week 5 - Maureen - Does the end justify the means?

This article posts several questions regarding the work of two men that are have played
critical roles in art history.
Was Schliemann so driven to prove that Homer's work was based in historical fact, that
he would overlook fact? Would he fabricate items to aid in substantiating his theory?
Does the interest of the pre-Hellenic world generated by Schielmann justify his poor
scientific methods, and possible fraud, by art historians?
While Evans was more scientific with his aproach to excavating Knossos, was his
interpretation of the find the only possible solution for the restoration of Knossos? Can
one person properly evaluate a ruin and reconstruct it to its exact initial likeness?
I believe that Evans felt he was doing the right thing. He understood the importance of
scientific method in excavating the site, and would logically utilize it to reconstruct the
site. Depending on the initial conditions of the site that Evans encountered, I would
believe that there could be multiple interpretations of what was found, and that Evans'
was only one. Unless there is hard proof of the physical make up 0f a ruin, like Jaques
Carry's drawings of the Parthenon, reconstructing a site based soley on items excavated
and one person's evaluation is destined to have faults.
(look at all the examples on this blog of the different interpretations of just a single
article. then think of the differences that thousands of artifacts could conjure up)
Schielmann was a intellegent, wealthy business man at 41. The article does not indicate
how he made his money, nor what, if any scientific background he may have had. He
truely believed that Homer's work was based in fact and could be proved. He spent his
own money and time, buying land and excavating to do this very thing. But if he was
proven wrong, or did not find enough to substantiate his theory, was he the kind of man
that would say so? Based on his statement regarding the gold funerary mask at Mycenea,
I have doubts.
Both these men made contributions to art history none the less. Schielmann's splashy finds
made the average person interested in art history, as well as piqueing the intelect of the
scholars. Evans provided an "essential historical frameworkfor the Agean world" and a
site laypeople could understand, even if it is not necessarily historically accurate.
Does the end justify the means? I don't believe there is a true answer here. I believe that
Evans probably was doing what he thought was correct. I'm less certain about Schielmann.
Intentionally or not, both had an impact on art history, and are still influencing to this day,
as we discuss their roles here.