“In excavating this wall further and directly by the side of the palace of King Priam, I came upon a large copper article of the most remarkable form, which attracted my attention all the more as I thought I saw gold behind it. … In order to withdraw the treasure from the greed of my workmen, and to save it for archaeology, … I immediately had “paidos” (lunch break) called. … While the men were eating and resting, I cut out the Treasure with a large knife…. It would, however, have been impossible for me to have removed the Treasure without the help of my dear wife, who stood by me ready to pack the things which I cut out in her shawl and to carry them away.”
-Heinrich Schliemann on the discovery of “Priam’s Treasure,” May 27th, 1873
In this week’s blog post, I want to explore the more admittedly-spurious idea of the value of portraying artifacts like the jewelry from the so-called “Priam’s Treasure” worn by Sophia Schliemann in her infamous Helen of Troy photograph as the priceless and spectacular commodities they truly are. Let me be clear: I am not arguing in favor of the “spectacularization” process of archaeological finds exemplified in this anecdote, nor am I condoning Schliemann’s capitalistic enterprises whatsoever, I am simply wondering if there may be some positive aspects of this approach that we have overlooked in our haste to reject it in following the proper social norms of historians and archaeologists alike.
I will not deny my initial reactions of horror and shock to learn about Schliemann’s archaeological practices and to see the photo of his wife, Sophia, wearing the jewelry herself. Not only was this grave robbery, it was destruction of an archaeological site of tremendous value and theft of the objects by Schliemann from it’s rightful country. Yet I found myself marveling at the beauty of the artifacts themselves situated and worn exactly as they would have been thousands of years ago. The craftsmanship of the gold jewelry is entrancing and awe-inspiring, and this impression is only furthered by being modeled/displayed exactly as the original artist would have intended it to be. Would the ancient artist have wanted their work displayed in such a spectacular fashion, circulated globally and immortalized in the photograph of Sophia Schliemann? Kathrin Maurer’s work, “Archaeology as Spectacle: Heinrich Schliemann’s Media of Excavation” presents an interesting notion that Schliemann’s staging of his archaeological findings through photography “advertise their actuality and eternal presence.” In this sense, the spectacularization of the jewelry honors the extraordinary work of the artist as well as her/his society through its timelessness. The artifacts presented in such a way are able to engage a much larger audience, thus encouraging a more wide-spread and deeper respect for an ancient society. What artisan wouldn’t want their work to be so valued and revered by so many for millennia? The fact that the treasures are actually dated to around 1000 years before Homer’s legendary King Priam lived only adds to this notion of eternality.
We are quick to criticize modern promotions (in the spectacularization and capitalistic fashions), perceptions and interpretations of history along with their connected archaeological finds, yet it is important to recognize positive aspects as we attempt to reconcile such social processes. Through the spectacular presentation of “Priam’s Treasure,” epitomized by the photograph of Sophia Schliemann, we are shown a natural presentation of artifacts whose aesthetic value transcends the traditional temporal boundaries of history and promotes eternal honor for the ancient society and the craftsmanship of the artist.
Ancient Greek Art and Archaeology 
It was very intriguing to here your argument on spectacularization. In many ways I very much agree with your statements. Although this may not be the way that the original artist intended for the piece to be displayed, it allows for a wider audience to have greater interaction with Ancient Greek artwork. There are many people that would never be able to see these pieces if they were kept in Greece. This way people from all different socioeconomic backgrounds and cultures can experience this artifact.
LikeLike
Dear Bryn
Your post is surely refreshing considering what has been said in the article and in class. I personally think this specific case is a really interesting one because it is jewelry we are talking about. In a way, these jewelry are supposed to be “spectacles” even in their original settings. If we are talking about everyday life objects such as jars and plates, I think the result is likely to be different. I think what’s most important is that the artifact doesn’t lose its initial meaning given by the initial setting just because it is old.
Mike Shi
LikeLike