preview

Schliemann's Loss Of Troy

Decent Essays
Open Document

The true history of Troy has been shrouded in mystery and has, to a certain extent, been lost. In the middle of the 18th century, the site of Ilios was the most sought after archaeological mystery. In the years between Achilles and Hector and modern time, the location of Troy had been lost. Only echoes of the ancient city remained in texts found elsewhere in the Anatolian peninsula and mainland Greece, and even though Homer’s epic poems ignited the passion to find Troy, they did little to reveal the exact location of his famous city. The one who found Troy would once and for all answer the Homeric Question: were the Iliad and Odyssey based on historical fact? The mystery of Troy as well as its suggested archaeological value inspired many different …show more content…

He could excavate wherever he thought that the ruins of Troy would be found. This proved to be both an advantage and a disadvantage. Schliemann initially dug at Pinarbasi Koyu because all of the popular field guides said that this was the location of Troy despite thorough investigations by many other archaeologists that found nothing. However, Schliemann thought that he had a special knack for archaeology, so his first digs to find Troy were well south of the real …show more content…

Schliemann’s first excavation officially began in 1971, and scholars have been debating the scientific legitimacy of his finds ever since. The rediscovery of his most famous find, Priam’s treasure, in the Pushkin Museum in 1993 reignited the debate over the legitimacy of his treasures. Scholarly opinions have ranged from Schliemann being a pathological liar who sought only to create a legacy for himself to Schliemann being a relatively skilled and honest archaeologist for his time who did not have the tools to successfully excavate such a large site. Although it is easy to assume that Schliemann’s dishonesty in his professional and personal life carried over to his archaeological career, it would severely bias our opinion of the factual works of Schliemann. Instead, we must answer three questions in order to judge the legitimacy and significance of his findings. First, did Heinrich Schliemann lie about his discoveries at Hisarlik? Second, was Heinrich Schliemann a good archaeologist? Finally, did Schliemann answer the Homeric question? By examining Schliemann’s works in the context of these questions and not the context of his life before Hisarlik, we can ignore any prejudice that comes from Schliemann’s

Get Access