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.  

Peter Forschhammer describes annual flooding in the Plain of Troy

 Peter Forschhammer visited the plain of Troy in 1839.  In 1842 he published the following: 

There is no other plain in Asia Minor so much subjected to the influence of water as the plain of Troy is in the rainy season. The Mendere begins to rise as soon as the rains commence in the upper regions of Mount Ida. At its entrance into the lower plain it receives a considerable accession from the Kimar, which, rising far up in the mountains, is also affected by the early rains. The subterranean veins and channels of the mountain which feed the springs of the plain will also be gorged with water, and the probability is that even in this early part of the winter the three Asmaks of the Judan become large and continuous streams, the Akchi-Kevi-Asmak becomes an acting tributary of the Mendere, and a portion of the waters of the Bunarbashi-Su overflow its low eastern banks, and find their way into the bed of that river. As the winter advances the clouds fall down upon the lower Ida, and ultimately discharge themselves over the whole plain. With the exception of what is carried off by the artificial channel of the Bunarbashi-Su, the whole of the water of this side of Mount Ida is drained into the plain of Troy. The Mendere overflows its banks and forms the inundation river mentioned above. The rains of winter are generally accompanied by strong winds from the S.W., which obstruct the current of the Hellespont, and raise the sea- water above its ordinary level at the mouths of the Mendere and of the two Asmaks, thus impeding the current of the rivers and increasing the inundation in the lower part of the plain. The inundation thus created is permanent during the winter. At first it only covers the part of the plain adjoining the salt-water lagoons and the mouth of the Mendere, and up to the high steep banks of the Asmaks. In time, however, the extensive plain in the interior of Mount Ida, between Ene and Bairamiche, is converted into an immense lake, of which the narrow valley through which the Mendere flows between Ene and Bunarbashi is the only outlet. In this passage the water sometimes rises in winter 30 or 40 feet above the bottom of the river's summer bed, as may be seen by the grass left adhering to the trees on its banks. The whole plain of the Mendere is submerged, and at times even the valleys of the Kimar and the Dumbrek are overflowed to a considerable height. In them, however, the inundation rarely continues longer than five or six days at a time ; but it recurs at frequent intervals during the rainy season. 

Peter Forschammer, Observations on the Topography of Troy, P 35 

Forschhammer is saying that run off creates a lake between Ezine (Ene) and Bayramic (Bairamiche). He also tells us that the water in the canyon between Ezine and Pinarbasi (Bunarbashi) can rise 30-40 feet. 

Above: the area between Mt Ida (lower right) and Troy (upper left).  The distance from Bayramic to Ezine is greater than the length of the Trojan plain.  The lake at Bayramic is the reservoir of a modern dam. Forschhammer is right to say that "the whole of the water of this side of Mount Ida is drained into the plain of Troy."  

Above: the canyon above Pinarbasi.  There is a modern dam just east of Pinarbasi, where the Mendere/Scamander enters the plain, so, the canyon is now a reservoir and full of water.  Some of this is surely deeper than the 30-40 feet Forschhammer estimated. 

On the map above I've marked the two valleys and the lagoons Forschhammer mentions. 

All in all, he is talking about lots of water coming from three rivers into the plain all at once.   The inundation around the lagoons he calls "permanent in winter". The inundations in the two smaller valleys only last for five days or so, but that seems to imply that the inundations of the larger valley last longer. These would be the times when "The whole plain of the Mendere is submerged", which means the entire valley marked Plain of Troy in the map above is submerged.  

Frank Calvert Drained Judan Lake

In earlier posts I have treated Judan Lake as an anomaly in the plain of Troy that appears on old maps but is no longer present in the plain.  

In my last post, Heinrich Schliemann described a swamp in the plain of Troy that was drained by Frank Calvert, who owned the land occupied by the swamp. 

In this post I will argue that the swamp drained by Calvert was in fact what the old maps call Judan Lake.  

If that thesis is right, then we can answer a question now.  Was the lake a result of human interventions in the plain or was it natural?  If the thesis is right, the lake was man made, though it was probably not ancient. It was caused by an old bridge which blocked up the drain ways of three springs.  

