The Truth behind the Mask of Agamemnon

There are various debates when it comes to the authenticity of certain artworks. When determining the legitimacy of certain artworks, certain things that need to be taken into consideration, which is the case with The Mask of Agamemnon. The Mask of Agamemnon was a discovery by architect Heinrich Schliemann in Mycenae dated 1876. There have been various discussions in whether or not the mask is a fake. There has been sufficient evidence that supports this. Author Spencer Harrington, William Calder and David Traill examined how the mask of Agamemnon may be a fake, by including an overview of the Mask, questioning the faulty character of Schliemann, and the authenticity of the mask itself.
Spencer Harrington author of “Behind the Mask of Agamemnon discussed the. Harrington stated that Schliemann was “supervised by Panagiotis Stamatakis, a conscientious Greek archaeologist who often accused Schliemann of destroying classical antiquities in his quest for Homeric remains.” Which raises questions of whether or not Schliemann’s work was for the preservation of Greek art or for the benefiting the “businessman-turned-archaeologist” (Harrington). The mask of Agem
When it comes to the excavation of artwork individuals often judge the artwork to be real or fake based on the artwork itself, not taking into account the architects(s) whom excavated the art piece. Professor and author Calder did so by questioning the faulty character of Schliemann and then elaborated on various points that points to the mask being a fake.
Calder author of “Is the Mask a Hoax” discussed the faulty character of Schliemann and the relationship it plays in discussing the legitimacy of the “The mask of Agamemnon.” Calder stated that “For 25 years I have researched the life of Heinrich Schliemann. I have learned to be skeptical, particularly of the more dramatic events in Schliemann's life.” This contributes to the credibility for Calder when examining the character of Schliemann. Calder scrutinized how events in Schliemann’s life demonstrate he is capable of producing non-authentic or “fake” art.
White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California; his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist; the discovery of ancient Greek inscriptions in his backyard; the discovery of the bust of Cleopatra in a trench in Alexandria; his unearthing of an enormous cache of gold and silver objects at Troy, known as Priam's Treasure. (Calder)

Calder was not alone in examining that Schliemann “made up these stories” other archeologist include “George Korres of the University of Athens, the German art historian Wolfgang Schindler, and historians of scholarship David A. Traill.” further verifying the idea that Schliemann was cable of producing non-authentic work (Calder). Additional questions that are raised about Schliemann’s character include how he “excavated objects which in fact he had purchased” (Calder). Calder gave the example of the “Cleopatra bust,” which Wolfgang Schneider pointed out was not geologically consistent stating “that Schliemann's alleged 25- to 35-foot-deep trench would have been considerably below Alexandria's water table”(Calder). Calder explained that this was most likely bought by an “Egyptian dealer.” Calder exemplified the faulty characteristics and actions of Schliemann, which raises questions about whether The Mask of Agamemnon is a fake. What about the authenticity of the mask itself? Calder explained that “David Traill has more than once sought to test the mask, and the National Museum in Athens has consistently denied his request” (Cradle).
David Traill author of “Insistent Questions” argues that The Mask of Agamemnon is a fake by examining the authenticity of the mask itself. Traill first does so by examining how the mask compares to other Mycenae mask explaining that the other mask found at the site “establish a norm, which, evidently, was highly conventionalized.” One very distinctive feature that separates these artworks is the ears. “In the other three flat masks (and also in the two three-dimensional ones) the ears are incorporated within the body of the mask. In the Agamemnon mask, they are cut out like flaps” (Traill). Art historians look for consistency and finding inconsistency’s in artworks dated around the same period raises questions. Katie Demakopoulou author of “The Case for Authenticity” argues that Calder and Trial have not given “any scholarly basis for their arguments.” Demakopoulou states that “Günter Kopcke's article on the style of the masks, to which Calder refers, nowhere states that the mask is not genuine.” Kopcke might not have formally said that the mask is not “genuine,” but the fact that he compared the artworks to the other artworks of this period and “stressed that the Agamemnon mask is stylistically different from all other Mycenaean masks. He draws attention to its distinctive eyebrows, ears, beard, and moustache (Calder). This allows scholars to draw conclusions that the mask is not authentic since there are discrepancies in its similarities to other artworks found in the grave circle A. Demakopoulou’s counter argument to this was that “Ellen N. Davis has drawn attention to the fact that in their rendition the locks of the mane and beard of the gold lion-head rhyton from shaft grave IV and the beard of the Mask of Agamemnon are "almost identical” (Demakopoulou). Demakopoulou, did not argue that the Mask of Agamemnon was similar to the other mask found at Grave Circle A, but instead compared it to another art piece besides one of the mask. Overall, Demakopoulou did

Demakopoulou states that “Calder and Traill's theories are totally unsupported archaeologically.” Demakopoulou statement that Calder and Traill’s had no scholarly basis for their arguments is inconclusive.