APPENDIX.ON THE INSCRIPTIONS FOUND AT HISSARLIK.By The Editor.

............................................................................................ΣΑ.......................................ΕΣΑΙ..............ΝΟΥ.......................ΑΒΟΥΚΟΛ......ΕΤΡΑΝΦ...........5....ΣΚΑΤΑΠΛΗΘΟΣΕΙΣΟΙΝΙΣΤΡΑ.......ΤΩΝΕΨΗΦΙΣΘΑΙΣΚΑΔΡΕΙΣΟ.......ΣΑΝΔΡΑΣΤΟΥΣΣΥΝΘΗΣΟΜΕΝ.........ΕΡΟΝΥΠΗΡΧΕΝΚΑΙΣΤΗΛΩ.........ΙΕΝΤΩΤΩΝΣΑΜΟΘΡΑΚ.........10....ΙΣΑΠΟΚΑΘΙΣΤΑΜΕΝΟ..............ΕΝΟΥΣΤΗΝΣΥΝΘΕΣΙΝ................ΜΟΛΟΓΙΑΣΤΟΑΝΤΙΓΡΑ................ΟΙΚΗΣΟΝΤΕΣΗΡΕΘΗΣ..................ΟΠΕΙΘΟΥΜΙΛΗΣΙΟΣ..............15......ΘΟΥΔΙΟΠΕΙΔΗΣΒ....................... ΤΙΦΑΝΗΣΑΠ.......................

....................................σα..........................εσαι...............νου(ς...........αβουκολ......ετραν φ...5....ς κατὰ πλῆθος εἰς οἴνιστρα.......των ἐψηφίσθαι Σκαδρεῖς ο.........ς ἀνδρὰς τοὺς συνθησομέν(ους........ερον ὑπῆρχεν καὶ στηλω..........ι ἐν τῷ τῶν Σαμοθράκ(ων......10....ις ἀποκαθισταμέν(ο..............ενους τὴν σύνθεσιν.................ὁ)μολογίας τὸ ἀντίγρα(φον.........οἰκήσοντες ᾑρέθησ(αν............Δι)οπείθου Μιλήσιος.......15......θου Διοπείδης Β.................Αν)τιφάνης Ἀπ...........

This inscription contains a contract for a settlement and gives the names of the men selected for founding it; Σκαδρεῖς is an unknown word, which has never before been met with.

\ΧΝΩΣΧΙΛΙΑΣΩΣΤΗΣΔΟΘΕΙΣΗΣΕΙΠΕΝΤΕΚΑΙΟΥΕΛΑΒΟΒΑΛΛΟΝΤΩΙΕΝΙΑΥΤΩ5ΤΗΝΣΥΝΕΔΡΕΙΑΝΟΥΚΑΤΗΣΒΟΟΣΤΗΝΤΙΜΗΝΥΤΩΓΚΡΕΩΝΤΑΣΛΟΙΠΑΤΡΩΒΟΛΟΝΤΗΝΠΟΛΙΝΤΗΜΚΑΣΑΝΤΟΥΣΤΟΚΟΥΣΤΟΥΣ10ΚΟΣΙΑΣΤΕΣΣΑΡΑΚΟΝΤΑΠΕΘΕΤΟΣΔΙΑΚΟΣΙΑΣΤΕΣΣΑΚΑΙΟΤΙΤΗΝΣΥΝΕΔΡΕΙΑΤΕΙΛΑΝΠΕΝΤΑΚΟΣΙΑΣΚΑΙΤΗΡΗΜΕΝΗΣΤΗΣΤΙΜΗΣΤΩΓΚΡΕ15ΤΑΔΥΟ

........ως χιλίας....................ε)ως τῆς δοθείσης...............ει πέντε καὶ οὗ ἐλαβο............το ἐπι)βάλλον τῶι ἐνιαυτῶ(ι....5....τὴν συνέδρειαν οὐ κα.............τῆς βοὸς τὴν τιμὴν ὑ.............τῶγ κρεῶν τὰς λοιπὰ(ς...........τε) τρώβολον τὴν πόλιν τημ.......ἠνάγ;)κασαν τοὺς τόκους τοὺς..10....α)κοσίας τεσσαράκοντα πέ(ντε.....θετος διακοσίας τεσσα(ρα........καὶ ὅτι τὴν συνέδρεια(ν...........ἀπέσ)τειλαν πεντακοσίας καὶ τη....ρημένης τῆς τιμῆς τῶγ κρε(ῶν...15...τάλαν;)τα δύο................

