Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans damaged our understanding of the past

by Damien F. Mackey “Ultimately, regardless of the extent to which Heinrich Schliemann’s and Arthur Evans’ actions can be exonerated, is clear that both men did intentionally deceive the world (and themselves) about the authenticity of their findings”. Whitney White Following on from my articles: Schemin' Heinrich Schliemann? (3) Schemin' Heinrich Schliemann? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and (the six-part series): Good heavens, Sir Arthur Evans! beginning with: (3) Good heavens, Sir Arthur Evans! | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu (including a critique of Zahi Hawass), I came across an article by Whitney White, entitled: https://web.colby.edu/copiesfakesforgeries/files/2021/05/WHITE.pdf Desire, Expectation, and the Forging of History: A Reexamination of Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans Introduction Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans are two of the most well-known names in archaeology. Their excavations of Aegean civilizations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries dramatically influenced our understanding of the Bronze Age world. Though there is overwhelming evidence that at least some of their findings were faked and forged to varying degrees, tourists still flock to view their discoveries and even the most contested objects remain included in art historical canon. This continued mainstream acceptance of Schliemann’s and Evans’ findings has meant that the two are rarely considered within the context of another part of the artworld that they certainly could be associated with: that of forgers. Though the study of art forgers is relatively limited, the existing scholarship has revealed that most forgers have a consistent profile and share similar motivations—which are at odds with those of these amateur archaeologists. The question that emerges, then, is how do Schliemann and Evans fit into our understanding of forgers? In this paper, I argue that, as it stands, the current definition of forgers is far too limited. By introducing psychological understandings of desire and expectation as a new framework for considering the motivations of forgers, our understanding of forgers can be expanded to include Schliemann and Evans and our definition of forgeries can be complicated to critically reexamine the contested objects associated with these men’s excavations. …. Heinrich Schliemann was a hoaxer according to professor William Calder: Behind the Mask of Agamemnon Volume 52 Number 4, July/August 1999 IS THE MASK A HOAX? For 25 years I have researched the life of Heinrich Schliemann. I have learned to be skeptical, particularly of the more dramatic events in Schliemann's life: a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California; his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist; the discovery of ancient Greek inscriptions in his backyard; the discovery of the bust of Cleopatra in a trench in Alexandria; his unearthing of an enormous cache of gold and silver objects at Troy, known as Priam's Treasure. Thanks to the research of archaeologist George Korres of the University of Athens, the German art historian Wolfgang Schindler, and historians of scholarship David A. Traill and myself, we know that Schliemann made up these stories, once universally accepted by uncritical biographers. These fictions cause me to wonder whether the Mask of Agamemnon might be a further hoax. Here are nine reasons to believe it may be: …. For the professor’s “nine reasons”, refer to: https://archive.archaeology.org/9907/etc/calder.html Whitney White concludes the article with: Desire-Driven Forgers From these concise overviews, it is clear that while Schliemann and Evans intentionally altered their findings to varying degrees, neither fit the typical forger profile. How, then, can we consider them within this context? It is useful here to explore the characteristic of their excavations that united them the most: each had a strong desire to prove a certain narrative about the past, coupled with the expectation that it was there to be proven. This desire-expectation combination can be used as framework to place these men into the context of art forgers and expand our understanding of forgers in general. Though psychological studies of desire are primarily dedicated to universal, tangible desires, like food and sex, and tend to explore issues related to self-control, the desire to know the past, as suggested by David Lowenthal, is also universal and compelling (Lowenthal 325), and can thus be viewed as functioning like other desires and studied in similar ways. Strong desire, as described by Wilhelm Hofmann, often clouds our judgement and can lead us to act out of character (Hofmann 199). This is especially true when we begin to overthink, as we find ways to justify the actions, however unsavory, we need to take to fulfill our desire (Hofmann 200). As educated men set out to prove a past they felt was (or should be) true, Schliemann and Evans would likely have overthought and justified their actions: in their minds, they were actually benefiting mankind (or at least, Europeans) by proving a past that they really wanted to exist; altering evidence