The problem of Kalifat and Kumkale

Two small villages, Kalifat and Kumkale appear in the plain of Troy on old maps. 

There should be no villages in a flood plain, because they will be wiped out by flooding.  

Yet these two villages lasted in the plain at least a hundred years, from the 1840s to the 1950s, after which they were moved onto the prominences overlooking their old locations.  

I suspect that those two villages could endure in the plain only because they were on high ground.  

This is clearly the case with old Kumkale.  It sat on the northern end of what Walter Leaf thought was the Throsmos, or swelling of the plain, mentioned by Homer.  The location is marked on Leaf's map below, just northwest of Troia.

Below is a map from Heinrich Schliemann.  It places Kum-Kioi where Leaf puts the throsmos.  Nearby is the Burial mound of Illus.

Below is a photo looking northwest over the top of Troia, toward the mound Leaf had in mind.  The mound is visibly rising at the top of the frame, where a canal goes around it.  Nearer to Troy a road climbs the mound from right to left.  

Below is a more recent view to the northwest from Troia.  Again, the rise Leaf was talking about is visible where the canal goes around it on the right and the road climbs the mound in the center. Out beyond the canal is the new village of Kumkale. 

Below is another view to the northwest.  The rising land below the "corbis" watermark in this photo is pretty dramatic.  At the top of the photo you can see the canal going around the end of the mound. 

Below is yet another pic looking northwest across the excavated area at Hissarlik. The new village of Kumkale is clearly visible on the prominence beyond the canal which is curving around the obvious mound on which it formerly sat. A road climbs the mound from right to left.  

Below is another map from Heinrich Schliemann.  It places Kum-keui near two other place names, Ilus and Polion.  It's as if there were three distinct villages there.  

There can be little doubt that the villages in that area were on top of a mound.  The layout and curvature of the roads on Schliemann's map make the huge mound in front of Hisarlik very distinct. 

The original location of Kalafat is harder to discern.  It sat near the pointed, southern end of the great mound in front of Hissarlik. As long as it was on that mound, it would have had some height above the floor of the valley.  Schliemann's map above places it at the meeting place of two roads. The map below places "Kalifatlee" in a similar location.  

The map below seems to agree on the location of old Kalafat. 

The map from Thomas Spratt below also puts Kalifatli on the edge of the winter channel of the Scamander. 

Finally, on the map below we have Eski (old) Kalafat Koy (village) Yeri (location) marked right next to the Scamander.  This map places the original location of the village in what Spratt called the winter channel in which the Mendere/Scamander runs today.  

I think it is easy to say why Kumkale survived in the plain (it was on a mound) but I cannot say why Kalafat survived in the plain, because it does not appear to have been on the mound.  It appears to have been either in the winter channel or right next to it.  

If Kalafat was not on a mound, then how did it survive floods? 

Below is a modern satellite photo with the approximate locations of the old villages marked.

The two villages used to sit at opposite ends of the great mound in front of Hissarlik.  Whether Kalafat was actually on the mound is questionable.  Perhaps part of it was.  Somehow Kalafat survived floods for over a century or more.  If it was not saved from flood destruction year after year by being on a hill, then perhaps the mounds around it protected it.  In other words, perhaps the ancient flood control works in the plain protected the old location of the village.  

How the Trojans Diverted Kamer Creek

After my recent speculations about the diversion of the Scamander, I went searching with Google Earth for a place at which the Trojans might have diverted Kamer Creek to form Lake Judan. I did not expect to find anything, but it turns out there is an anomaly right next to the creek at the crucial point along the creek where it needs to turn to form the lake.    

A yellow line encircles a long, straight berm-like anomaly.   It tapers into the rocky prominence on the left.  Kamer creek passes along its right edge.  

In the photo below, Kamer Creek is diverted into the berm-like anomaly, and then around the rocky prominence.  

Light blue dashes indicate the rest of the current course of Kamer Creek.  

In the diagram above, the yellow lines represent dams.  Blue dots are reservoirs.   A lake at the area of the dot on the right would get the creek to flow around the prominence on the left of the dam, and then to run down to the plain in the direction of Judan Lake, which is the dot on the far left.  

