Mycenaean Troy/The Troad

by Herbert Cushing Tolman and Gilbert Campbell Scoggin

 

 

THE TROAD

1. General Description of the Plain.Far in the south of the Trojan Plain rises a high mountain peak, from

Fig. 1.Mount Ida

which extend ramifications, northeastward and southwestward, so numerous and multiform that by old writers the mountain was likened to a monstrous centipede.^[1] This is "many ridged" Ida (Χ, 171; Λ, 112; Υ, 91), and that topmost crest is Gargarus,^[2] rising almost six thousand feet, blue and majestic, its ranges broken by river valleys, until at last a line of hills runs to the Hellespont and completes the eastern boundary of the Trojan Plain. On this summit sat Zeus, "exulting in glory, looking down upon the city of the Trojans and the ships of the Achaeans" (Θ, 47– 52). Here was his sanctuary (Θ, 48). Hither repaired Hera (Ξ, 292).

A little distance from the coast is an island rising like a hill out of the sea. Its proximity to the shore makes it a conspicuous object in the Trojan country.

 

Est in conspectu Tenedos, notissima fama
Insula dives opum, Priami dum regna manebant.

 

The theater of the Homeric wars is before our eyes. Tenedos (Α, 38, 452; Λ, 625; Ν, 33; γ, 159) lies in front of the wide Besika Bay, about four miles from the mainland and twelve from the Hellespont. Farther in the distance is "rugged" Imbros (Ν, 33; Ω, 78), above which towers the huge Samothracian mountain.^[3] It was from this summit that Poseidon looked upon the battle, "for thence was plain in sight all Ida, and plain in sight were Priam's city and the ships of the Achaeans" (Ν, 11–14). In a clear day "holy" Lemnos (Β, 722) shows its outline in the west, while, over one hundred miles distant, Mount Athos (Ξ, 229) is dimly seen at sunset.

Between the Thracian Chersonesus, which in the

 

Fig. 2.Plain of Troy

The Valley of the Scamander is in the foreground. In the distance is Imbros, above which rise the mountain on Samothrace. On the north, beyond the Hellespont, is dimly seem the Thracian Chersonesus.

 

clear atmosphere of the Troad seems close at hand, and a sandy promontory guarded by the crumbling old fortification of Kum Kaleh ("sand fortress"), the "strong-flowing" Hellespont (Β, 845; Μ, 30) meets the sea. Near the entrance juts out Cape Sigeum, where to-day is the Christian village of Yeni Shehr, while about four miles to the east is the rocky shore of Rhoeteum (Rhoeteae orae, Verg. Aen., III, 108). Between these two points, not very far from Troy (for heralds go and return before sunrise), was drawn up the Greek fleet, "row behind row, filling up the shore's wide mouth, which lay betwixt the headlands" (Ξ, 33).

Along the Aegean Sea a low line of hills slopes somewhat abruptly toward the water's edge. The eastern range, stretching from the highest crest of Ida, after repeated interruptions, ends at Rhoeteum. Between these eastern and western ranges lies the deep-soiled valley of the Scamander, with here and there groves of oaks, while reed and tamarisk line the river bank, as in Trojan days.^[4] Another valley—this time of an insignificant swamp stream, called Dumbrek Su, and often identified with the Simoïs—cuts the eastern chain of hills at a little distance from the Hellespont.

Here at the southern point of meeting of the two valleys of the Scamander and the Dumbrek Su is the mound of Hissarlik, rising about sixty feet above the plain, and over three miles distant from the sea and from the Hellespont.^[5] The hillside is rather

 

Fig. 3.The Site of Troy
The Valley of the Simoïs is in the foreground.

 

precipitous on the north where it meets the swamp of the latter stream, forming a marked contrast to its gentle incline westward into the broad and level plain of the Scamander.

