Ah yes, everything is a temple in archeologists eyes as that BRINGS eyes to their work and they get to make more "trips" to discover romanticized baloney they make up which has nothing to do with reality as that romanticization is not how humanity works, but that is how humanity LIES to itself about how they "work".
In the library I worked there was a book about the rebuilding of Warsaw. The city was, basically, erased during WWII. But there were photos, and drawings. Nearly every church, monument, historical building, anything before WWII was rebuilt as it was. The before-after photos (ruined-rebuilt) were breathtaking.
polish person here! i live in Warsaw and let me tell you we learn so much about the rebuilding of Warsaw in school! It’s really amazing how people got together (a lot of citizens after work would come and build for a few hours) and tried to rebuild while remembering what came before as a way to process the trauma of war, and when you look at the pictures they used as references the buildings are very similar! also shout out to the people who, before the n*zis came, took and hid art so it wouldn’t be destroyed. (of course there’s a lot of nuance to be talked about and people from different parts of Poland disagree about things, ya know mostly about the communist government and how that influenced the rebuilding process buuuut that’s a topic for another time,, and the point still stands)
Glad to hear! "Fortunately" destroyed capital allowed to rebuild center of city in a modern way. Oldtown is rebuilded almost perfectly but some places like the royal palace is not fully reconstructed as would be. If you want more information I have link for you: ruclips.net/video/9heDZXjn2yM/видео.htmlsi=ZkFyLEc9UrbsMFn6 (probably no translation :( )- the expert says is not possible anything to rebuild in this same way as before and is not an easy task.
@@sourryebread it wasn't Germans doing most of destruction... in Ukraine, most of the country was occupied by Germans, and they barely destroyed any monuments or cities. But russians don't leave a single stone unturned. You can easily see how any Ukrainian city looked during occupation in 1941 and how much worse anything a russian is allowed into looks post-2014. It's like Babel written, their goal in Poland was to make a big pile of crap in any rich looking house or church. It's their "culture". All writers like Tostoy and Dostoyevsky cheered for literal smearing of feces of art.
@@SamAronow Good question! Minding that industrial infrastructure and historic buildings were ruined in 90% (overall in 84%), the prospect of reconstruction seemed so unlikely that the Polish authorities considered moving the capital to Łódź, where most of the pre-war buildings had survived. Yet the post-war reconstruction of Warsaw was the first attempt in the history of the world to reconstruct the entire historical core of the city, not only its most valuable monuments. So why was Warsaw rebuilt? There were several reasons: - Human: from January 1945 people continued to flow into the city; former residents and other homeless newcomers gathered among the icy ruins, beginning to rebuild on their own. - Political: Stalin, who was preparing for the Yalta conference, needed international recognition, and this could be provided by a reborn Poland with its capital in Warsaw. - Patriotic: the general inspector of monuments in Poland at that time (Jan Zachwatowicz) was guided by the principle that "the nation and the monuments of its culture constitute an organic unity". It wasn't easy for him because the Soviet faction insisted on modernist reconstruction (his idea was also in opposition to the then dominant conservation doctrine). The initial scale of the reconstruction proposed by Zachwatowicz was drastically reduced, but it was thanks to his and his team's determination that a huge part of the Old Town and the Royal Route was meticulously recreated.
I would love to see a counterpart video to this one which highlights the best preserved truly original / authentic / non-restored structures we still have from antiquity. It would sort of be the "yang" to this video's "yin."
The Pantheon in Rome is nearly all original. Even the floor is 80% original. You can walk on the very stones where the pagan Romans walked with their togas.
its really rare, because if you think of it in a period of thousands of years people had and did affect nearly every ancient building. maybe it was a slight exhageration this, video since it's quite visible the ancient part. we can only be thankful for what remains
Choose one: A - Rebuild it as faithfully as possible even if not 100% perfect B - Let it erode and turn to rubble and then to sand and then oblivion I choose A
Sometime there is nothing left to reconstruct. In about 1930 Mussolini, at great expense drained Lake Nemi, and recovered two of Caligula's 2,000 year old 250 foot long pleasure boats. In WW2 in 1944 the US Army fired cannon shells into the museum containing the two huge wooden boats. The museum and the boats were totally destroyed by the resulting fire from the cannon shells. See Wikipedia....Nemi ships
"Fakes" is definitely not the right word to use here. Ancient buildings carry their own history, the fact they needed to be restored doesn't make them "fakes". A fake is the Parthenon in Tennessee, not the Colosseum in Rome
Yes I absolutely agree with you. They also use most of what they can find with the original material when reconstructing or renovating the original structure so in a sense these are still original.
You took the words out of my mouth. I have visited most of these sites and I have revisited them over the last 47 years. The preservation of these buildings isn't necessarily for tourism or nationalism. Rebuilding will extend the life of these buildings and make them available for future generations. My family volunteers to do archeology digs and rebuilding history.
Fakes the right word. They do this in the fossil world too. They find a jaw & feel entitled to make a whole plaster body & call the whole thing a fossil. Pre-fix things with the word "partial" when less than half of it is crutches
There's a thing called the Venice Charter from 1964 which is the expected international standard for restorations and reconstructions. It sets out all the basic principals like " must stop at the point where conjecture begins" (zero tolerance for guesswork ) , and additional material must "bear a contemporary stamp" (in 100 years you can know what's new and what's old) and " all periods to the building of a monument must be respected".
I would expect most restorations in developed countries of anything significant to follow it. And the rest of the world, it can be hit and miss but it's getting better. I've seen foreign archaeologist refuse to restore element of buildings that would be conjecture, then the ministry just hires someone else to do it after they leave. There are often issues with ministries sharing responsibility for archaeology/culture and tourism and having split goals. It's pretty much required by UNESCO for world heritage listing. Any private restoration of a villa or castle in France or Poland though, anything goes. .. I'd also say some people do a better job than others about adding a modern touch to additions to make it clear what's original and what's fake, and you can get a LOT of bitching by people who want it to be indistinguishable or are triggered by the "modern touch".
@@scottn2046 I find the "respect all the historical periods of the building" problematic. Imagine a buliding that was bulit in... somewhat mid XVIII century in baroque, suffered from a fire in early XIX century, was shifted to a different organisation, got restyled some of the facade, half of the third floor being turned into a chapel, and half of the inside circa 1820 in late Empire, suffered a major flood in 1840s, got first floor and half-underground floor redone, changed hands again, got retrofitted with sewage and electrical, got it's owners pushed out violently during a revolution and repurposed into small rooms and the chapel into a worker canteen, got damaged by WWII carpet bombing causing a fire and some shrapnel as well, got fixed with what they had in 1950s and 60s and turned into an office of two or three several government organisations consequently? Almost all historical landmarked bulidings in my country are like that and more brutal than that. I know a historical church depraved of it's domes turned into I don't remember what and then a martial arts gym, and it looks like the weirdest thing could possibly even be bullit if you don't know why. Some of the oldest bulidings got the number of floors changed and windows re-cut multiple times through the history, they're weird Countries such as the UK where they have the same castles in the same hands and lawns around them kept pristine for centuries they obviously don't have such problems.
@@annasolovyeva1013 "Respect" is a deliberately vague word and these are ideals that can be interpreted broadly. It's a response of excessive zeal in the 20th century to clear classical sites of medieval houses or rescue medieval churches from baroque encrustratations. Nobody is saying you can't rip out those ugly 1930s tiles from when it was a workers canteen, it doesn't mean you can't rip off the baroque frescoes to reveal the medieval ones underneath - you just have to aknowleldge that the building is a complex Palimpsest and all these layers are part of its story. it's really a call to think twice before you erase layers that don't interest you, to prioritise the layer that does interest you. And to remember that what you care about today, may not be what people care about in 100 years and the future may be horrified at what you destroyed/
@ChucklesMcGurk Mahler was talking about how it is important to keep alive the passion in creation, and not just study technicalities. He could have stated it as such, but preferred to give it a poetic touch.
I really appreciate when you can clearly tell which parts were restored, and which parts are original. This restoration style is both honest and educational, while still displaying the former beauty of the original design. Having grown up in a medieval town myself, I've always found it confusing seeing more than 4 different types of brick in the same old building, because at some point it gets difficult to tell what time period which part is from. Though it seems that larger and more rotund stones were used often for the oldest layers, which at least gives you somewhat of a perspective.
@@Pumbarumba nope, fakes are the replicas in the USA. Every building needs restoration and maintenance work anyway. In my city we have a 2000 year-old temple/church that went through many stages & phases. These were necessary because the alternative would be for it to turn to rubble. It's just maintanence. "Restoration" is just late maintenance work.
@@Pumbarumba the city is Braga (originally Braccara Augusta) it was originally a Roman Temple and then became a Church / Cathedral. Parts of the Roman Temple are still there. It went through many stages of life and has clearly different “layers” in the stone. It’s not a fake obviously. It’s like a living thing, changes with time. Every new phase is as authentic as the previous.
I couldn't be happier that people have attempted to reconstruct or restore these iconic ancient sites. Given a choice between rubble or a reconstruction, it's a complete no-brainer to me. If they rebuilt Pompeii from the ground up, I would be ecstatic.
It's fun for visitors (and I always enjoy visiting those fake "ancient" buildings), but it also detracts from the awe of being in the presence of an authentic piece of history.
@@Unknown-jt1jo I dunno dude, I'd much rather see ancient sites rebuilt and fixed back up as best as possible rather than potentially gazing on rubble and destroyed rock😂
@@Unknown-jt1jo I certainly feel you on the sense of history, but this is a ship of theseus situation. How much of the colosseum needs to be authentic? What if it's a modern rebuild using the original stone? What if you don't even KNOW that it's more modern restoration?
Restoration is not fake. If a building was built in 100 BC, partially destroyed in a war in 20BC, and fully restored in 120 AD. Would you consider it a fake? If we judge history through a narrow view of our insignificant human body life span, we get a distorted view of history. We should always look at things within a range of thousands of years
Using Stonehenge has an example, the site was restored several times but most recently in the 1960's. Only a few stones stood in the oldest drawings, so the construct is a reimagination of what it looked like. However, the sinister part is hearing science talk about the site, saying they believe it to be a celestial construct and so it was rebuilt as one. It is nothing but pure speculation and as for Stonehenge being rebuilt, it's like a fogotten fact.
@@CharlieKeiser it doesn't really matter what I think. The stones were found from antiquity, they don't know for certain who built it or why, so they speculate. In the exact way the pyramids are tombs despite there being scant evidence to align with the belief.
Restorations that are represented as the original are fake by design. It's a sinister gov practice that's seemed to develop in modern times. Our wars destroyed a lot of the ancient sites that were rebuild and are now represented as original. I bet my house that none of you would consider a restored Rembrandt as an original...its a fake if it's going to be represented as an original. Every single one of you would feel like you got swindled. Let's not pretend otherwise just for the sake of argument smh. Just be honest...
If it is not in its original form, then its not original. Hence, fake. Like a Chinese Versace knockoff. The recreated version is fake right? Not original or authentic. Recreated. So, your whole comment was misled
I don't mind restoration, as long as it more or less meets 3 criteria: 1. Non destructive of original materials, 2. Reversible 3. Done honestly. That is to say there are markers and indicators that explain what was done and why. I'm reminded of the Arch of Hadrian in Athens. On one side it reads "this is Athens, the ancient city of Theseus" and on the other it reads "this is the city of Hadrian, and not of Theseus" In other words "Hadrian built the stuff on this side, but not on the other side." The first 2 are tricky I admit, but without taking that risk you just have a bunch of broken stones with no context. And the things things that don't captivate are ignored, forgotten, and eventually lost.
I`m in the construction industry and honestly most of the restoration is not an actual problem. Basically there 7 (+/-) factors that determine if a building is beautiful or not. These are not a subject of interpretation. Basically your primal part of the brain is telling you that if you go in a place that has those factors you won`t die. So it`s the same principle but different styles (gothic, classic, etc). So long as you preserve that you can have all the modern stuff like plumbing, electricity etc in there no problem. That`s the valuable part and if you preserve this stuff over time you can walk through the centuries while alive and feel connected to your culture and have that nice primal brain experience at the same time.
I remember when an original NeroFone was the size of a suitcase and cost one's whole salary. Fortunately over time the costs came down and so did the size. Now one can be had for three maybe four goats tops and you only need a Trapper Keeper to carry one. That's progress for ya.
I like the idea of walking in the steps of the ancients. Seeing the same buildings and sights that they saw. To get into their mind or lifestyle just for a moment. It’s a complicated feeling, whether it is more important for the building to be of the exact same original materials, or rebuilt to the same effect it would have appeared in their era. To me, it is cooler to touch the same rock than a copy of it, but the copy also may give more insight to how they experienced it. And I’d rather a copy be there than nothing remain. Like I’d rather have THE sword of a famous warrior than a copy of it, but the copy serves different purposes and you can have a bit more freedom with it. Like if we built a second version of the Colosseum simply to hold real events, and keep the real one as original as possible.
