Talk:Heinrich Schliemann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could anyone get 'Heinrich Schlieman' to redirect to this page, please? --TimJing 19:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

" Indeed, further excavation of the Troy site by others has indicated that the level he named the Troy of the Iliad was not correct."

This sentence appears to be incorrect. Perhaps 'correct' was meant to be 'incorrect'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.248.33.160 (talk • contribs) .

No, the level of the tell that Schliemann believed to be Homeric Troy was well off. His student, Dorpfeld, was closer (saying Troy VI), but Carl Blegen finally fixed the level in the 1930s as Troy VII A. --Qzorp

Contents

[edit] Deception

I briefly tried to point that out in his childhood part. I can't believe people didn't acknowledge that side of his.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.96.38.32 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Second Wife?

I recall reading a story that Schliemann's second (Greek) wife was just a teenager and almost illiterate at the time of marrying him. Further, infected by her husband's example and enthusiasm, she was supposed to have developed into a respected archeologist in her own right, despite the lack of formal education.

The story of Schliemann's Greek wife is presented differently in the text and I am reluctant to make an adjustment. (Perhaps the version I am familiar with is exaggerated?). Still, this version would make an interesting entry if someone could substantiate it..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philopedia (talk • contribs) .

I seem to recall reading somewhere in Schliemann´s writings (but I do not have a note of the reference) that he admitted to having made some private deception in the story of "Priam´s Treasure" in order to interest his Greek wife in archaeology. User:Shulgi 12 December 2006, 15:45.

[edit] The Myth of Schliemann

Schliemann was something of an impressario who deliberately created a myth about himself. The public ought to know something of that, but at the same time, he made substantial contributions. The tendency among scholars is to support him as a contributor but be honest about his deceptions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.94.153 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] dark side of Schliemann

The university of Rostock says that he received a PhD in 1869 at http://www.uni-rostock.de/presse/31/Schliemann.html I therefore removed the claim that his thesis was rejected.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.77.152.226 (talk • contribs) .

To be balanced I think this article should acknowledge that there is not a full consensus on the matter of Schliemann´s supposed mendacity when it comes to his archaeological finds (as opposed to some matters in his private life, where he undoubtedly did let his imagination loose - though this was not uncharacteristic of writers in those pre-global pre-Google days when it was more difficult to check up the facts). Donald Easton has contributed several articles to the journals "Anatolian Studies" and "Antiquity" (and elsewhere?) challenging the view that Schliemmann´s archaeological records are fraudulant. Also, I believe there is no definitive evidence that Schliemmann manufactured any material, while much of the material that he drew in his publications which was thought to be invented has, I understand, since turned up among the treasures rediscovered in Russia (where they had secretly been taken towards the end of World War II). User:Shulgi 12 December 2006, 16:00.

[edit] Pseudo-Archaeologist ?

The title of one section of the article refers to Schliemann as a "Pseudo Archaeologist".

To me, however, "pseudo" bears the connation "false" or "phony."

Granted, Schliemann made a habit of dishonesty, but he did find ruins and artifacts and he did dig them up, as archaeologists do.

So would not another term, like Quasi-Archaeologist or Proto-Archaeologist be more appropriate (the former denoting that he was not quite a full-fledged archaeologist, the latter denoting that he was an early archaeologist, before many people formally trained in such occupations)?

Personally, I think Quasi-Archaeologist is most fitting for Schliemann. Any comments on this suggestion?--Skb8721 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think he should simply be called an "archaeologist". "Pseudo-" and "quasi-" are (negative?) valued judgements, which, I think, need quite clear justification before they are used. He may have not been a very good archaeologist when it comes to field methods, even for his own time - for instance, he does not seem to have understood stratigraphy - and possibly, in some areas, he even lacked a certain academic integrity, but that would not make him not an archaeologist, nor even necessarily unique. Moreover, in other areas, for example in creating public interest in antquity, I would class him as an excellent archaeologist. User:Shulgi 12 December 2006, 16:10.

Shulgi, I perfectly agree. I'll change that soon. -- Preussensgloria 16:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Language of the Article

- What does 'dubbed' mean in the The doctors dubbed the operation a success, but his inner ear became painfully inflamed sentence?

- Shouldn't 'punishable' in In the frontier society of the gold rush, cheating was punishable by lynching be replaced with 'punished?

RokasT 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

"In his memoirs he claimed that he wished to defecate on himself." I'm removing this line as I assume it is vandalism. If anyone can provide a source for this seemingly-random quote, we can add it back again. Hornbreaker 18:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treasure-hunter

Is it really necessary to use a POV term as treasure-hunter in his basic description? Also, has anyone tried where the link leads?!? Couldn't we settle for archaeologist, considering that there is a whole section on criticisms further down? I'm not a big fan of the man myself, but we should keep in mind that there was very little organised archaeology in those days. Other big names of the time, like also had received no formal education in the subject, and also made mistakes. Arthur Evans, for example, is described as an archhaeologist in his own article. athinaios 08:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The most recent edit (adding the "important excavator" bit to the introductory sentence) is an improvement, but please, can someone check out the wikie link for treasure hunter? That's hardly where we want people to be led, is it? athinaios 08:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] was he hunting for "treasure"?

According to Boorstein's THE DISCOVERS, Schliemann: (1) donated all of his discoveries on Greek soil to the Greek government. (2) Defended his "smuggling" in Turkey as an attempt to protect the items from corrupt local officials, which Boorstein considers plausible, and (3) in general expended more wealth than he ever got from digging. With all this is mind, calling him a "treasure hunter" is ridiculous. To the naive public of the day, "buried treasure" was a sign of ancient civilization and so that's what got all the publicity. CharlesTheBold (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup To do list - May 2008

The following items are things to do in order to cleanup this article. --Lendorien (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. Copy edit. There is some awkward wording here and there.
  2. Possibly needs additional subject headings.
  3. Sourcing. This article desperately needs intext citations. There are a lot of unfounded claims here.