The name Hissarlik ("little fortification") was given to this locality because of the Hellenistic remains which were here visible. In fact, the inhabitants of the little settlement of Tshiblak, a mile or so distant, designated it the "Place of Ruins" (Asarlik). To-day it is a place of ruins indeed, and, we may add, of isolation and desolation as well. A more lonely spot the traveler rarely visits, and he can find shelter for the night only in the miserable little villages of Yeni Shehr or Yeni Koï. Yet this insignificant hill marks the site of the Homeric Pergamos, or at least that city whose siege and capture formed the historical basis of the poems. On the same plateau was built the Græco-Roman Ilion, with its world-renowned Athena temple. Xerxes (Herodotus, VII, 43) and Alexander (Arian, I, 11) ascended the citadel, believing that they stood in "divine Ilios."

As the eye surveys the Trojan country, it is attracted to those heights near Bunarbashi, almost ten miles distant from the Hellespont, amid which, in the mountain fastnesses, where the Ida range is high and steep, is the fortress of Balidagh. Rising as it does five hundred feet, it forms an excellent spot for an impregnable stronghold. In early times many believed that it was Priam's citadel.^[6] This is not strange, for so strategic is its position that Count von Moltke writes: "We who are no scholars allow ourselves to be guided solely by military instinct to the spot which, in old times as well as now, men would have selected for an inaccessible citadel."

The mention of objects familiar only to one who knows the Trojan country suggests that the poet had seen the Troad;^[7] that, as he observed the sun set behind Imbros and "wooded" Samothrace, bringing them boldly out in the ruddy glow of the twilight, he pictured deity on the mountain's topmost crest. A man as conservative in this matter as Professor Christ is led to assert (Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur, 1898, p. 55): "His descriptions of Mount Ida, of the plain of the Scamander (Ε, 773), of Poseidon's high lookout from Samothrace (Ν, 10) are so true to nature (zeigen so viel Naturwahrheit) that we must feel that the poet had looked with his own eyes upon the theater of his heroes' deeds." At any rate, the traveler, as he looks down upon the city and land of the Trojans, does not feel inclined to be skeptical; rather he is ready to exclaim:

 

O patria, O divum domus, Ilium, et incluta bello
Moenia Dardanidum.

 

Every spot before him seems pregnant with the burden of Troy's story:

 

Hic Dolopum manus, hie saevus tendebat Achilles;
Classibus hic locus; hic acie certare solebant.

 

2. The Scamander.Before it broadens out into the plain, the Scamander (Mendere) flows through a rocky valley. Its present course is considerably over a mile distant from Hissarlik. It empties into the Hellespont at the extreme west corner of the plain. Consider the situation: the distance of the Scamander from Hissarlik; its outlet, near Sigeum, to the extreme west; the Greek fleet along the Hellespont, and, accordingly, on the right bank of the river. Now Homer's picture puts the Greeks on the opposite side. Beloch represents the Scamander of Homer as flowing its present course.^[8] In doing this he is compelled to give a forced interpretation of Ω, 692, a wrong explanation of Λ, 498, and Φ, 1 ff.^[9] These difiiculties have induced many to believe that the poet had no acquaintance with the Troad. He puts the Greek host along the Hellespont; again he represents them on the left of the Scamander. Priam has to ford the river to visit the tent of Achilles. Surely there is no room along the Hellespont between the mouth of the present Scamander and the sea. The Greek camp

Map. A.The Troad

must, therefore, lie to the right; and if so, why should Priam have occasion to cross the stream ?

An old river bed is seen close to Hissarlik, dry in summer, with here and there pools of water. This has been identified with the ancient course of the Scamander. It is flooded in the rainy season, and bears the name Kalifatli Asmak, from the little village of Kalifatli by its side. But we have not yet enough to explain the situation in the Iliad; for after passing Kum Koï ("sand village"), which lies a little to the northwest of Hissarlik, the small stream has made a sharp bend, and empties through a delta too far to the west to allow the position of the Greek fleet between its mouth and the sea.

