I was struck by this report about the restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France.
After a 2019 fire destroyed part of its roof, walls and spire, officials in France decided to reproduce the church exactly as it had been built some 800 years ago.
It's an undertaking that requires meticulous attention to detail.
To know what types of axes to make, Soumia Luquet, the director of the Maison Luquet, a traditional workshop near Munster, France, and her team analyzed the markings that remained on wood oak beams salvaged from Notre-Dame. They also looked at old engravings that showed workmen of the time hoisting axes and using tools.
It was a forensic investigation, of sorts, as they tried to create axes which, in the hands of modern craftspeople, would leave the same marks on the wood as those of the 13th century.
They decided on five models of axes — some built for chopping, others for finer, finishing work. But to make enough for the team of craftspeople, they needed to make multiple replicas of each axe, 60 in total.
Given that it takes nine to 14 hours to make one axe, Luquet knew they needed additional manpower.
Enter Collette, who, in the world of toolsmithing, is seen as a master.
Toolsmithing "disappeared from history" with industrialization Luquet said, "and Mathieu is one of the first of this generation who chose to go to that job."
Collette arrived in France in October 2022 and, for weeks with little sleep, he worked alongside a small group of toolsmiths. Shoulder to shoulder, working in the 50 C heat of the forge, surrounded by fire and the noise of hammers striking iron, they fashioned raw iron ore into the axes, which upon completion, were sent to the carpenters.
"I think that we still can't believe what we have done," Luquet said. "You know in a way that you left a part of you in history."
There's more at the link, and in the video report below.
That's all very well, and I'm sure it takes great craftsmanship and skill to recreate medieval tools like that. My congratulations to all involved. However, I have to ask: for a major rebuilding and restoration project like this, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, is it a wise use of the budget to take years longer over the restoration by recreating such tools? Time is money. How much money would be saved by simply cutting the new trusses and other parts using modern tools and equipment? It's not as if people are going to visit the restored cathedral to "Ooh!" and "Aah!" over tool marks on the wood. They're going there to experience the totality of a medieval cathedral. In that context, I suggest that the extra cost and time needed to restore it the old-fashioned way aren't so much "authentic" and "artistic" as they are a waste of time, money and resources.
Am I out of line? Does historical authenticity trump time and money in a project like this? Isn't it wasting money to make a faux restoration more convincing, despite the fact that everyone who walks into it will know it's not the original, authentic article? Why bother?
Let us know what you think in Comments. I'd like to hear how many share my view.
Peter
29 comments:
Peter sadly while I hear your frustration about overly concerned about "authenticity folks" at least something (however slowly and expensively) is being done to restore what DESTROYERS burned down.
Snip: The Notre Dame cathedral took nearly two centuries to build, from 1163 to 13451234. The original plan was for it to take just under 30 years, but construction was halted several times due to financial problems, wars, and other issues2. More than 1,000 carpenters, masons, metalsmiths and other laborers worked on its construction.
It's a sad reality that it takes men of good intentions years (often decades and lifetimes) of coordinated men's efforts to build what a few crazies can destroy in mere hours or in the case of our Republic a decade or so.
It's better than the previous idea to give it to modern architects and rebuild it with a glass pyramid in the center.
I agree it's not optimal, but it could have been so much worse.
They are French after all.
I toured this cathedral in 1997 I have some great memories and pictures. The architecture was truly amazing. This cathedral was originally built as a glorification of man not of GOD. I see the restoration team is keeping with this tradition. Sad that people get caught up in their own glorification and loose site of the true purpose of gathering for worship. Acts 17 vs24-31
Peter, I am actually okay with this. Just the process of getting to this point has already enlightened a great many people (myself included) about medieval technology. Yes, it may often go unseen - but it will be a faithful reproduction of the original.
Of course to be fair, I also like history and so this sort of thing really interests me.
