T W O T R O J A N W A R S ?
O N T H E D E S T R U C T I O N S
O F T R O Y V l h
Stefan Hitler
"The trouble is that all discussion of the problem,
whether by archaeologists or by classicists, seems
to start from the tacit assumption that there is only
one 'Homeric Troy', that of Priam to be accounted
for at Hissarlik" (Andrews 1965, 28).
Our faith in a historical Trojan war is founded
above all on Homer, but Homer is not a historian
(Hampl 1962; Finley 1969; Chadwick 1972). First
of all he is a poet; what he relates is not history,
but myth. If we nevertheless accept the historicity
of the Trojan war,our position does not differ very
much from that of a Greek historian like Herodotus
(1.3) or Thukydides (I, 3.1). The only true advan-
tage over them we have is the knowledge gained
from excavation.
How great is this advantage? Can archaeology
really testify to a myth having, at least in part, a
historical kernel (cf. Kirk 1964 and 1965)? In
order to answer this question the evidence of
mythological tradition and that of archaeology
need to be examined separately.
Beginning with mythology, there is no need to
repeat the well-known story of Paris and Helen,
and of Agamemnon's war against Troy. However,
there is another tradition to which less attention has
been paid. This tradition refers to a second, older
Trojan war which took place one or two genera-
tions earlier (Preller-Robert 1920, Vol. II, 547ff.;
Andrews 1965; Luce 1975, 134f.). This older
myth begins with the building of the town walls by
Poseidon and Apollo together with Aiakos from
Aegina. King Laomedon cheated the gods out of
the promised reward and Poseidon sent a monster
which threatened the town and the life of its
inhabitants. Heracles, who freed Troy from this
danger, was likewise deceived by the king. As a
consequence he captured the town. In this affair
he was greatly helped by the son of Aiakos,
Telamon, who received as a reward the daughter
A N D V i l a
.
of Laomedon, Hesione. Their child was Teukros
who was, at the same time, the half-brother of the
Telamonian Aias, with whom he fought in the
second Trojan war under Agamemnon's leader-
ship.
This tradition of an earlier Trojan war is not a later
doublet; it is firmly rooted in Greek mythology.
Homer himself testifies to this (Ilias V 638/42 and
648/51; XIV 250/6; XV 24/30; XX 145/48; XXI
441/57). Later, the Aeginetans depicted the two
wars on the pediments of Aphaia's temple to praise
their local heroes and recall their own prehistory
(Furtwangler 1906, 309).
Here we have to come back to archaeology. The
primary task of this discipline is to detail the par-
ticulars of unwritten history. The evidence,
however, is limited.
Regarding Troy, the following points may be
made:
1) The geographical position of the settlement at
Hissarlik excavated by H. Schliemann, W. Dorp-
feld and C. W. Blegen corresponds in some essen-
tial respects to the indications given by Homer. We
can thus be confident that it is correctly identified
with the Homeric Troy (cf. Dorpfeld 19,02, 612ff.;
Meyer 1975; Luce 1975, 12Iff.).
2) During the period chiefly reflected by Greek
heroic poetry, this settlement had close relations
with the Mycenean civilization and was destroyed,
at least, twice. The first catastrophe struck the
town we call Troy Vlh; the second struck Vila.
3) According to the conclusions reached by the
American Troy expedition directed by C. Blegen,
the destruction of Troy Vlh was caused by an
earthquake (Blegen 1953, 14f. and 3 3 I f ; 1963,
143f), whereas Troy Vila was destroyed through
human violence and fire (Blegen 1958, 5 and 11;
1963, 153).
4) Although there is no cultural break between
Troy Vlh and Vila, the way of life changed
(Blegen 1958, 6ff; Page 1959, 25ff.; Nylander
146 STEFAN HILLER
1963, 7ff). Troy Vlh had large, free-standing
buildings and wide streets. Troy Vila shows quite
a different pattern. The houses have become small
and crowded. There is an obvious need of space,
and at the same time, as the hundreds of storage
jars sunk into the floors attest, concern for the
supply of food.
5) The destruction dates rest to a considerable
extent upon the stylistic assessment of Mycenean
pottery. I think it can be considered as certain that,
at the time of the destruction of Troy Vlh, pottery
of the phase LH IIIB was already in use (Blegen
1958, 142 and 146; Mylonas 1964, 359). Likewise
it cannot be doubted that pottery of the LH IIIC
phase appears in Troy Vllbl along with barbarian
ware of the type newly defined by E. French and
J. Rutter (Blegen 1958, 142 and 146; Mylonas
1964, 359; Desborough 1964, 164; French 1969,
136; Rutter 1975, 31).
6) The critical point is the duration of Troy Vila.
According to C. W. Blegen (1958, 8 and 12; also
Mylonas 1964, 365, and Berard 1950, 357) this
town lasted no longer than one or two generations,
from about 1300 to 1260 B. C. (Blegen 1963, 160
and 174).
