|>>|| No. 19070
They do to an extent but the insights they give are more limited than the things I mentioned earlier. I consider the knowledge we have about the things that have taken place there to be more important than the building itself, if we start thinking otherwise then we're going to have to keep every ruin around forever and patch them up indefinitely everytime a bit of plaster chips off. Which, just to clarify once again, isn't me having a bout of iconoclasm, but an acknowledgment that we don't need to rebuild Hadrian's Wall to know why it's there or what's taken place around it. And yes, I know archeologists sometimes rebuild things to better understand the construction methods etc, but I'm already well over my 120 character limit.
The reason I pointed out it was a ruin during the 19th century, which was overstating it a bit in hindsight, was to highlight this wasn't the first time Notre-Dame had gone to the dogs. They rebuilt the spire back then and they'll do it again now. The building hasn't been sat under a giangantic glass dome for the past eight centuries.