The Homeric description needs the following: At Rhoeteum, near a mound, which is called to-day In Tepeh, but which tradition styles the "Tomb of Ajax," is observed a streamlet which almost joins in a direct line the Kalifatli at the point where the latter makes its bend to the westward. Here we may mark the mouth of the historic river. In that case the Scamander of Trojan times flowed along the eastern range of hills, passing under the mound of Hissarlik, and from thence making its course in a straight line to the Hellespont, which it joined at Rhoeteum. This would leave the bend of the sea from Sigeum to Rhoeteum free for ships, and would place the Greeks on the opposite side of the river to the Trojans. Demetrius of Skepsis, misinterpreting a statement in Herodotus,^[10] supposed that the shore along the Hellespont had advanced. Virchow has made geological tests and failed to find anything to indicate that this portion of the plain is an alluvial deposit. He shows also how it is impossible for land to form against such a swift torrent.^[11] Furthermore, in a work attributed to an old geographer, Scylax, the statement is made that Ilion is twenty-five stades from the sea, which is practically the distance of Hissarlik from the Hellespont to-day. This theory for the old course of the Scamander is still unrefuted.^[12]

3. The Simoïs.The insignificant swamp brook (Dumbrek Su), often identified with the Homeric Simoïs, can hardly be classed with Vergil's buffeting river:

 

Sarpedon; Ubi tot Simois correpta sub undis
Scuta virum galeasque et fortia corpora volvit.

 

It seems that this stream ought not to have a prominent place in Homer; yet it is referred to seven times, with no hint of its being smaller than the Scamander. Hercher argues that the mention of the Simoïs in the Homeric poems is a late interpolation by one who knew nothing of the Trojan country.^[13] Rossmann takes the opposite extreme view, and believes that only one thoroughly versed in the Troad could picture the Simoïs in the light it is. He bids us look at the picture of the Scamander imploring the Simoïs to aid against Achilles (Φ, 308 ff.), and supposes that such a scene would be inapplicable to an independent (selbständiger) stream; that it is highly fitting that the Simoïs flow its sluggish and lazy course, remaining in the swamp till through the pressure of high water it reaches the Scamander. Yet Rossmann's argument (quoted with favor by Heinrich) loses its force when we consider that in all probability this portion of the Iliad belongs to the third stratum of the poem.

4. Bunarbashi.To the old arguments identifying the heights of Bunarbashi with "steep" aud "windy" Troy,^[14] Nikolaïdes, in the Ἐφημερὶς ἀρχαιολογική, 1894, adds a new one remarkably unique. From Grave IV on the acropolis of Mycenae, a grave which is the oldest of the shaft-tombs, was taken a silver vase

Fig. 4.Siege Scene from Silver Vase
(Mycenae.)

whereon was pictured a battle scene. The vase is shattered, but one large fragment and several smaller ones are preserved. The engraving was obscured by a thick accretion of oxide; hence this most interesting relic lay in the National Museum unnoticed. Koumanoudes was the first to bring the scenes to light, and Tsountas to give them to the world in the Ἐφημερὶς ἀρχαιολογική, 1891. A contest before a walled city is clearly seen. On the steep hillside rise the fortifications, towering above which, like terraces, are squares upon squares, which may represent the roofs and towers of the city. On the wall stand women, five in number, while the hand of a sixth is seen upraised. They appeal wildly to the struggling warriors to save the city. Immediately under the battlements are two figures, upright and serene. These may be the elders of the town come out beyond the gates to inspire resolution, clothed with the chlaina;^[15] or they may be spearmen, with shield and spear.^[16] Before the two figures kneel bowmen, with arrows fixed; and in front of these stand slingers in the midst of action. At the bottom appear the head and breast of a helmeted warrior wearing a short chiton. Two men are crouching among the slingers. This picture almost fits the battle scene on the shield of Herakles.^[17]

Nikolaïdes startles us by seeing on this vase the battlements of Troy. From the wall Hecuba, Andromache, and other women are looking on the fate of Hector (Χ, 405), while Achilles nods to the Greeks not to strike at Hector, but to leave to him alone the glory of his death. Lines below the combatants are interpreted as the two springs—the one warm, the

 

Fig. 5.Southwest Wall of II Stratum
The wall of the city is seen at a, b, c, above which are houses of later settlements.