So, the Trojans could have diverted Kamer Creek with a berm and a dam spanning two prominences.  

In the diagram above, light blue lines represent dams.  Blue dots represent probable reservoirs.  Dark blue lines represent diverted water ways. Blue circles represent known marshes, and possible reservoirs. Yellow circles mark the citadel and the greater city in the plain of Troy.  

Below is a map from Heinrich Schliemann.  It uses the name Old Scamander twice on the eastern edge of the plain.  Once where the Kalifatli Asmak reaches the sea, and another time near the top of the plain, where he seems to be only labeling the eastern most fork of the drainage from lake Judan.  

If the Trojans diverted Kamer Creek to form lake Judan and then to flow past the eastern side of the city in the plain, and under Hissarlik, it would explain the deep bed that Schliemann appealed to when he argued that the Scamander used to run in front of Hissarlik.  He argued for that on the basis of the very deep bed at those points along the Asmak.  

So, my theory seems to explain two things.  It explains how the beach at Besik Bay was created by diverting the Scamander into the Pinarbasi Su.  It also explains the deep beds that Schliemann saw.  Those could have been made by Kamer Creek.  

It seems unlikely that the Scamander could have been diverted to both sides of the plain.  It is unlikely, in other words, that the Scamander both made the beach at Besik Bay and made the deep beds described by Schliemann.  What seems most likely is that the Trojans found another water source after they had diverted and controlled the Scamander.  If they diverted and controlled Kamer Creek, their work must have lasted long enough to create the deep beds at the top of the plain that Schliemann described.  

2024 UPDATE: I no longer think this scenario is plausible.  See my article on Frank Calvert and Judan Lake for an explanation.  I do think there is an anomaly on Kemer Creek.  But I don't think they could divert the water to the north west from there.  

How the Trojans Diverted the Scamander River

What I am about to discuss is purely speculative.  I cannot prove it.   But I can argue for it.  If there are so far no theories out there as to how the Trojans diverted the Scamander river, at least there is one now.

"Where the winter stream of the Bunarbashi-Su joins the Mendere, there are some immense blocks of irregular shape; they may have formed part of the wall of a small fortress" (Dr Peter Forschhammer, Topography of the Plain of Troy, p 39).  

Forschhammer, who visited the plain of Troy in 1844, tells us that he saw large blocks in the area he calls the winter channel of the Burnarbashi Su, which is a place in front of Pinarbasi where the western most rivulet in the plain can discharge eastward into the bed of the main river in the center of the plain.  That western rivulet is today known as the Pinarbasi Su.  

In the map above by Thomas Spratt, the Winter Channel of the Bounarbashi Su appears between the T and the R in Troy. That position is just a little down stream from the large eastward loop that goes around the top most anomaly pictured below. 

In the above photo, there are two raised earth anomalies across from one another, with a canal and road between them. Forschhammer saw the blocks in the area near the left edge of the lower most anomaly.   

Forschhammer suggests the blocks could be the remains of a small fortress, but that fort would have been in the middle of a flood plain, and would not have survived for long.  I think it is more likely that what Forschhammer saw were remains from a dam.  I suspect that what we are looking at in the above photo is 3000 years worth of mud covering two parts of a failed dam.  The dam is under 5-7 meters of alluvium.  Imagine a two story deep carpet covering the bronze age surfaces and structures.  

Zangger tells us that determining the age of the canal cut into the bedrock at Besik Bay "has never been seriously attempted, although Schliemann argued plausibly that the canal must have been very ancient, because it had accumulated a beach at its mouth in Besik Bay, 1 1/2 square miles in size, and it could not have done so in just a few centuries" (The Flood From Heaven, 1992, 145). In addition, the alluvium in Besik Bay does not come from the springs at Pinarbasi, it comes from the Scamander river, which runs in the center of the plain.  

It follows that the Trojans must have diverted the Scamander out of the plain and into the artificial channel at Besik Bay.  That is the only way the beach at Besik Bay could have been formed. 

