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’ (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 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.