The Emergence of Troy

       Shalmanezer III (854-824 B.C.) warred with Syria for much of his reign. As late as his 18th year (841/40 B.C.) he fought against Hazael of Syria, who several years earlier had succeeded Ben-Hadad of Damascus as the major domo of the southern Syrian confederacy. This would be his final razzia through Syria, though his reign continued for another fifteen years. One of the reasons for this abrupt end to hostilites was a growing insurgency within Assyria itself, civil conflict which continued through the reigns of Shalmanezer's successors well into the 8th century. Some of this conflict we documented in the last chapter. Assyria would not reemerge as a factor in Syrian politics until the second half of the 8th century with the arrival of the military genius of Tiglath Pilezer III.

        A second reason for Assyrian isolation from Syria during and following the terminal years of Shalmanezer III was the reassertion of Egyptian power in the Levant under Ramses II (840-774 B.C.), this and a continued, if not heightened, Hittite influence in the region under a succession of powerful kings, in particular Hattusilis III (825-800) and Tudhaliyas IV (800-775).   During this time Hatti and Egypt vied for control of Syria to the exclusion of the Assyrians. By this time also other peoples had entered the picture, two of particular interest to this revision.

        If our revised history is correct, and the Hittite king Tudhaliyas IV lived in the early decades of the 8th century, not in the 13th century where he is positioned by the traditional history, then we are compelled to argue that this same time frame witnessed the emergence on the historical scene of two peoples of great significance for our revision. On the eastern Anatolian coast the Trojans are mentioned for the first time in Hittite documents contemporary with Tudhaliyas IV, appearing first as allies, then as adversaries of the Hittites. Across the Aegean the Achaeans (Mycenaeans) emerge simultaneously, again as both friend and foe of the Hittites.   We are clearly within the Mycenaean age, nearing the time of the mamoth conflict between the Achaeans and Trojans, the Trojan war of Homeric legend.    All this, of course, if our revised chronology is accurate.

       The Swiss linguist Emil Forrer was the first to observe, early in the last century, in the newly discovered archives of the Hittites, not only references to place names such as Taruwissa (Troy), Achiyawa (Achaea), and Wilusiya (Ilios), but also instances of the personal name Alaksandus (Alexander-Paris) and the Hittite equivalents of Atreus, Eteocles, and Andreus. Since the days of those initial observations, contested at the time, scholars have been increasingly accepting, albeit at times reluctantly, of the fact that the Trojans (and Mycenaeans) belong in the same chronological time frame as the late Empire Hittites.    The evidence compels us to reach that same conclusion. But for the revised history that time frame is the 9th/8th centuries, not the 13th.   Our chronological positioning of Tudhaliyas IV in the early 8th century is an inevitable consequence of the entire argument of the first two books (and the earlier chapters of the present book) of our historical revision.   We had no choice in the matter. We are therefore obliged to date the Mycenaeans and Trojans in that same 8th century context.    It follows that all of the evidence, both literary and archaeological, that supports an early 8th century rather than a late 13th century date for the Trojans and the Achaeans, must be viewed as supportive argument for our thesis. And the evidence is widespread and compelling.

        We do not have to go far afield to argue that the Trojans and the Trojan war belong in the 8th century. The belief that the Mycenaean age celebrated by Homer immediately preceded the late 8th century classical Greek period was the prevailing view among scholars of the early 19th century, before the Mycenean age was unceremoniously thrust hundreds of years back in time by Egyptian scholars. This opinion held regardless of whether or not the Trojan war was considered fact or fiction. It was based on two separate strands of evidence, namely 1) the massive amount of archaeological and cultural evidence which shows clearly that the classical Greek period which began in the late 8th century follows the Mycenaean age without interruption; and 2) the incontrovertible evidence from documentary sources, primarily but not exclusively the literature related to the Trojan war, that the story of the conflict between the Mycenaeans and Trojans was composed late in the 8th century, and if so, then the events which gave rise to the epic narrative must be recent. Volumes of literature have been devoted to both themes over the past centuries, and the argument continues.

        Several times already we have made reference to the first of these lines of reasoning. We have argued that the so-called "dark ages" of Greece were created by sleight of hand when scholars, based exclusively on a faulty Egyptian chronology, mistakenly moved the Mycenaean age backward 450 years, creating an artificial historical vacuum which has subsequently wrought havoc with the archaeological and cultural historical records of all countries whose past intertwined with that of Egypt.   Archaeology argues strongly that the Mycenaean age ended around middle of the 8th century. Volumes could be written in defense of that claim.

        The documentary problem is no less acute.   When Homer and other authors of the late 8th century mythologized events related to the Trojan/Achaean conflict which had taken place only decades earlier, they inevitably left a datable cultural footprint in the language they used and the events and artifacts they described.   Scholars have always been all but unanimous in arguing that the final editing of the Iliad and the other literature related to the Trojan war is late, arguably composed in the 8th century. Common sense dictates that the events described therein antedate the composition of the story by decades, not centuries. It was only when the Mycenaean age was moved from the 9th/8th centuries to the 13th century that scholars were compelled to invent a literary "dark age" to mirror the artificial gap that had been created in the archaeological record. Thus the invention of a fictional 450 year long period of time during which the story of the Trojan war was transmitted "orally", embellished all the while by an accumulation of "anachronistic" material, until finally being fixed in its present form in the late 8th century.   We will waste no time discussing the flaws in this "oral tradition" thesis.   Let the reader browse the literature on the subject to see if it makes any sense.

