¹ Niederland, W. G. in Drives, Affects, Behavior, ed. Schur, Max ii (New York 1965) 369–96Google Scholar, and Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics xv (1967) 200–19Google Scholar. Calder, W. M. III, ‘Schliemann on Schliemann: a study in the use of sources’, GRBS xiii (1972) 335–53Google Scholar.

² For a useful review of recent work on Schliemann see Schindler, W., Philol. cxx (1976) 271–89Google Scholar. Since then: Traill, D. A., ‘Schliemann's mendacity: fire and fever in California’, CJ lxxiv (1979) 348–55Google Scholar; Calder, W. M. III, ‘Wilamowitz on Schliemann’, Philol. cxxiv (1980) 146–51Google Scholar; three articles in Ethnographisch–Archäologische Zeits. xxi (1980) 655–78Google Scholar, especially Schindler, ‘Schliemanns Selbstportrat’, 655–8 and W. Richter, ‘Ithaque, le Péloponnèse et Troie und das Promotionsverfahren Heinrich Schliemanns’, 667–78. Most recently, Zimmermann, K., Klio lxiv (1982) 513–32Google Scholar (esp. 521–2 with n. 10) and several studies by Traill, : ‘Schliemann's American citizenship and divorce’, CJ lxxvii (1982) 336–42Google Scholar; review of Döhl, H., Heinrich Schliemann: Mythos und Ärgernis, Gnomon lv (1983) 149–52Google Scholar; ‘Further evidence of fraudulent reporting in Schliemann's archaeological work’, Boreas vii (1984) 295–316Google Scholar. Signs of the new scepticism are apparent in Deuel, Leo, Memoirs of Heinrich Schliemann (New York 1977)Google Scholar and in the catalogue of the 1981 Troy exhibition in the Schloss Charlottenburg–Langhansbau, , Troja: Heinrich Schliemanns Ausgrabungen und Funde (West Berlin 1981) 1Google Scholar.

³ Korres, , Ἐπιγραφαὶ ἐξ Ἀττικῆς εἰς κατοχὴν Ἑρρίκου Σλῆμαν, Athena lxxv (1974–1975) 54–67and 492Google Scholar (French résumé).

⁴ Calder (n. 1) 349–50.

⁵ Meyer, Ernst estimates ‘etwa zehn Stellen’ at Heinrich Schliemann: Briefwechsel i (Berlin 1953) 342Google Scholar n. 335.

⁶ A is an excerpt from the first draft of Schliemann's 31 May report to his publishers, which occupies pp. 271–90 of his 1873 diary. B is the final version of that report, which is preserved in his letter copybook for 1873. It is published at Meyer (n. 5) 231–3. Since A and B are almost identical, a joint text is given here with variants indicated in the apparatus. The paragraphing is that of A. C occupies pp. 300–15 of the 1873 diary. The opening of the first page is shown in Fig. 1. D is the published report in Trojanische Alterthümer (Leipzig 1874) 289–303Google Scholar; English version at Troy and its Remains (New York 1875) 323–42Google Scholar; cf. Ilios (New York 1881) 40–1 and 453–84Google Scholar. D is quoted from the German edition to facilitate comparison with A, B and C. Elsewhere I generally refer to the English edition (TR), which is more widely available and has the advantage of accompanying illustrations. The separate Atlas of plates that supplemented the German and French editions is now very rare. An earlier version of D was published in the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung of 5 August 1873. Unless otherwise stated, all diaries, letters and other papers of Schliemann referred to in this article are housed in the Gennadius Library, Athens. I am grateful to the Librarian, Mrs S. Papageorgiou, for kindly granting permission to publish A and C, hitherto unpublished extracts from the 1873 diary. The punctuation of the texts reflects that of the originals.

⁷ (1) ‘Behind the latter (wall), at a depth of 8 to 9 m, I exposed the Trojan circuit wall as it continues from the Scaean gate and found in one of the rooms of the house of Priam abutting on to this wall a copper container or utensil of the most remarkable shape, about 1 m long by ½ m broad, for two helmet-like bosses could be seen on it; there was also a bowl with a kind of large candlestick. (2) This container was filled with silver and gold vases and cups, which I had to extract, conceal and send away in such haste in order to withdraw them from the greed of my workers, that I neither know the number of the vessels nor am I in a position to describe their shape. I will, however, give a most detailed description of them from Athens, if the objects arrive safely, and append a photograph of each piece of the treasure to the atlas to this work. (3) This much, however, I can already say, namely, that one of the cups is of very thick, solid gold, has two heavy handles and is in the shape of a champagne–glass with a rounded foot so that it can only be made to stand on its rim. It offers further evidence, if any were still needed, that by δέπας ἀμϕικύπελλον Homer can only have understood this kind of cup and no other.

