eli5 why ancient historical buildings haven’t been kept up? Why are buildings like the Parthenon and the Colosseum in such disrepair? Greece and Rome/Italy have existed the entire time?
In: 508
I had the same question about concentration camps. Then I had a chance to visit Dachau during the MLK holiday as I went to Germany for a Nato conference, but due to the holiday me and my DET SGT and I had a whole day to ourselves. So we went.
Dachau, after WWII ended, was used as a refugee camp. We bombed the absolute shit out of Germany during WWII, and most of the populace was experiencing disease and famine (hence why so many camp prisoners died. The Germans literally couldn’t feed their own citizens.) So after the Marshall plan rebuilt West Germany, their primary focus was on rebuilding their military. This is in the 1960s/70s, so the big fear was the Soviet Union pouring tank divisions into West Germany. So they neglected it.
Today, the camp is a mostly recreation of what it was like. The original buildings are long gone. They’ve built reproductions, but everyone back in 1946 had bigger concerns then preserving a camp. I get it now.
So for the answer to why did the Parthenon fall into disrepair, I bet they had bigger problems to deal with.
I had the same question about concentration camps. Then I had a chance to visit Dachau during the MLK holiday as I went to Germany for a Nato conference, but due to the holiday me and my DET SGT and I had a whole day to ourselves. So we went.
Dachau, after WWII ended, was used as a refugee camp. We bombed the absolute shit out of Germany during WWII, and most of the populace was experiencing disease and famine (hence why so many camp prisoners died. The Germans literally couldn’t feed their own citizens.) So after the Marshall plan rebuilt West Germany, their primary focus was on rebuilding their military. This is in the 1960s/70s, so the big fear was the Soviet Union pouring tank divisions into West Germany. So they neglected it.
Today, the camp is a mostly recreation of what it was like. The original buildings are long gone. They’ve built reproductions, but everyone back in 1946 had bigger concerns then preserving a camp. I get it now.
So for the answer to why did the Parthenon fall into disrepair, I bet they had bigger problems to deal with.
Three things really.
First, these buildings just happened to be built in areas where it is both easy and desirable to build things, which means if you want to build something better or more efficient, you have to remove the old buildings. That decrepit temple dedicated to a god you don’t worship anymore is fair game when you need to build administrative offices or a new palace.
Second, maintenance becomes a problem. It might cost more to maintain a building than than the people who surround the area can afford. Moreover, natural disasters happen, large earthquakes tended to be hell on these large stone and brick buildings. Once the roof caves in or the walls fall, the cost of rebuilding would be absolutely not worth it, doubly if you’re interested in rebuilding it to the original specifications.
Third, the building material were valuable. If an earthquake knocked the walls down there was little interest on just holding on to those pieces of what is now rubble, the owner might sell it off or people might just come and take the stones and bricks for use in other construction. Sometimes it happens because of normal decay of society, war might come and the government might flee, people will start picking apart the buildings to rebuild their houses because no one is there to stop them. Speaking of war, the material used also happens to be useful for things like walls and fortifications. Military leaders found it easier to use locally sourced material from existing and often decaying buildings than to get their own through a quarry or making their own bricks.
Last, as culturally valuable objects, invaders often would raze these sites to punish a population for resisting or to eliminate their culture. In the 19th and 20th century as artillery and later aerial bombing became more powerful though somewhat inaccurate, things just happened to get hit, or defenders used them for storage of war supplies which made them a target (the Parthenon). Related to that some culturally significant objects *were* military fortifications and buildings that were destroyed in the normal events of war. Large extravagant gates and walls would have been legitimate targets for destruction, and once captured it was sometimes prudent to eliminate these walls and structures so they couldn’t be reused as to deny the enemy their future use. In many cases they were rebuilt but they were often rebuilt in ways that didn’t resemble the original, because warfare changes and the design of walls and buildings also have to change. So it wouldn’t make sense to restore it and it’s original way.
Furthermore sometimes buildings are used and modified throughout their history, which begs the question what point of history do you restore that building to? It’s absolute original? Or maybe the way it looked at a key point in history? Or maybe restoring it to a point where we absolutely know what it looked like? Any one of those choices destroys one history to preserve another. It’s not something we can decide.
