The Cities at Troy

The Tell at Troy shows us that there was a greater city.  

We are now justified in following Homer, Herodotus and others in referring to Troy as having an acropolis - a term that means upper city.  Logically speaking, an upper city implies a lower city.   If there was nothing but the 200 yard long enclosure at the top of the ridge, calling that structure an acropolis would be somewhat illogical.  It makes sense to say it because it is on a hill, but it also makes little sense unless there is a lower city to distinguish it from.  

We are also justified in saying that Troy had both a city and a citadel, like many, many cities.  

There is a controversy about the lower city of Troy that is outside my provenance, but which deserves to be addressed.  That is the question as to whether there is one or many lower cities to Troy.  

If what lies buried in the plain is 'the lower city of Troy' then what is the area up on the ridge that is bounded by the ditch recently excavated there?  Many have said that the lower city of Troy had been found there.  Could there be more than one lower city of Troy?  

Answer: yes.  Of course.  And I am sure other cities have done the same -- namely, had more than one district outside the palace/temple/fortification area.  That is, more than one non-citadel, or more than one non-acropolis to boast of.  Look at this map of ancient Sparta. 

Here we see one citadel, or acropolis, but several districts.  

At Troy, the proposed lower city on the hillside has been somewhat controversial.  

The excavated ditch corresponds to the outline of the Lower City in this sketch.  The edge of the tell of Troy can be seen at the left.  It is easily conceivable that both areas deserve to be called Lower City if you are using the language of "upper and lower".  Indeed, if there is a city in the plain, and a city on the hill, and a citadel on the hill, then the citadel does truly deserve the epithet acropolis, which means top or topmost city.  It would be the uppermost of three cities of Troy.  

There are doubts about the Lower City depicted in this picture, and about the thesis that the area bounded by the ditch comprised a city at all.  This is where things are getting beyond my provenance, because I am not able to assess this controversy very well.  

Are there building remains, roads, any signs of a city on that hillside inside the area confined by the ditch?  It is not clear to me what has been found other than a ditch.  But I will be looking into that.  

For now I want to lay to rest the rumor that there can be only one lower district of Troy outside the walls of the fortress.  Of course there can be more than one.  

On the map above one can distinguish the citadel of Lisle, the walled greater city of Lisle, and the outer districts, which surround the citadel.  

The above drawing of Schesburg shows two districts coming down the hill from the castle/acropolis, one is residential, the other looks like a royal garden.  We also see distinct districts on the plateaus and in the plain.  Troy could surely have been a bit like that.  It could have had the citadel we all know, and then a district enclosed by the excavated ditch coming down the south side of Hisarlik, along with a large city in the plain.  

What to call all of that?  Troy,  just like we call all of the above Schesburg, and all of what is in the earlier picture we call Lisle.  When we need greater precision, we discuss districts, such as the acropolis of Schesburg, or the citadel of Lisle, or the various districts of either.  

If Troy had three main districts, they would be in the plain, on the hill, and on the ridge of Hisarlik.  We could call them lower, middle and upper.  But they are all one city.  

The real Troy included a large city in the plain and a citadel on the ridge at a minimum.  

I cannot affirm the third district, on the hillside of Hisarlik at this point.  I need to read up on the controversy.  The ditch may have been a water system.  There is, as I understand it, no wall around the ditch area, so it hardly seems like much defense all by itself.  Filling it with water would help.  But the ditch probably makes more sense if it is not for defense.  If it marks off a high status area while also providing a small barrier it makes more sense than as a pure defense.  If it is part of a water system that also marks off a high status area while providing a small barrier, it makes even more sense.