1

Troy: New Perspectives on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage in Turkey Symposium at the Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam, 20-23 March 2013

Knock down the walls to let the horse come in: conflicting imaginations, archaeology and reconstruction at Troy

Peter Jablonka

Introduction: a woman, a horse, and many stories As an archaeological site Troy is inconspicuous and hard to understand, to say the least. It actually resembles an abandoned stone quarry more than anything else, or did so at the onset of new excavations 25 years ago.

The paradox about Troy archaeologists need to be aware of is that they are the only ones who perceive it primarily as an archaeological site. For everybody else, both visitors to the site and the general public around the world, it figures as the scene of the Trojan War. If there is anything iconic about Troy, it is this archetypal story, a story about love and war, “Us” and the “Other”, Greeks and Trojans. This story has been retold for millennia, in every conceivable genre and media from Greek epic to computer game. And it has been used for many purposes, as teaching material in schools from ancient Greece to modern higher education; as a means to construct identities and national histories; as moral example; to support different ideologies, to boast tourism; or help to increase Hollywood’s income. If a text can be iconic, this one certainly is.

However, two iconic Trojan images immediately come to our minds, both emphasizing a connection between site and legend: a woman and a horse. First, the portrait of Sophia Ergastromenos-Schliemann dressed with Early Bronze Age jewellery found by her husband Heinrich in Early Bronze Age layers and termed “Priam’s Treasure”. No doubt this is meant to be Helen of Troy, “the face that launched a thousand ships”(Marlowe, 1981, Scene 13). And of course the horse keeps looming over the site; millennia after the Greeks made the Trojans believe they had lifted the siege, so that they would knock down their walls to bring the horse left as a gift by the enemy, and the warriors hiding inside, into the city – if this ever happened (Easton, 2010 for more on the Trojan horse).

These two images will always overshadow any supposedly “real” archaeology or history of Troy because of what they stand for is overwhelming: the woman, love; the horse, violence; libido and aggression –driving forces, and, just as much, permanent threats to any society (Freud, 1930 [1962]).

Fig. 1 An iconic text: Manuscript of the Iliad, ca. 2.-3 century AD, Papyrus Berlin P. 7502

(http://smb.museum/berlpap/index.php/02241/).

2

Fig. 2 „The face that launched a thousand ships“ (Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus, Scene 13). Sophia Schliemann-Ergastromenos posing as Helen of Troy, wearing Early Bronze Age jewellery, found and dubbed „Priam’s Treasure“ by her husband Heinrich Schliemann (Photograph by W. A. Mansell, 1 January 1877 (information from Gettyimages), this version from (Schuchhardt, 1891)).

Fig. 3 Trojan Horses on the promenade in Çanakkale, Turkey. Foreground: Small copy of the horse shown at the archaeological site of Troy (like so many others based on a painting by Henry Paul Motte (1846-1922). Background: Horse used in the film Troy (2004, directed by Wolfgang Petersen) and given to the city by Brad Pitt (Peter Jablonka).

Archaeological reconstruction: beyond architecture and staffage For better or worse, archaeology and Greek epic tradition remain inseparably joined. After all, Troy is not the only site that has been excavated to reveal the truth behind the legend (Muhly, 2010). A similar example of a strong and intricate link between archaeology and an iconic text is perhaps the archaeology of the land of the Bible. Nevertheless, present-day archaeologists at Troy try hard to steer clear of any trouble caused by a war led for the most beautiful woman in the world. They do so by invoking academic specialisation and pleading incompetent as far as the legendary part of the story goes. Of course this attempt has not always been successful. One cannot escape fate – one of the lessons taught by the Iliad and the Odyssey.

But let us take the claim that archaeology is a scholarly and scientific endeavour disconnected from other aspects of the site of Troy at face value, and look at this rather different, very sober story, the archaeologists’ own narrative. By definition, archaeology studies past human behaviour with the help of material traces it has left. It has long been recognized by archaeological theory that this material record of human behaviour is fragmentary, or “filtered”: Not all human behaviour will leave a material record behind; much of what was left behind has been destroyed; only a fraction of what remains can be excavated or studied by other methods; only part of what is studied will be documented; and not all that has been documented will be published. Therefore, while not all reconstructions are archaeological, obviously, all archaeology is, to a certain extent, reconstruction.

