The treasure deposits of Troy: rethinking crisis and agency on the Early Bronze Age citadel

Abstract

The treasure deposits of Troy have been largely studied in isolation from both architectural developments and other depositional contexts in Troia II-III. The corpus has been perceived as little more than a catalogue of information that can be assessed to outline various trends related to metallurgical production, expanding networks of exchange and fluctuations in economic wealth. Considerations of agency have been few and limited. This study relates the content and context of the treasures to depositional and architectural patterns that begin in Troia II. Meaningful continuities and transformations between Troia II-III ultimately challenge the widely held reconstruction that the treasures were a concealment of wealth in anticipation of an attack. The study arrives at an alternative explanation with a consideration of the relationship between the destruction and abandonment of the Troia II central megaron complex and the deposition of treasure. The central megaron complex and the treasure deposits represent two distinct and divergent strategies of elite initiative on the citadel. The study concludes with a consideration of the inherently destabilising practices of treasures deposition, the final destruction of Troia III and the end of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia. OzetTroya'daki hazine gomuleri biiyiik cogunlukla hem mimari geligmelerden hem de Troya II-III evreleri diger gomiilerinden bagimsiz olarak incelenmi §tir. Bu nedenle bu cah §malar sonucu olu §turulmu § yazih aciklamalar metalurjik uretim, ileti §im aglarmdaki geni §leme, ekonomik refahtaki dalgalanmalar gibi farkli cizgiler izlenerek olu §turulabilecek taslak niteligindeki kataloklardan daha fazla bilgi vermemektedir. Donemsel faaliyetleri goz oniine alan cah §ma cok az sayida ve kisithdir. Bu cah §ma Troya II ile ba §lamak tizere gomuleri ve mimari modelled ili §kilendirerek gomiiniin hem igerigini, hem de ortaya cikanldigi ortami incelemektedir. Troya II ve III arasinda gozlenen anlamli siireklilik ve degi §meler, geni § bir kesim tarafindan kabul goren -hazine gomiilerinin tahmin edilen bir saldin icin refahin gizlenmesi-oldugu goriisjine kar §i fikirler ortaya cikarmisUr. Bu cah §ma, Troya II merkezi megaron kompleksinde meydana gelen yikim ve terk edilmis, olma ile hazine gomuleri arasindaki iligkiyi degerlendirerek alternatif bir aciklamaya ula §mistir. Merkezi megaron kompleksi ile hazine gomuleri kale durumundaki bu kentte elit inisiatifinin birbirinden farkli ve zit iki stratejisini temsil eder. Cahsma yore halkina miras kalmis, olan diizensiz gomti uygulamasi, Troya III deki nihai yikim ve Anadolu'da Erken Bronz Cag'in bitimini dikkate alarak bir sonuca ulagmaktadir.

Toward an understanding of the exchange in ancient scented oils through organic residue analysis of Bronze Age Near Eastern ceramic bottles by GC‐MS

“…The Küllüoba ‘pit horizon’ is part of a broader phenomenon observed at several sites in the region, where apparent remains of feasting for dozens or hundreds of individuals were buried together with animal carcasses and whole objects—in some cases with a perceived high value such as gold and silver vessels (Bachhuber, 2009; Kouka, 2011; Türkteki & Başkurt, 2016). These ‘feasting pits’ are in all cases associated with public/elite buildings and it can be argued they likely pertained to some form of ritual officiated by (or in presence of) elite individuals in front of their community.…”

Inequality Before the Bronze Age: The Case of Chalcolithic Cyprus

“…Here we can note that in the Bronze Age of Western Asia there is a range of practices that differentiate elites from commoners. These take the form of artefacts made in precious and usually visually conspicuous materials, often hauled from half way across the globe, consider for example amber from Scandinavia and lapis lazuli from Afghanistan (Wilkinson 2014;Massa and Palmisano 2018), and produced in intricate technologies by artisans sponsored by the elites culminating in hoards such as those found at Troy and in the Royal Graves of Ur (Bachhuber 2009;Baadsgaards and Zettler 2014). Nothing remotely comparable, in terms of elite material culture or ostentatious burials, is known from Chalcolithic Cyprus, although there are a few imported metal and faience objects (Peltenburg 2018;Düring et al 2021).…”

Crafting Values in Chalcolithic Cyprus and Anatolia

“…Whether or not these elites were successful in their attempt to establish a class society at this time is a matter of debate. Although much work remains to be done to understand how economies worked in particular Early Bronze Age societies, the prestige goods model (Frankenstein & Rowlands, 1978;Kristiansen, 1987; but see Kienlin, 2017)in which valuable objects, often made of exotic materials, were used by elites to underline their aspirations-has been more or less universally accepted (Bachhuber, 2009(Bachhuber, , 2015a.…”