Excellent topic!!!! . I have a great variety of mixed feelings on these issues, partly because I have seen many of my favorite ancient ruins in person and have also studied what they looked like in their prime. I use three examples; the Parthenon in Athens, Pompeii in Italy, and the Flavian Amphitheater in Italy (what we know commonly as the Colosseum).

In the case of the Colosseum, you have an issue with restoring something which has been far longer identified in its ruinous state than it ever was in its full and completed state. The Colosseum only spent about 150 years of its life in a full and complete form, until fire and a devastating earthquake damaged far beyond repair (both in extent and capacity) in the early 400's C.E. But even before the earthquake, fire had destroyed and weakened much of the marble facade, revealing the stone and indigenous tufa stone beneath. And in an interesting factoid, did you know that marble can actually burn? But following Rome's fall and the literal regression of civilization (dark ages), the Colosseum stood as a monolith of a bygone alien people. Seriously. One theory points out that the advanced ruins such as the Colosseum provided a prime motivating force to regain lost technological capabilities and aesthetic know how. It stood as a reminder of what we had achieved and lost. Local Roman art and architectural attempts in some parts mimicked the remains of ancient buildings, like arches, flying buttresses, etc. The Vatican, incidentally, stripped much of the surviving marble from the Colosseum to put on St. Peters Basilica. So to answer one of your points, to reconstruct something like the Colosseum would deny what the gradual decay of the great monument continually contributed to civilization.

In the case of the Parthenon in Greece, they are actually in the process of reconstructing it in an attempt to restore it to its former glory. Is it a good idea is debatable. An interesting factoid is that the Parthenon was for the most part intact until 1687 when, in a what-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time decision, the Turks occupying Athens (and Greece) decided to store a butt-load of gun powder within the primary sub-chamber. And, leave it to chance, a Venetian cannonball managed to find its way into the confines of the powder cache and BAM! Parthenon Jenga! I bring that factoid up because some archeologists argue that because the fate of the Parthenon was such that it was very "unnatural," it's ok to reconstruct it. I don't think so, but there the argument is. So hundreds of years pass by and Greek and Roman history, style, and knowledge become very popular. The Greeks and British, as well meaning as they were, decided to reconstruct the Temple a little more than a hundred or so years ago. Great idea, right? Wrong. When these massive blocks were fit together 2,500 years ago, they were fit together with such precision and materials that we honestly do not know what the heck they did to make it go the way they were able to make it go. So a guy named Nikolas Balanos comes along and tries to fit the pieces together? only he "brilliantly" uses iron clamps in between the blocks. So not only does he cut into the interior of these ancient blocks, but he puts iron in them, which deteriorate and crack the marble. It is a fudge-up that archeologist are rushing to fix before the whole building collapses. So the moral of the Pantheon is that if you do decide to rebuild it, wait for the technology to progress to a point where it will be as longer lasting than the original methods. We do not have the original methods, and what we have now is not permanent? so do not touch the Parthenon!!! You hear that Greeks? Put those tools down!

In the case of Pompeii in Italy, a major problem is bureaucracy. The Italian government and the institutions responsible have done an utterly cruddy job of keeping up the site. It is NOT preserved in the least?. it continues to decay? even with methods which could preserve a good deal of the site available. In a related, academic note, American (and almost every foreign) students are forbidden to work on many integral and specific sites throughout Italy and Sicily (Roman, Etruscan, etc.)? including Pompeii. That being said, there is ample volunteers and money willing to go into these sites, but government and organizational bureaucracy keep it from getting better. Anyway?.Pompeii suffers from bureaucratic B.S. So essentially, we all have to get our stuff together before we can ever hope of reconstructing these valuable relics of the past.

Pompeii is a fairly huge site. In fact, roughly 70% of the city has been excavated. The rest is unfortunately under a particularly valuable portion of vineyard (volcanic soil makes for good vino) and Naples itself. But the question is why? Apparently, the land was leased because the authorities in control of the site know that they cannot take care of the site to begin with... so they leave it covered by more than 16 feet of dirt (see pic 1 below). (my pic of Via dell abbondanza, region 3, sub 2).



The areas that are uncovered are uncovered because there was such a rush to unearth it and find what have you that they did not think they would also be expected to keep it all preserved. Honestly, they should just throw some dirt over it again and leave it alone. The bare tufa and brick segmentata survive well enough, but the paint in particular is what's creeping away. Wonderful graffiti (political notices, business advertisements, gladiator praises, etc) are all fading (or rather molting) away.

Below, some of you may guess what that is a picture of. Yup? it's the ancient Roman McDonalds (popinae). Notice the osterie insignia (restaurant sign) in the back. Decayed, open to the elements, etc. (though restoration on the building is noticeable).

I think it's an interesting question as well.

