- This topic has 51 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Two ‘gentleman archaeologists,’ Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann, are responsible for much of what we know about Minoan and Mycenaean culture and art. These men were not objective observers but had their own culturally specific agendas. How have their conclusions colored how we look at art of the ancient Aegean world?
-
Everyone has biases that can seep into their work, but Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann allowed far more than simple biases to infiltrate their work. Heinrich Schliemann is believed to have altered The Mask of Agamemnon in order to make it fit the understanding of Agamemnon and Mycenaean art at the time. He also used dynamite at the site of Troy, which destroyed much that would have been carefully excavated under today’s standards.
Sir Arthur Evans committed less atrocious errors, but he did attempt to reconstruct The Palace Complex at Knossos without much attention to the actual historical indicators of how it would have really looked. Instead, he ultimately damaged the original version of the palace by overlaying it with his own ideas of how it looked in its prime. For example, he made the palace’s columns red, but it is now know that the Minoans used tree trunks for their columns.
In spite of how these two men altered the way ancient Aegean art is viewed today, they did bring the field of archaeology into public attention and begin its development into a more respected field.
-
Laura – I agree that Schliemann committed atrocious errors! But you are right, both architects did bring attention to archaeology, which has helped bring understanding and attention to the need for development of ethical archaeology.
-
-
-
It is very interesting to me that Evans would call the complex in Knossos a “palace,” but scholars now believe that it actually wasn’t a home for royals. Instead, there seemed to live aristocrats there. I wonder if not Evans jumped to conclusions, and in a fit of passion, called it a palace because it would be more exciting to excavate something royal instead of “some aristocratic” family’s home. Same thing with Schliemann, as he discovered the funerary mask and claimed it belonged to Agamemnon, did he do so out of pure excitement? Fooling himself into believing the myths because they are more exciting than reality? What blows me away is the extent that Schliemann brought his methods to, with altering the mask to fit a story better and using insensitive methods for excavating areas. Did he do this with malicious intent for wanting to “look” good, or did he simply fool himself into believing the myths for pure excitement?
Either way, I think that the methods that both gentlemen had used has made us now understand the importance of ethical archaeology, and being sensitive for the culture and heritage that is being excavated. The passion for unveiling “magical” history that drove these men to want to prove mythology might have made a lot of people believe in the mythology rather than questioning what is actually history. Sometimes reality is not exciting, and making myths into history can be alluring because of this.-
Miranda-I think it’s an interesting idea that they made these claims because they were so excited they convinced themselves they were true, but I think it’s more likely they made these claims for fame and to increase the public’s interest in their findings. But that’s a really interesting point and no one will ever know for sure!
-
Miranda, I always enjoy your post. They are always filled with important facts and spot on. I really enjoyed the questions you added in your post. I honestly don’t believe Schliemann did it out of excitement I believe he did it for fame. I believe he wanted to be the one who found the mask of Agamemnon and therefore claimed that’s what it was. I loved your final sentence. Great post!
-
-
It may have been that Schleimann realized after he made the announcement of finding Agamemnon’s palace that he was wrong, and went to great lengths to cover up his mistake. He was a businessman, with a reputation to uphold, and most likely had to worry about financial backers and the money he hoped to make off of the discovery. Would museums and collectors pay more if the artifacts came straight out of Homer’s writings? Probably. Schleimann had a lot riding on his discovery and I wouldn’t be surprised if he had to cover up his initial boasts.
-
-
The Palace Complex at Knossos is a great example of Arthur Evans hidden agenda, he named the complex Palace Minoan, yet the name “Minoan” was solely given by Evans because he wanted to believe he had found the palace of King Minos, a mythical Cretan king. He went on to describe a “throne room” without any proof a king or queen ever resided in the complex. His “extensive unconventional” restorations included detail that were not even from the ancient times, and in fact caused more damage, which “conservators are still trying to undo.” Another example, Evans gave the figure he found the name “Snake Goddess” and the name stuck, despite not really knowing what the figure represents.
