Cite this as: Kamenova, M. and Vagalinski, L. 2020 Some Notes on Maintaining Authenticity in the Presentation of Archaeological Sites in Bulgaria, Internet Archaeology 54. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.54.1
We present the challenges facing Bulgarian experts in finding the balance between preserving the authenticity of archaeological structures and their context, and turning them into a comprehensible and attractive visitor site. Thanks to European funding over the past ten years, a number of projects have been implemented in Bulgaria for conservation, restoration, exhibition and public presentation of archaeological heritage, where the main aim is to achieve a complete visitor product. The economic and social effect, on the one hand, has a positive impact as an inspiration for archaeological research and the popularisation of this type of cultural heritage, but has led to a compromise of the scientific value at some sites. We note some examples to illustrate the combined role of experts, participants and stakeholders in their 'reading' and 'translating' the archaeology – seeking to generate interest, clarify and convey the experience of 'genius loci'. The role of the state in the management of archaeological heritage is examined through its different governmental levels and interaction. The requirements imposed by legislation and practice are also observed.
First, the development of the archaeological heritage conservation system in Bulgaria will be briefly reviewed, its current state of the processes, its actors and the interactions between them, the positive and the negative aspects, and, in more detail, the problems we face in preserving authenticity while turning the archaeological site into an attractive one. Then we focus on our main topic; the authenticity and the attractiveness of archaeological sites in Bulgaria.
Corresponding author: Milena Kamenova
archika@mail.bg
Architect in Conservation and Restoration/Urban Planning, Archika
Co-author: Lyudmil Vagalinski
National Archaeological Institute with Museum
Figure 1: The Law for Search of Antiquities and for Supporting Scholarly Institutions and Libraries. Image: Georgi Ivanov
Figure 2: Participants in the protection of archaeological heritage in Bulgaria, current stage. Image: Authors
Figure 3: Documenting archaeological heritage in different levels – LiDAR, photogrammetry, 3D scanning in the ancient city of Heraclea Sintica, near the present-day city of Petrich. See also http://www.archaeologia-bulgarica.com. Image: Authors
Figure 4: Roman villa in Cabyle (near the city of Yambol) – ruins and virtual reconstruction. Image: Milena Kamenova
Figure 5: Contemporary reconstructions – the medieval fortress of Krakra (by the city of Pernik) and the Roman city of Abritus (now Razgrad). Image: Authors
Figure 6: The reconstructions and the context – the Lower Danube Roman legion's camp and late antiquity city of Novae (left; near the city of Svishtov) and the late antiquity fortress of Roman Pautalia (now the city of Kyustendil). Image: Milena Kamenova
Figure 7: Archaeological heritage and creative industries, art and re-enactment at the city of Veliko Tarnovo (left) and in the city of Belogradchik. Image: Milena Kamenova
Table 1: Key periods and their characteristics in the development of the archaeological heritage conservation system in Bulgaria
European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised). 1992 https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/143
Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. 2004 https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/199
ICOMOS. Nara Document on Authenticity. 1994 https://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf
ICOMOS. The Florence Declaration on Heritage and Landscape as Human Values. 2014https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Secretariat/2015/GA_2014_results/GA2014_Symposium_FlorenceDeclaration_EN_final_20150318.pdf
ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites. 2008 http://icip.icomos.org/downloads/ICOMOS_Interpretation_Charter_ENG_04_10_08.pdf
Jokilehto. J. 2008 The World Heritage List. What is OUV? Defining the Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World Heritage Properties, Berlin: Hendrik Bäßler Verlag https://www.icomos.org/publications/monuments_and_sites/16/index.htm
Кандулкова. И 2002 История На Опазването На Архитектурното Наследство В България До Втората Световна Война, Университет По Архитектура Строителство И Геодезия. (Kandulkova. Y. 2002 A History of Architectural Heritage Protection in Bulgaria since the Second World War), University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Bulgaria). https://icomos-bg.org/filebank/att_27.pdf
de la Torre, M. 2002 Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/assessing.pdf
Тулешков, Н. 2017 'Нормативна уредба и проблеми на архитектурната реставрация и социализацията на недвижимите културни ценности (1886–2016)', Паметници, реставрация, музеи 12, 83-97. (Tuleshkov, N. 2017. 'Regulations and problems of architectural restoration and socialization of real cultural values (1886–2016)', Monuments, Restoration, Museums 12, 83 -97.)
Internet Archaeology is an open access journal based in the Department of Archaeology, University of York. Except where otherwise noted, content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY) Unported licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that attribution to the author(s), the title of the work, the Internet Archaeology journal and the relevant URL/DOI are given.
Terms and Conditions | Legal Statements | Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Citing Internet Archaeology
Internet Archaeology content is preserved for the long term with the Archaeology Data Service. Help sustain and support open access publication by donating to our Open Access Archaeology Fund.
Home
