ABSTRACT
Museum artifacts and architectural monuments present similar philosophical problems to the modern curator of antiquities. Controversy is particularly common among scholars and site superintendents in the area of conservation: should the artifact or building be restored to its original appearance and should missing pieces be replaced (restoration)? Or should the object in question merely be stabilized to prevent further deterioration (conservation, "saving")? Restoration usually implies a philosophical viewpoint that the artifact or monument should appear to the viewing public exactly as it did in antiquity, even if parts must be replaced with modern materials. However, the existing evidence may not be enough to restore the monument accurately, and the materials available today may be different from those used by the original craftsmen or architects. The opposing philosophical viewpoint is that since modern workers obviously cannot recreate the original work, they should not presume to do so. Even if parts are replaced there is also the problem of separating the new from the old: should new pieces be integrated to form a seamless whole for aesthetic reasons as at the palace of Knossos, Crete, or clearly delineated as they have been at sites like Masada, Israel? Finally, there are cases when using ancient materials in modern restorations is undesirable due to atmospheric or chemical alterations over time.
