Schliemann and the Question of Troy

N. Froese writes in his paper on Greek history:

"Wenn eine helladische Kultur den von Homer beschriebenen Krieg gegen Troja geführt hat, dann war es die mykenische." (Seite 5)

[Translation: "If a Helladic culture fought the war against Troy described by Homer, then it was the Mycenaean."]

This is an extremely cautious formulation and differs markedly from Schliemann's judgment. Schliemann combined an almost religious reverence for Homer's Iliad with the firm belief that Homer told a fundamentally true story. According to his own statements, he had a basically simple life plan: first earn a fortune, then spend it excavating Troy. As is well known, Schliemann's excavations were successful. He had thus achieved a brilliant triumph over his critics from the classical studies. He, the frequently ridiculed amateur, now had something substantial to show.

Why then this extremely cautious formulation in the Froese text? There continues to be a contentious discussion about what exactly Schliemann excavated and what can therefore be considered proven.

Schliemann's Archaeological Methods

Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890) was not a trained archaeologist when he began excavating at Hisarlık in northwestern Turkey in 1870. He was a wealthy businessman who had made his fortune in various commercial ventures, including indigo trading in Russia and banking activities during the California Gold Rush. His approach to archaeology reflected his business background: he organized excavations on a large scale, employed hundreds of workers, and pursued his goals with remarkable determination.

The methods Schliemann employed at Troy would be considered unacceptable by any modern archaeological standards. He dug massive trenches through the mound at Hisarlık, cutting through multiple layers of settlement. In his haste to reach what he believed to be Homer's Troy at the bottom of the site, he destroyed invaluable stratigraphic evidence. His excavation techniques were essentially those of treasure hunting rather than scientific investigation. Workers were instructed to remove material quickly, and there was minimal attention to recording the precise location and context of finds.

Perhaps most notorious was Schliemann's occasional use of dynamite to remove what he considered obstructive material. This destructive practice, while shocking to modern sensibilities, was not entirely unusual in the early days of archaeology, when excavation was often conceived as a process of extracting valuable objects rather than carefully documenting human settlement. Nevertheless, even by the standards of his own time, Schliemann's methods were controversial.

Schliemann also transported large quantities of finds out of Turkey, often without proper permissions. The most famous case was the so-called "Priam's Treasure," a collection of gold jewelry and other precious objects that Schliemann smuggled out of the Ottoman Empire in 1873. He initially sent these finds to Greece, then later to Germany, where they were displayed in Berlin until they disappeared at the end of World War II. They resurfaced in Moscow in the 1990s, where they remain today.

Despite these serious methodological shortcomings, Schliemann deserves recognition for a crucial contribution: he had the courage to dig where others only theorized. Before Schliemann, the historical reality of Troy and the Trojan War was purely a matter of scholarly debate. Most scholars in the mid-nineteenth century regarded Homer's epics as entirely fictional. Schliemann's willingness to test the hypothesis that Troy had been a real place, and his success in finding substantial Bronze Age remains at Hisarlık, fundamentally changed the field of Aegean archaeology. His work demonstrated that material evidence for the Homeric world could be recovered through excavation.

Did Schliemann Find Troy?

The question of whether Schliemann found Troy requires careful distinction between two separate issues: first, whether the site at Hisarlık is indeed ancient Troy, and second, whether Schliemann correctly identified which layer at the site corresponds to Homeric Troy.

The Location: Hisarlık as Troy

Modern scholarship has reached a broad consensus that Hisarlık is indeed the site of ancient Troy, known to the Hittites as Wilusa. This identification rests on several converging lines of evidence. The geographical setting matches ancient descriptions: Hisarlık commands the entrance to the Dardanelles, occupies a strategic position controlling trade routes between the Aegean and the Black Sea, and fits the topographical details provided in ancient sources.

More decisively, Hittite texts from the Late Bronze Age refer to a place called Wilusa in the appropriate geographical region, and linguistic analysis suggests that Wilusa is simply the Hittite rendering of the name Ilios (Greek for Troy). The site's size and evident importance during the Bronze Age align with what we would expect of a major regional center. Archaeological work at Hisarlık has revealed not just a citadel but also a substantial lower town, indicating a settlement of considerable size and regional significance.

