PLATE I.

T R O Y
AND ITS REMAINS;

A NARRATIVE OF RESEARCHES AND DISCOVERIES
MADE ON THE SITE OF ILIUM,
AND IN THE TROJAN PLAIN.
BY DR. HENRY SCHLIEMANN.
Translated with the Author’s Sanction.
EDITED
BY PHILIP SMITH, B.A.,
AUTHOR OF THE ‘HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD,’ AND OF THE
‘STUDENT’S ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE EAST.’
WITH MAP, PLANS, VIEWS, AND CUTS,
REPRESENTING 500 OBJECTS OF ANTIQUITY DISCOVERED ON THE SITE.
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
NEW YORK:
SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG.
1875.

PREFACE BY THE EDITOR.

DR. SCHLIEMANN’S original narrative of his wonderful discoveries on the spot marked as the site of Homer’s Ilium by an unbroken tradition, from the earliest historic age of Greece, has a permanent value and interest which can scarcely be affected by the final verdict of criticism on the result of his discoveries. If he has indeed found the fire-scathed ruins of the city whose fate inspired the immortal first-fruits of Greek poetry, and brought to light many thousands of objects illustrating the race, language, and religion of her inhabitants, their wealth and civilization, their instruments and appliances for peaceful life and war; and if, in digging out these remains, he has supplied the missing link, long testified by tradition as well as poetry, between the famous Greeks of history and their kindred in the East; no words can describe the interest which must ever belong to the first birth of such a contribution to the history of the world. Or should we, on the other hand, in the face of all that has been revealed on the very spot of which the Greeks themselves believed that Homer sang, lean to the scepticism of the scholar who still says:—“I know as yet of one Ilion only, that is, the Ilion as sung by Homer, which is not likely to be found in the trenches of Hissarlik, but rather among the Muses who dwell on Olympus;” even so a new interest of historic and antiquarian curiosity would be excited by “the splendid ruins,” as the same high authority rightly calls those “which Dr. Schliemann has brought to light at Hissarlik.” For what, in that case, were the four cities, whose successive layers of ruins, still marked by the fires that have passed over them in turn, are piled to the height of fifty feet above the old summit of the hill? If not even one of them is Troy, what is the story, so like that of Troy, which belongs to them?

“Trojæ renascens alite lugubri
Fortuna tristi clade iterabitur.”

What is the light that is struggling to break forth from the varied mass of evidence, and the half-deciphered inscriptions, that are still exercising the ingenuity of the most able enquirers? Whatever may be the true and final answer to these questions—and we have had to put on record a signal proof that the most sanguine investigators will be content with no answer short of the truth[1]—the vivid narrative written by the discoverer on the spot can never lose that charm which Renan has so happily described as “la charme des origines.”

The Editor may be permitted to add, what the Author might not say, that the work derives another charm from the spirit that prompted the labours which it records. It is the work of an enthusiast in a cause which, in our “practical” age, needs all the zeal of its remaining devotees, the cause of learning for its own sake. But, in this case, enthusiasm has gone hand in hand with the practical spirit in its best form. Dr. Schliemann judged rightly in prefixing to his first work the simple unaffected record of that discipline in adversity and self-reliance, amidst which he at once educated himself and obtained the means of gratifying his ardent desire to throw new light on the highest problems of antiquity, at his own expense. His readers ought to know that, besides other large contributions to the cause of learning, the cost of his excavations at Hissarlik alone has amounted to 10,000l.; and this is in no sense the speculative investment of an explorer, for he has expressed the firm resolution to give away his collection, and not to sell it.

Under this sense of the high and lasting value of Dr. Schliemann’s work, the present translation has been undertaken, with the object of laying the narrative before English readers in a form considerably improved upon the original. For this object the Editor can safely say, on behalf of the Publisher and himself, that no pains and cost have been spared; and Dr. Schliemann has contributed new materials of great value.

The original work[2] was published, at the beginning of this year, as an octavo volume, accompanied by a large quarto “Atlas” of 217 photographic plates, containing a Map, Plans, and Views of the Plain of Troy, the Hill of Hissarlik, and the excavations, with representations of upwards of 4000 objects selected from the 100,000 and more brought to light by Dr. Schliemann, which were elaborately described in the letter-press pages of the Atlas. The photographs were taken for the most part from drawings; and Dr. Schliemann is the first to acknowledge that their execution left much to be desired. Many of his original plans and drawings have been placed at our disposal; and an especial acknowledgment is due both to Dr. Schliemann and Monsieur Émile Burnouf, the Director of the French School at Athens, for the use of the admirable drawings of the terra-cotta whorls and balls made by M. Burnouf and his accomplished daughter. A selection of about 200 of these objects, which are among the most interesting of Dr. Schliemann’s discoveries, occupies the 32 lithographic plates at the end of this volume. With the exception of the first three [Plates (XXI.-XXIII.)], which are copied from the Atlas, in order to give a general view of the sections of the whorls and the chief types of the patterns upon them, all the rest are engraved from M. Burnouf’s drawings. They are given in the natural size, and each whorl is accompanied by its section. The depth at which each object was found among the layers of débris is a matter of such moment (as will be seen from Dr. Schliemann’s work) that the Editor felt bound to undertake the great labour of identifying each with the representation of the same object in the Atlas, where the depth is marked, to which, unfortunately, the drawings gave no reference. The few whorls that remain unmarked with their depth have either escaped this repeated search, or are not represented in the Atlas. The elaborate descriptions of the material, style of workmanship, and supposed meanings of the patterns, which M. Burnouf has inscribed on most of his drawings, are given in the “List of Illustrations.” The explanations of the patterns are, of course, offered only as conjectures, possessing the value which they derive from M. Burnouf’s profound knowledge of Aryan antiquities. Some of the explanations of the patterns are Dr. Schliemann’s; and the Editor has added a few descriptions, based on a careful attempt to analyze and arrange the patterns according to distinct types. Most of these types are exhibited on Plates [XXII]. and [XXIII.]

The selection of the 300 illustrations inserted in the body of the work has been a matter of no ordinary labour. One chief point, in which the present work claims to be an improvement on the original, is the exhibition of the most interesting objects in Dr. Schliemann’s collection in their proper relation to the descriptions in his text. The work of selection from 4000 objects, great as was the care it required, was the smallest part of the difficulty. It is no disparagement to Dr. Schliemann to recognize the fact that, amidst his occupations at the work through the long days of spring and summer, and with little competent help save from Madame Schliemann’s enthusiasm in the cause, the objects thrown on his hands from day to day could only be arranged and depicted very imperfectly. The difficulty was greatly enhanced by a circumstance which should be noticed in following the order of Dr. Schliemann’s work. It differed greatly from that of his forerunners in the modern enterprise of penetrating into the mounds that cover the primeval cities of the world. When, for example, we follow Layard into the mound of Nimrud, and see how the rooms of the Assyrian palaces suddenly burst upon him, with their walls lined with sculptured and inscribed slabs, we seem almost to be reading of Aladdin’s descent into the treasure-house of jewels. But Schliemann’s work consisted in a series of transverse cuttings, which laid open sections of the various strata, from the present surface of the hill to the virgin soil. The work of one day would often yield objects from almost all the strata; and each successive trench repeated the old order, more or less, from the remains of Greek Ilium to those of the first settlers on the hill. The marvel is that Dr. Schliemann should have been able to preserve any order at all, rather than that he was obliged to abandon the attempt in the later Plates of his Atlas (see [p. 225]); and special thanks are due for his care in continuing to note the depths of all the objects found. This has often given the clue to our search, amidst the mixed objects of a similar nature on the photographic Plates, for those which he describes in his text, where the figures referred to by Plate and Number form the exception rather than the rule. We believe that the cases in which we have failed to find objects really worth representing, or in which an object named in the text may have been wrongly identified in the Plates, are so few as in no way to affect the value of the work. How much, on the other hand, its value is increased by the style in which our illustrations have been engraved, will be best seen by a comparison with the photographic Plates. It should be added that the present work contains all the illustrations that are now generally accessible, as the Atlas is out of print, and the negatives are understood to be past further use.

Twelve of the views (Plates [II]., [III]., [IV]., [V]., [VI]., [VII]. A and B, [IX]., [X]., [XI]. A and B, and [XII]., besides the Great Altar, No. 188) were engraved by Mr. Whymper; all the other views and cuts by Mr. James D. Cooper; and the lithographed map, plans, and plates of whorls and balls by Messrs. Cooper and Hodson. In the description appended to each engraving all that is valuable in the letter-press to the Atlas has been incorporated, and the depth at which the object was found is added. Some further descriptions of the Plates are given in the “[List of Illustrations].”

The text of Dr. Schliemann’s work has been translated by Miss L. Dora Schmitz, and revised throughout by the Editor. The object kept in view has been a faithful rendering of the Memoirs, in all the freshness due to their composition on the spot during the progress of the work. That mode of composition, it is true, involved not a few of those mistakes and contradictions on matters of opinion, due to the novelty and the rapid progress of the discoveries, which Dr. Schliemann has confessed and explained at the opening of his work (see [p. 12]). To have attempted a systematic correction and harmonizing of such discrepancies would have deprived the work of all its freshness, and of much of its value as a series of landmarks in the history of Dr. Schliemann’s researches, from his first firm conviction that Troy was to be sought in the Hill of Hissarlik, to his discovery of the “Scæan Gate” and the “Treasure of Priam.” The Author’s final conclusions are summed up by himself in the “Introduction;” and the Editor has thought it enough to add to those statements, which seemed likely to mislead the reader for a time, references to the places where the correction may be found. On one point he has ventured a little further. All the earlier chapters are affected by the opinion, that the lowest remains on the native rock were those of the Homeric Troy, which Dr. Schliemann afterwards recognized in the stratum next above. To avoid perpetual reference to this change of opinion, the Editor has sometimes omitted or toned down the words “Troy” and “Trojan” as applied to the lowest stratum, and, both in the “Contents” and running titles, and in the descriptions of the Illustrations, he has throughout applied those terms to the discoveries in the second stratum, in accordance with Dr. Schliemann’s ultimate conclusion.

In a very few cases the Editor has ventured to correct what seemed to him positive errors.[3] He has not deemed it any part of his duty to discuss the Author’s opinions or to review his conclusions. He has, however, taken such opportunities as suggested themselves, to set Dr. Schliemann’s statements in a clearer light by a few illustrative annotations. Among the rest, the chief passages cited from Homer are quoted in full, with Lord Derby’s translation, and others have been added (out of many more which have been noted), as suggesting remarkable coincidences with the objects found by Dr. Schliemann.

From the manner in which the work was composed, and the great importance attached by Dr. Schliemann to some leading points of his argument, it was inevitable that there should be some repetitions, both in the Memoirs themselves, and between them and the Introduction. These the Editor has rather endeavoured to abridge than completely to remove. To have expunged them from the Memoirs would have deprived these of much of the interest resulting from the discussions which arose out of the discoveries in their first freshness; to have omitted them from the Introduction would have marred the completeness of the Author’s summary of his results. The few repetitions left standing are a fair measure of the importance which the Author assigns to the points thus insisted on. A very few passages have been omitted for reasons that would be evident on a reference to the original; but none of these omissions affect a single point in Dr. Schliemann’s discoveries.

The measures, which Dr. Schliemann gives with the minutest care throughout his work, have been preserved and converted from the French metric standard into English measures. This has been done with great care, though in such constant conversion some errors must of course have crept in; and approximate numbers have often been given to avoid the awkwardness of fractions, where minute accuracy seemed needless. In many cases both the French and English measures are given, not only because Dr. Schliemann gives both (as he often does), but for another sufficient reason. A chief key to the significance of the discoveries is found in the depths of the successive strata of remains, which are exhibited in the form of a diagram on [page 10]. The numbers which express these in Meters[4] are so constantly used by Dr. Schliemann, and are so much simpler than the English equivalents, that they have been kept as a sort of “memory key” to the strata of remains. For the like reason, and for simplicity-sake, the depths appended to the Illustrations are given in meters only. The Table of French and English Measures on page 56 will enable the reader to check our conversions and to make his own. The Editor has added an Appendix, explaining briefly the present state of the deeply interesting question concerning the Inscriptions which have been traced on some of the objects found by Dr. Schliemann.

With these explanations the Editor might be content to leave the work to the judgment of scholars and of the great body of educated persons, who have happily been brought up in the knowledge and love of Homer’s glorious poetry, “the tale of Troy divine,” and of

“Immortal Greece, dear land of glorious lays.”