(4) In the same vessel I further found a number of flat pieces of silver, which resemble battle-axes in shape and may be the Homeric talents; also a large quantity—I think more than two dozen—of spears, a key, many knives, etc.; in the intense conflagration which destroyed Troy manys spears became soldered together on one side; the silver and even the gold vessels also bear the clearest marks of the frightful heat to which they were exposed. (5) The wonderful copper vessel which contained all these treasures had unfortunately suffered so much from the fire, corrosion and the pressure of the superimposed house-walls that it was unfortunately possible to extract it from the hard debris only in pieces. I can at all events restore a part of it, but certainly not the entire thing. (6) Directly next to this findspot a thick silver vase was found eight days ago, 18 cm high by 14 cm broad and inside it a silver cup, 11 cm high by 9 cm broad. There was also a copper helmet, which unfortunately broke in pieces, but the two pieces of its ϕάλος, as well as a curved bar of copper, 15 cm long, fastened to it—I don't know how—which must have served some particular purpose, remained intact. I also found there the lower pieces of the ϕάλος of another helmet. (7) All these finds in the house of Priam, at a depth of 8 to 9 m, directly next to my wooden house are inducing me to have my house demolished and the large mound of earth between this excavation and the Scaean gate removed in order to bring as much as possible of the royal palace to light; it will, however, be very difficult, if not impossible, to make a plan of it without removing the post-Trojan house built on top, and I cannot make up my mind to do that.’

