Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:18:08.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Schliemann's Mendacity: a Question of Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

David A. Traill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In two recent articles Donald Easton has responded to my arguments that fraud is involved in Schliemann's published reports of the discovery of what he called “Priam's Treasure”. The reader of our articles might easily form the opinion that we hold widely different views regarding Schliemann's credibility. In fact, we are in substantial agreement. Our differences are partly a matter of degree and partly methodological. Before discussing them in detail, however, it might be useful to outline the common ground that appears to have been established. After carefully examining Easton's articles I think it fair to say that we are agreed on the following points.

1. Schliemann's excavation notebooks are, for the most part, truthful and accurate records of the finds he made and where and when he made them. This is apparent to anyone who has examined these notebooks closely. Not only are Schliemann's reports archaeologically plausible, but, as Easton points out, “most of the detail is far too mundane to be worth falsifying.” Only a very small percentage of material in the excavation notebooks can seriously be thought to come under suspicion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 36 , December 1986 , pp. 91 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Traill, D., “Schliemann's ‘discovery’ of ‘Priam's Treasure’,” Antiquity LVII (1983), 181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “Schliemann's Discovery of ‘Priam's Treasure’: A Re-examination of the Evidence”, JHS CIV (1984), 96–115Google Scholar. Easton, D., “Schliemann's mendacity—a false trail?” Antiquity LVIII (1984), 197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “Priam's Treasure”, AS XXXIV (1984), 141–69Google Scholar.

2 Easton, , Antiquity LVIII (1984), 199Google Scholar.

3 Easton (supra n. 2), 198. For evidence of this dishonesty, see Calder, W. M. III, “Schliemann on Schliemann: A Study in the Use of Sources,” GRBS XIII (1972), 335–53Google Scholar; Traill, D., “Schliemann's Mendacity: Fire and Fever in California,” CJ LXXIV (1979), 348–55Google Scholar and “Schliemann's American Citizenship and Divorce”, CJ LXXVII (1982), 336–42Google Scholar.

4 Easton (supra n. 2), 198. For evidence of these lies see Traill (supra n. 1) and “Further evidence of Fraudulent Reporting in Schliemann's Archaeological Works”, Boreas VII (1984), 96–115Google Scholar.

5 Korres, , “Epigraphai ex Attikes eis Katochen Herrikou Sleman,” Athena LXXV (1974–1975), 54–67 and 492 (French résumé)Google Scholar; Easton (supra n. 2), 198. It now appears very likely that the “Cleopatra” head which Schliemann claimed to have excavated in Alexandria was in fact purchased; see Schindler, W., “Schliemann's Cleopatra”, in Myth, Scandal and History: The Heinrich Schliemann Controversy and a First Edition of the Mycenae Diary, edd. Calder, W. M. III and Traill, D. A. (Detroit 1986)Google Scholar.

6 Easton (supra n. 2), 200–2 examines three cases “where Schliemann really has invented a treasure”.

7 Schmidt, Hubert, Heinrich Schliemann's Sammlung Trojanischer Altertümer (Berlin 1902)Google Scholar. On the coherence of these objects as a single find, see Easton, , AS XXXIV (1984), 149–68Google Scholar.

8 Easton (supra n. 7), 164.

9 For the full text and discussion of this letter, see D. Traill, “‘Priam's Treasure’: Schliemann's Plan to Make Duplicates for Illicit Purposes,” in Myth, Scandal and History (supra n. 5). I am indebted to the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to quote from this letter.

10 I cannot agree, however, with those who believe that the standard view of Schliemann and his achievements is so inerrant that the publication of new evidence that brings that view into question is to be deplored. Mellink, Machteld writes in AJA LXXXVI (1982), 561Google Scholar of my recent work on “Priam's Treasure”: “While there may be discrepancies in the various accounts, the vendetta against Schliemann threatens to obscure his archaeological achievements.” Oddly enough, in 1982 Prof. Mellink linked Easton's name with mine in this “vendetta against Schliemann”. More recently, she has come to realize that Easton holds views similar to her own; at AJA LXXXIX (1985), 553Google Scholar she writes: “Psychological warfare against Schliemann is continued by Traill, D. A. in JHS 104 (1984) 96–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Wise words on ‘A false trail?’ came from Easton, D. in Antiquity 58 (1984) 197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar and AnatSt 34 (1984) 141–69Google Scholar.”

11 Easton gives an excellent account of the Schliemann papers, which are preserved in the Gennadius Library, the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, , in “The Schliemann Papers”, BSA LXXVII (1982), 93–110Google Scholar. He discusses the diaries on pp. 100–4.

