



Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images available at The Internet Archive)
with special thanks to Stephen Rowland for help with the Greek.








[Illustration: PLATE I.

VIEW OF HISSARLIK FROM THE NORTH.

_Frontispiece._

After the Excavations.]




TROY
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 10,000_l._; 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
