Plato on the City of Troy

At one point in Laws, Plato cites Homer, then comments on him.  I recite the passage below, then comment on it.  

Plato Laws, 681e-682e

Plato cites part of a speech from Aeneas describing his royal lineage extending from Dardanus.  

Dardania he founded when as yet
The Holy keep of Ilium was not built
Upon the plain, a town for mortal folk,
But still they dwelt upon the highland slopes
Of many-fountained Ida.
”Hom. Il. 20.216 ff.

...

Athenian

Ilium was founded, we say, after moving from the highlands down to a large and noble plain, on a hill of no great height which had many rivers flowing down from Ida above.

Clinias
So they say.

Athenian
And do we not suppose that this took place many ages after the Deluge?

Clinias
Many ages after, no doubt.

Athenian
At any rate they seem to have been strangely forgetful of the catastrophe now mentioned, since they placed their city, as described, under a number of rivers descending from the mount, and relied for their safety upon hillocks of no great height.

Clinias
So it is evident that they were removed by quite a long interval from that calamity.

Athenian
By this time, too, as mankind multiplied, many other cities had been founded.

Clinias
Of course.

Athenian
And these cities also made attacks on Ilium, probably by sea too, as well as by land, since by this time all made use of the sea fearlessly.

Clinias
So it appears. 

Athenian
And after a stay of ten years the Achaeans sacked Troy.

Clinias
Very true.

Athenian
Now during this period of ten years, while the siege lasted, the affairs of each of the besiegers at home suffered much owing to the seditious conduct of the young men. For when the soldiers returned to their own cities and homes, these young people did not receive them fittingly and justly, but in such a way that there ensued a vast number of cases of death, slaughter, and exile. So they, being again driven out, migrated by sea; and because Dorieus was the man who then banded together the exiles, they got the new name of “Dorians,” instead of “Achaeans.” But as to all the events that follow this, you Lacedaemonians relate them all fully in your traditions.

Megillus
Quite true.

__________________

Plato agrees with Homer that Troy was founded by persons who moved down from Mt Ida to a "plain" and seems to think it is a city protected from flooding only by "hillocks of not great height". 

The city was in "a large and noble plain, on a hill of no great height".

The ridge at Hisarlik is not a hill.  Hisarlik is a knoll at the far western end of a 15-20 meter tall ridge line that extends for a couple miles.  Its 55 feet above the plain seems like a great height. 

In addition, Hisarlik is not subject to perennial flooding.  The plain is. But Plato is emphasizing flood risk, saying that the city was beneath "a number of rivers" coming down from Mt. Ida, about which he is right.  And his point is that they forgot about the earlier flood catastrophe, which he calls "the Deluge".  

So he seems to be making two criticisms, the city was built on a hill, but not a high enough one, and the city relied on hillocks of no great height for their "safety".  

I want to know, is he saying that they did not build Troy on a high enough height to be safe from floods? 

Or is he saying that they did not build it on high enough heights to protect if from floods, and that they did not protect it from floods with anything more than "hillocks of no great height"?

These "hillocks of no great height" that were relied on for the "safety" of ancient Troy might be earthworks that functioned as flood walls.  

Perhaps the city in the plain appeared to be built upon a low hill because it was old and many cities were on top of one another there. And maybe Plato has tapped into a memory of Troy's flood walls being overtopped.  

Who was Myrine?

Now there is before the city a steep mound afar out in the plain, 

with a clear space about it on this side and on that; 

this do men verily call Batieia, 

but the immortals call it the barrow of Myrine, light of step.  

There on this day did the Trojans and their allies separate their companies. 

Iliad, Book II 814f  

Now a sharp ridge rises out in front of Troy,
all on its own and far across the plain
with running-room all around it, all sides clear.
Men call it Thicket Ridge, the immortals call it
the leaping Amazon Myrine’s mounded tomb, and there
the Trojans and allies ranged their troops for battle.  

Iliad, Book II 814f  

Who was Myrine? Like Penthesilea and Hippolyta, she is an Amazon leader, either a queen or a general or something. In the only detailed story we have about her, which comes from Diodorus, she is a queen, and perhaps the first queen of the Amazons.  All other ancient references to her are sketchy, so I present the only detailed, surviving account below.  

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 

https://topostext.org/work/133

§ 3.52.1 But now that we have examined these matters it will be fitting, in connection with the regions we have mentioned, to discuss the account which history records of the Amazons who were in Libya in ancient times. For the majority of mankind believe that the only Amazons were those who are reported to have dwelt in the neighbourhood of the Thermodon river on the Pontus; but the truth is otherwise, since the Amazons of Libya were much earlier in point of time and accomplished notable deeds. 2 Now we are not unaware that to many who read this account the history of this people will appear to be a thing unheard of and entirely strange; for since the race of these Amazons disappeared entirely many generations before the Trojan War, whereas the women about the Thermodon river were in their full vigour a little before that time, it is not without reason that the later people, who were also better known, should have inherited the fame of the earlier, who are entirely unknown to most men because of the lapse of time. 3 For our part, however, since we find that many early poets and historians, and not a few of the later ones as well, have made mention of them, we shall endeavour to recount their deeds in summary, following the account of Dionysius, who composed a narrative about the Argonauts and Dionysus, and also about many other things which took place in the most ancient times.

§ 3.52.4 Now there have been in Libya a number of races of women who were warlike and greatly admired for their manly vigour; for instance, tradition tells us of the race of the Gorgons, against whom, as the account is given, Perseus made war, a race distinguished for its valour; for the fact that it was the son of Zeus, the mightiest Greek of his day, who accomplished the campaign against these women, and that this was his greatest Labour may be taken by any man as proof of both the pre-eminence and the power of the women we have mentioned. Furthermore, the manly prowess of those of whom we are now about to write presupposes an amazing pre-eminence when compared with the nature of the women of our day.

