THE TUMULI OF TROY AND THE TROAD 373

C. Brian Rose, Reyhan Körpe C. Brian Rose, Reyhan Körpe, “The Tumuli of Troy and the Troad” (s. 373-386) Tumulus as Sema, Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC Edited by Olivier Henry and Ute Kelp 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston The Tumuli of Troy and the Troad (Plates 168–177) Abstract This article focuses on the tumuli that lie in the western and central parts of the Troad; as a group, they functioned as attraction points, landscape markers, and social-cultural phenomena. The tumuli along the northwest coast of the Troad, in the shadow of Ilium, probably began to be associated with the graves of the Homeric heroes during the early Archaic period. Two of the mounds were often linked to Achilles and Patroclus; others have been connected with Antilochus, Protesilaus, and Ajax. Athens’ first overseas colony of Sigeum was probably founded here in order to co-opt the legendary framework that these tumuli represented. They also formed the nucleus of a tourism industry centered on Ilium, and the tumulus of Achilles appears to have been monumentalized in the 3rd century BC to increase its tourism potential. The tumuli in the center of the Troad, along the Granicus and Aesepus rivers, date primarily to the Archaic and Classical periods, and were set up by wealthy Anatolians associated with the Persian satrap in Dascylium. These served both as estate markers and as components in a system of aristocratic competition. The sarcophagi and tomb chambers contained within them are among the earliest examples of Proconnesian marble monuments, and most were sited along the principal roads and waterways for easy viewing. The estates that produced these tumuli were largely abandoned after Alexander’s conquests, and the area would not become inhabited again until a series of late Roman earthquakes prompted the inhabitants of the coastal cities to return to the interior. Keywords Troy, Ilium, Granicus River Valley, Achilles (tomb of), Sigeum The Troad is famous for its tumuli, primarily because so many of them have been identified as the tombs of Homeric heroes – not just during the Greek and Roman periods, but over the course of nearly three millennia (Figs. 1–3). Although the Troad is filled with tumuli – a mixture of burials, cenotaphs, and settlement mounds, this article will focus on only two groups: those in the immediate vicinity of Ilium, and those of the east side of the Granicus River, in the north central section of the Troad, since these are the best documented areas. Many of the mounds that punctuate the landscape around the citadel of Troy are settlement mounds, not burials, which date between the later Neolithic period and the Bronze Age. Two of the most famous examples are the mound of Sivritepe, 4 km from Troy (Figs. 4–5), and Karaağaçtepe (Fig. 6), often identified as the tomb of Protesilaus, at the end of the Gallipoli peninsula; Hanaytepe and Pashatepe are also cases in point.1 The date at 1 Sivritepe: Schliemann 1881, 665–669; Winnefeld 1902, 545–547; Cook 1973, 173–174; Korfmann 1985, 167; 1986, 309–310; 1989, 474–481; Karaağaçtepe: Schliemann 1884, 254–262; Winnefeld 1902, 547; Hanaytepe: THE TUMULI OF TROY AND THE TROAD Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 373 which such mounds were transformed from long-abandoned settlements into monuments of reverence, linked to specific Greek and Trojan heroes, is unclear, but the connection was probably in place by the early Archaic period. Since the perception of these tumuli in antiquity was so closely tied to Ilium’s identification as Homeric Troy, this article begins with a discussion of the evidence for that assimilation, followed by an analysis of the role played by the tumuli in subsequent political and economic developments. The earliest evidence for potentially ritual activity dates to the 9th or early 8th century BC and was uncovered in the West Sanctuary, a large religious complex on the southwest side of the citadel mound. In the center of the sanctuary, we found that one of the late Bronze Age structures had been reconstructed with an interior apsidal ash altar and an exterior bench. In the vicinity were nearly 30 stone paved circles, ca. 2 m in diameter, whose associated ceramic assemblages suggest feasting. These structures lay within the shadow of the late Bronze Age (Troy VI) citadel wall, which was still preserved to a height of nearly 5 m, and it seems likely that they were intended for hero cult.2 Shortly thereafter, in the early 7th century, a new cross-Aegean custom was inaugurated: the aristocracy of Opountian Locris sent two maidens each year to live in and clean the sanctuary of Athena Ilias, in atonement for their ancestor Ajax’s rape of Cassandra at the end of the Trojan War. If the