What should be done with ancient ruins and monuments ?

[Theodosius the Great]

It's always irked me that the surviving ruins of Greece and Rome have been allowed to deteriorate or remain preserved in the shambled state that most of them lie in. That's one thing that's detered me from visiting them in Europe. Often I ask myself : who wants to see a pile of rocks ? I understand there are a few buildings that still stand like : Diocletian's Palace, the Pantheon, and the Church of Hagia Sophia. But, frankly, I'd rather visit the Roman ghost-towns of Syria and North Africa - there's just so much more to see, IMO.

So, I picked #3 : complete restoration. I'd also like to see them painted as they originally were when first constructed. I approve of the way the Colosseum was partially reconstructed where they used a darker material to differentiate between what is original and what is reconstructed.

I suspect most of us will vote for the status quo (#1). If so, would you please state your reasons ?











Theo

[Jona Lendering]

The current state of decay also belongs to the monument's history. The statue of Marcus Aurelius on the Capitol is, in its present state, dear to me; if it were gilded again, I would not like it any more. So I'd say: keep it the way it is.

As to restoration: that can be nice, but the next generation of scholars will have new insights. I have seen at least twenty, perhaps forty reconstructions of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, each one of them being an improvement superseding the former.

Another problem I see is: to what age do you want to reconstruct it? Forum Romanum in the age of Augustus will mean demolishing the Arch of Severus; restoring it to the age of Severus means closing down the Lacus Curtius.

I would like to rebuild things, but not in situ. Parks like Archeon may be a solution.[/url]

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Jona,

I understand your qualm about restoring the statue of Marcus Aurelius and other well-preserved monuments. But how about ones that are in a much poorer state of preservation like the Baths of Trajan or the Circus Maximus ? Would you be in favor of restoration in those cases ?

You mention some problems that we would face if we were to restore certain monuments.

I have seen at least twenty, perhaps forty reconstructions of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, each one of them being an improvement superseding the former.

You're right, places like these are probably best left alone. But other (most ?) places have a tiny margin for error. Would you favor restoration where we can be reasonably sure of the original design and dimensions ?

Another problem I see is: to what age do you want to reconstruct it? Forum Romanum in the age of Augustus will mean demolishing the Arch of Severus; restoring it to the age of Severus means closing down the Lacus Curtius.

I've thought of this problem too. Many changes were made during the life of the Empire. But my answer would be to restore it to its most recent manifestation.

I would like to rebuild things, but not in situ. Parks like Archeon may be a solution

I agree completely (with the latter part).

Theo

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

On my trip to Scotland i saw that in Stirling-castle they were restoring the old buildings to their former glory. The had finished the great hall and were busy with the palace. It really gave people some idea how richly decorated these old houses were. Perhaps is they could restore a few building to give people some idea how they looked back then.

[Praefectusclassis]

But other (most ?) places have a tiny margin for error.

I think you probably need to alter 'tiny' to 'huge', especially in such cases where there are only part walls (or less) and foundations visible. We can fairly easily draw reconstructions based on floor-wall proportions and other examples of the same kind of building, but there's absolutely no way to know for sure.
And since you'll be ruining () what is there, likely hiding it behind reconstructions, not to mention spending a shedload of money, you'd better be sure. This was a somewhat popular hobby in the nineteenth century, luckily usually executed somewhere else. Such projects are now often examples of how not to reconstruct and restore. Are we going to take the risk that 22nd century people will say that about us?
Archeon like parks and such: all for them! Perhaps we could petition Bill Gates to fund one? :wink:

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Jasper,

Quote:
But other (most ?) places have a tiny margin for error.

I think you probably need to alter 'tiny' to 'huge', especially in such cases where there are only part walls (or less) and foundations visible.

But aren't there certain archetectural rules we know of that the Romans followed when building a temple or monument ? I would think a modern restoration could fall within a 90% to 99% accuracy (or plausibility) range. But you believe it's much lower ?

I've seen temples where all the columns are still standing, but with the entire roof missing. To me that doesn't seem like a lot of room for error. Of course, this is most ideal of circumstances to work with but there are a number of those examples sprinkled throughout the Mediterranean.

One of the most eggregious examples I can think of is the Parthenon - why is there still a big hole in the ceiling of the Parthenon ? The original one had a wooden roof, right ? Is there some reason a new one can't be built to house it ? We have color drawings of it before it was bombarded so we have something to on.

