MacGillivray argues that Evans's active work in conceiving and discovering Minoan civilization led him to write a history that although fundamentally flawed has been largely accepted and, consequently, has hindered the progress of scholarship. For MacGillivray, however, Evans is a paradigm not an aberration. MacGillivray believes that, even when adhering to long-established scientific methods of excavation recording, archaeologists today can only arrive at relative truths, true objectivity is not possible. He admonishes all archaeologists to be aware of their truly creative, interpretive work. This last statement rings true but the theory of relative archaeology will be more than most practicing Aegean archaeologists can agree with.
Archaeology is predicated on the notion of systematic, objective recording of data.
Only after this recording should the interpretive process begin. Although I acknowledge that complete objectivity may not be possible, with the self-awareness that MacGillivray proposes, it is a goal worth striving for. The strong case MacGillivray makes that Evans consciously manipulated fact and myth to arrive at his version of Minoan civilization is itself based on MacGillivray's own interpretation of Evans's character and his life's work. In the end, we may never be able to resolve such cerebral matters conclusively. MacGillivray makes clear, however, that the cultural and mythical biases are there and need to be addressed in any future reassessment of the discipline.