Peter Forschammer visited the plain and worked there with Thomas Spratt, whose maps of the plain are legendary among scholars.  His "Observations on the Topography of Troy" appeared in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London in 1842. He describes Lake Judan.

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.

 *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.

Peter Forschammer, Observations on the Topography of Troy, P 30

What Forschammer is calling "the new Chiflik of Akchi Kevi" in 1842, is precisely the Chiflik owned by the Calvert family in the 1860's.  Schliemann called it Akshi Kioi.  Kevi and Kioi and Koy and Kuei are different ways of writing down the Turkish word for village. 

Schiemann reported that the swamp on the Calvert farm was caused by a fallen bridge which had blocked three springs.   

These springs — probably owing to their natural channels having been stopped up for centuries by a fallen bridge — have formed a large marsh of 240 acres, the evaporations of which greatly contribute to the malaria of the glorious Plain. ... In order to gain 240 acres of rich land and to make the district more healthy, but especially also in the interest of science, Mr. Calvert has now caused the channels to be opened, and he believes, as the incline is considerable, amounting at least to 53 feet, and the distance from the Hellespont is three hours, that by next summer the whole marsh will be dried up, and the two springs, which are now 5 feet under water, will be brought to light.

Schliemann, Troy and its Remains, 1875, p. 70f.  

About the swamp, Schliemann notes five years later that it "formerly covered an area of about 250 acres" and "has by the exertions of Mr. Calvert and his engineer, Mr. Stoney, been dried up and converted into the most valuable land; the three springs which produced it still exist" (Ilion, the City and Country of the Trojans, 1880, p. 99). So, in 1875 he thought there were two springs, but in 1880 he knows there were three.  The swamp was drained sometime between the writing of the two books.  

Another thing to note here: Forschammer says that the lake is the source of three Asmaks.  Two of them flow to the sea.  The third flows south toward the center of the plain where it meets with the Kimar Su which we know as Kamer Creek.  

The Greek for an arch is ... (kamara). The Turks have adopted the word, which they pronounce Kimar; and hence any water spanned by a bridge or aqueduct is called Kimar-Su, or, in the pronunciation of the Greeks, Kamara-Su.  ... The Kimar-Su has its name from a magnificent arch or aqueduct, founded on high rocks, 55 feet wide, and rising 92 feet above the bed of the river, which crosses it about 5 or 6 miles above its junction with the Mendere. Forschammer, 1842, p. 32f

The aqueduct is a Roman era construction that brought water to New Ilion on Hisarlik.  

Schliemann thinks differently from Forschammer about the Asmaks, claiming that "one arm of it rises in the Duden swamp on Mr. Calvert's farm of Akshi Kioi while another starts from the point where the Scamander and Thymbrius meet" (1880, 99).  He sees what Forschammer calls a third Asmak as the continuation of one of the Asmaks from the plain.  

In another contrast, Schliemann uses the term Duden Swamp, while Forschammer uses the term Judan Lake.  I am convinced that Judan and Duden are two ways of writing down the same Turkish word. 

After describing the rivers, Forschammer notes:

In addition to these watercourses the plain contains a number of swamps and marshes. Those which contain permanent lakes have been already noticed: they are, on the W. side of the Mendere, the marshes surrounding the springs which form the Bunarbashi-Su, and on the E. side, the sources of the three Judan Asmaks. Both are on a higher level than that of the central plain; the Bunarbashi swamps are much more extensive than those of the Judan. 

Forschammer 1842, p. 33 

In the above citation, Forschammer classifies what the maps call Judan Lake as a swamp or marsh that contains a permanent lake. He goes on here to describe the swamp at Yeni Koy as dry during part of the year.  He then describes another marsh on Kamer Creek. 

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

Forschammer 1842, p. 33

This marsh occurred at the meeting point of the Asmak and the Kimar, south of Hanai Tepe.  

Below are two views from a map of the area provided by Schliemann's 1875 work. 

The area Schliemann has labeled "Marshy" is Judan Lake, or Duden Swamp as his own works call it. 