The research program led by Manfred Korfmann from the University of Tübingen between 1988 and 2005 was particularly important in establishing this consensus. Korfmann's team used modern archaeological techniques including geomagnetic prospection to map the full extent of the Bronze Age city, demonstrating that Troy was much larger than Schliemann had realized. These investigations established Troy as a major trading center positioned at a crucial point on ancient trade networks.

Joachim Latacz has argued forcefully that the identification of Hisarlık with ancient Troy is now beyond reasonable doubt. His work, particularly "Troia und Homer" (2001) and "Troia" (2020), synthesizes archaeological and textual evidence to support this conclusion. Not all scholars accept every detail of the Korfmann-Latacz interpretation, but the basic identification of the site is widely accepted.

Skeptical voices remain. Frank Kolb has questioned some of Korfmann's conclusions about the size and importance of Bronze Age Troy, though without rejecting the basic site identification. Such disagreements reflect the continuing scholarly debate about interpretation rather than fundamental doubt about location.

The Layer: Which Troy?

Archaeological excavation at Hisarlık has revealed at least nine major settlement layers, spanning from the Early Bronze Age (around 3000 BCE) through the Roman period. Each major layer contains multiple sub-phases, representing different periods of building and habitation. Schliemann initially believed he had found Homer's Troy in Troy II, a layer dating to approximately 2500 BCE. The spectacular gold jewelry he designated "Priam's Treasure" came from this layer.

Schliemann was wrong. Troy II dates to more than a thousand years before the Mycenaean civilization flourished in Greece. The Mycenaeans, if they fought at Troy, would have encountered a much later settlement. Modern archaeology identifies Troy VI (approximately 1700-1300 BCE) or, more likely, Troy VIIa (approximately 1300-1180 BCE) as the candidates for Homeric Troy.

Troy VI was a substantial citadel with impressive defensive walls and evidence of contact with the Mycenaean world, as shown by pottery finds. It was destroyed around 1300 BCE, apparently by an earthquake. Troy VIIa was rebuilt on the ruins of Troy VI and continued for about a century before being destroyed by fire around 1180 BCE. The evidence of violent destruction at Troy VIIa, combined with its chronological placement in the period when we know the Mycenaean civilization was still powerful, makes it the most plausible candidate for a historical event that might lie behind the Trojan War tradition.

The work of Carl Blegen (University of Cincinnati), who excavated at Troy from 1932 to 1938, was crucial in establishing this revised chronology. Blegen's more careful stratigraphic methods allowed for proper dating of the different layers and demonstrated that Schliemann had been digging through and past the layer he sought. Ironically, by cutting his massive trenches through the mound, Schliemann destroyed substantial portions of Troy VI and VIIa in his attempt to reach what he thought was the older, Homeric level.

So did Schliemann find Troy? In the broader sense, yes: he identified the correct site. In the specific sense, no: he misidentified which layer of settlement corresponded to the Homeric period. His finds from Troy II are spectacular and archaeologically important, but they belong to a civilization that flourished and fell centuries before Agamemnon's Greeks could have sailed to Troy.

Was There a Trojan War?

The question of whether there was a historical Trojan War is distinct from, though obviously related to, the question of whether Schliemann found Troy. Even if we accept that Troy VIIa was destroyed by violence around 1180 BCE, and even if we know the Mycenaeans had contact with this site, we cannot simply conclude that the war described in the Iliad actually occurred.

Archaeological Evidence for Conflict

Troy VIIa shows clear signs of destruction by fire. Within the ruins, archaeologists have found human remains and evidence of hasty construction, suggesting a period of crisis. The presence of large storage jars built into the floors of houses indicates preparation for siege. These archaeological traces are consistent with a city under military threat, though they do not prove the specific conflict described by Homer.

The chronology is suggestive. Troy VIIa's destruction around 1180 BCE falls in the period known to archaeologists as the Late Bronze Age collapse, when many cities and civilizations throughout the eastern Mediterranean were destroyed. This was an era of widespread warfare and population movement. Mycenaean civilization itself was in the process of collapse during this period. Greek tradition dated the Trojan War to roughly this same era, though ancient chronologies are imprecise.

