Troy: X marked the spot for centuries, but the ruins were only identified in 1822

The official history tells us that the city of Troy was founded in 3000 BC. This same very history teaches us that the city was abandoned in 500 BC. The Trojan War was a historical event of the 13th or 12th century BC, but by the mid-19th century AD, both the war and the city were widely seen as non-historical. I find this particularly interesting, considering that the city of Troy is present on just about every map dated as early as 1540, and as late as 1859.


Art by William Cook

With the rise of critical history, Troy and the Trojan War were, for a long time, consigned to the realms of legend. However, the true location of ancient Troy had from classical times remained the subject of interest and speculation.

The Troad peninsula was anticipated to be the location. Early modern travellers in the 16th and 17th centuries, including Pierre Belon and Pietro Della Valle, had identified Troy with Alexandria Troas, a ruined town approximately 20 km south of the currently accepted location. In the late 18th century, Jean Baptiste LeChevalier had identified a location near the village of Pınarbaşı, Ezine as the site of Troy, a mound approximately 5 km south of the currently accepted location. LeChavalier's location, published in his Voyage de la Troade, was the most commonly accepted theory for almost a century.

  • In 1822, the Scottish journalist Charles Maclaren was the first to identify with confidence the position of the city as it is now known.
  • In 1866, Frank Calvert, the brother of the United States' consular agent in the region, made extensive surveys and published in scholarly journals his identification of the hill of New Ilium (which was on farmland owned by his family) on the same site. The hill, near the city of Çanakkale, was known as Hisarlik.
  • In 1868, German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann visited Calvert and secured permission to excavate Hisarlik. In 1871–73 and 1878–79, he excavated the hill and discovered the ruins of a series of ancient cities dating from the Bronze Age to the Roman period. Schliemann declared one of these cities—at first Troy I, later Troy II—to be the city of Troy, and this identification was widely accepted at that time.
Accepted Location

Trojan Ruins

Troy = Ilium, Ilion
The first thing we need to understand pertains to the name of the city. According to multiple 16th, and 17th century texts, The city of Troy was also called Ilium, as well as Ilion. There are tons of different 400 year old texts clearly stating that Ilium and Troy were one and the same.

Some of the maps name the city Ilium, and some name it as Troy. There is no second meaning to what the maps show. The location is precisely where today's Trojan Ruins are at.

The following map allegedly dated to 1665 has Ilium, aka Troy painted over with red. Some cities on this map are painted and some are not. This could be a clear indicator of a possible destruction.

The below map is not fully understood by me yet. It is free of cities/towns to the point which suggests that something catastrophically serious took place. To fully understand what I am talking about, you would need to click on the link below the cutout. I used this map in the Santorini article. Only last time I did not notice this Trojan Regnum.

Verify for yourself: more maps...

Excavation of Troy
I am not gonna go into the details of the actual excavation. Schliemann allegedly discovered 9 Troy sites and it took between 1868 and 1879. For detailed info on the Schliemann's endeavors at the dig please refer to Wikipedia.

The Hand of course...

  • Schliemann (fifth from left) at Troy, ca. 1880s. Second from left is Schliemann’s architect, Wilhelm Doerpfeld.
  • Source: Heinrich Schliemann Papers, American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
It is important to remember that according to the official version, the city of Troy seized to exist approximately 2,300 years prior to its "discovery". We are lead to believe that Troy was entirely hidden by the "sands of time". In other words Troy was supposed to be buried entirely beneath a hill known as Hisarlik.
  • In 1822, the Scottish journalist Charles Maclaren was the first to identify with confidence the position of the city as it is now known.
  • In 1866, Frank Calvert, the brother of the United States' consular agent in the region, made extensive surveys and published in scholarly journals his identification of the hill of New Ilium (which was on farmland owned by his family) on the same site. The hill, near the city of Çanakkale, was known as Hisarlik.
If the excavation of the "Ancient" Greek Mycenae is of any indication, I doubt there was any city of Troy hidden inside the hill. It was rather on top of the hill. Mycenae is a separate story of its own. I will sidetrack for a second and re-enforce this Troy thing with some Ancient Mycenae.
  • The eventual destruction of Mycenae formed part of the general Bronze Age collapse in the Greek mainland and beyond. Within a short time around 1200 BC, all the palace complexes of southern Greece were burned, including that at Mycenae.
  • The first correct identification of Mycenae in modern literature was during a survey conducted by Francesco Grimani, commissioned by the Provveditore Generale of the Kingdom of the Morea in 1700, who used Pausanias's description of the Lion Gate to identify the ruins of Mycenae.
  • The first excavations at Mycenae were carried out by Greek archaeologist Kyriakos Psistakis in 1841 where he found and restored the Lion Gate.
Note: I sure do not know what this Kyriakos Psistakis found in 1841, but the below Edward Clarke observed The Lion Gate in 1813-1814.

