DOCSLIB.ORG

Refuse Archeology: Virchow—Schliemann— Freud

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Refuse Archeology: Virchow—Schliemann— Freud Refuse Archeology: Virchow—Schliemann— Freud Dietmar Schmidt Universität Erfurt In the early twentieth century, psychoanalysis tries to investigate a speciªc logic of the appearance and the incident of what is taken to be unintended in everyday communication and human behavior. What before hardly seemed to be worth systematic research, now becomes a privileged ªeld, in which the meaningful signs of a hidden and unwelcome past appear. For representing this new ªeld of research Freud often makes use of archaeological metaphors. But in quoting the knowledge and the techniques of archaeology, he evokes imaginary landscapes of a reappearing human past, which is not depraved and repressed but glorious and precious. This contradiction or gap between the character of analytical objects and their representation gives reason for an ‘archaeological’ investigation of psychoanalysis itself. To this end one of the heroes of nineteenth century archaeology, Heinrich Schliemann, will be con- fronted with two little works of Rudolf Virchow, in which he follows up the astonishing idea of an archaeology of refuse. Relating treasure troves and rubbish dumps it can be asked whether ‘archaeological’ practices in the late nineteenth century constituted a type of historical knowledge which runs counter to contemporary historicism and is crucial not only for Freud but also for today’s theoretical reºections on archaeological perspectives in cultural studies. I. In the second half of the nineteenth century, refuse became an object of historical research. This event occurred in different contexts, and in each almost casually. Although refuse as an object of analysis ªrst emerged only occasionally or even by accident, in the long run it unfolded a speciªc type of knowledge concerning not only the constitution of culture but also the Translated by Andrew Gledhill. Perspectives on Science 2001, vol. 9, no. 2 ©2002 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 210 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 211 structure of the human mind. The practice of, so to speak, ‘digging for dirt’, though at ªrst glance not seeming to be a very spectacular way of ex- ploring cultural phenomena, has contributed to establishing a certain kind of signs which, paradoxically, refer to a given cultural order by being worthless. To make this clear it may be helpful to characterize in general terms the new concept of refuse rising from this practice. Refuse in this context can be described as “matter out of place”, accord- ing to the phrase coined by Mary Douglas ([1966] 1995, p. 36).1 This dis- placement of refuse is not conªned to speciªc places. It is unnecessary to indicate where refuse is out of place as it applies to any place—even to the site of its ªnal disposal where it is left to its own devices. Refuse is “out of place” in the most radical sense: it has no purpose anywhere. At the same time, it becomes clear that refuse is not a singular, isolated occurrence, as Douglas continues to describe. Where there is refuse, there is a system, an order: “[It] is the by-product of a systematic ordering and classiªcation of matter, in so far as ordering involves rejecting inappropri- ate elements. This idea [...] takes us straight into the ªeld of symbolism” (Douglas [1966] 1995, p. 36). The existence of refuse is dependent upon the recognition of a symbolic order, to which refuse does not belong. Re- fuse, as something that is basically out of place, forms the counterpart to everything that can be missing from its place and, thus, forms part of the symbolic order. This distinction between what is “out of place” and what can be missing from its place was introduced by Jacques Lacan in his lec- tures on Poe’s The Purloined Letter. According to Lacan, this distinction correlates with the differentiation between the two basic spheres of what he calls ‘the Symbolic’ and ‘the Real’. Lacan claims that it is only the Sym- bolic of which one can “literally say” “that it is missing from its place”—like a book that has been lost in the library and cannot be found on its shelf. The Real, on the other hand, has no place where it is either available or not; and its location, therefore, cannot be distinguished from the Real as a place in a speciªc order. In other words, the Real is, so to speak, “always and in every case in its place, it carries its place on the soles of its feet,” it does not leave any trace of its absence. Lacan elucidated this deªnition of ‘the Real’, which is opposited to the idea of a symbolic order, by a reading of Poe’s ‘purloined letter’. This letter, which the police were searching for, using all of their investigative techniques, is openly lying around, crumpled and half torn. The letter cannot be found and cannot even be looked for, because it does not belong to the symbolic order, 1. Although Douglas in her text discusses the cultural status of ‘ªlth’ in general, her statement may here be related to the idea of ‘refuse’ as it emerged in Western industrial- ized societies in the nineteenth century. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 212 Refuse Archeology within which the police are operating. “A letter, a litter” (Lacan [1966] 1970, p. 35). The example of this letter, which ªgures as refuse, also implies that changes in the position of things from the Symbolic to the Real are think- able. And, one might add, changes in the opposite direction are possible, too. In the same way that a letter can become litter, litter can also be inte- grated into a given order. Refuse, as is well known, can be transformed into useful materials. In this process, however, the refuse ceases instanta- neously to be refuse. But the following passages will discuss another way of handling refuse, which is different from simply recycling it. I will focus on a practice which turns refuse into an academic matter without immediately chang- ing its speciªc status; a practice that appreciates refuse and displays an in- terest in it without primarily wanting to dispose of it or to convert it into useful materials—in other words: a practice that leads to the question how refuse can become the object of an archaeological search. An undertaking which could be described as refuse archaeology does not speak for itself. How can things that are “matter out of place” become the object of an archaeological excavation? How can something that is not missed anywhere and does not attract any attention to itself by any traces it has left behind or by its absence, nevertheless be the subject of archaeo- logical interest? How is it possible to view things that have been disposed of all over the place as archaeological ªnds? What type of knowledge is es- tablished in this way? All these questions are asked (or should be asked) apropos of two short reports made by Rudolf Virchow at the beginning of the 1870’s about a discovery which was made on a building site in the center of Berlin. Dur- ing digging work, refuse was found which evidently did not originate from contemporary times and which aroused Virchow’s lively interest. I want to highlight the peculiarity of this interest and, then, consider the conditions under which Virchow’s unusual refuse archaeology could be- come possible. What links this speciªc archaeology to the excavations that Heinrich Schliemann carried out in the same decade, partly with Virchow’s participation,2 at the supposed scenes of Homer’s Iliad? It seems as if the contrast could not be greater. While Schliemann worked in loca- tions of high symbolic quality, Virchow descended into the unknown sew- ers of the city of Berlin. Furthermore, the topic of refuse archaeology can be linked to a broader context. I would like to suggest that connections can be identiªed be- 2. Cf. also the extensive correspondence between Schliemann and Virchow (Herrmann/ Maaß 1990). Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 213 tween refuse archaeology on the one hand, as outlined—in a kind of pri- mal scene—through the ªnds of the Berlin excavation, and psychoanalysis on the other. In psychoanalysis the contrast between treasure troves and rubbish dumps, both being objects of an archaeological quest, plays an important role. It is well-known that Freud repeatedly referred to archae- ology in order to present a conception of the speciªc nature of psycho- analytical knowledge to a skeptical audience. Freud sought to adopt tradi- tional archaeology and mythical arenas like Pompeii and Troy, which were of such signiªcance to nineteenth-century historicism, for the representa- tion of both his research and practice. It is, however, questionable whether this attempt did not involve major contradictions, for psychoanalysis is also rather concerned, as it were, with “matters out of place”—in other words, with matters that—although they are based on the validity of a speciªc logic—can nonetheless never have a place in this order. The ques- tion as to the conditions of Virchow’s refuse archaeology provides the op- portunity to simultaneously inquire into the conditions of psychoanalysis, which appeared only a few years later. The connection between the two procedures is not causal, but, rather, an epistemological question. And in this sense even Lacan’s psychoanalytical distinction between ‘the Sym- bolic’ and ‘the Real’ itself might in some respect be in the debt of refuse archaeology.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DR. SCHLIEMANN and the Archieological VALUE of HIS DISCOVERIES
    1891.] Dr. Schliemann and his Discoveries. 257 DR. SCHLIEMANN AND THE ARCHiEOLOGICAL VALUE OF HIS DISCOVERIES. BY THOMAS CHASE. THE nineteenth century, and especially the latter half of it, will he memorable in all time for its archasological dis- coveries. It may boast no single achievement equal to the unveiling of the buried citjcs of Campania, which gave us as in an. Instantaneous photograph, the very life of the ancients, moulds waiting only to be filled with plaster to repeat the forms and features of old inhabitants, the chicken broiling on the grill and the loaf baking in the oven, as well as breathing statues which adorned the houses and paintings on the walls with colors fresh as of yesterday. But even Herculaneum and Pompeii aöbrded only fuller details in the knowledge of a civilization which we knew fairly well already : the discoveries of our age, while they have in like manner increased our former knowledge, have also revealed new epochs and widened the annals of time. They have been made in all those regions which were the ñiruous seats of ancient civilization ; each of them has thrown additional light on the results of all the others : they have made immortal the names of many great explor- ers : but none arc connected with more fascinating legends . of epic and dramatic song, none are more important hi their historical significance, and none have added greater lustre to the name of the explorer, than those conducted by our late associate. Dr. Heinrich Schliemann. In one of the most racy and romantic of autobiographies.