Long may it be before such training is denied to the imagination of the young, whether on the low utilitarian ground, or on the more specious and dangerous plea of making it the select possession of the few who can acquire it “thoroughly":

Νήπιοι, οὐκ ἴσασιν ὅσῳ πλέον ἥμισυ παντός.

To attempt a discussion of the results of Dr. Schliemann’s discoveries would be alike beyond the province of an Editor, and premature in the present state of the investigation. The criticisms called forth both in England and on the Continent, during the one year that has elapsed since the publication of the work, are an earnest of the more than ten years’ duration of that new War of Troy for which it has given the signal. The English reader may obtain some idea of the points that have been brought under discussion by turning over the file of the “Academy” for the year, not to speak of many reviews of Schliemann’s work in other periodicals and papers. Without plunging into these varied discussions, it may be well to indicate briefly certain points that have been established, some lines of research that have been opened, and some false issues that need to be avoided.

First of all, the integrity of Dr. Schliemann in the whole matter—of which his self-sacrificing spirit might surely have been a sufficient pledge—and the genuineness of his discoveries, are beyond all suspicion. We have, indeed, never seen them called in question, except in what appears to be an effusion of spite from a Greek, who seems to envy a German his discoveries on the Greek ground which Greeks have neglected for fifteen centuries.[5] In addition to the consent of scholars, the genuineness and high antiquity of the objects in Dr. Schliemann’s collection have been specially attested by so competent a judge as Mr. Charles Newton, of the British Museum, who went to Athens for the express purpose of examining them.[6] A letter by Mr. Frank Calvert, who is so honourably mentioned in the work, deserves special notice for the implied testimony which it bears to Dr. Schliemann’s good faith, while strongly criticising some of his statements.[7]

Among the false issues raised in the discussion, one most to be avoided is the making the value of Dr. Schliemann’s discoveries dependent on the question of the site of Troy as determined by the data furnished by the Iliad. The position is common to Schliemann and his adverse critics, that Homer never saw the city of whose fate he sang;—because, says Schliemann, it had long been buried beneath its own ashes and the cities, or the ruins of the cities, built above it;—because, say the objectors, Homer created a Troy of his own imagination. The former existence and site of Troy were known to Homer—says Schliemann—by the unbroken tradition belonging to the spot where the Greek colonists founded the city which they called by the same name as, and believed to be the true successor of, the Homeric Ilium. Of this, it is replied, we know nothing, and we have no other guide to Homer’s Troy save the data of the Iliad. Be it so; and if those data really point to Hissarlik—as was the universal opinion of antiquity, till a sceptical grammarian invented another site, which all scholars now reject—as was also the opinion of modern scholars, till the new site of Bunarbashi was invented by Lechevalier to suit the Iliad, and accepted by many critics, but rejected by others, including the high authority of Grote—then the conclusion is irresistible, that Schliemann has found the Troy of which Homer had heard through the lasting report of poetic fame: Ἡμεῖς δὲ κλέος οἶον ἀκούομεν.[8] But the corresponding negative does not follow; for, if Homer’s Troy was but a city built in the ethereal region of his fancy, his placing it at Bunarbashi, or on any other spot, could not affect the lost site of the true Troy, if such a city ever existed, and therefore can be no objection to the argument, that the discovery of an ancient city on the traditional site of the heroic Troy confirms the truth of the tradition on both points—the real existence of the city, as well as its existence on this site. The paradox—that Troy never existed and that Bunarbashi was its site—was so far confirmed by Schliemann that he dug at Bunarbashi, and found clear evidence that the idea of a great city having ever stood there is a mere imagination. The few remains of walls, that were found there, confirm instead of weakening the negative conclusion; for they are as utterly inadequate to be the remains of the “great, sacred, wealthy Ilium,” as they are suitable to the little town of Gergis, with which they are now identified by an inscription. In short, that the real city of Troy could not have stood at Bunarbashi, is one of the most certain results of Schliemann’s researches.

The same sure test of downright digging has finally disposed of all the other suggested sites, leaving by the “method of exhaustion” the inevitable conclusion, that the only great city (or succession of cities), that we know to have existed in the Troad before the historic Grecian colony of Ilium, rose and perished—as the Greeks of Ilium always said it did—on the ground beneath their feet, upon the Hill of Hissarlik. And that Homer, or—if you please—the so-called Homeric bards, familiar with the Troad, and avowedly following tradition, should have imagined a different site, would be, at the least, very surprising. This is not the place for an analysis of the Homeric local evidence; but, coming fresh from a renewed perusal of the Iliad with a view to this very question, the Editor feels bound to express the conviction that its indications, while in themselves consistent with the site of Hissarlik, can be interpreted in no other way, now that we know what that site contains.[9]

Standing, as it does, at the very point of junction between the East and West, and in the region where we find the connecting link between the primitive Greeks of Asia and Europe,[10] the Hill of Hissarlik answers at once to the primitive type of a Greek city, and to the present condition of the primeval capitals of the East. Like so many of the first, in Greece, Asia Minor, and Italy, the old city was a hill-fort, an Acropolis built near but not close upon the sea, in a situation suited at once for defence against the neighbouring barbarians, and for the prosecution of that commerce, whether by its own maritime enterprise, or by intercourse with foreign voyagers, of which the copper, ivory, and other objects from the ruins furnish decisive proofs.[11] This type is as conspicuously wanting at Bunarbashi, as it is well marked by the site of Hissarlik.

Like the other great oriental capitals of the Old World, the present condition of Troy is that of a mound, such as those in the plain of the Tigris and Euphrates, offering for ages the invitation to research, which has only been accepted and rewarded in our own day. The resemblance is so striking, as to raise a strong presumption that, as the mounds of Nimrud and Kouyunjik, of Khorsabad and Hillah, have been found to contain the palaces of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, so we may accept the ruins found in the mound of Hissarlik as those of the capital of that primeval empire in Asia Minor, which is indicated by the Homeric tradition, and proved to have been a reality by the Egyptian monuments.[12]

This parallel seems to throw some light on a question, concerning which Dr. Schliemann is forced to a result which disappointed himself, and does not appear satisfactory to us—that of the magnitude of Troy. As the mounds opened by Layard and his fellow labourers contained only the “royal quarters,” which towered above the rude buildings of cities the magnitude of which is attested by abundant proofs, so it is reasonable to believe that the ruins at Hissarlik are those of the royal quarter, the only really permanent part of the city, built on the hill capping the lower plateau which lifted the huts of the common people above the marshes and inundations of the Scamander and the Simoïs. In both cases the fragile dwellings of the multitude have perished; and the pottery and other remains, which were left on the surface of the plateau of Ilium, would naturally be cleared away by the succeeding settlers. Instead, therefore, of supposing with Schliemann, that Homer’s poetical exaggeration invented the “Pergamus,” we would rather say that he exalted the mean dwellings that clustered about the Pergamus into the “well-built city” with her “wide streets.”

We cannot sympathize with the sentimental objection that, in proportion as the conviction grows that the Troy of Homer has been found, his poetry is brought down from the heights of pure imagination. Epic Poetry, the very essence of which is narrative, has always achieved its noblest triumphs in celebrating events which were at least believed to be real, not in the invention of incidents and deeds purely imaginary. The most resolute deniers of any historic basis for the story of Troy will admit that neither the scene nor the chief actors were invented by Homer, or, if you please, the Homeric poets, who assuredly believed the truth of the traditions to which the Iliad gave an immortal form. Any discovery which verifies that belief strengthens the foundation without impairing the superstructure, and adds the interest of truthfulness to those poetic beauties which remain the pure creation of Homer.

Leaving the Homeric bearings of the question to the discussion of which no speedy end can be anticipated, all are agreed that Dr. Schliemann’s discoveries have added immensely to that growing mass of evidence which is tending to solve one of the most interesting problems in the history of the world, the connection between the East and West, especially with regard to the spread of Aryan civilization.[13] Two points are becoming clearer every day, the early existence of members of the Greek race on the shores of Asia, and the essential truth of those traditions about the Oriental influence on Greek civilization, which, within our own remembrance, have passed through the stages of uncritical acceptance, hypercritical rejection, and discriminating belief founded on sure evidence.

It would seem as if Troy, familiar to our childhood as the point of contact in poetry between the East and West, were reappearing in the science of archæology as a link between the eastern and western branches of the antiquities of the great Aryan family, extending its influence to our own island in another sense than the legend of Brute the Trojan. How great an increase of light may soon be expected from the deciphering of the Inscriptions found at Hissarlik may be inferred, in part, from the brief account, in the Appendix, of the progress thus far made. In fine, few dissentients will be found from the judgment of a not too favourable critic, that “Dr. Schliemann, in spite of his over-great enthusiasm, ... has done the world an incalculable service.”[14]

The decipherment of the inscriptions will probably go far to determine the curious question of the use of the terra-cotta whorls, found in such numbers in all the four pre-Hellenic strata of remains at Hissarlik. That they had some practical purpose may be inferred both from this very abundance, and from the occurrence of similar objects among the remains of various early races. Besides the examples given by Dr. Schliemann, they have been found in various parts of our own island, and especially in Scotland, but always (we believe) without decorations. On the other hand, the Aryan emblems and the inscriptions[15] marked upon them would seem to show that they were applied to, if not originally designed for, some higher use. It seems quite natural for a simple and religious race, such as the early Aryans certainly were, to stamp religious emblems and sentences on objects in daily use, and then to consecrate them as ex voto offerings, according to Dr. Schliemann’s suggestion. The astronomical significance, which Schliemann finds in many of the whorls, is unmistakeable in most of the terra-cotta balls; and this seems to furnish evidence that the people who made them had some acquaintance, at least, with the astronomical science of Babylonia.

The keen discussion provoked by Dr. Schliemann’s novel explanation of the θεὰ γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη might be left “a pretty quarrel as it stands,”[16] did there not appear to be a key of which neither party has made sufficient use. The symbolism, which embodied divine attributes in animal forms, belonged unquestionably to an early form of the Greek religion, as well as to the Egyptian and Assyrian.[17] The ram-headed Ammon, the hawk-headed Ra, the eagle-headed Nisroch, form exact precedents for an owl-headed Athena, a personation which may very well have passed into the slighter forms of owl-faced, owl-eyed, bright-eyed. Indeed, we see no other explanation of the constant connection of the owl with the goddess, which survived to the most perfect age of Greek sculpture. The question is not to be decided by an etymological analysis of the sense of γλαυκῶπις in the Greek writers, long after the old symbolism had been forgotten, nor even by the sense which Homer may have attached to the word in his own mind. One of the most striking characters of his language is his use of fixed epithets; and he might very well have inherited the title of the tutelar goddess of the Ionian race with the rest of his stock of traditions. If γλαυκῶπις were merely a common attributive, signifying “bright-eyed,” it is very remarkable that Homer should never apply it to mortal women, or to any goddess save Athena. We are expressing no opinion upon the accuracy of Schliemann’s identification in every case; but the rudeness of many of his “owl-faced idols” is no stumbling-block, for the oldest and rudest sacred images were held in lasting and peculiar reverence. The Ephesian image of Artemis, “which fell down from Jove,” is a case parallel to what the “Palladium” of Ilium may have been.

The ethnological interpretation of the four strata of remains at Hissarlik is another of the questions which it would be premature to discuss; but a passing reference may be allowed to their very remarkable correspondence with the traditions relating to the site. First, Homer recognizes a city which preceded the Ilium of Priam, and which had been destroyed by Hercules; and Schliemann found a primeval city, of considerable civilization, on the native rock, below the ruins which he regards as the Homeric Troy. Tradition speaks of a Phrygian population, of which the Trojans were a branch, as having apparently displaced, and driven over into Europe, the kindred Pelasgians. Above the second stratum are the remains of a third city, which, in the type and patterns of its terra-cottas, instruments, and ornaments, shows a close resemblance to the second; and the link of connection is rivetted by the inscriptions in the same character in both strata. And so, in the Homeric poems, every reader is struck with the common bonds of genealogy and language, traditions and mutual intercourse, religion and manners, between the Greeks who assail Troy and the Trojans who defend it. If the legend of the Trojan War preserves the tradition of a real conquest of the city by a kindred race, the very nature of the case forbids us to accept literally the story, that the conquerors simply sailed away again.[18] It is far more reasonable to regard the ten years of the War, and the ten years of the Return of the Chiefs (Νόστοι) as cycles of ethnic struggles, the details of which had been sublimed into poetical traditions. The fact, that Schliemann traces in the third stratum a civilization lower than in the second, is an objection only from the point of view of our classical prepossessions. There are not wanting indications in Homer (as Curtius, among others, has pointed out) that the Trojans were more civilized and wealthy than the Greeks; and in the much earlier age, to which the conflict—if real at all—must have belonged, we may be sure that the Asiatic people had over their European kindred an advantage which we may venture to symbolize by the golden arms of Glaucus and the brazen arms of Diomed (Homer, Iliad, VI. 235, 236). Xanthus, the old historian of Lydia, preserves the tradition of a reflux migration of Phrygians from Europe into Asia, after the Trojan War, and says that they conquered Troy and settled in its territory. This migration is ascribed to the pressure of the barbarian Thracians; and the fourth stratum, with its traces of merely wooden buildings, and other marks of a lower stage of civilization, corresponds to that conquest of the Troad by those same barbarian Thracians, the tradition of which is preserved by Herodotus and other writers. The primitive dwellings of those races in Thrace still furnish the flint implements, which are most abundant in the fourth stratum at Hissarlik.

