DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.748#0181
144 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE.
It is established by Professor R. C. JebbJ that " in the belief of the
ancient world " — except of the people of Ilium, who were influenced origi-
nally, doubtless, by a natural inclination to magnify the importance of their
native city, and except, too, of Alexander the Great and the Romans, whose
acceptance of the tradition of the Ilians was uncritical, and actuated by
motives of self-interest — Homeric Troy "had ceased to be inhabited
when it was sacked by the Achaeans, and its site had ever afterwards
remained desolate. This was not an accidental detail of the ancient
tradition, but a capital and essential feature. If so much of Troy had
been spared that the old inhabitants could continue to occupy it, the ten
years' siege would, in the feeling of the old world, have ended with an
abject anti-climax. The gods who had fought for the Achaeans would
have been robbed of their due triumph over the gods who had fought for
the Trojans."
Thus the ancients did not believe that the Hellenic Ilium occupied the
site of Troy. It is, however, entirely possible that the Hellenic Ilium,
which was probably founded centuries after the destruction of Troy, —
perhaps as late as the reign of Croesus,2 — and long after all tradition of
its exact site had disappeared, may have been established, unintentionally
and unknown to its founders, upon the accursed spot.
Criticism of the text of Homer affords arguments apparently strong
in favor alike of Hissarlik3 and of Bunarbashi.4 The question must
therefore be decided, if at all, by excavation.
The great extent of Dr. Schliemann's work at Hissarlik is well known.
Whatever bearing his discoveries may have upon the Iliad, the unearthing
there of six (or more 3) cities buried one beneath the other, is an archaeo-
logical acquisition of the highest importance ; and the pottery and the
metallic implements and ornaments found in the four lower strata of
debris, form, with those of Thera, the earliest material that we have
for the study of primitive Greek civilization.8 At Bunarbashi the only
archaeological investigation of any extent that has been made is that
1 JournalofHellenic Studies, ii. I, — " Homeric and Hellenic Ilium" All who
are interested in the subject should read this important article. Cf. Mr. W. J.
Stillman's letter on the "Site of Homeric Troy" in the Nation of May 5th, 1881.
2 Professor Jebb: loc. cit.
3 Schliemann : Ilios; Professor A. H. Sayce : Journal of Hellenic Studies, i.,
" Notes from Journeys in the Troad and Lycia" ; fimile Burnouf: Memaires sur
VAntiquite, " Troie" ; Virchow and others.
4 Nicolaides : Topography and Strategy of the Iliad; W.J. Stillman ; Curtius
and others.
6 Professor A. H. Sayce.
* M. Collignon: L'Archeologie Grecque. Paris, 1881. Cf. the study on " Troie"
in the work of M. Burnouf above referred to.
It is established by Professor R. C. JebbJ that " in the belief of the
ancient world " — except of the people of Ilium, who were influenced origi-
nally, doubtless, by a natural inclination to magnify the importance of their
native city, and except, too, of Alexander the Great and the Romans, whose
acceptance of the tradition of the Ilians was uncritical, and actuated by
motives of self-interest — Homeric Troy "had ceased to be inhabited
when it was sacked by the Achaeans, and its site had ever afterwards
remained desolate. This was not an accidental detail of the ancient
tradition, but a capital and essential feature. If so much of Troy had
been spared that the old inhabitants could continue to occupy it, the ten
years' siege would, in the feeling of the old world, have ended with an
abject anti-climax. The gods who had fought for the Achaeans would
have been robbed of their due triumph over the gods who had fought for
the Trojans."
Thus the ancients did not believe that the Hellenic Ilium occupied the
site of Troy. It is, however, entirely possible that the Hellenic Ilium,
which was probably founded centuries after the destruction of Troy, —
perhaps as late as the reign of Croesus,2 — and long after all tradition of
its exact site had disappeared, may have been established, unintentionally
and unknown to its founders, upon the accursed spot.
Criticism of the text of Homer affords arguments apparently strong
in favor alike of Hissarlik3 and of Bunarbashi.4 The question must
therefore be decided, if at all, by excavation.
The great extent of Dr. Schliemann's work at Hissarlik is well known.
Whatever bearing his discoveries may have upon the Iliad, the unearthing
there of six (or more 3) cities buried one beneath the other, is an archaeo-
logical acquisition of the highest importance ; and the pottery and the
metallic implements and ornaments found in the four lower strata of
debris, form, with those of Thera, the earliest material that we have
for the study of primitive Greek civilization.8 At Bunarbashi the only
archaeological investigation of any extent that has been made is that
1 JournalofHellenic Studies, ii. I, — " Homeric and Hellenic Ilium" All who
are interested in the subject should read this important article. Cf. Mr. W. J.
Stillman's letter on the "Site of Homeric Troy" in the Nation of May 5th, 1881.
2 Professor Jebb: loc. cit.
3 Schliemann : Ilios; Professor A. H. Sayce : Journal of Hellenic Studies, i.,
" Notes from Journeys in the Troad and Lycia" ; fimile Burnouf: Memaires sur
VAntiquite, " Troie" ; Virchow and others.
4 Nicolaides : Topography and Strategy of the Iliad; W.J. Stillman ; Curtius
and others.
6 Professor A. H. Sayce.
* M. Collignon: L'Archeologie Grecque. Paris, 1881. Cf. the study on " Troie"
in the work of M. Burnouf above referred to.