Archaeology and Heinrich Schliemann 2012

Schliemann at Troy 39derives from early sketches made at the time of excavation,since Schliemann is not very likely to haveconsciously included two types of contradictory plansin the same volume. More weight should in fact begiven to what the combination of text and one planreveal, than to three plans by themselves, not leastbecause of the emphasis placed on “on” in the letterto Newton and the subsequent consistency in textsand plans. Consequently, the letters to Schliemannand Newton, far from being irrelevant, provide importantadditional information. This, it seems to me,offers a better solution to the problem - especially inview of the absence of any convincing reason for fabricatinga find-spot on the wall.The above reconstruction receives further plausibilityfrom Schliemann’s account of Treasure J (histenth treasure), discovered in 1879: “Another treasurewas found by me, in the presence of M. Burnoufand Professor Virchow, at a depth of 33 ft. below thesurface (in the place marked v to the north of theplace marked ∆ on Plan I, of Troy), on the slope of thegreat wall, close to the house of the ancient townchiefor king, and close to the spot where the largeTreasure was found in 1873”. 34 If Schliemann is heretelling the truth about Treasure J, which I see no reasonto question, would he, after invoking the testimonyof Burnouf and Virchow, have linked the findspotof this treasure so directly with the find-spot ofTreasure A, if he had fabricated the latter - of whichhe would at the time still have been only too wellaware?If, therefore, Schliemann did not fabricate theTreasure, and if he did find it, on the wall (not a verylikely place at first sight), but in the form later explainedby Dörpfeld, this would make logical sense.But Traill also objects to Dörpfeld’s explanation. Hedoes not, however, appear to have any counter-argumentsto offer, but simply dismisses it with a rhetoricalflourish - namely, by referring to “Dörpfeld’s romantictheory”. 35 Let it be said that we need a littlemore than this to discredit Dörpfeld’s explanation,which was made in consultation with Schliemann andafter examination of the place with him. Moreover,Dörpfeld’s work at Troy and his publication of it arenot characterised by romanticism.I am not sure that at this stage we can resolvedefinitively the question of where the Treasure wasactually found. On balance, however, and withoutbeginning with the presupposition that the Treasurewas “composite”, it seems to me that the evidenceallows us to regard the find-spot as being on the wallto have more to recommend it. And until Traill offersa convincing explanation for Schliemann having fabricatedsuch a find-spot, one need not take his hypothesistoo seriously.No less significant in attempting to resolve themost important question in this controversy - whetherTreasure A is of any historical significance - arethe data deriving from the Cincinnati excavations,which I also reviewed in my study. This evidence tooTraill discounts, chiefly on the basis of the followingstatement by Blegen: “In many works treating of Trojanchronology, moreover, there has been a tendency,understandable enough in view of Schliemann’s andDörpfeld’s publications, to ascribe to Troy II most ofthe finer objects which Schmidt in the catalogueassigns only generally to settlements II to V. The dangerof such an ascription has been demonstrated byour excavations which have shown clearly that TroyIII, IV, and V were rather more than ‘miserable villages’- indeed, each was a substantial establishmentin its own right”. 36 To this Traill comments that “theattribution of just one of the larger of these treasuresto Troy III would give that level more gold than Blegenfound in IIg”. 37 Indeed it might! But on whatgrounds could one make such an attribution? ForTraill, there is no difficulty. Blegen knew nothingabout Schliemann’s reprehensible conduct, and soTraill speculates on what Blegen might do, did he butknow: “Given Blegen’s strictures against the tendencyto ascribe all the Early Bronze Age finds to Troy IIrather than to Troy III, IV or V, it seems reasonable tosuppose that in light of the new evidence he wouldhave no objection to the view that ‘Priam’ s Treasure’either properly belongs to Troy III or IV or is a compositeof smaller finds from several of the EarlyBronze Age levels at Troy”. 38 It is of course difficultto predict what Blegen would do. Should he have “no34. Schliemann 1881, 502 (my emphasis). For additional treasuresfound on a wall (“on a house wall”, alias, “on a fallenhouse wall”), also “in the presence of MM. Burnoufand Virchow”, cf. ibid, 328, 499, 794.35. Ibid, 237.36. Blegen et al. 1950, 208-209.37. Traill 1988, 238.38. Loc. cit.