The extremely interesting concurrence of instruments of stone with those of copper (or bronze, see [p. 361]) in all the four strata at Hissarlik, may be illustrated by a case which has fallen under our notice while dismissing this sheet for press. A mound recently opened at the Bocenos, near Carnac (in the Morbihan), has disclosed the remains of a Gallic house, of the second century of our era, in which flint implements were found, intermixed with pottery of various styles, from the most primitive to the finest examples of native Gallic art, and among all these objects was a terra-cotta head of the Venus Anadyomene.[19] Such facts as these furnish a caution against the too hasty application of the theory of the Ages of Stone, Bronze, and Iron.

Another illustration is worth adding of the persistence of the forms of objects in common use in the same region. (See p. 47.) Mr. Davis, in his recently published travels in Asia Minor,[20] describes a wooden vessel for carrying water, which he saw at Hierapolis, in Phrygia, of the very same form as the crown-handled vase-covers of terra-cotta found in such numbers by Schliemann (see [p. 25], [48], [86], [95], &c.). “They are made of a section of the pine: the inside is hollowed from below, and the bottom is closed by another piece of wood exactly fitted into it.” The two drawings given by Mr. Davis closely resemble our cut, No. 51, p. 86.

Our last letter from Dr. Schliemann announced the approaching termination of his lawsuit with the Turkish Government, arising out of the dispute referred to in the ‘Introduction’ (p. 52). The collection has been valued by two experts; and Dr. Schliemann satisfies the demand of the Turkish Government by a payment in cash, and an engagement to continue the excavations in Troy for three or four months for the benefit of the Imperial Museum at Constantinople. We rejoice that he has not “closed the excavations at Hissarlik for ever” (see [p. 356]), and wait to see what new discoveries may equal or surpass those of the “Scæan Gates,” the “Palace,” and the “Treasure of Priam.”

Meanwhile, as the use of so mythical a name as that of Troy’s last king has furnished a special butt for critical scorn, it seems due to Dr. Schliemann to quote his reason for retaining it:—[21]

“I identify with the Homeric Ilion the city second in succession from the virgin soil, because only in that city were used the Great Tower, the great Circuit Wall, the great Double Gate, and the ancient palace of the chief or king, whom I call Priam, because he is called so by the tradition of which Homer is the echo; but as soon as it is proved that Homer and the tradition were wrong, and that Troy’s last king was called ‘Smith,’ I shall at once call him so.” Those who believe Troy to be a myth and Priam a shadow as unsubstantial as the shape, whose head

“The likeness of a kingly crown had on,”

need not grudge Schliemann the satisfaction of giving the unappropriated nominis umbra to the owner of his very substantial Treasure. The name of Priam may possibly even yet be read on the inscriptions, as the names of the Assyrian kings have been read on theirs, or it may be an invention of the bard’s; but the name of Troy can no longer be withheld from the “splendid ruins” of the great and wealthy city which stood upon its traditional site—a city which has been sacked by enemies and burnt with fire.

PHILIP SMITH.

HAMPSTEAD,
Christmas Eve, 1874.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
OF
DR. HENRY SCHLIEMANN.
FROM THE PREFACE TO HIS
‘ITHACA, THE PELOPONNESUS, AND TROY.’

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE.

WHEN, in the year 1832, at Kalkhorst, a village in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, at the age of ten, I presented my father, as a Christmas gift, with a badly written Latin essay upon the principal events of the Trojan war and the adventures of Ulysses and Agamemnon, little did I think that, six-and-thirty years later, I should offer the public a work on the same subject, after having had the good fortune to see with my own eyes the scene of that war, and the country of the heroes whose names have been immortalized by Homer.

As soon as I had learnt to speak, my father related to me the great deeds of the Homeric heroes. I loved these stories; they enchanted me and transported me with the highest enthusiasm. The first impressions which a child receives abide with him during his whole life; and, though it was my lot, at the age of fourteen, to be apprenticed in the warehouse of E. Ludwig Holtz in the small town of Fürstenberg, in Mecklenburg, instead of following the scientific career for which I felt an extraordinary predisposition, I always retained the same love for the famous men of antiquity which I had conceived for them in my first childhood.

In the small shop where I was employed for five years and a half, first by Mr. Holtz and then by his successor, the excellent Mr. Th. Huckstädt, my occupation consisted in retailing herrings, butter, brandy, milk and salt, grinding potatoes for the still, sweeping the shop, and so forth. I only came into contact with the lower classes of society.

From five in the morning to eleven at night I was engaged in this work, and had not a moment free for study. Moreover I rapidly forgot the little that I had learnt in my childhood, but I did not lose the love of learning; indeed I never lost it, and, as long as I live, I shall never forget the evening when a drunken miller came into the shop. He was the son of a Protestant clergyman in a village near Teterow, and had almost concluded his studies at the Gymnasium when he was expelled on account of his bad conduct. To punish him for this, his father made him learn the trade of a miller. Dissatisfied with his lot, the young man gave himself up to drink, which however had not made him forget his Homer; for he recited to us about one hundred lines of the poet, observing the rhythmic cadence. Although I did not understand a word, the melodious speech made a deep impression upon me, and I wept bitter tears for my unhappy fate. Thrice I got him to repeat to me those god-like verses, paying him with three glasses of brandy, which I bought with the few pence that made up my whole fortune. From that moment I never ceased to pray God that by His grace I might yet have the happiness to learn Greek.

There seemed, however, no hope of my escaping from the sad and low position in which I found myself. And yet I was released from it as if by a miracle. In lifting a cask too heavy for me, I hurt my chest; I spat blood and was no longer able to work. In despair I went to Hamburg, where I succeeded in obtaining a situation as cabin-boy on board of a ship bound for La Guayra in Venezuela.[31]

On the 28th of November, 1841, we left Hamburg, but on the 12th of December we were shipwrecked in a fearful storm off the island of Texel. After innumerable dangers, the crew were saved. I regarded it as my destiny to remain in Holland, and resolved to go to Amsterdam and enlist as a soldier. But this could not be done as quickly as I had imagined, and the few florins, which I had collected as alms on the island of Texel and in Enkhuyzen, were soon spent in Amsterdam. As my means of living were entirely exhausted, I feigned illness and was taken into the hospital. From this terrible situation I was released by the kind ship-broker J. F. Wendt of Hamburg, who heard of my misfortune and sent me the proceeds of a small subscription which had been raised for me. He at the same time recommended me to the excellent Consul-General of the North German Confederation in Amsterdam, Mr. W. Hepner, who procured me a situation in the office of Mr. F. C. Quien.

In my new situation my work consisted in stamping bills of exchange and getting them cashed in the town, and in carrying letters to and from the post-office. This mechanical occupation suited me, for it left me time to think of my neglected education.

First of all I took pains to learn to write legibly, and then, in order to improve my position, I went on to the study of the modern languages. My annual salary amounted only to 800 francs (32l.), half of which I spent upon my studies; on the other half I lived, miserably enough to be sure. My lodging, which cost 8 francs a month, was a wretched garret without a fire, where I shivered with cold in winter and was scorched with the heat in summer; my breakfast consisted of rye-meal porridge, and my dinner never cost more than a penny farthing. But nothing spurs one on more to study than misery and the certain prospect of being able to release oneself from it by unremitting work. I applied myself with extraordinary diligence to the study of English. Necessity showed me a method which greatly facilitates the study of a language. This method consists in reading a great deal aloud, without making a translation; devoting one hour every day to writing essays upon subjects that interest one, correcting these under a teacher’s supervision, learning them by heart, and repeating in the next lesson what was corrected on the previous day. My memory was bad, since from my childhood it had not been exercised upon any object; but I made use of every moment, and even stole time for study. I never went on my errands, even in the rain, without having my book in my hand and learning something by heart; and I never waited at the post-office without reading. By such means I gradually strengthened my memory, and in half a year I had succeeded in acquiring a thorough knowledge of the English language. I then applied the same method to the study of French, the difficulties of which I overcame likewise in another six months. These persevering and excessive studies had in the course of one year strengthened my memory to such a degree that the study of Dutch, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese appeared very easy, and it did not take me more than six weeks to write each of these languages and to speak them fluently. But my passion for study caused me to neglect my mechanical occupation in the office, especially when I began to consider it beneath me. My principals would give me no promotion; they probably thought that a person who shows his incapacity for the business of a servant in an office is therefore quite worthless for any higher duties.

At last, through the intercession of my worthy friends, L. Stoll of Mannheim and Ballauff of Bremen, I had the good fortune to obtain a situation as correspondent and bookkeeper in the office of Messrs. B. H. Schröder and Co. in Amsterdam, who engaged me at a salary of 1200 francs (48l.); but when they saw my zeal, they paid me 2000 francs as an encouragement. This generosity, for which I shall ever be grateful to them, was in fact the foundation of my prosperity; for, as I thought that I could make myself still more useful by a knowledge of Russian, I set to work to learn that language also. But the only Russian books that I could procure were an old grammar, a lexicon, and a bad translation of Telemachus. In spite of all my inquiries I could not find a teacher of Russian, for no one in Amsterdam understood a word of the language: so I betook myself to study without a master, and, with the help of the grammar, I learnt the Russian letters and their pronunciation in a few days. Then, following my old method, I began to write short stories of my own composition and to learn them off by heart. As I had no one to correct my work, it was, no doubt, very bad indeed, but I tried at the same time to correct my faults by the practical exercise of learning Telemachus by heart. It occurred to me that I should make more progress if I had some one to whom I could relate the adventures of Telemachus; so I hired a poor Jew for 4 francs a week, who had to come every evening for two hours to listen to my Russian recitations, of which he did not understand a syllable.

As the ceilings of the rooms in Holland consist of single boards, people on the ground-floor can hear what is said in the third storey. My recitations therefore, delivered in a loud voice, annoyed the other tenants, who complained to the landlord, and twice during my study of the Russian language I was forced to change my lodgings. But these inconveniences did not diminish my zeal, and in the course of six weeks I wrote my first Russian letter to a Russian in London, and I was able to converse fluently in this language with the Russian merchants who had come to Amsterdam for the indigo auctions.

After I had concluded my study of the Russian language, I began to occupy myself seriously with the literatures of the languages which I had learnt.

In the beginning of the year 1846, my worthy principals sent me as their agent to St. Petersburg, where a year later I established a mercantile house on my own account; but, during the first eight or nine years that I spent in Russia, I was so overwhelmed with work that I could not continue my linguistic studies, and it was not till the year 1854 that I found it possible to acquire the Swedish and Polish languages.

Great as was my wish to learn Greek, I did not venture upon its study till I had acquired a moderate fortune; for I was afraid that this language would exercise too great a fascination upon me and estrange me from my commercial business. When, however, I could no longer restrain my desire for learning, I at last set vigorously to work at Greek in January 1856; first with Mr. N. Pappadakes, and then with Mr. Th. Vimpos of Athens, always following my old method. It did not take me more than six weeks to master the difficulties of modern Greek, and I then applied myself to the ancient language, of which in three months I learned sufficient to understand some of the ancient authors, and especially Homer, whom I read and re-read with the most lively enthusiasm.

I then occupied myself for two years exclusively with the ancient Greek literature; and during this time I read almost all the old authors cursorily, and the Iliad and Odyssey several times.

In the year 1858 I travelled to Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Italy and Egypt, where I sailed up the Nile as far as the second cataract in Nubia. I availed myself of this opportunity to learn Arabic, and I afterwards travelled across the desert from Cairo to Jerusalem. I visited Petra, traversed the whole of Syria, and in this manner I had abundant opportunity of acquiring a practical knowledge of Arabic, the deeper study of which I afterwards continued in St. Petersburg. After leaving Syria, I visited Athens in the summer of 1859, and I was on the point of starting for the island of Ithaca when I was seized with an illness which obliged me to return to St. Petersburg.

