whorl is attached roughly in the middle or at two thirds of the shaft’s length. Such an arrangement would tend to make the spindle twirl more stably, but would not enable it to be used in the high-whorl fashion. Presumably it should be attributed to the low-whorl spindle, which is flicked with the fingers or even toes. 2144 Such a type is known from the EBA Anatolian sites, namely the spindles with disc-shaped and other forms of whorls made very often of metal, including gold, silver, electron and bronze that turned up at the Royal Graves H (possible spindle) and L in Alacahöyük, and tombs at Horoztepe, Oymaağaç and KarataşSemayük. What is interesting, a recently found bone set also confirms the knowledge of the middlewhorl spindle at Troy VIIa. Additionally, in the mid-1st millennium B.C. cemetery of Devehöyük was found a similar bronze set with a thin discshaped whorl on the spindle.2145 Moreover, at the ECy I Tomb 92 of Bellapais-Vounous there turned up a painted and incised clay artefact, which can be regarded as an imitation of the middle-whorl spindles made of ivory or bone.2146 These examples, despite the rareness of the discussed way of spinning, show its existence in the 3rd-1st millennium B.C. in Anatolia and adjacent Cyprus. The high-whorl spindle has the whorl placed near the upper end of the shaft. It is set spinning by being rolled up or down the thigh with one open hand and/or turned in the palm of it; in the latter case we are dealing with a hand-held spindle. 2144 Barber 1991, 60. 2145 Moorey 1980, 97 fig. 16 no. 400, 98. 2146 Stewart, Stewart 1950, 99 no. 6, pl. 100 d; Dikaios, Stewart 1962, 234 fig. 90 no. 6.

Like the low-whorl spindle also its shaft may be supported while twirling, for instance placed on the thigh, ground or in a cup. Today in parts of the Near East it can be twirled even with the toes on the ground.2147 In ancient Anatolia evidence of the high-whorl spindle is scarce and derived from its eastern part. For instance, a bronze kit with a thin conical whorl appeared in the cemetery of Devehöyük and a neo-Hittite, dated to c. 800 B.C., relief from Maraş shows a sitting and perhaps spinning or plying woman with a high spindle.2148 This system of spinning is evidenced by other Near Eastern examples, namely two copper kits were recorded at the cemetery of Kish A of roughly the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. Additionally, part of the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C. mosaic panel from Mari in northern Mesopotamia shows a woman holding a possible high-whorl spindle.2149 Women working with it are also known from Mesopotamian seals: a c. 3300 B.C. object from Chogha Mish in southwestern Iran and another one from the E. T. Newell collection dated to the same period, but of unknown provenance.2150 Generally, in Mesopotamia2151 and possibly in the Iron Age of eastern Anatolia the high-whorl spindle was turned in the palm of the hand. Far to the east, a similar copper kit turned up at a grave from just before the mid-3rd millennium B.C. of Tepe Hissar IIB in northeastern Iran. Likewise, from Marlik in the northern part of that country derived a bronze high-whorl spindle of the early 1st millennium B.C. Finally, in Suza of western Iran came to light, dated roughly to the 9th century B.C., a relief with a representation of a woman 2147 2148 2149 2150

Barber 1991, 43. Bossert 1942, 71 no. 814, pl. 198. Parrot 1962, 162-64, 167, 178, pl. 11 no. 1. Von der Osten 1934, 16, pl. 4 no. 31; Delougaz, Kantor 1972, 30, 32 pl. 10 a. 2151 Barber 1991, 60.

246

sitting and spinning with such a kit.2152 Particularly this system has been very popular in Egypt from antiquity to modern times.2153 On the other hand, it was also rather sporadically employed in Classical Greece2154, traditionally dominated by spinning with a low-whorl spindle. In modern times a highwhorl spindle set in motion against the thigh was used by the tribes of western-central Asia2155 and a hand-held spindle is known from Trans-Jordan.2156 The latter way of spinning is more suitable with large flat whorls, which according to experiments undertaken in Turkey2157 provide better rotation than spherical, half-spherical, bi-conical or conical ones of the same weight. The low- and high-whorl spindles could have been used for a different purpose, as for instance in modern TransJordan, where a hand-held spindle with or without a whorl served for short clippings of goat hair, but a supported or suspended one was used for longer sheep’s wool. 2158 In modern Tunisia the weft thread is spun on low-whorl spindles, but warp thread on high-whorl spindles, because this provides strong, even and tight spinning for a thread taking all the strain and friction of the weaving process.2159 The form and function tend to be related and thus the particular form may hold a key to definition of its employment. Perhaps some whorls served not just as a flywheel. Those with one streamlined end could pass easily through the shed without catching on the warp and thus could have acted as shuttles (cat. no. 106). On the other hand, use of whorls with a broader and rounded end cannot be excluded. 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159

Porada 1965, 67, 68 fig. 43. Wiedemann 1920, 325, pl. 23; Barber 1991, 53, 60. Trendall 1951, 186, pl. 40 a. Montell 1941, 116. Barber 1991, 43, 44 fig. 2.4. Obladen-Kauder 1996, 235. Crowfoot 1931, 13-14. Barber 1991, 43.

There is also a reasonable explanation of function of the narrow (up to 5 cm) artefacts with a deep cavity (cat. nos 82-83, 85, 87, 90, 92-93, 97, 104, 109-111) occurring mainly at Troy II-V. The hole is inexplicable while spinning, but is a practical solution to increasing the mass of the whorl without enlargement of its diameter. It allows the spindle to be loaded very fully with a thread for use as a shuttle. The flat end with a cavity helps make a rather more efficient surface against which to build the cone of thread. It seems this is much more difficult in the case of spherical or sharply bi-conical whorls.2160 There is an interesting theory on the east-to-west movement of the hollow whorls across the mountains and steppes from southwestern Turkistan and northern Iran to Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Greece and even Ukraine, Poland and Switzerland in a time span from c. mid-6th to c. end-2nd millennium B.C.2161 However, there are considerable gaps in time and space. Moreover, the similarities in the range of shapes, style/s and methods of decoration do not necessarily indicate a common origin. Also large numbers of these whorls turning up in certain sites has nothing to do with it, but is rather linked with demand, access to the raw materials and thus scale of production. It should be kept in mind that we are dealing with very simple and common utilitarian tools, which could have developed independently in response to increasing demand, which perhaps inspired such an innovation. Their lack south of the mentioned areas can be supported by an absence in the archaeological material or employment of a different shuttle, including a shaft without a hollowed whorl.2162 However, the first option is less probable since terracotta whorls are usually well 2160 Op. cit., 303 fig. 14.4, 304 fig. 14.5, 305. 2161 Op. cit., 303-10, 391-93. 2162 For instance only spindles used as shuttles are depicted on the Classical Greek vessels – Blümner 1912², 157 fig. 61; Deonna 1938, pl. 55 no. 430.

247

preserved in the archaeological context. There is also a possibility that vast movements of people along the Mediterranean during the 3rd-2nd millennium B.C. could have been so extensive and so fast that they left little behind on the way for archaeologists. Thus whorls, being very personal implements of spinners/ weavers, could have been transferred over a long distance without a trace in between, obviously if one accepts the movement theory. However, on the way those made of clay from the place of wanderers’ origin might be supplemented with artefacts made of locally encountered raw material. Therefore, it would be very interesting to carry out a specialized analysis of selected assemblages of terracotta

An S-spun thread (left), with the fibres of the thread lying at a slant similar to that in the middle of the letter S, was preferred for production of linen in dynastic Egypt and also occurred far to the east in northern Iran, where at Tepe Hissar IIB and Marlik there turned up metal high-whorl spindles with a groove for hitching S-twisted thread on the shaft’s end just beyond the whorl. In a Z-spun thread (right) the fibres slope like the centre part of the letter Z, and this is characteristic for textiles from c. 6000 B.C. at Çatalhöyük VI, as well as typical for Europe and India.2164 It seems that the most

whorls from those listed by Barber for the Near East and Europe. If the movement really took place, then in the latter area among locally made whorls one would expect, on the basis of similarities in clay’s composition, artefacts derived from the cradle of the hollowed whorls in southwestern Turkistan and northern Iran. This, as opposed to the formal and stylistic affinities, would be the strongest argument for or against the movement theory. Distribution through trade channels is probably excluded, because simple, utilitarian terracotta whorls were only a non-exchangeable means employed for manufacture of exchangeable textiles. However, fulfilling such a task requires organization of an international and highly sponsored research project. In light of the overviewed examples it is tempting to suggest which method of spinning was used at Troy. The results of detailed examination of approachable artefacts indicate preference of the low-whorl spindle.2163 Likewise, the direction in which the thread is spun is geographically divided.

gives an S-twist, because high-whorl spindles were rolled along and almost certainly down the thigh. Spinners in Europe and Anatolia start their work with the low-whorl spindles with a quick flick of the thumb and fingers, as one would start a top. Hand a top to right-handers and they consistently start it to the right. Thus a fibre attached to the top always resulted in a Z-twist. The left-handers probably just conformed, but occasional anomalies have been found in the domain of Z-spun wool as an effect of their activity. However, the borders between territories employing the Z-twist and S-twist were not so sharp, perhaps due to contacts and influences inspiring combinations and/or independent development of various spinning techniques. This is attested by a single piece of spliced, but Z-twisted, S-plied linen from Faiyum in Egypt dated to c. 5000 B.C. Also from Neolithic Naḥal Hemar along with textiles made of Z-spun, S-plied threads there are known S-spun, Z-plied strings and cords used for nets. Similar cloth has been recorded in the Neolithic Swiss sites, where additionally fishnets

2163 Also the largest unsatisfactory published assemblage of whorls, due to their shapes and placement of decoration on the shoulder, gives a likely impression – Blegen et al. 1950-1958.

reasonable explanation of this division lies in the way a right-hander handles a spindle. In Egypt this

2164 Schmidt 1937, 120, 406, pl. 29 no. H2171; Negahban 1964, 44, fig. 43; Burnham 1965, 170; Barber 1991, 65-66.

248

and balls of linen string were made of Z-plied, perhaps S-spun, yarns. Moreover, at the Chalcolithic burials of Alişarhöyük there turned up textiles whose preserved threads were S-spun. Finally, fragments of fine linen cloth made of S-spun thread occurred at the MBA strata of Terqa and perhaps even far to the west at EBA El Argar in southeastern Spain.2165 These scarce examples complicate precise attribution of each spinning system to exact territory/ies, if it is possible at all. However, along with the tools they indicate domination of the lowwhorl spindle in Europe, including Greece2166 and also at least in western-central Anatolia while the high-whorl system was the most common in Egypt and the rest of the Near East. The next question is whether the huge number of whorls recorded at Troy reflects the existence of an important centre of yarn production, based on wool and floral fibre. If so, accumulated overproduction could have been exported, but it is difficult to ascertain if it was just thread, or textiles, carpets, rugs and clothing, or everything together, or some of these products in unknown proportions. In this context one can ask if the spinning items themselves were exported or imported. Terracotta whorls as a trade commodity are rather out of the question, but the mentioned Trojan kit possibly made of hippopotamus bone indicates that at least the luxury raw material was from abroad.2167 On the other hand, import of the finished tool cannot be excluded, since its incised decoration resembles that observed on the spindles from LH IIIC Tomb 65 (Δ108) at Perati and LCy III Enkomi IIIA.2168 2165 Vogt 1937, 48-49; Von der Osten 1937a, 31-32, 44, 51; Barber 1991, 67-68. 2166 However, in the Classical period there is also evidence of spinning with a high hand-held spindle – Trendall 1951, 186, pl. 40 a. 2167 Balfanz 1995a, 107-108. 2168 Op. cit., 110-111, 114.

Moreover, Blegen recorded several steatite whorls or buttons at Troy VIh and VIIa, which according to him were imports from the Mycenaean area.2169 The problem is that their function was not definitely determined and links with the Greek mainland and dating were established only on the basis of typological criteria. In light of this, as well as lack of data from specialized petrographic analyses, it seems hardly acceptable. However, there are whorls of ‘luxury stones’ known from Norway (sandstone, steatite) and Wolyn in Ukraine (red schist), which had perhaps been produced by specialized Medieval craftsmen and exported to other areas in Europe.2170 It is an open question whether such a distant, both chronologically and geographically, economic feature can be applied to Bronze Age Troy. The presented spindles and whorls show a variety of raw materials used for their production. There is a remarkable preponderance of terracotta whorls in the settlements of all periods and areas. They occurred also in the Bronze Age cemeteries of Anatolia, Greece and Cyprus. In EBA Anatolia bone shafts turned up at Troy II. Moreover, kits made of bronze and precious metals (gold, silver, electron) were found at the tombs of Alacahöyük, Horoztepe, Oymaağaç and Karataş-Semayük. To the east the copper spindle and two sets derived from the tombs at Tepe Hissar IIB and Kish A. In Cyprus three ECy II-MCy III items from BellapaisVounous, Nitovikla and Katydhata can presumably be considered as bone whorls.2171 The only three clay kits came to light at the ECy tombs of BellapaisVounous. In LBA Anatolia one bone kit turned up at Troy VIIa, but spindles of this material are known from Troy VI and the tomb or tombs in Alişarhüyük. Moreover, one terracotta whorl derived from a tomb 2169 Blegen et al. 1953, 27; Blegen et al. 1958, 15-16. 2170 Herrmann 1971, 192-93. 2171 Crewe 1998, 27.

249

of Troy VIh. Among the Aegean LBA sites at the Phylakopi and Enkomi settlements bone spindles came to light; the latter one yielded perhaps three other bronze shafts. The tomb of Mycenae yielded a golden spindle. Ivory sets, as well as bone or ivory shafts, occurred at the Perati and Enkomi tombs, where there also came to light an ivory whorl, richly ornamented with bronze and gold. At the LBA-Iron Age the bone spindles were used at the Kastanas settlement and deposited at the tombs of Hama and Megiddo. Additionally, the last site produced a bone kit and whorls, also made of steatite. Kits made of bronze are known from the Iron Age tombs at Marlik and Devehöyük.

that even in the case of poverty, providing a copy of such an expensive item was necessary, which additionally proves the high status of spindle whorls as grave gifts. It seems, bearing in mind the fragility of the clay, that use of these tools for spinning was probably impossible. Therefore, special production of these artefacts as gifts for burial purposes cannot be excluded. In light of the quoted examples one can assume that occurrence of the metal, ivory and bone spinning items together with the other precious burial goods reflects the great significance of this activity among the other crafts. Therefore it seems that spinners could be affluent and in consequence perhaps could play an important role in the everyday

Of special interest are those made of different metals, especially the precious ones deposited at the Anatolian tombs. It should be pointed out that metal itself not only indicates the wealth of the buried individuals, but also symbolizes the high status of these artefacts as grave gifts. This is supported by the other finds recorded at tombs in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean, made of metal and such luxury raw materials as ivory and hippopotamus or other animals’ bones, very often magnificently decorated. High status could also be indicated by a rock crystal disc-shaped whorl derived from earlier excavations at Troy.2172 Moreover, exceptionally interesting clay objects were recovered at the ECy I, III tombs of Bellapais-Vounous – namely a painted kit, which due to its length (21 cm), position of the whorl and incised decoration one can regard as an imitation of the middle-whorl spindles made of ivory or bone. Likewise can be interpreted another, slightly over 19.3 cm long, incised low-whorl spindle, as well as a third, mentioned but not illustrated, artefact. Judging from it in Cyprus both types of spindles could also have been produced from luxury material. On the other hand, the discussed examples show

life of prehistoric societies. Such a possibility is supported by the monumental Pillar House of Troy VIf-h, interpreted as an area of yarn production. The other question is whether spindles and/ or whorls can be regarded as a gender marker. The evidence in Anatolia is scarce, but at the EBA III Royal Tomb L of Alacahöyük III a silver and gold or electrum middle-whorl spindle was placed near the woman’s hands.2173 Terracotta whorls were found at a woman’s and child’s grave in the area of Troy VIh Lower Town. In the neighbouring areas at Sopron two whorls turned up at the grave of a young woman with perhaps a child’s remains (Tumulus 27/ new 128) dated to the second half of the 7th century B.C. Additionally, of special interest is a pottery vessel recovered there with a representation of a standing woman spinning with a drop-spindle. The tool seems to be a symbol, a substitute of the real implement, and/or together with the woman’s figure indicates one of many everyday jobs of the deceased. Both proposed meanings, bearing also in mind the individual buried with whorls, are evidently linked with the female sex. A fragment of ivory or bone spindle was associated with a woman

2172 Schmidt 1902, 244 no. 6120.

2173 Koşay 1951, 168-69, pl. 197 no. 1 left.

250

at the LCy III Tomb 5 of Enkomi.2174 Moreover, at the LBA II Tomb 1122 of Megiddo spindles and whorls were found in association with two skeletons, of which one was perhaps female.2175 Far to the east a vase from Jamdet Nasr-ED I (the early 3rd millennium B.C.) Tell Agrab in central Mesopotamia shows three female individuals, perhaps spinning.2176 Additionally, at a female’s grave at Tepe Hissar IIB was recorded a high-whorl spindle with copper shaft and two whorls. In this context it is worth of mentioning an interesting parallel from modern Peru, where a woman’s burial was furnished with sixty-eight spindles.2177 Also the ancient iconography provides examples of spinning implements associated with female sex. Women working with a high-whorl spindle are known from Mesopotamian iconography, namely a sitting individual on a seal from Choga Mish, and two sitting persons on the another one from the Newell collection dated to the same period. A standing individual holding a spindle with both hands is depicted on part of a mosaic panel from Mari, as well as a sitting woman on a relief from Suza. A sitting woman with a high spindle is depicted on another relief from Maraş. Standing women with low-whorl drop-spindles are represented on Archaic and Classical Greek vessel paintings, as well as an Archaic stele from Prinias and an ivory figurine from Ephesus. Stamped sitting and standing female figurines spinning in this way appear with some frequency on the loom weights at Classical Ilion, Olynthus and Delos.2178 According to Barber, even 2174 Schaeffer et al. 1952, 185, 190 fig. 75 no. 207. Moreover, one whorl was found near the second fragment of the spindle (no. 335-5025) held in the right hand of the other individual. 2175 Guy 1938, 20. 2176 Delougaz 1952, 67, 157, pls 12, 57. 2177 Liu 1978, 98; Barber 1991, 305. 2178 Wallrodt 2002, 183, 191-92.

a Melian marble Greek statue of Aphrodite/Venus, due to the musculature of what is left of her arms, suggests that she stood and spun with a low-whorl drop-spindle. In written Greek sources foreign women along with children are listed in connection with textile production on the LBA Linear B tablets from Pylos.2179 A reference to spindle of precious raw material associated with the female sex is made about Queen Helena, who received a gift of spinning gear, namely a gold spindle along with a small silver basket with a golden rim, from a high-born lady-friend.2180 So, the quoted examples suggest a spindle whorl as a female sex feature and thus at least spinning performed by women. Also in modern times, for example Bedouin women in the mid-19th century Trans-Jordan were involved in spinning with a high-whorl spindle2181 and this is also confirmed by the above-mentioned chronologically earlier and later examples of their activity with the low-whorl drop-spindle in the Balkans, Greece and Turkey. However, the problem seems more complex since the Knossos tablets report of some 200 male textile workers, perhaps involved in finishing processes such as fulling.2182 Also a 3rd century A.D. work, referring to an inscription in Delphes, listed Acesas and Helicon – two famous men weavers from Salamis, of whom the latter was as skilled as a male artist from Egypt.2183 Finally, it should be kept in mind that even in the contemporary traditional cultures of China men participate in textile production.2184 Spindles, whorls and kits found at graves perhaps also indicate their special significance in the afterlife, and this refers not only to burials 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184

251

Killen 1984; Chadwick 1988, 89-93. Homerus Od. IV 131-132. Barber 1991, 43, 44 fig. 2.4. Killen 1984, 52. Athenaeus II 48b. Montell 1941, pls 1 nos 3-4, 2 nos 1-2, 4 no. 2.

of human adults. Apart from the aforementioned terracotta whorls associated with the woman’s and child’s grave in the area of Troy VIh Lower Town, there were also recorded several other artefacts at the infant’s grave. From MBA Demircihöyük came to light very interesting finds; namely with the “Totgeburt” there was found a well polished whorl cut from a hard green-blue crystal mineral, and at the dog’s grave turned up a terracotta artefact with incised decoration. An interesting, only 13.1 cm long and richly decorated ivory low-whorl spindle (Δ211) associated with a child’s burial was recorded at LH IIIC Tomb 152 in Perati.2185 Such examples also indicate that even children, like in modern

beads recorded close to each other does not allow one to absolutely regard them as necklaces2190, because whorls as ‘chains’ could have also been deposited simultaneously. Due to this, one cannot excluded that in Beycesultan we are dealing with three sets of whorls offered to a deity, or at least that among them there were objects of such a purpose. This seems quite probable, especially if we take into consideration different standards of analysis and documentation at the time of discovery. Nevertheless, only further detailed examination concerning traces of use (specific attrition and/or chips), particularly on the terracotta artefacts, would shed light on that problem, but unused whorls could

Greece, could have been involved in spinning; their engagement in textile production is evidenced in Pylos tablets. 2186 It would be tempting to acknowledge the whorls in prehistoric Aphrodisias as offerings to a tutelary deity, but this cannot be confirmed by their site of discovery.2187 However, in Room 2 of the temple of EBA II Beycesultan XVIIb were recovered two, interpreted as necklaces, interesting sets of large bi-conical and roughly spherical artefacts. One consisted of twenty stone beads and a second of thirty clay incised pieces. In the same room of Beycesultan XVIIc was found a third necklace of twenty-three plain beads, partly stone and partly clay, perhaps belonging to the same group.2188 Another possible necklace of thirty-two terracotta whorls turned up in the EBA III or MBA Room 31 of Tarsus.2189 Nevertheless, the number of

also have been offered. There are also some indications suggesting links of whorls with female deities. For instance, an example of a standing ivory figurine of a woman spinning with a low-whorl drop-spindle was found at the foundations of the Artemis Temple in Ephesus, and this could be a construction offering (“Bauopfer”). During current excavations of Troy in square D9 there turned up an interesting late 4th

2185 Iakovidis 1969-1970, 54, 56, 364, pl. 15; Iakovidis 1980, 95, 96 fig. 117. 2186 Killen 1984, 52. 2187 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 379. 2188 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 275, pl. 33 b, but not twenty clay whorls and thirty made of stone as in ObladenKauder 1996, 233. 2189 Goldman et al. 1956, 328, 332.

century B.C. deposit of fifteen loom weights and four whorls derived from debris mostly likely associated with the Temple of Athena Ilias. Its very detailed examination shed light on possible use of these tools in cultic spinning and weaving of the robe for the goddess of Ilion. This fits well with such implements known from the Sanctuaries of Athena in Lindos and Athena Pronaia in Delphes; the latter also yielded a small altar dedicated to Athena Ergane, and this very frequently occurring by-name indicates her role as protector of craftsmanship of all kinds, including cloth production. Also the iconography of the cult of Athena closely linked her to spinning and weaving. The goddess was often depicted and described in 2190 Lloyd, Mellaart 1962, 275; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 233.

252

ancient written records as Palladion with a spear in the right hand, balanced on her shoulder, and a distaff in the left hand. 2191 The example of Athena is not isolated since throughout the Greek world loom weights and whorls were common votives in many sanctuaries, particularly those of female divinities, for instance Artemis at Brauron, as well as Hera and Demeter.2192 Other evidence supporting this point of view is the statue of Melian Aphrodite/ Venus, which – if one accepts her position and the arrangement of muscles as typical for spinning – could have been standing and spinning with a lowwhorl drop-spindle.2193 Generally, in light of the quoted examples, an association with female deities

that direction focus only on two grooved types, but their dating, due to the very limited basis (thirty-two items), should be treated with caution.2196 Schmidt published at least 502 terracotta items and four ones made of stone, but without any data concerning their weight. Together with 192 duplicates their total number reached at least 698.2197 Among these formally very differentiated artefacts one can distinguish about sixteen principal shapes, namely more or less flat and oval in transverse profile (nos 7987-8008, 8009-8023), pyramidal (nos 8024-8090, 8168-8201), flat trapezoidal or oval (nos 80918102, 8132-8134), flat with broader lower part (nos 8103-8131), triangular with rounded top end (nos

There is no comprehensive typological scheme of Trojan loom weights. The first efforts in

8136-8137), conical (nos 8138-8142), flat discoid or pear-shaped (nos 8144-8153), flat pear-shaped with a grooved upper part (nos 8154-8156), flat round and at the broader end circular in longitudinal profile (nos 8157-8163), last (nos 8164-8167), holder (no. 8202), cylindrical (nos 8203-8239), crescent (no. 8240), flat disc (nos 8241-8244, 8299-8300, 8317), lentoid disc (nos 8245-8260, 8292-8297, 8302, 8311, 8314, 83208321, 8339-8340, 8342), flat disc with flattened edge (nos 8261-8262), lentoid disc with flattened edge (nos 8263-8291, 8298, 8301, 8303-8310, 83158316, 8319, 8322-8338, 8341, 8343-8346, 8355).2198 Additionally, Schliemann mentioned a quite different and almost square flat form, but attributed by Schmidt to the broad group 7987-7998.2199 Precise dating of listed forms are not given, but certainly an unknown part of the assemblage derived from Bronze Age Troy. Moreover, items bearing human,

2191 Wallrodt 2002, 179-84, 186. 2192 Waldstein 1905, 43-44 (Hera); Linders 1972, 19 (Artemis); Coldstream 1973, 122-23 (Demeter). For a useful overview of weaving equipment used as votives – Simon 1986, 263-70. 2193 Barber 1994, 236, 237 fig. 10.1, 238. 2194 Op. cit., 237. 2195 Plato Resp. X 617b.

2196 Becks, Guzowska 2004, 102-105, 107-11. 2197 Schmidt 1902, 294-98 nos 7987-8317, 8319-8355. 2198 Op. cit., 294-98. It should be kept in mind that the proposed assessment was based on sometimes very laconic descriptions. See also Schliemann 1880, 558-60 nos 1200-1202, 411 no. 479. 2199 Schliemann 1880, 559-560 no. 1203; Schmidt 1902, 294.

is evident. So, it seems that in Greece spinning and its tools due to connections with unearthly, immortal beings were regarded as symbols for creation of new life.2194 This is also supported by the occurrence of the artefacts at graves, in other areas as well. Finally, the deepest meaning of a spindle whorl can be found in Plato, who, while describing the universe as a sort of cosmic spindle, has this spindle turn on the lap of Necessity, which also may indicate familiarity with the supported spindle, although it might also represent poetic inaccuracy.2195

3. Loom weights 3.1. Typology and chronology

253

animal and some symbolic representations in relief or incised could have derived from Classical and later Ilion.2200 Judging from laconic descriptions Dörpfeld’s excavations brought to light an unspecified number of ovoid, rectangular and triangular weights, including grooved ones, dated to Troy II-V, cone-shaped artefacts of Troy VI, as well as flat ovoid and pear-shaped artefacts with grooves dated to the same or later settlement. Moreover, incised truncated pyramidal items have been recorded at Troy VII. 2201 Additionally, cylindrical weights, also grooved, of Troy II and crescentshaped ones have been mentioned, but both types derived from earlier excavations.2202 Unfortunately, Blegen’s excavations brought to light only over fifty terracotta items and three made of stone, scattered at Troy I-V, VI-VII. In form they are not so variable since only several shapes were recognized, i.e. flattened ovoid or piriform, also with a grooved upper part, pyramidal, flattened and roughly triangular, triangular and flat elongated with grooved upper part. Due to the scarcity and scatter of the material, secure reconstruction of each form’s origin and thus its attribution to a particular settlement is difficult. Nevertheless, simple and not grooved flattened ovoid or pear-shaped loom weights were already introduced at Troy I-II and used at IV, VI. Flattened trapezoidal and rectangular items occurred for the first time at Troy I and then with variable frequency at III-V, VIIa-b.2203 The earliest occurrence of 2200 Schmidt 1902, 297-98 nos 8301-8355; of those only the stamped artefacts are generally dated to “griechischer Zeit”. 2201 Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 390, 399 and figs 390-92, 410 and fig. 416. 2202 Op. cit., 390 and fig. 372. The illustrations of loom weights in op. cit. refer only to several mentioned types, but not to particular items; in fact they are of artefacts published in Schmidt 1902, 295-96. 2203 Blegen et al. 1950, 104, fig. 221 (flattened pear-

rounded/ovoid/piriform weights with grooved upper part and single perforation close below it was recorded by Blegen at Late Troy VI.2204 Additionally, several examples of flattened trapezoidal/triangular grooved type are known from Troy VIIa-b.2205 The recent excavations brought to light twentytwo grooved terracotta weights of both these types scattered from Middle Troy VI to X. In light of this the flat discoid weights appear at Middle Troy VI and are in use through Late VI, but during VIIa decrease in number while trapezoidal/triangular ones increase. The latter type, though in smaller number, still occurs at Troy VIIb.2206 Nevertheless, shaped and trapezoidal: Early Troy I), 338, figs 324, 369 (upper right; flattened pear-shaped: Troy IIg); Blegen et al. 1951, 74, figs 53, 55 (flattened more or less trapezoidal: Troy IIIc-d), 85-86, fig. 53 (flattened? and roughly rectangular: Troy IIIa), 169 (flat pear-shaped: Troy IVb), 170 (flat trapezoidal: Troy IVb), 172 (flat pear-shaped: Troy IVb), 181 (flat pear-shaped: Troy IVc), 189 (flattened trapezoidal: Troy IVc), fig. 150, 261, fig. 236 (flattened trapezoidal: Troy Vb); Blegen et al. 1953, 8-9, 31, 232 (flattened, flattened ovoid or piriform, pyramidal: Troy VIh), 272 (flattened spherical, flattened ovoid or piriform, pyramidal: Troy VIg), 315 (pyramidal: Late Troy VI), 336 (flattened: Late Troy VI), 381 (flattened ovoid or piriform: Late Troy VI), fig. 305; Blegen et al. 1958, 18, 57 (triangular, pyramidal: Troy VIIa), 67 (pyramidal: Troy VIIa), 79 (triangular: Troy VIIa), 82, 104 (rectangular with rounded corners: Troy VIIa), 152 (flat elongated, flattened roughly triangular, pyramidal: VIIb), 199 (shape?: Troy VIIb1) 218 (disc-shaped: Troy VIIb2), figs 221, 256. There were also mentioned over seventy-five unregistered items of unbaked clay dated to Troy IIg, but only twenty-two of them were roughly described – Blegen et al. 1950, 219, 338. 2204 Blegen et al. 1953, 9, 31, 232, 272, 381, fig. 305. 2205 Blegen et al. 1958, 18, 57, 79, 152, 218, figs 221, 256. 2206 Becks, Guzowska 2004, 102, 105, 107-11; however,

254

observed fluctuations are based only on very few artefacts and thus they should be treated with caution. It is worth noting that the flattened rounded/ ovoid/piriform weights with one or two holes and one side cut or grooved seem to be related in form to the EM II-LM III artefacts, which also have three perforations through their shorter axis near the top; they were recorded in Myrtos and island sites under Cretan influence (Akrotiri, Ayia Irini, Kastri on Kythera, Phylakopi, Seraglio, Trianda), while the flattened trapezoidal/triangular type enjoyed greater popularity in the LH II-IIIA1 Greek mainland settlements Malthi, Mycenae, Nichoria and Pylos. In Anatolia and neighbourhood occurrence of flat, discoid loom weights with a groove is observable at the western coastal sites, namely Aegean ‘colonies’ Miletus, Iasos and Mikro Vouni, as well as bearing strong Aegean influence Baklatepe, Limantepe and Bağlararası. Several examples of both mentioned types appeared at LCy Enkomi I, IIA-B, IIIA. So, it seems that presence of grooved artefacts at Troy can be attributed to Minoan and Mycenaean influence evidenced by limited, but notable, imports and scarcely recorded movement of people between the Aegean and Anatolia.2207 Generally, it seems that weights with a groove were common in the Minoan realm, but unknown at Troy before the Six Settlement and there is no parallel for this feature at other Anatolian sites.2208 Likewise, pyramidal weights are an innovation of Troy VI and were also employed at VIIa-b.2209 Proposed dating with high artefacts cat. nos 15-16, 32 were residual in later contexts of Troy VIII-IX. 2207 Wace 1921-23, 215; Valmin 1953, 38, 43; Sackett et al. 1965, 304; Warren 1972, 212, 220-21; Carington Smith 1992, 689-90; Becks, Guzowska 2004, 102103, 106-107. 2208 Carington Smith 1992, 688. 2209 Blegen et al. 1953, 9, 31, 272 (Troy VIg), 315 (Troy VIh), fig. 305; Blegen et al. 1958, 18, 57, 67

probability can be applied for similar types derived from the earliest excavations. The rest of the forms published by Blegen are scattered over the Bronze Age site’s occupation. It is worth mentioning that several Trojan loom weights have formal parallels in variously developed typological schemes established for Aphrodisias, Demircihöyük, Kusura and Tarsus.2210 More or less flattened ovoid weights of Troy I-II, IV and VI were the most popular in Aphrodisias (M. S. Joukowsky’s globular; 45% of the class). They appeared already in the LCh III and after gaps in the EBA III during the Iron Age.2211 Similar artefacts, including one with a shallow groove, are also known from the EBA II-III, MBA and LBA I Tarsus.2212 This type (“Gruppe IV”) with different frequency was used at Demircihöyük during the EBA I-IIA.2213 Only two crescent artefacts are known from Troy, of which one is dated to the Second Settlement. At Aphrodisias they made up 37% of the class. For the first time this shape was recorded in the EBA I, but later barely in the transitional E-MBA, LBA and Iron Age.2214 Moreover, at M-LBA Kusura C