How did they do it? 

If there was a dam below Pinarbasi, it would have created a reservoir behind it.  If that reservoir was allowed to flow off to the western side of the plain, it would have put the river water into the pre-existing channel of the Pinarbasi Su, running down the western side of the plain.  

So, I propose that the redirection (or partial redirection) of the Scamander/Mendere was achieved by damming the river, and letting its reservoir flow off in a new direction.  

In the diagram above, the yellow arrow points to an area where the reservoir of the Mendere flows off into the channel of the Pinarbasi Su.  The light blue line represents the dam.  The yellow circles mark the citadel and the greater city of Troy. Blue dots represent reservoirs. 

So, how did the Trojans divert the Scamander river?  They dammed it to form a reservoir which they allowed to flow out into the Pinarbasi Su.  Some or all of this water then made its way to Besik Bay, at the bottom of this photo, via the channel cut into the bedrock that is still there today.  

The dam must have lasted for a long time to have created such a large beach at Besik Bay.  If it was built during the era of Troy II and lasted until around the time of Troy VI or VII, it would have had perhaps1400 years to build up the beach (2600 -1200 bce).  

2025 UPDATE: I have changed my mind about the diversion of the Kimar Su/Kemer Creek.  

6 more Anomalies in the Plain of Troy

I have listed the Top 10 anomalies in the plain, by which I meant the most obvious and important ones.  On this page I will list some of the less obvious anomalies in the plain.  

1 The canal cut into the bedrock at Besik Bay 

I mentioned this in my entry on Pliny the Elder.  Today there is a canal leading from the springs at Pinarbasi all the way to the Hellespont.  But it was not always like that.  At Besik Bay, there is a cut into the bedrock that for a long time diverted some or all of the spring water running in the Pinarbasi Su out of the plain and down a slope toward Besik Bay.  In the 1840s enough spring water was being diverted to run mills in Besik Bay, as shown on old maps from the time.  

I have seen no confident statements about the age of the cut there.  It might be ancient, medieval or modern.  

According to Zangger, recent excavators concluded that the beach at Besik Bay was made up of alluvium from the Scamander/Karamendere, not from the Pinarbasi Su.  This suggests that ancient people diverted the Scamander into Besik Bay because it has built up a significant beach.  

In the above image there are two canals marked in blue on the left.  The short one at Kesik Tepe is the Kesik Cut and the long one to the south of that is the canal at Besik Bay. It starts just behind the baseball field shaped marsh in front of Yenikoy.  

2 Dents west of Kalafat 

I have not discussed these yet.  There are a couple of oddities west of Kalafat that deserve to be mentioned.  I thought for a while that the river did it.  But I just don't see how a river does that.  Nor how flood waters and deposition create those shapes.  I have no deep theory about them, but I will point out that they lie between the marsh and the declivity on the west side of Kalafat.  If the marsh drained toward the center of the plain, it could drain down one of those anomalies toward the reservoir above the city.  So perhaps they functioned as a conduit for water.  

In the photo below I have marked the dents and two nearby mounds in yellow. Two other oddities are marked in orange.  West of the dents are some oddly segmented farm fields.  In the marsh west of that is a structure discussed in earlier posts.  This shot is intended merely to provide a little context for the dents.  They sit among other anomalies.  If the marsh drained toward the center of the plain, it could have drained through those segmented fields and created the large dished out area of the dents.

3 The rise in front of Lisgar Marsh 

I have not discussed this one previously. That area seems unnatural to me. It seems to be an elongated mound that curves down in front.  I don't know if there is anything under there, but one of the Spratt maps indicates that there was at one time a notably deep channel there. 

The map below clearly labels an Artificial Cut through the coastline, then to the right of the cut, Lisgar Marsh and Bushes, and then to the right of that, a Deep Bed 

In the photo below, there are two satellite pictures joined at the left. One of them is much lighter colored than the other one.  That is the way Google is right now on this location.  An arrow points to the approximate location of the Deep Bed on Spratt's map. I have partly encircled the anomaly that bothers me.  The area to the east of the Deep Bed seems raised, like an elongated mound.  