These dates, however, have been criticized by
some scholars (Schachermeyr 1950, 195; Nylan-
der 1963, 7; Heubeck 1961, 115; Mylonas 1964,
366) and should, in my opinion as well, be
lowered. Though we cannot say if LH IIIC pottery
is exactly contemporary with the rebuilding of
Troy Vllbl there is some reason to believe that it
made its first appearance not very long after the
destruction of Troy Vila as some of the latest
pottery of this town represents a very developed
stage of LH IIIB (if not a prelude to LH IIIC). This
indicates that Troy Vila was destroyed in the late
13th/early 12th century. On the other hand,
following Blegen's view that Troy Vila, could not
have lasted for longer than two generations, the
conclusion is inevitable that the destruction of Troy
Vlh could have taken place towards the middle of
the 13th century. This date is also compatible with
the pottery of Troy Vlh.
While Mycenean pottery gives some indications of
the destruction dates, it says nothing about the
circumstances which caused these destructions nor
does it tell us anything about the destroyers. At this
point we must turn again to mythology; we have
to ask if there is a reliable correspondence between
mythological tradition and archaeological finds.
There is no unequivocal correspondence. Some
scholars have favoured Troy Vlh as the Homeric
- that is Agamemnon's - Troy (Dorpfeld 1902,
107ff. and 601ff; Nylander 1963, 10; Schacher-
meyr 1950, 195) whilst others favoured Troy Vila
(Caskey 1964; Page 1964, 18; Bowra 1960, 19f.;
Mylonas 1964; Stubbings 1965, 13; Blegen 1958,
lOff. and 1963, 164).
The main arguments in favour of Troy Vlh are:
1) The late destruction date of Troy Vila excludes
its identification with the Homeric town (Finley
1964, 7; Nylander 1963, 8f.; Schachermeyr 1950,
195). This also implies, rightly in my opinion, that
the destruction of Troy Vila is to be dated to the
end of the 13th century. According to widespread
opinion the Mycenean states were no longer
capable of undertaking an overseas expedition at
that time (Finley 1964, 7; Nylander 1963, 9) as
they themselves were menaced by enemies who,
according to this view, were responsible for the
destruction not only of Troy Vila but of the
Mycenean citadels as well (Finley 1964, 5;
Nylander 1963, 9f). These were either the
notorious "sea-people" or the "foreigners from
the north."
2) The destruction of Troy Vlh by an earthquake
agrees with the tradition of the wooden horse, a
symbol of the earth-shaking god Poseidon (Scha-
chermeyr 1950).
3) Troy Vlh corresponds much better to the picture
of Troy given by the Homeric descriptions,
particularly regarding the number of applicable
epithets (Meyer 1975, 163; Dorpfeld 1902,
601 ff), although the same argument has also
been used for Troy Vila (Bowra 1960).
The main arguments in favour of Troy Vila are:
1) The settlement shows an obvious situation of
war; that is, awareness of danger and preparations
against siege (Blegen 1958, 13; Andrews 1965,
34; Page 1959, 27 and 1964, 18; Mylonas 1964,
357 ff.).
2) Troy Vila was destroyed by a great conflagra-
tion caused by human agency (Blegen 1958, 13 and
1963, 162; Page 1959, 29f.).
While the advocates of both theories rely on a
historical kernel of Greek myth, there is no agree-
ment between them regarding Troy Vlh or Vila.
 TWO TROJAN WARS? ON THE DESTRUCTIONS OF TROY Vlh AND Vila
Perhaps the alternatives are not so remote from one
another. If we believe in the historicity of
Agamemnon's Trojan war we must also concede
the possibility of a Heraclean war. Although less
glorified by poets and singers, the latter has
nevertheless the same standing in mythology as
the great war of the Homeric songs.
Of course, we know no more about when this
Heraclean war took place than we know about the
date of Agamemnon's war. However, mythology
tells us that both events occurred within two
generations. This timespan corresponds to that
which lies between the destruction of Troy Vlh and
Vila. Thus, Troy Vlh could be the city captured
by Heracles while Troy Vila should be Agamem-
non's prize.
The main argument against this identification is, as
we have seen, the late destruction date of Troy
Vila. Mycenean Greece would, according to this
objection, no longer have been able to undertake
such an expedition. How valid is this objection?
First of all, it can be questioned, as Mylonas has
done (1964), whether the Mycenean decline had
already begun at this time. Even if this were the
case, it must be said that history knows many
examples of daring offensives which were started
in times of great troubles, e.g. the Sicilian expedi-
tion during the Peloponnesian war. Secondly, even
if we do accept a late destruction date for Troy Vila
this does not mean that the destruction of the
Mycenean citadels must have taken place at exactly
the same time. As D. I. Page has expressed, "it
remains perfectly possible that the overseas ex-
pedition antedated awareness of threats to the
mainland by five years (or two years or ten years:
a very short interval would suffice)" (Page 1964,
19).
Likewise, I think, the possibility should not be
excluded that a Trojan expedition was undertaken
as a consequence of some danger which needed to
be dealt with before it had reached the Mycenean
homeland.
In addition, Greek tradition itself shows to some
extent that Agamemnon's Trojan expedition
already belongs to the period of increasing
upheaval and widespread migrations. Several of
the Mycenean heroes who fought against Troy
did not return to their homes but settled after
long wanderings in foreign countries, thus e. g.