2210

2211

2212 2213 2214

255

(Troy VIIa), 152 (VIIb), figs 221, 256. It should be mentioned that Troy VI – which spanned not only to the MH, but also most of the Mycenaean period in Greece – had striking changes in many other aspects of material culture, including architecture, pottery and spindle whorls – Carington Smith 1992, 688. Lamb 1937, 34-35; Lamb 1938, 254, 256; Goldman et al. 1956, 319, 236; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 37981; Kull 1988, 200-202; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 238-39. Schliemann 1880, 559-60 no. 1202; Blegen et al. 1951, 115-16, 169, 172, 181, 189, fig. 150; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 379, 380 table 132. Goldman et al. 1956, 319, 323, fig. 441 nos 4c, 8, 10. Obladen-Kauder 1996, 238, 240 fig. 169. Schmidt 1902, 296 no. 8240; Blegen et al. 1950, 338, fig. 369 top right, fourth from the left in the

they were recovered in a single deposit of over thirty artefacts close together.2215 At Demircihöyük crescent type (“Gruppe VI”) belongs to the oldest finds. It occurs in the very beginning of the EBA I and later re-appeared not until the MBA, when it became prevalent. The artefacts of the latter period had numerous parallels, for instance at Anatolian M-LBA sites Karahöyük I, Beycesultan II, Alişarhöyük II, as well as in Greece and the Balkans.2216 An assemblage of twenty-six items also occurred at LBA I Tarsus, but these have been interpreted as net weights.2217 A flattened trapezoidal (Joukowsky’s rectangular) artefact of Troy I, III-V and triangular of VII find formal parallels in Aphrodisias, where they constitute only 16% of the class. The first one occurred there in the second half of the EBA II, the second half of the EBA III, the transitional E-MBA and the MBA mixed, while the latter one was first recorded at the transitional E-MBA, the MBA mixed, as well as during the LBA-Iron Age.2218 At Tarsus trapezoidal weights have been recorded in the EBA III.2219 Pyramidal weights had a long tradition in Anatolia and in some sites they appeared earlier than at Troy. This is evidenced by examples from Chalcolithic Alişarhöyük XIII, EBA I-IIA, MBA Demircihöyük (“Gruppen I-II”), EBA II, MBA Tarsus, EBA II and M-LBA Kusura B-C, M-LBA Alişarhöyük and

2215

2216 2217 2218

2219

lowest row; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 379, 380 table 132. Lamb 1937, 34; Lamb 1938, 254 fig. 19 no. 5 (4 also possible), 256 (perhaps one can be dated earlier than Kusura C). Kull 1988, 200-206; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 238, 240 fig. 169. Goldman et al. 1956, 319, 324, fig. 441 no. 11. Joukowsky et al. 1986, 380 and table 132 (no type of proposed typology for Aphrodisias turned up in the MBA context). For trapezoidal form see also Schliemann 1880, 411 no. 479. Goldman et al. 1956, 319, 323, fig. 441 no. 6.

other sites of the same period such as Karahöyük and Boğazköy.2220 It is surprising that among finds from Blegen’s works there is none similar to the two examined artefacts (cat. nos 114-115), i.e. undecorated lentoid discoid with flattened top and two perforations below it. It is a form that lends itself well to handmade, and because of that its profile is convex and thicker in the centre than at the edges. In fact this is a variation of the shape without a flattened edge. Generally, within terracotta loom weights recorded at Troy the discussed form seems less numerous, even if we take into account over 100 lentoid discoid objects from the recent excavations of Classical Ilion2221; of them at least five were plain lentoid discoid with a flattened edge and two holes.2222 Moreover, the current excavations brought to light sixty items at the West Sanctuary and eighty-five at domestic quarters of the Lower Town, but so far their forms have not been specified.2223 Presumably among these assemblages there is also the discussed type. Certainly with forty-six finds from Schliemann’s excavations including ten duplicates, as well as five from current excavations, we are dealing with at least fifty-one plain artefacts.2224 It is very difficult 2220 Von der Osten 1937a, 44, 93, 96 fig. 99; Von der Osten 1937b, 273; Lamb 1938, 254 fig. 19 no. 2a-b, 256; Goldman et al. 1956, 319, 323, fig. 441 no. 4a; Kull 1988, 200; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 238, 240 fig. 169. 2221 Wallrodt 2002, 181-82, 187, 190, 194. 2222 Op. cit., 188-89 cat. nos 3, 6, 8-9, 12, pls 1 nos 3, 6, 8-9, 12, 3 nos 3, 9. 2223 Op. cit., 187, 194. 2224 Schmidt 1902, 297 nos 8263-8268, 8274-8280, 8285-8291, 8298 (certainly also among nos 82488257 with thirty-two duplicates there are not mentioned artefacts with slightly flattened edge close to cat. no. 115); Wallrodt 2002, 188-89 cat. nos 3, 6, 8-9, 12. There are also a certain number of stamped or incised discoid artefacts with a

256

to date lentoid discoid loom weights with two holes (flattened or not, decorated or not). Even Easton’s recent re-assessment seems not very helpful, since he proposed a very broad time span from Troy II to IX. Nevertheless, the majority of objects, including decorated ones, seem to be of Troy VIII-IX. 2225 In light of this, and first of all on the basis of similarities in fabric, one can ascribe cat. nos 114-115 to the post-Bronze Age site’s occupation or perhaps even to the 4th century B.C. 2226 This can be supported by roughly half of fifteen weights close in form derived from Terrace Wall 3 of Deposit 3, dated on the basis of pottery to this period.2227 Artefacts very similar in form dated to the beginning of the 5th century B.C. are also known from Salamis.2228 Moreover,

2225

2226

2227 2228

flattened edge and two perforations below it – Schliemann 1874a, 260, 279; Schliemann 1880, 619 nos 1466, 1468-1469; Schmidt 1902, 297-98 nos 8301, 8315, 8319, 8322, 8324-8328, 8330-8334, 8341, 8355. Easton 2002, 82 (no inv. no.), 84 nos 72-820, 72887, (all of Troy VIII-IX), 87 no 72-1266, fig. 129 (Troy VI-IX), 92 nos 72-1453, 72-1481, 72-1482, fig. 131 (Troy II-VI), 99 (no inv. no.), 113, 114 no. 72-228, fig. 134, 140 (no inv. no.), 144 (no inv. no.), 150 no. 72-487, 72-690, 72-707, fig. 142, 177 (no inv. no.) – all of Troy VIII-IX, 179 no. 72-257 (lentoid?, Troy V-IX), 182 nos 72-1157, 72-1192, 72-1193, fig. 154 (Troy VIII-IX), 254 (no inv. no., Troy VIIb-IX), 256 (no inv. no., Troy VIII-IX), 263 (no inv. no., Troy VIIb-IX), 266 (no inv. no., Troy VIII-IX), 273, 276 nos 73-586, 73-622, 73-623, fig. 181 (mixed deposit), 274 no. 73-524, fig. 180 (Troy VI-VII). Artefacts from Classical Ilion are fine, hard, compact, well fired and micaceous – Wallrodt 2002, 188-89. Attention was also turned on the local micaceous clay typical for ceramic items – Thompson 1963, 13. The macroscopic examination of the two discussed artefacts indicates the same features, which suggests their local production – see pages 142-43, 209-10, 212 table 11. Wallrodt 2002, 181. Chavane 1975, 82-83 nos 234, 238, pls 24-25.

five discoid lentoid weights were found at LClass Corinth.2229 Despite the mentioned affinities of form, manufacture of loom weights was probably always a very local activity and thus their shapes vary in different cities and regions, most likely reflecting local preferences. On the other hand, the types spread as shown by the Corinthian form adopted in late 4th century B.C. Athens, where the local varieties were abandoned.2230 The discussed type (cat. nos 114-115), however, as well as the flat discoid Classical loom weights, has a long tradition and may be descended from the above-mentioned Minoan weights. For instance, already at EM Myrtos there appeared not only an example of a clay lentoid weight with a flattened side above one hole, but also small grooved discshaped items.2231 Moreover, lentoid artefacts are known from each Bronze Age level of Enkomi, as well as from many other Archaic to Roman sites in Anatolia and Greece.2232 Summing up, all recorded weight types show that the same technique of manufacturing cloth on a warp-weighted loom was continued from Troy I to VIII. 3.2. Function Early indirect or direct evidence for woven thread (impressions or cloths) came from Neolithic sites, namely Jarmo (c. 7000 B.C.)2233 and Tell Shimshara XIII (c. 6000 B.C.)2234 in Iraq, the earliest levels of Tepe Yahyā in Iran2235, as well as Çatalhöyük VI (c. 6000 B.C.)2236 and LN Mersin 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236

257

Davidson 1952, 171 nos 1205-1209. Op. cit., 146; Wallrodt 2002, 182. Warren 1972, 221, 243 fig. 96 nos 77-78. Dikaios 1969; Dikaios 1971; Chavane 1975, 76-79. Braidwood, Howe 1960, 46, 138, 160-61. Mortensen 1970, 123, 124 fig. 113, 136. Adovasio 1975-1977, 228. Burnham 1965, 169.

XXV (c. 5400 - c. 5250).2237 Based on wool and thread from always available plants with strong and fibrous stems, it was produced using a primitive method of splicing. However, a piece of cloth from Çatalhöyük VI with a possible heading band feature suggests employment of a warp-weighted loom.2238

of artefacts.2242 Impressions of plain cloth on clay occurred in the Eneolithic Caucasus (4th millennium B.C.) and were followed by actual textile remains in the EBA, including diagonal twill.2243 In EN Greece

This announced the next, more advanced stage of yarn’s use for manufacturing cloth. Weights associated with looms constitute the other class of artefacts linked with textile production; they were used at the bottom to pull the warp taut.2239 These only indestructible parts of wooded looms are known from a settlement context. The important point to note is that they were used in sets, but not

(c. 6th millennium B.C.) perhaps a truncated pyramidal weight turned up at Corinth and during the MN (c. 5th millennium B.C.) possible cylindrical artefacts of the same function were recorded at Sitagroi, tall, oblong ones at Tsani and spherical ones at Franchthi Cave. In the LN (c. 4th millennium B.C.) use of the warpweighted loom was continued in northern Greece as evidenced by heavy oblong, pyramidal or conical artefacts, but almost disappeared in the south. The only seeming exception was Crete, where in late MN

singly like whorls. In situ loom weights are found in at least two rows, if not disturbed after abandonment. Already at Çatalhöyük there appeared perhaps spherical perforated weights dated to c. beginning of the 6th millennium B.C. 2240, which along with the mentioned piece of cloth could indicate knowledge of the warp-weighted loom. From Chalcolithic Alişarhöyük XIII came to light two deposits of weights consisting of five and nine pyramidal artefacts.2241 On the same site, but at a child’s grave, there were also recorded fragments of textile with twill patterns dated to the late 4th millennium B.C., which additionally supports employment of the warpweighted loom. This evidence represents the first Anatolian example of a mechanizable pattern weave. Another very interesting example perhaps came to light near the village of Dorak, but authenticity of the Royal Treasure seems problematic. A multicoloured rug with geometric patterns was made of woven wool in tapestry technique and dated roughly to the mid3rd millennium B.C., on the basis of the entire group

to early LN Knossos came to light a set of c. seven doubly pierced rectangular artefacts, as well as other miscellaneous forms.2244 Among other evidence perhaps confirming the existence of the warpweighted loom should be mentioned impressions of plain weave on an MN potsherd at Sitagroi I, and on an FN pottery fragment at Kephala, where there also appeared a fine textile showing the beginning of mechanical shedding, namely two threads in one shed for a considerable distance.2245 At EBA Troy loom weights have been evidenced from phase Ic onwards.2246 The results of Blegen’s field works, despite the small number of recorded terracotta weights (over fifty) and none of the discussed shape (cat. nos 114-115), are valuable since so far he has discovered the only remains of the warp-weighted loom in Room 206 of a Troy IIg building, situated in square E6. It extended out from the southeast wall and included two distinctive rows of fallen ovoid and trapezoidal loom weights in situ (two very large, twenty-four large, eighteen small).

2237 2238 2239 2240 2241

2242 2243 2244 2245 2246

Garstang 1953, 52. Burnham 1965, 172. Barber 1991, 92. Mellaart 1962, 56. Von der Osten 1937a, 93, 96 fig. 99.

258

Barber 1991, 170-71. Op. cit., 168. Evans 1964, 180, 235; Barber 1991, 99-100. Renfrew 1972, 351; Carington Smith 1977, 115-16. Blegen et al. 1950, 104.

They were found between it and a pair of post holes for a tilted upright supporting a cloth beam. The posts lay 110 cm from the wall, which indicates that two uprights were propped against it.2247 This find is also an interesting example showing how many loom weights were employed in a single loom at that time. None of the other Trojan settlements provided such detailed data. However, at least twenty-two flattened pear-shaped weights derived from Room 200 of Troy IIg. 2248 Moreover, in Rooms 200 and 206, as well as in 202, 203 and 205, over eighty whorls have been recorded.2249 What is interesting, only two crescent artefacts are known from Troy, of which one dated to the Second Settlement was found in connection with pear-shaped weights.2250 Also, the recent excavations brought to light twentynine loom weights from destruction debris of a Troy VIIa house in the southern citadel area. They lay close together in its southwestern corner next to a mud brick bin.2251 Moreover, in square D9 came to light over 100 lentoid discoid loom weights dated to Classical Ilion. From the same period turned up sixty items at the West Sanctuary and eighty-five at domestic quarters of the Lower Town.2252 These 2247 Op. cit., 350, 353, figs 333-334, 369, 461. According to the other, but hardly acceptable interpretation, weights appeared to lie in four rows and thus there may have been two single-width looms back to back with perhaps twenty-six weights each – Carington Smith 1992, 690. 2248 Blegen et al. 1950, 338. 2249 Op. cit., 323, 333, 337-38, 344, 352-53. 2250 Schmidt 1902, 296 no. 8240; Blegen et al. 1950, 338, fig. 369 top right, fourth from the left in the lowest row. 2251 Becks, Guzowska 2004, 104. According to the authors a loom was obviously installed there, but unfortunately they did mention more details on the found context (a row/s of weights?) and only generally described the type of weights as local. 2252 Wallrodt 2002, 181-82, 187, 190, 194.

assemblages represent the biggest concentrations of loom weights recorded during current fieldwork. Apart from Troy a row c. 140 cm long consisting of about fourteen fallen pyramidal items was found in situ in the EBA II-III Room 1, being a part of the destroyed Complex II at Aphrodisias Acropolis. They were lying across the pavement, just beyond the possible end of a wall with their pierced ends pointing north, and thus the entire loom, like the walls, had fallen over in the same direction; these remains also indicate the existence of a warp-weighted loom.2253 Generally, in the LCh-Iron Age long history of that site there were found 110 terracotta loom weights.2254 A possible warp-weighted loom at EBA I Demircihöyük is evidenced by twenty-nine weights recorded in situ at Room 6. They lay in a little depression in the corner, parallelly to the east wall, but according to the excavators scattered over an area too small for a loom. The mentioned deposit consisted of four forms, of which a combination of three (pyramidal, crescent, semicircular) could have served as one set.2255 The next deposit of thirty pyramidal and three rectangular artefacts was recovered in situ, also as a partly preserved row at the northwestern corner of Room 999 dated to the same period.2256 A much later, but very interesting example of loom remains derived from early 7th century B.C. Gordion. There was found in situ a set of twentyone fallen weights scattered in a row 159 cm long, but it should be pointed out that the entire number of items was over 2200 recorded within a distance about 100 m.2257 2253 Kadish 1971, 136 and fig. 11. 2254 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 379, 380 table 132. 2255 Korfmann 1983, 33, 34 and fig. 45; ObladenKauder 1996, 237, 239. 2256 Korfmann 1983, 114 and fig. 195; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 237, 239, 241. 2257 De Vries 1980, 39.

259

At E-MBA Demircihöyük turned up c. 364 clay weights, including the two already mentioned groups. Generally, 44.6% of the EBA artefacts were recorded in situ in inner rooms. The EBA IIA settlement produced a deposit of seven pyramidal weights in situ in a depression situated in the left corner of Room 110. What is interesting, they were stained with pink paint of possible textile origin. There were also found in situ four other groups consisting of three to four items each. Moreover, thirteen crescent weights occurred at the MBA “Apsidenhaus”.2258 They appeared already at EBA IIIB Karahöyük V. A deposit of seventy weights of this type is known from MBA Karahöyük I, thirty-

two pyramidal loom weights.2261 In this context it is also worth mentioning the EBA mound of Razkopanica, where pyramidal and crescent items were recovered together.2262

one artefacts turned up at LBA Beycesultan II, and twelve items came to light from MBA Alişarhöyük II; all listed assemblages also included stamped artefacts. Additionally, a group of eight bi-conical whorls and seventeen pyramidal loom weights was noticed at MBA Beycesultan IVb.2259 At E-LBA Tarsus c. 145 loom weights have been recorded. Of those, two groups of thirty-five possibly roughly pyramidal and one set of eight pyramidal and flattened ovoid artefacts are dated to the EBA II. Other groups of fifteen flattened ovoid and thirteen flattened pyramidal items came to light from the MBA context. Finally, a set of twelve crescent loom weights along with one pyramidal artefact derived from LBA I Tarsus.2260 At M-LBA Kusura C came to light over thirty crescent artefacts close together in a single deposit, which according to the explorer in terms of shape resemble wooden loom weights used in modern Turkey. They were associated with

light only one straight row of twelve weights 2264 The assemblages of weights are represented by artefacts fallen from the upper floors (lenticular disc-shaped at LM Akrotiri, Kato Zakro) and stored, as evidenced at the first site; at Akrotiri this could also suggest the existence of a weaving installation.2265 Other deposits came to light from the LH settlements Malthi, Nichoria and Pylos. Moreover, a group consisting of five flat, rectangular weights and fourteen possible grooved items of Minoan type dated to LH III have been found in the socalled Guardroom in the northwestern corner of the palace at Mycenae.2266 Nevertheless, in the Aegean there are other examples indicating the employment of the warp-weighted loom already in the EC

2258 Korfmann 1983, 164; Kull 1988, 200, 203; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 237, 239, 241. 2259 Schmidt 1932, 122 and fig. 149, 149 fig. 189, 150; Alp 1968, 73, pl. 143 no. 439; Lloyd, Mellaart 1955, 46; Lloyd, Mellaart 1965, 51, fig. A22; Lloyd 1972, 12, pl. 6 a. 2260 Goldman et al. 1956, 319, 323-24.

The set of thirty-five loom weights made of mud arranged in two rows quite recently recovered in situ at the Pyrgos-Mavroraki settlement is dated not later than to ECy II, but some of the items could be earlier. It can perhaps be regarded as the second, after the Trojan one, example of such large remains of warp-weighted loom in the Aegean.2263 To the west in Bronze Age Greece there is scarce evidence of that loom in situ, namely from LM IB destruction horizon of House 1 (Room M) at Chania came to

2261 Lamb 1938, 256. 2262 Kull 1988, 205. 2263 There were also found seventy-five loom weights in the firing furnace situated in the middle of the open court for metallurgy – e-mail correspondence dated 8th-9th May 2009 from Dr M. R. Belgiorno, to whom I am very grateful for that information. 2264 Evely 2000, 498. 2265 Platon 1966, 156, pl. 150 β; Platon 1971, 57, 191, 281; Marinatos 1968, 21-24; Marinatos 1970, 122, pl. 116; Marinatos 1971, 27; Barber 1991, 388, 390. 2266 Wace 1921-1923, 215.

260

such as a scrap of linen on a dagger blade from a tomb on Amorgos2267, an LH plain-weave small piece perhaps of a grain bag from the Granary at Mycenae2268 along with similar fragments of linen

in situ are sometimes not only due to shifting. As the ethnographic evidence proves, they were also dismantled and stored away when not actually in use2279; similar indications are mentioned in

textiles2269 and decayed remains of shrouds or funeral clothing2270 from the Shaft Graves in Circle A and B of that site, bits of linen plain-weave cloth on a blade from LM II-IIIA “Chieftain’s Grave” at Zapher Papoura2271, a plain-weave impression on clay from the LM IIIA context of the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos2272, a scrap from the LH IIIC tholos at Kazarma2273 and remains of cloth from the LH IIIA1 Chamber Tomb 2 at Dendra.2274 To these examples should be added an important find of

ancient epos.2280 Lentoid, discoid artefacts have two suspension holes, which are not placed in the centre, but toward an extremity of the weight, so that it hangs better. The threads were most likely tied directly to the weights themselves2281, creating clear grooves at the holes where the threads rubbed against the clay. On the other hand, they also had a flattened side above the perforations and no groove marks. To this type belong examined loom weights (cat.

a cloth fragment from Lefkandi dated to the first half of the 10th century B.C.2275 In Cyprus from MCy III Paleoskoutella Tomb 7 came to light a piece of plain weave, perhaps flax cloth2276 and a scrap turned up in LCy IIIA Idalion.2277 Moreover, casts on the ECy IIIB-MCy I dagger from BellapaisVounous Tomb 26 are always in plain weave and evidently of flax.2278 Generally, the Anatolian and Aegean examples show that finds of working warp-weighted looms

nos 114-115), which are only slightly flattened, but similar to well evidenced artefacts with one side distinctively cut. How to explain this feature? It seems that perhaps as in grooved artefacts a piece of horizontal rod, but flat, was attached to this side and the groups of warp’s threads were tied to the stick. In this context it should be pointed out that weaving on a warp-weighted loom produces several technical problems, as well as unpleasant noise.2282 The single weights attached to the warp threads caused uneven distribution of weight and irregular spacing of the warp. Moreover, the perforation/s in the items are often too small to hold a bunch of warp threads and they are themselves too heavy to carry the single thread. A good way to eliminate these difficulties is to use, as already mentioned, a horizontal rod, which stabilizes the weights in one position, prevents the warp thread from twisting and thus much reduces the noise. Additionally, limited mobility of weights with rods means that they usually do not carry wear marks.2283 It is worth

2267 Zeses 1955, 587; Carington Smith 1977, 116. 2268 Wace 1921-1923, 55; Barber 1991, 174. 2269 Papademetriou 1952, 203; Mylonas 1973, 22; Åkerström 1978, 52. 2270 Hägg, Sieurin 1982, 179; Barber 1991, 174. 2271 Evans 1935, 859, 866 and fig. 851 a, 867 fig. 852. 2272 Popham et al. 1984, 39, pl. 222 no. 5. 2273 Protonotariou-Deïlaki 1969, 4-5. 2274 Persson 1931, 94. 2275 Popham et al. 1993, 20, pl. 17. 2276 Åström 1964, 112 and fig. 1; Åström 1972, 162. 2277 Åström 1964, 12. 2278 Dikaios 1940, 57, pl. 42 c. For other information on cloth adhering to the E-MCy bronze daggers, including an example from the MCyp III Kalopsida Tomb 26, see Åström 1964, 111-12; Åström 1972, 243.

2279 2280 2281 2282 2283

261

Barber 1991, 101-102. Hesiodus Op. 779. McLauchlin 1981, 80. Carington Smith 1992, 690; Evely 2000, 502. Tzachili 1990, 383; Becks, Guzowska 2004, 111.

mentioning an experiment done in Nichoria in order to find out how to avoid the twisting and noise caused when the heddle was moved, by clashing and jangling weights. Each row of grooved weights was lashed to a thin rod. Their tops accommodated perfectly and this may be another explanation for the presence of the grooves.2284 If the warp is attached directly to the rod then fewer weights are needed for better regulation of the fabric and their weight is more evenly distributed. It was also suggested that rods could have been used as heddles for separation of colour and multi-coloured patterns.2285 Another possibility is that they served as spacers, which in modern looms have been replaced by a cord situated above the row of the weights and across the warp threads.2286 The proposal that the rods may have been important for the production of finer fabrics needs further investigation. For instance only seventy-six (17%) of 450 weights from the first floor of Room 3 of the West House in Akrotiri were grooved.2287 On the other hand, fifty-five artefacts (58.5%) out of ninety-four recorded at the LM II Unexplored Mansion and about 50% of fifty-five items from the LM IA house on the Acropolis at Knossos had grooves. In light of this, one cannot exclude that the grooved and non-grooved weights could be used on the same loom, but their position depended on their relation to the heddle.2288 At Troy employment of weights with rods, including grooved ones, and the relation between them and those without sticks cannot be reconstructed. Even in the case of recently excavated Troy VIIa we are dealing with lack of preserved sets.2289 Finally, it should be mentioned that similar evidence of rods, 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289

Carington Smith 1992, 690. Warren 1972, 212. Hoffmann 1964, 24 fig. 2. Tzachili 1990, 383, 385. Evely 2000, 502. Becks, Guzowska 2004, 104-105.

but installed in the aperture of the conical loom weights, is also known from the late 2nd to first half of the 1st century B.C. at Nemea.2290 Loom weights with short rods were also depicted on Corinthian aryballos of the late 7th to early 6th century B.C. 2291 In the other solution the bunches of warp threads were attached not to rods, but to loops of cord or metal rings tied with perforated weights as depicted on a c. 560 B.C. lekythos from Vari.2292 It is very difficult to compare the weight of examined artefacts (37.00 and 75.27 g) with data from Troy. Even the recent publication of the deposit of weights from LClas Ilion mentioned only three items, whose precise weight is known, namely pyramidal (29.7 g), lentoid ovoid (c. 100 g) and discoid (> 200 g). The majority of all fifteen weights fall within a middle range of 50-100 g.2293 Indeed, those of Classical and Hellenistic Ilion tend to weigh less than 100 g.2294 So, they are much lighter than for instance most of the artefacts from Olynthus, which fall within the ranges 106-127 g and 156-177 g.2295 Light, small weights are often interpreted as miniature replicas rather useless for weaving, but suitable as votives.2296 However, the light weight and lack of wear at the suspension perforations does not exclude their utilitarian function. The first feature would not produce such marked friction on the holes as on heavier weights, making evidence of wear more difficult to identify. Second, in the case of flattened and grooved weights it was not produced. For instance from Knossos 2290 McLauchlin 1981, 79, pl. 17 figs 1-2. 2291 Davidson-Weinberg, Weinberg 1956, 263, fig. 1, pl. 33; McLauchlin 1981, 81, pl. 17 figs 3-4. 2292 Davidson, Thompson 1943, 67-68; Crowfoot 1956, 444 and fig. 281. 2293 Wallrodt 2002, 183. 2294 Op. cit., 191. 2295 Wilson 1930, 121. 2296 Davidson 1952, 158; Simon 1986, 267.

262

are known examples whose weight falls into the same range as the discussed ones and their chipped edges were interpreted as a likely indication of use. This suggests that even very light weights were not necessarily purely votive in function.2297 It seems possible that lighter artefacts merely reflect a regional difference in the way they were arranged on the warp-weighted loom. In other words, the tension of the threads is determined not only by the weight of the artefacts, but also by the number of threads that are attached to each weight. So, lighter weights from Ilion can be interpreted in that the weavers tended to use a greater number of them attached to a smaller cluster of threads than during the same time at Olynthus.2298 The relation between the weight of weights and their function is better recognized thanks to the ethnographic studies. They show that the two lighter weights could have also been tied in order to balance one heavier weight, and thus this provides a good balance between the front and back threads of the loom.2299 It should also be mentioned that the weight of discussed weights also roughly falls within limits recorded at Troy VI, where came to light flat, grooved discoid artefacts from 38.3 to 510 g, but the majority falling between c. 150 and 300 g. Moreover, trapezoidal grooved items reached a weight of from 24.36 to 230 g with the majority 100-130 g and 140-160 g.2300 Also, at MBA Demircihöyük the weight of crescent artefacts ranged from 27 to 328 g.2301 It is interesting to note that during its EBA occupation the weight of three forms (pyramidal, crescent, and semicircular or circular) was enlarged by clay attached to their ends.2302 In this context should also be mentioned 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302

Wallrodt 2002, 191. Op. cit., 183. Hoffmann 1964, 21, 42. Becks, Guzowska 2004, 103-104. Kull 1988, 203-205. Obladen-Kauder 1996, 238.

flat, grooved discoid weights from Akrotiri weighing from 125 to 285 g, but with an average of c. 190 g and the majority between 150 and 210 g. 2303 At Knossos the weight of items recorded at the East Wing of the Old Palace varies from 150 to 160 g.2304 Moreover, the sets from the Unexplored Mansion fall into the range c. 200-250 g, 350-450 g and even up to 700 g.2305 At Nichoria the weight range of only three grooved items covers 174-204 g, while that of the other types stretches from 118 to 284 g.2306 It seems that the type of required cloth determined the weight of loom weights and this is the other reasonable explanation of quoted differences. So, for manufacture of fine textile light items were needed, but for a heavy cloth much heavier ones as evidenced for instance by a 410 g rectangular artefact from Troy II.2307 In light of the above-mentioned data, the warp-weighted loom will work well with quite a wide weight range. However, it is preferable that the number and weight of weights in the front and the back row are equal, although it does work if two small artefacts are employed instead of one large one. On the other hand, differences in weight within a set are not fatal to weaving, since as shown in examples from modern Scandinavia more warp threads can be tied to the heavier weights and fewer to the lighter ones. Moreover, there was an attempt to strengthen with heavier weights the side selvedges, which get a lot of wear.2308 Also, experiments with river stones of different size conducted in Nichoria confirmed that uneven weight did not materially affect the cloth, but they fell off when the heddle was moved.2309 A distribution of different-sized 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309

263

Tzachili 1990, 382 fig. 2, 383. Carington Smith 1975, 281. Evely 2000, 502. Carington Smith 1992, 710-11. Wilson 1930, 121; Mansfeld 2001, 215-16. Kull 1988, 203-205. Carington Smith 1992, 690.

weights is recognizable at Room 206 of Troy IIg. Unfortunately, the excavators fail to give their weight, but one can presume that heavier items were needed for heavy, dense fabrics and lighter ones for finer, looser textiles. The varying sizes and types that were apparently being used on that loom can also be explained differently. Namely, as the years went on and some weights broke and/or were lost, subsequently they were perhaps replaced by artefacts from other sets. Moreover, unstamped and stamped lentoid, discoid loom weights, according to their finding context and iconography of the latter ones, were used at Ilion as votive gifts, most likely associated with the Temple of Athena Ilias. 2310 A good parallel for such a function came from the Classical Sanctuary of Athena Cranaia at Elatea, namely a group of loom weights, of which the pyramidal one bears, unusually, both a full dedicatory inscription and the male name of the dedicant.2311 Generally, this class of artefacts rarely bear inscriptions, but if so first of all short and only sometimes full dedications with mainly a female divinity’s name, although a male one is also known. Likewise, female names prevail among the dedicants.2312 The votive function may also be suggested by the very small proportion of stamped to unstamped weights recorded at several sites including Ilion.2313 On the other hand, many of the inventoried weights from the West Sanctuary at Ilion were unstamped (at least 60%). Stamped 2310 2311 2312 2313

Wallrodt 2002. Paris 1891, 282; Blinkenberg 1931, 145. Wallrodt 2002, 184-86, 192-94. Of the 277 recorded only sixty-eight were stamped – Wallrodt 2002, 192. Likewise at Olynthus unstamped weights outnumbered stamped – Robinson 1952, V. Also at Corinth and Athenian Pnyx the number of stamped examples appears to have been quite small – Davidson 1952, 153; Davidson, Thompson 1943, 74-76.

examples are also known from domestic contexts, but Troy adds little evidence, since very few such secure ones have been excavated. The presence of stamped weights in domestic contexts is supported, to some extant, by finds from Olynthus. In fact contexts were not described, but perhaps at least some of 308 stamped loom weights came from a domestic rather than a religious one.2314 It seems that at Ilion unstamped and stamped lentoid, discoid loom weights were not only votive gifts for Athena, but they may well have played a significant role in her cult.2315 This is quite probable since cultic weaving of the peplos is known for Athena Polias during the Panathenaia at Athens, Hera at Olympia and perhaps Argos, as well as similar rituals performed in the other cities.2316 At Amyclae a building called the “chition” was the location where a garment was woven for Apollo.2317 Perhaps the weaving area was located within the “annex” on the northern side of Building A adjacent to the Temple of Athena in Stymphalos. However, it could be rather a storage area for the loom when not in use, but situated close to the space for manufacturing. There were found twenty-one conical loom weights, as well as pottery dated to the 4th-3rd century B.C., but the weaving artefacts were perhaps used until the middle of the 2nd century B.C.2318 At Halae was recovered another textile production area associated with 2314 Wallrodt 2002, 184-86, 192-93. For a useful summary of votive weaving equipment – Simon 1986, 263-70. 2315 Wallrodt 2002, 187. 2316 For Athena at Athens – Mansfield 1985; Barber 1992. For Hera at Olympia – Pausanias V 16.2, VI 24.10; Mansfield 1985, 470. For Hera at Argos – Mansfield 1985, 465-66. 2317 Pausanias III 16.2; Mansfield 1985, 467-68. 2318 Williams 1996, 79-80; Williams et al. 1997, 54; Williams et al. 1998, 289-90; Williams, Schaus 2001, 81, 88-89.