An old roman square may not be complete without the obelisk it was built around, but at the same time there's an Egyptian monument incomplete without that SAME obelisk.
We should also keep in mind that these buildings were doubtlessly maintained and repaired in antiquity and for centuries thereafter. So when we talk of original, do we mean what it looked like immediately after being built, or a century later, or a century after that?
I really like how in mexiko in most ruins they reconstructed the old buildings with small black stones placed inside the mortar to visibly distinguish the originals and the reconstructed buildings
I'm amazed that Abu Simbel was never mentioned - in the 1960s the entire tomb of Rameses II was disassembled and moved to a new location to avoid it being flooded by the Aswan dam.
Add all the major sites lost in the flood onto the checklist of 'damn they wrecked a lot with that damn' (apparently its made Egypt a lot drier and hotter and played havok on agriculture due to the soil being reliant on flooding for nutrients and minerals) At least they put in crazy effort to get not only Abu Simbel but a few other spots moved
When I visited the Acropolis in Athens I wondered how it would look like if the traces of Byzantine, Latin and Ottoman periods were still there. I think it would have been incredible to walk through and see the sheer amount of history compressed into that single hill. Although it's still impressive today, it's sad that so much history has been stripped away from it - and many more sites.
You may have an idea by looking at drawing done by tourists in the 17th and 18th century. What you say could be reversed: I wonder what would be the experience of visiting the Parthenon before the Italians and the Turks blew it up during the siege of Athens in 1689. Of what it was to follow the divine liturgy when it was converted into an orthodox church with it's frescos icons and iconostasis. Or what it would have looked if Lord Elgin didn't stole the marbles. Ruins are not just the building that was intended by the architect.They are scars of History. The author of this video stated that the Parthenon is a display of Greek nationalism. Well that's why it was build in the first place, was it not? It was build because the Persian army destroyed the older Parthenon. And Pericles ordered the remainings of the old Parthenon to be integrated into the wall of the Acropolis facin the city to serve as a reminder. As a modern Greek, I think we Greeks have all the right to restore our national shrine as a demonstration to the world that we survived all those centuries and will thrive again despite the current efforts of some people to erase us from the face of this earth.
@Hope_Boat Nazi monuments weren't _centuries old._ They were a decade old at best. They were only in power between 1933 to 1945. I don't agree with everything the Allies destroyed there either. Greeks destroying centuries-old monuments en masse reeks of insecurity and was a war on tangible history. The Ottoman presence in some areas dates to the 1300s. Turkey largely preserves Byzantine, Roman, Ancient Greek, and pre-historic human sites. It's a plethora of different eras.
@@realtalk6195 Cry me a river. The ottomans turned hundreds of byzantine churches into mosques and Erdogan is still using Agia Sophia as a knife he turns in the wound to provoke ethnical hatered towards the Greeks. In occupied Cyprus the modern Turks destroyed hundred of churches and historical monuments since 1974.
My heart sank when I saw the title as my honey moon will be in Italy and Greece specifically for the history. But after all the points it’s like "uh duh"
Yeah, reconstructed is perhaps the better word but it's not like Greek and Italian tourism boards are advertising this fact lol, they are wonderful ancient cities but a lot has happened since the fall of the Roman empire.
@@Dan-xx5jqWell IT was destroyed 300 years ago.We have paintings showing the Parthenon temple before destruction I also have looked up pictures before recontruction. It wasnt entirely destroyed.
Think of france's thousands of chateaux, a lot of them are left to rot, mere shells. Some others are painstakingly restored and become bed-and-breakfast's, wineries, event spaces, private homes... What makes you feel better inside, seeing old ruins taken over by ivy or a conscious effort to celebrate and use(!) ancient architecture? Calling a semi-rebuilt thing "fake" is like saying someone is "fake" for having survived cancer treatment or walking with a prosthetic leg. The first thing we do when we find an ancient vase is...try to see if we can find all the pieces and reconstruct as much as we can. Our curiosity and our will to re-make is an answer to nature's entropy. Loved the ending, you ask the right questions about intentions and implications of restorations. Fascinating.
Not as bad as the estimated twenty five thousand British stately homes that were demolished soon after world war two when the Labor government brought in onerous death duties and the heirs didn't have enough money to pay them so they demolished them instead. masterpieces were destroyed!
@@kaloarepo288 I saw a stately home in ruins when I toured southern England by bike in 1984. Literally birds were flying in and out of the windows. As for the Labor gov't., all Communists think alike.
@@leomarkaable1 communists lived in russia, go watch soviet architecture channels if you want to see what they would have done with the old mansions.. in west europe, including the uk we have (among others) socialist parties , not communist. you are a fool if you don't know this and a unpleasant being if you do know this, yet chose to spread alt-right misinformation.
@@Blackadder75there is no difference spiritually between "socialism" and "communism". They are both forces of entropy which abhor order, hierarchy, beauty
@@conehed1138 you have been brainwashed, just like those communists... modern social democracy in western countries is a pillar of modern civilization, together with liberalism. left, right and center in politics all have their strong and weaker points and can work together. It's only the far left (communism) and far right (trumpism, fascism etc) that are forces of destruction because they don't restrict themselves and escalate into different forms of extremism. Ending with a dictator.
I find that sometimes reconstructions can muddy the water and affect peoples perspectives of history. Praising certain things while others are forgotten/minimized. Great video!
There's room for both approaches: cleaning and clearing up ruins but not adding to them in order for their full history to remain intact and rebuilding ruins while keeping intact the parts that were left to show how they were when they were new.
I think if it’s rebuilt with 95% - 70% of its original material, it’s can still be considered “itself”. Any less than that and it starts becoming a museum replica. Like when an old band reunites with only 1 - 2 of its original members.
@@CosmicMapping That is obvious in Pop Music when small bands change personnel over the years, but what about orchestras a century or more old? Clearly none of the original performers are still there, but the ensemble carries on. A functioning building needs repairs, and sometimes a new roof, floor, plumbing, etc. Palaces and cathedrals that still function have had stuff added and removed over the centuries, and may have taken hundreds of years to be built in the first place. Rebuilding something that has been buried or in ruins for thousands of years is different. Saddam Hussain ordered some palace at Babylon to be rebuilt, with a few bricks stamped to say that the rebuilding took place in the time of "Saddam the Victorious." Meanwhile the Wahhabi's have been demolishing thousand-year old shrines for decades in Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban and ISIS got in on the act in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq more recently. The Red Guards did the same in Mao's China and its colonies. The current regime has to balance the needs of tourism with their plans for genocide of all neighbouring nations.
@@faithlesshound5621 Your assertion depends on your personal view of what a “band” even is. If it’s an institution, or a specific group of people. I feel like orchestras are exempt from this, since they’re culturally much different from a “band”. An orchestra generally performs standards written by outside musicians, I can’t even think of an orchestra off the top of my head that writes it’s own material. While a “band”, is generally understood to be a group of people whose specific creative leanings craft their art, so when you just mix and match folks you’re changing the whole creative core of the group and fundamentally altering their art. While an orchestra, generally one violinist will be hired to play the same song as well as the previous who had been hired to replicate the previous, and so-on. Orchestras aren’t understood to be a unique group of people sharing their own ideas as much as an organization of experts performing music written by other artists whose vision they work to be faithful to, rather than their own. I think this fundamentally exempts them from identity decay, as a 200-year-old orchestra will play songs just as well as it did 200 years ago, but a band that had exchanged three out of its five original members will have fundamentally changed.
@@CosmicMapping None of the matter in a human body is that person's "original material," can the person be called "himself," or just a replica? It is not really about composition, is it?
They are not fakes but constructioned from original pieces and replacement of lost elements or decayed parts. This is how buildings are maintained over time!
Correct. This is common and many palaces in Poland were rebuilt this way. They even have pictures showing the reproduction pieces and restored original in color coded format.
In my homestate of California, many of the missions are replicas, as most were abandoned, destroyed by earthquakes or looted by locals for building material.
I visited the Capitol in Washington recently. Although from pictures it can be hard to tell, up close you can easily see the stages of building which have happened. The building has evolved so much over time. From 1800 onward, with the latest addition being finished only in 2008. Can you imagine the building being "restored" to its state in, say, 1850? The building would not be recognisable to many. I suppose the question is, from future archaeologists in the year 5000 to people today: are the white dome and extended wings authentic? Original? Is 1850 the "classic" Capitol? Do you mind if later additions are removed? The building does look better without them, after all...
1:11 temple of Vesta 1:25 The Curia 1:44 The arch of Titus 2:09 colosseum 2:32 Ara Pacis 6:02 Saalburg under Wilhelm II 6:16 The Roman Baths in Bath, England 6:46 Palace of Minos by Sir Arthur Evans >> Minoan Civilization 7:31 Stoa of Attalus 9:04 Athenian acropolis 9:29 Odeion of Herodes Atticus
Japan has an art form called "Kintsugi" in which broken pottery is repaired with a paste mixed with gold, silver or platinum so that the joins are clearly visible. The idea has not caught on much in Europe and America (though it can be learned there) due to the preference for "invisible mending."
I love the story of the guy who popularised the style being invited to a nobles manor, who had recently spent lots of money getting a rare vase to impress his celebrity guest. When he said he thought it was boring and there was nothing there worth his time, the noble is said to have smashed the expensive vase in a rage. When the artist visited again the next day he saw the vase with the telltale gold lines from repair he said something along the lines of "ah now you have something interesting" or "now that is art" Pretty fun anecdote about a catty celebrity artist
i took a class on historic preservation of buildings, and generally the goal is to make it so no one can tell anything new has been used. i don't know if it's a us-centric aim, or if architecture is treated differently than pottery
@@amandak.4246 its typically only old restorations that were dramatic. Pre mid 1900s just about everywhere would use masses of modern paint at best and scale up to dynamite and concrete but then they started thinking about it professionally and researching restoration techniques
It doesn't surprise me many of the buildings are rebuilt or have had significant restoration. Especially when you consider many ancient buildings were either restored or rebuilt at some point in time either by later ancient people or medieval people. So it should come as no surprise modern people still do restoration work on ancient buildings. Even modern buildings need to be maintained to stay in good condition. That's just how it is. I guess the question with ancient buildings is, should they be left to rot, or should they be restored, and if restored, how much restoration is acceptable? A partial restoration to get a sense of how it looked, or a full on restoration to original look (or as original as can be determined from the evidence available). On another note, I saw someone post an old picture of the acropolis on X the other day, and was wondering why a particular tower in the picture is no longer there today. But I think what you said here answers that question. If the tower was a later Roman structure, I'm guessing it was dismantled to return it to is ancient Greek look.
Buildings usually only survive if at least some effort is put into their maintenance. Every old cathedral you see is only standing because its roof has been continually repaired. You can't ever see things as they truly were hundreds of years ago. Reconstructions are valuable educational tools. Some even occurred so long ago that they're now historical relics in their own right. They're not necessarily 'fake' and we probably shouldn't undo most of them. But we absolutely should publicly acknowledge them and make sure visitors know when and why they were done.
I like both: Ruins that are left as ruins, where you can imagine what the place could've been like, and authentic reconstructions, where you can feel like how it most likely felt to be one of these people back then walking through these places
@@MiguelDLewis Still doesn't make it a fake. Nobody is saying it was never bombed to oblivian now if most of the stones where replaced over the century's would it be a fake to?
@@arturobianco848 "Fake" is an inaccurate word. "Reconstruction" is a better term. "Renovation" is more accurate too. "Fake" seems too pejorative and has the negative connotation of complete artifice or forgery. Modernity need not be associated with artifice. Kinkaku-Ji in Kyoto, for example, is a modern reconstruction that's consistently renovated but it's not necessarily "fake".
I went yesterday to this abandoned building in the old city of jaffa, and after climbing around and exploring it I found this entrance to a basement that seemed absolutely ancient. It had this large perfectly circular pit with a ridge that I'd imagine was probably used to like crush olives to make olive oil or something like that, and it had this kiln or furnace built into the side of the wall. I'm obviously not sure it was even a furnace, it was just some raised hole in the wall that was too small to be a room but too large to not be very important, and had no exits and a hole that I imagined was ventilation on top. I imagined to myself that this furnace was probably not complex enough to smelt iron, and since this place was clearly a very important large building right in the center of old jaffa so it must have had the most advanced technologies of its age, and combined with the fact that what clearly used to be the ground floor was so deep underground, I imagined that this place must have been built in the bronze age before 1200bc. Do you think that's likely? Is there any way I can verify this? I can provide pictures of everything I saw if that could help
@@puma7171 If all you have is ruins, leaving ruins is actually preserving. And you are wrong: it all depends on they you want to use that site. Of course you need also skills and money. Ruins are just less appealing for tourists. And to erase all the later layers of history in a specific place, it's a political/cultural choice, not an historical view.
