At the risk of sounding like an illiterate, but I never understood the fascination with ruins. I love history as much as the next person, and I think monuments like the Colosseum, Pantheon and Segovia Aqueduct are very impressive to see in person, but let's face it some ruins are in such a bad shape they are basically a pile of rocks, especially Greek ruins.

I cringe when I hear Fodorites recommend a visit to Delphi or when I see Olympia and Mycena listed among the top 10 things to do in Greece.

Why would someone walk miles in scorching heat to see a pile or rocks when they can be sipping a cocktail on their balcony in Santorini and admiring the caldera views?
Do some people bore themselves intentionally so that they sound more cultured?


What's so special about this?

I really loved Delphi - the setting - thoughts of folks consulting the oracle and IMO it is more than a pile of rocks but you can visualize the grandeur:

https://www.google.com/search?q=delp...w=1879&bih=922

I would highly recommend a visit to Delphi as it is a special memory to me - especially after tourists had gone and the place took on a mystical aura. Sometimes those pile of rocks can evoke a special atmosphere and hint at the grandeur the place once had - a special place for ancient Greeks.

What's special about Delphi is the setting. But all that remains from that temple is three columns.
I can't justify driving two hours to see three columns but whatever floats your boat, Pal.

That's Delphi from above. I'd rather be knitting

Isn't the caldera a ruin?

If you count the importance of an archaeological site by the number of "rocks" then you really lack on education....
If you are expecting an ancient restored Disneyland stay home or go to Las Vegas. Just my opinion.

Clausar, I can count a hundred things that are hisotrically inportant but which aren't worth visiting. Take Hadrian's Wall, for instance. Very little of it remains.

If an archaeological site requires a lot of imagination, you can have a better idea by looking at reconstruction pictures.

Frankly, I think the only reason some places get touted as must-sees is due to the marketing genius of tourism offices and their attempts at conning tourists out of their money.

Why would you want to sip a cocktail on Santorini when you could drop acid at Delphi and speak to Apollo?

Good question, I don't know why I like ruins, I just know I do. They don't bore me at all. I'm interested in seeing the layout and setting where ancient people lived, worked, governed, and played.

On the other hand, why would someone want to bore themselves sitting on a terrace sipping wine and admiring the view in Santorini? I don't drink alcohol, and while it's beautiful there, I can't personally sit and look at the same view for hours saying "wow". A few minutes maybe, an hour at the very outside, and then I've seen it, let's move on.

Different strokes.

Our experience has been that a really good guide can turn a pile of rocks into an unforgettable story and experience. And vice versa.

Indeed.

I love ruins but French Impressionist painting makes me gag. I'd rather stare at a bunch of rocks than a Monet. Horses for courses.

Ruins create their own aesthetic. Asymmetry, erosion, and randomness form its own natural beauty. They are sites of quietness, where once the mundane, frightful, and great events occurred. They are more honest and inexact than many places we value.

When one goes to an archeological site that isn't as impressive as the Acropolis, Delphi, Olympia or other well-known sites you can get an impression of what they must have been like when in their glory.

When you go to a site that has only foundations, a few walls, a column, a statue, and bases of temples you have to use your imagination . . . and imagination is one of the most important and valuable aspects the human mind has. If you can't see the trees beyond the forest then you have no insight, imagination on what things may have been like. I get as much enjoyment from a scanty archeological site as I do from a major one. I have a brain, I can almost see what that scanty site may have been like, feel the people who walked around and worshipped at those sites.

I feel sorry for someone like the OP who can't think BIG, who can't IMAGINE what a 2,000+ year old site may have looked like, the people, the atmosphere, the excitement of being at there. He sees a bunch of rocks I see history!

I think of all the places I have ever been, I was the most taken with Delphi. Mycenae is a close second. And I found Olympia magical.

It is the authenticity that grabs me, among other things. That I am looking at the foundations of the city inhabited by Agamemnon. That this pile of rocks is where people consulted the oracle of which so many tales are told.

