[Illustration:
LION FROM CNIDUS.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ancient History
From the Monuments.
Greek Cities & Islands of Asia Minor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANCIENT HISTORY
FROM THE MONUMENTS.
─────────
GREEK CITIES & ISLANDS
OF
ASIA MINOR.
BY
W. S. W. VAUX, M.A., F.R.S.
───
PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE COMMITTEE OF GENERAL LITERATURE AND EDUCATION
APPOINTED BY THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING
CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE.
───
LONDON:
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Sold at the Depositories,
77, Great Queen Street, Lincoln’s-Inn Fields;
4, Royal Exchange; 48, Piccadilly;
And by all Booksellers.
───
1877.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS.
───
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION—Cyzicus—Lampsacus—Abydus—Assus—Palæ- Page 1
Scepsis—Troy—Dr. Schliemann—Ilium Novum—Alexandria—
Troas—Pergamum or Pergamus—Æolis.
CHAPTER II.
Phocæa—Smyrna—Clazomenæ—Erythræ—Teos—Colophon—Ephesus— Page 34
Mr. Wood—Miletus—Branchidæ or Didyma—Sacred Way—Mr.
Newton—Thyateira—Magnesia ad Sipylum—Philadelphia—
Tralles—Sardes— Halicarnassus—Mausoleum—Cnidus—
Demeter—Lion-Tomb—Mr. Pullan—Physcus—Caunus—
Stratonicea—Aphrodisias—Mylasa and Labranda.
CHAPTER III.
Xanthus—Sir Charles Fellows—Telmessus—Patara—Pinara— Page 86
Myra—Tlos and Antiphellus—Attalia—Perge—Eurymedon—
Aspendus—Side—Termessus— Cremna—Sagalassus—Selge—
Antioch of Pisidia—Tarsus—Coracesium—Laertes—Selinus—
Anemurium—Celenderis—Seleuceia— Corycus—Soli—Adana—
Mallus—Mopsuestia—Anazarbus—Issus.
CHAPTER IV.
Isaura—Iconium—Lystra—Derbe—Apamea Cibotus—Aezani— Page 124
Synnada—Philomelium—Laodicea Combusta—Hierapolis—
Laodicea ad Lycum—Colossæ—Ancyra—Pessinus—Tavium—
Nazianzus—Cæsarea ad Argæum—Tyana—Comana—Trapezus—
Amastris—Sinope—Prusa ad Olympum—Nicæa—Nicomedia—
Islands of Greece—Lesbos—Samos—Chios—Rhodus—Messrs.
Biliotti and Saltzmann—Cyprus—Mr. Lang—General Palma
di Cesnola
CHAPTER V.
St. Paul Page 172
Index Page 187
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREEK CITIES AND ISLANDS OF ASIA MINOR.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
Cyzicus—Lampsacus—Abydus—Assus—Palæ-Scepsis—Troy—Dr. Schliemann—Ilium
Novum—Alexandria—Troas—Pergamum or Pergamus—Æolis.
BEFORE we proceed to give a somewhat detailed account of the more
important cities of Asia Minor, and of the islands adjacent to its west
and southern shores, we may mention that Asia Minor, as it lies on the
map, exhibits, in its contour, a remarkable resemblance to Spain.
Extending between N. Lat. 36° and 42°, and E. Long. 26° and 40°, it is
about the same size as France, and somewhat less than Spain and Portugal
taken together. Its interior consists of a central plateau, rarely lower
than 3,000 ft. above the sea, often much more; many portions of it,
however, especially to the N. and E., affording excellent pasturage for
sheep, and, therefore, now, as for centuries, the natural home of the
Turkomán shepherds.
At the S.W. end of Asia Minor terminates, also, the great central
mountain-range of Asia itself, which, running from the Brahmaputra
westwards, connects the Himálayas and the Caucasus.
Many of the streams flowing from these mountains are heavily charged
with lime; hence the remarkable deposits of travertine, &c., to be seen
at Hierapolis and elsewhere. Indeed, to the geological features of the
country we owe the fact that the military and commercial routes through
Asia Minor have been always nearly the same, the earliest and the latest
conquerors having followed the same roads.
The present produce of Asia Minor is almost insignificant when
considered with reference to its geographical area, and to the great
wealth extracted from it by the Romans (Cic. pro Leg. Manil. 2). But
every land, alike, decays under the oppressive and unintelligent rule of
the Osmanlis of Constantinople. The name, Asia Minor, we may add, is
comparatively modern, and is not met with earlier than Orosius, in the
fifth century A.D., while that of Anatolia (Ἀνατολἠ) is used first by
Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, in the tenth century A.D.
The chief provinces of Asia Minor (omitting the smaller subdivisions of
Ionia, Æolis, and Troas, included, as these latter are usually, under
Mysia and Lydia) are the following:—Mysia, Lydia, Caria, to the W., and
fronting the Ægean Sea; Lycia, Pamphylia, and Cilicia, opposite to Crete
and Cyprus; Bithynia, Paphlagonia, and Pontus, on the Black Sea; and, in
the centre, Pisidia and Lycaonia, Phrygia, Galatia and Cappadocia.
We propose to notice the more important towns, according to the order of
the provinces just recited; and, following this order, we take first
Mysia and its chief town, CYZICUS (the _Esquize_ of mediæval times),
which was situated on the neck of a peninsula running out into the Sea
of Marmora. Mr. Hamilton describes its position as “a sandy isthmus,
having near its southern end many large blocks of stone,” not,
improbably, the remains of Strabo’s “bridge.” Many ancient monuments may
still be traced among its present cherry-orchards, attesting its
original magnitude and magnificence, most of the relics now visible
being Roman, and its destruction having, no doubt, been mainly due to
the great earthquakes in the reign of Tiberius and Aurelius, which
ruined and depopulated so many other of the fairest towns of Asia
Minor.[1]
Footnote 1:
Tacitus, speaking of A.D. 17, the 4th of Tiberius, says:—“Eodem anno
duodecim celebres Asiæ urbes collapsæ nocturno motu terræ” (Annal. ii.
c. 47): and Cicero speaks of Cyzicus as “urbem Asiæ celeberrimam
nobisque amicissimam.” Compare also Apoll. Rhod. i. 936-941, 983-987;
Valer. Max. ii. 630; Ovid. Trist. i. 9.