@@giovannimoriggi5833agreed. Only those with zero wonder about history would be for these kinds of rebuilds. To me, a historical site shows the state it was in when found. If it’s been preserved completely since day one, then that’s fine too but to destroy the actual historical layers just for looks…. Despicable.
I believe it's in Nashville Tennessee, USA, that one finds a true-copy of the Athens Parthenon, complete with monumental statue of Athena within. Ancient structures cannot be frozen in time in some half-life of partial ruin: either they are restored, or allowed to (slowly) crumble. If I had a vote, I'd vote to more the Nashville Parthenon to the Acropolis.
In case of Athens in particular: I would give my two healthy kidneys to see the city in its former glory. Fake or not. Nothing beats classical architecture.
I don't see it as something fake, the reconstruction of the Parthenon, but rather as a great example. They use the same materials, yet you can see the difference between the new and the original. It's about continuing the history of the building.
True, classical architecture shows a mastery at sculpting, engineering and visual art. Extremely powerful visually and their is a reason why everyone loves the elegant nature of it.
early restorations on the acropolis were done completely wrong, however the mistakes were rectified and today's restorations are very very precisely carried out and the newest technologies and techniques are used, so as to be as accurate as humanly possible. that's why it is also taking so long. what would be ideal is to have a parthenon like it was before British looting and Venetian bombing.
I occasionally think I'd be willing to be 10yrs older than I am, in order to have seen Jimi Hendrix live. I'd be willing to be 2000 years older than I am, in order to have seen the Rome of Augustus live.
What I find wrong is when reconstruction involves reinterpreting the project with different materials. I believe it distorts the place; if you're going to intervene, it should be as historically accurate as possible, including the materials.
@@akhripasta2670 I don't think so, I should just say only a reconstruction, because the point is to keep as many original pieces as possible and complete the missing parts with the same materials, as with some of the examples in the video.
Lots of the material isn't around anymore sometimes you just have to go with best replacement. I've seen some really good restaurations/reconstruction where they deliberatly used differnt material to show of what was originale and what was filled in depending why you do it it might even be more "honest". Also if it needs to be fully functional and not just something to look at you might wanna make it a bit more functionale. That has happenned with any old building still in use.
I visited Knossos and until today thought the throne room was real. If you want to see more total reconstruction, look at cities destroyed in WWII. Stare Miasto in Warsaw is an amazing reproduction of the original. The Poles used the actual brick and paintings by Canaletto as models. Rotterdam in Germany looks pristine; not one brick was standing on another in 1945.
Restorations and reconstructions are fine as long as they're documented and advertised as such. People deserve to know what they're actually viewing. I hate visiting places that don't make it clear or conveniently leave out that information specifically to pass off a place or building as completely authentic.
Try telling that to the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and all the peoples of the Far East, who have always completely rebuilt their wooden temples to the identical.
Clicked on the video expecting rant on buildings from antiquity being mostly rebuilt, get instantly reminded of the battle for Monte Cassino. Instant win for me!
I'm gutted to hear that the frescos at Knossos are "imagined". I have always loved Minoan frescos. Even have some prints on my wall. I need to find out which are original designs and which are Evan's designs.
Many of the famous ones are at least partially real. You can often tell the difference because the original portions of fresco look rough and textured, and the new additions are smooth. Some like the boxers fresco in this video contain both original paint and new paint to connect the old fragments
Much of them aren't imagined, and the ones that were newly made are using figures that are seen on original fragments. So the frescos were not made up in modern times.
I love archaeology and love visiting ruins. This video did a great job of explaining that what you see ain't exactly true. The pyramid of Chichen Itza is "rebuilt" on two sides (the sides in the brochures) and original on two sides. You can see what the reconstruction actually did. I am always amazed that the local cultures want the tourist dollars but not the tourists. "Colonialism."
I don't think that make those ancient places "fake" it makes them rebuilt for the most part maybe the intentions were wrong but it help to keep them from fading away to time! 😎
I'm reminded of many aircraft restorations. A wreck, maybe dragged from a lake, is rebuilt into a flyable aircraft. But often very little of the original plane actually makes it back into the air.
I once visited a 5000 year old dolmen and was really amazed by it until I noticed a metal rod connecting 2 of the stones. It turned out to have been partly reconstructed. I guess that was the right call, a collapsed dolmen being nothing but a heap of stones.
Thanks this is exactly what I felt going through Europe . There are many much older and historical well preserved sites in Indian subcontinent and china … which are underrated and do not get unesco protection …
Not really, the paradox of the shop is not really a paradox as it precedes an assumed reality, that when applied to architecture is impossible. If you have a Gothic cathedral, stones will have to be replaced from time to time. Say that after 4000 years there wont be a "original"/foundational stone, which is unlikely, the stones that replaced it are already historical, so it fixes itself. Its like us, by the time we are 30 our cells aren't the same as when we were born, yet, we are the same person, we change, but we are still one.
In the last summer I worked in Pompeii for a week doing architectural surveys for my university together with archaeologists. A lot of the buildings were rebuilt in the 70's and 80's using the same materials and techniques used in the past making the old almost entirely indistinguishable from the new, making work very difficult for archaeologists. In some cases, if lucky, new parts added to the ruins were differenciated by using a row of very thin bricks arranged in a line following the profile of the original masonry.
If the reconstruction was done 1000 years ago from now, so still 1000 years after the eruption, would they be fake houses or repairs and reuse at a later period? We dont talk like this about ancient structures we never stopped using. We dont call the Roman Pantheon fake, or St Peters Basilica, or the Hagia Sophia. After WWII much of residential but including historical Europe, China and Japan was burned or bombed down. Are all these places faked, or repaired and reused?
@@Rynewulf Almost no buildings in Europe OR China OR Japan are original, OR ancient. People, gasp, live in cities. Towns are not museums for rich tourists from America who don't have own history and want to see us as goddamn frozen nativity scenes! London, Paris, Osaka, Kyiv, all were rebuilt, multiple times. Some buildings are considered old because they were pre-war, aka before 1939, that's antiquity for us. In USA nothing is old so they think we should freeze our lives or something so they could gaze ffs.
One of the reasons that I find Selinunte in Sicily such an interesting site is that you can turn from the reconstructed Temple E to see Temple F and Temple G as piles of earthquake tumbled stones.
Stabilizing or reconstructing the very real remaining material fragments of history doesn't make the end result "fake" just restored with the necessary augmentation. It's palpable preservation that can now be viewed giving people a glimpse of worlds long lost. It's true of every major archaeological excavation ever undertaken worldwide otherwise there would just be piles of rubble and dust. It tells a story just like the movie "Gladiator" and these are experiences and places I've gone out of my way to enjoy so thanks to those who cared enough to relate it all to me.
I do genuinely like it when sites that have nearly nothing left get reconstructed but when sites get reconstructed where a good enough amount is left gets rebuild I don’t like it. then just rebuild it nearby or something so you can compare.
The area around the Castell Saalburg is absolutely beautiful, especially the Taunus or Wetterau region. Really recommend. Btw great Video as always, please keep em coming
While I respect this point of view, a building is not “fake” if it requires restoration. Upkeep and maintenance are required for all building projects, including modern ones. No refers to a modern house as fake or worth less if you, for instance, replace the external siding or renovate the interior.
It’s nice when the museums and historical sites explain this to visitors.. you are looking at a Meticulously, painstaking piece of recreated history.. think of it as Jay Leno’s cars and steam engines that he has restored… yes, most of the Old World buildings in Europe were destroyed in countless wars and earthquakes, fires.. just like Notre Dame Cathedral in France.. rebuilt and beautiful…
Good point. In my mind a “fake” is something done purposely to fool the observer (usually with ill intent). These are reconstructions or restorations. Probably using the “f” word for attention. It worked for me!
@@cindland The Architecture is so detailed and just beautiful… today this can be pressed out of recycled plastic, spray coated with a cement mixture and Recreate beautiful buildings instead of the ugly boxes of the Modern Architecture style… btw.. If you watch Jay Leno and his restorations, they are Museum Quality.. nut by nut documentation, he has a collection of Duesenberg’s that are unmatched… furthermore, on his driving cars, he puts on modern breaks, tires, lights and even seatbelts!!!! History is everywhere
Using T.I.S. logic the Pantheon in Rome is also 'fake" since total reconstruction by Trajan is not like the Agrippa orig. especially the now famous dome.
@@vpking77 Again. you are not seeing the original roof structure built under Agrippa, the Trajan version is vastly different...so essentially "fake" by TIS standards.
@@r0ky_M I understand that but it was still dedicated AD 126 that is less than 100 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. It's almost 1900 years old and completely intact. This isn't like picking up pieces of rubble and reconstructing a temple. When you view the dome from the inside you can imagine what Rome looked like when they were the center of the world. The Colosseum was even 50 years old when the Pantheon was finished The Arch of Constantine was still a few centuries away from being erected. Historically it was right there during the height of the Roman Empire.
I have absolutely no objection to a studious anastylosis (rebuilding) of the totall ruined buildings that no one can imagine how they must have been, or to protect what has survived. Thank you Doc
Apparently the sense of 'original vs fake' is different in different parts of the world. cant remember if it was a Michael Palin documentary but it was that type of guy visiting a temple in Japan, who was shocked when told this famous temple was burned down or knocked apart by earthquakes multiple times since its founding many centuries ago. And his tour guide was puzzled when asked whether it was the original: they just repaired or rebuilt and kept using it. Same building, just fixed up. We might need to start factoring changes in a site as part of its authentic history rather arbitrarily splitting it between: perfect pure original vs nasty corrupt fake. This includes the dodgy reconstructions like at Knossos: that is now a piece of history of the site itself!
When certain governments do re, it’s propaganda. When other governments do it, “it’s a clear sign of commitment”. Always remember that you live in a system and it’s only propaganda when others do it.
Thanks to these reconstructions, we can marvel at several monuments today, and they will surely be appreciated for thousands of years to come. Let's not only think about ourselves but also about the generations that will come after
Bit of clickbate the title reconstructed if done correctly is something very differnt then fake in my opnion. Also those obilisks wheren't fakes just the location wasn't correct. Not sure who you made this clipp for because most of us who live closeby know its not the originale building. You can also say that any building that underwent a lot of repairs is a fake.
Very interesting and overdue explanation. Although I would not have shown this video to my students before taking them to Rome for a month when I directed study abroad. The entire trip all I would’ve heard is, “is this fake too?”
Reconstruction is cool, especially when it uses as much original material as possible. The wonders of the ancient were destroyed by war and sinister hand, it’s our job to restore what’s been destroyed to let those ahead of us see the civilization behind them.
They were often built by sinister hand, too. The massive statues and pillars of antiquity were as much a statement of power and authority as all the monuments the Nazis and Communist put up in the twentieth century. Nobody today knows the death toll and iniquity of ancient projects the way we do modern ones. Vespasius annihilated a whole neighborhood to put up the Colosseum, not perhaps so different than Ceaușescu did in Romania to build the Palace of the Parliament.
The temples of Japan are basically built on wood materials. They are re-built every 40 years. I visited the war load residence hall in Kyoto several years ago. In the entrance section, there are a team working on the site. They tried to replace the entire wood frame of the doorway with the old methods. Hand-tools are the standard with limited electric power tools.
Not really, temples are generally not rebuild. Due to them being built out of wood they are prone to fire and decay so parts often get renovated. However some well preserved temples are still standing relatively unchanges for hundreds if years. The habit of intentionally completely rebuilding is done in japan, however not with Temples. This cyclical reconstruction is only done with the Ise Grand Shrine, a Shinto Shrine not a Buddhist Temple.
Paris is dotted with actual fake ruins among its various parks, built as ruins during (I think) the picturesque era to instill a sense of mystery & wonderment. But I mean, an Egyptian tomb? Even when I was 12 I felt that was going overboard.
That is my problem with the term "fake". most of the buildings referenced in the video did not have a static history either. they were used and maintained for centuries so were the inhabitants creating falsity by updating or repairing them? Even well considered restorations have to choose a period and material to emulate which may only be authentic to one moment in a site's history. The use and change of a site is as much a part of its history and authenticity as any specific moment.
@@adrianwebster6923 I think the difference is that the inhabitants throughout time were attempting to repair, maintain, and improve them for practical use. There wasn't an intent - or at least not as much as today - to claim that it was "always like this".
I think the ancient temples in India have always remained as temples...big difference! I am sure if a stone fell apart it was replaced with a similar stone but I would say they are 90% original to when they were built, they just don't get the credit they deserve because it is the East.
‘Fake’ is found in Michigan and in Disneyworld! What you describe in your video is more about faithful reconstruction. The destruction and the rebuilding of ‘Monte Casino’ is well known here in Europe and it is part and parcel to the history of the Second World War. I would encourage you to visit Warsaw’s old town and see what you call ‘Fake.’
