Old or New Parthenon: Poll

What should Greece do with the Parthenon?

  • Leave it completely alone.

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • Fully restore it like it was in 500 B.C.

    Votes: 8 47.1%
  • Compromise: Half and half.

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Total voters
    17

Vrylakas

The Verbose Lord
Joined
Apr 12, 2001
Messages
1,940
Location
Bostonia
Here's an article from today's WSJ. Sorry I can't just post a link, due to password protection. What does everyone think?

Greeks Must Walk a Fine Line
As They Restore the Parthenon

By GEOFF WINESTOCK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

ATHENS, Greece -- Hope Merembeliomakis squints unhappily at three gleaming columns newly erected on the east porch of the Parthenon. Their smooth white marble contrasts sharply with the pitted pink-gray stone of the rest of the ancient temple.

"They should stain it or chip it or something," says Ms. Merembeliomakis, a student from Toronto who spends summers with relatives in Greece. "I don't want it to look brand-new."

As they prepare to host the 2004 Summer Olympics, the Greeks are stirring up an impassioned debate with a $30 million plan to bring the 2,500-year-old landmark atop the Acropolis closer to what it was before time, wars and thievery reduced it mostly to rubble.

Purists bridle at the idea of using even a little modern-day marble to reproduce the subtly tapered columns that lend the Parthenon its remarkable architectural grace. "What we are getting is a kind of fifth century B.C. theme park," says Mary Beard, a classics professor at Britain's Cambridge University and author of a book about the Parthenon.

Already, backers of a major overhaul have installed reproductions of some of the sculptures and friezes that once adorned the Parthenon's eaves. Some critics accuse the Greek government of deceiving tourists by not drawing any distinction between materials that are thousands of years old and those that came out of a stone quarry just last year.

The Parthenon is such a potent symbol of Greek nationalism that in 1992 Coca-Cola Co. apologized to the nation for an ad that depicted Coke bottles where the temple's celebrated columns should have been. Completed in 439 B.C., it survived mostly intact for centuries. But in 1687, the temple, where the occupying Turks were storing gunpowder, blew up when the Venetian army hit it with a cannonball.

In the decades that followed, tourists and antiquarians descended on the site, carting off souvenirs. In the early 19th century, Thomas Bruce, Earl of Elgin, Britain's ambassador, took some of the Parthenon's best sculptures. In 1816, he sold them to the British Museum. Greece has waged a long-running diplomatic campaign for their return.

After evicting the Turks in 1833, the Greeks set about rebuilding the Parthenon, but they often slapped marble blocks together in the wrong order and clamped them with iron rods that corroded, shattering the ancient stone. Over the years, Athens's acidic air pollution blurred the detail on the friezes and sculptures that hadn't been carried off.

Undoing Damage

In the 1970s, as Greece emerged from military rule, the new civilian government assigned a team of young architects and engineers to undo some of the damage. The team found thousands of stone fragments atop the Acropolis that could be reassembled to restore some of the Parthenon's former glory.

Greece's Central Archaeological Council ultimately gave the go-ahead for the restoration. In the 1980s it began to consider proposals for restoring the structure, imposing one condition: No more than 20% of any restored element could be composed of new materials.

Restoring ravaged cultural treasures often raises anguishing questions. Some critics say that experts went too far in reviving the gaudy colors of Leonardo da Vinci's fresco of "The Last Supper" in Milan as well as the monumental ceiling by Michelangelo in the Vatican's Sistine Chapel.

In Greece, even radicals don't want to end up with a shiny full-scale replica of the original Parthenon. There's already one of those in Nashville, Tenn., built in 1897 to mark the city's centennial.

The Greek Archeological Council tries to keep the peace between the pro- and anti-reconstruction camps by consulting archaeologists, architects and historians world-wide about even minor changes. That's led to some unusual compromises.

