Fake Troy Schliemann

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Heinrich Schliemann who unearthed ancient Troy is yet another lie. Having started his fraudulent activities in the Russian Empire, he moved to Europe and turned a scam with a fake find of Homeric Troy. After that he even wanted to return to Russia, but Alexander II replied: "Let him come, we will hang him!"

Heinrich Schliemann died on December 26, 1890. The legendary swindler and archaeologist who excavated Troy - he was closely associated with Russia. He capitalized on the abolition of serfdom and the Crimean War, was married to a Russian and even changed his name, calling himself Andrey.

Russian expat

Heinrich Schliemann's ability and passion for languages was phenomenal. For three years, for example, he mastered Dutch, French, English, Italian and Portuguese without any teachers. When Schliemann got a job at the international trading company of B. G. Schroeder, he began to study Russian as well. Within a month and a half, he wrote business letters to Russia - and they were understood. The company chose Heinrich as its sales representative and sent this promising employee to St. Petersburg. In January 1846, Schliemann was 24 years old and he went to Russia. This is how his entrepreneurial career began.

Male student

Heinrich Schliemann did not lack a creative approach in matters, and he used it in the matter of mastering the Russian language. Having learned grammar, he had to practice speaking and pronunciation and decided to hire tutors for himself. Of course, native speakers, that is, Russians. But who then? Schliemann hired himself a Russian peasant, a peasant who did not understand why the master was giving him money, if he only sits in the carriage with him and listens to his reading or discusses the text he had heard. Schliemann's business went well, and he often had to travel along the long Russian roads. On such roads as modern Muscovites in the metro, Schliemann did not waste time, but learned the language.

Russian citizenship

Having learned to speak Russian, Schliemann took Russian citizenship in 1847. And his name "became Russified" - he has now become Andrei Aristovich. Work for the company with which he started was not enough for him, and he organized an international business with representative offices in Russia, England, France and Holland. As a businessman, Andrei Aristovich Schliemann became famous very quickly, for a while he became a famous figure in Russian society and even received the title of an honorary hereditary citizen. Well, he called Russia “My beloved Russia” - and that's the only way.

Russian wife

5 years after receiving Russian citizenship, on October 12, 1852, Andrei-Heinrich Schliemann married an 18-year-old Russian girl Catherine, the daughter of an influential St. Petersburg lawyer Lyzhin and the sister of a wealthy merchant. From this marriage they had three children - with Russian names: Natalya, Nadezhda and Sergei. By the age of forty, Schliemann was a Russian merchant of the first guild, hereditary honorary citizen, judge of the St. Petersburg Commercial Court, husband of a young wife and father of three children. That is, his position is very high, and his state is great. And suddenly Schliemann lights up with the idea of excavating Troy, leaves his wife and children, takes with him 2, 7 million rubles (the price of a small state in Africa or South America) and leaves for excavations. This is comparable, according to the apt remarks of some journalists, with Potanin or Abramovich, who suddenly decided to become archaeologists and look for the gold of Atlantis.

Russian war

In the military campaign of 1853, Schliemann was the largest manufacturer and supplier of items for the army, from boots to horse harness. He is a monopolist in the production of indigo paint in Russia, and blue at this time is the color of Russian military uniforms. On this, Schliemann builds a successful business, seeking to obtain a supply contract for the Russian army and setting a high price for his goods during hostilities. But his business is frivolous: he sends to the front boots with cardboard soles, uniforms made of low-quality cloth, belts sagging under the weight of ammunition, water flasks, useless harness for horses … The entrepreneur quickly enriches himself in the Crimean War, but his machinations and deception are not may go unnoticed.

Sell Russian paper to Russians

Believe it or not, Schliemann even took part in the abolition of serfdom in Russia. When, in 1861, the tsarist government was preparing to bring to the attention of the population the manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, the authorities were going to publish the document on large paper posters. It would seem, what kind of business can be built on this? But the enterprising Heinrich Schliemann learned about the government's plans in advance and began to quickly buy up the stocks of paper available in the country. He managed to buy up a lot. He did this, of course, in order to sell the same paper at twice the price, when the time came to print posters. And the Russian government bought the Russian paper from the honorary hereditary Russian citizen Andrei Schliemann.