264

the Sanctuary of Athena, namely a deposit of flat discoid loom weights in the long Room F, dated from the mid-4th to the mid-3rd century B.C., of the North-West Gate building, situated across the road from the temple.2319 The mid-3rd century B.C. inscription found nearby shed light on the use of this room, since among mentioned officials there are three women called “weavers of the spreading cloth”. This may suggest that they wove in an official capacity like the “arrephoroi” involved in weaving of Athena’s peplos on the occasion of the annual Panathenaia.2320 Also, inventory lists of skeins of wool, as well as finished and unfinished examples of woven garments discovered at the

city, which housed the Palladium, fits well with such a pattern of cultic weaving. Finally, multifunctionalism of very simple lentoid, discoid loom weights cannot be excluded since they could have been used for other utilitarian purposes. Bearing in mind the number of loom weights (over 1103) and their number per loom (fortyfour) recorded at Troy, it is possible to give the approximate number of all looms, but without precise specification of how many of them were employed at each settlement. However, the number of Trojan weights per loom compared with the other sites is much higher and thus atypical. For instance at EBA Aphrodisias a loom with fourteen weights

Temple of Artemis in Brauron along with loom weights, whorls and other weaving implements, indicate textile manufacturing linked with her cult.2321 At Ilion by the end of the 4th century B.C., i.e. not long after the date of Deposit 3 including the discussed loom weights and whorls, was introduced the Panathenaic festival modelled closely on that known from Athens.2322 Its key event most likely would have been the presentation of a new robe to the goddess of the polis. It is possible that this later festival at Ilion incorporated such earlier cultic practices already in existence. Finally, it should be added that sanctuaries of Athena at Athens, Stymphalos, even at Halae – where weaving occurred – focus on her as the protector of the city. They also appear to have housed very old and possibly aniconic statues of the goddess, most likely dressed in a specially woven garment.2323 The Sanctuary of Athena Ilias, the protector of the

turned up. Moreover, the other above-mentioned Bronze Age Anatolian sites produced single deposits consisting of eight to thirty-five weights. From the above-mentioned much later Gordion a loom with twenty-one weights is known, and their total number there reached over 22002324, which

2319 Goldman 1940, 479, 511; Wallrodt 2002, 187. 2320 Goldman 1915, 448; Mansfield 1985, 277-96. 2321 Linders 1972, 18-19. On the links of cloth production with female deities see also pages 252-53. 2322 Frisch 1975, 1-13, no. 1; Rose 1991, 73. 2323 Williams, Schaus 2001, 88-89, 90-92.

means an enormous number of weavers employed at that time. According to experiments with the LH type and size of weights, a set of twelve items would perhaps be a minimum at Nichoria.2325 Additionally, in modern Scandinavia there was observed a range of thirteen to fifty-nine weights per loom with a preponderance falling between twenty and thirty items.2326 Therefore, perhaps the number of Trojan weights should be reduced, say to thirty, which gives over thirty-six looms. On the other hand, such a standardization is characterized by a risk of excluding smaller and larger sets, and thus it should be treated very cautiously. Some light on that problem is shed by iconography of Greek vessels, where the number of weights per loom varies in the Archaic period from eight to ten, and 2324 De Vries 1980, 39. 2325 Carington Smith 1992, 690. 2326 Barber 1991, 104.

265

in the Classical period from fifteen through twentyeight, forty-five to c. sixty-four items.2327 Summing up, employment of a lot of looms and weavers at Troy cannot be excluded. To some extent this could be supported by the mention of the mythical king Alkinoos, who had a lot of weaving and spinning slave women.2328 In the ancient world there were in use three main types of loom: the ground, the upright and the warpweighted one.2329 The first one goes back at least to the 5th millennium B.C. and even in modern times is used by villagers and Bedouins in the Near East.2330 It would leave no trace since its components parts are simply wooden poles and rods, as well as two large stones to support the fixed heddle. Due to that, the horizontal ground loom is well suited to people leading a nomadic life. Probably it was replaced by the two-beam vertical loom in Egypt during the 16th century B.C.2331 Likewise, the earliest appearance of the warp-weighted loom has been attested at least in the 5th millennium or even earlier. Apart from 2327 Walters 1892-1893, 80, 81 and fig. 2, pl. 4 (two Kebaric Boeotian shyphoi); Furtwängler et al. 1932, 129, pl. 142 (Chiusi skyphos); Crowfoot 1956, 444 and fig. 281 (Vari lekythos); DavidsonWeinberg, Weinberg 1956, 263, fig. 1, pl. 33 (Corinth aryballos). This is in contrast with results of specialized studies of Classical materials from the Athenian Pnyx, according to which the warpweighted loom needed a minimum of from sixtyfive to seventy weights – Davidson, Thompson 1943, 70. Such a type of loom was accommodated for a double-width fabric and the size of clothes worn in that time, but weaving of a smaller size one for different purposes, including dresses for children and adults (if joined), cannot be left out of account. 2328 Homerus Od. VII 105-106. 2329 Ling Roth 1913; Crowfoot 1936-1937; Crowfoot 1945; Crowfoot 1955; Weir 1970. 2330 Crowfoot 1945, 39, pl. 5 nos 2-4; Weir 1970, 16-23. 2331 Crowfoot 1956, 438, 439 fig. 277.

the aforementioned sites it was employed in central and southern Mesopotamian Tell Uqair and Ur sites during the Ubaid period (c. 5300-4000 B.C), as well as in the Neolithic Nea Nikomedia.2332 It is said to have vanished in Greece by the end of the 1st and in Rome and the Near East in the 4th century A.D.2333 However, in Europe it was used into the Middle Ages and is still employed in remote parts of Norway and Lapland.2334 Of those three types there is reliable material evidence (non-iconographic) only for the warp-weighted loom from Neolithic onward – first of all the presence of weights. The above overview encourages presentation of more details on it during the Bronze Age, as well as other data confirming its existence. The number of weights used on a single loom can vary. This indicates its various length and thus sheds some light on the size of the produced cloth. The only certain data from Anatolia are the lengths of three remains of looms recovered in situ at Troy, Aphrodisias and Iron Age Gordion, which indicate production of cloth from 110 through 140 to 159 cm long, but other sizes cannot be excluded. Moreover, at Troy IIg the double support (post holes) and two rows of weights indicate that it was tipped for shedding, had a shed bar and possibly several heddle bars; the latter make it possible to mechanize the weaving of twill and rosepath patterns. In other words the only reason for having multiple heddle bars is mechanization of pattern weaving. This fits with the beginning of mechanized pattern weaving in Europe during the Bronze Age.2335 The mechanical shedding marked by the shed and heddle bars is also well depicted on the Hallstatt vessel from Sopron dated to the second half of the 7th century B.C.2336 2332 Lloyd, Safar 1943, 149; Woolley 1963, 24; Rodden, Rodden 1964, 605. 2333 Davidson 1952, 147; Crowfoot 1955, 23. 2334 Hoffmann 1964, 259-61. 2335 Barber 1991, 110. 2336 Op. cit., 56 fig. 2.15; Reichenberger 2000, 237-38,

266

This example along with the other representations on the Archaic and Classical Greek vessels sheds a lot of light on the construction of a warp-weighted loom.2337 However, in the Classical period it could be much longer, as is also shown by mentioned materials from the Athenian Pnyx.2338Also valuable is ethnographic evidence since three elements from the Scandinavian warp-weighted looms are not really depicted in the Greek vase paintings, but are rather schematic. Moreover, the undertaken experiments show that “the first addition was heddle-crotches consisting of two forked sticks affixed more or less horizontally halfway up the uprights of the loom. When the heddle is pulled forward to bring the back row of warps to the front so that the shuttle can be passed through the ‘false’ opening or shed, the ends of the heddle rest in these crotches and hold it in the forward position until it is released. The second addition was a temple – in this case a section of kalami with a point cut in each end which could be stuck into the edge of the cloth to preserve the original width. Without it, the cloth narrows and ‘pulls inward’. Third was a spacer chain ‘crocheted’ around each warp thread above the loomweights to keep them evenly spaced despite the inward pull of the bunches.”2339 The employment and type of loom can also be confirmed by remains of textiles and impressions. Unfortunately, the only carbonized fragment pl. 39 fig. 168. 2337 Walters 1892-1893, 80, 81 and fig. 2, pl. 4 (two Kebaric Boeotian shyphoi); Furtwängler et al. 1932, 129, pl. 142 (Chiusi skyphos); Crowfoot 1956, 444 and fig. 281 (Vari lekythos); DavidsonWeinberg, Weinberg 1956, 263, fig. 1, pl. 33 (Corinth aryballos). For its reconstruction see Crowfoot 1956, 426 fig. 269 c, 427-28; Hofmann 1964, 24 fig. 2; Barber 1991, 111 fig. 3.27 lower. 2338 Davidson, Thompson 1943, 69-70. 2339 Carington Smith 1992, 691, 921 pl. 11 nos 1-2, 923 pl. 11 nos 7-9.

of apparently linen cloth from Troy II was very laconically mentioned by Schliemann and the later investigations linked with that find a wooden spindle and thread wound on it.2340 Traces of plain weave are known from an impression on the EBA IIIA floor at Aphrodisias Acropolis Complex II and a piece of such cloth was recorded on the surface of a bronze blade derived from the EBA I tomb of Tekeköy.2341 Much later Gordion textiles of c. 700 B.C. show that people had come up with the notion of extra heddle bars set up specifically for patterns.2342 So, in light of accessible evidence and experiments the warp-weighted loom consisted of two uprights that are propped against a wall. Thus it stood more or less upright, but usually at a slight angle. The uprights were forked at the top to accommodate a horizontal cloth beam, from which hung attached warp threads. “In a plain or tabby weave, the warp threads are in pairs. One thread of each pair is brought forward over a horizontal crossbar that is fixed to the uprights near their base; the other thread is left to hang vertically at the back. One group of loomweights is then attached to bunches of warp threads at the back, and another group to those in the front. The loomweights thus hang in two rows. The warp threads are separated into two groups so that the weaving can be mechanized. The shuttle carrying the weft thread (the thread that is woven) can be passed through the gap between the front threads and the back threads. This gap is called the natural opening or shed. Then the threads at the back can be pulled in front of the front set of threads by means of leashes attached to a horizontal rod called the heddle. The heddle normally lies against the front of the work, 2340 Schliemann 1880, 361; Dörpfeld et al. 1902, 340; Schmidt 1902, 244 no. 6123b. 2341 Kökten et al. 1945, 373-74, pl. 66 no. 4.7; Özgüç 1948, 17-18, fig. 85; Kadish 1969, 56. 2342 Barber 1991, 112-13.

267

but if it is pulled toward the weaver it brings the back set of threads forward with it. The shuttle can then be passed through this ‘false’ opening or shed. The heddle is then allowed to fall back to its original position, and the process is repeated.” 2343 To this should be added the above-mentioned three elements. The limitation of the greater length of the manufactured cloth can be reduced if a loom is built higher than the weavers, who can stand on a bench or something similar. The second possible solution is to loop big bunches of spare warp above the weight and as the work progresses it can be rolled up at the top, while this extra warp is released from below. In this case cloth from 3 to 4 m in length

up much space when work is in progress. It can be adjusted for double or single width fabrics and is particularly good for pattern weaving. While the weights hold the warps sufficiently taut, they are not as tightly stretched as on the other looms. It is therefore easier to lift them in small sections, which is an advantage in patterned and tapestry weaving. This may explain why it was preferred. Moreover, once set up, it is easy to use and produces relatively quick results.2344 Summing up, there are few faults

would probably be produced. The fault of the warpweighted loom is that the weaver must stand up to work, but is more comfortable than squatting on top of it in the horizontal ground loom. Moreover, the weaver is still moving from one side to the other, pulling the heddle, pushing the shuttle through, beating up the woven threads to pack them closely. However, its virtue is that the variety of movement and the interest of work prevent it from being tiring. The weaving starts at the top, but the rows of weft are packed upwards, against the force of gravity. This creates the next problem, namely the work tends to sag in the middle, but it can be compensated by compressing up the threads being woven with a beater such as a piece of split cane. The warpweighted loom can be made out of materials that are at hand, except for the weights. When not in use it can be stored and the other component parts dismantled. Due to its verticality it does not take

as weavers. Additionally, the involvement of the female sex is observable on the Sopron vessel found at a woman’s grave. Supporting the weaving activity of women is also the above-quoted mention in The Odyssey. The other question is whether Troy specialized in yarn or cloth production. There is an enormous disproportion between the large number of mainly terracotta whorls (over 9080, but also including those of other raw materials) and the much less abundant loom weights (over 1103). It is hard to say if this marks a preponderance of yarn production. Also highly speculative seems an attempt to determine the number of spinners, since we can base it only on the knowledge that one individual in modern Peru used perhaps sixty-eight spindle whorls. But if so, 133 persons were involved in spinning during the entire occupation of Hisarlık. It is a similar problem in the case of weights, because bearing in mind c. thirty artefacts per loom their total number gives over thirty-six looms and thus a similar number of weavers. Taking into consideration all limitations linked with these proposals, the quoted number of whorls and looms shows the importance of

2343 Carington Smith 1992, 675, 921 pl. 11 nos 1-2, 922 pl. 11 nos 3-4. Of special interest are crescent weights with one hole at each end, to which perhaps was tied the front and the back warp. In other words, in this case there were not two rows of weights in a warp-weighted loom – ObladenKauder 1996, 237 and fig. 164.

of the discussed loom type, and many more virtues. Finally, it should be mentioned that representations on the Greek vessels provide not only examples of looms, but also show women

2344 Carington Smith 1992, 691.

268

textile production among other Trojan crafts, as well as a certain group of people involved in it. Unfortunately, it is impossible to precisely state the number of spinners at each settlement since only over one-seventh to one-ninetieth of whorls have been well dated (Table 12). Much worse is the case of loom weights, because only over fifty items are well dated, which means 4.5% of all those found at Troy. Smaller and also reverse disproportions are observable at LCh-Iron Age Aphrodisias, E-MBA Demircihöyük and E-LBA Tarsus where respectively came to light 227, 206 and eighty-eight whorls, but also 110, c. 364 and 145 loom weights.2345 A similar phenomenon is known from the Aegean,

in terms of huge demand for yarn for production of even a small woman’s blouse. In the Bronze Age it required 0.5 m² of woollen cloth weaved on a c. 60-110 cm width loom. With a spindle whorl of 2340 g a skilled spinner spun perhaps 120 m of yarn per hour. For 1 cm² eight warp threads and twelve weft ones were needed, and for a half metre 550 m of warp thread and 800 m of weft one. Production of these threads alone consumed over eleven hours without a break. Naturally, it should be remembered that yarn was spun during different occupations, free time and perhaps certain season/s of the year less busy with other everyday activities. One can imagine that weaving was also labour-consuming,

where at Nichoria c. 153-195 whorls and only twelve loom weights have been recorded.2346 On the other hand, in Minoan Crete came to light altogether only fifteen whorls dated to the MM and eleven of LM, i.e. much fewer than the hundreds of loom weights from Knossos and Kato Zakro.2347 On the islands under Minoan influences during the LBA loom weights outnumbered whorls. For instance from the deposit at the West House in Akrotiri derived six whorls and 450 weights2348, House A of Ayia Irini yielded c. 115-123 whorls and 165 weights2349 and the Sanctuary at Phylakopi eighteen whorls and ten weights. 2350 However, one can realize that the listed numbers and proportions reflect only surviving artefacts linked with textile production, which on that basis cannot be comprehensively reconstructed. The presented disproportion between the number of whorls and loom weights can be explained

since for instance a 110 cm broad piece of woollen cloth was produced with twelve weft threads per cm². It was not quicker even if a few transverse threads were woven only during one minute. So, even manufacturing a 60 cm broad piece required many hours.2351 A good example was provided

2345 Goldman et al. 1956, 319, 323-24, 330-34; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 373, 379; Kull 1988, 197, 199, 200, 203; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 226-27, 237. 2346 Carington Smith 1992, 675, 687, 696-706, 710-11. 2347 Tzachili 1990, 386. 2348 Carington Smith 1975, 263. 2349 Cummer, Schofield 1984, 49-138. 2350 Renfrew et al. 1985, 330-31, 335-36.

by experiments done in Nichoria, where a rug measuring 1.06 x 0.48 m (over 0.5 m²) took two days, including a long day for setting up the warp and a short day, say five to six hours, for weaving. It was manufactured by amateurs, while the Mycenaean professionals probably needed fewer hours2352; nevertheless it was still time-consuming. Evidence on the Trojan textile colours is scare. In squares KL16-17 at the edge of the Early Troy VI Lower Town came to light the purple stain from Murex snails. It was used for dyeing, and over 10 kg of shells have been recovered, which suggested sophisticated textile production.2353 From the Murex 2351 Bohnsack 1981, 61-64. 2352 Carington Smith 1992, 691. 2353 Korfmann 1997, 59; Korfmann 1998, 9, 52. Murex shells mixed with the other finds or separately, but never as a deposit of smashed shells, were recorded in the course of earlier excavations – Gejvall 19371938, 54; Blegen et al. 1953, 123, 146, 196-97, 230,

269

dye can be achieved red, plum-colour, scarlet and pinkish mauve.2354 This dye was almost certainly known in the Bronze Age Aegean and it was used in antiquity.2355 Also floral sources, such as proposed in Nichoria, are possible for yellow, red, purple, brown and black. Perhaps, as on the Greek mainland, the most favoured was white, which would mean undyed cloth.2356 The incidence of whorls and loom weights indicates that spinning of fibre into yarn and weaving of textile were practised at the site, but first of all in the citadel. Their number shows well developed production, which resulted from the domestic and/or foreign demand for Trojan goods. In both cases control of the animal husbandry and thus of the raw materials, as well as manufacturing and distribution, could have been centrally organized like in Cretan palaces, as evidenced by the Linear B tablets2357, or in Mesopotamian states.2358 There is no evidence on sorts of goods, but one can suppose that, as today, there were manufactured and distributed cloths, wardrobes, carpets, rugs and from Troy VI also saddle-cloths associated with introduction of horses, which protected against cold and humidity. Well developed production and demand suggest not only a high quality of cloths, but perhaps also a certain specialization in terms of sorts of goods and colour. In light of this, Bronze Age Troy with its numerous whorls and loom weights can be regarded as an important centre of textile production situated at the north-western Anatolian-Aegean interface.2359 267, 269, 283, 307, 315, 318, 351, 379. 2354 Wilson 1938, 7-9. 2355 Bosanquet 1902-1903, 276-77; Bosanquet 1904, 321; Mylonas 1959, 57; Huxley, Coldstream 1966, 28. 2356 Carington Smith 1992, 691-92. 2357 Killen 1964; Chadwick 19732; Burke 1997. 2358 Kraus 1966, 119-79. 2359 Moreover, to the more comprehensive picture

In the broader perspective Anatolia, as in other eras and aspects of culture, was a crossroads where different traditions met. However, the overviewed evidence shows that the European system of spinning with a low-whorl spindle was employed in its western and southern part. Moreover, in central and western territories perhaps from the 6th or at least the 5th millennium B.C. onwards a warp-weighted loom, an innovation of probable Anatolian origin, was in use. 2360 By the middle of the 3rd millennium B.C. this idea spread to the east side of the Anatolian plateau and Cilicia. To the south of this line was a territory inhabited by people who invented the ground-loom.2361 However, well-fired loom weights apparently made of local clay suddenly occurred at the MBA II sites Gezer, Jericho, Megiddo, Tel Mevorach, Schechem and Tell Beit Mersim. They are more or less oval, egg-shaped and tapering towards the top with a transverse hole, but rarely truncated pyramidal. These shapes are distinctively Anatolian and resemble those recorded for instance at Bronze Age Troy, Alacahöyük, Alişarhöyük, Mersin and Tarsus. Bearing in mind the lack of such weights in Syria, as well as the evidence of several new and different whorls at Megiddo, one can presume some kind of links between Israel and Anatolia; even southward movement of people by sea around the beginning of MBA II cannot be excluded. It seems quite possible since, on the basis of new ill-fired and merely sun-dried donut-shaped of this activity might have contributed a bobbin mistakenly regarded as a distaff – Schliemann 1880, 327, 361. 2360 Also from the west are known very early examples of warp-weighted loom at the Tiszajenő, SzolnokSzanda, Kisköre and Dévaványa-Sártó settlements of the EN Körös culture in Hungary, dated to the 6th or even late 7th millennium B.C. – Barber 1991, 93-94. 2361 Op. cit., 83-91, 300.

270

or pierced spherical weights, a similar inflow was observed during transitional LBA-Iron Age to western Anatolia (Gordion) and Israel (Beer Sheba, Samaria, Tel ‘Amal, Tell ed-Duweir, Tell Qasileh, Tell Ta’anach), presumably being a part of the Sea People disturbances.2362 On the other hand, the possibility of independent development of ideas cannot be ignored.

4. Pierced pottery disc sherds 4.1. Typology and chronology Flat pottery disc sherds with a single central perforation constitute a very large group of objects widely distributed chronologically and geographically. Obviously, Anatolia and the Aegean are part of this realm. Schliemann recovered 444 such artefacts2363, the majority of which derived most likely from Bronze Age settlements. Unfortunately, of those perhaps only one artefact can be more precisely attributed to Troy II2364, several to II-V2365and IV-V2366, one perhaps to VIIa-VIIb1 or earlier2367 and one to VIII-IX.2368 The small number of finds from the American excavations did not shed much light on that class of material. However, one can note that they already appeared at Early-Middle Troy I, numbering over five items.2369 To Troy IV can be attributed only over 2362 Barber 1991, 300-303. 2363 Schliemann 1880, 231, 422; Schmidt 1902, 223 nos 5619-5637. 2364 Schliemann 1874b, pl. 149 no. 2947; Easton 2002, 282 no. At. 149-2947, fig. 184. 2365 Easton 2002, 108. 2366 Op. cit., 231. 2367 Op. cit., 152 no. 72-856, fig. 144. 2368 Op. cit., 85 no. 72-937, fig. 129. 2369 Blegen et al. 1950, 49 table 5, 50.

four discs2370 and to V over ten artefacts.2371 Likewise, Troy VI yielded only over three items.2372 As a result of these excavations there were inventoried and published twenty-eight pierced pottery discs, which along with those with unfinished perforations give at least thirty-four items, mostly dated to Troy I-V, but in fact more were recovered.2373 Finally, from the recent fieldworks were published only six centrally perforated pottery disc sherds dated to Troy II-III.2374 So, despite at least 493 recorded items (including c. nine of stone) there is no typological scheme of that class of Trojan material. This is nothing exceptional since even 525 artefacts, including 218 (41%) pierced examples, from the modern investigations of LCh-Iron Age Aphrodisias did not gain the attention of the excavators. However, the published description is worth mentioning because it gives the frequency of occurrence for discs. In light of those data, the largest number of perforated items (ninety-nine) occurred in the MBA, while nonperforated (ninety-four) were most common from the second half of the EBA III to the beginning of the MBA and continued into that period. Both types were the most abundant during the entire Bronze Age (359), but especially in the second half of the EB III and during the MBA (246).2375 The only reference typology of these mass occurring, simple and utilitarian artefacts was established for the EBA Demircihöyük settlement. Three main types were distinguished on the basis of 324 artefacts, including 196 centrally pierced (60.5%, Type I), 2370 2371 2372 2373

Blegen et al. 1951, 16 table 12. Op. cit., 233 table 19. Blegen et al. 1953, 31 table 7. Blegen et al. 1950, 49-50, 114, figs 221, 237, 242; Blegen et al. 1951, 150, 233, 304 table 26, figs 151, 236; Blegen et al. 1953, 31, figs 352, 362, 366, 370, 400. 2374 Mansfeld 2001, 215-16, pl. 7 nos 12-16, 18. 2375 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 381, 382 tables 134-35.

271

forty-five with an unfinished perforation (13.9%, Type II) and eighty-three without a hole (25.6%, Type III). Additionally, they were divided into four forms (1-4), namely round (263), oval (twentythree), four-angle (thirty-one) and three-angle (seven), which occurred with different frequency within three mentioned types, but round pierced is the most common (164). The last differentiation into three variants (a-c) was on the basis of artefacts’ edge shaping technique. Among pierced artefacts, as well as those with an unfinished hole, over 90% were made of EBA pottery. Of note, for production of over 42% of items without a perforation Neolithic and Chalcolithic vessels were used.2376 The stratified artefacts appeared mainly at the EBA I, namely seventy-six pierced, twenty-five with an unfinished hole and thirty non-perforated.2377 Moreover, at MBA Demircihöyük among fifty-five artefacts, including pierced and with an unfinished perforation, were distinguished three basic forms, i.e. round, fourangle and three-angle (A-C).2378 Trojan artefacts from Schliemann’s and later excavations fit well with Type I.1., i.e. the most common centrally pierced round discs at Demircihöyük.2379 The rest of the forms (2-4) distinguished at the latter site seem not to be represented at Troy, at least among material from Blegen’s and later excavations. Artefacts under consideration (cat. nos 116-117) are attributable to Type I.1.c characterized by a rough, irregularly shaped sharp edge. They were primitively chipped from vessel fragments possibly using a stone to obtain the required discoid form and size. However, it should be mentioned that already at Troy I was 2376 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 214, 215 and fig. 142, 216-17. 2377 Op. cit., 217, 218 and fig. 145, 219 and figs 146, 148, 220. 2378 Kull 1988, 208, 210. 2379 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 215 and fig. 142, 216 fig. 143.

recorded an artefact with the edge finished perhaps by a sharp knife and thus without the effect of breaks.2380 According to the illustrations, it seems that some other examples of discs with quite well worked edges appeared at Troy V-VI. 2381 Also at Demircihöyük the breakage was reduced by grinding of the edges, common during the MBA, but much less popular in the EBA.2382 For the two discussed Trojan objects the same technique of drilling as at Demircihöyük was applied. They were perforated symmetrically from both sides and this resulted in an hourglass shape of the hole. However, at the latter site was also recorded the much rarer conical perforation.2383 The perforation’s hourglass shape shed much light on the technique of boring and thus on the type of auger used at Troy.2384 Despite the same technique of drilling and very close formal affinities with artefacts from Demircihöyük the only criterion useful for dating is the ware of both discs (cat. nos 116-117). However, it is an open question whether they were made within the time of the wares’ production and use, or in a later period/s when they were not manufactured, i.e. from reused sherdage. The first disc was made from a fine RedCoated Ware wheelmade body sherd dated to Troy V2385-VI2386, possibly a piece of a larger open vessel. The second artefact is the handmade base fragment of perhaps a coarse Unpolished Ware smaller open vessel manufactured at Troy I.2387 It seems that both 2380 Blegen et al. 1950, 114 no. 33-160, fig. 221. 2381 Blegen et al. 1951, 269 no. 32-191, fig. 236; Blegen et al. 1953, 154 no. 9, fig. 362, 168 nos 22 (unpierced), 26, fig. 370, 346 no. 12, fig. 400. 2382 Kull 1988, 208, 210; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 215, 216 fig. 143, 217. 2383 Kull 1988, 208; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 215. 2384 Mansfeld 2001, 216. 2385 Blegen et al. 1951, 235-36. 2386 Blegen et al. 1953, 34-35. 2387 Blegen et al. 1950, 56. In Blegen et al. 1950-1958 there are no examples of discs made from the base

272

coarse and fine wares were employed as raw material for such a purpose in different Trojan settlements. However, in Blegen’s monumental publication there were only mentioned the latter ones.2388 Also Schmidt’s catalogue cannot be helpful in that respect since one can only reach a conclusion concerning at least 134 handmade and 196 wheelmade pierced artefacts.2389 Nevertheless, this is quite likely since fine and coarse wares as raw material have also been attested at LCh-Iron Age Aphrodisias and E-MBA Demircihöyük.2390 Use of base fragments was much or parts of the vessel other than the body. 2388 Blegen et al. 1951, 150, 188 no. 32-397 (D. 6.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.6 cm, Red-Coated Ware, Troy IVc), fig. 151, 269 nos 32-191 (D. 5.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.5 cm, perforation unfinished, Red-Coated Ware), 32-192 (D. 4.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.4 cm, perforation unfinished, fragment of bowl in RedCross Ware; the ware not characterized), 32-471 (D. 7.7 cm, D. of hole c. 1.0 cm, Red-Coated Ware) – all of Troy V1, 281 nos 32-80 (D. 7.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.8 cm, Brown Polished Ware; the ware not described), 32-81 (D. 6.0 cm, D. of hole c. 1.0 cm, Cross Painted bowl with lustrous red slip; the ware not characterized), 32-193 (D. 7.0 cm, D. of hole c. 0.6 cm, perforation unfinished, Red-Coated Ware) – all of Troy V2, 285 no. 33-41 (D. 3.9 cm, D. of hole c. 0.4 cm, Red-Coated Ware, Troy Vd), fig. 236; Blegen et al. 1953, 125 no. 15 (D. c. 6.8 cm, D. of hole c. 0.6 cm, Anatolian Grey Ware, Early Troy VI), fig. 352, 154 no. 9 (D. c. 5.4 cm, D. of hole c. 0.8 cm, form A/bottom of a cup or dish, Anatolian Grey Ware, Troy VIc), fig. 362, 159 no. 12 (D. c. 9.6 cm, D. of hole c. 1.0 cm, form C/jar, Anatolian Grey Ware, Troy VIc), fig. 366, 173 no. 32-194 (fragments of three perforated items, D. 2.5 cm, Red-Washed Ware, Troy VIc, no fig.), 346 no. 12 (D. c. 7.6 cm, D. of hole c. 0.8 cm, Anatolian Grey Ware, Late Troy VI), fig. 400; Mansfeld 2001, 215. 2389 Schmidt 1902, 223 nos 5619-5637. 2390 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 381; Kull 1988, 208; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 221-22.

rarer than body sherds, and this is also observable at MBA Demircihöyük, where only five of fifty-five artefacts are made of base ring.2391 4.2. Function Very simple, utilitarian perforated discs made of potsherds have been found at many prehistoric sites, but relatively few have been published. There is no necessity to quote all occurrences, but for instance in Anatolia examples of this class appeared in the MN Suberde II2392, ECh Hacılar V-I2393 and MCh Mersin XVII settlements.2394 They came to light also at EBA Bozüyük2395, Etiyokuşu2396, Kumtepe2397, Protesilaos2398 and more abundantly at EBA II-IIIA-B Alacahöyük III2399, Chalcolithic-Iron Age Aphrodisias, Bronze Age Troy and E-MBA Demircihöyük.2400 It is worth noting that at the latter site a perforated disc was found in association with “Totgeburt” dated to the MBA.2401 In the Aegean light-weight perforated discs were recorded in numerous settlements, for instance EN Nea Nikomedeia2402, transitional M-LN 2391 Kull 1988, 208. Also part of rim was very sporadically used for that purpose – ObladenKauder 1996, 216-17. However, none of them at Troy – Blegen et al. 1950-1958. 2392 Singh 1974, 81. 2393 Mellaart 1970a, 94, 164. 2394 Garstang 1953, 108 and fig. 68. 2395 Koerte 1899, 36. 2396 Kansu 1940, 101 and fig. 89. 2397 Sperling 1976, 323. 2398 Demangel et al. 1926, 44. 2399 Koşay 1951, 151, pl. 115; Koşay, Akok 1966, 210, pl. 57; Koşay, Akok 1973, 113, 115-17, 119, pls 69-70. Several items were also recorded at the Hittite settlement – Koşay, Akok 1973, 90, 92, 94, pls 50-51. 2400 See pages 271-72. 2401 Kull 1988, 210. 2402 Rodden 1962, 285; Rodden, Rodden 1964, 605.