⁸ Troy 17 June 1873

(1) ‘As indicated in my report of the 24th of last month, I closed the excavations at Troy for ever on the 15th of this month and returned here. It seems that divine providence has chosen to recompense me generously for my superhuman efforts over my three years of excavations, (2) for on the 7th of this month, at a depth of 8½ m, near the large circuit-wall running N.W. from the Scaean gate, in a narrow room of the royal palace enclosed by two walls, I came across a large copper object of the most remarkable shape (3) and found above and below it 34 spears, 6 knives, 4 large silver vases and two small ones. Of the small vases one has two eyelets on either side for hanging it with strings, the other only one. (4) They also have lids shaped like high hats. There was also a spherical gold bottle, 15 cm high and 14 cm in diameter, weighing 403 gr.; (5) a gold cup, 9 cm high and 7¾ cm broad, weighing 226 gr.; a gold cup shaped like a ship, 9 cm high, 18¾ cm long, 18¼ cm broad, and weighing 600 gr., with two large handles; at both ends there are mouths for drinking, at the one end 7 cm wide, at the other 3 cm wide; perhaps, as my honoured friend Professor St. Koumanoudis remarked, whoever proffered the filled cup first drank out of the small mouth so that the guest could drink out of the large one; this vessel has a foot that protrudes only 2 mm, 3½ cm by 2 cm. It must certainly be the Homeric δέπας ἀμϕικύπελλον. I remain convinced, however, that all those tall, glazed red cups in the shape of champagne-glasses and fitted with two massive handles are also δέπα ἀμϕικύπελλα and that this shape too will have existed in gold. (6) The treasure further contained a small cup of gold alloyed with 25% silver, 8 cm high by 6½ cm broad, whose foot is only 2 cm high by 2½ cm broad and not quite straight so that the cup seems designed only for standing on its rim. (7) There were also six flat pieces of pure silver in the shape of very large knife-blades, the one end of which is rounded, while the other is cut out in the shape of a crescent. The two largest are 21½ cm long by 5 cm broad, each weighing 184 gr; the next two pieces are 18½ cm long and 4 cm broad, each weighing 173 gr. The remaining 2 pieces are 17¼ cm long and 3 cm broad, each weighing 171 gr. These are very probably the Homeric talents (τάλαντα), which could only have been very small, as, for example, ⟨Homer⟩ (Iliad xxiii 269Google Scholar) set up two golden talents as fourth prize. (8) The treasure further contained a silver cup, 34 copper spears of various shapes, some copper tools, (9) a flat copper basin with a protruding boss in the middle surrounded by a ridge; (10) also, a large copper basin with two handles, probably a Homeric λέβης, (11) and another vessel of the same metal, which is so badly broken that I cannot indicate its shape yet. (12) There was found there a most extraordinary copper object whose use is a complete enigma to me. It consists of a long, very broad, curved copper strip, 1 cm thick, on which can be seen two round wheel-shaped pieces like a handle. Adhering to this object is a silver vase, which most probably became soldered to the copper in the great fire which destroyed the city. (13) As I found all the above objects packed together on the great divine wall, it seems certain that they lay in a wooden chest (ϕωριαμός), such as those which are mentioned in the Iliad (xxiv 228)Google Scholar as being in Priam's palace. This seems all the more certain as I found directly next to the objects a large copper key, which is very similar to the keys of today's large iron safes in banks. (14) Presumably, some member of Priam's family packed the treasure in the chest in great haste, carried it outside without having the time to remove the key, was overcome on the wall by the hand of the enemy or by the fire and had to abandon the chest, which was immediately buried 6 ft deep in the red ashes and debris of the nearby palace. Perhaps the helmet referred to in my last article, which was found along with a vase and cup directly next to the wall in a room of the palace, belonged to the unfortunate individual who tried to rescue the treasure. (15) Six feet above the treasure the successors of the Trojans raised a fortification-wall, 6 m high, 1 m 80 cm thick. It was built of stones, cut and uncut, and earth; it reaches up to ½ m or 1 m under the surface of the hill. (16) As I hoped to find further treasures here and also wanted to bring to light the divine wall of Troy as far as the Scaean gate, I broke away the partially superimposed wall along a stretch of 17½ m. Visitors to the Troad can, however, still distinguish this wall in the north-west wall opposite the Scaean gate. I also broke away the entire mound of earth which separated my W. and N.W. cutting from the great tower, but to this end I was obliged to knock down one of my houses and to bridge over the Scaean gate in order to facilitate removal of the rubbish. (17) The result of this new excavation has been very profitable for science, for I have been able to uncover several walls and a room of the palace, 6 m square, on which no buildings from a later period rest. Of the objects found there I mention only an excellently engraved inscription on a square piece of red schist, which has two holes at the top not completely bored through, and an encircling incision, but neither my learned friend M. Em. Burnouf nor I can say in which language the inscription is written. Further there were some interesting terracottas, including a vessel, which is shaped exactly like a modern cask, with a spout in the middle for pouring in and withdrawing the liquid. (18) There were also found on the Trojan circuit-wall ½ m under the place where the treasure was discovered 3 silver dishes (ϕιάλαι), two of which were smashed when the debris was being dug away; they can, however, be restored, as I have all the pieces. These dishes must have belonged to the treasure and if the treasure itself remained otherwise untouched by our pick-axes, this is owing to the large copper vessels mentioned above, which projected so that I was able to cut out everything from the debris with the knife.

(19) That the precious objects were packed together in the most fearful danger and with trembling anxiety is indicated by, amongst other things, the contents of the largest silver vase, at the bottom of which I found two splendid gold diadems, one fillet, and four beautiful earrings of the most skilful workmanship. On top lay fifty-six gold earrings of the most remarkable shape and thousands of gold beads and little buttons of different sizes, which clearly came from other pieces of jewellery. On the very top lay the two smaller gold cups.’

⁹ (1) ‘Behind the latter (wall) I exposed at a depth of 8 to 9 m the Trojan circuit-wall as it continues from the Scaean gate, and in excavating further on this wall, right next to the house of Priam, I came across a large copper object of the most remarkable shape, which attracted my attention all the more as I thought I saw gold behind it. (2) On the copper object lay a stratum, 1½ to 1¾ m thick, hard as stone, of red ash and calcined debris, on which rested the aforementioned fortification-wall, 1 m 80 cm thick and 6 m high. The wall was composed of large stones and earth and must date to the earliest period after the destruction of Troy. (3) In order to withdraw the treasure from the greed of my workmen and to rescue it for science, the utmost speed was necessary, and although it was still not yet breakfast-time, I immediately had ‘paidos’ called—a word of uncertain origin that has passed over into Turkish and is here used instead of ἀνάπαυσις or break. While my workmen were eating and resting, I cut out the treasure with a large knife. It was impossible to do this without the most strenuous exertions and the most fearful risk to my life, for the large fortification-wall, which I had to undermine, threatened at every moment to fall down on me. (4) But the sight of so many objects, each one of which is of inestimable value for science, made me foolhardy and I had no thought of danger. The removal of the treasure, however, would have been impossible without the help of my dear wife, who stood always ready to pack in her shawl and carry away the objects I cut out.’

