st ud ia universitatis he re di ta ti letnik 10 številka 2 2022 volume 10 number 2 2022 studia universitatis hereditati Znanstvena revija za raziskave in teorijo kulturne dediščine Letnik 10, številka 2, 2022 / Volume 10, Number 2, Year 2022 Glavna in odgovorna urednica ter urednica številke / Editor-in-chief dr. Zrinka Mileusnić (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper) Urednica številke / Guest Editor dr. Martina Blečić Kavur (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper) Izvršni in tehnični urednik revije ter oblikovanje / Managing Editor and Design dr. Jonatan Vinkler (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper) Prelom / Typesetting Tajda Senica Uredniški odbor / Editorial Board dr. Vesna Bikić (Arheološki institut Beograd, SANU), dr. Valentina Brečko Grubar (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Jadranka Cergol (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Zdravka Hincak (Filozofski fakultet, Sveučilište u Zagrebu), dr. Matej Hriberšek (Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani), dr. Katja Hrobat Virloget (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Alenka Janko Spreizer (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Petra Kavrečič (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Irena Lazar (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Tea Perinčić (Pomorski i povijesni muzej Hrvatskog primorja Rijeka), dr. Marcello Potocco (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Maša Sakara Sučevič (Pokrajinski muzej, Koper), dr. Peter Sekloča (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Alenka Tomaž (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Jonatan Vinkler (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Jana Volk (Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Koper), dr. Paola Visentini (Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, Udine) Izdajatelj / Publisher Univerza na Primorskem – Založba Univerze na Primorskem University of Primorska – University of Primorska Press © 2022 Založba Univerze na Primorskem / University of Primorska Press Zanjo/For Publisher: prof. dr. Klavdija Kutnar, rektorica Titov trg 4 SI-6000 Koper ISSN 2350-5443 doi: https://doi.org/10.26493/2350-5443.10(2) Izid revije je finančno podprla Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije s sredstvi državnega proračuna iz naslova razpisa za sofinanciranje izdajanja domačih znanstvenih periodičnih publikacij. studia universitatis hereditati st ud ia universitatis he re di ta ti letnik 10 številka 2 2022 volume 10 number 2 2022 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Vsebina Contents 7 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Martina Blečić Kavur 9 Uvodnik Editorial Dorothea Papathanasiou, Aldo Di Russo 13 Applying the Interpretive Equation to facilitating cultural experiences for audiences with special needs in the digital environment Uporaba interpretativne enačbe za omogočanje kulturnih izkušenj za občinstvo s posebnimi potrebami v digitalnem okolju Aleksandra Karovska Ristovska, Nikola Minov 27 Universal Design and Cultural Heritage Univerzalno oblikovanje in kulturna dediščina Boris Kavur, Martina Blečić Kavur 35 What do you really want? Kaj zares želite? Zrinka Mileusnić, Aleksandra Bugar 43 Museum accessibility: development of good practice for the promotion of archaeological heritage Muzejska dostopnost: razvoj dobre prakse za promocijo arheološke dediščine Ivan Malezanov, Martina Blečić Kavur 57 Virtual accessibility of the Macedonian tomb in Ohrid Virtualna dostopnost grobnice makedonskega tipa v Ohridu Viktor Lilchikj Adamsen, Antonio Jakimovski, Marjan Jovanov 67 The Roman temple – heroon of Gramadje, Barovo – Demir Kapija Rimski tempelj – heroon iz Gramadja, Barovo – Demir Kapija Katharina Zanier, Tajda Senica, Nejc Dolinar 77 Presentation and interpretation of public archaeological sites looking towards sustainability and inclusion Prezentacija in interpretacija javnih arheoloških najdišč s pogledom na trajnost in inkluzijo Martina Blečić Kavur, Boris Kavur 99 AD HOC – Accessible and Digitalized Heritage of Culture for Persons with Disabilities: a project and its results AD HOC – Dostopna in digitalizirana kulturna dediščina za osebe s posebnimi potrebami: projekt in njegovi rezultati st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i © aut hor/aut horsst ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Uvodnik Editorial Martina Blečić Kavur Univerza na Primorskem, Fakulteta za humanistične študije, Slovenija martina.blecic.kavur@upr.si 9 Sodobne družbe so kompleksni sistemi, ki vključujejo tudi osebe s posebnimi potreba-mi. Različni načini doživljanja arheologije, preteklosti in dediščine so kontekstualne narave, ker jih lahko vsi različno vrednotimo, dojemamo in razumemo. Zato je tudi upravljanje in varstvo arheološke dediščine danes nepredstavljivo brez aktivnega sodelovanja javnosti v celoti. Časi, ko je bila arheologija disciplina razumljiva in dos- topna samo ozkemu akademskemu krogu, so preteklost. Po drugi strani, pa je ti. inkluzivna arheologija precej nov arheološki pristop, ki se, za razliko od arheologije za javnost, osredotoča na specifične skupine ljudi in jih obravnava indi- vidualno, ter omogoča da v celoti izkusijo in do- živijo svojo preteklost. Premisa dosegljive in/ali dostopne arheolo- ške dediščine je v zadnjih nekaj letih močno po- večala prepoznavnost vprašanj vključevanja oseb s posebnimi potrebami. To je posledično pri- peljalo do množice projektov, ki zajemajo širok spekter dejavnosti in ustvarjajo nove smernice v arheologiji. V tem kontekstu je bil osmišljen in izpeljan tudi mednarodni visokošolski projekt ERASMUS+ Accessible and Digitalized Cultu- ral Heritage for Persons with Disabilities / Doseg- ljiva in digitalizirana kulturna dediščina za osebe s posebnimi potrebami (AD HOC 92019-1-MK- 01-KA203-060269), ki je vključeval partnerje iz Severne Makedonije (Univerza Sv. Cirila in Me- toda, Filozofska fakulteta, Skopje), Grčije (Arti- factory, Chios), Italije (Univerza Tor Vergata v Rimu) in Slovenije (Univerza na Primorskem, Fakulteta za humanistične študije) (https://ad- hoc.ireason.mk/). Namen tega projekta je bil ustvariti strateško partnerstvo na področju viso- kega šolstva z ciljem ustvarjanja inovativnih pra- ks pri digitalizaciji arheološke dediščine in nje- ni dostopnosti za osebe s posebnimi potrebami. Z drugimi besedami, projekt je bil usmerjen na približanje arheološke dediščine ne samo šir- ši javnosti, temveč specifičnim skupinam ljudi s posebnimi potrebami (osebe z okvarami vida ali sluha in motnjami v duševnem razvoju) z digita- lizacijo te dediščine v formatih, ki so dostopni vsem in s tem omogočajo spletno učenje, učenje na daljavo ter vseživljenjsko učenje. V okvirju projekta je bila aprila 2022, v or- ganizaciji Fakultete za humanistične študije in Oddelka za arheologijo in dediščino izpeljana mednarodna konferenca Accessible and Digitali- zed Cultural Heritage for Persons with Disabili- ties – Ad HoC katere so se udeležili vsi partnerji in povabljeni predavatelji. Izbrani prispevki ko- legov iz Severne Makedonije, Grčije, Italije, Hr- vaške in Slovenije pa so zbrani v tej tematski šte- vilki revije Studia universitatis hereditati (10/2), ki je pred nami. Pričujoča številka je zbir sedmih razprav, razporejenih v dva sklopa. Najprej so uvršče- ni prispevki teoretičnih razprav, nato pa sledijo članki predstavitev primerov iz specifičnih po- dročji dostopnosti in/ali digitalizacije arheolo- ške dediščine dosegljive v muzejih, na najdiščih, oziroma predstavitve zaradi različnih okoliščin popolnoma nedostopne arheološke dediščine. ht t ps://doi .org /10. 26493/2350-54 43.10(2)9-11 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 10 Prvo razpravo, Uporaba interpretativne enačbe za omogočanje kulturnih izkušenj za občinstvo s po- sebnimi potrebami v digitalnem okolju, sta prip- ravila Dorotha Papathanasiou in Aldo Di Russo (Artifactory, Grčija). Predstavljata vlogo in vred- note multimedijsko podprte digitalne pripove- di in digitalne izkušnje, ki ne uresničujejo le kul- turnih odkritij na mestih, v muzejih in zbirkah, temveč izpolnjujejo izobraževalne cilje in men- talno usposabljanje ter obiskovalcem s posebni- mi potrebami omogočajo interakcijo s (ponov- no) predstavljeno dediščino. Sledi prispevek, ki je prav tako osredoto- čen na rabo in izkoriščanje novih tehnologij v kontekstu univerzalnega oblikovanja v uče- nju, naslova Univerzalno oblikovanje in kultur- na dediščina. Aleksandra Karovska Ristovska in Nikola Minov z Univerze Sv. Cirila in Me- toda v Skopju predstavljata možnosti in dosež- ke interoperabilne digitalne spletne platforme, razvite v okviru projekta Accessible and Digita- lized Cultural Heritage for Persons with Disabili- tes. Slednja, ki predlaga vključevanje in razširitev načinov predstavljanja, več načinov izražanja in vrsto interakcij za angažiranje, omogoča osebam s posebnimi potrebami zaznavno dostopnost in- kluzivnem učenju arheologije, arheološke in kul- turne dediščine. Tretji članek prvega sklopa, Kaj zares želi- te?, podpisujeta Boris Kavur in Martina Blečić Kavur z Univerze na Primorskem. Prispevek na- govarja avtentičnosti arheološke dediščine in no- vih perspektiv njene predstavitve, ki z uporabo IKT naprav, širijo vidik dediščinskega turizma in ga selijo v svet virtualne resničnosti. Zaključi- ta kako se s tem omogoča, pri obravnavi o vklju- čevanju oseb s posebnimi potrebami, premik od razprave o minoriziranih identitetah k skup- ni izkušnji, hkrati pa se zmanjšajo razlike med zmožnostmi potrošnje med različnimi člani so- dobne in kompleksne družbe. Drugi sklop prispevkov odpira članek Mu- zejska dostopnost: razvoj dobre prakse za promoci- jo arheološke dediščine v soavtorstvu Zrinke Mi- leusnić (Univerze na Primorskem) in Aleksandre Bugar (Muzej grada Zagreba). Na primeru do- sedanjih aktivnosti Mestnega muzeja Zagreb, ki ima dolgo zgodovino dela z obiskovalci s po- sebnimi potrebami in je prejel oznako COME- -IN, razpravljata o pomenu in dostopnos- ti arheološke dediščine vsem tipom muzejskih obiskovalcev. Poudarek je na skupnem principu vzajemnega učenja, ki uvaja vse več različnih pri- lagoditev v muzeje za vse obiskovalce, obenem pa rednim obiskovalcem omogoča, da se seznanijo z inkluzijo. Iz muzejsko dostopne arheološke dedišči- ne, nas naslednji članek privede do popolnoma nedostopne arheološke dediščine, oziroma do možnosti sodobnega načina njene prezentaci- je na primeru grobnice v Ohridu. Ivan Maleza- nov iz Nacionalnega zavoda za varstvo kulturnih spomenikov in muzeja v Ohridu in Martina Ble- čić Kavur z Univerze na Primorskem, predsta- vljata izdelavo digitalne dokumentacije za virtu- alno rekonstrukcijo, vizualno restavracijo in 3D model zgodovinsko zelo pomembne grobnice makedonskega tipa. S tem nam predstavita kako se lahko