273

Saliagos2403, M-LN Sitagroi2404, LN Knossos2405, Servia2406, Tsangli, Dimini, Tsani and perhaps MN Sesklo.2407 Similar examples derived from NeolithicEH Asea2408, EH III Asine2409, E-LH Eutresis2410, as well as EH Vardarophtsa and Kritsana.2411 The exact function of pottery pierced discs is difficult to define and thus rather multifunctional purpose should be taken into consideration.2412 It seems that, inter alia, they can be linked with textile production since in terms of shape they are closely related to the artefacts of metal and bone recognized as whorls. Of special interest is the set from the EBA II Tomb 366 at Karataş-Semayük, i.e. a silver shaft with a bi-conical bronze or silver whorl on it, constituting a middle-whorl spindle. Additionally, a perforated bronze disc was found lying nearby. It could have been used as the second whorl on that spindle.2413 Use of two whorls on the same shaft has been recorded in antiquity.2414 It could be a spinning kit and the light disc-shaped item might be used as a second whorl closely attached to the first one. Such a kit could have created a longer, slower spin or be used to add more weight.2415 Moreover, an example of a copper high-whorl spindle with two whorls (conical and spherical) derived from a woman’s grave of Tepe 2403 Evans, Renfrew 1968, 70, fig. 84. 2404 Barber 1991, 54. 2405 Evans 1964, 157, 164, 172, 182, 188, 192, pls 57 groups 3-4, 58 group 1. 2406 Heurtley 1939, 78. 2407 Wace, Thompson 1912, 85, 113, 130, 149. 2408 Holmberg 1944, 118, 119 and fig. 113 nos 4-5. 2409 Frödin, Persson 1938, 251 fig. 177 row 5 nos 4-6, 253. 2410 Goldman 1931, 192. 2411 Heurtley 1939, 87, 203 fig. 67 hh-ii. 2412 Kull 1988, 208. 2413 Mellink 1969, 323, pl. 74 fig. 23. 2414 Forbes 1956, 153 fig. 11 fifth item from the left. 2415 Crewe 1998, 12.

Hissar IIB.2416 Also, at the LBA II Tomb 1122 of Megiddo has, inter alia, been recorded a bone lowwhorl spindle with two flat, round and roughly semicircular in profile whorls.2417 A much later example of the conical and flat (perhaps of sherd) whorls arranged on the same low-whorl drop-spindle was depicted on an Athenian jar dated to c. 560 B.C. 2418 The employment of two whorls on the same spindle is known in modern times and it could be useful for instance when shifting from spinning to plying.2419 The quoted examples of similar form indicate that pierced pottery discs may also have served as whorls, and this has been suggested by other scholars.2420 Indeed, flat and broad items are more efficient in spinning than spherical and bi-conical ones of the same weight.2421 Other very important criteria shedding light on such a function are diameter and weight. Already Schliemann noted hundreds of discs measuring in diameter 5.0-5.5 cm and 3.81-7.62 cm, which he classified as whorls.2422 A similar interpretation was proposed by Blegen2423 on the basis of more precisely documented artefacts from the American excavations. There were recorded discs at Troy I (D. 4.2-5.8 cm, D. of hole c. 0.5-1.0 cm, T. 0.6-1.7 cm), IV (D. 3.5-6.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.30.6 cm, one item with T. 0.5 cm), V (D. 2.8-7.7 cm, D. of hole c. 0.4-1.0 cm) and VI (three finds with D. 2.5 cm, D. of hole c. 0.5-1.0 cm, one non-perforated artefact with D. 5.5-6.0 cm). Thus, there were 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420

Schmidt 1937, 120, 406, pl. 29 no. H217. Guy 1938, 170, 171 fig. 175 no. 6, pl. 84 no. 1. Deonna 1938, pl. 55 no. 430. Liu 1978, 98; Barber 1991, 62. Koerte 1899, 36; Korfmann 1982, 167; Joukowsky et al. 1986, 379, 381; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 224. It also refers to other Neolithic and Bronze Age Anatolian settlements mentioned on page 273. 2421 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 235. 2422 Schliemann 1874a, 26, 108; Schliemann 1880, 231. 2423 Blegen et al. 1950, 49.

274

usually given the diameter, diameter of perforation and thickness, but there is still no mention about weight.2424 Unfortunately, only for eight discs have all three data been published and this we owe to the recent excavations. Of that number four examples derived from Troy II (D. 2.7- c. 7.0 cm, T. 0.6-0.8 cm, Wt 3.9-43 g), three from III (D. c. 6.0-8.0 cm, T. 1.0-1.1 cm, Wt c. 43.6-98 g) and one from a nonstratified context (D. c. 11 cm, D. of hole c. 1.0 cm, T. 2.0 cm, Wt c. 330 g). All except three artefacts (inv. nos 218, 336, 605) were recognized as net weights. This is hardly acceptable, especially if the principal criteria of that differentiation were the central hole and discoid shape. In contrast, it seems that six

Crewe’s opinion, it is highly probable that they could serve alone too. Efficient and unknown to us manner of setting up cannot be excluded, since still little is known about this aspect of whorls. Attrition within the hole sheds much light on this issue. It seems that cut/s on the edge of the perforation resulted from the splinter/s used to fix them stably on the spindles, but unfortunately in the scientific literature not much attention has been paid to this. Therefore, it is important to note that such a mark has been observed on one item (cat. no. 117). The cut is on its convex exterior side and thus indicates the position of the wedge, which consolidated the joint with the spindle. The item’s convexity suggests its employment in a

centrally pierced finds may have been used as whorls, including that regarded by the author as too light for a net weight (inv. no 336), which could have served as a whorl, even the second one on the same spindle. Unfortunately, there are no remarks on diameter of perforations and type of their attrition.2425 However, judging from the illustrations there are notably usually hourglass holes and one slightly conical one less than 1.0 cm, which are valuable indications for defining function.2426 Discs with a pronounced hourglass hole may have been suitable as the second whorl on a spindle, placed above a firmly wedged first one in order to create a longer, slower spin or to add more weight.2427 Nevertheless, contrary to L.

low-whorl spindle with concave side up, but a highwhorl one cannot be excluded. The recorded cut is a new feature, but both discs under consideration (cat. nos 116-117) in terms of discoid shape, diameter (6.0, 6.4 cm), diameter of centrally pierced hourglass hole (1.2-0.7-1.15, 0.9-0.5-0.9 cm), thickness (1.2, 0.7 cm) and weight (44.51, 46.36 g) are comparable with the above-listed data. Beyond Troy the most comprehensively published is the already mentioned assemblage from EBA Demircihöyük. For all three types the

2424 Op. cit., 114, 143, 177; Blegen et al. 1951, 150, 171, 188, 269, 281, 285; Blegen et al. 1953, 173. 2425 Diameter of hole was given only for inv. no. 605. There were also inventoried three pierced, but non-discoid items (inv. nos 208/34, 222, 221) – Mansfeld 2001, 215, 216 and fig. 15:3. 2426 They are inv. nos 217 (D. c. 6.0 cm, T. 1.0 cm, Wt 43.6 g), 219 (D. 8.0 cm, T. 1.0 cm, Wt 98 g), 259 (D. c. 5.0 cm, T. 0.8 cm, Wt 43 g), 295 (D. c. 5.0 cm, T. 0.8 cm, Wt 25.3 g), 336 (D. 2.7 cm, T. 0.6 cm, Wt 3.9 g), 386 (D. c. 7.0 cm, T. 0.8 cm, Wt 40.5 g) – Mansfeld 2001, 215-16, pl. 7 nos 12-16, 18. 2427 Crewe 1998, 12.

average diameter is 3.0-6.0 cm, but for pierced examples it is 1.8-10.4 cm, for those with an unfinished hole 2.5-7.6 cm and for non-perforated 1.75-8.8 cm. Recorded weight of the majority of artefacts is 5.0-25 g. However, there is an enormous range, namely 3.0-180 g for artefacts with a hole, 3.0-90 g for items with an unfinished perforation and 2.0-150 g for non-pierced ones. Diameter of the perforation was usually 0.4-0.6 cm, while the smallest was 0.15 cm and the largest 1.6 cm. It is worth adding that within the hole of a few discs chips and attrition marks from their use had been noted, but not precisely described.2428 Much less 2428 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 222 and fig. 152, 223 and

275

material derived from MBA Demircihöyük and only twenty-one discs were perforated (form A) and the following data recorded: diameter 2.6-8.0 cm, diameter of the hole 0.2-0.9 cm and weight 4.0-75 g. To this should be added eleven four-angle artefacts (form B) made also from pottery sherds, but of unknown function; noted parameters are: diameter 2.5-8.5 cm, diameter of hole 0.2-0.4 cm, but one 0.7 cm and weight 6.0-49 g. 2429 Moreover, at prehistoric Aphrodisias were recorded more or less round and flat artefacts c. 3.5-7.0 cm in diameter.2430 The well published material from Demircihöyük is very valuable, since comparative studies of hole diameter and weight of whorls and pottery discs show close

when larger, heavier discs were employed (D. 4.0 cm, Wt 12 g; D. 6.0 cm, Wt 25 g; D. 10 cm, Wt 50 g) spinning became better and simpler; so, there were not limits.2432 Unfortunately, the author did

affinities between these two classes of artefacts (c. 0.25-0.95 cm, c. 5.0-28 g). Other arguments in favour of that function of discs are easy access to the raw material (sherds), quick manufacture and an opportunity to use them immediately. The production of terracotta whorls is quite different and time consuming, because it needs preparation of clay, shaping, drying and firing; thus they are ready to use after a longer time.2431 Apart from examination of the EBA perforated discs from Demircihöyük there were undertaken experiments to find out if it is possible to spin well with them. The second question was whether there are limits in the diameter and weight of discs used for spinning. For this task there were made four copies of artefacts derived from excavations and sheep wool used as the raw material. Even the smallest one (D. 2.0 cm, Wt 5.0 g) was very efficient, since the spun yarn was homogeneous. However,

artefacts, especially cat. no. 117. The popularity of these flat items made out of sherds, that occur everywhere in all periods, can be explained in that such a form is one of the easiest to spin with and therefore very good for beginners.2434 Bearing in mind the metal and bone examples from western and central Anatolia, as well as the Aegean one, this can suggest that they were employed there in the middle and low-whorl spindles. According to Barber in these areas the potsherd and stone whorls are typically found in the Neolithic strata, but the Bronze Age ones are generally made of specially formed and fired clay. At the sites of the latter period, where sherds have been re-used as whorls there is usually some other indication of poverty2435, but it seems hardly acceptable in light of their numerous virtues. Moreover, for instance at Bronze Age Troy there is a huge preponderance of modelled and fired whorls (c. 9080) over perforated pottery discs (at least 493). E-MBA Demircihöyük yielded 215 terracotta whorls and 196 pierced discs2436

figs 153-54, 224, 225 figs 155-56. 2429 Kull 1988, 208, 210. 2430 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 381. 2431 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 224, 225 figs 155-56, 233, 235. Earlier, but only on theoretical basis use of discs as whorls was proposed by Bittel, Otto 1939, 27.

not focus attention on the interdependence between both these parameters and the sort of spun yarn. In other words, this would provide more detailed information concerning its thickness and thus manufactured wool textiles. It should also be added that one of the Mongolian tribes manufactured whorls from the bottom sherds of old tea bowls.2433 In light of the above-overviewed material it is more than likely that pierced discs were used, inter alia, as whorls. This refers also to both the discussed

2432 2433 2434 2435 2436

276

Obladen-Kauder 1996, 224. Montell 1941, 118. Carington Smith 1992, 682. Barber 1991, 60. Kull 1988, 197, 199; Obladen-Kauder 1996,

while from LCh-LBA Aphrodisias derived 213 fired whorls and 218 discs with a hole.2437 However, at the two latter sites disproportions should be larger, since perhaps not all discs served as whorls. On the other hand, it cannot be excluded that an unknown number of perforated discs made of potsherds may have also served for different purposes. There are many interpretations. From LCh Kuruçayhöyük VI came to light flat and pierced pottery discs recognized as wheels.2438 The most common proposal is that they were used as lids or jar stoppers with holes, which may have had a string as a handle.2439 Those of EBA I, III Tarsus may have been used for such a purpose.2440 Likewise, one disc from Troy, due to its very regular shape and carefully ground edge, but without a perforation, was recognized as a lid or stopper.2441 Also artefacts from Aphrodisias have been interpreted this way.2442 Lids close in form derived from Thermi I-IV2443, but they were not made of re-used sherds. However, according to Mansfeld discs for that usage need, apart from round shape, also a regularly ground down ridge in order to fit better into the pot2444, but unfortunately nobody else has taken this into consideration. This feature, if observed, properly described and analyzed, would shed much light on that problem. The proposed function can be supported by a pierced disc found in situ at Tell Arpachiyah settlement in northern Iraq. That item, 215, 226. 2437 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 375 table 128, 382 table 135. 2438 Duru 1980, 32. 2439 Brann 1961, 342; Lalonde 1968, 131; Korfmann 1982, 167. 2440 Goldman et al. 1956, 322-23, 328, pl. 445 nos 73-74. 2441 Mansfeld 2001, 215-16, pl. 7 no. 17. 2442 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 381. 2443 Lamb 1936, 109 no. 180, 114 no. 273, 131 nos 540541, 555, 134 no. 595, pl. 40 type 16 b-c. 2444 Mansfeld 2001, 216.

dated to c. the first half of the 4th millennium B.C. (late Ubaid period), adhered to the top of a vessel and its sides were stuck with bitumen to make it fast.2445 Employment of the discussed artefacts as net or loom weights should also be taken into consideration. 2446 Already Schliemann as the latter ones indicated discs 3.81-7.62 cm in diameter.2447 This interpretation was also applied to one artefact weighing 330 g and with a very off-centre hole, which makes its use as a whorl impossible.2448 A small number of carp bones recorded at EBA I Demircihöyük indicate familiarity with fishing and thus the possibility of demand for net weights.2449 From LCh II Aphrodisias Pekmez VII D derived one artefact which could perhaps have been used as a weight or pendant, but no detailed comment on wear was given.2450 Also according to Balfanz perforated disc sherds, close in form to flat whorls, perhaps were used as stoppers of pottery vessels or weights.2451 Generally, in regard to their function as net and/or loom weights, there are mainly speculations, but very few properly described, analyzed and interpreted data. It should be added that apart from the hole’s placement, there could be applicable another basic criterion, namely worn indentations through the entire perforation. If clearly visible, especially in artefacts used for a long time, it would at least indicate that the artefacts were strung horizontally, but there is no mention of that feature. There was also a proposal to identify a pierced pottery disc as a flywheel for an auger.2452 2445 Mallowan, Cruikshank Rose 1935, 3, 24, 89 fig. 49 no. 23, 90. 2446 Korfmann 1982, 167. 2447 Schliemann 1880, 231. 2448 Mansfeld 2001, 215-16, pl. 7 no. 11. 2449 Von den Driesch, Boessneck 1987, 52. 2450 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 381. 2451 Balfanz 1995b, 119. 2452 Pfeiffer 1920, 139 fig. 265.

277

In modern eastern Turkey they are used as owners’ marks for livestock, mainly sheep.2453 Moreover, at EBA I-IIA Kusura A and MBA Demircihöyük came to light two unusual perforated discs with an incised edge.2454 From Kusura A, MBA Demircihöyük and Troy VI are also known discs with two holes. That of the first site has been interpreted as a possible button and of the latter one as likely a lid.2455 Discs with unfinished perforations recorded at E-MBA Demircihöyük were interpreted as possible semifinished products for manufacturing pierced items and/or as rests for an auger. 2456 At the same site unpierced discs may have served perhaps as raw products for manufacture of pierced artefacts and/or rests for vessels, but those with a carefully ground edge possibly as gaming pieces.2457 The latter function can perhaps be applied to one small disc from Aphrodisias.2458 Also for much later periods has been suggested employment of items with well ground edges as gaming pieces and counters.2459 What is interesting, non-perforated chipped pottery 2453 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 226. 2454 Lamb 1937, 34, 49 fig. 23 no. 8; Kull 1988, 210 and fig. 205, pl. 49 no. 8. 2455 Lamb 1937, 34, 49 fig. 23 no. 6; Blegen at al. 1953, 314, fig. 396 no. 22; Kull 1988, 208, 209 fig. 201; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 226. 2456 Kull 1988, 208; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 215-16, 226. 2457 Obladen-Kauder 1996, 215, 226. For acceptance of artefacts with an unfinished hole, as well as nonpierced ones, as semi-finished products argues the preponderance of discoid shape among all three types, their standardized diameter and weight. Perhaps discs with an unfinished perforation could have been rejected due to a defectively drilled hole, not suitable for using them as whorls – op. cit., 216 fig. 143, 222 fig. 152, 223 fig. 153, 226. 2458 Joukowsky et al. 1986, 381, 552 fig. 397 no. 30. 2459 They are the LG and EA items from Well I 13:4 recovered in the area of the Classical Agora in Athens – Papadopoulos 2002, 423-27.

discs could have also served as bobbins, the other class of objects related to cloth production evidenced by finds from Lisht in Egypt. There were recorded, dated to the 20th-22nd Dynasties (1200-1000 B.C.), balls of linen yarn reeled on one disc and on two other ones laid with flat sides together.2460 Finally, use as convenient wipes, likely observable in the ancient iconography, cannot be excluded. 2461 The briefly presented interpretations show a lot of possibilities and inspired for the future re-consideration of the problem of the multi-functionalism of the simple, utilitarian discs. To supplement this picture it should be added that at E-MBA Demircihöyük apart from discs there were manufactured pierced three- and fourangle artefacts.2462 Their function is unknown, but interestingly the object of the latter shape, with its very accurately ground edge and narrow hole, appeared in association with the “Totgeburt” dated to the MBA2463; this suggests its other, not only utilitarian function. A triangular item from EBA III Tarsus was acknowledged as a label or crude pendant.2464 From the EBA II of the same site derived similarly interpreted pierced, but not shaped sherds.2465 According to the overviewed data, the exact function of some types is presently uncertain and in most cases unknown. This indicates the direction for further detailed research – first of all on the wear marks as the principal criterion in that respect, which would also shed some light on the possibility 2460 Cartland 1918, 139, pl. 22. 2461 Papadopoulos 2002, 423-27 – the LG and EA artefacts discovered at Well I 13:4 in the area of the Athenian Classical Agora. 2462 Kull 1988, 209 fig. 201, 210; Obladen-Kauder 1996, 215 and fig. 142. 2463 Kull 1988, 210. 2464 Goldman et al. 1956, 322, 327. 2465 Op. cit., 322, 327, pl. 445 nos 70-71.

278

of the artefacts’ multi-functional purpose in a longer time span.

Carefully documented and studied ceramics from the Munich and Poznań collections shed new light on many problems concerning these artefacts so far omitted or only mentioned in scientific literature. This has contributed enormously to enriching our knowledge on the precise technique of production of many Trojan forms. Moreover, it appeared that it is possible to attribute even pottery of not precisely known archaeological context

In investigations undertaken so far there is visible enormous involvement in the search for the area of origin of large and differentiated pottery with red treatment of the surface, known as RedCoated Ware in E-LBA Troy, many variants of which appeared in western Anatolia. In other words the problem of its occurrence in Troy is still open. However, there are indicated influences from inland western Anatolia, which could have arrived there from its central part. Likely there are attempts to define the origin of the M-LBA Grey Minyan, Anatolian Grey and Knobbed Wares. It seems that pivotal is their fabric, which suggests independent appearance more or less at the same time in Greece,

to particular Trojan settlements on the basis of macroscopic examination of fabric and ware, obviously if there is well recorded and published reference material. This research resulted also in extension of the chronological distribution of a lot of forms within Troy, manufactured in wares other than those listed or even not recorded by Blegen. Moreover, even the very well developed typology of vessels was enriched with one new form, and this suggests that among thousands of so far unpublished items scattered in many museums there could be shapes unknown to Blegen and Easton. In light of this it cannot be excluded that their typology would be supplemented with new forms. The undertaken studies also inspired an attempt to determine the capacity of pottery and to turn attention to the standardization in production of some forms appropriate to a particular function. So, also in that respect there are still new possibilities and in that direction should be examined all Trojan pottery, including items from Schliemann’s excavations. It is hoped that in the future it will be studied in a much wider perspective going beyond typologically based presentations to investigate the social context of its production.

western Anatolia (the two first wares) and later in Troy and the Balkans (the latter ware), but there were formal relationships. In this context should be mentioned specialized investigations of Knobbed Ware from Troy, which so far have not confirmed its foreign origin. However, they are unsatisfactory, due to the small group of items, and because of that it is necessary to continue this kind of research, also in regard to other wares. Pottery imports from Troy mentioned in the scientific literature were identified only on the basis of typological criteria and macroscopic analysis of the surface treatment. These views should be verified by specialized investigations, because only comparison of their results with data from clay beds in the vicinity of Troy would confirm or not provenance of imports recorded in the huge territory from southern Bulgaria across Anatolia to northern Syria. Further specialized research should also be applied to the broadly exported Anatolian Grey Ware manufactured in western Anatolia in order to distinguish examples derived from Troy, which were already identified in Cyprus and Israel. Together this would supply new data on the problem of imports’ origin and thus generate interesting

5. Problems and prospects

279

research prospects concerning the overseas contacts of that region, including Troy, during the Bronze Age, which are also evidenced by imitations. In Anatolia and the Aegean the largest number of whorls was found in Troy, i.e. a minimum of 9080 items. Unfortunately, knowledge of the archaeological context is limited only to those from Blegen’s excavations. Thanks to it we know that inhabitants of Troy VI were very involved in spinning, because there was found the biggest group of whorls, namely 384 including 219 from the Pillar House. Moreover, in that settlement there was recorded an abundance of goat and sheep bones, which suggests the main used raw material, but it

groups are similar in terms of diameter, height and weight. Thanks to this one can accept that there was produced, inter alia, yarn of standardized thickness from fine to medium quality short and long-staple wool, which was spun with a kit of maximum c. 70 g. A similar phenomenon of use of mainly sheep wool linked with raising of that species was also confirmed by experiments for the EBA whorls from Demircihöyük and faunal evidence recorded there. This indicates a demand for, inter alia, good quality textiles used for manufacturing fine home garments. Such a large assemblage of whorls in Troy confirms the important role of at least spinning activity, even if we accept that one individual

should be kept in mind that flax was introduced already in the Fourth Settlement. In Troy I-VIII, according to an analysis of whorls from the American excavations, dominated five main forms, which also thanks to appropriate weight can be regarded as the most suitable for thread making; they provided good rotation while spinning and constituted 76.4% of the total number of these items recorded by Blegen’s team. Bearing this in mind it would be tempting to check whether the rest of the whorls from Schliemann’s excavations confirm that feature. In this context it should also be added that so far there is no typology of other Trojan items linked with textile production, namely loom weights and pierced disc sherds, of which at least part can be regarded as whorls. This along with the so far unrecorded weight of loom weights and pierced disc sherds, as well as marks of use, would fix a new research prospect. Additionally, professional studies of all whorls, first of all determination of their weight, would shed a lot of new light on manufacture of textiles or at least yarn. So far, only 270 artefacts have been properly investigated, which constitutes c. 3% of all whorls recovered in Troy. It is worth mentioning that these items belonging to three independently examined

used tens of them. Moreover, examples from Troy, as well as from many other sites, show their nonutilitarian employment, and this also refers to loom weights. Further investigations of thousands of these artefacts kept in many museums are required for comprehensive reconstruction of the weaving craft in Troy. This would not only confirm already observed features and thus specialization, but also enrich our knowledge with possible new data on yarn/textile production. Moreover, similar research should be applied to whorls and loom weights from the majority of other sites, which were not documented and studied according to the most recent standards. In other words, recording of their weight is pivotal for the future, because it would provide new and thus interesting research prospects. Only then would one tempt to reconstruct the weaving craft so important in Bronze Age Anatolia and the Aegean. However, despite the large number of recovered artefacts, in light of the present state of research it seems poorly recognized.

280

281

282

REFERENCES

Adovasio J. M. 1975-1977 – “The Textile and Basketry Impressions from Jarmo”. Paléorient 3, 223-30.

Alkım U. B. 1965 – “İslâhiye Bölgesi Araştırmaları ve Gedikli (Karahüyük) Kazısı (1965)”. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 14, 79-86.

Akinsha K., Kozlow G. 1991 – “Spoils of War. The Soviet Union’s Hidden Art Treasures”. Art News 90, 130-41.

Alkım U. B., Alkım H. 1966 – “Excavations at Gedikli (Karahüyük). First Preliminary – Report”. Belleten 30, 27-57.

Akurgal E. 1950 – “Bayraklı Kazısı. Ön Rapor/ Bayraklı. Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Alt-Smyrna”. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 8, 1-97.

Allen S. H. 1991 – “Late Bronze Age Grey Wares in Cyprus”, 151-55 in Barlow J. A. et al. (eds).

Akurgal E. 1971 – “Bayraklı ve Erythrai 1970 Çalışmaları”. Belleten 35, 344-45. Akurgal E. 1983 – Alt-Smyrna. Vol. I. Wohnschichten und Athenatempel (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları 5.40). Ankara. Akurgal E. (ed.) 1978 – The Proceedings of the X th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara-İzmir, 23-30 IX 1973. Vol. I. Ankaraİzmir. Alessio M. et al. 1976, Bella F., Improta S. – “University of Rome Carbon-14 Dates XIV”. Radiocarbon 18, 321-49. Algaze G. et al. 1992, Mısır A., Wilkinson T., Carter E., Gorny R. – “Şanlıurfa Museum/ University of California Excavations and Surveys at Titriş Höyük, 1991: A Preliminary Report”. Anatolica 18, 33-60.

Allen S. H. 1992 – Northwest Anatolian Grey Wares in the Late Bronze Age: Analysis and Distribution in the Eastern Mediterranean. An Arbor, Mich. Allen S. H. 1994 – “Trojan Grey Ware at Tel Miqne-Ekron”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 293, 39-51. Allen S. H. 1995a – “‛Finding the Walls of Troy’: Frank Calvert, Excavator”. American Journal of Archaeology 99, 379-407. Allen S. H. 1995b – “In Schliemann’s Shadow: Frank Calvert, the Unheralded Discoverer of Troy”. Archaeology 48, 50-57. Allen S. H. 1999 – Finding the Walls of Troy. Frank Calvert and Heinrich Schliemann at Hisarlık. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London. Alp S. 1968 – Zylinder- und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 5.26). Ankara.

283

Anderson E. 1987 – The Spinner’s Encyclopedia. New York.

und der Gelibolu-Halbinsel. Ein Überblick”. Studia Troica 13, 165-213.

Angel J. L. 1951 – Troy. The Human Remains (Troy Supplementary Monograph 1). New Jersey.

Aslan R. et al. (eds) 2002, Blum S., Kastl G., Schweizer F., Thumm D. – Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann. Vols I-III. Remshalden-Grunbach.

Anthony D. W. 1990 – “Migration and Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater”. American Anthropologist 92, 895-914. Anthony D. W. 1997 – “Prehistoric Migrations as a Social Process”, 21-32 in Chapman J., Hamerow H. (eds). Anthony D. W. 2000 – “Comment to S. Burmeister 2000”. Current Anthropology 41, 554-55. Antonova I. et al. 1996, Tolstikov V. P., Treister M. J. – The Gold of Troy. Searching for Homer’s Fabled City. London. Arık R. O. 1937 – Les fouilles d’Alaca Höyük entreprises par la Société d’Histoire Turque. Rapport prèliminaire sur les travaux en 1935 (Publications de la Société d’Histoire Turque 5.1). Ankara. Arık R. O. 1944 – “Bitik Kazısı ve Hatay Tetkikleri Hakkında Kısa Rapor”. Belleten 8, 341-84. Arsebük G. et al. (eds) 1998, Mellink M. J., Schirmer W. – Light on Top of the Black Hill. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel/Karatepe’deki Işık. Halet Çambel’e Sunulan Yazılar. İstanbul. Aslan R. et al. 2003, Bieg G., Jablonka P., Krönneck P. – “Die mittel-bis spätbronzezeitliche Besiedlung (Troia VI und Troia VIIa) der Troas

Aslanis I. 1985 – Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975-1979. Die frühbronzezeitlichen Funde und Befunde (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 4). Berlin. Aston B. G. 1994 – Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels. Materials and Forms (Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 5). Heidelberg. Athenaeus – The Deipnosophists. With an English Translation by Ch. B. Gulick. In Six Volumes. Vol. I (The Loeb Classical Library). London-New York 1927. Atkinson T. D. et al. 1904, Bosanquet R. C., Edgar C. C., Evans A. J., Hogarth D. G., Mackenzie D., Smith C., and Welch F. B. – Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos Conducted by the British School at Athens (The Journal of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper 4). London. Åkerström A. 1978 – “Mycenaean Problems”. Opuscula Atheniensia 12, 19-86. Åström L. et al. 1972, Åström P., Kenna V. E. G., Popham M. R. – The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. IV:1D. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age Other Arts and Crafts. Lund.

284

Åström P. 1964 – “Remains of Ancient Cloth from Cyprus”. Opuscula Atheniensia 5, 111-14. Åström P. 1972 – The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. IV:1B. The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age. Lund. Balfanz K. 1995a – “Eine spätbronzezeitliche Elfenbeinspindel aus Troia VIIa”. Studia Troica 5, 107-16. Balfanz K. 1995b – “Bronzezeitliche Spinnwirtel aus Troia”. Studia Troica 5, 117-44. Bankoff H. A., Winter F. A. 1984 – “Northern Intruders in LH III C Greece: A View from the North”. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 12, 1-30. Barber E. J. W. 1991 – Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton. Barber E. J. W. 1992 – “The Peplos of Athena”, 103-18 in Neils J. (ed.). Barber E. J. W. 1994 – Woman’s Work. The First 20.000 Years. Women, Cloth and Society in Early Times. New York. Barber R. L. N. 1984 – “The Pottery of Phylakopi, First City, Phase ii (I-ii)”, 88-94 in MacGillivray J. A., Barber R. L. N. (eds). Barlow J. A. et al. (eds) 1991, Bolger D. L., Kling B. – Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record (University Museum Monograph 74). Philadelphia.