The Lion Gate in Mycenae

CLARKE, Edward Daniel. Travels in various Countries of Europe Asia and Africa…, Russia Tahtary [sic] and Turkey…, Greece, Egypt and the Holy Land…, vol. ΙII, London, R. Watts for Cadell and Davies, MDCCCXIV [=1814].

The Lion Gate in Mycenae.jpg


STACKELBERG, Otto Magnus Baron de. La Grèce. Vues Pittoresques et Topographiques, Paris [London], chez l'Éditeur, H. Rittner et Chaillou-Potrelle [Engelmann, Graff et Coindet], 1830

The Lion Gate in Mycenae_3_1.jpg

The Lion Gate in Mycenae_3.jpg

SCHWEIGER LERCHENFELD, Amand, (Freiherr von). Griechenland in Wort und Bild, Eine Schilderung des hellenischen Konigreiches, Leipzig, Heinrich Schmidt & Carl Günther, 1887
Note: apparently as late as 1887 this Lion Gate could have looked like in the sketch below

The Lion Gate in Mycenae_2.jpg


Additional images: The Lion Gate at Mycenae

3,000 y.o. Mycenae
To be honest, I'm fairly confident the city of Mycenae did not even exist prior to like 1715-1716. I think it was called Agios prior to becoming Mycenae.

One way or the other, below you can see the city of Mycenae on this 1716 map of Greece. The officials will discover it in 1841. The main question to ask our scientist would be what the city of Mycenae is doing on the 18th century maps.

I think the ruins of Troy were spread out all over surface. They were sitting there in the open, just like some of the above maps stating "ruins of Troy" would suggest.
  • What I wanted to specifically point out, is the time frame of the excavation as it relates to the age of photography. I find it highly suspicious, that Mr. Schliemann chose a sketching technique to document this historic excavation. We only have a handful of photographs from the site of one of the greatest archaeological "discoveries". Here is an unrelated example of photographs taken between 1840 and 1860.
We do not have a single photograph showing the Troy dig at its infancy. All the available photographic evidence indicates that the city was never fully hidden inside the Hisarlik hill. I do think that the workers moved some dirt but not to the extent of digging the entire city from beneath the ground.

Images like the one below have to suggest that the digging crew scraped out and removed all the caked in dirt from those cracks between the stones. That is if the city was entirely buried of course. I have my doubts about that.


Not sure what hill they removed from here. At the very least they piled up some rocks together.


Once again we witness cleared out cracks. The piled up rocks on that wall also do not add credibility to the entire process.


Vegetation like bushes and scattered shrubs could also be an indicator of what this "dig" was really like



What we do have is tons of drawings. I find it highly suspicious that 50 years after the invention of photography they were documenting using this archaic technique. To understand the scope of the issue look at this Google Search results.


KD summary:
  • This city was not supposed to be on the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century maps. It seized to exist at least 2,300 years prior.
  • Original name of Troy was Ilium. The name changed from Ilium to Troy some time between 1592 and 1652.
  • For a city which existed on 99% of the maps, it sure took the officials long to find it.
  • Ilium was a medieval city. Troy made it into the 17th century.
  • Troy was destroyed between 1650 and 1700. Due to geo proximity, Santorini event was probably related.
  • The city of Troy was never buried inside the hill. It was always visible.
  • The city of Troy was used to reinforce the false "antiquity" narrative.
Hector and Co.
This Hector sure looks like no Ancient Trojan or Greek I know.