¹⁰ C says nothing about the circumstances of the discovery.

¹¹ Plan 2 ( = Atlas pl. 214) is at the end of TR. The other two plans are at TR 306 and 347 ( = Atlas pls 216 and 215 respectively). The explanatory legend accompanying Atlas pl. 215, which has been omitted from the plan at TR 347, indicates that the findspot of the treasure (12) is in the same position as in Plan 2, where it is designated 42. The illustration is pl. XIII of TR (= Atlas pl. 212), which faces p. 321.

¹² For the Atlas Schliemann had to supply Brockhaus with 400 photographs of each of the plates. In 1873 making prints was a laborious process. Perhaps the photographer had already made the 400 copies of each of pls 212 (TR pl. XIII), 214 (TR Plan 2) and 215 (plan at TR 347) of the Atlas before Schliemann spotted the inconsistency between Laurent's plans on the one hand and AB and the opening of C on the other. In that case Schliemann might well have thought it simpler to change the findspot to the wall than to have the original plans and illustration and the 1200 photographs redone.

¹³ For a recent study of the gold sauceboat type see Weinberg, S., ‘A gold sauceboat in the Israel Museum’, AK xii (1969) 1–8, pls 1–3Google Scholar.

¹⁴ For the ‘champagne-glass’ description of this type, see TR 86–7. Prof. Calder points out that it is the French champagne-glass that Schliemann has in mind. There can be no doubt that at this point Schliemann believes that his gold vessel is shaped like that in Plate VIIIb. A letter dated Troy, 10 June from Schliemann to G. Boker, the American Ambassador in Constantinople, reads: ‘I know for certain that I saw in it [the treasure] the homeric δέπας ἀμϕικύπελλον … a huge gobelet [sic] with two gigantic handles and a round basis so that it can only be put on its mouth. Of such gobelets Y. Exc. has seen 30 of terracotta in my collection. … But the enormous gobelet of pure gold which figures in Priam's treasure discovered last week can not leave the slightest doubt in the mind of any one that Aristoteles is wrong and that I am right.’

¹⁵ TR 313–14.

¹⁶ See also Easton, D., Antiquity lv (1981) 180Google Scholar: ‘In the diary for 1872 [misprint for 1873] there is no daily entry which records that, on that day, the treasure had been found.’ A is not a regular diary entry (see n. 6 above) nor does it indicate the discovery date.

¹⁷ Meyer (n. 5) 230–1. The date cannot of course be Julian, since that would imply that the treasure was not discovered until after 11 June (Gregorian).

¹⁸ Atlas 54 in nn. to pl. 197.

¹⁹ Easton (n. 16) 181.

²⁰ Meyer, E., Briefe von Heinrich Schliemann (Berlin 1936) 132Google Scholar.

²¹ Meyer seems to have wrongly inferred the date from Calvert's note on the back of the letter: ‘Rec'd 31st May 1873.’ The circumstances and content of the letter, however, suggest that it was written and delivered on the same day. The ‘Saturday’ confirms this. Frederick Calvert's farm was situated at Akça Köy, some four miles S.E. of Hisarlık.

²² Meyer (n. 5) 342 n. 335 reckons ‘unter Berück-sichtigung aller Mögligkeiten der Datierung nach altem und neuem Kalendar, nach der Abfolge der z. T. rückdatierten Eintragungen im Tagebuch und im Briefcopierbuch usw.’ some day between 7 and 10 June as the most likely date for the discovery of the treasure.

