Although Arthur Evans' reputation among scholars is better than Schliemann's due to his more genuine approach towards excavation, I disagree with his intention to reconstruct the Palace Complex at Knossos on its original site. He could have reconstructed it on a different site instead. I think the reconstruction takes away the beauty of the mystery of the Palace Complex. The site would have lacked the colorful columns and detailed wall paintings if it was not reconstructed, but would have intrigued visitors and other excavators to challenge their imagination about what it actually looked like in Ancient Crete.
Schliemann's pursual of glory can be criticized as a self-centered approach to excavation. However, he seems to have been more interested in "objects" rather than architecture. Excavation was an extention of his childhood dreams-to hunt for treasure that may or may not exsist. Thus, I feel that Evan's and Schliemann's intentions were very different to begin with, Evans fascinated with the analysis of his excavations and Shliemann attatched to the romance of excavation itself. In another perspective, Evans took a step further than Schliemann by physically showing his analysis and predictions made from his excavations.
