ascribed to the pressure of the barbarian Thracians; and the fourth stratum, with its traces of merely wooden buildings, and other marks of a lower stage of civilization, corresponds to that conquest of the Troad by those same barbarian Thracians, the tradition of which is preserved by Herodotus and other writers. The primitive dwellings of those races in Thrace still furnish the flint implements, which are most abundant in the fourth stratum at Hissarlik.

The extremely interesting concurrence of instruments of stone with those of copper (or bronze, see p. 361) in all the four strata at Hissarlik, may be illustrated by a case which has fallen under our notice while dismissing this sheet for press. A mound recently opened at the Bocenos, near Carnac (in the Morbihan), has disclosed the remains of a Gallic house, of the second century of our era, in which flint implements were found, intermixed with pottery of various styles, from the most primitive to the finest examples of native Gallic art, and among all these objects was a terra-cotta head of the Venus Anadyomene.[19] Such facts as these furnish a caution against the too hasty application of the theory of the Ages of Stone, Bronze, and Iron.

Another illustration is worth adding of the persistence of the forms of objects in common use in the same region. (See p. 47.) Mr. Davis, in his recently published travels in Asia Minor,[20] describes a wooden vessel for carrying water, which he saw at Hierapolis, in Phrygia, of the very same form as the crown-handled vase-covers of terra-cotta found in such numbers by Schliemann (see p. 25, 48, 86, 95, &c.). “They are made of a section of the pine: the inside is hollowed from below, and the bottom is closed by another piece of wood exactly fitted into it.” The two drawings given by Mr. Davis closely resemble our cut, No. 51, p. 86.

Our last letter from Dr. Schliemann announced the approaching termination of his lawsuit with the Turkish Government, arising out of the dispute referred to in the ‘Introduction’ (p. 52). The collection has been valued by two experts; and Dr. Schliemann satisfies the demand of the Turkish Government by a payment in cash, and an engagement to continue the excavations in Troy for three or four months for the benefit of the Imperial Museum at Constantinople. We rejoice that he has not “closed the excavations at Hissarlik for ever” (see p. 356), and wait to see what new discoveries may equal or surpass those of the “Scæan Gates,” the “Palace,” and the “Treasure of Priam.”

Meanwhile, as the use of so mythical a name as that of Troy’s last king has furnished a special butt for critical scorn, it seems due to Dr. Schliemann to quote his reason for retaining it:—[21]

“I identify with the Homeric Ilion the city second in succession from the virgin soil, because only in that city were used the Great Tower, the great Circuit Wall, the great Double Gate, and the ancient palace of the chief or king, whom I call Priam, because he is called so by the tradition of which Homer is the echo; but as soon as it is proved that Homer and the tradition were wrong, and that Troy’s last king was called ‘Smith,’ I shall at once call him so.” Those who believe Troy to be a myth and Priam a shadow as unsubstantial as the shape, whose head