[removed]
[removed]
Three things really.
First, these buildings just happened to be built in areas where it is both easy and desirable to build things, which means if you want to build something better or more efficient, you have to remove the old buildings. That decrepit temple dedicated to a god you don’t worship anymore is fair game when you need to build administrative offices or a new palace.
Second, maintenance becomes a problem. It might cost more to maintain a building than than the people who surround the area can afford. Moreover, natural disasters happen, large earthquakes tended to be hell on these large stone and brick buildings. Once the roof caves in or the walls fall, the cost of rebuilding would be absolutely not worth it, doubly if you’re interested in rebuilding it to the original specifications.
Third, the building material were valuable. If an earthquake knocked the walls down there was little interest on just holding on to those pieces of what is now rubble, the owner might sell it off or people might just come and take the stones and bricks for use in other construction. Sometimes it happens because of normal decay of society, war might come and the government might flee, people will start picking apart the buildings to rebuild their houses because no one is there to stop them. Speaking of war, the material used also happens to be useful for things like walls and fortifications. Military leaders found it easier to use locally sourced material from existing and often decaying buildings than to get their own through a quarry or making their own bricks.
Last, as culturally valuable objects, invaders often would raze these sites to punish a population for resisting or to eliminate their culture. In the 19th and 20th century as artillery and later aerial bombing became more powerful though somewhat inaccurate, things just happened to get hit, or defenders used them for storage of war supplies which made them a target (the Parthenon). Related to that some culturally significant objects *were* military fortifications and buildings that were destroyed in the normal events of war. Large extravagant gates and walls would have been legitimate targets for destruction, and once captured it was sometimes prudent to eliminate these walls and structures so they couldn’t be reused as to deny the enemy their future use. In many cases they were rebuilt but they were often rebuilt in ways that didn’t resemble the original, because warfare changes and the design of walls and buildings also have to change. So it wouldn’t make sense to restore it and it’s original way.
Furthermore sometimes buildings are used and modified throughout their history, which begs the question what point of history do you restore that building to? It’s absolute original? Or maybe the way it looked at a key point in history? Or maybe restoring it to a point where we absolutely know what it looked like? Any one of those choices destroys one history to preserve another. It’s not something we can decide.
Three things really.
First, these buildings just happened to be built in areas where it is both easy and desirable to build things, which means if you want to build something better or more efficient, you have to remove the old buildings. That decrepit temple dedicated to a god you don’t worship anymore is fair game when you need to build administrative offices or a new palace.
Second, maintenance becomes a problem. It might cost more to maintain a building than than the people who surround the area can afford. Moreover, natural disasters happen, large earthquakes tended to be hell on these large stone and brick buildings. Once the roof caves in or the walls fall, the cost of rebuilding would be absolutely not worth it, doubly if you’re interested in rebuilding it to the original specifications.
Third, the building material were valuable. If an earthquake knocked the walls down there was little interest on just holding on to those pieces of what is now rubble, the owner might sell it off or people might just come and take the stones and bricks for use in other construction. Sometimes it happens because of normal decay of society, war might come and the government might flee, people will start picking apart the buildings to rebuild their houses because no one is there to stop them. Speaking of war, the material used also happens to be useful for things like walls and fortifications. Military leaders found it easier to use locally sourced material from existing and often decaying buildings than to get their own through a quarry or making their own bricks.
Last, as culturally valuable objects, invaders often would raze these sites to punish a population for resisting or to eliminate their culture. In the 19th and 20th century as artillery and later aerial bombing became more powerful though somewhat inaccurate, things just happened to get hit, or defenders used them for storage of war supplies which made them a target (the Parthenon). Related to that some culturally significant objects *were* military fortifications and buildings that were destroyed in the normal events of war. Large extravagant gates and walls would have been legitimate targets for destruction, and once captured it was sometimes prudent to eliminate these walls and structures so they couldn’t be reused as to deny the enemy their future use. In many cases they were rebuilt but they were often rebuilt in ways that didn’t resemble the original, because warfare changes and the design of walls and buildings also have to change. So it wouldn’t make sense to restore it and it’s original way.
