Managing Archaeological Sites – Authenticity

What makes something authentic?  Authenticity in regard to archaeology and archaeological sites is generally thought of as something that has been maintained in its historical and physical context.  But what happens when an ancient site has a “living” tradition?  This post will stretch the meaning of what is truly authentic.

The Venice Charter has been used as a guide to define what can and cannot be done at an archaeological site in order to maintain its “authenticity”.  For example, nearly all reconstruction work at a site is to be entirely avoided.  Conservation of remains is to be done in a way that maintains the original.  Anastylosis (the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts) is permitted with the aid of as little as possible new material to be used to keep the original in place.

However, this idea of what is “authentic” is limited to the visual.  Sites that conduct Anastylosis with a bit of Reconstruction are required (under the Venice Charter) to make a clear visual distinction between the “authentic” and the “inauthentic”.  However, work at the Parthenon in Greece is putting a wrench into this nearly accepted practice.  Apparently, because of their desire to make the Parthenon as “authentic” as possible for the millions of visitors, they are working the stone to look as similar as possible to the ancient but are not (for visual reasons) making any distinction between the old stone and the new.  They claim that the visitors are to be treated to an “authentic experience”.

Another problem with the Venice Charter is the case of the UNESCO request by the Japanese Temples to make them “World Heritage Sites”.  This request was, at first, rejected, since it has been the practice of the Temples to replace every bit of the Temple within a 25-year period (paper, for example, just won’t last very long) and thus they are not of “authentic material”.  However, the ancient ways of producing the replaced parts (from timber to paint) are still practiced as they always have been.  The argument returned to UNESCO that if anything, the Japanese temple is more “authentic” than the ruins in the Middle East in that a visitor to the Japanese Temples are walking into an experience precisely as it would have looked and felt a thousand years ago, whereas visitors to the ruins of ancient civilizations have to rely on their imaginations (for certainly those monuments don’t look anything like they used to look).

This has caused the whole heritage movement to rethink the meaning of “authentic”.  Is something “authentic” simply  ecause it is “original”?  Or can something be “authentic” if it is has a “living tradition” or if it is being rebuilt using “authentic” methods for an “authentic experience”?

In Egypt, the Antiquity department is employing ancient methods of hewing stone to help make some much needed repairs at Saqqara (and I presume other places as well).  I talked to and watched the Egyptian workmen (who, thankfully are following the cultural dress norms of Islam rather than “authentic” ancient Egyptian customs).  These highly skilled craftsmen are able to produce work that is very similar to their ancient ancestors, which enhances the visitor’s experience. 

I am someone who believes in reconstruction, as long as the reconstruction is done using “authentic” methods and attempts to faithfully represent in a reasonable way, the ancient.  I would like to see the original materials be set aside in a museum setting (when they are no longer safe to use) or mounted in a way that they can remain visual and safe at the site itself and in their “authentic” setting.