Archaeology and Heinrich Schliemann 2012

382 David Turnerever. His attention is now almost exclusively devotedto archaeology:“27 August, 1866: Taganrog: I arrived at 6.00 pm.and hurried to the Museum ... There are manyskulls there, the shape of which indicate the presenceof different races. A few gold diadems wereplaced on the heads of the dead. Rusted swords, afew pots and many wooden couch frames werefound, the latter used in burial. Thence I went tothe hills at the heights of the city where everywherelarge excavations have been made, especiallyat the hill on the peak where the palace andtomb of Mithridates is said to have been. Excavationshave been made everywhere to a depth of 50feet and everywhere one finds bits of clay pots,bone etc. This indicates clearly that this was aninhabited area and that one generation followedanother for thousands of years. But nowhere canone see the blocks of foundations or the walls ofthe ancient houses. Thus, I think the ancient houseswere made of wood or the blocks were reusedon the large hill near the city.”At Theodosia he mentions the Scythian tumuli“older than the Greek colony”, as well as more recentruins.After failing to visit Troy in 1866, Schliemannestablished himself in Paris where he devoted himselfto scholarly pursuits of a varied nature. In late 1866,three years before Ithaque, a friend even suggestedhe take a degree at Rostock University. He was anassiduous member of the Société de géographie,attending its lectures as often as he could. One ofthese on 3 May 1867 (which we know Schliemannattended) was a talk discussing a new book by a certainGeorge Nicolaides entitled Topographie etStratégique de Iliade (1867) where the reality ofHomer’s Troy was underlined and its site at Pinarbas,iconfirmed. 6Another talk at the Society on 20 March 1868 discussedGeorg von Hahn’s work in Asia Minor, whichmust mean his excavations at Balli Dag. We knowfrom his letters from February of that year thatSchliemann was actively participating in the Societyat precisely this time; there seems little doubt that heattended the talk. We now know that by August 1868Schliemann was not only acquainted with Nicolaidesand von Hahn, but also used copies of their works asguides in the Troad.Schliemann in 1868 was not so much at the beginningof a dazzling new future, full of uncharted territory,but at the end of a period of nearly 13 years duringwhich he had, amongst other things, read Homerand interested himself in antiquarian matters. Whenwe take this into account, it is no surprise to find thatSchliemann, after inspecting the Balli Dag site forhimself in 1868, rejected its candidacy. I would noteven rule out that after doubting Balli Dag, he maywell have entertained the Hisarlik theory prior tomeeting Calvert on the 15th of August that year. Rememberthat through Nicolaides Schliemann wasaware of the Hisarlik theory.With the above evidence providing a context, letus conclude with the problem of the “dream of Troy”.David Traill has shown that Schliemann’s statementsin his post-1874 autobiographies concerning his childhoodoath to his father that he would excavate Troyare to all intents and purposes false. Traill has shownthat the “dream of Troy” postdates a dispute betweenCalvert and Schliemann in the mid 1870s that culminatedin Calvert publicly stating that he, in fact, hadintroduced Schliemann to the Hisarlik theory. Schliemanninserted the “dream” into his autobiographythenceforth in order to confound Calvert’s claims.Traill’s theory is a carefully argued and convincinginterpretation of the literal facts. However, theelucidation of this particular problem of 1874 cannotact as the king-post for a broader hypothesis doubtingmany other aspects of Schliemann’s autobiography,such as his antiquarian interests and knowledge ofHomer prior to 1868. The evidence provided by hisletters and other material, much of it noted by EmilLudwig in his biography, seems here to be inexplicablyignored. It is not difficult, especially in Schliemann’scase, to isolate and disprove specific factualincidents that appear in his autobiography. But whenone approaches the sum of these facts, both genuineand fictitious, within their context it soon becomesclear that the literary fabric into which they arewoven provides an important insight into the manhimself, far more than any amount of concrete factscould ever do.Calvert’s claim that Schliemann had been ignorant6. I am still engaged in verifying if this George Nicolaideswas the school teacher of the same name with whomSchliemann spent a few days at Odessa in 1866.