Archaeological uncertainty

The understanding of an archaeological site by the visitor is mostly determined by the way in which generations of archaeologists have interpreted the monuments of the specific area in the past. This interpretive approach is certainly not arbitrary, as it is based on the archaeological data. The element that mainly changes is the degree of certainty and surety during the proposal of representation.. Monuments do not usually maintain all the elements that they initially consisted of. Through the ages, certain parts have been lost, with the first being those constructed from perishable and valuable materials, while the need for the adjustment of a building to the changing conditions depending on the historical period has also caused modifications, alterations and addendums. As such, the goal of any restoration, from the initial design stages to the actual physical restoration process, is, on the one hand, to respect the historical evolution of the monument and, on the other, to propose more accurate representation to the best of its ability.

The monuments of Delphi are extraordinarily interesting, not only because of their significance and worldwide fame, but also because of the different approaches followed since the times of the so-called Great Excavation (1892-1902). By using Pausanias’ writings and the inscribed tablets, the majority was identified early on with certainty, while the condition of preservation of the architectural parts, which had been used in newer constructions, assisted with the general understanding of the monuments and the formulation of suggestions related to their complete form and design. However, more specialized issues have never stopped being the subject of discussions and disagreements with in the scientific community..

One such characteristic issue is the restoration proposalsfor the Dome of the Sanctuary of Athena Pronaia. Since 1912, when the first relevant study was published, until today, many other propositions have been submitted, especially concerning the height of the pillars (it was initially accepted that the pillars constituted of four drums in height, one less than what was finally placed on the restored pillars) and the construction of the roof (conical or on two levels, with an elevated central part, or finally pyramidal and with a central flowery edge). Other similar cases are the Monument of the Rhodians, pertaining to the direction and the form of the chariot on its peak, as well as the Temple of Apollo itself pertaining to the form of the sculptural decorations on the pediments.