Tourism and Archaeological Sites: Conservation through Replication

           Every year, millions of tourists travel the world to see the variety of attractions the modern age has to offer.  But some of the most prized destinations are those not produced by this age, but those of the past.  We travel to Italy for the Colosseum, China for the Great Wall, Peru for Machu Pichu. Meanwhile, archaeological site managers strive to make the most exciting and famous parts of a site available for tourists to see. Sometimes whole sites or pieces of them have been reconstructed for a more appealing look or give the visitors the feeling that they are walking in a place at the height of its power.  Tourism can bring a site and its local community great economic gain. Many archaeological sites have prospered tremendously from the thousands of tourist visits every year, likewise the communities and businesses in towns have flourished from being close to archaeological sites.

            However, what many often fail to realize is that tourism can be one of the most destructive forces facing archaeological sites and their conservators. When a public audience is given admission to a site, inevitably some will disregard signs prohibiting littering and touching of delicate objects and architecture. For example, at an archaeological site of Volubilis, Morocco, it is not uncommon for visitors to climb walls to take better pictures. Graffiti and looting are also worrying, and at the same site, visitors will sometimes pocket pottery and mosaictesserae as souvenirs (Teutónico and Palumbo 2000, 6).

            Tourism can also have less obvious negative consequences. Most archaeological sites are not equipped to handle large crowds, and as a result part(s) of sites need to be destroyed to allow space for tourists to walk and stand. Plaques and lights are drilled into ancient walls and platforms are set on top of delicate floors. Additionally, thecharacteristics of a site that are the most delicate are commonly the most popular like wall paintings and therefore they need to be exposed for viewing. Bathrooms and modern plumbing need to be built into sites and pipe bursts can be catastrophic. All these factors can cause an archaeological site irreparable damage and the permanent loss of archaeological data.

            Tourism can also harm the landscape surrounding a site just as much as it aids the local population. Hotels, restaurant, shops and other service industries are constructed in the areas surrounding a site, along with roads and highways. This may improve the livelihoods of locals, but it is destructive to the archaeological context and environment of the site. These modern facilities can be pollutants to the surrounding landscape and even to the site itself (De la Torre 1995, 6). Local populations and their governing bodies must bear the brunt of maintaining these sites and their surroundings and the responsibility for any damage caused. Some do not have the monetary ability to handle the costs associated with tourism, which can lead to further damage to the site (De la Torre1995, 7). 

Photo Credit: Author

            Many of these problems are unavoidable when one has turned an ancient site into a tourist attraction. There will always be accidental bumps or curious children touching things they should not, as well as the need for plumbing and bathrooms. At most sites tourists are kept within certain bounds to protect the architecture and artifacts. However, some sites cope by sacrificing part of the site for the sake of the public while others keep stricter control on the stream of tourists. The city of Beth She’an Israel, for example, has turned the ruins of the city into a large archaeological park withthe Bronze and Iron Ages and Roman-Byzantine Period exposed (De la Torre 1995, 54). Themanagers of the site made the decision to sacrifice parts of the site for tourists to interact with and in turn slowly destroy it. The site is relatively open for tourists to explore with few restrictions on what can be touched, though some of the more important small and medium sized finds have been removed to museums with replicas put in their place, like the Lion and Dog Stele. I can remember visiting the site as a child and running along the Roman roads and among (and sometimes atop) the stone ruins.  Part of the site has also been reconstructed. Some of the pillars along the main road have been resurrected and the amphitheater has been reconstructed with modern materials to make it suitable for performances. The close encounter visitors can have with the site, based on personal experience, is very valuable and enjoyable. One gets the feeling of walking the real ancient roads and sitting in the original theater that people sat in thousands of years ago. Though the experience gives the audience the chance to interact with the site, it is damaging as well. The closeness tourists are allowed to the materials is almost frightening. As all have the freedom to explore the ruins, displacing stone or pocketing sherds with no regard, the site becomes increasingly damaged and more information about the past is destroyed.

            Striking a balance between allowing the public to interact with a site and preserving it is very difficult.  One solution some have pursued to combat this problem is the construction of replicas.  This keeps sites safe from harm by visitors while still giving them a similar experience to that of visiting the real thing. This way sites can be preserved properly, and researchers and scholars can study them and preserve their findings. Such undertakings acknowledge the desire many tourists have for experience while allowing a site to be conserved, however, it does disregard the desire many tourists have for authenticity and is fraught with issues of ownership and regulation.  Tourists are not restricted to seeing something for only a few minutes or refraining from touching or accidentally breaking something. They can engage with the replica site as if it was the real site, touch it, or just let it sink in for a long time. Site reconstruction also gives builders the chance to pick which story to tell. They can choose to reconstruct it in its glory or reconstruct the ruins brick by brick to the point where the average viewer cannot see the difference. 

