The Pantheon: The ancient building still being used after 2,000 years | Hacker News Reader

The Pantheon: The ancient building still being used after 2,000 years

edition.cnn.com

76 pointsclouddrover52 comments

My Wife surprised me with the Pantheon. We were walking through Rome and she steered me to this rather ugly building (at least on the outside). When we got in I was flabbergasted. It is an astonishing space, surpassed only by Saint Peters in Rome to me anyway. I had studied it as a kid but only in books, and never paid much attention to the outside, so the surprise was magnificent. One of the great experiences of my life.

The experience is absolutely overwhelming. Same here, I read about it, heard about it, also thought: "Damn it, looks like it could need a paint".

This is so stunning. Moving from the outside to the middle was only a couple of meters but really an adventure. Something like the Grand Canyon in reverse, really hard to describe.

I loved it, but I went there for the ancient Roman aspect and was kind of sad that that has been overlaid with the Roman Catholic stuff.

Had it not been for various popes, the structure would’ve been pulled down for building materials after the end of the Empire in the west.

Probably true, but not the bit I was interested in or what makes the building special.

The only reason it's still around is because it's been in continuous use for two millennia.

Yes, that's what the poster just above said to me as well. I'm not disputing that, but there thousands and thousands of Catholic churches but only one Pantheon.

And you didn't even mention the tacky "King of Italy" coffins.

I was discussing this yesterday with friends: the building is still a church but a few years ago it was sold to the State (so the Church doesn't have to be responsible for the upkeep...). This means the State could, in theory, throw out all the Catholic paraphernalia and ripristinate a classical-looking interior, if local government so wished. We don't have images of the original Roman statues but I'm sure there are plenty that could be moved in from other locations. It would be definitely something that would stir international attention and attract more funds (always good) and more tourists (not always good - it's debatable whether one of the most-visited hotspots in the city actually needs more attendance...)

In any case, it will likely never happen; not only because of the massive outcry from religious quarters in "the" Catholic city, but also because a lot of the academic world is strongly opposed to this sort of "restauration" both on philosophical and practical grounds, after some massive missteps that lost us priceless artefacts in the previous centuries.

It's a shame, I think a classical Pantheon would be superb, but that's life.

When you say “classical” do you mean authentic to the way it looked when ancient Roman’s used it? It might have been just as tacky back in the day.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/true-colors-1788...

It's not really the color (I agree entirely with your link), but rather that the Savoy kings weren't exactly great leaders (they failed all their direct military initiatives, more or less, at various points looked even annoyed by the responsibility they ended up with, etc etc), still they try to claim a place "among the gods" and their mausolei are very noticeable and garish. Raffaello Sanzio has a much more understated corner, and he was Raffaello bloody Sanzio.

Besides the "tacky Kings of Italy" coffins there's also Raffaello Sanzio's tomb[1], the famous painter/ninja turtle. Did you know? Does he have more dignity to be in there according to your criteria? What is better "Reinassance" or "Ancient Rome"?

You mention that there are "philosophical and practical grounds" to oppose this kind of "restauration", yet you say that "it's a shame" we cannot do it, suggesting we should indeed prefer erasing centuries of Italian history to please tourists and attract more funds.

It is remarkably funny how the "return to order", "purity", "glory of the roman empire" was exactly the same rhetoric and aesthetic of the Italian Fascist party. I guess this could be counted among the massive missteps you mentioned?

I think you would have a much better experience if you just enjoy the stratification of history and art that Rome, Italy and the Pantheon represent instead of projecting a subjective idea of how things should be.

And yes, it's a tacky mess at times, but is not up to you, tourists, a party or even a government to decide on a scale of dignity of historic periods.

edit: added Raphael's wikpedia page reference

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael

Lol, calm down - no need to godwinize. As I said, it will never happen. It would be pretty cool though, IMHO, even just as a temporary experiment. And yes, if the Pantheon were to be "restored", Raffaello should be moved too.

> if you just enjoy the stratification of history and art that Rome, Italy and the Pantheon represent

I can do that while still expressing a personal preference for some elements over others.