From here: Ancient TOP 9, and their Coats of Arms

Early Art
King Priam greets his son Paris and Helena, whom Paris has abducted. Volume 1, fol.85. Author: COURCY, JEAN DE, MANUSCRIPT. Location: Russian National Library, St. Petersburg, Russia.

Battle between Greeks and Trojans. France, Paris, XIVth century.


The capture of Troy, by Jean de Courcy, illumination from the book La bouquechardière, Paris, France, XIV century.


The removal of Helen (at the top of the image) and the landing of the Greeks under the walls of Troy (below), by Vincentius Bellovacensis, illumination from the book Speculum historiale, France, XV century.

There are hundreds more out there. You will find if you really want to.

Yup, what to do with Homer and the "antiquity" issue?

Homer's Illiad was allegedly written in the 8th century BC, and partly survived through oral tradition. In its full form the text made its return to Italy and Western Europe beginning in the 15th century. Venetus A, copied in the 10th century AD, is the oldest fully extant manuscript of the Iliad. The first edition of the "Iliad", edited by Demetrius Chalcondyles and published by Bernardus Nerlius, and Demetrius Damilas in Florence in 1488/89

"Taken as a whole, medieval monks and clerics were probably the most prolific forgers of all time. For centuries they controlled access to official documents, placing them in a perfect position to alter or forge those documents, should they so desire. And judging by the volume of their output, they evidently did so desire. What's more, their superiors could be counted on to overlook, or even approve, any textual inventions that benefitted the Church.
Papal bulls were a frequent object of forgery. In one notorious case, a count of Armagnac bribed a papal official to produce a fake papal bull allowing him to marry his sister. Letters, church histories, lives of saints, and deeds to land were other common creations of clerical forgers.
Almost all of these forgeries went undetected for centuries until the revival of historical scholarship that began during the Renaissance. As the vast scope of the deception gradually became evident, some scholars began to wonder whether there were any medieval church documents whose authenticity could be trusted. In 1675 the Jesuit scholar Daniel van Papenbroeck published his conclusion that all ancient deeds were falsifications created by eleventh-century monks. His announcement brought the wrath of the Church down upon him, and a few years later he humbly begged forgiveness for his doubt. Another seventeenth-century scholar, Jean Hardouin, became convinced that the majority of classical Greek and Roman literature, as well as all extant Greek and Roman coins, had actually been forged by medieval Benedictine monks. Hardouin declared that when he died he would he would leave behind a scrap of paper on which was written the reason why the monks had committed this forgery. Unfortunately, Hardouin's mysterious scrap of paper was never found." - Source
Faking the history
But certainly these are not the ruins of that Ilium, which was destroyed by the Grecians, but another one of the same name. Th reader is clearly being guided in the desired direction. This is how long long time ago they started to introduce the antiquity concept. In my opinion of course.

This book was supposed to be made in 1625. That I seriously doubt.


The above passage reminded me of the 1816: Year Without Summer article. In a similar manner the reader was instructed on what they were supposed to believe.


Anyways, we have what we have. You are welcome to make your own conclusions what all of the above could mean.

If there is something you have to say on the issue, please feel free to share.
Daniel Van Heil painted many scenes of Troy burning, almost like a war photographer.



From wiki: Daniel van Heil or Daniël van Heil (1604–1664), was a Flemish Baroque landscape painter. He specialized in three types of landscapes: scenes with fire, landscapes with ruins and winter landscapes.
This "city" can fit 45 Anatolian "troys" within its walls. the coliseum of Rome can sit on one of its walls.
Troys walls were heaped up not stone.

