i have to write an essay about heinrich schliemann and i need to pick wheather he should be considered the "father of archaeology" or just a plain fraud/theif/con-artist/etc.
I'm kind of leaning towards the possibility of saying hes a fraud but i'm not sure what my arguements for fraud will be.
So bascially i need help for some arguements for both (might change my mind and do father of archaeology)
So like, if you think he's a fraud; one arguement can be that he stole artifacts for the excavation and was banned from Turkey.
No need to get too detailed.. but if you want to.. its ok :p...
2007-10-23 08:46:17 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
He was a man of his times. In other words, people at that time thought that digging, taking and stealing were OK. Especially European and North Americans. They truely thought that they were "saving" items from the ignorant natives that would be destroyed if they didn't. He was the "father" of archeology only in that he was systematic in his research.
2007-10-23 08:53:32 · answer #1 · answered by dude 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