Is this Atlantis?

 

There is an old idea that Plato's Atlantis account is about the Trojan War.  If true, it would make Troy identical with Atlantis. 

There are a lot of angles here where a person would look across three water channels, like the Atlantis account mentions.  

Plato tells us that the plain of Atlantis was roughly rectangular, and that it had a "trench" around it.  About this trench he says, "It received the streams which came down from the mountains and after circling round the plain, and coming towards the city on this side and on that, it discharged them thereabouts into the sea" (Zangger, The Flood From Heaven,1992, p 33) (Critias, 118d). 

A slice of the history of the search for Troy

I am not an historian, nor an archeologist. I hold a PhD in philosophy. 

Nonetheless, I shall recall here a bit of the history of the search for Troy, and the story of how it was found. I have recently boned up on several sources, including Charles Maclaren, Forschammer and the Luwian Studies web site.  

Briefly, there were maps and descriptions of the plain of Troy produced by travelers that elicited discussion, and were refined over time by observations and maps from other travelers, after which some more professional studies eventually appeared with better maps. The maps in question appeared between the1790's and 1850's.  There were a few before that though.  

Maclaren wrote a dissertation on the location of Troy in 1821.  He located it on the hill called Hissarlik (from Hissar, which means Castle).  It was partly on the basis of Maclaren's work that Frederick Calvert, the brother of Frank Calvert purchased a part of Hissarlik.  Frank could not afford to professionally excavate it, but he did work on it on his own. Then Heinrich Schliemann appeared in his life with the money to hire the required labor in 1869.  

Some people credit Schliemann with finding Troy, but that is not the way it went.  Maclaren pointed out where it was, a Calvert purchased it, another Calvert started excavating it during the 1860s, and then Schliemann excavated it after 1870.  

Schliemann had been excavating in the wrong location before he met Calvert.  He was led to the wrong location by earlier scholars.  

In the 1790's some maps appeared that placed Troy at the far southern end of the plain. There is a low bluff there, with steep precipices on its south side.  There is a village in front of the bluff called Pinarbasi (or Burnabashi). In front of the village are some springs.  On the 1792 map by Jean Baptiste LeChevalier, one of the springs was called a hot spring, and the others were called cold springs. This was one of the reasons that the area was thought to be Troy. Homer mentions both hot and cold springs at the city, just outside one of the gates. Hector is killed between that gate and the springs.  

On this map, North is to the left.   At the southern end of the plain, LeCehvalier labeled one spring Fons Calidus (source hot) and the others Fons Frigidus (source cold) for the stream he labels the Scamander. He labels the bluff behind Bounar Bashi Troja Vetus, meaning Troy Original.  

The thinking of Chevalier was repeated in the map below, from the 1797 work, Constantinople Ancient and Modern. 

Again North is to the left. Again the western most stream is called Scamander, the springs where it arises are labeled hot and cold, and the bluff at the back of the plain is called Troy.  This map even finds Hector's tomb there.  Both maps label the largest river in the plain Simoeis. Both maps also bend the plain at the Rhoetian ridge near the northern shore. The plain actually bends in the middle, around Hissarlik.  On both of these maps, Hissarlik is depicted with only the village of Chiblak shown, along with two roads crossing on the hill.  However, the second map marks an ancient bed in the plain, and puts the word Ilium immediately to the south of it.  I cannot explain that.  My suspicion is that the mapmaker is labeling the old village of Kum Kale as Illium.  

In 1804 William Gell published an account of his travels in the Troy area, along with over 40 water color pictures of the area and 2 maps.  

On this map, North is at the bottom.  It labels the bluff at Pinarbasi Troy, and the rivers are called Scamander and Simoeis.  The river that passes north of Hissarlik is called Tymbrek.  One thing Gell gets right is the bend of the plain around the prominences in its middle.  On one of them he has written "Situation of Ilium Recens" and Hillike.    By Ilium Recens he means Ilium Novum, the Roman city built on the site of Troy (now known as Troy IX).  

Gell's second map shows only the topmost part of the plain, again with North to the bottom. At the lower right, he has labeled a warm and cold source of the Scamander, along with a Garden of the Scamander in between.  At the top left, he labels one part of the bluff Pergam, which was Homer's name for Troy's citadel or acropolis, the Pergamus of Priam.  

All around this map one sees 90 degree angles inscribed on the land. These marks show where Gell was and the direction he was looking when he did his water colors.  There is one at each of the sources of the Scamander. Below are the sketches of the springs.  

