What should be done with ancient ruins and monuments ?

[Theodosius the Great]

So far, I'm surprised at how many agree or semi-agree with my position. And, so far, I haven't heard any irrational reasons for taking the other position. I thought those opposed to restoration were mainly "purists" who just want to keep our filthy modern hands away from ancient buildings ; that to touch them is akin to sacrilege. But it seems most of them are just not confident that we know enough to restore what survives. Even I can agree with them in many cases, but I feel that there are a few places well researched enough to allow at least some restoration work.

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?

Well, I believe those that have the best chance of being restored accurately should be restored to what they looked like at the last stage of their lives before the Empire(s) collapsed. IMO, the Pantheon needs very little restoration and doesn't need to be re-christened into a church. Was it a church before the Western Empire fell ?

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.

Hmm...ok. We simply disagree. Restoring the outside alone would be vast improvement, IMO. For me, it shouldn't be all or nothing. Besides, I agree with you that we can't achieve 100% accuracy so "going all the way" seems riskier to me.

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.

Good point. I propose a compromise : keep the inscription and restore the Colosseum.

For that reason, I'd be happier with reconstructions elsewhere and if it was up to me, as extensive as possible.

I'd settle for that ! ?

Ave, Theodoros !

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

Thanks. I'd like to do some catching up.

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

Well, okay but the 19th century was a notorious time for modern archeology since it was just "getting off the ground" :wink:

So, your position is to restore only that which still has any functionality ? And only then in a limited scope. Interesting. Looks like most people who selected to "preserve" aren't doctrinaire in their position.

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.

Yes, fora should probably be left alone as a whole. Instead I would target individual ruins that still stand. On the other hand, we can get our hands on the blueprints for the forum built for "Fall of the Roman Empire" and model it after that :wink: :lol:

Ave Valerius,

My vote for restauration is mainly for the reason of conservation - if you keep a ruin, it will no doubt deteriorate at some point.

Great point. A good example, I think, is the Colosseum. Wouldn't it be structurally strengthened considerably if we restored the outer facade (the remaining one-third) ? I know recently it has come under increasing danger of collapsing further.

[Cornelius Quintus]

And Europe can't afford it ?

Ave Theodosius,

the answer simply is: yes, we can't.

There are a many reasons.

For a big project, you need big money, for the wages are much higher in Europe, and a lot of work can’t be done by volunteers. Not far away, a hobbyist group is building a reconstruction of a Norman dark ages Mini-castle. It’s just a wooden tower on a small hill, with palisades around and some buildings of the knight’s farm. Even with the help of man volunteers and sponsors, it took years to build and much, much money. Also much time for research and find out how to re-construct and manufacture simple parts like roof tiles exactly matching original finds. ( www.turmhuegelburg.de ).

Then don’t forget modern law – in Europe, you need a permission for anything. Take a close look at a German Limes tower reconstruction, and you’ll see the additional modern railing. Lots of ancient materials or techniques are forbidden now, if the building shall be open to the public.

Another example: The ‘Frauenkirche’ Church, the pride of the city of Dresden/ former Eastern Germany was totally destroyed in 1945 by allied bombers, when the whole city burned down in a fire storm. The vast hill of debris rested in it’s place for 45 years, until Germany’s reunion. From 1990 to 2005 it was rebuilt, using as much as possible original parts. A foundation / citizen action group started, counting 12.000 members from 23 countries today. Even family members of former US bomber pilots, who flattened Dresden, are among them. It’s a great international teamwork and symbol of friendship. The total costs were 180 million Euro (227 Mio USD). That's only one single restoration.

Now imagine only a very large project, like Hadrian’s Tivoli… hock:

And by the way: In large parts of Europe, you stumble over countless historical relicts anywhere. Lots of surviving buildings or ancient/medieval ruins were further damaged or destructed during two world wars or became victims of the fast rebuilding of towns and cities after the wars ended.
In many cities, you’ll have problems to put up new houses because you’ll find important ruins while dredging the ground to prepare the fundament…

When the United States were born, the Roman colonized parts of Europe already could look back at one or two thousand years of history. In 1776 the smallest Northern German villages around here finished their 500th to 750th birthday (and now city ‘millenniums’ or 1200th ceremonies are common. So American 17th-18th century townships rather would be called a ‘new house settlement’ :wink: ).

Personally, I'd like to preserve the ruins and build a reconstruction. Or to move complete buildings to a special museum park (there's one near my home featuring dozens of farm houses and windmills) instead of flattening them to make way for new supermarkets.

[Praefectusclassis]

But you mocked the 12 foot hill that the new Parthenon sits on in Tennessee

What I meant was that for me there's a different feeling for the original and a reconstruction. If a Roman town was reconstructed top-to-bottom, with decorated houses, complete interiors and everything, I'd be suitably impressed, interested and enthusiastic to see the whole thing. I also know, however, that the feeling you get when you walk around in Pompei is always going to be different.
I'm sure you can follow that.

[Theodosius the Great]

Ave Cornelius,

A couple of your examples are reconstruction projects as opposed to restorations (which is what I was referring to when I said what I said). But that brings up a good question : Which would be more costly - restoration or reconstruction ?

I would guess reconstruction (replication) since you're free to choose whatever materials you use to build. For instance : that Parthenon in Tennessee and the Palace of Fine Arts in my own home town of San Francisco are probably just papier-mache



But, back to what you were saying....

From the reasons you've laid out, it sounds like most of the cost is artificially hyper-inflated due to crazy regulations and laws. (No offence is intended. We're enacting some of those as well here in the US :wink: )

In effect, it sounds like cheap labor has been outlawed and that's what kills restoration projects from taking root in Europe. Oh well...I guess you're right : reconstruction is the way to go then from a purely practical point of view. But, ideally, I still prefer option #3 in some cases.

Thanks for laying out the legal obstacles and red tape that would be involved.

Jasper,

I also know, however, that the feeling you get when you walk around in Pompei is always going to be different.
I'm sure you can follow that.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. I've never visited any ruins. And what do you mean "the decay part" reveals my opinion ? They aren't in a suspended state of decay ? :wink:

[Praefectusclassis]

what kills restoration projects from taking root in Europe

I would say that, as Heiko also said, the sheer enormity of the number of old and decrepit buildings is also a problem. They all have to be prevented from falling apart and that alone costs lots of money. Just think of all the Medieval churches and cathedrals. Ugh...

And what do you mean "the decay part" reveals my opinion ? They aren't in a suspended state of decay ?

:lol: Of course they are. It's just a matter of choice of words & the fact that you added it at all.

[Matt Lukes]

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 ?

Well not to sound chirpy, but I would :lol:

I voted for preservation in current state- why? Because that's the way of maximum originality. I'm definitely very anti 'restoration' as the it is alteration of original objects. Preservation of originality is paramount. Now that having been said, things that have been moved in recent history (last few centuries) or are completely destroyed do deserve attention and in these cases reassembly is fine because it's actually undoing past alteration. Things necessary to save monuments (such as the moving of Abu Simbal, the Sphinx's collar) are necessary alterations of course.