²³ The entries from 19 May to the end of the diary are dated as follows: 7/19 May, 9/21 May, 23 May, 24 May, 26 May, 27 May, 28 May, 29 May, 20/2 June, 31 May, 22/4 June, 4 June, 6 June, 26/7 June, 29/11 June, 30/12 June, 2/14 June, 7/19 June and 17 June. While there are a number of errors in these dates (e.g. 22/4 June for 22/3 June), the sequence is unmistakably Gregorian, In particular, it will be noticed that the 31 May entry cannot be a Julian date, as Meyer appears to assume (n. 22), since it is followed by no less than five earlier Julian dates.

²⁴ Easton (n. 16) 181.

²⁵ This is probably because it is addressed to Germany. Schliemann seems to have used single Julian dates in his correspondence only when writing to correspondents in countries such as Greece which were still operating on that calendar. Even in such situations, however, we find him more frequently using single Gregorian dates, as in the letter to Serge at Meyer (n. 5) 230–1.

²⁶ Traill, CJ lxxiv (1979) 348–51. For further evidence of Schliemann's shameless manipulation of dates see Traill, , Boreas vii (1984) 295–316Google Scholar.

²⁷ On that date he sent a letter to Deetjen, which included the following: ‘Ich denke hier die Ausgrabungen nur bis 15 Juni fortzusetzen.’ See Meyer (n. 5) 228.

²⁸ In TR he begins by specifying the first four objects clearly as ‘first’, ‘second’, etc. Then he uses less precise terms, such as ‘thereupon’, ‘then’, which still imply a consecutive order. From p. 327 onwards he resorts to such vague formulations as ‘The Treasure further contained …’, ‘I also found …’, which do not imply a strict order. At Ilios 453, however, Schliemann asserts that the order in which they are described in TR is the order in which they were removed.

²⁹ William Copeland Borlase was a descendant of the noted eighteenth-century Cornish antiquarian, Dr William Borlase. Born 1848, he graduated with an M.A. from Oxford and trained for the bar. He became M.P. for East Cornwall in 1880 and was sometime Vice-President of the Society of Antiquaries. By 1878 he had already published Naenia Cornubiae. A Descriptive Essay Illustrative of Sepulchres and Funeral Customs of the Early Inhabitants of the County of Cornwall (London/Truro 1872)Google Scholar and Niphon and its Antiquities: An Essay on the Ethnology, Mythology, and Religion of the Japanese (Plymouth 1876)Google Scholar. For further information see Kirk, J. F., A Supplement to Allibone's Critical Dictionary of English Literature and British and American Authors (Philadelphia 1891) i 179Google Scholar.

³⁰ Fraser's Magazine n.s. xvii (February 1878) 235–6Google Scholar.

³¹ The letter, dated ‘Athens 22nd Feby. 1878’, is published in Meyer, E., ‘Schliemann's Letters to Max Müller in Oxford’, JHS lxxxii (1962) 97–9Google Scholar.

³² The copies of all these letters are to be found in Copybook 29. The originals of some of them are in the separate file of correspondence between Schliemann and Sophia. The 13 October letter, part of which is published at Meyer (n 5) 191, opens: ‘La douleur que ta conduite envers moi m'a causée le jour de mon départ était tellement navrante, tellement immense que j'ai été jusqu'à présent parfaitement incapable de t'écrire.’

³³ Meyer notes that Schliemann's claims at TR 62, 98, 185 and 224 that Sophia is present at Troy are belied by his correspondence: see his Heinrich Schliemann; Kaufmann und Forscher (Gottingen 1969) 429Google Scholar n. 148. He seems to believe, however, that Sophia did not come to Troy in 1872 at all, whereas in a letter to Frank Calvert dated 7/19 May Schliemann observes that Sophia was to arrive on 23 May. Though another letter to Frank Calvert indicates that she was to depart from the Dardanelles on 26 June, Schliemann continues to mention her as present at Troy in his reports of 13 July (TR 185) and 14 August (TR 212). (The original letters to Calvert are kept in the Calvert file, the copies in Copybook 30.) Meyer further observes that the words referring to Sophia have been added to the manuscript of Trojanische Alterthümer above the line and that they do not appear in the corresponding earlier drafts in the diaries.

³⁴ Copies are in Copybook 30. In the Calvert file there is also the original of a letter dated 4 Feb. 1873, in which Schliemann requests Frank Calvert to send Sophia's letters to him by special courier.

³⁵ This letter is preserved in Box 67.

³⁶ Meyer (n. 5) 229.

