The External Settlement of Troia During the Bronze Age
Final Report Abstract
Troy holds a unique position within the archaeological and cultural heritage of the ancient world. Beyond its legendary status as the backdrop for the Homeric epics, the site represents a key nexus point in the Bronze Age networks of the Aegean, Anatolia, and the Near East. Its long occupation history, stretching from the early third millennium BCE into the Byzantine era, makes Troy an invaluable case study for understanding the dynamics of cross-cultural contact, trade, and conflict across centuries. Particularly during the Late Bronze Age, Troy’s strategic location at the entrance to the Dardanelles granted it control over one of the most critical maritime corridors between the Aegean and the Black Sea, amplifying its political and economic importance. However, the true scope of Troy’s influence in the second millennium BCE remains a matter of debate. Initial excavations largely focused on the citadel, fostering an image of a relatively small, fortified settlement. It was only through the systematic exploration of the surrounding lower city, especially during the Tübingen-led campaigns between 1987 and 2015, that a more complex picture emerged. The discovery of extensive settlement structures, fortification systems, and differentiated spatial organization outside the citadel fundamentally challenged earlier assumptions about Troy’s size and character. The existence of a substantial lower city suggests that Troy was not merely a minor stronghold but a fully developed (proto-)urban centre, integrated into wider economic and political networks spanning western Anatolia and the Aegean world. Architectural features, material culture, and environmental data from the lower city point to a society engaged in both local production and long-distance exchange. This broader settlement area provides critical evidence for understanding Troy’s role in the dynamic interplay of influences that shaped the Anatolian-Aegean interface during the Late Bronze Age. Moreover, the presence of a populous and organized lower city during Troy VI–VIIa lends weight to interpretations that view Troy as a participant—rather than a peripheral observer— in the complex socio-political systems of its time. It reinforces the idea of Troy as a “contact zone,” where Anatolian, Aegean, and potentially even Near Eastern traditions intersected. This perspective aligns with broader models of Bronze Age connectivity, in which sites along critical trade routes served not only as economic hubs but also as arenas for cultural interaction and innovation. In this context, the systematic analysis and publication of the lower city excavations are essential. They offer the key to resolving long-standing questions about Troy’s political standing, economic strategies, and cultural affiliations. Only by integrating the evidence from the lower city can Troy’s true position within the Late Bronze Age world be fully appreciated—not as a mythologized relic, but as a living, evolving centre of human activity within the interconnected landscapes of the ancient eastern Mediterranean.
