Talk:Heinrich Schliemann/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

I would like to see the following sentence edited: "Consequently, he dominated the field of Mycenaean archaeology in his lifetime and despite some later criticism still commands the loyalty of classical archaeologists." This makes it seem as if the entire field of classical archaeology remains 'loyal' to his work and methods, both of which are very controversial (as the article later points out). Perhaps it could be changed to "Consequently, he made his name in the field of Mycenaean archaeology and, despite later criticism, his work continues to receive great attention and favor from some Classical archaeologists to this day." Strungoutonsix (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

"The cause of death was cholesteatoma." That's bullshit. No cholesteatoma causes death. It could be the cause of his ear problems, but death itself must have been something else (eventually a complication of operation/residual disease, such as intracranial thrombosis or meningitis). --nagyon.zizi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.227.56 (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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) .

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.

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) .

And so did Picasso too.

Bluee Mountain (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

--Schliemann certainly popularized archaeology like no other at that time, but he really wasn't an archaeologist. Even those that worked with him when he was digging questioned if shovels and picks and wheelbarrows of dirt were a good way to unearth one of the greatest finds in history. He was far far closer to a treasure hunter trying to dig up gold than a member of the academic establishment. Proto-archaeologist is far too mild a name for the butchering he did at troy. There NEEDS to be a value judgement that reflects the consensus of the modern archaeological community. Ask a real archaeologist if Schliemann should be called by their name (I think some negative connotation belongs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.88.193 (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

The doctors [declared] the operation a success, but his inner ear became painfully inflamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.43.136 (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• I'd removed the category. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protection?

This page may need semi-protection for some time beeing a subject to significant (temporary?) vandalism from anonymous users (IP addresses).

Bluee Mountain (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Recently I read — in Daniel Boorstin's the Discoverers -- about Schliemann's extraordinary ability to learn languages quickly. The current article says he was conversant in 13 languages. I wonder if Schliemann was a "savant," like Daniel Tammet.

Sca (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

non-NPOV text

Much of this article is written in a speculative, sensationalistic and non-NPOV tone. Examples: “He continued to nourish a passion for the Homeric story and an ambition to become a great linguist.” “Having a family to support motivated Schliemann to attend to business even though he still had his first fortune.” “Perhaps his attention was attracted by the first excavations at Santorini in 1862 by Ferdinand Fouqué.” “As if to confirm Schliemann's views, a cache of gold appeared in 1873” “His magnificent residence in the city centre of Athens, houses today the Numismatic Museum of Athens” I removed some of it, but the whole article needs cleanup in this regard. ^^^German-ee (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Asimov's Nightfall: Why?

The connection twixt this work and Troy is incredibly tenuous, it seems to me.--Jrm2007 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right? 74.190.146.60 (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Last three uncited paragraphs

I deleted the last three paragraphs which contained a lot of uncited claims. I did a lot of digging on the web and at Ludwig Maximilian University regarding the claims and could not find anything. Neither in the German, nor the English literature. --195.248.74.1 (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Schliemann1910.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Schliemann1910.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Schliemann1910.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Claim that most scholars did not believe in a real Troy

"However, before Schliemann, not many people even believed in a real Troy, and those who did were divided about where to look for it." This seems influenced by Schliemann's myth about himself as the misunderstood genius. Also it is unsourced. Source it or lose it.

Sensemaker

http://www.unmuseum.org/troy.htm. http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/04TROY.htm

I would suggest that whoever thought these home pages count as a source by wikipedia standards have a good look at the guidelines for what counts as a source. Here are two real sources saying the opposite. Nordisk familjebok (Scandinavian encyclopedia from the end of the 19th century, my translation):

"Länge tog man tämligen allmänt för gifvet, att Troja legat på samma plats (nu Hissarlik), som intogs af det nya, under historisk tid anlagda Ilion (se d. o.), ehuru redan hos en och annan bland de forntida författarna träffats protester mot denna uppfattning. "

My translation:

"It had long been taken for granted, that Troy had been on the same place (current Hissarlik), that was now occupied by the new, historically founded Ilion (see this), albeit already a few of the ancient historians protested against this opinion."