 

other cold—which the adherents of the Bunarbashi theory think they find on this spot.^[18]

If this were Troy, the steep upon which stands the city would suit Bunarbashi far better than Hissarlik. But Nikolaïdes fails to consider that the vase is probably older than the period of the Trojan war.^[19]

5. Schliemann's Troy. II Stratum.The view of many scholars, as we have seen, had placed the Homeric citadel on the Balidagh summit near Bunarbashi. Others had followed the tradition which had extended from ancient times, that the Græco-Roman Ilion occupied the site of ancient Troy. In 1868 Heinrich Schliemann first visited the Troad, and he too examined the heights overlooking plain and sea, above Bunarbashi; but the remains here disclosed, both during the excavations of Hahn in 1864 as well as during those of Schliemann, were scanty and insignificant. Convinced that Priam's city was not on this mountain fortress, Schliemann turned his attention to the low, oval-shaped plateau of Hissarlik, and published his belief^[20] that here was the site of the Homeric Troy. In 1870 he began his work of excavation, which he continued with repeated interruptions for twenty years (1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1878, 1879, 1882, 1890). At first he found on the hill of Hissarlik seven distinct layers of superimposed settlements.^[21] The first, an insignificant settlement, lay on

 

Plan II.Citadel of II Stratum (1880)

The wall and inner buildings of the three periods are indicated by different cross-hatching. d—the first wall, with the towers (da, db) and the gates (FN, FL). c—the second, with the towers (ca, cb, cd, ce), the gates (FO, FM), and the postern (FK). b—the third, with the gares (FM, FO) and the towers (ba, bc, bd). The megaron of the palace is seen at A.

 

the virgin rock; its walls and houses were built of clay and rubble stones. The second was thought by Schliemann to be the Ilios of Priam. Its circuit wall and buildings were constructed of brick, with stone foundations. A palace was discovered corresponding somewhat in general arrangement to the palaces of Tiryns and Mycenae. The pottery, often grotesque, was monochrome. On some of the gold ornaments

Fig. 6.Paved Ramp at Gate FM (II Stratum)

unearthed were rosettes and spirals similar in pattern to what we designate to-day the gold work of the oldest stage of Mycenaean civilization. The citadel, as shown by the discovery in 1890 of three citadel walls, had been twice extended. A conflagration had destroyed the town. This must be, Schliemann thought, the Homeric Troy. In perfect assurance he applied to every object found an appropriate name. The gold ornament, with its countless tassels, became part of the "Treasure of Priam" (Schatz des Priamos). In the Museum für Völkerkunde, at Berlin, where most of the discoveries are preserved, we used to read a label as significant as the following: "Skull of a Trojan Warrior" (Schädel eines trojanischen Kriegers). We cannot condemn such enthusiasm when we realize that the all-controlling ambition of Schliemann's life—a life which reads like romance—was to find the Homeric Pergamos. It is pathetic to remember that he died just as "Mycenaean Troy" was brought to light. However much his statements may be modified or his theories changed, the name of Heinrich Schliemann will be spoken reverently as long as history, literature, and art have place among men.

We are now able to assign the date of Stratum II to about the period of Cretan dominion (2500–2000 B.C.), and in so doing we recall the tradition that Teucer, founder of the most ancient Trojan city, came from Crete. Surely the archaic pottery of this stratum is inferior to that found at Thera (dated circa 2000 B.C.).

6. Dörpfeld's Troy. VI Stratum.In the excavations which Schliemann and Dörpfeld carried on conjointly in 1890 nine layers of settlements were distinguished instead of seven. In the sixth stratum (in the megaron of VI A) was found the lustrous class of pottery characteristic of the best Mycenaean period.^[22] Ruins of city buildings were also discovered. The neglect in former excavations to appreciate the importance of this settlement is partly due to the fact

 

Fig. 7.Wall of Mycenaean Troy

On the left is seen the wall of the VI Stratum, and on the right appear the foundations of structures built in Roman times. Between these, and also on the extreme left of the picture, the inferior masonry of the VIII Stratum can be distinguished. In the distance stretches the valley of the Simoïs.