Nevertheless, acceptance of reconstructions in general, and digital 3D-visualisations in particular, in archaeology is poor. Dotted lines bridging gaps on plans is usually as far as it goes. There are several reasons for this.

In the archaeological discourse “reconstruction” has taken on a variety of meanings, in between a mere visualisation of architecture with some added furniture,landscaping and staffage figures, and

3

the theoretically much more difficult ultimate goal of archaeology: reconstruction of ancient societies as a whole.

For example, in pottery studies, fragments / sherds are frequently assigned to shapes of whole vessels, which can be done by classification, involving reconstruction of the fragment just in the mind of the expert, reconstructed drawing by hand or computer, or reconstruction by conservation and restoration of the actual object. In studies of the environment, evidence like cores from drilling holes or plant and animal remains is used to reconstruct palaeolandscapes and past land use. At the next level, such reconstructions are in turn used for interpretations of the archaeological record and reconstruct past society in terms of agricultural and economic system, carrying capacity of the land, and demography. To test hypotheses, past behaviour or society can also be modelled or “reconstructed” by means of a simulation, which is more likely a set of mathematical equations than a visualisation. The most famous application of this methods is the expansion of the Neolithic into Europe (cf. Bocquet-Appel, Naji, Vander Linden, & Kozlowski, 2012). Technically, computer applications from Geographic Information Systems to Agent-based-modelling can be involved.

Only in a much more narrow sense, the term “reconstruction” is used for visualisations of the restored appearance of a site, or part of it. This has always been part of archaeological methodology with classical buildings where complete reconstructions from a few remaining stones are possible because of standardized styles (“Anastylosis”). The reconstruction is often done by architects working with archaeologists (an example from Troy: Riorden, 2007). Often the division of labour remains unclear. There is a tendency to assign all tasks concerned with graphics, illustration, anything visual, including reconstruction, or even museum exhibits to artists, designers, recently 3D-modelling experts. If the artist gets it wrong, archaeologists cannot be blamed. A clear policy clarifying who is responsible for which part of the work should be called for.

Architects usually go one step further and use the process of reconstruction as a research tool, including properties like volume, area, amount of materials and labour needed,or static properties of materials. The Early Bronze Age citadel and a palisade of Troy II have been analysed in this way (Hueber, 2004; Schirmer, 1971). The aim is usually a definite solution; functionally possible alternative reconstructions, for example gabled roofs for the Troy II Megaron buildings (Smith, 1942) are rarely discussed. It is also established practice now to rebuild parts of a site in reality, on-site or off-site, as a method of experimental archaeology. This has been done with a stretch of the city walls at Hattusa, the Hittite capital (Seeher, 2007). The purpose was both to gain a deeper insight into Hittite architecture, and to present the result to visitors.

Several reconstructions of the main periods of Troy have been done by artists: Lloyd K. Townsend (Siebler, 1994, end-paper), Peter Conolly (Connolly, 1986), and Christoph Haußner (Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg et al., 2001, Figs. 26, 66, 372, 377, 388, 464-465; Haußner & Raidt, 2000). The artists sought advice from archaeologists to include the latest research, but sometimes show scenes from the Iliad set against an archaeologically correct Late Bronze Age background, thus placing the epic within a material “reality”. Compared to these lively artist’s reconstructions, 3D-computer models (Brandau, Schickert, & Jablonka, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Jablonka, 2002, 2004; Kirchner & Jablonka, 2001) done in a collaboration of archaeologists with an IT company look rather sober, if not cold. Detail had to be omitted because the system designed for an exhibition should facilitate real-time movement. For exhibitions, wooden reconstruction models have also been built (Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg et al., 2001, figs. 77, 349).

4

Fig. 4 Architectural reconstructions of the citadel of Troy to and Megaron type buildings (top left: Dörpfeld, 1902; right: Schirmer, 1971; bottom left: Smith, 1942).

Fig. 5 Artists' reconstructions of Troy VI (top left: Lloyd K. Townsend; bottom left: Christoph Haußner; right: Peter Conolly). Note settlement outside citadel on Haußner's reconstruction; and Peter Conolly's archaeology

with and without added scene from the Ilias.