Ilians found the maidens outside the city, they had license to kill them, and even within the sanctuary the girls reportedly had to stay out of the line of site of the cult statue of Athena. The most sensible explanation for such an unusual custom is that the Locrians were attempting to promote a link between their ancestral hero Ajax and the Homeric tradition that Ilium now embodied.3 It was probably at this time, during the 7th century, that the prehistoric settlement mounds were reconfigured – in a sense, repackaged – as burial sites of Homeric characters. Such an interpretive change is not surprising: the Iliad and Odyssey contain several references to the construction of large-scale tumuli for both Greek and Trojan heroes in the vicinity of Troy, and the identification of Ilium’s mounds as Homeric burials was a logical assumption once the equation between Troy and Ilium had been established.4 The ancient sources attest to ten of them in the vicinity of Ilium, evenly divided between Greek and Trojans. The most famous include Achilles, Patroclus, Ajax, and Protesilaus, although Hector, Hecuba, Aisyetes, Batieia (wife of Dardanus) or Myrina (queen of the Amazons), Ilus, and Schliemann 1881, 706–720; Winnefeld 1902, 548; Cook 1973, 122–123; Pashatepe: Schliemann 1881, 656–658; Cook 1973, 107–108; Bieg 2009, 244. 2 Rose 1995, 89–93; 1997, 76–86; 1998, 73–76; Aslan 2002, 85–86; Basedow 2006. 3 The custom probably began before 673, when the colony of Lokri Epizephyroi in southern Italy was founded (Pol. 12.5.7; Lycophr. 1141–1173; Aen. Tact. 31.24; Strab. 13.1.40). For modern accounts of the custom, see Leaf 1923, 191–193; Walbank 1967, 335–336; Rose 2008, 417–418. 4 Achilles built a mound for Patroclus, to which his own ashes were subsequently added, and the Trojans constructed a mound over Hector’s ashes: Hom. Il. 23.245–248; 24.76ff; Hom. Od. 24.80–84. Mounds were also built for Elpenor (Hom. Od. 12.9–15) and Eetion (Hom. Il. 6.416–419). 374 C. BRIAN ROSE, REYHAN KÖRPE Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 Antilochus were also featured.5 The mounds of Achilles, Ajax, and Protesilaus were actually accompanied by shrines, one of which – that of Protesilaus – even housed its own oracle. These tumuli probably began to play a pivotal role in regional power politics during the 7th century BC, especially in regard to Athens’ first colony in the eastern Aegean. The colony in question was Sigeum, still largely unexcavated, which lay about 3.5 km northwest of Troy on the Aegean coast (Fig. 1). This was an area under Lesbian control during the 7th century, but it was seized by Athens ca. 625 BC following a battle in which Alcaeus lost his armor.6 Herodotus reports on the competing territorial claims of Athens and Lesbos, in which each region’s involvement with the Homeric tradition played a significant role. By this point, the rulers of Lesbos had already traced their descent from the royal family of Mycenae, and Orestes in particular. Athens, in turn, argued that any of the mainland Greek cities providing aid to Menelaus during the Trojan War had as much right to the territory as Lesbos.7 Scholars have often questioned why Athens would have chosen the site of Sigeum for its first colony in the Troad, since it was situated on the Aegean rather than the Dardanelles, and was therefore not in a position to control traffic into the Propontis and Black Sea. But such a choice actually makes perfect sense in light of Athens’ attempt to co-opt a heritage to which she had only a questionable connection. Sigeum lay in close proximity to a series of tumuli identified as the burials of Achilles, Patroclus, and Antilochus. Establishing a colony there allowed Athens, through her colonists, to exercise greater control of Ilium and its legendary associations than any other city. The same point was effectively made by the later Athenian colony at Elaius, opposite Ilium at the northern side of the Dardanelles, in that it was situated next to the Tumulus of Protesilaus.8 In the meantime, a tourism industry at Ilium was beginning to be developed, and it would gradually attract a large number of high profile visitors, beginning with the Persian king Xerxes in 480 BC and continuing through Mehmet II in 1462. When Herodotus mentions that Xerxes and his priests made libations to the spirits of the Homeric heroes, one can imagine that it was the tumuli to which the attention was directed; one can also imagine that these mounds were being highlighted by the local residents as Homeric souvenirs, as they are today.9 5 Achilles and Patroclus: Strab. 13.1.32, 39; Arr. Anab. 1.11.12; Plin. HN 5.33, 124, 125; Lucian. Charon 521; Q. S. 7.402; Cass. Dio 77.16; Philostr. Her. 51.12. Ajax: Paus. 1.35.3; Philostr. 8.1; Strab. 13.1.30. Protesilaus: Hdt. 7.33, 9.116, 9.120; Paus. 3.4, 5; Strab. 