Mr. Hamilton, indeed, noting the loose and rubbly character of its
buildings, doubts the architectural fame of the city; but it is probable
that what we now see was once cased with marble, as much fine marble is
found in the adjacent hills. Some, too, of its buildings are of a
granite easily disintegrable. Any how, it would seem to be a place where
well-conducted excavations might bring to light many curious relics of
the past. Cyzicus was classed by Anaximenes of Lampsacus among the
colonies of Miletus, but was not of importance till the close of the
Peloponnesian war, when, by the discreditable peace of Antalcidas, it
was surrendered to the Persians, its ultimate prosperity being in great
measure due to its position, as a natural entrepôt, between the Black
Sea and the Ægean. In Roman times it was, according to Strabo, a “Libera
civitas,” and, with the exception of Nicomedia and Nicæa, the most
important city in that part of Asia Minor. In the days of Caracalla it
had become a “Metropolis,” and, still later, was an Episcopal see.
Of the great wealth and, we may perhaps add, of the popularity of its
citizens in the fifth and fourth century B.C., the gold coins, called
Cyzicene _staters_, are ample evidence; though it may be doubted
whether, as was once thought, the _zecchino_ (or sequin), means
_Cyzicene_. In an able paper by Dr. (now Sir Patrick) Colquhoun (Trans.
Roy. Liter. vol. iv. p. 35), it is clearly shown that the “_Squise_” of
Ville-Hardouin is the ancient Cyzicus, “the oldest commercial place in
the world,” as that writer, with some exaggeration, asserts. The form
“Esquisse” is probably, as Dr. Colquhoun suggests, a corruption of εἰς
Κὐζικον (“to Cyzicus”).[2] Dr. Colquhoun’s paper is full of curious
information on the early mediæval state of this part of Asia Minor. Its
decline was mainly due to the invasion of the Goths in A.D. 262, but it
long remained the metropolis of the Hellespontine province (Hierocl.
Synecd. p. 661. Malala, Chron. i. p. 364). It was finally destroyed by
an earthquake in A.D. 943.
Footnote 2:
Similar modern modifications may be noticed in other sites of the
Levant. Thus, Stanchio (Kos) comes from εἰς τἡν Κῶν; Stamboul is not,
necessarily, a corruption of Constantinopolis, but, more probably, of
εἰς τἡν πόλιν (“to the city”); so Stalimene (Lesbos) comes from εἰς
τὁν λιμἐνα (“to the port”).
Another Mysian town of note was LAMPSACUS, also a colony of Miletus and
Phocæa, attested as this is by its gold and silver coins, and by a
statue of a prostrate lion, said to have been the work of Lysippus, and
subsequently, placed by Agrippa in the Campus Martius at Rome. The town
was famous for its wine, and was, for this reason, granted to
Themistocles, who is said to have learnt here, or at Magnesia, Persian
in a year; the district around having been granted to him by his old
enemy the King of Persia. Like most of the towns of western Asia Minor,
it often changed hands during the rival contests of its more powerful
neighbours; but, having, with a wise forethought, voted a crown of gold
to the Romans, it was accepted by them as an ally,[3] and, hence, was,
in the time of Strabo, a town of some magnitude. A small village, called
Lampsaki, most likely marks on our modern maps the site of the old town.
Footnote 3:
Liv. xliii. 6. Most likely, its brave resistance to Antiochus had
favourably inclined the Romans to it (Liv. xxxiii. 38; xxxv. 42;
Polyb. xxi. 10).
A little to the south of Lampsacus was ABYDUS, at the narrowest part of
the Hellespont, and opposite the town of Sestus.[4] It was a little
above Abydus that Xerxes constructed his famous bridge, B.C. 480; but,
except for the gallant resistance it made to Philip, son of Demetrius,
king of Macedon, Abydus has no place in history. In legendary lore,
however, it was the scene of the famous swimming of Leander to visit his
lady-love, the Priestess of the Temple at Sestus, on the opposite or
European shore, a natatory feat, however, far surpassed in recent days.
Lord Byron’s lines on the subject are well known:—
He could, perhaps, have pass’d the Hellespont,
As once (a feat on which ourselves we prided)
Leander, Mr. Ekenhead, and I did.
Don Juan, Cant. ii. 105.
Footnote 4:
The average breadth of the Hellespont was about three miles—rather
narrow for Homer’s πλατὑς, “the broad.” He, probably, however, looked
on it rather as a mighty river; to which, indeed, his epithets of
ἀγάῤῥοος and ἀπείρων (“strong-flowing,” and “boundless”) well enough
apply. Herodotus calls it δολερὁς and ἀλμυρὁς ποταμός, “a treacherous
and unsavoury river” (vii. 35).
Leander’s labour, however, was greater than that of the poet or his
companion, in that he swam _against_ the stream to reach Sestus, the
current being often so powerful that a well-manned boat cannot be pulled
straight across it.
A little further down the coast, and facing nearly due south, is ASSUS,
a site which has been visited by many travellers, as Walpole, Choiseul-
Gouffier, Raoul-Rochette, Fellows, and Pullan. The most ancient
monuments of Greek art in the Louvre at Paris were removed thence. The
position of the chief buildings is very grand; indeed, in Strabo’s time,
Assus was considered as a fortress almost inaccessible.[5] Its ruins are
still remarkably perfect, one gate at least, of triangular construction,
resembling those at Mycenæ and Arpinum. There are, also, vestiges of a
hexastyle Doric temple, showing some analogy with those at Pæstum.
Seventeen large fragments from the metopes and two façades of the Temple
were ultimately removed to France by Capt. Chaigneau, together with a
Doric capital. They were found scattered over the slope of the hill, and
must have been removed at some time or the other, probably for building
purposes; indeed, fragments of similar pieces were also noticed in some
of the neighbouring houses. In character of workmanship, the sculptures
resemble the Æginetan marbles now at the British Museum. But their
execution is not so effective, the material of which they are made being
the coarse red stone of the neighbourhood. To the same cause is,
perhaps, due the fact that they had not been carried away long ago. Had
they been of fine marble, they would have been valuable plunder. Sir
Charles Fellows, speaking of Assus, says, “After depositing my baggage,
I took the most intelligent Turk in the place as my cicerone....
