BMCR 2009.01.41, Marcelle Robinson, Schliemann's Silent Partner

Marcelle Robinson, Schliemann's Silent Partner, Frank Calvert
(1828-1908). Pioneer, Scholar and Survivor.  Philadelphia:  Xlibris,
2006.  Pp. 700; maps 3.  ISBN 978-1-4134-2916-9.  $35.09.  ISBN
978-1-4134-2915-2.  $24.64 (pb).

Reviewed by Jan P. Stronk, Oude Geschiedenis, Universiteit van
Amsterdam ([email protected])
Word count:  2537 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-01-41.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/01/20090141.html
-------------------------------

Over the years, since 1871, the finds in the settlement hill of
Hissarlik (to the general public better known as Troy) in northwestern
Anatolia have been linked to Heinrich Schliemann. Though Schliemann had
nominally transformed himself from a businessman into an archaeologist,
he had with respect to the exploitation of his work very much retained
the tricks of his former trade. One of those tricks was to gloss over
the memory of the man who introduced him to the landmarks of the Troad
(and, indeed, the hill of Hissarlik), Frank Calvert. The book under
review, written by Marcelle Robinson (henceforward R), is the first
elaborate biography of Calvert, a pioneer of archaeological research of
the Troad. Since 1993 R has published on Calvert, trying to restore him
to the position he--certainly in her opinion--deserves. So far, this
book is the culminating point of that effort.

The first 41 pages of this book consist of the preliminary matter:
acknowledgements, author's notes, abbreviations, maps, and the Calvert
family tree. Introduction and background are described on p. 42-51.
Next R paints Calvert's life in 46 chapters (52-443). The appendices
start with a (numberless) chronological index of Calvert's writings
(444-6), followed by a (numbered) selection of mostly letters or papers
written by Calvert (some in facsimile). The book closes with an
elaborate index of place names (499-502), a selected index personarum
(503-11), reference notes (512-639), bibliography (640-56),
illustrations (657-80), and a (general) index (681-700).

The work by R is a detailed biography of Calvert (and wherever needed
also taking notice of members of his family,) from the day of his birth
(in Valetta, Malta on September 3, 1828) until his death (in the
Dardanelles on August 12, 1908). As the title suggests, she pays
special attention to Calvert's relationship--and the evolution
thereof--with Heinrich Schliemann. The latter first visited Calvert in
August 1868 during a tour he made through the Troad in search of Troy.

In 1845 Calvert had moved to the Troad, to the Dardanelles (modern
C,annakale), where part of his family already lived and where he
finally would become the U.S. consul. Already in late 1846 he had
become thoroughly familiar with the region, where the family owned
several pieces of property. In 1857 Calvert became the owner of a piece
of 2000 acres of "good ground, including the site of Ilium Novum" (81)
at Hissarlik. Later, (at last in 1864) he also acquired part of the
hill at Hissarlik (apparently, based upon a letter to Schliemann early
1869, half of it: p. 120 and note 22) and started excavating there. It
was not his first excavation: previously he had worked at (and
published on) Hanai Tepeh, Colonoe, and Ophrynium. These publications
show him as an efficient, methodical, and precise excavator. However,
he did lack the financial resources for a full scale excavation of the
hill of Hissarlik: the work he did, though, convinced him he had found
the site of Troy.

R argues that Calvert easily convinced Schliemann, who had ample
financial means, of his views regarding Hissarlik. From his part,
Schliemann was eager to make Calvert believe that he wholeheartedly
trusted his judgment. Both men agreed to resume work together at
Hissarlik in the spring of 1869. Meanwhile, however, the Turkish (the
denomination R predominantly uses instead of the more proper word
Ottoman) authorities forbade "excavations for exportation of
antiquities ... throughout the Turkish dominions" (119), which
frustrated the attempt to start excavating Hissarlik.

Large portions of R's book are devoted to very detailed accounts of the
key moments of the growing tensions between Calvert and Schliemann. The
first moment already came in 1869 when Schliemann published his work
Ithaque, le Pe/loponne\se, et Troie. Calvert received a complimentary
copy, but cannot have been pleased reading the parts regarding the
Troad. Another widening occurred in June 1872, when Schliemann
deliberately transgressed the line of Calvert's land. Soon he found
some marble slabs, including the so called Helios metope: these slabs
presented a problem, since there was no firman (official permission for
excavation) to excavate Calvert's part of the hill. They were,
technically, joint owner of the metope--until the moment Schliemann
bought Calvert's part for a relative trifle. Later Schliemann started
his efforts to transport the metope to Athens, an effort that succeeded
early August. Later that month Schliemann himself returned to Athens,
where he expanded on the value (in meaning and money) of the metope.