5

In all reconstructions, details of the citadel walls of Late Bronze Age Troy resemble the Hittite city walls of Hattusa because both are based on the same Hittite terracotta model of a wall and tower (Seeher, 2007). Reconstructed buildings inside the citadel sometimes invoke images of Arthur Evans’ reconstructions of Knossos. Besides, new attempts at reconstructions also rely heavily on earlier examples. New reconstructions of Troy VI leave the centre largely as it was, but add the newly discovered settlement around the citadel. The main difference is not the technique or technology used to do a reconstruction – it is content.

It has been criticised that archaeological reconstructions are often, and to a large extent, hypothetical. In the case of Troy this criticism targeted areas outside the Bronze Age citadel, of which only a small fraction has been excavated. But, because the archaeological record will always be fragmentary and incomplete, we can never be sure about any interpretation or reconstruction. On the other hand, one can be perfectly sure that even an ill-preserved, partially excavated settlement was definitely not a largely empty space dotted with a few ruined buildings. Therefore one can and should boldly go on and present complete reconstructions, as long as the difference between extant remains and hypotheses is made clear. We will never know for sure how the past looked like, but we can always suggest how it possibly could have. By being overtly timid, and regretting that we still don’t know enough after decades or even centuries of research, archaeology runs the danger of making itself redundant. Clearly, documentation should clarify where the work incorporates arguments based on actual evidence, plausibility (static properties, function, ...), or analogy (better preserved evidence elsewhere, pictorial or textual sources, ethnographic or historic examples, earlier reconstructions ...), and hypothetical elements.

Fig. 6 Computer reconstructions of Troy VI. Top left: free reconstruction, complete; bottom left: only buildings with complete ground plan known from excavations reconstructed; right: defensive ditch and gate, excavated

rock cuttings and schematic reconstruction; images provided by the author).

These considerations apply to all kinds of reconstructions, regardless if they are done as a drawing, computer model, scaled-down or original size replica. However, 3-D computer representations are certainly the most versatile method. They can be used for a large number of applications in research

6

and presentation. Products for different audiences, purposes and media can be derived using the same data.

In any case, reconstructions are very powerful visual statements. In everyday life, we encounter similar visualisations of things that might or might not actually exist in different contexts. Scientific visualisations are expected to be true images of real, but hidden objects, based on actual data, for example CT or MRI scans of the inner organs of the body (Hence the misleading title "how it really looked like" given by the publisher to Brandau et al., 2004c). In architecture or product design, objects are shown before they are built or produced, as they are supposed to look like in the future. On the other hand, in films or computer games animations are meant to create the illusion that these products of fantasy are real. The medium conveys conflicting messages: we know that visualisations can be either representations of some aspect of reality, or delusions.1

Within archaeology, reconstructions assume a double role depending on the audience. For archaeologists, they can serve as a tool or aid in research and interpretation. In presentations for the wider public, reconstructions have much in common with a visit to the actual site – but enhanced with an element of virtual time-space travel. Still, a reconstruction on its own remains purely descriptive and self-referential, like a journey to a foreign country without any experiences apart from sightseeing. To create a lasting impression, a much richer narrative must be added. In the case of Troy this is how the legends come back into the play. When visitors encounter the Trojan horse at the entrance to the site, archaeology is reduced to a mere background for a much more interesting story, inevitably presenting the Trojan War as “real” as the archaeology.

This may partly explain the emotional and fierce criticism reconstructions can provoke, especially digital, or “virtual” reconstruction. Computer images using photo-realistic lighting and texture are perceived as objects with strong materiality, negatively, as deception, an illusion of a reality that never existed. No wonder many archaeologists are reluctant to make such statements. However, in an age of visual communication one should rather learn to master visualisation techniques than avoiding them.

History as reconstructed past: simply to show how it "really" was Of course the archaeology of a particular site is always just a material correlate of society and its history. History itself is a reconstruction combining different narratives taken from ancient sources as well as modern academic conventions at a spot where they supposedly overlap in time and space. Just like in archaeology, “simply to show how it really was” in a positivistic fashion is impossible (Carr, 1961 against von Ranke's "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist"). This can explain why Homer and the Trojan War paradoxically still figure in all accounts of Greek or Anatolian history, even if the authors strongly reject that the Greek epic tradition has any value as a historical source.

