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

Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemanns Excavation at TroyJohann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemanns magnate to challengeacademic establishment make him an appealing yet dubious character.The Germans late nineteenth century excavations of Truva are oftenconsidered to hold up shed new light on antediluvian patriarch history or undoubtedlydestroyed a great deal of archaeologic data that will forever belost1. Despite the praise and glorification that surrounds theromantic stems of Schliemanns work his excavations have provedlimited to the evolution of archaeology and ancient history. barelysome of Schliemanns methodologies have often been consideredsignificant in context to the evolution of both fields. His greatdesire to affirm his hypotheses2 has lead to important ancienthistorical data such as demonstrating Greek civilisation hadcommenced approximately one thousand years earlier then previousscholars estimated. Yet Schliemanns excavations of Hissarlik are notcompletely revoluti onary to the development of ancient history despitethe modernisation of his primitive archaeological techniques and hisability to incorporate mythology in rendering and formulatingancient history, while several contemporaries dismissed itscredibility. first of all Schliemanns crude methodical techniques are notdefinitive in comparison to the deeds of other archaeologists such as,General Pitt Rivers. Secondly Schliemanns discovery of an unknowncivilization contributed to the broadening of ancient history.Moreover, Schliemanns ability to see the great survey of oral historyand mythology has brought significant development to historicalmethodologies. Finally Schliemanns flawed yet revealingarchaeological techniques has allowed archaeology to improve, inlearning from its mistakes.Firstly Schliemanns contribution to the development of ancienthistory is limited in comparison to that of archaeological pioneerssuch as Pitt Rivers. Rivers, like Schliemann both avoided the stigmaas treasu re hunters in their pursuit for knowledge of theantiquities. However Schliemanns failure to seek perfection andaccuracy questions his place in true archaeological circles. historianGeoffrey Arnott comments, the accuracy of his excavation reportscanbe questioned, most seriously with regard to Troy. Schliemannsprimitive and simplistic techniques involving the destruction ofvarious ruins do not be monumental credit. Historian WellingtonKing comments on the problematic nature of Schliemanns excavations,Schliemanns great desire to affirm his hypotheses to provide theevidence for the answers he created, is also his greatest weakness andshortcominghe often conducted his archaeological work in a highlyunethical manner, and a manner that could thus far compromise thearchaeological integrity of his finds.In contrast, Rivers practised methods of perfection by comparingorganic evolution to cultural development and developing futurearchaeological generic fundamentals such as typology. His purp ose,therefore, was not concentrated on collecting artefacts solely fordisplay, but in order to create a conglomerate scheme of evidence tooutline history.3 By contrast, men such as Pitt Rivers can be