I suppose we like things to be authentic. A forgery of a van gogh that looked just as good would be worth far less. Should it be? It feels like it should, but reasonably I would have to say they are worth the same.

I'm not sure there's a reason to repair the pyramids though, "falling apart" isn't inherently a bad thing. And it's difficult to get the aged look with new stone.

If they couldn't afford to build them when labor was free, what makes anyone think we will be able to pay to have them fixed..

Besides, as I think Vonnegut said: Back then, gravity was lighter...

Indeed this is an interesting topic.

I know with at least some of the wonders, the actual skill required no longer exists. We could build something that would be similar but it would not be done with the mastery or precision of those who built it.

Bushet...It does not matter what they build, they could use GPS now and put it on the money... I have plumbed up a lot of buildings, and tried to bring back a few that were already gone, but even then we had to be closer than that...I worked on one story job that was real sloppy...The building was plumbed from the North End and my brother and I set the stairs... We had that so close you could look straight down between the hand rail from the eighteenth floor like the barrel of a rifle...

On that note Amperage, the Parthenon possess a unique feature in its construction that no longer exists. The Parthenon, though it looks like a level building is essentially curved (if ever so slightly). The building itself curves 230 feet long, but it has been scientifically measured to pin-point accuracy for its curvature of up to 4 ? inches (on both sides mind you) in the middle. And if that is not amazing, that very curvature is duplicated exactly in the foundation, base, columns, and even the entablature. We are talking pinpoint accuracy around 2500 years ago! Doesn't seem that amazing now, but that is literally an alien-esque influence right there if there ever was one.

simply amazing. Every time I think about stuff like that. Those people were no less smart than people today(maybe on the average we are but still), they just focused on different things.

The aesthetic value of ruins is much appreciated by artists and poets. For example consider this painting by Caspar David Friedrich. When you look at it does this make you want to reconstruct the ruins or can you see the beauty in them that is the direct result of their delapidation?




Also consider the Japanese aesthetic of wabi-sabi

Wabi-sabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why?



Exactly what was it about Egypt that is glorious? For that matter what is it that is so beneficial to the world that has ever come out of those civilizations surrounding ALL such pyramids? Most of those civilizations have become "extinct". Why? Good question!

When in comparison we see the beauty that is the landscape of so much of the rest of the world, we hold to this desert wasteland as significant; in what measure other than it is old and to call it Holy is even more non-sensical. Perhaps it is in a very negative way as can be understood in what we were to what we are becoming. Just dead weight.

If you ask me they are not disappearing fast enough. Let's hope the "Langoliers" do eventually get them, ha!



Honestly sun, I think that is what is being done and that is why the world is in the shape it is in. No, let us not give them glory in any respect. Yes, we do find a measure of curiosity in antiquity and of course if we don't understand our past we will horrifically repeat it. Considering the weapons we are now fighting with, we are at a brink, a precipice if you will and ascertaining what that will be if we do indeed repeat it, is difficult to comprehend.

If you will do a little research yourself and browse "sacrifice, worship of animals and what anthropomorphic representations" are all about and the "gods" of those antique civilizations.

I promise you sun, there is much about our past that needs to be buried my friend. We do have the knowledge to make those barren wastelands fertile and in that respect I do agree with what can be defined as "resurrecting" those waste lands. As far as the resources it would take to rebuilt the pyramids, could be better spent in making those areas fertile.

In my opinion it would be a gross waste of resources to rebuild them. Of course that would be no surprise, we are doing that now, wasting resources, and that which is reason why we are doing that came out of the knowledge that originated in those very wastelands you want to honor. Such as this is a doomed world and life awaits for us in another one. When we cling to that, it is no wonder this one is in the shape that it is as can be understood in the phrase "going to hell in a handbasket". (See list).

William

Another thing that comes to mind and also compliments your point is the value of ruins in literature (beyond poetry that is) as well. J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings, as well as his other books, made specific references to the highly thought out layers of ruins and rebuilt structures throughout his world. Minas Tirith (the big, multi level city in the last movie) for example has layers upon layers of meaning and history intertwined in it. This book I have by Davis Day, The World of Tolkien, describes Minas Tirith as a city constantly destroyed and rebuilt, but in the end a final testament to a previously destroyed and rebuilt civilization of Numenor. The author says the city is an analogy of Constantinople and its fall to the Turks... and the wealth of Greek influence that went with it. But there are many other examples though, like weathertop and the gates of Gondor. Something neat to think about.

The restoration of today will be the archeology of tomorrow,
what we leave behind for others to discover is our duty as much as tomorrows surprise.
Surely intervention is needed if we want tomorrow to have anything left to discover for them selves, they will be able to tell what we did, but we need to give them the chance to think what we couldn't by there still being an example left to find things in.
Ruins are indeed poetic and beautiful, but once something is dust it cannot teach anything other than wind.