 

that the Romans cut away old buildings to obtain a level foundation for the new city.

Dörpfeld continued the work after Schliemann's death. Fortification walls, dwellings, gates, towers were laid bare.^[23] Some of the streets were paved with gypsum. The citadel was terrace-formed. Several of the houses consist of a large apartment and antechamber, resembling in this respect the megaron of the palace discovered at Gha, the private house unearthed close to the south wall of the citadel of Mycenae, and the women's hall at Tiryns. Although the large megara at Mycenae and Tiryns are distinguished by antechamber (πρόδομος) and vestibule (αἴθουσα), the Homeric description fits the simpler arrangement of a single anteroom designated by both names. The columns of the Trojan megaron are absent, with one exception. This may show that the design was taken from the buildings of the prehistoric settlements, especially the palace of the second stratum. The wall of the city, built out of blocks of limestone, is seen on the south, west, east. The foundation wall, sixteen feet thick and fifteen to twenty feet high, is scalable on the east side. Upon this is built a perpendicular upper wall, six feet thick. There are three gates—one on the south, another on the southwest, another on the east. A tower stands by the south gate, another juts out farther toward the east wall, while at the northeast corner rises a mighty tower which guards the water supply.^[24]

Vases of Mycenaean pattern were unearthed, including the lustrous "false-necked" Mycenaean jars. Each of these jars—unique specimens of ceramic art—has a closed neck with a spout close beside it, through which the liquid is poured, while the handles, joining the neck, resemble a pair of stirrups; hence the German name, "stirrup-jar" (Bügelkanne). Since the general type of pottery of this stratum is the developed

Fig. 8.False-Necked Mycenaean Jar

monochrome and probably a native product, the Mycenaean ware must be explained as importations.^[25]

The following points of comparison between the VI City and Homeric Troy were given by Dörpfeld in the report^[26] of his work for 1893:

1. The Pergamos of Troy, according to Homer, was no level citadel, since near the dwellings lay ἐν ἀκροτάτῃ πόλει (Χ, 172) an altar of Zeus. So, according to the conception of the poet, there was a highest point in the citadel, where was the altar of Zeus and perhaps the two temples of Athena and Apollo. For the citadel of the second stratum such

 

Plan. III.Citadel of Mycenaean Troy (VI Stratum) and Athena Precinct of Roman Ilion (IX Stratum)

 

a description is impossible, for it was built on a level; but in the sixth city the middle and northern part lay higher than the rest.

2. The buildings of Tiryns are erected partly in Cyclopean manner with great or small unhewn stones, and partly with clay bricks. According to Homer's words, we have to suppose most of the buildings in the Trojan citadel built in a different manner—i. e., of smooth, hewn stones. So the dwellings of the sons and sons-in-law of Priam were ξεστοῖο λίθοιο (Ζ, 244). While this description could not fit Tiryns, it exactly suits the dwellings found on our citadel. This is worthy of note, as it was thought impossible that walls and towers at that time could be built of hewn stone.

3. In the Pergamos of Troy, Homer knows a number of separate buildings, dwellings, and temples, which, though separated, yet lie near together. In the citadel of Tiryns such separate dwellings are not found. At most, one can see a second separate dwelling in what is generally regarded as the women's apartment. It is otherwise in our citadel. All the buildings thus far found are separate structures at a little distance from each other.

4. The house of Alexandros, according to Homer (Ζ, 316), consisted of three parts: the thalamos, the doma, and the aule. By thalamos we can understand a closed chamber, which formed the interior of the dwelling and was used as a sleeping apartment. The doma is a reception-room in front of the thalamos, thus being the anteroom of the house. The aule is the open court before the dwelling. A like threefold division is seen, though not so clearly, in the palaces of Tiryns and Mycenae. The court is a double one. The doma consists of a hall, antechamber, and vestibule; and, instead of a single thalamos, we have there a special women's apartment, with a number of rooms beside it. In our citadel several of the buildings discovered consist of such an arrangement. Before each structure we must suppose an open court. The great closed apartment is the thalamos, and the half-open antechamber is the doma.