Failure to return to Russia

Naturally, Schliemann's bold and unprincipled business, and especially his actions during the Crimean War, did not go unnoticed by the authorities and were perceived as undermining the military combat capability of Russia. It's amazing that this smartest man did not calculate his risks. Many years later, Heinrich Schliemann will naively decide to embody another of his commercial ideas related to Russia, and will turn to Alexander II with a request to allow him to enter the country. The emperor will then utter his famous response-resolution: "Let him come, we will hang!" It seems that the Russian traces of Schliemann end with these words.

Search for Troy

Having “lost” “ancient Troy” in the epoch of the XVI-XVII centuries, historians of the Eighteenth century began to search for it again. It happened like that. Archaeologist Ellie Krish, author of The Treasures of Troy and Their History, says:

After that, on the instructions of the French envoy in Constantinople, a certain Frenchman, Shuazel - Gufier, made a number of expeditions to northwestern Anatolia (1785) and published a description of this area, AGAIN THE DISCUSSION FLASHED. According to the French, the city of Priama was supposed to be located near Pynarbashi, about ten kilometers towards the materik from the Gissarlyk hill; the latter was marked on a map drawn up by Shuazel - Gufier as the LOCATION of the RUINS.

So the hypothesis that some ruins near Gissarlyk are "ancient Troy" was put forward long before G. Schliemann by the Frenchman Shuazel - Gufier.

In addition, more

in 1822 McClaren … claimed that the hill of Hisarlik was ancient Troy … Based on this, the Englishman and at the same time the American consul Frank Calvert, whose family lived with the Dardanelles, tried to convince Sir Charles of the Newtonian collection in London, the director of the British Museum, to organize an expedition in 1863 to excavate the ruins on the Gissarlyk hill.

Sam G. Schliemann wrote the following.

After I twice examined the entire territory, I FULLY AGREE WITH CALVERT that the plateau, crowning the hill of Hisarlik, is the place where ancient Troy was located.

Ellie Krish writes:

In this way, Schliemann is directly referring here to Frank Calvert, which contradicts the WIDE DISTRIBUTED MYTH about Schliemann, which allegedly found Troy, holding Homer in the hands and relying solely on the text of the Iliad. Not Schliemann, but Kalvert, if he did not discover, nevertheless quite confidently suggested on the basis of the remains of stone walls exposed in places that Troy should be searched inside the Gissarlyk hill. It fell to Schliemann to excavate this hill and find the DECISIONAL EVIDENCE of the existence of the city, which was previously considered just a myth.

Let us ask ourselves a question: why did they start looking for the "Homeric Troy" in this particular area? The point, apparently, is that there was still a vague memory about the location of Troy somewhere "in the region of the Bosphorus strait." But historians of the 18th century could no longer point directly to the Bosphorus New Rome, that is, to Tsar-Grad. Since the fact that the Tsar-Grad is the "antiquity" Troy was by that time firmly forgotten. Moreover, as early as the 17th century, the Scaligerian history "forbade" even thinking that Istanbul is the "Troy of Homer". However, all sorts of indirect medieval evidence remained, which happily escaped destruction, stubbornly leading us to the idea that "antique" Troy is "somewhere here, near the Bosphorus." Therefore, historians and enthusiasts began to search for the "lost Troy", in general, not far from Istanbul.

Turkey is densely dotted with the ruins of medieval settlements, military fortifications, etc. So it was not difficult to "pick up suitable ruins" in order to declare them the remains of Homeric Troy. As we see, the ruins on the Gissarlyk hill were considered as one of the candidates. But both historians and archaeologists perfectly understood that everything needs to be dug out of the ground at least some kind of "confirmation" that this is "Troy Homer". Find at least something! This "task" was successfully completed by G. Schliemann. He started excavations on the Gissarlik hill.

The ruins freed from the earth showed that there really was some kind of settlement with the size of everything - only about 120X120 meters. The plan of this small fortress is shown below.

Of course, there was nothing "Homeric" here. Such rascals in Turkey are met literally every step of the way. Apparently, G. Schliemann understood that something extraordinary was required to draw public attention to these meager remnants. Most likely, there was some kind of small Ottoman medieval military fortification, a settlement. As we have seen, Frank Calvert has long since started to say that the "antique" Troy was located "somewhere here." But no one paid any attention to his words. Which is understandable: there have been little ravages in Turkey! Required "irrefutable proof." And then G. Schliemann in May 1873 "unexpectedly finds" a golden treasure, immediately loudly proclaimed by him "the treasure of the ancient Priam". That is, "that very Priam" about which the great Homer narrates. Today, this set of gold items travels through various museums around the world as the legendary "treasures of ancient Troy".

Here is what Ellie Crete writes about this:

Heinrich Schliemann … found in May 1873 near the Skeian Gate (as he mistakenly considered them to be) a remarkable richest treasure … belonging, according to his INITIAL BELIEF, to none other than Homeric king Prim. Schliemann and his work WAS FULLY RECOGNIZED IMMEDIATELY. But there were also quite a few skeptics who were skeptical about his find. Even today, some researchers, primarily the American specialist in antique philology D.-A. Trail, argue that THE STORY WITH THE TREASURE IS INvented: SCHLIMAN EITHER GATHERED ALL THESE THINGS IN A VERY LONG TIME OR BOUGHT A LOT OF THEM FOR MONEY. The mistrust was all the stronger because Schliemann did not even report the exact date of the discovery of the treasure

Indeed, G. Schliemann for some reason UTAIL the information where, when and under what circumstances he discovered the "antique treasure". It turns out that "the detailed inventories and reports WERE DONE ONLY LATER."

In addition, G. Schliemann for some reason stubbornly refused to name the exact DATE of his "discovery". Ellie Krish reports:

In Athens, he finally wrote the most detailed account of his discovery until that time, THE DATE OF THIS EVENT HAS BEEN CHANGED SEVERAL TIMES AND REMAINED UNCLEAR.

Pointing to a lot of this kind of strangeness surrounding Schlilgan's "discovery", various critics, including D. - A. Trail, declared "the whole history of the clade to be RUDE Fiction".

It should be noted here that the archaeologist Ellie Krish does not share the position of the skeptics. Nevertheless, Ellie Krish is forced to cite all these incriminating data, since they could not be hidden in due time. And they failed to hide it because THERE WERE TOO MUCH, and they so or otherwise put under serious doubt the veracity of G. Schliemann's version, even in the eyes of his admirers.

It turns out that even the place where G. Schliemann "found the treasure" is NOT KNOWN. Ellie Krish rightly notes that

informative for the dating of the treasure is the very PLACE OF ITS FIND. BUT SCHLIMANN AT DIFFERENT TIMES DESCRIBED IT DIFFERENTLY.

As G. Schliemann argued, at the moment of the "happy find" only his wife Sophia was next to him. No one else saw where and how G. Schliemann discovered "antique gold". To quote Ellie Krish's dreams:

Last but not least, Doubts about the truthfulness of the history of the discovery of the treasure arose because Schliemann relied on the testimony of his wife Sophia and BELIEVED THAT SHE WAS PRESENT AT THE MOMENT OF THE FIND … "finds" -) Sophia, perhaps, was not in Troy at all … Indisputable proof, whether Sophia was in Troy or in Athens that day, practically does not exist. Nevertheless … Schliemann himself confesses in a letter to Newton, the director of the Antique collection of the British Museum, THAT SOPHIA WAS NOT IN THREE THEN: "… Mrs. Schliemann left me at the beginning of May. Clade was found because I wanted to do everything out of her; an archaeologist, I wrote in my book that she was near me and helped me in finding the treasure."

Suspicions are even more aggravated when we find out that G. Schliemann, it turns out, HAD SOME Mysterious NEGOTIATIONS WITH JEWELERS, inviting them to make allegedly COPIES of allegedly found gold "antique" decorations. He explained his desire by the fact that he wants to have "duplicates" in case, as G. Schliemann wrote, "the Turkish government starts the process and demands half of the treasures."

