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

Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemanns Excavation at TroyJohann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemanns ability to challengeacademic establishment make him an appealing yet dubious character.The Germans late nineteenth century excavations of Truva are oftenconsidered to have shed new light on ancient history or doubtlesslydestroyed a great deal of archaeological data that will forever belost1. Despite the praise and glorification that surrounds theromantic stems of Schliemanns lap his excavations have provedlimited to the growing of archaeology and ancient history. Howeversome of Schliemanns methodologies have often been consideredsignifi passelt 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 bingle thousand years earlier then previousscholars estimated. Yet Schliemanns excavations of Hissarlik are notcompletely revolutionary to the development of ancient history despitethe modernisation of his primitive archaeological techniques and hisability to incorporate mythology in interpreting and formulatingancient history, while several contemporaries dismissed itscredibility. Firstly Schliemanns bare-ass methodical techniques are notdefinitive in affinity to the call ons of other archaeologists such as,General Pitt Rivers. Secondly Schliemanns discovery of an unknown finish contributed to the broadening of ancient history.Moreover, Schliemanns ability to see the great value of oral historyand mythology has brought significant development to historicalmethodologies. Finally Schliemanns flaw 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 treasure hunters in thei r pursuit for knowledge of theantiquities. However Schliemanns failure to essay 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 deserve 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 even compromise thearchaeological integrity of his finds.In contrast, Rivers practised methods of perfection by examineorganic evolution to cultural development and developing futurearchaeological generic fundamentals such as typology. His purpose,therefore, was not concentrated on hive away artefacts solely fordisplay, but in order to create a complex scheme of evidence tooutline history.3 By contrast, men such as Pitt Rivers can be