Dörpfeld described the nine strata of settlements on Hissarlik as follows:^[27]

I. Lowest primeval settlement; walls of small rubble stones and clay; primitive finds; date (only conjectured), 3000 to 2500 B.C.

II. Prehistoric citadel, with strong walls of defense and large dwellings of brick; three times destroyed and rebuilt; monochrome pottery; many objects of bronze, silver, and gold; date (conjectured), 2500 to 2000 B.C.

III., IV., V. Three prehistoric villages above the ruins of the second burned city; dwellings of small stones and brick; similar old Trojan pottery; date, about 2000 to 1500 B.C.

VI. Troy; citadel of the Mycenaean age; massive wall, with a great tower^[28] and respectable houses of well-wrought stone; the Pergamos of which Homer sang; developed monochrome Trojan pottery; imported Mycenaean vases; about 1500 to 1000 B.C.

VII., VIII. Villages of the older and later Greek period; two separate strata of simple stone houses above the ruins of the VI Stratum; native monochrome pottery, and almost all the known kinds of Greek ceramic art; date, 1000 B.C. to the beginning of our era.

IX. Acropolis of the Roman town Ilion, with a famous temple of Athena and beautiful buildings of marble; Roman pottery and other objects; marble inscriptions; date, beginning of our era to 500 A.D.

7. Was There a Real Troy?With only Schliemann's "Burnt City" before them, we do not wonder that scholars were skeptical. Opinions were divided. One extreme view declared: "We know nothing of Ilion, in spite of Hissarlik and Schliemann. There are found interesting excavations in the land south of the Hellespont, but this is no proof that Troy was once on this spot. A pious opinion must not stand in place of proof."^[29] In implicit faith that the Mycenaean discoveries are an exact picture of the Homeric age, Schulze swung to the opposite extreme. "The heroes of the Trojan war," he asserts, "used elegant vessels, wore seal rings upon their fingers, were attired in ornaments of gold, and have left as an inheritance to our day their faces outlined in gold masks."^[30]

The picture of life in Homer is practically the same for Greeks and Trojans. Both races have the same political, moral, and religious conditions. Commenting on this, Leaf said:^[31] "But we know for certain that the dwellers upon the hill of Hissarlik were at a completely different and altogether lower stage of civilization than the royal race of Mycenae. Scarcely half a dozen objects have been found which show a point of contact. If, therefore, Homer correctly describes the Achaeans, his Trojans are quite imaginary." Ludwich, although admitting that most Mycenaean finds are older than the Homeric age, yet declared them to show that the Iliad is no picture of the imagination, but rests upon a real foundation.^[32]

What shall be our verdict, now that a new Troy has been brought to light? Shall we accept Dörpfeld's positive words: "Stratum VI is the Homeric Troy, destroyed by the Greeks" (Stratum VI ist das homerische Troja von den Griechen zerstört^[33])? At any rate, we are sure that here is a city which had come in touch with Mycenaean civilization, and we can believe that its destruction formed the historical basis of the poem. "The differences," says Frazer, "between the Achaean civilization, as revealed to us by Homer, and the Mycenaean civilization, as exhibited in the monuments, are to be explained by the somewhat later date of the poems, … having been composed at a time when the old civilization … survived only in popular tradition and the lays of minstrels as the fading memory of a golden age of the past."