Is that mound natural?  I have no idea.  Perhaps some Lidar or other tests could be run to discover the extent of human interventions in this part of the plain.  

4 The rises below Pinarbasi 

I talked about one of these in an earlier post.   Pinarbasi is a village SSW of Kalifat and Troy. There are springs there.  

My feelings have gone back and forth on the first of these.  Is it natural or not?  I am still thinking not. 

Whatever it is, it is not farmed.  Why aren't the farmers making money off of that land?  The second rise is more complex and lies just east of the first one.  

Below are the two rises together in the plain. 

Both rises seem unnatural to me.  I cannot think of anything that might have been far from the city up in the plain like this except villages or water works.  Villages would have been destroyed by flooding.  So, I am thinking there might be water control structures underground here.  As explained below, I believe the two mounds might represent two parts of a former dam.  

5 Judan Lake 

I discussed this in an earlier post. My sense is that if there was a lake in the plain, it was probably man made.  It might have been created by diverting a stream into the plain, and damning it there to create a reservoir for the city.  The lake is circled on the map from Thomas Spratt below.  

Below is a picture of the area.  There actually seems to be a spillway there.  Perhaps there was a dam or weir here that formed the lake.  

The arrow below points to a possible source for the lake water.   Take a look on Google satellite view.  

6 The shapes at the top of the valley 

I discussed this in an earlier post.  I have no good ideas on this other than to say they are very odd, and perhaps they were part of a project to divert the stream into the valley to form Judan Lake.  They might also serve to keep the Scamander/Mendere from inundating the top of the eastern part of the plain,  

Below is an interpretation of what we have seen above.  Two yellow circles represent the citadel and the greater city of Troy.  I am thinking that the two rises below Pinarbasi might be the remnants of a dam, indicated with a light blue line.  The yellow arrow points to the place where the reservoir formed by the Scamander can flow into the Pinarbasi Su, and then out of the plain to Besik Bay.  Above Lake Judan is a stream diverted to fill the lake.  This is Kemere Creek, which meets the Scamander/Mendere just after it enters the plain.  A blue dashed line indicates its course today.  

Something like this would at least explain the alluvium from the Scamander found in Besik Bay.  There are no other anomalies in the plain that would explain how the Trojans diverted the Scamander.  The hills in front of Pinarbasi are the only possible signs of it.  

It occurs to me that a dam in front of Pinarbasi would obviate the need for flood control works lower down in the plain, such as the great berm and its surrounding mounds. There are several ways to go here.  First off, it is not necessarily the case that the dam would preclude the need for the other flood control works.  Secondly, the age of things must be taken into account.  Perhaps the great berm and its associated structures date back to Troy II, and the dam only goes back as far as Troy V.  Perhaps the dam was needed after the lower structures proved tragically inadequate.  Perhaps the dam is the older construction and the berm was built after it failed.  Who knows?  None of us.  We need science to take an interest in this.  

What seems certain is that the plain knew two major water problems, that of having too little water in late summer, and that of having too much water in winter and spring.  The reservoirs help both problems.  They control and capture excess water when it is present, and then provide extra water when the streams are low in summer.  

2024 UPDATE: I have placed Judan Lake in the wrong position on the satellite photos. 

I have also explained the lake: it was a swamp created by a fallen bridge that blocked the outflow of three springs. After Frank Calvert removed the bridge, the lake drained away.  

I believe that the area I marked looks a lot like a spillway.  But that is not where Judan Lake used to sit.  It was further up the plain, near Akshi Koi. 

Top Ten Anomalies in the Plain of Troy

It has been a year since I spotted the mound in front of Hisarlik.  Since then I have identified several other anomalies.  There are both raised earth anomalies and lowered earth anomalies (declivities)  in the plain. 