    [Show full text]
  • Schliemann on Schliemann: a Study in the Use of Sources Calder, William M Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1972; 13, 3; Proquest Pg
    Schliemann on Schliemann: A Study in the Use of Sources Calder, William M Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1972; 13, 3; ProQuest pg. 335 FOR SIR RONALD SYMB ON HIS SBVBNTIETH BIRTHDAY Schliemann on Schliemann: A Study in the Use of Sources William M. Calder III NB HUNDRBD FIFTY years ago, on 6 January 1822, in the Pastor's O Housel at Neubukow2 near the Ostsee by Wismar in Meck­ lenburg was born Johannes Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemann.3 Others will write encomia. This occasion provides an historian of classical scholarship with an opportunity to examine selected aspects of the great man's life and to provide a suggestion for future biographers. If today a scholar should write a biography of Cicero, he would naturally use not only Cicero's private letters and published writings, he would further try, as far as possible, to make use of independent sources in order to augment, confirm or refute what Cicero might say about himself. This is the fundamental methodological problem for any scholar who works with the biography of Schliemann. All pub­ lished biographies of Schliemann are based almost entirely on docu­ ments written by Schliemann himself. In order of importance they are (1) an autobiography in various versions,4 (2) eighteen diaries,S (3) 1 For the old pfarrhaus see PLATE 10 jig.Z and Sebastian Heissel, Neubukow: aus der Geschichte einer mecklenburgischen Landstadt (Rostock 1937) 176ff. The building was demol­ ished ca. 1880 because the foundation was sinking in the sand. Since 1929 a bronze memorial plaque has been attached to the left of the front door of the new pfarrhaus: see PLATE 10 jig.I, where it has been wreathed by the author for the l50th Birthday celebrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Schliemann on the Excavation of Troy: Three Unpublished Letters , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 31:3 (1990:Fall) P.323
    DYCK, ANDREW T., Schliemann on the Excavation of Troy: Three Unpublished Letters , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 31:3 (1990:Fall) p.323 Schliemann on the Excavation of Troy: Three Unpublished Letters Andrew R. Dyck THOUGH THIS IS THE centennial of his death, genuine bio­ graphical research on Heinrich Schliemann has only x. begun in the last two decades. The revisionist work of W. M. Calder III, Wolfgang Schindler, David Traill, and others has shown that, because of his propensity to lie in matters both personal and scholarly, no statement by Schliemann can be taken at face value. 1 There is need for a new biography of the founder of modern archaeology; and an obvious first step is the editing of the primary documents-Schliemann's own letters and diaries-which, so far, have received only partial and inadequate publication; these can then serve as a control on each other and on the accounts Schliemann published during his lifetime. 2 The present study is one small contribution toward that still distant goal. The collection published here for the first time comprises three letters from Heinrich Schliemann to the British ar­ chaeologist John Turtle Wood, F.S.A. (1821-90), dated (I) 26 April 1872, (II) 6 August 1872, and (III) 7 April 1874, the first two written at Troy, the last one at Athens.3 Wood, born in 1 For the current status quaestionis see Calder, "A New Picture of Heinrich Schliemann," in W. M. Calder III and David A. Traill, edd., Myth, Scandal and History: the Heinrich Schliemann Controversy and a First Edition of the Mycenaean Diary (Detroit 1986) 17-47; Traill, "The Schliemann Controver­ sy," Ancient History: Resources for Teachers 20 (1990) 81-87.