They should rebuild the cathedral as it was originally built - with or without the relatively recent spire that caused the blaze to begin with - but using modern tools as much as possible. Maybe build one section using the same tools and techniques the original craftsmen would have used as an educational space. They take this authenticity ting too far, and someone is going to want to reproduce the Black Plague...
This
I think it's a 100% French approach: let's show off and pretend we're good and we do restoration up to mm. While in fact they are a bunch of clowns - a historic building 1000 yrs old burnt almost to the ground because of negligence/couldn't care less. Instead of redoing the original asap + tighten everything re fire prevention, let's fumble with crazy designs and delay to here-after so everyone can get their hand in the cookie jar of the funds gathered. While pretending to be oh-so-faithful to the original.
America had to come to their rescue in WW2 + Marshall Plan after. Let's remember that little exchange de Gaulle/Eisenhower:
"I want all American troops out of France immediately"
"Does that include the dead ones?"
What France did in return? More Socialism, everywhere: all French economy, institutions - heck EVERYTHING is Socialist or partnership Socialist-private. They get out in the streets for every little thing. Sorry, I have no sympathy for France.
Having been to multiple ancient wonders in Europe (including Kutna Hora's "bone church", talk about creepy but impressive), I do think it's worth the time. Why is Disney World so magical compared to Busch Gardens and the like (despite negative feelings I'm sure many hold, Disney World is a huge step above every other theme park in terms of impressions)? Because they put effort into things most don't even notice, but you would if it wasn't there. Why can a house with the same square footage from a custom builder sell for way way more than a house built by a track builder? The materials and the details. Moldings may be just moldings to some but you still notice a difference between the two houses.
The part I wonder about is the need to recreate the tools using ancient methods. Would modern axes not leave identical enough marks to use?
The other side of this is in many ways we've lost the definition of true artistry. Ever since modern art hit the studios there has been a sharp decline in what art is. Junk sells for millions that probably took the artist all of ten minutes ranting about a breakup to create. I think this is giving people a taste of what it takes to truly make something remarkable and impressive. As much fun as it is to make a painting pouring acrylic on canvas, the outcome is nothing compared to DaVinci, Degas, etc... The statue of David is incredible to behold. His muscles actually look flexed and strong, not cold marble. I hope that there are enough true artists left with the skills to recreate that incredible cathedral and enough sane people to appreciate those efforts!
I rather like this approach. While it is somewhat inefficient, we have lost many of the techniques that weee used to build cathedrals like Notre Dame. So, taking this as an opportunity to understand how it was built and replicate the technology is a unique one that we should take advantage of. I see this as an opportunity for learning as much as a restoration.
I'm of a mixed mind on this. If extreme authenticity is ok for Williamsburg, surely it's ok for a Cathedral? On the other hand, if it's being built with tax dollars, does fiscal responsibility trump (hehe) reverent authenticity?
It's a relatively harmless obsession, and not ours, and far away. When they're done, they can make genuine reproduction hand hewn firewood.
We are guilty of it here in a sense. When sections of the Pentagon were being restored, the exterior walls were poured in 1943 with the wood formers being of a very specific type of tree. These are exceedingly rare now but after a painstaking search, some weed was found to make the formers. Could anyone tell? It's highly doubtful but then again, one has to justify the office of the architect and the whole staff.
Why bother? Because we can. I am biased here, as a medievalist and with a deep interest in experimental archeology. However, I would look at this rebuild as an opportunity to train a new, younger group of people in the art, and it is an art, of making things by hand. We are rapidly getting to the point where we have a society that is composed of people who could not figure out how to make a basic knife, let alone an axe, or a wheel, or a post and beam structure....
We have lost a vast knowledge base. It has been said that we would not know how to build the ceiling of St George's chapel (a famously thin Gothic vault) again. The computers say it can't be done. It obviously could be done. Doing the rebuild of Notre Dame using the appropriate tools and materials helps us figure things like that out.
Now, maybe we don't need to do that. We also don't need art, or writing, or music, or literature, or complicated architecture....
