|
Introduction (part C).
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{42} metropolis of the Trojan kingdom.
Table 1: Diagram showing the successive strata of remains on the hill of Hissarlik.
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 (d?? t?? s??e?? ?????). For all of these reasons he says
that ancient Troy must be placed on the site of the “Village of the
Ilians” (?????? ??µ?), 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]
Fig.31b: Three Tablets of terracotta, from the ruins of Greek Ilium (1-2m. depth).
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 “?????? ??µ?,”
the results of which completely refute the theory of Demetrius of
Scepsis; for I found everywhere{43} 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’ (3e 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{44} 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{45} 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.{46}
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{47} 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
Fig.32: The largest of the Terra-cotta Vases found in the Royal Palace of Troy. Height 20 inches. The Cover was found near it.
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{48} 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 (fig.32), which{49} 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 resino
Fig.33: Inscribed Trojan Vase of Terra-cotta (8½ m depth).
“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 (figs.33,34) ,[70] is made with white clay, and with black clay containing
coal. The brilliant red colour of the large two-handled vessels (d?pa
?µf???pe??a)[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.{51}
Fig.34: Inscription on the Vase in fig.33.
The
large marshes lying before the site of ?????? ??µ?, 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.
n 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.{52}
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.{53}
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{54} 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,
“??a???p??,” 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 ??a?? meant owl, and ?p? 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{55} 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. Heinrich Schliemann.
Footnotes:
[61] XIII. i., p. 122, Tauchnitz edition.
[62] Strabo, XIII. i., p. 99. See the Map of the Plain of Troy.
[63] XIII. i., p. 103.
[64] ‘Rheinisches Museum,’ Neue Folge, III., s. 573-608.
[65] ‘Jahresbericht über das Gymnasium Fridericianum,’ Schwerin, 1871 und 1872.
[66] ‘Rheinisches Museum,’ Neue Folge, 2. Jahrg., s. 1 fg.
[67]
‘Dissertation on the Topography of the Trojan War.’ Edinburgh, 1822.
Second Edition. ‘The Plain of Troy described,’ &c. 1863. Dr.
Schliemann might have added the weighty authority of Mr. Grote,
‘History of Greece,’ vol. i., chap. xv.—[Ed.]
[68] Dr. Émile
Burnouf has published a very clear and interesting account of Dr.
Schliemann’s discoveries, in the ‘Revue des Deux Mondes’ for Jan. 1,
1874.—[Ed.]
[69] As we call it, lamp-black, that is, tolerably pure carbon.—[Ed.]
[70] See the Cut No. 1 on p. 15.
[71]
These are the vases so often mentioned as having the form of great
champagne glasses (see the Cuts on see p. 85, 158, 166, 171). Dr.
Schliemann also applies the name to the unique boat-shaped vessel of
pure gold found in the Treasure.—[Ed.]
[72] If M. Burnouf meant
this seriously at the time, it can now only stand as a curious
coincidence, interesting as one example of the tentative process of
this new enquiry. (See the Appendix.)—[Ed.]
[73] These
indications of a fifth pre-Hellenic settlement, if confirmed by further
investigation, would seem to point to the spread of the Lydians over
western Asia Minor.—Ed..
.
Continue to Chapter 1.
|
|
