Week 4: Nobu Fujioka: Response to "Two Excavators, Legend, and Archeology"

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.

Week 4: Kunal Bambawale: Response to "Two Excavators, Legend, and Archeology"

Although the current perceptions of Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans are perhaps not as glowing as they once were, they both undoubtedly contributed greatly to the field of archeology. 

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?

Week 4: Mariel Camiling: Evans and Schliemann Reading

After reading the article about the 2 excavators, Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans, it surprised me how the public had different opinions of them. It seemed to me that both archaeologists had the same intentions in discovering ancient art. The article made it seem as if Schliemann was a very destructive individual whose only goal in life was to find treasure no matter what, like a pirate. However, the author talked about Evans in a more respectful nature citing how he used "stratigraphy" while excavating the palace. I believe that both individuals should be critiqued equally because what Evans did seems more destructive. He rebuilt the Palace Complex how he saw it in his mind, so we do not know how the original palace looked originally. Since we do not know how the original palace looks, our view of art from the Ancient Crete-Minoan period is affected. Now no one will know how the original palace looked, but people will see a pretty reconstruction of a beautiful palace. Overall, I believe that both archaeologists should be seen equally.

Week 4: Braden Currier: Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann reading

As I read this brief description of these two guys and their contributions to the academic and historical communities I thought to myself that it is unfortunate that these archeologists were allowed to do whatever they wanted with the land and the objects found on it. I believe that history should not be allowed to be tampered with by a person only because they have the ability to "purchase the land." It is hard to believe that Schliemann was allowed to use "destructive" techniques while excavating, potentially destroying some artifacts in his attempt to retrieve others. Also, with regard to Evans, I am not sure that massive restorations of ancient buildings should be allowed. I think that minor alterations that better protect and safeguard the structure of the building should be permitted but unnecessary reconstruction I don't believe should be okay. I have been to a lot of ancient sights where historical buildings have not been restored and I have been to ones like the Acropolis in Greece, where it seems like there is always being work done on it. From these experiences I can say that it is much more miraculous to see the original work, even if it is rundown, because you can sit there stunned and not wonder or ask yourself what aspects of what you are seeing are original and which ones where done with the assistance of modern technology. That's what I think.

Week 4: Jennifer L.:Clark-The Nude

After reading The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form, I had to ask, why write 23 pages about nude male statues? It seems sometimes these authors take basic beauty and turn it into a huge long explanation for why it is like this or like that. Is there a point where you just think "this is really beautiful, it is smooth, it is a perfect body in a perfect pose" instead of creating a study out of something? As humans it seems we have to continually prove we know everything about a subject, or a piece of art for that matter. I guess it just kind of makes the whole point of looking at something pretty or shocking or beautiful dissolve. We forget about there presence alone and try to figure what they are all about. These statues were made in a time where our modern ideals did not exist, so there HAS to be some sort of mystery to these pieces!

Week 4: Jen Rohrs: reading about Arthur Evans

After reading about Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann I think that Evans deserves a much harsher critique from the art historian community for his modifications to the artifacts. While Schliemann is criticized for misrepresenting the grandeur of his achievements, he still kept the artifacts intact in their original state so that the conclusions can be drawn about the society from which they came and adapted as current ideas develop.  However, in the case of Evans his changes to the Palace of Knossos now lead us to draw conclusions about civilizations in ancient Crete from buildings and renovations done during a later time.  Since one of our main starting points in this class when talking about art is the form and materials used, these newer additions can skew our perception.  As new technologies and ideas come around it is difficult to know what facts are being concluded from the original architecture and artwork and what is from the techniques of a newer age.  Even when restoring paintings, such as frescos, the colors and lines that are part of the restored pieces may bare some modern techniques that, over time and numerous restorations, may obstruct the original detailing of the piece.  I do understand that without these types of restoration that many of these original details will be lost by time and the elements, but I also feel that it might be better to speculate on what may have been lost than to draw incorrect conclusions from modern renovations.  Like with one attempt at restoring the Sphinx, when the concrete actually caused the original statue to deteriorate, many restorations can be harmful.  I think that all restorations should be tested and deemed absolutely necessary before they are carried out instead of used as a way to make these sites more of an attraction to tourists.

Week 4: Nobu Fujioka: Question

When I was reviewing for the midterm, I couldn't find the Lion Relief from Assyria in our text book. I have notes on the art work but I forgot what it looked like. Does anyone know where I can find an image of it?