1 On the beginnings of field archaeology (or “spade research”) - the first regular excavations at Hisarlik: 1871-1873 † Manfred Korfmann

omer, , Schliemann”- for more than one able that scholarship could achieve anything more “H hundred years these words have been unit- through further excavations”. Soon afterwards, how- ed in the public consciousness. The subject has been ever, he saw things differently. He pressed ahead taken up again and again. Schliemann is regarded as with excavations at Tiryns and Mycenae, resuming an epitome of the archaeologist, his life’s work stand- work at Hisarlik in autumn 1878. ing as a monument within the history of scholarship. The direct value of Schliemann’s first book on the Schliemann himself did much to encourage this Trojan excavations lies in its facilitation of an under- continued public interest by producing nearly 300 standing of Schliemann as he was at the beginning of publications, large and small, including books and his scholarly activities, when he was not yet influ- articles for specialist journals and newspapers. The enced or supported by personalities from the estab- bibliography of publications concerning Schliemann lished circle of antiquarian scholars. In particular, himself, as well as his work, in particular the archae- these would later include the anthropologist and ological excavations of Troy and Mycenae, cannot be pathologist Rudolf Virchow (from 1879 onward), or ignored. A summary of “Schliemannia” compiled by Emil Burnouf, the former director of the French the Athenian pre-historian and Schliemann researcher Archaeological School in (from 1879 onward) George Korres (1974) lists over 2000 publications - and the architect and archaeologist Wilhelm Dörpfeld and the number increases every year. (from 1882 onward). How often in later years would In this, the centennial year of Schliemann’s death, the negative aspects of the work at Troy be put down we turn with particular intensity toward the famous to Schliemann, with the positive aspects credited to excavator of Troy. Recent research has focused on the collaboration of others! questions about his personality and, above all, his Troy and its Remains is an authentic, original do- character. The negative personal aspects detailed in cument. The text is divided into 23 periodic reports, these discussions have given rise to general doubts called “essays” by Schliemann. They consist of one-or- about Schliemann’s scientific honesty. Against this two-week, occasionally chronological progress reports, background, which we will not go into in further similar to those that Schliemann sent off regularly to detail here, it is both justified and necessary to allow the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung during the Tro- Schliemann himself another chance to speak, lest jan excavations. The text is doubtlessly based on these contradictory personal judgements cause the Schliemann’s daily-kept diary and excavation note- concrete archaeological results of his excavations to books, which are today stored in the Gennadius Li- disappear from view. brary in Athens. Naturally, what we have here is a Schliemann’s first book on the Trojan excavations, worked-over version deliberately placed at the dis- published in German in 1874 and in English in 1875 as posal of a critical public. Troy and its Remains, provides a useful point of ref- The reader of Schliemann’s first book must under- erence. It reports on the first three years of excava- stand that the text retains much of its diary character tion at Hisarlik (1871-1873), a place called Ilion or Troy and that he will be led astray. For example, during in antiquity, as it would be again from the time of the the first two years of excavation Schliemann held the Schliemann excavations. At the end of these first assumption that the lowermost “settlement” was three years, the excavator wanted to halt the excava- ’s Troy. By the third year, the “second settle- tions “forever”. For Schliemann, it “was not conceiv- ment” is Homer’s Troy, as it is in the broad introduc- 4 Manfred Korfmann tion written at the end of 1873 summarizing the graphs during Schliemann’s lifetime; they would results of three years of excavation. A similar inter- henceforth always appear as engravings. These en- pretation made in light of additional findings from gravings, however, were frequently based on photo- later excavations was published by Dörpfeld in 1902 graphs, as Schliemann continued to document his as Troy and Ilion: Results of Excavations of the Pre- excavations photographically. historic and Historic Levels of Ilion, 1870-1894. Only one year after the publication of the original The efforts of the first excavation cycle were German Atlas, engravings were used to illustrate the crowned by the discovery of “Priam’s Treasure” in English language edition, a change that was visually 1873. Schliemann believed he had achieved the goal of attractive. However, the scholarly worth of the origi- his work and therefore intended to close the Trojan nal Atlas remains, based to a large extent upon the 19 excavations for good and present the results as quick- photographs of “Priam’s Treasure”, the contents of ly as possible. This haste is noticeable throughout the which were lost during the final weeks of World War text in the many discrepancies and contradictions of II. ideas and conclusions; however, this style serves to It is sometimes claimed that Schliemann did not in underline the naturalness of the presentation. This fact find the treasure in toto at Troy, but instead lack of basic revision and editing is also apparent in enlarged a smaller group of finds with purchased the introduction. pieces. It is therefore of particular interest that these The speed with which the results were prepared objects were photographed in a partially uncleaned for publication can also be seen in the accompanying or unrestored state. How much more could be specu- volume of illustrations, the Atlas trojanischer Alter- lated concerning “falsification” were it not for an thümer. A user of the original German edition of the early publication with photographs such as these? In Atlas is confronted with photographs of varying qual- any case, there was not much time for falsification. ity, badly cropped and carelessly mounted. There is Schliemann’s prophecy that this treasure would no planned or aesthetic arrangement. In addition, the “remain the subject of ongoing research for hundreds textual references to Atlas illustrations could be of years” has, without a doubt, proved true for the much more exact, and where the references are pre- first century. cise, they occasionally turn out to be incorrect. The majority of the original Atlas illustrations Schliemann’s excavations at Hisarlik were reproduced as what Schliemann called “photo- as a form of Iliad-reception graphic drawings”. These are drawings that have ’s excavations at Troy are been documented photographically and reproduced only one part of the long and varied history of how as prints. As a result, every Atlas volume counts