Gell's drawing of the warm source of the Scamander includes a curious frame on a horse's back and some oriental garb.  One can see the village in the background. What Gell was calling Troy would be even further away, behind the village.  

In this depiction of the cold sources of the Scamander, one can see the village is now further away. The clump of trees between the artist and the village is the clump surrounding the "Warm source of the Scamander".  So, we are looking across what Gell called the "Garden of the Scamander" on our left here.  

About Gell, here are Maclaren's words: 

Sir William Gell, who examined the Troad in 1804 , adopted Lechevalier's theory, and illustrated it by beautiful drawings in a ten guinea volume, but did little or nothing to strengthen his conclusions. The fallacies in the arguments of both were cleverly handled in the 6th volume of the Edinburgh Review, by a writer who had travelled to the top of Ida, (understood to be late Earl of Aberdeen ). Dr Clarke, of Cambridge University, made a hasty journey through the Troad in 1807, and ascertained one point of much importance, the site of New Ilium, the city existing in Strabo's time. Major Rennell published a Dissertation in 1814, under the title of “ Observations on the Topography of the Plain of Troy,” which is distinguished by his usual sagacity and patient research . He was misled by an imperfect map, and by his undue confidence in Strabo’s statements. The position he assigns to the Homeric city is about a mile and a half south-east from Chiblak, where the words “ pottery," "columns and cemetery" appear in the map. ... The works above named opened the modern controversy on the site of Ilium , and it has been continued by a host of writers and travelers in letters, memoirs, books, and reviews. (1863, 8f)

The trouble with this set of remarks is that Maclaren does not acknowledge that Gell identified the location of "Illium Recens" on his map.  Maclaren credits Clarke with correctly identifying the location of the Roman city, New Ilium.  He then reasons that the acropolis of the original Ilium had to be in the same location. His book, The Plain of Troy Described, appeared in 1863, but it was essentially the same as his dissertation of 1821. His extended table of contents for Chapter V makes his thesis quite clear.  

Had Schliemann read Maclaren, he would not have been excavating on the bluff behind Pinarbasi.  He would have gone straight to Hissarlik.  He went to Pinarbasi because in 1869 he was under the spell of the bad thinking Maclaren had decried both in 1821 and 1863.  

 

The Cities at Troy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tell at Troy

My name is Bryan Finken. I am 59 years old with a PhD in philosophy. I am not an archaeologist, not even an amateur one. I haven't read Homer since high school. And I was laid off on 12/1.  But I accidentally found a great lower city at Troy on 12/4.  

The tell is around a mile wide and nearing 2 miles long.  

When I spotted this, it was late at night.  I was a little shaken.  I felt like I had found something very solemn like a grave, but alive too, like people, and that only I knew the situation, and that I had to help.  I stared at it for a long time.  I feel a sense of duty to those people.  

I must inform the world, there is a tell at Troy.  

I encourage you to go on Google Earth and look for yourself at the tell.  As you can see from the pictures, it is quite large.  It is also right where it should be.  Right in front of the citadel.  

I figure it has gone unnoticed because it is so large.  The site on Hisarlik has been worked for 150 years by archaeologists. The very best, people whose lectures I would pay good money to attend, have toiled there all day in the dirt, and none of them saw this.  It is so large, it would be hard to see it as a mound from Hisarlik.  

A larger city of Troy in the plain changes many things about the discussion of the ancient city, the Trojan war and Homer. The tale we have been fed for 150 years about "little Troy" being the only one (citadel means little city) is wholly false.  It was based merely on the fact that nobody knew where the big city was.  Well, now we know.  The elites ruling this valley were not mere pirates.  They ruled a huge, thriving city at some time.  One with water entering and leaving it.  

The existence of a bigger city in the plain is a new and very pregnant fact that has just entered history.  It is a new challenge for archaeology.  As a mere philosopher I can only do what I can do. 

We need scientists to study the plain of Troy.  The whole thing, they should study the whole plain. 

Regardless of what they do, however, the mound is there, it's real and it shows us that the fabled city of Troy was real as well.  It actually existed.  The richest city in Asia, a city worth sacking, etc.  There was a great city, not just a little fortress town.  

The real city of Troy consisted of a citadel, a large city in the plain and several other elements, including Korfmann's lower town with its ditch enclosure on Hisarlik, some flood control structures, and two cuts through the Aegean coastal cliffs.  

Come back to this blog for more discussion.