§ 3.53.1 We are told, namely, that there was once on the western parts of Libya, on the bounds of the inhabited world, a race which was ruled by women and followed a manner of life unlike that which prevails among us. For it was the custom among them that the women should practise the arts of war and be required to serve in the army for a fixed period, during which time they maintained their virginity; then, when the years of their service in the field had expired, they went in to the men for the procreation of children, but they kept in their hands the administration of the magistracies and of all the affairs of the state. 2 The men, however, like our married women, spent their days about the house, carrying out the orders which were given them by their wives; and they took no part in military campaigns or in office or in the exercise of free citizenship in the affairs of the community by virtue of which they might become presumptuous and rise up against the women. 3 When their children were born the babies were turned over to the men, who brought them up on milk and such cooked foods as were appropriate to the age of the infants; and if it happened that a girl was born, its breasts were seared that they might not develop at the time of maturity; for they thought that the breasts, as they stood out from the body, were no small hindrance in warfare; and in fact it is because they have been deprived of their breasts that they are called by the Greeks Amazons.

§ 3.53.4 As mythology relates, their home was on an island which, because it was in the west, was called Hespera, and it lay in the marsh Tritonis. This marsh was near the ocean which surrounds the earth and received its name from a certain river Triton which emptied into it; and this marsh was also near Ethiopia and that mountain by the shore of the ocean which is the highest of those in the vicinity and impinges upon the ocean and is called by the Greeks Atlas. 5 The island mentioned above was of great size and full of fruit-bearing trees of every kind, from which the natives secured their food. It contained also a multitude of flocks and herds, namely, of goats and sheep, from which possessors received milk and meat for their sustenance; but grain the nation used not at all because the use of this fruit of the earth had not yet been discovered among them.

§ 3.53.6 The Amazons, then, the account continues, being a race superior in valour and eager for war, first of all subdued all the cities on the island except the one called Mene, which was considered to be sacred and was inhabited by Ethiopian Ichthyophagi, and was also subject to great eruptions of fire and possessed a multitude of the precious stones which the Greeks call anthrax, sardion, and smaragdos; and after this they subdued many of the neighbouring Libyans and nomad tribes, and founded within the marsh Tritonis a great city which they named Cherronesus after its shape.

§ 3.54.1 Setting out from the city of Cherronesus, the account continues, the Amazons embarked upon great ventures, a longing having come over them to invade many part of the inhabited world. The first people against whom they advanced, according to the tale, was the Atlantians, the most civilized men among the inhabitants of those regions, who dwelt in a prosperous country and possessed great cities; it was among them, we are told, that mythology places the birth of the gods, in the regions which lie along the shore of the ocean, in this respect agreeing with those among the Greeks who relate legends, and about this we shall speak in detail a little later.

§ 3.54.2 Now the queen of the Amazons, Myrina, collected, it is said, an army of thirty thousand foot-soldiers and three thousand cavalry, since they favoured to an unusual degree the use of cavalry in their wars. 3 For protective devices they used the skins of large snakes, since Libya contains such animals of incredible size, and for offensive weapons, swords and lances; they also used bows and arrows, with which they struck not only when facing the enemy but also when in flight, by shooting backwards at their pursuers with good effect. 4 Upon entering the land of the Atlantians they defeated in a pitched battle the inhabitants of the city of Cerne, as it is called, and making their way inside the walls along with the fleeing enemy, they got the city into their hands; and desiring to strike terror into the neighbouring peoples they treated the captives savagely, put to the sword the men from the youth upward, led into slavery the children and women, and razed the city. 5 But when the terrible fate of the inhabitants of Cerne became known among their fellow tribesmen, it is related that the Atlantians, struck with terror, surrendered their cities on terms of capitulation and announced that they would do whatever should be commanded them, and that the queen Myrina, bearing herself honourably towards the Atlantians, both established friendship with them and founded a city to bear her name in place of the city which had been razed; and in it she settled both the captives and any native who so desired. 6 Whereupon the Atlantians presented her with magnificent presents and by public decree voted to her notable honours, and she in return accepted their courtesy and in addition promised that she would show kindness to their nation. 7 And since the natives were often being warred upon by the Gorgons, as they were named, a folk which resided upon their borders, and in general had that people lying in wait to injure them, Myrina, they say, was asked by the Atlantians to invade the land of the afore-mentioned Gorgons. But when the Gorgons drew up their forces to resist them a mighty battle took place in which the Amazons, gaining the upper hand, slew great numbers of their opponents and took no fewer than three thousand prisoners; and since the rest had fled for refuge into a certain wooded region, Myrina undertook to set fire to the timber, being eager to destroy the race utterly, but when she found that she was unable to succeed in her attempt she retired to the borders of her country.

§ 3.55.1 Now as the Amazons, they go on to say, relaxed their watch during the night because of their success, the captive women, falling upon them and drawing the swords of those who thought they were conquerors, slew many of them; in the end, however, the multitude poured in about them from every side and the prisoners fighting bravely were butchered one and all. 2 Myrina accorded a funeral to her fallen comrades on three pyres and raised up three great heaps of earth as tombs, which are called to this day "Amazon Mounds." 3 But the Gorgons, grown strong again in later days, were subdued a second time by Perseus, the son of Zeus, when Medusa was queen over them; and in the end both they and the race of the Amazons were entirely destroyed by Heracles, when he visited the regions to the west and set up his Pillars in Libya, since he felt that it would ill accord with his resolve to be the benefactor of the whole race of mankind if he should suffer any nations to be under the rule of women. The story is also told that the marsh disappeared from sight in the course of an earthquake, when those parts of it which lay towards the ocean were torn asunder.

