Page 36 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 10(2) (2022)
P. 36
dia universitatis her editati, letnik 10 (2022), številk a 2 / volume 10 (2022), number 2 36tion of authenticity in archaeological interpreta-ral integrity, and the simplification of cultu-
tion. Limping behind lesson philosophy learned ral diversity.
hereditatiin the beginning of the 20th century when it be- - At the environmental level on which his-
came obvious that authentic visions, no matter tory depends, the historical space envi-
how deeply felt, may be damaging when they do ronment, surrounding residents and natu-
not sufficiently account for our responsibility to- ral environment considerations on which
ward others (Gardiner 2015, 99), or in the case historical heritage relies, have led to the de-
of archaeology the interested public. With oth- struction of the surrounding environment
er words – in the 20th century the scientifically of cultural relics and historic sites. These
vaguely but legally all-encompassing principle processes made the original distinctive spa-
of authenticity is at least on the rhetorical level ces lose their authenticity.
the basic and primary principle of the protection Looking through the arguments, we real-
of historical and cultural heritage. Although it ize that today a museum or an archaeological
is mostly employed as an argument without real site is a place of total iconism – an allegory of
economic measurable background, it is legally the modern consumer society glorifying total
considered being the key to the standard for as- passivity in the observation of the past. Its visi-
cribing value to heritage and consequently creat- tors must behave like dehumanized – access to
ing the basis for its 3P – preservation, presenta- each attraction is regulated by means that dis-
tion and promotion. courage any individual initiative. The gaze upon
the monument is defined, prescribed… and it is
In the last decade numerous authors saw the not only the real thing, but institutionally me-
peril of destroying the authenticity of cultural diated abundance of reconstructed truth, if the
heritage as the initial stage of a process that will visitor obeys the regulations. And it is the role
lead to the disappearance of important histori- of archaeologists, the scientists, to reconstruct a
cal information and the lack of awareness of au- credible and “objective” past, to present the au-
thenticity (Mi and Wang 2021). They noted that: thentic archaeological heritage.
But here it seems that that the foundations
- At the material level, the protection and re- of the archaeological idea of authenticity were
pair behavior to often damages the authen- shaken by the theoretical discussions (based
ticity of the structures it was intended to on practical practices) in tourism studies, and
protect. A failure to restore the original more recently by the inclusion of modern tech-
structure or the material selection, diffe- nologies in to the process of presenting the past.
rent from the original material, functional- Everything enhanced and virtual became the
ly change the original functional purpose of new reality, reality distancing itself from the ba-
the heritage. sic archaeological notion of authenticity based
on material remains, and shifting slowly towards
- At the material level, too often the unfavora- the authenticity based on information as such,
ble supervision of the government instituti- based on knowledge about the past.
ons, ignoration of the investors and owners
as well as the weak protection awareness of Selling the experience
the general public, make the authenticity of Although not in the field, in the academic litera-
cultural heritage lost in the development ture the contemporary tourist has been ridiculed
process. for his manner of, motivation for, and achieve-
ment in travel. Basically, numerous authors de-
- At the non-material level, the lack of authen- scribing the quest of tourists for authenticity in
ticity protection for culture and perception (cultural) tourism in the last 50 years have evi-
will result in the loss of the subject of cultu-
ral authenticity, the dislocation of cultural
display in time and space, the lack of cultu-
tion. Limping behind lesson philosophy learned ral diversity.
hereditatiin the beginning of the 20th century when it be- - At the environmental level on which his-
came obvious that authentic visions, no matter tory depends, the historical space envi-
how deeply felt, may be damaging when they do ronment, surrounding residents and natu-
not sufficiently account for our responsibility to- ral environment considerations on which
ward others (Gardiner 2015, 99), or in the case historical heritage relies, have led to the de-
of archaeology the interested public. With oth- struction of the surrounding environment
er words – in the 20th century the scientifically of cultural relics and historic sites. These
vaguely but legally all-encompassing principle processes made the original distinctive spa-
of authenticity is at least on the rhetorical level ces lose their authenticity.
the basic and primary principle of the protection Looking through the arguments, we real-
of historical and cultural heritage. Although it ize that today a museum or an archaeological
is mostly employed as an argument without real site is a place of total iconism – an allegory of
economic measurable background, it is legally the modern consumer society glorifying total
considered being the key to the standard for as- passivity in the observation of the past. Its visi-
cribing value to heritage and consequently creat- tors must behave like dehumanized – access to
ing the basis for its 3P – preservation, presenta- each attraction is regulated by means that dis-
tion and promotion. courage any individual initiative. The gaze upon
the monument is defined, prescribed… and it is
In the last decade numerous authors saw the not only the real thing, but institutionally me-
peril of destroying the authenticity of cultural diated abundance of reconstructed truth, if the
heritage as the initial stage of a process that will visitor obeys the regulations. And it is the role
lead to the disappearance of important histori- of archaeologists, the scientists, to reconstruct a
cal information and the lack of awareness of au- credible and “objective” past, to present the au-
thenticity (Mi and Wang 2021). They noted that: thentic archaeological heritage.
But here it seems that that the foundations
- At the material level, the protection and re- of the archaeological idea of authenticity were
pair behavior to often damages the authen- shaken by the theoretical discussions (based
ticity of the structures it was intended to on practical practices) in tourism studies, and
protect. A failure to restore the original more recently by the inclusion of modern tech-
structure or the material selection, diffe- nologies in to the process of presenting the past.
rent from the original material, functional- Everything enhanced and virtual became the
ly change the original functional purpose of new reality, reality distancing itself from the ba-
the heritage. sic archaeological notion of authenticity based
on material remains, and shifting slowly towards
- At the material level, too often the unfavora- the authenticity based on information as such,
ble supervision of the government instituti- based on knowledge about the past.
ons, ignoration of the investors and owners
as well as the weak protection awareness of Selling the experience
the general public, make the authenticity of Although not in the field, in the academic litera-
cultural heritage lost in the development ture the contemporary tourist has been ridiculed
process. for his manner of, motivation for, and achieve-
ment in travel. Basically, numerous authors de-
- At the non-material level, the lack of authen- scribing the quest of tourists for authenticity in
ticity protection for culture and perception (cultural) tourism in the last 50 years have evi-
will result in the loss of the subject of cultu-
ral authenticity, the dislocation of cultural
display in time and space, the lack of cultu-