            Lascaux caves in the Dordogne region of southwestern France are an excellent example of this practice. These caves containing outstanding artistry were discovered in 1940 and opened for public visitation in 1948. The caves contain 900 representations of aurochs and other animals created using red, brown and black paints made from plant materials (Lichfield 2010). It did not take long to notice that the rise in the site’s popularity and number of visitors was taking its toll on the site and its paintings, due to the fact that the materials are very sensitive to the air and oil on human skin (Archaeology Travel). After the caves were closed in 1963 for conservation, a replica of two of its famous chambers was opened twenty years later. Today, 3 versions of the caves have been created. One of these displays travels the world on tour and another is a digital replica of the entire cave using projection technology. Laser mapping, high-resolution stereoscopic photos, and geodesic modeling were used to produce high-resolution images that are extremely accurate. This technology allows the creators to not only project the images on the cave walls, but also to use animation to illustrate to visitors how the images were created (Lascaux Field Museum).  These innovations allow tourists to see the caves, while allowing the originals to be properly conserved and carefully studied.

            Despite the benefits a replica can bring to a site in terms of conservation, it is not without its drawbacks. These replicas have been criticized for being inauthentic experiences and not worth seeing for not being the originals. It is true that these sites sacrifice authenticity for conservation and demand the public overlook this for a site’s protection, and one may wonder if it is worthwhile to see only a recreation. Though site replication does not necessarily satisfy the desire to see a site for one’s self (though it may be possible to allow tourists to see a site from a certain distance), it does allow tourists to experience a site without causing it damage. It allows visitors to do things they could not at the real site, like walk on mosaic floors or feel the textures of surfaces.

            The accuracy of a replica also impacts the authenticity of the tourist experience. The ability to replicate gives one the ability to choose what story to tell, such as the choice between replicating a ruin as a ruin or make it whole as it was in the past. M. R. Rambaran-Olm of the University of Glasgow once wrote: “It is somewhat ironic that endeavors to…create a model of an ancient site, building, or artefact with the aim of reconnecting an audience or readership with a place, time, and/or piece of history in the process creates additional distance between the original and its audience… we are offering another twenty-first (century) interpretation of an ancient…site” (Rambaran-Olm 2013). This is particularly true of replicas that desire to show a site as it was in the past; what is being shown is a twenty-first century interpretation of what is was, and that interpretation can vary. A builder may even intentionally put forth a whole new and unsupported view of the site in its past for their own purposes. The representation may claim to be objective, but any presentation of the past is based on choices of interpretation used to tell a particular narrative that an audience will find interesting (De la Torre 1995, 52). Though some presentations can be both accurate and interesting, there is no guarantee. These concerns make a replica very difficult to trust as accurate, particularly those who desire to replicate what a site used to look like.

            There are also many questions that must be answered before a site is replicated. The answers to these questions change from site to site and may in fact be issues without solutions, which could keep a site from ever being replicated. Some mundane issues surrounding site replication include funding and space, and the issue of landscape also needs to be considered.  The landscape may be too important to a site’s character for the site to be replicated. Further, the effects of a replica on communities need to be considered.  Otherquestions include: who owns the replica (this is a very complex question I will not go into) and who has the authority to access or grant access to the original site. 

            Site replication can have many complications. It is a nice ideal because it offers conservation for archaeological sites in danger and allowance for continued tourism, but it is nearly impossible unless the site is controlled by an entity with money, space and the ability to take criticism concerning access and interpretation. A possible variation of site replication is virtual replication of a site in virtual reality. In a virtual reality the issues of space and decontextualizing a site are less problematic; a site’s surrounding landscape can be added in. However, it is still plagued with issues like those faced by physical reconstruction. Virtual replicas are completely inauthentic like physical replicas and can easily be inaccurate due to problems in programing or information processing. It is time-consuming to perfect a computer program at a high resolution and even after many tests it is usually inaccurate in some way (Papionnou, Gaitatzes, and Christopoulos 2003, 2-3). Virtual replicas also require funding to produce and take tourists and business away from local communities around an archaeological site. The questions of ownership of the virtual replica, and access and control of the original site must be answered as well. Like the physical replica proposal, virtual replicas cannot work at all sites, but it may serve as a useful alternative and a way of ensuring an archaeological site’s conservation while still serving tourists.

            Though examples like the Lascaux Caves illustrate the benefits of site replication, they also illustrate the many problems surrounding this possible solution. Site replication has its benefits, but it cannot be universally adopted by all archaeological sites in need of conservation. It is an ideal way to save an archaeological site from the destruction of tourists while retaining tourism and give visitors an interactive experience, despite its less than perfect authenticity. It is nevertheless littered with problems to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, from ownership and control of the replica to regulation of access to the original. Thus, in many cases, physical site replication will not be feasible.

Works Cited:

Archaeology Travel. "Lascaux II." https://archaeology-travel.com/france/lascaux-ii/.

De la Torre, Marta, ed. The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region. LosAngeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 1995.

Lichfield, John. "Closed to the public, but Sarkozy gains access to threatened cave art."

Independent, September 12, 2010. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/closedto-the-public-but-sarkozy-gains-access-to-threatened-cave-art-2077575.html

Papionnou, G, A Gaitatzes, and D Christopoulos. "Enhancing Virtual Reality Walkthroughs ofArchaeological Sites." 4th International Symposium n Virtual Reality, Archaeology, andIntelligent Cultural Heritage (2003): 1-9.

Rambaran-Olm, M R. "The advantages and disadvantages of digital reconstruction and Anglo-Saxon manuscripts." Digital Medievalist 9 (2013). http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/9/rambaranolm/

Teutónico, Jeanne M., and Gaetano Palumbo, eds. Management Planning for Archaeological Sites.Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2000.

See also: 

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/apr/15/chauvet-cave-art-replica-is-nonsense