§ 3.55.4 As for Myrina, the account continues, she visited the larger part of Libya, and passing over into Egypt she struck a treaty of friendship with Horus, the son of Isis, who was king of Egypt at that time, and then, after making war to the end upon the Arabians and slaying many of them, she subdued Syria; but when the Cilicians came out with presents to meet her and agreed to obey her commands, she left those free who yielded to her of their free will and for this reason these are called to this day the "Free Cilicians." 5 She also conquered in war the races in the region of the Taurus, peoples of outstanding courage, and descended through Greater Phrygia to the sea; and then she won over the land lying along the coast and fixed the bounds of her campaign at the Caicus River. 6 And selecting in the territory which she had won by arms sites well suited for the founding of cities, she built a considerable number of them and founded one which bore her own name, but the others she named after the women who held the most important commands, such as Cyme, Pitana, and Priene.

§ 3.55.7 These, then, are the cities she settled along the sea, but others, and a larger number, she planted in the regions stretching towards the interior. She seized also some of the islands, and Lesbos in particular, on which she founded the city of Mitylene, which was named after her sister who took part in the campaign. 8 After that, while subduing some of the rest of the islands, she was caught in a storm, and after she had offered up prayers for her safety to the Mother of the Gods, she was carried to one of the uninhabited islands; this island, in obedience to a vision which she beheld in her dreams, she made sacred to this goddess, and set up altars there and offered magnificent sacrifices. She also gave it the name of Samothrace, which means, when translated into Greek, "sacred island," although some historians say that it was formerly called Samos and was then given the name of Samothrace by Thracians who at one time dwelt on it. 9 However, after the Amazons had returned to the continent, the myth relates, the Mother of the Gods, well pleased with the island, settled in it certain other people, and also her own sons, who are known by the name of Corybantes — who their father was is handed down in their rites as a matter not to be divulged; and she established the mysteries which are now celebrated on the island and ordained by law that the sacred area should enjoy the right of sanctuary.

§ 3.55.10 In these times, they go on to say, Mopsus the Thracian, who had been exiled by Lycurgus, the king of the Thracians, invaded the land of the Amazons with an army composed of fellow-exiles, and with Mopsus on the campaign was also Sipylus the Scythian, who had likewise been exiled from that part of Scythia which borders upon Thrace. 11 There was a pitched battle, Sipylus and Mopsus gained the upper hand, and Myrina, the queen of the Amazons, and the larger part of the rest of her army were slain. In the course of the years, as the Thracians continued to be victorious in their battles, the surviving Amazons finally withdrew again into Libya. And such was the end, as the myth relates, of the campaign which the Amazons of Libya made.

I want to draw attention to the description of the regions around Troy here.  Diodorus tells us that:

She ... descended through Greater Phrygia to the sea; and then she won over the land lying along the coast and fixed the bounds of her campaign at the Caicus River. 

The Caicus River is the modern Baricay, which flows through the Pergamum area, which is south of Troy on the Aegean coast.  Myrine also siezed some of the islands in the area, including Lesbos, which is southwest of Hisarlik about 40 miles.  

Phrygia is east of the Troad.  If her descent through Phrygia runs west to Pergamum and Lesbos, then onward to other islands and then Samothrace, Myrine may have conquered the Troad along her way.  She may have ruled Troy for a while.  She was east of Hisarlik in Phrygia, then south of Hisarlik at the Caicus river, then southwest of Hisarlik at Lesbos, then west of Hisarlik in the islands, the northwest of Hisarlik on Samothrace, then north of Hisarlik in Thrace, and then, according to Homer, was buried in sight of Hisarlik.  

I wonder if any artist has attempted a scene depicting Penthesilea visiting the tomb of Myrine on the morning of battle during the Trojan War.  

There is a city called Myrina on the Aegean coast near Pergamum and the Caicus/Baricay, around 90 miles south of Troy. 

There is also a city called Myrina on the island of Lemnos, around 40 miles west of Troy.  

This is a statue on the island of Lemnos.  It depicts Maroula, aka The Last Amazon of Lemnos.  

Notes on the Kalifatli Asmak

If I could fund a study, it might be a professional study of the Asmaks in the plain of Troy, including a live walking-scientist type search for evidence of human construction, such as cut banks, artificially lined banks or sluice gate remnants; along with a full description of length, depth, width, how much of its length is straight and how much is meander, etc. That could be done cheap, right?  Has any professional ever walked the full length of the Kalifatli Asmak?  

There are several historical descriptions of the Asmaks.  They raise plenty of questions.  I will review some of those below, then look at some maps, then discuss the whole thing.  

The Asmaks are extensive.  The main one is called the Kalifatli Asmak.  Here are some remarks about it from Peter Forschhammer:

E. of the Mendere, and N.W. of the new Chiflik of Akchi Kevi, at the foot of three hills, in which a branch of the Chiblak range terminates, is a marshy lake, fed by springs called by the natives Judan (a water that never diminishes). From the Judan issue three Asmaks.* Two of these flow N. of W. towards the sea ; the third flows in an opposite direction, and falls into the Kimar-Su. ... The Kalifatli-Asmak does not come down from the mountains, nor does it fall into the Mendere, as has been erroneously represented by former topographers and map-makers. It issues from the Judan in the plain; and it is only during the period of the winter inundations that its waters mingle with those of the Mendere, and then in consequence of the latter overflowing and quitting their natural bed.   P 31 

 *Asmak is a term applied to channels which contain running water in winter only, and standing pools in summer. The beds of the Asmaks in the Trojan plain are commonly cut by the water through the flat soil, so that in many places they are not visible before you reach the edge of the steep bank.

We now know that "the Judan" was an artificial swamp caused by a collapsed bridge across an Asmak, which blocked the flow of three springs.  Frank Calvert removed the bridge and drained the swamp into the Asmaks.  The source of the Asmaks is near the meeting point of Kemer Creek and the Mendere.  

When Forschhammer says that two Asmaks take off to the NW, he is talking about the two arms of the Kalifatli Asmak which flow toward the sea.  The other one, which we will call the Akshi Kioi Asmak, goes out the SW end of the swamp, heading toward the Kimar Su. 