popolnoma izoliranem najdišču omo- goči vizualni dostop v okvirju dediščinskega tu- rizma in/ali inkluzivne arheologije. Naslednji članek Rimski tempelj – heroon iz Gramadja, Barovo – Demir Kapija je tudi pri- mer iz prakse. Viktor Lilchik Adamsen, Anto- nio Jakimovski in Marjan Jovanov z Univerze Sv. Cirila in Metoda v Skopju, predstavljajo re- zultate arheološke raziskave templja – heroona iz rimskega obdobja, izdelave tridimenzionalne digitalne rekonstrukcije, vizualne restavracije in 3D modela templja, oziroma njegove uporabe v različnih izobraževalnih dejavnostih za občin- stvo s posebnimi potrebami. Številko zaključuje obsežen članek Kathari- ne Zanier z Univerze v Ljubljani, ki v soavtor- stvu s Tajdo Senica in Nejcem Dolinarjem iz Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine Sloveni- je, obravnava prezentacijo in interpretacijo ar- heoloških najdišč glede na njihovo entiteto, sta- nje ohranjenosti in potencialne možnosti razvoja ter širši dostopnosti najdišč v konceptu trajnos- ti in inkluzije. Predstavljeni so različni predlogi prezentacije in interpretacije arheoloških najdi- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i u v o d n ik • e d it o r ia l 11 šč za obiskovalce z vidnimi in z nevidnimi ovira- nostmi v namen zagotavljanja čim širše inkluzije in kvalitetne interpretacije arheološke dediščine. Razprave v tej tematski številki predstavlja- jo le del potencialov arheološke dediščine z vi- dika širjenja sposobnosti njene interpretacije, možnosti prilagajanja in dinamike angažiranja z namenom večje interaktivnosti in s tem celovi- tejšega vključevanja. Od teoretičnih okvirov in novih platform, ki se uresničujejo z vsakim no- vim projektom, do konkretnih primerov na do- stopnih ali nedostopnih najdiščih, muzejskih zbirk ali razstav, pa vse do virtualne resnično- sti, inkluzivna arheologija zavzema vse pomemb- nejše mesto pri vrednotenju, dojemanju in razu- mevanju preteklosti, odražajoč našo sedanjost, kakor zgoraj, tako spodaj in kakor zunaj, tako znotraj. Želimo vam prijetno branje! st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Abstract The ERASMUS+ Higher Education Project AD HOC (92019-1-MK01-KA203-060269) introduced a new cultural heritage infrastructure for audiences with special needs. The main aim is to make accessi- ble places of cultural significance by facilitating cognitive-emotional experiences in the digital domain. A cognitive driven communication pattern has been developed and adapted to the conditions regu- lating learning in the informal environment. The pattern employs storytelling to decongest working memory from irrelevant cognitive loads, enabling new cognitive content to relate to prior knowledge. A mixed methodology has been applied merging the principles of hermeneutics, human cognitive ar- chitecture, instructional design and digital storytelling to effectively address the needs of audiences with special needs. Key words: hermeneutics, human cognitive architecture, audiences with special needs, heritage interpre- tation, digital storytelling Izvleček Visokošolski projekt ERASMUS+ AD HOC (92019-1-MK01-KA203-060269) je uvedel novo infra- strukturo kulturne dediščine za občinstvo s posebnimi potrebami. Glavni cilj je bil narediti dostopne kraje kulturnega pomena s spodbujanjem kognitivno-čustvenih izkušenj v digitalni domeni. Razvit je bil kognitivno usmerjen komunikacijski vzorec prilagojen razmeram, ki urejajo učenje v neformalnem okolju. Vzorec uporablja pripovedovanje zgodb za razbremenitev delovnega spomina pred nepomemb- nimi kognitivnimi obremenitvami, kar omogoča, da se nova kognitivna vsebina poveže s predhodnim znanjem. Uporabljena je bila mešana metodologija, ki združuje načela hermenevtike, človeške kogni- tivne arhitekture, zasnove poučevanja in digitalnega pripovedovanja zgodb za učinkovito obravnavanje potreb občinstva s posebnimi potrebami. Ključne besede: hermenevtika, človekova kognitivna arhitektura, osebe s posebnimi potrebami, interpre- tacija dediščine, digitalno pripovedovanje zgodb Applying the Interpretive Equation to facilitating cultural experiences for audiences with special needs in the digital environment Uporaba interpretativne enačbe za omogočanje kulturnih izkušenj za občinstvo s posebnimi potrebami v digitalnem okolju Dorothea Papathanasiou Artifactory, Chios, Greece dorothea@artifactory.eu Aldo Di Russo Artifactory, Chios, Greece aldo@dirusso.eu 13 Introduction In the common perception, objects that have survived the flow of history are linked to the past. However, not everyone is aware of the influence they exert. Whether they are objects, myths, stories, values or beliefs, it is society that makes them understandable and interpretable. Culture exists if it is contextualized, meaning that the focus of any interpretation should be on ht t ps://doi .org /10. 26493/2350-54 43.10(2)13-26 © aut hor/aut hors st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i the community that has created the object, the story and the legend. In order to be appreciated every artefact that has survived its time must re- turn to being a “making” rather than a “made”. In this sense, the new digital media must be able to articulate themselves in a language of their own and not be colonized from the non-digital form, merely becoming tools for dissemination. It is not about spreading already constructed in- terpretations, or artefacts separated from their historical context, but about providing, in the most capillary way, the tools to interpret their life at the time of their life considering the com- plexity of the relationships that exist in a society with respect to the very representation that art has created. Despite the fact that 84% of the EU citi- zens declare cultural heritage as personally im- portant and 90% important for their country, much too often the possibility for the (co) cre- ation of a participatory cultural space with cog- nitive-emotional access to the values of heritage, that promotes self-reflective and critical think- ing, remains unattended from the supply side, e.g., cultural heritage agencies and institutions. Even less opportunities exist for audiences with visual, auditory and intellectual impairments: due to a range of limitations, these publics are a less attractive audience for the cultural sector (Pasikowska-Schnass 2019; Matos et al. 2015). Thus, it is important to adopt a pedagogically effective solution that may motivate audiences with special needs to engage in a learning in dis- guise process. In this vein, the ongoing ADHOC project “Accessible and Digitalized Cultural Heritage for Persons with Disabilities” builds a first attempt to create and share innovative prac- tices in making cultural heritage accessible and enjoyable through the development of a Cultur- al Narrative supported with audio-visual media to audiences with special needs. Literature review The ICOMOS Ename Charter on Interpreta- tion of Cultural Heritage Sites defines the basic objectives and principles of interpretation in re- lation to authenticity, intellectual integrity, so- cial responsibility, and respect for cultural sig- nificance and context. According to Silberman “the constellation of communicative techniques that attempt to convey the public values, signif- icance and meanings of a heritage site, object or tradition – is central to understanding the wid- er characteristics of heritage itself” (Silberman 2013, 21). Since Tilden’s seminal book on inter- pretation, there is a consensus among scholars that the latter reveals meanings  and relation- ships rather than providing mere data and un- related facts (Tilden 1957; Uzzell 1989; Moscar- do 1996; 1998; Ham 1999; Babić, Papathanasiou and Vasile 2014). However, despite the fact that the philosophical term interpretation is defining the concept, the value and the process of under- standing, little attention has been given to the history and development of interpretation, a fact that is making the Tildenian monologue seem problematic in the era of the creative crowds. Interpretation is the Latin equivalent of the an- cient Greek word ἑρμηνεία as introduced by Ar- istotle in the Book of Organon, where the cat- egories of human perception are defined as a human phenomenon (Knowlton 1999, 123–124; Μανδηλαράς 1994; Whitaker 1996). The Aris- totelian logical grammar analyses language and speech, rejecting any expression that cannot be verified as true. This leads to the fact that her- meneutics are governed by cognition and not by “understanding”. The Greek term ἑρμηνεύειν sig- nifies the notions of expressing oneself, analysing language and other facts and translate, making hermeneutics is also the art of analysis, interpre- tation, technique to perception. Between 1500 and 1800 was developed the notion of the her- meneutical spiral e.g., the relationship between the ensemble of the meaning and the mean- ing of its parts, defining each other (Grondin 2001). In the 19th century with Schleiermacher and Dilthey hermeneutics, emerge as a reinforce- ment of human historicity in the secular world, as the factor of analysing conditions of human expressing, such as language and art within the human horizon. To understand and perceive, st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 14 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i a pp ly in g t h e in t er pr et iv e eq u a t io n t o f a c il it a t in g c u lt u r a l ex pe r ie n c es .. . 