147
Teukros, the son of Telamon, settled in Cyprus as
did some other heroes (Gjerstad 1944; Stubbings
1965,16; Hadijoannou 1973; Maier 1973). Kalchas
went to Kolophon and Mopsos to Cilicia (Barnett
1953; Pugliese Carratelli 1971, 400ff.; Stubbings
1965, 17). In Cyprus as well as in Cilicia we
have good evidence of new people arriving in the
beginning of the 12th century (Desborough 1964,
196 ff.; French 1975). In this context we are
reminded as well of the Greek and Trojan heroes
who went to Italy (Phillips 1953; Georgiev 1972;
Stubbings 1965, 18 f ) .
The second point against the identification of Troy
Vila with the city of Priam is the tradition of the
wooden horse which seems firmly connected with
the destruction of this town.
As F. Schachermeyr has stressed, the wooden
horse as the final cause of Troy's destruction
makes sense only if it is acknowledged as a symbol
of the earth-shaking god Poseidon (Schachermeyr
1950, 189ff).
It has, on the other hand, not escaped his attention
that we find no hint of a closer relation between
the horse and the god in the Homeric poems.
According to Schachermeyr this is due to a long
process whereby the religious significance of the
horse was lost as the originally theriomorphic god
was anthropomorphisized. He recognizes a relic of
an intermediate stage of this process in the
novellistic tale of the Ketos, sent by Poseidon after
he was deceived by Laomedon (Schachermeyr
1950, 198).
Yet, as we have seen, the motif o&nhe Ketos
threatening the town does not belong to the second
Trojan war but to the first, which, according to our
view, should be connected with Troy Vlh. There
can be no doubt that the Ketos sent by Poseidon
symbolizes a natural power that is harmful to Troy.
It therefore seems to coincide with the destruction
of Troy Vlh by the power of nature.
Furthermore, we should ask if thernotif of the
(wooden) horse was not originally connected with
the older Trojan war. As again F. Schachermeyr
has pointed out there is a strange feature common
to the Ketos as well as to the wooden horse: both
are hollow inside (Schachermeyr 1950, 202).
Knrcbeooa is translated by Hesychios (amongst
other explanations) as KOIX,T|. When Heracles is
going to kill the beast he steps into its hollow
148 STEFAN HILLER
interior (eiq xr\v Kotliav). In another respect as
well, the motif of the horse occurs in the story of
Heracles. The horses promised (but not given ) to
the hero by Laomedon become in this way the
immediate cause of the capture of Laomedon's
city (Ilias V 638/42 and 648/51).
So far, mythology and archaeology seem to
harmonize very well. However, there remains a
considerable difficulty which cannot be ignored. If
the Ketos is indeed a symbol for Poseidon's wrath
it must be understood that, although it belongs to
the prelude of the Heraclean war, it is by no means
a decisive factor in the city's destruction. On the
contrary: Heracles freed the town by overcoming
it. Moreover, the Ketos shows no direct connec-
' \
tions with Poseidon as an earth-shaking god, and
is, instead, closer to the god who rouses and
disturbs the sea.
A further motif of mythological tradition deserves
special attention here: Heracles erects a long wall
along the seashore in order to protect himself and
the town from the Ketos if necessary (Ilias 20,
145/8). At first sight this motif looks like a repeti-
tion of the motif of the defensive wall which the
Achaeans built to protect their ships. However,
another and, I think, a more original explanation
can be given. The Heraclean wall could have been
a dike to protect the town which may also have
been affected from time to time by disastrous
floods (Luce 1975, 135; Andrews 1965, 31). The
Achaeans and Heracles as well had good ex-
perience of constructions like these, as can be seen
from dikes at Lake Kopais and near Tiryns (Baker
1974; Wallace 1973 and 1974), as well as in the
myth where Heracles cleans the stables of Augeias
by diverting the river Alpheios.
Poseidon is thus only the indirect cause of the
destruction of Laomedon's town which comes
to pass after Heracles is cheated-by -the king.
However, as the motif of the deceived Heracles
is one of the most common repetitions in the
myth of Heracles, there is good reason to suppose
that it was introduced as a later argument to
account for an older Achaean invasion connected
with Heracles. This invasion would have been
preceded and encouraged by a great natural
catastrophe.
On the other hand, as in the Trojan cycle the horse
has lost any obvious connection with Poseidon and
no longer shows any connection with the power of
nature, there is no direct mythological hint of a
natural catastrophe in the second Trojan war. All
we know from mythology is that the town's siege
and capture by Agamemnon ended in bloodshed
and conflagration. This corresponds to Troy Vila
(cf. Andrews 1965, 32 and 34; Brandenstein 1938,
313 and 319).
To sum up: The songs of Homer were not destined
to answer questions about every historical detail of
the Trojan war. The main difficulty remains: Troy
Vlh shows evidence of an earthquake but not of
conflagration whilst Troy Vila was burnt.
All we can positively affirm is that for approx-
imately two centuries there were close relations
between Trojans and Achaeans and that during this
period the city was destroyed twice, as M. P.
Nilsson has demonstrated. As Greek mythology
describes the most important centres of Mycenean
culture and history, also Troy should have played
a role in the Greek Late Bronze Age. Accordingly
it seems more than pure chance that mythology has
preserved the memory of two Achaean wars
against Troy.