The Kalifatli-Asmak has a deep and very sharply-defined bed, from its source all the way down to the sea. In the month of August the water from the Judan does not preserve the character of a continuous stream further than about a mile from the lake. Lower down the channel was dry in some parts, and overgrown at the bottom with brushwood and rushes ; in others it was filled with pools of stagnant water. In the upper part the course of the river may be traced by the line of trees which borders its banks ; but in the lower part the bed is scarcely discerned before you reach the edge of its steep bank. P 30f  

It has "a deep and very sharply-defined bed, from its source all the way down to the sea", and in the lower part of the plain, where it does not have trees along its banks, "the bed is scarcely discerned before you reach the edge of its steep bank". It appears to be "cut by the water through the flat soil, so that in many places they are not visible before you reach the edge of the steep bank".  

Now for a remark from Walter Leaf's, Troy, A study in Homeric Geography (1912):  

The banks of the Kalifatli Asmak are steep and sharply marked: they must be constantly renewed. No ancient banks could retain this shape through the numerous inundations to which they have been subject for so long a time. P 32

Like Forschammer, Leaf notes how steep and sharply defined the banks of the Asmak are.  

Here is Heinrich Schliemann, from Troy and its Remains, 1875.

The Plain of Troy is traversed from the south-east to the north-west by the Scamander, which is distant from Hissarlik 30 minutes' walk, and the bed of which I can recognise from here by the uninterrupted row of trees growing upon its banks. Between the Scamander and Hissarlik, at a distance of only 15 minutes from the latter, the Plain is again intersected by the river Kalifatli-Asmak, which rises in the marshes of Batak (Thymbria), and is filled with running water only in late autumn, winter, and spring; but during the hot summer months, till the end of October, it consists of an uninterrupted series of deep pools. This stream, even during the continual heavy winter rains, and in comparison with its splendid and immensely broad channel, has but a very scanty supply of water -- in fact, never so much as to cover even the tenth part of the breadth of its bed.  p 72

Schliemann says that "even during the continual heavy winter rains" the Kalifatli Asmak does not have enough water in it to cover a tenth of its breadth.  It is that large and that well defined.  

From Schliemann's, Ilios, the City and Country of the Trojans, 1880: In his reviews of several different water bodies, Schliemann writes:

(f) Of the Kalifatli Asmak—which, with Virchow, Burnouf, and Calvert, I hold to be identical with the ancient bed of the Scamander—I have already spoken at some length. It is enough to add here, that one arm of it rises in the Duden swamp on Mr. Calvert’s farm of Akshi Kioi, while another arm starts from the point where the Scamander and Thymbrius meet. The latter arm, which is broad and deep, brings at the time of the floods an immense volume of water from the Scamander, and joins the former arm at a short distance to the north of the Duden swamp. There can hardly be any doubt that this is the ancient bed of the Scamander. At a short distance to the north of the confluence of the Scamander and Thymbrius there is a second channel, and a little further on a third, through which the Scamander now sends its surplus waters into the Kalifatli Asmak. In all three channels, but particularly in the last one, may be seen countless trunks of uprooted trees, which have been carried down the stream by the force of the current. The Kalifatli Asmak has scarcely any current except in the winter months; in the dry season it consists of a long series of pools of stagnant water.  P 99

This "broad and deep" arm that brings water from the Scamander during floods is the Akshi-Kioi Asmak. I've marked it on the map below, along with the silted up waterways he mentions.  

In the above map from Schliemann, he has drawn the east end of the Akshi Kioi Asmak rather faintly, as if it is partially silted up like the other three waterways marked there.  The eastern end of the Asmak reaches the Kimar Su. 

On the map above from Thomas Spratt we again see the Akshi Kioi Asmak extending to the southeast toward Kanai Tepe, along with other apparently silted up waterways. Forschhammer reported a marsh south of Kanai Tepe.  

On the map above, again from Thomas Spratt, we see the Akshi Kioi Asmak and two partial waterways drawn with dotted lines. One of these reaches Kemer Creek.  

Forschhammer writes:

In the plain the bed of the [Kimar] river increases in breadth, and after passing the last height to the N. divides into three arms which re-unite near the Chiflik of Akchi-Kevi, where the water begins to re-appear at intervals. About 100 yards farther on the river passes through a little marshy wood called Baluk (a place for honey), at the lower end of which the channels of the Akchi-Kevi-Asmak meet those of the Kimar. The marsh was quite dry in the month of August; but a deep and well-defined bed, with a smaller one by its side, could be traced from it to the Mendere, through which the waters of the Kimar and Akchi-Kevi- Asmak find their way in the wet season.  P 33

As Forschhammer sees it, the Akshi Kioi Asmak reaches Kemer Creek.  

Observations 

Not so long ago, the two branches of the Kalifatli Asmak met near the top of the plain. 

The two branches also meet just above Kalifat, so the east and west branches formed a circuit. 

Above the meeting point there was another section of Asmak that came down from Kemer Creek. This section was almost obliterated by the 1850-80s.  

The eastern branch of the Kalifatli Asmak, which follows the contours of the Chiplak Ridges for almost 3 miles, if it was to continue this pattern, would continue around the ridge that Kalafat sits on, and then finally around the ridge of Hisarlik.  However, it does not follow the ridges in the lower part of the plain and apparently never did.  Instead, it flows into the plain below Kalafat, and then suddenly makes a 90 degree turn to the east when it encounters the large raised earth anomaly that also turns the Mendere to the west. This mound that turns two waterways is still unknown to science.  

Thoughts 

Many theorists, including Spratt, Virchow and Schliemann, think that the Scamander/Mendere made the channels on the east side of the plain.  They call the Asmaks the ancient bed of the Scamander.  

I think that didn't happen for several reasons. 