However, in view of all the darkness surrounding Schliemann's "activities" in 1873, it is not entirely clear whether Schliemann conducted these negotiations with the jewelers AFTER "finding the treasure" or BEFORE HER. What if the traces of his negotiations on the PRODUCTION of the "Priam clade" BEFORE the moment when he alone "discovered the clade" on the Gissarlyk hill reached us?

G. Schliemann wrote very interesting things:

A jeweler must be well versed in antiquities, and he must promise not to put his mark on copies. IT IS NECESSARY TO CHOOSE A PERSON WHO WILL NOT BETRAY ME AND TAKE AN ACCEPTABLE PRICE FOR WORK.

However, H. Schliemann's agent, Boren, as Ellie Krish writes,

does not wish to take on himself any responsibility for such a Doubtful CASE. He (Boren -) writes: "It will be understood by itself that MADE COPIES SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED FOR ORIGINALS IN NO EVENT."

However, it turns out that Boren

recommended to Schliemann the company From and Möry on the rue Saint-Honoré (in Paris -). It is a family business, he said, with an outstanding reputation since the 18th century and employing numerous artists and craftsmen.

By the way, in the 19th century “wearing ANTIQUE JEWELRY became fashionable in certain circles. Thus, Princess Canino, wife of Lucien Bonaparte, often appeared in the world wearing an ETRUSIAN necklace, which made her the undisputed center of a holiday reception.” So that Parisian jewelers could have a lot of orders and works "for antiquity". We must assume they did it well.

Ellie Krish, without questioning the authenticity of the "Priam clade", notes that it is difficult to assert with certainty that G. Schliemann really made "copies". At the same time, Ellie Krish neatly reports the following:

However, the rumors about the copies that Schliemann allegedly ordered have NEVER BEEN PASSED HERE.

Ellie Krish summarizes:

Some ambiguities and contradictions in the various descriptions of this discovery, THE EXACT DATE OF WHICH IS NOT EVEN SPECIFIED, prompted skeptics to doubt the AUTHORITY OF THE FIND … An egocentric, impudent phantazer and PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, Collegiate University of Collegia, named M.

Incidentally, it is believed that G. Schliemann discovered another remarkable "ancient" burial, namely in Mycenae. It's just disgusting how he was "lucky for the antique gold." In Mycenae, he “discovered” a golden burial mask, which he immediately loudly declared the mask of “that very ancient Homeric Agamemnon”. There is no proof. Therefore, today historians neatly write as follows:

Heinrich Schliemann believed that the mask found in one of the tombs in Mycenae was made from the face of King Agamemnon; however, it was later proved that she belonged to another ruler, whose name we do not know.

I wonder how the archaeologists "proved" the belonging of an UNKNOWN mask to an UNKNOWN ruler, whose name they DO NOT KNOW?

So, returning to Troy, we can say the following. From all of the above, a curious picture emerges:

1) G. Schliemann did not indicate the place, date and circumstances of the "discovery of the Priam treasure", introducing a strange confusion into this question. G. Schliemann did not present any convincing proofs that he had unearthed "Homeric Troy". And the Scaligerian historians did not really demand them from him.

2) There are reasons to suspect G. Schliemann that he simply ordered some jewelers to make "antique gold jewels". Here it is necessary to recall that G. Schliemann was a very rich man. For example, the construction of the building of the German Archaeological Institute in Athens, in particular, was financed by Schliemann.

Ellie Crete writes:

His personal fortune - primarily tenement houses in Indianapolis (Indiana) and in Paris … - was the basis for research and the basis of his independence.

It is not excluded that then G. Schliemann took the treasures to Turkey and announced that he had "found" them in the ravages on the Gissarlyk hill. That is, exactly in the place where already a little earlier some enthusiasts "placed the antique Troy". We see that G. Schliemann did not even bother looking for Troy. He simply "JUSTIFIED" WITH THE HELP OF GOLD the previously stated hypothesis of Shuazel - Gufier and Frank Calvert. In our opinion, if they had named another place, G. Schliemann would have found the same "ancient Priam clade" with the same success and just as quickly.

