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

Johann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemanns digging at TroyJohann Ludwig Heinrich Julius Schliemanns top executive to challengeacademic establishment make him an appealing so far dubious character.The Germans tardily nineteenth century excavations of Truva are oftenconsidered to have shed new-fashioned light on past memorial or undoubtedly done for(p) a great deal of archaeological data that will ever belost1. Despite the praise and glorification that surrounds theromantic stems of Schliemanns wager his excavations have provedlimited to the phylogenesis of archaeology and ancient history. til nowsome of Schliemanns methodologies have often been consideredsignifi corporationt in context of use to the evolution of both fields. His greatdesire to rely his hypotheses2 has lead to principal(prenominal) ancienthistorical data such as demonstrating Greek refinement hadcommenced approximately one thousand years earlier then oldscholars estimated. Yet Schliemanns excavations of Hissarlik are notcompletely revolutionary to the breeding of ancient history despitethe modernisation of his primitive archaeological techniques and hisability to incorporate mythology in interpreting and formulatingancient history, while several multiplication dismissed itscredibility. Firstly Schliemanns crude methodical techniques are notdefinitive in equality to the works of other archaeologists such as, ecumenic Pitt Rivers. Secondly Schliemanns discovery of an unknowncivilization 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 Rivers. Rivers, like Schliemann bo th avoided the stigmaas treasure hunters in their pursuit for knowledge of theantiquities. However Schliemanns misadventure to seek perfection andaccuracy questions his place in true archaeological circles. HistorianGeoffrey Arnott comments, the accuracy of his excavation reportscanbe questioned, most hard with regard to Troy. Schliemannsprimitive and simplistic 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 created, is also his greatest weakness and marhe often conducted his archaeological work in a passingunethical manner, and a manner that could even compromise thearchaeological truth of his finds.In contrast, Rivers practised methods of perfection by comparingorganic evolution to cultural development and developing futurearchaeological generic fundamental pri nciple such as typology. His purpose,therefore, was not concentrated on collecting artefacts only if fordisplay, but in order to create a complex system of evidence tooutline history.3 By contrast, men such as Pitt Rivers can be