When Heinrich Schliemann emerged from Turkey in June of 1873 with a sizeable treasure, the whole world took note.

Caulder and Traill discovered and published a number of “proven fabrications in Schliemann’s personal life.”  In their published document Myth, Scandal, and History Caulder and Traill reveal to the reader their anti-Schliemann views.  For instance, Schliemann claims to have learned, on his own account, how to speak 18 different languages, one of them being Greek.  He proclaims in one of his autobiographies “It did not take me more than six weeks to master the difficulties of Modern Greek” (Schliemann, p 7).  Caulder and Traill expose the possibility of this statement as a lie when they acknowledge to the reader than Schliemann claims to have written a dissertation in Greek about his excavations at Ithaca, and sent his dissertation to the University of Rostock, where he was soon after honored with a Ph.D (Caulder, Traill, p 23).  Caulder writes: “I soon discovered that no ‘dissertation in ancient Greek’ existed at Rostock, only a wretched translation into that language…on which the Greek professor…reported to the dean that “ ‘ The ignoranceof Greek endings and sentence construction shows that the author has never passed a course in Greek syntaz and therefore is incapable of forming a complete, independent sentence…’ ” (Caulder, Traill, p 23).  Schliemann had lied once again, and this time he had lied “in print” to create the deceiving impression that he “had mastered a learned language which he scarcely knew” (Caulder, Traill, p 23).  But this wasn’t the last lie that Schliemann would disclose in his diary.  In his diary entry for February 21, 1851, Schliemann claims that he had visited with President Fillmore and his wife for over one and a half hours, when there is indeed no evidence, in either newspapers or press releases, that Schliemann had ever met the President of the United States.  Moreover, Schliemann fabricated yet another lie about being present in San Francisco at the time of the famous 1851 San Francisco earthquake and fire.  According to Caulder, Schliemann hadn’t been present at the time of the great fire: “Traill proved beyond reasonable doubt that Schliemann misdated the fire by one month, and at the time of the fire (3-4 May 1851) Schliemann was in Sacramento not San Francisco…” (Caulder, Traill, p 26).  Once again Schliemann is blatantly deceitful in his writings.  According to Caulder, Traill also provides evidence in his studies that “ ‘there can be no doubt that Schliemann obtained his American citizenship by fraud” and that “there can be no doubt that Schliemann obtained his divorce, like his citizenship, by fraudulent means” ’ (Caulder, Traill, p 27).

Despite the seemingly endless collection of fraudulent and deceiving information that Schliemann denoted in his journal entries and letters, many have remained loyal to the villainous Schliemann claiming, “They were not intended for publication” (Caulder, Traill, p 29).  The stories in his diaries were his way of practicing various languages.  They claim that Schliemann “never expected people to read and believe what he had written there” (Caulder, Traill, p 29).  Others, however, are consistent in the belief that Schliemann wanted his make-believe stories to be read, for it seems as if “Schliemann knew from the beginning that he would be famous and carefully concocted his diaries with future biographers in mind” (Caulder, Traill, p 30).  If Schliemann did in fact lie about his personal life to, in a sense, lionize himself, then he very well could have lied about his magnificent discoveries in his career as an archeologist.

In 1972, Caulder wrote the following of Schliemann: “ ‘How did his psychopathy affect his archaeology?’ ”  Critic David Turner refuted this statement in one of his reviews on David Traill’s books, Schliemann of Troy: treasure and deceit, claiming that Caulder is altogether too concerned with investigating and scrutinizing the “inconsistencies” between Schliemann’s diaries and letters and his actual archeological and scientific work (Turner, p 235).  Maybe Turner is right in the sense that Caulder seems to be almost obsessed with being a Schliemann-hater, but someone has to examine everything about the man including all of his petty lies so he receives proper credit for his work, for evidence suggests that Schliemann lied about several aspects of his discoveries in his years as an archeologist.  

One of the most controversial topics dealing with Schliemann’s career as an archeologist was his startling discovery of Priam’s Treasure at ancient Troy.  Schliemann claimed to have discovered the treasure all in one place in May of 1873-two weeks before he was to retire from his excavations at Troy (Fitton, p 67).  The treasure consisted of copper bowls; vessels of made of gold, silver, and electrum; weapons; silver ingots; and a magnificent collection of jewelry that Schliemann believed belonged to Helen of Troy (Fitton, p 67).  Almost immediately there was controversy about Schliemann’s discovery.  On the day that he had unearthed the treasure, he had unexpectedly sent his entire work staff home for the day.  Rumors started to circulate that Schliemann had in fact gathered the treasure from several different sites throughout his excavation at Troy and had saved them, hoping to make, as Fitton suggests, a “big splash.”  Some thought that Schliemann had even bought part of his newly found treasure off the streets, or even had some of it made.  Fitton sympathizes with Schliemann in her book, stating, “With regard to the Treasure of Priam, we can now see that it cannot have been bought or faked-it is homogeneous in style and generally right for the Early Bronze Age context in which it was found” (Fitton, p 70).  We will never really know, however, if Schliemann faked his magnificent find.  Maybe the only person who ever knew the truth was Schliemann’s beautiful Greek wife, Sophia, whom Schliemann lied about helping him pull Priam’s treasure from the earth.  Schliemann wrote in one of his diaries: “ “It would, however, have been impossible for me to have removed the treasure without the help of my dear wife, who stood by me ready to pack the things which I cot out in her shawl and to carry them away.’ ”  But.  Sophia wasn’t even at Troy the day Schliemann discovered Priam’s Treasure.  She had gone to Athens almost a month prior and did not return until after the discovery.  Schliemann later explains his dishonesty in a letter to Charles Newton: “I am endeavoring to make an archaeologist of her, I wrote in my book that she had been present and assisted me in taked out the treasure.  I merely did so to stimulate and encourage her, for she had great capacities” (Fitton, p 69).  If Schliemann lied about situations as significant as these, he most certainly told untrue stories about other events throughout his career as an archaeologist.  How much of his own work is actually reliable if this is the case?

Generally, these fabrications are too typical of Schliemann, a professional archaeologist of his time.  Although he was less of a learned man than many of his colleagues, Schliemann certainly appears to be even less of a learned man today as more inaccuracies continue to be unearthed about Schliemann as a man and as an archeologist.        

Works Cited

Fitton, J. Lesley. The Discovery of the Greek Bronze Age.  Great Britian:  The Trustees of the British  Museum, 1995

Myth, Scandal, and History.  Ed. William Caulder and David Traill.  Detroit:  Wayne State University Press, 1986.

Turner, David.     Rev. of Schliemann of Troy: treasure and deceit, by David Traill.  London: British School of Athens, 1995.