4) Many skeptics back in the 19th century did not believe a single word of him. But Scaligerian historians were generally satisfied. Finally, they said in chorus, they managed to find the legendary Troy. Certainly, some suspicious oddities are connected with the "golden treasure", but they do not affect the overall assessment of the great discovery of H. Schliemann. Now we know for sure: here, on the Hissarlik hill, King Priam lived.

Look, this is the very side of the hill where the great Achilles defeated Hector. And there was a Trojan horse. True, it has not survived, but here is its large modern wooden model. Very - very accurate. And here the dead Achilles fell.

Look, there is an imprint of his body.

We must admit that thousands and thousands of gullible tourists respectfully listen to all these considerations today.

5) Scaligerian historians decided to do this with the "Priam clade". It would be imprudent to assert that this is indeed the treasure of Homer's Priam. In response to such a bold statement, a direct question from skeptics was immediately raised: how is this known? What evidence is there?

There was, of course, nothing to answer. Apparently, this was perfectly understood by all persons, in such a way or otherwise involved in the "Shliman's Troy". On reflection, we came up with a very elegant way out. They said so. Yes, this is not the Prima clade. BUT HE IS MUCH MORE ANCIENT than even Schliemann himself thought.

Ellie Krish reports the following:

Only the studies carried out after the death of Schliemann FINALLY PROVE that the so-called "Priam clade" belongs to a MUCH MORE ANCIENT ERA than Schliemann believed, to the III millennium BC. e. … It was the culture of the people of the BEGGIN and DOCHETIAN periods.

Like, a very - very ancient clade. Monstrous antiquity. There are no Greeks or Hittites yet. After this statement, there was nothing to prove. However, it would be interesting to hear how the supporters of the "antiquity of the Shliman clade" date those few gold items, about which even the place on the Gissarlyk hill is unknown, from where G. Schliman allegedly extracted them (see above). And for the gold itself, it is still impossible to establish an absolute dating of the product.

6) And what if G. Schliemann did not deceive us and really found some old golden jewelry during the excavations in Gissarlyk? For this we will say the following. Even if the "golden treasure" was genuine, and not made on the sly by Parisian jewelers, everything would equally remain completely incomprehensible, why should it be considered a proof that "ancient Troy" was located exactly on the Gissarlyk hill? After all, there is NOT A SINGLE LETTER on the golden things "found" by G. Schliemann. Moreover, no names. From a single oral statement that someone, who knows where and who knows when, found some "old gold", it is hardly worth concluding that "the legendary Troy has been found."

7) In conclusion, we note an interesting psychological moment. All this amazing story of the "discovery of Troy" vividly shows that in fact neither the authors of the "discovery", nor their colleagues, so or otherwise involved in this dubious activity, the scientific truth seemed to be of little interest. Historians and archaeologists of the Scaligerian school were already deeply convinced that the "lost Troy" was located somewhere not far from the Bosphorus: They argued, apparently, something like this. In the end, does it really matter where she was. Here G. Schliemann suggested to consider that Troy was on the Gissarlyk hill. Even, they say, they found a kind of rich gold treasure there. True, some unpleasant rumors are swarming around the treasure. However, is it worth delving into all these details. Let's agree with Schliemann that Troy really was where he insisted. He is a famous, respectable, rich man. The place is right. Indeed, some old rascals. Is it worth finding fault and demanding some kind of "proof". Even if this is not Troy, then all equally she was somewhere here.

8) After a while, when skeptics got tired of pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in the "discovery of Troy", at last the "calm scientific stage" began. Excavations continued, solid and thick scientific journals "about Troy" arose and began to be regularly published. Many articles have appeared. Nothing from the "Homeric Troy" on the Gissarlyk hill, of course, WE HAVE NOT FOUND YET. They just slowly dug up some ordinary medieval Ottoman fortification. In which, of course, there were some shards, remnants of artifacts, weapons. But as a result of the repeated and intrusive repetition of the words that "Troy is here", the tradition has finally developed that "Troy was really here." Convinced themselves and "explained to the public." Gullible tourists poured down the shaft. In this way, one more problem of the Scaligerian history was "successfully solved".

Fragment of the book by AT Fomenko "The Trojan War in the Middle Ages. Analysis of responses to our research"