12 Easton (supra n. 11), 100–4.

13 Easton (supra n. 11), 103.

14 This section of diary 15 has been published together with a selection of letters written during Schliemann's stay in Indianapolis: Lilly, Eli, Schliemann in Indianapolis (Indianapolis 1961)Google Scholar.

15 Traill, , CJ LXXVII (1982), 336–42Google Scholar.

16 Lilly (supra n. 14), 12; Traill (supra n. 15), 340 f.

17 Easton (supra n. 2), 200–2.

18 Döhl, Hartmut, Heinrich Schliemann—Mythos und Ärgernis (Munich 1981) 77Google Scholar: “Schliemanns wissenschaftliche Berichte sind wörtlich zu nehmen.” Cf. Easton's review at CR XXXIII (1983), 287Google Scholar: “But he is right, I believe, to insist that there is no evidence of fraud in Schliemann's archaeology, whatever the situation in the rest of his writings.”

19 Easton (supra n. 2), 198.

20 For a discussion of these statements see Traill, , “Further Evidence of Fraudulent Reporting in Schliemann's Archaeological Works,” Boreas VII (1984), 295–316, esp. 301 and 304–10Google Scholar.

21 Easton (supra n. 2), 202.

22 Easton (supra n. 2), 200 f.

23 Schliemann, , Troy and its Remains (London 1875), 209 fGoogle Scholar.

24 Schliemann, , Troy and its Remains 355 fGoogle Scholar. The date of the demolition of the wooden house is given in the diary (p. 281) as “Dienstag 22/4 Juni”, apparently an error for Tuesday, 22 May (Julian)/3 June (Gregorian); see note 33 below.

25 Thus, the paragraphs on coins on p. 354 are taken from A, the paragraph beginning “In April of this year …” is found in C, and the next paragraph, in which Schliemann thanks God that there have been no fatal accidents, occurs in C; the final paragraph (p. 357), in which he recommends his assistants, is taken from A.

26 For a modern edition of this inscription, see Frisch, Peter, Die Inschriften von Ilion, Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasiens, III (Bonn 1975) 29–32Google Scholar.

27 For a modern edition, see Frisch (supra n. 26), 150–4.

28 The diary actually begins on the recto of the blank page preceding page 1 with an account (in French), dated 2 February, of his trip from Piraeus to Hisarlik. There is no entry for 3 February. The text of the inscription occurs at the top of the verso of this page followed by:

“4 Feb. Die vorstehende Inschrift ist beim Bau meines Hauses gefunden. Gestern wollten die Arbeiter nicht zu 9 P. arbeiten. Heute hatte ich dazu 33 Arbeiter.

5 Feb. Ich hatte heute 58 Arbeiter, etc.”

The 5 February entry runs over on to page 1. For a photograph of this page and page 1, see Troy: Heinrich Schliemann's Excavations and Finds, Exhibition Catalogue (Athens 1985), 25Google Scholar.

29 This is clear from the 5 February entry (p. 2): “Je demeure dans mon ancienne chambre dans la maison de bois, car j'ai peur d'habiter la maison neuve à cause de l'humidité.”

30 Auguste, M. G. F., Conte de Choiseul-Gouffier, Voyage Pittoresque de la Grèce II (Paris 1822), 413Google Scholar.

31 Cook, J. M., The Troad (Oxford 1973), 106 fGoogle Scholar.

32 Easton (supra n. 2), 202.

33 See Korres (supra n. 5) and Schliemann, , “Attische Grabinschriften,” Ath. Mit. XIII (1888), 207–10Google Scholar.

34 The two daily entries interrupting the 31 May draft report are actually dated “Dienstag 22/4 Juni” and “Donnerstag 4 Juni”. These are best understood as errors for Tuesday 22 May (Julian)/3 June (Gregorian) and Thursday 5 June (Gregorian) respectively.

35 I am grateful to Professor Crawford Greenewalt of the University of California at Berkeley, Director of Excavations at Sardis, for the information that it is by no means impossible for Schliemann to have come across a find of twenty coins in sufficiently good condition that he was able to identify all of them. On the other hand in 1870 Schliemann found several coins, but, as it appears from his notebook, he was unable to read any of them, as they were “ruinés par la rouille”. In his published account of the 1870 excavations, however, he reports finding several coins of Ilium Novum with legible legends; see Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung (24 May 1870), 2301–2Google Scholar. Whether these were the coins Schliemann actually found, rendered legible by careful cleaning, or, as I am inclined to believe, the coins which, as he reports in his notebook, he bought from local inabitants, it is impossible to say.

36 Easton (supra n. 2), 200.