Abstract

The importance of Schliemann's excavations at Troy, Mycenae and elsewhere is beyond dispute. Yet the aura of greatness which his remarkable achievements have rightly conferred on his name has tended to blur our perception of the man himself. Psychoanalytic studies by W. G. Niederland have offered fresh insight into his complex character, but it is the paper given by W. M. Calder III on the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of his birth that marks the beginning of the new sceptical attitude to Schliemann. Calder pointed out that Schliemann's autobiographical writings contain many false claims and purely fictitious episodes which biographers have uncritically accepted as fact. This new view of Schliemann as an unreliable witness, which, incidentally, was held by many of his contemporaries, has now been confirmed and expanded by subsequent research.It is principally in matters of his personal life that recent studies have exposed Schliemann's propensity for lies and fraud. However, G. Korres has shown that in his scholarly work too Schliemann did not shrink from seriously misrepresenting the truth. It is the purpose of the present article to demonstrate that even Schliemann's archaeological reports are vitiated by this kind of behaviour. We are not here concerned with Schliemann's interpretations of his discoveries.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.