Renfrew has rightly remarked that in Anatolian Early Bronze Age chronology “the basic problem is to decide how to correlate the Trojan early bronze age periods … with the sequence of Tarsus”. It is largely to this problem that the following article is addressed.Professor Mellink has argued that Troy I is contemporary with Tarsus EBII on the grounds that Troy II and Tarsus EBIII appear to her to be contemporary. Since she places the start of Tarsus EBI at c. 3000 B.C. this scheme places the beginning of Troy I considerably after that date, perhaps at c. 2700 B.C. Mellaart, by contrast, disputes the equation between Troy I and Tarsus EBII and argued at first that Tarsus EBIIIa must begin later than the beginning of Troy II, envisaging a period of overlap. He has subsequently suggested that it actually follows the end of Troy II. According to this correlation Troy I would be contemporary with Tarsus EBI, and not Tarsus EBII.

No abstract

No abstract

Heinrich Schliemann (1822–90) was, it is well known, an energetic correspondent, a compulsive note-taker and an inveterate hoarder. For the archaeologist, as for the biographer, he left behind a rich mine with many seams. There is, however, no clear account of the history, location, and extent of Schliemann's literary remains. This paper is intended to go some way towards filling that gap. It has the additional aim of drawing attention to some notable lacunae in the Schliemann archive at the Gennadius Library in Athens in case the missing material should ever come to light.

Statistical analysis of Carl Blegen's pottery sequence using Correspondence Analysis (CA) suggests a gap of 100–200 years between his Troy III and IV periods. From the Manfred Korfmann excavations three stratigraphic sequences hitherto assigned to Troy IV and V appear to bridge it. This allocation is based on stratigraphic/architectural grounds and on the observable development in ceramic shapes and wares. Heinrich Schliemann's pottery sequence from 1870–1873 is also analysed by CA and found to compare well with Blegen's (with limited exceptions probably due to the larger scope of his excavations), but it does not exhibit the same gap. This suggests that during the ‘bridge’ period occupation shrank to the summit on the western end of the citadel mound. This ‘bridge’ period of seven or more building phases has a distinctive ceramic assemblage and may be called the Proto-IV period. It is broadly contemporary with Middle Helladic I, Beycesultan VIII–VI, Küllüoba II and the Tarsus Early Bronze to Middle Bronze transitional period. Careful re-evaluation of the radiocarbon evidence dates it to ca 2150–1990 cal. BC. Botanical and faunal evidence from the strata in question attests significantly drier climatic conditions which, together with the smaller size of the settlement, probably reflect the 4.2ka cal. BP climatic deterioration.