The Ruins of Hissarlik

Abstract

In Professor Jebb's article on ‘The Ruins at Hissarlik,’ published in the last number of the Journal of Hellenic Studies (III. 2), I find a statement attributed to me (p. 191), which I must beg leave to disclaim. Professor Jebb there makes me declare ‘that “any one, however inexperienced in questions of archaeology,” must see that all traces of the Aeolic Ilium cease at six feet below the surface of Hissarlik.’ A reference however, to my letter in the Academy of November 12th, 1881 (not November 5th, as Professor Jebb says), will show that he has altogether misapprehended my meaning, and that my letter speaks only of objects found at Hissarlik and figured in Ilios, and contains no allusion either to walls or to any other kind of building. My words, therefore, can have no relation to ‘the architectural epochs which Dr. Dörpfeld recognises at Hissarlik.’ Consequently there is no opposition between my views and those of Professor Goodwin, as quoted by Professor Jebb. On the contrary, like Dr. Schliemann and, I believe, Professor Jebb himself, I thoroughly agree with Professor Goodwin that there have been ‘only two important settlements’ at Hissarlik, the second prehistoric city namely, and the Greek Ilion. The first, third, fourth, fifth, and (if we accept Dr. Schliemann's views) sixth cities were all poor villages which (with, perhaps, one exception) did not extend beyond the castle-hill itself. In referring to Professor Goodwin, Professor Jebb has overlooked the fact that he does not say there have been only two cities at Hissarlik, but, what is very different, ‘only two important’ ones.