> is not up to you, tourists, a party or even a government to decide

I disagree on this point. Short of blowing it up, the community of today has a right to decide on the sorts of a historic building in the same way their predecessors did. Rome is a living city, not just a museum, and it has a right to change today like it did in the past. Respect for the accumulation and stratification of cultural elements does not mean the passive acceptance of everything our predecessors did, particularly when some of them were not particularly nice people either.

I have been in Rome many times but I always pay a visit whenever I go back since it's my favourite monument there (never been a fan of St Peter, too much stuff in there). The setting is amazing since it's hidden inside the city and the structure itself it's a beautiful and impressive testament to the architectural prowess of the romans. There is truly nothing like it.

Ditto. Walking in to the Pantheon, especially off season when there aren't as many tourists, is like traveling back in time. I can't help but think about all the things that may (or may not) have happened in that space, and my imagination immediately runs wild. Whenever I find myself in Rome I have to go there, it's like a calling almost.

I have much the same feelings when walking around Forum Romanum, my imagination runs wild there also. There's something about seeing those ruins that make my mind just rebuild them and I imagine their former glory so vividly it's almost like I can see it right in front of me.

Rome is a very nice place to visit off season, I very much enjoy it.

Best season (at least for me) is end of Spring, beginning of Summer. Not too hot, plenty of sun. Rome is an extremely complicated place to live in and navigate but its beauty can be sometimes out of this world.

I couldn't agree more!

Also in my experience this applies to a lot of other places in Italy as well. Sardinia for example is an absolute marvel end of May, early June, before the summer rush starts kicking into gear.

Another remarkable building that is not quite so old (a mere ~1500 years) is the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia

Too bad Turkey decided to convert it back from a museum to a mosque [1]. Guess I won't be visiting Istanbul, then...

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53366307

I'm sure you can still visit it even though it is a mosque - I've certainly visited many mosques in Turkey and other countries.

I've been there as a mosque and it was fine, I am agnostic but from a super Catholic family, didn't bother me or the rest of the group at all, it was quite cool.

The smell thought, was super funky, I guess that is what carpets and 1000's of feets do :)

You will be missing out, Turkey is a super cool country, awesome food, super very proud people.

Haia Sofia is not even in the TOP 10 of my list of cool stuff to do in Istambul. I really hope to go back some day and spend a at least 2 weeks in the region next time.

What's in your list Top10 in Istanbul ? Curious

Turkey is (or at least was) a very popular holiday destination from the UK - and I've been loads of times. However, I did get a lot of grief at US immigration once when I was asked about all of the Turkish stamps in my passport... and had to spend twenty minutes or so explaining why I liked Turkey, which fortunately is pretty easy.

The problem is that they are a proud people

While reading this article, I thought “I don’t think Romans used rebar, and yet this still stands 2000 years later?”

Turns out, someone on Quora had the same question, and the answer lies in the fact that Romans did not use the same recipe we use for concrete. They included volcanic ash, which creates a stronger chemical bond, and obviates the need for rebar to some degree. A quick google search shows there’s a small movement to alter our current Portland Cement mixture to include volcanic ash.

https://www.quora.com/How-come-buildings-from-the-Roman-Empi...

It's the shape: everything is in compression. You could do it with modern concrete (w/o rebar) and it would also last a long time.

I'm not sure it counts as a 'building', but Stone Henge in the UK has been in use for more than 4000 years. It's also well worth a visit if you're at all interested in weird ancient stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge#After_the_monument_..., emphasis added:

“The Y and Z Holes are the last known construction at Stonehenge, built about 1600 BC, and the last usage of it was probably during the Iron Age. Roman coins and medieval artefacts have all been found in or around the monument but it is unknown if the monument was in continuous use throughout British prehistory and beyond, or exactly how it would have been used. Notable is the massive Iron Age hillfort known as Vespasian's Camp (despite its name, not a Roman site) built alongside the Avenue near the Avon. A decapitated seventh-century Saxon man was excavated from Stonehenge in 1923. The site was known to scholars during the Middle Ages and since then it has been studied and adopted by numerous groups”

So, it seems there may have been a thousand or so years it wasn’t in use. I think that puts the “still” part into doubt.