Barthélemy D., Milik J. T. 1955 – Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. Vol. I. Qumran Cave 1. Oxford. Basedow M. A. 2000 – Beşik-Tepe. Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld (Studia Troica Monographien 1). Mainz-am-Rhein. Başgelen N. (ed.) 1995 – In Memoriam İ. Metin Akyurt Bahattin Devam Anı Kitabı. Eski Yakın Doğu Kültürleri Üzerine İncelemeler/Studies for Ancient Near Eastern Cultures (Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Armağan Kitapları Dizisi 3). İstanbul. Baykal-Seeher A., Obladen-Kauder J. 1996 – Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-1978. Vol. IV. Die Kleinfunde. A Die lithischen Kleinfunde. B Die Kleinfunde aus Ton, Knochen und Metall. Mainz-am-Rhein. Bayne N. P. 2000 – The Grey Wares of North-West Anatolia. In the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age and Their Relation to the Early Greek Settlements (Asia Minor Studien 37). Bonn. Bazin M. et al. 1982, Bromberger Ch., Askari A., Karimi A. – Gilân et Âzarbâyjân oriental: cartes et documents ethnographiques. Paris. Becker H. 1993 – “Die Suche nach der Stadtmauer der homerischen Troia. Eine Testmessung zur magnetischen Prospektion mit dem CäsiumMagnetometer” (Denkmalpfelge Informationen Ausgabe D 18). München, 1-12. Becker H., Jansen H. G. 1994 – “Magnetische Prospektion 1993 der Unterstadt von Troia und Ilion”. Studia Troica 4, 105-14.

285

Becker H. et al. 1993, Faßbinder J., Jansen H. G. – “Magnetische Prospektion in der Untersiedlung von Troia 1992”. Studia Troica 3, 117-34.

Bertram M. 1992a – “Geschichte der SchliemannSammlung”, 43-46 in Menghin W. (ed.).

Becks R. 2005 – “Die nördliche Burgmauern von Troia VI”. Studia Troica 15, 99-120.

Bertram M. 1992b – “Zur Geschichte der Berliner Schliemann-Sammlung”, 397-401 in Herrmann J. (ed.).

Becks R., Guzowska M. 2004 – “On the AegeanType Weaving at Troia”. Studia Troica 14, 101-15.

Beyer I. 1976 – Die Tempel von Dreros und Prinias A und die Chronologie der kretischen Kunst des 8. und 7. Jhs. V. Chr. Freiburg.

Becks R. et al. 2006, Rigter W., Hnila P. – “Das Terrassenhaus im westlichen Unterstadtviertel von Troia”. Studia Troica 16, 27-88.

Bird J. B. 1979 – “Fibers and Spinning Procedures in the Andean Area”, 13-17 in Rowe A. P. et al. (eds).

Begemann F. et al. 1992, Schmitt-Strecker S., Pernicka E. – “The Metal Finds from Thermi III-V: A Chemical and Lead Isotope Study”. Studia Troica 2, 219-39.

Bittel K. 1934 – Prähistorische Forschung in Kleinasien (Istanbuler Forschungen 6). İstanbul.

Bernabò-Brea L. 1955 – “A Bronze Age House at Poliokhni (Lemnos)”. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 21, 144-55. Bernabò-Brea L. 1964 – Poliochni. Città preistorica nell’isola di Lemnos. Vol. I (Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene a delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente). Roma. Bernabò-Brea L. 1976 – Poliochni. Città preistorica nell’isola di Lemnos. Vol. II (Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene a delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente). Roma. Bersu G., Dehn W. (eds) 1961 – Bericht über den V. Internationalen Kongress für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Hamburg vom 24. bis 30. August 1958. Berlin.

Bittel K. 1937a – Boğazköy. Die Kleinfunde der Grabungen 1906-1912. Vol. I. Funde hethitischer Zeit (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 60). Leipzig. Bittel K. 1937b – Review article of Lamb 1936, in Germania 21, 278-81. Bittel K. 1939-1941 – “Ein Gräberfeld der YortanKultur bei Babaköy”. Archiv für Orientforschung 13, 1-31. Bittel K. 1942 – Kleinasiatische Studien (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 5). İstanbul. Bittel K., Otto H. 1939 – Demirci-Hüyük. Eine vorgeschichtliche Siedlung an der phrygisch­ bithynischen Grenze. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabung von 1937. Berlin.

286

Blegen C. W. 1921 – Korakou. A Prehistoric Settlement Near Corinth. Boston-New York.

Bloedow E. F. 1988 – “The Trojan War and Late Helladic III C”. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 63, 23-52.

Blegen C. W. 1928 – Zygouries. A Prehistoric Settlement in the Valley of Cleonae. Cambridge, Mass.

Bloedow E. F. 1992 – “Schliemann’s Attitude to Pottery”, 211-21 in Herrmann J. (ed.).

Blegen C. W. 1934 – “Excavations at Troy, 1933”. American Journal of Archaeology 38, 223-48.

Bloedow E. F. 2000-2001 – “Heinrich Schliemann and Frank Calvert: The Excavation of Hanai Tepe 1878-1880”. Boreas 23/24, 5-22.

Blegen C. W. 1964 – Troy and the Trojans (Ancient Peoples and Places 32). London.

Blum H. et al. (eds) 2002, Faist B., Pfälzner P., Wittke A.-M. – Brückenland Anatolien? Ursachen, Extensität und Modi des Kulturaustausches zwischen Anatolien und seinen Nachbarn. Tübingen.

Blegen C. W., Haley J. B. 1928 – “The Coming of the Greeks”. American Journal of Archaeology 32, 141-54. Blegen C. W., Wace A. J. B. 1918 – “The PreMycenaean Pottery of the Mainland”. The Annual of the British School at Athens 22, 175-89.

Blum S. W. E. 2002a – “The End of the Early and the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age at Troia: Troia IV and Troia V: “Anatolian Troia Culture”/ Troia’da Biten Erken ve Başlayan Orta Tunç Çağı: Troia IV ve Troia V “Anadolu Troia Kültürü””, 74-83 in Işın E. (ed.).

Blegen C. W. et al. 1950-1958, Caskey J. L., Sperling J. S., Rawson M., Butler C. – Troy. Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati 1932-1938. Vols I-IV. New Jersey.

Blum S. W. E. 2002b – “Vom Hausfleiβ der Troianer”, 105-51 in Aslan R. et al. (eds).

Blindow N. et al. 2000, Jansen H. G., Schröer K. – “Geophysikalische Prospection 1998/99 in der Unterstadt von Troia”. Studia Troica 10, 123-33.

Blümner H. 1877 – “Denkmäler-Nachlese zur Technologie”. Archäologische Zeitung 35, 51-55.

Blinkenberg Ch. 1931 – Lindos. Fouilles de l’acropole 1902-1914. Vol. I. Les petits objets. Berlin.

Blümner H. 1912² – Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern. Vol. I. Leipzig-Berlin.

Bloedow E. F. 1985 – “Handmade Burnished Ware or ‘Barbarian’ Pottery and Troy VIIB” (La Parola del Passato 40). Napoli, 161-99.

Boardman J. et al. (eds) 1971, Brown M. A., Powell T. G. E. – The European Community in Later Prehistory. Studies in Honour of C. F. C. Hawkes. London.

287

Boehlau J., Schefold K. (eds) 1942 – Larisa am Hermos. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1902­ 1934. Vol. III. Die Kleinfunde. Berlin.

Böhlendorf B. 1998 – “Ein Byzantinisches Gräberfeld in Troia/Ilion”. Studia Troica 8, 263-73.

Bohnsack A. 1981 – Spinnen und Weben. Entwicklung von Technik und Arbeit im Textilgewerbe (Kulturgeschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik 2). Reinbek bei Hamburg.

Bölke W. (ed.) 1997 – Vorträge anläβlich des Internationalen Kolloquiums Heinrich Schliemann zum 175. Geburtstag. Forschungsprobleme und neue Informationen über sein Leben und Werk vom 4. bis 6. Juli 1997 in Waren (Müritz) an den Europäischen Akademie Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Mitteilungen aus dem Heinrich-Schliemann-Museum Ankershagen 5). Ankershagen.

Borlase W. C. 1878 – “A Visit to Dr. Schliemann’s Troy”. Fraser’s Magazine. New Series. 17. February, 228-39. Bosanquet R. C. 1902-1903 – “Excavations at Palaikastro. II”. The Annual of the British School at Athens 9, 274-89. Bosanquet R. C. 1904 – “Some ‘Late Minoan’ Vases Found in Greece”. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 24, 317-29. Bossert E. M. 1967 – “Kastri auf Syros. Vorbericht ueber eine Untersuchung der praehistorischen Siedlung”. Archaiologikon Deltion 22, 53-76.

Bölke W. (ed.) 2001 – Heinrich Schliemann – Begründer der Wissenschaft von Spaten? (Mitteilungen aus dem Heinrich-SchliemannMuseum Ankershagen 7). Waren. Braidwood R. J., Braidwood L. S. 1960 – Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Vol. I. The Earlier Assemblages, Phases A-J (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 61). Chicago.

Bossert H. Th. 1942 – Altanatolien. Kunst und Handwerk in Kleinasien von den Anfängen bis zum Völligen Aufgehen in der griechischen Kultur (Die Ältesten Kulturen des Mittelmeerkreises 2). Berlin.

Braidwood R. J., Howe B. 1960 – Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Chicago.

Bouzek J. 1985 – The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 29). Göteborg-Prague.

Brice W. C. (ed.) 1967 – Europa. Studien zur Geschichte und Epigraphik der frühen Aegaeis. Festschrift für Ernst Grumach. Berlin.

Bouzek J. 1992 – “Schliemann und Böhmen”, 141-45 in Herrmann J. (ed.).

Brann E. 1961 – “Protoattic Well Groups from the Athenian Agora”. Hesperia 30, 305-79.

Briegleb J. 2003 – “Welche Summe von Liebenswürdigkeit und Freigebigkeit...”. Studia Troica 13, 293-304.

288

Brunton G., Engelbach R. 1927 – Gurob. London. Brzeziński W. (ed.) 2006 – Troja. Sen Henryka Schliemanna. Katalog wystawy ze zbiorów Museum für Vor- und Frügeschichte w Berlinie. Warszawa. Buchholz H. G. 1973 – “Grey Trojan Ware in Cyprus and Northern Syria”, 179-87 in Crossland R. A., Birchall A. (eds). Buchholz H.-G. (ed.) 1990 – Archaeologia Homerica. Die Denkmäler und das frügriechische Epos. Vol. II. Göttingen. Buck R. J. 1964 – “Middle Helladic Mattpainted Pottery”. Hesperia 33, 231-313. Burke B. 1997 – “The Organization of Textile Production on Bronze Age Crete”, 413-22 in Laffineur R., Betancourt P. P. (eds). Burmeister S. 2000 – “Archaeology and Migration. Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration”. Current Anthropology 41, 539-67. Burnham H. B. 1965 – “Çatal Hüyük – The Textiles and Twined Fabrics”. Anatolian Studies 15, 169-74. Cadogan G. (ed.) 1986 – The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean (Cincinnati Classical Studies. New Series 6). Leiden. Calder W. M. III, Cobet J. (eds) 1990 – Heinrich Schliemann nach hundert Jahren. Symposium in der Werner-Reimers-Stiftung Bad Homburg im Dezember 1989. Frankfurt-am-Main.

Calder W. M. III, Traill D. A. (eds) 1986 – Myth, Scandal and History. The Heinrich Schliemann Controversy and a First Edition of the Mycenaean Diary. Detroit. Calvert F. 1859 – “The Tumulus of Hanai Tepe in the Troad”. Archaeological Journal 16, 1-6. Canby J. V. et al. (eds) 1986, Porada E., Ridgway B. S., Stech T. – Ancient Anatolia. Aspects of Change and Cultural Development. Essays in Honor of Machteld J. Mellink (Wisconsin Studies in Classics). Madison, Wisc. Carington Smith J. 1975 – Spinning, Weaving and Textile Manufacture in Prehistoric Greece from the Beginning of the Neolithic to the End of the Mycenaean Age. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Tasmania. Hobart. Carington Smith J. 1977 – “Cloth and Mat Impressions”, 114-27 in Coleman J. E. Carington Smith J. 1992 – “Spinning and Weaving Equipment”, 674-711 in McDonald W. A., Wilkie N. C. (eds). Carpenter J. D. 1974 – Review article of Spanos 1972, in American Journal of Archaeology 78, 90-92. Cartland B. M. 1918 – “Balls of Thread Wound on Pieces of Pottery”. Journal of the Egyptian Archaeology 5, 139. Caskey J. L. 1954 – “Excavations at Lerna, 1952­ 1953”. Hesperia 23, 3-30.

289

Caskey J. L. 1955 – “Excavations at Lerna, 1954”. Hesperia 24, 25-49. Caskey J. L. 1960 – “The Early Helladic Period in the Argolid”. Hesperia 29, 285-303.

Cline E. H., Harris-Cline D. (eds) 1998 – The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati 18-­20 April, 1997. Aegaeum 18, LiègeAustin.

Caskey J. L. 1964 – “Archaeology and the Trojan War”, 9-11 in Finley M. I. et al.

Cloché P. 1931 – Les classes, les métiers, le trafic. Paris.

Caskey J. L. 1968 – “Lerna in the Early Bronze Age”. American Journal of Archaeology 72, 313-16.

Cobet J., Borsdorf U. (eds) 1991 – Schliemanns Troia. Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz: Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Berlin (Ost), Museum für Vorund Frühgeschichte, Berlin (West), Ruhrlandmuseum, Essen 21. März-20. Mai 1991, Museum Burg Linn, Krefeld 16. Juni-25. August 1991. Essen.

Caskey J. L. 1972 – “Investigations in Keos. Part II: A Conspectus of the Pottery”. Hesperia 41, 357-401. Catling R. W. V. 1998 – “The Typology of the Protogeometric and Subprotogeometric Pottery from Troia and Its Aegean Context”. Studia Troica 8, 151-87. Chadwick J. 19732 – Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge. Chadwick J. 1988 – “The Women of Pylos”, 43-95 in Olivier J.-P., Palaima Th. G. (eds). Chapman J., Hamerow H. (eds) 1997 – Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanations (British Archaeological Reports. International Series 664). Oxford. Chavane M. J. 1975 – Salamine de Chypre. Vol. VI. Les petits objets. Paris. Childe V. G. 1915 – “On the Date and Origin of Minyan Ware”. Journal of Hellenic Studies 35, 196­-207.

290

Cobet J., Patzek B. (eds) 1992 – Archäologie und historische Erinnerung. Nach 100 Jahren Heinrich Schliemann. Essen. CoblenzW., Horst F. (eds) 1978 –Mitteleuropäische Bronzezeit. Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geschichte. Berlin. Coldstream J. N. 1973 – Knossos. The Sanctuary of Demeter (The British School of Archaeology at Athens Supplement 8). London. Coleman J. E. 1977 – Keos. Vol. I. Kephala. A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery. Results of Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati Under the Auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton. Collignon M. 1901 – “Note sur les fouilles de M. Paul Gaudin dans la nécropole de Yortan, en Mysie”. Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Année 1, 810-17.

Cook J. M. 1973a – The Troad. An Archaeological and Topographical Study. Oxford.

A Study of Pattern Weaving in Transjordan”. Palestine Exploration Quarterely, 34-46.

Cook J. M. 1973b – “Bronze Age Sites in the Troad”, 37-40 in Crossland R. A., Birchall A. (eds).

Crowfoot G. M. 1955 – “The Linen Textiles”, 18­-38 in Barthélemy D., Milik J. T.

Crewe L. 1998 – Spindle Whorls. A Study of Form, Function and Decoration in Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature. Pocket-Book 149). Jonsered. Crockett C. 1980 – Das komplette Spinnbuch. Bonn. Crossland R. A. 1967 – “Immigrants from the North” (The Cambridge Ancient History 1). Cambridge, 3-61. Crossland R. A., Birchall A. (eds) 1973 – Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean. Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory. Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Sheffield, Organized by the British Association for Mycenaean Studies and the Department of Greek and Ancient History of the University of Sheffield. London. Crowfoot G. M. 1931 – Methods of Hand Spinning in Egypt and the Sudan (Bankfield Museum Notes 2.12). Halifax. Crowfoot G. M. 1936-1937 – “Of the WarpWeighted Loom”. Annual of the British School at Athens 37, 36-47.

Crowfoot G. M. 1956 – “Textiles, Basketry and Mats”, 413-47 in Singer C. et al. (eds). Cultraro M. 1997 – “Sounding H/West”, 686-87 in Doumas Ch., La Rosa V. (eds). Cummer W. W., Schofield E. 1984 – Keos. Vol. III. Ayia Irini: House A. Results of Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati Under the Auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Mainz-on-Rhine. Çalış-Sazcı D. 2002 – “The Martime Troia Culture/ Denizsel Troia Kültürü”, 54-65 in Işın E. (ed.). Dalfes H. N. et al. (eds) 1997, Kukla G., Weiss H. – Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse. Berlin. Davidson G. R. 1952 – Corinth. Vol. XII. The Minor Objects. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton. Davidson G. R., Thompson D. B. 1943 – Small Objects from the Pnyx. Vol. I (Hesperia Supplement 7). Baltimore. Davidson-Weinberg G., Weinberg S. S. 1956 – “Arachne of Lydia at Corinth”, 262-67 in Weinberg S. S. (ed.).

Crowfoot G. M. 1945 – “The Tent Beautiful.

291

Davis J. L. 1982 – “The Earliest Minoans in the South-East Aegean: A Reconsideration of the Evidence”. Anatolian Studies 32, 33-41. Davis J. L. 1992 – “Review of Aegean Prehistory I: The Islands of the Aegean”. American Journal of Archaeology 96, 699-756. Deacy S., Villing A. (eds) 2001 – Athena in the Classical World. Leiden-Boston-Köln. Deger-Jalkotzy S. et al. (eds) 1999, Hiller S., Panagl O. – Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Vol. II. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.-5. Mai 1995. Wien.

Nationalmuseums, Athen und des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Staatlichen Museen zur Berlin, 1990. Athen, Nationalmuseum 15. Juni-9. September 1990, Berlin, Altes Museum 2. October-31. Dezember 1990. Athen. Demangel R. et al. 1926, Macridy-Bey Th., Mamboury E., Massoul M. – Ambassade de France à Constantinople – Fouilles du Corps d’Occupation Français de Constantinople. Vol. I. Le tumulus dit de Protésilas. Paris. Demirci Ş. et al. (eds) 1996, Özer A. M., Summers G. D. – Archaeometry 94. The Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry. An International Symposium Held at Ankara, 9-14 May 1994. Ankara.

De Jesus P. S. 1980 – The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia (British Archaeological Reports. International Series 74.1). Oxford.

Deonna W. 1938 – Exploration archéologique de Délos faite par l’École Française d’Athènes. Vol. XVIII. Le mobilier délien. Paris.

Delibrias G. et al. 1986, Guillier M. T., Labeyrie J. – “Gif Natural Radiocarbon Measurements X”. Radiocarbon 28, 9-68.

Desborough V. R. 1980 – “The Dark Age Pottery (SM-SPG III) from Settlement and Cemeteries”, 281-354 in Popham M. R. et al. (eds).

Delougaz P. 1952 – Pottery from the Diyala Region (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 63). Chicago.

Dethier M. 1876 – “Une partie du trésor troyen au Musée de Constantinople”. Revue Archéologique. Nouvelle Série 31, 416-19.

Delougaz P. P., Kantor H. J. 1972 – “New Evidence from the Prehistoric & Protoliterate Culture Development of Khuzestan”, 14-33 in Zoka Y. et al. (eds).

De Vries K. 1980 – “Greeks and Phrygians in the Early Iron Age”, 33-49 in De Vries K. (ed.).

Demakopoulou K. (ed.) 1990 – Troja, Mykene, Tiryns, Orchomenos. Heinrich Schliemann zum 100. Todestag. Gemeinsame Ausstellung des

De Vries K. (ed.) 1980 – From Athens to Gordion. The Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young Held at the University Museum the Third of May, 1975 (University Museum Papers 1). Philadelphia.

292

Dickinson O. T. P. K. 1977 – The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisation (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 49). Göteborg. Dickinson O. T. P. K. 1994 – The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge. Dietz S. 1991 – The Argolid at the Transition to the Mycenaean Age. Studies in the Chronology and Cultural Development in the Shaft Grave Period. Copenhagen. Dikaios P. 1940 – “The Excavations at VounousBellapais in Cyprus, 1931-2”. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity 88, 1-174. Dikaios P. 1969 – Enkomi. Excavations 19481958. Vols I, IIIa. The Architectural Remains. The Tombs. Mainz-am-Rhein. Dikaios P. 1971 – Enkomi. Excavations 1948-1958. Vol. II. Chronology, Summary and Conclusions, Catalogue, Appendices. Mainz-am-Rhein. Dikaios P., Stewart J. R. 1962 – The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. IV:1A. The Stone Age and the Early Bronze Age in Cyprus. Lund. Dimitrov D. P. 1943 – “Zweihenklige ‘trojanische’ Tonbecher aus Südostbulgarien”. Archäologischer Anzeiger, cols 13-16. Doumas Ch., La Rosa V. (eds) 1997 – He Poliochne kai he proime epoche tou Chalkou sto Voreio Aigaio/Poliochni e l’antica età del bronzo nell’Egeo settentrionale. Diethnes Synedrio Athena, 22-25 Aprilliou 1996/Convegno

Internazionale Atene, 22-25 Aprile 1996. AthenaAtene. Döhl H. 1981 – Heinrich Schliemann. Mythos und Ärgernis. München-Luzern. Döhl H. 1986 – “Schliemann the Archaeologist”, 95-109 in Calder W. M. III, Traill D. A. (eds). Dörpfeld W. et al. 1894, Brueckner A., Weigel M., Wilberg W. – Troja 1893. Bericht über die im Jahre 1893 in Troja veranstalteten Ausgrabungen. Leipzig. Dörpfeld W. et al. 1902, Brückner A., Götze A., Schmidt H., von Fritze H., Wilberg W., Winnefeld H. – Troja und Ilion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen Schichten von Ilion 1870-1894. Vols I-II. Athen. Driehaus J. 1957 – “Prähistorische Siedlungsfunde in der unteren Kaikosebene und an dem Golfe von Çandarlı” (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 7). IstanbulTübingen, 76-101. Duru R. 1980 – “Kuruçay Höyüğü Kazıları. 1980 Çalışma Raporu/Excavations at Kuruçay Höyük. 1980” (Anadolu Araştırmaları 8). İstanbul, 1-38. Duru R. 1998 – “Bademağacı Höyüğü’nün (Kızılkaya) İlk Tunç Çağı Çömlekçiliği ve Çarkişi İki Maşrapa Hakkında Bazı Düşünceler”, 267-75 in Arsebük G. et al. (eds). Easton D. F. 1976 – “Towards a Chronology for the Anatolian Early Bronze Age”. Anatolian Studies 26, 145-73.

293

Easton D. F. 1981 – “Schliemann’s Discovery of ‘Priam’s Treasure’: Two Enigmas”. Antiquity 55, 179-83.

Easton D. F. 2002 – Schliemann’s Excavations at Troia 1870-1873 (Studia Troica Monographien 2). Mainz-am-Rhein.

Easton D. F. 1984a – “Schliemann’s Mendacity – A False Trail?”. Antiquity 58, 197-204.

Easton D. F., Weninger B. 1993 – “Troia VI Lower Town – Quadrats İ8 and K8: A Test Case for Dating by Pottery Seriation”. Studia Troica 3, 45-96.

Easton D. F. 1984b – “Priam’s Treasure”. Anatolian Studies 34, 141-69. Easton D. F. 1985 – “Has the Trojan War been Found”. Antiquity 59, 188-96. Easton D. F. 1990a – “Reconstructing Schliemann’s Troy”, 431-47 in Calder W. M. III, Cobet J. (eds). Easton D. F. 1990b – Schliemann’s Excavations at Troy, 1870-1873. Vols I-III. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University College. London. Easton D. F. 1992 – “Was Schliemann a Liar?”, 191-98 in Herrmann J. (ed.). Easton D. F. 1994a – “Priam’s Gold: The Full Story”. Anatolian Studies 44, 221-43. Easton D. F. 1994b – “Schliemann did Admit the Mycenaean Date of Troia VI”. Studia Troica 4, 173-75. Easton D. F. 1995 – “The Troy Treasures in Russia”. Antiquity 69, 11-14.

Edgü F. (ed.) 1983 – The Anatolian Civilisations. Vol. I. Prehistoric, Hittite, Early Iron Age. The Council of Europe XVIIIth European Art Exibition. İstnabul May 22-October 30, 1983. İstnabul. Efe T. 1988 – Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-1978. Vol. III:2. Die Keramik 2. C. Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik der jüngeren Phasen (ab Phase H). Mainz-am-Rhein. Efe T. 1994 – “Early Bronze Age III Pottery from Bahçehisar: The Significance of the Pre-Hittite Sequence in the Eskişehir Plain, Northwestern Anatolia”. American Journal of Archaeology 98, 5-34. Efe T., Ay D. Ş. M. 2000 – “Early Bronze Age I Pottery from Küllüoba Near Seyitgazi, Eskişehir”. Anatolia Antiqua 8, 1-39.

Easton D. F. 1997 – “The Excavation of the Trojan Treasures, and Their History up to the Death of Schliemann in 1890”, 194-99 in Simpson E. (ed.).

Efe T., Ay-Efe D. Ş. M. 2001 – “Küllüoba: İç Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Bir İlk Tunç Çağı Kenti. 1996-2000 Yılları Arasında Yapılan Kazı Çalışmalarının Genel Değerlendirmesi” (Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 4). Ankara, 43-78.

Easton D. F. 2000 – “Schliemann’s “Burnt City””. Studia Troica 10, 73-83.

Efe T., İlaslı A. 1997 – “Pottery Links Between the Troad and Inland Northwestern Anatolia

294

Erkanal A. 1993 – “1991 Panaztepe Kazısı Sonuçları” (Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 14). Ankara, 495-502.

During the Trojan Second Settlement”, 596-609 in Doumas Ch., La Rosa V. (eds). Efe T. et al. 1995, İlaslı A., Topbaş A. – “Salvage Excavations of the Afyon Archaeological Museum, Part 1: Kaklık Mevkii, a Site Transitional to the Early Bronze Age”. Studia Troica 5, 357-99.

Erkanal A., Erkanal H. 1983 – “Vorbericht über die Grabungen 1979 im prähistorischen Klazomenai/Limantepe”. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 1, 163-83.

Ehrich R. W. (ed.) 1965 – Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago-London. Ehrich R. W. (ed.) 19923 – Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Vol. I. Chicago-London.

Erkanal H. 1996 – “Erken Tunç Çağı’nda Batı Anadolu Sahil Kesiminde Kentleşme/Early Bronze Age Urbanization in the Coastal Region of Western Anatolia”, 70-82 in Sey Y. (ed.)

Emele M. 1993 – “Heinrich Schliemanns Kenntnisstand zu Troia VI im Jahre 1890”. Studia Troica 3, 239-45.

Ersoy Y. E. 1988 – “Finds from Menemen/ Panaztepe in the Manisa Museum”. The Annual of the British School at Athens 83, 55-82.

Emre K. 1963 – “The Pottery of the Assyrian Colony Period According to the Building Levels of the Kaniş Karum”. Anatolia 7, 87-99.

Evans A. 1935 – The Palace of Minos. A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos. Vol. IV:2. London.

Emre K. 1978 – Yanarlar. Afyon Yöresinde Bir Hitit Mezarlığı/A Hittite Cemetery Near Afyon (Türk Tarih Kurymu Yayınları 6.22). Ankara.

Evans J. D. 1964 – “Excavations in the Neolithic Settlement of Knossos, 1957-60. Part I”. The Annual of the British School at Athens 59, 132-240.

Emre K. et al. (eds) 1989, Hrouda B., Mellink M., Özgüç N. – Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç. Ankara.

Evans J. D., Renfrew C. 1968 – Excavations at Saliagos Near Antiparos (The British School of Archaeology at Athens Supplement 5). London.

Erim-Özdoğan A., Işın M. A. 2002 – “Tekirdağ Menekşe Çatağı Kurtarma Kazıları” (Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 23). Ankara, 313-26.

Evely R. D. G. 2000 – Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques. An Introduction (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 92.2). Jonsered.

Erkanal A. 1992 – “1990 Panaztepe Kazısı Sonuçları” (Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 13). Ankara, 447-55.

Felts W. M. 1942 – “A Petrographic Examination of Potsherds from Ancient Troy”. American Journal of Archaeology 47, 237-44.

295

Finley M. I. 1974 – “Schliemann’s Troy – One Hundred Years After”. Proceedings of the British Academy 60, 393-412. Finley M. I. et al. 1964, Caskey J. L., Kirk G. S., Page D. L. – “The Trojan War”. Journal of Hellenic Studies 84, 1-20. Fischer F. 1963 – Boğazköy- attuša. Vol. IV. Die hethitische Keramik von Boğazköy. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (Wissenschafliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 75). Berlin. Fitz S., Kühn H. 1982 – Keramik. Katalog der Abteilung. Deutsches Museum. München. Forbes R. J. 1956 – Studies in Ancient Technology. Vol. IV. Leiden. Forsdyke E. J. 1914 – “The Pottery Called Minyan Ware”. Journal of Hellenic Studies 34, 126-56. Forsdyke E. J. 1925 – Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum. Vol. I:1. Prehistoric Aegean Pottery. London. Forsén J. 1992 – The Twilight of the Early Helladics. A Study of the Disturbances in EastCentral and Southern Greece Towards the End of the Early Bronze Age (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature. Pocket-book 116). Jonsered. Foxhall L., Davies J. K. (eds) 1984 – The Trojan War. Its Historicity and Context. Papers

of the First Greenbank Colloquium, Liverpool, 1981. Bristol. Frangipane M. et al. (eds) 1993, Hauptmann H., Liverani M., Matthiae P., Mellink M. – Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Rome. Frankfort H. 1949 – “Ishtar at Troy”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8, 194-200. French D. H. 1961 – “Late Chalcolithic Pottery in North-West Turkey and the Aegean”. Anatolian Studies 11, 99-141. French D. H. 1967 – “Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia. I. The İznik Area”. Anatolian Studies 17, 49-100. French D. H. 1968 – Anatolia and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Cambridge University. Cambridge. French D. H. 1969 – “Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia. II. The Balıkesir and Akhisar/ Manisa Areas”. Anatolian Studies 19, 41-98. French D. H. 1973 – “Migrations and ‘Minyan’ Pottery in Western Anatolia and the Aegean”, 51-57 in Crossland R. A., Birchall A. (eds). French D. H. 1997 – “Early Bronze Age Pottery in Western Anatolia. A Summary”, 569-95 in Doumas Ch., La Rosa V. (eds). French E. 1978 – “Who Were the Mycenaeans in Anatolia?”, 165-68 in Akurgal E. (ed.).

296

Frirdich Ch. 1997 – “Pinnacle E4/5 – Die Keramik der Periode Troia II im Vergleich”. Studia Troica 7, 111-258.

Geominy W. (ed.) 1991 – Dr. Heinrich Schliemann. Ausstellung im Akademischen Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn, 1. Februar bis 5. April 1991. Bonn.

Frisch P. 1975 – Die Inschriften von Ilion (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 3). Bonn.

Geupel F. 1981 – “Das Schicksal der Sammlung trojanischer Altertümer von H. Schliemann”, 19-20 in Hühn E. (ed.).

Frödin O., Persson A. W. 1938 – Asine. Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922-1930. Stockholm.

Godart L. 1994a – “La scrittura di Troia” (Atti dell’ Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche 5). Roma, 457-60.

Furtwängler A. et al. 1932, Hauser F., Reichhold K. – Griechische Vasenmalerei. Vol. III. München.

Godart L. 1994b – “Les écritures crétoises et le bassin méditerranéen”. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 707-31.

Garstang J. 1953 – Prehistoric Mersin. Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford. Garstang J., Goldman H. 1947 – “A Conspectus of Early Cilician Pottery”. American Journal of Archaeology 51, 370-88.

Goethert F. W., Schleif H. 1962 – Der Athenatempel von Ilion. Berlin. Goldman H. 1915 – “Inscriptions from Acropolis at Halae”. American Journal of Archaeology 19, 438-53.

Gass K., Klemm P. 1959 – Hellas ohne Götter. Streiflichter von einer Griechenlandreise, mit einem Lexikon von Thanassis Georgiou. Berlin.

Goldman H. 1931 – Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia. Conducted by the Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University in Coöperation with the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. Cambridge, Mass.

Gatsov I. 1998 – “Technical and Typological Analysis of the Chipped Stone Assemblages from Troia”. Studia Troica 8, 115-40. Gavrilow A. 1990 – “Schliemann und Russland”, 379-96 in Calder W. M. III, Cobet J. (eds).

Goldman H. 1940 – “The Acropolis of Halae”. Hesperia 9, 381-514.