Daniel Van Heil painted many scenes of Troy burning, almost like a war photographer.
Isn't it interesting how flammable those stone structures were? Well, may be we are simply trained to think that they could burn that easy?
This "city" can fit 45 Anatolian "troys" within its walls.
I am not sure if having a sea nearby would be a requirement for Troy. From what we know it sounds like it should be. Yet, this Corneşti-Iarcuri does deserve a look, imho. A brief look at the 17th century maps of the area suggests that it's not as old as claim.
iarcuri is called "romer schanze" which means roman walls on 17th century maps. as a community [little village in old centre of city] its called schaden and zsdany which means walls or destroyed walls.
but if you look closely you can see the roman wall is built over the wall of iarcuri.
Could you please elaborate on what this Corneşti-Iarcuri has to do with Troy? Pretty sure I missed something.
these mega forts [many] are freaking out science because they WERE attacked by greeks even maybe with the first ever example of catapults [unless they had giants slinging huge clay balls]. and by the pottery the inhabitants from iarcuri went off to inhabit the troy in turkey after its collapse.

from Dartmouth uni
"On the basis of the Iliad and Odyssey specifically and of Greek tradition in general, the destroyers of Troy VIIa have traditionally been identified as Mycenaean Greeks from the central and southern Greek Mainland. However, there is nothing in the archaeological evidence to identify precisely who the attackers were. Indeed, there is at least some archaeological evidence which suggests that the attackers were not Mycenaeans. For example, are the Mainland Greeks likely to have destroyed Troy at more or less the same time as their own centers in the Peloponnese were being destroyed? It is possible to answer this question in the affirmative if the Peloponnesian destructions were due to natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes, as most recently argued in the cases of Tiryns and Mycenae) or if they were a direct result of the absence of large numbers of potential defenders who were away besieging Troy, although both scenarios do seem to stretch coincidence to its limits. Perhaps more significant is the fact that the “Coarse Ware” of Troy VIIb1, a class of pottery which makes its first appearance at Troy immediately after the destruction of Troy VIIa, is very closely related to the handmade and burnished pottery which appears in more or less contemporary contexts of the early LH IIIC period at a number of sites on the Greek Mainland as well as in Cyprus, southern Italy, and Sicily. In none of these areas does this pottery have local antecedents, and it has been argued by Deger-Jalkotzy that such pottery is to be derived ultimately from ceramic traditions at home in the Middle Danube area of central Europe. The “Coarse Ware” of Troy VIIb1 may be interpreted as identifying the sackers of Troy VIIa, a population group who crossed the Hellespont at the end of their journey from the Middle Danube through Rumania to Turkish Thrace. Similar groups may have been involved with the sacking of numerous major Mycenaean sites in the Peloponnese at the end of the LH IIIB period."

so troy in turkey was occupied by real trojans from Central Europe. weird.
Last edited:
Isn't it interesting how flammable those stone structures were? Well, may be we are simply trained to think that they could burn that easy?

I am not sure if having a sea nearby would be a requirement for Troy. From what we know it sounds like it should be. Yet, this Corneşti-Iarcuri does deserve a look, imho. A brief look at the 17th century maps of the area suggests that it's not as old as claim.
This is another situation were a single flemish painter appears to be attributed most of the paintings of a specific topic. Like Van Cleve was the catchall for Tower of Babel, I get the feeling that Van Heil is the catchall for Troy. Wild idea but maybe we should be looking for all flemish painters from the 1500s/1600s with a singular scene/topic obsession, a variety of styles, and ‘Van’ In their names.

A good example of the variety of styleS is here in this piece:


Imo, the style is very different, compared to the others, (suggesting a different painter created it) and yet, the Trojan horse is present in the foreground on the left. This despite this supposedly being a picture of Antwerp.

From wiki: This is illustrated by van Heil's Fire of Antwerp with the Trojan horse. This composition shows the mixing of contemporary events such as the sack of Antwerp by Spanish troops in 1576 known as the Spanish Fury, with mythological elements such as the Trojan horse. It is also not entirely clear whether the city depicted is in fact Antwerp. The church represented in the centre bears a resemblance to Antwerp Cathedral but the city architecture further includes Trajan's Column of Rome.

Another example is this piece, also called the Burning of Troy:


From wiki: In his scenes of Troy the artist also presented an anachronistic vision of the city by combining Antique ruins with contemporary buildings. This is demonstrated in the Burning of Troy (at Christie's New York on 26 January 2005, lot 214) in which classical structures are found next to church spires and basilicas in the background and more humble typically Flemish houses in the foreground.