Coming out the south side of that marshy area we see a dotted line that represents what Schliemann thinks of as a continuation of the Asmak, but which Forschammer calls the Akchi-Kevi-Asmak. While Forschammer says that this Asmak flows downhill toward the center of the plain, Schliemann seems to think that it brings water from the Mendere to the Asmaks, which would have the water flow uphill, I believe. 

There is a bridge marked on the NW side of the marshy area.  That is probably the bridge that Frank Calvert removed to allow the swamp to drain into the Asmaks, one of which Schliemann likes to label the Ancient Bed of the Scamander.  Forschammer describes that very bridge. 

Some indications of ancient buildings are found on the hills above the Judan, near Akchi-Kevi. They are extensive, although there is no appearance of a town wall. Near them, and now surrounded by the marshy lake, is a bridge, 20 feet wide, across the channel of the Kalifatli-Asmak. It is evident that the extension of the lake must have rendered this bridge impassable to carriages for many centuries; the stones of the arch are about 1 1/2 foot in thickness, and yet the wheels of carriages have worn not merely deep tracks, but positively large holes through them. It is impossible to assign a date to this bridge, or to any of the bridges of square blocks for foot passengers which are pointed out on the map. 

Forschammer, 1842 p. 40  

He describes a somewhat spectacular ruin with amazingly deeply rutted stones.  It seems to be partly submerged if the lake has made it unusable.  Forschammer's 1842 piece provides a Spratt map. Below is the same area as seen on that map. 

On the NW side of "Judan Lake," this map shows a Br in Ruins, which means Bridge in Ruins.  Notice that the map maker marks two more bridges, Br, along the Pasha Tepe Asmak.  That Br in Ruins is probably the bridge that Frank Calvert, the eventual owner of "Akschi Keui Chiflik," removed, allowing the marsh and lake to drain away into the Asmaks. 

Another Spratt map shows the same area with a different emphasis.  

This map does not label the marshy area west of Akshi Kioi, but it does draw the signs of marshiness there, as it does south of Kanai Tepe.  It also shows a Ru. Ant. Bridge, ruined ancient bridge, at the top of the meeting point of the two Asmaks.  And that is yet another representation of the bridge that Frank Calvert removed in order to drain what Virchow and Schliemann call Duden Swamp, and what Spratt and Forschammer call Judan Lake. 

On this final map, from Schliemann's 1880, the area in question is labeled Duden Swamp, and we see a bridge over the Asmak on its NW side. 

Also worth noting: between 1875 and 1880 Schliemann has changed his mind as to which of the Asmaks used to be the Scamander.  

Conclusion: 

I believe that the anomaly known as Judan Lake has been explained.  It was not a remnant of an ancient water control system as I had once suspected it might be. 

It was instead a swamp caused by a fallen bridge.  The lake disappeared after Frank Calvert removed the ruins of the bridge.  

Mea Culpa

In writing the last two entries on this blog I have come to realize that I have been making a huge mistake in looking at the satellite images while thinking about the Spratt maps.  I have been placing Judan Lake in the wrong place.  It belongs much further up the plain than three of my prior posts have placed it.  I will be updating with disclaimers on all of those posts in the future.   

Heinrich Schliemann describes a swamp in the plain of Troy

Homer never mentions a river called Thymbrius.  Other authors do, however.  The temple of Apollo Thymbrius was supposed to be near the place where the river Thymbrius met the Scamander river. What we now know as Kemer Creek is the body of water most commonly identified as the Thymbrius.  It joins the Scamander/Karamendere at the top of the plain of Troy, about 5 miles southeast of the citadel at Hisarlik. Hanai Tepe, a small settlement mound, is nearby the confluence of the two rivers.  If there ever was a temple of Apollo Thymbrius, perhaps it was in the vicinity of Hanai Tepe.  

In his work of 1880, Ilios, The City and Country of the Trojans, Henrich Schliemann cites several sources while discussing the rivers in the plain.  Here is one of them.  

