|
Chapter III. The ceramics of the settlement layers at Troy. (p.243)
by Hubert Schmidt
A
systematic presentation of Troic pottery and its development was only
possible due to a complete reorganization of the Schliemann collection
and must therefore differ significantly from Schliemann's presentations
in Ilios and Troy.
If the author undertakes such a thing in the following chapter, he must
first refer to the preparatory work that P. Poppelreuter has done with
the help of A. Brückner in the Schliemann collection. He has set out
the main points of view in the Archaeology Gazette 1896 p. 105 ff.
Not
all individual "cities" defined by Schliemann should be recognized in
the pottery, but the remains of the II-V layers or settlements are
summarized as a total mass. The pottery of the first settlement layer
separates itself from this as well as that of the VI layer. and the
following layers upwards, and the differences in technology, form and
ornamentation are evident.
P. Poppelreuter put together the
basic groups according to their technique for the main mass of Troic
pottery, that of the II -V layers, and thus determined the course of
development. Since July 1896 it has been possible for the author, as
his successor, to be in direct contact with the entire inventory of the
Schliemann collection and to use the experience gained during the
excavations in 1894 for the further implementation of the
reorganization.
On the one hand, the development of the forms
and the ornamentation had to be treated systematically, on the other
hand, special emphasis was placed on the study of the ceramics of the
VIth layer settlement, the main body of which, originating from the
excavations in 1894, are in the Museum of Constantinople and have been arranged by the present author there, as far as possible, soon after this last campaign.
Depending
on their structural development, various cultural phenomena come into
consideration for the VIIth layer settlement, for the recognition and
appreciation of which the experiences of 1894 were also of decisive
value.
Since the Greek influence only became apparent later, but
a gradual development of ceramics from then on seems superfluous, and
their connection with the building history is also irrelevant, it is
advisable to summarize the remains of the VIII and IX layers as the
Greco-Roman epoch.
(p.244) As far as the bottom layer is concerned, one essentially has to stick to the material handed down by Schliemann.
Of
course, in the limited space of this book, we must refrain from
emphasizing all the details and instead refer to the catalog of the
Trojan antiquities, which the General Administration of the Royal
Museums in Berlin intends to publish. In the present work, only the
Trojan material is to be presented in a systematic order in such a way
that the course of development in the technique, in the forms and in
the ornamentation of the vessels becomes clear. What else the author
has to say about their connection with the ceramic products of other
regions, in particular about the further development of vessel
ornamentation, he must reserve for a separate work.
1. The ceramics of the Ist layer.
A
definitive description of the oldest pottery from Troy is currently
impossible given the incompleteness of the material handed down by
Schliemann and the frequent vagueness of the finds. In addition,
later excavations could only be carried out to an insufficient extent.
After all, the image that Schliemann draws in Ilios and Troja and subsequently also Schuchardt (Schliemann's Excavations)
of the ceramics of the lowest layer must be described as incorrect,
insofar as those vessels on the basis of which the knowledge of the
potter's wheel for the earliest times can be ruled out because of their
other technical and formal characteristics.
For instance, the fragments with incised fine wavy lines illustrated by Schliemann (Ilios.
p. 257 No. 53, 54) give us an indisputable right to such eliminations,
which belong to the best ceramic products of the VIth layer.
Also, the vessel (Ilios,
p. 244, No.23; Schuchardt, fig.14), which was very well turned on the
potters wheel, differs so much in clay, technique and design from all
fragments that definitely belong to the first settlement that it was
eliminated without hesitation. It belongs to a fairly developed stage
of Trojan pottery, to the vessels in fine, light-grey clay, which form
the precursor to pottery of the sixth layer.
As another example, The jug in Troja, p.
39 No. 5 (=Schuchardt, fig.17) seems to be much younger. It is very
awkwardly put together from many sherds and is therefore much too
irregular in shape in the illustration. Only parts of the stomach and
neck have proven to belong together; the remainder, including handle
and base, are from various other vessels. Of course, all these
fragments belong to one and the same ceramic group. However, in terms
of clay and technique, this represents a much later development which
(p.245) is far removed from the primitive technique of prehistoric
pottery, presumably an epoch which is close to the monochrome ceramics
of the Hellenistic and Roman epochs.
In addition to these two
vessels, already separated by Poppeheuter, there is a beaker of a
strange shape, turned on a wheel, with a wide, projecting foot and a
broad, board-shaped, perforated handle in Troja,
p. 41 No. 8. He also finds parallels in younger groups among the
vessels with wide horizontal fluting and grooves, which are both
handcrafted and turned with a wheel.
Precisely because the
examples mentioned can be classified in fixed, much younger groups of
Troic pottery, one cannot object to their exclusion. We must therefore
deny knowledge of the potter's wheel to the oldest inhabitants of the
hill of Hissarlik until new, undoubted finds should confirm it.
I. The technique
The
extremely numerous shell fragments form the guide in the labyrinth of
the material that has been handed down. They show that a rougher and a
finer level of technology can be distinguished from one another.
