Heinrich Schliemann - Father Of Archaeology Or Fraud?

[Tobias]

G'day all

 

In my ancient history class the other day, my teacher posed us an interesting question based on our recent studies of Troy and it's discovery and excavation; Should Heinrich Schliemann be considered the "father" of archaeology for his excavations and discovery of Troy at Hisarlik and his digs at Mycenae, his supposed discovery of "Priam's Treasure" etc, or was he merely a moneyed treasure hunter? We debated over it for a couple of hours, and I thought it might make a good discussion here, so i pose it to you. What are your opinions on the subject? Based on my own studies, i have a firm opinion towards Schliemann, but maybe there are some different thoughts here.

Edited March 24, 2006 by Tobias

[Lacertus]

Oh, yeah, it's a good theme for discussion.

Heinrich Schliemann was not the most famous archaeologist of his day, though he was famous. Neither was he the most skilled. He rarely followed good archaeological procedures at his excavations and was roundly criticized by later archaeologists. He wasn't even the most scrupulous of those in his profession, something confirmed by his illegal smuggling of a priceless historic treasure out of the country of Turkey.

He was, however, perhaps the luckiest archaeologist of all time.

I saw the "Priam's treasure" because it's kept in Moscow in The Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts (the collection was took out from Berlin in 1945 and was showed only in 1996 first time!).

There is a opinion that Schlimann's digs were poor vandalism, he destroyed the culture lays of many civilizations which were on this place including Homer's Troy.

What were the lays of ancient Troy?

1. Maritime culture, Aegaean, Cycladic: Troy I, 2920-2480/20 BC

2. Troy II, 2600-2480/20 BC, most wealthy, treasure from this period found by Heinrich Schliemann

3. Troy III 2480/20-2300 BC

4. Anatolian culture: Troy IV, 2200-1900 BC

5. Troy V, 1900-1750 BC Highest culture of Troy / Wilusa / (W)ilios / Ilios / Ilion / Ilium, vassal of Hattusas

6. Troy VI, 1700-1250/30 BC, destroyd by an earthquake between 1250 and 1230 BC

7. Troy VIIa, 1250/30-1180 BC, Hattusas fell around 1200 BC, stormed by Thracians, Troy VIIa burnt in 1183 BC

8. Balcanian culture: Troy VIIb1-b3, 1180-1000 BC or later; then partly or completely left until around 750 BC

 

What are your opinions on the subject?

 

I'm sure Schliemann was discourteous with history and archaeology. He found a treasure but it was not Priam's treasure (it's not so mean, his finds were great) He falsified his finds and destroyed many lays of ancient cultures in a rush for wealth and glory.

He has a flair to finds but he was the greatest adventurer...

[Viggen]

Well he is without a doubt one of the fathers of the archaeology field, he introduced standards that still have value today...

 

1. Preliminary investigation of the area

2. Excavation up to the lining up soil

3. Attention of the layer sequence

4. Search for guidance ceramic(s) ("guidance fossil") for the individual layers

5. Interdisciplinary co-operation with other sciences, like anthropology, paleontology, Palaeographie, topography, chemistry among other things.

 

His visions, passions, open mind and strong belief in Homer made his discoveries possible. Lets not also forget he was not just a greedy ignorant amateur, he did study classics at the Sorbone in Paris, made his Phd in Rostock (Gemany), became an honorable member of the Society of Antiquaries of London, also honorable Professor of the Universit

[Andrew Dalby]

Another point maybe. It's difficult now to think back to that time, but in the early 19th century a lot of scholars had concluded that even the background of the Homeric stories -- the importance of Troy and Mycenae, the existence of kings and kingdoms many centuries before the recorded history of Greece began -- was pure fiction. You can't blame them entirely, because other similar tales -- Aeneas's journey via Carthage, the settling of Britain by Brutus, the voyage of Joseph of Arimathea to England, etc. -- really were fiction.

 

Because Schliemann saw a difference in the Iliad (and he was right there) he went and proved that there was something in the stories about Mycenae and Troy after all. The result: a huge change in attitudes. It was accepted, and still is today, that at least some of the background to the Iliad is true. There really was a Mycenaean civilization.

[Kosmo]

The fact that he proved that what were considered miths could have a core of truth it's a huge leap forward for culture and history. This opened the use of other texts, like the Bible, previously desmised as miths, as literary sources.

He found the first major european civilisation, a big thing as the history of the micenian civilisation it's still debated.

His flamboyant stile drew a large crowd to arheology with lasting effects. After him Germany became the country with the biggest interest in arheology.

[Guest renee89]

Hi everyone,

 

Although Schliemann did introduce to the world the Mycenae culture and confirmed some validity in Homers Iliad and the Odyssey, we must not forget that he was, most undoubtedley a treasure seeker.

Shliemann did not even discover the site of troy at Hisarlik, it was Frank Calvert. Calvert, due to a lack of funds, was only able to perform test trenches at the site. He divulged information about Troy to Schliemann, who then bought most of the site. Schliemann dug a huge trench through layer nine to layer two at the Troy site, destroying invaluable archaeological evidence along the way.