---

1. Strabo, XIII, 583.
2. Gargarys (called to-day Kazdagh) is mentioned in Θ, 48; Ξ, 292, 353; Ο, 153.
3. Called by a Scholiast to Ν, 11, Saoke.
4. Cf. Fellner, Die homerische Flora, Wien, 1897.
5. We cite some of the early adherents of the Troy-Hissarlik theory: Maclaren, Topography of the Plain of Troy, 1832; Grote, History of Greece, 1846; Schliemann, Ithaka, 1869; Gladstone, Homer, 1878; Sayce, Contemporary Review, 1878; Eckenbrecher, Die Lage des homerischen Ilion, 1843; Braun, Homer und sein Zeitalter, 1858; Christ, Topographie der troianischen Ebene, 1874; Meyer, Geschichte von Troas, 1877; Lenormant, Les Antiquités de la Troade, 1876.
6. Lechevalier, Voyage de la Troade (Lechevalier visited the Troad in 1785); Choiseul-Gouffier, Voyage pittoresque de la Grèce, 1820; Texier, Description de l'Asie Mineure, 1839; Perrot, Excursion à Troie, 1874; Lenz, Die Ebene von Troia, 1798; von Moltke, Briefe über Zustände und Begebenheiten in der Türkei, 1841; Forchhammer, Beschreibnng der Ebene von Troja, 1842; Welcker, Kleine Schriften, 1844; Kiepert, Memoir über die Construction der Karte von Kleinasien, 1854; Hahn, Die Ausgrabungen auf der homerischen Pergamos, 1864; Hasper, Beiträge zur Topographic der homerischen Ilias, 1867; Curtius, Griechische Geschichte, 1874; Leake, Journal of a Tour in Asia Minor, 1824; Fellowes, Excursion in Asia Minor, 1838; Acland, The Plains of Troy, 1839; Rawlinson, Herodotus, 1875.
7. Heinrich, Troja bei Homer und in der Wirklichkeit, 1895.
8. Griechische Geschichte, 1893.
9. Ξ, 433, and Π, 395 ff., are ignored by him. Cf. Heinrich, Troja bei Homer und in der Wirklichkeit, 1895.
10. Herodotus, II, 10.
11. Beiträge zur Landeskunde der Troas.
12. "Und es scheint nichts dagegen zu sprechen," Heinrich.
13. Ueber die homerische Ebene ron Troja, 1875. Cf. Heinrich, Troja bei Homer und in der Wirklichkeit.
14. See footnote on page 25.
15. So The Mycenaean Age, p. 163, 1897. "A necessary complement was the chlaina, or thick woolen cloak, reaching to the knees, or even to the ankles, and doubtless worn habitually by the elders, and in winter at least by the young men. It appears on the two old men just behind the bowmen on the background of the siege scene."
16. So Rossbach, Philologus, 1892.
17. Hesiod. Shield of Herakles, 337 ff.
18. Lechevalier, Voyage de la Troade, 1803. Cf. Heinrich, Troja bei Homer und in dcr Wirklichkeit.
19. Frazer, Pausanias, III, 117.
20. Ithaka, der Peloponnes und Troja, 1809.
21. Schliemann, Ilios; Schuchhardt-Sellers, Schliemann's Excavations, 1891; Perrot et Chipiez, Hist. de l’Art dans l’Antiquité, 6, 179 (English edition, 1894).
22. Schliemann, Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Troja im Jahre 1890 (Taf. I, II).
23. Dörpfeld, Troja, Bericht über die im Jahre 1893 in Troja veranstalteten Ausgrabungen.
24. Dörpfeld, Mitth. Ath., 1894.
25. Brückner, Die keramischen Funde, Troja, pp. 80–120.
26. Dörpfeld, Troja, Bericht über die im Jahre 1893 in Troja veranstalteten Ausgrabungen, pp. 56–60.
27. Dörpfeld, Troja, Bericht über die im Jahre 1893 in Troja veranstalteten Ausgrabungen, pp. 86–87.
28. Later, as we have seen, three towers were unearthed; also three gates—one of which was walled up in Mycenaean times—and a door leading to the Northeast Tower.
29. W. Ribbeck, Homerische Miscellen, 1888.
30. Mykenai, Eine kritische Untersuchung der Schliemannschen Alterthümer unter Vergleichung russischer Funde, 1880.
31. Introduction to Schuchhardt-Sellers, 1891.
32. Schliemanns Ausgrabungen und die homerische Kultur, 1893.
33. Dörpfeld, Lecture before Harvard University, Oct. 12, 1896.