as a the Iliad was received by its audience. This epic writ- curiosity. The Athenian photographer Panagos ten in the eighth century BC has left its mark upon Zaphyropoulos took not only the majority of the pho- the spirit of the Western world like no other work. tos, but also made the over 100,000 prints. From Archaeologists have ascertained that the theme of the these, 25,000 were rejected by Schliemann due to battle for Troy inspired works of art a generation poor quality, which, considering the pervading cir- after Homer, after which time it was indeed on every- cumstances, was surely an exceptional proportion. body’s lips. The influence of the Iliad has not dimin- Nevertheless, the quality of the remaining photo- ished to the present day. graphs can only be described as very poor. It was an In antiquity as well as today, the stories connect- altogether laborious and unsatisfactory attempt with ed with the Trojan War inspired not only those a relatively new medium. A new edition of these pho- learned in Greek. The theme was also employed tographs was out of the question. The original photo- toward artistic and even political ends. Rome pro- graphic plates were not preserved and the prints in fessed its Trojan origins from the 5th century BC. In the few folios still extant in libraries became increas- building up their dynastic ideology, Julius Caesar ingly yellowed with the years. and the Julio-Claudian dynasty traced themselves The lesson drawn from this experience was so back to Aenaes and his son, Iulus, himself named vivid that the finds and results from the Trojan exca- after the legendary founder of Troy. Notably, Troy vations would never again be published as photo- had a second name: Ilios. Many holders of political On the beginnings of field archaeology (or “spade research”) - the first regular excavations at Hisarlik: 1871-1873 5 power made reference to the battle between the Euro- citizen Frank Calvert had already begun excavating pean Greeks and Asiatic Trojans, including Xerxes at Hisarlik (Hahn 1865; Easton 1991; Allen 1999). before the conquest of , Alexander the Great Calvert was a local resident of the before the campaign in southwest , the knights of who had amassed a fortune as a large landowner, the fourth crusade before and after the capture of merchant and British, as well as American, Consul. Constantinople and the Sultan Mehmet Fatih after the He was also a scholar interested in antiquities, which conquest of the same city by the Ottomans. Hundreds he publicized and exhibited internationally. For all of the Franks, the kings of France, the dukes of Bur- the tenacity that one grants Schliemann, it should be gundy and many other ruling houses derived them- emphasized that it was Frank Calvert who smoothed selves genealogically from the Trojans (Chandler the way for him into the Trojan countryside and who 1802; Rose 1997). drew his attention particularly to Hisarlik. On the whole, the spiritual and ideological exami- As was normal for the times, one went through nation of the events around Troy produced a unified the area in the 18th and 19th centuries with the Iliad in cultural basis for education and training in Europe. hand, as did Schliemann when he came here for the Powerful European cultural roots can be found in this Anatolian city on the borders of two continents first time in 1868. Homer does not describe the Trojan and seas. In a time marked by efforts toward Euro- topography in exact terms, but in a nevertheless sat- pean economic and political unity, we should also be isfactory manner. He or his informants must have aware of such spiritual and intellectual foundations. viewed the Scamander Plain with alertness. Howev- As an end result, the reception of the Iliad intro- er, a present day comprehensible Homeric descrip- duced two further “battles for Troy”, both of which tion of the landscape is still no proof that the Trojan are still going on today: War took place here some 550 years earlier, although 1. Was Troy a “poetic fantasy”, a legendary, yet post-Schliemann archaeology can show that Homer or wholly imaginary city? his late 8th century BC contemporaries could have 2. If not, where was Troy? had the powerful walls of second millennium BC The Iliad was pure poetic invention to most an- Troy (Troy VI and VII) before their eyes. Perhaps the cient philologists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. last of these remains were still occupied. There were times when scholars even doubted the Admittedly, one can occasionally detect a critical existence of Homer as a person. Antiquity, however, approach in Schliemann’s reports opposite a literal had no doubts. One knew where Troy was located. trust in Homer; indeed, whenever the excavation Ilion coins were minted at Hisarlik. The distances finds do not manifestly agree with the evidence from between the city and neighbouring locations are the Iliad. noted on the Peutinger map of Roman roads (a.k.a. The majority of what was found by the German Tabula Peutingeriana). Nevertheless, from the late excavations of Heinrich Schliemann (1871-73; 1878-79; 18th century until the time of Schliemann’s excava- 1882; 1890) and Wilhelm Dörpfeld (1893-94) came tions, the majority of those scholars who believed that from an appreciably earlier, nameless period. The the Iliad had a historical basis located the site of Troy same goes for the later American excavations direct- not at Hisarlik, but at the ruins lying on the slopes ed by Carl Blegen (1932-38). The results were of high over Pinarbas,i, some 10 km to the southwest. The equation of Troy with Hisarlik can be des- scholarly interest, but far removed from Homer and cribed as the most important result of Schliemann’s the supposed events of the Iliad, which most scholars th work, as it often is. However, the facts of the case do date to the beginning of the 13 century BC. The “trea- not present themselves so simply. Schliemann did not sures” of Troy II and the archaeological level of Troy “discover” Troy, although he did attempt to resolve II are, as we know today contrary to Schliemann’s nearly 100 years of academic discussion with the help opinion, some 1000 years older than the presumed of a new method: excavation. Even here he was not “Epoch of Priam”. The contemporary critics of Schlie- the first. The Austrian Consul Johann Georg von mann’s interpretations were completely justified in Hahn excavated at Balli Dag in 1864, and in 1865, five this respect, but at the time Schliemann was concern- years before Schliemann’s first test trench, the British ed with archaeological-methodological arguments. 6 Manfred Korfmann