here and there could thus be justified as a necessary means to give the world (and themselves) what it wanted. As Lowenthal explains, “we may be fully conscious, partially and hazily aware, or wholly unconscious of what prompts us to alter the past. Many such changes are unintended; other are undertaken to make a supposed legacy credible . . . The more strenuously we build a desired past, the more we convince ourselves that things really were that way; what ought to have happened becomes what did happen” (Lowenthal 326, emphasis added). The desire to change the past, even when intentional, can bring even those responsible for the changes—the forgers—to convince themselves of their own deceptions. While this, as Lowenthal agrees (Lowenthal 331), separates the desire-driven forger from the typical, revengedriven forger, the fact remains that all forgers nonetheless damage our understanding of the past through intentional deception. It should be noted that desire in this context is also closely tied to expectation. As described by David Huron, who studies the psychology of expectation in relation to music, expectations provoke strong emotional responses. When we successfully predict something we expect to happen, we are rewarded by our brains, and when we unsuccessfully predict something, we experience mental “punishments” (Huron 362). These psychological processes developed from a survival standpoint but can be used to explain behavior in many different contexts. Since Schliemann and Evans so clearly expected to find something that they desired, they perhaps felt the need to make their prediction true even more strongly (unconsciously or not) to avoid the double mental punishment of unfilled desire and incorrect expectation. While it has been established that both Schliemann and Evans were aware of their actions in altering the past at least to some extent, considering the psychology of expectation gives them some benefit of the doubt and further separates them from the typical forger. Conclusion Ultimately, regardless of the extent to which Heinrich Schliemann’s and Arthur Evans’ actions can be exonerated, is clear that both men did intentionally deceive the world (and themselves) about the authenticity of their findings. They thus can be tentatively classed as forgers, albeit of a different kind than are usually dealt with in the artworld. In any case, it is important to recognize that their forgeries, like all others, do indeed damage our understanding of the past. Expanding our understanding of forgers to include those who often slip under the radar because their intention to deceive, though present, is not as insidious, has a broader two-fold effect. First, it makes us more aware of the fact that forgers can exist and cause damage in multiple contexts. Sir Arthur Evans He may have been an inveterate racist, who fabricated a so-called “Minoan” civilisation. See also my article: Of Cretans and Phoenicians (3) Of Cretans and Phoenicians | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sir Arthur Evans, a tyrannical, dictatorial type, seems to have his like successor in the incompetent Zahi Hawass.

Mighty Assyro-Chaldean kings mistaken for Hittite emperors

by Damien F. Mackey And this brings in the possibility, now, that Dr. I. Velikovsky was almost right in identifying Hattusilis with Nebuchednezzar. But I think that, instead, Hattusilis was Sennacherib. Responding to a Brazilian researcher concerning a series of letters of Sennacherib that are generally thought to constitute his correspondence, as Crown Prince, with the Assyrian king, Sargon II, I concluded that Sennacherib (who actually is my Sargon II) must instead have been writing, as King of Assyria, to a contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty: Some Letters from Sennacherib (3) Some Letters from Sennacherib | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I then followed up this article with one on: Ramses II’s confrontations with Assyria’s Sargon II and Chaldea’s Nebuchednezzar (3) Ramses II’s confrontations with Assyria’s Sargon II and Chaldea’s Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu which enabled me to establish, for Sargon II/Sennacherib of Assyria, a “contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty”, namely pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’. He, the great pharaoh, would be, I believe, the only contemporary of Sennacherib (Sargon II) to whom the Assyrian king would deign to have shown such deference as to write (Letter # 029): [To] the king, my lord: [your servant] Sin-ahhe-riba [Sennacherib]. Good health to the king, my lord! [Assyri]a is well,[the temp]les are well, all [the king's forts] are well. The king, my lord, can be glad indeed …. in such a way as could suggest a treaty had been established between the mighty pair. Now, with the mention of Ramses II and a treaty with another Great King, one must think only of the famous treaty made between Ramses II and Hattusilis so-called III. And this brings in the possibility, now, that Dr. I. Velikovsky was almost right in identifying Hattusilis with Nebuchednezzar. But I think that, instead, Hattusilis was Sennacherib. Obviously there is a lot that must be worked out to solidify this identification. But there appears to be a parallel scenario