DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.748#0180
II.
NOTES ON BUNARBASHI AND OTHER SITES
IN THE TROAD.
By WILLIAM C. LAWTON.
HMEI5 AB KAEOS OION AKOYOMEN OYAE TI IAMEN.
PRELIMINARY NOTE.
[The identification of the site of Homeric Troy has long been a subject
of animated controversy among those scholars who believe that the Iliad is
a more or less literal account of events which actually happened, or that it
has at least a considerable foundation of fact. In 1785-86 Lechevalier1
explored the Troad, and identified Bunarbashi as the Ilios of Homer.
Since his time other archaeologists have advocated the claims of Chiblak2
and of Atchi-kieui;3 but their theories were never widely accepted, and
seem finally disproved by the investigations made lately upon these sites
by Dr. Schliemann. The dispute now, therefore, lies between the rival
pretensions of Bunarbashi and Hissarlik, which latter place is recognized
by the common consent of most archaeologists of note as the Hellenic
Ilium, the so-called " Ilium Novum." The inhabitants of Ilium maintained
a tradition that the Trojan Ilios had not been destroyed completely by
the Achaeans, and had never ceased to be inhabited. They even pointed
out in their city many features which had survived the ruin of its famous
predecessor. We cannot, however, allow much weight to local traditions
of this character, which rest often upon very weak foundations — as in
Italy to-day, many towns are abandoning their good old names, some
of which are Hellenic, and older than the name of Rome itself,4 to adopt,
often upon quite insufficient grounds, those of Roman municipia.
1 Lechevalier: Description of the Plain of Troy. London, 1799.
2 Clarke. — Philippe Barker-Webb: Topographic de la Troade Ancienne et
Moderne. Paris, 1844.
3 Ulrichs: Reiscn und Forschungen in Gricchenland, 1840.
4 Francois Lenormant: La Grande Grice. Paris, 1881.
NOTES ON BUNARBASHI AND OTHER SITES
IN THE TROAD.
By WILLIAM C. LAWTON.
HMEI5 AB KAEOS OION AKOYOMEN OYAE TI IAMEN.
PRELIMINARY NOTE.
[The identification of the site of Homeric Troy has long been a subject
of animated controversy among those scholars who believe that the Iliad is
a more or less literal account of events which actually happened, or that it
has at least a considerable foundation of fact. In 1785-86 Lechevalier1
explored the Troad, and identified Bunarbashi as the Ilios of Homer.
Since his time other archaeologists have advocated the claims of Chiblak2
and of Atchi-kieui;3 but their theories were never widely accepted, and
seem finally disproved by the investigations made lately upon these sites
by Dr. Schliemann. The dispute now, therefore, lies between the rival
pretensions of Bunarbashi and Hissarlik, which latter place is recognized
by the common consent of most archaeologists of note as the Hellenic
Ilium, the so-called " Ilium Novum." The inhabitants of Ilium maintained
a tradition that the Trojan Ilios had not been destroyed completely by
the Achaeans, and had never ceased to be inhabited. They even pointed
out in their city many features which had survived the ruin of its famous
predecessor. We cannot, however, allow much weight to local traditions
of this character, which rest often upon very weak foundations — as in
Italy to-day, many towns are abandoning their good old names, some
of which are Hellenic, and older than the name of Rome itself,4 to adopt,
often upon quite insufficient grounds, those of Roman municipia.
1 Lechevalier: Description of the Plain of Troy. London, 1799.
2 Clarke. — Philippe Barker-Webb: Topographic de la Troade Ancienne et
Moderne. Paris, 1844.
3 Ulrichs: Reiscn und Forschungen in Gricchenland, 1840.
4 Francois Lenormant: La Grande Grice. Paris, 1881.