In order to run on the east side of the plain, the Scamander, after meeting the Kimar, would proceed uphill to the higher, eastern edge of the plain.  Water does not run uphill.  

A river is unlikely to flow along the edge of a plain because the edge is elevated above the center of the plain. 

Where there are two channels both Asmaks cut across a slope for their entire length, which is highly unusual.  

Given the descriptions from both Schliemann and Forschhammer, there seem to be no natural levees associated with these channels.  If that is the case, and there really are no natural levees, then the channels were never a significant source of flooding, and therefore were never the bed of the Scamander for very long.  Any channel that is a perennial source of floods will build up natural levees along its banks by dropping its larger and heavier loads closer to the channel, and its lighter, smaller debris further away.  Thus do rivers build their banks.  If the banks are not built up, then the channel was never a significant source of flooding.  

This also means that neither the Mendere nor Kemer creek carved the channel, because they both flood. 

In low lying plains, and in gently sloped plains, like the plain of Troy, rivers are unlikely to cut down into the ground, and are more likely to form wide meanders and deltas.  Hence the very depth of the channel and the fact that it is in a gently sloped coastal plain strongly suggests that it is artificial or mostly artificial.  

The Asmaks are suspiciously deep, seem to have no levees along their banks, and cut across a slope on the raised edges of a plain for almost three miles. For these reasons, I believe they are artificial.  They obviously never contained a river, so they must have been canals from the very start, as they are now.  

Perhaps the whole thing started from the joining together of two oxbow lakes. 

Questions

Question: Why have two Asmaks?  

I mostly have thought of them as some kind of irrigation system.  Two Asmaks are better than one because it means more water trapped or stored in canals, I suppose. 

Question: Why are the two Asmaks so close to one another? 

If they are manmade, why are they close together on one side of the plain?  Why not put them further apart to bring water to more of the plain?  The east branch is so far over that it can only irrigate from it's western side, because its eastern side is too close to the Chiplak ridge to irrigate much, plus it is uphill to that side.  But its western side can only irrigate a small space because it is never far from the western branch. 

Question: Why do they join at the top and bottom and form a circuit?  

Perhaps they join at the top and bottom so that barges can go up one side and down the other without being taken out of the water.  This would facilitate movement of persons and provisions up and down the plain.  I don't know if one could row uphill in the plain, perhaps they used horses to draw a barge uphill.

I can't think of any other reason to form a circuit.

It is possible that we are looking at an incomplete project. Perhaps a third and fourth trench were planned but not completed, or perhaps there is another trench but it was obliterated before the 19th century. 

Question: Would ancient people actually build that?

I think not. But what do I know?  

Question: If the Trojans built this waterway in the bronze age, what was it for?  

It could be flood control.  

It could be irrigation. 

It could be domestic water supply for a city in the plain; even if it is not drinking water, it can be used in animal hydration, metal working, toilets and other applications.  

It could be for transportation of goods by barge in the plain.

Perhaps they held boat races on it.  

Heinrich Schliemann finds Bricks in the Plain of Troy

Heinrich Schliemann, Ilios, The City and Country of the Trojans, discussing the excavations of Dr Virchow:

He dug a fourth hole in the dry overgrown bed of the In Tepeh Asmak, close to the little neck of land at the south-west corner of Rhoeteum. Here he found the same compact clammy rich black earth, to a depth of 1 métre 10 centimetres; there were no stones in it, but a great number of rounded pieces of baked bricks. 

Ilios, p 88

Professor Virchow goes on to say: ‘‘ However satisfactory this result is in itself, it is but of little use for the chronological question. Only in the In Tepeh Asmak I found fragments of bricks in the silt of the riverbed, which bore witness to the comparative lateness of this silting up, which must, therefore, have taken place when brick-baking men already had their habitations in the Plain. I observe here that these brick fragments occurred not only on the surface, but also below. On this side, therefore, there can exist no evidence against the opinion that the In Tepeh Asmak has ceased to be a real outlet only in a relatively modern time.”

Ilios, p 89

These might be two descriptions of the same find, it might be two different finds.  It seems significant that all the way down by Rhoeteum, on the Dardanelles, there are "a great number of rounded pieces of baked bricks" in the ground.  Virchow is right that the silting up of the entrance to the In Tepeh Asmak north of Kum Koi probably took place after "brick-baking men already had their habitations in the Plain." He found bricks on the surface and also below the surface,  Seems like there might be a lot more of them around.  

We don't know if those are bronze age bricks or not, of course.  But I can imagine that a flooded mudbrick city in the plain would have left so many baked bricks to wash away that they would still be found way down river at the coast, three or four miles away, 3000 years later. 

The Myth of the Greek Camp in Homer's Iliad

I have already suggested on this blog that the entire story of a fortified Greek Camp might just be a myth.  In this entry I will argue at length about the unlikelihood of the whole story.  In that prior post, I suggested that a small mound NW of the great mound in the plain of Troy might be what Strabo had in mind when he said that the Greek Camp was 20 stades or about 2.2 miles from the citadel on Hisarlik. In this post I do not focus on satellite images.  I am far more interested in the pure idea itself.  

The more you think about something the more problematic it becomes, say the philosophers, and I have been thinking a lot about the Greek Camp for the past couple of years.  It is a lynchpin in many a theorist's thinking about how Homer fits or does not fit Hisarlik. Homer is often like a straitjacket on the study of Troy, and ideas that threaten almost all Homeric takes on the place are not likely to be popular.  What I am saying below probably will not be popular because it denies one of the most favored, most cool parts of Homer, namely, the Greek Camp.  I cannot say that I am fully convinced that the fortified camp is a myth. But I will develop my best case for thinking that it is highly unlikely that any such thing ever existed.  

Walter Leaf, Troy, A Study in Homeric Geography.