Traveling through Scotland, one sees many castles, some well preserved and others in ruins. I prefer the ones in ruins, by far. I have spent hours photographing such places. I don’t even really want to see how they looked before they were in ruins; I like the ruins for themselves.

But what do I know? A trip to Europe that consists of seeing rocks, reading, and getting to bed early sounds wonderful.

"I think of all the places I have ever been, I was the most taken with Delphi. Mycenae is a close second. And I found Olympia magical.

It is the authenticity that grabs me, among other things. That I am looking at the foundations of the city inhabited by Agamemnon. That this pile of rocks is where people consulted the oracle of which so many tales are told. "

Nikki said it for me.

Now.... who's going to defend the opera??

I supposed we loved the ruins (of Greece last Fall) as to their sheer antiquity. It spoke to the civilization and culture of what existed then, and the wheres and hows of what came to be. When we saw Mycenae, we werent as bowled over as when we saw the treasures excavated from its gravesites which are in the National Museum, a gem of a collection of 3,000 years B.C. on the first floor alone (all we had the time and energy for). Exquisite treasures. In our current world of instant gratification, of Amazon, and products coming off the boats from China, we appreciate the genius, inspiration of such early civilizations. And then there's the glory of Ephesus. We find that it's best to educate yourself BEFORE visiting such places. It amazes me when people I volunteer with talk about their vacations, where they literally just "show up" at a destination, listen to a tourguide talk for hours about a place, recall absolutely next to nothing by the time they return home, and then seem disenchanted about the place -- perhaps they'd have enjoyed that cocktail in Santorini more -- which we did too, but we can do that anywhere -- the Acropolis, Delphi, Ephesus, and all the others are one of a kind and we feel privileged to have seen and experienced them.

Thanks Alice for a well-balanced amd realistic opinion .

I agree that museums make for more enjoyable sightseeing in my opinion. At least you can see the treasures that were excavated from the archeological sites instead of wandering around a bunch of rocks trying to guess where Leonidas or Polydamas used to do number two.

While we love museums, there is something about an antiquity caged in glass that lessens its use. The explanations are welcome, but not that the fact that it was transported now to be inert relic.

Loackerwafer
My husband and I went to Greece last fall for my birthday. I have always dreamed of seeing the Acropolis. To me it was amazing. To my husband it was a pile of rocks. When we saw more ruins he said to me " more rocks". One day on the island of Crete we visited the Palace of Knossos. My husband was excited to see a palace. When we started our visit he looked at me and said " I thought it was a palace? It's more rocks." Yes, we also sipped wine on our balcony while looking at the beautiful sunset on Santorini. I married a wonderful man who really isn't into travel or sightseeing, especially ruins ( rocks) but goes because I love it. His passion is food. He loves to eat. He enjoys our vacations because we can spend time together sightseeing and eating . I read him your post and he started laughing.

I shouldn't have thought that question was too difficult to answer. You could apply the 'what's so special' prefix to most things, really. What is special about ruins is that they are often thousands of years old and people enjoy the process of coming into contact with evidence of ancient civilisations. There will also be the fact that 'filling in the gaps' and using your imagination to reconstruct the ruins of just enjoying a day out in the sun, strolling round and seeing things can be enjoyable. If you have to ask, it means you don't like ruins, so maybe...just don't go and see any?

We were fortunate enough to have seen the original Altamira before it was closed to the general public. Since then cave drawings have become a minor interest. I find it extraordinary that our predecessors, depending on the cave, wanted to communicate with others up to 30,000 years ago. I will let the experts quibble as to the meaning of the drawings, but I was always struck with the perspective and proportions of the animals, considering when the drawings were created. And while I scorn Disneyland and other manufactured fun, where billions of people are seduced into thinking they are experiencing an individual event, I think Lascaux II is different. It is a tribute to craftsmanship and dedication to recreate the origin as best they could, with attempts to emulate original materials and techniques. I think one must take into account, intent and the current understanding and need to protect the past.