13.1.31; Plin. HN 16.88; Anth. Pal. 7.141, 385; Philostr. 1.1. Hector: Strab. 13.1.29; Lycophr. 1208ff.; Lucian. Deor. Conc. 12; D.Chr. 11.179. Hecuba: Strab. 13.1.28. Priam: Anth. Gr. 55; Cook 1973, 133. Aisyetes: Hom. Il. 2.792–794; Strab. 13.1.34, 37; Leaf 1923, 185–186; Luce 2003, 17–19. Batieia/Myrina: Hom. Il. 2.811–815; Strab. 13.1.34; Luce 2003, 13–17. Ilus: Hom. Il. 24.349–351; Strab. 13.1.25, 34; Luce 2003, 19–21. Antilochus: Strab. 13.1.32. 6 Leaf 1923, 186–188; Cook 1973, 178–188; Isaac 1986, 162–166; Bieg/Aslan 2006. 7 Hdt. 5.95. 8 Leaf 1923, 163. 9 Hdt. 7.43. See the contribution by Nicola Zwingmann in this volume. THE TUMULI OF TROY AND THE TROAD Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 375 Xerxes’ initial stop was the Sanctuary of Athena, which maintained a treasury of Trojan War relics probably associated with both Greek and Trojan heroes.10 Some of the armor in that treasury was taken by Alexander himself, who visited the site in 334 and engaged in a race with his companions around the nearby tumulus of Achilles.11 He reportedly wore the antique armor in his subsequent battle with the Persians at Granicus, and was clearly just as eager to co-opt the Trojan heritage as the Athenians had been three centuries earlier. Ilium was not slow to recognize the potential benefits of such associations and marketed itself accordingly. For the primary visual manifestation of its public identity, the city chose the Panathenaic festival; this meant that rhapsodes would have sung parts of the Iliad directly in front of the Troy VI fortification wall, which was undoubtedly presented as a remnant of Priam’s citadel.12 The construction of a stronger Homeric geography extended also to the surrounding landscape, and especially to the ‘Tumulus of Achilles’ at nearby Achilleum (now Sivritepe, Figs. 4, 5).13 The tumulus was excavated in 1998 and 1999 as part of the Troy Project, which revealed that the original mound was a late Neolithic settlement, nearly 5 m high; it was monumentalized during the second quarter of the 3rd century BC, judging by the pottery, and raised to a height of 13 m above the surrounding area – so an increase of approximately 8 m.14 This would have been one of the largest public works projects that Ilium had attempted up to this point, and it would have made the Tumulus of Achilles larger than any of the other mounds that had been linked to the graves of the Greek and Trojan heroes. This monumental building project was surely a by-product of Ilium’s burgeoning tourist industry, and would have complemented both the temple treasury with Homeric relics and the recitations of the Iliad next to the Bronze Age fortification wall. As important components of the tourism industry, these tumuli were continually maintained and restored. The mound of Ajax at Rhoeteum was rebuilt by Hadrian because much of it had been damaged by the sea, and the bones of the occupant, allegedly nearly 5 m in height, had become visible (Figs. 7, 8).15 When Caracalla visited Ilium in 214, he reportedly honored Achilles with sacrifices and races in armor around his tumulus, as Alexander had done 550 years earlier, and set up a bronze statue of Achilles.16 The emperor also constructed an enormous tumulus for a man named Festus, one of his freedmen who had recently died. Now known as Üveciktepe, this mound lies approximately 4 km from Ilium (Figs. 9, 10)17 and is the largest of the Troad tumuli, nearly 25 m high, so almost twice the 10 Rose 2003, 31. 11 Arr. Anab. 1.110,7–8; Diod. 17.17.6–7; 17.18.1; Plut. Alex. 15.7. 12 Rose 2003, 60–63. 13 Schliemann 1881, 665–669; Winnefeld 1902, 545–547; Cook 1973, 173–174; Korfmann 1985, 167; 1986, 309–310; 1989, 474–481; Hertel 2003, 161–163. 14 Rose 1999, 61–63 and 2000, 65–66. 15 Philostr. 8.1; Leaf 1923, 157–158. 16 Herodian. 4.8.3–5. 17 Schliemann 1881, 658–665; Winnefeld 1902, 539–542; Cook 1973, 172–173; Bieg 2009, 243–244. 376 C. BRIAN ROSE, REYHAN KÖRPE Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 size of the Achilles Tumulus. It represents yet another attempt on Caracalla’s part to link himself to the Homeric tradition by re-enacting the mourning of Achilles for Patroclus, and also indicates the power and versatility of these tumuli regardless of the prevailing political authority. Nor did changes in religion alter their hallowed status: Keşiktepe, linked to the tomb of Antilochus, gradually developed into a shrine for St. Demetrius, and Üveciktepe was regarded as the tomb of the prophet Elijah.18 Identifying the tumuli The ancient descriptions of the tumuli do not allow one to fix them in the Trojan landscape as precisely as one would like, which has led to considerable confusion in modern scholarship. Some mounds in the vicinity of Ilium have been called by several different