15 means to (re-) cognize, to distinguish a notion or a meaning from the explanation, this is the means that enlightens the reasons through the relationship of cause and effect (Vedder 2000). In the 20th century Heidegger and Gadamer de- fine the hermeneutical spiral on the basis of the relationship of partial and holistic components of a creation e.g., text, expression, work of art. Gadamer introduces the concept of the holistic understanding (Verstehensganzheit/Sinnhori- zont) of a creation, the historic horizon, which includes also the analysis (Gadamer 1990, 493). In order for a creation to be understood, the in- terpreter has to pre-understand the connections, interdependencies and cohesion of the parts, within any creation lies. In order to understand the cohesion and interdependencies of a given work of art one should have perceived first the relationships among their parts, the factors de- fining the ensemble (Momente). In Heidegger and Gadamer, the hermeneutic spiral consists in the relation between the concrete partial inter- pretation of something and the totality of un- derstanding (the horizon of meaning) in which the interpretation is always already located. Hei- degger demonstrates the fundamental spiral structure of understanding, where understand- ing belongs to the existential constitution of hu- man existence (Dasein), which is always an un- derstanding being-in-the-world (Skolud 2008). Gadamer ties the hermeneutic spiral to the pos- itive and productive prejudice, preconception. The understanding of meaning (Sinn) with the living and the understanding of meaning of the past are integrated into a history of effects that encompasses both the life and cognitive horizon of the one who understands and the object’s ho- rizon. Therefore, they have their starting point in judgments and opinions shaped by the his- tory of effects already implying prejudices and preconceptions, so that every interpretation in- cludes the distinctive appropriation of one’s own prejudices and preconceptions. Understanding interpretation takes place only through factual examination of the prejudices as preconceptions and their modification, deepening and revi- sion. Thus, only in the light of a pre-understand- ing (pre-conceptions and prejudices) we do gain new experiences and insights that change the in- dividual horizon. In essence, Gadamer is inter- ested in what he calls “hermeneutic experience”, i.e., multiple possibilities of the hermeneutic ex- perience of truth, not only in the pure upper field of philosophy, but also in the field of historical sciences and, above all, of art (Δημητρακόπουλος 2001; Bricker 2020, 1). Follow Gadamer, we re- gard the condition between perception and un- derstanding, as two different components: we re- late perception to the neuro-physiological ability to perceive without social meaning, while we re- gard understanding as imbued with social mean- ing, prejudices, prior knowledge and potential insights. To defeat time-distance decay, e.g., to offer contemporary visitors the chance to un- derstand the remote past, we apply hermeneutics not as method for understanding but an attempt to clarify the conditions in which understanding takes place. Among these conditions are, crucial- ly, prejudices and fore-meanings in the mind of the interpreter. Understanding is therefore inter- pretation, which uses one’s own preconceptions so that the meaning of the object can really be made to speak to us. One of the main problems is with is how to distinguish ‘true prejudices’, by which we understand, from the “false” ones, by which we misunderstand. Gadamer suggests as a solution to develop a “historical” self-aware- ness which makes conscious one’s own prejudic- es and allows one to isolate and evaluate an ob- ject on its own. Another important condition in which understanding takes place is temporal dis- tance. For Gadamer, present and past are firmly connected and the past is not something that has to be painfully regained in each present, if the interpreter has the tool to decode it. We argue that visitors exploring heritage are linked in the same fashion with pre-understanding and preju- dice as Gadamer defines these terms. Not being able to decode cultural content has a proven con- sequence for the aspect of the heritage engage- ment: meaning fusion and misunderstanding (Horizontverschmelzung). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 16 Appreciating heritage becomes more complex when dealing with special audienc- es. According to the European Blind Union, 30.000,000 visually impaired individuals and 4.4 million adults with a disabling hearing loss live in the EU and these audiences are often ex- cluded from experiencing arts and culture due to the barrier’s society places on them (EBU 2022a, EBU 2022b, hear-it 2022). Disabled people still face preventable barriers in accessing arts and cultural events, including transportation issues, price of tickets, lack of information and sup- port at venues. People with disabilities can face particular barriers owing to the inaccessibili- ty of cultural premises, venues or content. Peo- ple in wheelchairs cannot attend a concert if the only way into the hall is the staircase; blind peo- ple cannot appreciate exhibits in a museum if there are no descriptions in accessible audio or electronic format or in Braille print; and a deaf person cannot enjoy a film in a cinema if there is no subtitling or sign language interpretation. According to the last Eurostat survey conduct- ed in 2011, one in seven people between the ages of 15 and 64 has difficulties with basic activities, such as walking (4.2 % of women, 3.4 % of men), seeing (2.1 % of women, 1.8 % of men) or hear- ing (1 % of women, 1.3 % of men and just 1 %-5 % of literature is accessible to blind and visual- ly impaired people (Pasikowska-Schnass 2019, 2). These three categories (blind and partially sighted people (estimated at 30 million); wheel- chair users (estimated at 5 million) and deaf peo- ple (750 000 sign-language users according to the European Union of the Deaf) constitute al- most half the whole population of people with disabilities. In sum, the cultural needs of audi- ences with special needs are often considered separately from other groups of people and of- ten after organizations launch their events to the public (Shape Institute 2013). The European Blind Union (EBU) conducted a survey on ac- cess to culture in 2012: the results revealed that people with visual disabilities have poor access to culture and that little had been done across the EU to facilitate museum access for the blind, partially-sighted, deaf or hard of hearing, or for people with learning difficulties (EBU 2012, 16; EFHU 2010). The barriers aforementioned per- sist even though the EU is signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Dis- abilities in force since 2011, according to which the EU shall ensure the implementation of all rights for all people with disabilities through the adoption of new legislation, policies and pro- grammers and the review of existing ones (Unit- ed Nations 2022). Article 30 enshrines the right of people with special needs to participate in cul- tural life and have access to cultural materials in accessible formats, AV productions and services, as well as performances, films, theatre and other cultural activities in accessible formats; as well as libraries and tourism services. Article 30 encour- ages signatories to take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy a) access to cultural materials in accessible formats; b) TV programmes, films, theatre and other cul- tural activities, in accessible formats and c) ac- cess places for cultural performances or servic- es, such as theatres, museums, cinemas, libraries and tourism services, and, as far as possible, en- joy access to monuments and sites of national cultural importance. To this end, it is necessary to ensure that laws protecting intellectual prop- erty rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials. The Marrakesh Treaty, in force since 2019 in the EU, sets man- datory limitations and exceptions to intellectu- al property rights for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired and otherwise print disabled (World Intellectual Property Organization 2016). Following the trends, in March 2019 was launched the European Accessibility Act, an EU directive, which sets out rules on products and services accessible to people with disabilities and functional limitations, including electronic de- vices, websites and audio-visual media services. The European Federation of Hard Hearing Peo- ple (EFHOH) has produced accessibility guide- lines and the European Blind Union (EBU) has produced a good practice guide for the accessi- bility in sites and museums; both documents are considered by the AD HOC Project in its uni- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i a pp ly in g t h e in t er pr et iv e eq u a t io n t o f a c il it a t in g c u lt u r a l ex pe r ie n c es .. . 17 versal design for cultural offers (EFHU 2010; EBU 2022b). Research methodology Addressing audiences with visual, auditory and intellectual impairments in digital culture re- quires a new approach. The aim is to link audi- ence needs with the delivery of a rewarding ex- perience in the digital environment respecting special needs. Research Objectives The knowledge acquisition pattern in the digital environment for audiences with special remains an under-researched topic. The main objective is to consider the conditions regulating informal learning and suggest a framework to bridge the existing spatiotemporal gap between heritage as- sets and target publics with visual, auditory and cognitive impairments. The Spatio-Temporal Gap Aligned with hermeneutical principles, a hy- pothesis is formulated, that heritage generates often a spatiotemporal gap between items and the audience: while the tangible form is perceiv- able by the eye, the intangible dimension needs to be revealed. We further argue that the spati- otemporal gap in heritage settings is of cognitive nature impacting both the onsite experience as the digital representation of heritage. To appre- ciate heritage values and effectively bridge the gap between the item and the audience, the lat- ter needs to be linked to the intangible dimen- sion of the item: symbols, meanings and social values. Presentations of cultural heritage to the public, as authored by the supply side, usual- ly disregards HCA mechanisms, such as the eye scan path movement, general cognitive ability g, category learning, the ability to perceive and process information, retain and evoke mental representation, WM and LTM capacity and in- teractions (Prasada 2000). Learning, visual and auditory disabilities are conditions, which dic- tate an alternative experience design that relates to: - the particularities of informal learning in cultural settings esp. the short time-budget and knowledge gaps of non-captive audien- ces; - the rising desire for storytelling in audio-vi- sual media formats in the cultural sector - the need to restructure the learning para- digm and the methodological approach to make cultural offers accessible for audiences with special needs (visual, hearing, mobility and cognitive impairments) Learning in disguise Humans acquire, store, recall, code and decode information about the relative locations and at- tributes of phenomena in their everyday life us- ing perception and memory to create cognitive maps. Genetically intrinsic only to humans, memory is the collective function of the human ability to perceive, learn and cognize. Memory is not only the information storage place, but also the information processor, with memory func- tions distributed in the cortex and sub-cortex (Waxman 1996, 281). The human memory pro- cessor consists of Sensory Memory (SM), Short- Term Memory (STM), Working Memory (WM) and Long-Term Memory (LTM). Human Cog- nitive Architecture (HCA) offers an unlimited LTM able to hold mental representations of var- ied automaticity degrees, but a limited capaci- ty WM with independent sub-components to deal with auditory and visual material (Robin- son 1998, 306). Despite the fact that we are ad- dressing audiences with special needs, those are at the