M. Burnouf makes the following remarks upon the river : “The Thymbrius flows in the hollow of a valley between the hills of Akshi Kioi and the heights to the south. It is about 30 ft. broad. Its banks are steep; it is perfectly limpid, and is overshadowed by large trees. Its banks, which are from 10 to 12 ft. high, show two very distinct layers : first, a modern alluvium, consisting of earth washed down by the rains from the hills; secondly, below this, a thick layer of plastic clay, analogous to that which forms the soil of the plain of the Scamander. The confluence of the Thymbrius and the Scamander is not difficult to determine,* since the banks are high. During the inundations, the great polygon formed by the Thymbrius, the Scamander, and the hills to the east, becomes covered with water, which runs with great impetuosity in an easterly direction ; inundates the swamp (now rendered salubrious) to the north of Akshi Kioi; pours into the large bed of the Kalifatl Asmak, which is identical with the ancient bed of the Scamander; and forms other streams, which flow in the same direction. On the 18th of May, 1879, we saw this whole plain covered with dead trees and branches, which had been carried away in the same direction, and caught by the bushes of the agnus-castus and tamarisk.” 

*  This means that the banks of the river are not obliterated, and do not confound themselves with the plain. (Schliemann, City and Country of the Trojans, p 78)

Frank Calvert wrote appendices for Schliemann.  On page 707, in his appendix on "Thymbra and Hanai Tepe", Calvert writes: "Thymbra was identified by Hobhouse with Akshi Kioi (the present Thymbra Farm), and Barker Webb recognized the Thymbrius in the Kemar Su."  

Hanai Tepe is at the southern end of a raised area NNE of the confluence of Kemer Creek and the Karamendere.  Thymbra Farm is the property owned by Frank Calvert.  "At a mile’s distance in a north-westerly direction lies the beautiful estate belonging to my friend Mr. Calvert, the old name of which—Akshi Kioi or Batak (which latter means “swamp ”)—has now been changed into Thymbra" (p108).

The entry in Schliemann's Index: "Akshi Kioi or Batak (i.e. “swamp ”), village, depopulated by plague, and replaced by farm of Thymbra, 99; site of the ancient historic Thymbra, 719. See Thymbra." (p 753)

In his work of 1875, Troy and its Remains, Schliemann tells the story of the swamp on Calvert's farm. 

At half-an hour's distance to the left of Bunarbashi is the beautiful estate of 5000 acres, whose name of Batak is now changed into Thymbria, belonging to my friend Mr. Frederick Calvert. It deserves the change of name for more than one reason ; for not only does the river Thymbrius (now Kemer) flow through it, but it comprises the whole site of the ancient town of Thymbria, with its temple of Apollo, among the ruins of which the proprietor's brother, Mr. Frank Calvert — known for his archaeological investigations — is making excavations, and has found several valuable inscriptions ; among others, an inventory of the temple. ... These springs — probably owing to their natural channels having been stopped up for centuries by a fallen bridge — have formed a large marsh of 240 acres, the evaporations of which greatly contribute to the malaria of the glorious Plain. ... In order to gain 240 acres of rich land and to make the district more healthy, but especially also in the interest of science, Mr. Calvert has now caused the channels to be opened, and he believes, as the incline is considerable, amounting at least to 53 feet, and the distance from the Hellespont is three hours, that by next summer the whole marsh will be dried up, and the two springs, which are now 5 feet under water, will be brought to light.* (p70f)

About the Kalifatli Asmak Schliemann writes in 1880 that "one arm of it rises in the Duden swamp on Mr. Calvert's farm of Akshi Kioi while another starts from the point where the Scamander and Thymbrius meet". About the swamp, Schliemann notes that it "formerly covered an area of about 250 acres" and "has by the exertions of Mr. Calvert and his engineer, Mr. Stoney, been dried up and converted into the most valuable land; the three springs which produced it still exist" (99f). 

Apparently there were three springs, not two, in the swamp.  

The picture below shows the confluence and the locations of Hanai Tepe, Frank Calvert's farm, and the anomaly on Kemer Creek about which I have written before.  