Furthermore sometimes buildings are used and modified throughout their history, which begs the question what point of history do you restore that building to? It’s absolute original? Or maybe the way it looked at a key point in history? Or maybe restoring it to a point where we absolutely know what it looked like? Any one of those choices destroys one history to preserve another. It’s not something we can decide.
This is a big question with multiple answers. I am a history undergrad with a focus on ancient architecture. I’ll share a little bit from what I’ve learned in my classes.
1. Some of these historic sites get totally buried. With the volatile geology of places like Greece the earthquakes that they have and the degree of erosion that they experience off of their mountains and hillsides, huge buildings can be entirely swallowed up. For example, the Athenian Agora was almost entirely buried until about 1930. The only structure that was still visible was the a single temple ( I’ll come back to that in a minute). The rest of it had been literally buried from erosion. On top of that burial there were people that had constructed homes and they were compensated and removed by the Athenian and Greek governments in the ’30s that way the American schools of architecture could come and excavate the original agora.
2. They often get repurposed. The structures that wind up standing, like the Hephesteon in the Athenian Agora, do so because they were maintained or taken over by church usually. These are incredible structures that were built to impress and intimidate when they were constructed and they still serve that purpose thousands of years later. The Greek Orthodox Church used it as a cathedral for an extended period of time, I don’t actually know how long, but it’s the Greek government has gotten involved in the archaeological societies have become more involved It has been restored.
Another way of repurposing an ancient building is to go and take stone out of an original building and use it for whatever it is that you are building. This is really common at archaeological sites that are near small towns or cities where gaining resources might be difficult. If you’re a farmer building a stone wall and you have a theater nearby where nobody ever goes, it seems practical to go and just take one of the stones that are there and use them in your wall. This is really common throughout the ancient world and people recover random pieces of text and stole (stones that have engravings on them) all the time in really weird places. What’s cool is that if it’s done carefully then it can sometimes be one of the best ways to preserve a stole.
3. Resources are not always available. And some other redditors have pointed out, when a major powerful government like the Athenian League or the Roman Empire collapses the resources become less available because they take colonial holdings in order to keep in order. Without those colonial holdings it gets much more difficult. There’s also a time and focus issue, It takes a long time to maintain and reconstruct some of these buildings and if no one really cares to do it then they just fall into disrepair. Especially considering the ubiquity of limestone, and how limestone reacts with acid rain, sometimes this can happen really quickly.
4. Some of the disrepair is intentional. Some of these buildings fell apart a long time ago through events like earthquakes for example. That earthquake destroying the building imparts its own history into that building. And if an archaeological team goes out and only puts up four or five columns it gives enough, visually, to reconstruct the rest of the building on paper. And really that is what is the intent. They leave them knocked down because to restore them exactly as they used to be, would be incredibly expensive and it kind of takes away from some of that history.
I don’t know if that was e l i5 enough, but I really care about it and it’s hard to talk about it in other terms.
This is a big question with multiple answers. I am a history undergrad with a focus on ancient architecture. I’ll share a little bit from what I’ve learned in my classes.
1. Some of these historic sites get totally buried. With the volatile geology of places like Greece the earthquakes that they have and the degree of erosion that they experience off of their mountains and hillsides, huge buildings can be entirely swallowed up. For example, the Athenian Agora was almost entirely buried until about 1930. The only structure that was still visible was the a single temple ( I’ll come back to that in a minute). The rest of it had been literally buried from erosion. On top of that burial there were people that had constructed homes and they were compensated and removed by the Athenian and Greek governments in the ’30s that way the American schools of architecture could come and excavate the original agora.
2. They often get repurposed. The structures that wind up standing, like the Hephesteon in the Athenian Agora, do so because they were maintained or taken over by church usually. These are incredible structures that were built to impress and intimidate when they were constructed and they still serve that purpose thousands of years later. The Greek Orthodox Church used it as a cathedral for an extended period of time, I don’t actually know how long, but it’s the Greek government has gotten involved in the archaeological societies have become more involved It has been restored.
