In 1894, the University of Texas was presented with the opportunity to purchase the alleged site of Troy along with a vast collection of antiquities. Judge Alexander Watkins Terrell, the United States’ minister to the Ottoman Porte, believed it was imperative that the University of Texas capitalize on this opportunity. Terrell felt the site was teeming with academic possibilities; however, the University did not purchase the site or antiquities. The decision to not obtain the antiquities was a mistake on the part of the University, as the site held the potential to broaden its archaeological resources and reveal truths pertaining to ancient civilizations for all archaeologists.
Judge Terrell visited the site, located on Hissarlik Hill, that
…show more content…
was believed to be the location of Homeric Troy. In a letter to his brother, Terrell explained that he found the lands to be captivating, and he painted the image of an ideal setting with attractive scenery using adjectives like “fertile” and “beautiful” (“Dear Brother” 2-3). Terrell also tells Major Walton that he “thought I [Terrell] never saw such a lovely picture” referring to the site (“Terrell to Walton” 4). On this visit, Terrell became convinced this was the site of the Homeric Troy, stating that “Homeric Troy has been found beyond any doubt” (“Dear Brother” 9). Through his dialogue, Terrell showed a distinct fondness for the antiquities that Frank Calvert, the host for Terrell’s visit, possessed. In fact, he kept many of the antiquities he found interesting. This can be seen in Terrell’s letter to his brother as he stated that he found that the “tusks of the hog was in splendid preservation” (13). Consequently, Terrell “appropriated” the tusks along with several other antiquities: clay lamps, broken pottery, tiling, an urn, and two stone axes (13). By Terrell’s own statements of fondness for the site and his acquisition of antiquities, one can conclude that Terrell had an attraction to the site and its antiquities. Frank Calvert, an archeologist on the site, accompanied Terrell on his outing.
Calvert himself owned portions of the land and its contents; however, because Calvert had undergone “financial straits,” he tried to sell his land and antiquities (“Terrell to Walton” 4). In an attempt to keep the land and its belongings in “competent hands,” Calvert offered his collection to Terrell (“Calvert to Terrell” 4). Terrell felt the collection was worth “four times the cost he [Calvert] asks” (“Terrell to Walton” 5). As a result, Terrell thought the University should purchase the collection because it would make for “a nucleus of a Texas museum,” which would have benefited the University financially by bringing in revenue from visitors and academically by allowing the University to examine the collection and lead the discussion on Homeric Troy (5). His motivations were quite sound in that he only wanted to see the University “succeed,” and he believed that acquiring the collection was a way to do so (4). Terrell then approached the University of Texas with the offer, which was declined (“Minutes for the Meeting” …show more content…
27). The University was mistaken in its decision to decline Calvert’s offer. Terrell quotes archeologist Dr. Long of Robert College as stating that “there is no such collection of antiquities 1200 BC in Europe” (“Terrell to Walton” 4). This indicates that this collection is quite rare and is unrivaled size. Had the University of Texas obtained the land, they would have possessed a valuable asset that could have profited the University’s academics and finances. Terrell later states in his letter to Walton that “the value of this collection as an attraction to the University cannot be overstated” (6). If Terrell’s statement about its ability to draw in an audience held true, then the University would have found itself in possession of an archaeological gem that could have contributed to the University’s archaeological studies. It could be argued that this was not the site of Homeric Troy, or that Troy did not exist; therefore, the University was right to have declined the offer.
The argument against the site can supported by saying that the site could have belonged to civilizations other than Troy. However, the lack of definitive answers on the historicity of Troy is reason the University should have purchased the collection. With such “a rare and valuable collection of Trojan, Greek, and Roman antiques,” the University would have been able to validate the historicity of the site as being or not being Troy (“Terrell to Walton” 4). Subsequently, this would have allowed scholars at the University to make progress in answering the age old question: did Homeric Troy exist? If the site was not Troy, the University would have still aided archaeologists by ruling this site out, narrowing the search window, and allowing the search for Troy to move
elsewhere. Terrell, having been offered a chance to obtain the antiquities from the supposed site of Troy, proposed that the University purchase the collection. Unfortunately, the University did not accept the offer and missed out on many possibilities. The University missed the chance to capitalize on a collection that would have expanded the classics department’s resources. Furthermore, the University missed the opportunity to lead archaeologists around the world in the search for the truth of the legendary city of Troy. I believe that had the University listened to Terrell, the University would be beyond a doubt the leading university in classic civilizations, especially pertaining to Homeric Troy.
