No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
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.
page 143 note 1 See especially pp. 69, 71, 72, 75 (‘avant le xvi.e siècle, Hissarlik; au xvi.e, Santorin; au xiv.e, Ialysos; au xiii.e, ou au xii.e, Mycènes; et au xi.e, Spata’).
page 144 note 1 See also his letter in the Times of March 22nd, 1883. Dr. Dörpfeld, after saying that ‘Dr. Schlieraann's statement that no Greek or Roman architectural remains are found at a greater depth than two mètres [six feet] can be contradicted by no one, since it exactly describes the facts,’ here remarks: ‘If therefore, as architects, we can find in the method of constructing the walls not the slightest ground for assigning a fixed age to the earlier settlements [on Hissarlik], we must turn, for an answer to this question, to the objects discovered in the houses, such as pottery, stone weapons and implementa, ornaments, jewels and the like. All these objects have till recently been exhibited for three years and a half in the South Kensington Museum, and are now to be seen in the Schliemann Museum at Berlin, where, as was the case in London, they are classified according to the strata in which they were severally found. It is the same system of classification as that adopted in Ilios. I, as an architect, do not feel myself qualified to pronounce an authoritative judgment upon the age of these different objects; but prehistoric archaeologists, after a careful comparison of them with similar objects discovered elsewhere, have from the first agreed that the pottery found below the uppermost stratum—that is, at a greater depth than two mètres beneath the surface—must all be assigned to a remote antiquity.’
page 150 note 1 Professor Sayce does not correctly reproduce, and seems not clearly to understand, M. Dumont's view as to the relation existing between the oldest pottery at Hissarlik and that of Thera, Ialysos, Mycenae, and Spata, but it is needless to discuss this here. It is enough to observe that I did not even touch on this topic, as it was net relevant to my argument.
page 152 note 1 In quoting this last sentence in his foot-note, Professor Sayce omits the words, ‘On the other hand,’ and suppresses the whole sentence which I have printed in italics. This is as if, in quoting a sentence from a Greek author, he were to suppress the clause with μέν, and give only that with δέ.
page 155 note 1 See ‘The Ruins at Hissarlik,’ Journal, III. 19–33, and the former article on ‘Homeric and Hellenic Ilium,’ (Vol. II. page 7).