No they’re fakes pretending to be buildings that haven’t undergone restoration.. nice try trying to deflect. Ur country is full of fake ancient buildings
Just to give some perspective, the famous bell tower of Saint Mark's square in Venice collapsed in 1902 and was completely destroyed. The mayor of Venice ordered it to be rebuilt "where it was, as it was". The current building is technically a "fake", but it begs the question: would Venice be better if they just cleared the rubble and left an empty space for the sake of "authenticity"?
I support the reconstruction of ancient monuments done with care. We are not at the end of history, the world will continue for another hundred years after us and we will become history as well. When we choose to restore a monument, I believe we leave behind a positive impact on history.
Not the end of history, wait, whaaaaat???? So I've been sitting and waiting in the Restaurant at the End of History in the Fukuyama House for no reason?
Take an English gothic cathedral - I'll use York Minster as an example. It's actually continually being rebuilt, if you like, as part of ongoing onservation. In recent years a lot of the west facade has been renewed because the stone work had greatly deteriorated; and of course there's no guarantee that even the stonework that was replaced was actually original - it could have been replaced previously. And 50 years ago the whole structure had to have new foundations and then be pulled back together - parts of it were drifting away from the rest. So there's not a lot of York Minster that is it was when it was first built. However, it's still a magnificent building.
This is adjacent to the topic of the video, but I think it qualifies here: The NPS stance (at least it was decades ago) was that if a man-made historic structure was damaged by human action that it would be completely restored to its prior appearance. I learned this as a teen back in the 1980s when I asked a park ranger what the NPS would do if Mount Rushmore was damaged by terrorists. He said the NPS would spend whatever it took to restore the faces. But if something natural damaged them, very likely they'd be left as-is.
100% They tore down old buildings all the time and used the materials to make something new. If we used their mindset today, we'd knock down the Parthenon and use the marble pillars and carvings to decorate a new civic center and shopping mall.
Completely disagree with calling them "fake". If you think about it, *these buildings would need restoration work anyway*. Restoration of buildings is just a fact of life, otherwise buildings turn to rubble. Or will the repairs done to the Notre Dame in Paris because of the recent damage make it "fake" as well? Of course not. After the archeological excavations are complete, what's the point of preserving them in a state of rubble? It makes no sense to "honour the past" is such a purist way that the result is to never touch them and have them rot until they disappear, or just having a bunch of stones laying around. I say, not only the work of restoration is good, but *it should be done completely*. As long as, as you say, they try to be as faithful as possible to the design and materials. Buildings such as the Colosseum in Rome should be completely restored and made useful again, not just for tourism, but games should take place there again (without killings). The whole Roman forum should be rebuilt. As faithfully as possible to the original of course. And make it useful again. Re-open the pagan temples etc. You mention the Nationalists had a political agenda when recovering these monuments. It makes it sound bad! Is that your intention? Does it mean recovering the artefacts is bad? As someone who sees the beauty in human civilisation, I couldn't care less if they have a political agenda, and gladly praise and thank the nationalists or anyone else for preserving and reviving our ancient history! Regarding fakes - fakes are, for example, reconstructions in the USA (although I rather call them honourable tributes).
Damn that point about the acropolis of Athens being "constructed" in modern times.... I kinda feel like I just found out that Santa Claus isn't real... lol
On a side note, a tree can regrow from its living roots and a minimal part of it's trunk, or it can grow from its seed. There's also cloning and dead people don't rebuild. Said this, I think that whatever from the distant past is perfectly preserved holds a special fascination.
As Augmented Reality (AR) technology advances, I think it would serve most purposes if we could simply protect/conserve existing ruins in place, but apply AR so that a visitor could (for example) hold up a tablet (e.g. an iPad) and see the likely original structure superimposed - either realistically or semi-transparently - over the scene. The needed AR technology isn't quite there yet, but we're getting closer.
For our sake (the whole humanity), I hope we don't replace seeing (visiting) some place/object with watching some realistic 3D photo of that place/object.
@@ContraVsGigi There may be a miscommunication here. I was not suggesting a purely computer generated image on your PC screen, but the ability to visit a real site in person, complemented by the ability to hold up a tablet and see a nondestructive "reconstruction" on the tablet screen, superimposed over the actual remaining buildings. This way, there would be no intrusion on the existing, surviving relic, but you could also see an image (in place) of what it probably looked like when it was new. The best of both worlds. In any event, most of the world cannot afford to travel to these sites (and the sites would be destroyed by too much tourist traffic) - so, for millions of people a 3D reconstruction will be the only viable option.
Yeah but I want to see VR step it up. I'd love to go visit the place, and then enter into museum where I could get a 3D projected VR all around me of our best known idea of what it looked like in its original time. Can't wait till we get that kind of technology.
An additional benefit of these kinds of 'digital museums' is that the vast majority of the world's population can't afford or are otherwise unable to travel to many incredible historic sites, but with improving lidar scans & research-based reconstructions, hopefully these incredible treasures will continue to become more accessible and more widely valued? (Inc. within their countries of origin). Not arguing that digital can replace actual btw, just that majority of people will never get a chance to experience the latter...
I guess it has already been done, but maybe a good follow-up video would be to discuss which structures are the most authentic, best preserved, etc. Those that have a combination of being mostly intact with the least amount or most authentic restoration work.
Now, in Germany, I'd like to introduce three examples of rebuilding of historical buildings: 1) The Munich Residence. The Munich Residence was also damaged during WWII, but it was authentically rebuilt/reconstructed. But not completely. However, some baroque ceiling paintings have been lost, so only the background was reconstructed not the figures. Also, the 19th Century Byzantine Style Historic Revival All Saints Court Church was severely damaged and all its golden mosaics have been lost, so these days only the brickwork building has been restored as "Rohbau". 2) The Dresden Frauenkirche. The baroque protestant church of Our Lady has been reduced to a charred ruin in WWII and remained such until it was rebuilt in the early 2000s (finished 2005). The rebuilding and reconstruction included the charred ruins and blackened stones that could be salvaged, so while it looks like it has never been destroyed from the inside, the outside is very honest with its contrast of yellow and blackened stone. 3) The Berlin City Palace (Stadtschloss) / Humbold-Forum. The old city residence of the Hohenzollern Electors of Brandenburg, Kings of Prussia and German Kaiser was completely destroyed in WWII and then completely removed by the East German regime to built a modernist "Palace of the Republic". That palace however was removed after reunification, and now a reconstruction was built. The original and the rebuilding have a dome with a cross on top and a Bible verse inscription. And that part was and is very controversial: A honest reconstruction could have rebuilt the dome in simplified forms without a cross but just a rod on top and without Bible verse inscriptions. But some people in charge of the rebuilding effort wanted to pretend as if the City Palace had never been destroyed.
Painstakingly recreating old buildings in the style they were in old times out of a sense of nostalgia is a occupation for extraordinarily wealthy countries. If/when sub-saharan countries ever have more money than they can think of things to spend it on, they'll do this too. That being said, some of the more grandiose African dictators have built monumental architecture - such as the world's largest church - that echoes the efforts of ancient dictators.
@@Dan-xx5jq Africa hasn't been dug through by archeologists the way Europe has. It's similar to how American and Eurasian dinosaurs are well-known and studied, but African ones aren't. The continent hasn't been a good place for that sort of work in the time that that sort of work has existed. We won't know what, if anything, is under there until there's the chance to look.
There are loads of them, however due to colonialism a lot has been destroyed, and plus the buildings of Africa weren’t designed to last long like that of the Europeans
I think the way Japan handles it is quite respectful. Over the last thousand years, there have been cases where iconic shrines have been lost for various reasons and they have been rebuilt faithfully in their original image. The building continues - it doesn't have to be the exact same literal building as the ancient one, as long as it is historically accurate, I think it can be considered a continuation of the same building. Kinkakuji was rebuilt in the 50s, but seems much older culturally. Toki no Kane in Kawagoe was rebuilt in the 1800s, and so on.
European country languishing under Fascist or Communist oppression: ''Oh dear! These awful tyrants! Won't someone help free our country?'' Same European country after the USA frees it and gives it democracy: ''Yankee, go home!''
I’m all for reconstruction as long as they try to keep it as authentic as possible, there’s only so many foundations you can look at!
I've thought this about hill forts in Britain. There's over three thousand of them so surely a few could be restored to exhibit.
Brien Forrester makes a ton showing idiots foundation blocks.
Same here and maybe even paint them in their ancient colors, which can be discerned with raking lights.
Ah yes, everything is a temple in archeologists eyes as that BRINGS eyes to their work and they get to make more "trips" to discover romanticized baloney they make up which has nothing to do with reality as that romanticization is not how humanity works, but that is how humanity LIES to itself about how they "work".
An authentic reconstruction--even partial--is so helpful for understanding what the building looked like in the past.
In the library I worked there was a book about the rebuilding of Warsaw. The city was, basically, erased during WWII. But there were photos, and drawings. Nearly every church, monument, historical building, anything before WWII was rebuilt as it was. The before-after photos (ruined-rebuilt) were breathtaking.
polish person here! i live in Warsaw and let me tell you we learn so much about the rebuilding of Warsaw in school! It’s really amazing how people got together (a lot of citizens after work would come and build for a few hours) and tried to rebuild while remembering what came before as a way to process the trauma of war, and when you look at the pictures they used as references the buildings are very similar! also shout out to the people who, before the n*zis came, took and hid art so it wouldn’t be destroyed.
(of course there’s a lot of nuance to be talked about and people from different parts of Poland disagree about things, ya know mostly about the communist government and how that influenced the rebuilding process buuuut that’s a topic for another time,, and the point still stands)
Glad to hear! "Fortunately" destroyed capital allowed to rebuild center of city in a modern way. Oldtown is rebuilded almost perfectly but some places like the royal palace is not fully reconstructed as would be. If you want more information I have link for you: ruclips.net/video/9heDZXjn2yM/видео.htmlsi=ZkFyLEc9UrbsMFn6 (probably no translation :( )- the expert says is not possible anything to rebuild in this same way as before and is not an easy task.
That's a truly grand achievement considering how most Central European cities were rebuilt. What made Warsaw different?
@@sourryebread it wasn't Germans doing most of destruction... in Ukraine, most of the country was occupied by Germans, and they barely destroyed any monuments or cities. But russians don't leave a single stone unturned. You can easily see how any Ukrainian city looked during occupation in 1941 and how much worse anything a russian is allowed into looks post-2014. It's like Babel written, their goal in Poland was to make a big pile of crap in any rich looking house or church. It's their "culture". All writers like Tostoy and Dostoyevsky cheered for literal smearing of feces of art.
@@SamAronow Good question! Minding that industrial infrastructure and historic buildings were ruined in 90% (overall in 84%), the prospect of reconstruction seemed so unlikely that the Polish authorities considered moving the capital to Łódź, where most of the pre-war buildings had survived.
Yet the post-war reconstruction of Warsaw was the first attempt in the history of the world to reconstruct the entire historical core of the city, not only its most valuable monuments.
So why was Warsaw rebuilt? There were several reasons:
- Human: from January 1945 people continued to flow into the city; former residents and other homeless newcomers gathered among the icy ruins, beginning to rebuild on their own.
- Political: Stalin, who was preparing for the Yalta conference, needed international recognition, and this could be provided by a reborn Poland with its capital in Warsaw.
- Patriotic: the general inspector of monuments in Poland at that time (Jan Zachwatowicz) was guided by the principle that "the nation and the monuments of its culture constitute an organic unity".
It wasn't easy for him because the Soviet faction insisted on modernist reconstruction (his idea was also in opposition to the then dominant conservation doctrine).
The initial scale of the reconstruction proposed by Zachwatowicz was drastically reduced, but it was thanks to his and his team's determination that a huge part of the Old Town and the Royal Route was meticulously recreated.
I would love to see a counterpart video to this one which highlights the best preserved truly original / authentic / non-restored structures we still have from antiquity. It would sort of be the "yang" to this video's "yin."
The Pantheon in Rome is nearly all original. Even the floor is 80% original. You can walk on the very stones where the pagan Romans walked with their togas.
@@JPKnapp-ro6xm the senate building aka the curia julia in rome is still real, a lot of the interior is lost but the building itself is still there.
I agree.
its really rare, because if you think of it in a period of thousands of years people had and did affect nearly every ancient building. maybe it was a slight exhageration this, video since it's quite visible the ancient part. we can only be thankful for what remains
That’d be great
Choose one:
A - Rebuild it as faithfully as possible even if not 100% perfect
B - Let it erode and turn to rubble and then to sand and then oblivion
I choose A
"Authentic BUT NOT original" for those informed reconstructions.
Should have said: For those informed reconstructions: "Romantisized authentic BUT NOT original"
Sometime there is nothing left to reconstruct.
In about 1930 Mussolini, at great expense drained Lake Nemi, and recovered two of Caligula's 2,000 year old 250 foot long pleasure boats.