In this day closing the excavations at Ilium for ever, I cannot but fervently thank God for His great mercy, inthat, notwithstanding the terrible danger to which we have been exposed owing to the continual hurricanes, during the last three years’ gigantic excavations, no misfortune has happened, no one has been killed, and no one has even been seriously hurt.

In conclusion, I cannot refrain from most strongly recommending Nikolaos Saphyros Jannakis, of the neighbouring village of Renkoï, to all those who, sooner or later, may wish to make excavations in the Plain of Troy or in the neighbourhood. During all my excavations here, since April 1870, he has been my attendant, cook, and cashier. It is in the latter capacity especially that I find him incomparably useful on account of his honesty, which has been well tested, and also on account of his knowing the names and capabilities of every workman in the Troad. In addition to this, his size and herculean strength, his cleverness, and his thorough knowledge of the Turkish language, are excellently adapted for settling the difficulties which continually arise in reference to the excavations with the Turkish officials. I must also specially recommend my foreman Spiridion Demetrios of Athens, and Captain Georgios Tsirogiannis of Limme in Eubœa, for they have here learnt by long experience the easiest way of removing colossal masses ofdébris, and they have in addition the gift of command. I can also most strongly recommend my accomplished draughtsman, Polychronios Lempessis, of Salamis, who has here made all the drawings of my work from Plate 119 to 190.[311]Lastly, I can speak with the utmost satisfaction of my engineer Adolphe Laurent, who has made the ground plans for me from first to last.

ASthe present name of the Simoïs,Dumbrek, is not a Turkish word, some take it for a corruption of the name Thymbrius, and use it to prove that the river—which, flowing past the foot of the ruins of Ophrynium, runs through the north-eastern valley of the Plain of Troy, and falls into the Kalifatli Asmak, the very ancient bed of the Scamander, in front of Ilium—is the Thymbrius, and cannot possibly be the Simoïs.

To this I reply: that there is no example of a Greek word ending inosbeing rendered in Turkish by a word ending in ak; further that Dumbrek must certainly be a corruption of the two Turkish words طوك برقDon barek.Donsignifies ‘ice,’ andbarekthe ‘possession’ or the ‘habitation'; the two words therefore mean much the same thing as containing ice, and the name might be explained by the fact that the inundations caused by the Simoïs are frequently frozen over in winter, when the whole north-eastern plain forms a sheet of ice. Throughout antiquity, however, the river was called the Simoïs, for according to Strabo (XIII. 1. p. 103), the grove dedicated to Hector was situated on a hill near Ophrynium; according to Lycophron (Cassandra), the hero was buried in Ophrynium; and according to Virgil,[312]who is the most conscientious preserver of ancient traditions, Hector’s tomb was situated in a little grove on the shores of the Simoïs.

I.—List of the specific weight in Grammes, of the terra-cottas in the form of cylinders, balls, pyramids, &c., found in the various depths of the Pergamus of Troy, and which appear to have been used as weights.[313](The depths are given in meters.)

II. List of the specific weight in Grammes of the round stones found in the various depths of the Pergamus of Troy, and which have apparently served as weights. (The depths are in meters.)

Monsieur Ernest Chantre, Assistant Director of the Museum in Lyon, has just sent me the result of the analysis of the Trojan weapons made by the celebrated chemist, M. Damour, of Lyon. I had drilled three weapons, and sent him the drillings.

No. 1.—Drillings from one of the battle-axes of the treasure.

Analysis.

No. 2.—Drillings of another battle-axe of the treasure.

Analysis.

No. 3.—Drillings from a common two-edged axe, found at a depth of 3¼ feet, and therefore in the remains of the Greek colony.

Analysis.

NO. 4.—Drillings of one of the Trojan sling-bullets, externally covered with verdigris, and internally the colour of iron.

Analysis.

DR. H. SCHLIEMANN.

Athens, January 1, 1874.

No. 291. An Inscribed Trojan Whorl (8 M.).No. 291. An Inscribed Trojan Whorl (8 M.).