The general state of “Archaeology” up to hope of finding plastic works of art. The single Schliemann’s time and the significance of the object of my excavations from the beginning was only to find Troy, whose site has been discussed site of Hisarlik for prehistoric archaeology by a hundred scholars in a hundred books, but th during the 19 century which as yet no one has ever sought to bring to Schliemann showed himself to be open to new light by excavations. If I should not succeed in points of view from the very beginning of the Trojan this, still I shall be perfectly contented, if by my excavations. He corrected himself, sought the collab- labours I succeed only in penetrating to the deep- oration of others - including those from neighbouring est darkness of pre-historic times, and enriching disciplines - and absolutely invited discussion with archaeology by the discovery of a few interesting his immediate, frequent publications. In this respect, features from the most ancient history of the great he was, without a doubt, a scientist. Hellenic race. The discovery of the stone period, However, the publication year of the “treasures” instead of discouraging me, has therefore only (1874), was not yet ripe for any serious, informed dis- made me more desirous to penetrate to the place cussion about the results of his first series of excava- which occupied by the first people that came here, tions. Schliemann himself would have to provide the and I still intend to reach it even if I should have basic material for archaeological-scholarly debate to dig another 50 feet further down. with his later excavations at Mycenae. His acknowledgement of the value of ceramic Shortly after Schliemann’s death, the Trojan exca- sherds and other small finds, understood in reference vations of 1893 and 1894 under the direction of Wil- to their stratigraphic context, was the starting point helm Dörpfeld uncovered the massive fortification for the construction of a relative chronology for the walls of Troy VI along the southern and eastern edges site itself and, over and beyond this, for the cultures of the citadel hill. As can be read and seen in Schlie- of southeast Europe and Greece as well. mann’s first book, he himself had already seen at least The excavations ran up against a great deal of crit- one of the large structures belonging to this level on icism for which Schliemann himself was partly the south side of his great trench in 1873. These responsible. Among the academics, the critics came remains of Troy VI could only first be dated with the mainly from classical philology and ancient history, help of the findings from Mycenae, principally the but also from classical archaeology. The antiquarian typical vase forms and painted ceramic wares that scholars of the time had almost nothing to do with occur at both sites. excavations and their results. Most 18th and 19th cen- Although Near Eastern and classical archaeology tury scholars considered this method beneath their are bound up with Troy in other senses, in particular dignity. The study of cultural antiquity, character- prehistoric archaeology, the so-called “spade re- ized for over 100 years by art historical analysis of search”, began with this site. Hisarlik, with its many only the more outstanding finds, would through Schlie- construction phases lying atop one another, was the mann’s work push ahead toward something entirely first place where an excavator could recognize a chro- new. It should be particularly emphasized that, in nological sequence of archaeological levels, realize the contrast to classical archaeology, prehistoric archaeo- value of the “stratigraphic method” and at the same logy did not exist as a discipline at any universities time report all this to the general public. There is no when the Trojan excavations began. If Schliemann is doubt that the credit for this is due to Heinrich Schlie- to be called an autodidact in the field of archaeology, mann. as he commonly is, this can only be said from the One can see his progression toward these realiza- point of view of art historical archaeology. There were tions in his reports on the first three years’ work. as yet no trained excavators for the non-classical peri- Schliemann noted that finds considered rather unpre- ods of human history; no scientists who treated all possessing at the time had value as Leittypen. As he finds equally and with regard to their contextual said, these were more important to him than the associations in the ground. The systematic, docu- treasures. Already during the first year of excava- mented excavation was not yet understood. tion, Schliemann wrote (1875, 80): Schliemann had proved himself academically, at My expectations are extremely modest; I have no least as well as many others, with his 1869 dissertation On the beginnings of field archaeology (or “spade research”) - the first regular excavations at Hisarlik: 1871-1873 7 from the University of Rostock. The support of the well as absolutely. It is as a potential mediator of cul- Trojan excavations from 1879 onwards by one of the tural influences stemming from Asia Minor, Syria- most distinguished personages of German science, the Palestine, Egypt, Crete and Mycenae that Troy is respected anthropologist and later prehistoric archae- most interesting. ologist, Rudolf Virchow, was certainly of great signif- The construction method employed at Hisarlik icance. It is frequently overlooked that Virchow was explains why the levels lie over each other in such a not only a medical doctor, but also a pathologist and way that a settlement mound was formed. The build- politician. With regard to prehistoric archaeology Vir- ing material played the critical role. The house walls chow could also be described as an autodidact. Inter- were built of sun-dried mud bricks atop stone foun- estingly enough, no one dares to put this forward. In dations. This method is common in regions with contrast, he is honoured as the “old master of prehis- warm climates, particularly if wood is not available as toric research”. a building material. What makes Troy exceptional is When Schliemann began his first regular excava- the existence of mud architecture in a climatic border tions on Hisarlik in 1871, Alfred Götze, the first pro- region where the technique is not normally practiced. fessional pre-historian in Germany, was only six As with all simply-constructed houses, a new build- years old. “Spade research” would be recognized as a ing is required after one or two generations of use. In useful method for the historical sciences thanks to contrast to stone, half-timbered or log houses, the Schliemann’s excavations, in particular those at Troy building material from a mud house is not normally and Mycenae. This knowledge was extended not only re-used. It is simplest to level the old building and to archaeologists, but also to their financial backers. erect a new one atop the debris of the earlier building Thus the Greek and German Royal families took an phase. A stratified settlement mound is the end result active interest in Schliemann’s excavations, as did, to and, for the archaeologist, a very welcome one. no lesser degree, the British Prime Minister William A chronological system can be worked out when Gladstone. The other “archaeologists” profited from the depths of the finds and their stratigraphic associ- this as well. Without Schliemann they would certain- ations are recorded. Schliemann truly made the most ly not occupy their present high