The most important raised earth anomalies are: 

1 The mile-wide mound in front of Hisarlik.  

2 The 3000 foot berm southwest of Kalifat.

3, 4 The two mounds across the river from one another west of Kalifat

5 The unexplained structure in the marsh southwest of Kalifat 

As for the lowered earth anomalies (all of which are discussed here), starting with the most obvious:

6 The 500 meter long, 20 meter deep cut through the Aegean coastal cliffs

7 The declivity west of Kalifat

8 The marsh WNW of Hisarlik

9 The declivity between the two mounds southwest of Kalifat 

10 The marsh southwest of Kalifat that has a structure in it

Why this blog is not archaeology

I would say that my blog is definitely not an archaeology blog.  An archaeologist would speak and write in ways I do not. An archaeologist is someone who can pick up a bit of bone or a pot shard and tell you things about it. I can't do that.  I would say that I am not an amateur archaeologist at all. That phrase implies a person who engages in archaeology with some regularity, and I do not do that.  I don't read much about archaeology.  I  occasionally look at archaeology videos.  I certainly do not make remarks about bits of bone or pottery.  I don't discuss strata.  I am not sure I could define "dig".  

I would deny the proposition that we are all scientists some of the time.  Many are drawn to a philosophy of science with that implication.  I would say any philosophy of science with that implication has been discredited by reductio ad absurdam, which enforces the principle that propositions with absurd implications are absurd. 

This blog was accused on Daily Kos of engaging in pseudo-archaeology.  The rest of this entry is a rebuttal of that irresponsible charge. 

This blog exists because on 12/4 of last year I spotted some irregularities in the plain of Troy. Spotting those irregularities in a picture online cannot be archeology.  And if it is, it certainly is not pseudo-archeology.  

I am aware of the term Space Archaeology and used it in the article at Daily Kos.  However, I would deny that I was engaging in archaeology in any sense of the word on the night of 12/4/20.  

Suppose a child looking out a window sees an animal unexpectedly and calls out what is seen, saying "there's a squirrel". Is the child doing biology? Zoology? Ecology?  No. Why not?  Well, I would say that the child is not engaged in the scientific method in any meaningful sense. Mere observation is not science even if observation is some sort of step in some uses of, say, the hypothetico-dedctive method.  Suppose you tell me that your shoe weighs exactly 1 kilogram.  Have you taught me some physics?  

Now when a 59 year old goes to google satellite view to look at the area around Kalifat after having looked at an old map of the area, and unexpectedly finds mounds and declivities, and calls out the mounds and declivities, this too is not science.  It is more complicated than identifying a squirrel, but not by all that much.  It requires no specialized knowledge.  

Understanding that the mounds and declivities might be important requires some knowledge (not much) about tells and the history of finding tells.  But spotting them does not.  

Since spotting the tell and its supporting structures I have speculated on this blog about what it all might mean.  I suggested that the mounds south of the city might be flood control works. I speculated about a city in the plain and the possibility that it was destroyed by floods instead of Greeks.  I don't think those are precisely archeological speculations.  

I have two arguments for the thesis that there is probably a city buried in the plain of Troy. They are based on two different premises.  One is that humans do not build anything as big as the mound in front of Hisarlik (a mile wide) except cities.  That premise is factual and the fact it names is not from the provenance of archeology.  It is just a general fact about human history.  The second premise is that the mounds SW of Kalifat could be flood control works. Flood control works argue for something being protected from floods, and that something would be a city.  This second premise is also outside the provenance of archeology. It belongs to hydrology or geography or city planning or history as much as it belongs to archeology.  

It requires no specialized knowledge to understand that a flood plain has lots of floods and that a city in a flood plain will be subject to flooding.  It also requires no specialized knowledge to understand that flood control is about safety, namely, the safety of humans.  Flooding and flood plains are not the provenance of archeology, but of hydrology or geography.     

So, I don't think I have made a fully scientific observation, nor an archaeological argument on this blog.  At least not when it comes to the plain of Troy.  

I did make two entries about two possible settlement mounds in the Troad after spotting them.  I also have an entry about the structure in the marsh SW of Troy.  I think those are all covered by the child-sees-squirrel argument above, although I am only saying they might be settlement mounds, not that they are nor even that they probably are.  