Mary Ioannidou, director of the Parthenon Restoration Project, wanted to re-erect each of the six columns that once graced the east porch, while minimalists argued for only one. The council decided three would be recreated and three left as stumps. The three new columns were recently raised, and now workers are experimenting with tea, mud and a ferrous-oxide solution to age the new marble.

Ms. Ioannidou concedes that some of the work is controversial, but she says all the changes are designed to be reversible. And, in many cases, she says, they help stabilize the existing structure. "We have to balance conservative and progressive strands of archaeology," she adds.

The project is barely halfway to its 2004 goal. The building still looks like an empty shell. Workers are just starting to lay the marble blocks that are to become the walls of the cella, or inner sanctuary. They have yet to finish hanging new ceilings on the imposing columns of the Propylia gateway nearby on the Acropolis, and they haven't even begun reassembling the small temple of Athena Nike, not far away.

Big Headaches

Nikolas Toganides, the project's chief architect, says he has had big headaches since the government put the Olympics pressure on in 1999. The first crane installed in the inner sanctum to help hoist marble blocks didn't meet specifications and had to be replaced. Recently, workers at the site struck over pension benefits.

In her office, just south of the temple, draftswoman Kleopatra Metalla stares at pencil drawings of 230 stone fragments, trying to identify enough original material from the north wall of the cella to persuade the Archaeological Council to approve a complete reconstruction. It's slow work looking for clues in the marks left by ancient workmen and the patterns of wind erosion. "In three years I have only identified 130 pieces," she says.

Nearby, in the basement of the Acropolis Museum, sculptor George Argyris has cast several copies of a wide marble frieze depicting ancient Athenians on horseback. He has put different amounts of sand in each, trying to give the copies an authentic pink-gray color. He says his version will look better than the museum's pollution-scarred originals because his cast was made from a 19th-century copy.

After the Olympics, there will be more sculptures to reproduce. Architects are also thinking of bolstering the cella's walls with a modern titanium grid. Some archaeologists even want to recreate part of the ancient roof, which was blown away more than 300 years ago.

Write to Geoff Winestock at geoff.winestock@wsj.com

Updated August 5, 2002
 
Hard to express an opinion. Due to the ravages of invasions and time, the Parthenon simply isn't what it once was, which was to be expected after such a long duration. On the one hand, restoring parts of it would restore some of its former gleaming glory. On the other hand, that'd make it less than authentic, less of the real actual thing.

And I think deteriotation will continue, the Athens airspace being a destructive agent. :( Something shld be done to protect it first fr the atmosphere.
 
If any restoration is to take place, it rather than new things being made, the originals should be replaced. Otherwise, I would be again altering it at all. It is a testament to history, and as such it should stay the way that history has made it.
 
If something is not restored it will eventually vanish from the face of the Earth. So to say that something needs just minor repairs is to postpone the inevitable reconstruction.

Parthenon will suffer some repairs now and it will again in a few decades, this means,that we will keep on reconstructing just enough so that it still looks ruined or destroyed.
Are we going to do that forever?
Why not bring the thing back to its glory days, and admire the Parthenon just like the Greeks did 1000 years ago?

I would love to see the Parthenon rebuilt, I saw a 3D image of it and it looks amazing
 
I say it should be completely restored, allowing people today as then to admire such constructions. The entire Acropolis should be restored, IMHO. I've been to Italy quite a number of times, and they also ought to reconstruct their Forum Romanum and other classical construction works, simply because you don't really get the right impression when all you see is scattered marble blocks, and a few foundation outlines.
Imagine those amazing buildings resurrected. I also think it would be good for tourism.
 
I should be left completely alone, no need to reconstruct in any way, people should admire how history and time have shaped this magnificent piece of world history.
 
Well, a pile of rubble and broken marble blocks are simply not as impressive it should be. The wonders of the ancient world should stand as mighty as they once did.

The construction works were extremely impressive (or so I've heard, never got to see it :D), but they are not today, and that's a pity.
 
