Hissarlik

Abstract

I SEE in NATURE, vol. xx. p. 255, a statement, which has also appeared in the Times, that Prof. Virchow has written to my friend, Dr. Schliemann, stating that there is a concurrence of geological opinion in Berlin that all the building stones, fragments of which the professor brought home from Hissarlik, are of fresh-water formation. This conclusion it is said is thought to be decisive against those who affirm the impossibility of identifying Hissarlik with the Homeric Troy on the ground that at the time of the great epic, the site must have been covered by the sea. I am, however, unaware that it has ever been argued that the actual site of Hissarlik was covered by the sea, but only that Hissarlik was probably on the sea-shore, a position which would be quite inconsistent with the statements of Homer. I have never committed myself to this opinion, but I may be allowed to point out that the fact mentioned by Prof. Virchow favours rather than disproves this view. If the plain between Hissarlik and the sea has been gradually formed by the detritus brought down by Scamander the materials would be of fresh-water origin. The observations made by Dr. Virchow appear therefore to me by no means to bear out the conclusions which it is said have been drawn from them.