Who Found Troy?: The Two Men Who Resurrected The Lost Location of the Trojan Civilization, and the Drama Concerning the Credit

“Let me not then die ingloriously and without a struggle, but let me first do some great thing that shall be told among men hereafter.”

When I was in Catholic school, I felt a serious distance between myself and the Biblical stories. They seemed imagined, or manufactured, or unchallenged narratives at best. I loved learning about history, historical figures and folklore, but I couldn’t visualize the stories nor pinpoint them on a map, save for Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Sea of Galilee and the River Jordan. Outside of Israel, the ancient civilizations like Babylon, Sparta, Persia and the Roman Empire seemed too broad and out of reach to consider in today’s terms. They were ephemeral and eroded, lost and covered.

That mindset was completely turned on its head while living abroad. The distant, loose images that I attempted to envision in those classrooms became tangible before my eyes. Walking on the lands that I learned all about in school, books and movies allowed me to finally put a face to the name. 

Someone else felt the same way in the 1800s, a German guy named Heinrich Schliemann. Like me, he had an interest in ancient history and a deep desire to see the world. 

We each raised a simple question to ourselves:

The epic tales of history that I heard about as a child had to have happened somewhere, right?

While I was considering Biblical topics, his focus lied a little further to the West, in the lands hugging the Aegean Sea. And though my interests were featured in Jewish and Christian Scripture, his interests were codified and articulated in two texts from the ancient Greek world: the Iliad and the Odyssey.

You probably know about the Trojan War: Paris of Troy and the beautiful Helen of Sparta engage in a scandalous affair, and she goes with him to Troy; the Greeks launch a fleet of 1000 ships in retaliation, and after a decade of warfare, they seemingly surrender, flee and leave a beautiful wooden horse, which is interpreted as a tribute to Trojan victory. After the Trojans take it into the city, rejoice in their triumph and pass out drunk, Greek soldiers storm out of the horse, slaughter the city’s occupants and burn it to the ground. 

While there was plenty of mythology in this story, like at the beginning, when 3 Greek goddesses gave the Trojan Prince the chance to choose power, wisdom or love, Heinrich Schliemann believed the story had to have something holding it to reality. It mentions the Greek civilization, and sites like Ithaca, Thessaly, and Sparta. And we know these were physical places where human communities flourished.

So what about Troy? It’s the major player in one of the greatest stories ever told, captured and conveyed over thousands of years. If these other places in the Iliad and the Odyssey had physical settlements, why didn’t Troy? This was on the minds of scholars in Schliemann’s day, and it was Schliemann who spearheaded the effort to track it down. But it’s a little deeper than that…

After a decorated business career in the indigo trade and in military contracting, Schliemann used his fortunes to pursue archeology. Motivated by the enchantment of Homer’s writing, he was determined to find where the prestigious Trojan civilization stood thousands of years ago. 

Allegedly, Schliemann read the Iliad and the Odyssey cover to cover, and identified geographic Easter Eggs throughout the poems that could possibly unmask the location of the fabled city. He figured it was on Asia Minor, in what is now Turkey, which is accessible from Greece via the Aegean Sea. At the time, Turkey was the Ottoman Empire, and Troy's location was most likely around the Dardanelles, the famous straits that connected Constantinople to the Aegean, which gave it maritime access to the Mediterranean.

The Dardanelles, today.

The question was which site. Turkey possesses so many ancient settlements, many of which are still being unearthed. Human civilization and achievement lie all over Turkish soil, dating back as far as 12,000 years. And they range from Hittite to Phrygian to Greco-Roman. One of the oldest cities in the world, Çatal Huyuk (which we learned about in elementary school) sits in the heart of the country. It's also rumored that Noah’s Ark landed in what is now eastern Turkey after the Great Flood.

The site many believe Noah's Ark landed.

So there’s a lot to work with in this part of the world.

In Schliemann’s day, scholars specified three potential spots that held the legendary settlement. Schliemann decided to do some exploration of his own, determined to identify the clear location of the formidable Bronze-Age civilization that Odysseus helped take down before his wild adventure back home to Ithaca.

While in country in late 1868, Schliemann met a man named Frank Calvert, a British diplomat and amateur archeologist. While diplomacy was his profession, archeology was his true life’s work. Calvert spent many years digging around the Dardanelles on his own, using the ancient historian Herodotus for reference. Calvert was kind, intelligent, curious, and a bit naive. But he was an enthusiastic communicator, a good learner, and a pretty solid archeologist. He stumbled upon as many as 17 ancient cities and accumulated quite a collection of ancient booty. His work even earned him respect in some British academic circles. So in the 1850s and 1860s, he entered into the conversation about Troy’s whereabouts, and similar to Schliemann, he made it his mission to discover the spot where her walls stood impenetrable until their implosion from within.