Why not go all out?
There's no reason to not do it. In the end: it's just money and at least workmen get paid instead of some "star architect" that uses wrinkled napkins as an inspiration...
It's a church. A building that serves no practical purpose - you can just pray as easily on a carpet or in the woods.
The only thing such a building has going for it is PRESENTATION. And that it does well. So there's no question if they should dot it this way - it is the ONLY way.
They want to rebuild the Notre Dame and not build a cheap copy.
How about half & half. One side recreated to time period and other half built to today's standards. They can put up a plaque saying something along the lines of this side shows how medieval craftsmen of our time recreated as close as possible to the original. Then on the other side one saying and this was built using the tools of our the time when rebuilding what was destroyed.That way you have the original parts, the re-crafted parts and the new. Blending all over the cathedral's 900 years life. In 300 years when a "new" renovation is being done by robots using faux wood it will become something all new again.
Why? So it can be burned down again?
Thing is, yes, doing it this way may take time and money, but there's an art to a building like Notre Dame. She's alive, in ways modern buildings aren't. So to keep her 'traditional' is a good thing.
Don't forget all the 'lost' techniques that are being relearned.
You see the same thing with the recreation of La Hermione, a French wooden frigate from the 1790's. Yeah, sure, you could laser and plasma and waterjet a lot of the features and fixtures, but why?
Remember, France is where a bunch of people have been building a medieval-style castle using medieval techniques while wearing mostly medieval-style clothing for, what, 30 years now? Yeah, you could cast it all in concrete and modern materials, but why? And by doing so, they've revitalized the restoration of historic and old buildings and learned so much about non-modern methods.
What's neat about the recreation of the tools is that, finally, normal people are realizing that medieval metalwork was rather complex and far advanced from what most people believed.
Where are they going to find the authentic 800-year-old craftsmen to do the work?
It won't be true to the original without that.
At least in the museum world you do try to replace parts with ones that are at least visually similar (my familiarity is from time spent at the now closed Higgins Armoury in Worcester) and preferably similar materials. However, one does always mark repairs such that any future conservation can be told from the original. Unless the materials in question can't be matched with modern methods it seem like they're going a bit overboard.
It's not about "authenticity" in the OCD way you're thinking. The restoration project is more an opportunity that's being used to help keep those skills in current, "live" use. Once that practical, experience-based knowledge (you can't get it all from a book or a video) is gone, it takes a lot more time and effort to get it back, than if you never let it lapse.
If you've never heard of it, you should check out another stunning (and possibly wasteful, but it depends on your priorities) French project: Guedelon Castle. There's some great video, it has its own wiki page. Here, they are, and have been for years already, building an entire castle from scratch. You could say "why the heck would anybody do that?" But AFAICT the entire project is a magnificent training program that is taking people straight from the unemployment rolls and training them as stonemasons, blacksmiths, lime-washers, carpenters, livestock-handlers, and more, and developing a deep talent pool of people who can now do restoration work on historic buildings, both public and private. In addition, it is helping to answer the questions of historians and archaeologists about *how they did that* for technical knowledge that's already been lost-- I mean, we have some idea, but it's been so long since people used those hamster-wheel cranes in a building project... how much do we really know? You learn more building a demo model than you do reading about it, because any contemporary texts assume you know a lot of stuff because *of course* you do. And we don't. As public-make-work projects go, I think it's pretty great. There are a lot worse things you could spend tax dollars on. Think of it like the WPA during the Depression.
I would not be at all surprised to find that some of the people working on the cathedral restoration, had been trained at Guedelon, and perhaps some of the engineering and carpentry got field-tested there as well.
There's something to be said for not letting technology destroy knowledge of how things were done before. Japan puts a lot of effort into these things, for their own sake. Wooden temples are burned every so many years, and rebuilt the same ancient way each time. For that, they have to preserve the necessary knowledge and skill-- not in books, but in living people. They treat skilled old folks as national treasures-- skilled artisans who make ceramics, calligraphy brushes, combs, kites, all sorts of things, the way they've been made forever... and the preservation of these things, these people, these skills, is considered worthwhile for its own sake.
