Schliemann’s’ great desire to affirm his hypotheses to provide the evidence for the answers he created, is also his greatest weakness and shortcoming…he often conducted his archaeological work in a highly unethical manner, and a manner that could even compromise the archaeological integrity of his finds.
In contrast, Rivers practised methods of perfection by comparing organic evolution to cultural development and developing future archaeological generic fundamentals such as ‘typology.’ ‘His purpose, therefore, was not concentrated on collecting artefacts solely for display, but in order to create a complex scheme of evidence to outline history.’ By contrast, men such as Pitt Rivers can be considered a ‘father’ of archaeology rather than the salesman Schliemann.
Secondly, Heinrich Schliemann’s discovery of an unknown civilization lost in the sands of time, has shed new light on ancient history. Historian and critic of Schliemann, David A. Traill comments on the importance of the excavations, ‘his (Schliemann’s) excavations, particularly those at Troy…opened up…whole new worlds of archaeology.’ Schliemann’s excavations (1870-1890) have uncovered the walls, gates and foundations of Troy, as well as the ill-identified ‘Priam’s Treasure.’ These pioneering discoveries serve as a launching pad for ancient history, providing Schliemann and ancient history with the knowledge of a Bronze Age civilisation earlier than Mycenae. A civilization, previously never known by scholars to have existed. Further work on Schliemann’s finds by modern archaeaologists has lead to continuing investigations into pre-classical Greece (6th – 1st century BC). ‘That Hissarlik was more likely than Pinarbarsi, lead him to excavate Mycenae in 1876 and discover the previously unknown Mycenaean civilization, and lead him to perform a second more refined set of excavations at Hissarlik.’ Without this knowledge of Mycenaean civilization, almost two thousand years (3000-1100 BC) of classical Greek history would be omitted. ‘Because of the importance of the sites he excavated and the extraordinary wealth of finds they produced, Schliemann’s work remains a cornerstone of classical archaeology.’
The German’s ability to acknowledge oral history and mythology as valuable to the creation of historical data is significant and perhaps revolutionary. Schliemann’s reliance on and the incorporation of Homeric legend, The Iliad and The Odyssey, was momentous to his discovery of Troy. However his belief of the poems as truthful historical documents is problematic. The thought to identify artefacts with objects and personas written by Homer is revolutionary yet ludicrous to scholars. Indicative of his strong dependence on myth, Schliemann is interpreted to have been searching for the Homeric Troy rather than a historic establishment. Archaeologists and historians have questioned the true motives of Schliemann. Is the German pursuing these mythological elements with a subjective purpose or an open mind? Or is the incorporation of Homer’s epics an attempt to merely sensationalize, romanticize or capitalize.
Furthermore, Schliemann’s flawed techniques have improved ancient history as a discipline. Schliemann’s dubious archaeological techniques and inability to make accurate recordings, have contributed to the improvement of each discipline. Heinrich Schliemann’s primitive archaeological techniques include excavating vertically down a mound at a rapid rate. Schliemann’s plan was to drive a wide trench from north to south through the site, therefore destroying a great deal of valuable evidence. Historian Geoffrey Arnott comments on the nature of the German’s ‘childish’ excavations, ‘the accusation that Schliemann excavated a site as if he was digging potatoes is thus not wholly unjustified.’ He is often critiqued by archaeologists excavating similar mounds in the Middle East during the late twentieth century. However Hissarlik was the first large dry-land man-made mound to be dug. Schliemann’s failure to record accurately is another flaw the discipline of ancient history has benefited from. Schliemann’s fictitious and personal diary entries ‘may simply be window-dressing to make his story more interesting. The accuracy of his excavation reports can…be questioned, most seriously with regard to Troy. The account of how he came to identify Hissarlik as the site of Homer’s Troy…is dishonest.’ However the doubts over the reliability of his archaeological records, may have contributed to the stricter and more disciplined standards maintained in publishing archaeological findings. In the development of ancient history as a discipline, Schliemann has provided a significant contribution.
In conclusion, opinion is divided in archaeological circles over Heinrich Schliemann’s significance to the development of ancient history. ‘He was one of the great pioneers of modern archaeology, and (there are) those who brand him as a liar and a criminal.’ Despite scholarly reaction being divided, Schliemann’s successful yet crude techniques are significant yet not revolutionary; Schliemann’s discovery of an unknown civilization did contribute to the broadening of ancient history; his ability to see the great value of oral history and mythology brought significant development to historical methodologies and Schliemann’s flawed yet revealing archaeological techniques have allowed archaeology to improve, in learning from its errors. However ‘Schliemann was amongst the first to use archaeology as a means of solving historical problems rather than as a way of accumulating works of art…(and) opened up, as he claimed, whole new worlds for archaeology.
Bibliography
Traill, D.A., (1993) Excavating Schliemann: Collected Papers in Schliemann. Atlanta, USA: Scholars Press.
Traill, D.A., (1995) Schliemann of Troy: Treasure and Deceit. New York, USA: St. Martin’s Press.
Traill, D.A., (1990) The Schliemann Controversy, Ancient History XX. Pp. 81-85.
Arnott, G., In Search of Heinrich Schliemann, pp. 17-19.
King, W., Heinrich Schliemann: Heroes & Mythos.
1. Agun. K. Troy – 400 year old city. [online]
Available: [Accessed 21st February 2005]
2. Greene, K. Archaeology: An Introduction. [Online]
Available: [Accessed 22nd February 2005]
3. Stephen. J.E. General Augustus Henry Lane-Fox Pitt Rivers: His Influence on Modern Archaeology. [Online]
Available: [Accessed 23rd February 2005]
Wellington King, Heinrich Schliemann: Heroes & Mythos
Jennifer E. Steven, Pitt Rivers: His Influence On Modern Archaeology
Wellington King, Heinrich Schliemann: Heroes & Mythos
David A. Traill, The Schliemann Controversy
Geoffrey Arnott, In Search of Heinrich Schliemann
David A. Traill, The Schliemann Controversy