Maybe a measure composed of both. Reconstruct the structure but at a nearby location. This way the old ruins are still there and we can also admire the 'restored' ruins nearby, to gain a measure of its full glory. :)
 
yes, but Acropolis is placed in a way that you can't really build it somewhere else. It's location is amazing, you can't copy that.
 
I am huge admirer of Greek culture, and the fact that anyone is even thinking about touching the parthenon is revolting to me. It should be LEFT ALONE. Leave it be, its beautiful as it is. Modern society should not be impregnated into such a beautiful structure. Phidias (sp? is that the right dude? can't remember.) would be spitting in his grave. I didn't even now any restoration attempt was in process.

LEAVE IT ALONE.
 
They should leave it completely alone (only make sure it doesn't collapse).

BUT they should build an original-size replica of like it was in 500 B.C. somewhere in Athens.
 
Great posts folks!

As for myself, I haven't really made up my mind yet. I see merit in both sides of the argument. On the one hand I am an advocate for keeping historical sites as original and authentic as possible. It dilutes our ability to truly appreciate a site or its significance when it has been "tampered with". Another problem is that if we do restore it, we will be restoring it according to the way we currently understand it to have been - a critical thing to remember. We've been wrong before with our historical analyses, and I'd hate to spend millions of $$$ and damage a historical site beyond repair in "restoring it" only to discover we were wrong about a few things....

On the other hand, I have benefitted immensely from restored historical sites that have allowed me to experience first-hand some of its significance. For example, near a small northern Polish village called Biskupin there's a reconstruction of a 6000 year old fortified island settlement that you can visit complete with reconstructed huts, walkways, defensive pallisades, kitchens, living quarters, etc. You can walk around and get a real feel for what life for the Lusatian people who lived there was like millennia ago.

So I can't really make up my mind. This is significant for more than just the Greeks; the Parthenon is more than just a Greek treasure. It belongs to world culture. I also posed the question in the larger terms than just the Parthenon, because for instance I read an article somewhere last week about fears the Great Wall(s) of China is slowly disappearing because of pollution, natural erosion, and local peasants stealing bricks for their own use (for their homes or to sell to foreign tourists).

The question therefore really is what should we do with all ancient historical monuments? Is vigorous preservation (as they are now) the best way to go, some sort of "restoration", or perhaps a middle way: What do you think about partially restoring the Parthenon, half-way, and leaving the other half in ruins?
 
Originally posted by nixon
I should be left completely alone, no need to reconstruct in any way, people should admire how history and time have shaped this magnificent piece of world history.

True. It's already been reconstructed once (Nashville, TN);
no need to do it again, especially when it's the original.
 
Personally, I think a middle ground should be reached. A partial resoration could be such an approach:

Leave the majority of the site alone. This will reveal the ravage of time and neglect and damage. That's one of the reasons people enjoy these sites. To look upon a once glorious construction, to see how it is, to imagine how it was - that's an exercise in using one's mind to appreciate the site from a number of perspectives. Having to think about what it was is cause to understand why it was a wonder - for some, the difficulty of constructing such an impressive building; for others, the artistic design, or what have you.

This ruin could, however, be fully restored on one side. The site remains more or less intact; But how it appeared when it was new can be seen from one direction. The visitor would pass thru the new restoration into the ruins. Voila, impressive reality at the start, impressive antiquity behind. Good design and engineering could make this an aesthetic (and even educational) transition, too.

For those who are purists who would leave it alone entirely, I have a question. If the point of designating the ruins a special site is to preserve it, why not partially restore? Is the sole aim simply to outlaw local theft of the stones, or to preserve a gem of antiquity for future generations? With no intervention, it will vanish entirely much sooner. Think of sites at which all that remain are some stones outlining what were once foundations. It gives a very weak impression of what once was - yet making that impression is ultimately the goal behind protecting sites.
 
Back
Top Bottom