Immediately around me were the ruins, extending for miles, undisturbed
by any living creature except the goats and kids. On every side lay
columns, triglyphs and friezes, of beautiful sculpture, every object
speaking of the grandeur of this ancient city. In one place I saw thirty
Doric capitals placed up in a line for a fence.” Sir Charles Fellows
gives a drawing of one of the friezes now in Paris, and adds, “I then
entered the Via Sacra, or Street of Tombs, extending for miles. Some of
these tombs still stand in their original beautiful forms, but most have
been opened, and the lids are lying near the walls they covered,
curiosity or avarice having been satisfied by displacing them.... These
ruins are on a considerably larger scale than those of the Roman city,
and many of the remains are equally perfect. Several are highly
ornamented and have inscriptions; others are as large as a temple, being
twenty to thirty feet square; the usual height of the sarcophagus is
from ten to twelve feet.”[6]
Footnote 5:
The character of the position of Assus led to a joke of the musician
Stratonicus, who applied to it a line of Homer (Il. vii. 144), playing
on the meaning of the word Ἆσσον, viz.
Ἅσσον ἴθ’, ὡς κεν θᾶσσον ὀλέθρου πείραθ’ ἵκηαι,
Come more quickly (or come to Assus), “that ye may the more quickly
come to utter destruction.” At Assus, St. Luke, and other companions
of St. Paul, rejoined him with their ship, the Apostle having walked
on foot from Alexandria Troas (Acts xx. 13).
Footnote 6:
The popular story of the “Lapis Assius,” with its supposed power of
destroying the flesh of bodies buried in it (whence the name
_sarkophagus_, or “flesh-consuming,”) is noticed by Dioskorides and
Pliny. But this Greek word is rarely used for a tomb, the more usual
word being σορός (soros). By the Romans, however, it was used, as in
Juv. x. 170. Colonel Leake observes of the ruins of Assos, “The whole
gives, perhaps, the most perfect idea of a Greek city that anywhere
exists” (Asia Minor, p. 128). See also R. P. Pullan, “Ruins of Asia
Minor,” p. 19.
PALÆ-SCEPSIS is interesting for the native tradition, that it was once
the capital of Æneas’s dominions. It appears to have been situated near
the source of the Æsepus—high up on Mount Ida—the later Scepsis being
about sixty stadia (7½ miles) lower down (Strabo, xiii. 607). Dr.
Colquhoun[7] states that a village in the neighbourhood still bears the
name of _Eski Skisepje_, which, as Eski means “old” in Turkish,
corresponds with Palæ-Scepsis; Dr. Colquhoun at the same time quotes the
words of its discoverer, the distinguished Oriental scholar, Dr.
Mordtmann. “I did discover,” says Dr. Mordtmann, “a most ancient city
with its acropolis, towers and walls built of hewn stone, and furnished
with four gates. The antiquity of the place was manifested by an oak
having fixed its roots in the wall, and by its trunk having grown to a
girth of 530 centimètres (about 17 feet). On reference to Strabo, I
first became aware that I had discovered, probably, the most ancient
ruin in Asia Minor, for I hold that this can be no other than Palæ-
Scepsis.” The evidence adduced by Drs. Mordtmann and Colquhoun confirms
the accuracy of Strabo. The later town of Scepsis is memorable for the
discovery there, during the time of Sylla, of the works of Aristotle and
Theophrastus, which had been buried by the illiterate relations of one
Neleus (a pupil of Aristotle and friend of Theophrastus), lest they
should be carried off by Attalus, then founding his library at Pergamus.
It appears from Strabo, that though preserved from utter ruin, the
precious MSS. had suffered much from damp and worms; but they suffered
still more by the injudicious efforts of their purchaser, Apellicon of
Teos, a well-meaning person, though wholly incompetent to supply the
gaps he found.
Footnote 7:
See Dr. Colquhoun “On the Site of the Palæ-Scepsis of Strabo” (Trans.
R. S. Liter., vol. iv. 1852).
But the most celebrated place in Mysia was the ancient city of TROY. It
would be out of place here, indeed impossible, to discuss any of the
various theories of ancient or modern times referring to this famous
town and its no less famous war. It is enough to state here our firm
belief in the existence of both, and further, that the legends since
grouped around them by no means demand any such non-existence. We have
no doubt that a prominent conical hill, now called Hissarlik, does
represent the spot where old Troy once stood.[8] The convergency of the
various stories of ancient history, the existence at Hissarlik of ruins
of remote antiquity, and the singular fitness of the position (unless,
indeed, all that is attributed to Homer is to be condemned as purely
mythical), lead to the seemingly inevitable conclusion that here, if
anywhere, once stood this celebrated town.
Footnote 8:
It has been, justly, we think, remarked (Quarterly Review, April,
1874), that “not one of the sceptical critics has ever questioned that
these (the Homeric poems) show an acquaintance with the topography of
the region which (and this is no small point) has borne, from all
known antiquity, the name of the Troad.... Homer’s Ida, and Scamander,
and Hellespont are as real in his pages as in their existence at the
present day.”
The inhabitants of Ilium were a mixed population, partly, it is
probable, of Thracian origin, and so far only Greek that a Pelasgian
element may be traced in both peoples, while they were probably, also,
inferior in civilization to the Greeks, with barbaric habits and
manners, already obsolete among their more polished enemies. Nor, again,
is it at all necessary to maintain that the capture of Troy implies its
entire destruction; it is, indeed, more likely that its ultimate ruin
was due to the enmity of its Asiatic neighbours, as suggested by Strabo
on the authority of an ancient writer, Xanthus. It is clear that Ilium
stood on rising ground, between the rivers Scamander and Simois, and
that here were placed the palaces of Priam and of his sons. The whole
spot was, we may reasonably conclude, surrounded by strong walls, with
many gates, only one of which is, however, noticed in Homer by name.
Such was the tradition, the long endurance of which is shown in the
subsequent sacrifice by Xerxes, recorded by Herodotus (vii. 43).
The new Ilium of later days most likely occupied the same traditional
site; the theory of Demetrius of Scepsis, adopted by Strabo, of two
Iliums separated the one from the other by a considerable interval of
ground, being clearly adverse to a common-sense view of the question.[9]
Any one would naturally expect that those who constructed _Novum Ilium_
would select that place for their town to which the legends most
distinctly pointed; while a manifest objection to the view of Demetrius
is that it converts Homer from a poet into a topographer, and attempts
to make the natural features of the country accord with his poetic
descriptions. It is far more probable that Homer, or whoever collected
the poems passing under his name, had but a very general idea of the
localities where were laid the scenes he describes: while there is,
also, no general agreement as to the true site of Troy among those
writers who, in modern times, have more or less accepted the theory of
Demetrius and Strabo. Indeed, on the idea of Homer having written his
poems with an Ordnance map in his lap, it is simply impossible to fix on
any one spot that satisfies all the conditions of his story.