names, and only a few of the principal Homeric tumuli can be located with relative certainty. The three that are most easily identifiable are those of Ajax, Festus, and Achilles. The mound of Ajax lies nearly 2 km north of Ilium and roughly 1 km to the south of the Dardanelles (Figs. 8, 9).19 Within the tumulus was an outer circular vaulted passage, 3.5 m in width, which was connected to a central stone tower by a network of radiating walls.20 This was not a format employed in pre-Roman tumulus construction, although it appears to have been popular in northwestern Asia Minor for tumuli of Imperial date.21 Moreover, the construction technique points toward the 2nd century AD, as does a lamp of Hadrianic date found in the fill above the vaulted entrance.22 It is difficult to associate this mound with anyone other than Ajax due to the descriptions of the area by Pausanias and Philostratus. Since the original tumulus was heavily damaged by the sea, it was surely once located closer to the shore, and Hadrian’s benefaction must have involved the construction of an entirely new tumulus in its current location, well above sea level.23 The tomb now appears as battered as it probably did immediately prior to Hadrian’s restoration, but at the beginning of the empire it probably looked something like a park, with a seaside location, heroon, and a statue of Ajax so dazzling that Antony carried it off to Alexandria, although it was later repatriated by Augustus.24 In the late 18th century the tumulus had a diameter of more than 11 m and a height of 5 m, which means that over 350 cubic meters of earth must have been moved in the course of construction. 18 Schliemann 1881, 650, 669 and 1884, 253–254; Cook 1973, 165, 172–173. 19 Schliemann 1881, 652–653; Winnefeld 1902, 543; Leaf 1923, 157–158; Hertel 2004, 176–178. 20 Lechevalier 1802, 303. 21 Three tumuli in the vicinity of Ilium feature this technique, and a central stone tower without radiating walls occurs also in the Bozyer Tepe Tumulus from the Late Classical or Early Hellenistic period at Elaia near Pergamon, see Feuser 2010. 22 Bieg 2009, 242–243. 23 Paus. 1.35.3–5; Philostr. 8.1. 24 Strab. 1.31.30. THE TUMULI OF TROY AND THE TROAD Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 377 The same tower-type organization with radial walls was used for the ‘Tumulus of Priam’ on Ballı Dağ, southeast of Ilium, and for the Tumulus of Üveciktepe, the largest tumulus in the Troad (Figs. 9, 10).25 The central tower measures 4.5 m square, and its height of approximately 12 m extends close to the top of the tumulus. Schliemann commented on the profusion of late Roman pottery within and around the tumulus, which has led most scholars to link it to Caracalla’s freedman Festus. The fact that Üveciktepe is at least twice the size of every other tumulus in the Troad demonstrates the impressive scale of the projects that were still undertaken in the vicinity of Ilium in the 3rd century AD. It should, in fact, be considered alongside the other great Imperial cenotaphs in Anatolia, which include those of Gaius Caesar at Limyra, Trajan at Cilician Selinus, and Germanicus at Mt. Amanus near Antioch. The confusion surrounding the location of the tomb of Achilles derives from several factors. Although the ashes of Achilles and Patroclus were interred together in a single tumulus in the Homeric tradition, Arrian’s description of Alexander’s visit to Ilium has been interpreted to indicate that separate burial mounds of the two heroes had been identified by the early Hellenistic period.26 Confounding the issue is Strabo’s comment that there was a mnema of Achilles adjacent to the town of Achilleum, and mnemata of Achilles, Patroclus, and Antilochus at Sigeum.27 There are actually a number of tumuli near Sigeum, one of which was viewed as a likely candidate for Achilles’ tomb and excavated by Choiseul-Gouffier and Schliemann in 1787 and 1882, respectively (Fig. 3). The former reportedly discovered a cremation burial together with late Archaic/early Classical pottery, including black-figured lekythoi. A nearby tumulus, regarded as the likely tomb of Patroclus, yielded pottery of similar date, and both should probably be viewed as burials of wealthy Sigeum residents, not unlike those in the Granicus River Valley.28 Nearly all of the evidence, both literary and archaeological, points toward Sivritepe as the mound revered as the tumulus of Achilles in antiquity (Figs. 4, 5). Achilleum, the town adjacent to the tumulus, was founded by Mytileneans after Athens had re-taken Sigeum in the 6th century, so the tumulus, by extension, could not have been located at Sigeum.29 Moreover, Sivritepe was the largest tumulus in the Troad until the construction of Üveciktepe during the reign of Caracalla, and one can easily understand the massive scale if it was intended to commemorate Achilles. Whether this was the tumulus around which Alexander ran, however, is more difficult to determine, since it did not receive monumental form until the 3rd century BC. 25 For Priam, see Schliemann 1881, 655–656, 663; Winnefeld 1902, 543; Cook 1973, 133. For Üveciktepe, see above, note 17. 