Schlieman continues: 

Professor Virchow says: “There can be no doubt whatever that the volume of water which once flowed in the bed of the Kalifatli Asmak was much larger than that which now flows in it, even at the period of the inundations. Its bed answers so well to a great and powerfully working stream, that the present river appears only as a residue of its former wealth. Where was formerly water, there are now broad edges of bank overgrown with bushes, and now and then showing deeply-indented borders. In places here and there are still deep bays, of whose origin the present current offers no explanation. In many places, especially on the left bank, are rows of sand-hills, which must once have been formed by alluvium; they are at present so high that even their foot is never reached by the water. The common sources of the Asmak in the Duden swamp, close to Akshi Kioi, are not copious enough to feed a large river." (1880, 84f)

Virchow points to a swamp near Akshi Kioi/Thymbra Farm as the source of the Asmak on the eastern side of the plain. (An Asmak is a body of water that flows for only part of the year, and is standing pools during another part.)

Two things I take away from this.  

1. There was a body of water north of Akshi Kioi/Thymbra Farm at one time. 

2. The waters north of Akshi Kioi/Thymbra Farm were the source of the waterways on the east side of the upper plain. 

I have speculated that the anomaly on Kamer Creek was a dam on the old river bed, and that the dam created a reservoir that then flowed off to the east side of the plain.  That reservoir would have filled the entire area north of the former Thymbra Farm, precisely where Burnouf reports a swamp.  

The swamp on Calvert's land is not shown on the 1850's Spratt map below, but the two arms of the Asmak are.  

Spratt shows the upper arm of the Asmak ending at Akchi Keui Chiflik.  Chiflik indicates a private holding of some kind, possibly a farm.  This map clearly shows the ridge running down to Kanai Tepe (= Hanai Tepe).  Eski Akchi Keui means Original Akchi Village, this is the location of the old village that was depopulated by plague. It sits further north on the same ridge as the Calvert property and Hanai Tepe. 

Herodotus on the Causes of the Trojan War

These are the first lines of Herodotus' Histories.  So these lines are known as Histories I, 1-6. They tell an alternative story about the outbreak of the Trojan war. 

This is the text of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man may not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other.

The Persian learned men say that the Phoenicians were the cause of the dispute. These (they say) came to our seas from the sea which is called Red,¹ and having settled in the country which they still occupy, at once began to make long voyages. Among other places to which they carried Egyptian and Assyrian merchandise, they came to Argos, [2] which was at that time preeminent in every way among the people of what is now called Hellas. The Phoenicians came to Argos, and set out their cargo. [3] On the fifth or sixth day after their arrival, when their wares were almost all sold, many women came to the shore and among them especially the daughter of the king, whose name was Io (according to Persians and Greeks alike), the daughter of Inachus. [4] As these stood about the stern of the ship bargaining for the wares they liked, the Phoenicians incited one another to set upon them. Most of the women escaped: Io and others were seized and thrown into the ship, which then sailed away for Egypt. 2.

In this way, the Persians say (and not as the Greeks), was how Io came to Egypt, and this, according to them, was the first wrong that was done. Next, according to their story, some Greeks (they cannot say who) landed at Tyre in Phoenicia and carried off the king's daughter Europa. These Greeks must, I suppose, have been Cretans. So far, then, the account between them was balanced. But after this (they say), it was the Greeks who were guilty of the second wrong. [2] They sailed in a long ship to Aea, a city of the Colchians, and to the river Phasis:² and when they had done the business for which they came, they carried off the king's daughter Medea. [3] When the Colchian king sent a herald to demand reparation for the robbery and restitution of his daughter, the Greeks replied that, as they had been refused reparation for the abduction of the Argive Io, they would not make any to the Colchians. 3.

Then (they say), in the second generation after this, Alexandrus, son of Priam, who had heard this tale, decided to get himself a wife from Hellas by capture; for he was confident that he would not suffer punishment. [2] So he carried off Helen. The Greeks first resolved to send messengers demanding that Helen be restored and atonement made for the seizure; but when this proposal was made, the Trojans pleaded the seizure of Medea, and reminded the Greeks that they asked reparation from others, yet made none themselves, nor gave up the booty when asked. 4.