The Fall of Troy Set In A Contemporary Town​

R: whatever is going on you know they aren’t giving the real story. The reason I’m so interested in images such as these, is because I feel it will give us more insight into Troy, itself, but also give us clues surrounding KD’s excellent post Helen of Troy, The Fountain of Light and the Eye of Ra Device

One last thought (out there) on why examining these images might be useful in relation to Troy and the Eye of Ra device. “Horse” could sound a lot like Horus, the Egyptian god. Maybe checking out the scenes where the “horse” is presented, (and there seems to be great variety in the style in which Van Heil presents the horse) might give us more insight about what this device was and where it was/is.
Last edited:
Troyes in France


Troy in Romania


Same urban plan including the river in the middle. Troy in Romania is many times larger.

Some trojans went west, some east, some south.
Articles like this are some of my favorites. To me, it clearly illustrates that in (what we call) the 19th century, there were some serious historical revisions (to say the least). Very similar to the Pompeii situation. It really does call into question what anyone means when they claim something is "discovered" or "re-discovered." Clearly, the maps indicate that the location of Troy was never really lost, as it continued to appear on maps for centuries right up until it's alleged "rediscovery." Even if those maps were not available to Schliemann's team and they were otherwise unaware of the information (which seems hard to believe if the dating on the latter maps is accurate), it seems that if historians were being honest and thorough, they would have eventually re-evaluated Schliemann's claim. But they haven't, which implies a few things which also seem to apply to other archeological finds and even things like technological "inventions." The main one being that discoveries must be "official" and have a name assigned to be accepted.

Consider that since the maps exist, that "someone" "somewhere" knew about the location of Troy prior to Schliemann. It's possible it was common knowledge to the locals. So why did the story of Troy being a possibly mythological location become so prevalent? That question is probably unanswerable, but it does show that what we refer to as history is not some empirical search for truth, but merely the narrative punted by the leading "academics" at the time. Those "academics" would then be able to confer legitimacy to people like Schliemann because he's playing within the accepted narrative. Schliemann probably simply used the existing resources to "find" Troy, thus reintroducing the city to the mainstream academic paradigm.

As I've stated before, I am not into huge, overarching "conspiracy theories" that promote one large monolithic organization who controls "history." This is why you can find maps like the ones posted in this article. But that doesn't mean that there are not people and groups who aim to control. Over time, "academia" (with a lot of the infrastructure being developed by the Jesuits/Catholic Church/others) has been able to fool most of the population into thinking that their version of events is accurate and singularly true (like any organized religion). But that loosely defined group is simply the "favorite" of the current times... prior to the current accepted timeline, who knows what the prevailing thought was among the majority (if there even was one). The current "game of history" was created at some point and once enough people believed in it, there was fame and fortune to be gained from participation as long as one played within the rules (which are arbitrary and always subtly evolving).

I personally think that recording history with any sort of accuracy and expecting it to last centuries is a bit of a fool's errand. I think that's why our 19th century was so busy... everything old is new again because the prevailing paradigm allowed "new" discoveries. It should all be taken with many grains of salt. What is up for debate is whether there was even an overarching, worldwide narrative prior to the current one or if history was more of a localized phenomenon. Basically, is our current civilization the first attempt at "globalization of knowledge" or did the previous attempt fail and was replaced? The latter seems more in line with the available evidence and does imply some major destruction of infrastructure. What would it take now for the majority of people to abandon their preconceived notions of history, science, technology, etc (imagining the Tower of Babel story here)? And what would it look like as it was building back the interconnectivity of remote regions? When I ponder those questions, our "history" and the inconsistencies it presents makes a lot of sense to me.