ASsoon as Dr. Schliemann’s wonderful discoveries at Hissarlik were made known, one of the most important questions that arose in the mind of all scholars was:—Has he found anyInscriptions, to throw the certain light of written testimony on the language and ethnic affinities, the history and social condition, the religion, science, and literature, of the old inhabitants of the hill, whose records form as yet no part of ancient history?

Dr. Schliemann’s private communications during the progress of his work had called forth the efforts of eminent Orientalists—such as Martin Haug, Émile Burnouf, and Max Müller—to attempt the discovery of true writing among the vast variety of strange and novel patterns impressed upon the terra-cotta whorls, balls, seals, vases, and other objects in his collection; for some of these bore a likeness to written characters which could hardly be deceptive.[314]It mattered not for this enquiry, by what name the habitations, whose successive strata wererevealed, had been called of old. No one whose opinion was worth regarding disputed their very high antiquity, which implied the great age of the objects found. Apart even from its traditional claim to be the Ilium of Homer, the site lay in the track of the primitive migrations of the Indo-European race from their cradle in the East to their settlements in the West; and not of one migration only, but of their passage to and fro between the shores of Asia and of Europe; as well as upon the path of their commerce and military expeditions, after they were settled in their homes. For, lest we be misled by the arbitrary distinction between the continents, which is stereotyped in the names of Asia and Europe—that is, East and West—it must be borne in mind that the Hellespont and Bosporus (as the latter name expresses) wereferriesrather than sundering seas, and the islands of the Ægean were stepping-stones. The close affinities of the early settlers on both shores had long since been proved; and, in particular, the presence of the great Pelasgo-Hellenic or Græco-Italic family had been traced on both. The very ancient habitation of the north-western parts of Asia Minor by theIonians—the oriental name of the whole Hellenic race—long before their traditional colonization from the peninsula of Hellas—had been maintained by Ernst Curtius twenty years ago,[315]and more fully established by recent Egyptologers[316]—thus confirming the most ancient ethnic record, that theIsles of the Gentileswere divided among the families of theSons of Javan.[317]Thus, before the first trench was dug at Hissarlik, a clue was already supplied to the race of the primitive inhabitants, if any such had dwelt there, and to the nature of their language, if they had left any written records.

Among the patterns engraved upon the whorls and other terra-cottas, many were soon found, as Dr. Schliemann has fully shown, to be the most ancient sacred emblems of the Aryan race; and the discovery of these at all depths, below the ruins of Greek Ilium, attested the common Aryan descent of all the nations that had dwelt successively on the hill before the historic Grecian colony. The absence of any trace of Egyptian influence, and almost equally of Assyrian, seemed to attest an independent and very ancient Aryan civilization; while the general character of the works in terra-cotta, resembling those found in Cyprus and some of the islands of the Ægean, appeared to belong to the style which Professor Conze, of Vienna, had defined as the earliest Greek or European Indo-Germanic. The characters, which looked so exactly like writing, were certainly not hieroglyphs in any of their varieties; nor—though there were some cuneiform marks—was there any true cuneiform writing; while the few semblances of Phœnician characters were soon found to be deceptive. This last fact, again, helped to carry back the time of the settlement of Hissarlik beyond the age when Greeks and Phœnicians had entered into close relations of civilization on the shores of the Ægean, that is, before the date of the Homeric poems, which are full of allusions to Phœnician influence.

It has often been observed how remarkably new discoveries coincide in point of time, just when they are needed to throw light upon one another. At the very moment when Dr. Schliemann was bringing to light the remains buried in the Hill of Hissarlik, Orientalists were engaged in deciphering the inscriptions found among the antiquities of Cyprus, and upon the rock tablets in the island, by the aid of the still recent results of cuneiforminterpretation. The Cyprian characters were proved to belong to a syllabic alphabet, which is a varied form of the cuneiform writing of Babylonia and Assyria, and of an origin older than the Phœnician. The leaders in this work were Mr. George Smith and Dr. Samuel Birch, who assigned a phonetic value to 33 characters of the Cypriote syllabary; and it was followed up with especial zeal by the lamented young scholar, Dr. Johannes Brandis, who determined (as was thought) the remainder of the 60 signs. His unfinished posthumousEssay on the Decipherment of the Cyprian Inscriptionsforms the landmark of the state of enquiry in the year in which Dr. Schliemann finished his excavations.[318]