So far it was a matter of mere seizure on both sides. But after this (the Persians say), the Greeks were very much to blame; for they invaded Asia before the Persians attacked Europe. [2] “We think,” they say, “that it is unjust to carry women off. But to be anxious to avenge rape is foolish: wise men take no notice of such things. For plainly the women would never have been carried away, had they not wanted it themselves. [3] We of Asia did not deign to notice the seizure of our women; but the Greeks, for the sake of a Lacedaemonian woman, recruited a great armada, came to Asia, and destroyed the power of Priam. [4] Ever since then we have regarded Greeks as our enemies.” For the Persians claim Asia for their own, and the foreign peoples that inhabit it; Europe and the Greek people they consider to be separate from them. 5.

Such is the Persian account; in their opinion, it was the taking of Troy which began their hatred of the Greeks. [2] But the Phoenicians do not tell the same story about Io as the Persians. They say that they did not carry her off to Egypt by force. She had intercourse in Argos with the captain of the ship. Then, finding herself pregnant, she was ashamed to have her parents know it, and so, lest they discover her condition, she sailed away with the Phoenicians of her own accord. [3]

These are the stories of the Persians and the Phoenicians. For my part, I shall not say that this or that story is true, but I shall identify the one who I myself know did the Greeks unjust deeds, and thus proceed with my history, and speak of small and great cities of men alike. 6.

As you can see, Helen is still the issue in Herodotus' version of events, but she is just one in a series of abductions.  A Phoenician ship abducted Io, and then a Greek ship abducted a Phoenician princess called Europa. Then another Greek ship abducted Medea from Colchis. This is followed by the abduction of Helen by a Trojan prince, in retaliation for the abduction of Medea.  Thus there were retaliatory abductions of high status women going on.  

The usual story of how Medea left Colchis is, of course, the story of Jason and the Argonauts, in which Medea uses her magical powers to help Jason steal the golden fleece from her father, a powerful sorcerer, then flees to Greece aboard the Argos with Jason and her brother. This is no abduction because she goes willingly, eventually marrying Jason and becoming his queen when he takes the throne.  Similarly, the usual story is that Helen, the queen of Sparta, fell in love with Paris, a mere prince, via the agency of Aphrodite, and went with him willingly to Troy.  

Meanwhile, Io is one of many mortal women with whom Zeus fell in love. He turned her into a cow to hide her from his jealous wife. After many adventures he turned her back into a human. 

On Atlantis, Graham Hancock and Ignatius Donnelly

Perhaps the most annoying habit of Atlantis interpreters is the one pointed out by Dr Miano on Youtube: The typical Atlantis interpreter adopts the "8000-9000 years ago" time frame and very nearly NOTHING ELSE from the original story.  In fact, aside from believing Plato on the date, they seem to have little or no interest in Plato's Atlantis.  Lots of interpreters take up the description of the city with its alternating rings of water and earth. But plenty leave that out.  Those who do will usually concentrate on other matters, such as the size and shape of the plain of Atlantis, or its location.  

The war against the Greeks?  Rarely emphasized.  The ten kings of Atlantis?  Rarely mentioned. The bull ritual that the kings perform?  Rarely mentioned.  The large, oddly shaped temple of Poseidon in the center of town? Rarely mentioned. The loss of Greek literacy? Rarely mentioned. The Egyptian priest's claim that his people wrote down the story of Atlantis contemporaneously with the actual events?  Rarely mentioned.  The destruction both of Greek elites and of Atlantis on the same day in the same "flood from heaven"?  Rarely mentioned.  

Another irritating aspect of Atlantis talk is that there are several widely-shared ideas about Atlantis that do not come from the story by Plato. They come from a bastardization of the story that was invented by Ignatius Donnelly.  Plato never said that Atlantis was "advanced." Donnelly did. Plato never said that Atlantis traded with all the continents, but Donnelly did. Plato never mentioned or talked about survivors of Atlantis, but Donnelly did.  

