Ancient Troy: Bronze Age Trade, Power, and Collapse

Troy’s importance in the Bronze Age rested on the interaction of geography, exchange, and interstate politics. Its position near the Dardanelles gave it leverage over movement between the Aegean, Anatolia, and the Black Sea; its material record shows participation in long-distance trade; and Hittite texts place Wilusa within the political struggles of the Late Bronze Age (Morris, 2005; Beckman, 1999; Korfmann, 2003).

Taken together, these strands show that Troy was not simply the setting of later epic tradition. It was a settlement whose economic and political significance developed over time and whose destruction belongs within the wider collapse of the Late Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean (Cline, 2014; Beckman, Bryce and Cline, 2012).

Troy’s significance rested on three linked foundations:

• Geography: its position near the Dardanelles gave it leverage over movement between the Aegean, Anatolia, and the Black Sea (Korfmann, 2003).
• Exchange: archaeological finds show Troy’s participation in long-distance networks moving metals, prestige goods, and technologies across Eurasia (Bachhuber, 2009; Bobokhyan, 2009; Muhly, 1985).
• Politics: in the Late Bronze Age, Wilusa/Troy was drawn into Hittite–Ahhiyawan rivalry, helping explain why the city became central to later traditions of conflict (Beckman, Bryce, and Cline, 2012; Bryce, 2005).

The archaeological site of Troy lies at Hisarlik in modern Çanakkale Province, Turkey, a few kilometres from the present Aegean shoreline. Its importance in antiquity derived not simply from its local setting, but from its position near the Dardanelles, the narrow waterway linking the Aegean to the Sea of Marmara and, beyond that, to the Black Sea (Korfmann, 2003; Morris, 2005).

Because Bronze Age seafaring depended on winds, currents, and safe anchorages, settlements near chokepoints could influence maritime movement. Troy’s location therefore gave it leverage over traffic moving between the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean (Korfmann, 2003; Morris, 2005).

Controlling the Dardanelles: Troy's Maritime Chokepoint

In antiquity, the Dardanelles (the Hellespont) formed a key maritime bottleneck. A settlement nearby stood at the meeting point of routes linking the Aegean, Anatolia, and the Black Sea basin, placing Troy in a strong position to mediate exchange and movement (Korfmann, 2003; Morris, 2005).

Ancient ships often had to wait for favourable conditions before attempting the strait. A settlement near its southern approach could provide anchorage, services, and, potentially, impose controls on passing cargoes. This helps explain why Troy appears not as an isolated citadel, but as a settlement whose prosperity was tied to regional flows of metals, prestige goods, and people (Bobokhyan, 2009; Korfmann, 2003).

The Shifting Coastline

Today Troy appears inland above a broad plain, sitting roughly 5 kilometres (3 miles) from the Aegean coast. In the Bronze Age, however, the settlement stood closer to a sheltered bay that functioned as a harbour, giving the site a clearer maritime setting than the modern landscape suggests (Korfmann, 2003).

Over time, alluvial deposits from the Scamander (Karamenderes) and Simois (Dümrek Su) filled this bay, gradually converting the former harbour into the plain visible today. This long geological process helps explain both Troy’s earlier maritime role and the difficulty later travellers had in reconciling Homeric descriptions with the inland appearance of the ruins (Morris, 2005; Korfmann, 2003).

Standing on the mound at Hisarlik today, you look out over roughly 5 kilometres of flat, agricultural land to reach the Aegean. It takes quite a leap of imagination to mentally strip away all that silt and picture the Bronze Age shoreline sitting right at the foot of the ridge.

Troy was occupied for roughly four millennia, beginning in the Early Bronze Age around 3000 BC. This long sequence of rebuilding has made the site central to debates about urbanisation, regional exchange, and the relationship between archaeology and later literary tradition (Morris, 2005; Korfmann, 2003).

Early excavators such as Heinrich Schliemann and Wilhelm Dörpfeld focused mainly on the citadel, encouraging the view that Troy had been only a compact fortified hilltop. Later work, especially that led by Manfred Korfmann, identified a larger lower city and defensive features beyond the citadel. This revised picture suggests that Troy was a substantial urban centre rather than a minor outpost (Morris, 2005; Korfmann, 2003).

Troy’s early prosperity was tied to exchange. In the Early Bronze Age, especially during Troy II, the settlement expanded, strengthened its fortifications, and accumulated wealth. Treasure deposits, metal objects, and standardised balance weights point to production, trade, and the management of valuable goods on a significant scale (Bachhuber, 2009; Bobokhyan, 2009).

