Archaeology and Heinrich Schliemann 2012

3Schliemann at TroyEdmund BloedowIn a series of studies David Traill has sought to demonstratethat Schliemann was guilty of serious anddeliberate misrepresentation, lying and fraud. Thisapplies not only to what he wrote about his privatelife but also to what he published on his activities inthe field of archaeology. 1 The rigorous scrutiny ofwhat Schliemann committed to writing is by nomeans unwelcome, as one of the cardinal features ofWestern culture has been a strong emphasis on truthfulnessand integrity. So strong is this that when wediscover falsehood and deception in an individual’sconduct in one area, we tend to question whethersuch an individual can be trusted in anything. This isunderstandable enough, but it can lead to an oversimplifiedassessment. This is true not least in the caseof Schliemann.So far as Troy is concerned, Traill has claimed thatSchliemann “seriously misrepresented the truth”when producing his “archaeological reports”, and inparticular that this was deceitful and fraudulent - i.e.,it was deliberate misrepresentation on Schliemann’spart. What has entered the literature as “Priam’sTreasure” (Treasure A), illustrates the point for Traillin a most convincing way. Indeed, “the discrepanciesin find spot, discovery date, the jewellery, and thegold sauceboat suggest that Schliemann’s variousaccounts of his discovery of ‘Priam’s Treasure’ ... aresheer fiction, with the later accounts more elaborateand colourful than the first”. 2 Traill’s ultimate object,it seems, was the attempt to demonstrate that thisTreasure was of no historical significance - which followsfrom the claim that “we do not know where,when or how Schliemann acquired the Collection ofartifacts he called ‘Priam’s Treasure’”. 3 And if this istrue, presumably one cannot, unless there is reliableindependent testimony, rely on anything Schliemannsaid about anything he claimed to have found. Thisincludes in particular also the actual stratigraphicalcontexts - i.e., where Schliemann claims to have foundthings.More recently, Traill has taken issue with my conclusionson the subject. 4 In doing so, he once more seeksto cast Schliemann as wholly unreliable. The basis forany objective discussion of the problems associatedwith Treasure A has to be a correct understanding ofthe sources involved. We are indebted to Easton for athoughtful evaluation of these. 5 For Traill, however,the touchstone for his thesis is Schliemann’s claimthat Sophia was present at the time of the discoveryof the Treasure. Traill once more makes much of theevidence that she was not, and with this lays thegroundwork for rejecting what Schliemann says aboutthe Treasure. Easton has, however, protested that,even if Schliemann may have fabricated Sophia’s presenceat the time of the discovery, this “does not discreditthe discovery itself”. 6 Traill, however, althoughnow accepting the force of this argument, nonethelessstill attempts to use “Sophia” to justify his rejection ofSchliemann’s report of the discovery published inTrojanische Alterthümer (his version D) as a reliableaccount of the Treasure: “...the whole framework ofversion D is false insofar as it casts Sophia in a leading,indeed, as Schliemann says, indispensable role”. 7Thus Traill seeks to imply that the remainder of thecontents of this report are no more reliable, and sofeels justified in rejecting Schliemann’s claim there tohave found the Treasure on the wall. But if Easton’spoint is valid, that “Sophia” does not discredit the discoveryof the Treasure, by the same logic one mayargue that “Sophia” does not prove that Schliemann’s1. Traill 1979, 348-355; Traill 1982, 136-142; Traill 1983, 181-186; Traill 1984a, 96-115; Traill 1984b, 295-316; Traill 1986a.2. Traill 1984a, 110; cf. Traill 1983, 184.3. Traill 1983, 185; Traill 1984a, 114-115.4. Traill 1988, 235-239.5. Easton 1984a, 141-143.6. Ibid, 144.7. Traill 1988, 236; cf.: “The report is clearly fraudulent inthat Schliemann claims that he was assisted by his wife,Sophia...” (ibid, 235).