The Validity of Heinrich Schleimann’s Findings at Mycenae

by Zordaine in History, February 17, 2009

Research on Heinrich Schleimann’s controversial, possibly falsified findings at what he believed was the lost city of Troy.

Homer’s epic poems Iliad and Odyssey have captivated readers as works of imagination for thousands of years; but what of their true historical pertinence? In 1876, Heinrich Schliemann made claims that suggested a grave at Mycenae was the burial site of King Agamemnon and his family, thus proving the poems’ historical validity. However, his archaeological standpoint was biased, personal issues depreciated his work, and his evidence was not entirely without falsity. Based on this, Schliemann’s claims that the poems were established on historical truths are invalid as archaeological fact.

Before even beginning the excavations at Mycenae, Schliemann had a firm belief, or at least hypothesis, that Iliad and Odyssey were based on historical truths. This kind of preconceived standpoint would later incline him to take his findings subjectively, as opposed to objectively and scientifically. Any evidence he found was mistakenly accredited to his theory. For example, a funeral mask named ‘the Mask of Agamemnon’ (Fig 1, left) was initially stated by him to have belonged to King Agamemnon, as its name denotes. However, modern archaeology dates it from 1500 B.C.E, about 400 years before the Trojan Wars are said to have occurred. The funeral mask is only one of many artifacts dated incorrectly by Schliemann.

Read more in History

« The Roman Government’s Role in the Third Servile Uprising

Children of the Revolution »

In addition to this, Schliemann’s apparent thirst for recognition and his psychological conditions could have compromised his findings. Proof of his vanity still exists today; at his mausoleum in Athens, the words “here lies the hero Schliemann” are inscribed. Haste to prove his theory, and mark his name in history, could have given him motive to falsify evidence. In addition, he has been described as a “pathological liar” by David Traill, a leading expert on Schliemann. Some information in his diaries is even said to have been untrue. The combination of dishonesty and vanity could have led him to make evidence that did not exist, just to prove his theory.

Lastly, Schliemann’s evidence must be called into question. The gold artifacts he discovered, known as “King Priam’s Treasure”, were found in the Troy II level of Hisarlik (in modern-day Turkey). Troy II is dated to the Bronze Age, which lasted from about 1500-1200 BCE. The Bronze Age predates the story of Troy by about a century. In addition, the artifacts found from this area are artistically unique: no other artifacts from this time period are of the same style or construction. Therefore some of these artifacts are believed not to have originated from the Bronze Age. This insinuates that the evidence was planted there, as opposed to found; it also means that what could have been the ‘real’ Troy was above the layer excavated by Schliemann.

In conclusion, Schliemann’s theory and evidence are almost entirely invalidated. His personal bias, vanity, dishonesty, and possibly falsified evidence do not in any way constitute archaeological integrity. The legend of Troy continues to remain a mystery in regard to its historical factuality; and proof of its existence is yet to be found.