There is no trace in the Iliad of any inland expedition farther than the three miles which separate the walls of Troy from the shore. We often speak of the "siege of Troy" ; but there is no siege of Troy in Homer — the only action that can be called a siege is the attempt to storm, not Troy, but the Greek camp. p 316

 

Question 1: Is there a good reason to have a Walled Camp in the first place?

In a proper siege, you surround a city. No one gets in or out. So, there is little or no reason to protect the ships on the beach from city dwellers because passage in and out of the city is completely controlled by the invaders. 

In the specific case of an invasion of the Trojan plain, invaders would probably want to control all movement in and around the plain in addition to the entrances to the city.  

Now, if the city still had supplies coming in, or armies coming in, then the Greeks simply were not fully in control of the situation.  

If they knew that Troy was part of a larger coalition, such as the Assuwa League or the Hittite Vassals, the Greeks may have feared reinforcements arriving from the country side or from the sea.  

This makes the Greeks look like they are not merely fighting the city, they are more like an outpost in hostile territory, dug in on a beach, with enemies in perhaps all directions, including both in the city and outside it.  Under such a condition, maybe the Greeks feel a need to defend their position. So perhaps there is an actual reason to fortify (build a fort at) the beach head.  

One question about the fortified camp is this, when did they build the walls and ditches?  Did they build them right away, as soon as they landed?  Or did they try to take the city, fail, and then conclude that they needed a fortified position?  It makes a difference.  

If your intention is to sack the city and leave, you would not bother with fortifying your position would you?  Furthermore, if you were there to sack a city and leave, you would not bring with you the tools and supplies necessary to cut stone or wood, nor even the tools to dig ditches.  One would bring those tools only if you expected to use them right away.  In the Excidium Troiae, the Greeks get off their boats and immediately build walls and a temple.  I find that utterly unrealistic, but it lays in relief the question as to the strategy of the fortified camp.  If you attack the city and fall back and then build a fort, there is time for resupply, and the resupply could include tools and materials for building.  

If you came to besiege the city, you would not need a camp unless it is a camp forming a ring around the city. 

Still on the matter of the rationale for having a fort on the beach, one thing is certain: one need not keep one's boats on the beach. One can keep them off shore.  And quite frankly, the boats on the beach seem hugely unlikely. 

Just landing large boats upright and level on a beach is hugely unlikely.  If they hang 10 feet below the water line, they would touch land when the water is still 10 feet deep around them. But in the movies, the boats seem to have unproblematically glided all the way up onto the beach somehow, undamaged, upright, and not tilted. In Homer, the crew have a jolly conversation about who will be the first to touch Trojan soil. No one is worried about the ship toppling over.  They expect to jump out of the ship and land on dry land, and then they do. 

The shipwreck at Uluburun, estimated to be from the 14th century bce, had no oarlocks or oars and very little of the hull remains.  Nevertheless, it is estimated to be around 2.5-3 meters from keel to gunwale (the top edge of the hull).  That is 8 to 10 feet.  It rode around 3-4 feet below the water line when fully loaded.  It had low sides to allow for loading and unloading, and it was not a deep sea faring vessel. It was a shore line traveler. 

The ships that would have hauled 50-100 Greeks across the Aegean would have been much larger than the Uluburun boat, with both a sail and lots of oars, possibly two decks of oars.   They would have stood between 6 and 10 meters above the water line (20-30 feet).  They would have hung at least 1.5 meters (5 feet) below the water line. So, once they were on shore, the Greeks would have had to jump down around 25 feet or more if they went over the side down to the ground.  

Nobody did that.  It's like leaping down from the roof of a two story house.  Homer's story about soldiers fighting over which Greek would be first to jump out of the ship onto Trojan soil is pure farce.  

If you think about it, it is just plain unlikely that anyone would simply beach their huge boat full of soldiers and kings.  Too risky.  There would be lots of bruises and broken teeth at the bumpy finish of their ride, and the ship would tilt onto one side or another once it hit dry land, and everyone on the top deck would be thrown overboard. Oars on the downward side would become lethal missiles inside the ship.  

The ships are usually represented in movies as perfectly level, and serve as storage or something.  In ten years was there never a serious storm that would have blown one or two of those boats off their cradles? And where do the tripods and cradles come from that hold up the ships?  How did they get under the beached ships before they tilted in the first place?  

And how do you get those huge ships back in the water after you beach them? 

Ok, so, let's suppose they used smaller boats as landing craft. 

Again, the one thing that is certain is that you don't need to keep your ships on the beach once you have a beach head.  You can put your entire navy away from shore, so it cannot be burnt by Trojans.  All you really need to protect is your army and your way of supplying them from the sea.  The army is living in tents.  

So, if you are going to build a fort, it just needs to protect the army camp and its port or quay.  

If we have discussed the rationale of the camp enough, let's discuss the reality of building a fort like the one Homer and others imagine.  

Question 2: Is building the Fort plausible? 

A ditch and a palisade, eh?  Or are there stone foundations with mud brick on top?  Homer seems to think both kinds of construction were present.  Let's analyze some of this. 

In Homer's tale, the Greeks actually build the ditch and palisade after Hector makes threats. But this is allegedly the 9th or 10th year of the war.  Seems pretty late in the game to finally need a fort.  Why haven't Hector and the Trojans thought of fighting their way to the ships in all those prior years?  

A palisade requires wood shaped into logs. So, cutting down trees is not enough, you have to process them into useful and very similar shapes to make a palisade.  There are hardly any trees in or around the plain of Troy.  And with a large city in the area, even less would be available than is there now. So, the landing party will have to get their lumber further up the slopes of Mt Ida or have it supplied by sea.  Both are unlikely.  Shipping the logs is more likely however, because soldiers who march uphill for 10 miles or more to cut wood on Mt Ida are soldiers who are worn out and easy to kill.  In addition, sending troops up Mt Ida divides one's forces, unless you send all of them, which would just expose the ships on the beach to the Trojans. How many do you send then, half your force?  You are inviting the Trojans to attack one half of your army with their whole army, either the half on the beach or the half walking up the plain. If you send a quarter of your force, you are inviting the Trojans to destroy with their whole army the quarter you have isolated.  