After examining a few sites in the region, he convinced himself that Troy was located at a site called Hisarlik. He proved his commitment to the idea by purchasing 2000 acres of land next to the mound in 1857. But, this made him short on cash. Calvert submitted a proposal for funding to the British Museum, and he was willing to relinquish all of the objects found. All he wanted in exchange was his name attached to the record, but his request was denied.

Luckily for Calvert, he met Schliemann, whose financial resources could make Calvert’s excavation plans possible. Calvert and Schliemann bonded over their mutual and unyielding belief in Troy, and were determined to declare its whereabouts. To these men, it was not just part of a myth or a fable. It was a place, a once-great civilization that fell to the Greeks, but whose legacy would survive throughout humanity’s continuity. And it was here, waiting to be called its name, and to rise like a phoenix from the ashes left by Agamemnon’s army.

Calvert granted Schliemann permission to survey the area that he had owned. He also gave advice on how to excavate, and facilitated the project’s management. From equipment recommendations to securing a permit to even giving Schliemann a team to work with, Calvert put his eggs right into Schliemann’s basket, and made it clear that he was not seeking assistance from other resources. In his correspondence, Calvert showed such devotion to unearthing Troy and giving it a burst of life for the first time since the horse passed through its gates. His sizable investment in the geographic area further proves that he put everything he had into this project, and he trusted Schliemann to participate fairly and in good faith; by contrast, Schliemann’s articles and personal diaries undermine Calvert, treating him more as a partner who simply followed Schliemann’s lead.

It was clear that Calvert was the real brains of the organization. This was his life’s greatest project after all, and he had spent years on ancient sites to get him ready for this. 

What Schliemann lacked in archeological skill, he made up for in capital. He tried to portray himself as wiser than he was, but Calvert still trusted him and didn’t want to waste this opportunity to fund the search for Trojan treasure. 

However, Schliemann controlled the course. In the years following his encounter with Calvert, he took full advantage scavenging. And when it came time to tell the world what happened, he was a bit liberal in his narrative and egocentric in his tone. What Calvert thought was a partnership turned out to be portrayed as something resembling more of an assistantship. 

Not only did he misrepresent the events of their digs in his archeological book Ithaca, The Peloponnese and Troy, but he began examining land beyond the boundaries of Calvert’s property without permission. Schliemann brushed Calvert off, kept him in the dark about plans moving forward, and diminished Calvert’s impact in the excavations. Calvert could see Schliemann’s ambition, lust for control and self-interested behavior as indicators that Schliemann was not going to be a reliable partner, and that perhaps he had made a mistake investing so much trust in Schliemann. It appears that Schliemann was basically playing Calvert to gain access to the land and insider tips on the site.

At this point, disregarding both his partnership with Calvert and compliance with law, Schliemann spread across the area and began to uncover some marble slabs, including a famous artifact called the Helios Metope, which he managed to smuggle to Athens. He also bought Calvert’s share of it for mere pennies on the dollar. Calvert didn’t want to break the metope up, so he went along with Schliemann’s purchase. 


It reminds me of the story from King Solomon, when two women each claim that a baby is theirs, and his solution is to cut the baby in half; after one woman wishes to give the baby to the other in the interest of saving its life, King Solomon sees from her desire to protect the baby that she is its true mother. Unfortunately for Calvert, his baby ends up in the hands of his partner, who seemed more interested in glory than the good of the craft.

Obviously, they couldn’t tweet at each other back then. So instead, they each published works about excavations. Schliemann bloviated about both the value of the metope and about his work on the site, marketing it as an indication of Troy’s discovery and of his archeological aptitude; conversely, Calvert downplayed Hisarlik, claiming it hadn’t yet produced any proof that this site was Homeric Troy. Calvert also began to feel cheated, and realized that Schliemann was interested in soaking up glory at Calvert’s expense. This especially hurts because Calvert always believed in Hisarlik.

In 1873, Schliemann returned to Hisarlik and discovered “Priam’s Treasure” on Turkish government land. Priam refers to the ruler of Troy, the father of Paris and Hector. In addition to uncovering structures that resembled a city, Schliemann found all kinds of jewels, gems, and gold. Believing this to officially be the Troy of Homer, he quickly smuggled his discoveries out of Turkey. In today's Turkey, you could go to jail for something like that.

Schliemann's wife, wearing some of the jewelry found there.

Upon further examination, it turns out that what he found came from an era far before the Troy depicted by Homer. Still, they're currently on display in Moscow.

Now Schliemann tried to resume work at Hisarlik in 1874, but the Ottoman government opened a lawsuit against him regarding the division of treasures. Due to this, he couldn’t continue there until 1876. In the meantime, he published a book called Troy and Its Ruins, and began to claim the reputation he always wanted as a premier, robust and esteemed archeologist. And Calvert had to simply sit and watch as his former partner took the credit for the work that he spent all his life accomplishing on and around this legendary site. 

Schliemann went on a third excavation in 1878, but Calvert still owned a piece of the land. They forged a deal, one in which Schliemann could excavate with Calvert’s permission in exchange for support at another archeological site called Hanai Tepeh. Somehow Calvert agreed to give Schliemann half of the findings and credit upon publication of research.