He is renowed for trying to find the evidence that fits his conclusion, rather than drawing his conclusion from the evidence. He removed Priam's treasure from the Turkish government... taking it with him to Greece. He made sketchy notes of his discoveries of Priam's treasure, stating that his wife Sophie was with him, when she really wasn't. He was a romantic, not a true archaeologist. Despite all this, we should remember the time that he came from and the nature of his dig; nothing so complex of complicated had been undertaken before. He was pionerring in unchartered archaelogical waters. If he had had the scientific techniques of archaeology available to us today, I'd hope he would have gone about things differently.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Viggen

[phil25]

Like Viggen, I am a big fan of Schliemann.

 

I have been to both Troy and Mycenae and paid silent tribute to him there.

 

Ok, the old boy was a showman, ego-centric and a bit of a fraud (it seems) in recording his finds. But then, so were some of the early Egyptologists!!

 

But he was a pioneer, the father of a science, and had to develop techniques and approaches that no one today has to do. And never forget, it was his own money that funded it all.

 

True, he hardly used subtle techniques to excavate, and jumped to over-hasty, romatic conclusions about what he found. But he had vision, and conviction and what he discovered was real enough. He was also honest enough to have puzzled at the end about some of the conclusions he had reached and the supporting evidence; and tragically, he probably almost destroyed what he was looking for!!

 

But to me he ranks only a little lower than Darwin in the pantheon of C19th scientific greatness.

 

As for his faults, he was a man of his time. Would we criticise Shakespeare for not writing good filmscripts?

 

Schliemann blazed trails, excited imaginations, answered questions and opened a whole world. He was no more a distorter than was (say ) Evans at Knossos - whose interpretations and reconstructions may have misled to a far greater degree and with some less justification. But both Schliemenn and Evans did things that attract tourists in hordes and sell books and interest people.

 

I can forgive much when that is the achievement.

 

Phil

[Uros]

Schliemann was a child of his age, as many others "Scientist" of XIX century he was a scientist and aventurier, a good man and a Fraude.

Judgin' him with modern archeological he is surely overshadow but for its time he was, if not good, at least intuitive

[phil25]

Is he really overshadowed?

 

I can think of few archaeologists in history who can compare at the level of discovery - Carter, Petrie, and a few French Egyptologists; Evans for Knossos and the Minoan civilisations (but he could turn out to be a bigger fraud than Schliemann himself!!); Mortimer Wheeler for the Indus work; Wooley for Mesoptamia; Blagen and Schliemann's own successors at Troy; various C19th explorers and showmen.

 

I think today's breed of scientists are far too cautious in their approach; and unimaginative in "selling" what they learn. Much of the magic that Schliemann introduced has gone. there is little romance and no broad sweep.

 

I probably over-state the case, but why not for the sake of discussion.

 

I think Schiemenn and his contemporaries and successors were pioneers - people who progressed and took things forward; took risks and advanced into the unknown. By comparison, today's archaeologists are settlers; not moving far out of their territory; stove-piped in their disciplies, and by fear of the academic peer-group; taking tiny steps that lack courage; overly cautious and far too preoccupied about not doing anything that might ruin things for the future. if Schliemann, carter and some of the others i have mentioned had taken that approach; we today would know far far less than we do; and probably there would be little interest in archaeology.

 

I sometimes think that the "diggers" of today actually fear making a discovery like priam's gold or Tutankhamen's mainly untouched burial - they would not know how to deal with it - they would see it as treasure-robbing probably!!

 

So give me the characters anyday!!

 

phil

[Tobias]

I sometimes think that the "diggers" of today actually fear making a discovery like priam's gold or Tutankhamen's mainly untouched burial - they would not know how to deal with it - they would see it as treasure-robbing probably!!

 

I would perhaps be inclined to agree with this, but this is more a sign of the times than anything else. As is being discussed in the Hora Postilla Thermae, if you make a discovery in Egypt, you must immediately inform Mr Hawass, and if you act alternatively, you are automatically part of the evil forces of Seth, according to Hawass, and you are sent packing, your credibility most likely shattered.

 

Elsewhere in the world, if archaeological discoveries are made, all manner of obstacles can appear;you must contend with the native land owners the discovery was found on in many countries, you must cut the multitude of red tape (if at all possible), you must contact all kinds of bureaucratic departments (the kind that are the bane of the world), etc etc etc. No wonder most archaeologists caring about their careers are treading lightly!

 

I'm not saying there are no archaeologists in the world who do not cross the rubicon occassionally, but the above is becoming more and more endemic.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Tobias

[phil25]

I have no particular problems with bureaucracy, Tobias. I am not advocating treasure-seeking or unauthorised digging.

 

What galls me, is the approach that says "we WON'T excavate this site because it might be possible for future generations to get more out of it as science advances. If we do, we'll damage it and might not retrieve information that currently unknown techniques and science might do in the future.!!"

 

I am also gob-smacked by the fact that archaeology has now become almost entirely a science. I recently heard a leading modern archaeologist say that he wasn't an historiab, and if he wanted one he would "buy one in".

 

Excavations, on that evidence, are now just "reverse" construction projects, projact managed and utterly unromantic, with no feel on the part of those involved for their work.

 

Phil