    [Show full text]
  • Heinrich Schliemann
    Heinrich Schliemann Central to the success or failure of piecing together ancient history is the use of archaeological evidence to fill in the holes of the historical record. In the case of ancient Mycenae, the task of sorting out truth from legend was made harder by a lack of evidence—at least until the 19th century, when amateur archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann of Germany unearthed the remains of the famous city, giving readers of the Iliad some sense of satisfaction that the place of Agamemnon's glory was, indeed, a real location. An adventurer who taught himself up to 13 languages and traveled extensively throughout the world, Schliemann had grown so wealthy as a military contractor during the Crimean War that he retired by about the age of 40. At that point, he set out to become an archaeologist, during a time when it was not necessary for those interested in excavations to have extensive formal training in the discipline. Guided by Homer Obsessed with the works ascribed to Homer, Schliemann was determined to find the true location of the mythic Troy. However, by 1876, he had diverted his attention to Mycenae; in that summer, he uncovered the city's citadel and its impressive Lion Gate. The most important find of his dig was six shaft tombs that Schliemann believed to contain the graves of Agamemnon and his wife, Clytemnestra. Those burial sites held immense riches, including personal items wrought in ivory, gold, and bronze and intricate silver jewelry, and suggested that the characters of the Iliad had been real people.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reexamination of Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans
    Desire, Expectation, and the Forging of History: A Reexamination of Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans Whitney White Introduction Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans are two of the most well-known names in archaeology. Their excavations of Aegean civilizations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries dramatically influenced our understanding of the Bronze Age world. Though there is overwhelming evidence that at least some of their findings were faked and forged to varying degrees, tourists still flock to view their discoveries and even the most contested objects remain included in art historical canon. This continued mainstream acceptance of Schliemann’s and Evans’ findings has meant that the two are rarely considered within the context of another part of the artworld that they certainly could be associated with: that of forgers. Though the study of art forgers is relatively limited, the existing scholarship has revealed that most forgers have a consistent profile and share similar motivations—which are at odds with those of these amateur archaeologists. The question that emerges, then, is how do Schliemann and Evans fit into our understanding of forgers? In this paper, I argue that, as it stands, the current definition of forgers is far too limited. By introducing psychological understandings of desire and expectation as a new framework for considering the motivations of forgers, our understanding of forgers can be expanded to include Schliemann and Evans and our definition of forgeries can be complicated to critically reexamine the contested objects associated with these men’s excavations. White 2 Defining Forgers and Forgeries In order to place Schliemann and Evans within the context of art forgers, it is useful to first consider the state of knowledge on the subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Homer, Troy and the Turks
    4 HERITAGE AND MEMORY STUDIES Uslu Homer, Troy and the Turks the and Troy Homer, Günay Uslu Homer, Troy and the Turks Heritage and Identity in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1870-1915 Homer, Troy and the Turks Heritage and Memory Studies This ground-breaking series examines the dynamics of heritage and memory from a transnational, interdisciplinary and integrated approach. Monographs or edited volumes critically interrogate the politics of heritage and dynamics of memory, as well as the theoretical implications of landscapes and mass violence, nationalism and ethnicity, heritage preservation and conservation, archaeology and (dark) tourism, diaspora and postcolonial memory, the power of aesthetics and the art of absence and forgetting, mourning and performative re-enactments in the present. Series Editors Rob van der Laarse and Ihab Saloul, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Editorial Board Patrizia Violi, University of Bologna, Italy Britt Baillie, Cambridge University, United Kingdom Michael Rothberg, University of Illinois, USA Marianne Hirsch, Columbia University, USA Frank van Vree, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Homer, Troy and the Turks Heritage and Identity in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1870-1915 Günay Uslu Amsterdam University Press This work is part of the Mosaic research programme financed by the Netherlands Organisa- tion for Scientific Research (NWO). Cover illustration: Frontispiece, Na’im Fraşeri, Ilyada: Eser-i Homer (Istanbul, 1303/1885-1886) Source: Kelder, Uslu and Șerifoğlu, Troy: City, Homer and Turkey Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Typesetting: Crius Group, Hulshout Editor: Sam Herman Amsterdam University Press English-language titles are distributed in the US and Canada by the University of Chicago Press. isbn 978 94 6298 269 7 e-isbn 978 90 4853 273 5 (pdf) doi 10.5117/9789462982697 nur 685 © Günay Uslu / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2017 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Runnels Handlist Fpar1.Pmd
    HEINRICH SCHLIEMANN A BIBLIOGRAPHIC HANDLIST B Y CURTIS RUNNELS PROFESSOR OF ARCHAEOLOGY, BOSTON UNIVERSITY FELLOW OF THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF LONDON Drawn from The Archaeology of Heinrich Schliemann: An An- notated Bibliographic Handlist, by Curtis Runnels. Includes an introductory essay, a fully annotated handlist of Schliemann’s works, and an annotated list of bibliography and references. 2002. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America. [viii] + 84 pp. Four illustrations, 1 map. Available through the David Brown Book Company in North America (800-791-9354) or Oxbow Books outside North America (+44 [0] 1865 241249). www.oxbowbooks.com BOSTON ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA © 2002 HEINRICH SCHLIEMANN: A BIBLIOGRAPHIC HANDLIST Massive Golden Mask of the body at the south end of the First Sepulchre, Mycenae. (Repro- duced from H. Schliemann, Mycenae: A Narrative of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns [New York 1878] p. 289) FROM THE INTRODUCTION Heinrich Schliemann is the most famous archaeologist in the world. Supporting this extraordinary claim are the many publications about Schliemann that continue to pour from the press more than 100 years after his death. But the stron- gest evidence is that Schliemann’s name is arguably the first, if not the only, name of an archaeologist likely to be recog- nized by members of the general public. I have asked many groups of students in introductory archaeology courses to identify an archaeologist, and Schliemann is almost always the most prominent name on the list. Indeed, Schliemann’s name is on everyone’s list of archaeologists, which is some- thing that cannot be said about anyone else in the field, liv- ing or dead.
