“Mystified”, Alexandre Mitchell, 2025 (50 cm x 70 cm, Indian Ink)

Archaeology is constantly wrestling with authenticity: while the discipline is rooted in material evidence it is also inherently interpretative. The quest for authenticity—ensuring that findings are genuine, accurately understood, and not distorted by bias—is central to the discipline. It matters, because it underpins our understanding of history, heritage, and cultural identity. However, achieving true authenticity is challenging due to the complexities of interpreting the past from often ambiguous and fragmented evidence. Whilst sir Arthur Evans brought the site of Knossos in Crete to world recognition, he also imposed on this ancient culture his personal beliefs and theories, disregarding and downplaying certain findings that contradicted his preconceptions. Far worse, he reconstructed the fragmented material evidence in a “permanent” way, using vast amounts of concrete. We can no longer distinguish what is real from what was transformed by excessive and speculative restoration. How can we continue to reinterpret the material remains if they have been falsified? The historical narratives must remain as objective, truthful, and respectful of the past as possible. Archaeologists strike a balance between scientific accuracy, ethical responsibility, and the need to reconstruct history in meaningful ways. Then again, misrepresenting history, whether by accident or intent, can alter the chain of evidence with serious consequences on public trust and education. Tourists, museums, and scholars from many disciplines rely on archaeologists for credible reconstructions of history. The question remains: should ruins be left untouched, partially restored, or rebuilt based on best guesses?