rank among the of this opportunity. He expressly stressed: “Up to human sciences and, in particular, would not enjoy now no one has yet found such an accumulation of their present high status in the public consciousness. ruins anywhere in the world”. His recording of the Although Schliemann’s excavations can be con- artefacts and their contexts becomes increasingly con- sidered a form of Iliad-reaction, his results led to pre- sistent as time went by. Stratigraphic excavation tech- historic archaeologists almost always perceiving the niques were developed in principle and as a result a significance of the site as something separate from the historical cultural sequence was found immediately Iliad. The key function of the site of Troy was recog- before the gates of Europe. nized and appreciated. In the professional archaeo- The site was continually inhabited due to its eco- logical world it is not so much the “treasures” or the nomically favourable geographic location, but the fact Iliad problems but rather the other “small finds” that that it was always defended by powerful walls shows made Troy the most-cited archaeological site in the that it was also continually endangered. These pro- world. cesses began in the third millennium BC during the The most interesting phenomena at the site are the Early Bronze Age, as the Hisarlik treasures verify, more than 40 construction phases from nine major and continued for over a millennia, as the constant levels with a height of more than 16 meters, lying atop renewal of the fortification system clearly attests. one another, always in the same order like a histori- The wealth of the settlements can be traced to ex- cal layer cake. This alone clearly shows that the site treme local conditions: the strong winds and storms was important for over 3.000 years, as does the fact that opposed sea travellers through the Dardanelles. that it was always fortified. The stratified cultural A strong north-easterly wind blows against ships sail- sequence made it possible to separate early and late ing in this region during the summer, the season finds and contexts, as well as to distinguish exports when one normally went to sea. Schliemann himself and imports in all directions, allowing the distribution mentioned these winds, the so-called “Etesians” as of culture-specific articles to be dated relatively as being very disturbing to his work. Homer attaches 8 Manfred Korfmann the epithet “windy” to the city of Ilios several times being exhibited in London, as “a gift to the German in his epics. The technology necessary to sail against people”. A German nationalist tone is foreign to Schlie- the wind was only first developed during the Roman mann. period. Before that, ships would be forced to wait in In view of this personal background, Schlie- a bay outside the entrance to the Dardanelles until mann’s numerous references in his first book to the wind changed. This could take weeks or even swastikas and other “Aryan symbols” among the months. In addition to the winds, a powerful current finds from Troy should not be interpreted otherwise reaching speeds of up to seven kilometres per hour than in the way they were meant. Schliemann noticed ran from the straits into the Aegean. that these “symbols” occurred with particular fre- These two navigation factors, together with the quency in the deepest levels at Troy. He believed favourable geographical location, placed the inhabi- they were proof of the presence of Indo-European tants of Hisarlik in a particularly powerful position. Greeks, potential participants in the Trojan War - at They could levy a toll in almost any amount upon the the time the “first settlement” was Schliemann’s ships forced to wait. This surely annoyed many, and sought after Troy of Homer. there was probably a certain degree of strife around This early equation of material culture with eth- the site. The continually renewed defensive walls nicity is likewise methodologically interesting and speak for themselves. We do not know, and probably well worth emphasizing. The “foreign people” who will never learn, if the Iliad summarizes many wars had left their traces two meters beneath the mound from a nebulous past or reports on one very specific surface in the form of a completely new ceramic type, one. It is however certain that there were many wars the “knobbed ware”, is a further example of such an at Hisarlik/Troy/Ilios during the 14th and 13th centuries interpretation. Schliemann’s attempt at a culture-his- BC. torical interpretation of the archaeological legacy was From this we can, with simple arguments, answer extraordinarily stimulating for prehistoric archaeolo- the question of whether or not there is a real histori- gy. This approach would later be applied in other cal basis to the Iliad. It depends upon only what one regions by his friend and co-worker Rudolf Virchow. means by “historical”. In this region of the world men The archaeology of the time, for those who would and cultures were constantly in conflict with each reproach it, was not capable of achieving very much. other. It was worth suffering, either as defenders or We cannot today understand why Schliemann placed attackers, in order to enjoy the benefits of a site so such immense importance upon “carousels” and “vol- well situated in regard to transport and trade - be it canos” when the objects in question were merely sim- at the beginning of Troy I in the third millennium BC, ple clay spindle whorls employed by many cultures or at the end of Troy VI in the 13th century BC. Of to spin wool. For Schliemann, these pieces were “sac- course, this goes as well for the time of Homer in the rificial” finds on account of their richly incised deco- late 8th and early 7th centuries BC, when the Greek ration and symbols. Doubts about his own interpreta- world was colonizing not only the Mediterranean tion came to him again and again, particularly as the coast, but the Black Sea as well. The strategic impor- “colossal amounts” of such finds surprised him. In tance of the Dardanelle Straits was well known dur- thinking over this problem, he comes at one point ing Homer’s time. Soon after, the Greek city-states very close to the solution. Here, as well as on many would battle for supremacy in the Dardanelles. other points, one encounters the scholar who sought The first cuts of the spade at Troy and the result- “the truth”. ing discoveries occurred during a period of German The frequently occurring representations of a national pride following the victory over France. This human face or pair of eyes on vases and marble would make demands on the internationally-minded “idols” were for Schliemann the faces of “owls”, Schliemann. At the start of the Troy excavations, this which he associated with the symbolic animal of the German, Russian and American citizen lived in Paris goddess Pallas Athena, who was worshipped in Troy. and Athens. He received the excavation license He was manifestly not intimidated by the frequently through the agency of the American ambassador in noted depictions of