Sunday, September 28, 2008
WEEK 5: NICK: SCHLIEMANN VS. EVANS
From the article, it is interesting to see the different perceptions people had regarding these two scholars given that, at an empirical standpoint, they were both in the pursuit of the same goal and had somewhat similar ways of achieving it. Evans may have had a more scholarly approach, but these attacks against Schliemann simply for being enthusiastic about his work are unwarranted. Both achieved great milestones in their fields, Schliemann with fueling interest in pre-Hellenic art and Evans with creating a chronology for the works he discovered, so it is irrational to think that one be chastised while the other praised. It is relieving to see that Schliemann was properly assessed and can be looked at with a scholarly lens. I also think it is very irresponsible to simply restore part of Knossos. By restoring part of an ancient structure, it loses the ancient allure and mystique but lacks the grandeur and elegance a complete restoration would bring.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I would agree that both Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans offered something unique to world of excavation and archeology. Although Schliemann may have exhibited signs of an individual on the prowl for material wealth, he did serve an important role. As mentioned in "Two Excavators, Legend, and Archeology," it is known among archeologists and researchers that Schliemann played "a critical role in igniting scholarly and popular interest in the pre-Hellenic world."
It is true that Evans appeared to have demonstrated a more scientific approach to excavation as proven through his "close attention to stratigraphy." I also agree with Nick in that Evans went a little overboard with restoration. I think restoration is often needed. However, with restoration a lot is lost and if restoration is to occur it should be in an effort to mend what is already there--not to add something new.
Post a Comment