In WW2 in 1944 the US Army fired cannon shells into the museum containing the two huge wooden boats. The museum and the boats were totally destroyed by the resulting fire from the cannon shells.
See Wikipedia....Nemi ships
@@pigdroppings Need a spellcheck on the second fact :)
My dentist has entered the chat
@@pigdroppings WWII not WWI.
"Fakes" is definitely not the right word to use here. Ancient buildings carry their own history, the fact they needed to be restored doesn't make them "fakes". A fake is the Parthenon in Tennessee, not the Colosseum in Rome
Yes I absolutely agree with you. They also use most of what they can find with the original material when reconstructing or renovating the original structure so in a sense these are still original.
You took the words out of my mouth. I have visited most of these sites and I have revisited them over the last 47 years. The preservation of these buildings isn't necessarily for tourism or nationalism. Rebuilding will extend the life of these buildings and make them available for future generations. My family volunteers to do archeology digs and rebuilding history.
The wording was done intentionally for curiosity clicks. It's an otherwise good video, but it was cheapened by a mostly misleading title.
Fakes the right word. They do this in the fossil world too. They find a jaw & feel entitled to make a whole plaster body & call the whole thing a fossil. Pre-fix things with the word "partial" when less than half of it is crutches
@@SirBuzz nah some of his statements were bullshit too
There's a thing called the Venice Charter from 1964 which is the expected international standard for restorations and reconstructions. It sets out all the basic principals like " must stop at the point where conjecture begins" (zero tolerance for guesswork ) , and additional material must "bear a contemporary stamp" (in 100 years you can know what's new and what's old) and " all periods to the building of a monument must be respected".
That sounds like a sensible charter for restoration.
I suspect most modern restorations would fail these criteria.
I would expect most restorations in developed countries of anything significant to follow it. And the rest of the world, it can be hit and miss but it's getting better. I've seen foreign archaeologist refuse to restore element of buildings that would be conjecture, then the ministry just hires someone else to do it after they leave. There are often issues with ministries sharing responsibility for archaeology/culture and tourism and having split goals. It's pretty much required by UNESCO for world heritage listing. Any private restoration of a villa or castle in France or Poland though, anything goes. .. I'd also say some people do a better job than others about adding a modern touch to additions to make it clear what's original and what's fake, and you can get a LOT of bitching by people who want it to be indistinguishable or are triggered by the "modern touch".
that is what modern restoration is, even more so. some people would rather let it rot than to intervened and save it to its former glory.
@@scottn2046 I find the "respect all the historical periods of the building" problematic.
Imagine a buliding that was bulit in... somewhat mid XVIII century in baroque, suffered from a fire in early XIX century, was shifted to a different organisation, got restyled some of the facade, half of the third floor being turned into a chapel, and half of the inside circa 1820 in late Empire, suffered a major flood in 1840s, got first floor and half-underground floor redone, changed hands again, got retrofitted with sewage and electrical, got it's owners pushed out violently during a revolution and repurposed into small rooms and the chapel into a worker canteen, got damaged by WWII carpet bombing causing a fire and some shrapnel as well, got fixed with what they had in 1950s and 60s and turned into an office of two or three several government organisations consequently?
Almost all historical landmarked bulidings in my country are like that and more brutal than that. I know a historical church depraved of it's domes turned into I don't remember what and then a martial arts gym, and it looks like the weirdest thing could possibly even be bullit if you don't know why. Some of the oldest bulidings got the number of floors changed and windows re-cut multiple times through the history, they're weird
Countries such as the UK where they have the same castles in the same hands and lawns around them kept pristine for centuries they obviously don't have such problems.
@@annasolovyeva1013 "Respect" is a deliberately vague word and these are ideals that can be interpreted broadly. It's a response of excessive zeal in the 20th century to clear classical sites of medieval houses or rescue medieval churches from baroque encrustratations. Nobody is saying you can't rip out those ugly 1930s tiles from when it was a workers canteen, it doesn't mean you can't rip off the baroque frescoes to reveal the medieval ones underneath - you just have to aknowleldge that the building is a complex Palimpsest and all these layers are part of its story. it's really a call to think twice before you erase layers that don't interest you, to prioritise the layer that does interest you. And to remember that what you care about today, may not be what people care about in 100 years and the future may be horrified at what you destroyed/
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire"
- Gustav Mahler
O true Lain
@ChucklesMcGurk Then you're doin' it wrong.
@ChucklesMcGurk Mahler was talking about how it is important to keep alive the passion in creation, and not just study technicalities. He could have stated it as such, but preferred to give it a poetic touch.
as long as you preserve the fire that makes the ashes that you worship...
@ChucklesMcGurk Talking like a true Modernist, indeed following the modernist tradition is seeking a fire set by fascist that is long gone.
I really appreciate when you can clearly tell which parts were restored, and which parts are original. This restoration style is both honest and educational, while still displaying the former beauty of the original design. Having grown up in a medieval town myself, I've always found it confusing seeing more than 4 different types of brick in the same old building, because at some point it gets difficult to tell what time period which part is from. Though it seems that larger and more rotund stones were used often for the oldest layers, which at least gives you somewhat of a perspective.
Reconstructed but not fake!
Can it be fake reconstructed...from what fotography they reconstructed those buildings...hmmm?
Reconstructed after 1000 of years lol. It is fake.
@@Pumbarumba nope, fakes are the replicas in the USA. Every building needs restoration and maintenance work anyway. In my city we have a 2000 year-old temple/church that went through many stages & phases. These were necessary because the alternative would be for it to turn to rubble. It's just maintanence. "Restoration" is just late maintenance work.
@@AntonioBrandao which city ? How christian church is 2000 yr old ?
@@Pumbarumba the city is Braga (originally Braccara Augusta) it was originally a Roman Temple and then became a Church / Cathedral. Parts of the Roman Temple are still there. It went through many stages of life and has clearly different “layers” in the stone.
It’s not a fake obviously. It’s like a living thing, changes with time. Every new phase is as authentic as the previous.
I couldn't be happier that people have attempted to reconstruct or restore these iconic ancient sites. Given a choice between rubble or a reconstruction, it's a complete no-brainer to me. If they rebuilt Pompeii from the ground up, I would be ecstatic.
It's fun for visitors (and I always enjoy visiting those fake "ancient" buildings), but it also detracts from the awe of being in the presence of an authentic piece of history.
@@Unknown-jt1jo I dunno dude, I'd much rather see ancient sites rebuilt and fixed back up as best as possible rather than potentially gazing on rubble and destroyed rock😂
@@Unknown-jt1jo I certainly feel you on the sense of history, but this is a ship of theseus situation. How much of the colosseum needs to be authentic? What if it's a modern rebuild using the original stone? What if you don't even KNOW that it's more modern restoration?
@@Unknown-jt1joWhat awe is to be had when seeing a literal pile of rocks?
In WW2 the allies ( British or US ??) bombed Pompeii. About 140 bombs fell on Pompeii. I assume that the US helped rebuild the damaged areas.
Restoration is not fake. If a building was built in 100 BC, partially destroyed in a war in 20BC, and fully restored in 120 AD. Would you consider it a fake? If we judge history through a narrow view of our insignificant human body life span, we get a distorted view of history. We should always look at things within a range of thousands of years
Using Stonehenge has an example, the site was restored several times but most recently in the 1960's. Only a few stones stood in the oldest drawings, so the construct is a reimagination of what it looked like.
However, the sinister part is hearing science talk about the site, saying they believe it to be a celestial construct and so it was rebuilt as one. It is nothing but pure speculation and as for Stonehenge being rebuilt, it's like a fogotten fact.
@@simon3745 what do you think Stonehenge was?
@@CharlieKeiser it doesn't really matter what I think. The stones were found from antiquity, they don't know for certain who built it or why, so they speculate. In the exact way the pyramids are tombs despite there being scant evidence to align with the belief.
Restorations that are represented as the original are fake by design. It's a sinister gov practice that's seemed to develop in modern times. Our wars destroyed a lot of the ancient sites that were rebuild and are now represented as original. I bet my house that none of you would consider a restored Rembrandt as an original...its a fake if it's going to be represented as an original. Every single one of you would feel like you got swindled. Let's not pretend otherwise just for the sake of argument smh. Just be honest...
If it is not in its original form, then its not original. Hence, fake. Like a Chinese Versace knockoff. The recreated version is fake right? Not original or authentic. Recreated. So, your whole comment was misled
I don't mind restoration, as long as it more or less meets 3 criteria: 1. Non destructive of original materials, 2. Reversible 3. Done honestly.
That is to say there are markers and indicators that explain what was done and why. I'm reminded of the Arch of Hadrian in Athens. On one side it reads "this is Athens, the ancient city of Theseus" and on the other it reads "this is the city of Hadrian, and not of Theseus" In other words "Hadrian built the stuff on this side, but not on the other side."
The first 2 are tricky I admit, but without taking that risk you just have a bunch of broken stones with no context. And the things things that don't captivate are ignored, forgotten, and eventually lost.
Yes, it's basically the ship of Theseus. Is it still the same ship if all the wood planks have been replaced?
I`m in the construction industry and honestly most of the restoration is not an actual problem.
Basically there 7 (+/-) factors that determine if a building is beautiful or not. These are not a subject of interpretation. Basically your primal part of the brain is telling you that if you go in a place that has those factors you won`t die. So it`s the same principle but different styles (gothic, classic, etc).
So long as you preserve that you can have all the modern stuff like plumbing, electricity etc in there no problem. That`s the valuable part and if you preserve this stuff over time you can walk through the centuries while alive and feel connected to your culture and have that nice primal brain experience at the same time.
@cowboybeboop9420 it is actual problem, one of the 7th wonder of world is just a pillar,which is sold as a giant imaginary temple.
Is the city of Theseus still the same Athens if all the buildings are replaced or rebuilt?
This is not restoration, this is completely fabricating non existing past.
Are you saying Nero’s cellphone shop is not original?
unfortunately not, they had the roof painted back in 1212. At least the iPhone 4s are period accurate.
I remember when an original NeroFone was the size of a suitcase and cost one's whole salary. Fortunately over time the costs came down and so did the size. Now one can be had for three maybe four goats tops and you only need a Trapper Keeper to carry one.
That's progress for ya.
Maybe, but the TIM Sims are fake AF... Caveat Emptor!
I like the idea of walking in the steps of the ancients. Seeing the same buildings and sights that they saw. To get into their mind or lifestyle just for a moment. It’s a complicated feeling, whether it is more important for the building to be of the exact same original materials, or rebuilt to the same effect it would have appeared in their era. To me, it is cooler to touch the same rock than a copy of it, but the copy also may give more insight to how they experienced it. And I’d rather a copy be there than nothing remain. Like I’d rather have THE sword of a famous warrior than a copy of it, but the copy serves different purposes and you can have a bit more freedom with it. Like if we built a second version of the Colosseum simply to hold real events, and keep the real one as original as possible.
I like the idea of constructing an ancient-looking city in the modern era, one where you can feel like you're in that time but with modern luxuries.
An old roman square may not be complete without the obelisk it was built around, but at the same time there's an Egyptian monument incomplete without that SAME obelisk.
@@Planeet-Long Yeah, I like this idea
We should also keep in mind that these buildings were doubtlessly maintained and repaired in antiquity and for centuries thereafter. So when we talk of original, do we mean what it looked like immediately after being built, or a century later, or a century after that?
@@GenXstacker that’s a fantastic point
I really like how in mexiko in most ruins they reconstructed the old buildings with small black stones placed inside the mortar to visibly distinguish the originals and the reconstructed buildings
I'm amazed that Abu Simbel was never mentioned - in the 1960s the entire tomb of Rameses II was disassembled and moved to a new location to avoid it being flooded by the Aswan dam.
Add all the major sites lost in the flood onto the checklist of 'damn they wrecked a lot with that damn' (apparently its made Egypt a lot drier and hotter and played havok on agriculture due to the soil being reliant on flooding for nutrients and minerals)
At least they put in crazy effort to get not only Abu Simbel but a few other spots moved
There are literally hundreds of examples of reconstruction. I'd be amazed if he could squeeze in everyone's pet example.
Abu Simbel does not qualify as fake because it was not rebuilt from rubble. As you wrote, it was dismantled and relocated, with nothing added.
it was a temple not a tomb. ramesis as other pharos of that era were buried in the valley of kings
@@ulutiu Ah, thanks for the info. I did not realise it was a temple.
When I visited the Acropolis in Athens I wondered how it would look like if the traces of Byzantine, Latin and Ottoman periods were still there. I think it would have been incredible to walk through and see the sheer amount of history compressed into that single hill. Although it's still impressive today, it's sad that so much history has been stripped away from it - and many more sites.
You may have an idea by looking at drawing done by tourists in the 17th and 18th century.
What you say could be reversed: I wonder what would be the experience of visiting the Parthenon before the Italians and the Turks blew it up during the siege of Athens in 1689.