The ancient Greeks did not make a clear distinction between myth and history. But while maintaining that the Trojan War did actually happen in their distant past, they were well aware that the stories told about it needed critical reading. In the introduction to his history of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides gives an account of Greek prehistory, or “archaeology”(Thucydides, 1.1-1.19). The Trojan War is stripped of all mythological and legendary elements, there is no interference of the gods, the abduction (“rape”) of Helen is not considered as a possible cause of war, and the events are reduced to an example of Realpolitik, a game of power and economy. Thucydides even uses archaeology in the modern sense material evidence to support his argument.

Modern attempts to reconstruct early Greek and Anatolian history by combining archaeology, ancient textual sources, and the epic tradition in one narrative still resemble Thucydides’ approach. According to one scenario, which has been both acclaimed and criticised (Latacz, 2004; Starke, 1997), Troy was the capital of the Hittite vassal state Wilusa. Conflicts between this kingdom and Mycenaean groups during the period of unrest at the end of the second millennium BC are not

1 Aptly, a market-leading 3D-visualisation software is named “Maya”. In Indian philosophy “Maya” stands for the concept that the outside world created by our sensory perception is mere illusion.

7

unlikely. A faint remembrance of such conflicts could have formed the core of the story of the Trojan War. Narratives like this can be viewed as textual reconstructions of fragmentary sources.

Another type of narrative combining different lines of evidence may be termed Geoarchaeomythology: Places and events from the epic are put on archaeological site plans (Dörpfeld, 1902, pp. 601-632), and on maps of the ancient or even modern topography. This line of argument goes back to Hestiaia of Alexandria Troas, who rejected claims by the inhabitants of Hellenistic Ilion that their city was also Homer’s Troy (Strabo, 13.1.36). Remarkably scientific, she argued that the plain of the Scamander consisted of recent alluvium. During the time of the Trojan War the area had still been flooded a bay of the Aegean leaving no room for a battlefield. Nevertheless, since antiquity many locations from the epic, including the grave mounds of the heroes, have been pinned down on the landscape (Luce, 1998). Contradicting Hestiaia, geologists have placed the Greek camp and other places from the Iliad on palaeogeographic maps of the area during the Late Bronze Age (Kraft, Rapp, Kayan, & Luce, 2003). Even more, both Plato’s Atlantis and Homer’s Trojan War have been put on the same palaeographic map, and projects have been suggested to find scientific proof for this daring hypothesis (Zangger, 1992). Troy has even been located in regions anywhere from Cambridge (England) (Wilkens, 2012) to Cilicia (southeast Turkey) (Schrott, 2008). By eclectic or selective use of evidence and sources it is possible to construct a convincing-looking "scientific proof" for almost anything. It can therefore be very difficult to refute too far-reaching claims.

On the other hand, the fact that there are roadside signposts giving directions does not provide definite proof that any particular phase of the archaeological site of Hisarlık actually is „Homeric“ Troy. Heinrich Schliemann may well have found nothing underneath the ruins of Hellenistic and Roman Ilion. But since his days, the remains of a large and strongly fortified settlement have been unearthed. This means that the case remains open. We still have to consider if and how the events told in the Iliad mirror history. The answer strongly depends on an interpretation of Greek epic traditions. Unambiguous evidence of events that took place on the stage that archaeology can provide is still lacking.

Archaeology and history of Troy are therefore facing the same dilemma. To tell the story without any reference to the Iliad seems impossible. However, as soon as the legends are discussed, they assume a status similar to other sources. In the design of an educational website, it has been attempted to keep different threads – archaeological evidence, reconstructions, historical background, legends – separate (http://www.cerhas.uc.edu/troy/ ; Riorden, 2005). Perhaps such distinctions will be blurred once again in the experience of readers/users.

Reconstructions of a myth: art as transmedia storytelling The diversion of elements of a story across multiple delivery channels (websites, movies, books, games, even theme parks) has been termed „transmedia storytelling“ (Jenkins, 2006, pp. 99-130). But this is exactly how the legends of Troy have been told and retold for millennia, in every conceivable media: epic, theatre play, opera, painting, sculpture, novel, movie, computer game, comic (Latacz, Greub, Blome, & Wieczorek, 2008). This clearly shows that the media or technologies used are not of primary importance – a good story can be carried across all genres. Since the Iliad focuses on just a few weeks of a ten years war, the greater part of the story has to be reconstructed from other sources. There never was a single, complete, authoritative, and canonical version of Trojan legends. Beginning with the Hellenistic period or earlier, during Peisistratos’ reign in Athens, a canonical version of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey (but not of the epic circle) developed. This of course never included all the other parts of the story not covered by these two epics, the countless variants, and the usage made of the legends to serve many purposes. The archaeology of Troy, including reconstructions of the site, is only one more , rather recent, and certainly not the most important aspect of what constitutes, as a whole, the most successful story of all times.

In visual media, from Greek vase painting to Renaissance art, the story is usually set in a period context with some added heroic or fantastic elements. In medieval manuscript illustrations of the

8

Trojan legends, for instance, we will see knights in their typical armour fighting in front of a walled town of their own time. Only later this will change into an antiquarian past. For the “Achilleion”, the Habsburg Empress Elisabeth’s mansion on the island of Korfu, Franz Matsch (1861-1942) painted “Achilles triumphant”. In this painting, weapons are apparently taken from the Greek Archaic period, whereas Achilles’ chariot is based on models from Pharaonic Egypt. The architecture of Troy in the background seems to be influenced by Schliemann’s excavations in Troy and Mycenae. The Minoan column from the relief at the Lion Gate at Mycenae is used for palace entrances, but at the citadel gate column and lions are replaced by a swastika. In the latest movie versions of the legends, Troy still has Late Bronze Age, Minoan-Mycenaean architectural elements. For his graphic novel “Age of Troy” (Shanower, 2001-2009), the author even visited the excavations at Troy and did extensive research to create a “realistic” setting.

Thus another strong, suggestive link has been established between Late Bronze Age archaeology and modern versions of the Trojan legends spread by popular culture. Once again, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate fact and fiction.

Fig. 7 Top: A view of Troy from the graphic novel Age of Bronze (Eric Shanower); bottom: Franz Matsch, Achilles triumphant, mural in the Achilleion, Korfu

(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_"Triumph_of_Achilles"_fresco,_in_Corfu_Achilleion.jpg).

Lethal reconstructions: Trojan identity building and re-enactment of the epic From ancient Greece to modern higher education, Homer and the Trojan War have been a subject of higher education. However, if we read the Iliad today, what strikes us most are its graphic descriptions of extreme violence, men against men, women, even children. The heroes follow a moral code of conduct that reminds us more of Genghis Khan ethics than of noble chivalry: "The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, to rob them of their

9

wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters."2

Yet “values” like these had to be conveyed to elite young males (all others were oppressed rather than educated) as long as their leaders would send them to war. Only recently what used to be accepted behaviour has turned into a social problem when we are facing gangs of violent young men in our streets. One way to act out such violent drives, not limited by any repressive constraints society imposes, and still without harming others in real life, seem to be interactive computer games. Of course opinions are divided if it is healthy to escape from reality to live the life of an aggressor in cyberspace, but the fact that such games are popular shows that they supply a need: “... as Lacan put it, the truth has the structure of a fiction: what appears in the guise of dreaming, or even daydreaming, is sometimes the truth on whose repression social reality itself is founded” (Žižek, 2006). Perhaps not surprisingly, “Warriors – Legends of Troy” (http://www.troy-game.com/) is a typical example. To make it look “authentic”, the game designers researched the archaeology of the Late Bronze Age and included features from the Aegean landscape around Troy (IGN Staff, 2009).

Encouraging individual identification with heroic values is one way to exploit the epic tradition politically. The other way is fostering group coherence by identification with one side in the war, Greeks or Trojans. The epic tradition with its stories about a fight for a common cause, its connection of gods, heroes and men, its maze of genealogies linking real with mythological places, persons , and events, formed the core of ancient Greek ethnogenesis. One can have doubts whether a common Greek identity would have developed without Homer, just as a Jewish identity could hardly be maintained without the Old Testament (Assmann, 1999, pp. 272-280).

Identification with the other side, the Trojans, started with the first Roman Emperor Augustus, who traced the mythical ancestry of his family, the gens Julia, back to Julus (Ascanius), who had fled to Italy from Troy with his father Aeneas. Following the Roman example, many later gentes like the Franks, and aristocratic families, assumed Trojan lineages.

