In this week’s lecture, we talked a bit about conservation versus reconstruction

In this week’s lecture, we talked a bit about conservation versus reconstruction

In this week’s lecture, we talked a bit about conservation versus reconstruction or restoration. While the former usually focuses on preserving objects and architecture as they exist to be viewed and appreciated in context, the latter runs a risk of reinterpretation or at the very least reimagining the ancient and thus creating something that doesn’t truly reflect the people who originally made them.
Still, it often seems that such heavily “restored” objects and sights capture the imaginations and interests of modern viewers, thus bringing more attention, and intimately money, to the cause of preservation and education.
Which brings us to the question of the week: If the awareness such acts of overzealous reconstruction bring is ultimately beneficial to a site or ancient culture, is it okay? Or is no amount of money and press worth the destruction of history and/or accuracy?
Don’t forget to explain your stance; don’t just say which side of the debate you stand behind.