In January 1873 Calvert published an article, concluding that Hissarlik
had not yet produced any firm archaeological evidence of being Homeric
Troy: "(a) most important link ... is missing between B.C. 1800 and
700, forming a gap of over a thousand years, including the date of the
Trojan War ..." (168). He expressed the hope that Schliemann would be
able to fill that gap in due course. Nevertheless, the article
undermined Schliemann's claims, in which Calvert played no serious part
whatsoever. Meanwhile Calvert learned that Schliemann had tricked him
with the metope: he was not amused. Early June of that year Schliemann
discovered the so-called 'Priam's treasure' in the Turkish-owned
section of Hissarlik and smuggled it out of Turkey. The Sublime Porte
started to investigate Schliemann's actions; meanwhile Calvert
expressed his feelings that the treasure did not date from the days of
the Trojan War, by lack of notably iron objects in the archaeological
context of the find.

The next confrontation started shortly after. "In Antiquite/s
Troyennes, which was published early in 1874, Schliemann not only
distorted the facts but maligned Calvert both as a scientist and a
human being" (199). The direct cause was Calvert's article on Troy.
Calvert responded with a rebuttal published in two journals, ending
with the conclusion that Schliemann's wishes determined his
interpretations. By now, however, Schliemann's appeals had caught the
public's imagination and Calvert's alarm at the archaeological damage
caused by Schliemann to Hissarlik was growing, but without avail.
Schliemann had by now reached the status he so desperately wanted in
the public imagination, making it virtually impossible for Calvert to
compete with him.

Though Schliemann supported Calvert for the latter's excavation of
Hanai Tepeh and promised to publish Calvert's account of it as an
addendum to Schliemann's next book, Ilios, Calvert practically
disregarded most of his obligations towards the Hanai Tepeh paper and
finally only sent his notes to Schliemann to make the best of it.
Schliemann did so (see Appendix IV in R's book) and won Calvert an
international reputation as a meticulous archaeologist. Several of
Schliemann's observations on Hissarlik in Ilios were, however, rejected
by Calvert, and he wrote Schliemann so in no uncertain terms.
Notwithstanding this, when Schliemann finally received his new firman
for further excavation at and around Hissarlik in 1890, he immediately
approached Calvert for collaboration. Nevertheless, when Schliemann
found some colossal nephrite axes (on Calvert's land): "[t]here is no
evidence to suggest that he intended to share these finds with Calvert.
A few weeks later, Schliemann was dead" (400).

Though one might state that the relationship between Calvert and
Schliemann is the main theme of R's biography--in accordance with the
book's title--, Calvert's relations with other scholars are also
discussed in detail. Notably his relations with Henry Sayce, Paul
Ascherschon (from Berlin), and especially Rudolf Virchow (also from
Berlin), with whom he struck up a deep, mutual, and profitable
friendship from 1879 onwards, are related in some detail. Regrettably
Calvert's correspondence with Virchow between early 1886 and 1902, the
year of Virchow's death is lost. A lot of Calvert's activities,
observations, and ideas remain therefore out of our reach. What we do
have are some notes to others, including Schliemann, and reports in
magazines and papers, which lack the measure of confidentiality he had
with Virchow. From these reports we infer that Calvert  had access to
the fruits of two illicit grave robberies, which were confiscated by
state officials, but he was allowed to study and describe them
(evidently a token of faith towards Calvert by authorities).

An important landmark in Calvert's work was the publication of an
article on the Asiatic shoreline of the Hellespont, which, through
Virchow, was published in German in the Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie of
1880. It showed Calvert's scholarship and was well received. A copy of
the same article was sent to England, to Henry Sayce, but this was
never published: it is added to the book under scrutiny as Appendix I,
published for the first time in its original language. It shows, in
spite of the industrial activities that have marred the shorelines of
the Dardanelles as the price for progress since at least 1968--when I
visited the region for the first time and progress' damage was still
held at bay--, the value and the accuracy of many of Calvert's
observations.

Though Calvert busied himself also with other fields of knowledge, like
geography, geology in general and mining in particular, botany (both
for Ascherson and Virchow), and entomology (cf. Appendix III of the
book under review)--and received credits for his achievements in these
fields--his main interests, as R makes unmistakably clear, were
archaeology and the collection of antiquities. Central in this passion,
no matter how we look at it, was the site of Hissarlik and the figure
of Schliemann. Schliemann's death ended a relationship of some
twenty-two years that displayed some bizarre features. The site that
primarily bound them, Hissarlik, lay now open and unprotected against
stone robbers and treasure seekers, in spite of Calvert's requests with
the responsible authorities to protect it. Schliemann's successor at
Hissarlik, Wilhelm Doerpfeld, was unable to stop the destruction of the
site, aggravated by the way Schliemann had "attacked" it. An additional
threat became the ever increasing number of tourists visiting
Hissarlik.

Calvert kept his distance from these tourists, because he was busy
making an inventory of his antiquities. He did this initially together
with Alfred Brueckner, an assistant to Doerpfeld. The catalogue of
Calvert's collection would eventually be completed by Herrmann Thiersch
in 1902: I very much regret it that R did not (or could not?) expand
more on the meaning of this catalogue and its content. Meanwhile
Calvert followed Doerpfeld's work with great interest. After the
latter's second season at Hissarlik, Calvert wrote a paper entitled
"The Discovery of Homer's Troy" (Appendix VII of the work under
discussion). In this paper Calvert stated that, though there still was
sufficient material to explore, the results of the excavation of
Hissarlik were now sufficient to claim that the existence of Homer's
Troy had indeed been confirmed.