Renaissance scholars noted that the Ottoman Empire had formed in Bithynia, in the vicinity of the Troy. They also claimed that Teucri (Trojans) and Turci (Turks) were the same name. Maybe the Turks had even conquered Constantinople and Greece to take revenge for the Trojan War (Meserve, 2008, pp. 22-64). This identification is maintained by Turks to the present day as an integral part of republican Turkish Anatolism (Kranz, 1998), but also imposed on them by others, especially in times of war. During the battle of Gallipoli (1916) allied forces, well aware that they fought close to Troy, styled themselves as Greeks: „Stand in the trench, Achilles, / Flame-capped, and shout for me“ (Patrick H. Shaw-Stewart; quoted after Wood, 2005, pp. 44-45). It was especially important to create at least an illusion of a heroic past for the many ANZAC soldiers from Australia and New Zealand, countries devoid of any history of their own to be proud of (Midford, 2010).3

Today, more peaceful ways of re-enacting the epic prevail in Turkey. Mustafa Erdoğan’s dance show musical “Troy – an Anatolian Legend / Fire of Anatolia” does not hesitate to make Homer’s epic part of Anatolian folklore (cf. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/troy-opens-season-with-fire-of-anatolia.aspx?pageID=238&nID=46481&NewsCatID=384). On the slope of Mount Ida (Kaz Dağı), the judgement of Paris takes place every year as a beauty contest (cf. http://www.canakkaleili.com/ida-guzellik-yarismasi.html). And after a history of wars, the city of Canakkale at the Dardanelles has become a self-proclaimed “city of peace“ (cf. http://www.canakkale.bel.tr/bp.asp?caid=273).

And towards the end of the Turkish War of Independence, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk supposedly said after the decisive victory at Dumlupınar (1922): “Hector, I have avenged you” (according to Sabahattin Eyüboğlu: Aslan & Atabay, 2012, p. 159).

2 Arnold Schwarzenegger says something similar in the movie Conan the Barbarian (1982). However, the famous quote, often cited without source, ultimately goes back to Abraham d’Ohsson’s translation of a passage from Rashid-al-Din Hamadani‘s (1247–1318) Jami' al-tawarikh (d'Ohsson 1852, p. 104). 3 It might have been a coincidence that one British battleship at Gallipoli was named „Hector“, for, from the 17th century to World War II, at least 11 ships of the Royal navy bore this name (internet search).

10

When it comes to educational and political uses of the legends of Troy, it is no longer the question if epic tales are based on actual historical events. Fact and fiction seem reversed. Real life is reconstructed according to a moral code of conduct, identities, even re-enactment of events taken from the Iliad. And if epic wars and cruelty form a threat to society, they can be acted out in role-play or virtual life.

Fig. 8 Reconstruction of the epic in real life: Re-enactment of the Judgement of Paris at Ayazma, on the slopes of Kaz Dağı (Mount Ida), 2003 (http://www.canakkaleili.com/ida-guzellik-yarismasi.html).

Conclusion: reconstructions embedded into narratives While Troy is certainly an extreme case, it can serve to highlight what is less obvious elsewhere, and easily forgotten in our age dominated by visual media: One needs to illustrate something. And this will always remain a story. Every painting has at least a title; and even movies or computer games are still based on texts, screenplay scenarios, a storyline. Any reconstruction has to be part of a narrative.

To be successful, archaeological reconstructions must be embedded into the archaeologists‘ own narrative of methods and practices. This will include presentation only at the very end of the story, as an illustration of the interpretation of a site. Before that, reconstructions in a more general meaning are part of the research process, and will be accepted if they can serve as a useful tool to aid this process.

Cultural heritage in general, and an archaeological site in particular is “auratic” (Benjamin, 1939 [1972]): unique, authentic, remote. These properties make cultural heritage a valuable resource several competitors will want to exploit (archaeology, other academic fields, tourism, entertainment, politics). Under the conditions of developed capitalism narratives serve to make otherwise interchangeable products unique – what sells is the aura (brand), not the product. All interested parties will therefore compete to profit from the aura of a site by attaching their own narratives to it. They will all make use of “reconstructions” of events to claim that their own narrative is the one and only true story: there is no longer one grand narrative, only competing small narratives (Lyotard, 1984). In the presentation and interpretation of an archaeological site, archaeological reconstructions will have to compete with other narratives.