Gejvall N.-G. 1937-1938 – “The Fauna of the Different Settlements of Troy. Preliminary Report”. Årsberättelse, Bulletin de la Société Royale des Lettres de Lund, 51-57.

Goldman H. et al. 1956, Mellink M. J., Gelb I. J., Matson F. R. – Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Vol. II. From the Neolithic Through the Bronze Age. Princeton.

297

Goldmann K. 1992 – “Der Schatz des Priamos. Zum Schicksal von Heinrich Schliemanns “Sammlung Trojanischer Altertümer””, 377-90 in Herrmann J. (ed.). Goulandre N. P. 1990 – Dialexeis 1986-1989. Athena. Grabski T. I. 2004 – “Okoliczności powstania Muzeum Prowincji w Poznaniu”, 9-29 in Suchocki W., Żuchowski T. (eds). Graef B., Langlotz E. 1925 – Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen. Vol. I. Berlin. Griesa I. 1992a – “Bemerkungen zum heutigen Stand der Schliemann-Sammlung”, 391-96 in Herrmann J. (ed.). Griesa I. 1992b – “Katalog der ausgestellten Funde”, 49-116 in Menghin W. (ed.). Griffin E. E. 1980 – “The Middle and Late Bronze Age Pottery”, 3-109 in Van Loon M. N. (ed.). Guy P. L. O. 1938 – Megiddo Tombs (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 33). Chicago. Guzowska M. 2006 – “Katalog ceramiki trojańskiej ze zbiorów Państwowego Muzeum Archeologicznego w Warszawie”, 130-47 in Brzeziński W. (ed.). Guzowska M. et al. 2003, Kuleff I., Pernicka E., Satır M. – “On the Origin of Coarse Wares of Troia VII”, 233-49 in Wagner G. A. et al. (eds).

Günel S. 1999a – Panaztepe II. M.Ö. 2. Bine Tarihlendirilen Panaztepe Seramiğinin Batı Anadolu ve Ege Arkeolojisindeki Yeri ve Önemi/ Die Keramik von Panaztepe und ihre Bedeutung für Westkleinasien und die Ägäis im 2. Jahrtausend (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları 6.51). Ankara. Günel S. 1999b – “Vorbericht über die mittel-und spätbronzezeitliche Keramik von Liman Tepe” (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 49). Istanbul-Tübingen, 41-82. Güntner W. 1992 – “Gefässe und Objekte aus Troja in Martin-von-Wagner-Museum der Universität Würzburg”. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 479-85. Hanschmann E., Milojčić V. 1976 – Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der ArgissaMagula in Thessalien. Vol. III. Die frühe und beginnende mittlere Bronzezeit (Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 13-14). Bonn. Hardy D. A., Renfrew A. C. (eds) 1990 – Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. III. Chronology. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece 3-9 September 1989. London. Hardy D. A. et al. (eds) 1990, Doumas C. G., Sakellarakis J. A., Warren P. M. – Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. I. Archaeology. Proceedings of the Third International Congress Santorini, Greece 3-9 September 1989. London. Harmankaya S., Burçin E. 2002 – İlk Tunç (Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri 4a). İstanbul.

298

Hassan F. A., Robinson S. W. 1987 – “HighPrecision Radiocarbon Chronometry of Ancient Egypt and Comparisons with Nubia, Palestine and Mesopotamia”. Antiquity 61, 119-35. Hawkins J. D., Easton D. F. 1996 – “A Hieroglyphic Seal from Troia”. Studia Troica 6, 111-18. Hägg R., Sieurin F. 1982 – “On the Origin of the Wooden Coffin in Late Bronze Age Greece”. The Annual of the British School of Archaeology 77, 177-86. Hägg R., Konsola D. (eds) 1986 – Early Helladic Architecture and Urbanization. Proceedings of a Seminar Held at the Swedish Institute in Athens, June 8, 1985 (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 76). Göteborg. Hänsel B. 1976 – Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der älteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau. Vols I-II (Beiträge zur Ur-und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des MittelmeerKulturraumes 16-17). Bonn. Hänsel B. (ed.) 1982 – Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 1). Berlin.

Hentschel K. 19752 – Wolle spinnen. Winterbach. Herodotus – Historiae. Libri V-IX. Recognovit breviqve adnotatione critica instrvxit C. Hude (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis). Editio tertia. Tomvs posterior. Oxford 1927. Herrmann J. 1971 – Zwischen Hradschin und Vineta. Frühe Kulturen der Westslawen. Leipzig­ Jena-Berlin. Herrmann J. (ed.) 1992 – Heinrich Schliemann. Grundlagen und Ergebnisse moderner Archäologie 100 Jahre nach Schliemanns Tod. Berlin. Herrmann J., Maaβ E. (eds) 1990 – Die Korrespondenz zwischen Heinrich Schliemann und Rudolf Virchow 1876-1890. Berlin. Hertel D. 1991a – “Schliemanns These von Fortleben Troias in den ‘Dark Ages’ im Lichte neuer Forschungsergebnisse”. Studia Troica 1, 131-44. Hertel D. 1991b – “Troja – Mykenae – Orchomenos. Schliemanns trojanische Funde im Besitz des Akademischen Kunstmuseums Bonn”, 51-67 in Geominy W. (ed.).

Heath M. C. 1958 – “Early Helladic Clay Sealings from the House of the Tiles at Lerna”. Hesperia 27, 81-121.

Hertel D. 1992 – “Über die Vielschichtigkeit des Troianischen Krieges. Zur Archäologie von Troia VI, VII und VIII”, 73-104 in Cobet J., Patzek B. (eds).

Hedges R. E. M. et al. 1992, Housley R. A., Bronk C. R., Van Klinken G. J. – “Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 15”. Archaeometry 34, 337-57.

Hertel D. 1997 – “Das Forschungsprojekt “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Aiolis in der Bronzezeit und der griechisch-römischen Zeit””. Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 2, 80-87.

299

Hertel D. 1998 – Gliederung des Katalogwerkers “Heinrich Schliemanns Sammlung Trojanischer Altertümer” und Liste der Bearbeiter. Stand: April 1998, 89-91 (unpublished). Hertel D. 2000 – “Nachwort”, 308-16 in Bayne N. P. Hertel D. 2003 – “Protogeometrische, subgeometrische und geometrische Keramik Troias aus den Grabungen Schliemanns und Dörpfelds”, 91-138 in Rückert B., Kolb F. (eds). Hesiodus – Theogonia, Opera et dies, Scutum. Edidit F. Solmsen. Fragmenta selecta. Edidervnt R. Merkelbach et M. L. West (Scriptorvm Classicorvm Bibliotheca Oxoniensis). Editio tertia. Oxford 1990. Heurtley W. A. 1939 – Prehistoric Macedonia. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Greek Macedonia (West of the Struma) in the Neolithic, Bronze, and Early Iron Ages. Cambridge. Hilse R. 2001 – “Troianische Spinnwirtel”, 135-50 in Bölke W. (ed.). Hochberg B. 1980 – Handspindles. Santa Cruz.

Hogarth D. G. 1899-1900 – “The Dictaean Cave”. The Annual of the British School at Athens 6, 94-­116. Hogarth D. G. et al. 1908, Smith C. H., Smith A. H., Head B. V., Henderson A. E. – Excavations at Ephesus. The Archaic Artemisia. London. Holmberg E. J. 1944 – The Swedish Excavations at Asea in Arcadia (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom 11). Lund-Leipzig. Homerus – Odyssea. Recognovit P. von der Mvehll (Bibliotheca Scriptorvm Graecorvm et Romanorvm Tevbneriana). Editio stereotypa editionis tertiae (MCMLXII). Stuttgart 1993. Homerus – Opera. Recognovervnt breviqve adnotatione critica instrvervnt D. B. Monro et Th. W. Allen. Tomvs I-II. Iliadis libros I-XXIV. Editio altera (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis). Oxford 1902. Hood M. S. F. 1961 – “The Early Bronze Age Chronology of the Aegean Area with Special Reference to Troy”, 398-403 in Bersu G., Dehn W. (eds). Hood M. S. F. 1967 – “Buckelkeramik at Mycenae?”, 120-31 in Brice W. C. (ed.).

Hochstetter A. 1987 – Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975-1979. Die Kleinfunde (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 6). Berlin. Hoffmann M. 1964 – The Warp-Weighted Loom. Studies in the History and Technology of an Ancient Implement (Studia Norvegica 14). Oslo.

300

Hood S. et al. 1981, Clutton-Brock J., Bialor P. G. – Excavations in Chios 1938-1955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. Vol. I (The Brithish School of Archaeology at Athens Supplemnt 15). Athens-London. Hood S. et al. 1982, Clutton-Brock J., Bialor P. G. – Excavations in Chios 1938-1955. Prehistoric

Emporio and Ayio Gala. Vol. II (The Brithish School of Archaeology at Athens Supplemnt 16). Athens-London. Huot J.-L. 1982 – Les céramiques monochromes lissées en Anatolie a l’époque du Bronze Ancien. Vols I-II. Paris. Hutton C. A. 1897 – “Votive Reliefs in the Acropolis Museum”. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 17, 306-18. Huxley G. L., Coldstream J. N. 1966 – “Kythera, First Minoan Colony”. The Illustrated London News, August 27, 28-29. Hühn E. (ed.) 1981 – Troja und Thrakien. Troja i Trakija. Ausstellung Berlin-Hauptstadt der DDR und Sofia veranstaltet vom Archäologischen Institut und Museum der Bulgarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und dem Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Hauptstadt der DDR, in Verbindung mit dem Zentralinstitut für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Berlin.

Isler H. P. 1973 – “An Early Bronze Age Settlement on Samos”. Archaeology 26, 170-75. Işik F. 2001 – “Elfenbeinfiguren aus dem Artemision von Ephesos”, 85-100 in Muss U. (ed.). Işın E. (ed.) 2002 – Troya. Efsane ile Gerçek Arası Bir Kente Yolculuk/Troy. Journey to a City Between Legend and Reality. Yapı Kredı Vedat Nedim Tör Museum 3 Ekim 2002-5 Ocak 2003/3 October 2002-5 January 2003. İstanbul. Jablonka P. 1994 – “Ein Verteidigungsgraben in der Unterstadt von Troia VI. Grabungsbericht 1993”. Studia Troica 4, 51-73. Jablonka P. 1995 – “Ausgrabungen südlich der Unterstadt von Troia im Bereich des Troia VI-Verteidigungsgrabens. Grabungsbericht 1994”. Studia Troica 5, 39-79. Jablonka P. 1996 – “Ausgrabungen im Süden der Unterstadt von Troia. Grabungsbericht 1995”. Studia Troica 6, 65-96.

Hüryılmaz H. 1995 – “Uşak Arkeoloji Müzesinden Bir Grup “depas amphikypellon””, 177-88 in Başgelen N. (ed.).

Jablonka P. 2001 – “Eine Stadtmauer aus Holz. Das Bollwerk der Unterstadt von Troia II”, 391-94 in Latacz J., Theune-Groβkopf B. (eds).

Iakovidis S. 1980 – Excavations of the Necropolis at Perati (Institute of Archaeology University of California Occasional Paper 8). Los Angeles.

Jablonka P. 2005 – “Vorbericht um archäologischen survey im Stadtgebiet von Troia”. Studia Troica 15, 27-34.

Iakovidis S. E. 1969-1970 – Perati. To Nekrotapheion. Vol. A-G. Oi taphoi kai ta evrimata (Bibliotheke tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias 67). Athen.

Jablonka P. 2006 – “Vorbericht zu den Arbeiten in Troia 2005 – Preliminary Report on Work at Troia 2005”. Studia Troica 16, 3-26.

301

Jansen H. G. 1992 – “Geomagnetische Prospektion in der Untersiedlung von Troia”. Studia Troica 2, 61-69. Jähne A. 1997 – “Heinrich Schliemanns Schenkungen trojanischer und griechischer Altertümer nach Rußland. Die Briefwechsel mit A. Polovtzoff”, 69-80 in Bölke W. (ed.). Johl C. H. 1924 – Altägyptische Webstühle und Brettchenweberei in Altägypten (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Aegyptens 8). Leipzig. Jones R. E. 1986 – Greek and Cypriot Pottery. A Review of Scientific Studies. Athens. Joukowsky M. S. 1989 – “Exchange at Prehistoric Aphrodisias: Considerations”, 225-34 in Emre K. et al. (eds). Joukowsky M. S. 1991 – “Prehistoric Developments on the Acropolis (Theater Hill)”. Aphrodisias Papers 2, 9-13. Joukowsky M. S. et al. 1986, Benjamin A. S., Blackman M. J., Coghlan R., Cleveland C., Crabtree P. J., Dewez M., Erim K. T., GetzPreziosi P., Lauritsen F. M., Luerquin J. L., Mierse W. E., Monge J. M., Oustinoff E., Reese D. S., Thiry A., Tül S. – Prehistoric Aphrodisias. An Account of the Excavations and Artifact Studies. Vols I-II (Archaeologia Transatlantica 3, Publications d’Histoire de l’Art et d’Archéologie de l’Université Catholique de Louvain 39). Louvain-Providence. Kadish B. 1969 – “Excavations of Prehistoric Remains at Aphrodisias, 1967”. American Journal of Archaeology 73, 49-65.

Kadish B. 1971 – “Excavations of Prehistoric Remains at Aphrodisias, 1968 and 1969”. American Journal of Archaeology 75, 121-40. Kansu Ş. A. 1940 – Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Etiyokuşu Hafriyatı Raporu (1937) – Les fouilles d’ Etiyokuşu (1937), entreprises par la Societe d’Histoire Turque (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 5.3). Ankara. Kâmil T. 1982 – Yortan Cemetery in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia (British Archaeological Reports. International Series 145). Oxford. Kilian-Dirlmeier I. 1984 – Nadeln der frühhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes (Prähistorische Bronzefunde 13.8). München. Killen J. T. 1964 – “The Wool Industry of Crete in the Late Bronze Age”. The Annual of the British School at Athens 59, 1-15. Killen J. T. 1984 – “The Textile Industries at Pylos and Knossos”, 49-63 in Shelmerdine C. W., Palaima Th. G. (eds). Klinkott M. 2004 – “Die Wehrmauern von Troia VI – Bauaufnahme und Auswertung”. Studia Troica 14, 33-85. Knacke-Loy O. 1994 – Isotopengeochemische, chemische und petrographische Untersuchungen zur Herkunftsbestimmung der bronzezeitlichen Keramik von Troia (Heidelberger Geowissenschaftliche Abhandlungen 77). Heidelberg.

302

Knacke-Loy O. et al. 1995, Satır M., Pernicka E. – “Zur Herkunftsbestimmung der bronzezeitlichen Keramik von Troia: chemische und isotopengeochemische (Nd, Sr, Pb) Untersuchungen”. Studia Troica 5, 145-75. Koerte A. 1899 – “Kleinasiatische Studien. IV. Ein altphrygischer Tumulus bei Bos-öjük (Lamunia)”. Athenische Mitteilungen 24, 1-45. Konsola D. N. 1981 – Promykenaike Theba. Chorotaxike kai oikistike diarthrose. Athena. Koppenhöfer D. 1997 – “Troia VII – Versuch einer Zusammenschau einschliesslich der Ergebnisse des Jahres 1995”. Studia Troica 7, 295-353. Koppenhöfer D. 2000 – Die bronzezeitliche Troia VI-Kultur und ihre Beziehungen zu den Nachbarkulturen. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Universität Tübingen. Tübingen. Koppenhöfer D. 2002a – “Die bronzezeitliche Troia VI Kultur und ihre Beziehungen zu den Nachbarkulturen”. Studia Troica 12, 281-395. Koppenhöfer D. 2002b – “Buckelkeramik und Barbarische Ware in Troia: Anmerkungen zur Herkunft”, 679-704 in Aslan R. et al. (eds). Korfmann M. 1982 – Tilkitepe. Die ersten Ansätze prähistorischer Forschung in der östlichen Türkei (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 26). Tübingen. Korfmann M. 1983 – Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-1978. Vol. I. Architektur, Stratigraphie und Befunde. Mainzam-Rhein.

Korfmann M. 1988 – “Beşik-Tepe. Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabungen von 1985 und 1986”. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 391-404. Korfmann M. 1989 – “Zu Troias ältester ‘Verteidigungsmauer’” (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 39). Tübingen, 307-13. Korfmann M. 1991 – “Troia – Reinigungs- und Dokumentationsarbeiten 1987, Ausgrabungen 1988 und 1989”. Studia Troica 1, 1-34. Korfmann M. 1992a – “Troia – Ausgrabungen 1990 und 1991”. Studia Troica 2, 1-41. Korfmann M. 1992b – “Die prähistorische Besiedlung südlich der Burg Troia VI/VII”. Studia Troica 2, 123-46. Korfmann M. 1993a – “Troia – Ausgrabungen 1992”. Studia Troica 3, 1-37. Korfmann M. 1993b – “Die Forschungsplanung von Heinrich Schliemann in Hisarlık-Troia und die Rolle Wilhelm Dörpfelds”. Studia Troica 3, 247-67. Korfmann M. 1994 – “Troia – Ausgrabungen 1993”. Studia Troica 4, 1-50. Korfmann M. 1995 – “Troia – Ausgrabungen 1994”. Studia Troica 5, 1-38. Korfmann M. 1996a – “Troia – Ausgrabungen 1995”. Studia Troica 6, 1-63. Korfmann M. 1996b – “Çanakkale Boğazı’nda Troia Kalesi ve Aşağı Kenti. Denizlerin ve

303

Karaların Birleştiği Yerdeki Savaş ve Barış Kenti/ The Citadel and Lower City of Troia at Dardanelles. City of War and Peace in the Region Where Seas and Continents Meet”, 83-98 in Sey Y. (ed. ). Korfmann M. 1997 – “Troia – Ausgrabungen 1996”. Studia Troica 7, 1-71. Korfmann M. 1998 – “Troia – Ausgrabungen 1997 mit einem topographischen Plan zu “Troia und Unterstadt””. Studia Troica 8, 1-70. Korfmann M. 1999 – “Troia – Ausgrabungen 1998”. Studia Troica 9, 1-34. Korfmann M. 2000 – “Troia – Ausgrabungen 1999. Troia – 1999 Excavations”. Studia Troica 10, 1-52. Korfmann M. 2001a – “Troia/Wilusa – Ausgrabungen 2000. Troia/Wilusa – 2000 Excavations”. Studia Troica 11, 1-50. Korfmann M. 2001b – “Der prähistorische Siedlungshügel Hisarlık. Die “zehn Städte Troias” – von unten nach oben”, 347-54 in Latacz J., Theune­Groβkopf B. (eds). Korfmann M. 2001c – “Troia als Drehscheibe des Handels im 2. und 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Erkentnisse zur Troianischen Hochkultur und zur Maritimen Troia-Kultur”, 355-68 in Latacz J., Theune-Groβkopf B. (eds). Korfmann M. 2001d – “Die Troianische Hochkultur (Troia VI und VIIa). Eine Kultur Anatoliens”, 395-­406 in Latacz J., TheuneGroβkopf B. (eds).

Korfmann M. 2001e – “Der »Schatz A« und seine Fundsituation. Bemerkungen zum historischen und chronologischen Umfeld des “Schatzfundhorizontes” in Troia”, 212-35 in Meyer J.-W. et. al. (eds). Korfmann M. 2002 – “Die Arbeiten in Troia/ Wilusa 2001. Work in Troia/Wilusa 2001”. Studia Troica 12, 1-33. Korfmann M. 2003 – “Die Arbeiten in Troia/ Wilusa 2002. 2002 Work at Troia/Wilusa”. Studia Troica 13, 3-25. Korfmann M. 2004 – “Die Arbeiten in Troia/ Wilusa 2003. Work at Troia/Wilusa in 2003”. Studia Troica 14, 3-31. Korfmann M. 2005 – “Die Arbeiten in Troia/ Wilusa 2004. Work at Troia/Wilusa in 2004”. Studia Troica 15, 3-25. Korfmann M., Kromer B. 1993 – “Demircihüyük, Beşik-Tepe, Troia – eine Zwischenbilanz zur Chronologie dreier Orte in Westanatolien”. Studia Troica 3, 135-71. Korfmann M. et al. 1995, Girgin Ç., Morçöl Ç., Kılıç S. – “Kumtepe 1993. Bericht über die Rettungsgrabung. Report on the Rescue Excavations”. Studia Troica 5, 237-89. Korfmann M. (ed.) 1987 – Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-1978. Vol. II. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen. Mainz­am-Rhein. Kossatz-Pompé A.-U. 1992 – “Ballı Dağ, der

304

Kökten K. et al. 1945, Özgüç N., Özgüç T. – “1940 ve 1941 Yılında Türk Tarih Kurumu Adına Yapılan Samsun Bölgesi Kazıları Hakkında İlk Kısa Rapor”. Belleten 9, 361-400.

Berg von Pınarbaşı. Eine Siedlung in der Troas”. Studia Troica 2, 171-83. Koşay H. Z. 1951 – Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Alaca Höyük Kazısı. 19371939 daki Çalışmalara ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor/ Les fouilles d’Alaca Höyük entreprises par la Société d’Histoire Turque. Rapport préliminaire sur les travaux en 1937-1939 (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 5.5). Ankara.

Köpcke G. 1990 – “Handel”, 1-157 in Buchholz H.-G. (ed.). Kraus F. R. 1966 – “Staatliche Viehhaltung im altbabylonischen Lande Larsa” (Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde Nieuwe Reeks 29). Amsterdam, 115-81.

Koşay H. 1952 – “Türkiye’de Eski Medeniyetlerin Maddi Kültürde Temadisi”, 214-15 in IV. Türk Tarih Kongresi. Ankara 10-14 Kasım 1948: Kongreye Sunulan Tebliğler (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 9.4). Ankara.

Kromer B. et al. 2003, Korfmann M., Jablonka P. – “Heidelberg Radiocarbon Dates for Troia I to VIII and Kumtepe”, 43-54 in Wagner G. A. et al. (eds).

Koşay H. Z. 1976 – Keban Projesi. Pulur Kazısı 1968-1970/Keban Project. Pulur Excavations 1968-1970 (Keban Projesi Yayınları/Keban Project Publications 3.1). Ankara.

Kubczak J. (ed.) 1983 – Zbiory starożytności. Katalog wystawy. Poznań.

Koşay H. Z., Akok M. 1966 – Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Alaca Höyük Kazısı. 1940­ 1948 daki Çalışmalara ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor/ Ausgrabungen von Alaca Höyük. Vorbericht über die Forschungen und Entdeckungen von 1940-1948 (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 5.6). Ankara.

Kull B. 1988 – Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-1978. Vol. V. Die mittelbronzezeitliche Siedlung. Mainz-am-Rhein. Kull B. 1989 – “Untersuchungen zur Mittelbronzezeit in der Türkei und ihrer Bedeutung für die absolute Datierung der europäischen Bronzezeit”. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 64, 48-73.

Koşay H. Z., Akok M. 1973 – Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Alaca Höyük Kazısı. 19631967 Çalışmaları ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor/ Alaca Höyük Excavations. Preliminary Report on Research and Discoveries 1963-1967 (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 5.28). Ankara.

Kuniholm P. I. 1994 – Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 1994 Progress Report. Ithaca (http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/94adplet. html).

Kökten K. 1949 – “1949 Yılı Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları Hakkında Kısa Rapor”. Belleten 13, 811-29.

Kuniholm P. I. 1995 – Aegean Dendrochronology Project December 1995 Progress Report. Ithaca

305

(http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/95adplet. html). Kuniholm P. I. 1996a – “The Prehistoric Aegean: Dendrochronological Progress as of 1995”. Acta Archaeologica 67, 327-35. Kuniholm P. I. 1996b – “Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for the Eastern Mediterranean”, 401-409 in Demirci Ş. et al. (eds). Kuniholm P. I. 1999 – “New Dates from Old Trees (1998)” (Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 14). Ankara, 39-44. Kuniholm P. I. 2001 – “Aegean Dendrochronology Project 1999-2000 Results” (Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 16). Ankara, 79-84.

Laffineur R., Betancourt P. P. (eds) 1997 – TEXNI. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference. Aegaeum 16. Liège-Austin. Lalonde G. V. 1968 – “AFifth Century Hieron Southwest of the Athenian Agora”. Hesperia 37, 123-33. Lamb W. 1931 – “Antissa”. The Annual of the British School at Athens 31, 166-78. Lamb W. 1932 – “Schliemann’s Prehistoric Sites in the Troad”. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 23, 111-31. Lamb W. 1936 – Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos. Cambridge.

Kunze E. 1934 – Orchomenos. Vol III. Die Keramik der frühen Bronzezeit (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung. Neue Folge 8). München.

Lamb W. 1937 – “Excavations at Kusura Near Afyon Karahisar”. Achaeologia 86, 1-64.

Kühne H. 1976 – Die Keramik vom Tell Chuēra und ihre Beziehungen zu Funden aus Syrien-Palästina, der Türkei und dem Iraq (Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 1). Berlin.

Lamb W. 1951 – “Face-Urns and Kindred Types in Anatolia”. Annual of the British School at Athens 46, 75-80.

Kyrieleis H. 1978 – “Schliemann in Griechenland”. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 25, 74-91. La Baume W. 1955 – Die Entwicklung des Textilhandwerks in Alteuropa (Antiquitas 2.2). Bonn.

Lamb W. 1938 – “Excavations at Kusura Near Afyon Karahisar: II”. Achaeologia 87, 217-73.

Lang M. 1910 – “Zur Ξαίνουσα”. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 13, 246-51. Lascarides A. C. 1977 – The Search for Troy 1553-1874. Bloomington. Latacz J., Theune-Groβkopf B. (eds) 2001 – Troia. Traum und Wirklichkeit. Begleitband

306

zur Ausstellung. Stuttgart-Braunschweig-Bonn 2001-­2002. Stuttgart. Lawall M. L. et al. 2002, Jawando A., Lynch K. M., Papadopoulos J. K., Rotroff S. I. – “Notes from the Tins 2: Research in the Stoa of Attalos”. Hesperia 71, 415-33. Lenz D. et al. 1998, Ruppenstein F., Baumann M., Catling R. – “Protogeometric Pottery at Troia”. Studia Troica 8, 189-222. Lichardus J. et al. 2000, Fol A., Getov L., Bertemes F., Echt R., Katinčarov R., Iliev I. K. – Forschungen in der Mikroregion von Drama (Südostbulgarien). Zusammenfassung der Hauptergebnisse der bulgarisch-deutschen Grabungen in den Jahren 1983-1999. Bonn.

Lloyd S., Gökçe N. 1951 – “Excavations at Polatlı. A New Investigation of Second and Third Millennium Stratigraphy in Anatolia”. Anatolian Studies 1, 21-75. Lloyd S., Mellaart J. 1955 – “Beycesultan Excavations. First Preliminary Report”. Anatolian Studies 5, 39-92. Lloyd S., Mellaart J. 1962 – Beycesultan. Vol. I. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Levels (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 6). London. Lloyd S., Mellaart J. 1965 – Beycesultan. Vol. II. Middle Bronze Age Architecture and Pottery (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 8). London.

Linders T. 1972 – Studies in the Treasure Records of Artemis Brauronia Found in Athens (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 19). Stockholm.

Lloyd S., Safar F. 1943 – “Tell Uqair. Excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate of Antiquities in 1940 and 1941”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2, 131-58.

Ling Roth H. 1913 – Ancient Egyption and Greek Looms (Bankfield Museum Notes 2.2). Halifax.

MacGillivray J. A. 1984 – “The Relative Chronology of Early Cycladic III”, 70-77 in MacGillivray J. A., Barber R. L. N. (eds).

Linick T. W. 1984 – “La Jolla Natural Radiocarbon Measurements X”. Radiocarbon 26, 75-110. Liu R. K. 1978 – “Spindle Whorls: Pt. I. Some Comments and Speculations”. The Bead Journal 3, 87-103. Lloyd S. 1972 – Beycesultan. Vol. III:1. Late Bronze Age Architecture (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 11). London.

MacGillivray J. A., Barber R. L. N. (eds) 1984 – The Prehistoric Cyclades. Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology. Edinburgh. Mackay E. 1925 – Report on the Excavations of the “A” Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia. Vol. I (Field Museum of Natural History. Anthropology, Memoirs 1.1). Chicago.

307

Mackay E. 1929 – A Sumerian Palace and the “A” Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia. Vol. II (Field Museum of Natural History. Anthropology, Memoirs 1.2). Chicago. Mahr G. (ed.) 1981 – Troja. Heinrich Schliemann Ausgrabungen und Funde. Ausstellung des Museums für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Preußischer Kulturbesitz und der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte im Schloß Charlottenburg-Langhansbau. Berlin. Majewski K. (ed.) 1975 – Kultura materialna starożytnej Grecji. Vol. I. Wrocław-Warszawa­ Kraków-Gdańsk. Makkay J. 1992 – “Priam’s Treasure: Chronological Considerations”, 199-204 in Herrmann J. (ed.). Maliszewski D. 1989 – Idole schematyczne z Cyklad, Krety i Troi w III tys. p.n.e. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. University of Warsaw. Warsaw.

Mallowan M. E. L., Cruikshank Rose J. 1935 – Prehistoric Assyria. The Excavations at Tall Arpachiyah 1933. London. Mangani E. 1997 – “I materiali da Troia al Museo Pigorini”, 610-17 in Doumas Ch., La Rosa V. (eds). Manning S. W. 1997a – “Troy, Radiocarbon, and the Chronology of the Northeast Aegean in the Early Bronze Age”, 498-520 in Doumas Ch., La Rosa V. (eds). Manning S. W. 1997b – “Cultural Change in the Aegean c. 2200 BC”, 149-71 in Dalfes H. N. et al. (eds). Manning S. W. 2001 – The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age. Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 1). Sheffield.

Maliszewski D. 1993 – “Trojan Schematic Idols at Munich”. Anatolian Studies 43, 111-15.

Mansfeld G. 1993a – “Pinnacle E4/5 – Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1989 und 1990”. Studia Troica 3, 39-44.

Maliszewski D. 1997 – “From Troy to Poland. Notes on the Collection of Antiquities at Poznań”. Thetis 4, 41-50.

Mansfeld G. 1993b – Review article of Schlette, Kaufmann (eds) 1989, in Bonner Jahrbücher 193, 437-42.

Maliszewski D. 2009 – “Errata do katalogu wystawy „Troja” w Państwowym Muzeum Archeologicznym w Warszawie”. Nowy Filomata 13, 197-216.

Mansfeld G. 2001 – “Die Kontroll-Ausgrabung des “Pinnacle E4/5” im Zentrum der Burg von Troia”. Studia Troica 11, 51-308.

Mallowan M. E. L. 1947 – “Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar”. Iraq 9, 1-266.

Mansfield J. M. 1985 – The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic Peplos. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California. Berkeley.

308

Maran J. 1992a – Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien. Vol. III. Die mittlere Bronzezeit (Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des MittelmeerKulturraumes 30-31). Bonn. Maran J. 1992b – Kiapha Thiti. Ergebnisse der Ausgrasbungen. Vol. II:2. 2. Jt. v. Chr.: Keramik und Kleinfunde (Marburger WincklemannProgramm 1990). Marburg. Maran J. 1998 – Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im späten 3. Jahrtausend v. Ch. Vols I-II. Bonn. Marangou L. (ed.) 1990 – Cycladic Culture. Naxos in the 3rd Millennium BC. Athens. Marinatos S. 1968 – Excavations at Thera. First Preliminary Report (1967 Season) (Bibliotheke tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias 64). Athens. Marinatos S. 1970 – “Anaskaphai Theras II (periodos 1968)”. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias 1968, 87-127. Marinatos S. 1971 – Excavations at Thera IV (1970 Season) (Bibliotheke tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias 64). Athens. Marketou T. 1990 – “Santorini Tephra from Rhodos and Kos: Some Chronological Remarks Based on the Stratigraphy”, 100-13 in Hardy D. A., Renfrew A. C. (eds). Maxwell-Hyslop K. R. 1970 – “Near Eastern Gold ‘Treasures’: A Note on the Assyrian Evidence”. Antiquity 44, 227-28.

