I think one of the most interesting things we saw was more reconstruction. An archaeological architect took us through part of the site and showed us what he is doing. They are reconstructing part of this building. There was a long row of columns on either side of the street. They were three stories tall! Between the columns there were friezes (carved pictures) of different things. When you see Greek and Roman statues and friezes now they all look white, like the rock that they were carved from, but in ancient times they were painted. They plan to paint the freezes in this reconstruction so that it looks as close to how it was orignially as they can make it. 
While doing this they are learning a lot about building strategies and how things were done when these things were first constructed. There are also rules for reconstruction. To do it you must have 70% or more of the original material. This architect was able to tell us a lot about the techniques used in the 
reconstruction. He even walked us over to the place where they work on putting the big pieces together. Here is a picture of a lot of the pieces lined up. In some places reconstruction has been done that doesn’t look too safe now! He said thatthe reconstruction on the right was done when they didn't know as much and it is not safe. In an earthquake this reconstruction would not stay up because of the way it was done.There are two types of columns. One
is made of one solid piece of marble and the other is made of a series of drums. Look at this column that seems about ready to fall over! There is a big debate among archaeologists whether things should be reconstructed or not. Many of the reconstructions of the past have turned out to be wrong or were even wrong on purpose and they confuse the visitors to an archaeological site. However, if you are not an archaeologist it is hard to make sense of a lot of fallen columns. What do you think? Should things be reconstructed or should they be left as we found them?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if you just got my first comment, if so, disregard this.
ReplyDeleteInteresting question about reconstruction or preserving history in leaving things how they were found.
I see you'll be presenting at NECC. I can't believe it but I'll be there! I hope to see you.
Safe travels!
Colleen
They should reconstruct it because the archeologists know what was there, but to the general public it looks like a bunch of rocks and dust. I want to know what you are eating.
ReplyDeleteI think they should reconstruct. But if they have build it the same way it was originally built, then it might collapse again if the original was not well supported. I think they should be able to make it look as close to the original as possible, but be allowed to make improvements to make it last longer.
ReplyDeleteI will write about what I am eating here and then try to take more pictures along the way of interesting things. In Turkey there is a pretty limited menu, but good. At every meal there is tomato and cucumber in some form.
ReplyDeleteAt breakfast I have been at hotels, so there is always a buffet with a bunch of choices. There are usually, tomatos, cucumbers, slices of cheese (goat cheese-but not with a strong flavor), slices of bread that you can toast jam and sometimes butter, honey, an assortment of rolls that look interesting, but really don't taste great (in my opinion), olives, and baloney type meat slices. There is also really thick yogurt. It is really good with honey drizzled over it.
At lunch and dinner almost every restaurant has what they call mezes which are appetizers or salads and then you can choose between shish kabob of different meats, meat balls or sometimes fish (which usually costs more). The mezes are interesting because there are lots of them: egg plant salad, salad with walnuts, tomato and cucumber salad, different mixes of yogurt (with dill, vegetables, etc), rolled grape leaves with rice, couscous, etc... but now I have to go to eat my breakfast!