Archaeology and Heinrich Schliemann 2012

On the beginnings of field archaeology (or “spade research”) - the first regular excavations at Hisarlik: 1871-1873 13and his representative Dr. Halil Edhem for their“benevolent support and in particular for the commendableway in which they have looked after thepreservation of the ruins at Troy and continue to lookafter them today”.In this spirit of friendly cooperation, Osman Handywent so far as to allow Schliemann to export all thesherds and stone objects, not insisting upon the usualdivision of finds. As his “export” of Treasure L clearlyshows, Schliemann did not repay his generosity.He deceived both the Turkish authorities and OsmanHandy personally. To describe his actions in anyother way would be false.Such examples easily demonstrate Schliemann’sdetermination and monomania, although he was no“treasure hunter” seeking personal financial gain. Incontrast, he carried out the immensely expensive Trojanexcavations from start to finish at his own expense.It is well known that he always intended togive his collection away as a gift - not to sell it. Toinsinuate that he sought to profit from dealing inantiquities would be false.Schliemann’s work altered the appearance of theHisarlik mound more than all the other excavationsput together. Competent, well-informed examinationof his work, carried out with the necessary localknowledge, has until now only occurred on a limitedscale. These examinations began early, as we can readin the first excavation reports, but there has been apause since then that is difficult to understand. Thescholarly Calvert, who also argued using Homer, butfrom his own excavation experience at Hanay Tepe,concluded in a newspaper article (25 January 1873)that the “second settlement” excavated by Schliemanncould not be the Troy of the Trojan War as itwas likely to be more than 1000 years older. The“fourth settlement” could also not be Homer’s Troy.At the end of his life, Schliemann had yet to acceptthat Calvert was right.Calvert had also correctly interpreted the “GreatTower” upon which Schliemann had based so muchof his interpretation, along with the famous stoneramp (the “Skaian Gate”) and “Priam’s treasure”. The“tower” was in fact a multi-faced, sharply angledstretch of the Troy II fortification walls.Schliemann’s excavation results have still notbeen reconciled with those of the later Dörpfeld excavationsin the best possible way. It can be maintainedthat, in view of more recent excavations, Schliemann’sarchaeological publications have for the mostpart remained unanalysed. The same could be saidfor the results of the American excavations led byCarl Blegen. An example might make this clearer.As we know from the first Trojan excavationreports, Schliemann’s earliest excavations exposedskeletons and associated materials. Similar contextswere discovered during Schliemann’s later excavationsand by Blegen as well. Remarkably, these excavatorsneither concluded nor emphasized in any waythat at least some of the almost twenty “treasures”found at Troy could have been grave goods. An earliercemetery at Troy would fall freely within the timecorresponding to an interruption of settlement in themound area (Troy II or III). As we have already mentioned,there is a great deal to be worked on for thebenefit of archaeology in Schliemann’s publications,as unbelievable as this may sound today. It is all tooeasily said that the results of his successors provideus with all the necessary information.Schliemann’s work and achievements had animmensely powerful effect upon the intellectual lifeof the time. Nevertheless, to judge Heinrich Schliemannfrom our present-day point of view is not easy.So much is certain: he was not a “model” professionalexcavator, although his name is almost a synonymfor archaeology among the general public. The viewthat archaeologists really search for “treasure”, aview deeply rooted in the public consciousness, canbe traced back to Schliemann’s strong fixation withhis “treasures”. This completely false assessment ofmodern excavation goals is a handicap that occasionallybecomes a burden. Even Wilhelm Dörpfeldsought to distance himself from it.If one denies Schliemann many things, he is entitledto at least one: his work had a lasting impact onscholarship and is still provocative in many ways.Some of those who basked in recognition during hislifetime did not produce such a legacy. His work withits methodological approach should be highly regardedas one of the important starting points for “spaderesearch”. The achievements continue to have aneffect today in all fields of archaeology and, of course,at Troy itself as well. More than 200,000 people ayear visit Troy because of what Schliemann andDörpfeld uncovered there. It was even Schliemann’sexpressed request that as much as possible should beleft in place at Troy so that the visitor “can be convincedof the accuracy of all these statements which