Review and Comment: To Save or Not to Save?
By Henrik Krogius
How much respect does the past deserve? Readers of the recent New Yorker or New York Review of Books will have seen stories on the great Muslim pilgrimage, or hajj, to Mecca. The accounts in both publications note that traces of the past in Mecca — including the supposed birthplace of Muhammad and the home of his wife — have been obliterated, and that even the Great Mosque that holds the venerated Kaaba continues to be rebuilt with no regard for its earlier architectural features. The Kaaba itself, which is not a solid stone, has evidently had its interior redone various times. (And in Afghanistan, as will be remembered, during the rule of the Taliban a while back, pre-Islamic monuments were shockingly demolished.)
What really got me into this question of preservation vs. replacement was my starting to read Rome, the latest historical narrative by Robert Hughes, the former art critic of Time magazine. I had read his earlier Barcelona before visiting that city, and likewise his Australian history The Fatal Shore before going to Australia. Hughes is always provocative. In Rome Hughes quickly makes clear that the “eternal city” is one that has undergone so many changes that it is really a succession of cities replacing earlier ones, with many once-significant buildings and monuments gone.