same time non-captive audiences engag- ing potentially with culture and heritage in their leisure time. As such, they are linked with their own pre-understandings and prior knowledge, to follow Gadamer’s main principle. Moreover, a very particular condition regulates the scene: the main difference between learners in formal settings and non-captive audiences is the possi- bility to rehearse material. As the WM is limit- ed in capacity with respect to the number of el- ements it can handle simultaneously, rehearsal is necessary to prevent information loss (Cow- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 18 an 2010, 4). This condition cannot be met with time-scarce and non-captive audiences, whether this is happening onsite or in the digital environ- ment. In order to create a mental bridge to se- lected phenomena, and make the novel seem fa- miliar by relating it to prior knowledge and/or universal concepts in a much shorter time peri- od and more entertaining way, we presuppose a limited WM capacity to deal with visual, audi- tory and verbal material and an almost unlimit- ed LTM, capable of retaining retain schemas i.e., mental representations that vary in their degree of automation (Sweller, van Merrienboer and Paas 1998). This condition applies for the target publics with visual and auditory impairments, the latter are also supported by sign language visitors. The target publics with intellectual dis- abilities (ID) are offered a separate text version following the rules of text simplification both at the lexical as at the syntactical level (Chen et al. 2017; Saggion 2017; Change 2019). Whoever is familiar with Homer, Dante, Shakespeare or any saga, knows that humans are captivated by storytelling. It is through storytell- ing that we make sense of the world, of the self and the other. Bruner maintains that children construct a story about their actions when they desire integrate their own desires with the fami- ly rules. This push to construct narrative shapes how children acquire language. Moreover, the habit persists into adulthood as a primary in- strument for making meaning. These storytell- ing skills ensure our place within human society, and probably imply that information not struc- tured, as a narrative is more likely to be forgot- ten. Since Aesop and the Bible, every story in- cludes a moral stance, and many stories deal with the norm or its violations according to Brun- er, while according to Egan anyone, even very young children, can acquire historical knowl- edge if it is presented at the developmentally ap- propriate level (Bruner 1990; Egan 1983; 1989). According to Kirk and Pitches storytelling can promotes deep learning by prompting reflection on practice, whereas Dewey argues that humans learn best by reflecting on their experiences and on the experiences of the others (Kirk and Pitch- es 2013; Dewey 1963). In this vein 10 stories have been developed and tested in relation to soft- ware, graphic design, ease of navigation, story content and multimedia (Saridaki and Meima- ris 2018). Experience design “Experience” is a term often used with little at- tention to meaning, mostly interpreted as a sen- sation. It generally indicates the ‘complex of all which it is distinctively human’ and stands at the centre of educational endeavour. Educa- tion per se might be defined as an emancipation and enlargement of experience. Experience im- plies process and content: it includes what we do, and how we act and are acted upon, the ways in which we do and suffer, desire and enjoy, see, be- lieve, imagine, love. The process of experiencing has two meanings: “having an experience” and “knowing an experience”. Primary experience is what occurs as through a minimum of inciden- tal reflection, and secondary reflective experience through the intervention of systematic think- ing. Experience has within it judgment, thought and connectedness with other experiences, it is a hermeneutical act: “experiencing” and “what is experienced” stand to one another in the most complete interdependence, comprising a whole (Dewey 1963; 1966). In every society, there are traces of another time, of other cultures, of a way of thinking different from our own, signs of a culture, documents of the invisible. The collec- tive place for reflection on what is not seen, what is not real, has always been the theatre. There- fore, understanding the symbolism of a work of art leads to reflection on what the theatre can teach us for the experience design. The theatre is not just a place with chairs, a stage and a cur- tain; it is also the dramaturgy that transports to the audience a hidden meaning within a story. It is like a magic box that each of us opens and ex- plores it during the performance and which dis- appears the moment the lights come back on. At the exit, we may seem empty-handed, but if one looks carefully in the pocket, as in a magic trick, something has remained. Within this vein, we used theatrical dramaturgy to give a body of her- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i a pp ly in g t h e in t er pr et iv e eq u a t io n t o f a c il it a t in g c u lt u r a l ex pe r ie n c es .. . 19 itage to the signs and symbolism of the works, to frame them in the history of time, the rationale, the emotion. The digital tools are built on these principles, so that the selected target publics ex- perience the topic with an aesthetic enjoyment that completes the most fascinating human ex- perience: crossing time, space, and acquiring new knowledge. The effort is focused in gener- ating clues for the individual revelation of hid- den meanings within historically validated sto- ries, whose narratives intend to affect users in a cognitive-emotional way. Universal concepts are used to present socio-cultural phenomena and recreate the past. Prior and expert knowledge about heritage assets is set to zero. The digital heritage presentation is adjusted to visual, audi- tory and intellectual needs, reducing extrane- ous cognitive loads using the principles of both HCA and hermeneutics; universal concepts are exploited to generate familiarity and facilitate an effortless understanding and the grasping of a meaningful content; learning objectives are de- fined and an audio-visually supported cultural narrative has been developed. The Interpretive Equation Extensively used by the National Park Service and other interpretive facilities in the United States, the Interpretive Equation (KR + KA) x AT = IO   is a metaphor for understanding the foundational elements of the interpretation of heritage and provides a memorable way to vis- ualize, analyze, articulate and balance interpre- tive services. (KR + KA) x AT = IO KR Knowledge of the Resource (Natural, Cultural, In-tangible Asset) KA Knowledge of the Audience AT Appropriate Implementation Technique or/and Me-dia Selection IO Interpretive Opportunity Figure 1: The Interpretive Equation Table. Modified from NPS KR – Knowledge of the Resource Knowledge of the Resource (KR) documents the asset history, past and present uses and issues, current conditions, potential threats and op- portunities; however, we argue that the pro- cess should include an understanding of herme- neutics. We have embedded within the body of knowledge the asset significance, e.g., all the rea- sons why each selected asset has been deemed important and relevant enough to be safeguard- ed and communicated. The KR knowledge base concludes with a statement of significance for each asset expressed in the learning objectives that make the asset relevant, significant and unique to the selected target publics. KA – Knowledge of the Audience Any meaning that is not relevant to the audi- ence is ignored, thus Knowledge of the Audience is equally important to KR. KA implies a variety of data like visitation, demographic information, group identity, culture, ethnicity, learning styles, motivations, expectations, interests. Within this spirit ADHOC address the particularities of the selected target publics and offer multiple oppor- tunities for them to find their own personal con- nections with the meanings of heritage assets presented. Figure 2: AD HOC Digital Storytelling Structure. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 20 AT – Appropriate Technique Not much is known, if agencies and interpret- ers do apply the principles of HCA to make in- terpretive offers educationally relevant, as there is a dearth in research in regards to a) certifica- tions, b) HE curricula and c) evaluation of ser- vices. ADHOC has made an effort to link caus- al mechanisms of HCA and instructional design in order to facilitate higher cognitive results in the informal setting, with less challenge for audiences with special needs (Berninger and Corinna 1998) and employ narratives of theatri- cal dramaturgy in digital storytelling. The digi- tal narrative is the main medium applied to en- gage and involve the selected target publics and respond to their individual needs (sound, image, video, text simplification, sign language video). IO – Interpretive Opportunity An Interpretive Opportunity (IO) is an output that provides the audience with rewarding expe- riences. The IO presents a favourable set of cir- cumstances for a meaningful moment of con- nection between the audience and the selected assets, giving birth to a customized, personal ex- perience. Since the connection happens within the individual audience members, who retains the sovereignty of their own mind and emo- tions, the mission of the IO – is to offer the op- portunity, which the audience may or may not take. During the frond evaluation stage, 10 her- itage assets have been selected, out of which 6 IOs have been designed to pursue learning and behavioural objectives and impact the audience. Linking the IO to the principles of hermeneu- tics, which presupposes the understanding of the parts, prior to the understanding of the whole, the latter becomes a driver for the delivery of a well-designed cognitive-emotional experience The Audio-visual Narrative Given that language is the most complex of the human cognitive functions, the audio-visual story content is chunked with one novel con- cept per unit-, below the limit proposed by Mill- er, Baddeley, Hitch and Baddeley and Cowan (Miller 1956; Baddeley and Hitch 1974, Bad- deley 2003; Perconti and Plebe 2020, 8; Cow- an 2010, 8). Visitors with intellectual impair- ments are attracted by binary opposites – good and bad, big and little, love and hate – and they derive meaning from affective association with one of the pairs: as Egan points out, these dis- crete stages build on each other and thus never completely disappear: “Affective orientations to binary opposites … are not simply childish and inadequate ways of thinking. They will later be controlled by more sophisticated ‘paradigms’ but they will remain