WINE-DRINKING in ancient Troy was not restricted to the upper classes, as has long been supposed — something our new research has established for the first time. Colleagues at the University of Tubingen and I have discovered that wine was also enjoyed by the common folk, independent of upper-class celebrations and religious rituals.

In the late 19th century, German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890) excavated the ancient city of Troy. He was hoping to discover the residence of Priam, the king of the city besieged by the Greek army under Agamemnon, as immortalised by Homer in the Iliad.

Among Schliemann’s most outstanding achievements was — alongside the identification of the site of Troy itself — undoubtedly the discovery of the so-called “treasure of Priam.”

The find included several hundred gold and silver objects. But during his excavations, Schliemann was captivated by a more humble item mentioned in the Iliad — the “depas amphikypellon” (two-handed drinking cup). He discovered numerous cylindrical, double-handled goblets thought to be the cup mentioned in the epic tale.

Schliemann believed the vessels had been used either for ritual wine offerings to the Olympian gods or, more likely, by the royal elite for drinking. The characteristic double handles, he suggested, allowed the vessels to be passed easily between participants seated next to each other.

Despite fierce opposition to many of his interpretations in contemporary archaeological research, Schliemann’s hypotheses on the drinking customs of the early Bronze Age elite have become an enduring narrative.

Further archaeological excavations at Troy (in modern Turkey) were led by the University of Tubingen between 1987 and 2012. Since then, my colleagues and I have been analysing the results, focusing on architectural findings and the vast array of artefacts uncovered.

Over time, scientific methods have played an increasingly important role, with a particular focus on the analysis of organic residues in vessels (ORA). This method has proven particularly valuable, as it provides insights into what the early Bronze Age inhabitants of Troy prepared in their cooking pots and enjoyed from their drinking vessels.

Excavations over the past 150 years have shown that use of the two-handed drinking cup spanned from Greece in the west to Mesopotamia in the east.

They were produced in various forms between BC2500 and 2000. Likely inspired by now-lost metal prototypes, except for one silver example in the British Museum, these ceramic vessels were often made on the potter’s wheel, a technological innovation introduced from the Near East during this period.

Many of the double-handled goblets have been found not only in settlements but also in graves. This is an indicator of their special significance in cult and ritual. Written sources also suggest that wine was regarded as particularly precious during this time, though these are generally from distant geographical regions. It has therefore been inferred that only the social elite, through their control of long-distance trade, had access to it.

For many inland and eastern Anatolian settlements, this may have been true. However, Troy, like many other sites in the Aegean and western Asia Minor, was located in a region particularly favourable for the cultivation of wine, which means it would have been more widely available.

So it’s hardly surprising that two-handed vessels have been found not only in Troy’s fortified citadel with its monumental buildings, but also in areas of the outer settlement. It led us to wonder — does this mean that farmers, craftsmen and others could also consume it on special occasions, or even in their daily lives?

To address this question, it was first necessary to prove scientifically that the goblets were actually used for drinking wine. Just because they might seem suitable for it doesn’t provide proof. To this end, two fragments from the collections of the Institute of Classical Archaeology in Tubingen were analysed for organic residues by Dr Maxime Rageot.

Two grams of ceramic material was drilled from the inner walls of the vessel, and the collected ceramic powder was then treated with solvents to extract lipid and resin compounds. After further chemical processing, these were heated to a maximum of 380°C and then analysed. Several aldaric acids were identified in both specimens. Namely, succinic, fumaric, pyruvic, malic and — in significant quantities — tartaric acids.

The latter can be interpreted as a grape marker, since such concentrations are not documented in other fruits available in the Mediterranean. The identification of succinic and pyruvic acids, commonly associated with fermentation markers, suggests the presence of wine (or vinegar) derived from ripe grapes.

So Schliemann was right: the depas amphikypellon was certainly used for wine consumption. Whether this was tied to religious practices, rituals and public banqueting, or simply drinking wine as part of everyday life, remains uncertain.

However, when it comes to who consumed it, our analysis results necessitate a correction of the conventional archaeological perspective. It seems that not only the elite enjoyed drinking wine — but also the common folk. For a counter-test, two simple cups, commonly found by the hundreds in early Bronze Age Troy, were also sampled. The results were striking: the exact same organic residues were identified in both specimens.

In archaeology, it is often the seemingly insignificant small finds that, when viewed in a broader context, have a profound impact. Based on organic residues — imperceptible to the naked eye and detectable only at a molecular level — the role of wine consumption in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC must be fundamentally reconsidered, at least in the case of Troy.

Here, wine was far from being reserved solely for the rich and powerful. The two-handed depas amphikypellon wasn’t a status symbol for the elite — it was a widely appreciated drinking vessel. Furthermore, for everyday drinking, it seems any type of vessel would do, with no particular one set aside for the task.

Whether and to what extent a shift in perspective can be expected at other sites of the Aegean and Anatolian early Bronze Age can, of course, only be definitively answered through comparable biomolecular analyses. After all, as in so many cases, it wouldn’t be surprising if Troy turned out to be the exception that challenges the norm.

Stephan Blum is a research associate at the Institute for Prehistory and Early History and Medieval Archaeology, University of Tubingen.
This article is republished from TheConversation.com under a Creative Commons licence.

Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/252953/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important" referrerpolicy="no-referrer-when-downgrade" /><!-- End of code.