Perhaps we should judge Atlantis interpretations by how much of Plato they can actually interpret. The best interpretations take in the most statements from the original story. The worst interpretations ignore the greatest number of remarks from Plato. 

If that were the standard, interpreters working in the shadow of Donnelly would suffer severely.  Hardly a word of Plato is found in them.  This is not because Donnelly did not discuss Plato. He did.  His 1882 book, The Antediluvian World, opens by reciting the entire Atlantis tale, including the full text from both Timaeus and Critias.  

A quick perusal of Donnelly's table of contents will show good readers exactly what he was up to.  

I don't know why this wikibook does not have links for Part V, but there it is.  

Donnelly includes Plato's entire tale of Atlantis on pages 5-22 of his book.  After that, Plato steps away and Donnelly's speculations take center stage.  

The main reason Donnelly's followers do not discuss Plato is probably that they have taken from Donnelly (and the zeitgeist he inspired) a completely wrong-headed approach to the Atlantis tale. Donnelly treats the Atlantis tale as if it is a story about a lost world.  That is a wrong emphasis.  The tale is about a war.  The loss of Atlantis is not the reason for telling the story.  The reason to tell it is to recall a great war.  

In addition, Donnelly treats the tale as a platform for his own speculations.  He does not seek to understand it or to interpret it.  He aims to promote his own ideas about it.  

Followers of Donnelly have fallen for both of these wrong headed approaches.  They treat all of Plato's remarks as though they boil down to saying there is a lost world, then they bring their own ideas into the story and talk about its location or influence.  

In Part II above, Donnelly teaches the world to conflate all ancient mentions of floods from around the world and to imagine that they all refer to a single event.  The Atlantis tale alone mentions several distinct and important floods, but that does not phase Donnelly.  He ignores the details of the story.  

Dr Miano has commented at length on Graham Hancock's depressing habit of conflating all flood myths from around the world, from all times and places, as if they all attempt to recall or warn about a single ancient event.  

Hancock learned this trick from Donnelly.  Or better, it was Donnelly who made the world ready to believe that all ancient flood myths might refer to the same event. Hancock gets an easy skate on this matter because Donnelly's ideas have been around for 140 years.  

The rest of Donnelly's table of contents demonstrates that Hancock gets almost his entire world view from Donnelly.  Or better: Donnelly made the world ready to recognize and not contest the rest of Hancock's story.  Donnelly came up with the idea of pretending to discover Atlantis as a forgotten meaning behind ancient literature and religion.  Donnelly came up with the idea of looking for similarities in artifacts from around the world and explaining them as derivatives from Atlantis. He began the habit of treating similarly shaped buildings around the world as if they might all have a single origin in Atlantis. Donnelly came up with the idea of treating ancient cultures as colonies of Atlantis. Hancock has dropped the unpopular word colony.  Aside from that, his thinking is very much in the groove laid down by Donnelly.  His vaguely defined advanced civilization in North America is nothing more than Atlantis moved to the shores of North America.   

In his work of 1883, Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel, Donnelly defends at length the hypothesis that a comet hit the earth and destroyed a high civilization ~12,000 years ago, or ~10,000bce.  This puts its date close to that of Atlantis as dated by Plato's tale, ~9560bce.  In this work, Donnelly compiles and blurs his eyes over a large collection of ancient myths and tales about fires, concluding that they all discuss a single event, namely, his proposed comet strike.  

So, all ancient stories about floods are or might be about one flood, and all ancient stories about fires are or might be about one fire. 

Hancock follows Donnelly down the comet strike trail as well.  This move lets him point to almost any ancient artifact that can be construed as astronomical and treat it as if its original motive and meaning has to do with an ancient comet strike during the younger dryas.  This is the form Hancock applies to Gobekli Tepe.  He looks at a carving on a pillar, imagines that it has to do with constellations, then connects his imaginary star map with a comet strike.  It is pure Donnelly.  

In fact, Hancock has been doing Donnelly and almost nothing but Donnelly for a long, long time. The ancient aliens crowd have been doing almost nothing but Stichen and Von Daniken for a long, long time. Hancock is no more original than those clowns.