David Traill's article in Antiquity, LVII, debunking ‘Priam's Treasure’, will no doubt be seen by some as one more bullet in the chest for Schliemann. In recent years the firing-squad has been getting quite active. Now that Schliemann's archaeology has become the target it is time to ask: how accurate are the shots? Schliemann's new executioners trace their pedigree back to their nineteenth-century predecessors. This is unwise, for Hartmut Dohl has shown very clearly that the conduct of, among others, the Berlin clique was quite as reprehensible as any failing of Schliemann's (Dohl, 1981, 16-75). Perhaps their problem was indeed, as Calder has evidenced (Calder, 1972, 347-8; 1980, ‘so), that they found him just too provincial, too common and too rich. The new wave of disaffection actually has its genesis in a series of articles by W. G. Niederland, a Freudian psycho-analyst with a research interest in the psychology of exploration (Niederland, 1964- 5 ; 1965; 1966-7; 1967; 1971). Niederland's papers make fascinating reading. He highlights some very unusual features in Schliemann's writings, and pinpoints a number of recurrent themes. His work is of undoubted interest to anyone concerned with Schliemann. He also comes up with the startlingly original suggestion that Schliemann was all along suffering from an unresolved Oedipus complex. His relentless exploration of Mother Earth, his fascination with cemeteries and his libidinous recollection of his early love-play among them with Minna, indicate a life-long search for his dead mother.