Another way of repurposing an ancient building is to go and take stone out of an original building and use it for whatever it is that you are building. This is really common at archaeological sites that are near small towns or cities where gaining resources might be difficult. If you’re a farmer building a stone wall and you have a theater nearby where nobody ever goes, it seems practical to go and just take one of the stones that are there and use them in your wall. This is really common throughout the ancient world and people recover random pieces of text and stole (stones that have engravings on them) all the time in really weird places. What’s cool is that if it’s done carefully then it can sometimes be one of the best ways to preserve a stole.
3. Resources are not always available. And some other redditors have pointed out, when a major powerful government like the Athenian League or the Roman Empire collapses the resources become less available because they take colonial holdings in order to keep in order. Without those colonial holdings it gets much more difficult. There’s also a time and focus issue, It takes a long time to maintain and reconstruct some of these buildings and if no one really cares to do it then they just fall into disrepair. Especially considering the ubiquity of limestone, and how limestone reacts with acid rain, sometimes this can happen really quickly.
4. Some of the disrepair is intentional. Some of these buildings fell apart a long time ago through events like earthquakes for example. That earthquake destroying the building imparts its own history into that building. And if an archaeological team goes out and only puts up four or five columns it gives enough, visually, to reconstruct the rest of the building on paper. And really that is what is the intent. They leave them knocked down because to restore them exactly as they used to be, would be incredibly expensive and it kind of takes away from some of that history.
I don’t know if that was e l i5 enough, but I really care about it and it’s hard to talk about it in other terms.
This is a big question with multiple answers. I am a history undergrad with a focus on ancient architecture. I’ll share a little bit from what I’ve learned in my classes.
1. Some of these historic sites get totally buried. With the volatile geology of places like Greece the earthquakes that they have and the degree of erosion that they experience off of their mountains and hillsides, huge buildings can be entirely swallowed up. For example, the Athenian Agora was almost entirely buried until about 1930. The only structure that was still visible was the a single temple ( I’ll come back to that in a minute). The rest of it had been literally buried from erosion. On top of that burial there were people that had constructed homes and they were compensated and removed by the Athenian and Greek governments in the ’30s that way the American schools of architecture could come and excavate the original agora.
2. They often get repurposed. The structures that wind up standing, like the Hephesteon in the Athenian Agora, do so because they were maintained or taken over by church usually. These are incredible structures that were built to impress and intimidate when they were constructed and they still serve that purpose thousands of years later. The Greek Orthodox Church used it as a cathedral for an extended period of time, I don’t actually know how long, but it’s the Greek government has gotten involved in the archaeological societies have become more involved It has been restored.
Another way of repurposing an ancient building is to go and take stone out of an original building and use it for whatever it is that you are building. This is really common at archaeological sites that are near small towns or cities where gaining resources might be difficult. If you’re a farmer building a stone wall and you have a theater nearby where nobody ever goes, it seems practical to go and just take one of the stones that are there and use them in your wall. This is really common throughout the ancient world and people recover random pieces of text and stole (stones that have engravings on them) all the time in really weird places. What’s cool is that if it’s done carefully then it can sometimes be one of the best ways to preserve a stole.
3. Resources are not always available. And some other redditors have pointed out, when a major powerful government like the Athenian League or the Roman Empire collapses the resources become less available because they take colonial holdings in order to keep in order. Without those colonial holdings it gets much more difficult. There’s also a time and focus issue, It takes a long time to maintain and reconstruct some of these buildings and if no one really cares to do it then they just fall into disrepair. Especially considering the ubiquity of limestone, and how limestone reacts with acid rain, sometimes this can happen really quickly.
4. Some of the disrepair is intentional. Some of these buildings fell apart a long time ago through events like earthquakes for example. That earthquake destroying the building imparts its own history into that building. And if an archaeological team goes out and only puts up four or five columns it gives enough, visually, to reconstruct the rest of the building on paper. And really that is what is the intent. They leave them knocked down because to restore them exactly as they used to be, would be incredibly expensive and it kind of takes away from some of that history.
I don’t know if that was e l i5 enough, but I really care about it and it’s hard to talk about it in other terms.
Latest Answers