I have also written about Atlantis and the Trojan War, the history of the search for Troy, the placement of Kalifat on old maps, and medieval and ancient sources on the city of Troy. That stuff belongs to history, literature, cartography and geography. 

Archaeology is not hydrology.  Archaeology is not history.  Archaeology is not geography.  It might use any of these at any time, but it is independent of them.  It is also independent of literature, of course, though again, it might call on literature now and then.  

Now suppose some theorist wants to deny the starting point of these reflections.  Doing so would require our theorist to maintain the thesis that a child looking out a window and calling out a squirrel is in fact doing biology. He or she will soon discover what an absurd point of view this is.  For suppose that after exclaiming about the squirrel, the child then exclaims "there's a house!"  What science are they now engaged in?  Archaeology?  Ecology?  Real Estate Studies?  And "there's a car!" means the child has taken up cultural studies or mechanical engineering or economics or all of the above or what?  By this reasoning, the 59 year-old looking at a picture on google satellite view is doing archeology as long as he calls out an unnatural looking mound in the ground, but not if he calls out a tree.  I think that is an absurd epistemology, but my point has yet to be made.  If that is all it takes to do archaeology, then, that is what it takes to do actual archaeology, not pseudo-archaeology.  After all, those who insist on this ridiculous epistemology will agree that the child pointing out a squirrel is not doing pseudo-biology.  He or she is doing the real thing.   

So, this blog is not archaeology given a sane epistemological outlook.  But even on the basis of the absurdly generous epistemology which grants that everyone is doing science daily, and all of us are rational agents, etc., I say, even on that morally corrupted epistemology, this blog would have to be based on actual archaeology, not pseudo-archaeology.  If there is a worthwhile argument ending in the conclusion that this blog has engaged in pseudo-archaeology, its premises do not include granting full scientific status to trifling observations.  

So, what about the thesis that there is a city buried in the plain of Troy?  If that is not a thesis in archaeology, then what is it a thesis in? 

Well, first, let's admit that the thesis that there was a greater city in the plain at Troy is historical.  Eberhard Zangger has been arguing for that thesis for a couple of decades.  His premises are mostly historical and textual.  None of his premises include the visual evidence my case is based on.  

The main thing that makes 'there is a city buried in the plain of Troy' sound archaeological is the word 'buried'.  But the difference between buried and not-buried is learned in childhood and is not specialized knowledge.  So, adding that word to the historical thesis does not make archaeology.  

The historical thesis that there was a city in the plain according to legend, and my thesis that there is a city buried in the plain also differ in their tenses.  One is past tense, one is present tense.  Could being stated in the present tense turn an historical thesis into an archaeological one?   Note well that if the historical thesis is true, then you would expect my thesis to be true.  That is, if there was a city in the plain, then one would expect that there is (what remains of) one there still.  So, the 'was' to 'is' transition is justifiable historically, but that just means my thesis is defendable on historical grounds, and does not need archaeological support to get off the ground.  It would be better defended with some support aside from legends.  Zangger appeals to a stratigraphy study done in the 1970s which found artifacts in the plain.  I appeal to all of Zangger's premises and to the photographic evidence on this blog. It is not just that there was a city in the plain, there still is one there to be excavated.  

The thesis that the mound in front of Hisarlik probably contains a buried city is a very strong one, but it is not really a thesis in archaeology any more than it is a thesis in history or geography.  

My critic resorts to categorical deductions: "Anyone who points and says there is a city buried there is making an archaeological claim.  You have done and said that, therefore, you really are making an archaeological claim."  I assume there is a city there on the basis of observation and inference, yes. It is up to archeologists and other scientists to determine precisely what is in the large mound.  If you will read what I said above, you will see that you seem to be wrong with your categorical remark about spotting tells.  It's not really science.  If it is, then you need to give a reason why it is.  So, I merely deny the first premise of this criticism, and confidently doubt that anyone can ever give a cogent reason for it. 

Archaeology, What Is This?

 

My second Youtube video is up.  Check it out.  Share it with friends.