between (a) Hattusilis, his formidable wife, (b) Pudu-hepa and (c) Tudhaliya so-called IV, on the one hand, and – {in my revision, according to which Sennacherib was succeeded by his (non-biological) son, Esarhaddon, a Chaldean, who is my Nebuchednezzar} - (a) Sennacherib, his formidable wife, (b) Naqī’a (Zakūtu) and (c) Esarhaddon (Nebuchednezzar). I need to note here that I have multi-identified each (a-c) of this second set. Thus: Sargon II/Sennacherib is, all at once, Tukulti-ninurta; Shamsi-Adad [not I]; Esarhaddon is, all at once, Ashur-bel-kala; Ashurnasirpal; Ashurbanipal; Nebuchednezzar [I and II]; Nabonidus; Artaxerxes of Nehemiah; Cambyses’; Naqia/Zakutu is, all at once, Semiramis (of Tukulti-ninurta’s era); Sammu-ramat; Adad-Guppi. But how can an Assyrian king, or a Chaldean king, become confused as a Hittite? Well, perhaps we may consider a few things here. For example: No such people as the Indo-European Hittites (3) No such people as the Indo-European Hittites | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In this article I referenced Brock Heathcotte as follows: Brock Heathcotte has written on this in his article “Tugdamme the Hittite” (January 28, 2017): The theory espoused here is that Mursili II and Tugdamme were the same person. This does not mean that his subjects, euphemistically called the “Hittite” people in modern times were ethnic Cimmerians. They almost certainly were a people of many ethnicities including prominently Luwian, based on language. The cold hard fact that has been distorted by decades of talking about the Hittites is that there is no such people as the Hittites. The tablet people we spoke of never called themselves Hittites, and nobody else called them Hittites either at the time. This is actually not controversial. It is just obscured by convention. Academics could argue all day and night about the ethnic composition of the people who lived in Anatolia, and which of them were the rulers we know as the Hittite kings. The argument is not susceptible to resolution, especially not in the current mistaken historical context the Hittites are placed. The rulers called themselves the Great Kings of Hatti. They could be any ethnicity. We should think of “Hittite” as the same sort of location-based moniker for a people as “American.” It doesn’t make sense to say there is an American ethnicity, and it doesn’t make sense to say there is a “Hittite” ethnicity. Americans come in many different ethnicities, as did the Hittites. …. [End of quote] Moreover, some time before I wrote any of this, I had already penned this article about Ashurnasirpal, who is my Esarhaddon (Nebuchednezzar), a Chaldean: Hittite elements in art and warfare of Ashurnasirpal (3) Hittite elements in art and warfare of Ashurnasirpal | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu These Assyro-Chaldean kings, who conquered the lands of the Hittites, could easily have assumed titles akin to King of the Hittites. Tudhaliya’s accession like that of Esarhaddon Esarhaddon, Tudhaliya, had no real prospect of succeeding to the throne. The ancient term for someone in that position, not of the royal line, was “son of nobody”. And I found this characteristic in Esarhaddon’s alter egos, having written: …. Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for various of these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship. Thus I previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”. …. And we read in the following Abstract that that was also the former status of Tudhaliya: https://academic.oup.com/book/36172/chapter-abstract/314550786?redirectedFrom=fulltext Abstract In his early years, the prince Tudhaliya could have had little thought that he would one day become king. But he was installed by Hattusili ‘in kingship’, that is, Tudhaliya probably now assumed the role of crown prince. This chapter examines the career path which Hattusili had mapped out for Tudhaliya in preparation for his becoming king of the Hittites, Puduhepa's effort to arrange her daughter's marriage to Tudhaliya, problems and potential crises inherited by Tudhaliya from Muwattalli as Hittite ruler, political developments in western Anatolia during Tudhaliya's reign, the impact of establishment of a pro-Hittite regime in Milawata on Ahhiyawan enterprise in western Anatolia, political problems that arose from the marriage alliance contracted between the royal families of Ugarit and Amurru, Tudhaliya's war with Assyria, possible coup instigated by Kurunta to wrest the throne from his cousin Tudhaliya, Tudhaliya's conquest of Alasiya, and the achievements of Tudhaliya IV as ruler of the Hittite kingdom. The whole thing seems to have been arranged by the formidable Queen, as was the case again with Esarhaddon and his mother Naqī’a/Zakūtu: Naqia of Assyria and Semiramis (3) Naqia of Assyria and Semiramis | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu https://www.britannica.com/biography/Naqia “[Esarhaddon’s] energetic and designing mother, Zakutu (Naqia), who came from Syria or Judah [sic?], used all her influence on his behalf to override the national party of Assyria”. I would expect now to begin finding many parallels between Esarhaddon/ Nebuchednezzar, in his various guises (alter egos), and the so-called Hittite emperor, Tudhaliya.