It's a little swamped with tourists and tour buses, though. If you want a place less overwhelmed with queues and cameras I suggest Avebury.

Isn't it right next to a highway?

Stonehenge is approx 250 metres from the A303, which is one of the main routes into the South West UK. The A303 at the closest point is a single lane in each direction, and frequently very slow at that point, so isn't massively obtrusive in the sense that a 6-lane motorway would be. That said, there is a plan to dig a tunnel nearby to get rid of the road completely.

Stonehenge is debatable as a visitor attraction, especially if you are in the UK only for a few days. By coach from London it is pretty much a full day, when there is a lot more history in London itself. In my opinion. Stonehenge itself (as opposed to the larger archaeological landscape) is small compared with Roman or Greek remains, so if you don't have an appreciation of the history of the place, may be underwhelming. It also gets crowded very quickly, although the fact that a close approach to the stones isn't usually possible means that everyone gets a view. Last time I went I arrived early, and got some great HDR images of the stones under an impressive moody sky.

[Edit - I also agree about Avebury being worth a visit. You can walk amongst the stones themselves, which are almost part of a historically pretty village. The really impressive structures in the nearby vicinity in my opinion are the hill forts such as Old Sarum [0] near Salisbury and Maiden Castle [1] near Dorchester. These are truly massive Iron Age earthworks.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sarum#Prehistory

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiden_Castle,_Dorset

I once drove from London to Frome, passing Stone Henge on the way - if I'd known how easily accessible it was from the A303, I would've stopped to pay a visit. It is surprisingly easy to pass.

Gabarnmung is mankinds oldest stone work, and is still in use after 44,000 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabarnmung

Seriously, if you think Stone Henge is worthy of note, you must surely understand Gabarnmungs' immense value .. some would make the claim, which I would support, that it is mankinds oldest school, still in operation.

Got to visit it once. Truly an amazing space to experience.

The Roman Herod's theater at Caesarea is also used for shows and is 2000 years old

The Roman Theatre in Mérida is also 2000 years old, and it's used regularly every year for a very popular classical theatre festival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Theatre_(M%C3%A9rida)

Visiting those super old buildings is really fascinating.

And the Ancient Theatre of Philippi, which is from mid-4th century BC.

There are also many amphitheatres still around and often in use (concerts and theatre performance) all over Europe (and beyond): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_amphitheatres

Not to say, even some Greek ones are (which are often confused with Roman ones)

Building the Pantheon today would be a demanding feat, imagine building it 2000 years ago and even imagining the dome would hold up when you started the work, much less for 2000 years. Whoever the architect/engineer was, they were unbelievably bold.

Since it’s made of unreinforced concrete, getting it permitted in almost any jurisdiction in the world would be exceedingly difficult. Which is somewhat ironic, as it’s the lack of corrodable reinforcing that’s enabled it’s extremely long lifespan.

Can plastic be used for reinforcement of the concrete in any way?

The ideal is a non-stretchy material.

Concrete is strong under compression, but has weak tensile strength. Rebar significantly increases the tensile strength of the structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebar

Yeah what you would really want is a carbon fiber or fiber glass rebar for reinforcement rather than steel to avoid corrosion.

Technically it has not, though. It was rebuilt twice, iirc, although the last time more than 1000 years ago.

The entire structure is original, and about 2000 years old. It was built on top of an earlier temple with a completely different design - that's probably what you're thinking of.

You couldn’t rebuild it today.

It still has the world’s largest cupola, and we have still don’t know how to build one that big, otherwise someone would have already done it.

So, it would not be possible to build such a building today, even though they did build one thousands of years ago.

My favorite building in Rome! Here is a recent photo: https://www.simongriffee.com/notebook/GRS-20201031-103011/

I guess tombs don't count as used

Ha, not if nobody visits them any more.

I think the point is they almost always have at least one person on site ;-)

The headline does not read “The only ancient building still being used”

True, I must have misread it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com