Because its’ not going to be the same thing.They are not gonna look the same,and definitely not gonna be built with the same technique.It’s not going to be educational.
In fairness, this idea does not seem all that different from what Viollet-le-Duc did in France OTL.
It was interrupted by the Iraq War indeed, and his "reconstruction" of Babylon is pretty heavily disliked because it's both highly speculative and destroyed potential archeological sites or artifacts in the area.Did he ever finish this? I thought it was interrupted by the war.
Would the project as planned have some artistic merit or be conducted with an eye towards any genuine restoration?
Van Heemskreck did not replace anything of greater value. His engravings replaced nothing of value, they're completely stand alone depictions to give us some idea (albeit a fairly inaccurate idea) of what the wonders may have looked like, that's fine. What's not fine is destroying or building over potential remains of these sites for some kitschy fantasy reconstruction that will never be able to recapture the feel or glory these monuments once did.So when a skilled artist depicts their version of the wonder in question (like, say, Maarten van Heemskerck) then it's usually considered a good work of art. But if a government commissions a skilled architect to translate those depictions to reality on the actual site of the ruin, it's just "Disneyland"? They'd be educational, since it would vividly bring Antiquity back to life in the eyes of visitors. And they'd certainly have great artistic value both architecturally and regarding the sculptures, the reliefs, and other components of the building.
While at times the leadership and portions of the populace of the Ottoman Empire had issues with keeping to Islamic laws and morals against drinking alcohol, not using things that might intoxicate them, as well as various sexual stuff (certain tribal and national leaders did things to children of both genders, which is still sadly present in areas like Afghanistan including with members of the Northern Alliance) I do not think that things as public as making an enormous statue to the Greek sun god that had originally been built to celebrate military victory, nor rebuilding a temple to Zeus and making an enormous statue for him. Hell, even if they did they would probably wreck whatever ruins were left. Also, check out the Wikipedia page for the Wonders of the World and see how they show the Pyramids. Given enough time and distance, people will be unsure how thighs look, and in the case of the Pyramids they were simple geometric shapes. Much more difficult to build temples.
Van Heemskreck did not replace anything of greater value. His engravings replaced nothing of value, they're completely stand alone depictions to give us some idea (albeit a fairly inaccurate idea) of what the wonders may have looked like, that's fine. What's not fine is destroying or building over potential remains of these sites for some kitschy fantasy reconstruction that will never be able to recapture the feel or glory these monuments once did.
You'd understand this if you've ever been to Greece or Rome in real life. "Restoring" the Colosseum for example would be a crime and take away so much from the beauty of it. When you're in the Colosseum you can tell every stone has a story that goes back 2000 years, you can see scratches from medieval looters, ancient graffiti etc.
This is not how you treat archeology, it's not a theme park, this is buried history we're talking about. We can ultimately learn SO MUCH MORE from excavations than some speculative fantasy which will never be able to recapture the feel of the original buildings in the first place.
By the way the so-called reconstruction of the Colossus that's been proposed is a joke. First off I see no way Greece will be able to afford such a thing in it's current state, they should spend money on more pressing matters. Furthermore this "reconstruction" is intentionally not on the original site, is not the same size and does not look the same as the Colossus originally looked. It's hardly even a reconstruction, and at that point it becomes even more like Disneyworld, which I do not want in the historical area of Rhodes.
Oh it would have value, about the same value as the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas.So because it isn't 100% the original thing (even though no one alive can partake in it), it has no value at all
First off, I think it's very concerning you brush off possibly precious archeological remains as "rubble", this is 18th Century level archeology, and that resulted in so much destruction. Also you wouldn't be "rebuilding" anything because ultimately it wouldn't be even remotely close to the original. It would be a fantasy building roughly based on the original. Just look at the "reconstruction" of the Pharos in China to see what I mean. T'is not how you treat archeological sites.Somehow, relocating rubble and rebuilding what once stood means no matter how artistic
People in Antiquity also had extremely little respect for archeology and would happily tear down an ancient building if it meant it could be used as a quarry for new construction. You don't want to use pre-modern views on archeology to help your point.None of this makes sense to me. The people of Antiquity would laugh at such ideas.
Stop.using.this.example. The Statue of Liberty is a new monument, the Eiffel Tower is a new monument. Both replaced unimportant sites that were relatively unused. They didn't tear down the ruins of the Roman Baths in Paris to build the Eiffel Tower, they built it somewhere else. The Eiffel Tower wasn't a psuedo-reconstrution of an older monument, it was a new monument.At this point your argument is getting ridiculous and you sound 100% like the early critics of the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty which ruined Paris/New York respectively.
Oh it would have value, about the same value as the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas.
First off, I think it's very concerning you brush off possibly precious archeological remains as "rubble", this is 18th Century level archeology, and that resulted in so much destruction. Also you wouldn't be "rebuilding" anything because ultimately it wouldn't be even remotely close to the original. It would be a fantasy building roughly based on the original. Just look at the "reconstruction" of the Pharos in China to see what I mean. T'is not how you treat archeological sites.
People in Antiquity also had extremely little respect for archeology and would happily tear down an ancient building if it meant it could be used as a quarry for new construction. You don't want to use pre-modern views on archeology to help your point.
Stop.using.this.example. The Statue of Liberty is a new monument, the Eiffel Tower is a new monument. Both replaced unimportant sites that were relatively unused. They didn't tear down the ruins of the Roman Baths in Paris to build the Eiffel Tower, they built it somewhere else. The Eiffel Tower wasn't a psuedo-reconstrution of an older monument, it was a new monument.
Your examples are invalid.
That's a completely different scenario! You don't see me calling the reconstruction of the Statschloss in Berlin right now kische, infact I think it's excellent. The reason this is different is because this isn't a speculative reconstruction and it's not replacing or destroying any architectural remains. We know what the building looked like thanks to photography, we have the plans of the building and we have surviving architectural elements that can be incorporated. On top of that the site was bulldozed by the Soviets and replaced by a brutalist monstrosity with very little value and zero relative value. The difference here is that you're doing a faithful reconstruction of the original building incorporating as much of the original as possible. I'm fine with that, but there's not enough left of the seven wonders to do that.False equivalence. What I'm saying is like if Eiffel Tower had been torn down in WWII and the plans lost, and 1,500 years later, some rich people decided to rebuild it on the exact site of the ruins in Paris. Building one in Vegas would be like if it had been ruined in WWII and left a bunch of mangled iron, and someone built a replica in Vegas, where it would be like the Nashville Parthenon.
If that's how you feel then you have zero knowledge or respect for any kind of archeology. If you think the remnants of the Roman Forum are just "rubble and some pillars" then I don't know what to say.Except for all purposes it is rubble, compared to an actual living, breathing building on the site.
If you're destroying, covering up or relocating pieces of the original to create some tacky fantasy then yes, it's complete trash, or rather in poor taste.Just because it isn't 100% the original thing doesn't mean it's complete trash.
First off, we don't even know if the Pyramids had gold capstones, so that alone would be speculative vandalism. Secondly, covering up the original stones with tacky fake stones would destroy so much of the historical value and importance of it.Likewise, if terrorists destroyed the Great Pyramid or the Sphinx (ISIS has a fantasy of doing so), we should rebuild it, and rebuild it to what it looked like in Antiquity, gold capstone and all.
That's a completely different scenario! You don't see me calling the reconstruction of the Statschloss in Berlin right now kische, infact I think it's excellent. The reason this is different is because this isn't a speculative reconstruction and it's not replacing or destroying any architectural remains. We know what the building looked like thanks to photography, we have the plans of the building and we have surviving architectural elements that can be incorporated. On top of that the site was bulldozed by the Soviets and replaced by a brutalist monstrosity with very little value and zero relative value. The difference here is that you're doing a faithful reconstruction of the original building incorporating as much of the original as possible. I'm fine with that, but there's not enough left of the seven wonders to do that.
For example, at the Temple of Artemis IOTL they found remnants of some of the collumns that supported the temple, what the archeologists did was that they took these fragments and re-assembeled them to give the visitor some idea of where the temple was. This is fine because it incorporates original fragments in a respectful manner.
If that's how you feel then you have zero knowledge or respect for any kind of archeology. If you think the remnants of the Roman Forum are just "rubble and some pillars" then I don't know what to say.
Random question, but have you ever even been to an archeological site? Surely you must understand that there's more to these material remains than just some rubble? To see and touch stones witness to centuries or millenia of history is something no tacky "reconstruction" can replace.
If you're destroying, covering up or relocating pieces of the original to create some tacky fantasy then yes, it's complete trash, or rather in poor taste.
First off, we don't even know if the Pyramids had gold capstones, so that alone would be speculative vandalism. Secondly, covering up the original stones with tacky fake stones would destroy so much of the historical value and importance of it.
History is the study of change, and seeing the change the Pyramids have experience over their millenia of existence is important, if you're propsing things stay the same, that means they're dead.
This is the same kind of judgemental thinking the 19th Century archeologists who destroyed the Frankish Tower in Athens had. That the ancient elements of an area are somehow objectively superior to any later alterations and that later change should be undone because we know better.
That's the problem, no matter how you build it, it wouldn't be faithful because we don't know what any of them looked like for sure. It would be vandalization, plain and simple.It's totally not a different scenario, for the reasons I'm saying. The only difference is a few hundred (or thousand) years. All reconstructions of these buildings would be similar, we just need to pick the most artistic one which is most faithful.
Do you not think that actual remains of the original Temple of Artemis, with medieval graffiti and hundreds of years of history on it's surface is a little more valuable than some Las Vegas copy?And again, why is architectural remains so valuable compared to someone building the actual building on them?
You know how you do that without destroying history? You make a speculative model and display in an adjacent museum.But compare that approach at the Temple of Artemis to a full reconstruction (the 4th Temple of Artemis). I fail to see how it isn't respectful to rebuild it like it was 2,000 years ago and present it like it was
Appeal to popularity.And I'm saying that moving the ruins at the site of the Temple of Artemis and building a new Temple of Artemis (with great artists and architects working on it) would not be considered much of a loss or "vandalism" by the vast majority of the world.
If you're basing your argument on the status of archeological sites on more than "just" archeological value then I think you're doing something wrong.I'm basing my argument on more than just archaeological value.
If the modern archeological consensus on how to maintain, preserve and treat archeological sites defies all logic, if UNESCO defies all logic then I say fuck logic.And here is where is we differ in opinion, since I believe your opinion defies all logic. But what can I say, I'm rather utilitarian in my perspectives.
Your scenario is so far into fantasy land and so unfeasible that I can't even give an honest answer. Would I support rebuilding New York City as it was if it was hit by an asteroid? I don't know?Let me restate this--if ISIS or other terrorists somehow dismantled the Great Pyramid (nuclear bomb, 9/11 style attack, whatever) or the Great Sphinx, would you consider it tacky, "Disneyland", whatever to restore those buildings?
No, I'm saying that it's not my job nor in my ability to judge what parts of an archeolgical site should be preserved, and what should be destroyed. Because I don't make value judgements about what parts of history are superior like a full-on 18th Century enlightenment historian.Seems more like what you're arguing, since you're saying some ruins of former grandeur are superior to anything the greatest artists of later centuries might devise.
That's the problem, no matter how you build it, it wouldn't be faithful because we don't know what any of them looked like for sure. It would be vandalization, plain and simple.
Do you not think that actual remains of the original Temple of Artemis, with medieval graffiti and hundreds of years of history on it's surface is a little more valuable than some Las Vegas copy?
You know how you do that without destroying history? You make a speculative model and display in an adjacent museum.
Appeal to popularity.
If you're basing your argument on the status of archeological sites on more than "just" archeological value then I think you're doing something wrong.
If the modern archeological consensus on how to maintain, preserve and treat archeological sites defies all logic, if UNESCO defies all logic then I say fuck logic.
Your scenario is so far into fantasy land and so unfeasible that I can't even give an honest answer. Would I support rebuilding New York City as it was if it was hit by an asteroid? I don't know?
No, I'm saying that it's not my job nor in my ability to judge what parts of an archeolgical site should be preserved, and what should be destroyed. Because I don't make value judgements about what parts of history are superior like a full-on 18th Century enlightenment historian.
The damage on the Sphinx is just as much a part of it's history and heritage as the Sphinx itself. "Restoring" it would be equivalent to demolishing it, you'd be depriving the site of it's history.
I don't get this argument at all. People keep insisting over and over that rebuilding these sites would be bad for archaeology, as if that would have much if anything to do with whether it happens. History is full of things happening that were bad for archaeology. History is almost nothing but a series of events that were bad for archaeology.
As a muslim doubt they would rebuild pagan stuff like Zeus or Artemis... still more idea for remplacament for those?