The Mycenaeans were capable of mounting overseas military expeditions. Archaeological evidence from their palaces shows they possessed substantial maritime capabilities and organized military forces. Tablets in Linear B script from Mycenaean palace sites mention military personnel, ships, and armor. Contact between the Mycenaean world and western Anatolia is demonstrated by Mycenaean pottery found at Troy and other sites in the region.

The Relationship Between History and Epic

The majority view in current scholarship, represented by researchers like Manfred Korfmann, Joachim Latacz, and Donald Easton, holds that some historical reality probably underlies the Trojan War tradition. This does not mean that the Iliad is history in any modern sense. Rather, these scholars suggest that memories of real conflicts between Mycenaean Greeks and the city of Troy during the Late Bronze Age were preserved in oral tradition and eventually shaped into the epic poems we possess.

The Iliad as we have it was composed centuries after any historical Trojan War could have occurred, probably in the eighth century BCE. During the intervening centuries, stories were transmitted orally, elaborated, combined with other narrative traditions, and transformed through the processes of oral poetry. The distance in time between any historical events and Homer's composition is comparable to the distance between us and Chaucer.

What elements might be historical? The bare facts of a conflict between Greeks and Troy are plausible. The role of Troy as a trading center and the economic motivations for conflict are consistent with what we know of Bronze Age geopolitics. Some personal names in the Homeric poems have plausible Bronze Age origins. The general cultural setting, when carefully analyzed, preserves some authentic Bronze Age details mixed with much later material.

What elements are certainly not historical? The direct intervention of gods and goddesses, the ten-year duration of the siege, the vast scale of forces involved, most of the detailed incidents and speeches, and the individual heroes like Achilles and Hector as they appear in Homer's narrative. The catalog of ships in Book 2 of the Iliad, once thought to preserve authentic Bronze Age geography, is now generally understood as a later composition, though it may incorporate some older elements.

Alternative Views

Not all scholars accept even this moderate position. Some, including Frank Kolb, have argued that the archaeological evidence does not support the scale of conflict described in epic tradition and that the similarities between Homer and Bronze Age reality are too generic to demonstrate historical connection. From this perspective, the Trojan War is essentially a fiction, and any resemblances to Bronze Age conditions reflect either coincidence or the generic features of oral epic tradition.

Others point out that there may have been many conflicts between Greeks and Troy over the centuries, and that our tradition has collapsed multiple events into a single narrative. The "Trojan War" may be an amalgamation of various military encounters rather than a single historical war.

A reasonable summary of current scholarly opinion would be this: there probably were conflicts between Mycenaean Greeks and Troy in the Late Bronze Age. One or more of these conflicts may have been significant enough to enter into oral tradition. Over centuries of oral transmission, these memories were transformed into the epic narrative tradition that eventually produced the Iliad. But the Iliad itself is poetry, not history, and we cannot reliably extract historical facts about specific events or individuals from Homer's text.

The Changing Image of Heinrich Schliemann

For many decades after his death, Heinrich Schliemann was celebrated as a heroic figure who had vindicated Homer and opened new fields of archaeological research. His own autobiographical writings presented him as a person driven from childhood by a dream of finding Troy, a self-made man who rose from poverty to wealth through determination and linguistic genius. This heroic narrative largely shaped public and scholarly understanding of Schliemann through the mid-twentieth century.

Beginning in the 1970s, a more critical examination of Schliemann's life and work began to emerge. William M. Calder III initiated this reassessment with research that questioned the accuracy of Schliemann's own accounts of his life. Calder demonstrated that many of Schliemann's autobiographical claims were embellishments or outright fabrications. The childhood dream of finding Troy, for instance, appears to have been a later invention rather than a driving force throughout his life.

Scientific Misconduct and Fraud

David A. Traill's exhaustive research, culminating in his 1995 biography "Schliemann of Troy: Treasure and Deceit," documented a systematic pattern of fraud in Schliemann's archaeological work. Traill examined Schliemann's unpublished diaries and correspondence, comparing them with his published excavation reports. The discrepancies were extensive and revealing.

