The discovery of Hisarlik as Troy by Heinrich Schliemann was certainly one of the most sensational news stories of the nineteenth century. Hisarlik is now commonly assumed to be the site of Troy, the city in and around which Homers Iliad took place. With his extraordinary find, Schliemann radically started to redirect scholarly thinking about the ancient past and, no less he started a controversy about himself, his life and his methods. That controversy, starting back in his own days and still continuing more than 100 years after his death, was in the beginning mainly fought by Schliemann’s own fellow countryman, but it’s nowadays a fully international debate.
The paper not only covers bibliographical facts of Schliemann’s life and work, but also the period of his excavation of Troy and the question whether the ‘Treasure of Priam’ was forged by him or not.
Table of Contents
1. Some short notes on Schliemann’s life
2. Troy and the Troad before Schliemann’s first excavation cycle
3. The first excavation cycle 1871-1873 and the discovery of ‘Priam’s gold’
4. The ‘Treasure of Priam’ – a gigantic fraud?
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the archaeological work of Heinrich Schliemann, focusing specifically on his initial excavation cycles at the Hisarlik site and the historical controversy surrounding the discovery of the so-called "Treasure of Priam."
- Biographical background of Heinrich Schliemann
- Archaeological landscape of Troy prior to Schliemann's involvement
- Methodological analysis of the 1871-1873 excavation campaigns
- Critical investigation into the authenticity and discovery circumstances of Priam’s Treasure
- Evaluation of historical debates regarding Schliemann’s credibility as an archaeologist
Excerpt from the Book
The first excavation cycle 1871-1873 and the discovery of ‘Priam’s gold’
When Schliemann started his excavation campaigns in Troy in 1871, there were not many theoretical concepts of Archaeology as a science or of scientific methods of excavation.
Although the first chair of Classical Archaeology was founded in 1802 at the University of Kiel / Germany, that young science – highly influenced by the views of Joachim Winckelmann – was for the most part a kind of Art History, a science of approaching the (mainly) Greek culture by studying Greek architecture and Greek art (especially sculpture and vase painting), being taught generally by Classical philologists and Ancient historians.
There was no science such as Prehistoric Archaeology or even Pre-history or Oriental studies. Schliemann and his contemporaries thus had to be autodidacts who could not look upon a methodical system for excavation, but who rather had to develop one.24
Basically an excavation in Schliemann’s time was more or less discovery and remove of what was hidden in the earth, the tomb or the building, and to fill with the works of art found during the process mostly the museums and private collection all over the world.25 And often this was done by man not primarily being scientists, but more retired officers or businessman or just wealthy well-educated sons of noble families who were obviously not trained to be archaeologist in the sense we may understand this now.
Summary of Chapters
Some short notes on Schliemann’s life: Provides a biographical overview of Heinrich Schliemann’s early years, his business career in Russia, and his transition into archaeology.
Troy and the Troad before Schliemann’s first excavation cycle: Explores the topographical and literary history of the region and the prior surveys conducted by individuals such as Frank Calvert and British military personnel.
The first excavation cycle 1871-1873 and the discovery of ‘Priam’s gold’: Details the methodology and progression of the excavations at Hisarlik and the controversial circumstances under which the treasure was unearthed.
The ‘Treasure of Priam’ – a gigantic fraud?: Analyzes the ongoing academic debate concerning the authenticity of the findings and the reliability of Schliemann’s reports versus potential deceptions.
Keywords
Heinrich Schliemann, Troy, Hisarlik, Priam’s Treasure, Archaeology, Excavation, 19th Century, Homer, Stratigraphy, Frank Calvert, Methodology, Historical Debate, Antiquity, Artifacts, Troad.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The paper examines the life and professional career of Heinrich Schliemann, with a specific focus on his first excavation cycles at Troy and the subsequent controversy regarding his methods and findings.
Which thematic areas are central to this research?
The study covers Schliemann's biographical path, the state of archaeology in the 19th century, his archaeological methods, the history of the Hisarlik excavations, and the debates surrounding the authenticity of Priam's Treasure.
What is the main objective of the paper?
The primary goal is to evaluate whether Schliemann was a pioneer who used scientific methods ahead of his time or a treasure hunter whose primary motivation was personal fame and whose findings are questionable.
Which scientific methods are analyzed?
The paper discusses Schliemann’s use of literary research, surveys, the law of superposition, and the emerging awareness of the importance of pottery in dating archaeological layers.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section details the progression of his excavations from 1871 to 1873, the discovery of the "Great Trench," the involvement of Frank Calvert, and the later academic disputes initiated by researchers like David Traill.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The key themes include Heinrich Schliemann, Troy, Priam's Treasure, archaeological methodology, and historical controversy.
How does the author assess the accusations of fraud against Schliemann?
The author argues that while Schliemann was sometimes deceptive or hasty, these actions were often driven by professional ambition and pressure rather than inherent fraud, and critiques the use of post-mortem psychoanalysis as "rickety evidence."
Why did Schliemann lie about his wife's presence at the discovery?
According to the text, Schliemann admitted in correspondence that he fabricated her presence to support her image as a partner and to enhance her career as an archaeologist.
How is the debate about the find spot of the treasure addressed?
The author suggests that the discrepancies in the reported find spots are likely due to Schliemann's lack of precise knowledge regarding the complex architectural structure of Troy II, rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.
- Quote paper
- M.A. Diana Beuster (Author), 2008, Heinrich Schliemann at Troy and the so-called 'Treasure of Priam", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/128662
