主题：程碧波：纹明，《几何原本》来自中国的证据及其在西方的错误传播 -- hwd99

Schliemann's magnificent residence in the city centre of Athens, the Iliou Melathron (Ιλίου Μέλαθρον, "Palace of Ilium") houses today the Numismatic Museum of Athens.

Along with Arthur Evans, Schliemann was a pioneer in the study of the Aegean civilization in the Bronze Age. The two men knew of each other, Evans having visited Schliemann's sites. Schliemann had planned to excavate at Knossos but died before fulfilling that dream. Evans bought the site and stepped in to take charge of the project, which was then still in its infancy.[citation needed]

Further excavation of the Troy site by others indicated that the level Schliemann named the Troy of the Iliad was inaccurate, although they retain the names given by Schliemann. In a 1998 article for The Classical World, D.F. Easton wrote that Schliemann "was not very good at separating fact from interpretation"[32] and claimed that, "Even in 1872 Frank Calvert could see from the pottery that Troy II had to be hundreds of years too early to be the Troy of the Trojan War, a point finally proven by the discovery of Mycenaean pottery in Troy VI in 1890."[32] "King Priam's Treasure" was found in the Troy II level, that of the Early Bronze Age, long before Priam's city of Troy VI or Troy VIIa in the prosperous and elaborate Mycenaean Age. Moreover, the finds were unique. The elaborate gold artifacts do not appear to belong to the Early Bronze Age.

His excavations were condemned by later archaeologists as having destroyed the main layers of the real Troy. Kenneth W. Harl, in the Teaching Company's Great Ancient Civilizations of Asia Minor lecture series, sarcastically claimed that Schliemann's excavations were carried out with such rough methods that he did to Troy what the Greeks could not do in their times, destroying and levelling down the entire city walls to the ground.[33]

In 1972, Professor William Calder of the University of Colorado, speaking at a commemoration of Schliemann's birthday, claimed that he had uncovered several possible problems in Schliemann's work. Other investigators followed, such as Professor David Traill of the University of California.[34]

A 2004 article of the National Geographic Society called into question Schliemann's qualifications, his motives, and his methods:

In northwestern Turkey, Heinrich Schliemann excavated the site believed to be Troy in 1870. Schliemann was a German adventurer and con-man who took sole credit for the discovery, even though he was digging at the site, called Hisarlik, at the behest of British archaeologist Frank Calvert. [...] Eager to find the legendary treasures of Troy, Schliemann blasted his way down to the second city, where he found what he believed were the jewels that once belonged to Helen. As it turns out, the jewels were a thousand years older than the time described in Homer's epic.[1]

A 2005 article presented similar criticisms, when reporting on a speech by University of Pennsylvania scholar C. Brian Rose:

German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann was the first to explore the Mound of Troy in the 1870s. Unfortunately, he had had no formal education in archaeology, and dug an enormous trench "which we still call the Schliemann Trench," according to Rose, because in the process Schliemann "destroyed a phenomenal amount of material." [...] Only much later in his career would he accept the fact that the treasure had been found at a layer one thousand years removed from the battle between the Greeks and Trojans, and thus that it could not have been the treasure of King Priam. Schliemann may not have discovered the truth, but the publicity stunt worked, making Schliemann and the site famous and igniting the field of Homeric studies in the late 19th century. During this period he was criticized and ridiculed of claims to fathering an offspring with a local Assyrian Girl sparking infidelity and adultery which Schliemann did not confirm or deny. '[35]

Schliemann's methods have been described as "savage and brutal. He plowed through layers of soil and everything in them without proper record keeping—no mapping of finds, few descriptions of discoveries." Carl Blegen forgave his recklessness, saying "Although there were some regrettable blunders, those criticisms are largely colored by a comparison with modern techniques of digging; but it is only fair to remember that before 1876 very few persons, if anyone, yet really knew how excavations should properly be conducted. There was no science of archaeological investigation, and there was probably no other digger who was better than Schliemann in actual field work."[36]

In 1874, Schliemann also initiated and sponsored the removal of medieval edifices from the Acropolis of Athens, including the great Frankish Tower. Despite considerable opposition, including from King George I of Greece, Schliemann saw the project through.[37] The eminent historian of Frankish Greece William Miller later denounced this as "an act of vandalism unworthy of any people imbued with a sense of the continuity of history",[38] and "pedantic barbarism".[39]

德语区的大学制度比较类似，历史上只有大学（University, Universitaet)，具体分为综合大学如苏黎世大学和工大如苏黎世联邦理工学院。一直到1960年代才出现应用技术大学（University of applied sciences, Fachhochschule)。大学和应用技术大学的大部分专业毕业时发Diplom，也就是你说的diploma。不过有明显的区分，大学的Diplom可以加（Uni)毕业生可以直接读博士。应用技术大学的毕业生的Diplom必须加注（FH)，否则是欺骗行为，属于违法，FH的Diplom不可以直接读博士，要补好几门课后才取得读博资格。当年Diplom还盛行的时候，中国把大学的Diplom承认作硕士，FH的是本科。因此可以证明德语区大学University的Diplom应该等价于硕士。爱因斯坦就读的苏黎世理工属于一流的的大学，所以他的Diplom当然应该算硕士。

爱因斯坦获得博士学位的时候确实是瑞士专利局的三等技术专家，也就是说他在职读的博士。其实德语区传统的博士绝大部分是在职博士。这里不需要入学考试，只要Diplom的成绩达到中等水平就可以了，不需要上任何课程，读博期间没有发表论文的要求，只要博士论文过关就行，在校的博士生几乎都是教授领导的教研室的助教，这不是和国内的年轻教师读在职博士一样吗？不在学校当助教也可以读博，那也是在职博士。

综合起来说，爱因斯坦在苏黎世理工获得了Diplom这个硕士学位，其毕业成绩也保证了他的读博资格。之后他在瑞士专利局当三级技术专家，业余从事物理方面的学术工作，并在1905年在苏黎世大学获得博士学位。他是物理科班出身，一直没有离开这一领域，不是民科。