杏吧原创

Minotaur: Sir Arthur Evans and the archaeology of the Minoan myth by J.
Alexander MacGillivray, Jonathan Cape, 拢20, ISBN 0224043528

KNOSSOS is one of the world鈥檚 renowned archaeological sites. Thousands of
people visit it each year, scrambling round the huge ancient ruins that sprawl
across the countryside outside Heraklion in Crete.

British archaeologist Arthur Evans was the first serious scholar to excavate
this site. From the stones, pottery and fragments of wall paintings, he decided
that this was the palace of the mythical King Minos. He went even further. Not
content to leave the ruins ruined, he built pillars on top of the rubble to show
how the palace would have looked in ancient times. And he named the long-gone
inhabitants and their culture Minoan.

Was he right? Or had reading the classical myths of ancient Greece coloured
his imagination to such an extent that he found not only Minos, but his palace,
the site of Daedalus鈥檚 labyrinth.

Alexander MacGillivray鈥檚 Minotaur sets out to answer these questions.
He is in an excellent position to do so. He was curator at Knossos for the
British School of Archaeology at Athens (responsible until recently for what
went on at Knossos), and he also worked extensively with material from Evans鈥檚
excavations. I also had high hopes because MacGillivray is dealing with a key
topic in archaeology: the way an individual鈥檚 cultural baggage conditions how
and what they excavate, and how they interpret it.

I found MacGillivray鈥檚 offering disappointing and at times unpleasant, given
that he鈥檚 writing about such important subjects.

Take, for example, his view of Evans鈥檚 alleged homosexuality. MacGillivray
inserts the following as asides: 鈥淚 suspect that it [鈥渉is explosive temper鈥�
and/or 鈥渉is frequent and playful references to beastly lairs鈥漖 may have been the
repressed 鈥榖eastliness鈥� of his homosexuality, which gave his life part of its
powerful creative drive until he lost control of it in his later years.鈥� At the
age of 73, Evans was fined five pounds for 鈥渃ommitting an act in violation of
public decency in Hyde Park on the night of January 29鈥�. So what? What does this
episode have to do with anything apart from revealing the embarrassing nature of
MacGillivray鈥檚 personal array of stereotypes?

It would have been far better to have located Evans within the social and
intellectual contexts of his time. Instead, MacGillivray has chosen an approach
that focuses on the supposed characteristics of the individual鈥斺�滶vans鈥�
Minoans are an example of how an archaeological discovery occurs first in the
mind, born of the thinker鈥檚 need to prove something of vital importance to
丑颈尘蝉别濒蹿.鈥�

Fair criticism

The book isn鈥檛 devoid of interesting material. MacGillivray describes, for
example, Evans鈥檚 childhood excavating expeditions. He records that Evans later
disturbed burials without any apparent qualms, keeping particularly interesting
objects. And he tells us that Evans held extreme racist views. In fact, few of
MacGillivray鈥檚 criticisms of Evans are misplaced. Evans鈥檚 belief in the reality
of myths shaped his excavations, and this ultimately cut his Minoans off from
history, unchanging, stuck somewhere before the arrival of the 鈥渞eal鈥� Hellenes.
This belief has led to odd results: his initial interpretation of a fresco had
to be changed from 鈥淎riadne鈥� to 鈥渕ale saffron collector鈥� and eventually to 鈥渂lue
尘辞苍办别测鈥�.

But sadly, the heart of the matter is given short shrift. It is only in the
last pages of the book that MacGillivray gives the impression that he might be
aware of the conflicting views of archaeology: 鈥淧erhaps the time has come to
accept that Knossos is no longer ancient, no longer either Minoan or Mycenean,
but timeless鈥攁s important to us now as it was to those who built it four
thousand years ago.鈥� This potentially interesting conclusion is barely, or only
poorly, supported in the preceding 312 pages.

He also misses his chance to discuss the problems of presenting such a
complex set of archaeological remains. This issue is being fiercely debated
among archaeologists, site managers and tourist organisations. How far should
reconstruction take place, if at all? Should visitors rely on their imagination
to interpret a site or should archaeologists share their information? Can mass
tourism ever be compatible with site preservation and conservation? Evans was
aware of these conflicting interests, and eventually adopted a policy that was
possibly in the best interests of the tourists. He reconstructed bits of the
site, replacing rotting timbers from earlier attempts to manage the site with
stone columns and iron girders. This, he reckoned, allowed the visitor to get a
鈥渇eel鈥� of what the 鈥減alace鈥� must have looked like in Minoan times. At the same
time, in many areas, Evans preserved the 鈥渞uinous state鈥� so beloved of the
Western heritage industry.

MacGillivray demonstrates convincingly that Evans often got it wrong, but
fails to address the real problems experienced by people who visit the sites.
How can the public be helped to envisage vanished walls and roofs and lived-in
spaces? How can tourists be made aware of the significance of ancient sites?
MacGillivray sidesteps these vital questions and gives us mere personal
reflection: 鈥� . . . I stood in the Palace of Minos at Knossos and shared, like
millions of tourists each year, the moment of enlightenment when you first see
the downward-tapering, sooty-black painted columns and the richly grained beams
in the great halls and dark passages. But then you reach out and touch, not the
warmth of natural wood but the eerie chill of cement or, more precisely,
reinforced concrete . . . I looked at the walls around me and realised I
couldn鈥檛 tell which ones were modern and which were ancient . . . 鈥�

Vague hyperbole is simply unacceptable in a study claiming academic value. At
this uncritical level of consideration, we, the public, would never have had the
incredibly successful experience of Lascaux II, the replication nearby of a
palaeolithic cave full of rock art too delicate for public access.

We badly need a good book about Knossos, the Minoans and the preconceptions
of the archaeologists who dug the 鈥減alaces鈥� and other sites of Minoan Crete. But
this isn鈥檛 it.