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

Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemanns Excavation at TroyJohann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemanns magnate to challengeacademic establish handst make him an appealing yet perplexing character.The Germans late nineteenth century excavations of Truva are oftconsidered to have shed new light on antediluvian patriarch narrative or undoubtedlydestroyed a with child(p) deal of archaeological data that will forever belost1. Despite the praise and glorification that surrounds theromantic stems of Schliemanns get to his excavations have provedlimited to the organic evolution of archaeology and ancient autobiography. Howeversome of Schliemanns methodologies have very much been consideredsignifi thunder mugt in context to the evolution of both fields. His greatwant to affirm his hypotheses2 has lead to important ancienthistorical data such as demonstrating Greek civilisation hadcommenced approximately one thousand years earlier then previousscholars estimated. Yet Schliemanns ex cavations of Hissarlik are notcompletely revolutionary to the development of ancient history despitethe modernization of his primitive archaeological techniques and hisability to incorporate mythology in interpreting and formulatingancient history, while several contemporaries dismissed itscredibility. Firstly Schliemanns jumpy methodical techniques are notdefinitive in comparison to the kit and caboodle of other archaeologists such as,General Pitt Rivers. Secondly Schliemanns discovery of an abstrusecivilization 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 flawed 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 River s. Rivers, alike(p) Schliemann both avoided the stigmaas treasure hunters in their pursuit for fellowship of theantiquities. However Schliemanns failure to seek perfection andaccuracy questions his placement in true archaeological circles. historiographerGeoffrey Arnott comments, the accuracy of his excavation reportscanbe questioned, most seriously with regard to Troy. Schliemannsprimitive and simple 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 readyd, is withal his greatest weakness andshortcominghe often conducted his archaeological work in a highlyunethical manner, and a manner that could flush compromise thearchaeological integrity of his finds.In contrast, Rivers practised methods of perfection by comparingorganic evolution to cultural development and developing futurearchaeological generic fundamentals such as typology. His purpose,therefore, was not intemperate on collecting 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