While Schliemann was definitely somewhat of a sensationalist - claiming to a newspaper that he had "gazed on the face of Agamemnon", his findings were critical to unmasking the history behind Homer's legendary works and igniting interest in the field of architecture in general. Indeed, it is overcritical of us to lay judgment about Schliemann without acknowledging how little formal training archaeologists underwent during his time - as well as the fact that Schliemann used his personal fortune to pursue something that clearly fascinated him. His work brought the field of archaeology into the public eye, and for that, he should be commended. That being said, his amateurism arguably did more damage than good ( archaeologist Kenneth W. Harl claims that Schliemann did more damage to Troy than the Greeks ever did).
The same goes for Sir Arthur Evan - for while his work made an entire culture accessible to the masses, the Palace of Knossos in Crete is perhaps now simply the "Evans version" of Minoan culture. This raises the question of what the purpose of archaeology really is - to bring an appreciation of history and ancient cultures to all, or to simply allow groups of experts to argue with each other over whose opinion is most valid?