This is, of course, far from being an exact proof
that the Achaeans were the destroyers of Troy Vlh
and Vila. Conversely this does not mean that they
could not have been the destroyers, and also does
not mean that Homer and his forerunners told
nothing but phantasmagorias and lies. "There is",
as D. L. Page has said, "a big difference between
acquitting a man of perjury and proving that he has
told the truth" (Page 1964, 19).
Finally, though we have to admit that we cannot
prove the historicity of one or, as I would prefer,
of two Trojan wars, we can be sure on the other
hand that any premise that these two settlements
were not destroyed by Achaeans but by another
people is even less likely. In this situation, I think,
it would be unwise to reject mythological tradition
as historical source. Needless to say this source
should be treated with due caution.
 TWO TROJAN WARS? ON THE DESTRUCTIONS OF TROY Vlh AND Vila
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANDREWS, P. B. S. 1965. The Falls of Troy in Greek
Tradition, Greece and Rome 12: 28-37.
GJERSTAD, EINAR. 1944. The Colonization of Cyprus
in Greek Legend, Opuscula Atheniensia 3: 107-23.
HADIJOANNOU, KYRIAKOS. 1973. Two Stories of
Sisyphos the Coan Cited by Joannis Malalas about
Teukros and the Building of Salamis in Cyprus, in: Acts
of the International Archaeological Symposium "The
Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean ". Nikosia
1972 (1973).
HAMPL, FRANZ. 1962. Die Ilias ist kein Geschichts-
buch, Serta Philologica Aenipontana, Innsbrucker
Beitrage zur Kulturwissenschaft 7/8: 37 ff.
HEUBECK, ALFRED. 1961. Review of Page, D., History
and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley and Los Angeles 1959,
in: Gnomon 33: 113-20.
KIRK, GEOFFREY E. 1964. The Trojan War. The
Character of the Tradition, Journal of Hellenic Studies
84: 12-7.
KIRK, GEOFFREY E. 1965. The Homeric Poems as
History. Cambridge Ancient History, vol. II, ch. 39 (b)
(fasc. 22). Cambridge.
LUCE, JOHN V. 1975. Archdologie auf den Spuren
Homers. Bergisch Gladbach.
MAIER, FRANZ GEORG. 1973. Evidence for Mycenaean
Settlement of Old Paphos, in: Acts of the International
Archaeological Symposium "The Mycenaeans in the
Eastern Mediterranean". Nikosia 1972 (1973).
149
MEYER, ERNST. 1975. Gab es ein Troja?, Grazer
Beitrage 4: 153-69.
MYLONAS, GEORGE E. 1964. Priam's Troy and the Date
of its Fall, Hesperia 33: 352-80.
NILSSON, MARTIN P. 1933. Homer and Mycenae. Lon-
don.
NYLANDER, CARL. 1963. The Fall of Troy, Antiquity
37: 6-11.
PAGE, DENYS L. 1959. The Historical Sack of Troy,
Antiquity 33: 25-31.
PAGE, DENYS L. 1964. Homer and the Trojan War,
Journal of Hellenic Studies 84: 17-20.
PHILLIPS, EUSTACE D. 1953. Odysseus in Italy, Jour-
nal of Hellenic Studies 73: 53-67.
PRELLER, ROBERT. 19204. Die Griechische Helden-
sage, Vol. II. Berlin.
PUGLIESE CARRATELLI, GIOVANNI. 1971. Dalle Odys-
seia alle apoikiai, La Parola del Passato 26: 393-417.
RUTTER, JEREMY G. 1975. Ceramic Evidence for
Northern Intruders in Southern Greece at the Beginning
of the Late Helladic III C Period, American Journal
of Archaeology 79: 17-31.
SCHACHERMEYR, FRITZ. 1950. Poseidon und die Ent-
stehung des Griechischen Gotterglaubens. Salzburg.
STUBBINGS, FRANK. 1965. The Recession of Mycenaean
Civilization. Cambridge Ancient History, vol. II, ch. 27
(fasc. 39). Cambridge.
WALLACE, PAUL. 1973. Gla and the Kopais Drainage
System - Mycenaean cooperative Projects?, American
Journal of Archaeology 77: 230 f.
WALLACE, PAUL. 1974. Herakles and the Dikes,
American Journal of Archaeology 78: 182.
150 STEFAN HILLER
P O S T S C R I P T . A r e v i e w o f m o r e recent literature
"These divergent assessments of Troy Vila
perhaps illustrate a perennial problem in the
wholf discussion: the difficulty of drawing sound
historical conclusions from the mute and ambigu-
ous remains of archaeology" (Easton 1983, 191).
Apart from a few stylistic modifications, the above
thesis is an unaltered version of the paper
presented during the IVth International Collo-
quium on Aegean prehistory devoted to the Troy
question (Sneffield 1977). As such it is not new.
As I later learned (Bloedow 1988, 51, note 204),
a similar thesis had been put forward by E. Bayer
in 1968 (Bayer 1968, 21f.). Bayer discusses the
references in the Iliad to an earlier Greek conquest
of Troy under the leadership of Heracles prior to
the siege and capture of the city by Agamemnon,
as well as the archaeological differentiation of the
two Late Bronze Age destruction horizons at Troy
(Troy Vlh and Vila), both of which, following
different lines of argument, have been identified
with the Troy of Homer. Bayer's work also
touches upon the archaeological evidence for the
dating of Troy Vlh to the early 13th century B. C.