Footnote 9:
The site for ancient Ilium of recent years the most popular is called
_Bournarbashi_, where the Scamander emerges from the lower ridges of
Mount Ida, and, therefore, not far from the “village of the Ilians.”
This view, proposed originally by Chevallier in 1788, and,
subsequently, adopted by Rennell, Leake, Welckher, Forchhammer,
Choiseul-Gouffier, and others, has, however, been completely answered
by Grote, whose arguments have been fully confirmed by the latest
researches.
We must now notice the recent marvellous researches of Dr. Schliemann,
for, though they have done little towards the revelation of Homer’s
Troy, they have demonstrated that, many feet below very ancient and
still existing walls, there have once been enormous structures, the
treasury, fortress, and royal residence of some wealthy ruler of remote
antiquity. While, therefore, we do not believe that Dr. Schliemann has
found old Troy, in the same sense that Layard discovered the palaces of
Sardanapalus, the Greek inscriptions he has unearthed have assuredly
proved the identity of the modern Hissarlik with _Novum_ Ilium. What,
then, is the history of Schliemann’s researches, and what has he done
that any other man might not have done with as ample means at his
command? Doubtless there are other men who might have done as much as
he, notably Mr. Layard. As Dr. Schliemann was much influenced by his
early education at home, and as his career has been a very extraordinary
one, we feel sure our readers would like to know something of the digger
as well of as what he has dug out. We purpose, therefore, to give a
brief sketch of his personal history, and then, with equal brevity, to
add a notice of what he has accomplished.
Born in 1822 at a small village in Mecklenburg, he tells us that, “as
soon as I learnt to speak my father related to me the great deeds of the
Homeric heroes,” and, though from ten years of age he was an apprentice
in a warehouse,[10] he always retained, as he adds, “the same love for
the famous men of antiquity which I conceived for them in my first
childhood.” As time went on Schliemann became a clerk, though on a
yearly salary of only £32: but he contrived to live on half—to do
without a fire, and to devote all his spare moments to the study of
languages. Thus he learnt first English and French, each in six months,
and then other modern tongues, including Russ.
Footnote 10:
In this “warehouse,” let it not be forgotten, Schliemann was employed
from fourteen to twenty years of age, from 5 A.M. to 11 P.M., selling
herrings, butter, brandy, milk, &c.; and that it was not till after he
had lost this occupation from an injury caused by lifting a cask, that
he was _promoted_ to the clerkship at the salary mentioned in the
text.
To Dutch, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese he allowed only six weeks
each. During the eight years from 1846 to 1854 he was so much occupied
in business that he had no time for literature; in the latter end,
however, of the second year he found time to learn Swedish and Polish.
It was not till January, 1856, that he ventured to attack Greek, his
fear being, as he naïvely remarks, that the fascination of its study
might interfere with his commercial duties. Aided however by two Greek
friends, he tells us he learnt modern Greek in six weeks, and, in three
months more, sufficient classical Greek to understand the ancient
writers, and especially Homer. In 1858 Dr. Schliemann was able to travel
over Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Egypt, on the way learning
somewhat of (we presume colloquial) Arabic, and returning thence through
Syria and Athens to St. Petersburg. It was not, however, till 1863 that
he had secured, by his vigorous commercial occupations, the means to
spend the rest of his life as he pleased.
His first plan, in 1864, was to visit the fatherland of Ulysses, but
this was only a hasty and flying trip, and he was, shortly afterwards,
induced to extend his journey to India, China, and Japan. On his return
to Europe he spent some time in Paris, but made also, thence, journeys
to Greece and the plains of Troy, an account of which, written, it would
seem, about 1868, he has given in the first volume of his recent work.
This volume contains, _inter alia_, the result of his studies among the
“Cyclopean” works in Argolis, a knowledge of great value to him when he
commenced his more important excavations. He seems also, about this
period, to have carefully examined the Troad, and to have satisfied
himself that Hissarlik was the place at which to commence his
excavations. Having married a Greek lady, in every sense a “help-meet”
for the work he had set himself to do, he went again to the Troad in the
spring of 1870, and, having secured an ample number of labourers,
continued his excavations there during the greater part of the period
between the autumn of 1871 and the summer of 1873.
It must not be supposed that this work was one of ease or pleasant toil:
he had not the patient “Chaldeans” who did Layard’s behests, still less
had he Hormuzd Rassam to settle, as a native only can settle, the ever-
rising disputes between the Greek and Mussulman “navvies.” Indeed, to
secure one pavement from destruction, he had to tell his workmen that by
this road “Christ had gone up to visit King Priam”! The cost, too, was
very heavy; for he had often 150 men in his employment, and expended,
from his own resources, fully £8,000. Is it possible to estimate too
highly such exertions towards the ascertainment of the reality or
falsity of ancient story, and this, too, by the only thoroughly
effectual means, the excavation of sites of traditional importance? Can
we withhold our admiration for the labourer, even though his enthusiasm
may have led him to believe all he found was Trojan, the golden relics,
especially, being those of King Priam? and, after all, what matters the
theory of the excavator, so the work he does is well done? As well might
we quarrel with Mr. Parker’s labours in Rome, because he has coupled
with his most valuable excavations his own, somewhat fanciful, belief in
the personality of a Romulus. Every honest excavation, such as those of
Dr. Schliemann and Mr. Parker, are so many landmarks recovered from all-
destroying time. We can well afford to dispense with or to smile at the
fancies of the excavators, so only that a careful record be kept of what
the excavations have really revealed.
Dr. Schliemann’s account of his diggings, between the autumn of 1871 and
June 17, 1873, has been published in the form of twenty-three letters or
memoirs; a mode of narrative the more pleasant that it places the reader
_au courant_ with the daily ideas of the discoverer, though,
necessarily, causing some repetition and not a few corrections. His
Introduction, however, gives a sufficient summary of what he
accomplished. With the text he has also provided an atlas of 217
photographic plates of the plans and excavations carried on throughout
the whole plain of Troy, together with representations of between three
and four thousand individual objects discovered. These photographs—not,
we regret to say, from the originals, but from drawings of them—are
wholly inadequate to give any satisfactory idea of the beauty or
character of the objects themselves.
