Troy and Anatolian Early Bronze Age Chronology

Abstract

The use of an absolute chronological framework based on tree-ring calibrated C-14 dates has been recently proposed by D. F. Easton in his attempt “… to come to grips with the crucial and difficult dating of Troy” (Easton 1976:146). Easton points out that unlike Tarsus, whose relative dating vis-a-vis Mesopotamia and Egypt is stable, Troy's relative chronology is not agreed upon and this “impinges not only on Anatolia, but on the Aegean and Bulgaria as well”.In establishing his chronology Easton uses, in addition to “the normal comparative methods”, two sources: (a) radiocarbon dates which, after calibration, especially when using Suess's calibration curve, affect both relative and absolute dating, (b) his reassessed stratigraphy of the Bronze Age levels at Troy (Easton 1976; 1977).Easton in his new chronological structure has not taken into consideration certain facts and opinions surrounding tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dating. In view of the persisting controversy regarding this scientific dating method, it is premature, at least as far as Anatolia is concerned, to replace the relative dates derived from historical synchronisms with calibrated “absolute” C-14 dates.

Regional and Local Schools of Metalwork in Early Bronze Age Anatolia Part I

“…In the last quarter of the fourth millennium B.C., according to C 14 dates from level II (Alkim 1981:150), this culture was superseded by one with a different pottery repertory. This culture is also found in the EB I settlements in north-central Anatolia (Yakar 1975). Commenting on the cultural characteristics of the material remains of level III at ikiztepe, Alkim observed certain similarities between the pottery of southeast European Chalcolithic cultures and those of ikiztepe Late Chalcolithic levels.…”

“…WESTERN ANATOLIA Our information about this period derives from three sites; Kurucay, Beycesultan and Kusura. Troy I may have been founded towards the end of the EB I in Anatolia, but as I have tried to demonstrate elsewhere (Yakar 1979), its culture does not represent the early stages of the EB I in western Anatolia. Therefore, the material of Troy I will be evaluated in the next chapter.…”

“…11 b. Elements of the Ezero-Cernavoda-Cotofeni complexes that caused the disintegration of the southeast European cultural horizon of Karanovo VI, Kodjadermen-Gumelnita, Krivodol-Salcuta, Cucuteni, Tripolye and Vinca Plocnik reached parts of western, central and northern Anatolia as a result of pressures exerted by "Kurgan" invaders (Yakar 1976;1981a:96).…”

“…They are attributed by Esin to levels XVII-XVI and XIV-XIII respectively, in other words, to the Ubaid period. 7 The third 1 have tried to demonstrate in Yakar 1975; that Troy I and the corresponding levels at Beycesultan do not represent the early phases of the EB I culture in the west. Troy I could have been founded in the final phase of the EB I.…”

Schliemann's ‘discovery’ of ‘Priam's Treasure’

“…This could well have happened with the passage of time, especially if he had made only a brief note such as 'gold two-handled cup' to remind him of the piece. There has been much discussion lately concerning the date of the destruction of Troy I1 (Yakar, 1979, 51-67 with bibliography). Recently K.…”