These discussions revolve around the impossibility of COMPLETELY duplicating
an historical event in all details.  Because of this, some say that we should
not do it at all; while others believe in the value of doing the best job
possible today for its value to public education and for the insights that
this experimental "archaeology" provides.  It is very much like the conflict
between those who want only to stabilize ruins to prevent further
deterioration and those that believe that reconstructions have great value
for fostering public awareness of the past.  As an eight year old who was
determined to be an archaeologist the moment he climbed down into a
RECONSTRUCTED Mesa Verde kiva in the 1950s, I am in the latter camp.  Too bad
that Federal policy for the last 50 years does not favor this approach.  The
result is monstrosities like Franklin's House in Philadelphia which make it
hard to visualize the past or capped adobe ruins in the Southwest.  Maybe a
compromise is in order--some sites as reconstructions after the best research
possible AT THE TIME and others as stabilized ruins.  The ruins can inspire
poets and the reconstructions can teach the public about the past.  I know
the pros and cons for each side, but this has been bothering me for a long
time.  At what point will be have adequate information for a reconstruction?;
will we EVER have enough?  I am most impressed by such sites as Mission San
Luis in Florida, Mission La Purisima in California, Plymouth Plantation, and
Old Sturbridge Village.  What do you think?  Keep reenacting and keep trying
for the highest standards of accuracy.

Bob Hoover