From Britannica of 1860

"[Troy] was the capital of a small kingdom which flourished about 3000 years ago, and the fame of whose real or legendary history has been spread over the civilized world by the poems of Homer. A city bearing the name existed here in the times of Alexander the Great and the Roman emperors, the site of which is now as well ascertained as that of Athens or Rome. But doubts were raised by Demetrius of Skepsis, a learned native of the country, as to its identity with the poet's Ilium; and these doubts, which continue to the present day, have produced much controversy, and given birth to sundry theories, or explanations of the topography, intended to ascertain the position of the different objects and localities mentioned in the poems of Homer. An outline of these theories is all that can be offered here. To give the rationale of them, a volume would be necessary.... "

So, there are now two good sources saying that it was not the general opinion among archaeologists and no good source saying the opposite.

Sensemaker

Proposed merge with Luise Therese Sophie Schliemann

She does not appear to have the quality and quantity of coverage needed to justify a stand-alone article. Her article says she was an author of "undocumented works" but instead of verification of that statement, there is only a dead link. She is already mentioned in this article about her son, and her writing (if verified) could be mentioned briefly here. The parents of a notable person are not automatically notable per the notability guideline WP:BIO. An deletion discussion of her article would also be appropriate, if there is no interest shown for a merge to here, unless someone can find some reliable sources with significant coverage of her other than as just being Heinrich's mother. Edison (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC) I think this is the correct link for Sophie at the American School of Classical Studies in Athens Should I correct the link? Will (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Support merge here per nom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Support merge - Seeing no opposition, suggest we do so and move on. Jusdafax 03:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An editor has tagged some very dubious and most likely irrelevant material added by the merge. I'm deleting most of it. We can't use anything that's "undocumented" (??) There might be a primary source in manuscript but the quotation is more than a little suspect. Would Sophie and her contemporaries describe anything as "surreal"? The word and concept belong to the late 1930's. Haploidavey (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I've searched all over for anything at all on Schliemann's mother. The linked material (below) includes a short but reasonably thorough biography of Heinrich, and gives his father's name. It doesn't even mention his mother, let along confirm her as an archaeologist of note. So I'm removing that claim. Haploidavey (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That collection includes a few Family Documents from “Louise Therese Sophie Schliemann (1793-1831)”, but she’s (mis-?)identified as H’s sister. From the given birth years, H’s father Ernst was only 13 years older, and in turn she was 29 years older than H—biologically possible, I suppose, but pretty unlikely. Moreover there‘s a photo listed as “Ernst and Louise (?) Schliemann with two of their children-Schwerin”.—Odysseus1479 23:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Your thoroughness is impressive. I sincerely hope she's been misidentified as H's sister. To my shame, I resorted to a genealogy website or two. Both gave "our" Luise's maiden name as Buerger; later Schliemann, wife of Ernst, mother of Heinrich and siblings. Not strictly reliable sources but even so I think we're reasonably safe. Haploidavey (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, see Talk:Heinrich Schliemann/Archive 1#Second Wife? above. Hm. Haploidavey (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Jumbled presentation of subject's two marriages

Reading through the article from the top: the Career section mentions Schliemann married Ekaterina Lyschin in 1852, and then the Amateur Archeologist section abruptly mentions "Sophia" with no prior explanation of who she is. Further down the page, the Personal Life section belatedly informs the reader that Sophia was in fact his second wife, whom he married after divorcing his first wife. The article needs to be restructured to present this information in a more logical order. Muzilon (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of dynamite

Is there any proof for the use of dynamite at Schliemanns excavations? As far as I can see all the reliable books either don´t mention this or strongly doubt this tale. 93.206.168.36 (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The Link to the Allen 1995 article is incorrect

It should be https://www.jstor.org/stable/506941 but it links to something else -bb (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Pioneer?

I am somewhat confused by the characterization of Schliemann as a "pioneer", seeing as large parts of the article describe how unscientific and destructive his methods were, and there isn't any significant substantiation anywhere as to any meaningful innovations he contributed to the scientific field of archaeology. From what I understand, he was as much of a pioneer in archaeology as Josef Mengele was a pioneer in medicine. Noxteryn (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

to compare him with mengele is just polemic - Schliemann did not kill people while devoloping the archaeological method! 91.61.234.254 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This is in German, but it mentions the scientific methods introduced by Schliemann and still in uns today:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100912221143/http://www.schliemann-museum.de/hsm/werk.html 91.61.234.254 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)