§ IV. My Critics.— I cannot conclude the discussion of
the seven settlements on the citadel-hill of Hissarlik without
adding a few words in reply to my persistently bitter
critic. Professor R. C. Jebb, who in his long dissertation on
" The Ruins at Hissarlik ; their Relation to the Iliad^ in the
Journal of Hellenic Studies^ October 3, 1882, has pro-
pounded the following theory : — ^That the uppermost
stratum, about 2 m. deep, marks the Greek Ilium of the
Roman age subsequently to its destruction by Fimbria in
85 B.C. ; — that a Lydian settlement had no real existence,
and must altogether disappear; — that the next stratum
below, 2 m. deep, the fifth prehistoric settlement, described
and illustrated in the ninth chapter of Ilios^ is the Greek
Ilium of the Macedonian age, which was embellished by
Lysimachus about 300 b.c, and was sacked by Fimbria in
85 B.C. ; — that the next stratum of ruins, about 3 metres



5 IV.] PROFESSOR JEBB'S THEORY. 237

deep, the fourth prehistoric settlement, extensively de-
scribed and illustrated in the eighth chapter of Ilios^ is in
reality the Greek Ilium as it existed before the Macedonian
^gc; — that the stratum of cUbris immediately beneath,
about 3 metres deep, the third prehistoric city, described
and illustrated in the seventh chapter of Ilios^ is in reality
the Greek Ilium in its earliest form, that is, the first settle-
ment of Aeolian colonists on the hill of Hissarlik, about
560 or perhaps 700 b.c* ; — that the next stratum of ruins,
about 4 metres deep, the second prehistoric city, described
and illustrated in the sixth chapter of Ilios^ may be the
city, the capture and siege of which gave rise to the
legend of Troy ; — and finally, that the last stratum of debris^
2'5o m. deep, which lies on the virgin soil, and is described
and illustrated in the fifth chapter of Ilios^ is still earlier.