About his own discoveries, identifications of sites etc. he remained,
as usual, largely silent. As R rightly remarks: "The preservation of
Assos on paper, thanks to Bacon's, Clarke's and Koldewey's meticulous
work, illustrates all too clearly that many--perhaps all--of the sites
Calvert had excavated could have survived in a similar fashion, had
Calvert published more of his work, or had his papers been preserved"
(417). It is a saddening conclusion.

Hissarlik continued to attract an ever increasing number of
tourists--leading to different construction activities at the
Dardanelles. Calvert occupied himself with his consular duties, reading
archaeology, and overseeing the completion of the catalogue of his
(vast) collection of antiquities. The staggering wealth of information
which must have been hidden behind these objects,and the many objects
he already had sold or donated during his lifetime, were never made
public. It died with Calvert.

Some of this information may have at least partly been concealed in
Calvert's papers. However, these have, to a large extent, disappeared
as well. For the disappearance of Calvert's papers several causes may
be adduced: an earthquake that destroyed The Dardanelles in 1912 or a
deliberate destruction by Francis Bacon soon after Calvert's death, "to
prevent them from being pored over and dishonoured by unfriendly
critics" (441). R cannot make a choice between these options (or does
not want to do so explicitly). She does, however, remark that Bacon
found a number of letters by Schliemann to the Calverts in the attic of
their Dardanelles mansion. Those letters were donated to the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens and they were the basis of the
Schliemann archives at Athens. The letters also showed how much
Schliemann really owed to Calvert: moreover they underline the relative
correctness of the title of R's book. The book itself, however, makes
unmistakably clear that there was no question of a real partnership,
let alone mutual affection, between Schliemann and Calvert.

Schliemann was a complicated person, who--apparently
effortlessly--always succeeded to make himself the focus of attention.
That he in doing so did not always follow the straight and narrow path
of truth, has already been demonstrated frequently.[[1]] In the case of
his activities in the Troad, the main victim of his scheme was Frank
Calvert because of his knowledge and connections. On the other hand,
Calvert also needed Schliemann because of his financial means and
therefore probably accepted more from him than he would have tolerated
from anyone else. Though R occasionally does pay attention to this
mutual interdependency, this factor remains underexposed. Nevertheless,
R has written a very accessible biography of Calvert, this 'dilettante'
(no disrespect intended, on the contrary!), amply quoting from his
preserved correspondence or other papers. It is only regrettable that
she shows herself perhaps occasionally too biased: Schliemann certainly
was not of the material saints are made of, but neither was Calvert.
Sometimes R appears to forget that and may be accused of identifying
herself too much with the object of her investigation, looking to blame
Schliemann for every mishap occurring to Calvert.

Having stated this, this leaves unimpeded that the book under review is
an essential asset for all those interested in the historiography of
scholarship in the Troad, notably regarding the excavations of
Hissarlik (and regardless of the fact whether we call that site 'Troy'
rightly or not). The book is, over all, well produced and contains very
few typos (e.g. on p. 361, Ezra Thyer (1866-2925)). There are some
elements I am less enthusiastic about: first (a pet topic of mine), the
use of endnotes instead of footnotes; second: the quality of the paper
used for the reproduction of the photographs makes looks to the eye
like that of books produced in Eastern Europe during the seventies and
eighties of the twentieth century. Certainly this book deserves better,
even if the quality of the pictures themselves would have been rather
poor (now that issue can hardly be judged). A minor point of discontent
is that R writes throughout the book Hissarlik with a dot on the final
'i' instead of an 'i' without a dot (as I know the place), but that may
be either a consequence of the chosen font or a personal preference. A
comparable point of attention is her use of the double 's' in the name
of the place: Hissarlik both occurs with single and double 's', and
there appears not to be a unanimous preference or rule (and from the
presented facsimiles I cannot read the form Calvert normally used).
Such trivialities, however, do not detract from the fact that R has
written an important book that generally reads very easily. The
presence of some of Calvert's contributions to science--some for the
first time published in their original language--adds to this value.


------------------
Notes:


1.   See, e.g., W.M. Calder III, 1972, 'Schliemann on Schliemann: A
Study in the Use of Sources', GRBS 13(1972), 335-353; W.M Calder III
and D.A. Traill, Myth, Scandal and History. The Heinrich Schliemann
Controversy and a First Edition of the Mycenaean Diary, Detroit 1986;
D.A. Traill, 'Schliemann's Mendacity: Fire and Fever in California', CJ
74(1979), 348-355; D.A. Traill, Schliemann of Troy: Treasure and
Deceit, London and New York 1995: this book is a fairly balanced
biography on Schliemann and his methods and really fascinating reading.