Dr. Schliemann having, as we have stated, made up his mind[11] that the
rising ground now called _Hissarlik_ (or fortress) was the site of Old
Troy, commenced his diggings there, on a plateau about 80 feet above the
level of the plain, with a steep descent to the N.E. and N.W. Above this
plateau is a portion of ground 26 feet higher, about 925 feet long by
620 feet wide, which he assumed to be the Pergamum of Homer, or citadel
of Priam. If so, beneath and around this Acropolis must have been the
second as well as the earlier city. Dr. Schliemann went to work much as
miners do when they are “prospecting,” only on a larger scale: he took
soundings of the plain till he reached the virgin rock, at a depth never
greater than 16 feet, at first meeting only with walls of houses and
fragments of pottery of a Greek or even later period. As he found
nothing else up to the edge of the Pergamum,[12] he concluded that the
original Ilium did not spread into the plain, and that its area was
accurately defined by the great wall he afterwards found. In short, he
concluded that the city had no special Acropolis,[12] as feigned by
Homer, and that any enlargement of the old town was due to the _débris_
gradually thrown down or accumulated around the base of the small
central hill. He adds, rather amusingly, “I venture to hope that the
civilized world will not only not be vexed that the town of Priam has
shown itself scarcely the twentieth part as large as was to be expected
from the statements of the Iliad, but, on the contrary, that, with
delight and enthusiasm, it will accept the certainty that Ilium did
really exist.”
Footnote 11:
Dr. Schliemann has fully stated in the _Augsburg Gazette_, Sept. 26,
1873, his reasons for accepting Hissarlik for Troy, and for rejecting
Bounarbashi and other sites; and his reasons, to _an antiquary_, are
weighty:—1. At Bounarbashi, nothing has been found earlier than
potsherds of the sixth century B.C. 2. Sir J. Lubbock, in the so-
called tomb of Hector, found nothing earlier than the third century
B.C. 3. Von Hahn found neither potsherds nor bricks on the north side
of the Balidagh, between the Akropolis (of Gergi) and the springs of
Bounarbashi. 4. The sites examined by Clarke and Barker Webb, and that
of Ulrichs, presented no remains of man. 5. The “village of the
Ilians”—κώμη Ἰλιέων of Demetrius of Skepsis—gave forth nothing earlier
than potsherds of the first century B.C. On the other hand, under
Hissarlik, have been found all or most of the remains, treasure
included, which Dr. Schliemann has secured.
Footnote 12:
This word Pergamum or Pergama, which occurs more than once in Asia
Minor, notably in the case of the great city of that name, is probably
only another form of the πύργος, _burg_ or _berg_, which runs through
so many languages of the Indo-European family. Thus, Sanskr. _spurg_;
Gr. πυργ, originally σφυργος or φυργος. So the Gothic _bairg-ahei_,
mountainous; _fairg-uni_, mountain. Compare, also, with this, Berge in
Thrace, and Perge in Pamphylia. Possibly, the Celtic _briga_
(_Brigantes_, the dwellers in the hills) is connected with the same
root. The Arabs have now adopted the word (see Rénan).
There is nothing specially remarkable in the small size of the
“supposed” Troy. It was an ancient custom to build the town round a
central Acropolis where possible. So was it with Athens and Mycenæ, with
Rome, Carthage and Mount Zion; the ordinary dwellings of the population
for centuries being huts or small cottages, like the traditional
_Tugurium_ of Romulus, buildings which would, naturally, leave behind
them no traces of their former existence. It has been well remarked,
that Homer cannot fairly be accused of having _invented_ this Pergamum,
as the hill was a natural fact: and that what he really did, was, to
indulge his imagination as to the magnificence of the town he grouped on
it or in the plain round it.
The little hill of Hissarlik became, therefore, the centre of Dr.
Schliemann’s labours, the most productive field of his excavations, and
the site where he laid open walls far more ancient than Greek Ilium,
with a perfect entrance-gateway and paved road through it, together with
many remains of houses, and a marvellous collection of relics, some of
great intrinsic value. But the most unexpected discovery was the
_position_ of the various remains, proving, as this did, that, at least,
four different sets of people had occupied this site, and covered it
with their own buildings, in complete unconsciousness that there had
been elder races there before them, whose remains were actually under
them. The same fact has been noticed, but on a small scale, elsewhere.
Thus Roman London lies some sixteen or seventeen feet under the Mansion
House or Bank of England; so, too, Layard found successive traces on the
mound of Nimrud of Arab, Roman, and Parthian occupation. But such traces
are as nothing to what Dr. Schliemann’s works revealed. It was clear
that the natural hill of Hissarlik had been, at first, somewhat
levelled, being also, in some places, made more secure by a retaining
wall, and that, above this, the successive ruins have been heaped up in
a solid mass from 46 to 52 feet above the native rock. On this, lastly,
_Novum Ilium_ was built. Dr. Schliemann gives a section, whence it
appears that, commencing from the existing surface, Greek Ilium occupies
about six feet in depth; that at 23 feet below this, Dr. Schliemann’s
“Troy of Homer” is reached; and that, under this “Troy,” again, is a
third stratum 29 feet thick, the whole human accumulations. The most
sceptical person on the subject of “Troy divine” cannot question the
accuracy of Dr. Schliemann’s measurements, whatever he may think of his
theories. It is manifest that even the stratum immediately under Ilium
Novum is essentially prehistoric. Of what date, then, are the still
lower strata? Indeed, calculations, on such a point, can as little be
relied on as those of Mr. Horner on the _alluvium_ of the Egyptian
Delta. There are, however, some matters connected with them that must be
noticed from their peculiarity. Thus the super-imposed layers testify to
periods of occupation rather than to those of destruction; while the
theory of distinct and well-defined stone, bronze, and iron ages
completely breaks down, stone implements occurring in all the strata,
and even where bronze is abundant. Iron, on the other hand, is almost
wholly absent. Thus instruments of stone and of copper occur with
ornaments in gold, silver, and even ivory, evidencing, as these do,
advance in civilization and, as the cause of this, some interchange of
commerce with other nations.
Whatever else, therefore, may be thought of Dr. Schliemann’s researches,
it cannot be doubted but that the excavations at Hissarlik form a new
chapter in the history of man, and as such [apart from any supposed
connection with Homer], are a sufficient reward for his labour and
expenditure of capital. It would unquestionably have been better (but
who shall control honest enthusiasm?) had he been less ready to invest
every discovery he made with some Homeric name; we could have been well
free of such pretentious identifications as the Tower of Ilium, the
Scæan gates, the Royal Palace, and King Priam’s Treasure; just as, in a
similar case, Mr. Parker’s valuable contributions to the early history
of Rome are not improved by the revival of the legend of a Romulus and
Remus, and of the suckling of these heroes by a she-wolf. Nothing,
however, allowing for these slight blemishes, can exceed the interest of
Dr. Schliemann’s narrative.
