The Mask Of Agamemnon Analysis

Heinrich Schliemann was a German businessman and an amateur archeologist who had a fascination with the work of the ancient Greek poet Homer (2). His belief that the work of Homer was more than a legend would one day lead him to discover the city of Troy and the Mycenae burial circles containing several golden masks. He believed one mask in particular belonged to King Agamemnon, the hero in Homer’s epic poem the Iliad who lead the Greeks into the city of Troy (5). Yet inconsistencies in the mask compared to others found and Schliemann’s questionable ethics would lead to an ongoing controversy over is now referred to as the “Mask of Agamemnon”.

After discovering, the city of Troy in what is now Turkey, Schliemann’s search for the burial site of the ancient hero Agamemnon lead him to Mycenae (3). Schliemann went to Mycenae to survey, yet his true intentions were to excavate the site (2).

Schliemann had already found the city of Troy and finding the burial site of Agamemnon would further prove the Tales of Homer were true. On this site, there were several ancient cities developed on top of each other (1). The top being a Roman city followed by --- other and -----watch video one to complete (1). Schliemann had developed a reputation of being careless, if something was in his way he would simply demolish it regardless of what importance it could have (2). Because of his carelessness, Greece assigned Panagiotis Statmatakis, the Director of Antiquities, to oversee Schliemann’s work and prevent the destruction of important structures (5). Allegedly Schliemann gave little regard to Statmatakis and continued removing what he felt necessary (2). Schliemann’s work paid off and he discovered the Mycenae burial circle A (3). In circle A, he discovered five chambers, all marked with roman numerals, filled with jewelry and five gold masks. A mask found in chamber V was considered to be the finest and believed to be the burial mask of Agamemnon (3). Schliemann described the mask as being well preserved and having a long thin nose, large eyes which are nearly shut, and well-proportioned lips (3). However, the most defining features of the mask would be the beard and mustache. Schliemann described them as “the beard is well represented, and particularly the mustaches, who’s extremities are turned upward at a point, in the form of crescents.” (3).
The discovery of The Mask of Agamemnon brought a new controversy to the world of archeology. Heinrich Schliemann did not have the best reputation in the archeology community as far as his personal ethics and some of his previous discoveries had been questionable (3). This mask was different from the other four found at the time, not only was it in better condition but some of its features were unique (3).
By simply looking at the masks discovered in the Burial circles of Mycenea the one referred to as the “Mask of Agamemon” has features different than the others. Some of these differences have lead archeologist to question the masks authenticity. The nose of the mask is long, thin, straight, and predominant on the face. As William Calder Described it “as if it were created to fit the idea of Greek nobility”. The design of the nose is almost to perfect. (3). The flat masks have thick lips which are not very detailed and only faint signs, if any, of chins. While the mask of Agamemnon has promenant lips and a well-defined chin (3). The most controversial feature was the mustache. Schliemann described the mustache as going up at the ends similar to a handlebar mustache (3) This form of mustache was more common in the nineteenth century than in the Heroic Age when Agamemnon would have lived (3). If the mask is a forgery this style of mustache was likely used because it’s considered masculine and possibly intimidating with the addition of the beard.
The controversy over the “Mask of Agamemnon” may be driven more by the reputation of Hendrick Schliemann than the questionable features of the mask itself.

Before becoming an amateur archeologist Schliemann was already known as a shady businessman (4). When Schliemann discovered the Prism’s Treasure in Troy and the excavation ended shortly after as if he believed all that was there to be found had been. Which lead to question concerning the items authenticity, if they had all truly be found together, or placed together to give the appearance of a larger discovery (4). It has been speculated some items may have been found earlier in the excavation and hoarded aside, purchased from dealers, or modern work creations made to look like they belonged (4). Similar events happened at Mycenae with the discovery to the “Mask of Agamemnon” and other items found in chamber V and three days later the excavation had ended (3). Scholars refer to Schielmann’s diary to help authenticate the discoveries yet at times he was vague some even accuse him of falsifying his entries to meet his agenda

(3).
There is a possibility the mask is not fake but simply altered. When closely examined there are markings which show the mustache does turn downward around the lips and the upturned portion could be an alteration done at any point in time after its creation (3). There were – weeks between the time the mask was discovered and it was first photographed (--). The controversial handlebar style mustache could have been an alteration done during its creation, ordered by Schliemann, or during the restoration process. During some restoration projects broke and bent items are not simply cleaned, some are restored back to what was believed to be there original condition. Any addition on the mask could be the result of extra restoration meant to make the mask more appealing or what the restorer believed to be accurate dented, crushed.
But why would Schliemann possibly risk his reputation by falsifying his discoveries? Firstly, if he was creating larger more impressive stashes of treasures it would bring popularity and attention to his discoveries. Which it did, he is known as a business man, amateur archeologist, and even "the father of scientific archaeology" by some (4). Then there are those, like William Calder and David Traill, who accuse Schliemann of being a pathological liar (4). Caldwell wrote about Schliemann in a harsh manor and equated his need to lie to the needs of an addict (4).
Like any controversy there are arguments for the legitimacy of the mask. The handlebar style mustache is the leading feature of the speculations but the pattern used to make the locks in the mustache is similar to the pattern used to make the mane in the lions head rhyon also found in the burial circle A(3). It seems unlikely given the time between the discovery of the lion head rhyon and the mask that someone would have had the time to duplicate the pattern. It is more likely the two items were created by the same goldsmith or using very similar styles.
A truest testament to the masks authority may be the Schliemann’s Greek Minder Paragiotis Stamatakis. The discovery of Stamatakis’ personal diary reveals he was present for the discovery of the mask and apparently described it (2). In his diary Stamatakis described the mask as “a mask of gold more beautiful than all the others” (2). If the mask had been altered between the time of its discovery and when the images of it were released Stamatakis would likely have noticed the change.
Now it is certain the tales of Homer were fiction yet many of the places and people in his stories did exist. As for King Agamemnon, it was eventually discovered the mask predated his time by around 300 years so it certainly was not him, he still remains a legend in Homer’s Iliad (2). As for the authority of the mask the archeology society as a whole does not discredit Schliemann and his discovery yet many will continue to speculate.