In
the rougher group, the clay is coarsely ground, but mostly shows the
traces of artificial processing, insofar as it is interspersed with
more or less coarsely crushed granite, gneiss or quartz; as a rule it
is of a gritty delicacy (cf. Landerer in Ilios,
p. 249). The clay itself is earth-colored, dark grey; various shades of
color, some of which are gray and some of which are brownish, are only
obtained through firing. But such gradations are rare in the rougher
group. The firing here took place consistently with an open flame and
is therefore irregular and incomplete, which has been confirmed by
Doulton's firing tests (Troy, p. 37).
Finally,
the surface coating comes into consideration for the technology. It
consists of a finely milled layer of clay which has been mechanically
smoothed with stones (cf. Ztschr. für Ethnol.
1879, p. 267. 272 Tf XVI, 7). The question of how the coloring of the
surface coating is caused is controversial. The usual shades of gray
are in various shades, lighter and darker; yellowish and brownish also
occur, although less frequently, without the vessel having a uniform
colour. The different coloring is probably not due to certain
artificial additives, but to the uneven effect of the fire in an open
flame, just as the clay itself can also acquire a different coloring as
a result.
Virchow assumed in Ilios (p.250) that the vessels were smoked throughout. Landerer (ibid.)
thought of coloring with pine black or carbon black; he wanted to
explain the different shades of color from the different oxidation of
the iron, which was caused by the different types of fire (cf. Trojan. Antiquities (p.246), introductory page XLIX, and Virchow, Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1882 p.51). Chr. Hostmann assumed a coating of melted spruce resin, which had been charred by the fire (Troy, p.38).
The
finer group of vessels is characterized by finely cooked clay, regular
firing and a uniform color tone on the surface. In addition to the
grey, yellow and brownish sherds, deep black sherds with a very fine
surface are noticeable; mechanical smoothing is always complete. This
also includes the beautifully shiny red vessels, of which the cup
in Ilios, p. 255, No. 51 is remarkable because of its shape.
Landerer assumed that it was dipped several times in a fine red clay
sludge with a lot of iron oxide before the second firing. Here, too,
the clay itself is originally gray, showing a reddish tint only at the
edges, perhaps as a result of soaking it in a clay slurry.
On
the whole, it is the essential characteristics of prehistoric pottery
that characterize the ceramic finds from the lowest layer. But
they reveal themselves to us at a stage of perfection that requires
long practice. The smoothing is sometimes much more perfect than
in the subsequent periods of Trojan pottery, the coating of a strength
and a luster like enamel, so that in many cases the traces of
mechanical processing have completely disappeared.
II. The Forms.
Due
to the lack of material, no adequate picture can be gained of the
wealth of forms of the oldest pottery from Troy. There are only a few
types that can be assigned with certainty to this period. First among
the forms is to be mentioned:
A. The bowl or dish.
According to the formation of the rim and handle, three types can be
distinguished: Type A: with a flat rim thickened on the inside
(fig.98). Type B: with a high, distinct edge that narrows towards the
inside (fig.99). Type C : with an undemarcated, more or less rounded
edge (figs.100, 101).
Figs.98-101: Bowl and dish forms of pottery from Layer I.
Type
A usually shows handle attachments of various shapes below the rim with
1 or 2 vertical perforations; in shape these may be hump-like,
ledge-like, or scroll-like, and must be distinguished from the single
or double tubular cord-eyelets of the following epoch. See figs.102,
103, 104; and Ilios p.245, No.25.
Figs.102-104: handle attachments of type A bowls from Layer I.
In
type B, the beginning of the handle is higher above the break in the
narrowing edge and appears as a horizontal, more or less long
thickening with a horizontal hole (fig.105). This tube can be
articulated by incisions or plastic ridges that wrap around the bulge
like a belt (cf. Ilios p. 247, No 37, 38, 41-39, 40, 42). However,
in type B the hump-like eye peculiar to the type A is by no means
excluded, as Ilios p.
245, No. 24 shows. In many cases, humps can be found right at the fold
of the edge without a hole as decorative remnants of the cord eyelet.
Fig.106 may give an idea of the form of the whole bowl.
 Fig.105 (left): Handle of type B bowl from Layer I. Fig.106 (right): Form of a type B bowl from Layer I.
There
is another form of handle for type A: the edge widens at one point and
is provided with a hole for the insertion of a finger, as shown in
fig.107 (cf. Ilios, p. 246, No.31). The rim extended in this way
sometimes takes on a forked shape and serves to accommodate ornamental
elements, among which the imitation of human eyes and nose stand out
(cf. Ilios, No 36; Troja p. 35-36, No 1-2= Schuchardt Nos. 23, 22).
As
far as the base or stand are concerned, the underside is mostly
irregularly flattened or concave. But there is also a low arched foot
as in Ilios p.247 No.37. Of the following types of feet, too, a
certain type seems to belong to the bowl.