female sexual characteristics; he Constantinople. Schliemann was moved only with dif- was clearly not biased in this regard. ficulty to give over the finds from Troy, which were At the time, Schliemann believed in the accuracy On the beginnings of field archaeology (or “spade research”) - the first regular excavations at Hisarlik: 1871-1873 9 of Homer’s Iliad “like the Gospels”. While he did not measured by an example of the hitherto best archae- really believe the epic to be an explicit, exact history ological research of the time. of the events of the 13th century BC, it was neverthe- The spectacular uncovering of the pole dwelling less the accepted basis for the reconstruction of his settlements on the Swiss Lakes began methodically in excavated world. He freely corrected his views now the winter of 1853/4 under the direction of Ferdinand and again, to the effect that Homer was not a histori- Keller. The beginnings of prehistoric archaeology are an and that one should make allowances for poetic also associated with this date. These investigations exaggeration; one could nonetheless experience the were carried out from a purely antiquarian point of satisfaction of knowing that there really was a Troy, view of material culture. Culture-historical interpre- however more modest its dimensions. tations, though possible, were not attempted until This “naive belief” was often derided, in particu- eleven years later with the work of the young English lar by German ancient philologists. Bearing in mind reform politician and amateur prehistorian John Lub- their own similarly trusting belief in the “Holy Scrip- bock (1834-1913), the later Lord Avebury, only six tures” at this time, the double standard revealed by years before the start of regular excavations at Troy their attitude toward Homer is rather surprising. The (Lubbock 1865). various Old Testament authors wrote during the first The excavators had at any rate noted the absence half of the first millennium BC about events, land- of metal, the existence of a village society, traces of scapes, peoples, cities and personages which (should) cultivated plants and domesticated animals as well as have occurred and existed between several hundred many polished stone tools, in particular axes and typ- and in part over a thousand years earlier. Method- ically retouched points, ceramic vessels, textiles, etc. ologically speaking, Homer should have been allowed The conclusions, however, were lacking. It is a mea- the same knowledge of the past that was granted to sure of the times that the Late Stone Age, i.e., Neolith- the authors of the Old Testament. Despite their belief ic, period discovered at the sites was not described in in the veracity of the Bible, most of Schliemann’s crit- culture-historical terms as a period of an entirely new ics saw no relationship worth discussing between way of living defined by sedentarism and agricul- Homer and the writers of the Old Testament - it was ture, but instead characterised by “polished stones”. remarkably, or rather typically, not a topic for re- With his daring interpretations of events, as opposed search or discussion for those studying the ancient to simple description of finds, Schliemann must have world during the second half of the 19th century. In seemed an extreme outsider in such a scientific school lessons and religious services the Bible stories world, whereby he also fascinated many. were presented as historical fact - despite the work of David Friedrich Strauss, who had already in 1835/36 On Schliemann’s observations and work explained the Gospels as myth-building. methods The 19th century was also the age when museums in European capital cities were assembling vast As already mentioned, we have the original Schlie- archaeological and ethnographic collections. The mann before us only in his first Troy-publication. An more “valuable” and “first class” the object - and here archaeologist familiar with the problems of Troy can one thought mainly of sculptures or “treasures” - the go through this book meticulously in his own time. more welcome they were in these collections. These Regarding the illustrations, he or she will need to artefacts, whether precious or not, needed organiz- have the original Atlas at hand only for special ques- ing. In most cases the pieces were appreciated simply tions. as “pieces”; not as evidence of prehistoric events The excavation at the time had no absolute alti- whose interpretation could be sought in connection tude levels; every measurement was taken from the with their context. mound surface, which was relatively level. In view of Schliemann was the first who did not set the mak- this regularity, the archaeologist can still extract a ing of spectacular finds as the primary goal of his great deal of information from the Schliemann re- excavations, seeking instead to answer culture-histo- ports. Amazingly, such investigations are only now rical questions. Despite his occasionally long-winded being carried out, especially by Donald Easton. As a interpretations, the revolutionary path he trod can be result, a great deal can still be learned about Troy, its 10 Manfred Korfmann finds and contexts. and VII levels would be missing - this despite the fact Schliemann is often reproached because he de- that remains from these periods turn up here and stroyed the critical levels in the course of his search there in the Atlas illustrations and plate descriptions for Troy of the 13th century BC. Schliemann was him- in the form of a particular ceramic type of lusturous, self visited by doubts in this matter. We know today dark grey clay found at a depth of 15 meters beneath that he could not have come across the aforemen- the mound surface, which Schliemann considered tioned period inside the mound. A cross-section of the evidence of a “higher civilization”. The deep find con- mound shows this clearly. text could only be understood later, after the se- While digging during the first and second years in quence of the demolition levels on the northern slope the north slope area, Schliemann assumed that the of the mound became known. With an angled wall to levels in question lay all the way down on the rock the southeast of the “Great Canal”, a “Bastion” that surface: after present-day terminology, Troy I levels. “does not seem to be older than the time of Lysima- Without paying any attention to, or even recording, chos”, Schliemann had uncovered the eastern foun- the numerous architectural contexts lying above, he dations of Troy VI palace, known later following Dör- went quickly deeper. During the third year of exca- pfeld’s excavations as House VI M. Schliemann had vation, he took the two to three meter thick burnt without a doubt recognized the exceptional quality of layer marking the catastrophic end of the “second set- this “beautiful and venerable” building. tlement” as evidence of the Trojan War, for which We can follow the advances of the first three years additional proof was provided by the presumably of excavation over the course of weeks and years. Of accurate