11

If this is neglected and archaeological reconstructions are created out of any narrative context, as real or virtual objects or visualisations, the models will end up collecting dust in a dark corner, or they will be used by others to support their own narratives. It will only be possible to keep them alive and convey a message through them by embedding them in a story, using techniques like unique characters and a storyline ("digital storytelling"). This can be as simple as an archaeologist telling about his work and interpreting the site. It can also be based on events or characters taken from history, or even fantasy.

By far the strongest narrative attached to Troy is the Iliad – not archaeology. Any attempts to reconstruct the story of the site without it will fail, no matter if the Trojan War ever was an event of actual history or not. The horse and the woman will always come back. This is because the story is both archetypical and unique. While there are perhaps no more than three basic plots (Foster-Harris, 1960), it is the quality of a particular realisation that counts, and an established link of characters with well-known names to a specific location in space and time.

Bibliography Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg, Troia-Projekt des Instituts für Ur- und

Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters der Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Braunschweigisches Landesmuseum Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum Kunstmuseum des Landes Niedersachsen Braunschweig, Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH Bonn, & Generaldirektion der Denkmäler und Museen des Kulturministeriums der Republik Türkei (Eds.). (2001). Troia - Traum und Wirklichkeit. Begleitband zur Ausstellung (1 ed.). Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss.

Aslan, Rüstem, & Atabay, Mithat. (2012). Atatürk in Troy. In Jorrit Kelder, Günay Uslu & Ömer Faruk Şerifoğlu (Eds.), Troy. City, Homer, Turkey (pp. 155-159). Amsterdam: W Books.

Assmann, Jan. (1999). Das kulturelle Gedächtnis (2 ed.). München: C. H. Beck. Benjamin, Walter. (1939 [1972]). Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit

Gesammelte Schriften (Vol. 1, pp. 471-508). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Bocquet-Appel, Jean-Pierre, Naji, Stephan, Vander Linden, Marc, & Kozlowski, Janusz. (2012).

Understanding the rates of expansion of the farming system in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(2), 531-546. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2011.10.010

Brandau, Brigitte, Schickert, Hartmut, & Jablonka, Peter. (2004a). La misteriosa storia di Troia. Rom: Newton & Compton.

Brandau, Brigitte, Schickert, Hartmut, & Jablonka, Peter. (2004b). Resimlerle Troya. Ankara: Arkadaş. Brandau, Brigitte, Schickert, Hartmut, & Jablonka, Peter. (2004c). Troia wie es wirklich aussah.

München: Piper. Carr, Edward Hallett. (1961). What is history? The George Macaulay Trevelyan lectures delivered at

the University of Cambridge January-March 1961. London: Macmillan. Connolly, Peter. (1986). The Legends of Odysseus. Oxford - New York: Oxford University Press. d'Ohsson , Abraham Constantin Mouradgea. (1852). Histoire des Mongols, depuis Tchinguiz-Khan

jusqu'à Timour Bey ou Tamerlan (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: Frederik Muller. Dörpfeld, Wilhelm. (1902). Troia und Ilion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und

historischen Schichten von Ilion 1870-1894 (Vol. 1-2). Athen (Osnabrück): Beck & Barth (Otto Zeller).

Easton, Donald F. (2010). The wooden horse: some possible Bronze Age origins. In Itamar Singer (Ed.), Ipamati Kistamati Pari Tumatimis. Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins, on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (pp. 50-63). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Foster-Harris, William. (1960). The Basic Formulas of Fiction. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Freud, Sigmund. (1930 [1962]). Civilization and its discontents (James Strachey, Trans.). New York: Norton.

Haußner, Christoph, & Raidt, Matthias. (2000). Rüya und der Traum von Troia. Hamm: Roseni.

12

Hueber, Friedmund. (2004). Eine bronzezeitliche Stadtmauer von Troia (Rekonstruktionsversuch einer zinnenbekrönten Palisade mit Schwergewichtsmauer). In Taner Korkut (Ed.), Anadolu'da Doğdu. 60. Yaşında Fahri Işık'a Armağan (Festschrift für Fahri Işık zum 60. Geburtstag) (pp. 359-368). Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

IGN Staff. (2009). Warriors: Legends of Troy Developer Interview. The Trojans and Greeks clash in a battle that will shake the earth. IGN. http://uk.ign.com/articles/2009/09/29/warriors-legends-of-troy-developer-interview

Jablonka, Peter. (2002). TroiaVR: Ein Virtual Reality-Modell von Troia und der Troas. In Gesellschaft Wiener Stadtarchäologie (Ed.), Workshop 6 Archäologie und Computer. Wien.