³⁷ Copies of both letters, which are written in modern Greek, appear in Copybook 31. In the ‘24 May’ letter we find: ‘What is the matter with Sophia? She wrote me a very cold letter that is unworthy of my position. …’ In the letter of ‘29 May’: ‘I share in all of Sophia's suffering.’

³⁸ The ‘24 May’ letter refers to Schliemann's wooden house as already demolished. The 1873 diary shows that it was not demolished until 4 June (Gregorian). Schliemann quite often used single Julian dates when writing to Greeks.

³⁹ The letter is preserved in the special Heinrich—Sophia file. No copy of it appears in the copybook.

Translation:

My dearest wife:

We have found in the house of Priam things of such importance for science that we have decided to demolish the wooden hut and to excavate its site, a task which will require ten days. Because of this, don't publish my article yet. I will write to you when it is time to publish it. For heaven's sake, don't publish it before I write to you that it is time. Stay in Athens, my angel, because at the moment I am in sore straits. Best wishes, idol of my heart, and best wishes, my little Andromache.

Your husband and father

Schliemann

Monday

The reference to the imminent demolition or the wooden hut dates the letter to Monday, 2 June 1873: see n. 38.

⁴⁰ On the interview with Fillmore see Calder (n. 1) 338–41; on the San Francisco fire see Traill, CJ lxxiv (1979) 348–51. For Schliemann's tendency to embroider a story in later retellings, see the examination of the evidence for his alleged early preoccupation with Homer and Troy in Calder (n. 1) 350–1, Schindler, , Philol. cxx (1976) 273–5Google Scholar, and Zimmermann (n. 2) 521–2 with n. 10; also cf. the elaboration of the ‘little suitcase’ story at Calder 345–6.

⁴¹ TR 357: ‘In conclusion, I cannot refrain from most strongly recommending Nikolaos Saphyros Jannakis, of the neighbouring village of Renkoi, to all those who, sooner or later, may wish to make excavations in the Plain of Troy or in the neighbourhood. During all my excavations here, since April 1870, he has been my attendant, cook, and cashier. It is in the latter capacity, that I find him incomparably useful on account of his honesty, which has been well tested. …’

⁴² I am grateful to Ann Gunter for the information that it has long been a puzzle why the inhabitants of Troy III, who are culturally indistinguishable from those of Troy II, did not find the treasure that had been abandoned on the wall.

⁴³ I am not competent to offer an extended discussion of the archaeological evidence. For help with the information offered here I am indebted to Donald Easton.

⁴⁴ See Podzuweit, C., Trojanische Gefässformen der Frühbronzezeit in Anatolien, der Ägäis und angrenzenden Gebieten (Mainz 1979)Google Scholar for a full classification and catalogue of the types.

⁴⁵ Illustrated at Troy i pt 2, pl. 359. Schliemann's silver omphalos bowl is to be seen in Fig. 3, row d, third from the right, propped up on the rim of the vase and the ‘frying-pan’ handle.

⁴⁶ L. Bcrnabo-Brea, ILN (3 Aug. 1957) 197–9. The pendant earrings of ‘Priam's Treasure’ are illustrated in Fig. 4 (no. 280) and the shell earrings are in the top row of earrings, no. 278.

⁴⁷ For the discovery and an illustrated description of this treasure see Ilios 485–8.

⁴⁸ Blegen, , Troy i pt 1 367Google Scholar and Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R., Western Asiatic Jewellery c. 3000–612 B.C. (London 1971) 52–4Google Scholar. Schliemann's beads are shown in Fig. 4, no. 278, bottom two rows.

⁴⁹ See Podzuweit (n. 44) 230–1 for references and brief discussion.

⁵⁰ The closest parallel would be the Dorak Treasure reported by J. Mellaart at ILN (28 Nov. 1959), the authenticity and even existence of which remain disputed.

⁵¹ The owners of Hisarlık were Safvet Pasha (western portion) and Frank Calvert (eastern). Schliemann had made similar agreements with both owners.

⁵² The letter, despite its date, is filed with the 1873 letters in Box 68.