26 Hom. Il. 23.243–257; Hom. Od. 24.76–84; Arr. Anab. 1.11.12. 27 Strab. 13.1.32 (Sigeum); 13.1.39 (Achilleum). 28 Schliemann 1881, 654 and 1884, 242–254; Leaf 1923, 165; Cook 1973, 161–162; Hertel 2003, 161–176; Bieg 2009, 242. 29 Leaf 1923, 188–190. 378 C. BRIAN ROSE, REYHAN KÖRPE Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 The Granicus River Valley The area around the Granicus and Aesepus Rivers, in Hellespontine Phrygia, also came equipped with its share of legendary landmarks, including the tombs of Memnon, Paris, and Oenone, and Ganymede’s point of abduction by Zeus.30 Yet the tumuli of this area have a very different story to tell. The majority appear to date between the second half of the 6th century and the first half of the 4th – in other words, contemporary with the period of Persian domination in the Troad. These were the tombs of wealthy Anatolian landowners affiliated with the satrapal capital of Dascylium, which lay about 70 km east of the Granicus River (Figs. 11–16).31 The tombs formed part of a system of aristocratic competition among the Anatolian elite: the greater the number and size of the tumuli on an estate, the higher the associated status. It was therefore essential that the tumuli, especially the largest ones, be as clearly visible as possible. Consequently, the tombs were often set on high ridges, such as Kızöldün, or in the vicinity of major waterways, such as Dedetepe (Fig. 11). Because the tombs could easily blend in with the surrounding landscape, a large stone orb with vertical shaft often adorned the top of the mound, thereby designating it as an actual monument. Such orbs appear in the depictions of Achilles’ tomb on late Archaic sarcophagi from western Asia Minor, and ten such orbs, retrieved from the Dascylium region, are now in the Archaeological Museum in Bandırma.32 The diameters of the tumuli range from ca. 25 m to 65 m, although the majority fall between 30 to 40 m. In many cases, especially in the Troad and Lydia, they were set up in family clusters, with each tumulus in the group visible from the top of the others.33 By virtue of their size, the tumuli also functioned as observation platforms which were used as such in times of war: Anatolians as well as Greek mercenaries watched the Macedonian army from some of these tumuli during the battle of Granicus, as well as during the Spartan invasion of the early 4th century BC, and they probably also served as signaling stations.34 The level of wealth evinced by these tumuli is attested by both the tomb structures and the associated gifts, and we review briefly four of them here, all of which were excavated by the Çanakkale Archaeological Museum under the direction of Nurten Sevinç. The oldest one, named Kızöldün, contained two marble sarcophagi, one representing the sacrifice of Polyxena, dating to ca. 500–490, and another containing the body of a 10 year old girl, 30 Strab. 13.1.11 (Ganymede/Memnon); 13.1.33 (Paris, Oenone). 31 Rose 2007; Rose et al. 2007. 32 Rose et al. 2007, 73 (Polyxena sarcophagus; Clazomenean sarcophagi). 33 Roosevelt 2009, 135–184. 34 Arr. Anab. 1.13–14; Diod. 17.18–21; Plut., Alex. 16; Xen. Hell. 3.2.15. See also Hom. Il. 2.791–795; Hasluck 1904, 26, no. 19 (a Byzantine or Selcuk fort above a tumulus). For beacon systems and signaling stations during the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, see Aen. Tact. 7.1–4; Ephor. 107; Hdt. 7.182. THE TUMULI OF TROY AND THE TROAD Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 379 which dates 40 or 50 years later (Fig. 12).35 The Polyxena sarcophagus is the earliest stone sarcophagus with figural scenes ever to have been found in Asia Minor, and it represents an early product of the Proconnesian marble workshops (Fig. 13). The wheeled cart that transported the corpse to the tumulus had been disassembled at the time of burial, and was discovered beneath the terracotta tiles that surrounded the sarcophagus.36 The child’s sarcophagus still contained its original assemblage, including gold earrings, necklaces, and bracelets, as well as silver sympotic implements (Fig. 14). Many of these objects have clearly been influenced by the Achaemenid style dominant at the time in Dascylium, and this applies as well to the architectural decoration of the sarcophagus.37 The Dedetepe tomb, dating to the first half of the 5th century BC, was built completely of marble and contained two brightly painted klinai, in front of which were elaborately decorated