The famous "Priam's Treasure" provides the most dramatic example. Schliemann claimed to have discovered this cache of gold objects in a single dramatic find on May 31, 1873, which he excavated with his wife Sophia while giving his workers time off to celebrate a Greek festival. Traill's research showed that this account was false. The objects were found over several days or weeks, not in a single moment. Sophia was not even in Troy on the dates Schliemann claimed. The dramatic narrative was a fabrication designed to enhance the sensational impact of the discovery.

Schliemann manipulated his excavation records, backdated diary entries, and altered chronologies to make his finds appear more impressive or better aligned with Homeric descriptions. He exaggerated the depth at which objects were found to make them seem older. He selectively reported finds and contexts when doing so supported his arguments, and omitted evidence that contradicted his interpretations.

The scale of these manipulations goes beyond the embellishments that might have been common in nineteenth-century archaeology. Traill's work revealed systematic dishonesty in Schliemann's scientific reporting. Modern scholars must use Schliemann's published excavation reports with extreme caution, if at all, because the information they contain cannot be trusted.

Illegal Export and Appropriation

Schliemann's removal of finds from the Ottoman Empire was illegal under the terms of his excavation permit. The smuggling of "Priam's Treasure" was particularly egregious: Schliemann concealed the objects in Sophia's shawl, transported them secretly to Athens, and then falsely claimed he had legal permission to export them. Ottoman authorities demanded return of the finds, but Schliemann refused.

This was not simply a technical violation of regulations. The Ottoman government had granted Schliemann permission to excavate with the explicit understanding that finds would be divided between the excavator and the Istanbul Museum. Schliemann violated this agreement and deprived Turkey of its cultural heritage. The fact that "Priam's Treasure" is now in Moscow, having been taken by Soviet forces from Berlin in 1945, only compounds the original theft.

Personal Conduct and Character

Traill's research also revealed unflattering aspects of Schliemann's personal conduct. His first marriage to Ekaterina Lyzhina in 1852 was deeply unhappy from its beginning. The marriage deteriorated over seventeen years, with Schliemann spending increasing time away from his family. To obtain a divorce, he established fraudulent residence in Indiana in 1869, claiming to be a permanent resident when he had spent only a few weeks there. The divorce proceedings, conducted without proper notification to Ekaterina, were legally questionable.

Throughout his life, Schliemann displayed a pattern of ruthless pursuit of his own interests with minimal regard for ethical constraints or the interests of others. His business dealings, while profitable, often showed similar disregard for the consequences of his actions. In his excavations, the same pattern recurs: the destruction of archaeological contexts through hasty, brutal methods like the use of dynamite to remove material he considered obstructive reflects the same fundamental character trait. Whether in the pursuit of wealth, archaeological fame, or personal satisfaction, Schliemann demonstrated a consistent willingness to override normal constraints in pursuit of his goals.

Reassessment and Controversy

The critical reassessment of Schliemann has not been uniformly accepted. Some scholars argue that Traill and others have been too harsh, judging a nineteenth-century figure by modern standards. They point out that archaeological methods were generally primitive in Schliemann's era and that his specific techniques, while destructive, were not unique. His self-promotion and manipulation of narratives, they suggest, should be understood in the context of his time.

The debate continues. Recent work, including scholarship in Germany, has sometimes sought to rehabilitate Schliemann's reputation or at least to provide a more balanced assessment. The Heinrich Schliemann Museum in Ankershagen and German scholarly publications have emphasized his genuine contributions to archaeology while acknowledging his faults. From this perspective, Schliemann remains an important pioneer despite his serious methodological and ethical failings.

Nevertheless, the documentary evidence assembled by Traill and others makes clear that Schliemann's own accounts of his life and work cannot be trusted. The heroic narrative that he crafted, and that shaped scholarly and popular understanding for a century, has been shown to be largely fictional. The actual Heinrich Schliemann was a more complex and considerably less admirable figure than the legend he created.