During Troy II, the citadel was enlarged and dominated by large megaron-style buildings, while a lower settlement developed beyond it. The extraordinary hoards discovered in this level led Schliemann to identify the site with Homeric Troy and to label one cache “Priam’s Treasure.” Modern chronology, however, shows that these finds belong to a much earlier period, more than a millennium before the traditional date of the Trojan War (Traill, 2000; Bachhuber, 2009).

Artefacts of Troy II: The Reality of "Priam's Treasure"

Although Schliemann presented “Priam’s Treasure” as a single royal hoard, scholarship now treats it more cautiously, noting that the finds were likely composite and that their archaeological contexts were compromised by nineteenth-century excavation methods (Traill, 2000; Bachhuber, 2009).

Even so, the assemblage remains important because it demonstrates the range and quality of materials circulating through early Troy:

Jewellery and adornment: diadems, earrings, bracelets, and thousands of small gold pieces indicate highly skilled metalworking and elite display (Traill, 2000).

Vessels and feasting equipment: gold, silver, electrum, and copper containers suggest ceremonial consumption as well as stored wealth (Bachhuber, 2009).

Prestige materials: stone hammer-axes and other exotic objects point to long-distance connections reaching far beyond north-western Anatolia (Muhly, 1985).

Taken together, these finds suggest that early Troy was not merely prosperous by local standards. It participated in long-distance networks through which metals, crafted goods, and prestige materials circulated between Anatolia, the Aegean, the Caucasus, and regions farther east. Materials such as lapis lazuli and amber are especially important because they imply connections extending well beyond the immediate eastern Mediterranean (Muhly, 1985; Singer, 2016).

The Black Sea formed an important extension of Troy’s maritime world. Rather than relying on formal port cities, Bronze Age exchange there seems to have moved through anchorages, river mouths, and coastal nodes that linked maritime traffic to inland resources and communities (Morris, 2005; Korfmann, 2003).

Selected Regional Connections

The Caucasus and eastern Black Sea (modern Georgia): Troy’s metalworking and prestige goods suggest ties to regions rich in gold, copper, and technical expertise. Scholarly comparisons have long connected some of the more distinctive ceremonial stone objects from Troy to Caucasian traditions, implying movement not only of raw materials but also of artisanship and ideas (Muhly, 1985).

The northern Black Sea and steppe: Contacts with the Pontic zone may help explain the movement of horses, hides, timber, and possibly amber. The increasing prominence of horses in later Trojan contexts has often been linked to wider northern exchange networks.

The western Black Sea and Danube corridor (modern Romania and Bulgaria): The Danube system provided a route by which materials from central and northern Europe could move southward. Ceramic links and later population movements suggest that Troy remained tied to this zone even after major destructions (Morris, 2005; Korfmann, 2003).

The northern Anatolian coast: Coastal links along the southern Black Sea connected Troy to Anatolian resource zones and safe anchorages farther east, reinforcing its role as part of a broader maritime corridor rather than an isolated endpoint (Morris, 2005; Korfmann, 2003).

Into the Iron Age

These routes did not vanish with the end of the Bronze Age. Later Greek communities in the Black Sea exploited many of the same anchorages and corridors, suggesting that Iron Age expansion built upon an older maritime geography in which Troy had already played an important intermediary role (Morris, 2005).

The destruction of Troy II around 2300 BC marked a major turning point. The monumental architecture and concentrated wealth of the earlier phase were not simply restored; instead, Troy III presents a denser, poorer, and more defensive settlement pattern, suggesting a period of contraction and insecurity (Blegen et al., 1950; Easton, 2002).

This contraction at Troy fits a broader pattern of disruption across western Anatolia and the Aegean near the end of the Early Bronze Age, a period often associated with climatic stress (probably related to the 4.2kyr BP event), migration, and systemic change. Troy survived, but for several centuries it seems to have functioned on a more modest scale before recovering in the Middle Bronze Age (Massa & Şahoğlu, 2015).

By the time of Troy IV and especially Troy V, conditions began to improve. Housing became less cramped, the settlement expanded again, and its material culture shows stronger integration with the Anatolian mainland. These centuries laid the foundations for the large-scale rebuilding and political prominence of Troy VI (Morris, 2005; Korfmann, 2003).

Troy VI marks the city’s clearest architectural and political high point. Its fortifications, expanded settlement area, and strategic location indicate a community with greater wealth and political weight. In Hittite texts, this later Troy is generally identified with Wilusa, a polity important enough to appear in the diplomatic record of the Late Bronze Age (Beckman, 1999; Bryce, 2005a).

