The funerary mask of legendary Homeric king Agamemnon is an interesting and controversial piece. The mask itself belongs to the ancient civilization of Mycenae, Greece. Famous for their metalworking, ceramics, and architectural developments, the Mycenaeans gave much more prominence to their funerary structures than other cultures of the time and ultimately created in them the most sophisticated architectural monuments of the Aegean Bronze Age. However, the earliest tombs, like the one in which this mask was originally found, were vertical pits 20-25 feet deep known as shaft graves. Uncovered by archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann in November of 1876, the so-named Mask of Agamemnon became the archaeologist's most famous discovery. He accredited the golden-wrought mask with having belonged to the infamous king and commander of Greek forces in Homer's The Iliad, an epic account of the Trojan War. This association itself was enough to make both the mask and its discoverer interesting beyond doubt, considering that, in finding such an artifact, Schliemann was in fact proving the Homeric mythological narrative to be true (a huge deal among Greeks, whose fascination with representing their history through myth was considerable). However, the controversy made its appearance known as well upon further analyzation. The first important discrediting factor was the fact that the graves which Schliemann unearthed in 1876 were later proven to be 300 years older than he thought, displaying different burial practices than those described by Homer. The second is the stylistic composition of the mask itself; the facial features are far different than those of the other funerary masks among which it was found. The beard and handlebar mustache, especially, suggest a suspicious synonymity to contemporary styles and trends. They even resemble the archaeologist himself. This fallibility paralleled previous deceits committed by Schliemman with the intent of embellishing his career. The verdict on the mask's true authenticity is unclear, to be certain, but it introduced a definite and significantly questionable element into the practice of history-writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment