Okay, so Odysseus has this boat that he's going to take home from Troy after the war. Unfortunately, he's going to get lost and take ten years to get home, so he names his dinghy
the Odyssey. (Tempting fate, if you ask me.)
hehe, i slay me
Now, on this ten year voyage, some of the wood is going to rot, get damaged, etc. and will need to be replaced. So over the years, Odysseus and his dudes replace one plank after another until he gets home and it turns out that he's actually replaced every plank of wood on his ship. Is it still the same ship? (Originally, this thought experiment was about the Ship of Theseus and has a second part but whatevs.)
If you think that no way, its not the same ship, here's a question for you. How do you think the cells in your body work? Do you think you're in the same body you were in ten years ago?
There are countless hypothetical variations concerning the essential identity of the ship - what if you saved the old wood and made another ship? What if you replaced the wood at once? What if you changed the configuration? Can your “replicate” structures, like cell division? What if you built two little ships out of the big ship? Etc etc.
So, when/where do you draw the line between preservation and restoration for objects that a part of humanity's collective cultural heritage? Is there a process of determining that? If you continuously restore, you may eventually reach a point where nothing in the structure that you hold as the original is original. If don’t time will eventually destroy the original. Dilemma.
IMO, if it has been in continuous use and has been been looked after through time, then it is still eligible to be restored. If the local culture has lost touch with the civilization that built it, then don't fuck with it, you should preserve because you've lost restoration rights.
So Hagia Sophia, the Pantheon, Schwedagon and quite a few that have been in continuous use, they were meant to be used so what you’re doing is still a part of its living identity. Things like the Great Pyramids or Mesopotamian Ziggurats, no. Those things are ruins. They’re dead. Mausoleums to the cultures that created them. Leave them be. Take efforts to preserve them but don’t try to make it like it used to be. You lose a sense of awe and appreciation reverence for the passage of time when things are too shiny.
They restored the ruins of Machu Pichu, which aren't exactly ancient and here's the difference:
It's 30% new stone, 70% original. I don't know if I'd call that the same structure. It was on my bucket list but I don’t know if I l’d make a visit if I were in the neighborhood today. Probably. On the other hand, I wouldn’t miss some of she old ancient temples and pyramids farther south on the Nile from the Cheops Pyramids.