Basically, I'm not sure there is an answer to "why" places like Troy are considered lost in the first place, other than people wanting to distance themselves from that version of the past for indiscernable reasons. It could have always been simple ignorance that became popular or the recency bias, which always seems to say that our current times are the smartest and most civilized. But overall, we live in a consensus reality and nothing means anything until enough people believe in it. Doesn't make any of it the actual "truth" though... And it's what makes historical study so interesting (and frustrating.)
in the beginning of Herodotus it outlines why the Persians attacked Greece. it was over troy. so if I were a greek and troy was in my rear [middle Danube basin] I would want to move it to Anatolia. I would not want the Persians living in the middle Danube just a few days march up the backdoor valley with all the resources in the world.
antenor rebuilt troy as sicambria spawning the franks so that had to be hidden
after that Attila rebuilt troy [sicambria] so that had to be hidden.
after that the real location of troy was a problem for the feudal system as serfs became tired of fighting wars to the death while the opposing nobles sat and argued over their trojan heritage at a feast. everything about troy became bad news.
but its the greeks fault initially.
Do Troy ounces have anything to do with this?

Maybe? Troy ounces are allegedly derived from Troyes, France. Here's a few details that might warrant further investigation:

Troyes has been in existence since the Roman era, then known as Augustobona Tricassium, which stood at the hub of numerous highways, primarily the Via Agrippa...

...The geographical location of Celtic grave-mounds around Troyes and the discovery of Celtic artifacts in the City grounds suggest that Troyes as a settlement may have originated with the Celts as early as 600 BC.

In the Roman era, it was known as Augustobona Tricassium. Numerous highways intersected here, primarily the Via Agrippa, which led north to Reims and south to Langres, and eventually to Milan. Other Roman routes from Troyes led to Poitiers, Autun and Orléans. It was the civitas of the Tricasses, who had been separated by Augustus from the Senones. Of the Gallo-Roman city of the early Empire, some scattered remains have been found, but no public monuments, other than traces of an aqueduct. By the Late Empire the settlement was reduced in extent, and referred to as Tricassium or Tricassae, the origin of French Troyes.

From the fourth century AD, the city was the seat of a bishop. The legend of its bishop Lupus (Loup), who saved the city from Attila by offering himself as hostage, is hagiographic rather than historical. It was several centuries before Troyes gained importance as a medieval centre of commerce.

The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, also called The Battle of Troyes, was fought nearby in 451 AD, between the Roman general Flavius Aetius and the Visigothic king Theodoric I against Attila.

In the early cathedral on the present site, Louis the Stammerer in 878 received at Troyes the imperial crown from the hands of Pope John VIII. At the end of the ninth century, following depredations to the city by Normans, the counts of Champagne chose Troyes as their capital. It remained the capital of the Province of Champagne until the Revolution of the late eighteenth century. The Abbey of Saint-Loup developed a renowned library and scriptorium.

During the Middle Ages, Troyes was an important trading town, and gave its name to troy weight. The Champagne cloth fairs and the revival of long-distance trade, together with new extension of coinage and credit, were the drivers of the medieval economy of Troyes.

In 1285, when Philip the Fair united Champagne to the royal domain, the town kept a number of its traditional privileges. John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy and ally of the English, in 1417 worked to have Troyes designated as the capital of France. He came to an understanding with Isabeau of Bavaria, wife of Charles VI of France, that a court, council, and parlement with comptroller's offices should be established at Troyes. On 21 May 1420, the Treaty of Troyes was signed in this city, still under control of the Burgundians, by which Henry V of England was betrothed to Catherine, daughter of Charles VI. Under the terms of the treaty, Henry V was to succeed Charles, to the detriment of the Dauphin. The high-water mark of Plantagenet hegemony in France was reversed when the Dauphin, afterwards Charles VII, and Joan of Arc recovered the town of Troyes in 1429 by armed conflict (Siege of Troyes).

In medieval times Troyes was an important international trade centre, and the Troyes Fair was a major event. The name troy weight for gold derives from the standard of measurement that developed there.

So, for anyone confused on why I think this might be related, I'm thinking in terms of historical duplication. The highlighted elements of Troyes history seem to have a certain resemblance to the narrative from antiquity of the Trojan War (The presence of Joan of Arc in this story is interesting too). Now, maybe this is some sort of naming re-appropriation, as the Troy that this article is about is really "Ilium" (and derivatives), as KD notes. I would be interested to know how Troyes, France is labeled on maps from the 16th to 18th centuries. Sounds like it should be either Troyes or Tricassium or Tricassae. If I can remember, I'll check later.