Heaven had blessed my mercantile undertakings in a wonderful manner, so that at the end of 1863 I found myself in possession of a fortune such as my ambition had never ventured to aspire to. I therefore retired from business, in order to devote myself exclusively to the studies which have the greatest fascination for me.

In the year 1864 I was on the road to visit the native island of Ulysses and the Plain of Troy, when I allowed myself to be persuaded to visit India, China and Japan, and to travel round the world. I spent two years on this journey, and on my return in 1866 I settled in Paris, with the purpose of devoting the rest of my life to study, and especially to archæology, which has the greatest charm for me.

At last I was able to realize the dream of my whole life, and to visit at my leisure the scene of those events which had such an intense interest for me, and the country of the heroes whose adventures had delighted and comforted my childhood. I started, therefore, last summer, and visited in succession the places which still possess such living poetic memorials of antiquity.

I had not, however, the ambition of publishing a work on the subject; this I only decided upon doing when I found what errors almost all archæologists had spread about the site once occupied by the Homeric capital of Ithaca, about the stables of Eumæus, the Island of Asteris, ancient Troy, the sepulchral mounds of Batiea and of Æsyetes, the tomb of Hector, and so forth.

Apart from the hope of correcting opinions which I hold to be erroneous, I should consider myself fortunate could I aid in diffusing among the intelligent public a taste for the beautiful and noble studies which have sustained my courage during the hard trials of my life, and which will sweeten the days yet left me to live.

HENRY SCHLIEMANN.

6, Place St.-Michel, Paris,
Dec. 31st, 1868.

INTRODUCTION.

D I A G R A M

SHEWING THE SUCCESSIVE STRATA OF REMAINS ON THE HILL OF HISSARLIK.

INTRODUCTION.
CONTENTS.

Form of the Work—Changing and progressive opinions due to the Novelty of the Discoveries—Chronology—Duration of the GREEK Ilium—Four successive strata of remains beneath its ruins on the hill of Hissarlik—Remains of the Earliest Settlers, who were of the Aryan race—Symbols on their terra-cottas—The Second Settlers, the Trojans of Homer—The Tower of Ilium, Scæan Gate, and City Walls, covered with the ashes of a conflagration—Skeletons denoting a bloody war—The Royal Treasure—Small extent of Troy: not beyond the hill of Hissarlik—Poetical exaggerations of Homer, who only knew it by tradition—The city was wealthy and powerful, though small—Stone weapons and implements, not denoting the “Stone Age”—Contemporaneous use of copper, silver, and gold, for tools, weapons, vases, and ornaments—Inscriptions proving the use of a written language—Splendid remains of pottery—Symbols proving that the Trojans were an Aryan race—Their buildings of stone and wood—Antiquity of the City—The Third Settlers, also of the Aryan race—Their pottery coarser—Musical instruments—Their mode of building—Fewer implements of copper, but those of stone abundant—The Fourth Settlers, of the Aryan race, built the Wooden Ilium—Their progressive decline in civilization—Some copper implements, with tools and weapons of stone—The Greek Ilium built about B.C. 700: ceased to exist in the fourth century after Christ—Evidence of Coins—No Byzantine remains—The Walls of Lysimachus—Metals found in the various strata: copper and bronze, silver, gold, lead: no iron or tin—Sculptures of the Greek age—Metopé of the Sun-God—Images of the owl-faced Athena common to all the pre-Hellenic strata: their various forms—The perforated whorls of terra-cotta, with Aryan symbols—The sign of the Suastika 卐—The plain whorls—Discussion of the site of Troy—Traditionally placed on that of the Greek Ilium—View of Demetrius and Strabo refuted—Opinion of Lechevalier for Bunarbashi, generally accepted, but erroneous—No remains of a great city there—The site really that of Gergis—Fragments of Hellenic pottery only—The three so-called tombs of heroes also Greek—Proposed sites at Chiplak and Akshi-Koï refuted by the absence of remains—Modern authorities in favour of Hissarlik—Ancient types of pottery still made in the Troad—Covers with owl-faces, and vases with uplifted wings—Colouring materials of the pottery—The inscriptions—The author’s relations with the Turkish Government—Professor Max Müller on the owl-headed goddess—Some probable traces of another settlement between the fourth pre-Hellenic people and the Greek colonists.

THE present book is a sort of Diary of my excavations at Troy, for all the memoirs of which it consists were, as the vividness of the descriptions will prove, written down by me on the spot while proceeding with my works.[32]

If my memoirs now and then contain contradictions, I hope that these may be pardoned when it is considered that I have here revealed a new world for archæology, that the objects which I have brought to light by thousands are of a kind hitherto never or but very rarely found, and that consequently everything appeared strange and mysterious to me. Hence I frequently ventured upon conjectures which I was obliged to give up on mature consideration, till I at last acquired a thorough insight, and could draw well-founded conclusions from many actual proofs.

One of my greatest difficulties has been to make the enormous accumulation of débris at Troy agree with chronology; and in this—in spite of long-searching and pondering—I have only partially succeeded. According to Herodotus (VII. 43): “Xerxes in his march through the Troad, before invading Greece (B.C. 480) arrived at the Scamander and went up to Priam’s Pergamus, as he wished to see that citadel; and, after having seen it, and inquired into its past fortunes, he sacrificed 1000 oxen to the Ilian Athena, and the Magi poured libations to the manes of the heroes.”

This passage tacitly implies that at that time a Greek colony had long since held possession of the town, and, according to Strabo’s testimony (XIII. i. 42), such a colony built Ilium during the dominion of the Lydians. Now, as the commencement of the Lydian dominion dates from the year 797 B.C., and as the Ilians seem to have been completely established there long before the arrival of Xerxes in 480 B.C., we may fairly assume that their first settlement in Troy took place about 700 B.C. The house-walls of Hellenic architecture, consisting of large stones without cement, as well as the remains of Greek household utensils, do not, however, extend in any case to a depth of more than two meters (6½ feet) in the excavations on the flat surface of the hill.

As I find in Ilium no inscriptions later than those belonging to the second century after Christ, and no coins of a later date than Constans II. and Constantine II., but very many belonging to these two emperors, as well as to Constantine the Great, it may be regarded as certain that the town began to decay even before the time of Constantine the Great, who, as is well known, at first intended to build Constantinople on that site; but that it remained an inhabited place till about the end of the reign of Constans II., that is till about A.D. 361. But the accumulation of débris during this long period of 1061 years amounts only to two meters or 6½ feet, whereas we have still to dig to a depth of 12 meters or 40 feet, and in many places even to 14 meters or 46½ feet, below this, before reaching the native ground which consists of shelly limestone (Muschelkalk). This immense layer of débris from 40 to 46½ feet thick, which has been left by the four different nations that successively inhabited the hill before the arrival of the Greek colony, that is before 700 B.C., is an immensely rich cornucopia of the most remarkable terra-cottas, such as have never been seen before, and of other objects which have not the most distant resemblance to the productions of Hellenic art. The question now forces itself upon us:—Whether this enormous mass of ruins may not have been brought from another place to increase the height of the hill? Such an hypothesis, as every visitor to my excavations may convince himself at the first glance, is perfectly impossible; because in all the strata of débris, from the native rock, at a depth of from 14 to 16 meters (46 to 52½ feet) up to 4 meters (13 feet) below the surface, we continually see remains of masonry, which rest upon strong foundations, and are the ruins of real houses; and, moreover, because all the numerous large wine, water, and funereal urns that are met with are found in an upright position. The next question is:—But how many centuries have been required to form a layer of débris, 40 and even 46½ feet thick, from the ruins of pre-Hellenic houses, if the formation of the uppermost one, the Greek layer of 6½ feet thick, required 1061 years? During my three years’ excavations in the depths of Troy, I have had daily and hourly opportunities of convincing myself that, from the standard of our own or of the ancient Greek mode of life, we can form no idea of the life and doings of the four nations which successively inhabited this hill before the time of the Greek settlement. They must have had a terrible time of it, otherwise we should not find the walls of one house upon the ruined remains of another, in continuous but irregular succession; and it is just because we can form no idea of the way in which these nations lived and what calamities they had to endure, that it is impossible to calculate the duration of their existence, even approximately, from the thickness of their ruins. It is extremely remarkable, but perfectly intelligible from the continual calamities which befel the town, that the civilization of all the four nations constantly declined; the terra-cottas, which show continuous décadence, leave no doubt of this.

The first settlement on this hill of Hissarlik seems, however, to have been of the longest duration, for its ruins cover the rock to a height of from 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet). Its houses and walls of fortification were built of stones, large and small, joined with earth, and manifold remains of these may be seen in my excavations. I thought last year that these settlers were identical with the Trojans of whom Homer sings, because I imagined that I had found among their ruins fragments of the double cup, the Homeric “δέπας ἀμφικύπελλον.” From closer examination, however, it has become evident that these fragments were the remains of simple cups with a hollow stem, which can never have been used as a second cup. Moreover, I believe that in my memoirs of this year (1873) I have sufficiently proved that Aristotle (Hist. Anim., IX. 40) is wrong in assigning to the Homeric “δέπας ἀμφικύπελλον” the form of a bee’s cell, whence this cup has ever since been erroneously interpreted as a double cup, and that it can mean nothing but a cup with a handle on either side. Cups of such a form are never met with in the débris of the first settlement of this hill; but they frequently occur, and in great quantities, among those of the succeeding people, and also among those of the two later nations which preceded the Greek colony on the spot. The large golden cup with two handles, weighing 600 grammes (a pound and a half), which I found in the royal treasure at the depth of 28 feet in the débris of the second people, leaves no doubt of this fact.[33]

The terra-cottas which I found on the native rock, at a depth of 14 meters (46 feet), are all of a more excellent quality than any met with in the upper strata. They are of a brilliant black, red, or brown colour, ornamented with patterns cut and filled with a white substance; the flat cups have horizontal rings on two sides, the vases have generally two perpendicular rings on each side for hanging them up with cords. Of painted terra-cottas I found only one fragment.[34]

All that can be said of the first settlers is that they belonged to the Aryan race, as is sufficiently proved by the Aryan religious symbols met with in the strata of their ruins (among which we find the Suastika 卐), both upon the pieces of pottery and upon the small curious terra-cottas with a hole in the centre, which have the form of the crater of a volcano or of a carrousel (i.e. a top).[35]

The excavations made this year (1873) have sufficiently proved that the second nation which built a town on this hill, upon the débris of the first settlers (which is from 13 to 20 feet deep), are the Trojans of whom Homer sings. Their débris lies from 7 to 10 meters, or 23 to 33 feet, below the surface. This Trojan stratum, which, without exception, bears marks of great heat, consists mainly of red ashes of wood, which rise from 5 to 10 feet above the Great Tower of Ilium, the double Scæan Gate, and the great enclosing Wall, the construction of which Homer ascribes to Poseidon and Apollo; and they show that the town was destroyed by a fearful conflagration. How great the heat must have been is clear also from the large slabs of stone upon the road leading from the double Scæan Gate down to the Plain: for when I laid this road open a few months ago, all the slabs appeared as uninjured as if they had been put down quite recently; but after they had been exposed to the air for a few days, the slabs of the upper part of the road, to the extent of some 10 feet, which had been exposed to the heat, began to crumble away, and they have now almost disappeared, while those of the lower portion of the road, which had not been touched by the fire, have remained uninjured, and seem to be indestructible. A further proof of the terrible catastrophe is furnished by a stratum of scoriæ of melted lead and copper, from 1/5 to 1-1/5 of an inch thick, which extends nearly through the whole hill at a depth of from 28 to 29½ feet. That Troy was destroyed by enemies after a bloody war is further attested by the many human bones which I found in these heaps of débris, and above all by the skeletons with helmets, found in the depths of the temple of Athena;[36] for, as we know from Homer, all corpses were burnt and the ashes were preserved in urns. Of such urns I have found an immense number in all the pre-Hellenic strata on the hill. Lastly, the Treasure, which some member of the royal family had probably endeavoured to save during the destruction of the city, but was forced to abandon, leaves no doubt that the city was destroyed by the hands of enemies. I found this Treasure on the large enclosing wall by the side of the royal palace, at a depth of 27½ feet, and covered with red Trojan ashes from 5 to 6½ feet in depth, above which was a post-Trojan wall of fortification 19½ feet high.