⁵³ In particular, there is no mention of the gold and silver jewellery discovered in 1872 (TR 164–5, 209–10) in his review of that season's work in the Augsburg, Allgemeine Zeitung (1 Jan. 1873) 11–12Google Scholar. The date for the closing of the excavations is taken from the 2/14 June entry of the 1873 diary. It begins: ‘Heute Abend habe ich die Arbeiten für dies Leben eingestellt …’; see also Meyer (n. 33) 274.

⁵⁴ In a letter to Curtius dated 2 Feb. 1872 Schliemann asks for his opinion of the objects ‘von ganz besonderem Intcrcsse für Sie’ illustrated in the accompanying nine photographs. He insists that these photographs are for the eyes of Curtius and Lepsius only, ‘denn erstens bin ich wegen meines “Firman” besorgt und zweitens beabsichtige ich selbst, nach Beendigung der Ausgrabungen ein Werk mit gleichen Photographien zu veröffentlichen’; see Meyer (n. 5) 202. Similar sentiments are expressed in a letter to Frank Calvert dated 1 Oct. 1872: ‘On Saturday I have sent him [Curtius] again a long article for his paper, but I have no great desire to send more for the present, because I want to publish a book, which, alas, I shall not be able to do before next July or August, being afraid that the Constantinople Museum might cancel my firman if they see the engravings of the objects I discovered. What do you think of that?’; see Meyer (n. 20) 124.

⁵⁵ Published in Meyer (n. 5) 226, where Meyer erroneously prints ‘silver etc.’ for ‘silver wire’.

⁵⁶ Prior to the 17 June 1873 report there are only two passages in TR in which Schliemann reports having found rings of precious metals (164–5 and 209–10), but since they include such vague phrases as ‘several rings’ and ‘bunches of earrings’, it is impossible to ascertain exactly how many he had found, but when we compare the text with pls 17, 26, 98 and 99 of the Atlas together with the accompanying notes, the grand total appears to have been closer to fifteen than to sixty. Even if we include copper rings, the total can scarcely be more than twenty.

⁵⁷ Copybook 31, 190.

⁵⁸ That the twenty-five knives do not include stone knives is clear from the position of the item (next to the copper spearheads) and the occurrence elsewhere in the list of the item ‘393 stone tools’.

⁵⁹ TR 238 (2 spearheads or ‘lances’); 262 (3 knives); 279 (1 spearhead); 296 (1 spearhead); 312 (1 spearhead, 1 knife).

⁶⁰ It will be noted that the weapons are described simply as spearheads (more than two dozen) and knives, as in the letter of 16 April. At C 8 they become 34 spearheads and 6 knives. By C 22e they have been differentiated into 13 spearheads, 14 battle-axes, 7 daggers, 1 knife, 1 sword, and 1 copper bar and so they remain in D (TR 329–32).

⁶¹ Earlier I was led by Blegen's observation that the gold sauceboat was of ‘distinctly non-Trojan appearance’ (Troy i pt 1 208) into suspecting that Schliemann or Sophia might have purchased the piece from a dealer. This was my opinion in June 1981, when I was interviewed for the BBC documentary of Schliemann, ‘The Man Behind the Mask’, broadcast on 20 January, 1982. I have since learned that Blegen's view of the sauceboat as necessarily an import is not shared by many Anatolian archaeologists today and that the piece is not at all out of place for Early Bronze Age Troy, Accordingly, it now seems to me more likely that Schliemann actually found the piece in Troy than that he had the luck or prescience to buy a piece of unique shape, which just happened to be archaeologically appropriate.

⁶² This is suggested by the reference to 60 earrings in the letter of 29 March 1873 (see n. 55) and by the fact that it was at the end of March that the workmen absconded with Treasure C (see n. 47).

⁶³ For recent surveys of the problem with comprehensive bibliographies see Yakar, Jak, Anat. St. xxix (1979) 51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Quitta, H. in Troja und Thrakien: Katalog zur Ausstellung (East Berlin 1981) 21–9Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ See Fig. 4, no. 278, second top row of earrings, centre and centre right.

⁶⁵ Maxwell-Hyslop (n. 48) 58–9.

⁶⁶ Maxwell-Hyslop (n. 48) 60.

⁶⁷ Quitta (n. 63) 25–8.

⁶⁸ Calder (n. 1) 347 and (n. 2) 146–7; Döhl, H., Heinrich Schliemann: Mythos und Ärgernis (Munich 1981) 61–71Google Scholar and passim.