(Late Helladic IIIB), as proposed by Carl Blegen,
as well as examining Blegen's contention that Troy
Vlh was destroyed by an earthquake and Troy Vila
through violent human action. In this context
Bayer also refers to Schachermeyr's interpretation
of the wooden horse as a mythological ^repre-
sentation of the destruction of Troy Vlh by
the earth-shaker Poseidon (Schachermeyr 1950).
Schachermeyr himself relied upon the work of
E. Bickel, who was the first to point out the con-
nection between Poseidon and Troy Vlh (Bickel
1942).
From the perspective of the mythological tradition,
the explanation above refers to certain points of
similarity between the Trojan horse and the Ketos
of the Heracles version, as well as the close
chronological relationship between the conquest of
Troy by Agamemnon and the wandering motif of
the nostoi immediately following the destruction
of the city - the historical basis of which can
be sought in the confusion and turmoil of the
times around 1200 B.C. Nevertheless, the thesis
presented here depends first and foremost upon the
correct interpretation of the archaeological fin-
dings in regard to what brought about the destruc-
tion of Troy Vlh and Vila, along with the
ceramically-derived dates for these destruction
levels. Both aspects have in the meanwhile provok-
ed considerable discussion leading to differing
conclusions.
The causes of the destructions have been com-
mented upon from a geological point of view by
G. Rapp (Rapp 1985) and from an archaeological
standpoint by M. Wood and D. Easton (Wood 1985;
Easton 1985). Rapp's geological analysis supports
Blegen's view:
"On the basis of the large quantity of loose
material and abundance of trimmed blocks in the
debris from the major destruction of Troy Vlh,
I believe that the most tenable hypothesis for the
cause of this destruction lies in the foundation
failures stemming from earthquake-induced earth
movements in the underlying unconsolidated
materials. Interpreted thus, the evidence supplied
by the Cincinnati excavations [. . .] seems over-
whelming" (Rapp 1982, 58).
In contrast, the view expounded in M. Wood's
book, which, although directed toward a wider
circle of readers is on the whole carefully research-
ed and seriously committed, is closer to that of
W. Dorpfeld:
"Ist es nicht doch moglich, daB die in Troja VI
angerichteten Zerstorungen letzten Endes Men-
schenwerk waren, wie Dorpfeld glaubte, als er die
Stadt 1893 freilegte. Fur ihn waren 'die Spuren
eines groBen Brandes an vielen Stellen deutlich zu
erkennen [. . .].' Wie wir horten, pflichtete Blegen
 TWO TROJAN WARS? ON THE DESTRUCTIONS OF TROY Vlh AND Vila
bei; es gab 'keinen Zweifel', daB die Stadt
niedergebrannt worden war, auch wenn er das in
seinen Berichten nicht zum Ausdruck brachte. Ist
es somit denkbar, daB Troja absichtlich zerstort
und nach einer Belagerung geschleift worden ist? "
Finally: "Auch nach der Ansicht von Erdbeben-
Experten ist Blegens Beweismaterial zweifelhaft
und seine SchluBfolgerung nicht geniigend belegt.
Vom Standpunkt eines Seismologen ist es un-
moglich, den Unterschied zwischen Erdbeben-
schaden und von Menschen verursachten Zersto-
rungen anzugeben, womit viele Archaologen iiber-
einstimmen durften" (Wood 1985, 268f).
This last argument may seem as likely to qualify
for any set of statements as to support his own. In
his knowledgeable and detailed discussion of
Wood's book, D. Easton interprets the Troy Vlh
architectonic remains as indicating violent destruc-
tion: "Systematic destruction of Troy Vlh by an
enemy seems, then, quite likely", and "we can,
I think, forget about the earthquake in Troy VHi"
(Easton 1985, 195). This view has since been sup-
ported by T. R. Bryce (1989, 18).
Among other responses, the view of M. Mellink is
to.be emphasized:
"Dorpfeld (Troja und Ilion, Athen 1902, 181)
attributed the physical demolition of the citadel
to enemy action. Several modern studies have
revived this interpretation, which needs to be
supported by technical explanations of what
happened to buildings and walls. [. . .] Siege
engines and battering rams were devices known in
Anatolia in the Old Hittite period and by the early
thirteenth century B.C. surely also available to the
Achaian attackers in West Anatolia. The story of
the Trojan horse was explained in this way by Pliny
and Pausanias, who may be helpful in the continu-
ing debate" (Mellink 1986, 100).
However, not only Blegen's interpretation of the
Troy Vlh destruction has come in for critical in-
vestigation. His proposed dates, which place the
end of Troy Vlh at the time of the LH IIIA/B trans-
ition and Troy Vila in the mid-13 th century B.C.,
have also been questioned. As a result, later dates
are now widely accepted, in particular for the Troy
Vila destruction, which is dated either contem-
porary with the mainland catastrophe at the end of
the LH III period (cf. most recently Kilian 1980
and Jakovidis 1986) or even later, which raises
151
questions about the identification of Troy Vila with
the Homeric city, if not ruling it out completely.