    [Show full text]
  • SCHLIEMANN, Heinrich (1822-90)
    SCHLIEMANN, Heinrich (1822-90) As a child, Heinrich Schliemann heard the heroic stories of the Trojan War and how the city of Troy had been entirely destroyed by fire. Although he was told that no trace of the city existed, Schliemann maintained his fervent belief that some historical record existed. Because of his excavations of Troy, Mycenae, and Tiryns, Schliemann is sometimes called the modern discoverer of prehistoric Greece. Schliemann was born in Neubukow, in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Germany, on Jan. 6, 1822. At age 14 he was apprenticed to a grocer. In 1841 ill health forced him to leave the shop. He later became an office boy for a firm in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The job gave him time to study. Schliemann had a flair for languages. He learned to read and write about a dozen languages fluently, including Russian and both ancient and modern Greek. In 1844 he became a bookkeeper for the firm in Amsterdam. The company then sent him to St. Petersburg, Russia. There he founded his own business, importing indigo and tea. During the Crimean War he made his fortune, mainly as a military contractor. In the 1850s Schliemann lived in the United States and became a citizen of the country. After returning to Russia, he retired from business and began to travel and study archaeology. He then set out to study the sites of early Greek cities. In 1870 he began excavations in the desolate region near Hissarlik, Turkey, where he believed the remains of ancient Troy were buried. His workers dug past the ruins of the Troy of Homer's time and found even older cities (see Trojan War).
    [Show full text]
  • |||GET||| Uncovering the Past a History of Archaeology 1St Edition
    UNCOVERING THE PAST A HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY 1ST EDITION DOWNLOAD FREE William H Stiebing | 9780195089219 | | | | | Uncovering the Past Lastly, Stiebing discusses the fourth phase of development present which introduced a greater desire and need for a more complete understanding of ancient cultures, including their ecology, and attempts to explain why certain cultural phenomena occurred. The first known excavations made at Stonehenge were conducted by William Harvey and Gilbert North in the early 17th century. Uncovering the Past A History of Archaeology 1st edition is the study of human activity in the past, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data that they have left behind, which includes artifactsarchitecturebiofacts also known as eco-facts and cultural landscapes the archaeological record. Please contact our Customer Service Team if you have any questions. Texiers drawing of Hittite gods at Yazilikaya near Boghazkoy. The OED first cites "archaeologist" from ; this soon took over as the usual term for one major branch of antiquarian activity. However, the methodology was still poor, and the digging was aimed at the discovery of artefacts and monuments. He excavated these over seventeen seasons, beginning in the mids and ending with his death. Schliemanns great trench through the center of Hissarlik. Used very good paperback First. The emperor took with him a force of civilian scientists, specialists in fields such as biology, chemistry Uncovering the Past A History of Archaeology 1st edition languages, in order to carry out a full study of the ancient civilisation. You may also like. Johann Joachim Winckelmann Tales of abandoned cities, ruined temples, primeval monuments, or mysterious ancient tombs tend to kindle the urge for adventure, exploration, or treasure hunting that seems to lie beneath the surface of even the most timid and conventional individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Schliemann and His Papers 787
    HESPERIA 76 (2OO7) SCHLIEMANN AND HIS Pages 785-817 PAPERS A Tale from the Gennadeion Archives ABSTRACT Heinrich Schliemanns heirs deposited most of his personal papers in the Gennadius Library of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens over in 1936, but retained control them until the School purchased them in 1962. For 27 years, the heirs granted sole authorization to exploit the papers access to Ernst Meyer, who published only limited excerpts, obstructed the of other researchers, and borrowed several volumes that were never returned. The author explores the troubled history of the Heinrich Schliemann Papers since the archaeologist's death in 1890 and examines the ways inwhich recent access are new on improvements in cataloguing and facilitating research Schliemann s life and career in their historical context. The basic outline of Heinrich Schliemanns life is fairly well known: his successes parsonage childhood and straitened youth, the entrepreneurial of his maturity, his quest for the Greek bride who became his second wife, and the famous archaeological discoveries of his later career.1 Schliemann own frequently publicized his life story, beginning with the preface to The abbreviations for archival 1.1 thank Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan, following - archivist of the American School of documentation are used: HS&FP Studies at for Heinrich Schliemann and Classical Athens, grant Family Papers; access to GennRec = Gennadeion ing the Schliemann Papers Records, and to the Schliemann approval publish elements of Correspondence Folders; further work B = Heinrich series correspondence, enabling Schliemann Papers, on = the database, and for encouragement B: Correspondence; BBB Heinrich are to and advice; special thanks due Schliemann Papers, series BBB: Copy Maria Voltera and Katerina Papatheo books.