Of what it was to follow the divine liturgy when it was converted into an orthodox church with it's frescos icons and iconostasis.
Or what it would have looked if Lord Elgin didn't stole the marbles.
Ruins are not just the building that was intended by the architect.They are scars of History.
The author of this video stated that the Parthenon is a display of Greek nationalism.
Well that's why it was build in the first place, was it not?
It was build because the Persian army destroyed the older Parthenon. And Pericles ordered the remainings of the old Parthenon to be integrated into the wall of the Acropolis facin the city to serve as a reminder.
As a modern Greek, I think we Greeks have all the right to restore our national shrine as a demonstration to the world that we survived all those centuries and will thrive again despite the current efforts of some people to erase us from the face of this earth.
Greek nationalists destroyed most Ottoman monuments and architecture in Greek regions during the 1800s and 1900s.
@@realtalk6195 same thing happened to the Nazis monuments. Who cares?
@Hope_Boat Nazi monuments weren't _centuries old._ They were a decade old at best. They were only in power between 1933 to 1945. I don't agree with everything the Allies destroyed there either.
Greeks destroying centuries-old monuments en masse reeks of insecurity and was a war on tangible history. The Ottoman presence in some areas dates to the 1300s. Turkey largely preserves Byzantine, Roman, Ancient Greek, and pre-historic human sites. It's a plethora of different eras.
@@realtalk6195 Cry me a river. The ottomans turned hundreds of byzantine churches into mosques and Erdogan is still using Agia Sophia as a knife he turns in the wound to provoke ethnical hatered towards the Greeks. In occupied Cyprus the modern Turks destroyed hundred of churches and historical monuments since 1974.
“Whose past and whose present”
Beautiful way to end it
The ruins have to be restored regardless whose past they represent
@@weather2456 They represent your imaginary past
@@supermavro6072 I understand that you feel inferior but I'm not psychologist, go and seek help
My heart sank when I saw the title as my honey moon will be in Italy and Greece specifically for the history. But after all the points it’s like "uh duh"
Yeah, reconstructed is perhaps the better word but it's not like Greek and Italian tourism boards are advertising this fact lol, they are wonderful ancient cities but a lot has happened since the fall of the Roman empire.
@@RuthvenMurgatroydI have to agree the Greek temple on a hill is a real fake if it was built from rubble! 😅
@@Dan-xx5jqWell IT was destroyed 300 years ago.We have paintings showing the Parthenon temple before destruction
I also have looked up pictures before recontruction. It wasnt entirely destroyed.
@@berna6900 why wouldn’t I go see Rome lmao
@@freezeplay1837 I misread what u typed, therefore im sorry.
Think of france's thousands of chateaux, a lot of them are left to rot, mere shells.
Some others are painstakingly restored and become bed-and-breakfast's, wineries, event spaces, private homes...
What makes you feel better inside, seeing old ruins taken over by ivy or a conscious effort to celebrate and use(!) ancient architecture?
Calling a semi-rebuilt thing "fake" is like saying someone is "fake" for having survived cancer treatment or walking with a prosthetic leg.
The first thing we do when we find an ancient vase is...try to see if we can find all the pieces and reconstruct as much as we can.
Our curiosity and our will to re-make is an answer to nature's entropy.
Loved the ending, you ask the right questions about intentions and implications of restorations. Fascinating.
Not as bad as the estimated twenty five thousand British stately homes that were demolished soon after world war two when the Labor government brought in onerous death duties and the heirs didn't have enough money to pay them so they demolished them instead. masterpieces were destroyed!
@@kaloarepo288 I saw a stately home in ruins when I toured southern England by bike in 1984. Literally birds were flying in and out of the windows. As for the Labor gov't., all Communists think alike.
@@leomarkaable1 communists lived in russia, go watch soviet architecture channels if you want to see what they would have done with the old mansions.. in west europe, including the uk we have (among others) socialist parties , not communist. you are a fool if you don't know this and a unpleasant being if you do know this, yet chose to spread alt-right misinformation.
@@Blackadder75there is no difference spiritually between "socialism" and "communism". They are both forces of entropy which abhor order, hierarchy, beauty
@@conehed1138 you have been brainwashed, just like those communists...
modern social democracy in western countries is a pillar of modern civilization, together with liberalism. left, right and center in politics all have their strong and weaker points and can work together. It's only the far left (communism) and far right (trumpism, fascism etc) that are forces of destruction because they don't restrict themselves and escalate into different forms of extremism. Ending with a dictator.
I find that sometimes reconstructions can muddy the water and affect peoples perspectives of history. Praising certain things while others are forgotten/minimized. Great video!
There's room for both approaches: cleaning and clearing up ruins but not adding to them in order for their full history to remain intact and rebuilding ruins while keeping intact the parts that were left to show how they were when they were new.
Reconstruction is just maintenance after a long period of failing to maintain something
It's constructions and is also fake, for instance most of the so called "Ancient Greek" temples were ottoman mosques prior to 18th A.D.
This like that Ship of Theseus paradox.
I think if it’s rebuilt with 95% - 70% of its original material, it’s can still be considered “itself”. Any less than that and it starts becoming a museum replica. Like when an old band reunites with only 1 - 2 of its original members.
@@CosmicMapping That is obvious in Pop Music when small bands change personnel over the years, but what about orchestras a century or more old? Clearly none of the original performers are still there, but the ensemble carries on. A functioning building needs repairs, and sometimes a new roof, floor, plumbing, etc. Palaces and cathedrals that still function have had stuff added and removed over the centuries, and may have taken hundreds of years to be built in the first place.
Rebuilding something that has been buried or in ruins for thousands of years is different. Saddam Hussain ordered some palace at Babylon to be rebuilt, with a few bricks stamped to say that the rebuilding took place in the time of "Saddam the Victorious."
Meanwhile the Wahhabi's have been demolishing thousand-year old shrines for decades in Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban and ISIS got in on the act in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq more recently. The Red Guards did the same in Mao's China and its colonies. The current regime has to balance the needs of tourism with their plans for genocide of all neighbouring nations.
@@faithlesshound5621 Your assertion depends on your personal view of what a “band” even is. If it’s an institution, or a specific group of people. I feel like orchestras are exempt from this, since they’re culturally much different from a “band”. An orchestra generally performs standards written by outside musicians, I can’t even think of an orchestra off the top of my head that writes it’s own material. While a “band”, is generally understood to be a group of people whose specific creative leanings craft their art, so when you just mix and match folks you’re changing the whole creative core of the group and fundamentally altering their art. While an orchestra, generally one violinist will be hired to play the same song as well as the previous who had been hired to replicate the previous, and so-on. Orchestras aren’t understood to be a unique group of people sharing their own ideas as much as an organization of experts performing music written by other artists whose vision they work to be faithful to, rather than their own. I think this fundamentally exempts them from identity decay, as a 200-year-old orchestra will play songs just as well as it did 200 years ago, but a band that had exchanged three out of its five original members will have fundamentally changed.
@@CosmicMapping None of the matter in a human body is that person's "original material," can the person be called "himself," or just a replica? It is not really about composition, is it?
@@CosmicMapping Yeah, like that isn't just some pathetic cash-grab by a bunch of clapped-out rock stars and their money-backers.
They are not fakes but constructioned from original pieces and replacement of lost elements or decayed parts. This is how buildings are maintained over time!
Correct. This is common and many palaces in Poland were rebuilt this way. They even have pictures showing the reproduction pieces and restored original in color coded format.
They are totally fake, no one knows who was there, what did they build, when or how the original condition of these sites was.....etc
@@supermavro6072 Rebuilding is better than glorified rubbles.
@@thefalconflame Most of those are fake buildings made in modern times.
@@thefalconflame rubbles are cool
In my homestate of California, many of the missions are replicas, as most were abandoned, destroyed by earthquakes or looted by locals for building material.
No one cares about California
The Missions, and the way each one has an almost unique strategy of preservation, is what immediately came to my mind as well.
California doesn't have ancient buildings though? Like anything in it that isn't a Wigwam is super ultra mega recent
@@KasumiRINA 1700s
@@KasumiRINA super ultra mega 💀
True tho lol
Yeah 1700s
You could possibly add that the sagrada familia in Barcelona is a guess too. Gaudi died before it was finished and never left exactly plans.
I visited the Capitol in Washington recently. Although from pictures it can be hard to tell, up close you can easily see the stages of building which have happened. The building has evolved so much over time. From 1800 onward, with the latest addition being finished only in 2008. Can you imagine the building being "restored" to its state in, say, 1850? The building would not be recognisable to many.
I suppose the question is, from future archaeologists in the year 5000 to people today: are the white dome and extended wings authentic? Original? Is 1850 the "classic" Capitol? Do you mind if later additions are removed? The building does look better without them, after all...
1:11 temple of Vesta
1:25 The Curia
1:44 The arch of Titus
2:09 colosseum
2:32 Ara Pacis
6:02 Saalburg under Wilhelm II
6:16 The Roman Baths in Bath, England
6:46 Palace of Minos by Sir Arthur Evans >> Minoan Civilization
7:31 Stoa of Attalus
9:04 Athenian acropolis
9:29 Odeion of Herodes Atticus
Japan has an art form called "Kintsugi" in which broken pottery is repaired with a paste mixed with gold, silver or platinum so that the joins are clearly visible. The idea has not caught on much in Europe and America (though it can be learned there) due to the preference for "invisible mending."
I love the story of the guy who popularised the style being invited to a nobles manor, who had recently spent lots of money getting a rare vase to impress his celebrity guest. When he said he thought it was boring and there was nothing there worth his time, the noble is said to have smashed the expensive vase in a rage. When the artist visited again the next day he saw the vase with the telltale gold lines from repair he said something along the lines of "ah now you have something interesting" or "now that is art"
Pretty fun anecdote about a catty celebrity artist
This is the style they used on Kylo Rens helmet in the rise of skywalker
Lacquer and metal dust. I wonder how structures would look with such an approach tho. Do we just make the new additions look different?
i took a class on historic preservation of buildings, and generally the goal is to make it so no one can tell anything new has been used. i don't know if it's a us-centric aim, or if architecture is treated differently than pottery
@@amandak.4246 its typically only old restorations that were dramatic. Pre mid 1900s just about everywhere would use masses of modern paint at best and scale up to dynamite and concrete but then they started thinking about it professionally and researching restoration techniques
It doesn't surprise me many of the buildings are rebuilt or have had significant restoration. Especially when you consider many ancient buildings were either restored or rebuilt at some point in time either by later ancient people or medieval people. So it should come as no surprise modern people still do restoration work on ancient buildings. Even modern buildings need to be maintained to stay in good condition. That's just how it is. I guess the question with ancient buildings is, should they be left to rot, or should they be restored, and if restored, how much restoration is acceptable? A partial restoration to get a sense of how it looked, or a full on restoration to original look (or as original as can be determined from the evidence available).
On another note, I saw someone post an old picture of the acropolis on X the other day, and was wondering why a particular tower in the picture is no longer there today. But I think what you said here answers that question. If the tower was a later Roman structure, I'm guessing it was dismantled to return it to is ancient Greek look.
Buildings usually only survive if at least some effort is put into their maintenance. Every old cathedral you see is only standing because its roof has been continually repaired. You can't ever see things as they truly were hundreds of years ago. Reconstructions are valuable educational tools. Some even occurred so long ago that they're now historical relics in their own right. They're not necessarily 'fake' and we probably shouldn't undo most of them. But we absolutely should publicly acknowledge them and make sure visitors know when and why they were done.
The Octagon lantern on Ely Cathedral springs to mind...
Go to India and China. I will say it’s a lot more impressive.
I like both: Ruins that are left as ruins, where you can imagine what the place could've been like, and authentic reconstructions, where you can feel like how it most likely felt to be one of these people back then walking through these places
Well assuming the abbey is fake is kinda funny because this fake abby has more splendor than any modern building
...but it is a modern building.🤔
@@MiguelDLewis Still doesn't make it a fake. Nobody is saying it was never bombed to oblivian now if most of the stones where replaced over the century's would it be a fake to?
@@arturobianco848 "Fake" is an inaccurate word. "Reconstruction" is a better term. "Renovation" is more accurate too. "Fake" seems too pejorative and has the negative connotation of complete artifice or forgery. Modernity need not be associated with artifice. Kinkaku-Ji in Kyoto, for example, is a modern reconstruction that's consistently renovated but it's not necessarily "fake".
@@MiguelDLewis 🤔 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 👉Renovation⛪
They were not replaced, they were innovated from scratch.