And before I hit post... aHA! It says right there on the wiki page:
"By 2014, the castle was attracting about 300,000 visitors annually,[10] and had annual revenue of about three million euros.[11] In 2022, the castle was attracting about 275,000 visitors. [12]
The techniques redeveloped for Guédelon Castle are being used in the reconstruction of Notre-Dame cathedral after its catastrophic 2019 fire.[5][13]"
Make of it what you will.
Kind of reminds me of the Pride of Baltimore. She was a 'Baltimore clipper' style schooner that was built in the late 1970's to attract attention to the city of Baltimore. The builder constructed her in exactly the way and with the types of tools that were used on original ships. This style of ship was used more as a privateer, smuggler, fast transport. Not so much as a front line warship because they were a bit unstable and not maneuverable. Under the main deck it was basically wide open.
The Pride of Baltimore was a success in PR for the city and participated in many sailing events including along both coasts, the Med, the Baltic, etc. She hit a white squall in the Caribbean and capsized so fast that a distress call couldn't be sent. The skipper and 3 crew went down with her. The remainder drifted for 4 days in a half inflated raft with no food or water until picked up by a tanker.
When they build the Pride of Baltimore II the same builder modified the design to incorporate bulkheads, lengthening it to improve stability, other safety features, and a motor. He also used modern power tool with the reasoning of: "Them 19th century shipbuilders sure didn't use no kinda power tools. They woulda if they woulda had 'em.". The changes also allowed the carrying of passengers.
She took to the water in 1988 and is still sailing. They lost a mast off France but were able to reach port for repairs by using the engine.
Yes, you are out of line.
I've been professionally involved in several historic renovations. The oldest and most widely known was a catholic mission dating from 1775. There have been others, some only a small bit less renowned.
Notice I said renovation. A reconstruction is more demanding. Here, the subject is an 800 yr old church. This project demands several orders more skill, more labor and of the highest, most period correct expertise.
Too, such a project comes around (hopefully) once a millenia.
For such a project, the research and crafting of period correct tools is not the least outlandish. Also, I would expect that they research and use techniques in use during the original construction.
No, modern axes would not leave the same marks.
Simply by examining the the cut marks, one can discern so much about the make of the tool and the manner it which it was used. You'd even be able to tell if the worker was right or left handed and what was his body position relative to the work face. But you didn't ask about that.
Try it yourself. Use two different axe heads on handles of different dimensions and made from different materials. Look closely at the marks. You'll see variations. This is true in wood or in stone.
Be glad it's not stonehedge
Ask my friends up in Maine... https://www.mortiseandtenonmag.com/blogs/blog/tagged/carpenters-without-borders
Skills and trades lost are history and understanding lost. Hard to rebuild.
We recently ran into something along the same vein with repairs to the historic courthouse I work in. The steps were granite & limestone. We were eligible for a grant form the Historical Society; however, in order to get the money as much of the original stone as possible had to be reused. Reusing the original stone would have cost more in demolition costs then we would have gotten from the Grant. We opted to forgive tge Grant, and purchase new stones. Of a similar look and feel.
1) Who's paying for the restoration?
The Pope? The parishoners of that bishopric?
Sounds like a question for "Ask The Pope".
As long as it's structurally sound, IDC how they do it.
Not my circus, not my monkeys.
There is no doubt that 1000 year old techniques of building are vastly different from those in use today. Just as one example, production of boards could have been done by any of several methods that could have been in use at during the original construction- Splitting, hewing, trestle-sawing, or possibly pit-sawing. Although Romans are known to have used sawmills for production of cut stone, I am not aware that sawmills were used for lumber until well after the 16th century. Does it make sense to conserve these old techniques? Economically, no. From a cultural and historical perspective, perhaps so.
Post a Comment