Wellington King summarizes Schliemann’s great contribution to archaeology through his approach – “He approached archaeology as a science in which one forms hypotheses and then tests them, as one does in other sciences…In this respect alone Schliemann has aided the cause of archaeology”. His method of archaeology is also supported by Traill, one of the greatest critics of Schliemann who compliments his approach to archaeology in saying that it was “a comparatively advanced view of the role of the archaeologist in 1875.” Effectively, Schliemann has had a considerable influence on future archaeologists through his methods, discoveries, and excavations, as well as Ancient History, which has greatly benefited from his work.
King goes on to question the “archaeological integrity” of Schliemann’s finds, as he believes that Schliemann tampered with the integrity of his finds to make them conform with the Homeric epics more convincingly. However, Michael D. Lemonick states, “Despite Schliemann’s penchant for improving on the truth, most of his findings were legitimate and remarkable. No doubt remains that Troy existed, or that the mound known to Turks as Hissarlik is the site of the ancient city.” This puts the integrity of Schliemann’s finds in perspective in the sense that whether or not they conform to the Homeric epics, it does not affect the significance of the excavation. In other words, the uncovering of Troy remains a fact regardless of any criticism.
The issue of Schliemann’s honesty in regards to the excavation at Troy is one of great speculation. Some historians would argue that Schliemann’s dishonesty casts doubts over the reliability of his archaeological records, effectively questioning the accuracy of the excavation. Traill, for example labeled Schliemann a “pathological liar who invented events in his diaries and books or appropriated them from other people’s lives”. It is true to a certain extent that Schliemann was dishonest. For example the statement by Schliemann regarding the help that his second wife gave him in helping to carry the Trojan treasure to safety is dis-honest. However, Jartmut Dohl maintains, “One should not look for the plain, unvarnished truth in anyone’s diary…in any case, the lies were confined to his personal life and did not affect his archaeology.” This shows that although Schliemann may have been dishonest about some aspects of the excavation, it does not affect the accuracy or significance of his archaeological finds. The fact that Troy was uncovered remains the same and still has the same impact on ancient history. Joanna Slater-Savage of the Macquarie University states, “the general reliability of Schliemann’s work has been confirmed both in its broad outlines and in a myriad of details by Tsountas, Wace, Mylonas and others at Mycenae…”. The list of archaeologists who have verified Schliemann’s work goes on. This clearly undermines any speculation regarding the accuracy of Schliemann’s archaeology.
Schliemann did everything in his power to find the true explanations of his finds. He always recognized that an archaeologist’s main function is to ask questions. Although Schliemann’s attempts to find the correct answers were not always successful, he went to great lengths to secure the information necessary for an answer. The strategy of archaeology he employed has greatly influenced the methodology and techniques of archaeologists today, and therefore the development of ancient history.
Schliemann has been widely criticized for his excavation techniques employed at the site at Hissarlik. Although it is true that he simply bulldozed through the layers of cities, covering his ‘Homeric’ Troy, and undoubtedly destroyed a great deal of archaeological data, his techniques were not greatly different from those employed by other archaeologists of his day. Joanna Slater-Savage maintains this argument:
“To the charge frequently brought by non-professionals that Schliemann excavated too much too quickly thereby destroying a great deal of valuable evidence, professionals reply that it is anachronistic to criticize Schliemann for not showing the painstaking care and circumspection that we expect of archaeologists today.”
Despite his crude techniques in digging at Troy, he was able to recognize and separate the various levels at which each new city had been built on the foundations of the one before. Although he made mistakes, he had the humility to admit and correct those mistakes whenever necessary. Therefore it is unjust to criticize Schliemann’s techniques based on the techniques formulated by archaeologists a hundred years later. The significance of his excavation of Troy is unaffected, and still has the same impact on ancient history, regardless of his crude excavation techniques.
Schliemann’s excavation at Troy had a profound impact on archaeology and the development of ancient history. Through his great contribution to archaeology in his archaeological discoveries particularly the excavation at Troy, his techniques and methodology employed in his archaeology, Schliemann has been labeled as one of the first popularizes of archaeology. Joanna Slater-Savage, states that “his excavations, particularly those at Troy and Mycenae, opened up, as he rightly claimed, whole new worlds for archaeology…Schliemann’s work remains a cornerstone of classical archaeology.” This clearly shows that Schliemann has had a profound impact on archaeology and ancient history through his archaeological discoveries at Troy.
Bibliography
Arnott, G. In search of Heinrich Schliemann
Cambridge Encyclopaedia of History, 1977
King, Wellington. Heinrich Schliemann: Heros & Mythos
Lemonick, M.D Troy’s Lost Treasure
Schlliemann’s Excavations
Traill, D.A & Appleton P.C. Letters from Troy
Traille, D.A Ancient History XX :The Schliemann Controversy. 1999
p.526. Cambridge Encyclopaedia of History, 1977
King, Wellington. Heinrich Schliemann: Heros & Mythos
Lemonick, M.D. Troy’s Lost Treasure p.93
Class handout: Ancient History XX p.82
Class handout: Ancient History XX p.82