The citadel of Troy VI was rebuilt with limestone fortification walls, battered faces, and designed gateways, while excavations around the mound indicate a larger lower settlement than earlier scholars assumed. Together, these features imply an urban centre whose population and defensive capacity exceeded that of a small hilltop fortress (Korfmann, 2003; Morris, 2005).

Other indicators also point to Troy VI’s wider reach. Horse remains become more common, suggesting participation in broader military and transport systems, while the circulation of Anatolian Grey Ware signals Troy’s integration into regional production and exchange networks. By the thirteenth century BC, this was a city positioned not only to profit from trade, but also to matter diplomatically (Allen, 1990; Tiboni, 2021).

By the later phases of Troy VI, Wilusa occupied a position between the Hittite Empire and the Mycenaean world. Its rulers were useful to the Hittites as local partners in north-western Anatolia, but the same geography made Wilusa vulnerable to rivalry across the Aegean (Beckman, 1999; Bryce, 2005a).

The clearest evidence for Wilusa’s status comes from the Alaksandu Treaty, drawn up between the Hittite king Muwatalli II and Alaksandu of Wilusa in the late thirteenth century BC. The text presents Wilusa as a Hittite vassal whose ruler received recognition and protection in return for loyalty, military support, and cooperation against unrest in western Anatolia (Beckman, 1999; Bryce, 2005a).

Recognition of rulership and succession: the Hittite king guarantees Alaksandu’s position and the legitimacy of his chosen heir.

Military obligations: Wilusa is expected to support Hittite campaigns and regional defence.

Political loyalty: the treaty requires reporting of anti-Hittite activity and forbids harbouring fugitives.

Religious sanction: local and imperial gods are invoked as witnesses, reflecting the sacred status of diplomatic agreements.

One notable feature of the treaty is its invocation of the god Apaliunas on behalf of Wilusa. Many scholars associate this name with an early Anatolian form of Apollo, a link often cited as one of the clearest points of contact between the historical world of Wilusa and later Greek tradition about Troy (Beckman, 1999; Latacz, 2004).

Archaeological evidence also hints at administrative complexity within late Bronze Age Troy. A bronze seal bearing Luwian hieroglyphs, discovered in a later Trojan level, has been interpreted as evidence for scribal and bureaucratic practices consistent with a politically organised centre (Tiboni, 2021).

The end of Troy VI appears to have been caused by an earthquake rather than by direct military assault. Structural damage in the archaeological record suggests that a seismic event, sometime after 1300 BC, brought down parts of the city’s architecture (Hough and Bilham, 2006; Korfmann, 2003).

The city was rebuilt quickly as Troy VIIa, but in a markedly different form. Houses were packed more tightly within the walls, large storage jars were sunk into floors, and the lower city’s defensive ditch remained important. These changes suggest a community increasingly concerned with food security, defence, and the possibility of siege (Blegen et al., 1958; Korfmann, 2003).

Hittite texts provide the main written evidence that Wilusa was involved in conflict with Ahhiyawa, generally identified with the Mycenaean Greek world. These documents do not describe Homer’s epic war, but they do show that Wilusa was part of a geopolitical struggle in western Anatolia (Beckman, Bryce and Cline, 2012; Bryce, 2005b).

The Tawagalawa Letter (written c. 1250 BC by the Hittite Great King Hattusili III) refers to a past disagreement over Wilusa that had been settled, while the Manapa-Tarhunta Letter associates the region with the activities of Piyamaradu, a disruptive warlord linked to anti-Hittite unrest. Taken together, these texts suggest that Wilusa was repeatedly drawn into wider contests for influence, including conflicts in which Ahhiyawan interests were involved (Beckman, Bryce and Cline, 2012; Bryce, 2005b).

Around 1180 BC, Troy VIIa was destroyed in circumstances that many archaeologists interpret as a hostile sack. The evidence includes unburied human remains, fire damage, Aegean-style arrowheads, and stockpiles of sling stones left unused near the defences (Cline, 2013; Blegen et al., 1958).

No single text proves that Mycenaeans destroyed Troy, but the convergence of archaeological destruction evidence and Hittite references to conflict over Wilusa makes that possibility historically plausible. At minimum, Troy’s end belongs within a wider landscape of warfare and instability affecting the eastern Mediterranean in the late thirteenth and early twelfth centuries BC (Cline, 2014; Beckman, Bryce, and Cline, 2012).

If Troy fell to a Mycenaean-led attack, the victors were in no position to consolidate their success for long. At roughly the same time, the palatial world of Mycenaean Greece was itself collapsing, with major centres such as Pylos, Mycenae, and Tiryns suffering destruction and the wider administrative system disintegrating (Dickinson, 2006; Cline, 2014).