        We leave the matter there. Sufficient to note that when the revised history places the Trojans and the Trojan war in the 8th century it does not encounter evidence to the contrary, but rather a mass of supportive linguistic and archaeological data, and this for an understandable reason.   It is merely returning the Mycenaeans and the Trojans to their former and rightful place in history.

        We make but a single exception to our decision to bypass the archaeological/cultural/literary evidence supportive of our dating of the Trojan war - namely, the excavation record of Troy itself.

The Ruins of Troy.

       The reader interested in the "dark age gap" in the archaeological record within the Greek world is referred once again to the excellent compendium on the subject in the recently published Centuries of Darkness authored by a group of Cambridge scholars.   In particular the third chapter - "Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts" - and the fourth chapter - "The Dark Age Mysteries of Greece" - of this excellent work are strongly recommended reading.   We use the words of the authors Peter James et. al. from this source to draw attention to the central problem at Troy, a problem related to the consensus view of scholars that Homer's Troy must be identified with either strata VI or VIIa of the excavated city site.

The sack of Troy by the Greeks under the command of Agamemnon King of Mycenae, has lauched a thousand articles, the search for the city of Homer's Iliad will certainly continue to fascinate archaeologists for years to come. Schliemann correctly identified the massive mound of Hissarlik as the site of Troy, but which of the superimposed cities he found should be associated with the time of the Trojan war remains unclear. The rival candidates are currently the cities of Troy VI and VIIa. While the earlier city and its magnificent defensive walls provide a better match with Homer's account, it was apparently destroyed by an earthquake and predates the high point of Mycenaean power in the 13th century BC. The latter city was burnt down but its poor remains fail to measure up to the description of the mighty city of Priam given in the Iliad. (CD 60)

We should note at the outset that strata VI, VIIa and VIIb of ancient Troy are all clearly dated by archaeologists within the Mycenaean period, though the duration of occupation in the respective periods is open to question. It is entirely possible that only a few years separate the destructions by earthquake and by fire of levels VI and VIIa. The question as to which level corresponds to the occupation and conclusion of the Trojan war is a difficult one to answer, since the argument in part involves the reliability of the authors of the epic literature, and we simply do not know what literary licence should be accorded them. All we can glean from the facts at hand are that the combined ravages of earthquake and war contributed to the demise of the glory that was Troy. We will see this same duality - earthquake and war - occurring at other sites around this same time period. The two phenomenon invariably occur in sequence and, as we will argue later, are probably related. It is always the same - physical calamity (earthquake) followed by warfare and fiery destruction.

But the real stratigraphic problem at Troy is not whether level VI or VIIa is the occupation level of the beseiged city of Priam and Paris, rather it is whether these Mycenaean strata belong to the 13th or the 8th centuries. We let Peter James continue:

This problem aside, the site presents other difficulties that are just as challenging. Despite numerous excavations, no strata have yet been discovered representing the period between Troy VIIb, usually linked with 12-century Mycenaean imports (LHIIIC), and the beginning of Troy VIII, dated by Archaic Greek imports to 700 B.C. The classical scholar Deny Page remarked on the strange gap which results from this chronology:

There is nothing at Troy to fill this huge lacuna. For 2000 years men had left traces of their living there; some chapters were brief and obscure, but there was never yet a chapter left wholly blank. Now at last there is silence, profound and prolonged for 400 years; we are asked, surely not in vain, to believe that Troy lay 'virtually unoccupied' for this long period of time. (CD 61)

And the problem does not end there. It is not simply a matter of explaining why a Mycenaean site of the 13th century is followed immediately by a classical greek site of the late 8th century. Rather it is a matter of explaining the apparent continuity which exists between the levels VIIb and VIII, this on the assumption that a 400 year hiatus has occured in the occupation of the two levels. Again we let Peter James explain:

Yet despite the apparent lapse of several centuries, there is every indication of continuity between Troy VIIb and VIII. The excavator, Carl Blegen, could detect no sign of a break in occupation. Furthermore, the local pottery of Troy VIII was the same distinctive, lustrous grey ware used during Troy VIIb. He therefore supposed that the inhabitants of Troy VIIb abandoned it for a nearby refuge, where they continued to produce this 'Grey Minyan' pottery for 400 years before returning .... Despite twenty-five years of further research in the area, no sign of Blegen's hypothetical refuge site has ever been uncovered. (CD 61-62)

        There is, of course, no need to reconcile the disparate evidence at the site. None exists. With the Mycenaean age move forward into the 9th/8th centuries a plausible explanation for the respective strata is readily at hand. Level VI at Troy most likely represents Priam's city prior to a destructive earthquake which levelled much of its defensive fortifications around the year 765 B.C.   Level VIIa is the occupation level of the surviving Trojans through the duration of the Trojan war, roughly spanning the years 765-755 B.C.   Level VIIb was occupied by the survivors of the war, a mixture of Mycenaean greeks and Trojan peasantry. It apparently lasted through the balance of the 8th century. Level VIII followed without temporal interruption.   There is no 400 year gap in the stratigraphy of Troy. It is not the archaeological record which is inconclusive. At fault is the errant chronology which guides the interpretation of the data.

       If we are correct in our appraisal of the situation there may well have been a cause and effect relationship at Troy between the destruction by earthquake and the destruction by fire. We surmise that it was the earthquake destruction and the resulting weakening of the defensive fortifications of the city, not the abduction of Helen of Troy by Agamemnon of Mycenae, that provided the motivation for the Greek assault on the city of Troy.

        But what caused the earthquake?