wooden stools (Fig. 15).38 The legs, in fact, are extraordinarily close to those that appear in the reliefs of Persepolis, and similar stools were no doubt used in the satrapal palace at Dascylium. Alabastra stained by Tyrian purple fillets were scattered throughout the chamber, as were pieces of musical instruments and an ivory knife handle in the form of a recumbent stag, also in Achaemenid style. The sarcophagus from Çan, carved sometime in the first quarter of the 4th century, was significantly damaged by ancient and modern looters but still retains most of its original paint (Fig. 16). The carved reliefs, confined to only two sides, feature a biographical narrative depicting the deceased as victorious in a boar hunt and in battle against a fallen Greek.39 The use of the speared-eye motif on both sides establishes a link between the two foes, human and animal, as does the duplicate configuration of horse and rider. What is most striking about the Granicus tombs is the extensive use of Proconnesian marble in all of the burials. The use of this type of marble is not surprising since the stone was of the highest possible quality and also relatively easy to import due to the close geographic proximity of the quarries;40 but such extensive use of marble is not found in other known tumuli of Archaic or Classical date. At Sardis, only the tomb of Alyattes, father of Croesus, was constructed of marble – clearly as a mark of royalty. Otherwise, marble was either eschewed in favor of limestone or used only for selected features, such as the door and interior furniture of the Naip Tumulus near Tekirdağ.41 Proconnesian marble did, however, figure prominently in the new satrapal buildings at Dascylium, and it seems likely that the advent of Persian domination in western Asia 35 The principal publications are Sevinç 1996; Sevinç et al. 1998, 314–316, 323 and 2001, 402; Rose 2007, 249–253. 36 The associated pieces of the cart are still being conserved and studied. The type is similar to those found in tumuli at Balıkesir and Sardis: Kökten-Ersoy 1998. 37 Sevinç et al. 1999. For the architectural decoration at Dascylium, see Ateşlier 2001. 38 Sevinç et al. 1998; Rose 2007, 253–254. 39 Sevinç et al. 2001; Rose 2007, 254–256. 40 Rose et al. 2007, 74–75. 41 Özgen/Öztürk 1996, 23; Delemen 2006. 380 C. BRIAN ROSE, REYHAN KÖRPE Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 Minor stimulated large-scale quarrying of Proconnesian marble.42 This quickly became the favored building material for tombs, at least in the Granicus valley, as aristocratic competition among the landowners steadily increased. The tombs in this region were part of the Granicus River Valley Survey Project, which we have conducted during the last four years. Our goal was to analyze the varying uses of the landscape from antiquity to the present in order to demonstrate how the tumuli were treated over the course of the last three millennia. Judging by the pottery on and around the tumuli, all of them date to the period of Persian occupation, which was generally a time of great economic prosperity for the region. A major change, of course, occurred after the battle of Granicus in 334: the old Persian-affiliated estates broke up, and the tumuli that formed part of those estates could no longer be guarded, nor were there funds to erect new tumuli. Several inscriptions indicate that the estates quickly disintegrated as their residents flocked to the newly founded cities on the coasts, and this is supported by the results of the survey, which yielded very little Hellenistic pottery.43 It was probably at this time that looting began to accelerate: the families whose ancestors were buried in the tumuli moved away, and the wealthy burials would have become easy and attractive targets for the new residents. A similar gap in habitation is evident during the period of Roman hegemony, although our quantities of Roman pottery were even less than those of Hellenistic date. For the early and mid Roman periods, only a few sites yielded pottery, and even then we found only one or two sherds. All of this changed in the late Roman period, however, judging by the pottery that we recovered. The number of people who returned to the Granicus River Valley appears to have increased significantly, partially due to the rise in seismic activity throughout the Troad during late antiquity, which brought down most of the buildings in the coastal settlements. The abandonment of those sites prompted a return to the agricultural areas that had remained largely uncultivated since the end of Persian control. Indeed, at several sites there were virtually no sherds that dated between the late Classical and late Roman periods.44 During this period the fields around the tumuli were planted and they were probably again attached to estates, as they had been a millennium earlier. There appears to have been no reuse of the tumuli for new burials during the late Roman period, although a few of them were reused as cemeteries in the early 13th century, when regional control shifted from the Latin emperors of Constantinople to the empire of Nicaea. The Byzantine graves were relatively shallow, so the digging would not have reached the Graeco-Persian tombs, and there is no evidence for a surge in looting. This would change in the 19th century, however, when agricultural production in the region again became widespread. This demographic change is probably attributable to a 42 Ateşlier 2001; Rose et al. 2007, 74–75. 