Trusting to the data of the Iliad, the exactness of which I used to believe in as in the Gospel itself, I imagined that Hissarlik, the hill which I have ransacked for three years, was the Pergamus of the city, that Troy must have had 50,000 inhabitants, and that its area must have extended over the whole space occupied by the Greek colony of Ilium.[37]

Notwithstanding this, I was determined to investigate the matter accurately, and I thought that I could not do so in any better way than by making borings. I accordingly began cautiously to dig at the extreme ends of the Greek Ilium; but these borings down to the native rock brought to light only walls of houses, and fragments of pottery belonging to the Greek period,—not a trace of the remains of the preceding occupants. In making these borings, therefore, I gradually came nearer to the fancied Pergamus, but without any better success; till at last as many as seven shafts, which I dug at the very foot of the hill down to the rock, produced only Greek masonry and fragments of Greek pottery. I now therefore assert most positively that Troy was limited to the small surface of this hill; that its area is accurately marked by its great surrounding wall, laid open by me in many places; that the city had no Acropolis, and that the Pergamus is a pure invention of Homer; and further that the area of Troy in post-Trojan times down to the Greek settlement was only increased so far as the hill was enlarged by the débris that was thrown down, but that the Ilium of the Greek colony had a much larger extent at the time of its foundation.[38]

Though, however, we find on the one hand that we have been deceived in regard to the size of Troy, yet on the other we must feel great satisfaction in the certainty, now at length ascertained, that Troy really existed, that the greater portion of this Troy has been brought to light by me, and that the Iliad—although on an exaggerated scale—sings of this city and of the fact of its tragic end. Homer, however, is no historian, but an epic poet, and hence we must excuse his exaggerations.

As Homer is so well informed about the topography and the climatic conditions of the Troad, there can surely be no doubt that he had himself visited Troy. But, as he was there long after its destruction, and its site had moreover been buried deep in the débris of the ruined town, and had for centuries been built over by a new town, Homer could neither have seen the Great Tower of Ilium nor the Scæan Gate, nor the great enclosing Wall, nor the palace of Priam; for, as every visitor to the Troad may convince himself by my excavations, the ruins and red ashes of Troy alone—forming a layer of from five to ten feet thick—covered all these remains of immortal fame; and this accumulation of débris must have been much more considerable at the time of Homer’s visit. Homer made no excavations so as to bring those remains to light, but he knew of them from tradition; for the tragic fate of Troy had for centuries been in the mouths of all minstrels, and the interest attached to it was so great that, as my excavations have proved, tradition itself gave the exact truth in many details. Such, for instance, is the memory of the Scæan Gate in the Great Tower of Ilium, and the constant use of the name Scæan Gate in the plural, because it had to be described as double,[39] and in fact it has been proved to be a double gate. According to the lines in the Iliad (XX. 307, 308), it now seems to me extremely probable that, at the time of Homer’s visit, the King of Troy declared that his race was descended in a direct line from Æneas.[40]

Now as Homer never saw Ilium’s Great Tower, nor the Scæan Gate, and could not imagine that these buildings lay buried deep beneath his feet, and as he probably imagined Troy to have been very large—according to the then existing poetical legends—and perhaps wished to describe it as still larger, we cannot be surprised that he makes Hector descend from the palace in the Pergamus and hurry through the town in order to arrive at the Scæan Gate; whereas that gate and Ilium’s Great Tower, in which it stands, are in reality directly in front of the royal house. That this house is really the king’s palace seems evident from its size, from the thickness of its stone walls, in contrast to those of the other houses of the town, which are built almost exclusively of unburnt bricks, and from its imposing situation upon an artificial hill directly in front of or beside the Scæan Gate, the Great Tower, and the great surrounding Wall. This is confirmed by the many splendid objects found in its ruins, especially the enormous royally ornamented vase with the picture of the owl-headed goddess Athena, the tutelary divinity of Ilium (see No. 219, p. 307); and lastly, above all other things, by the rich Treasure found close by it ([Plate II].). I cannot, of course, prove that the name of this king, the owner of this treasure, was really PRIAM; but I give him this name because he is so called by Homer and in all the traditions. All that I can prove is, that the palace of the owner of this treasure, this last Trojan king, perished in the great catastrophe, which destroyed the Scæan Gate, the great surrounding Wall, and the Great Tower, and which desolated the whole city. I can prove, by the enormous quantities of red and yellow calcined Trojan ruins, from five to ten feet in height, which covered and enveloped these edifices, and by the many post-Trojan buildings, which were again erected upon these calcined heaps of ruins, that neither the palace of the owner of the Treasure, nor the Scæan Gate, nor the great surrounding Wall, nor Ilium’s Great Tower, were ever again brought to light. A city, whose king possessed such a treasure, was immensely wealthy, considering the circumstances of those times; and because Troy was rich, it was powerful, had many subjects, and obtained auxiliaries from all quarters.

Troy had therefore no separate Acropolis; but as one was necessary for the great deeds of the Iliad, it was added by the poetical invention of Homer, and called by him Pergamus, a word of quite unknown derivation.

Last year I ascribed the building of the Great Tower of Ilium to the first occupants of the hill; but I have long since come to the firm conviction that it is the work of the second people, the Trojans, because it is upon the north side only, within the Trojan stratum of ruins, and from 16 to 19½ feet above the native soil, that it is made of actual masonry. I have, in my letters, repeatedly drawn attention to the fact, that the terra-cottas which I found upon the Tower can only be compared with those found at a depth of from 36 to 46 feet. This, however, applies only to the beauty of the clay and the elegance of the vessels, but in no way to their types, which, as the reader may convince himself from the illustrations to this work, are utterly different from the pottery of the first settlers.

It has been hitherto thought that the occurrence of stone implements indicates the “Age of Stone.” My excavations here in Troy, however, prove this opinion to be completely erroneous; for I very frequently find implements of stone even immediately below the débris belonging to the Greek colony, that is at a depth of 6½ feet, and they occur in very great quantities from a depth of 13 feet downwards. Those, however, in the Trojan stratum, from 23 to 33 feet below the surface, are in general of much better workmanship than those above. I wish to draw attention to the fact that unfortunately, when writing the present book, I made the mistake, which is now inconceivable to me, of applying the name of wedges to those splendidly-cut weapons and implements, the greater part of which are made of diorite, but frequently also of very hard and transparent green stone, such as are given here and in several later illustrations. They are, however, as anyone can convince himself, not wedges but axes, and the majority of them must have been used as battle-axes. Many, to judge from their form, seem to be excellently fitted to be employed as lances, and may have been used as such. I have collected many hundreds of them. But, together with the thousands of stone implements, I found also many of copper; and the frequently discovered moulds of mica-schist for casting copper weapons and implements, as well as the many small crucibles, and small roughly made bowls, spoons, and funnels for filling the moulds, prove that this metal was much used. The strata of copper and lead scoriæ, met with at a depth of from 28 to 29½ feet, leave no doubt that this was the case. It must be observed that all the copper articles met with are of pure copper, without the admixture of any other metal.[41] Even the king’s Treasure contained, besides other articles made of this metal, a shield with a large boss in the centre; a great caldron; a kettle or vase; a long slab with a silver vase welded on to it by the conflagration; and many fragments of other vases.[42]

PLATE II.

This Treasure of the supposed mythical king Priam, of the mythical heroic age, which I discovered at a great depth in the ruins of the supposed mythical Troy, is at all events a discovery which stands alone in archæology, revealing great wealth, great civilization and a great taste for art, in an age preceding the discovery of bronze, when weapons and implements of pure copper were employed contemporaneously with enormous quantities of stone weapons and implements. This treasure further leaves no doubt that Homer must have actually seen gold and silver articles, such as he continually describes; it is, in every respect, of inestimable value to science, and will for centuries remain the object of careful investigation.

Unfortunately upon none of the articles of the Treasure do I find an inscription, or any other religious symbols, except the 100 idols of the Homeric “θεὰ γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη,” which glitter upon the two diadems and the four ear-rings. These are, however, an irrefragable proof that the Treasure belongs to the city and to the age of which Homer sings.

Yet a written language was not wanting at that time. For instance, I found at a depth of 26 feet, in the royal palace, the vase with an inscription, of which a drawing is here given; and I wish to call especial attention to the fact, that of the characters occurring in it, the letter like the Greek P occurs also in the inscription on a seal, found at the depth of 23 feet; the second and third letter to the left of this upon a whorl of terra-cotta,[43] likewise found at a depth of 23 feet; and the third letter also upon two small funnels of terra-cotta, from a depth of 10 feet (see [p. 191]). I further found in the royal palace the excellent engraved inscription on a piece of red slate; but I see here only one character resembling one of the letters of the inscription on the above-mentioned seal. My friend the great Indian scholar, Émile Burnouf, conjectures that all these characters belong to a very ancient Græco-Asiatic local alphabet. Professor H. Brunn, of Munich, writes to me that he has shown these inscriptions to Professor Haug, and that he has pointed out their relationship and connection with the Phœnician alphabet (from which the Greek alphabet is however derived), and has found certain analogies between them and the inscription on the bronze table which was found at Idalium in Cyprus, and is now in the Cabinet des Médailles in Paris. Professor Brunn adds that the connection of things found at Troy with those found in Cyprus is in no way surprising, but may be very well reconciled with Homer, and that at all events particular attention should be paid to this connection, for, in his opinion, Cyprus is the cradle of Greek art, or, so to speak, the caldron in which Asiatic, Egyptian, and Greek ingredients were brewed together, and out of which, at a later period, Greek art came forth as the clear product.

I find in these Trojan layers of débris an abundance of splendid pottery, and more especially large and small cups with two handles, or with one from below in the form of a crown;[44] vases with rings on the sides and with holes in the same direction in the lip, for hanging them up by cords; all kinds of domestic utensils; also a beautifully ornamented flute made of bone, several pieces of other flutes, and a splendidly ornamented piece of ivory, which is part of a lyre with only four strings.

Like the first settlers on this sacred spot, the Trojans also were of the Aryan race; for I find among their remains enormous quantities of the small articles of terra-cotta in the form of volcanoes and tops (carrousels), with carvings of Aryan religious symbols.

The building materials of the Trojans are of various kinds. With but few exceptions, all the house-walls which I have uncovered are composed of unburnt sun-dried bricks, which in the heat of the conflagration have become a kind of really burnt bricks. But the royal palace and two small buildings in the depths of the temple of Athena, as well as the Great Tower of Ilium, the Scæan Gate, and the great enclosing Wall, are generally composed of unhewn stones joined with earth, the less rough face of the stones being turned to the outside, so that the walls have a tolerably smooth appearance.

I thought last year, upon uncovering the Great Tower of Ilium, that it must have been at one time higher than it now is, namely 6 meters or 20 feet; but its flat-built top beside the Scæan Gate, and the benches (not ruins, as I formerly thought) afterwards found upon it, prove that it can never have been higher.[45] I would draw especial attention to the fact, that the masonry of the Scæan Gate, upon being uncovered, looked as wonderfully fresh as if it had been erected quite recently. It is quite certain that it possessed strong wooden fortifications, and probably also a wooden tower above the gateway; for otherwise it is inexplicable to me how the entrance of the Gate can have been covered to the height of 10 feet by those red Trojan wood-ashes, and especially how it was that there, far from the other buildings, the heat should have been so great that even the thick slabs of stone have been destroyed by it.

Homer speaks of Troy as having been destroyed by Hercules previous to the Trojan war,[46] and it will ever remain an enigma to us whether this information, which had been preserved by traditions down to his time, really refers to the Ilium of Priam, or to the very ancient town of the first settlers.

As to the chronology of Troy, we have only the general supposition of antiquity that the Trojan War occurred about B.C. 1200, and Homer’s statement (Iliad, XX. 215-237) that Dardanus, the first Trojan King, founded Dardania, which town I agree with Virgil and Euripides in considering identical with Ilium, and that after him it was governed by his son Erichthonius, and then by his grandson Tros, by his great-grandson Ilus, and then by his son Laomedon, and by his grandson Priam. Even if we allow every one of these six kings a long reign of 33 years, we nevertheless scarcely carry the foundation of the town beyond 1400 B.C., that is 700 years before the Greek colony.

The site of Troy, which at the time of its foundation was 10 meters (about 33 feet) below the present surface, was only 7 meters (23 feet) below it after its destruction, when Ilium was again rebuilt by another people of Aryan origin; for, in the débris of this people, which extends to a depth of from 7 to 4 meters (23 to 13 feet) below the present surface, I find the same objects of terra-cotta with religious symbols.