Maxwell-Hyslop K. R. 1971 – Western Asiatic Jewellery c. 3000-612 B.C. London. McDonald W. A., Wilkie N. C. (eds) 1992 – Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Vol. II. The Bronze Age Occupation. Minneapolis. McLauchlin B. 1981 – “New Evidence on the Mechanics of Loom Weights”. American Journal of Archaeology 85, 79-81. McMullen Fisher S. 1996 – “Troian “G2/3 Ware” Revisited”. Studia Troica 6, 119-32. Mee Ch. 1978 – “Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C”. Anatolian Studies 28, 121-56. Mee Ch. B. 1984 – “The Mycenaeans and Troy”, 45-56 in Foxhall L., Davies J. K. (eds). Mee Ch. B. 1998 – “Anatolia and the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age”, 137-46 in Cline E. H., Harris-Cline D. (eds). Meertens M. 1981 – Das große Spinnbuch. BernStuttgart. Mellaart J. 1955 – “Some Prehistoric Sites in North-Western Anatolia” (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 6). Istanbul-Tübingen, 53-88. Mellaart J. 1957 – “Anatolian Chronology in the Early and Middle Bronze Age”. Anatolian Studies 7, 55-88. Mellaart J. 1958 – “The End of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Aegean”. American Journal of Archaeology 62, 9-33.

309

Mellaart J. 1959 – “Notes on the Architectural Remains of Troy I and II”. Anatolian Studies 9, 131-62. Mellaart J. 1960 – “The Origin of Minyan Ware” (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 9.5). Ankara, 146-56. Mellaart J. 1961 – “Excavations at Hacılar. Fourth Preliminary Report, 1960”. Anatolian Studies 11, 39-75. Mellaart J. 1962 – “Excavations at Çatal Hüyük”. Anatolian Studies 12, 41-65. Mellaart J. 1963 – “Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau, II. The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Konya Plain”. Anatolian Studies 13, 199-236.

Mellaart J., Murray A. 1995 – Beycesultan. Vol. III:2. Late Bronze Age and Phrygian Pottery and Middle and Late Bronze Age Small Objects (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 12). London. Mellink M. J. 1952 – Review article of Blegen et al. 1950, in American Journal of Archaeology 56, 149-51. Mellink M. J. 1953 – Review article of Blegen et al. 1950-1951, in Bibliotheca Orientalis 10, 52-61. Mellink M. J. 1956 – A Hittite Cemetery at Gordion (University Museum Monograph). Philadelphia. Mellink M. J. 1963a – “Archaeology in Asia Minor”. American Journal of Archaeology 67, 173­-90.

Mellaart J. 1964 – “Anatolia, c. 2300-1750 B.C.” (The Cambridge Ancient History 1). Cambridge, 28­-52.

Mellink M. J. 1963b – “An Akkadian Illustration of a Campaign in Cilicia?”. Anatolia 7, 101-15.

Mellaart J. 1966 – The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia. Beirut.

Mellink M. J. 1964 – “Excavations at KarataşSemayük in Lycia, 1963”. American Journal of Archaeology 68, 269-78.

Mellaart J. 1969 – Review article of Crossland 1967, in Journal of Hellenic Studies 89, 172-73.

Mellink M. J. 1965a – “Excavations at KarataşSemayük in Lycia, 1964”. American Journal of Archaeology 69, 241-51.

Mellaart J. 1970a – Excavations at Hacılar. Vol. I. Edinburgh. Mellaart J. 1970b – “The Second Millennium Chronology of Beycesultan”. Anatolian Studies 20, 55-67.

Mellink M. J. 1965b – “Anatolian Chronology”, 101-31 in Ehrich R. W. (ed.). Mellink M. J. 1966 – “Excavations at KarataşSemayük in Lycia, 1965”. American Journal of Archaeology 70, 245-57.

310

Mellink M. J. 1967 – “Excavations at KarataşSemayük in Lycia, 1966”. American Journal of Archaeology 71, 251-67. Mellink M. J. 1968a – “Archaeology in Asia Minor”. American Journal of Archaeology 72, 125-47. Mellink M. J. 1968b – “Excavations at KarataşSemayük in Lycia, 1967”. American Journal of Archaeology 72, 243-59. Mellink M. J. 1969 – “Excavations at KarataşSemayük in Lycia, 1968”. American Journal of Archaeology 73, 319-31. Mellink M. J. 1986 – “The Early Bronze Age in West Anatolia”, 139-52 in Cadogan G. (ed.). Mellink M. J. 1989 – “Anatolian and Foreign Relations of Tarsus in the Early Bronze Age”, 319­-31 in Emre K. et al. (eds).

Menghin W. (ed.) 1992 – Schliemann und Troja. Ausstellung des Museums für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Berlin in Zusammenarbeit mit Schloß Cappenberg, Kreis Unna. Berlin Meriç R. 1993 – “1991 Yılı Alaşehir Kazısı” (Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 14). Ankara, 355-63. Meriggi P. 1963 – “Terzo viaggio anatolico”. Oriens Antiquus 2, 275-99. Merpert N., Munchajev R. 1969 – “The Investigation of the Soviet Archaeological Expedition in Iraq in the Spring 1969. Excavations at Yarim Tepe. First Preliminary Report”. Sumer 25, 125-31. Meyer E. 1962 – “Schliemann’s Letters to Max Müller in Oxford”. Journal of Hellenic Studies 82, 75-105.

Mellink M. J. 1992 – “Anatolian Chronology”, 207-20 in Ehrich R. W. (ed.).

Meyer E. (ed.) 1936 – Briefe von Heinrich Schliemann. Gesammelt und mit einer Einleitung in Auswahl herausgegeben. Geleitwort von Wilhelm Dörpfeld. Berlin-Leipzig.

Mellink M. J. 1993 – “The Anatolian South Coast in the Early Bronze Age: The Cilician Perspective”, 495-508 in Frangipane M. et al. (eds).

Meyer E. (ed.) 1953 – Heinrich Schliemann Briefwechsel. Aus dem Nachlass in Auswahl herausgegeben. Vol. I. von 1842 bis 1875. Berlin.

Mellink M. J. (ed.) 1986 – Troy and the Trojan War. A Symposium Held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984. Bryn Mawr, Pa.

Meyer E. (ed.) 1958 – Heinrich Schliemann Briefwechsel. Aus dem Nachlass in Auswahl herausgegeben. Vol. II. von 1876 bis 1890. Berlin.

Mellink M. J. et al. (eds) 1993, Porada E., Özgüç T. – Aspects of Art and Iconography. Anatolia and Its Neighbors. Studies in Honour of Nimet Özgüç. Ankara.

Meyer J.-W. et. al. (eds) 2001, Novák M., Pruß A. – Beiträge zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie Winfried Orthmann gewidmet. Frankfurt-am-Main.

311

Milojčić V. 1961 – Samos. Vol. I. Die Prähistorische Siedlung unter dem Heraion. Grabung 1953 und 1955. Bonn. Milojčić V. 1973 – “Bericht über die deutschen archäologischen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien”. Archaiologikon Deltion 28, 339-47. Mommsen H., Pavúk P. 2007 – “Provenance of the Grey and Tan Wares from Troia, Cyprus, and the Levant”. Studia Troica 17, 25-41. Mommsen H. et al. 2001, Hertel D., Mountjoy P. A. – “Neutron Activation Analysis of the Pottery from Troy in the Berlin Schliemann Collection”. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 169-211. Montell G. 1941 – “Spinning Tools and Spinning Methods in Asia”, 109-27 in Sylwan V. Moorey P. R. S. 1980 – Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Hüyük, Near Carchemish, Salvaged by T. E. Lawrence and C. L. Woolley in 1913 (with a Catalogue Raisonné of the Objects in Berlin, Cambridge, Liverpool, London and Oxford (British Archaeological Reports. International Series 87). Oxford. Morricone L. 1975 – “Coo-Scavi e scoperte nel “Serraglio” e in località minori (1935-1943)”. Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 50-51. Nuova Serie 34-35 (1972-1973), 139-396. Mortensen P. 1970 – Tell Shimshara. The Hassuna Period. Cøbenhavn.

Mountjoy P. A. 1997a – “Local Mycenaean Pottery at Troia”. Studia Troica 7, 259-67. Mountjoy P. A. 1997b – “Troia Phase VIf and Phase VIg: The Mycenaean Pottery”. Studia Troica 7, 275-94. Mountjoy P. A. 1998 – “The East Aegean-West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa”. Anatolian Studies 48, 33-67. Mountjoy P. A. 1999a – “The Destruction of Troia VIh”. Studia Troica 9, 253-93. Mountjoy P. A. 1999b – “Troia VII Reconsidered”. Studia Troica 9, 295-346. Munsell 1994 – Munsell Soil Color Charts. Revised edition. New Windsor. Muss U. (ed.) 2001 – Der Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Sonderschriften 37). Wien. Mussche H. F. et al. (eds) 1984, Bingen J., Servais J., Spitaels P. – Thorikos. Vol. VIII. 1972/1976. Rapport préliminaire sur les 9e, 10e, 11e et 12e campagnes de fouilles/Voorlopig verslag over de 9e, 10e, 11e en 12e opgravingscampagnes. Gent. Mühlenbruch T. 2001 – “Heinrich Schliemann und die Benennung des “depas amphikypellon””, 113-33 in Bölke W. (ed.). Müller K. 1938 – Tiryns. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts. Vol. IV. Die Urfirniskeramik. München.

312

Mylonas G. E. 1959 – Aghios Kosmas. An Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery in Attica. Princeton.

Orthmann W. 1966a – “Keramik der Yortankultur in den Berliner Museen” (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 16). Istanbul-Tübingen, 1-26.

Mylonas G. E. 1973 – O Taphikos Kyklos B ton Mykenon. Athenai.

Orthmann W. 1966b – “Untersuchungen auf dem Asarcık Hüyük bei Ilıca” (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 16). Istanbul-Tübingen, 27-88.

Naumann R. 19712 – Architektur Kleinasiens von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende der hethitischen Zeit. Tübingen.

Orthmann W. 1967 – Das Gräberfeld bei Ilıca. Wiesbaden.

Negahban E. O. 1964 – A Preliminary Report on Marlik Excavations. Gohar Rud Expedition. Rudbar 1961-1962. Teheran.

Overbeck J. C. 1984 – “Stratigraphy and Ceramic Sequence in Middle Cycladic Ayia Irini, Kea”, 108­ 13 in MacGillivray J. A., Barber R. L. N. (eds).

Neils J. (ed.) 1992 – Goddess and Polis. The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens. Princeton, New Jersey.

Öktü A. 1973 – Die Intermediate-Keramik in Kleinasien. München.

Obladen-Kauder J. 1996 – “Die Kleinfunde aus Ton”, 209-86 in Baykal-Seeher A., Obladen-Kauder J. Ohly D. 1986 – Guide to the Munich Antikensammlungen. Waldsassen. Olivier J.-P. 1999 – “Rapport 1991-1995 sur les textes en écriture hiéroglyphique crétoise, en linéaire A et en linéaire B”, 419-35 in DegerJalkotzy S. et al. (eds). Olivier J.-P., Palaima Th. G. (eds) 1988 – Texts, Tablets and Scribes. Studies in Mycenaean Epigraphy and Economy Offered to Emmett L. Bennett, Jr. (Minos Supplement 10). Salamanca. Orthmann W. 1963 – Die Keramik der frühen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien (Istanbuler Forschungen 24). Berlin.

Özdoğan M. 1986 – “Prehistoric Sites in the Gelibolu Peninsula” (Anadolu Araştırmaları 10). İstanbul, 51-66. Özdoğan M. 1987 – “Taşlıcabayır. A Late Bronze Age Burial Mound in Eastern Thrace”. Anatolica 14, 5-39. Özdoğan M. 1988 – “1986 Yılı Trakya ve Marmara Bölgesi Araştırmaları” (Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 5). Ankara, 157-73. Özdoğan M. 1989 – “1987 Yılı Edirne ve Balıkesir İlleri Yüzey Araştırması” (Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 6). Ankara, 571-90. Özdoğan M. 1991 – “1989 Yılı Marmara Bölgesi Araştırmaları ve Toptepe Kazısı” (Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 12). Ankara, 345-75.

313

Özdoğan M. 1993 – “The Second Millennium of the Marmara Region. The Perspective of a Prehistorian on a Controversial Historical Issue” (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43). Istanbul-Tübingen, 151-63. Özdoğan M. 2003a – “Kanlıgeçit. Une Colonie Anatolienne de l’Âge du Bronze”. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 281, 82-86. Özdoğan M. 2003b – “The Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara and the Bronze Age Archaeology: An Archaeological Predicament”, 105-20 in Wagner G. A. et al. (eds). Özdoğan M., Parzinger H. 2000 – “Asagı Pınar and Kanlıgeçit Excavations – Some New Evidence on Early Metallurgy from Eastern Thrace”, 83-91 in Yalçın Ü. (ed.). Özgüç N. 1957 – “Marble Idols and Statuettes from the Excavations at Kültepe”. Belleten 21, 71-80. Özgüç N., Özgüç T. 1953 – Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Kültepe Kazısı Raporu 1949/ Ausgrabungen in Kültepe. Bericht über die im Auftrage der Türkischen Historischen Gesellschaft, 1949 durchgeführten Ausgrabungen (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 5.12). Ankara. Özgüç T. 1946 – “Anadolu’da Arkeoloji Araştırmaları I/Untersuchungen über archaeologische Funde aus Anatolien I”. Belleten 10, 557-624. Özgüç T. 1948 – Die Bestattungsbraeuche im vorgeschichtlichen Anatolien (Veroeffentlichungen

314

der Universitaet von Ankara. Wissenschaftliche Reihe 14.5). Ankara. Özgüç T. 1950 – Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Kültepe Kazısı Raporu 1948/Ausgrabungen in Kültepe. Bericht über die im Auftrage der Türkischen Historischen Gesellschaft, 1948 durchgeführten Ausgrabungen (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 5.10). Ankara. Özgüç T. 1959 – Kültepe-Kaniş. Asur Ticaret Kolonilerinin Merkezinde Yapılan Yeni Araştırmalar/New Researches at the Center of the Assyrian Trade Colonies (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 5.19). Ankara. Özgüç T. 1978 – Maşat Höyük Kazıları ve Çevresindeki Araştırmalar/Excavations at Maşat Höyük and Investigations in Its Vicinity (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları 5.38). Ankara. Özgüç T. 1986a – “New Observations on the Relationship of Kültepe with Southeast Anatolia and North Syria During the Third Millennium B.C.”, 31-47 in Canby J. V. et al. (eds). Özgüç T. 1986b – Kültepe-Kaniş. Vol. II. Eski Yakındoğu’nun Ticaret Merkezinde Yeni Araştırmalar/New Researches at the Trading Center of the Ancient Near East (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları 5.41). Ankara. Özgüç T., Akok M. 1958 – Horoztepe. Eski Tunç Devri Mezarlığı ve İskân Yeri. An Early Bronze Age Settlement and Cemetery (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 5.18). Ankara.

Panajotov I. et al. 1991, Lesakov Kr.,Aleksandrov St., Zmejkova I., Popova C., Stefanova T. – “Selisna mogila G″l″bovo – K″snohalkolitna, ranna i sredna bronzova epoha/The Settlement Mound of Galabovo – Late Chalcolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age”, 139-204 in Panajotov I. et al. (eds).

Parrot A. 1962 – “Les fouilles de Mari. Douzième campagne (Automne 1961)”. Syria 39, 151-79. Parzinger H. 1993 – Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und Frühbronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und Mittlerem Taurus. Vols I-II (Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 52). Mainz-am-Rhein.

Panajotov I. et al. (eds) 1991, Lesakov Kr., Georgieva R., Aleksandrov St., Borisov B. – Ekspedicija Marica Iztok. Arheologiczeski Prouczvanija. Sofija 1991.

Parzinger H., Özdoğan M. 1996 – “Die Ausgrabungen in Kırklareli (Türkisch-Thrakien) und ihre Bedeutung für die Kulturbeziehungen zwischen Anatolien und dem Balkan vom Neolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezei”. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 76, 5-29.

Papademetriou I. 1952 – “Anaskaphe lakkoeidous taphou en Mykenais”. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias, 197-203.

Pausanias – Graeciae descriptio. Vols I-II. Libri I-VIII. Edidit M. H. Rocha-Pereira (Bibliotheca Scriptorvm Graecorvm et Romanorvm Tevbneriana). Leipzig 1973, 1977.

Papadopoulos J. K. 2002 – “Παίζω ’ή χέζω? A Contextual Approach to Pessoi (Gaming Pieces, Counters, or Convenient Wipes?)”, 423-27 in Lawall M. L. et al.

Pavúk P. 2002a – “Troia VI and VIIa. The Blegen Pottery Shapes: Towards a Typology”. Studia Troica 12, 35-71.

Paris P. 1891 – Élatée. La ville, le temple d’Athéna Cranaia. Paris. Parlama L. 1984 – He Skyros sten epoche tou Chalkou. Didaktorike Diatribe. Athena.

Pavúk P. 2002b – “Das Aufkommen und die Verbreitung der Grauminyschen Ware in Westanatolien”, 99-115 in Blum H. et al. (eds).

Parlama L. 1987 – “To telos tes Proimes Chalkokratias sto Palamari tes Skyrou. Scheseis kai problemata chronologeseos”. Archaiologikon Deltion 42, 1-7.

Payne H., Dunbabin T. J. (eds) 1962 – Perachora. The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia. Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 1930-1933. Vol. II. Pottery, Ivories, Scarabs, and Other Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia. Oxford.

Parlama L. 1990 – “Neotera stoicheia apo ten anaskaphe tou proistorikou oikismou sto Palamari tes Skyrou. Palamari Skyrou anaskaphe 1985-86”, 125-34 in Goulandre N. P.

Pecorella P. E. 1984 – Missione Archeologica Italiana di Iasos. Vol. I. La cultura preistorica di Iasos in Caria (Archaeologica 51). Roma.

315

Pernicka E. et al. 1990, Bergmann F., SchmittStrecker S., Grimanis A. P. – “On the Composition and Provenance of Metal Artefacts from Poliochni on Lemnos”. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9, 263-98. Persson A. W. 1931 – The Royal Tombs at Dendra Near Midea (Skrifter Utgivna av Kungliga Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund 15). Lund-London-Paris-Oxford-Leipzig. Pfeiffer L. 1920 – Die Werkzeuge des SteinzeitMenschen aus der technologischen Abteilung des Städtischen Museums in Weimer. Jena.

Podzuweit Ch. 1979b – “Neuere frühtrojanische Funde in Nordwestanatolien und Griechenland”. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 26, 131-53. Podzuweit Ch. 1982 – “Die mykenische Welt und Troja”, 65-88 in Hänsel B. (ed.). Ponting K. G. (ed.) 1968 – Textile History. Vol. I. Newton Abbot. Popham M. R., Sackett L. H. 1968 – Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboea 1964-66. London.

Pieniążek-Sikora M. 2002 – “Neue Anregungen zur Diskussion über die Beziehungen zwischen Troia und dem nordwestpontischen Gebiet”, 705-15 in Aslan R. et al. (eds).

Popham M. R. et al. 1984, Betts J. H., Cameron M., Catling H. W. and E. A., Evely D., Higgins R. A., Smyth D. – The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (The British School of Archaeology at Athens Supplementary Volume 17). London.

Piotrovskij M. B. (ed.) 1998 – Sliman, Peterburg, Troja. Katalog vystavki v Gosudarstvennom Ermitaze, Sankt-Peterburg 19 ijunja-18 oktjabrja 1998 goda. Sankt-Peterburg.

Popham M. R. et al. 1993, Calligas P. G., Catling H. W., Coulton J., Sackett L. H. – Lefkandi. The Protogeometric Building at Toumba. Vol. II:2. The Excavations, Architecture and Finds. Athens.

Plato – Res Pvblica. Recognovit breviqve adnotatione critica instrvxit I. Oxford 1902.

Popham M. R. et al. (eds) 1980, Sackett L. H., Themelis P. G. – Lefkandi. Vol. I. The Iron Age (The British School of Archaeology at Athens Supplementary Volume 11). London.

Platon N. 1966 – “Anaskaphe Zakrou”. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias 1962, 142-68. Platon N. 1971 – Zakros. The Discovery of a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete. New York. Podzuweit Ch. 1979a – Trojanische Gafäßformen der Frühbronzezeit in Anatolien, der Ägäis und Angrenzenden Gebieten. Mainz-am-Rhein.

Poppelreuter J. 1896 – “Neuordnung der Schliemann’schen Sammlung”. Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 11. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 105-107. Porada E. 1965 – Ancient Iran. The Art of PreIslamic Times (Art of the World 16). London.

316

Pottier E. 1923 – Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. France. Vol. I. Musée du Louvre. Paris.

Rhomaios K. A., Papaspyridi S. 1932 – Corpus Vasorum Antiqvorum. Grèce. Vol. I. Athènes, Musée National. Paris.

Protonotariou-Deïlaki E. 1969 – “Tholotos taphos Kazarmas”. Archaiologika Analekta ex Athenon 2, 3-6.

Riehl S. 1999 – Bronze Age Environment and Economy in the Troad. Tübingen.

Quitta H. 1978 – “Radiokarbondaten und die Zeitstellung der “verbrannten Stadt” von Troja”, 27-30 in Coblenz W., Horst F. (eds).

Riis P. J. 1948 – Hama. Fouilles et recherches 1931-1938. Vol. II:3. Les cimetières à crémation (Nationalmuseets Skrifter 1). Copenhague.

Quitta H. 1981 – “Zur Chronologie der frühbronzezeitlichen Trojaschichten”, 21-29 in Hühn E. (ed.).

Robinson D. M. 1930 – Excavations at Olynthus. Part II. Architecture and Sculpture: Houses and Other Buildings. Baltimore-London-Oxford.

Rapp G. Jr. 1982 – “Earthquakes in the Troad”, 43-58 in Rapp G. Jr., Gifford J. A. (eds).

Robinson D. M. 1941 – Excavations at Olynthus. Part X. Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds, an Original Contribution to Greek Life (with a New Up-to-date Map of Olynthus). Baltimore-LondonOxford.

Rapp G. Jr., Gifford J. A. (eds) 1982 – Troy. The Archaeological Geology (Troy Supplementary Monograph 4). Princeton. Reichenberger A. 2000 – Bildhafte Darstellungen der Hallstattzeit (Beiträge zur Vorgeschichte Nordostbayerns 3). Fürth. Renfrew C. 1972 – The Emergence of Civilisation. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. (Studies in Prehistory). London. Renfrew C. et al. 1985, Mountjoy P. A., French E., Younger J. G., Cherry J. F., Daykin A., Moody J., Morgan L., Bradford N. – The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi (The British School of Archaeology at Athens Supplement 18). London.

Robinson D. M. 1952 – Excavations at Olynthus. Part XIV. Terracottas, Lamps, and Coins Found in 1934 and 1938. Baltimore. Rodden R. J. 1962 – “Excavations at the Early Neolithic Site at Nea Nikomedeia, Greek Macedonia (1961 Season)”. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28, 267-88. Rodden R. J., Rodden J. M. 1964 – “A European Link with Chatal Huyuk: The 7th Millennium Settlement of Nea Nikomedia in Macedonia. Part II – Burials and the Shrine”. The Illustrated London News, April 18, 604-607. Rose Ch. B. 1991 – “The Theater of Ilion”. Studia Troica 1, 69-77.

317

Rose Ch. B. 1992 – “The 1991 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”. Studia Troica 2, 43-60.

Pattern-Decorated Early Helladic III Pottery from Lerna and Its Implications”. Hesperia 51, 459-88.

Rose Ch. B. 1993 – “The 1992 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”. Studia Troica 3, 97-116.

Rutter J. B. 1983a – “Some Observations on the Cyclades in the Later Third and Early Second Millennia”. American Journal of Archaeology 87, 69-76.

Rose Ch. B. 1994 – “The 1993 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”. Studia Troica 4, 75-104. Rose Ch. B. 1995 – “The 1994 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”. Studia Troica 5, 81-105. Rose Ch. B. 1996 – “The 1995 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”. Studia Troica 6, 97-101. Rose Ch. B. 1997 – “The 1996 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”. Studia Troica 7, 73-110. Rose Ch. B. 1998 – “The 1997 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”. Studia Troica 8, 71-113. Rowe A. P. et al. (eds) 1979, Benson E. P., Schaffer A.-L. – The Junius B. Bird Pre-Columbian Textile Conference, May 19th and 20th, 1973. Washington. Rutter J. B. 1975 – “Ceramic Evidence for Northern Intruders in Southern Greece at the Beginning of the Late Helladic IIIC Period”. American Journal of Archaeology 79, 17-32. Rutter J. B. 1979 – Ceramic Change in the Aegean Early Bronze Age: The Kastri Group, Lefkandi I, and Lerna IV: A Theory Concerning the Origin of Early Helladic III Ceramics (Institute of Archaeology, University of California Occasional Paper 5). Los Angeles. Rutter J. B. 1982 – “A Group of Distinctive

Rutter J. B. 1983b – “Fine Gray-Burnished Pottery of the Early Helladic III Period. The Ancestry of Gray Minyan”. Hesperia 52, 327-55. Rutter J. B. 1984 – “The Early Cycladic III Gap: What It Is and How to Go About Filling It Without Making It Go Away”, 95-107 in MacGillivray J. A., Barber R. L. N. (eds). Rutter J. B. 1995 – Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid. Vol. III. The Pottery of Lerna IV. Princeton. Rutter J. B., Rutter S. H. 1976 – The Transition to Myceneaen. A Stratified Middle Helladic II to Late Helladic IIA Pottery Sequence from Ayios Stephanos in Lakonia (Monumenta Archaeologica 4). Los Angeles. Rückert B., Kolb F. (eds) 2003 – Probleme der Keramikchronologie des südlichen und westlichen Kleinasiens in geometrischer und archaischer Zeit. Internationales Kolloquium Tübingen 24.3.26.3. 1998 (Antiquitas Reihe 3.44). Bonn. Ryder M. L. 1965 – “Report of Textiles from Çatal Hüyük”. Anatolian Studies 15, 175-76. Ryder M. L. 1968 – “The Origin of Spinning”, 73­-82 in Ponting K. G. (ed.).

318

Sackett L. H. et al. 1965, Popham M. R., Warren P. M. – “Excavations at Palaikastro VI”. The Annual of the British School at Athens 60, 248-315.

Sazcı G. 2005 – “Troia I-III, die Martime TroiaKultur und Troia IV-V, die Anatolische TroiaKultur: eine Untersuchung der Funde und Befunde in mittleren Schliemanngraben (D07, D08)”. Studia Troica 15, 35-98.

Saghieh M. 1983 – Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C. A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections. Warminster.

Sazcı G., Korfmann M. 2000 – “Metallfunde des 3. Jahrtausends v. u. Z. aus Troia – eine Studie in Verbindung mit den Ergebnissen der neuen Ausgrabungen”, 93-100 in Yalçın Ü. (ed.).

Saherwala G. 1981 – “Die Geschichte der Sammlung trojanischer Altertümer”, 39-48 in Mahr G. (ed.). Saherwala G. et al. 1993, Goldmann K., Mahr G. – Heinrich Schliemann “Sammlung trojanischer Altertümer”. Beiträge zur Chronik einer großen Erwerbung der Berliner Museen (Berliner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Neue Folge 7). Berlin.

Schachermeyr F. 1982 – Die Ägäische Frühzeit. Vol. V. Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen vom 13. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v. Ch. Wien. Schachner A. 1997 – “Trojanische Keramik der SBZ im Östlichen Mittelmeer/Geç Tunç Çağında Doğu Akdeniz’deki Truva Seramikleri”. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 31, 217-36.

Sampson A. 1985 – Manika. Mia protoelladike pole ste Chalkida. Vol. I. Athina.

Schachner A. 1994-1995 – “Untersuchungen zur chronologischen Stellung der grau-minyschen Keramik in Westanatolien unter Berücksichtigung der Schliemann-Sammlung im Berliner Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte”. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 26/27, 90-115.

Sandars N. K. 1971 – “From Bronze Age to Iron Age: A Sequel to a Sequel”, 1-29 in Boardman J. et al. (eds). Sandars N. K. 1985 – The Sea Peoples. Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean 1250-1150 BC (Ancient Peoples and Places 89). London.

Schachner A. 1999 – “Der Hanay Tepe und seine Bedeutung für die bronzezeitliche Topographie der Troas: die prähistorischen Funde der Grabungen von Frank Calvert im Berliner Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte”. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 31, 7-47.

Satır M., Zöldföldi J. 2003 – “Provenance Studies of Pottery and Granite Columns in Troia”, 223-31 in Wagner G. A. et al. (eds). Sazcı G. 2001 – “Gebäude mit vermutlich kultischer Funktion. Das Megaron in Quadrat G6”, 384-90 in Latacz J., Theune-Groβkopf B. (eds).

Schachner A. 2000 – “Nachwort”, 299-307 in Bayne N. P.

319

Schachner A., Meriç R. 2000 – “Ein Stempelsiegel des späten 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. aus Metropolis in Ionien”. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 42, 85-102. Schachner Ş., Schachner A. 1995 – “Ürgüp ve Nevşehir Müzelerindeki “depas amphikypellon” ve “tankart” Tipli Kaplar ve Düşündürdükleri”, 307-16 in Başgelen N. (ed.). Schaeffer C. F. A. et al. 1952, Dussaud M. R., Plenderleith M. H. J., Masson O. – EnkomiAlasia. Nouvelles missions en Chypre 1946-1950. Vol. I. Paris. Schiek S., Fischer F. 1965 – “Einige frühbronzezeitliche Funde aus Kleinasien” (Fundberichte aus Schwaben. Neue Folge 17). Stuttgart, 156-72. Schirmer W. 1971 – “Überlegungen zu einigen Baufragen der Schichten I und II in Troja” (Istanbuler Mitteilungen 21). Istanbul-Tübingen, 1-43. Schlabow K. 1976 – Textilfunde der Eisenzeit in Norddeutschland (Göttinger Schriften zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 15). Neumünster. Schlette F., Kaufmann D. (eds) 1989 – Religion und Kult in ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. Vol. XIII. Berlin. Schliemann H. 1874a – Trojanische Alterthümer. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Troja. Leipzig. Schliemann H. 1874b – Atlas des antiquités troyennes. Illustrations photographiques faisant

suite au rapport sur les fouilles de Troie. Leipzig-Paris. Schliemann H. 1875 – Troy and Its Remains. A Narrative of Researches and Discoveries Made on the Site of Ilium, and in the Trojan Plain. London. Schliemann H. 1878 – Mykenae. Bericht über meine Forschungen und Entdeckungen in Mykenae und Tiryns. Mit einer Vorrede von W. E. Gladstone. Leipzig. Schliemann H. 1880 – Ilios: The City and Country of the Trojans: The Results of Researches and Discoveries on the Site of Troy and Throughout the Troad in the Years 1871-72-73-78-79. London. Schliemann H. 1881a – Orchomenos. Bericht über meine Ausgrabungen im böotischen Orchomenos. Leipzig. Schliemann H. 1881b – “Exploration of the Boeotian Orchomenus”. Journal of Hellenic Studies 2, 122-63. Schliemann H. 1881c – Ilios. Stadt und Land der Trojaner. Forschungen und Entdeckungen in der Troas und besonders auf der Baustelle von Troja. Mit einer Selbstbiographie des Verfassers, einer Vorrede von Rudolf Virchow. Leipzig. Schliemann H. 1884 – Troja. Ergebnisse meiner neuesten Ausgrabungen auf der Baustelle von Troja, in den Heldengräbern, Bunarbaschi und andern Orten der Troas im Jahre 1882. Mit Vorrede von Professor A. H. Sayce. Leipzig.

320

Schliemann H. 1891 – Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Troja im Jahre 1890. Leipzig. Schliemann S. (ed.) 19362 – Heinrich Schliemann. Selbstbiographie bis zu seinem Tode vervollständigt. Leipzig. Schmidt E. F. 1932 – The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1928 and 1929. Part I (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 19. Researches in Anatolia 4). Chicago. Schmidt E. F. 1937 – Excavations at Tepe Hissar Damghan (Publications of the Iranian Section of the University Museum). Philadelphia. Schmidt H. 1902 – Heinrich Schliemann’s Sammlung trojanischer Altertümer. Berlin. Seeher J. 1987 – Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-1978. Vol. III:1. Die Keramik 1. A. Die neolitische und chalkolitische Keramik. B. Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik der älteren Phasen (bis Phase G). Mainz-amRhein. Settgast J. (ed.) 1978 – Von Troja bis Amarna. The Norbert Schimmel Collection New York, Prähistorische Staatssammlung in Zusamenarbeit mit der Staatlichen Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst München. Mainz-am-Rhein. Sey Y. (ed.) 1996 – Tarihten Günümüze Anadolu’da Konut ve Yerleşme/Housing and Settlement in Anatolia. A Historical Perspective. The Second United Nations Human Settlements Conference (Habitat II). İstanbul.

