Vergil's Aeneid: Commentary

Troy

Until the late 19th century, classical scholars considered Homer's Troy to be poetic imagination and consequently, any search for a physical city was considered foolish. However, the excavations of Heinrich Schliemann from 1870-1890 at the mound of Hissarlik, long known to be the site of Hellenistic and Roman Ilion, made great inroads toward establishing the existence of Homeric Troy. Subsequent excavations carried out at the site have established within a shadow of a doubt that this site is indeed the prehistoric city described by Homer.

Hissarlik is located on the far northwest coast of Anatolia. About four miles of the plain of the Scamander River separate it from the coast of the Aegean. This site sits atop a hill and has a commanding view of the surrounding landscape. The Aegean island of Tenedos lies a short distance to the southwest and the Hellespont is less than an hours walk to the north of the site. The archaeological remains of Troy are extremely complex, with numerous stratigraphic levels dating back to the Early Bronze Age (ca 3000 - 2000 BC). What is clear is extensive evidence for successive phases of an ancient walled city.

During the course of the earliest excavations, Schliemann and Dorpfeld were able to distinguish nine separate broad phases which extended across the site. These are numbered with Roman numerals beginning with the earliest (at the bottom) which is called Troy I and continuing up through the latest phase, Troy IX. It was later discovered that these broad layers could be sub-divided into as many as eight or more minor strata each. These minor strata most likely indicate lesser chronological phases within the larger period.

Schliemann originally identified Homeric Troy with the rich finds of gold and silver of level Troy II. However, it was soon discovered that Troy II was much earlier than the period of the Late Bronze Age to which the action of the Iliad most likely belongs. After Schliemann's death in 1890, his successor Wilhelm Dorpfeld confirmed that the city described by Homer could not be identified with Troy II. It was in the later stages of level Troy VI that he began to find increasing quantities of Mycenaean pottery which strongly suggested that this phase was contemporary with the period of the Mycenaean palaces in Greece. While the end of Troy VI is contemporary with the Mycenaean period in Greece it show no evidence of destruction by human agency, instead it seems to have been destroyed by an earthquake after which it was almost immediately rebuilt beginning the phase known as Troy VIIa.

Phase Troy VIIa is the period which should be recognized as Homeric Troy. The culture is for the most part consistent with that of Troy VI, but with some new elements. The massive fortification walls which were built in Troy VI were repaired in Troy VIIa and a whole new series of two to three room interconnected houses were built inside the walls. Nothing of substance remains to indicate the nature of royal or rich residences. The pottery finds from Troy VIIa are virtually indistinguishable from those of Troy VI suggesting continuity. Evidence from the destruction level of Troy VIIa shows that the town was clearly destroyed by human agency. The entire town was destroyed by fire and there is ample evidence of the violence which accompanied the fire. The skeletal evidence from this phase suggests that a number of individuals were struck down violently and was buried by debris where he lay. Carl Blegen, of the University of Cincinnati excavations argues that based on the cumulative evidence, Troy VIIa was probably destroyed as the result of siege by a hostile invading force somewhat earlier than 1260 BC. This date fists well within the known flourit of Mycenaean civilization when the Greek kingdoms would have been powerful enough to undertake overseas campaigns. It therefore seems quite likely that the Troy described by Homer can be identified with phase Troy VIIa.

Source: Blegen.

(12/17/95)