“The excavations,” to quote his own words, “prove that the second nation
which built a town on this hill, upon the _débris_ of the first settlers
(which is from twenty to thirty feet thick), are the Trojans of whom
Homer sings.... The strata of this Trojan _débris_, which, without
exception, bears marks of great heat, consists mainly of red ashes of
wood, and rise from five to ten feet above the great wall of Ilion, the
double Scæan gate, and the great surrounding wall, the construction of
which Homer ascribes to Poseidon and Apollo, and they show that the town
was destroyed by a fearful conflagration. How great this heat must have
been is clear also from the large slabs of stone of the road leading
from the double Scæan gate down to the plain; for when a few months ago
I laid this road open, all the slabs appeared as much uninjured as if
they had been put down quite recently; but after they had been exposed
to the air for a few days the slabs of the upper part of the road, to
the extent of some 10 feet, which had been exposed to the heat, began to
crumble away, and have now almost disappeared, while those of the lower
portion of the road, which had not been touched by the fire, have
remained uninjured, and seem to be indestructible. A further proof of
the terrible catastrophe is furnished by a stratum of scoriæ of melted
lead and copper of a thickness of from ⅕ of an inch to 1⅕ inch, which
extends nearly through the whole hill at a depth of from 27 feet to 29
feet.”
It was here that Dr. Schliemann found the prodigious structure he has
named the “Tower of Ilion,” a building no less than 40 feet thick. “This
tower,” he adds, “after having been buried for thirty-one centuries, and
after, during thousands of years, one nation after another had built its
houses and palaces high above its summit, has now again been brought to
light, and commands a view, if not of the whole plain, at least of its
northern parts, and of the Hellespont.” A little way beyond this tower
is a remarkably perfect gateway, fitted for two pairs of gates, one
behind the other, the upper fastenings of which still remain in the
stone posts. These Dr. Schliemann takes for the “Scæan gates” of Homer.
He then came to what he calls the “Palace of Priam,” no doubt, a house
of some kind, at a depth of from 22 to 26 feet, resting upon the great
tower, and directly under the Temple of Minerva. Its walls were built of
small stones cemented with earth, and would seem to belong to different
epochs. The walls vary in thickness from 4 feet to 1 foot 10 inches. All
about, within as well as without, are abundant signs of fire, which must
have burnt with prodigious fury. Dr. Schliemann speaks of many feet in
thickness of red and yellow wood ashes. Here, as at Nineveh and at
Carthage, the first destruction seems to have been fire, the great
extent of it, in each case, having probably arisen from the wooden
construction of the upper portions of these houses. At Nineveh, it has
been reasonably supposed that only the foundations of the walls were of
stone or brick, the upper part, like many Eastern houses at the present
day, being wholly of wood, which would readily catch fire, and fill the
rooms below with burning embers. In several of the rooms of one of these
houses Dr. Schliemann found red jars from 7 to 8 feet high, and, to the
east of the house, what he assumes to have been a sacrificial altar, a
slab of granite 5 feet 4 inches long by 5 feet 5 inches broad. Such a
conflagration, it is likely, would be long remembered; and it has been
acutely asked whether, after all, there may not have been an Asiatic
Iliad handed down from mouth to mouth, of which Homer may have availed
himself, as did the mediæval Minnesingers.
The next and the greatest of Schliemann’s discoveries was also one of
his last: we give it in his own words. “In the course of excavations on
the Trojan wall, and in the immediate neighbourhood of Priam’s house, I
lighted on a great copper object of remarkable form, which attracted my
attention all the more, as I thought I saw gold behind. Upon this copper
object rested a thick crust of red ashes and calcined ruins, on which
again weighed a wall nearly 6 feet thick and 18 feet high, built of
great stones and earth, and which must have belonged to the period next
after the destruction of Troy. In order to save this treasure from the
greed of my workmen, and to secure it for science, it was necessary to
use the very greatest haste, and so, though it was not yet breakfast-
time, I had “paidos,” or resting-time, called out at once. While my
workmen were eating and resting I cut out the treasure with a great
knife, not without the greatest effort and the most terrible risk of my
life, for the great wall of the fortress which I had to undermine,
threatened every moment to fall upon me. But the sight of so many
objects, of which each alone is of inestimable worth to science, made me
foolhardy, and I thought of no danger. The carrying off, however, of the
treasures would have been impossible without the help of my dear wife,
who stood by ready to pack up the objects in her shawl as I cut them
out, and to take them away.”
We may add that the whole find lay together in a quadrangular mass,
retaining the shape of the box in which it had been deposited, and that
hard by was a large key, presumably that which once locked it. The
treasure had, probably, been hastily packed, an idea fully sustained by
its miscellaneous character. Indeed, the same thing seems to have
happened in the case of the bronze plates found by Mr. Layard at
Nineveh. The mass of precious metal found is simply astonishing, one cup
alone weighing 40 oz. of gold, while there were besides, innumerable
objects in bronze, silver and gold, spears and axes, and two-edged
daggers, together with a large bronze shield, with a central boss, and a
rim raised as if to receive the edges of ox-hides or other covering.
Fortunately, the gold vessels had resisted the action of the fire; some
of them having been cast, others hammered; in some cases, too, soldering
had been used. One curious portion of the collection Dr. Schliemann
describes as follows:—“That this treasure was packed,” says he, “in the
greatest haste, is shown by the contents of the great silver vase, in
which I found, quite at the bottom, two splendid golden diadems, a
fillet for the head, and four most gorgeous and artistic pendants for
ear-rings. On them lay fifty-six golden ear-rings and 4,750 little
golden rings, perforated prisms and dice, together with golden buttons
and other precious things which belonged to other ornaments. After
these, came six golden bracelets, and, quite at the top of all, in the
silver vase, were two small golden cups.”
Besides these more precious objects, Dr. Schliemann met with a quantity
of what, for want of a better name, may be called idols, consisting of
flat pieces of stone, marbles, and terra-cotta, [and, in one instance,
of the vertebra of some antediluvian animal,] containing on one side “an
attempt to model a face whether human or owlish.” Such objects are not
rare. In the British Museum are many flat pieces of burnt clay, with
moulding on them, of the rudest kind, not wholly unlike what Dr.