Moundville has been the focus of a large amount of archaeological interest due to its impressive earthworks. Clarence B. Moore produced well-publicized works. During his time in Moundville in 1905 and 1906, Moore pierced the mounds with “trial holes,” finding numerous burials and related artifacts. Unlike many treasure hunters, Moore donated the majority of his find...
Before the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory, President Jefferson struggled with the constitutional difficulties of adding to the o...
...nner, Judith. Ross, Lawrence Sullivan (Sul). Texas State Historical Association, 15 June 2010. Web. 26 April 2014.
For around three cents per acre, 15 million in total, the land would have been as if one was giving land away in modern days. But even when the purchase was made, it was a steal. But this is exactly what was needed, land, and more land. A place to grow larger, somewhere to call ours. But even then that we bought the land, we did not know what was upon the land. To even have any knowledge of what was in the land, there were ones who were paid to be sent out to see what the land had to offer us. This was a very scary risk for him as he didn’t know if the land would have anything to offer. Though these peoples main purpose was to map out the land for it to be sent out. But if anything were to come up wrong in the purchase, Jefferson’s reputation would be ruined. Not only would they think that his opinions were useless, but he would no longer be a man anyone will
Merryman, John Henry. Thinking about the Elgin Marbles: Critical Essays on Cultural Property, Art, and Law. London: Kluwer Law International Ltd, 2000.
In this paper I will highlight one of the governors of Texas. Dolph Briscoe was the governor of Texas from 1973 to 1979. Not only was he a governor, he was also one of the largest individual land owners in Texas history. This in a state known for huge ranches. His philanthropy has provided support to a wide range of educational, medical, scientific, and cultural institutions. In this paper I hope to provide a little insight in to how much this man has impacted the evolution of Texas.
Fox, Tim From the Palaces to the Pike Missouri Historical Society Press Albuquerque 1997 (T860.B1F69
History of the United Sates. Davis does not merely recount the glorious deeds of histories '
I recently visited the American History museum and came upon the most interesting artifact in the Lighting a Revolution section within the Transportation and Technology wing of the museum. This artifact is an advertisement from Charleston, South Carolina in 1769 about the selling of “a choice cargo” of two hundred and fifty slaves.
Randolph B. Campbell is currently a history professor at the University of North Texas. In the years of 1993-1994 Campbell was the president of the Texas State Historical Association, he was a man fascinated by the history of how the United States came to be where it is today. Campbell graduated with his doctorate’s early 19th century American History from the University of Virginia which is the state he was also born in. Campbell has also written and published several other books some of which including Gone to Texas: A History of the Lone Star State, and Grass Roots Reconstruction in Texas, showing that Campbell was interested mostly in Texas history after he had left Virginia to find a state with a lot of history behind it.
Though the means at which the United States was able to obtain such a territory came at the price of President Thomas Jefferson’s morals, in the long run it is easily one of the biggest achievements in American history. Upon hearing the secret agreement of Spain returning the Louisiana Purchase to
The Midwestern contemporary art case study revolves around the current MCA board chair Peggy Fischer, and former board chair Peter Smith. Smith had been elected to the board after individuals recognized him and his wife for the immense art collecting accomplishments put forth on the couples behalf. Initially Smith was indebted to pay $10,000 to even be elected onto the board chair. Smith indeed paid an initial pledge of $10,000 and financially made amends to put forth $5 million additional dollars towards museum improvements. It is no deniable fact that Fischer had recognized Smiths admirable job running the museum. Smith worked his way up from being a member of the board to board chair. Smith and his wife were highly recognized by the community and aimed to stay out of the spotlight whenever possible.
Lewis, James E. The Louisiana Purchase: Jefferson's Noble Bargain?. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
People go to see artifacts in museums for experience. What could be a better experience than going to the place they are from? Yes, the trip could cost a little more, but you cannot replicate the historical value an object holds in its origin country. The price is nothing compared to the true understanding of the history we gain from going out and visiting the place they should be. The place they should be is their home, where they were found and formed, their origin country.
Baxandall specified his discussion about the problem by supposing that the displays of the gallery were permanent and conservative, which means that the main artifact served for inspection laid in the center of the galley around with additional elements. He also assumed that the viewers were educational members of a developed society, who both enjoyed the expected interesting object view and the functional purpose of the artifacts. After illustrating the assumption, he raised up the main question that different viewers with different cultural background may have different ideas about the artifact. This complicating position was not only the result from the viewers, but also from the object itself and the arrangers of the exhibition. The assumption is strong and will be discussed later.