One Person, Two Ideas
What do you consider great? Some people would say, Heinrich Schliemann, the archaeologist, when others disagree. Schliemann was an archaeologist who after reading The Iliad and The Odyssey, was on a mission to find the city described in the stories. He had discovered in 1873 evidence of an ancient city and a collection of gold jewelry. He claimed this was the treasure of Priam described by the king in The Iliad. He continued on making new discoveries for the next ten years. I have read two different articles explaining what Schliemann has done. In one article, the author praises him, when the other considers him an evil human being whose actions were nefarious.
First and foremost, both authors do use facts from the past to show what Schliemann has done. For example in the article, “Heinrich Schliemann: Father of Archaeology,” the author states, “In the next ten years, he would continue to make discoveries, including another ancient city.” This shows how the author wrote a simple fact with no opinions about Schliemann in it. Another example from the article, …show more content…
In the article, “Heinrich Schliemann: Father of Archaeology,” the author says, “Schliemann truly was a pioneer in archaeology and should be acknowledged for his incredible contributions to the world” From this example we know how much the author praises and loves Schliemann and everything Schliemann has done. On the other hand, the author of “Heinrich Schliemann: Archaeological Con Artist,” says, “Heinrich Schliemann, the man who some call the father of archeology, was more of a money-hungry treasure seeker than he was an archaeologist.” This incident provides proof that the author does not think Schliemann was neither a valuable archeologist or a great person. From this, we can conclude if these authors ever met, they would not get
What do you consider great? Some people would say, Heinrich Schliemann, the archaeologist, when others disagree. Schliemann was an archaeologist who after reading The Iliad and The Odyssey, was on a mission to find the city described in the stories. He had discovered in 1873 evidence of an ancient city and a collection of gold jewelry. He claimed this was the treasure of Priam described by the king in The Iliad. He continued on making new discoveries for the next ten years. I have read two different articles explaining what Schliemann has done. In one article, the author praises him, when the other considers him an evil human being whose actions were nefarious.
First and foremost, both authors do use facts from the past to show what Schliemann has done. For example in the article, “Heinrich Schliemann: Father of Archaeology,” the author states, “In the next ten years, he would continue to make discoveries, including another ancient city.” This shows how the author wrote a simple fact with no opinions about Schliemann in it. Another example from the article, …show more content…
In the article, “Heinrich Schliemann: Father of Archaeology,” the author says, “Schliemann truly was a pioneer in archaeology and should be acknowledged for his incredible contributions to the world” From this example we know how much the author praises and loves Schliemann and everything Schliemann has done. On the other hand, the author of “Heinrich Schliemann: Archaeological Con Artist,” says, “Heinrich Schliemann, the man who some call the father of archeology, was more of a money-hungry treasure seeker than he was an archaeologist.” This incident provides proof that the author does not think Schliemann was neither a valuable archeologist or a great person. From this, we can conclude if these authors ever met, they would not get