When Schliemann discovered the “Mask of Agamemnon” it was called into question why this mask in particular had different features than the others found at the same site. It is speculated that he over restored the mask to make it more attractive to current century, probably thinking about what a publicity stunt would happen as a result.
I think the damage done by these two archaeologists did was giving the false impressions that stuck, so now what we know as the “snake goddess” could very well not be a goddess at all, And they both actually did damage the historical sites with their attempts at excavating or restoring them.-
Re: Kaitlyn
You provide some great examples! The snake goddesses and the palace were prime instances of how they manipulated facts. It is rather sad how they negatively affected our modern perception of this period. Some of the false perceptions can be undone, but not all of the damage is reversible. -
Kaitlyn –
Your post did a good job listing the damages done by Sir Evans and Schliemann. I agree that they went beyond pure ‘observation’ and they were definitely trying to accomplish some sort of cultural / personal prestige garnering with their ‘restorative work’. Still, I feel like at they time Europe was heavily into imperialism and were not giving much respect to other culture in general, so the fact that these people were making efforts to preserve the past and present it to others is a ‘good’ thing, despite the damage they may have done.
-
-
Miranda, pointing out the importance of ethical archaeology was great!! Hopefully after that ordeal people really did become more sensitive to the culture. I like your idea of them maybe just being excited by their discoveries and announcing that they uncovered these mythological artifacts out of foolish excitement. Do you think they just got it wrong by accident? or was it all for a big publicity stunt?
-
There are several examples of how Sir Arthur Evans’ and Heinrich Schliemann’s perceptions and claims of their discoveries have altered how we still view things today. I think their main goal with their discoveries seem to have been for fame, not preserving culture. Schliemann may have altered the Mask of Agamemnon to make it more appealing to 19th century tastes, so that people would be more impressed and interested with his findings. Arthur Evans claimed that the palace of Knossos was a palace because discovering a palace would have been much more impressive than a home for aristocrats. Evans claimed that the figurine of a woman holding a snake that he discovered was a goddess, once again to make it much more exciting and interesting to the general population than just a figurine of a woman.
Unfortunately, what these two had done just to make their discoveries more interesting the public is still affecting how we see these things today. The complex in Knossos is still widely known as the palace of Knossos (I’ve been there, and I never once heard as it referred to as anything but a palace), and the Snake Goddess is still referred to as the Snake Goddess, even though we have no idea what it was actually a depiction of.-
The Mask of Agamemnon is still known as that even though Schliemann is the one that gave it that name and it was later disproved that it could not have been Agamemnon’s mask. That goes to show you that a lie can continue to be perpetuated throughout history and even though it is now known to not be Agamemnon’s mask, it is still known by that.
-
-
Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann were not the only ones to generalize certain cultural styles. Generalization was very commonly used in early archaeology methods and practices. These archaeologist would often ignore context, including time and space. Making it easier to fill in their thoughts and ideas with the evidence found. One example of generalization is of Heinrich Schliemann’s discovery of “The Mask of Agamemnon’. Instead of finding evidence that leads to the conclusion of the mask representing the king, he came to the conclusion first that it’s Agamemnon and then fit the evidence to the theory. Schliemann even went to the lengths of altering the mask to fit his 19th century theory. As for Sir Arthur Evans he didn’t alter his discovery of the “Snake Goddesses’, but instead added new pieces of what he thought it would look like by generalization of other similar looking figures. Both these men have altered the appearances of cultural material, making it harder for new archaeologist to explore other possibilities. Regardless they have contributed to paving the way for archaeology, that continues to improve everyday by incorporating better methods and practices.
-
RE Miranda:
So true! They would generalize and not take time and place into consideration when they started ‘connecting dots’ so to speak. While that certainly makes classifying finds easier, it certainly wouldn’t have made the conclusions accurate. Schliemann really wanted that to be the mask of the legendary Agamemnon, so of course he would jump to the conclusion. I suppose when historical sites are being discovered it is so important to know the history, know the fact, and keep your own hopes and expectations out of it in order to accurately assess the situation.