    [Show full text]
  • Searching for Agamemnon: Separating Historiography from Archaeology at Mycenae
    Levine, E. (2014); Searching for Agamemnon: Separating Historiography from Archaeology at Mycenae Rosetta 16: 93 – 104 http://www.rosetta.bham.ac.uk/issue16/Levine.pdf Searching for Agamemnon: Separating Historiography from Archaeology at Mycenae Evan Levine Abstract Often, contemporary archaeological research is adapted to fit antiquated notions of time and place; this is a development demonstrated atop the Mycenaean acropolis and throughout the surrounding landscape. This paper explores the temporal boundaries that have traditionally forced the direction or scope of archaeological study, using Mycenae as a case study. When dealing with a place historically, it is often most efficient and useful to assign strict chronological limitations to a site or a region. At Mycenae, this system is represented by the orderly chronological classification of various ages (Early, Middle, and Late Helladic, etc.). However, I argue that, archaeologically, these traditional boundaries hinder the modern researcher in creating an image of the site that is completely faithful to the data on the ground. While certain pasts may be far removed from one another temporally, they can often be in close proximity archaeologically. Inhabitants of Mycenae regularly interacted with the physical remains of their past.1 Due to the polychronic nature of material culture, these chronological phases rarely end archaeologically in the clean manner which history provides them. Consequently, the use of these temporal boundaries inhibits modern excavators in their ability to tease out the subtle nuances for which archaeology is uniquely proficient. I argue that archaeologists should unshackle their research from these historic boundaries which persist from archaic archaeological research. Instead, archaeological focus must turn to the examination of a site or feature as a whole, devoid of temporal limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • Schliemann's Mycenae Excavations Through the Eyes of Stamatakis
    9 Schliemann’s Mycenae excavations through the eyes of Stamatakis David A. Traill s evidence accumulates that Schliemann’s ar- He had no formal university education. In 1866 he Achaeological reports are not as reliable as was became an assistant to the Ephor General of Antiqui- once believed, the need for the testimony of inde- ties. His first task was to establish an inventory of the pendent eyewitnesses has increased accordingly.1 The antiquities in private possession. In 1871 he became an largely unpublished reports of Panagiotis Stamatakis itinerant ephor. In 1884, just a year before his prema- provide us with invaluable insight into the day-to- ture death from malaria, he became Ephor General. day running of Schliemann’s excavation of Mycenae His work took him all over Greece: Attica, Boeotia, in 1876. Stamatakis was the official representative of Phthiotis, the Peloponnese, Delos and Delphi. His the Greek Archaeological Service at the excavation most important work before 1876 was in Boeotia, and he sent regular reports back to the General Epho- where his excavations and careful arrangement of the ria in Athens. However, he was also representing the finds did much to build up the important collections Archaeological Society at Athens, for it was to the So- at Thebes, Chaeroneia, and Tanagra. Information on ciety, not directly to Schliemann himself that the per- the life and work of Stamatakis is not easy to come by mit to excavate Mycenae had been granted; Schlie- and I am indebted for the information given here to mann was, in effect, conducting the excavations, at the invaluable history of the Archaeological Society at his own expense, on behalf of the Society.2 There are Athens recently published by Basileios Petrakos.3 Pe- accordingly also reports written by Stamatakis to trakos draws attention to the painstaking accuracy of members of the Council of the Archaeological Society.
    [Show full text]