which appears in several recent unabridged dictionaries (though not in the latest edition of the O.E.D.).
But, what's the distinction being made here between these terms, "restitutions, reconstructions, remontages ou anastyloses" ?

On a guess, I'd say that a "restitution" *might* be any sort of [English] "reconstruction" --i.e., there *may* or may *not* be anything actually left of the structure which can be used in the rebuilding of the thing (picture the "restitution" of a "Woodhenge", a circular arraignment of large *wooden* posts, rather than the *stone* ones used in a "Stonehenge"; there's no wood left, only the holes the posts sat in).

A "reconstruction", otOh, might be what we would call a "reconstruction", i.e., the monument survives, but is in pieces, which simply need to be "reconstructed."

How the latter differs from a "remontage" is beyond me --maybe it's just a question of "remounting" some few of the parts, rather than something much more extensive(?).

OtOh, "anastyloses" is your basic six-bit word, imitation Greek, technical jargon for a *much* more extensive operation, involving "the restauration of a ruined monument or building by re-assembling fallen parts and, when necessary *incorporating new materials*." [Random House, emphesis mine]

It's certainly a very technical term and what form you use depends upon the construction of your sentence in translation.

How about : "Various options concerning the reconstruction, restauration, rebuilding or [full-scale] anastylitic reconstruction must be taken into account in order to be assured of the best and most accurate archaeolgical work." ?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-05-24 18:48:15 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

What\'s the *RUSH* ?

If your text is a \"scientifique\" one, then these distinctions are there for a purpose and would have specific meanings to the \"archéologues\" who read it.

\"Reconstruction\" is, in essence, a *mental* exercise, which may or may not involve the use of any material bits surviving from the site.
A \"reconstruction\" can be a drawing or a model, showing the monument as it once was, imagined according to both the existing evidence and, if necessary, whatever can be gleaned from similar or analogous monuments to \"reconstruct\" the parts which might be gone without a trace (eg., the roof is missing here, but we know what a roof on a similar building looked like from, say, a surviving painting).

\"Restoration\" [note my mispelling above] involves *physically* \"restoring\" the monument, according to the \"reconstruction\" of it. This can be just a matter of replacing a few stones, a bit of decoration, or whatever; or it can be quite extensive.
In the 19th century Viollet-le-Duc and his collegues \"restored\" a great many medieval buildings in France (St. Denis, Paris cathedral, Vézelay) quite extensively, and all according to a \"reconstruction\" of what they *thought* the original might --or even *should*-- have looked like. And, in the main, that \"reconstruction\" of theirs is at considerable odds to the way late 20th c. archeologists believe those monuments looked.

\"Rebuilding\", strictly speaking, just means putting the parts back together, a relatively simple matter --although certainly open to errors.

An \"anastylitic reconstruction\" would be the most \"scientifique\" of the lot, involving a carefully made [mental] \"reconstruction\", *and* the use of all of the surviving material elements, *and* the use of purpose-made new materials to take the place of those elements which are missing.