Schliemann found. Dr. Schliemann sees in these the original type of the
sacred owl of Minerva,—to say the least,—a very bold guess. Indeed, but
for the place where they were found, their remote antiquity might be
doubted, as they might be, after all, but degraded types of a good
period of art. Dr. Schliemann, however, maintains that many of these
strange owl-headed objects of clay are representatives of Athene,—in
fact, the original type of the γλαυκῶπις θεὰ, the “goddess with the
bright or flashing eyes,” and, also, that this epithet ought to be now
translated the “owl-faced goddess”! But though Dr. Schliemann may urge
in favour of his views that, as the worship of Athene was of Oriental
origin, there is no reason why she should not have been represented as
owl-faced, just as we find an eagle-headed Nisroch, a hawk-headed Ra,
and a ram-headed Ammon, there is, really, no evidence in favour of his
theory. Mr. Newton has embraced everything in his remark that “the
conception of the human form as an organic whole, a conception we meet
with in the very dawn of Greek art, nowhere appears” in Dr. Schliemann’s
collections, the probability being that these objects are of an
antiquity long antecedent to anything Greek, and the work of a people in
no way connected with the Greeks. In Greek art, the usual adjunct to
most representations of Athene on coins is the owl, while in Homer
(Odyss. iii. 372) Athene leaves Nestor, under the form of an osprey. It
is possible, therefore, that these metamorphoses symbolize a still
earlier faith.
Having already stated our belief that not only did an Ilium or a Troy
really exist, but, also, that there was a real living Homer, we need not
notice the objections urged against the opinions of Dr. Schliemann, on
the ground that “as the Iliad is a mythical poem, it is absurd to expect
in it any historical kernel,” a method of reasoning, to say the least,
unsatisfactory, if not fallacious. There is no conceivable reason why
the most mythical poem may not comprehend contorted images of real
events; the difficulty, in each case, and the only real difficulty,
being the unravelling of the confused stories, which prevent our taking
up the tangled skein of history. No one supposes the early legends of
the Zendavesta to be history, yet some of the stations of the migration
from N.E. to S.W. can be reasonably identified: so, too, no one supposes
the story of Gyges in Herodotus historical, though the annals of Assur-
bani-pal prove the reality of a “Gugu, king of Ludim.” The prehistoric
theory may be pressed too far.
Of the character of the art of the objects of Dr. Schliemann, or of the
date of his wonderful collections, there is, at present, no evidence on
which to base a reasonable judgment. One thing, however, seems certain;
that they are not Greek—nor in any way connected with Greek art. If
among the vast numbers of objects found, there may be some objects
resembling others met with in Greece, the natural inference would be
that, as so much of Greek art is traceable ultimately to Asia, so, too,
are these. Nor must we, altogether, ignore the possible effects of
commerce. Dr. Schliemann has certainly proved the existence of a wealthy
population—living on the spot that tradition and history alike have
assigned to Troy; and we cannot doubt that the owners of these remains
were pre-Hellenic. It is not so long ago that Semiramis was as mythical
a name as King Priam; and who can say that a future Rawlinson may not
prove the truth of a Trojan Priam as clearly as that “Sammuramit”
reigned in Nineveh? The dwellers on the rock of Ilion clearly were “no
prehistoric savages,” but denizens of a real city, with its fortress and
palace. It is curious that, above Dr. Schliemann’s “Trojans,” at a
distance of from 23 to 33 feet, dwelt a population who constructed their
houses of small stones and earth, and, occasionally, of sun-dried
bricks. The artistic remains of this people are inferior to those below
them; yet they made coarse pottery, battle-axes, knives, nails, &c.,
with a slight use of copper or bronze, but with plenty of stone
implements. This place, having been destroyed in its turn, another set
of people occupied the mound, a race inferior in civilization to all who
had preceded them. These people, it has been suspected, were Cimmerians,
perhaps, portions of the Nomad tribes, who, we know from Herodotus and
Strabo, constantly made eruptions into Asia Minor.
We must add that, among the various objects found by Dr. Schliemann,
were some scratches of the rudest kind, on a honestone, from the first
supposed to be letters of some alphabet. The truth of this conjecture
has been recently proved by the persevering study of Professor Gomperz,
of Vienna, who says that, in the comparisons he has made between the
Cypriote alphabet and the Hissarlik inscriptions, “I have not
schematized, I have not enlarged or reduced anything. Every dot, every
twist is copied with slavish accuracy from the best Cyprian documents.
Nor have I allowed myself to be eclectic and to mix letters of different
periods and localities.” Professor Max Müller adds, “Accepting these
statements of Professor Gomperz, I can only repeat my conviction, that
his decipherment of the first inscription _Tagoi Dioi_ seems to me
almost beyond reasonable doubt.” The interpretation of the other
presumed inscriptions is more open to doubt.
It is a remarkable fact, as clearly shown by Dr. Schliemann’s
researches, that the occupiers of all these strata, alike, were tillers
of the ground, while the huge jars found standing upright can hardly
have been used for any other purpose than the storing of wine, oil, or
corn. The quantity of copper found suggests a connection with Cyprus—the
island of copper—as do, also, the inscriptions just noticed; subsequent
analysis, however, has thrown doubt on Dr. Schliemann’s idea that his
vessels were of pure copper.[13] The fine red pottery, too, is said to
resemble very much the existing pottery of Cyprus. The vases are,
however, not painted, nor have any traces of sculpture been as yet
detected.
Footnote 13:
The Romans called their copper from Cyprus, _Cyprium_: but the name of
the island is, more likely, from the Hebrew _Chopher_, the cypress
tree.
In concluding these notes on Dr. Schliemann’s collection, which, from
our limited space, have been more condensed than we could have wished,
we need only add that, besides the greater and richer monuments, Dr.
Schliemann has found thousands of terra-cotta disks or wheels, each with
a hole in the middle, the purport of which has considerably exercised
the imaginations of the learned. Thus they have been called spindles,
weights for sinking nets or weaving and _ex voto_ tablets by Dr.
Schliemann himself, &c. The variety of patterns on them is so great
that, if anything but meaningless ornaments, it is impossible to suppose
them all for one and the same purpose; and the patterns on some of them
are unquestionably very curious. Thus we have scratches much resembling
the earliest Chinese sacred characters; others, clearly astronomical;
and, above all, that commonest of Buddhist symbols, the _Swastika_, a
cross with arms curved or straight, and bent at right angles.
