SirArthurEvans
Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann
Word Count: 302 History has brought forward the case of two well known historians, Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann who have been known for the artifacts from Minoan culture and Mycenaean culture. Both these historians have been known to have made numerous alterations to the artifacts. However it is also crucial to note here that all the changes that have been made to the artifacts have had a valid background and rationale and both these individuals have had different perspectives and reasons. In the case of Sir Arthur Evans the focus was on brining to life the lost civilization and to allow the general public to recognize the distinct civilization. He has created a strong and powerful position in history and has been known for his works of developing and recreating the Minoan archeology. He was known for rebuilding the cultures and for brining to life the culture. He has been able to effectively navigate the cultures and successful revive the culture (Morford, Lenardon & Sham, 2010). There is a thin line which divides art from archeological remnants. Hence some of the things we see as material accumulation of an entire site may have been manipulated or embellished. One of the best examples here is the case of Sir Arthur Evans, who has been accused after the findings of Crete’ Knossos. He confirmed in one of his four volume overview that some of the art was just simple forgeries, while others were partial reconstructions. His site interpretations were highly drawn from post –Bronze age and ancient Greek mythology and it was with his imagination that allowed him to develop and give to the world the much manipulated and hampered pieces of history. Heinrich Schliemann on the other hand has shown very different motives for alterations of the artifacts. He was known to be most obsessed with the Mycenaean cultures and this was turning into a negative approach rather than a positive passion. One of the best
Word Count: 302 History has brought forward the case of two well known historians, Sir Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann who have been known for the artifacts from Minoan culture and Mycenaean culture. Both these historians have been known to have made numerous alterations to the artifacts. However it is also crucial to note here that all the changes that have been made to the artifacts have had a valid background and rationale and both these individuals have had different perspectives and reasons. In the case of Sir Arthur Evans the focus was on brining to life the lost civilization and to allow the general public to recognize the distinct civilization. He has created a strong and powerful position in history and has been known for his works of developing and recreating the Minoan archeology. He was known for rebuilding the cultures and for brining to life the culture. He has been able to effectively navigate the cultures and successful revive the culture (Morford, Lenardon & Sham, 2010). There is a thin line which divides art from archeological remnants. Hence some of the things we see as material accumulation of an entire site may have been manipulated or embellished. One of the best examples here is the case of Sir Arthur Evans, who has been accused after the findings of Crete’ Knossos. He confirmed in one of his four volume overview that some of the art was just simple forgeries, while others were partial reconstructions. His site interpretations were highly drawn from post –Bronze age and ancient Greek mythology and it was with his imagination that allowed him to develop and give to the world the much manipulated and hampered pieces of history. Heinrich Schliemann on the other hand has shown very different motives for alterations of the artifacts. He was known to be most obsessed with the Mycenaean cultures and this was turning into a negative approach rather than a positive passion. One of the best