Restoration or reconstruction?

There is a thin line between the restoration of an object or a building and its reconstruction. A good restorer will preserve the authenticity of the piece like a statue, while strengthening and improving its overall condition. When it comes to monuments, the restoration is meant to improve the visual impression and to help the onlooker imagine how it looked in its days of glory. A reconstruction, however, numbs our imagination and produces a modern rendition instead of recreating what once was. 

An example of excellent restoration is, for instance, the Philippeon in Olympia, Greece. When I first visited the site in the early 1970s, only a few stone blocks outlined the contour of the monument; there was not much to get excited about. When I returned more recently, I was much impressed by the skillful restoration of the Philippeon showing three steps on which three full-size Ionic columns had been reassembled. It does not seem like much but it was enough to complete my mental picture of Philip’s monument. 

Meanwhile, it has become fashionable to create an environment that will attract tourists, meaning to cash in on the money. Plans to that effect have been suggested, for instance, to clear the swamp occupying the old harbor of Ephesos and turn it into a place where tourists can anchor their yachts. A ridiculous idea because it does not help recreating the aspect of the ancient harbor and it truly destroys any possible picture from antiquity. 

There also is the case of the Monument of Opramoas, a wealthy citizen of Rhodiapolis, Turkey. This benefactor contributed largely to the reconstruction of the city that was hit by the severe earthquake of 141 AD. The walls of a monument built in his honor were covered with an inscription – the longest in Lycia - to commemorate his deeds. Archaeologists carefully retrieved these stones and piled them up next to the theater, where I discovered them in 2008.

The plan was to sort them out to reproduce the original inscriptions. Well, the project has materialized but the gaps of the missing stone blocks have been amply filled with bright white marble blocks. The shiny out-of-place square monument draws the visitor's attention away from the theater and other noteworthy monuments. A bad reconstruction. 

[The reconstructed Opramoas Monument]

Very recently the Palace of Aegae (modern Vergina) reopened to the public after being closed since 2007. I agree that it was in dire need to be cleaned and restored. The ruins were covered with moss and dirt after years of neglect and did close to nothing to reflect the wealth and glory of Macedonia’s heyday.

When I saw the first pictures of the Palace as it is presented to us today, my heart sank. The result is a reconstruction. Archaeologists reused the bits of broken columns they found on the spot but the new white marble column drums dwarf the original elements. As they stand mostly around the central Peristyle, they are taking my attention away from the general layout and the precious mosaic floors. The most beautiful mosaic with the Rape of Europa next to the entrance, which was hitherto hidden underneath a tarp, is now exposed to full view. Thank you.

[Picture of Aegae's Palace from The Archaeologist]

The difference between restoration and reconstruction is very thin, I agree. The Palace of Aegae, the scene of so much history, was hardly visited. Not everybody is blessed with the ability to mentally rebuild the missing walls, columns, corridors, and rooms. The present reconstruction will draw crowds of tourists who do not have to make that effort and simply accept what is there. 

[Picture from Smithsonianmag]

This is especially true for the Parthenon on Athens' Acropolis. To see a temple as it would have looked on the day it was built is a major incentive for those who lack imagination or who are too lazy to make the effort. The excuse in Athens is that the Parthenon had been badly restored in the 1930s. The cement parts had to be replaced with marble and the rusted metal clamps had to make way for titanium ones. In the long run, this kind of repair does pay off. Besides, we have much more advanced techniques and deeper insight into the construction of a Classical temple than 150 years ago. Still, it remains debatable whether the transformation of the Parthenon is to be seen as a restoration or a reconstruction.