I went yesterday to this abandoned building in the old city of jaffa, and after climbing around and exploring it I found this entrance to a basement that seemed absolutely ancient. It had this large perfectly circular pit with a ridge that I'd imagine was probably used to like crush olives to make olive oil or something like that, and it had this kiln or furnace built into the side of the wall. I'm obviously not sure it was even a furnace, it was just some raised hole in the wall that was too small to be a room but too large to not be very important, and had no exits and a hole that I imagined was ventilation on top. I imagined to myself that this furnace was probably not complex enough to smelt iron, and since this place was clearly a very important large building right in the center of old jaffa so it must have had the most advanced technologies of its age, and combined with the fact that what clearly used to be the ground floor was so deep underground, I imagined that this place must have been built in the bronze age before 1200bc. Do you think that's likely? Is there any way I can verify this? I can provide pictures of everything I saw if that could help
It seems paradoxical that one would try to preserve the history of an ancient building by removing two thousand years of history from around it.
Leaving ruins is not preserving either; it all depends on how it's being implemented and if that requires destroying other things.
@@puma7171 If all you have is ruins, leaving ruins is actually preserving. And you are wrong: it all depends on they you want to use that site. Of course you need also skills and money. Ruins are just less appealing for tourists. And to erase all the later layers of history in a specific place, it's a political/cultural choice, not an historical view.
@@giovannimoriggi5833agreed. Only those with zero wonder about history would be for these kinds of rebuilds. To me, a historical site shows the state it was in when found. If it’s been preserved completely since day one, then that’s fine too but to destroy the actual historical layers just for looks…. Despicable.
I believe it's in Nashville Tennessee, USA, that one finds a true-copy of the Athens Parthenon, complete with monumental statue of Athena within.
Ancient structures cannot be frozen in time in some half-life of partial ruin: either they are restored, or allowed to (slowly) crumble.
If I had a vote, I'd vote to more the Nashville Parthenon to the Acropolis.
In case of Athens in particular: I would give my two healthy kidneys to see the city in its former glory. Fake or not. Nothing beats classical architecture.
I don't see it as something fake, the reconstruction of the Parthenon, but rather as a great example. They use the same materials, yet you can see the difference between the new and the original. It's about continuing the history of the building.
True, classical architecture shows a mastery at sculpting, engineering and visual art. Extremely powerful visually and their is a reason why everyone loves the elegant nature of it.
early restorations on the acropolis were done completely wrong, however the mistakes were rectified and today's restorations are very very precisely carried out and the newest technologies and techniques are used, so as to be as accurate as humanly possible. that's why it is also taking so long. what would be ideal is to have a parthenon like it was before British looting and Venetian bombing.
I wouldn't mind seeing Athens (or Rome) in its original colorful splendor, not the austere white marble we see now.
I occasionally think I'd be willing to be 10yrs older than I am, in order to have seen Jimi Hendrix live. I'd be willing to be 2000 years older than I am, in order to have seen the Rome of Augustus live.
There are those who build structures in their own countries with stones stolen from other countries. Like the Pergamon altar in Germany...
What I find wrong is when reconstruction involves reinterpreting the project with different materials. I believe it distorts the place; if you're going to intervene, it should be as historically accurate as possible, including the materials.
Should be branded as Recreation & close to original
Not as Ancient built 2000years ago
Knossos is an invention; you may call it a fake.
@@myriamickx7969 This reconstruction was not really done correctly
@@akhripasta2670 I don't think so, I should just say only a reconstruction, because the point is to keep as many original pieces as possible and complete the missing parts with the same materials, as with some of the examples in the video.
Lots of the material isn't around anymore sometimes you just have to go with best replacement. I've seen some really good restaurations/reconstruction where they deliberatly used differnt material to show of what was originale and what was filled in depending why you do it it might even be more "honest". Also if it needs to be fully functional and not just something to look at you might wanna make it a bit more functionale. That has happenned with any old building still in use.
I visited Knossos and until today thought the throne room was real. If you want to see more total reconstruction, look at cities destroyed in WWII. Stare Miasto in Warsaw is an amazing reproduction of the original. The Poles used the actual brick and paintings by Canaletto as models. Rotterdam in Germany looks pristine; not one brick was standing on another in 1945.
Restorations and reconstructions are fine as long as they're documented and advertised as such. People deserve to know what they're actually viewing. I hate visiting places that don't make it clear or conveniently leave out that information specifically to pass off a place or building as completely authentic.
Try telling that to the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and all the peoples of the Far East, who have always completely rebuilt their wooden temples to the identical.
yeah, it was constantly burnt down by war in the far east
Clicked on the video expecting rant on buildings from antiquity being mostly rebuilt, get instantly reminded of the battle for Monte Cassino. Instant win for me!
I'm gutted to hear that the frescos at Knossos are "imagined". I have always loved Minoan frescos. Even have some prints on my wall. I need to find out which are original designs and which are Evan's designs.
Many of the famous ones are at least partially real. You can often tell the difference because the original portions of fresco look rough and textured, and the new additions are smooth. Some like the boxers fresco in this video contain both original paint and new paint to connect the old fragments
No, the video is trying to mislead you through a fundamentalist perspective.
Just cuz one asshole on RUclips says so don't mean it's true.
Much of them aren't imagined, and the ones that were newly made are using figures that are seen on original fragments. So the frescos were not made up in modern times.
if there's two soi-disant 'archaeologists' the world should hate it is Evans and Schliemann
I love archaeology and love visiting ruins. This video did a great job of explaining that what you see ain't exactly true. The pyramid of Chichen Itza is "rebuilt" on two sides (the sides in the brochures) and original on two sides. You can see what the reconstruction actually did. I am always amazed that the local cultures want the tourist dollars but not the tourists. "Colonialism."
I don't think that make those ancient places "fake" it makes them rebuilt for the most part maybe the intentions were wrong but it help to keep them from fading away to time! 😎
I'm reminded of many aircraft restorations. A wreck, maybe dragged from a lake, is rebuilt into a flyable aircraft. But often very little of the original plane actually makes it back into the air.
I once visited a 5000 year old dolmen and was really amazed by it until I noticed a metal rod connecting 2 of the stones. It turned out to have been partly reconstructed. I guess that was the right call, a collapsed dolmen being nothing but a heap of stones.
I had to look up the definition of a dolmen.
Two or more large upright stones with another stone laid on top. Mostly found in northern Europe.
@@pigdroppings Thanks, I had to look up the English term myself..
@@pigdroppingsI wouldn’t say mostly. There’s been tens of thousands of them found in the Americas. More than a thousand in Montana alone.
The contents are read so beautifully ,that listening to it itself is a pleasure.
I would prefer to see classical buildings being resurrected than big glass steel boxes
Thanks this is exactly what I felt going through Europe .
There are many much older and historical well preserved sites in Indian subcontinent and china … which are underrated and do not get unesco protection …
Ship of Theseus
Not really, the paradox of the shop is not really a paradox as it precedes an assumed reality, that when applied to architecture is impossible. If you have a Gothic cathedral, stones will have to be replaced from time to time. Say that after 4000 years there wont be a "original"/foundational stone, which is unlikely, the stones that replaced it are already historical, so it fixes itself.
Its like us, by the time we are 30 our cells aren't the same as when we were born, yet, we are the same person, we change, but we are still one.
My grandfather fought at Monte Cassino. He also acquired a photo of Mousolini "visiting a gas station".
Is that the photo where Il Duce is upside down?
I knew a guy whose uncle died at Anzio. Italy was a slaughterhouse.
@@leomarkaable1 All because Yossarian moved the bomb line at Bologna....
Why did your grandpa hate monks?
Was the gas station from the republic period?
Great video! You should do a video on most oldest buildings (where their ancient structures remain intact, with minimal renovations)
I've been looking for information about this for ages. When I was in Pompeii I really wondered how much was real and how much was reconstructed.
In the last summer I worked in Pompeii for a week doing architectural surveys for my university together with archaeologists. A lot of the buildings were rebuilt in the 70's and 80's using the same materials and techniques used in the past making the old almost entirely indistinguishable from the new, making work very difficult for archaeologists. In some cases, if lucky, new parts added to the ruins were differenciated by using a row of very thin bricks arranged in a line following the profile of the original masonry.
If the reconstruction was done 1000 years ago from now, so still 1000 years after the eruption, would they be fake houses or repairs and reuse at a later period?
We dont talk like this about ancient structures we never stopped using. We dont call the Roman Pantheon fake, or St Peters Basilica, or the Hagia Sophia. After WWII much of residential but including historical Europe, China and Japan was burned or bombed down. Are all these places faked, or repaired and reused?
@@Rynewulf Almost no buildings in Europe OR China OR Japan are original, OR ancient. People, gasp, live in cities. Towns are not museums for rich tourists from America who don't have own history and want to see us as goddamn frozen nativity scenes! London, Paris, Osaka, Kyiv, all were rebuilt, multiple times. Some buildings are considered old because they were pre-war, aka before 1939, that's antiquity for us. In USA nothing is old so they think we should freeze our lives or something so they could gaze ffs.
@Rynewulf ah, prime example of the Ship of Theseus thought experiment.
One of the reasons that I find Selinunte in Sicily such an interesting site is that you can turn from the reconstructed Temple E to see Temple F and Temple G as piles of earthquake tumbled stones.
Stabilizing or reconstructing the very real remaining material fragments of history doesn't make the end result "fake" just restored with the necessary augmentation. It's palpable preservation that can now be viewed giving people a glimpse of worlds long lost. It's true of every major archaeological excavation ever undertaken worldwide otherwise there would just be piles of rubble and dust. It tells a story just like the movie "Gladiator" and these are experiences and places I've gone out of my way to enjoy so thanks to those who cared enough to relate it all to me.
I was gonna comment the same thing.
As the old Gladiator owner Proximo (played by the late Oliver Reed) remarks in "Gladiator": we're all just "shadows and dust"
I do genuinely like it when sites that have nearly nothing left get reconstructed but when sites get reconstructed where a good enough amount is left gets rebuild I don’t like it. then just rebuild it nearby or something so you can compare.
Just what i needed!
The area around the Castell Saalburg is absolutely beautiful, especially the Taunus or Wetterau region. Really recommend. Btw great Video as always, please keep em coming
It's pretty clear when restoration work has been done.
not always, heavily depends on the project and style of the restoration
@AdrianCarlosEnriqueFlore-ju6zm how dare you.
While I respect this point of view, a building is not “fake” if it requires restoration. Upkeep and maintenance are required for all building projects, including modern ones. No refers to a modern house as fake or worth less if you, for instance, replace the external siding or renovate the interior.
ship of theseus
It’s nice when the museums and historical sites explain this to visitors.. you are looking at a Meticulously, painstaking piece of recreated history.. think of it as Jay Leno’s cars and steam engines that he has restored… yes, most of the Old World buildings in Europe were destroyed in countless wars and earthquakes, fires.. just like Notre Dame Cathedral in France.. rebuilt and beautiful…
Good point. In my mind a “fake” is something done purposely to fool the observer (usually with ill intent). These are reconstructions or restorations. Probably using the “f” word for attention. It worked for me!
@@cindland The Architecture is so detailed and just beautiful… today this can be pressed out of recycled plastic, spray coated with a cement mixture and Recreate beautiful buildings instead of the ugly boxes of the Modern Architecture style… btw.. If you watch Jay Leno and his restorations, they are Museum Quality.. nut by nut documentation, he has a collection of Duesenberg’s that are unmatched… furthermore, on his driving cars, he puts on modern breaks, tires, lights and even seatbelts!!!! History is everywhere
Using T.I.S. logic the Pantheon in Rome is also 'fake" since
total reconstruction by Trajan is not like the Agrippa orig.
especially the now famous dome.
I posted on this. It was still rebuilt in 117 AD during the Roman Empire. It's one of the few buildings virtually intact from that time.
@@vpking77 Again. you are not seeing the original roof structure
built under Agrippa, the Trajan version is vastly different...so essentially
"fake" by TIS standards.
@@r0ky_M I understand that but it was still dedicated AD 126 that is less than 100 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. It's almost 1900 years old and completely intact. This isn't like picking up pieces of rubble and reconstructing a temple. When you view the dome from the inside you can imagine what Rome looked like when they were the center of the world. The Colosseum was even 50 years old when the Pantheon was finished The Arch of Constantine was still a few centuries away from being erected. Historically it was right there during the height of the Roman Empire.
I have absolutely no objection to a studious anastylosis (rebuilding) of the totall ruined buildings that no one can imagine how they must have been, or to protect what has survived. Thank you Doc
Apparently the sense of 'original vs fake' is different in different parts of the world. cant remember if it was a Michael Palin documentary but it was that type of guy visiting a temple in Japan, who was shocked when told this famous temple was burned down or knocked apart by earthquakes multiple times since its founding many centuries ago. And his tour guide was puzzled when asked whether it was the original: they just repaired or rebuilt and kept using it. Same building, just fixed up.
We might need to start factoring changes in a site as part of its authentic history rather arbitrarily splitting it between: perfect pure original vs nasty corrupt fake.
This includes the dodgy reconstructions like at Knossos: that is now a piece of history of the site itself!
Different thought because that temple is probably like Thesus' ship
I think that it would be very interesting to watch a video about the ancient buildings that have remained 100% original or almost 100% original.