Jablonka, Peter. (2004). Reconstructing sites and archives: information and presentation systems at Troy. In Magistrat der Stadt Wien - Referat Kulturelles Erbe - Stadtarchäologie Wien (Ed.), Enter the Past. The E-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of the 31st CAA (Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology) conference, Vienna, Austria, April 2003. (pp. 281-285). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.

Kirchner, Steffen, & Jablonka, Peter. (2001). Virtual archaeology: VR based knowledge management and -marketing in archaeology. First results - nexts steps. In David Arnold, Alan Chalmers & Dieter Fellner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 conference on Virtual reality, archeology, and cultural heritage, Glyfada, Greece (pp. 235-240). New York: ACM Press.

Kraft, John C., Rapp, George, Kayan, İlhan, & Luce, John V. (2003). Harbor areas at ancient Troy: Sedimentology and geomorphology complement Homer's Iliad. Geology, 31/2, 163-166.

Kranz, Barbara. (1998). Das Antikenbild der modernen Türkei. Würzburg. Latacz, Joachim. (2004). Troy and Homer. Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Latacz, Joachim, Greub, Thierry, Blome, Peter, & Wieczorek, Alfried (Eds.). (2008). Homer. Der

Mythos von Troia in Dichtung und Kunst. Katalog Ausstellung Antikenmuseum Basel, Art Centre Basel und Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen Mannheim. München: Hirmer.

Luce, John V. (1998). Celebrating Homer's Landscapes: Troy and Ithaca Revisited. New Haven -- London: Yale University Press.

Lyotard, Jean-François. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Joff Bennington & Brian Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Marlowe, Christopher. (1981). Doctor Faustus. In Fredson Thayer Bowers (Ed.), The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe (2 ed., Vol. 2, pp. 121-272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meserve, Margaret. (2008). Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Midford, Sarah. (2010). From Achilles to Anzac: Heroism in the Dardanelles from antiquity to the Great War. Australasian Society for Classical Studies Proceedings, (31). classics.uwa.edu.au/ascs31

Muhly, James D. (2010). History of Research. In Eric H. Cline (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC) (pp. 3-10). New York: Oxford University Press.

Riorden, Elizabeth. (2005). Troy on the internet. Anthropology News, 46(5), 24. Riorden, Elizabeth. (2007). The Odeion of Ilion: a Proposed Reconstruction and Some Implications.

Studia Troica, 17, 47-55. Schirmer, Wulf. (1971). Überlegungen zu einigen Baufragen der Schichten I und II in Troja. Istanbuler

Mitteilungen, 21, 1-43. Schrott, Raoul. (2008). Homers Heimat. Der Kampf um Troia und seine realen Hintergründe.

München: Hanser. Schuchhardt, Carl. (1891). Schliemanns Ausgrabungen in Troja, Tiryns, Mykenä, Orchomenos, Ithaka

im Lichte der heutigen Wissenschaft (2 ed.). Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Seeher, Jürgen. (2007). Hattusa Kerpic Kent Suru. Bir Rekonstrüksiyon Çalışması / A Mudbrick City

Wall at Hattusa. Diary of a Reconstruction / Die Lehmziegel-Stadtmauer von Hattusa. Bericht über eine Rekonstruktion. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

13

Shanower, Eric. (2001-2009). Age of Bronze San Diego, CA: Hungry Tiger Press. Siebler, Michael. (1994). Troia. Geschichte -- Grabungen -- Kontroversen. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Smith, E. Baldwin. (1942). The megaron and its roof. American Journal of Archaeology, 46, 99-118. Starke, Frank. (1997). Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2.

Jahrtausend. Studia Troica, 7, 447-488. Strabo. Geography Perseus Digital Library: Tufts University. Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War Perseus Digital Library: Tufts University. Wilkens, Iman Jacob. (2012). Where Troy once Stood (2 ed.). Amsterdam: Gopher. Wood, Michael. (2005). In Search of the Trojan War. London: BBC Books. Zangger, Eberhard. (1992). The Flood from Heaven – Deciphering the Atlantis Legend. London:

Sidgwick & Jackson. Žižek, Slavoj. (2006). Freud lives!: dreaming. London Review of Books, 28(10), 32.