On the photographic plates of the Atlas I have carefully stated the depth at which every object was found, so that it is very easy to find out which of them belong to this people.[47] Their pottery resembles that of the Trojans, but it is worse and coarser, and we meet with many new types. Almost all their vases have a tube on either side for hanging them up by cords. I here found, at a depth of 16½ feet, part of a lyre made of stone, with six strings; and at a depth of 13 feet the beautifully ornamented ivory piece of another lyre, with seven strings, here shown.

The architecture of this people, as may be seen from the many house-walls which I have uncovered, was always of small stones joined with earth. Yet in two places in the depths of the temple of Athena there is a wall of sun-dried bricks, which appears to belong to this nation. Their houses were smaller, and less wood was employed in their construction than in those of the Trojans; for, although the ruins of houses lying one upon another show that several great convulsions have taken place, still we find here far fewer charred ruins than among those of the preceding people; nay, these layers of débris have in the majority of cases a grey or black appearance, and they contain millions of small mussel-shells, bones, fish-bones, and so forth. It is curious that in these strata certain types of terra-cottas are only found exactly at the same depth, and that, for instance, the splendid black cups in the form of an hourglass, and with two large handles, are confined to a depth of 6 meters (nearly 20 feet).

During the first two years of my excavations, at the depth of from 4 to 7 meters (13 to 23 feet), I found scarcely any copper, and consequently I believed that the metal was but rarely, if at all, known to this people. This year, however, I found a number of copper nails in this stratum, as well as some knives and battle-axes, together with moulds of mica-schist for casting them, besides other weapons and implements.[48] Yet copper must have been rare with them; for stone implements, such as knives of silex, hammers and axes of diorite, and so forth, are found by thousands.

This people also seem to have disappeared simultaneously with the destruction of their town; for not only do I find, at a depth of from 4 meters up to 2 meters (13 to 6½ feet), many new types of terra-cotta vessels, but I no longer find any remains of house-walls; nay, even single stones are scarcely ever met with. At all events, directly after its destruction, the town was rebuilt of wood by another tribe of the Aryan race; for the small terra-cottas, adorned with Aryan religious symbols, although frequently of new types, occur in numbers in these layers of débris. Walls of fortification are indeed met with in these depths, but they had been built by the preceding people; as, for instance, the wall 19½ feet in height, whose base is at a depth of 5 to 6½ feet above the treasure, and which reached to within 1¼ ft. of the surface. This wooden Ilium was, to all appearance, still less fortunate than the stone town of its predecessors; for, as is proved by the numerous calcined layers of débris, it was frequently desolated by fire. Whether these fires broke out accidentally, or were kindled by the hands of enemies, must for ever remain a riddle to us; but thus much is certain and evident from the terra-cottas found at these depths, that the civilization of the people, which had been but slight from the beginning, continued to decrease during the perpetual misfortunes of their town. I find, among the ruins of this nation, lances, battle-axes, and implements, of pure copper, and moulds for casting them; likewise a number of copper nails, which, however—as in the case of the preceding peoples who have inhabited this hill—are too long and thin to have been employed for fastening wood together, and must in all probability have been used as brooches: this seems to be proved by two nails of this kind on the top of which I found rows of perforated beads of gold or electrum soldered upon them. These two copper nails were, it is true, found immediately below the surface, but they must in any case belong to the pre-Hellenic time.

In the ruins of this people, at a depth of from 13 to 6½ feet, we also meet with stone implements, such as hammers, splendidly polished axes and battle-axes of diorite, but considerably fewer than in the preceding stratum.

When the surface of the hill was about 2 meters (6½ feet) lower than it is now, Ilium was built by a Greek colony; and we have already endeavoured to prove that this settlement must have been founded about the year 700 B.C. From that time we find the remains of Hellenic house-walls of large hewn stones joined without cement. From about 1 meter (3¼ feet) below the surface, and upwards, there are also ruins of buildings, the stones of which are joined with cement or lime. We also meet with great numbers of copper coins of Ilium of the time of the Roman empire, from Augustus to Constans II. and Constantine II.; likewise older Ilian coins with the image of Athena, and medals of Alexandria Troas; also with some coins of Tenedos, Ophrynium and Sigeum, in some few cases at 3¼ feet, but generally at less than 20 inches below the surface. I once remarked erroneously that Byzantine coins were also met with here near the surface. But in my three years’ excavations I have not found a single medal of a later date than Constans II. and Constantine II., except two bad coins belonging to a Byzantine monastery, which may have been lost by shepherds; and, as there is here not the remotest trace of Byzantine masonry or of Byzantine pottery, it may be regarded as certain that the Ilium of the Greek colony was destroyed towards the middle of the fourth century after Christ, and that no village, much less a town, has ever again been built upon its site. The wall I mentioned in my memoir of the 1st of March, 1873,[49] as consisting of Corinthian pillars joined with cement, and which I believed to have belonged to the Middle Ages, must be referred to the time of Constantine I. or to Constans II., when the temple of Athena was destroyed by the pious zeal of the first Christians.

Of the walls and fortifications of the Greek colony, almost the only portions that have been preserved are those which were apparently built by Lysimachus. The lower and prominent portion of the wall of the Tower belongs to more ancient times, probably to the beginning of the Greek colony. Of great political convulsions or catastrophes there seem now to have been but few or none at all; for the accumulation of débris during the long duration of the Greek colony, about 10½ centuries, amounts only to 2 meters (6½ feet).

Curiously enough, I find extremely little metal in the débris of the Greek colony. Half-a-dozen scythe-shaped knives, a double-edged axe, about two dozen nails, a cup, a few lances and arrows, are pretty nearly all that I discovered. I have described these objects in my memoirs as made of copper; but upon a more careful examination they have been found to be bronze, and pure copper is no longer met with in the Greek colony. The only objects of iron which I found were a key of curious shape, and a few arrows and nails, close to the surface. From Homer we know that the Trojans also possessed iron, as well as the metal which he calls κύανος, and which, even in antiquity, was translated by χάλυψ (steel). I am sure, however, that I have not discovered even a trace of this metal, either among the Trojan ruins or among those of any of the other nations which preceded the Greek colony on the hill.[50] Yet articles of iron and steel may have existed: I believe positively that they did exist: but they have vanished without leaving a trace of their existence; for, as we know, iron and steel become decomposed much more readily than copper. Of tin, which Homer so repeatedly mentions, I found of course no trace: this metal, as we know, is corroded very rapidly even when lying in a dry locality. Lead is found in the ruins of all the different nations which have inhabited the hill; but, among those which preceded the Greek settlement, it is found principally in lumps of a hemispherical form. I find it first in general use only in the Greek colony, where it was employed as a means for uniting stones in building.

PLATE III.

To judge from the area of the Ilium of the Greek colony,[51] it may have possessed 100,000 inhabitants. It must in its best days have been very rich, and the plastic art must have attained a high degree of perfection here. Accordingly the site of the town, which is covered with abundant relics of grand buildings, is strewn with fragments of excellent sculptures, and the splendid block of triglyphs—6½ feet in length and 2 feet 10 inches in height, with a metopé which represents Phœbus Apollo with the four horses of the Sun—is one of the most glorious masterpieces that have been preserved from the time when Greek art was in its zenith. I discovered it in the depths of the temple of Apollo, and it now adorns my garden at Athens. In describing this treasure of art in my memoir of the 18th of June, 1872,[52] directly after having discovered it, I made the remark that it must have belonged to the time of Lysimachus, that is to say to about the year 306 B.C. I sent a plaster cast of it to the Museum of Casts in Munich, and the Director of the Museum, Professor H. Brunn, who is certainly one of the greatest authorities in the world respecting the plastic works of antiquity, wrote me the following communication with regard to it. “Even photographs furnish no adequate means of judging of plastic works, and, in the present case, the cast alone has quite convinced me that this work must be judged much more favourably than it has been in the ‘Archäologische Zeitung.’ I do not venture to speak decidedly about the triglyphs: the history of the Doric style after the time of the Parthenon and the Propylæa is still utterly obscure: yet the straight cutting of the channellings can certainly be referred to pre-Roman times. Of external criteria the halo of rays is the only one. According to the investigations of Stephani,[53] this first occurs about the time of Alexander the Great. For the special form of long and short rays, we have the coins of Alexander I., of Epirus and of Ceos (Carthæa), mentioned by Curtius. The most recent example that I have as yet found is the Hades vase of Canosa, in our Museum, which belongs at latest to the second century before Christ; hence the extreme termini for the relief would be about the end of the fourth and the middle of the second centuries. The composition, as a work of art, shows the greatest skill in solving one of the most difficult problems. For the team of four horses ought not to move on the surface of the relief, but to appear as if it came out of it in a half-turn. This has been attained principally by making the right hinder thigh of the horse in the foreground pressed back while the left foot steps forward, and moreover this same horse is slightly foreshortened, and the surface of the thigh lies deeper than the upper surface of the triglyphs, while, on the other hand, the surfaces of the withers and of the neck are higher, and the head, in conformity with the rules of Greek reliefs, is again almost parallel with the base. For this reason there is no indication of a chariot, which has to be imagined as concealed by the foremost horse. Moreover the position of the god is half turned forwards, slightly following that of the head, and here also the arm is again strongly turned inwards, but not so as to bring the position in conflict with the rules of relief. If the encroachment of the head on the upper border of the triglyph is considered inaccurate, I find in this a very happy thought, which may remind us of the differently conceived pediment of the Parthenon, where only the head and shoulders of Helios rise out of the chariot still under the ocean. Helios here, so to speak, bursts forth from the gates of day and sheds the light of his glory over all. These are beauties peculiar only to Greek art in the fulness of its power. The execution corresponds perfectly with the excellence of the ideas, and thus I do not hesitate to place the relief nearer to the commencement than to the end of the above limited space of time. If, therefore, for other reasons, you believe it to belong to the time of Lysimachus, I, from an archæological point of view, have no objection to make against the supposition, but I rejoice to see our treasure of monuments enriched by an original from those times.”

I have already proved the relationship of the four different peoples, who inhabited the site of Troy before the arrival of the Greek colony, by the small terra-cottas in the form of volcanoes and tops which are met with in quantities in all of the strata, and by the similarity of the Aryan religious symbols engraved upon them. I prove this relationship further, and above all, by the plastic representations of Athena, the owl-faced tutelary goddess of Ilium, for this representation is common to all the four nations which preceded the Greek colony. Immediately below the strata of the last, at a depth of 2 meters (6½ feet), I found this owl’s face upon terra-cotta cups with a kind of helmet, which likewise occur in all the succeeding layers of débris to a depth of 12 meters (39½ feet), and are of very frequent occurrence down to a depth of 9 meters (29½ feet). These cups may, as my learned friend Émile Burnouf thinks, have served only as lids to the vases which occur contemporaneously with them, and which have two up-raised wings, and the breasts and abdomen of a woman, for they fit these vases perfectly. I found likewise in all the layers of débris, from a depth of 3 meters (nearly 10 feet) down to a depth of 10 meters (33 feet), vases with owls’ faces, two upraised wings (not arms, as I formerly thought), and the two large breasts and abdomen of a woman, and even, at a depth of 6 meters (nearly 20 feet), a vase upon which the navel is ornamented with a cross and four nails. As far down as a depth of 14 meters (46 feet) I found the upper portion of a vase and the fragment of a dish adorned with owls’ faces. Besides these, in all the layers of débris, from a depth of 6½ feet downwards, as far as the primary soil, there were found idols of very fine marble, of bone, of mica-schist, of slate, and even of ordinary limestone, which are from ¼ of an inch to 7¼ inches in length, and from 0·6 of an inch to 4·8 inches in breadth. Upon a great many of these there is an owl’s face, and some have even long female hair engraved upon them; many also have a woman’s girdle. As upon several of the idols, upon which I find the owl’s head, it is not cut, but represented in a red or black colour, I presume that this was once the case with all the idols which now possess no indications of an owl, and that the colour upon these latter has been destroyed by damp, during the course of thousands of years. Upon several idols of marble and bone there are mere indications of wings on the sides. But I also find the petrified vertebra of an antediluvian animal upon which the Trojans have carved a large owl’s head. Further, at a depth of 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 meters (10, 13, 20, 23, 26, 30 and 46 feet), I found twelve idols of terra-cotta, and all, with only one exception, have owls’ faces upon them; most of them also have the two breasts of a woman, and upon the back traces of long female hair. One of these owl-headed idols has the form of a vessel, with a funnel on each side in the shape of a smaller vessel; the front part of the body of the goddess, up to the neck, is covered by a long shield, and on the back of the body there is the long female hair hanging down, like that of the Karyatides in the Acropolis of Athens. Upon several of these terra-cotta idols there are indications of wings.

