Schliemann's Mendacity: a Question of Methodology

Abstract

In two recent articles Donald Easton has responded to my arguments that fraud is involved in Schliemann's published reports of the discovery of what he called “Priam's Treasure”. The reader of our articles might easily form the opinion that we hold widely different views regarding Schliemann's credibility. In fact, we are in substantial agreement. Our differences are partly a matter of degree and partly methodological. Before discussing them in detail, however, it might be useful to outline the common ground that appears to have been established. After carefully examining Easton's articles I think it fair to say that we are agreed on the following points.1. Schliemann's excavation notebooks are, for the most part, truthful and accurate records of the finds he made and where and when he made them. This is apparent to anyone who has examined these notebooks closely. Not only are Schliemann's reports archaeologically plausible, but, as Easton points out, “most of the detail is far too mundane to be worth falsifying.” Only a very small percentage of material in the excavation notebooks can seriously be thought to come under suspicion.