Talk:Priam's Treasure

Cleanup
Is almost to an encyclopedia as Schliemann was to Troy. The article seems to have some NPOV issues, and seems a bit like a tourist guide. Hiberniantears 14:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, don't weep for me, Hibernia! (joke). On due consideration it seems to me you may be right about the NPOV. Your remark is not exactly NPOV, either, but I appreciate its humor. I think now the NPOV here and elsewhere on the Internet and in the literature are the descendants of the uproar that occured in Schliemann's day. He was probably a very charismatic man and moved people to emotion. He stood the whole world of archaeology on its head.


 * However, NPOV is NPOV; it is not NNPOV, etc. I will try to correct as much as I can. It being that this is a high-interest subject and is one of Wikipedia's few excursions into the world of art, the article ought to be polished up as much as it can. You can't deny that Schliemann was somewhat of a swindler, as that is what the uproar is all about. Moreover he did some pioneering work, so he can't just be brushed aside. But, I am sure the neutrality can be improved.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by tourist guide. Keep us posted. Let's try and and get this article free of templates for the public, which I am sure is extensive.--Dave 20:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert in archeology. Nevertheless I think that the current theory is that this treasure was found by Heinrich Schliemann in a place in which the old Troy is suspected to have been. Moreover, it is clear that this treasure did not belong to Priamos, because it was found to be 1 000 years older than the suspected life time of Priamos. Schliemann's belief that he found Priam's treasure has nothing to do with forgery, because archeology at that time was just beginning to become scientific; it was probably more a result of enthusiasm. As with all great discoveries, this one is also not free from legend; it is likely that Schliemann was wrong in some points, that he exaggerated, and even lied to some extent. However, I do not think that it is current knowledge that the whole treasure is a forgery. In my opinion, this should be made clear in the article, up to now, it sounds to me as if there was nothing real behind the treasure's finding at all.


 * I thought this might happen; that is, of all the points of view about Schliemann, one of them is that everything happened as he said. I expected some Schliemann partisan to come forward, and you have. I am glad you decided to come out with it. That is the main reason why the article is being held. But, I will try to convince you.


 * The problem is that he left so many letters, writings and records that it takes time to sort through it all. But, sooner or later everything comes out. The old boy has been being investigated for some time now. He was a liar, no doubt, or, I should say, story-teller. I am including another reference for you, one who does take non-partisan stand, a respected scholar. Also I am including a reference from a more skeptical scholar. In addition I suggest you read the article on the Mask of Agamemnon and follow down its external links. Also if you look the subject up on Google you will get quite an earful.


 * We know from his receipts that he hired a goldsmith before the great find. We know also from his servant that he planted objects. The only thing we don't know is where he did get so many objects and if they are genuine antiquities after all, though not really found there. I thought I did make that clear. If you read the other material I think you will see I gave Schliemann an even break. He did not believe the treasure was the Treasure of Priam. He made it all up, as that is what he wanted the world to believe. That is why Greek and Turkish authorities never allowed him to dig unsupervised again. In the last years everthing he did was swarmed over by real scholars almost before he did it. But he had the money, you know.


 * I think you may misunderstand one point. There is no question where he said he found the treasure. That place is undeniably early Bronze Age Troy. It isn't that the layer can't belong to Priam's Troy (which it can't). It is that the objects are too rich for early Bronze Age Troy and many are in the style of Mycenaean Troy, much later. So, it is not a question of inexperience in archaeology and mistaking the time of the level. It is a question of planting artifacts in a level in which they don't belong, which we know from documents that he did.


 * One more point. The theory that Schliemann found the objects in a level he thought was ancient Troy is not current. It is the oldest theory, which, because of more recent investigations, is fast being totally discredited. The current owners of the treasure, both halves, refuse testing. Why? The world wants to know. The owners have a vested interest in its not knowing. If they thought the artifacts would all test out as ancient gold they would allow testing, don't you think? Also, classical archaeology is a very traditional field. It is hard for people in it to let go of ideas that have been established. At the moment though they are letting go in large numbers, thanks to the efforts of persistent investigators.


 * Well I think I have done what I could with this article. I thought it might be nice to have some Greek art on here. The art field is plagued with a forgery problem of immense extent so by accident I started with this one. I can't take your point of view because it goes against my conscience. It is up to you now. I hope I will turn out to have convinced you. If not I am sure you can find someone to take your point of view. I doubt it will make any difference in the controversy, as the landslide has been well started. "Murder will out", so to speak (this isn't murder but it is forgery). Have you ever heard of Piltdown man? There is another scandal to shake your credulity if you still manage to keep it. None of this is my original point of view, by the way.


 * Best wishes to you in your search for the truth. Do what you like with the article. I plan to go on to other articles but I will be back on Greek and Roman art form time to time. I will look in on you then to see what you did. Rook to rook 4. Your move.Dave 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

After a cool-off period and a little research I concluded Wikipedia is not the place to confront Schliemann issues or settle the testing or return issues. There are plenty of professionals to do that. So I removed everything I could of a controvesial nature and pointed the reader to sources should he/she wish to look into it. Can we get this horrible template off here now? What would it take to get it off?Dave 17:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

neutrality
the last portion of this article can be viewed as defamatory and should be modified to reflect neutrality the vandalizing of articles by sugar coated words should be avoided and punished —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.66 (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

agree with the above; the "authenticity" section reeks of somebody editing with an agenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.186.77 (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The "Authenticity" chapter is blatantly biased. No proper sources either, none. Should just be removed. Cyberroach (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Basic Information
What *are* the doubts about the treasure's authenticity? It is absurd to create an entire section mentioning it, then not saying what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.127.232 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some have suggested that Schliemann's account of how it was found - at a single time and location within the Hissarlik field, only weeks before the season's end - was just a selling legend and that it's actually a composite find. Of course if it's composite,m it could include stuff that wasn't even from Troy in any epoch. Then as has been pointed out already, it's actually much older than the age of the supposed Trojan War and King Priam, but I think Dave is right that Schliemann can barely be blamed for that. At the time, archaeological stratigraphy was rather rudimentary and Schliemann was not a completely scientific archaelogist, he was a kind of visionary and worked from motivations which were not very scientific, but which led to invaluable discoveries (actually, he's not alone: many later digs have been partly motivated by wishing to prove a preconceived idea about a people, the diggings at Ebla gave some blatant examples of that.) It's very natural that he got carried away and thought the hoard must be from the age of Homeric Troy. There may be people who have suggested some of the stuff is late 19th c. forgery too, but if so it's only a fringe opinion among arcaheologists.


 * And since the treasure had been lost from 1945 on and is still unaccessible to any detailed scientific examination (or so I think), it has been hard to take a closer lo~ok at such things as technique, ornamentation, making metal samples etc. Strausszek (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mention- Schliemann Stole It
Schliemann stole the treasure from its native land- Turkey. It's a historical court case which he accepted. We should mention it thoug. http://www.grandanzachotel.com/treasure-of-troy.htm --Kafkasmurat (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Calvert?
This article says that frank Calvert was involved in the discovery of the find - I never heard that and could find no proove. 80.134.96.165 (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)