I’m thinking here about things like Ephesus, where the famous (and much photographed) Library Facade is actually a complete fake. Mocked up by a German antequerian in the 19th century.
There’s Knossos on Crete, ‘reconstructed’ by Arthur Evans. And Newgrange in Ireland…
Maybe future generations of archaeologists will curse us for destroying useful information.
Yeah totally not cool. I mean there’s nothing wrong with reconstructions, but you can always reconstruct somewhere other than the original site (e…g. this place was staple of school trips when I was a kid).
Saddam Hussein tried to reconstruct Babylon, although that might not be the right word. I don’t know squat about it, but I’ve always assumed it was done without much regard for the archaeological value of the site.
Not if they are researching 21st Century archaeologists.
I think there comes a time when an archaeological dig has given up all the nuggets of knowledge it has to give. It then becomes an educational tool. If recreating something helps people better understand the things learned there, I’m all for it as long as there is a disclaimer stating that it’s NOT the original and that it is ONLY an “estimation” based on what has been learned.
I see little value in leaving a pile of rubble as a pile of rubble. A reconstruction in a different place removes the original context. Waiting for perfection prioritizes the future over the present. Of course, there are many ways to reconstruct poorly, which is why it must be done carefully with wide input.
Perhaps they will be saying things like, what primitive tools they had then! I mean, ground penetrating radar? Carbon dating? Might as well have been using dowsing rods!
I do think that professional archaeologists are trying to do a decent job nowadays.
I was quite disappointed when I discovered that the Ephesus library facade is a complete fake, though.
From everything I read, today’s archaeologists are just beginning to learn how to do archaeology. They make huge discoveries out of wagon ruts, broken curbstone, and pollen grains. Non-destructive probes and aerial surveys have transformed the field. Dating gets revolutionized every few years. We know next to nothing about anything.
Sites should not be disturbed if they can be saved from further damage. Quick and dirty digs at sites that are going to be covered with water from dams or buried under expressways may be necessary. Sites that are far away from everyday life need to be carefully studied but protected for the future. That does not prioritize the future; it merely says that there are always nuggets - boulders! - worth of information available even if we can’t currently see them and therefore we have a duty not to destroy what we don’t understand.
How about this?
You, too, can walk the adobe parapets of this erstwhile trading post in Colorado. Of course, it’s not the old Old Fort but a reproduction based on as-built measurements of the original, on excavation of the site, and on considerable research of the fur trade. It occupies the site of the Old Fort. In its way it protects the site from further disturbance.
Were it not for the reproduction, we’d have to make do without innumerable TV shows such as Michener’s Centennial that have been filmed there, so there’s that. If you journey the Santa Fe Trail, you can stop to see what all the fuss was about and arrive at a higher fidelity impression than you’d get by staring at a hummocky riverside field, which I think excuses the desecration.
Similar reconstructions appear at archeological digs from the 20th century — at Cahokia, at Angel Mounds, and at Emerald Mound. These very large, high-profile sites among others have been the object of study including excavation. Tourists at these sites would have difficulty separating all the man-made features from natural ones if it were not for restoration of the presumed look and landscaping of ancient earthworks and presence even of wooden structures. This goes for most sites in North America except for the more glamorous cliff dwellings of the Southwest.
Even smaller less glamorous sites have been reconstructed. For example, the Kletzien Mound group located just south of the city of Sheboygan, WI, is maintained by clearing brush, paving walkways through the site, and erecting signs so that tourists don’t overlook the ancient features among the trees.
After a general cleanup in 1963 and 1964 restoration proceeded by outlining the mounds and rebuilding their damaged portions to conform to the originally mapped shapes and dimensions.
It should come as no surprise that North America is in actuality one big archeological site. You can’t put a spade in the ground without disturbing prehistory. Thus, you can, with a little Googling or by talking to your local college or university, find lists of unreconstructed archeological sites near you. Visit one of them, and you’ll find how difficult it is to picture what the site is about. Erosion and undergrowth will have taken their toll.
How about just building the reconstruction a mile or so away from the actual archaeological site?
I think reconstruction is going too far for archaeological sites. I’m less opposed to it if the damage to the site is very recent.
During a trip to Wenatchee in central Washington I stopped in the town of Maryhill which is the site of a full-size reconstruction of Stonehenge. Unlike the original, it’s made from concrete.
As long as no damage is done I can’t see anything wrong with it at all. There should be no pretense that it’s the real thing, but then again what harm does that cause? Anybody that has a real need to know if it’s a reconstruction should be able to determine that by examination.
Well, having just returned from Egypt, I would say that many (most?) of the temples we visited would not be in a viewable form without the extensive reconstruction.
Another example of reconstruction: the acropolis of Lindos on Rhodes (reconstructed by Mussolini).
During the Italian occupation of the island (1912–1945) major restoration work was carried out on the Lindos acropolis, but it was poorly done and was harmful to the historic record. The north-east side of the Temple of Athena was restored. The monumental staircase to the propylaea was rebuilt and many of the columns of the Hellenistic stoa were re-erected. Large surfaces were covered with concrete. Bases and inscribed blocks were taken from their locations and placed along the restored walls.
Judged by modern standards, this work took insufficient note of the evidence available from the excavations and in its methods did damage to the remains themselves.
I think the clear majority of “ancient” temples I visited in China and Japan were relatively recent buildings on the traditional site (generally because older versions burned down one or more times).
It’s the same with the Spanish missions in California except earthquakes instead of fire.
Even the original has been reconstructed somewhat, mostly to re-erect stones which have fallen over in recent centuries.
The same seems to be true of quite a few dolmen tombs in west Ireland. Such as ‘Poulnabrone Dolmen’ in the burrens region, which I visited a few years ago. Reading carefully between the lines, it appears that various of the stones have been re-erected or even replaced over the years.
So at what point does something like this become “George Washington’s axe” rather than an authentic monument?
Yes - the dolmen I visited last year in Devon (Spinster’s Rock) fell down in 1862 and was re-erected by the local farmers. My wife knows more about this sort of thing than I do, and she reckons they didn’t put it back together quite right.