absolutely basic and essential” (Egan 1983, 76). Graphic design is aligned with the eye scan path movement, whereas informa- tion layering follows international standards for the interpretation of heritage (ICOMOS 2004; Papathanasiou-Zuhrt 2015, 62). In order to de- congest the WM and redirect attention, meta- phors, associations and universal concepts have been extensively utilized, while meanings com- municated through the use of universal con- cepts differ substantially from transmitting for- mal knowledge (Papathanasiou-Zuhrt 2012, 36). However, the use of procedures to reduce cogni- tive loads is not at the expense of understanding and the latter is further supported by the theatri- cal dramaturgy and historical contextualization using historic or fictious personage to support empathy (Mc Kinney et al. 2018, 185; Papathana- siou-Zuhrt 2020, 290). Heritage builds a strong motive for cultural consumption across a wide range of varied audiences and the advent of dig- ital technology has impacted the cultural herit- age sector world-wide. Still, the mere digital rep- resentation of heritage, where the distant past is beyond the contemporary individual memory and as such beyond the process of understand- ing, builds a barrier for all audiences, especially those with special needs. By creating a balance between novelty and familiarity, authenticity and the stories told, we can offer exceptional her- itage experiences and link the audience to a cul- tural continuum, considering a) the restrictions of human WM and the mechanisms of acquir- ing and retaining information adapted to audi- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i a pp ly in g t h e in t er pr et iv e eq u a t io n t o f a c il it a t in g c u lt u r a l ex pe r ie n c es .. . 21 ences with special needs; b) the adaptation of expert knowledge through hermeneutics in or- der to decongest WM and facilitate understand- ing through dramaturgy; c) the UNESCO crite- ria for assessing heritage and select the places of cultural significance; d) a methodology is devel- oped for critical issues in interpretation. To serve this purpose ten (10) heritage items have been assigned to six (6) learning objectives, which are at the same time interpretive opportu- nities (IO): 1) Unesco Designations: Nea Moni; Mastic Cultivation, 2) Medieval Fortifications: Anavatos, Avgoni- ma, 3) Genoese Dominion and the Maona Com- pany: Seaward Castle of Chios, 4) Medieval Mastic Villages: Pyrgi, Mesta, Olympoi, and Unesco-listed Mastic Culti- vation: PIOP Mastic Museum, 5) Biocultural Ecosystem of Citrus Groves: Kampos, 6) The Enlightenment: Historic Public Libra- ry “A. Korais”. Conclusion The vital consideration for the design of the AD HOC storytelling is 1) how humans acquire and retain informati- on, 2) how human memory processes data, taking into account the particularities of the se- lected target groups (visual, hearing, mobi- lity and cognitive impairments), 3) how to create interactions between the au- dience and the cultural resources; 4) how the use of dramaturgy to augment the cognitive-emotional interactivity for the se- lected target publics. The outcome of this hermeneutical pro- cess is a framework of contents, which is made up by: (a) a central message, which describes “the essence” of the heritage object and its in- tangible values, by facilitating information re- tention, (b) a storyline that holds the audience’s attention, reinforcing the association chain; c) a new text and media version suitable for phys- ical and cognitive disabilities; e.g., voice over for visual impairments; d) sign language vide- os for hearing impairments; e) appropriate soft- ware and navigation. However, there are sever- al restrictions faced by this research: firstly the correlation of cultural significance and the her- itage experience per se is an under-researched topic; secondly despite the fact that heritage in- terpretation is included in curricula related to heritage management, museology and humani- ties, is usually offered as an independent degree, has little relation to the human cognitive archi- tecture and does relate philosophically to its ac- tual origins. Moreover as there is not yet put in place an EU-wide, recognizable and validated certification for the skills of interpreters, despite the various training offered, the profession re- mains unrecognized and the various good prac- tices are scarce. At the same time, very few inter- pretive offers can follow the light speed tempo of the audio-visual industry. The latter has been profoundly affected by the impact of digital technologies, but it is applying them in stages, gradually discovering all the opportunities, pos- sibilities and new fields of application. It started from the signal distribution: no more analogue, no more heavy pallets of films to be transport- ed, no more tapes to be shipped, but files, which can travel around the world in a few seconds and populate rooms, which until the day before were used in other ways. The last phase is that of digital thinking, where audio-visuals are con- ceived for a digital and meta-disciplinary envi- ronment. In a few words, what falls at the third stage of development is the boundary between cinema, theatre, documentary, television, mu- seum, trade fair, large company, digital network aggregator, gaming and where audio-visuals spe- cialize and become a tool for the construction of knowledge and where interpretation has not yet started to gain benefits or to play a signifi- cant role. The enormous possibility of manipu- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 22 lation that digital images possess, must open the door to the narrative, to a structure of its com- ponents in an increasingly specific language at the service of culture and articulated, to sparkle a cognitive-emotional experience without fossil- izing in the search for suggestive effect, devoid of internal logic. These are unmissable opportu- nities for the development of knowledge, of the audience’s cultural capital. Today we risk being in the presence of a spontaneous literacy offered by the possibilities of technology, disordered in its methods, rhapsodic and still tied to the de- fault procedures offered by the seller. We still do not know where this process will take us, so precarious is the balance between constructing new procedures for the elaboration of meaning, and remaining anchored to the babble and rep- etition of low-profile models that are essentially self-referential. What is certain is that these pos- sibilities have considerable weight in the exper- imentation of processes, to create abstractions and propose new skills, and are of crucial inter- est for those who wish to narrate art. The artic- ulation of these languages could be a solution to engaging the audience. Conveying enthusiasm attracts, produces identification; this is how the encounter between the public and art in a mu- seum should work. The digital revolution offers, produces and researches tools that cannot but be based on considerations such as this one to ad- dress and solve the problem of its full inclusion in cultural production. The forms created by the language of audio-visuals are the best basis for constructing sense and meaning in the con- text that the non-expert visitor lacks for under- standing a work of art. There is a widespread idea that ‘digital’ is a technology and not a way of in- vestigating and celebrating the relationships be- tween things and ideas, this aspect is addressed by AD HOC as much from the point of view of the philosophy of approach as from the opportu- nities that such an environment brings, without excluding the dangers and pitfalls. When seeking to promote the inclusion of audiences with special needs, a visitor-cantered interpretation model, able to transform the tan- gible intangible form of a resource into powerful experience is needed. Without suitable presenta- tion and appreciation of what is being valued, cultural heritage remains meaningless and the understanding is lost. The basic idea is that so- cial cohesion takes place around the intrinsic values that culture carries with it, such as tradi- tions, myths, legends are the source of much of our behaviour. We need to be aware that there are different readings and prejudices, and to avoid the simplification of the so-called ‘cancel culture movement’, which in the name of a sup- posed ‘fairness for inclusiveness’ risks eliminat- ing the legacy of history. The ability to transform every contradiction into a matter for discussion and research that will provide the inclusive ma- terials, meaning to remove the obstacles that prevent dialogue instead of reducing everything to the “common denominator” and that means to ensure access to cultural heritage also to au- diences with special needs. If the aim is to pres- ent the ways of telling a story which stimulates the curiosity and interest of the audience and, at the same time, leaves a tangible trace in the con- sciousness, then it is not necessary to describe the forms and rules of the story but to act on it and overturn the rules of traditional histori- cal and scientific narration by reconstructing a path in the opposite direction. Respecting scien- tific accuracy, the material evidence of the past is not used to document historical facts, but his- torical facts are used to affirm the function that these elements have had, exploring, where neces- sary, the social and anthropological context that generated them. In this way, objects (stories, ide- as) become instruments of a narrative that trans- fers to the observer the set of values on which the civil society of which he is a member is based. In a word: it educates and contributes to generat- ing the chain reaction that the art public needs to expand its catchment area. In this sense, the audio-visually supported storytelling becomes the best example to design in order to build to- gether “Le Rendez-Vous des Arts” where know- ing how to hide in order to reveal is the illusion- istic ability of each artist. The audience sees what st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i a pp ly in g t h e in t er pr et iv e eq u a t io n t o f a c il it a t in g c u lt u r a l ex pe r ie n c es .. . 