An army is at its strongest when all of its parts are together in one place.  Concentrated violence, concentrated defense.  When you divide your force, both parts are weaker than the whole was.  

Well, then perhaps they send slaves up the plain to cut and transport trees.  If I was Priam, I would attack the slaves too. Wouldn't you?  If I was Agamemnon, I would value my slaves far too much to risk their lives on a wood-cutting mission in hostile territory.  The loss of a single slave weakens the whole. 

The lumber, let us say, is not cut by warriors or their servants, but delivered to the beachhead from the sea.  If that is our hypothesis, then my next question is when? Overnight?  

It is pretty much impossible for the Greeks to just react to a threat by building a palisade because they cannot supply the processed lumber fast enough. It would take a year or more to get that stuff delivered from Greece.  It would take a significant amount of time to fell 50 trees and process them into logs even if they were growing right on the side of the plain near the building site.  With transport from Mt Ida added in, you are looking at a huge project with logs being transported through the plain right past a city full of enemies.  I don't know how many they need, but they supposedly had 1200 ships. If a quarter of those are on the beach, they need to protect 300 ships.  Sounds like a pretty long palisade.  If they each take up 20 feet of space, that is 6000 feet, which is over a mile (5280 ft).  A typical school bus is 8.5 feet wide. The ships with their oars had to be wider than that, let's say they are 10 feet across with five foot oars sticking out on each side. Then 20 feet to a ship is about right if they are next to one another on a beach.  

As for the ditch, well, they would need tools to dig that. I am unsure what they would use, I suppose they could improvise some baskets and wooden shovels.  A ditch is much more likely than a palisade.

But again are you really talking about not needing a ditch for 9 years, then creating one after Hector makes threats?  And how long is this ditch?  A mile long trench does not appear quickly.  

Homer eventually tells a story about washing away the walls and towers that the Greeks built. Zeus and Poseidon attack the Greek walls with 9 rivers and many days of rain.  This makes it sound like the walls have stone foundations. You don't need a lot to take out a wooden palisade and ditch.  Surely you don't need 9 rivers.  

So, if they are going to cut stone to make walls, what will they cut it with?  Did they bring the tools to cut and transport stone with them in addition to their camping and war making gear?  Axes, saws, picks, shovels, trowels, chisels, hammers, prying bars, buckets, ladders, scaffolding, rope, wheelbarrows.  Seems like a lot to haul. 

How far away is the stone quarry, and how will the cut stones be transported to the building site?  Who will do that work?  How long would it take?  

Stone walls seem really unlikely, even more unlikely than a palisade.  

But to save the theory one last time: perhaps they built stone defenses gradually, not all at once. Then later on, they added the palisade and ditch, but Homer unfortunately makes it sound like they started fortifying late in the war. That still seems unlikely and all of the problems outlined above are fully relevant here. Warriors cutting stone? Warriors are supposed to pound iron stakes and wedges all day?  And if not them, then who? And just as important, where, how far from camp? Someone cut down trees and made logs out of them and transported them?  Who and where?  And in both cases, with what tools? 

I don't think the sea peoples on the walls of Medinet Habu have many chisels or saws. Do you? 

I know of no archeological discoveries of anything that might count as evidence of the Greek camp. And that makes sense because I strongly doubt it ever existed.  

Question 3: Is the Walled Camp impossible?

It is probably just barely plausible that some invaders built some kind of fort in the plain of Troy.  Perhaps a stockade made from twigs and fallen branches, or perhaps a ditch along with some kind of earthwork barriers.  

At least earthworks can be done on a beach.  

A palisade on a beach is not a good idea because sand shifts a lot, and the soggy ground behind the beach doesn't hold posts very well either.  There would be a lot of stability issues with anything built on a beach or immediately behind it, whether it was stone foundations or posts holding up a palisade.

To avoid this, the construction would need to be on the first firm land inland from the beach, sometimes called a headland.    

That will help but it will not help enough because nothing built in the valley can be expected to last due to the annual flooding that has been described on this blog many times.  Until modern dams were built, the plain of Troy flooded from side to side pretty much every year.  Let me drive that home: every year there was flooding that covered the entire floor of the valley from side to side (2 - 2 1/2 miles wide) for several days at least once, and in many years, two or three times.  

Constructions in the plain that are not protected from flooding typically will not last an entire year.  

There are, of course, two main scenarios for the invasion of Troy. In one scenario, the Greek navy and camp are on the north end of the Trojan valley on the Dardanelle Straits, which is now about 4 miles north of Hisarlik, but with a big enough bay might have been only 2 or 3 miles north of the Citadel in the Bronze Age.  In the second scenario, the Greeks are anchored and camping in Besik Bay, on the Aegean Sea, about 5.5 miles SW of Hisarlik.  

I think that the floods argue against constructions in both scenarios.  In the first one, because the camp would be in the plain at its lowest point, where the inundations are at their worst.  A camp on the Bay of Troy would literally be under two or more feet of water for around two or more weeks a year.  

The second scenario must receive a similar treatment because it seems clear that the inhabitants of the plain at some point, probably around the time of Troy II, carved a channel through the inland ridge from the upper plain into Besik Bay.  There is now an unnatural plain in the bay that is over 1.5 square miles.  At least during flooding events, if not year round, a Greek army camped on the Besik plain would have been severely impacted by waters diverted from the Trojan plain above it.  

