Page 89 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 10(2) (2022)
P. 89
ia universitatis The integration of original features by us-
pr esentation and inter pr etation of public archaeological sites ... 89 ing alternative elements foresees the replace-
ment of missing parts by clearly different ma-
terials and forms, which can give an abstract
idea of the original features. In this kind of pro-
ject, modern building materials are frequently
used, but also organic elements (Table 6; Figure
8). The replacement of missing parts can also
be performed by providing an abrupt contrast,
and in this case, it is called interpolation (Kan-
dic 1990; Stamatović, Vučković and Kujundžić
2018).
Figure 7: Abu Simbel (Egypt), the Great Temple after Table 5: Advantages and disadvantages of reconstruc-
translocation (photo Pepaserbio, https://commons.wiki- tions, anastylosis and translocation.
media.org/wiki/File:Abu_Simbel_main_temple.jpg).
Reconstruction
• Reconstructions are immediately understood by the pub- • Reconstructions can inhibit the proper completion and
lic (though the reconstruction represents just one possible viewing of the original substance of the site, and the re-
interpretation of the site, so what the visitors will so easily spective structures can even damage the archaeological re-
perceive is not the original appearance itself, but a particu- mains. Technically, it is possible to create less invasive and
lar idea of that); reversible reconstructions, but these are often raising the
• They offer protection to fragile types of materials which implementation costs;
cannot be preserved sub divo; • Normally, several elements have to be reconstructed in a
• They can host collections or other facilities, but the latter hypothetical way, so if the original substance of a build-
can severely affect the original substance; ing is, for example, preserved only at foundation level, fre-
• A reconstructed building can be easily open to the public quently there is no information about the original location
throughout the year; of the doors and windows, or the height of the ceiling etc.
• The process of reconstruction can be an educative pro- These are relevant architectural details that affect the inter-
cess itself and the finished building can be an important nal communication, lighting and volume of the building,
didactic tool for visitors, helping them to better under- so there is the risk to recreate a building with erroneous
stand the past of the site. Still, it is not necessary to do that characteristics as a hypothetical reconstruction. Authen-
in situ (thus affecting the remains), as there can be addi- ticity is in this case curtailed due to using non-original ma-
tional areas intended for reconstructions and experimen- terials and also wrong architectural features;
tal archaeology; • Just one hypothetical view of the original appearance will
• A reconstructed building can perhaps attract more visitors be shown (interpretive media allow to show different pos-
and thus generate more income for the public or private sible reconstructions), and that cannot be easily changed
authorities that manage it (Stanley-Price, 2009, 36), though if additional research will indicate that the reconstruction
additional research has to be performed in order to verify is wrong;
this assumption. • Just one period or phase of the site will be privileged at the
expenses of other phases (interpretive media allow to show
reconstructions for different phases);
• The maintenance of the reconstructed parts has to be con-
sidered alongside the original parts of the site.
pr esentation and inter pr etation of public archaeological sites ... 89 ing alternative elements foresees the replace-
ment of missing parts by clearly different ma-
terials and forms, which can give an abstract
idea of the original features. In this kind of pro-
ject, modern building materials are frequently
used, but also organic elements (Table 6; Figure
8). The replacement of missing parts can also
be performed by providing an abrupt contrast,
and in this case, it is called interpolation (Kan-
dic 1990; Stamatović, Vučković and Kujundžić
2018).
Figure 7: Abu Simbel (Egypt), the Great Temple after Table 5: Advantages and disadvantages of reconstruc-
translocation (photo Pepaserbio, https://commons.wiki- tions, anastylosis and translocation.
media.org/wiki/File:Abu_Simbel_main_temple.jpg).
Reconstruction
• Reconstructions are immediately understood by the pub- • Reconstructions can inhibit the proper completion and
lic (though the reconstruction represents just one possible viewing of the original substance of the site, and the re-
interpretation of the site, so what the visitors will so easily spective structures can even damage the archaeological re-
perceive is not the original appearance itself, but a particu- mains. Technically, it is possible to create less invasive and
lar idea of that); reversible reconstructions, but these are often raising the
• They offer protection to fragile types of materials which implementation costs;
cannot be preserved sub divo; • Normally, several elements have to be reconstructed in a
• They can host collections or other facilities, but the latter hypothetical way, so if the original substance of a build-
can severely affect the original substance; ing is, for example, preserved only at foundation level, fre-
• A reconstructed building can be easily open to the public quently there is no information about the original location
throughout the year; of the doors and windows, or the height of the ceiling etc.
• The process of reconstruction can be an educative pro- These are relevant architectural details that affect the inter-
cess itself and the finished building can be an important nal communication, lighting and volume of the building,
didactic tool for visitors, helping them to better under- so there is the risk to recreate a building with erroneous
stand the past of the site. Still, it is not necessary to do that characteristics as a hypothetical reconstruction. Authen-
in situ (thus affecting the remains), as there can be addi- ticity is in this case curtailed due to using non-original ma-
tional areas intended for reconstructions and experimen- terials and also wrong architectural features;
tal archaeology; • Just one hypothetical view of the original appearance will
• A reconstructed building can perhaps attract more visitors be shown (interpretive media allow to show different pos-
and thus generate more income for the public or private sible reconstructions), and that cannot be easily changed
authorities that manage it (Stanley-Price, 2009, 36), though if additional research will indicate that the reconstruction
additional research has to be performed in order to verify is wrong;
this assumption. • Just one period or phase of the site will be privileged at the
expenses of other phases (interpretive media allow to show
reconstructions for different phases);
• The maintenance of the reconstructed parts has to be con-
sidered alongside the original parts of the site.