We can fairly easily draw reconstructions based on floor-wall proportions and other examples of the same kind of building, but there's absolutely no way to know for sure.

I agree we can't reach 100% accuracy. When can we ever ? IMO, a few selected sites can (and should) be reasonably restored.

Such projects are now often examples of how not to reconstruct and restore. Are we going to take the risk that 22nd century people will say that about us?

We have loads of pictures they can see of what they looked like before restoration work began :wink:

All I see in the forum now is a couple of arches and a triad of dilapidated columns. Not much would be missed by them :lol: .

Archeon like parks and such: all for them! Perhaps we could petition Bill Gates to fund one?

Yeah, I'm really keen about that option as well. Who wouldn't be ? J Paul Getty is the only man I know of whose even come close to doing that. I visited his Roman Villa in Malibu, (California) a couple of weeks ago. The inside was just as impressive - loads of Greco-Roman artifacts and even some Etruscan and Egyptian.

Why go to Rome when I can go there ? Why go to Athens when I can see a full scale replica of the Parthenon in Tennessee ?

8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)


D D D D D D D D D D D D D

[Praefectusclassis]

One of the most eggregious examples I can think of is the Parthenon - why is there still a big hole in the ceiling of the Parthenon ? The original one had a wooden roof, right ? Is there some reason a new one can't be built to house it ? We have color drawings of it before it was bombarded so we have something to on.

Say we do that. What then to do with the interior? I know it's hard to accept for us ancient history buffs, but I'm pretty sure medieval historians would be saddened if it was decided to break out the evidence for the medieval church (which is in many cases the reason for the existence of anything at all).

Why go to Athens when I can see a full scale replica of the Parthenon in Tennessee ?

Because it's a replica on a 12 foot hill in Tennesse and not the real thing on the Acropolis? :wink:

[Vlad the Impala]

i reckon that all of the options above are applicable (and in fact being done)

in Tunisia a couple of years ago, I saw a great deal of reconstruction being done (including section of aquaduct), mosaics being repaired on sites and other work.

whilst these did look good, some ancient monuments perhaps look better as they are.

for instance Stonehenge.

however you visit any medieval cathedral and the chances are, that one section or another is under repair with the orginal carvings etc being replaced with modern copies etc. Im pretty certain that future generations would prefer this to ...."well we used to have cathedral, but it fell down"

[Theodosius the Great]

One of the most eggregious examples I can think of is the Parthenon - why is there still a big hole in the ceiling of the Parthenon ? The original one had a wooden roof, right ? Is there some reason a new one can't be built to house it ? We have color drawings of it before it was bombarded so we have something to on.

Say we do that. What then to do with the interior? I know it's hard to accept for us ancient history buffs, but I'm pretty sure medieval historians would be saddened if it was decided to break out the evidence for the medieval church (which is in many cases the reason for the existence of anything at all).

Since the Romans themselves converted the Parthenon into a church I don't mind if it was re-christened as such. I doubt that would happen since it's probably government property. In any case, the point is a moot one since Pagan temples were designed to be adored from the outside. Worshippers did not congregate within them like a church. The interior was gloomy and not much to look at. Of course, a huge statue of a deity was housed within it but that's going beyond restoring just the archetecture.

Quote:
Why go to Athens when I can see a full scale replica of the Parthenon in Tennessee ?

Because it's a replica on a 12 foot hill in Tennesse and not the real thing on the Acropolis?

But, unfortunately, the real thing looks like crap, IMHO

in Tunisia a couple of years ago, I saw a great deal of reconstruction being done (including section of aquaduct), mosaics being repaired on sites and other work.

Wow. I thought only the Turks were doing real reconstruction (the Walls of Constantinople). So much for the "shedload of money" to do it. These third-world countries are doing it. And Europe can't afford it ?

Im pretty certain that future generations would prefer this to ...."well we used to have cathedral, but it fell down"

Good point. Kinda like how I'm pissed at past generations for letting the monuments decay in the first place :wink:

[Praefectusclassis]

Since the Romans themselves converted the Parthenon into a church I don't mind if it was re-christened as such.

But coming back to Jona's argument: which point are we reconstructing? The Hadrianic Parthenon or the one that was converted to a church later on?

In any case, the point is a moot one since Pagan temples were designed to be adored from the outside.

Well, I'd say that IF you'd go out on a limb to reconstruct the temple (or anything) to a certain point in time, you should go all the way and not just the outside.

But, unfortunately, the real thing looks like crap, IMHO Crying or Very sad

But it also reflects its entire history. The colosseum, for instance, has a big inscription proclaiming that a Pope in the 16th(?) C stopped its decay and restored it partially. That inscription is part of the 1900+ years history of the Colosseum and is important for historians who want (for example) to reconstruct the way medieval & Renaissance citizens and administrators of Rome dealt with their city's past and their surroundings.
For that reason, I'd be happier with reconstructions elsewhere and if it was up to me, as extensive as possible.

So much for the "shedload of money" to do it. These third-world countries are doing it. And Europe can't afford it ?

Cost of wages is more than slightly different, for one. Setting priorities is another...

And of course I'd advocate restoration as much as is necessary to stop decay. Maintenance is one thing, restoring to a different, older state is quite another.

[tlclark]

I'm with Jasper and Jona on this one.

In Art History you learn to say "19th C. Restoration" in the same tone of voice you say "child molester".

My favorite example is the chapel of Theodulf in St. Germigny-des-Pres.

It had frescoes and mosaics and the typical crooked walls. All were lost in the 19th C. Restoration.

Viollet-le-duc's restoration of Notre Dame did irreparable damage to the interior elevation. There were two schemes for the elevation, representing a genuine change in building plan between the 1163 phase and the final buliding in 1246. One is transitional gothic, the other mature gothic. Viollet-le-Duc chose the one he liked and eliminated all the other examples.

Yikes!

Every year for my Gothic class I compare the plan of Notre Dame by Banister Fletcher with Viollet-le-Duc's plan. Banister's shows all the imperfections. Every bay is different as it was built modually. Viollet-le-Duc's plan renders every bay the same width. It's amazing. He would have made Notre Dame "fit" his view if he could do. Thankfully that was beyond his abilities.

I can only think of one instance in which the restoration was "good" and that was inadvertant. Evans made his restoration of Knossos and covered much of the ruins in concrete! However when Jim Wright and Betancourt were doing surveys of the surrounding palaces in crete they discovered that many of the original details had not survived elsewhere because they were picked over by looters or bad archaeology. Evans' concrete 'sealed' the finds.

In general, we have to preserve in place. Only when the object has continuing cultural significance should it be remade. For example, my professor's restoration of the current Red Monastery in Egypt. It serves a native population that want a usuable structure for worship, so it makes no sense to preserve in situ. Instead they fleshed out the rest of the building, but they made sure that on close inspection you could see exactly where the restorations were made so that they can be undone in the future if need be.

That's my two cents.

Travis.

Also, Theodosius! haven't heard from you in a while! Great to see you again.

[Jona Lendering]

Another problem I see is: to what age do you want to reconstruct it? Forum Romanum in the age of Augustus will mean demolishing the Arch of Severus; restoring it to the age of Severus means closing down the Lacus Curtius.

I've thought of this problem too. Many changes were made during the life of the Empire. But my answer would be to restore it to its most recent manifestation.

That would, for the Forum Romanum be a return to the eighth century, with churches and so, and that farm on the Forum Transitorium. No, I would not appreciate that. Besides, I think that the Mussolini showcase that the Forum is today, also belongs to the history of the site.

[Robert Vermaat]

In Art History you learn to say "19th C. Restoration" in the same tone of voice you say "child molester".

that they have not seen what was done to the Porta Nigra in trier.. In fact, Kaiser Wilhelm did a lot of good with many late Roman buildings, restoring them to old glory from the churches they had become.

Yes, I know that to some, that meant destroying churches... choices.

I voted for reconstruction, but as I see the many valid points about that (indeed, do we even know what it looked like - is restauration to an original even possible?), I would like to add another option.
My vote for restauration is mainly for the reason of conservation - if you keep a ruin, it will no doubt deteriorate at some point.

So, another option: keep the original somewhere safe (under a modern roof, perhaps) and build a 'new reconstruction' elsewhere.

[Praefectusclassis]

Uhmmm, isn't that what option one says already? "Preserve them in their current state" (the "of decay" shows the opinion of the poll creator :wink: )

[Robert Vermaat]

Uhmmm, isn't that what option one says already? "Preserve them in their current state" (the "of decay" shows the opinion of the poll creator :wink: )

The added element is rebuilding a reconstruction elsewhere.