Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann’s Excavation at Troy :: Anthropology

Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann’s Excavation at Troy Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann’s ability to challenge academic establishment make him an appealing yet dubious character. The German’s late nineteenth century excavations of Truva are often considered to have shed new light on ancient history or ‘undoubtedly destroyed a great deal of archaeological data that will forever be lost[1]. Despite the praise and glorification that surrounds the romantic stems of Schliemann’s work; his excavations have proved limited to the evolution of archaeology and ancient history. However some of Schliemann’s methodologies have often been considered significant in context to the evolution of both fields. His ‘great desire to affirm his hypotheses[2]’ has lead to important ancient historical data such as demonstrating Greek civilisation had commenced approximately one thousand years earlier then previous scholars estimated. Yet Schliemann’s excavations of Hissarlik are not completely revolutionary to the development of ancient history despite the modernisation of his primitive archaeological techniques and his ability to incorporate mythology in interpreting and formulating ancient history, while several contemporaries dismissed its credibility. Firstly Schliemann’s crude methodical techniques are not definitive in comparison to the works of other archaeologists such as, General Pitt Rivers. Secondly Schliemann’s discovery of an unknown civilization contributed to the broadening of ancient history. Moreover, Schliemann’s ability to see the great value of oral history and mythology has brought significant development to historical methodologies. Finally Schliemann’s flawed yet revealing archaeological techniques has allowed archaeology to improve, in learning from its mistakes. Firstly Schliemann’s contribution to the development of ancient history is limited in comparison to that of archaeological pioneers such as Pitt Rivers. Rivers, like Schliemann both avoided the stigma as ‘treasure hunters’ in their pursuit for knowledge of the antiquities. However Schliemann’s failure to seek perfection and accuracy questions his place in true archaeological circles. Historian Geoffrey Arnott comments, ‘the accuracy of his excavation reports can†¦be questioned, most seriously with regard to Troy.’ Schliemann’s primitive and simplistic techniques involving the destruction of various ruins do not deserve monumental credit. Historian Wellington King comments on the problematic nature of Schliemann’s excavations, Schliemann’s’ great desire to affirm his hypotheses to provide the evidence for the answers he created, is also his greatest weakness and shortcoming†¦he often conducted his archaeological work in a highly unethical manner, and a manner that could even compromise the archaeological integrity of his finds. In contrast, Rivers practised methods of perfection by comparing organic evolution to cultural development and developing future archaeological generic fundamentals such as ‘typology.’ ‘His purpose, therefore, was not concentrated on collecting artefacts solely for display, but in order to create a complex scheme of evidence to outline history.’[3] By contrast, men such as Pitt Rivers can be