But this raises an interesting question.  If the Trojans did divert floodwaters into Besik Bay, and this made the city in the plain able to survive floods, would it not also have made it safe for a Greek contingent to camp on the plain below the city to the north?  I think the answer to this depends on how much of the flood waters were diverted into Besik Bay.  Depending on the size of Trojan flood walls, saving the city might have meant reducing a flood that was waist deep from side to side in the plain, to one that was knee deep from side to side, or perhaps reduce a shoulder deep flood to a waist deep one.  The moral of this story is that whatever was enough to save the city was not necessarily enough to keep Achilles' tent dry and in one place.  

So, even if the logistics and the rationale for the walled camp can be worked out, the floods make it all but impossible both that there was a fortified camp on the beach, and that there was an invading army in the plain for all those years.  The Greek army would only have been able to last in the Trojan valley if they got out of the plain, and off the beach, and onto higher ground, at least during flood events.  

Furthermore, if the Greeks built a fort at Troy that lasted for more than one year, it was not in a flood plain or on a beach.  It had to be on one of the many ridges or rock outcroppings around the plain.  

But of course, they can't do that unless they can supply the labor, tools and material to build.  

And you don't dig a ditch on a rock outcropping or a sandstone ridge, do you?  So, under this scenario, Homer must be wrong at least about the ditch.  

Question 4: Is the Camp just a literary device? 

The idea of the two forts, one at Hisarlik, one improvised in the plain, belongs in drama.  It belongs on a stage, not in a real war.  The battle between Achilles and Hector belongs on a stage with a single tower on it, with Helen looking out a window as the two heroes chase each other around the "city" three and a half times, then stop and fight.  In reality, two men cannot realistically run around a city in full armor three times and then stop and fight.  The limits of human endurance will prevent it.  The vision of the two camps is similar.  It requires two towers on a stage, with armed kings at their tops, and actors armed with wooden swords banging away between them. In reality the second fortress at Troy is hugely unlikely because the environment will not allow it.  

Question 5: Is the Camp an explanation?

My personal suspicion is that there was a large city in the plain that was destroyed and then flooded.  It may have gone down in the earthquake that took down Troy VI.  The destroyed and flooded city in the plain was then viewed hundreds of years later, say, in the 800s BC, by poets and other people on the heights of Hisarlik. These people saw blocks and walls and buried shapes in the plain, and invented the story that Greek raiders built walls to protect their ships down there. 

Like the bible supplies an explanation for the fallen walls of Jericho, the confused and threadbare tale of the fortified Greek camp supplies an explanation for blocks and shapes in the plain hundreds of years after the city in the plain was lost. 

Historical Descriptions of the Hill at Kumkale

 Let's begin with a statement from Walter Leaf, Troy, A study in Homeric Geography (1912) 

Firstly, as to the "spring of the plain" where the Trojan army is thrice drawn up (x. 160, xi. 56, XX. 3). This I now think Dorpfeld is right in placing at the slightly rising ground on which stand the few huts of Kum Koi, just in the narrow space between the spot where I would place the ford and the modern bridge over the Simois. This is the obvious position for an army defending Troy against an attack from the north : it is well protected on both sides by river beds against flank attacks, and the available front for assault is narrowed to the utmost. The "rise," it is true, is almost microscopic, but it is enough to lift the village above flood water, and Schliemann testifies that it conceals a rider from the view of anyone on the hill of Hissarlik.  p 41f 

The "microscopic" rise keeps the village of Kum Koi above the floodwaters, he says.  I argued the same point in an earlier post.  I am not familiar with the remark from Schliemann that Leaf quotes. But it is believable that the hill would conceal a rider from eyes on Hisarlik.  

Below is a map provided in another of Leaf's works. He draws the Throsmos precisely where Kum Koi used to sit.  

So we know what Leaf thinks of the mound.  Now look at two comments from William Gell's The Topography of Troy and its Vicinity, which appeared in 1804.

As the day began to close, we found ourselves at the little village of Koum Kevi; at one extremity of which, after crossing a channel, perhaps that of the brook Thymbrius, we observed a large but not lofty mound, on which were the remains of columns similar to those at Alexandria Troas. p 14

The next object worthy of notice is a mount of considerable magnitude on the south of the village of Koum Kevi. There is every reason to suppose it artificial, for it is perfectly insulated, and stands on a dead flat, near the dry channel. The heap is not lofty, and appears to have been levelled, for the purpose of placing on its summit some kind of edifice, of which two or three marble columns are the remains. The building was, probably, a small Ionic temple, but perhaps the columns may have been brought as grave-stones from the ruins of Alexandria Troas or New Ilium. The mount seems too extensive to have been designed for a tumulus, and if it be coeval with the war of Troy, must have been either the Agora of the Greeks, which is mentioned by Homer as the place where the marts and places of worship were erected, or the Throsmos, which was so inconveniently situated for the invaders, while the Trojans were encamped upon it. p 116

Koum Kevi is of course Kum Koi or Kumkale as it is spelled today.  Gell thinks the mound is artificial.  He also speculates that it may be the Throsmos, or perhaps the ancient Agora that the invaders allegedly built to go along with their walled camp.  

Here is Schliemann's 1880 work, Ilios. 

Professor Virchow commenced his investigations by digging a number of holes; the first to the right of the bridge which spans the Kalifatli Asmak near Hissarlik. To a depth of 1.25 metres, he found a very compact blackish soil, and below it coarse sand, among which small pieces of quartz, flakes of mica, blackish grains and coarser fragments of rock, were conspicuous. There were no remains of shells. He dug the second hole in the flat dune-like hill on the left bank of the Kalifatli Asmak near Koum Kioi, on which is a Turkish cemetery. He found there to a depth of 2 metres nothing but coarse sand of a dark colour, consisting principally of angular grains of quartz mixed with mica, and some coarser but smoothed pebbles of rock ; no trace of shells. (p88) 

Schliemann reports a "flat, dune-like hill on the left bank of the Kalifatli Asmak near Koum Kioi," which is of course Kum Koi or Kumkale.  

The existence of this unexplained mound in the plain of Troy is something that scientists working at Troy ought to take seriously.