With regard to ILIUM NOVUM, or Hissarlik, which, as we have said, we
believe occupies the site of the older city, we must say, that whatever
doubts may have existed as to this point previously to Dr. Schliemann’s
excavations ought now to cease, as the Greek remains he has found there
are unquestionably sufficient for this identification. How early Novum
Ilium was founded cannot now be determined; but, as the place was one of
some strength, it is reasonable to suppose it may have been occupied
very soon after the fall of Old Troy, supposing, what, however, is not
necessary, that Troy was wholly destroyed. When Xerxes passed, it was a
place of importance, and the son of Xerxes recognized it as a Greek
city. Alexander, too, like Xerxes, sacrificed there, and bestowed many
favours on the population, notably as occupants of the presumed site of
the ancient city; the Romans did the same, perhaps with the additional
idea of protecting the traditional site whence they claimed their own
descent (Liv. xxxvii. 37, xxxviii. 39). Sylla and Lucullus were, alike,
friendly to it and Lucan asserts that, after Pharsalia, Julius Cæsar
(mindful of his presumed ancestor Iulus) examined for himself these
localities (cf. App. Bell. Mithr. c. 53; Plut. Vit. Syll.; Strab. xiii.
594; Lucan, ix. 967), at the same time instituting the “Ludi Trojani,”
noticed by Virgil and other writers (Æn. v. 602; Suet. Cæs. 39; Dio
Cass. xliii. 23).[14]
Footnote 14:
The famous _Sigean_ inscription (now in the British Museum), was
procured by Lord Elgin from the porch of the village church on the
promontory of Sigeum, a little way S. of Hissarlik. For many years it
was supposed to be the oldest of Greek inscriptions; but it is
probably not so old as some of those from Branchidæ procured by Mr.
Newton, or, as the Greek inscription on the Colossus of Psammetichus
at Abu-Simbel, in Nubia. Its object was to record the presentation of
certain vessels for the use of the Prytaneium at Sigeum by Phanodicus
and Hermocrates, a native of Proconnesus.
ALEXANDRIA TROAS (in the Acts of the Apostles simply Troas) has nothing
really to do with the Trojan legend, but was an important place of
commerce in Roman times, and the capital of the surrounding district. It
was originally founded by Antigonus,[15] and is chiefly memorable for
the remarkable munificence of a private individual, Herodes Atticus, who
built an immense aqueduct, some traces of which still remain. Suetonius
asserts that Julius Cæsar once thought of transferring Alexandria in
Egypt to this place, and Zosimus adds that Constantine had, also, at one
time designed it as the capital of his Eastern Empire (Suet. Cæs. c. 79;
Zosimus, ii. 30); an idea, perhaps, preserved in its present name _Eski
Stamboul_. It was thence that St. Paul and St. Luke set sail for
Macedonia (Acts xvi. 11), and here, somewhat later, the Apostle restored
the boy Eutychus to life (Acts xx. 9). Lastly, on rounding Cape Lectum,
we come upon a deep and beautiful gulf, where stood the ancient town of
_Adramyttium_, according to Strabo, a colony of the Athenians (xiii. 6),
but, more probably, the creation of Adramys, the brother of Crœsus. It
was early a place of considerable commerce, for which its admirable
position well fitted it (Herod. vii. 42). Subsequently it was given by
the Romans to the kings of Pergamus, but was almost obliterated by
Mithradates (Strabo, xiii. p. 614). It was in a ship of Adramyttium that
St. Paul commenced his voyage from Cæsarea to Italy to plead his cause
before Nero (Acts xxvii. 2).
Footnote 15:
The earliest coins of Alexandria Troas bear the name of Antigonia
(Sestini. Mon. Vet. p. 76).
We come now to a city, PERGAMUM or PERGAMUS (for the name is used
indifferently, though the latter or masculine form is, perhaps, the most
common), which, regard being had to the fact, that, as a great town, it
was not of remote antiquity, became in later days one of the most
celebrated places of antiquity. It is said to have been a colony of the
Heraclidæ from Arcadia (Pausan. i. 4, 5), and to have been first
mentioned as a distinct city by Xenophon (Anab. vii. 8, 4), grouped, in
all probability, round a fortress of considerable natural strength,
whence, indeed, it derived its name. The commencement of its greatness
was its selection by Lysimachus as his treasure city. Lysimachus was
succeeded by Philetærus, and subsequently by Eumenes, Attalus Philetærus
II. &c., a family remarkable for its noble deeds, as well as for the
proverbial wealth of many of its members. Thus Attalus I., who was
proclaimed King of Pergamus for his glorious victory over the Gaulish
invaders, was eminent alike for his military skill, and for his
political foresight (Polyb. xviii. 29; Liv. xxxiii. 21) in espousing the
cause of the Romans. Eumenes II., no less than his father, the firm
friend of the Romans, is worthy of record for the great library he
formed at his capital city, held in antiquity to be second only to that
of Alexandria (Strab. xiii. p. 264; Athen. i. 3).[16] It is said that in
this library skins were first used for writing on, and that, from the
title given to these sheets—“Pergamenæ chartæ”—we derive the name of
“Parchment” (Varr. ap. Plin. xiii. 11).[17] The last of the Attali,
after a reign of five years, dying childless, left his kingdom by his
will to the Romans (Strab. xiii. 624, xiv. 646). Mr. Arundell gives a
picturesque account of his ascent to the citadel, and of the magnificent
view thence.
Footnote 16:
This library was given by Antony to Cleopatra.
Footnote 17:
Περγαμηνή χάρτη, or parchment, appears to have been brought into use
by Crates of Mallos when Ptolemy cut off the supply of the _byblus_ or
the _papyrus_ reed.
Immediately following on _Mysia_ to the S. is the great province of
_Lydia_, the portion of it fronting the Ægean bearing generally the name
of _Ionia_, with a small district at its N.W. corner, touching Mysia,
named _Æolis_. It was a popular belief that the Æolians were the first
great body of Greek colonists to settle in Asia Minor, but, curiously,
the name of Æolians does not occur in Homer. Strabo makes their advent
to Asia Minor four generations earlier than the Ionian migration, and
this movement has been supposed to have been contemporary with the
return of the Heracleidæ, and may, not improbably, have been, in some
degree, caused by it. In common with the other Greek colonies, the
Æolians became subject to Crœsus, and, on the success of Cyrus, were
annexed to the Persian empire; hence, in the Græco-Persian war, they
contributed sixty ships to the armament of Xerxes. The principal towns
of Æolis were Myrina, Cyme, Neontichos, and Methymna. They are not,
however, of sufficient importance to detain us here. Pass we, therefore,
to _Ionia_.
------------------------------------------------------------------------