Question

“Purity” of Archaeological Sites? Re-creations + Re-constructions:

Sir Arthur Evans (1851-1941), the curator of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, was a controversial figure in archaeology. Following in the footsteps of Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890), he studied Greek myths as literature based on fact. By doing so, he discovered the Minoan palace of King Minos, which had previously been thought to be only a fable. Excavations took place over many years in the early 1900s. Not only did he use texts thought to be fictional accounts as scientific sources, but he also re-created the site as he believed it to look. This involved incorporating foreign materials (reinforced cement, modern paint, etc) into the archaeological site, and destroyed some of the original site in order to do so. This means no one else could re-excavate here, and everyone would see and be influenced by his interpretation of the site, not allowing for the flexibility of multiple interpretations due to advances or developments in knowledge, techniques, equipment, etc over time. For many scientists, Knossos is now a travesty of archaeology. For the average person, it is a way of understanding how an ancient archaeological site may have looked. What do you think? Is re-creating a site based on one person’s understanding or interpretation worth the destruction of some of that site? If one is to re-create a site, should one be limited to materials that would have been used originally? Can you think of any additional issues, whether positive or negative, about this type of activity?

Answer 1

Recreation and reconstruction of archeological site as done in Knossos by Sir Arthur Evans has put the authenticity of the site in question, the facts and evidences would always be in controversy, whether they're the original ones or the fake ones. This type of actitvity makes the site to loose it's originality, it would make it difficult to distinguish the historians imagination from the original source, thus, the imagination of the archeologist or the historian would always overshadow the originality of the site. Recreation would give a dramatic effect to the site, and it would entertain the common people who come8 to visit the site,but at the cost of it's authenticity. If a site really needs a reconstruction it would be best if it's based on the original facts and evidences, and using those materials that resemble the original ones, this would restore it's authenticity and originality, and would be free from any form of manipulation from the archeologists side.