Ancient Discoveries: Troy. This report covers a brief historic background on the discovery of the Hisarlik site of Troy; Heinrich Schliemann (refer to figure 1.), its discoverer and his methodologies whilst excavating the site. It focuses primarily on his

Authors Avatar

This report covers a brief historic background on the discovery of the Hisarlik site of Troy; Heinrich Schliemann (refer to figure 1.), its discoverer and his methodologies whilst excavating the site. It focuses primarily on his second campaign, the most famous of the five- and his lack of scientific archaeological structure whilst excavating, rather using philological and relative dating methods; mistakes as a result of careless excavations, and the legacy it has left on history and archaeology of Troy till this day.  

As a child, Heinrich Schliemann had an obsession with Homer’s epic cycles/poems the Iliad and the Odyssey.  After cornering the market at the age of 41, he became a millionaire and retired from merchantry to pursue his love of archaeology, committing to proving the actual historicity of the “Trojan War” and the Homeric city of Troy. (Refer to figure 2.)

Schliemann had a good idea of where to begin looking. In 1868, Schliemann journeyed to Greece and Asia Minor in search of the lost city, travelling north-west Turkey to examine both mounds Bunarbashi and Hisarlik.  Because, according to Greek myth, the general Agamemnon collected his force in Aulis, a site on the eastern shores of Greece, Troy must have lain to the east of Greece. The Iliad mentioned that Mount Ida was visible from the walls of Troy, but from Bunarbashi the mountain could not be seen. There were also a number of topographical discrepancies such as, the distance from the sea being eight miles where Schliemann approximated from the text that it should not be more than four.

Using geographic clues from his copy of the Iliad, Schliemann discovered another hill near the village of Hisarlik that seemed to fit Homer’s description. Schliemann’s decision to excavate at Hisarlik was confirmed after incurring a preceded theory by British archaeologist, Frank Calvert that Hisarlik was indeed the ancient city of Troy. Calvert had been working on the mound for over 20 years and had acquired half of the hill but lacked in finances to pursue further investigations on the site, so he decided to confide his archaeological findings with Schliemann, gaining collaboration with the rich benefactor in uncovering Troy.  (Refer to figure 13.)

The exact location of Troy (or Ilium) was lost after 400 B.C., and over the centuries the site was buried under many layers of earth, however fortunately preserving the site for its future excavations.  

Schliemann was to excavate Hisarlik during five separate campaigns: Mycenae (1876-78), Ithaca (1878), Orchomenus, Boeotia (1881-82), and Tiryns (1884-85); but it was the second one of 1871-1873 which proved to be famous. Ruins were uncovered soon after the excavation began at Hisarlik. Nevertheless, Schliemann was perplexed by the complexity of the mound, whose stratification resulted in the discovery of four superimposed towns (later excavations revealing nine cities). (Refer to figure 3.) To get to the supposed level of Homer’s Troy, Troy II, he dug vast trenches through the entire mound, unceasingly demolishing later structures and crucial historical evidence- his reason being that he thought it was built later than Homer, and was therefore in the way. Schliemann mentions employing large numbers of local labourers on the site, which varied from 80-125 men at a time using crude pickaxes, spades, and wheelbarrows to dispose of “intervening rubble”. On his way through the mound he destroyed the foundations of a large building. Completely ignoring all the layers which clearly revealed a variety of different settlements, he continued to dig- removing an estimated 325,000 cubic yards of earth. (Refer to figure 4.)

Join now!

Priam’s Treasure (refer to figure 5.) consisted of 8700 pieces of golden pendants, earrings, bracelets, rings, diadems, cups, salvers, cauldrons, vases; however Schliemann’s account of finding the treasure unfortunately is believed untrue. His fixation to reach what he considered to be “the real troy” was so intense as to render him cataloguing some of the more interesting finds even if his dating was totally wrong. Subsequent checks of dates/events do not support Schliemann’s claims. For example, Priam’s alleged Treasure was assigned to Troy II, whereas, we now know from Wilhelm Dörpfeld’s later excavations that King Priam would have reined Troy ...

This is a preview of the whole essay