-
RE: Miranda
Your post was very well thought out and I agreed with all of the information you explained. In your post, you stated, “Instead of finding evidence that leads to the conclusion of the mask representing the king, he came to the conclusion first that it’s Agamemnon and then fit the evidence to the theory”. Do you think that Schliemann could have done this for publicity and also altered “The Mask of Agamemnon” for that reason? Maybe he purposefully looked over the information and altered the mask for this reason.
-
-
The biggest example that jumps out to me as to how these two men have affected how we look at art of the ancient Aegean world is that of the Mask of Agamemnon, discovered by Heinrich Schliemann in Mycenae. Today, scholars have ‘debunked’ that the mask is not a representation of King Agamemnon, due to all the differences with other representations of Agamemnon and the inconsistencies of Mycenaean fashion (the handlebar mustache). His personal agenda of wanting to find stuff belonging and fashioned toward Agamemnon and his achievements blurred what the mask (among other things in Mycenae) meant, and that lead to what we believe today as the mask being tampered with. Even so, we still call it ‘The Mask of Agamemnon’ today, despite it (most likely) not belonging to the old king.
Sir Arthur Evans has blurred (though not as major) our view of ‘The Palace Complex at Knossos.’ Today it is thought that the complex was not actually a palace for a king, but instead a sort of communal home for aristocrats, yet the name still stands. This is far from Schliemann’s tampering with the mask, but the coloring of our perception is still displayed in the common name for the architecture.-
To Lucas Warthen
I thought you had some great examples explaining how both these men changed our view with their practices and theories. Do you believe these men were aware of their actions and/or cared about them altering these cultural material? Also do you think if better methods and practices didn’t come into the field of archaeology, would archaeologist still be guessing and altering artifacts and sites? Great job!-
Hey Miranda,
I thought I’d change it up this week and respond to a question about my post – should be different!
I think the obvious answer is that these men didn’t care about altering cultural material but I don’t think that is the correct one. I want to think that, during their time, these sorts of discoveries weren’t as unique or special or they simply didn’t understand how magnificent / important we would view them in the future. I doubt that they were aware that their actions would deliberately change how we view those materials today or that we would remember them today the way we do. I feel like I’m having trouble putting this into words, but something along the lines of ‘they didn’t want to mess up anything or cause a problem, or didn’t think it would be a problem in the future.’ Something like that, I guess?
Your second question is really interesting too – it is making me think a lot. Part of me wants to say that our technology of archaeology and ethics behind digs evolved separately, meaning that if we didn’t have the technology we did today then we would still refrain from altering artifacts and sites. However, that is impossible to tell and I think it would still fully be possible for archaeologists to alter them today if they really wanted to. Thanks for asking these questions, they are really something to think about!
-
-
-
While it is nearly impossible to approach any subject or situation without a bias, it is clear that both Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann went into their discoveries with preconceived notions that may have had a great impact on out understanding of Minoan and Mycenaean culture. Evan’s reconstruction of the Palace of Knossos was pretty short sighted. Much of the reconstruction was based primarily off of his own ideas of what it would have looked like. The pillars, for example, were modeled after Greek Doric style, and there isn’t any proof that the Minoans would have used such columns. There is also questions about whether his team’s reconstruction of the frescoes was truly accurate. This slight alterations and creative liberties have had such an impact on our understanding of this culture, that we may not ever fully understand what is was that was lost. Schliemann also took a number of creative liberties within his discoveries, which are more potentially more harmful to our understanding of these cultures. He is believed to have altered the mask of Agamemnon in order to make is fit the 19th century understanding of the ancient culture. While this conclusion has been questioned, Schliemann’s biased opinion very well could have changed our understanding of a whole people group.
-
Aubri, the reconstruction of the Palace of Knossos makes it a lot harder to understand what styles really were prominent in the Minoan architecture, especially if Evans had covered up a lot of the remaining original structures. Even if he had simply painted one section a different color it prevents us from actually learning about Minoan style.
-
-
Both Heinrich Schilemann and Sir Arthur Evans seemed to conjure up ideas of what they wanted to believe they found over what they had originally found. For instance upon finding the sculpture of the “Snake Goddess” it later broke during and earthquake along with some other artifacts he had found and at first seemed to believe they were part of a cult shrine. Evans ended up reconstructing the “Snake Goddess” into his own design and labeled her as a Goddess when there was said to be no known evidence of a structured society being ruled by kings, priests or gods. The only circumstantial evidence that can be indicated is that women played a dominate role. Then we have Schilemann and his discovery of the “Mask of Agamemnon” that he took upon himself to alter in order to please the current cultural style. I feel that these archaeologists have colored how we see art of the ancient Aegean world as misleading some what because if they were able to modify ancient artifacts and changed them so that they are more beneficial, for their fame then what is even accurate within the ancient Aegean world?
-
Hi Aalieyah,
It is sad to me that these men did influence incorrectly what our ideas are of these ancient civilizations. I thought it was interesting how the Snake Goddess was probably not correct and how our other readings included woman figures that were likely in relation to fertility. Fertility and objects representing that make more logical sense to me than anything as having children and keeping a population going through reproduction would be such a huge part of their lives. The fact that many woman would have died in childbirth and how having a lineage would be of huge importance. Most female art forms would be in relation to that then a supposed snake goddess, in my opinion. -
-
-
These two men are great examples of men who wanted their names aligned with prestigious archaeological finds and leaving a legacy instead of preserving what the ancient Minoan and Mycenaean culture originally had provided. Taking some liberties with what the similar art at the time had was likely expected from archaeologist and ancient restoration artists, but clearly Heinrich Schliemann wanted fame over authenticity in his changing of The Mask of Agamemnon. The mask didn’t match similar masks found at the same time and it was clear Schliemann thought his discovery was Agamemnon. Sir Arthur Evans already found an amazing discovery when he found his “Palace’ but his true intentions showed themselves over and over. Sir Arthur used a man name Emile and his son Emile to help excavate the Palace of Knosses and to help with restoration illustrations. The conflict in interest lies in how Emile and his son had a very successful reproduction business already and many of their art works they fragmented together from the evacuation site have since been proven to be put together incorrectly and with incorrect cultural meaning. Sir Arthur Evans aligning himself with these men does not add to his credibility. Sir Evans was also remembered for his naming of the Snake Goddess. Both the “Palace’ and the “Goddess’ seem to be inflated names for more basic and non-famous finds.
-
Hi Valene, I agree with your points about the names of the finds being exaggerated to sound more exciting. Do you think that this was done on purpose, or do you think perhaps the archaeologists really believed them to be palaces and masks of great kings? You said it was clear that Schliemann thought the mask he found was really the mask of Agamemnon, which is possible. But if so, why would he feel the need to modify it? Do you think changing the mask would make his own ideas of its origin more credible, and is it possible that he was just trying to trick people?
-
-
While both Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann did a lot of damage as amateur archaeologists, I feel that Schliemann’s actions were worse than Evans. Given the idea that he altered the Mask of Agamemnon is devastating as to think about, as we now have no idea what the mask looked like before he ‘restored’ the mask. Even though we now know that this mask predates Agamemnon bu around 300 years, the name still sticks to this piece. The seems to be other events of similar issues, although not as altering as the mask, at least as far as we know, all in the name of publicity. Schliemann’s desire to tie this to Homer as changed the way many people look at Mycenaean culture and art.
As for Evans, he did much the same as far as referring to the Complex at Knossos as a palace, although his atrocities are not as severe as we have no proof, at least as far as Evans altering a find. Still, his grand scheme of the grand royal palace, when it most likely was an aristocrat’s home paints Minoan culture and art with a romantic brush to most people. He most likely did so with other finds, all to fit his idea of what this wonderful archeological find was.-
Tamara, the restoration of the Mask of Agamemnon was probably a huge blow to everyone that was interested in learning about the ancient Aegean artwork. Do you think he could have faced consequences of some sort for altering it when he “restored’ the mask? I’d imagine that if somebody claimed to restore a famous piece of artwork today, but ended up making it their own, they’d be faced with a lot of unhappy people.
-
-
I think that their conclusion has continued to confuse and miss-represent the true meaning of the objects. Probably the most egregious of these acts is when Heinrich Schliemann altered a gold death mask to become The Mask of Agamemnon. Agamemnon was certainly well known through literature so this find would carry a great deal of prestige and recognition to the finder. Unfortunately, it is theorized the Schliemann did modify this funerary masks from that time. In addition, historians have now proven that this mask is 300 years older than Schliemann theorized. The handlebar mustache was added and does not match the Mycenaean fashion. It appears the attempts to defraud others was intentional.
I consider Sir Arthur Evans mistake in naming a building used by an aristocratic confederation as a palace far less concerning. I expect Sir Evans error was jumping to conclusions that a building of this size must have been attributed to the ruling class. His British heritage tells him that leaders live in palaces and would have led to this conclusion along with a modern-day name. Whether intentional or un-intentional these false conclusions delay the true meaning of the understanding of ancient cultures. -
The first example that came to mind was the funerary mask of King Agamemnon, which was discovered by the german archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann. He forced the narrative of that time to make those around him believe that this was the mask of the Greek commander Agamemnon and is even believed to have hammered out the mask in the 19th century style to fit his expectations. While this mask itself is believed to be authentic, the markings stronger markings of the eyes and ears are probably not. European archaeologists of that time had their own biases and narratives they wanted to push and this is no exception. Sir Arthur Evens incorrectly labeled the palace of Knossos as a palace, as modern scholars have found indications that it was for aristocrats. He also tried in vain to reconstruct the palace to his ideals, which again, have been proven by modern scholars as incorrect. His intentions were not terrible, but it is important to remain objective when observing pieces of history.
-
RE: Bob Hook
Though, as you said, it does delay the true intention of ancient cultures, we can be grateful today that modern science tries constantly to be objective rather than biased. I have trouble understanding why both of these men couldn’t see how important objectivity is when discovering history and science. -
There are many examples of how Heinrich Schliemann and Sir Arthur Evans allowed their own personal biases, agendas, and pre-conceived ideas and desires to affect their work. Although we know now that the Mask of Agamemnon was most likely altered by Heinrich Schliemann, it does not negate the damage done by him to a historic artifact in an effort to promote his own desire to have found the mask of Agamemnon. The same is true for the Palace at Knossos, which Sir Arthur Evans damaged with his attempts to “restore” it. Not only did he promote incorrect ideas with no factual or evidential basis, but spread misinformation as a way to make his discoveries more exciting. The same is true for the snake goddess, which might not actually be a goddess at all.
Their conclusions have been at times wildly inaccurate and harmful to historical artifacts and locations.-
Hi Maggie,
I also found the Mask of Agamemnon to be a compelling example of the distorted discovery regarding these cultures. Schliemann seemed to be more concerned with his image, wanting to be the founder of the mask, rather than letting his discoveries remain organic in nature and honestly intentioned. It is unfortunate that there is no written history to make a juxtaposed comparison of timeline and Schliemann’s word. Schliemann was a businessman, so it’s not absurd to think that his intentions were more marketed towards his desire for fame and recognition.
Thank you for sharing.
-
-
RE: Tamara Toy
I agree that Schliemann’s actions are more infuriating than Even’s. Altering history to fit your own narrative failed to educate people on how the culture actually worked, as you said. What’s more is that I feel his intentions were to gain popularity or some sort of awards for “discovering’ the ancient mask of legend, to be known as the man that did it. His intentions are more marred than those of Even’s. -
As many students above have pointed out, both Sir Evans and Heinrich Schliemann were responsible for the longstanding mislabeling and misunderstanding of historic sites and artifacts from Minoan and Mycenaean culture (even leading to the modification of their original forms to better fit their own publications). It is extremely likely to me that the men in question were not particularly interested in preserving the real cultural value of the objects as much as they were in favor of furthering their own status within the archaeological community. I believe this is also largely due to the cultural place that archaeology held within much of Europe in earlier times, most especially Great Britain, where it mainly served as a sensation. In my opinion, historical archaeologists at times were hardly better than graverobbers, showed off artifacts as prizes taken from “exciting and exotic’ civilizations. I think that this was greatly colored by Colonialist attitudes, as it seems that the actual history and cultural accuracy of the finds was far less important to the public eye than the excitement of the spectacle itself.
-
Hi Allie,
It’s true that these two archaeologists seemed to be more invested in their own image than their dedication to reconstructing these past societies. Because there is no written history left behind to parallel these interpretations to, we are left with using what the excavators tell us: the condition the object was found in, objects around it, and their own “professional” interpretation of what the meaning is. This can easily lead to manipulation of the audience, because we can never truly know the purpose or intention – we can only find correlation, and I think these men knew this when these cultures were “discovered.”
Thank you for sharing.
-
-
In one of the sources on the Snake Goddess, they mention outright that Sir Arthur Evans went into Knossos saying that there was a mother goddess the Minoans worshipped and conveniently found a little figurine of a “goddess’. Heinrich Schliemann had likely altered the Mask of Agamemnon’s mustache and claimed it was Agamemnon’s funerary mask, although the burial site and time frames don’t match up. The two weren’t very gentle with their explorations and discoveries with the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures as they went in with specific ideas of things they wanted to find and somehow managed to come out with them. Their findings seem to emphasize the need for caution when it comes to accepting conclusions archaeologists may have with newer findings. Artwork needs to be fairly consistent throughout the time period to prove that it was made by the old civilizations rather than recreated to fit what a modern-day discoverer thought it might look like.
-
Sir Arthur Evans lived around the turn of the 20th century which was notably a time of colonialism and white supremacy. People at that time were pretty unsubtle looking for reasons to justify the imperialism of European society. Since the Mediterranean is the place where western civilization traces most of its roots, the bias of the people who were discovering these sites and interpreting their findings is expected. One thing that struck me looking through this wing is how similar Aegean artifacts appear to those of Egyptian and the Middle East.
I think it’s pretty hard not to project ones own cultural values, from ethics to something like a rational perspective, onto any culture that one studies. This is probably double for a culture that is a part of one’s heritage. It’s still amazing that people like Sir Evans put so much effort into uncovering artifacts and arranging them, that despite the errors they may have made in their interpretations, their achievements are still praiseworthy. -
Many artifacts found from Minoan and Mycenaean culture was found by archeologists named, Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann. Many people have raised questions on the artifacts discovered by these individuals. Sir Arthur Evans was responsible for excavating various artifacts from the Minoan culture. Snake Goddess and Palace at Knossos both discovered by Evans were later questioned for credibility. The name Snake Goddess was given by Evans and the name sort of just stuck. However, after later discoveries the Goddess is still unknown for what it actually represents. The reconstruction of the right arm and addition of the snake in her hand was make to fit the name Snake Goddess.The Palace at Knossos was later founded to not be a palace for royalty as Evans stated before, but instead a house for the aristocrats. The Palace was reconstructed over decades and many artifacts were undiscovered due to natural disasters. Heinrich Schliemann discovered The Mask of Agamemnon of the Mycenaean culture. This mask was one of many, however was later noticed to be different from the rest. Schliemann explained this mask was the mask of the famous ancient king of the Mycenaean culture, however it was later discovered to be similar to the other masks and just altered to look more like 19th century times. After reading about this “mistakes”, it makes me question artifacts of history. Did these archeologists make up facts to make themselves look better or did they actually make alterations and assumptions because they believed they were correct? We believe those who we believe we can trust and more times than we think we are fooled. However, in these instances it is hard to say their intentions for the false assumptions.
-
Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann both went into their discoveries with a preconceived opinion that was not based on reason or their actual experiences. Heinrich Schliemann discovered “The Mask of Agamemnon’. Schliemann was considered an amateur archaeologist.
He announced his finding as the funerary mask supposedly placed over the Mycenean king Agamemnon. Schliemann did not truly know this. It was just a publicity stunt. Once found and uncovered the mask did not fit Schliemann’s standards so he altered “The Mask of Agamemnon’. Schiemann over restored this mask and made it more attractive to 19th-century sensibilities.
Unlike Schilemann, Sir Arthur Evans did not alter his discovery of the “Snake Goddesses’. Evans found the “Snake Goddess’ without a head and half of her left arm. So instead of adding things to the sculpture he simply recreated what he thought should have been in its place to look similar.
These two archaeologists altered their discoveries which makes it difficult for our generation of archaeologists to examine. Because of Evans and Schliemann not having proper archaeologist etiquette, it allows the archaeologist field which we have now to grow and develop ways to avoid their practices. -
Several discoveries made by Evans and Schliemann seem to be misrepresented in cultural context in order to increase the market value of these claims. For example, Dr. Steven Hucker and Dr. Beth Harris discuss the Mask of Agamemnon on behalf of the Khan Academy, and it’s founder Schliemann, calling him “a businessman, and a kind of amateur archaeologist.” They go on to discuss the speculation of art historians behind the well preserved mask, suggesting that Schliemann may have over-restored it and made it appeal more to a nineteenth century agenda. While not a lot of written history is left behind regarding the Aegean world, like that of other cultures, we are left to piece the puzzle together by relying on found artifacts and architecture to put the history of this once extravagant culture to understanding. In scenarios such as this, observers and historians need to be cautious of manipulation or falsification for a discoverer’s own personal gain, in whatever fashion.
-
Sir Arthur Evans named the Minoan culture after the King Mino, a mythical Cretan king who supposedly constructed the great labyrinth. This was later proved to be inaccurate and while Sir Arthur Evans’ restoration of the site of Knossos probably prevented it from becoming complete unrecognizable he took a lot of liberties. The restorations at Knossos especially in the throne room are wonderful to look at but give tourists a false representation on the culture.
Heinrich Schliemann believed that the Mycenae Citadel was the mythical home of the Greek king Agamemnon, who was responsible for starting the Trojan War. He believed that much of what Homer wrote was based in history. Homer associated Mycenae with gold and this drove him to want to find the city possibly out of greed. He ended up finding gold in grave circle A of the “Palace’. He often ascribed names from Homer with his discoveries. This could have just been a great way for him as a business man to generate interest and potentially more money in his finds.
In reply to sjsaccom I do believe that they both did this in order for them to profit from their discoveries more not because they believed that they were in any way accurate.
-
In all honesty, knowing that these two archaeologists, Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann, had their own agenda make me look at this art with a more critical and doubtful eye. Without knowing that these men had their own ideas, as to the culture of the Minoan and Mycenaean, I could potentially look at their interpretations more factually. Knowing that certain pieces were altered to fit their ideas, makes me think more deeply as to what those pieces were intended to represent. Snake Goddess is a particularly interesting one in my eyes because of the recreation of the head, neck, arm, placement of an additional snake, cat posted on the hat, it seems a bit overboard on assumption for my liking.
-
Hi Lacey, I am doubtful too now that I know there is likely skewed historical importance put on these objects. It makes me wonder what other historical finds might have been altered. I thought it was amazing how so many of those ancient female forms were also being reproduced and sold as authentic for these times periods. So a civilization that has one of two female art pieces found and dozens of fake replications means our current society could view these people being obsessed with woman and fertility when in reality they may have not respected woman like that at all.
Sad that people care so little about history and just care about making money off false history or making a famous name for themselves. -
Lacey, I was rather appalled at how Evans and Schliemann both approached ‘preserving’ these examples from previously unknown cultures. With the “Snake Goddess”, I could have understood replacing the missing pieces how he did if there had been other examples of similar art that would have confirmed this as a strong possibility. However, to just replace it however he needed to confirm this piece as a goddess figure is just infuriating. The same goes for “The Mask of Agamemnon”. It makes it even sadder to think these pieces will carry the title that does not fit their origins, no matter what is discovered about their true history.
-
Lacey,
I also found it interesting about the “Snake Goddess” because Evans new what the original look of the statue was but after it broke along with some of the other artifacts, I just don’t see why he felt the need to have the statue reconstructed in his own way. When he could have just remade it the way it was and still claimed it to be the “Snake Goddess”. As you said it really does make it hard to not look at their findings with a doubtful eye.
-
Lacey,
I too wonder what those two pieces really represents and that the both of them had their own ideas as to what they wanted the pieces to look like. They also had their own idea as to how they wanted people to view the art. I can also agree that they did in fact went overboard when it came to the revamping of each piece. In my opinion I think they both should’ve left each piece the way they found them.
-
-
There are times when taking a little bit of artistic license is needed such as replacing the missing right arm and placing the cat on the head of the Snake Goddess with what they felt like it would have looked like. But Evans was guilty of incorporating his own ideas into his discoveries such as rebuilding parts of the Palace Complex at Knossos with modern materials that detracted from the complex. While Evans didn’t know what the initial palace complex looked like, Schliemann went even further “off the rails” by completely changing a piece of art. Schliemann took the Mask of Agamemnon and completely changed the look of it to make it appear as something that it wasn’t. He “modernized” the mask and in so doing, completely destroyed a piece of history.
-
Sir Arthur Evans named the ancient civilization of Crete ‘Minoans’ after King Minos, but the original name of the culture is still unknown. Evans used modern materials to reconstruct parts of damaged buildings, making them less authentic and creating more work for future restorers. Evans also removed the restoration work of later Minoans on the Knossos Palace, stripping it back to an earlier version of the palace.
Evans hired a Swiss artist and his son to do reconstruction of fragmented Minoan art, but in some cases it’s hard to tell if they put images back together in the original way because the art has become like a jigsaw puzzle that has multiple ways to solve it. One image that has been proven to have been reconstructed inaccurately is “The Saffron Gatherer,’ an image of a boy that should have been a monkey. The artists may have improvised in some pieces, just to fill them out. They also copied art from other frescos to fill in missing pieces, and some of their restorations were influenced by modern beauty standards. The father and son produced some replicas that were easy to mistake for originals, because of their use of ancient manufacturing techniques and how they didn’t always put their maker’s stamp on them. Some scholars think they might have been creating and selling forgeries on the side, which would have muddied the waters further for people trying to study Minoan culture.
Evans gave names to artifacts that he discovered, and the names stuck despite how we never found out what the true purpose of them was — for instance the ‘Snake Goddess.’ The figurine was found with one arm holding a snake, and one arm missing. Evans reconstructed it with a second arm holding a snake, because he guessed it was probably right. He reconstructed the missing head based on frescos of Minoan women, and stuck a small cat he’d found in another room on top. Good enough for government.
Heinrich Schliemann was convinced that the city he’d found was one talked about in Homer’s writings, so he named a lot of the things he’d find in reference to Homer. The names stuck, despite being found to be inaccurate. An example is a gold king’s deathmask, which he named ‘the Mask of Agamemnon.’ Scholars now believe that Schliemann altered the mask to make it look more like what people of his time thought Agamennon looked like. He also named an impressive tomb the ‘Treasury of Atrius,’ after Agamemnon’s father.
-
Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann allowed themselves to much privileged in the reconstruction of Minoan art. I have to admit that at the time it may not have been as important as it is today to preserve art in its original state. In today’s world art restoration is an extremely labor intensive process and every effort is made to use proper materials. Sir Arthur Evans used modern materials and techniques and in some cases completely altered the work of art, I feel like accuracy took a backseat to aesthetics when they were restoring these works of art.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.