Homeric descriptions of the “Great Tower”, particular interest are the efforts of the second and the “Skaian Gate”, the “House of Priam” and “Priam’s third excavation years. Treasure”. He found further support for his theories Schliemann the excavator had no patience. Sun- from the multiple finds of “Homeric Goblets” (the so- days and Greek holidays annoyed him. So as to lose called Depas Amphikypellon). Following present-day no time, he would then hire short-term Turkish work- assignment, all these would belong to Troy II and ers. He employed more than a hundred, up to 150, as Troy III. many as possible. He demanded extreme “superhu- Schliemann over-hastily permitted the contexts of man” effort from his workers and everyone in his Troy IX, VII, V, IV and III to be cleared away. Nev- company. Each of his workers could shift four cubic ertheless, his documentation of the find levels of var- meters of earth in a thirteen hour working day. With ious objects and observations of the major level divi- his goal to dig ever deeper constantly in view, Schlie- sions are astoundingly precise and consistent. Schlie- mann carelessly ignored all risks. Falling stones broke mann had noticed that wherever he dug, the level free from the up to 16 meters high trench walls. Men sequence with characteristic finds was repeated. He were, as was to be expected, buried by avalanches of had already recognized the essential features of the earth. Schliemann does not come across sympatheti- settlement sequence during the first three years of cally with his capitalist methods when, for example, excavation. he is pleased that he can lengthen the working day Our graphical comparison of Schliemann’s strati- from twelve to thirteen hours for the same wages. graphic sequence with one constructed on the basis of During the first three years of excavation Schlie- knowledge gained from 13 additional excavation cam- mann had no more than a handful of colleagues at his paigns shows how far in principle Schliemann had side. The collaboration of his second wife, a Greek, already come. would be glorified by others in later descriptions. The As can be read in his Trojanische Alterthümer, archaeologist reading this book will notice that her Schliemann had even recognized the significance of active collaboration is wishful thinking. the “knobbed ware”, to which I have just referred in An excavation worker at Hisarlik today can move a different context. If he had divided the “numerous approximately 0.5 meters of earth within an eight- catastrophe levels” of his “fourth settlement” into hour working day. Today’s archaeologist is allocated two, the archaeological sequence of Troy with the five workers at the most. The archaeologists achieve a associated typical finds would have already been great deal as well during a twelve-hour working day. known at the beginning of 1874. Admittedly, Troy VI Now, as then, Schliemann’s words still apply: “With On the beginnings of field archaeology (or “spade research”) - the first regular excavations at Hisarlik: 1871-1873 11 all the hardships and suffering at the excavation one tions from the very beginning. Thus the proportional has, among other advantages, never any time to be composition of the metal finds was investigated, as bored”. Nevertheless one is glad for the Sundays and was the clay quality and paint colours of the ceramic holidays! sherds. In addition to chemistry, human and veteri- In full awareness of all the difficulties involved in nary medicine were also involved in the Trojan exca- an excavation, modern archaeologists are always vations from the start so that the human and animal amazed at how much Schliemann was able to ob- bones could be correctly analysed. Schliemann even serve, measure and publish under those conditions. made an early attempt at “statistics” in treating the The speed with which he published his results should weight of the finds as a significant interpretation fac- arouse more respect than criticism. If we are now tor. He saw to it that the vases were professionally accustomed to waiting decades for the publication of reconstructed, if models of their original form existed, results from comparable excavations, it is only fair and regretted their destruction, in so far as it could be that we should view the content and manner of Schlie- traced to the speed and size of his excavations - for mann’s reports according to a different standard. The which he took full responsibility. His rethinking of his editing and textual errors frequently held against own interpretations along with massive self-criticism him are as easy to distort as they are to single out, like of his own excavation techniques are noticeable on his over-interpretations. Only those who rely exclu- several occasions. As he writes near the end of his sively on the written word will conduct a character third excavation campaign: study based on such points! “As a result of my earlier erroneous idea that Troy Despite all of his biases and over-estimation of his could only be sought on or immediately above the own abilities, Schliemann the scholar shows that he original surface, a large part of the city was unfor- seeks “the truth” and is capable of learning. He was tunately destroyed by me in 1871 and 1872, at great enough to admit his mistakes - and this charac- which time I demolished all the house walls pres- terizes him until the end of his life. This led him to the ent in the higher levels”. painful realization that he had fundamentally erred He refers again several times to the massiveness of in his assignation of the “burnt city” to the “second the levels and the chronological implications of such settlement” (Troy II). The principle seriousness of the an accumulation. goals of his work is unmistakable. Schliemann included the surrounding country- He was not a “gold seeker”, as he is described in a side in his investigations, both before and during the well-known book title, but during his lifetime he al- Trojan excavations, carrying out archaeological sur- ways remained a “treasure hunter” (Ludwig 1931). To veys of the area, admittedly with the Iliad in hand. this topic I will refer again later. He concentrated, in He first investigated the Pinarbas,i question and soon accordance with his times, on antiquarian objects. As afterwards the “heroic tombs” - the large tumuli he wrote: “Science should in no case miss out on any- found throughout the area. These provided the start thing from my discoveries; an object that could be of for wide-ranging archaeological surveys of the Trojan interest to the scholarly world should be photograph- countryside. This tradition was continued by Schlie- ed or drawn by a skilled draughtsman and then pub- mann himself and then by Virchow, and then later by lished in conjunction with his work, along with the Blegen, Kos,ay, Duyuran, Cook, Akarca and others. In exact depths at which I discovered these objects”. He recent years archaeology has recognized the impor- knew as yet too little to do very much with the con- tance of investigating the land surrounding