43 Rose et al. 2007, 104–105. 44 Rose et al. 2007, 104–105. THE TUMULI OF TROY AND THE TROAD Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 381 variety of factors, but one of them surely relates to the wars of independence waged in Ottoman territories in southeastern Europe, which brought an enormous number of refugees to Constantinople. This, in turn, stimulated agricultural growth in areas that had been underutilized, and the Troad’s excellent farmland and easy maritime access to Constantinople made it a logical candidate for such development. The tumuli were again surrounded by farms, and they now became integral components of those farms.45 Tractors regularly plowed the areas, thereby eroding the tumuli and often exposing the burials they covered. This is still the case today, and many have disappeared from the landscape altogether. If we examine the ceramics around the tumuli quantitatively by period, virtually none are Bronze Age; 41 % are Archaic/Classical (with the vast majority dating to the period of Persian control); 5 % are Hellenistic (primarily early Hellenistic); slightly over 1 % are early or mid Roman; nearly 30 % are late Roman; 14 % are Byzantine (primarily late 12th/early 13th century); and 10 % are Ottoman, particularly 19th century. The evidence from Ilium and the Granicus River Valley, city and country, provides a significant body of evidence regarding tumuli as public attractions, as defining features of the landscape, and as socio-cultural phenomena. At Ilium, the abandoned prehistoric mounds assumed an unprecedented level of prominence as they were redefined as a locus of cult and cited as evidence that the settlement of Ilium was in fact Homeric Troy. The trappings of reverence with which these tumuli were endowed would remain intact for over a millennium, and would continue to be apparent at various points during Byzantine and Ottoman control of the region. The Persian-period tumuli along the Granicus River were also status symbols, but their construction was driven by aristocratic competition rather than civic tourism, and the builders focused more on size, number, and strategic siting than on legendary associations in the area. Moreover, unlike the Trojan tumuli, the burial mounds in the Granicus River Valley were effectively stripped of their status after Alexander’s battle of 334 destroyed the political and economic infrastructure of the region, thereby sparking a period of looting that has never really ended. Binding both areas, however, was the intersection of Greek, Persian, and Roman traditions – a distinctive blend that was especially appropriate for a district that constituted one of the easiest crossing points between continental Europe and Asia. Such intersections of East and West were directly tied to the power and versatility of the Trojan tumuli, and they effectively separated the Troad from other areas with a Homeric pedigree.46 45 Hayes 1995. 46 Our thanks to Olivier Henry and Ute Kelp for inviting us to be part of this conference, and to Gabriel Pizzorno, Philip Sapirstein, and Jamon van den Hoek for producing such effective maps and plans. 382 C. BRIAN ROSE, REYHAN KÖRPE Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 Bibliography Aslan 2002 Aslan, C.C. (2002), “Ilium before Alexander. Protogeometric, Geometric, and Archaic Pottery from D 9”, StTroica 12, 81–129. Ateşlier 2001 Ateşlier, S. (2001), “Observations on an Early Classical Building of the Satrapal Period at Dascylium”, in: T. Bakir / H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg / G. Gürtekin / P. Briant / W. Henkelman (eds.), Achaemenid Anatolia, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Anatolia in the Achaemenid Period, Leiden, 147–168. Basedow 2006 Basedow, M. (2006), “What the Blind Man Saw. New Information from the Iron Age at Troy”, in: C. Mattusch / A. Brauer / A.A. Donohue (eds.), Common Ground. Archaeology, Art, Science, and Humanities, Acta of the XVIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology (August 2003), Oxford, 88–92. Bieg 2009 Bieg, G. (2009), “Antike Steinbrüche und Tumuli”, in: V. Höhfeld (ed.), Stadt und Landschaft Homers. Ein historisch geografischer Führer für Troia und Umgebung, Mainz, 239–244. Bieg/Aslan 2006 Bieg, G. / Aslan, R. (2006), “Eine Quellhöhle in Spratt’s Plateau (Subasi Tepe) – Wo lag Sigeum?”, StTroica 16, 133–145. Cook 1973 Cook, J.M. (1973), The Troad. An Archaeological and Topographical Study, Oxford. Delemen 2006 Delemen, İ. (2006), “An Unplundered Chamber Tomb on Ganos Mountain in Southeastern Thrace”, AJA 110, 251–273. Feuser 2010 Feuser, St. (2010), “Tumulusgrabung”, in: F. Pirson et al., “Pergamon – Bericht über die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2009”, AA, 202–208. Hasluck 1904 Hasluck, F.W. (1904), “Inscriptions from the Cyzicus Neighborhood”, JHS 24, 20–40. Hayes 1995 Hayes, J. (1995), “A Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Assemblage from the Lower City in Troia”, StTroica 5, 197–210. Hertel 2003 Hertel, D. (2003), Die Mauern von Troia, Munich. Isaac 1986 Isaac, B. (1986), The Greek Settlements in Thrace Until the Macedonian Conquest, Leiden. THE TUMULI OF TROY AND THE TROAD Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 383 Kökten-Ersoy 1998 Kökten-Ersoy, H. (1998), “Two Wheeled Vehicles from Lydia and Mysia”, IstMitt 48, 107–133. Korfmann 1985 Korfmann, M. (1985), “Beşik-tepe. Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabung von 1983”, AA, 157–194. Korfmann 1986 Korfmann, M. (1986), “Beşik-tepe. Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabung von 1984”, AA, 303–363. Korfmann 1989 Korfmann, M. (1989), “Beşik-tepe. Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Arbeiten von 1987 und 1988”, AA, 473–481. Leaf 1923 Leaf, W. (1923), Strabo on the Troad, Cambridge. Lechevalier 1802 Lechevalier, J.B. (1802), Voyage de la Troade, Paris. Luce 2003 Luce, J.V. (2003), “The Case for Historical Significance in Homer’s Landmarks at Troia”, in: G.A. Wagner / E. Pernicka / H.P. Uerpmann (eds.), Troia and the Troad. Scientific Approaches, Berlin, 9–30. Özgen/Öztürk 1996 Özgen, İ / Öztürk, J. (1996), Heritage Recovered. The Lydian Treasure, Istanbul. Roosevelt 2009 Roosevelt, C.H. (2009), The Archaeology of Lydia, from Gyges to Alexander, Cambridge. Rose 1995 Rose, C.B. (1995), “The 1994 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”, StTroica 5, 81–105. Rose 1997 Rose, C.B. (1997), “The 1996 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”, StTroica 7, 73–110. Rose 1998 Rose, C.B. (1998), “The 1997 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”, StTroica 8, 71–113. Rose 1999 Rose, C.B. (1999), “The 1998 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia”, StTroica 9, 35–71. Rose 2000 Rose, C.B. (2000), “Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Research at Troy, 1999”, StTroica 10, 53–72. Rose 2003 Rose, C.B. (2003), “The Temple of Athena at Ilion”, StTroica 13, 27–88. 384 C. BRIAN ROSE, REYHAN KÖRPE Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 Rose 2007 Rose, C.B. (2007), “The Tombs of the Granicus River Valley”, in: O. Casabonne / İ. Delemen / S. Karagoz / O. Tekin (eds.), The Achaemenid Impact on Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (6th–4th Centuries B.C.), Papers presented at the International Workshop, Istanbul 20–21 May 2005, Istanbul, 247–264. Rose 2008 Rose, C.B. (2008), “Separating Fact from Fiction in the Aeolian Migration”, Hesperia 77.3, 399–430. Rose et al. 2007 Rose, C.B. / Tekkök, B. / Körpe, R. et al. (2007), “The Granicus River Valley Archaeological Survey Project, 2004–2005”, StTroica 17, 65–150. Schliemann 1881 Schliemann, H. (1881), Ilios. The City and Country of the Trojans, New York. Schliemann 1884 Schliemann, H. (1884), Troja. Results of the Latest Researches and Discoveries on the Site of Homer’s Troy, New York. Sevinç 1996 Sevinç, N. (1996), “A New Sarcophagus of Polyxena from the Salvage Excavations at Gümüsçay”, StTroica 6, 251–264. Sevinç et al. 1998 Sevinç, N. / Rose, C.B. / Tekkök-Bicken, B. / Strahan, D. (1998), “The Dedetepe Tumulus”, StTroica 8, 305–327. Sevinç et al. 1999 Sevinç, N. / Rose, C.B. / Strahan, D. (1999), “A Child’s Sarcophagus from the Salvage Excavations at Gümüşcay”, StTroica 9, 489–509. Sevinç et al. 2001 Sevinç, N. / Körpe, R. / Tombul, M. / Rose, C.B. / Strahan, D. / Kiesewetter, H. (2001), “A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan”, StTroica 11, 383–420. Walbank 1967 Walbank, F.W. (1967), Historical Commentary on Polybius II, Oxford. Winnefeld 1902 Winnefeld, H. (1902), “Gräber und Grabhügel”, in: W. Dörpfeld (ed.), Troja und Ilium. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen Schichten von Ilium, 1870–1894, Athens, 535–548. THE TUMULI OF TROY AND THE TROAD Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24 385 386 C. BRIAN ROSE, REYHAN KÖRPE Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 11.04.16 15:24