B. High hollow feet.
Technically, numerous fragments of high cylindrical cavities that are
only slightly widened at the bottom (cf. Ilios
p.255 Nos.48,49) correspond to the shell. They are found with and
without perforations in the side walls (fig.108). It is noteworthy that
the underside of the hollow foot is completely covered and smoothed. In
contrast, the upper side, i.e. the inside of the associated vessels,
sometimes shows no trace of coating and mechanical smoothing. According
to this, one would have to assume 2 types of vessels for this hollow
foot: one on top narrowing and closing, and one with a wide opening,
those with a coating and smoothing on the inside, those without them.
One would be the bowl just discussed (fig.108), the other is presumed
to be of the following form.
C. In Ilios (p.251, No.440
a spherical miniature vessel with cord loops is assigned to the first
settlement. Schliemann erroneously added 3 feet to the vessel. But the
fractured surface on the base is circular, so it requires a foot that
runs all the way round. It was probably a cylinder-shaped base of the
type just treated (fig.109).
 Fig.107: Handle of type A bowl with finger hole. Fig.108: High hollow cylindrical base of bowl with perforations. Fig.109: Spherical vessel with presumed cylindrical base.
A
special feature of this type are the 4 diametrically attached cord
eyelets, which correspond to 4 holes on the edge of the vessel. In the
ceramics of the later epochs, the occurrence of four eyelets is a great
rarity. In a few cases they are ornamental, in that the corresponding
holes are missing altogether on the rim of the vessel, or only two are
prepared for use, the other two remaining without perforations of
ornamental significance. Lids with 4 cord holes are also rare. In
general, therefore, one can see a characteristic of older times in the
use of four cord loops.
(p.249) In
addition, with regard to the form of the vessel shown in fig.109,
nothing similar from a later period can be cited at all. With some
probability one can see in it a type of the oldest pottery from Troy.
The most common lid type of the oldest pottery also presupposes the
four number of cord loops. D. A slip lid is
present in several specimens, which belongs to vessels with straight,
short neck walls.The similarity of technique with the bowl fragments
speaks for these belonging to the same pottery. Defective
illustrations are given in Ilios (p.246 Nos. 26,27) At the top
edge of the cover plate there are 4 cord eyelets like small humps,
buttons or pegs which give the whole the appearance of a wall crown; in
the middle of the upper side there is a small decorative hump on
specimens that is not shown. Either all 4 of these approaches are now
pierced (fig.110), in which case the associated vessel must also have
had 4 cord loops; or only two of them have cord holes, the other two
remaining ornamental (fig.111), then accordingly, these lids must
belong to vessels with two cord eyes.
 . . Fig.110: Lid of vessel with four holes for cord loops. Fig.111: Lid of vessel with two cord holes and two ornamental loops. . . E.
Two cylinder-shaped neck fragments from jugs presuppose a peculiar lid
closure (figs.112,113; cf. Ilios p.251, No.43). In the first case,
located right on the edge, in the other immediately below (p.250) it,
there is a narrow strip, which is just long enough to accommodate four
vertical perforations next to each other, which are also used to tie
the lid.
 . . Figs.112-113: Jug rims from Layer I with cylindrical necks, containing narrow strips with perforations for lid closure.
.
F.
According to its technical features, a jug with a beveled rim is one of
the oldest ceramics; the handle is ribbon-shaped (fig.114). Only the
upper part survives.
G. With some probability, a simple,
handleless mug can also be added here; it appears in 2 variations: with
an expansive solid foot (fig.115) and with a hollow foot (fig.116).
H.
The shiny red cup in Ilios (p. 255. No 51) is of a different
shape, the technique of which is dealt with in more detail above
(fig.117). It has a hollow foot and narrow strap handles. Strangely
enough, a golden cup shows the same shape from the 4th shaft grave of
Mycenae.
. . Fig.114: Jug with beveled rim and ribbon-shaped handle. Fig.115: Mug with expansive solid foot Fig.116: Mug with hollow foot Fig.117: Cup with hollow foot and narrow strap handles These
forms, which are certain or can at least be attributed with some
probability to the oldest pottery from Troy, are contrasted with the
bowls with a high, expansive foot and a small, vertical bow handle (Troja
p.40, No 6,7 = Schuchardt No 16). The latter work incorrectly speaks of
a handle that is stretched in an arc over the whole vessel. These
bowls differ completely from the types listed above not only in shape,
but also in clay and technology. The surface coating does not consist
of clay cake, but of a thin mass of paint that is mechanically
smoothed. The many feet that Schliemann and Schuchardt refer to have
nothing to do with this type of bowl. In contrast to the examples of
foot types discussed above, the hollow sides are not completely covered
in the examples just cited from Troja, but only a narrow stripe is painted on and smoothed on the inner edge, the rest is left plain. It is probable that these bowls belong to a later period of Troy, a time when the use of a clear coat of paint was known.
[Continue to Chapter 3, part 2]
[Return to Table of Contents]
|
|