And upon realizing this, Calvert just gave up. He ceded his notes to Schliemann, who went on to present the research and take fame and credit for the work that was done. Schliemann did give some recognition to Calvert for the work in Hanai Tepeh, as seen in his book Ilios.

Schliemann spent the rest of his life playing in Greece and other ancient lands. He also collaborated with other excavators and academics. He was known for being self-centered, overconfident, and an exaggerator. I've even seen the word "psychopathic" in my research on him. He liked the spotlight, and he took to his grave the belief that he identified Troy on his own. He died from complications with his ears in 1890. 

There’s a quote from Homer: “No man or woman born, coward or brave, can shun his destiny.” Schliemann believed this was his destiny, and so he pursued it. His pursuit involved deceit, embellishment, vanity, and exploiting the effort and skills of another. For a long time, Schliemann was considered the one who found Troy, and he certainly was a catalyst for research, excavation and debate on its historicity. Starting around the 1970s, people began to question his claims and skills. Upon further examination of his diaries and written work, new debate commenced over who truly deserves the credit. Schliemann may not have been the Achilles of Archeology that he tried to be. 

Calvert, meanwhile, spent the rest of his life in what is now Turkey, and he collaborated with other archeological teams. Fortunately, he was given recognition for some contributions to excavation projects. He spent lots of time writing about his land at Hisarlik; he examined its archeological content, as well as reported details about its geography, environment, geology and even paleontology. And before his death, showing concern toward the increasing number of touristic visits to the area, he donated the land to the Turkish government, who manage the site to this day.

So while Troy’s story has been told and retold across many mediums, the discovery and uncovering of the civilization’s geographic location is not as publicized. The Iliad and the Odyssey depict various themes of human nature, from love and lust to jealousy and pride. I think the story of Schliemann and Calvert also gives us a taste of human nature. We find a relationship between two men who each have a common goal, and entered into a mutually beneficial association. But one let his ambition and arrogance guide him with no regard for its implications or empathy towards his partner, while the other’s shy and impressionable nature resulted in his exploitation and reduction to the sidelines as a spectator, despite his work ethic, talent and integrity. 

Theatre of Dionysus, Athens

The story itself feels like a Greek tragedy. We see two character types that easily could have been displayed on stage at the Festival Dionysus. One is active, one is passive. One has brains, one has brawn (if brawn comes in the form of financial resources and ego). One is focused on the good of his work, and feels the perpetuation of his work is its own reward; meanwhile, the other basks in the glory, fame, and rewards that successful execution of the work provides, and is willing to stretch the truth in order to achieve the accolades. 

It also brings Plato’s Republic to mind, specifically the first chapter when Socrates discusses justice. The just man falls behind, while the unjust man makes his own justice. Schliemann followed the latter, and convinced himself and people around him that he was the one who reintroduced Troy to the world. Meanwhile, Calvert played by the rules, and fell behind by placing trust in another, and ended up failing to reap benefits of their mutual pursuit. Maybe he didn’t care for the accolades or the credit. Maybe he just wanted to stand on historical ground. And maybe that’s why a deeper look into Calvert’s life and work can determine who deserves the recognition as the one who found Troy. Maybe that will allow one of these men to truly “glitter in brilliance.”

When you visit Troy today, it’s best to start from Çanakkale, the town next to where the famous Battle of Gallipoli happened during World War I. Right in the center of the city is something you might have seen in a certain 2004 Brad Pitt film. It was given to the city after the film's release. It feels appropriate to have this representation of the epic symbol of deceit and battle strategy so close to where the battle happened. 

SO MUCH GLORY!

Here are some pictures from the site in Turkey today. I’ve been there twice, and it’s gorgeous. One notable characteristic is the wind. I hear that the wind is what brought the city its wealth. That's why our hair was sticking up the whole time.

The city features walls, temples, spaces for music and theatre, an agora, a necropolis and more.

In sum, I think it’s important to keep stories like this alive. It exposes elements of mankind at its best and worst, just as the Iliad and the Odyssey do. While we know details about the relationships in Homer's writings, from Agamemnon's rivalries to Hector's brotherly affection for Paris to Achilles' relationship with Briseus, it's further valuable to learn how the site where they wrestled these emotional relationships was discovered, and the humanity behind it's discovery. 

And if there’s something from history that you like or feel connected to or have strong feelings toward, try to visit the site at which it happened. Maybe it’ll give you a sense of why the story turned out as it did. Schliemann and Calvert each did that, and by placing Troy back on the map, they have granted this world an essential contribution that would make any lover of history, mythology and literature soar.

Sources:
https://blog.britishmuseum.org/the-search-for-the-lost-city-of-troy/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge core/content/view/S0066154600006025

https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009.01.41/

https://www.thoughtco.com/heinrich-schliemann-and-discovery-of-troy-169529

https://www.jstor.org/stable/506941?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents