Studying the historic mistakes of archaeologists Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann
In my paper, I will argue the negative impacts of British archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans and the amateur German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann on the history of Minoans and Trojans and the depiction of their culture. I will analyze the beginnings of Schliemann and Evans’s backgrounds and explore the impacts they had on their interpretation of artifacts and the manipulation that they created. With works from David A. Traill and Kenneth D.S. Lapatin, I will source as a way to develop a clear understanding of the long-lasting impacts on history while addressing counterarguments.
Arthur Evans’s Past Influence
Research and temperament of artifacts committed by Arthur Evans help strengthen the white narrative of ancient civilizations and further disrupts the history of others. Lapatin writes, “[Evans] also constructed the civilization of the Minoans, as he called them, as a rival to the ancient Oriental societies of Egypt and Mesopotamia, a precursor to the Golden Age of Greece, and the earliest high culture of Europe” (34). This negative depiction of Egypt and Mesopotamia helps to further the racist narrative of these societies being less than. The glorification of the civilization of the Minoans further fuels the imagination of other Europeans, who trace their history back to the Romans, as Evans works to paint a perfect society. Evan’s choices can be due to his past career as a reporter who witnessed the religious violence between Crete’s Muslim and Christian populations. From this experience, it is clear why Evans hoped to discover proof of past civilization being peaceful instead of violent. On the other hand, this blinding bias allowed Evans to further alter a culture’s history while affecting others.
Misinterpretation Of Historical Objects
The misrepresentation of Minoan society is further expressed through false artifacts that Evans produced. Lapatin describes how Evans is a prime example of how histories can be distorted by the desires of the present and, in this case, the desire to present a polished society. One of the prime examples of the impacts of Evans’s misinterpretation of historical objects is the Prince of the Lilies or Priest-King Fresco, which can be found on Neopalatial Crete. Evans’s false interpretation of the image leads him to claim that the image depicts a man and the nation’s love of nature. Due to Evans wanting to prove the peaceful narrative he followed, he failed to acknowledge the evidence around him.
The Ripple Effects
Displayed by the other frescos discovered, the white paint used to draw the” Priest-King “ would have been of a woman. Evidence shows that Minoans painted men of a darker color and women in a white shade, whereas Evans chose to ignore this. This interpretation further led to the controversial restoration of the fresco. Evans’s poor choice to complete his restoration in cement leads the original pieces to be mummified forever due to Evans’s permanent temperament. Evans’s manipulation of artifacts leads us to have a more challenging time fully understanding these people’s lives and separating the false story from reality. Adding on to this, Lapatin’s work further displays to readers the long-term impacts Evans’s narratives have had on society. According to Lapatin, “Today, a century after Evans began excavating at Knossos, fake goddesses continue to appear in textbooks and encyclopedias, scholarly journals and monographs, art historical and archaeological surveys, and more popular books (especially New Age ones espousing the power of “The Goddess,” as genuine ancient artifacts” (36). This highlights how Evans’s false narratives are still being propelled in today’s society, thus further leading to a false understanding of the Minoan people.
Heinrich Schliemann’s False Findings
Like his British counterpart, Heinrich Schliemann allowed his biases to overpower his discovery, leading to the temperament of evidence and the development of false artifacts. One of Schliemann’s life goals was to prove that the city of Troy was real; thus, he traveled to Turkey to search. Schliemann’s honesty is first brought to question as he takes credit for finding the city even though it was found by an archaeologist named Frank Calvert several years prior. Through the work of Traill, he is sure to point out both the positives and the negatives of Schliemann’s excavation as he writes, “1. Schliemann’s excavation notebooks are, for the most part, truthful and accurate record of the finds he made and where and when he made them….2. Like everyone else, Schliemann made innocent mistakes’’ (91). To counter the “innocent mistakes” made by Schliemann, Traill writes, “Schliemann purchased objects and passed them off as finds from his own excavations” (91). I disagree that these “mistakes’ ‘ were “innocent” due to a precise manipulation of history being done due to Schliemann’s actions. One prominent example of this is the excavation that Schliemann led in Mycenae. With this excavation, Schliemann could use his biases to reshape a more truthful narrative if done by someone else. From the old graves of the wealthy, Schliemann discovered golden masks that he brought forth as part of his findings. The mask that stands out from the others is called the “Mask of Agamemnon,” which many questions if it is a false artifact that Schliemann produced.
How Do We Know The Difference?
The reasoning for this leave is due to this mask having facial hair, while the other did not, most notably the beard. The importance of the beard is that it displays strong characteristics of Schliemann’s time, as its ends are curled upwards. This modern influence further led scholars to believe this is the work of Schliemann. Adding on to this, the mask has a narrow nose compared to the others, and its ears are shaped differently. The features of this mask depicted a more Northern European look, which displays Schliemann’s own biases. Schliemann was known to be a fan of the Nazis and wanted to prove that German ancestry was tied back to the early Greeks. It is highly possible that Schliemann ordered this mask to be commissioned to push forth this false narrative. Schliemann’s biases also gave him more glory to the artifacts he discovered, leading to further blind spots in his findings and research.
Schliemann’s Story Of Troy
Lastly, through his love for the Homeric epics, Schliemann falsely identified many objects regarding their significance and timeframe. “Priam’s Treasure” is one of the major examples from Troy of Schliemann, allowing his biases to control his research. Schliemann labeled these findings to belong to the Homeric king Priam from his need to display a Homeric Troy. This was later proven wrong due to Schliemann misdating many of the artifacts he had found. This misdating also led to the damage to the surroundings of Troy due to Schliemann’s excavations destroying the main layers of Troy. Is it essential to highlight the impact that this has on future archaeologists being able to study the site properly? Schliemann’s careless excavation of the site plus scholars further back from fully understanding Troy’s society. Moreover, Schliemann placed many false narratives on the artifacts that he found and the artifacts that he had manipulated, leading to the long-term damage of Troy’s true history.
Overall
Through the search for glory and the wanting to depict one’s own story, archaeologists Schliemann and Evans are prime examples of the negative impacts that can come from not being able to separate fact from interpretation. From their actions, archaeologists and scholars today can understand the mistakes made by Schliemann and Evans and how not to replicate them. Scholars today battle with whether or not to vilify or honor these archaeologists for their discoveries; however, it is vital to acknowledge the long-lasting damage their actions have committed to the history of others. From the mistakes we have learned from these two archaeologists, it is essential to right their wrongdoings and presents a fair and just history of these cultures.
