Over the past two weeks, I've visited a lot of archaeological sites: the
Acropolis, the Temple of Olympian Zeus, the Temple of Poseidon at
Isthmia, the Temple of Zeus at Nemea, the palaces at Mycenae and Tiryns,
and more. Nearly everywhere there are ruins of different ancient
memorials, sanctuaries, and buildings. Most of them look something like
this:
There is certainly some information to be gained from building foundations like this. Certain notches in the stone indicate how the building fit together, or if there was a column or statue in a given spot. If any of the building stones are inscribed, there is a lot more information that can be gathered. And the floor plan can indicate what type of building this was. Yet, I have reservations about just how much information can be gained from these ground-level stone blocks. In most museums, there are model reconstructions of the site, showing elaborate temples with peripteral columns and pediments and all sorts of supporting buildings. Yet, there may only be a few scattered column drums, or a heap of rubble to indicate this. Sometimes, archaeologists are lucky and find a cache of sculpture and statues from a destroyed temple that was buried in a pit, but other times the sites have been pillaged, re-purposed, or eroded away by natural forces. In many cases, it does not appear to me that the archaeological evidence is sufficient to justify the reconstruction.
Another line of evidence is literary records, which helps fill some of the gap, but is still not sufficient. There are some written records of what sanctuaries looked like or were used for, such as those written Pausanias, that were done while these places were still in use. However, for others, the records were written long after the site was disused, or were second- or third-hand accounts. It is difficult to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of these records, and so they are also not enough for me to really trust the reconstructions.
A third justification for some of the models, as well as for what various monuments and temples actually are, is looking at other sites. For instance, at a site near Argos, there's a temple to Apollo, and a second structure, including a round monument, similar to that at Delphi. Thus, it's been suggested that since the round monument at Delphi is dedicated to Artemis, that the one at Argos is the same. This logic is reasonable, and parallels can certainly be drawn, but seems to me like a flimsy argument for either claiming a purpose for unknown ruins or reconstructing them to match the known parallel.
Overall, there is some merit to reconstructing sites. It gives both the historians and the general public a visual sense of the landscape of a world that existed 2000 years ago. And it creates a much more interesting picture than toppled columns and building foundations. Yet, it is something to be cautious about. In this class, it has been very clear that these are the best reconstructions based on what is known from the literary and archaeological sources. If there is really not enough evidence to draw any sort of conclusion, then Professor Hall will simply say that we don't know. However, the books and museums do not seem to make this disclaimer as strongly, and often just present the reconstructions as fact rather than hypothesis. Thus, I feel some reservations about trusting the models or rebuilt sites regularly seen in our travels. The evidence doesn't seem to live up to a rigorous standard, in many cases, and so I wonder how much we actually know, versus how much is mere guesswork.
There is certainly some information to be gained from building foundations like this. Certain notches in the stone indicate how the building fit together, or if there was a column or statue in a given spot. If any of the building stones are inscribed, there is a lot more information that can be gathered. And the floor plan can indicate what type of building this was. Yet, I have reservations about just how much information can be gained from these ground-level stone blocks. In most museums, there are model reconstructions of the site, showing elaborate temples with peripteral columns and pediments and all sorts of supporting buildings. Yet, there may only be a few scattered column drums, or a heap of rubble to indicate this. Sometimes, archaeologists are lucky and find a cache of sculpture and statues from a destroyed temple that was buried in a pit, but other times the sites have been pillaged, re-purposed, or eroded away by natural forces. In many cases, it does not appear to me that the archaeological evidence is sufficient to justify the reconstruction.
Another line of evidence is literary records, which helps fill some of the gap, but is still not sufficient. There are some written records of what sanctuaries looked like or were used for, such as those written Pausanias, that were done while these places were still in use. However, for others, the records were written long after the site was disused, or were second- or third-hand accounts. It is difficult to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of these records, and so they are also not enough for me to really trust the reconstructions.
A third justification for some of the models, as well as for what various monuments and temples actually are, is looking at other sites. For instance, at a site near Argos, there's a temple to Apollo, and a second structure, including a round monument, similar to that at Delphi. Thus, it's been suggested that since the round monument at Delphi is dedicated to Artemis, that the one at Argos is the same. This logic is reasonable, and parallels can certainly be drawn, but seems to me like a flimsy argument for either claiming a purpose for unknown ruins or reconstructing them to match the known parallel.
Overall, there is some merit to reconstructing sites. It gives both the historians and the general public a visual sense of the landscape of a world that existed 2000 years ago. And it creates a much more interesting picture than toppled columns and building foundations. Yet, it is something to be cautious about. In this class, it has been very clear that these are the best reconstructions based on what is known from the literary and archaeological sources. If there is really not enough evidence to draw any sort of conclusion, then Professor Hall will simply say that we don't know. However, the books and museums do not seem to make this disclaimer as strongly, and often just present the reconstructions as fact rather than hypothesis. Thus, I feel some reservations about trusting the models or rebuilt sites regularly seen in our travels. The evidence doesn't seem to live up to a rigorous standard, in many cases, and so I wonder how much we actually know, versus how much is mere guesswork.