The Hittite Empire was also breaking apart. Recent climate research has identified a severe multi-year drought in central Anatolia around 1198–1196 BC, while textual and archaeological evidence points to simultaneous military, political, and administrative breakdown. With Hatti collapsing, western Anatolian vassals such as Wilusa could no longer rely on imperial protection or reconstruction (Manning et al., 2023; Bryce, 2005a).

Troy’s destruction is best understood within the Late Bronze Age Collapse. The city depended on the same interconnected political and economic systems that made it valuable: maritime exchange, regional diplomacy, and competition between larger powers. When those systems came under pressure from war, disrupted trade, environmental stress, and administrative failure, Troy lost both the networks that enriched it and the states that might have protected or rebuilt it (Cline, 2014; Manning et al., 2023).

Troy therefore matters not because later tradition made it famous, but because the archaeological and textual record place it at the intersection of geography, exchange, and interstate politics. Its history shows how control of movement and access to networks could produce urban growth, diplomatic relevance, and vulnerability to wider systemic collapse.

The modern history of “Priam’s Treasure” is almost as contentious as its ancient interpretation. After Schliemann removed the finds from the Ottoman Empire, the collection passed through Berlin and, after the Second World War, into Soviet hands. The Soviet Union consistently denied having it. It was not until 1993, following the collapse of the USSR, that the Russian government officially admitted the gold was safely stored in the vaults of the Pushkin Museum. It finally went on public display in 1996. It is now held primarily in the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, while related Trojan artefacts and replicas remain divided among institutions in Germany and Turkey (Traill, 2000).

The Troy Museum (Troya Müzesi), Çanakkale (Turkey) was opened in 2018 just a few miles from the actual archaeological site of Hisarlik, this state-of-the-art museum houses many incredible artefacts excavated from Troy. The Turkish government has successfully repatriated several smaller Trojan gold pieces from museums in the US and UK to display here, and they maintain an active legal and diplomatic campaign demanding that Russia return the Schliemann hoard to its country of origin.

When visiting the Troya Müzesi, located just down the road from the site, you can get a close look at several repatriated Trojan gold pieces. Seeing the intricate metallurgy up close really drives home just how wealthy and advanced this Early Bronze Age society actually was.

The distribution of artefacts from Troy continues to shape debates about provenance, restitution, and the ownership of archaeological heritage.

Bachhuber, C. (2009) ‘The treasure deposits of Troy: rethinking crisis and agency on the Early Bronze Age citadel’, Anatolian Studies, 59, pp. 1–18.

Beckman, G. (1999) Hittite diplomatic texts. 2nd edn. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Beckman, G., Bryce, T. and Cline, E.H. (2012) The Ahhiyawa texts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Blegen, C.W., Caskey, J.L. and Rawson, M. (1950) Troy: general introduction, the first and second settlements. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Blegen, C.W., Boulter, C.G., Caskey, J.L. and Rawson, M. (1958) Troy: settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bobokhyan, A. (2009) ‘Trading implements in early Troy’, Anatolian Studies, 59, pp. 19–50.

Bryce, T. (2005a) The Kingdom of the Hittites. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryce, T. (2005b) The Trojans and their neighbours. London: Taylor & Francis.

Cline, E.H. (2013) The Trojan War: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cline, E.H. (2014) 1177 B.C.: the year civilization collapsed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dickinson, O. (2006) The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: continuity and change between the twelfth and eighth centuries BC. London: Routledge.

Easton, D.F. (2002) Schliemann’s excavations at Troia 1870–1873. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Hough, S.E. and Bilham, R.G. (2006) After the earth quakes: elastic rebound on an urban planet. New York: Oxford University Press.

Korfmann, M. (2003) ‘Troia im Lichte der neuen Forschungsergebnisse [Troy in the light of new research results]’, in Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit. Stuttgart: Theiss.

Latacz, J. (2004) Troy and Homer: towards a solution of an old mystery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morris, I.P. (2005) ‘Troy and Homer’, Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, November.

Muhly, J.D. (1985) ‘Sources of tin and the beginnings of bronze metallurgy’, American Journal of Archaeology, 89(2), pp. 275–291.

Singer, G.N.G. (2016) ‘Amber exchange in the Late Bronze Age Levant in cross-cultural perspective’, Aula Orientalis, 34(2), pp. 251–264.

Tiboni, F. (2021) The hippos of Troy. Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing.

Traill, D.A. (2000) ‘Priam’s Treasure’: clearly a composite, Anatolian Studies, 50, pp. 17–35.