Sir Arthur Evans vs. Heinrich Schliemann The Minoan archaeology is one which was surrounded by numerous controversies and this can be considered to be incomplete without the overall understanding of Sir Arthur Evans. The Minoan archaeology on its own has been present for several years however a true understanding of the culture and the culture was brought to life due to the efforts by Sir Arthur Evans. Heinrich Schliemann on the other hand was focused on the Mycenaean culture. Both these scholars were known to make a number of alterations to the artifacts, however for very different reasons and rationale. The main aim of this paper is to discuss their position in each culture and to discuss the possible rationale that these individuals had for making the alterations. Although both Evans and Schliemann made alterations to the artifacts, it is crucial to note that the rationale for the changes made was completely different from each other. For instance, Evans was clearly more focused on brining to life the lost civilization and to help people recognize the distinct civilization (Morford, Lenardon and Sham). Here …show more content…
For instance, with all the excavations, he had started with preconceived notions. No matter what he found, he yet went on to stick to his preconceptions and here this overall interaction and interference with the Homer and Greek Mythology, went on to be more of a hampering with the true academic study (Morford, Lenardon and Sham). Here the main focus was on finding treasures and his attention was only on the treasures, rather than on the humbler finds, which would otherwise be more useful and beneficial for the future archaeologists and would have otherwise given the historians and archaeologists more understanding and knowledge of the excavation sites and the history of the
The second question frequently asked regarding Schliemann’s legacy examines his motives and skill as an excavator: was Heinrich Schliemann a good archaeologist? This question has two sides. First, did Schliemann use the best techniques and technology available to him at time of his first excavation? Second, did he have the same values that other archaeologists have?
"…would require a knowledge of many aspects of Greek life. The would-be investigator would have to be familiar with terrain in the case of any given battle, have an acquaintance with the archaeological artifacts of various types, close familiarity with the written sources, and most important, an understanding of the general economic picture. He would also need some insight into ancient religion and acquaintance with military and naval procedures and strategy."
“Mask of Agamemnon” and shaft graves are other important discoveries for Heinrich Schliemann. After leaving Turkey, Schliemann started digging in M...
The art is locate more than 100 m into the cave and the artifacts were found at the cave’s opening. The artifacts were linked to the Early Woodland/early Middle Woodland to the Mississippian period. The ways that the artifacts were dated was by looking that the markings and the brushing of the ceramics. In the center of the...
Although, scientist’s main goal is to find treasure from a certain place, they get lost and make a whole new city, and even more treasure. From the source "Lost Cities, Lost Treasure" It talked about a man- whose name is Heinrich Schliemann- dreamed of discovering the lost land of Troy, but during his adventure he had made his way to California where he found gold. This shows that even though their mind had been set to find this certain place adventurers get sidetracked and discover other things: like gold. Also, Schliemann became an archaeologist in the 1800s; he had discovered treasure in foreign lands like Greece. From the text it had stated “he loved Greek culture so much that him and his wife names their children Agamemnon and Andromache." Lastly, you can learn different languages from the other cultures. From
W. Raymond Johnson, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, (1996), pp. 65-82, Date viewed 19th may, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3822115.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true
In The Odyssey, Homer, or more so, the characters, often referred to Odysseus as the ‘Great Odysseus’. In the text, it is obvious to see that Odysseus demonstrates arrogance, charisma, over-confidence, and pride. Odysseus and his m...
Homer. ?The Odyssey,? World Masterpieces: Expanded Edition. Maynard Mack ed. Ed. Coptic St.: Prentice, 1995.
of ‘Biblical Archaeology’ and saw it as a means of establishing the credibility of the
The development of an empire is a change strongly emphasized in the Archeology as a radical departure from the Hellenic tradition, and consequently a major source of conflict among the Greeks. Prior to the adven...
Homer’s literature served as a moral messenger to the people of ancient Greece. The Odyssey by Homer demonstrates the character development of Odysseus, the epic hero, and his journey of self-discovery. Odysseus was a great, wise, noble, and well respected war hero to his people. Odysseus had one tragic flaw that was demonstrated by his actions throughout the book. The author Homer continued to strip Odysseus of his arrogance throughout the story, by throwing challenges his way, making him pay for his mistakes, and allowing him to continue to overcome obstacles. The main purpose of Odysseus journey also to reach his home a more humble man. Reading Odysseus’ journey also served as a way to look at morals. The
GREECE & ROME. Archaeology [serial online]. November 1987;40(6):18. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed December 22, 2011.
According to The Society for American Archaeology, the definition of Archaeology is, “to obtain a chronology of the past, a sequence of events and dates that, in a sense, is a backward extension of history.” The study of ancient civilizations and archaeology is rather ambiguous due to the primitive nature of the time period. With little imagery and even less textual evidence, professionals in the field must work diligently when studying their subjects. Naturally, archaeologists cannot see or communicate with those whom they are studying, so they must be extraordinarily meticulous when analyzing past cultures. This relates to all aspects of the ancient world including; foods, raw materials, artifacts, agriculture, art work and pottery. All of these elements can collectively provide new and innovative information to curious archaeologists who may wish to gain a better understanding of those who came before us. This information is equally beneficial for both historians and archaeologists who plan to compare the histories of societies from all around the world. In the world of archaeology, archaeologists strive to better explain human behavior by analyzing our past. Therefore, the study of archaeology is a key element in understanding a time before our own.
Within the field of archaeology, migration theory has become somewhat of a fad, one in which it rises and falls in popularity as new information or tools are developed. While migration and archaeology often go hand in hand, particularly when discussing prehistoric populations, archaeologists often find it hard to incorporate migration studies into their research studies. The appropriate tools for incorporating migration seamlessly into research methods are still in their infancy. As a result, archaeologists often interoperate migration as something chaotic and poorly understood (Anthony 1990). It stands to reason that archaeologists are having such a hard time incorporating migration into everyday research when one comprehensive definition of Migration has yet to be reached (Willers 2008).
He writes, “All parties with an interest of one sort or another in the antiquities trade agree that it causes a certain amount of damage to the world’s archaeological heritage” (1). Brodie is right to say that the antiquities market does do some damage to the archaeological world because of looting. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the antiquities market has helped to spread ancient cultures across the world, which has done a great deal to help archaeological heritage. Whatever the motives, be it monetary gain or a true passion for ancient artifacts, the collectors and dealers of antiquities have done a great deal in conserving and drawing attention to