They are not fake they have been repaired or rebuilt, way more ancient buildings should be repaired & rebuilt.
They were built right there and then, fake building for tourist attraction aka disneyland
LIKE THE PYRAMIDS!
When certain governments do re, it’s propaganda. When other governments do it, “it’s a clear sign of commitment”. Always remember that you live in a system and it’s only propaganda when others do it.
Thanks to these reconstructions, we can marvel at several monuments today, and they will surely be appreciated for thousands of years to come. Let's not only think about ourselves but also about the generations that will come after
"Restoration" is just late maintenance work.
Bit of clickbate the title reconstructed if done correctly is something very differnt then fake in my opnion. Also those obilisks wheren't fakes just the location wasn't correct.
Not sure who you made this clipp for because most of us who live closeby know its not the originale building. You can also say that any building that underwent a lot of repairs is a fake.
Very interesting and overdue explanation. Although I would not have shown this video to my students before taking them to Rome for a month when I directed study abroad. The entire trip all I would’ve heard is, “is this fake too?”
Reconstruction is cool, especially when it uses as much original material as possible. The wonders of the ancient were destroyed by war and sinister hand, it’s our job to restore what’s been destroyed to let those ahead of us see the civilization behind them.
They were often built by sinister hand, too. The massive statues and pillars of antiquity were as much a statement of power and authority as all the monuments the Nazis and Communist put up in the twentieth century. Nobody today knows the death toll and iniquity of ancient projects the way we do modern ones. Vespasius annihilated a whole neighborhood to put up the Colosseum, not perhaps so different than Ceaușescu did in Romania to build the Palace of the Parliament.
@@Veylon Ceausescu's cronies survived
Man. How the fuсk did the original people build these when we need giant metal machines and decades of work to replicate. Skilled artisans.
but I don’t think they built it to original specs they over exaggerated everything
The temples of Japan are basically built on wood materials. They are re-built every 40 years. I visited the war load residence hall in Kyoto several years ago. In the entrance section, there are a team working on the site. They tried to replace the entire wood frame of the doorway with the old methods. Hand-tools are the standard with limited electric power tools.
Not really, temples are generally not rebuild. Due to them being built out of wood they are prone to fire and decay so parts often get renovated. However some well preserved temples are still standing relatively unchanges for hundreds if years. The habit of intentionally completely rebuilding is done in japan, however not with Temples. This cyclical reconstruction is only done with the Ise Grand Shrine, a Shinto Shrine not a Buddhist Temple.
Paris is dotted with actual fake ruins among its various parks, built as ruins during (I think) the picturesque era to instill a sense of mystery & wonderment. But I mean, an Egyptian tomb? Even when I was 12 I felt that was going overboard.
What about temples like those in India which are still being used for ceremonies? How can they be expected to fall into ruin?
That is my problem with the term "fake". most of the buildings referenced in the video did not have a static history either. they were used and maintained for centuries so were the inhabitants creating falsity by updating or repairing them? Even well considered restorations have to choose a period and material to emulate which may only be authentic to one moment in a site's history. The use and change of a site is as much a part of its history and authenticity as any specific moment.
@@adrianwebster6923
I think the difference is that the inhabitants throughout time were attempting to repair, maintain, and improve them for practical use. There wasn't an intent - or at least not as much as today - to claim that it was "always like this".
I think the ancient temples in India have always remained as temples...big difference! I am sure if a stone fell apart it was replaced with a similar stone but I would say they are 90% original to when they were built, they just don't get the credit they deserve because it is the East.
@@Dan-xx5jq India isn't Asia or eastern
@@longiusaescius2537 "India isn't Asia"
Okay, troll. I can get the logic if you said Arabia or something. But India? 🤡 It literally borders China
I think this serves as an important reminder why restoration and supporting artisanal trades is so important!
‘Fake’ is found in Michigan and in Disneyworld! What you describe in your video is more about faithful reconstruction. The destruction and the rebuilding of ‘Monte Casino’ is well known here in Europe and it is part and parcel to the history of the Second World War. I would encourage you to visit Warsaw’s old town and see what you call ‘Fake.’
No they’re fakes pretending to be buildings that haven’t undergone restoration.. nice try trying to deflect. Ur country is full of fake ancient buildings
Just to give some perspective, the famous bell tower of Saint Mark's square in Venice collapsed in 1902 and was completely destroyed. The mayor of Venice ordered it to be rebuilt "where it was, as it was". The current building is technically a "fake", but it begs the question: would Venice be better if they just cleared the rubble and left an empty space for the sake of "authenticity"?
I support the reconstruction of ancient monuments done with care. We are not at the end of history, the world will continue for another hundred years after us and we will become history as well. When we choose to restore a monument, I believe we leave behind a positive impact on history.
Not the end of history, wait, whaaaaat???? So I've been sitting and waiting in the Restaurant at the End of History in the Fukuyama House for no reason?
Take an English gothic cathedral - I'll use York Minster as an example. It's actually continually being rebuilt, if you like, as part of ongoing onservation. In recent years a lot of the west facade has been renewed because the stone work had greatly deteriorated; and of course there's no guarantee that even the stonework that was replaced was actually original - it could have been replaced previously.
And 50 years ago the whole structure had to have new foundations and then be pulled back together - parts of it were drifting away from the rest. So there's not a lot of York Minster that is it was when it was first built. However, it's still a magnificent building.
“fake” is not the right word… but yeah, it works as a bait
This is adjacent to the topic of the video, but I think it qualifies here:
The NPS stance (at least it was decades ago) was that if a man-made historic structure was damaged by human action that it would be completely restored to its prior appearance. I learned this as a teen back in the 1980s when I asked a park ranger what the NPS would do if Mount Rushmore was damaged by terrorists. He said the NPS would spend whatever it took to restore the faces. But if something natural damaged them, very likely they'd be left as-is.
I think the ancients would err on the side of beauty.
100% They tore down old buildings all the time and used the materials to make something new. If we used their mindset today, we'd knock down the Parthenon and use the marble pillars and carvings to decorate a new civic center and shopping mall.
Completely disagree with calling them "fake". If you think about it, *these buildings would need restoration work anyway*. Restoration of buildings is just a fact of life, otherwise buildings turn to rubble. Or will the repairs done to the Notre Dame in Paris because of the recent damage make it "fake" as well? Of course not.
After the archeological excavations are complete, what's the point of preserving them in a state of rubble? It makes no sense to "honour the past" is such a purist way that the result is to never touch them and have them rot until they disappear, or just having a bunch of stones laying around.
I say, not only the work of restoration is good, but *it should be done completely*. As long as, as you say, they try to be as faithful as possible to the design and materials. Buildings such as the Colosseum in Rome should be completely restored and made useful again, not just for tourism, but games should take place there again (without killings). The whole Roman forum should be rebuilt. As faithfully as possible to the original of course. And make it useful again. Re-open the pagan temples etc.
You mention the Nationalists had a political agenda when recovering these monuments. It makes it sound bad! Is that your intention? Does it mean recovering the artefacts is bad? As someone who sees the beauty in human civilisation, I couldn't care less if they have a political agenda, and gladly praise and thank the nationalists or anyone else for preserving and reviving our ancient history!
Regarding fakes - fakes are, for example, reconstructions in the USA (although I rather call them honourable tributes).
Damn that point about the acropolis of Athens being "constructed" in modern times....
I kinda feel like I just found out that Santa Claus isn't real... lol
On a side note, a tree can regrow from its living roots and a minimal part of it's trunk, or it can grow from its seed. There's also cloning and dead people don't rebuild.
Said this, I think that whatever from the distant past is perfectly preserved holds a special fascination.
"Whose past? And whose present?"
Devastating questions.
Excellent content. Only a gifted historian could have made this video.
Look, you can go to Venice, Italy, or you can go to the Venezia hotel in Las Vegas. They both have gondoliers.
As Augmented Reality (AR) technology advances, I think it would serve most purposes if we could simply protect/conserve existing ruins in place, but apply AR so that a visitor could (for example) hold up a tablet (e.g. an iPad) and see the likely original structure superimposed - either realistically or semi-transparently - over the scene. The needed AR technology isn't quite there yet, but we're getting closer.
For our sake (the whole humanity), I hope we don't replace seeing (visiting) some place/object with watching some realistic 3D photo of that place/object.
@@ContraVsGigi There may be a miscommunication here. I was not suggesting a purely computer generated image on your PC screen, but the ability to visit a real site in person, complemented by the ability to hold up a tablet and see a nondestructive "reconstruction" on the tablet screen, superimposed over the actual remaining buildings. This way, there would be no intrusion on the existing, surviving relic, but you could also see an image (in place) of what it probably looked like when it was new. The best of both worlds. In any event, most of the world cannot afford to travel to these sites (and the sites would be destroyed by too much tourist traffic) - so, for millions of people a 3D reconstruction will be the only viable option.
Yeah but I want to see VR step it up. I'd love to go visit the place, and then enter into museum where I could get a 3D projected VR all around me of our best known idea of what it looked like in its original time. Can't wait till we get that kind of technology.
An additional benefit of these kinds of 'digital museums' is that the vast majority of the world's population can't afford or are otherwise unable to travel to many incredible historic sites, but with improving lidar scans & research-based reconstructions, hopefully these incredible treasures will continue to become more accessible and more widely valued? (Inc. within their countries of origin). Not arguing that digital can replace actual btw, just that majority of people will never get a chance to experience the latter...
I didn’t realize that Monty cassino was rebuilt after the war
I appreciate reconstructions, better than looking at a pile of stones.
I guess it has already been done, but maybe a good follow-up video would be to discuss which structures are the most authentic, best preserved, etc. Those that have a combination of being mostly intact with the least amount or most authentic restoration work.
Better restored, or even rebuilt, than entirely lost. Which seems in most cases to be the unfortunate alternative.
Now, in Germany, I'd like to introduce three examples of rebuilding of historical buildings:
1) The Munich Residence. The Munich Residence was also damaged during WWII, but it was authentically rebuilt/reconstructed. But not completely. However, some baroque ceiling paintings have been lost, so only the background was reconstructed not the figures. Also, the 19th Century Byzantine Style Historic Revival All Saints Court Church was severely damaged and all its golden mosaics have been lost, so these days only the brickwork building has been restored as "Rohbau".
2) The Dresden Frauenkirche. The baroque protestant church of Our Lady has been reduced to a charred ruin in WWII and remained such until it was rebuilt in the early 2000s (finished 2005). The rebuilding and reconstruction included the charred ruins and blackened stones that could be salvaged, so while it looks like it has never been destroyed from the inside, the outside is very honest with its contrast of yellow and blackened stone.
3) The Berlin City Palace (Stadtschloss) / Humbold-Forum. The old city residence of the Hohenzollern Electors of Brandenburg, Kings of Prussia and German Kaiser was completely destroyed in WWII and then completely removed by the East German regime to built a modernist "Palace of the Republic". That palace however was removed after reunification, and now a reconstruction was built. The original and the rebuilding have a dome with a cross on top and a Bible verse inscription. And that part was and is very controversial: A honest reconstruction could have rebuilt the dome in simplified forms without a cross but just a rod on top and without Bible verse inscriptions. But some people in charge of the rebuilding effort wanted to pretend as if the City Palace had never been destroyed.
I always wonder why there are no sub-Saharan ancient buildings.
Painstakingly recreating old buildings in the style they were in old times out of a sense of nostalgia is a occupation for extraordinarily wealthy countries.
If/when sub-saharan countries ever have more money than they can think of things to spend it on, they'll do this too.
That being said, some of the more grandiose African dictators have built monumental architecture - such as the world's largest church - that echoes the efforts of ancient dictators.
I honestly don't think they existed. Ethiopia does have some because it was close to India and the Middle East.
@@Dan-xx5jq Africa hasn't been dug through by archeologists the way Europe has. It's similar to how American and Eurasian dinosaurs are well-known and studied, but African ones aren't. The continent hasn't been a good place for that sort of work in the time that that sort of work has existed. We won't know what, if anything, is under there until there's the chance to look.
@@Veylon there's nothing
There are loads of them, however due to colonialism a lot has been destroyed, and plus the buildings of Africa weren’t designed to last long like that of the Europeans
I think the way Japan handles it is quite respectful. Over the last thousand years, there have been cases where iconic shrines have been lost for various reasons and they have been rebuilt faithfully in their original image. The building continues - it doesn't have to be the exact same literal building as the ancient one, as long as it is historically accurate, I think it can be considered a continuation of the same building. Kinkakuji was rebuilt in the 50s, but seems much older culturally. Toki no Kane in Kawagoe was rebuilt in the 1800s, and so on.
European country languishing under Fascist or Communist oppression: ''Oh dear! These awful tyrants! Won't someone help free our country?''
Same European country after the USA frees it and gives it democracy: ''Yankee, go home!''
it’s called arrogant and Europeans have a lot of it