These owl-faced female figures, which occur so frequently upon the cups, vases and idols, can represent but one goddess, and this goddess can be none other than Athena, the tutelary goddess of Troy, all the more so as Homer continually calls her “θεὰ γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη;” for “γλαυκῶπις” has been wrongly translated by the scholars of every century, and does not signify “with bright and sparkling eyes,” but “with the face of an owl.” The natural conclusion, in the first place, is that Homer perfectly well knew that the owl-faced Athena was the tutelary goddess of Troy; secondly, that the locality whose depths I have ransacked for three years must be the spot “ubi Troja fuit;” and thirdly, that, in the progress of civilization, Pallas Athena received a human face, and her former owl’s head was transformed into her favourite bird, the owl, which as such is quite unknown to Homer. At a depth of from 4 to 9 meters (13 to 29½ feet), I also found some vases and cups with a human face, but which have a good deal of the owl about them.

As I did not find a trace of the owl’s face among the ruins of the Greek colony, we may regard it as certain that it had already advanced beyond the civilization of the old Ilians of whose town it took possession, and that it brought the idea of the goddess with a human face with it to Troy.

With regard to the often mentioned perforated terra-cottas in the form of a top and the crater of a volcano, adorned with Aryan religious symbols, it is possible that their original form was that of a wheel, for they occur frequently in this shape upon the primary rock at a depth of from 14 to 16 meters (46 to 52½ feet).[54] In the upper layers of débris, these objects in the form of wheels are indeed rare, but the representation of the wheel in motion, effected by the incisions being more numerous, still occurs very frequently.[55] In spite of all my searching and pondering, I have not yet succeeded in arriving at an opinion as to what these extremely interesting objects were used for. As has now become evident by the excavation of the temple of Athena, it is only among the pre-Hellenic peoples that they were adorned with Aryan symbols. In the Greek colony these occur but rarely; they are of a different form, and they possess no trace of carved decorations; instead of these, we find the much larger objects of terra-cotta, round, and twice perforated, which occasionally bear the mark of a kind of stamp.[56]

Through the kindness of my friend Professor Giuseppe G. Bianconi in Bologna, I have received the drawings of ten similar round articles of terra-cotta in the form of the top or volcano, which are preserved in the Museum of Modena, and were found in the terramares of that district, in the lake-habitations of the stone age. To my extreme astonishment, I found that six of them possessed the same ornamental carvings which I found upon the articles of the same form here in Troy. Three of them have a circle round the central sun, a triple cross, which, as I have endeavoured minutely to explain in my sixth memoir, was the symbol of the two pieces of wood of our Aryan forefathers for producing the holy fire, and is an emblem of the highest importance. The fourth represents one of these machines for producing fire with five ends, and Indian scholars may possibly find that one of the staves represents the piece of wood called “pramantha,” with which fire was generated by friction, and which the Greeks at a later time transformed into their Prometheus, who, as they imagined, stole fire from heaven. The fifth represents a somewhat different form of the fire producer of our remote ancestors; and the sixth has twelve circles round the central sun. Probably these are the twelve stations of the sun which are so frequently mentioned in the Rigvêda, and which are personified by the twelve Adityas, the sons of Adity (the Indivisible or Infinite Space), and represent the twelve signs of the Zodiac.

The same friend has also sent me drawings of eighteen similar round terra-cottas found in the graves of the cemetery in Villanova, and now in the Museum of Count Gozzadini in Bologna. As the count found an “aes rude” in one of the graves, he thinks that the cemetery, like it, belongs to the time of King Numa, that is, to about 700 years before Christ. G. de Mortillet,[57] however, ascribes a much greater age to the cemetery. But, at all events, fifteen of the eighteen drawings lying before me have a modern appearance compared with the ten in the Museum of Modena, and compared with my small terra-cottas in the form of tops, volcanoes, and wheels, found in Troy; for not only the decorations, but the forms also of the articles are very much more elaborate. Only three of the eighteen articles show a shape and decorations like those met with in Troy. All three have the form of a top: the first has seven suns in a circle round the central sun; the second has two crosses, one of which is formed by four stars, the other by four lines. The third has five triangles and five stars in the circle round the central point. The comparison of these eighteen articles with those from Troy convinces me that Count Gozzadini is right in ascribing no greater age to the cemetery of Villanova than 700 B.C.

But besides the articles ornamented with religious symbols, we meet in Troy with thousands of terra-cottas of a similar, but in most cases more lengthened form, with no decorations whatever; at a depth of 3 metres (10 feet), they occur also in the shape of cones.[58] Formerly, at a depth of 10 feet, I found similar pieces in blue or green stone, which I have also recently met with frequently at a depth of from 23 to 33 feet. Among the unembellished terra-cottas of this description I find some, but scarcely more than 2 per cent., which show signs of wear, and may have been used on spindles. The pieces adorned with carvings, on the other hand, never show signs of any kind of wear, and the symbols engraved upon them are filled with white clay so as to make them more striking to the eye.[59] This white clay must have disappeared directly, if the pieces had been used on spindles or as coins. They cannot have been worn as amulets, on account of their size and weight: I am therefore forced to believe that they were employed as offerings, or that they were worshipped as idols of the Sun, whose image is seen in the centre.

Unfortunately, owing to the great extent of my excavations, the hurry in which they were carried on, and the hardness of the débris, by far the greater portion of the terra-cotta vessels found by me in the depths of Ilium were brought out more or less broken. But everything that could in any way be repaired I have restored by means of shell-lac and gypsum, and in this state they are represented in the drawings.[60] In all cases where I found a piece broken off and wanting, I restored it according to the model of other vessels of the same kind which I obtained in an unbroken condition; but where such models were wanting, or where I had the slightest doubt, I did not attempt to restore the articles.

The town of Ilium, upon whose site I have been digging for more than three years, boasted itself to be the successor of Troy; and as throughout antiquity the belief in the identity of its site with that of the ancient city of Priam was firmly established and not doubted by anyone, it is clear that the whole course of tradition confirms this identity. At last Strabo lifted up his voice against it; though, as he himself admits, he had never visited the Plain of Troy, and he trusted to the accounts of Demetrius of Scepsis, which were suggested by vanity. According to Strabo,[61] this Demetrius maintained that his native town of Scepsis had been the residence of Æneas, and he envied Ilium the honour of having been the metropolis of the Trojan kingdom. He therefore put forward the following view of the case:—that Ilium and its environs did not contain space enough for the great deeds of the Iliad; that the whole plain which separated the city from the sea was alluvial land, and that it was not formed until after the time of the Trojan war. As another proof that the locality of the two cities could not be the same, he adds that Achilles and Hector ran three times round Troy, whereas one could not run round Ilium on account of the continuous mountain ridge (διὰ τὴν συνεχῆ ῥάχην). For all of these reasons he says that ancient Troy must be placed on the site of the “Village of the Ilians” (Ἰλιέων κώμη), 30 stadia or 3 geographical miles from Ilium and 42 stadia from the coast, although he is obliged to admit that not the faintest trace of the city has been preserved.[62]

Strabo, with his peculiarly correct judgment, would assuredly have rejected all these erroneous assertions of Demetrius of Scepsis, had he himself visited the Plain of Troy, for they can easily be refuted.

I have to remark that it is quite easy to run round the site of Troy; further, that the distance from Ilium to the coast, in a straight line, is about 4 miles, while the distance in a straight line north-west to the promontory of Sigeum (and at this place tradition, as late as Strabo’s time, fixed the site of the Greek encampment) amounts to about 4½ miles. For Strabo says:[63] “Next to Rhœteum may be seen the ruined town of Sigeum, the port of the Achæans, the Achæan camp, and the marsh or lake called Stomalimne, and the mouth of the Scamander.”

In November, 1871, I made excavations upon the site of the “Ἰλιέων κώμη,” the results of which completely refute the theory of Demetrius of Scepsis; for I found everywhere the primary soil at a depth of less than a foot and a half; and the continuous ridge on the one side of the site, which appeared to contain the ruins of a large town-wall, consisted of nothing but pure granulated earth, without any admixture of ruins.

In the year 1788, Lechevalier visited the plain of Troy, and was so enthusiastically in favour of the theory that the site of Homer’s Troy was to be found at the village of Bunarbashi and the heights behind it, that he disdained to investigate the site of Ilium: this is evident from his work ‘Voyage de la Troade’ (3^e éd., Paris, 1802) and from the accompanying map, in which he most absurdly calls this very ancient town “Ilium Novum,” and transposes it to the other side of the Scamander, beside Kumkaleh, close to the sea and about 4 miles from its true position. This theory, that the site of Troy can only be looked for in the village of Bunarbashi and upon the heights behind it, was likewise maintained by the following scholars: by Rennell, ‘Observations on the Topography of the Plain of Troy’ (London, 1814); by P. W. Forchhammer in the ‘Journal of the Royal Geographical Society,’ vol. xii., 1842; by Mauduit, ‘Découvertes dans la Troade’ (Paris et Londres, 1840); by Welcker, ‘Kleine Schriften;’ by Texier; by Choiseul-Gouffrier, ‘Voyage Pittoresque de la Grèce’ (1820); by M. G. Nikolaïdes (Paris, 1867); and by Ernst Curtius in his lecture delivered at Berlin in November, 1871, after his journey to the Troad and Ephesus, whither he was accompanied by Professors Adler and Müllenhof, and by Dr. Hirschfeldt. But, as I have explained in detail in my work, ‘Ithaque, le Péloponnèse et Troie’ (Paris, 1869), this theory is in every respect in direct opposition to all the statements of the Iliad. My excavations at Bunarbashi prove, moreover, that no town can ever have stood there; for I find everywhere the pure virgin soil at a depth of less than 5 feet, and generally immediately below the surface. I have likewise proved, by my excavations on the heights behind this village, that human dwellings can never have existed there; for I found the native rock nowhere at a greater depth than a foot and a half. This is further confirmed by the sometimes pointed, sometimes abrupt, and always anomalous form of the rocks which are seen wherever they are not covered with earth. At half-an-hour’s distance behind Bunarbashi there is, it is true, the site of quite a small town, encircled on two sides by precipices and on the other by the ruins of a surrounding wall, which town I formerly considered to be Scamandria; but one of the inscriptions found in the ruins of the temple of Athena in the Ilium of the Greek colony makes me now believe with certainty that the spot above Bunarbashi is not the site of Scamandria, but of Gergis. Moreover, the accumulation of débris there is extremely insignificant, and the naked rock protrudes not only in the small Acropolis, but also in very many places of the site of the little town. Further, in all cases where there is an accumulation of débris, I found fragments of Hellenic pottery, and of Hellenic pottery only, down to the primary soil. As archæology cannot allow the most ancient of these fragments to be any older than from 500 to 600 years before Christ, the walls of the small town—which used to be regarded as of the same age as those of Mycenæ—can certainly be no older than 500 to 600 B.C. at most.

Immediately below this little town there are three tombs of heroes, one of which has been assigned to Priam, another to Hector, because it was built entirely of small stones. The latter grave was laid open in October 1872, by Sir John Lubbock, who found it to contain nothing but painted fragments of Hellenic pottery to which the highest date that can be assigned is 300 B.C.; and these fragments tell us the age of the tomb likewise.

The late Consul J. G. von Hahn, who in May 1864, in his extensive excavations of the acropolis of Gergis down to the primary soil, only discovered the same, and nothing but exactly the same, fragments of Hellenic pottery as I found there in my small excavations, writes in his pamphlet, ‘Die Ausgrabungen des Homerischen Pergamos:’ “In spite of the diligent search which my companions and I made on the extensive northern slope of the Balidagh, from the foot of the acropolis (of Gergis) to the springs of Bunarbashi, we could not discover any indication beyond the three heroic tombs, that might have pointed to a former human settlement, not even antique fragments of pottery and pieces of brick,—those never-failing, and consequently imperishable, proofs of an ancient settlement. No pillars or other masonry, no ancient square stones, no quarry in the natural rock, no artificial levelling of the rock; on all sides the earth was in its natural state and had not been touched by human hands.”

The erroneous theory which assigns Troy to the heights of Bunarbashi could, in fact, never have gained ground, had its above-named advocates employed the few hours which they spent on the heights, and in Bunarbashi itself, in making small holes, with the aid of even a single workman.

Clarke and Barker Webb (Paris, 1844) maintained that Troy was situated on the hills of Chiplak. But unfortunately they also had not given themselves the trouble to make excavations there; otherwise they would have convinced themselves, with but very little trouble, that all the hills in and around Chiplak, as far as the surrounding Wall of Ilium, contain only the pure native soil.