an exca- texts of finds and with architecture. He developed the vation site, particularly in regard to the ways a set- “deep sounding” technique, which is today common tlement and its surrounding natural environment with settlement mound excavations, however influence each other. methodologically different the aims. Despite his intel- Schliemann’s strength and enthusiasm, as well as ligence and erudition he sought advice and second- his character, demanded sacrifices, or at the very least ary knowledge everywhere. It is not surprising that tolerance, from many of the men in his company. his quest for knowledge involved the diverse fields of Among these were his “dear friend” Frank Calvert, the humanities, but it is worth emphasizing that Schlie- with whom he arrogantly and provocatively quar- mann also drew the natural sciences into his excava- relled during the third year of excavation. With hair- 12 Manfred Korfmann splitting, unconvincing arguments, Schliemann ticularly rare and valuable for this period, were refused to admit that his excavations were actually a found in the same find context. continuation of Calvert’s excavations. The tensions Schliemann recognized the importance of the between the two developed and became public be- “treasure” and realized the consequences of with- cause Schliemann did not reasonably compensate holding knowledge of the find from the Turkish Calvert where an important find was concerned. authorities, as we can gather from a letter he wrote to Schliemann carried out his excavations on the west- Virchow on July 15, 1890 while still at Troy. It must be ern half of the mound, which was Turkish govern- kept completely secret, “even my wife hears noth- ment property, as well as on the eastern half, which ing”. As he wrote quite openly to various German was privately owned by Calvert and the site of his correspondents, talking about his treasure with an own excavations there in 1865. Calvert had agreed to unpleasant, gushing enthusiasm, he knew that he allow Schliemann to dig on his property and they had would never again be able to work at Troy if anything together arranged a system for the division of the was learned about his actions in . finds and/or fair compensation payments. The Athena There is certainly nothing to be read in his 1890 Temple stood on Calvert’s land and it was in this area excavation report to suggest the importance of the that Schliemann found the well-known Helios me- finds. He describes the iron object as indicating that tope: “one of the most sublime masterpieces to come iron was known in the second city. Four large stone to us from the high point of Greek art”. The marble axes were found with it along with “various other block was taken out of the country and ended up, via small objects ... which ... will be described later in the Schliemann’s Athens residence, in the Pergamon main publication”. The objects were taken out of the Museum in Berlin. Schliemann did not recognize his country and ended up in the Berlin collection as part injustice to Calvert, let alone to the country of Turkey. of Schliemann’s estate following his death. He believed himself to be entirely in the right. Aston- Having smuggled the Helios metope (1872), ishingly, he managed to affect a reconciliation with “Priam’s treasure” (1873) and many other treasures Calvert. We can recognize similar behaviour a year out of the country during the 1870s, Schliemann had later with “Priam’s treasure”. Here particularly spec- still not achieved the necessary detachment from the tacular finds were involved, to which the Turkish finds during his later excavation work at Troy. He government had claim to at least half. The resulting was without a doubt a scientist, but at the same time lengthy legal battle with the Ottoman state came to a was and remained a “treasure hunter” - or would similarly harmonious conclusion when, after the level- lapse back into this role. We should remember in this ling of a high fine in April 1875, Schliemann came up context that the treasures taken “because of the greed with a means of compensation generous for the times, of the Turks” were not in any way “saved”. Indeed, so that apparently nothing stood in the way of further if Schliemann had not taken the treasures out of the excavation permits for the years 1878, 1879, 1882 and country they would still be in the Istanbul museum 1890. We know today that Schliemann did not feel today; they certainly can’t be found any more in Ber- himself obliged to behave in so accommodating a lin! manner. The director of the Imperial Archaeological Mu- It cannot be denied that the description of Schlie- seum in Constantinople at the time was Osman mann as a “treasure hunter” is justified. His other- Handy Bey, a man highly respected not only in profes- wise characteristic ability to learn manifestly broke sional circles. In March 1890, Schliemann had deliber- down in 1890 when he once again came across a ately invited Osman Handy to the Second Hisarlik “treasure” in the Troy II level. Included among these conference in Troy with the intention that this distin- finds, known later as “treasure L”, were four richly guished man could testify to the entire professional decorated battle axes; three probably of nephrite and and non-professional archaeological world as to the one of lapis lazuli. The archaeological value of these authenticity of the work of Schliemann and Dörpfeld. pieces was far greater than that of their metal proto- The Turkish authorities had greatly supported the types, which were presumably made of gold. Several Trojan excavations during this period, despite unfor- rock crystal pommels, various pieces of gold, silver tunate past experiences. Thus, in his own main pub- and carnelian jewellery, and even an iron object, par- lications, Dörpfeld explicitly thanks Osman Handy On the beginnings of field archaeology (or “spade research”) - the first regular excavations at Hisarlik: 1871-1873 13 and his representative Dr. Halil Edhem for their mann’s archaeological publications have for the most “benevolent support and in particular for the com- part remained unanalysed. The same could be said mendable way in which they have looked after the for the results of the American excavations led by preservation of the ruins at Troy and continue to look Carl Blegen. An example might make this clearer. after them today”. As we know from the first Trojan excavation In this spirit of friendly cooperation, Osman Han- reports, Schliemann’s earliest excavations exposed dy went so far as to allow Schliemann to export all the skeletons and associated materials. Similar contexts sherds and stone objects, not insisting upon the usual were discovered during Schliemann’s later excava- division of finds. As his “export” of Treasure L clear- tions and by Blegen as well. Remarkably, these exca- ly shows, Schliemann did not repay his generosity. vators neither concluded nor emphasized in any way He deceived both the Turkish authorities and Osman that at least some of the almost twenty “treasures” Handy personally. To describe his actions in any found at Troy could have been grave goods. An ear- other way would be false. lier cemetery at Troy would fall freely within the time Such examples easily demonstrate Schliemann’s corresponding to an interruption of settlement in the determination and monomania, although he was no mound area (Troy II or III). As we have already men- “treasure hunter” seeking personal financial gain. In tioned, there is a great deal to be worked on for the contrast, he carried out the immensely expensive Tro- benefit of archaeology in Schliemann’s publications, jan excavations from start to finish at his own ex- as unbelievable as this may sound today. It is all too pense. It is well known that he always intended to easily said that the results of his successors provide give his collection away as a gift - not to sell it. To us with all the necessary information. insinuate that he sought to profit from dealing in Schliemann’s work and achievements had an antiquities would be false. immensely powerful effect upon the intellectual life Schliemann’s work altered the appearance of the of the time. Nevertheless, to judge Heinrich Schlie- Hisarlik mound more than all the other excavations mann from our present-day point of view is not easy. put together. Competent, well-informed examination So much is certain: he was not a “model” profession- of his work, carried out with the necessary local al excavator, although his name is almost a synonym knowledge, has until now only occurred on a limited for archaeology among the general public. The view scale. These examinations began early, as we can read that archaeologists really search for “treasure”, a in the first excavation reports, but there has been a view deeply rooted in the public consciousness, can pause since then that is difficult to understand. The be traced back to Schliemann’s strong fixation with scholarly Calvert, who also argued using Homer, but his “treasures”. This completely false assessment of from his own excavation experience at Hanay Tepe, modern excavation goals is a handicap that occasion- concluded in a newspaper article (25 January 1873) ally becomes a burden. Even Wilhelm Dörpfeld that the “second settlement” excavated by Schlie- sought to distance himself from it. mann could not be the Troy of the Trojan War as it If one denies Schliemann many things, he is enti- was likely to be more than 1000 years older. The tled to at least one: his work had a lasting impact on “fourth settlement” could also not be Homer’s Troy. scholarship and is still provocative in many ways. At the end of his life, Schliemann had yet to accept Some of those who basked in recognition during his that Calvert was right. lifetime did not produce such a legacy. His work with Calvert had also correctly interpreted the “Great its methodological approach should be highly regard- Tower” upon which Schliemann had based so much ed as one of the important starting points for “spade of his interpretation, along with the famous stone research”. The achievements continue to have an ramp (the “Skaian Gate”) and “Priam’s treasure”. The effect today in all fields of archaeology and, of course, “tower” was in fact a multi-faced, sharply angled at Troy itself as well. More than 200,000 people a stretch of the Troy II fortification walls. year visit Troy because of what Schliemann and Schliemann’s excavation results have still not Dörpfeld uncovered there. It was even Schliemann’s been reconciled with those of the later Dörpfeld exca- expressed request that as much as possible should be vations in the best possible way. It can be maintained left in place at Troy so that the visitor “can be con- that, in view of more recent excavations, Schlie- vinced of the accuracy of all these statements which 14 Manfred Korfmann might otherwise sound fantastic”. still subscribe to what he wrote on November 18, 1871: Dörpfeld would later compare Schliemann’s dis- “If there ever was a Troy, and my belief in this is firm, covery of a prehistoric/archaeological new land with it can only have been here on the site of Ilium” Columbus’ discovery of America. Both wanted to (Schliemann 1875, 85). open up a specific new horizon, but both ended up The question as to “if” is still as ever worthy of dis- finding something entirely different. Even if Schlie- cussion, even after the later discovery of the very mann erred in his identification of the “second settle- impressive building levels of the 13th and 12th centuries ment”, which is likely, many scholars today would BC (Troy VI and Troy VII).

REFERENCES

Allen, S.H., 1999. Finding the Walls of Troy; Frank Calvert Lubbock, J., 1865. Pre-historic Times, as Illustrated by and Heinrich Schliemann at Hisarlik, Berkeley and Los Ancient Remains and the Manners and Customs of Angeles: University of California Press. Modern Savages, London: Wiliams and Norgate. Boedeker, D. (ed.), 1997. The World of Troy: Homer, Sch- Ludwig, E., 1931. Schliemann of Troy, the Story of a Gold- liemann, and the Treasures of Priam. Proceedings from seeker; with an Introduction by Sir Arthur Evans a Seminar sponsored by the Society for the Preserva- (translated from the German by D.F. Tait), London: G.P. tion of the Greek Heritage, Washington: Society for the Putnam’s Sons. Preservation of the Greek Heritage Rose, C.B., 1997. ‘Troy and the historical imagination’, in Calvert, F., 1873. ‘Excavations in the Troad’ (Dardanelles, Boedeker (ed.): 98-109. 25 January 1873), The Levant Herald (daily edition, Schliemann, H., 1869. Ithaque, le Péloponnèse, Troie, Tuesday, 4 February): 90d-e, 91a. recherches archéologiques, Paris: C. Reinwald. Chandler, R., 1802. The History of Ilium or Troy: including Schliemann, H., 1874a. Trojanische Alterthümer. Bericht the Adjacent Country, and the Opposite Coast of the über die Ausgrabungen in Troja, Leipzig: F.A. Brock- Chersonesus of Thrace, London: Nichols and son. haus. Dörpfeld, W., 1902. Troja und Ilion: Ergebnisse der Aus- Schliemann, H., 1874b. Atlas trojanischer Alterthümer. grabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen Photographische Abbildungen zu dem Bericht über die Schichten von Ilion 1870-1894, Athen: Beck & Barth. Ausgrabungen in Troja, Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. Easton, D.F., 1991. ‘Troy before Schliemann’, Studia Troica Schliemann, H., 1875. Troy and its Remains; a Narrative of 1: 111-29. Researches and Discoveries made on the Site of llium, Hahn, J. G. von, 1865. Die Ausgrabungen auf der home- and in the Trojan Plain (translated by Miss L.D. rischen Pergamos: in zwei Sendschreiben an Georg Schnitz), London: J. Murray. Finlay, Leipzig: W. Engelmann. Schliemann, H., 1891. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Korfmann, M. (Hrsg.), 1990. Heinrich Schliemann, Bericht Troja im Jahre 1890. Mit einem Vorwort von Sophie über die Ausgrabungen in Troja in den Jahren 1871-1873, Schliemann und Beiträgen von Dr. Wilhelm Dörpfeld, München und Zürich: Artemis. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. Korres, G., 1974. Βιβλιογραφία Ερρίκου Σλήµαν, Athen.