Shelmerdine C. W., Palaima Th. G. (eds) 1984 – Pylos Comes Alive. Industry + Administration in a Mycenaean Palace. Papers of a Symposium of the National Endowment, the Archaeological Institute of America and Fordham University, New York, May 4-5, 1984. New York. Shepard A. O. 1958 – Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington. Simon Ch. G. 1986 – The Archaic Votive Offerings and Cults of Ionia. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California. Berkeley. Simpson E. (ed.) 1997 – The Spoils of War. World War II and Its Aftermath: The Loss, Reappearance, and Recovery of Cultural Property. New York. Singer C. et al. (eds) 1956, Holmyard E. J., Hall A. R. – A History of Technology. Vol. I. From Early Times to Fall of Ancient Empires. Oxford. Singh P. 1974 – Neolithic Cultures of Western Asia. London-New York. Sotirakopoulou P. 1990 – “The Earliest History of Akrotiri: The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Phases”, 41-47 in Hardy D. A., Renfrew A. C. (eds). Spanos P. Z. 1972 – Untersuchungen über den bei Homer “depas amphikypellon” genannten Gafäßtypus (İstanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft 6). Tübingen. Spanos P. Z., Strommenger E. 1993 – “Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Nordwestanatolien und Nordsyrien/Nordmesopotamien im III.

321

Jahrtausend vor Christus”, 573-78 in Mellink M. J. et al. (eds). Spencer N. 1995 – “Early Lesbos Between East and West: A ‘Grey Area’ of Aegean Archaeology”. Annual of the British School at Athens 90, 269-306. Sperling J. W. 1976 – “Kum Tepe in the Troad. Trial Excavation, 1934”. Hesperia 45, 305-64.

Sylwan V. 1941 – Woollen Textiles of the Lou-Lan People (Reports from the Scientific Expedition to the North-Western Provinces of China Under the Leadership of Dr. Sven Heidin (The SinoSwedisch Expedition 15.7. Archaeology 2). Stockholm. Szymkiewicz J. 1983 – “Dzieje zbiorów starożytności”, 10-15 in Kubczak J. (ed.).

Sperling J. W. 1986 – “Reminiscences of Troy”, 29-31 in Mellink M. J. (ed.).

Szymkiewicz J. 1984 – “Dział Sztuki Starożytnej Muzeum Narodowego w Poznaniu”. Studia Muzealne 14, 29-47.

Spitaels P. 1984 – “The Early Helladic Period in Mine no. 3 (Theatre Sector)”, 151-74 in Mussche H. F. et al. (eds).

Szymkiewicz J. 1990 – “Schliemann i jego kolekcja wykopalisk trojańskich”. Filomata 396, 108-19.

Steventon R. L., Kutzbach J. E. 1986 – “University of Wisconsin Radiocarbon Dates XXIII”. Radiocarbon 28, 1206-23.

Szymkiewicz J. 1991 – “Trojan Antiquities in the Collection of the National Museum in Poznań”. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 989. Prace Archeologiczne 49. Studia z Archeologii Śródziemnomorskiej 13, 25-30.

Stewart E., Stewart J. 1950 – Vounous 1937-38. Field-report on the Excavations Sponsored by the British School of Archaeology at Athens (Skrifter Utgivna an Svenska Institutet i Rom 14). Lund.

Szymkiewicz J. 2004 – “Sztuka starożytna”, 103­-14 in Suchocki W., Żuchowski T. (eds).

Strommenger E. 1991 – “Ausgrabungen in Tall Bi‘a 1990”. Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft zu Berlin 123, 7-34.

Theochares D. R. 1952 – “Anaskaphe en Arapheni”. Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias, 129-51.

Stronach D. 1961 – “Excavations at Ras Al ‘Amiya”. Iraq 23, 95-137.

Theochares D. R. 1955 – “Neoi «kykladikoi» taphoi en Attike”. Neon Athenaion 1, 283-92.

Suchocki W., Żuchowski T. (eds) 2004 – Stulecie otwarcia Muzeum im. Cesarza Fryderyka w Poznaniu. Muzeum Narodowe w Poznaniu 5 października-7 listopada 2004. Poznań.

Theochari M. D., Parlama L. 1986 – “Palamari, an Early Bronze Age Settlement at Skyros”, 51-55 in Hägg R., Konsola D. (eds).

322

Thompson D. B. 1963 – Troy. The Terracotta Figurines of the Hellenistic Period (Troy Supplementary Monograph 3). Princeton. Thumm D. 2002 – ““Digging at Troy”: die Ausgrabungen der 1930er Jahre in Troia”, 85-104 in Aslan R. et al. (eds). Tolstikov W. P., Trejster M. J. 1996 – Der Schatz aus Troja. Schliemann und der Mythos des Priamos-Goldes. Katalogbuch Ausstellung in Moskau 1996/97. Stuttgart-Zürich. Topbaş A. et al. 1998, Efe T., İlaslı A. – “Salvage Excavations of the Afyon Archaeological Museum, Part 2: The Settlement of Karaoğlan Mevkii and the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Kaklık Mevkii”. Anatolia Antiqua 6, 21-94. Traill D. A. 1983 – “Schliemann’s Discovery of ‘Priam’s Treasure’”. Antiquity 57, 181-86. Traill D. A. 1984 – “Schliemann’s Discovery of ‘Priam’s Treasure’: A Re-examination of the Evidence”. Journal of Hellenic Studies 104, 96115. Traill D. A. 1986 – “Schliemann’s Mendacity: A Question of Methodology”. Anatolian Studies 36, 91-98. Traill D. A. 1988 – “Hisarlık, 31 May 1873, and the Discovery of Priam’s Treasure”. Boreas 11, 227-34. Traill D. A. 1992 – ““Priam’s Treasure”: Further Problems”, 183-89 in Herrmann J. (ed.).

Traill D. A. 1995 – Schliemann of Troy. Treasure and Deceit. London. Trendall A. D. 1951 – “Attic Vases in Australia and New Zeland”. Journal of Hellenic Studies 71, 178-93. Treuil R. 1983 – Le néolitique et le Bronze Ancien égéens. Les problèmes stratigraphiques et chronologiques, les techniques, les hommes (Bibliothéque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 248). Paris. Troy 1985 – Troy. Heinrich Schliemann’s Excavations and Finds. Exibition Staged by the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sciences, the Ministry of External Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Museum of Prehistory and Protohistory, State Museums of the Prussian Cultural Heritage. Athens. Tsountas Ch. 1899 – “Kykladika II”. Ephemeris Archaiologike, 74-134. Tzachili I. 1990 – “All Important yet Elusive: Looking for Evidence of Cloth-Making at Akrotiri”, 380-89 in Hardy D. A. et al. (eds). Uerpmann H.-P. 2003 – “Environmental Aspects of Economic Changes at Troia”, 251-62 in Wagner G. A. et al. (eds). Unverzagt M. 1988 – “Materialen zur Geschichte des Staatlichen Museums für Vor- und Frühgeschichte zu Berlin während des Zweiten Weltkrieges – zu seinen Bergungsaktionen und seinen Verlusten” (Jahrbuch Preuβischer Kulturbesitz 25). Berlin, 313-84.

323

Valmin M. N. 1938 – The Swedish Messenia Expedition (Skrifter Utgivna av Kungliga Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund. Acta Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 26). Lund-London-Paris-Oxford-Leipzig. Valmin N. 1953 – “Malthi-Epilog. Vorläufiger Bericht über die schwedische Ausgrabung in Messenien 1952”. Opuscula Atheniensia 1, 29-46. Van Loon M. 1968 – “First Results of the 1967 Excavations at Tell Selenkaḥ. iye”. Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes 18, 21-32. Van Loon M. N. (ed.) 1980 – Korucutepe. Final Report on the Excavations of the Universities of Chicago, California (Los Angeles) and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anatolia 1968­1970. Vol. III. Amsterdam-New York-Oxford. Vermule E. 1964 – Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago-London. Virchow R. 1890 – “Reise nach der Troas”. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 22, 331-44. Vogt E. 1937 – Geflechte und Gewebe der Steinzeit (Monographien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Schweiz 1). Basel. Von den Driesch A., Boessneck J. 1987 – “Analyse der Vogel-, Reptilien-, Amphibien- und Fischknochen”, 43-66 in Korfmann M. (ed.). Von der Osten H. H. 1934 – Ancient Oriental Seals in the Collection of Mr. Edward T. Newell (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 22). Chicago.

Von der Osten H. H. 1937a – The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1930-32. Vol. I (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 28. Researches in Anatolia 7). Chicago. Von der Osten H. H. 1937b – The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1930-32. Vol. II (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 29. Researches in Anatolia 8). Chicago. Von Freytag gen. Löringhoff B., Mannsperger D. 1991 – Troja. Realität und Mythos im Spiegel der Denkmäler (Ausstellungs Reihe der Münzsammlung der Universität Tübingen. Reihe A: Antike Welt 2). Tübingen. Von Kimakowicz-Winnicki M. 1910 – Spinn- und Webewerkzeuge. Entwicklung und Anwendung in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit Europas (Darstellungen über Früh- und Vorgeschichtliche Kultur-, Kunst- und Völkerentwicklung 2). Würzburg. Wace A. J. B. 1921-1923 – “Excavations at Mycenae. VIII. The Palace. 10. The North-West Propylon and Guardroom”. The Annual of the British School at Athens 25, 210-17. Wace A. J. B., Thompson M. S. 1912 – Prehistoric Thessaly. Being Some Account of Recent Excavations and Explorations in NorthEastern Greece from Lake Kopais to the Borders of Macedonia. Cambridge 1912. Wagner G. A., Lorenz I. B. 1992 – “Thermolumineszenzdatirungen an Keramik vom Beşik-Yassıtepe”. Studia Troica 2, 147-56.

324

Wagner G. A. et al. (eds) 2003, Pernicka E., Uerpmann H.-P. – Troia and the Troad. Scientific Approaches. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York. Waldstein Ch. 1905 – The Argive Heraeum. Vol. II. Boston. Wallrodt S. 2002 – “Ritual Activity in Late Classical Ilion: The Evidence from a Fourth Century B.C. Deposit of Loomweights and Spindlewhorls”. Studia Troica 12, 179-96. Walter H., Felten F. 1981 – Alt-Ägina. Vol. III:1. Die vorgeschichtliche Stadt. Befestigungen, Häuser, Funde. Mainz-am-Rhein. Walters H. 1892-1893 – “Odysseus and Kirke on a Boeotian Vase”. Journal of Hellenic Studies 13, 77-87. Wamser L. 2000 – “Von der “Prähistorischen Sammlung des Staates” zur “Archäologischen Staatssammlung – Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte”. Zur wechselvollen Geschichte des Hauses und seiner Tätigkeitsbereiche”. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 65, 321-47. Warren P. M. 1972 – Myrtos. An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete (The British School of Archaeology at Athens Supplement 7). London.

Second Millennium B.C.” American Journal of Archaeology 84, 487-99. Warren P. M. 1984 – “Early Cycladic-Early Minoan Chronological Correlations”, 55-62 in MacGillivray J. A., Barber R. L. N. (eds). Warren P., Hankey V. 1989 – Aegean Bronze Age Chronology. Bristol. Weinberg S. S. 1947 – “Aegean Chronology: Neolithic Period and Early Bronze Age”. American Journal of Archaeology 51, 165-82. Weinberg S. S. 1965 – “The Relative Chronology of the Aegean in the Stone and Early Bronze Ages”, 285-320 in Ehrich R. W. (ed.). Weinberg S. S. (ed.) 1956 – The Aegean and the Near East. Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman on the Occasion of Her Seventy-Fifth Birthday. New York. Weir S. 1970 – Spinning and Weaving in Palestine. London. Weiss H. et al. 1993, Courty M.-A., Wetterstrom W., Guichard F., Senior L., Meadow R., Curnow A. – “The Genessis and Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopotamian Civilization”. Science 261, 995-1004.

Warren P. M. 1976 – “Radiocarbon Dating and Calibration and the Absolute Chronology of the Late Neolithic and Early Minoan Crete”. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 17, 205-19.

Weiß G. 1985 – Alte Keramik neu entdeckt. Mit Anleitungen für die schönsten Techniken. Frankfurt-am-Main-Berlin-Wien.

Warren P. M. 1980 – “Problems of Chronology in Crete and the Aegean in the Third and Earlier

Wemhoff M. et al. (eds) 2008, Hertel D., Hänsel A. – Heinrich Schliemanns Sammlung

325

Trojanischer Altertümer – Neuvorlage Vol. 1: Forschungsgeschichte, keramische Funde der Schichten VII bis IX, Nadeln, Gewichte und durchlochte Tongeräte (Berliner Beiträge zur Vorund Frühgeschichte. Neue Folge 14). Berlin. Weninger B. 1987 – “Die Radiocarbondaten”, 4-13 in Korfmann M. (ed.). Weninger B. 1995 – “Stratified 14C Dates and Ceramic Chronologies: Case Studies for the Early Bronze Age at Troy (Turkey) and Ezero (Bulgaria)”. Radiocarbon 37, 443-56. Weninger B. 2002 – “Pottery Seriation Dating at Troy in the Early Bronze Age, Based on the Cincinnati Classification System”, 1035-62 in Aslan R. et al. (eds). Wiedemann A. 1920 – Das alte Ägypten (Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek 1.2). Heidelberg. Williams H. 1996 – “Excavations at Stymphalos, 1995”. Echos du Monde Classique. Classical Views 40. New Series 15, 75-98. Williams H., Schaus G. P. 2001 – “The Sanctuary of Athena at Ancient Stymphalos”, 75-94 in Deacy S., Villing A. (eds).

– “Excavations at Ancient Stymphalos, 1997”. Echos du Monde Classique. Classical Views 42. New Series 17, 261-319. Wilson D. E. 1999 – Keos. Vol. IX. Ayia Irini: Periods I-III. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlements. Results of Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati Under the Auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Mainz-am-Rhein. Wilson L. M. 1930 – “Loom Weights”, 118-28 in Robinson D. M. Wilson L. M. 1938 – The Clothing of the Ancient Romans. Baltimore. Winlock H. E. 1955 – Models of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt from the Tomb of Meket-Rē‛ at Thebes. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition. Cambridge, Mass. Woolley L. 1963 – Excavations at Ur. A Record of Twelve Year’s Work. London. Yakar J. 1979 – “Troy and Anatolian Early Bronze Age Chronology”. Anatolian Studies 29, 51-67. Yakar J. 2002 – “Revising the Early Bronze Age Chronology of Anatolia”, 445-56 in Aslan R. et al. (eds).

Williams H. et al. 1997, Schaus G., Cronkite Price S. M., Gourley B., Lutomsky H. – “Excavations at Ancient Stymphalos, 1996”. Echos du Monde Classique. Classical Views 41. New Series 16, 23-73.

Yalçın Ü. (ed.) 2000 – Anatolian Metal. Vol. I. Internationales Symposium “Anatolian Metal”, Bochum 1998. 11 (Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 13). Bochum.

Williams H. et al. 1998, Schaus G., Cronkite Price S. M., Gourley B., Hagerman Ch.

Zahlhaas G. 1978 – “Troja. Ergänzungsblatt zur Ausstellung Von Troja bis Amarna”. Mitteilungen

326

der Freunde der Bayerischen Frühgeschichte 9, 2-8.

Vor-

und

Zurbach J. 2003 – “Schriftähnliche Zeichen und Töpferzeichen in Troia”. Studia Troica 13, 113-30.

Zahlhaas G. 1990 – Keramiken der Prähistorischen Staatssammlung in Internationalen KeramikMuseum Weiden. München. Zahlhaas G. 1992 – “Schliemann und Troja”. Mitteilungen der Freunde der Bayerischen Vorund Frühgeschichte 66. Zerner C. 1993 – “New Perspectives on Trade in the Middle and Early Late Helladic Periods on the Mainland”, 39-56 in Zerner C. et al. (eds). Zerner C. et al. (eds) 1993, Zerner P., Winder J. – Wace and Blegen. Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Athens, December 2-3, 1989. Amsterdam. Zeses B. G. 1955 – “Bambakera, kannabiva kai lina yphasmata tou 5ou p.Ch. aionos. Apodiplosis kai synteresis ayton”. Praktika tes Akademias Athenon 29, 587-93. Zettler R. 1978 – Review article of Kühne 1976, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37, 345-50. Ziomecki J. 1975 – “Obróbka gliny”, 335-95 in Majewski K. (ed.). Zoka Y. et al. (eds) 1972, Gluck J., Zoka Y., Dr. Ayeli – The Memorial Volume of the Vth International Congress of Iranian Art & Archaeology. Teheran-Isfahan-Shiraz 11th-18th April 1968. Vol. I. Teheran.

327

328

ARCHIVES

Inventar – Inventar: Staatliche Sammlung. Stein – Gold – Glas. At the Archive of the SAS. Kondziela H. 1986 – The Letter of the Director of the National Museum in Poznań Dated June 23rd 1986 to the Director of the Archaeological Museum in Gdańsk. At the Archive of the Archaeological Museum in Gdańsk. Kwapiński M. 1986 – The Letter of the Director of the Archaeological Museum in Gdańsk Dated July 15th 1986 to the Director of the National Museum in Poznań. At the Archive of the MN. Majewski E., Dziennik nr 52 – At the Department of the Scientific Records of the PMA. Majewski E., Katalog – Katalog Muzeum Archeologicznego im. E. Majewskiego. At the Department of the Scientific Records of the PMA. Zugangsbuch 1894-1903 – Zugangsbuch (Provinzial Museum) 1894-1903. Historische Gesellschaft für die Provinz Posen. At the Archive of the MN (MNPA-2332 k. 206 poz. 441).

329

330

ABBREVIATIONS

1. Chronology EA EBA EByz EC ECy ED EG EH EHal EHel EIA EM EN EPG ER ET FN LBA LByz LCh LClas LCy LG LH LM LN LR MBA MCh MCy MH MHel MM MN MPG

Early Archaic Early Bronze Age Early Byzantine Early Cycladic Early Cypriot Early Dynastic Early Geometric Early Helladic Early Hallstatt Early Hellenistic Early Iron Age Early Minoan Early Neolithic Early Protogeometric Early Roman Early Thessalian Final Neolithic Late Bronze Age Late Byzantine Late Chalcolithic Late Classical Late Cypriot Late Geometric Late Helladic Late Minoan Late Neolithic Late Roman Middle Bronze Age Middle Chalcolithic Middle Cypriot Middle Helladic Middle Hellenistic Middle Minoan Middle Neolithic Middle Protogeometric

MT PG SG SPG

Middle Thessalian Protogeometric Subgeometric Sub-Protogeometric

2. Museums AS Archäologische (till 2000 Prähistorische) Staatssammlung, Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte/The Archaeological State Collection, Museum of Pre- and Protohistory, Munich. DM Deutsches Museum/The German Museum, Munich. KV-S Königliche Vasen-Sammlung/The King’s Vase Collection, Munich. MN Muzeum Narodowe/The National Museum, Poznań. P-M Provinzial-Museum/The Museum of Province, Posen. PMA Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne/The State Archaeological Museum, Warsaw. SAS Staatliche Antikensammlungen/The State Collections of Antiquities, Munich.

3. Various a.s.l. Cap. D. D.be D.by Dp. D.r. H. L. T. Wt 331

above sea level capacity diameter diameter of base diameter of body depth diameter of rim height length thickness weight

332

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Trojan artefacts donated to the KV-S in Munich ...............................................................78

Table 11. Aplastics in whorls and loom weights from the AS in Munich and MN in Poznań .....211

Table 2. Trojan pottery presently in possession of the SAS in Munich . ...........................................84

Table 12. Occurrence of types of whorls at Troy (p = plain; d = decorated) . ...............................217

Table 3. Trojan ceramics presently in possession of the AS in Munich . .........................................86

Table 13. Surface treatment of whorls and loom weights from the AS in Munich and the MN in Poznań . ............................................................224

Table 4. Trojan artefacts donated to the P-M in Poznań . ..............................................................89 Table 5. Trojan ceramics presently in possession of the MN in Poznań ..........................................91

Table 14. Frequency of occurrence of decorated whorls types 12, 16, 17 and 23 at Troy ............227 Table 15. Dimensions and weights of whorls from the AS in Munich and the MN in Poznań ........233

Table 6. Aplastics in pottery from the AS and SAS in Munich, the MN in Poznań . ........................148 Table 7. Coated pottery from the AS and SAS in Munich, the MN in Poznań . ............................154 Table 8. Coated and patterned pottery from the AS and SAS in Munich, the MN in Poznań ..........157 Table 9. Summarized occurrence of discussed vessels’ types and production techniques at Troy: B = Blegen et al. 1950-1958; E = Easton 2002; + = occurrence;? = occurrence uncertain; w = wheelmade; h = handmade; hw = hand and wheelmade .......................................................186 Table 10. Approximate capacity of vessels from the AS and SAS in Munich, the MN in Poznań ......................................................... 200

333

334

Map with the Aegean, Anatolian and Levantine archaeological sites, as well as modern localities (in capitals) mentioned in the text (created by D. Maliszewski). 1. Coslogeni 2. STARA ZAGORA 3. Razkopanica 4. Cepina 5. Galabovo 6. Čatalka 7. Pşeničevo 8. Baadere 9. Michalič 10. Taşlıcabayır 11. Kanlıgeçit 12. İSTANBUL

38. Orchomenos 39. Thebes 40. Eutresis Euboea: 41. Manika 42. Lefkandi 43. ATHENS/Athens 44. Raphina 45. Halae 46. Brauron 47. Vari 48. Perati

13. Menekşe Çatağı 14. Keşan 15. Protesilaos/Karaağačtepe 16. Dikili Tash 17. Sitagroi 18. Vardarophtsa 19. Salamanle 20. Kastanas 21. Gona 22. Dispilio 23. Nea Nikomedia 24. Kritsana 25. Olynthus 26. Servia 27. Argissa Magoula 28. Sesklo 29. Pevkakia Magoula 30. Dimini 31. Aidiniotiki Magoula 32. Tsangli 33. Tsani 34. Lianokladhi 35. Elatea 36. Pelikata on Ithaka 37. DELPHES/Delphes

49. Thorikos 50. Makronisos 51. Kolonna on Aegina 52. Corinth 53. Gonia in Corinthia (not precisely marked on the map) 54. Zygouries 55. Nemea 56. Stymphalos 57. Mycenae 58. Berbati 59. Dendra 60. Argos 61. Deiras 62. Tiryns 63. Kazarma 64. Asine 65. Franchthi Cave 66. Lerna 67. Olympia 68. Asea 69. Malthi 70. Pylos 71. Nichoria 72. Amyclae 335

73. Kastri on Kythera Crete: 74. Chania 75. Prinias 76. Zapher Papoura 77. Knossos 78. Dictean Cave 79. Myrtos 80. Kato Zakro Rhodes: 81. Lindos 82. Makra Vounara 83. Trianda Kos:

105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

Mytilene Palaiokastro Perama Pyrrha Sigri Thermi Poliochni on Lemnos Mikro Vouni on Samotrace Monastır Mevkii on Avşa ÇANAKKALE Hisarlık = Troy/Ilion Asarlık-Eski Hisarlık Ballıdağ Beşiktepe = Kolonai

84. Eleona 85. Langada 86. Seraglio 87. Akrotiri on Thera 88. Phylakopi on Melos 89. Markiani on Amorgos 90. Dhaskaleio Kavos on Keros Naxos: 91. Panormos 92. Zas Cave 93. Saliagos 94. Akrotiraki on Siphnos 95. Mt Kynthos on Delos 96. Kastri on Syros Keos: 97. Ayia Irini 98. Kephala 99. Heraion on Samos 100. Emporio on Chios Skyros: 101. Chalandriani 102. Palamari Lesbos: 103. Antissa 104. Methymna

119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143.

Beşik-Yassıtepe Hanaytepe Kumtepe Küçük Fığlatepe, Udyektepe Assos AKKÖY ÇEMLİ Araplar/AraplarÜyücek/Araplirhöyük ÇAN Dorak BALIKEŞİR Bayındırköy Babaköy Soma Yortan Pergamon Değirmentepe Gümüşovatepe AKHİSAR Larisa Panaztepe MANİSA Gavurtepe İZMIR

336

144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157.

Bayraklı = Old Smyrna Limantepe = Klazomenai Bağlararası Baklatepe Değirmendere = Kolophon Ephesus Miletus Aphrodisias Iasos Müskebi Karataş-Semayük ELMALI Bademağacıhöyük Hacilar

183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195.

196. Etiyokuşu

158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182.

Kuruçayhöyük BURDUR Beycesultan Kusura UŞAK AFYON Kaklık Mevkii EMİRDAĞ Yanarlar ALTINTAŞ Yazılıkaya KÜTAHYA Tavşanlıhöyük TAVŞANLI Seyitömerhöyük Küllüoba Katır Kulesi Yazırhöyük Polatlı Gordion Gordion-Yassıhöyük MİHALGAZİ ESKİŞEHİR Kuştepe Yukari Sögütönü

197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 337

Çukarhisar Demircihöyük-Sarıket Demircihöyük Bozüyük Aharköy İNHİSAR BİLECİK İNEGÖL YENİŞEHİR İZNİK Bolu İlıca Asarcıkhöyük ANKARA Koçumbeli Karaoğlan Boğazköy Alacahöyük Oymaağaç Tekeköy Horoztepe Çadırhöyük Alişarhöyük Suluca Karahöyük Kültepe KAYSERİ Acemhöyük AKŞEHİR Kizilviran Yanagelmez Karaca Karahöyük Kızlar Kerhane Çatalhöyük Sarlak Kurtbaba Üçhöyük

222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235.

Akçaşehir Kanaç Suberde KARAMAN Kocahöyük MUT SİLİFKE Mersin Tarsus POZANTI ULUKIŞLA Kestel Arslantepe Pulur/Sakyol

261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274.

Megiddo Tel Mevorach Tell Ta’anach Samaria Schechem Tell Qasileh Gezer Jericho Tel Miqne Tell ed-Duweir Naḥal Hemar Tell Beit Mersim Beer Sheba Sotira-Kaminoudhia

236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260.

Soshöyük Norşuntepe Korucutepe Maraş Titrişhöyük Gedikli GAZİANTEP Sendschirli Carchemish ISLAHİYE Devehöyük Amuq Tell Selenkaḥiye Tell Ta‘yinat Tell Bi’a Minet el Beida Ras Shamra Hama Terqa Tell Kazel Byblos Kāmid el-Lōz Tel Keisan Tell Abu Hawam Tel ‘Amal

275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291.

Episkopi-Phanoromeni Katydhata Bellapais-Vounous Nitovikla Paleoskoutella Salamis Enkomi Kalopsida Pyla-Verghi Pyla-Kokkinokremos Kition-Bamboula Kition Hala Sultan Tekke Idalion Alambra-Mouttes Marki-Alonia Pyrgos-Mavroraki

338

339









  



     























 













 



NP







 

















         









                    

 

                                      



  















  

 

                         

















        



  

      

 



 



 







        







          





      

 

















 

 

 





























340

DRAWINGS

341

342

1

2

Cat. nos 1 (c. 1:2), 2 (c. 1:4). 343

3

4

5

6 Cat. nos 3-6 (c. 1:2). 344

7

8

9

10

Cat. nos 7-10 (c. 1:2). 345

11

12

13

14

Cat. nos 11-14 (c. 1:2). 346

15

16

17

Cat. nos 15-17 (c. 1:2). 347

18

19

20

Cat. nos 18-19 (c. 1:2), 20 (c. 1:3). 348

22

21

23

24

25 Cat. nos 21, 23-24 (c. 1:3), 22 (c. 1:4), 25 (c. 1:2). 349

26

27

28

29

Cat. nos 26-29 (c. 1:2). 350

30

31

32

Cat. nos 30-32 (c. 1:2). 351

33

34

35

Cat. nos 33-35 (c. 1:2). 352

36

37

38

Cat. nos 36-38 (c. 1:2). 353

39

40

41

Cat. nos 39-41 (c. 1:2). 354

42

43

44

Cat. nos 42-44 (c. 1:2). 355

45

46

47

Cat. nos 45-47 (c. 1:2). 356

48

49

50

51 Cat. nos 48-49, 51 (c. 1:2), 50 (c. 1:3). 357

52

53

54

55

56 Cat. nos 52-53, 55 (c. 1:2), 54, 56 (c. 1:3). 358

57

58

59

60

61

62

Cat. nos 57-58, 61-62 (c. 1:3), 59 (c. 1:2), 60 (c. 1:1). 359

63

64

65

Cat. nos 63-65 (c. 1:2). 360

66

67

68

69

70

71

Cat. nos 66-67 (c. 1:3), 68-71 (c. 1:2). 361

72

73

74

Cat. nos 72 (c. 1:6), 73-74 (c. 1:2). 362

75

76

77

Cat. nos 75-76 (c. 1:3), 77 (c. 1:2). 363

78

79

80

81

Cat. nos 78 (c. 1:2), 79-81 (c. 1:1). 364

82

83

84

85

86

Cat. nos 82-86 (c. 1:1). 365

87

88

89

90

91

92 Cat. nos 87-92 (c. 1:1). 366

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

Cat. nos 93-102 (c. 1:1). 367

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112 Cat. nos 103-112 (c. 1:1). 368

113

114

116

117 Cat. nos 113-117 (c. 1:1). 369

115

370

PHOTOGRAPHS

371

372

1

2

2

Cat. nos 1 (c. 1:2), 2 (c. 1:4). 373

2

2

2

2

3

4 Cat. nos 2 (c. 1:4), 3-4 (c. 1:2). 374

6

5

7

8

10

11

13

9

12

14

Cat. nos 5-14 (c. 1:2). 375

15

16

17

19

18

20

Cat. nos 15-19 (c. 1:2), 20-21 (c. 1:3). 376

21

22

23

25

27

24

26

29

28 Cat. nos 22 (c. 1:4), 23-24 (c. 1:3), 25-29 (c. 1:2). 377

30

31

32

33

34

35

Cat. nos 30-35 (c. 1:2). 378

36

37

38

39

40

41 Cat. nos 36-41 (c. 1:2). 379

42

44

48

43

45

47

49 Cat. nos 42-45, 47-49 (c. 1:2), 50 (c. 1:3). 380

50

51

52

55

54

56

58

57

59

Cat. nos 51-52, 55, 59, 60 (c. 1:2), 54, 56-58 (c. 1:3). 381

60

61

62

63

62

64

65

65 Cat. nos 61-62 (c. 1:3), 63 (c. 1:4), 64-65 (c. 1:2). 382

66

67

72

71

73

74 Cat. nos 66-67 (c. 1:3), 71, 73-74 (c. 1:2), 72 (c. 1:6). 383

75

76

77

78

79

Cat. nos 75-76 (c. 1:3), 77-78 (c. 1:2), 79 (c. 1:1). 384

80

81

82

83

Cat. nos 80-83 (c. 1:1). 385

84

85

86

87

Cat. nos 84-87 (c. 1:1). 386

88

89

90

91

Cat. nos 88-91 (c. 1:1). 387

93

92

94

95

96

Cat. nos 92-96 (c. 1:1). 388

97

98

99

100

Cat. nos 97-100 (c. 1:1). 389

101

102

103

104

Cat. nos 101-104 (c. 1:1). 390

105

106

107

108

Cat. nos 105-108 (c. 1:1). 391

109

110

111

112

Cat. nos 109-112 (c. 1:1). 392

113

114

115

Cat. nos 113-115 (c. 1:1). 393

116

117

Cat. nos 116-117 (c. 1:1). 394

3

4

5

7

6

8

395

9

10

11

12

13

14

17

18

19

396

21

22

25

27

26

29

30

397

33

35

39

38

41

42

43

398

44

45

47

48

49

50

399

51

52

54

57

58

59

400

61

66

67

71

73

401

74

60

87

102

78

80

89

103

81

85

90

95

106

110

402

86

97

114