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 thread. Only last time I did not notice this Trojan Regnum.

1666 - Trojanum Regnum
1666 - Greece.jpg

1666 - Trojanum Regnum

1835 - Troy Ruins
1835 - Ruins of Troy.jpg

1835 - Turquie - Page 173

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.

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.

Back to Troy
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.

nine_worthies_heitor.jpg Hans burgmair_The Nine Worthies_1.jpg
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

Course: Forgery, Lies, and Deception in Medieval Historical Documents
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Hoaxes of the Middle Ages
The Making of Medieval Forgeries: False Documents in Fifteenth-Century England
Making of Medieval Forgeries | Oxford Academic

Medieval Forgeries and Forgers
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 thread. In a similar manner the reader was instructed on what they were supposed to be thinking.


* * * *​

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.


Well-known member
I think with work like this we can slowly encircle the web of lies the church built. I want to knwo when they started their cover up (which involved inventing both the terms antiquity and middle ages).

Wilhelm Kammeier in his books says it was the 15th century and took thousands of people and 100 years, unfortunately not many people took him seriously but he did the original research. (He called it "the great event") Most other authors say it happened way earlier, somewhere between the 8th and the 12th

I think it was even later, the 17th and beginning of 18th century, but haven't found conclusive evidence yet. If Troy is only turning into ruins between 1674 and 1694 this gives credibility to the supposed 1690 event of epic global proportions (Mud flood in the 19th century? - The Wild Heretic).
Last edited:


Active member
Excellent work and research KD, as always. One thing I noticed on the maps that seemed odd to me is that on the 1585 map, Sigeum is north-west of Ilium, but then in 1592 Sigeum is located south-west from Ilium. I then don't see that Sigeum city shown on any of the other maps you've provided.

While I don't believe the cartographers from the past were liars with big imaginations like our dogmatic education tells us, this does provide a bit of evidence that they could, and apparently did, sometimes make mistakes as to where things were located. So when we're examining maps and we see some oddities on a map or two as compared to the other maps from the time, it could have been an error that slipped through into that particular finished map.


Excellent work and research KD, as always. One thing I noticed on the maps that seemed odd to me is that on the 1585 map, Sigeum is north-west of Ilium, but then in 1592 Sigeum is located south-west from Ilium. I then don't see that Sigeum city shown on any of the other maps you've provided.
Totally agree that ancient maps pose more questions than answers. Some things do get mixed up there. Whether those are honest fatfinger type mistakes, or deliberate misrepresentation remains to be determined. I think it could be both.

I updated the OP with some additional info, but there are still things to search for. I would like to find out what turned Ilium/Troy into ruins. Why they changed the name from Ilium to Troy would also be a nice thing to figure out.


Well-known member
From Wikipedia:
This story had to be reconciled with a dual tradition, set earlier in time, the one that had the Trojan refugee Aeneas escape to Italy and found the line of Romans through his son Iulus, the namesake of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
The source of this claim comes from Livy. They very ancient historian. Except was he? From Fomenko (which I'm obsessed with reading lately):
epoch" ( [544],Volume 4, page 531).
2.4. The eclipses described by the "ancient" Titus Livy
Let us give a few more examples. Omitting the details this time,we shall just report that the eclipse from the Historyby Titus Livy (XXXVII, 4, 4) that the modern chronologers ascribe to 190 b.c. or 188 B.C., also fails to satisfy the description of Titus Livy. The situation with the eclipses of Thucydides is repeated yet again. It turns out that an independent astronomical dating yields just one precise solution in the interval between 900 b.c. and 1600 a.d.: 967 a.d. ([544]).

The situation with the lunar eclipse that Titus Livy describes in his History (LIV, 36, 1) is exactly the same. Scaligerite chronologers suggest that Livy is referring to the eclipse of 168 b.c. However, analysis shows that the characteristics of this eclipse do not fit the description given by Livy. The eclipse that he describes could really have happened on one of the following dates:
· Either in 415 a.d., at night between the 4th and the 5th of September;
· In 955 a.d., at night between the 4th and the 5th of September;
· Or in 1020 a.d., at night between the 4th and the 5th of September.
(sorry for the jumbly text I'm copying from a pdf)

So Titus was almost certainly describing a 11th century eclipse and makes the claim that Rome was founded by exiled Trojans? How odd!


Well-known member
The picture with Hector, Alexander and Julius Caesar is interesting. Alexander is depicted with the Scythian Griffin shield and Julius has the double headed eagle of Rome.

There are a lot of people and nations claiming to descent from the Scythians and for certain their influence was wide spread. That crest can also be seen in use nowadays as well with it's change from a griffin to a lion in the same pose, like just removing the wings.

I know this is about Troy, but that detail stood out for me, no intentions of derailing this.