H. N. Ulrichs[64] maintains that Troy was situated on the hills of Atzik-Kioï, which in my map I have called Eski Akshi köi. But I have examined these hills also, and found that they consist of the pure native soil. I used a spade in making these excavations, but a pocket-knife would have answered the purpose.

I cannot conceive how it is possible that the solution of the great problem, “ubi Troja fuit”—which is surely one of the greatest interest to the whole civilized world—should have been treated so superficially that, after a few hours’ visit to the Plain of Troy, men have sat down at home and written voluminous works to defend a theory, the worthlessness of which they would have perceived had they but made excavations for a single hour.

I am rejoiced that I can mention with praise Dr. Wilhelm Buchner,[65] Dr. G. von Eckenbrecher,[66] and C. MacLaren,[67] who, although they made no excavations, have nevertheless in their excellent treatises proved by many irrefutable arguments that the site of Ilium, where I have been digging for more than three years, corresponds with all the statements of the Iliad in regard to the site of Troy, and that the ancient city must be looked for there and nowhere else.

It is also with gratitude that I think of the great German scholar, who unfortunately succumbed five years ago to his unwearied exertions, Julius Braun, the advocate of the theory that Homer’s Troy was to be found only on the site of Ilium, in the depths of the hill of HISSARLIK. I most strongly recommend his excellent work, ‘Die Geschichte der Kunst in ihrem Entwickelungsgang,’ to all those who are interested in whatever is true, beautiful and sublime.

Neither can I do otherwise than gratefully mention my honoured friend, the celebrated Sanscrit scholar and unwearied investigator Émile Burnouf, the Director of the French school in Athens, who personally, and through his many excellent works, especially the one published last year, ‘La Science des Religions,’ has given me several suggestions, which have enabled me to decipher many of the Trojan symbols.[68]

It is also with a feeling of gratitude that I think of my honoured friend, the most learned Greek whom I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, Professor Stephanos Kommanoudes, in Athens, who has supported me with his most valuable advice whenever I was in need of it. In like manner I here tender my cordial thanks to my honoured friend the Greek Consul of the Dardanelles, G. Dokos, who showed me many kindnesses during my long excavations.

I beg to draw especial attention to the fact that, in the neighbourhood of Troy, several types of very ancient pottery—like those found in my excavations at a depth of from 10 to 33 feet—have been preserved down to the present day. For instance, in the crockery-shops on the shores of the Dardanelles there are immense numbers of earthen vessels with long upright necks and the breasts of a woman, and others in the shape of animals. In spite of their gilding and other decorations, these vessels cannot, either in regard to quality or elegance of form, be compared with the Ilian terra-cottas, not even with those from a depth of 10 feet; but still they furnish a remarkable proof of the fact that, in spite of manifold political changes, certain types of terra-cottas can continue in existence in one district for more than 3000 years.

After long and mature deliberation, I have arrived at the firm conviction that all of those vessels—met with here in great numbers at a depth of from 10 to 33 feet, and more especially in the Trojan layer of débris, at a depth of from 23 to 33 feet—which have the exact shape of a bell and a coronet beneath, so that they can only stand upon their mouth, and which I have hitherto described as cups, must necessarily, and perhaps even exclusively, have been used as lids to the numerous terra-cotta vases with a smooth neck and on either side two ear-shaped decorations, between which are two mighty wings, which, as they are hollowed and taper away to a point, can never have served as handles, the more so as between the ear-shaped decorations there is a small handle on either side. Now, as the latter resembles an owl’s beak, and especially as this is seen between the ear-shaped ornaments, it was doubtless intended to represent the image of the owl with upraised wings on each side of the vases, which image received a noble appearance from the splendid lid with a coronet. I give a drawing of the largest vase of this type, which was found a few days ago in the royal palace at a depth of from 28 to 29½ feet; on the top of it I have placed the bell-shaped lid with a coronet, which was discovered close by and appears to have belonged to it.

My friend M. Landerer, Professor of Chemistry in Athens, who has carefully examined the colours of the Trojan antiquities, writes to me as follows:—“In the first place, as to the vessels themselves, some have been turned upon a potter’s wheel, some have been moulded by the hand. Their ground-colour varies according to the nature of the clay. I find some of them made of black, deep-brown, red, yellowish, and ashy-grey clay. All of these kinds of clay, which the Trojan potters used for their ware, consist of clay containing oxide of iron and silica (argile silicieuse ferrugineuse), and, according to the stronger or weaker mode of burning, the oxide of iron in the clay became more or less oxidised: thus the black, brown, red, yellow, or grey colour is explained by the oxidation of the iron. The beautiful black gloss of the vessels found upon the native soil, at a depth of 46 feet, does not contain any oxide of lead, but consists of coal-black (Kohlenschwarz),[69] which was melted together with the clay and penetrated into its pores. This can be explained by the clay vessels having been placed in slow furnaces in which resinous wood was burnt, and where there was consequently dense smoke, which descended upon the earthenware in the form of the finest powder and was likewise burnt into the clay. It is also possible, but by no means probable, that they used a black pitch or asphalt, which was dissolved in oil of turpentine; perhaps they used liquid pitch, and painted the vessels with it. The burning of these would likewise produce coal-black, which in later times was called the Atramentum indelibile of Apelles. This is the manner in which colour and gloss were given to Hellenic terra-cottas.

“The white colour with which the engraved decorations of the Trojan terra-cottas were filled, by means of a pointed instrument, is nothing but pure white clay. In like manner, the painting on the potsherd given above,[70] is made with white clay, and with black clay containing coal. The brilliant red colour of the large two-handled vessels (δέπα ἀμφικύπελλα)[71] is no peculiar colour, but merely oxide of iron, which is a component part of the clay of which the cups were made. Many of the brilliant yellow Trojan vessels, I find, are made of grey clay, and painted over with a mass of yellow clay containing oxide of iron; they were then polished with one of those sharp pieces of diorite which are so frequently met with in Troy, and afterwards burnt.

The large marshes lying before the site of Ἰλιέων κώμη, and discussed in my second memoir, have long since been drained, and thus the estate of Thymbria (formerly Batak) has acquired 240 acres of rich land. As might have been expected, they were not found to contain any hot springs, but only three springs of cold water.

In my twenty-second memoir I have mentioned a Trojan vase, with a row of signs running round it, which I considered to be symbolical, and therefore did not have them specially reproduced by photography. However, as my learned friend Émile Burnouf is of opinion that they form a real inscription in Chinese letters,[72] I give them here according to his drawing.

M. Burnouf explains them as follows:—

and adds: “Les caractères du petit vase ne sont ni grecs ni sanscrits, ni phéniciens, ni, ni, ni—ils sont parfaitement lisibles en chinois!!! Ce vase peut être venu en Troade de l’Asie septentrional, dont tout le Nord était touranien.” Characters similar to those given above frequently occur, more especially upon the perforated terra-cottas in the form of volcanoes and tops.

As the Turkish papers have charged me in a shameful manner with having acted against the letter of the firman granted to me, in having kept the Treasure for myself instead of sharing it with the Turkish Government, I find myself obliged to explain here, in a few words, how it is that I have the most perfect right to that treasure. It was only in order to spare Safvet Pacha, the late Minister of Public Instruction, that I stated in my first memoir, that at my request, and in the interest of science, he had arranged for the portion of Hissarlik, which belonged to the two Turks in Kum-Kaleh, to be bought by the Government. But the true state of the case is this. Since my excavations here in the beginning of April 1870, I had made unceasing endeavours to buy this field, and at last, after having travelled three times to Kum-Kaleh simply with this object, I succeeded in beating the two proprietors down to the sum of 1000 francs (40l.) Then, in December 1870, I went to Safvet Pacha at Constantinople, and told him that, after eight months’ vain endeavours, I had at last succeeded in arranging for the purchase of the principal site of Troy for 1000 francs, and that I should conclude the bargain as soon as he would grant me permission to excavate the field. He knew nothing about Troy or Homer; but I explained the matter to him briefly, and said that I hoped to find there antiquities of immense value to science. He, however, thought that I should find a great deal of gold, and therefore wished me to give him all the details I could, and then requested me to call again in eight days. When I returned to him, I heard to my horror that he had already compelled the two proprietors to sell him the field for 600 francs (24l.), and that I might make excavations there if I wished, but that everything I found must be given up to him. I told him in the plainest language what I thought of his odious and contemptible conduct, and declared that I would have nothing more to do with him, and that I should make no excavations.

But through Mr. Wyne McVeagh, at that time the American Consul, he repeatedly offered to let me make excavations, on condition that I should give him only one-half of the things found. At the persuasion of that gentleman I accepted the offer, on condition that I should have the right to carry away my half out of Turkey. But the right thus conceded to me was revoked in April 1872, by a ministerial decree, in which it was said that I was not to export any part of my share of the discovered antiquities, but that I had the right to sell them in Turkey. The Turkish Government, by this new decree, broke our written contract in the fullest sense of the word, and I was released from every obligation. Hence I no longer troubled myself in the slightest degree about the contract which was broken without any fault on my part. I kept everything valuable that I found for myself, and thus saved it for science; and I feel sure that the whole civilized world will approve of my having done so. The new-discovered Trojan antiquities, and especially the Treasure, far surpass my most sanguine expectations, and fully repay me for the contemptible trick which Safvet Pacha played me, as well as for the continual and unpleasant presence of a Turkish official during my excavations, to whom I was forced to pay 4¾ francs a day.

It was by no means because I considered it to be my duty, but simply to show my friendly intentions, that I presented the Museum in Constantinople with seven large vases, from 5 to 6½ feet in height, and with four sacks of stone implements. I have thus become the only benefactor the Museum has ever had; for, although all firmans are granted upon the express condition that one-half of the discovered antiquities shall be given to the Museum, yet it has hitherto never received an article from anyone. The reason is that the Museum is anything but open to the public, and the sentry frequently refuses admittance even to its Director, so everyone knows that the antiquities sent there would be for ever lost to science.

The great Indian scholar, Max Müller of Oxford, has just written to me in regard to the owl-headed tutelary divinity of Troy. “Under all circumstances, the owl-headed idol cannot be made to explain the idea of the goddess. The ideal conception and the naming of the goddess came first; and in that name the owl’s head, whatever it may mean, is figurative or ideal. In the idol the figurative intention is forgotten, just as the sun is represented with a golden hand, whereas the ideal conception of ‘golden-handed’ was ‘spreading his golden rays.’ An owl-headed deity was most likely intended for a deity of the morning or the dawn, the owl-light; to change it into a human figure with an owl’s head was the work of a later and more materializing age.”

I completely agree with this. But it is evident from this that the Trojans, or at least the first settlers on the hill, spoke Greek, for if they took the epithet of their goddess, “γλαυκῶπις,” from the ideal conception which they formed of her and in later times changed it into an owl-headed female figure, they must necessarily have known that γλαῦξ meant owl, and ὠπή face. That the transformation took place many centuries, and probably more than 1000 years, before Homer’s time, is moreover proved by owls’ heads occurring on the vases and even in the monograms in the lowest strata of the predecessors of the Trojans, even at a depth of 46 feet.

I have still to draw attention to the fact, that in looking over my Trojan collection from a depth of 2 meters (6½ feet), I find 70 very pretty brilliant black or red terra-cottas, with or without engraved decorations, which, both in quality and form, have not the slightest resemblance either to the Greek or to the pre-historic earthenware. Thus it seems that just before the arrival of the Greek colony yet another tribe inhabited this hill for a short time.[73] These pieces of earthenware may be recognised by the two long-pointed handles of the large channelled cups, which also generally possess three or four small horns.

DR. HENRY SCHLIEMANN.

COMPARATIVE TABLE OF FRENCH METERS AND ENGLISH MEASURES, EXACT AND APPROXIMATE.

N.B.—The following is a convenient approximate Rule:—“To turn Meters into Yards, add 1-11th to the number of Meters.”

WORK AT HISSARLIK IN 1871.

CHAPTER I.

The site of Ilium described—Excavations in 1870: the City Wall of Lysimachus—Purchase of the site and grant of a firman—Arrival of Dr. and Madame Schliemann in 1871, and beginning of the Excavations—The Hill of HISSARLIK, the Acropolis of the Greek Ilium—Search for its limits—Difficulties of the work—The great cutting on the North side—Greek coins found—Dangers from fever.

On the Hill of Hissarlik, in the Plain of Troy,
October 18th, 1871.