Supported by A. Furumark's analysis, C. Nylander
was the first to draw attention to the following cir-
cumstances: "[. . .] according to Professor
Furumark, there are no Mycenean ILIA sherds at
all in Troy Vila, a great many Mycenean IIIB
sherds and a number of Mycenean IIIC1 date"
(Nylander 1963, 7). This analysis was further sup-
ported in the following year by, among others,
G. Mylonas, who spoke for an end to Troy VII "in
the closing years of the LH III period" (Mylonas
1964, 363) and E. Vermeule, who, in view of
"most observers noting the presence of IIIC
sherds in the destruction level" proposed a date in
"the transitional ceramic period LH IIIB/C"
(Vermeule 1964, 276 f.). Desborough came to a
similar conclusion: "In face of this evidence, that
is to say the immediate reoccupation, the relatively
short duration of the settlement [. . .], and the
presence of imitations of the Granary class of LH
IIIC pottery, it seems impossible to suppose that
the destruction of the previous settlement Vila can
have occurred long before the end of LH IIIB"
(Desborough 1964, 164).
An Achaian destruction of Troy Vila was even
then doubted on logical grounds. Nylander thought
of "northern invaders" (Nylander 1963, 10) and
Finley of Achaians in coalition with "a marauding
force of northerners" (Finley 1964, 10 and 1974,
22).
In his impressive later work, F. Schachermeyr
sought to substantiate this thesis irt* detail, ap-
parently triggered by my Sheffield lecture
(Schachermeyr 1982, 102, Anmerkung 11). In a
detailed chapter entitled "Zweimal Trojanischer
Krieg" (Schachermeyr 1982, 93-112) and again
in subsequent publications (Schachermeyr 1983,
36, 60, 133 and 292ff; 1984, 114ff.) he follows
the chronology roughly proposed by Desborough
(1964, 101), which dates the earlier destruction to
the early LH IIIB period ("etwa gegen 1280") and
implies that Troy Vila "bis tief in Late Myk. IIIB,
ja hochstwahrscheinlich bis an das Ende dieser
Stufe und bis zur Seevolkerwanderung selbst
herandauerte" (Schachermeyr 1982, 99 and 101).
According to his view, a connection between Troy
Vila and the Homeric city must be excluded due
152 STEFAN HILLER
to the chronological proximity of the Sea People
migrations.
Schachermeyr ties in the attested mythological
duplicity with the later myceneanized, originally
Sea People-affiliated Teukrer/Takara, who settled
in the Troad and Cypriot Salamis. The primary
evidence for this, following Schachermeyr, is the
clear desire of the Cypriot Teukrides, "deren Vor-
fahren einstens sicherlich beim zweiten Tro-
janischen Krieg um 1200 dabeigewesen sind, als
Eroberer von Troja doch auch irgendwie
beriicksichtigt zu werden" (Schachermeyr 1982,
111). Accordingly, the attested Achaian-Greek
tradition of the conquest of Troy (Vlh) would then
have somehow become merged with the memory
of the destruction of Troy Vila preserved by the
Teukridian tradition.
Admittedly, how, where and when this occurred is
not explained in any greater detail. It must be said
before all else that, while the mythological tradi-
tion knows of a war preceding the one fought
by Agamemnon, it makes no mention of a later
conflict. If we include the Teukridian war, it is
strongly suggested that we must then speak of at
least three Trojan wars.
In addition to other doubts against Schachermeyr,
basic objections are raised regarding the thesis
according to which Barbarians settle in the Aegean
around 1200 B.C. and become quickly myce-
neanized. The ancient tradition makes no concrete
reference to these peoples. These objections are
perhaps weakened to a certain degree if we assume
that these Teukridians may not be considered as
Barbarians, but as Achaian allies of the Sea People
as Schachermeyr accepts for the Aqaiwasa and
Denjen (Schachermeyr 1982, 43, 45 and 192ff).
He has also expressed the opinion that, at the time
of the conquest of Troy Vila, Greek contingents
allied with the Sea Peoples could _have^ already
fought together on the same side (Schachermeyr
1983, 60). In any case, following his interpreta-
tion, a Greek memory of the event remains
possible excluding his version of assimilated
Barbarians. Would it not be fundamentally
simpler, from the point of view of Greek tradi-
tion, to consider the Teukridians as Achaians,
which would harmonize very well with the close
chronological relationship between the Trojan war
and the founding of Cypriot Salamis (Schacher-
meyr 1982, 192; 1983, 79)? The possibility that
the wanderings reported in the nostoi and Sea
People migrations are therefore in some way
related can in no way be excluded.
However, the major problem does not lie so much
in the chronological nearness of, respectively, the
Trojan war, the destruction of Troy Vila and the
Sea People events as with the date of the Troy Vila
destruction (whatever its cause) with respect to the
end of the mainland LH IIIB period, which marks
the end of the Mycenean epoch and the onset of the
resulting historical gap. It will hardly be seriously
questioned that it is difficult to set the Trojan war
after this date.
The destruction date of Troy Vila has however
been seriously questioned. E. French, C. Mee,
C. Podzuweit and E. Bloedow, among others,
have examined the ceramic evidence in great
detail. All of them have, in respect to Blegen's
dating, introduced considerably later dates into the
discussion, however different they may be from
one another. In her paper presented to the Sheffield
colloquium, E. French concluded that the latest
Troy Vlh ceramics fall within the LH IIIB 1
period, that the latest Troy Vila ceramics copy
Mycenean models from the early LH IIIC, and that
the Troy Vllb ceramics are therefore datable to the
later LH IIIC period (French 1977). In addition,
whereas Blegen identified ca. 60 sherds from Troy
Vila as Mycenean imports along with 250 local
imitations, together with 27 imports and 128 imita-
tions from Troy Vllb, French identifies only one
individual sherd from the earlier city as an import
and none at all from Troy Vllb.
C. Mee came to a similar conclusion (Mee 1978,
146ff; 1984, 45ff). Following his analysis, the
Troy Vlf ceramics are datable to LH IIIA1, Troy
VIg to LH IIIA2, and Troy Vlh to the LH IIIA2
- L H IIIB1 transition. Mee found at least eight
fragments from Troy Vila datable to LH IIIC1,
which entails corresponding historical consequen-
ces. Nevertheless, Mee holds back from the
resulting conclusion:
"In the Aegean, the LH IIIB/C transition must
have been an unsettled and unsettling period - the
destruction of Troy Vila is not altogether surpris-
ing. However, this does not prove Mycenean in-
volvement and the evidence from Troy itself is
inconclusive" (Mee 1984, 53).
 TWO TROJAN WARS? ON THE DESTRUCTIONS OF TROY Vlh AND Vila
The most wide-ranging attempt at redating was
published by C. Podzuweit in 1982. He dates the
latest Troy VI ceramics to the beginning of
LH n i C , Troy Vila to the later LH IIIC and Troy
Vllb to at least the Protogeometric period. In my
opinion Podzuweit's dating is unjustified. It has
since met with further criticism (Korfmann 1986,
27; Ersoy 1988, 78; Bloedow 1988, 26 n. 27 and
35 n. 93).
The final attempt to be mentioned in particular is
that of E. Bloedow, who, supported by the com-
petent advice of E. French, carried out a detailed
analysis of the ceramics published by Blegen
(Bloedow 1988).
Bloedow identified four vases from Troy Vila
along with nine fragments from Troy Vllbl as
being of particular chronological significance. He
would thereby date the earliest sherds to early
LH IIIC and the latest to the developed LH IIIC
contemporary with the Granary phase.
It seems questionable, however, to what extent his
proposed ca. 1140-1130 B.C. date for the
destruction of Troy Vila is tenable. He bases this
upon the close continuity of Troy Vila and Vllb,
as well as upon the contention that the decisive
Troy Vllbl ceramic fragments come from the
upper levels of this city. Considering the in general
not unproblematic stratigraphic situation (Korf-
mann 1986, 27), it is perhaps advisable not to
deviate from the principle that the latest sherds
found within each building horizon signify an end
date - otherwise, barring further evidence, one
might want to date Troy Vila all too deep in the
12th century B. C.
Regarding the tradition of the Trojan war,
Bloedow is inclined to tie in the destruction of Troy
Vlh with the "so-called First Trojan War", which
in his opinion was "a short, sharp, but decisive
battle" (Bloedow 1988, 48) triggered by Myce-
nean attempts to control the - hypothetical - Pon-
tic trade route. The destruction of Troy Vila,
which, following this, would have to be identified
with the second Trojan war, would "have made a
significant contribution to the development of the
legend [. . . ] " (Bloedow 1988, 51). It is admittedly
recognized in general that the difficulties in identi-
fying Troy Vila with the Homeric Troy become
correspondingly greater however later the city is
dated in the 12th century B. C.
153
Whether it is still possible to identify Troy Vila as
the Homeric city if, following the gradually
emerging consensus, we acknowledge that some of
the Troy Vila ceramics are clearly contemporary
with the early LH IIIC period, must remain open.
There are several reasons for this, in particular the
question as to how precisely shorter time-spans are
reflected in ceramic style developments, as well as
the extent to which the Trojan sequence can be
directly related to that of the Argolid. In other
words, can we conclude on the basis of the Troy
Vila ceramic finds that the city was not destroyed
some ten years earlier than the first mainland
catastrophe at-the end of LH IIIB that brought
about the decline of the Myceneans? P. Darcque's
conclusions seem to me symptomatic of the uncer-
tainty that still exists now as earlier: "Troie Vila
[. . .] est detruit et incendie vers la fin du XIIIe
siecle, juste avant ou juste apres l'apparition de
la ceramique du style HR IIIC" (Darcque 1989,
442).
Without a doubt, the predominantly local character
of the decisive ceramics makes dating all the more
difficult as the danger exists that deficits in
local quality will be interpreted as indicating
chronological lateness, a factor already brought
into the discussion more than 25 years ago by
G. Mylonas (Mylonas 1964, 363).
As this short review of the literature shows, the
tradition of at least two Trojan wars has had a not
insignificant effect upon recent research, which
has in addition occupied itself with more precisely
dating the destruction of, in particular, Troy Vila.
If it should emerge that the destruction date of
Troy Vila falls too late for its identification with
the Troy of Homer, the possibility of identifying
Troy Vlh with the Homeric remains for those who
do not hold attempts at the unification of the
mythological tradition with the archaeological-
historical evidence to be vain efforts. It could then
be proposed that the Troy conquered by Herakles
and the older heroic generation was one of the
earlier cities. A corresponding solution can be
found in E. Vermeule's most recent work, where
she proposes that houses Vlf and VIg were
destroyed during LH IIIA1 by an Achaian attack
(Vermeule 1986, 8 7 f ) .
154 STEFAN HILLER

BIBLIOGRAPHY Papers of the First Greenbank Colloquium, Liverpool

BICKEL, ERNST. 1942. Das Verbrechen des Laokoon.
Die Geschichte vom holzernen Pferd und Poseidon
Theriomorph als Zerstorer von Trojas Mauer, Rheini-
sches Museum 91: 19-27.
BLOEDOW, EDMUND F. 1988. The Trojan War and Late
Helladic IIIC, Prdhistorische Zeitschrift 63: 23-52.
BRYCE,' TREVOR R. 1989. The Nature of Mycenaean
Involvement in Western Anatolia, Historia 38: 1-21.
DARCQUE, PASCAL et al. 1989. Les Civilisations Egeen-
nes du Neolithique et de I'Age du Bronze. Paris.
DESBOROUGH, VINCENT. 1964. The Last Mycenaeans
and their Successors. Oxford.
EASTON, DONALD. 1985. Has the Trojan War been
found?, Antiquity 59: 188-95.
ERSOY, YAAR E. 1988. Finds from Menem Panaztepe
in the Manisa Museum, Annual of the British School at
Athens 83: 52-82.
FINLEY, MOSES. 1964. The Trojan War, Journal of
Hellenic Studies 84: 1-9.
FINLEY, MOSES. 1974. Schliemann's Troy - One
Hundred Years After. The fourth Annual Mortimer
Wheeler Archaeological Lecture. London.
FRENCH, ELIZABETH. 1977. Ceramic Relations be-
tween Troy and Mycenae in the Late Bronze Age.
Papers read at the IVth International Colloquium on
Aegean Prehistory. Sheffield. (Unpublished)
JAKOVIDIS, SPYRIDON. 1986. Destruction Horizons at
Late Bronze Age Mycenae, in: Philia Epe eis G E.
Mylonan, vol. A, 233-60. Athens.
KILIAN, KLAUS. 1980. Zum Ende der mykenischen
Epoche in der Argolis, Jahrbuch des Romisch-Ger-
manischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 17: 166-95.
KORFMANN, MANFRED. 1986. Beik Tepe: New
Evidence for the Period of the Trojan Sixth and Seventh Troy. London 1985.)
Settlements, in: Troy and the Trojan War. A Symposium
held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984. Ed. M. J.
Mellink, 17-28. Bryn Mawr.
MEE, CHRISTOPHER B. 1978. Aegean Trade and Settle- Prof Dr. Stefan Hiller
ment in Anatolia in the Second Millenium B.C., Institut fur Klassische Archdologie
Anatolian Studies 28: 121-56.
MEE, CHRISTOPHER B. 1984. The Mycenaeans and
Troy, in: The Trojan War. Its Historicity and Context. A-5020 Salzburg
1981. Eds. L. Foxhallund J. K. Davies, 45-56. Bristol.
MELLINK, MACHTELD J. (ed.). 1986. Troy and the
Trojan War. A Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College,
October 1984. Bryn Mawr.
PODZUWEIT, CHRISTIAN. 1982. Die Mykenische Welt
und Troja, in: HANSEL, BERNHARD (ed.), Prdhisto-
rische Archdologie in Siidosteuropa, vol. I, 65-88.
Berlin.
RAPP, GEORGE. 1982. Earthquakes in the Troad, in:
RAPP, GEORGE JR. und JOHN A. GIFFORD (ed.), Troy,
The Archaeological Geology. Suppl. Monogr. 4,43-58.
Princeton.
SCHACHERMEYR, FRITZ. 1982. Die Agdische Fruhzeit,
vol. V, Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen vom
13. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Osterreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Sit-
zungsberichte 387. Bd. Wien.
SCHACHERMEYR, FRITZ. 1983. Die Griechische Rtick-
erinnerung im Lichte neuer Forschungen. Osterrei-
chische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist.
Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 404. Bd. Wien.
SCHACHERMEYR, FRITZ. 1984. Griechische Friih-
geschichte. Osterreichische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 425. Bd.
Wien.
VERMEULE, EMILY. 1964. Greece in the Bronze Age.
Chicago.
VERMEULE, EMILY. 1986. "Priamos' Castle Blazing".
A Thousand Years of Trojan Memories, in: Troy and the
Trojan War. A Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College,
October 1984. Ed. M. J. Mellink, 77-92. Bryn Mawr.
WOOD, MICHAEL. 1985. DerKrieg um Troja: Geschichte
der Stadt, ihrer Wiederentdeckung und der neuesten
Grabungen. Frankfurt. (German edition of In Search of
Universitdt Salzburg
Residenzstr. IIII
S T U D I A T R O I C A

B a n d 1 1 9 9 1

VERLAG PHILIPP VON ZABERN MAINZ AM RHEIN

S T U D I A T R O I C A