ToDr. Martin Haugbelongs the honour of first applying this key to the decipherment of the Hissarlik inscriptions. He traced such striking resemblances in some of the characters to those of the Cyprian alphabet, as to make out a goodprimâ faciecase for their identity, and he seemed to have succeeded in deciphering three words. Two of these were formed by the six characters on a whorl from the Trojan stratum, which were afterwards seen to be identical with those on another from the same depth (7 meters), a repetition which seems to show the importance of the inscription. Both had been specially noticed and discussed by Dr. Schliemann on their discovery;[319]and they will be always memorable in the history of this investigation. Haug read these charactersta. i. o. si. i. go., which he interpreted as a dedication, θείῳ Σιγῷ, “to the divine Sigo,” a deity whose name was found in Sigeum, the Scamander, and even Sicyon; and he thought he traced the same name on two of Schliemann’s small funnels (Nos. 145, 146, p. 191).[320]But the deity was otherwise asunknown as the transmutation ofta. i. o.into θείῳ was forced; and, while Haug was doubtless right in hismethod, his results must be pronounced at best:—

“Fragments of broken words and thoughts,Yet glimpses of the true.”

Nos. 292, 293. Two Trojan Whorls from the same depth (7 M.) with an identical inscription.Nos. 292, 293. Two Trojan Whorls from the same depth (7 M.) with an identical inscription.[321]

It was with such a conviction that the enquiry was taken up byProfessor Theodore Gomperz, of Vienna,[322]whose words are well worth quoting as a lesson in the method of investigation: “One circumstance alone appeared to me consoling, namely, that I did not find myself obliged to add a new hypothesis to the numerous ones already existing, and that I felt it still possible to abide by Haug’s discovery, were it only as a starting-point for further efforts.For the beginning of continuity in enquiry is always the surest harbinger of approaching success.” After making one correction in Haug’s reading of the above inscription, he still found it quite unintelligible, till the thought struck him of reading it from right to left roundthe whorl, instead of from left to right, and the confused syllables flashed, as by a sudden crystallization, into the pure Greekta. go. i. di. o. i., that is Ταγῷ δίῳ. “To the divine General or Prince,” an interpretation which Professor Max Müller pronounced to be “almost beyond reasonable doubt.”[323]We deem this solution worthy of special record, both as a landmark in the history of the investigation, and still more as a striking example of the power of mere coincidence to produce combinations that seem to bear the stamp of truth.

No. 294. ta. go. i. di. o. i. No. 294. The above Inscription developed (7 M.).No. 294. ta. go. i. di. o. i. No. 294. The above Inscription developed (7 M.).

No. 295. Inscription on a Trojan Seal (7 M.).No. 295. Inscription on a Trojan Seal (7 M.).

No. 296. Inscription on a Trojan Whetstone (7 M.).No. 296. Inscription on a Trojan Whetstone (7 M.).

The other inscriptions, of which Professor Gomperz proposed solutions, were the following: First, three letters on the terra-cotta seal, also from the Trojan stratum, mentioned in the ‘Introduction’ (No. 4, p. 24; Pl. 19, No. 555 in Schliemann’s Atlas), which Professor Max Müller was at one time tempted to read as the very name ofIlion(See the ‘Academy’ for May 16, 1874, p. 546). The second was the “splendidly engraved inscription” round the base of the whetstone of red slate (No. 5, p. 24, Pl. 190,No. 3474, Atlas). The third is round the shoulder of a vase from the Palace of Priam (No. 3, p. 23; Pl. 168, Nos. 3273 and 3278, Atlas), where, however, about one-third of the inscription is wanting. The fourth is on a whorl fromthe lower limitof the Trojan stratum.

No. 297. Inscription on a Trojan Vase from the Palace (8 M.).No. 297. Inscription on a Trojan Vase from the Palace (8 M.).

No. 298. Trojan Whorl, with an Inscription (10 M.).No. 298. Trojan Whorl, with an Inscription (10 M.).No. 299. The Inscription developed (10 M.).Comp.Pl. XXVII., No. 369. This also is of very coarse work.

The above record of the process of the investigation will still possess great historical interest, long after the results shall have emerged (as we trust) from the cloud which, for the moment, has come over our hopes; and we believe that its interest will be increased by stating the present position of the case in the words of Professor Gomperz himself[324]:—

Back to Index Next