[Formendacil]

I rather agree with Bêthberry- the presence of real and historical artefacts has a profound interest in one's (well, mine anyway) perception of history.

Although not a history major (one needs to be in school for that, which I am not), I share your interest and fascination for "real" history. But although I have always appreciated the distinction between True Past Fact (Real History) and Feigned Past Fact (Fake History), the real difference for me between the former and the latter was that in the case of the latter, I could get out a globe, spin it 1/3 of the way around, and say "There: that's where the Roman Emperors ruled. X distance form Here, where I am".

I had no such comparisons for the Kings of Gondor. Yes, I could take out the Map, point at Minas Tirith and say: "There: that's where Aragorn ruled." But I could not make the tie back to myself- back to reality- that I could do with the Romans.

And being able to go TO Rome made it even more real, last year. To walk the Roman forum, where Julius Caesar must have walked, to see the Colosseum, and the Circus Maximus, and St. Peter's- whatever I saw and visited, the force of history is there BEHIND you. You can look at it, and know that the persons of history have been there.

Even if you could construct a perfect replica, ideal to all fans, critics, and Tolkien himself (which is impossible on all three counts) of, say, Minas Tirith, you could not go there and say "Aragorn has walked here." In the case of Rome, history was caused by what you see and walk through. In the case of this Minas Tirith, the "history" is what caused it to come to be. Facts must precede and cause history. In the case of Middle-Earth, there are no Facts to cause and precede it, other than the workings of Tolkien's pens, pencils, and typewriters.