23 she wants them to see. However, the illusion is only reality in the moment, a voluntary act, in which they themselves become tangible proof of the truthfulness of the tale. As in the theatre, where everything is fictitious but nothing is fake. Summary The ERASMUS + AD HOC (2019-1-MK01-KA203- 060269) is an experiment towards solutions for audi- ences with special needs in the cultural domain. AD HOC suggests that auditory, visual, mobility and oth- er impairments should not impede individuals discov- er the heritage places and the stories these have to tell. Thus, AD HOC is committed to make a contribu- tion to enhance access to cultural heritage for people with special needs by creating the enabling environ- ment for digital and physical experiences at places of cultural significance. AD HOC introduces a new cul- tural heritage infrastructure, taking into account the needs of visitors with visual, auditory and mental im- pairments. The interpretive equation, e.g., knowledge of the resource, knowledge of the audience and appro- priate mediation techniques provide for interpretive op- portunities to connect the audience to the meanings and values of heritage. A constant consideration that is guiding the design of the cultural heritage infrastruc- ture, is how humans and in particular those with spe- cial needs acquire and retain information and how the human memory processes data. In an effort to estab- lish interactions between visitors, phenomena, and tan- gible and intangible heritage resources, a hermeneutical process has been utilized which describes “the essence” of the work of art and its tangible and intangible values, while at the same time it manages cognitive loads by fa- cilitating information retention through storylines that holds the visitors’ attention, reinforcing the association chain. The digital experiences adapted to the visual, au- ditory and intellectual needs of the target audiences not only realize cultural discoveries at sites, museums and collections but also satisfy educational goals and men- tal training. Such digital experiences are not lectures, but cognitive-emotional opportunities they allow visi- tors with special needs to interact with the heritage (re) presented. The experience design strives to provide for fun and curiosity, insights and meanings, participation and entertainment for a neglected audience. The multi- media supported digital narrative is encouraging inter- action, allows the audience to familiarize with novelties, and varies the visual, auditory and narrative content to support immersion and reflection. Povzetek Projekt ER ASMUS + AD HOC (2019-1-MK01-KA- 203-060269) je eksperiment, ki je namenjen iskanju re- šitev za občinstvo s posebnimi potrebami na področju kulture. AD HOC predlaga, da slušne, vidne, gibalne in druge ovire ne bi smele ovirati posameznikov pri odkri- vanju krajev kulturne dediščine in zgodb, ki jih ti pripo- vedujejo. AD HOC je tako zavezan prispevati k izbolj- šanju dostopa do kulturne dediščine za ljudi s posebnimi potrebami z ustvarjanjem ugodnega okolja za digitalna in fizična doživetja na krajih, ki so pomembni za kulturo. AD HOC uvaja novo infrastrukturo kulturne dedišči- ne ob upoštevanju potreb obiskovalcev z okvarami vida, sluha in duševnega zdravja. Interpretacijska enačba, npr. poznavanje vira, poznavanje občinstva in ustrezne teh- nike posredovanja, zagotavljajo interpretativne prilož- nosti za povezovanje občinstva s pomeni in vrednota- mi dediščine. Stalni premislek, ki usmerja načrtovanje infrastrukture kulturne dediščine, je, kako ljudje, zlasti tisti s posebnimi potrebami, pridobivajo in ohranjajo in- formacije ter kako človeški spomin obdeluje podatke. V prizadevanju za vzpostavitev interakcij med obiskovalci, snovnimi in nesnovnimi viri dediščine je bil uporabljen hermenevtični postopek, ki opisuje “bistvo” umetniške- ga dela ter njegove snovne in nesnovne vrednosti, hkrati pa obvladuje kognitivne obremenitve, saj omogoča laž- je ohranjanje informacij s pomočjo zgodb, ki zadržujejo pozornost obiskovalcev in krepijo verigo asociacij. Di- gitalne izkušnje, prilagojene vizualnim, slušnim in inte- lektualnim potrebam ciljnega občinstva, ne uresničuje- jo le kulturnih odkritij na mestih, v muzejih in zbirkah, temveč izpolnjujejo tudi izobraževalne cilje in mentalno usposabljanje. Takšna digitalna doživetja niso predava- nja, temveč kognitivno-čustvene priložnosti, ki obisko- valcem s posebnimi potrebami omogočajo interakcijo s (ponovno) predstavljeno dediščino. Oblikovanje do- živetja si prizadeva zagotoviti zabavo in radovednost, spoznanja in pomene, sodelovanje in razvedrilo za za- postavljeno občinstvo. Multimedijsko podprta digital- na pripoved spodbuja interakcijo, občinstvu omogoča, da se seznani z novostmi, ter spreminja vizualne, zvoč- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 24 ne in pripovedne vsebine, s čimer podpira potopitev in razmislek. References Αριστοτέλης. 2000. Όργανον 1, Κατηγορίαι, Περί Ερμηνείας, edited by Β. Μανδηλαράς. Vol. Τόμος 23, Αρχαία Ελληνική Γραμματεία, «Οι Έλληνες». Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Κάκτος. Babić, D., D. Papathanasiou-Zuhrt and V. Vasile, ed. 2014. Heritage as a development mediator: Interpretation and management, PROJECT SEE/B/0016/4.3/X SAGITTARIUS Training Series. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb. Baddeley, A. 2003. “Working memory and language: an overview”. Journal of Communication Disorders 36: 189–208. Baddeley, A. D. and G. J. Hitch 1974. “Working Memory”. In Recent advances in learning and motivation, edited by G. Bower, 47–90. New York: Academic Press. Berninger, V. and D. Corina 2001. “Making cognitive Neuroscience educationally relevant.” Educational Psychology Review 10 (3): 343–354. Bricker, A. M. 2020. “The neural and cognitive mechanisms of knowledge attribution: An EEG study”. Cognition 203: 2. Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. MA: Harvard University Press. Change C. 2019. How to Make Information Accessible. A guide to producing easy read documents. Leeds: Advonet Group. Chen, P., J. Rochford, D. N. Kennedy, S. Djamasbi, P. Fay and W. Scott 2017. “Automatic Text Simplification for People with Intellectual Disabilities”. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Science and Technology (AIST2016), 725–731. https://doi. org/10.1142/9789813206823_0091. Cowan, N. 2010. “The Magical Mystery Four: How is Working Memory Capacity Limited, and Why?” Curr Dir Psychol Sci 19 (1): 51–57. Dewey, J. 1963. Experience and Education. New York: Mc Millan. Dewey, J. 1966. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Free Press. Δημητρακόπουλος, Μ.Φ. 2001. Ο H.-G. Gadamer και το ερμηνευτικό φαινόμενο. Κριτικός διαφωτισμός ή ερμηνευτική ιστορικότης;. Αθήνα: Ιδιωτική. Egan, K. 1983. “Accumulating history.” History and Theory 22 (4): 66–80. https://doi. org/10.2307/2505216. Egan, K. 1989. Teaching as Story Telling. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. EBU 2012. Access to Culture Survey Mapping current levels of accessibility to cultural venues and activities in Europe. European Blind Union. EBU 2022a. About blindness and partial sight. Facts and Figures 2022. European Blind Union. https://www.euroblind.org/about- blindness-and-partial-sight/facts-and- figures. EBU 2022b. EBU good practice for accessibility 2021 2022 Museums and cultural heritage sites 2022. European Blind Union. https://www.euroblind.org/sites/ default/files/documents/ebu_good_ practice_2021_2022_museums_and_ heritage_sites_20220222.pdf. EFHU 2010. Guidelines for Accessibility. Stockholm: European Federation of Hard Hearing People. Gadamer, H. G. 1990. Hermeneutik I. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Zweite Auflage, ed. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Grondin, J. 2001. Einfuehrung in die philosophische Hermeneutik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Ham, S. 1999. “Cognitive Psychology and Interpretation: synthesis and application”. In The educational role of the museum, st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i a pp ly in g t h e in t er pr et iv e eq u a t io n t o f a c il it a t in g c u lt u r a l ex pe r ie n c es .. . 25 edited by E. Hooper-Grenhill, 161–171. London: Routledge. hear-it 2022. In the EU, there are 34.4 million adults with a disabling hearing loss. https:// www.hear-it.org/hearing-loss-in-europe. ICOMOS 2004. Ename Charter for the interpretation of cultural heritage sites. Preamble. Objectives. Principles. http:// www.enamecenter.org. Knowlton, B. J. 1999. “What can neuropsychology tell us about category learning”. Trends in Cognitive Science 3 (4): 123–124. Kirk, C. and J. Pitches 2013. “Digital reflection: using digital technologies to enhance and embed creative processes”. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 22 (2): 213– 230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/147593 9X.2013.768390. Matos, A., T. Rochaab, L. Cabrala and M. Bessaab 2015.” Multi-sensory storytelling to support learning for people with intellectual disability: an exploratory didactic study”. Procedia Computer Science 67: 12–18. Miller, G. A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information”. The Psychological Review 63 (2): 81–97. Moscardo, G. 1996. “Mindful visitors. Heritage and Tourism”. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (2): 376–397. Moscardo, G. 1998. “Interpretation and Sustainable Tourism. Functions, examples and principles”. The Journal of Tourism Studies 9 (1): 1–13. Papathanasiou-Zuhrt, D. 2012. The Know-How Booklet for Cultural Heritage Operators. South East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme. Madrid: Ciberespacio. Papathanasiou-Zuhrt, D. 2015. “Cognitive Load Management of Cultural Heritage Information: An Application Multi-Mix for Recreational Learners”. In Heritage as an alternative driver for sustainable development and economic recovery in South East Europe -Project SEE/B/0016/4.3/X SAGITTARIUS, edited by V. Vasile. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 188: 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2015.03.339 Papathanasiou-Zuhrt, D. 2020. “Historytelling: Designing Validated Heritage Narratives for Non-captive Audiences. Evidence from EU Funded Projects in the Programming Period 2014-2020”. In International Conference Innovative Business Management & Global Entrepreneurship (IBMAGE 2020), edited by M. W. Staniewski, V. Vasile and A. Grigorescu, 21–37. Editura: Lumen. https://doi.org/10.18662/lumproc/ ibmage2020/02. Pasikowska-Schnass, M. 2019. Access to cultural life for people with disabilities. European Parliament, Brussels. https:// www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/BRIE/2019/644200/EPRS_ BRI(2019)644200_EN.pdf Perconti, P. and A. Plebe 2020. “Deep learning and cognitive science”. Cognition 203: 1–12. Prasada, S. 2000. “Acquiring Generic Knowledge”. Trends in Cognitive Science 4 (2): 66–72. Robinson, D. 1998. Neurobiology. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer Saridaki, M. and M. Meimaris 2018. “Digital Storytelling for the empowerment of people with intellectual disabilities”. In DSAI 2018: In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info- exclusion, June 20-22 2018, Thessaloniki, 161–164. New York: Association for Computing Machinery Saggion, H. 2017. Automatic Text Simplification. Springer: International Publishing. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 26 Shape Institute 2013. Understanding Disabled People as Audiences 2012-13. London: Art Council England. Silberman, N. 2013. “Heritage Interpretation as Public Discourse: Towards a New Paradigm”. In Understanding Heritage: Perspectives in Heritage Studies, edited by M.-T. Albert, R. Bernecker and B. Rudolff, 21–34. Heritage Studies 1st. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter. Skolud, M. 2008. Martin Heidegger: Sein und Zeit. Den Tod verstehen. München und Ravensburg: Grin Verlag. Sweller, J., J. van Merrienboer and F. Paas 1998. “Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design”. Educational Psychology Review 10 (3): 251–296. Tilden, F. 1957. Interpreting our Heritage. Principles and Practices for Visitor Services in Parks, Museums and Historic Places. Chapell Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. United Nations 2022. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). https://www.un.org/development/desa/ disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of- persons-with-disabilities.html. Uzzell, D. ed. 1989. Heritage Interpretation. The Visitor Experience Vol. 2. London: Belhaven Press. Vedder, B. 2000. Was ist Hermeneutik? Ein Weg von der Textdeutung zur Interpretations der Wirklichkeit, Philosophie. Berlin und Köln: W. Kohlhammer Verlag. Waxman, S. G. 1996. Correlative Neuroanatomy. Stamford, CA: Appleton and Lange. Whitaker, C. W. A. 1996. Aristotle’s De Interpretatione. Contradiction and Dialectic. Oxford: Clarendon Press. World Intellectual Property Organization 2016. Main Provisions and Benefits of the Marrakesh Treaty (2013) 2016. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Abstract New technologies are vehicles for dissemination of cultural values. They also enlarge the number of persons that have access to heritage. This paper presents a web-based platform, developed within the Erasmus+ AD HOC (Accessible and Digitized Cultural Heritage for Persons with Disabilities) project that enables perceptual accessibility of such content for persons with disabilities. The main principle fol- lowed during the entire project duration was the principle of Universal Design – including accessibility for persons with disabilities from the very beginning and thus creating a generic model of an accessible platform for some important aspects of the cultural heritage of Macedonia, Slovenia, Greece and Italy. Key words: cultural heritage, accessibility, platform, persons with disabilities Izvleček Nove tehnologije so sredstva za širjenje kulturnih vrednot. Prav tako povečujejo število ljudi, ki imajo dostop do dediščine. Prispevek predstavlja spletno platformo, razvito v okviru projekta Erasmus+ AD HOC (Accessible and Digitalized Cultural Heritage), ki osebam s posebnimi potrebami omogoča za- znavno dostopnost tovrstnih vsebin. Glavno načelo, ki smo ga upoštevali ves čas trajanja projekta, je bilo načelo univerzalnega oblikovanja – vključno z dostopnostjo za osebe s posebnimi potrebami že od sa- mega začetka in s tem ustvarjanje generičnega modela dostopne platforme za nekatere pomembne vi- dike kulturne dediščine Makedonije, Slovenije, Grčije in Italije. Ključne besede: kulturna dediščina, dostopnost, platforma, osebe s posebnimi potrebami Universal Design and Cultural Heritage Univerzalno oblikovanje in kulturna dediščina Aleksandra Karovska Ristovska Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Faculty of Philosophy, North Macedonia aleksandrak@fzf.ukim.edu.mk Nikola Minov Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Faculty of Philosophy, North Macedonia minov@fzf.ukim.edu.mk 27 Introduction Before we discuss Universal Design in Learning (UDL) in museums and archae-ological areas and connect this design to interoperable digital platforms we need to an- swer the question, what do we mean by “Uni- versal Design/Design for all”? Universal Design is the designing of different products, informa- tion technology and/or environments with the goal to make them easy and convenient to use by all people-particularly persons with disabilities, to the greatest extent possible (Ginnerup 2009). This precludes the need to make additional ad- aptations, accommodations or other specialized designs. The principles of UD need to be imple- mented from the early generic stages of plan- ning. Although UD was initially envisioned to tackle issues in accessibility of buildings (archi- tecture), it now converges to cover different soci- etal issues and it is becoming an integral part of policy planning. When it comes to persons with disabilities, UD is used to make accessible solu- ht t ps://doi .org /10. 26493/2350-54 43.10(2)27-33 © aut hor/aut hors st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i tions with the purpose to include them in differ- ent aspects of society life. In many countries in Europe and the world, there has been a strong shift from the medical model where persons with disabilities are seen as persons with diagnoses (biomedical perception of disability) to the social model and model of human rights. The social model recognizes that disability is created by society and persons with disabilities face many barriers that prevent them from inclusion in society life. Universal design is the bridge and connector between these two models. It should be noted that the difficulties asso- ciated with different types of disabilities are in- dividual (each case is a case of its own), and the deficiencies are not static (they are evolutionary and may have positive or negative evolution). In general, the solutions that are placed are always tailor-made, and the system should be sufficient- ly intelligent or flexible enough to adapt to the user, not the other way around. The idea of the tools dynamically adapting to the user profile is something that has been pursued for many years. The goal is to have a solution that reads the user profile and return an entire adapted interface. However, given the difficulty of finding Univer- sal solutions, relying on tools where the learning curve for its full utilization (including its per- sonalization) is low, seems more realistic. So, the alternative is to create a solution that allows to respond in a global way, but it must also be ad- aptable to the specific needs of different target groups, not something typified, static and im- mutable in time. Solutions need to be developed that could simplify the use of the tools, through the design option that allows simplified custom- ization according to needs (including colours, font, menus and their order of presentation), and / or contextual needs. Discussion In the past years, many researchers call for in- clusive museums, not only in regard to physi- cal access but also to intellectual access (Gius- ti 2008; Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Daley 2013; Salmen 1998). Although there has been a move- ment towards making museums more accessible, persons with disabilities lag behind in the expe- rience of museum exhibitions (Rappolt-Schli- chtmann and Daley 2013). Universal Design in Learning (UDL) gives an alternative for muse- ums and exhibitions, in line with the progres- sive view of disability, not only focusing on the physical aspects and physical accessibility but also access to learning options. Universal De- sign for Learning (UDL) is a framework for de- veloping and delivering content that is accessi- ble to all learners (Hall, Meyer and Rose 2012). The UDL framework incorporates the following principles: 1. Provision of multiple means of rep- resentation (to activate the what, or the recogni- tion networks of the brain); 2. Provision of mul- tiple means of expression (to activate the how, or the strategic networks of the brain); and 3. Pro- vision of multiple means of engagement (to ac- tivate the why, or the affective networks of the brain) (CAST 2008; Hall et al. 2012; King-Sears 2014). UDL is a good fit for museums. It focuses on multiplying the modalities in which we pres- ent exhibits and the types of interaction they elicit from visitors. Virtual reality and augment- ed reality technology offer close-up experiences of heritage assets. Universal Design is not mu- tually excluded with assistive technology. As- sistive technology is and will remain a very im- portant aspect of everyday life of persons with disabilities. Universal Design solutions should be integrated with modern assistive technolo- gies. One example of the interaction between UD and assistive technology is the development of a platform, which complies with accessibility requirements. Having all of this in mind, researchers from four European countries worked jointly on the Erasmus+ AD HOC project: Accessible and digitized cultural heritage. The aim of the pro- ject was to create a strategic partnership in the field of higher education with the purpose to cre- ate and share innovative practices in the digitiza- tion of the cultural heritage and its accessibility st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 28 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i u n iv er sa l d es ig n a n d c u lt u r a l h er it a g e 29 for persons with disabilities. The general goal of this project was to bring archaeological cultural heritage closer to the public, including different categories of the population, preferably through on-line courses. The project objectives were relat- ed to: Digitization of the cultural heritage in for- mats accessible to all and hence enabling on-line and distance learning as well as long life learning: Fostering quality improvements and excellence in innovation at the high education institution level through enhanced transnational cooper- ation between education and training provid- ers and other stakeholders; Promoting the cul- tural heritage and its values among persons with disabilities and improve their level of key com- petences and skills, in particular with relevance to the labour market and their contribution to a cohesive society; Creating innovative ways for sharing effective methods in learning and recog- nizing culture and history for people with few- er opportunities (visual problems, hearing prob- lems and intellectual problems), addressing the opportunities and implications of digitaliza- tion; Fostering the inclusion of people with few- er opportunities; Fostering equality in learning culture and history and foster the inclusion of people with fewer opportunities; Fostering so- cial and educational value of European cultur- al heritage, its contribution to job creation, eco- nomic growth and social cohesion; Promote and strengthen knowledge and acceptance of diversi- ty in society. Within this project, a platform was creat- ed. This platform is a web-based platform that allows quick access to information related to ar- chaeological sites and cultural heritage in Mac- edonia, Greece, Slovenia and Italy. It increas- es the level of knowledge in terms of flexibility, perception and simplicity for the visitors that are deaf, blind or intellectually disabled (Karovska Ristovska et al. 2021). This software is an open source system for building and presenting infor- mation collections. It builds collections of effec- tive full-text search objects and metadata-based, attractive and easy-to-use search objects. In ad- dition, they are easily maintained and can be en- larged and restored completely automatically. The system is extensible: software plugins con- tain different types of documents and metada- ta. The software includes an interface that makes it easy for people to create their own library col- lections. Collections can be built and serviced locally from the user’s own web server, or (sub- ject to appropriate permissions) remotely shared by a digital library host. This software allows in- corporation of additional plug-ins. Hence, two plug-ins were added for: Persons with impaired vision (by using text-to-speech which is different for different languages); Persons with impaired hearing (by adding videos on sign language for each narrative or story). A simplified web-page was created for persons with intellectual disabil- ity (Stanojkovska-Trajkovska et al. 2017). Over the past ten years, rapid innovations in text-to-speech (TTS) technologies have creat- Figure 1: AD HOC home page (https://adhoc.ireason.mk/). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 30 ed new and affordable ways to help students read print-based or digital texts that have no audio equivalents. TTS technologies provide students with the ability to hear virtually any text read aloud with a synthesized voice. TTS software is one example of assistive technology that has be- come a more common tool for struggling readers in schools and colleges, and has been widely ac- cepted as a form of accommodation for students with disabilities (Mishev et al. 2020). TTS has also been effective in improving reading skills of struggling readers. A study con- ducted by Robert Stodden and colleagues (Stod- den et al. 2012) showed that readers that use TTS had improved reading rates, vocabulary and comprehension. This was also shown in another study conducted by Sarah Wood and colleagues (Wood et al. 2018). The authors confirmed that Text-to-speech/read aloud presentation positive- ly impacts reading comprehension for individu- als with reading disabilities. Sign languages of deaf communities all around the globe are complete human languages with full expressive power. Sign was once viewed as nothing more than a system of pictorial ges- tures without linguistic structure (Каровска Ристовска 2014). In the past, sign languag- es have been disputed in linguistic research and haven’t been defined as real languages. This was due to the differences in sentence production in sign and spoken languages. Like spoken lan- guages, sign languages have their own grammat- ical rules and linguistic structures. Sign languag- es do not follow the same grammatical patterns as spoken languages and there is a need for a sub- stantially different conception of grammar (Mi- shev et al. 2022). This makes the task of trans- lating between spoken and signed languages a complex problem, as it is not simply an exercise of mapping text to gestures word-by-word. Sign language apps used for museum exhi- bitions and accessible web-platforms have been thriving as well (such as Signly and ARCHES), and many museums in different countries, such as the Van Gogh Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, have made exhibitions for visitors with hearing loss. This platform was completely designed fol- lowing the Web Content Accessibility Guide- lines (WCAG) 2.1, which promotes accessible web content. The UNESCO basic and advanced guidelines for the preparation for an accessi- ble Digital Documentary Heritage (UNES- CO, 2020) were also followed. Accessibility was considered at every step of the document digiti- zation, sufficient funds for disability were allo- cated, persons with disabilities and experts in disability were included in every step of the pro- cess, and the content was described using simple, understandable language. The entire platform was created having accessibility in minds and ac- cessibility awareness training was organized for different stakeholders. Digital images are accom- panied by a text descriptor for the key features and in the highest resolution possible, PDF doc- uments are screen-readable, videos are accompa- nied by captions in sign language and an audio description by using TTS. The content is pro- vided in five languages: Macedonian, English, Greek, Slovenian and Italian. Conclusion Heritage is always associated with living, cultur- al, museum, national, local, and ritual practic- es. Accessibility of cultural heritage would mean that every individual, regardless of his/hers limi- tations can experience cultural heritage sites. How can we improve the experience and learning of persons with disabilities in terms of archaeological sites and cultural heritage? 3D scanning, 3D printing and carving technology has made it possible to recreate objects and ar- chitecture with a high degree of precision and in a form that allows visitors to have a tactile ex- perience of these materials. Some suggestions for accessible museums and accessible cultural her- itage include: 3D modelling; Promoting tactile exhibits, complete with braille, large print, and audio exhibition guides; Use of digital technolo- gies to guide visitors with different access needs; Creation of iOS and Android apps that chart st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i u n iv er sa l d es ig n a n d c u lt u r a l h er it a g e 31 routes through the museum galleries, or game that invites users to create their own collages from collection highlights; Personalized experi- ences and many more. The combined application of the principles of Universal Design and the use of an interoperable digital platform leads to the improvement of accessibility. This paper and its contents are part of the Intellectual Outputs of the AD HOC Erasmus+ project (Erasmus+ project number: 2019-1-MK01- KA203-060269: https://adhoc.ireason.mk/). Summary Universal design is an approach to design that incorpo- rates products as well as building features that, to the greatest extent possible, can be used by everyone. Uni- versal design in learning (UDL) incorporates multiple means of representation (to allow various ways of acquir- ing information and knowledge), multiple means of ex- pression (to allow alternatives for demonstrating knowl- edge), and multiple means of engagement (to challenge appropriately, to motivate, and to allow learners to ex- press and participate in their interests). UDL is a good fit for museums because it suggests a focus on broad- ening the ways we present exhibit components and the kinds of interaction they elicit from visitors. The com- bined application of the principles of Universal Design and the use of an interoperable digital platform leads to the improvement of accessibility. A group of international researchers from four Europe- an countries worked jointly on the Erasmus+ AD HOC project (Accessible and digitized cultural heritage). The aim of the project was to create a strategic partnership in the field of higher education with the purpose to cre- ate and share innovative practices in the digitization of the cultural heritage and its accessibility for persons with disabilities. The platform developed within this project is a web-based platform that allows quick access to information related to archaeological sites and cul- tural heritage in Macedonia, Slovenia, Greece and Ita- ly. It increases the level of knowledge in terms of flexi- bility, perception and simplicity for the visitors that are deaf, blind or intellectually disabled. This software is an open source system for building and presenting in- formation collections. Two plug-ins were added for: Persons with impaired vision (by using text-to-speech which is different for different languages); Persons with impaired hearing (by adding videos on sign language for each narrative or story). A simplified web-page was created for persons with intellectual disability. This plat- form was completely designed following the Web Con- tent Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, which pro- motes accessible web content. The UNESCO basic and advanced guidelines for the preparation for an accessi- ble Digital Documentary Heritage (UNESCO 2020) were also followed. Accessibility was considered at every step of the document digitization, sufficient funds for disability were allocated, persons with disabilities and experts in disability were included in every step of the process, the content was described using simple, under- standable language. The entire platform was created having accessibility in minds and accessibility awareness training was organized for different stakeholders. Povzetek Univerzalno oblikovanje je pristop k oblikovanju, ki vključuje izdelke in gradbene lastnosti, ki jih lahko v naj- večji možni meri uporablja vsakdo. Univerzalno obliko- vanje v učenju (UDL) vključuje več načinov predstavlja- nja (za omogočanje različnih načinov pridobivanja informacij in znanja), več načinov izražanja (za omogo- čanje alternativ za dokazovanje znanja) in več načinov angažiranja (za ustrezen izziv, za motiviranje ter omogo- čiti učencem, da izrazijo in sodelujejo pri svojih intere- sih). UDL je primeren za muzeje, ker predlaga osredo- točenost na razširitev načinov predstavitve razstavnih komponent in vrst interakcij, ki jih izzovejo pri obisko- valcih. Kombinirana uporaba načel univerzalnega obli- kovanja in uporaba interoperabilne digitalne platforme vodi k izboljšanju dostopnosti. Skupina mednarodnih raziskovalcev iz štirih evrop- skih držav je skupaj delala na projektu Erasmus+ AD HOC (Dostopna in digitalizirana kulturna dediščina). Namen projekta je bil ustvariti strateško partnerstvo na področju visokega šolstva z namenom ustvarjanja in deljenja inovativnih praks pri digitalizaciji kulturne de- diščine in njeni dostopnosti za osebe s posebnimi po- trebami. Platforma, razvita v okviru tega projekta, je spletna platforma, ki omogoča hiter dostop do infor- macij v zvezi z arheološkimi najdišči in kulturno dedi- ščino v Makedoniji, Sloveniji, Grčiji in Italiji. Za obisko- valce, ki so gluhi, slepi ali intelektualno ovirani, poveča st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 32 raven znanja v smislu fleksibilnosti, zaznave in enostav- nosti. Ta programska oprema je odprtokodni sistem za gradnjo in predstavitev zbirk informacij. Dodana sta bila dva vtičnika za: Osebe s slabšim vidom (z uporabo pre- tvorbe besedila v govor, ki je različna za različne jezi- ke); Osebe z okvarjenim sluhom (z dodajanjem videov v znakovnem jeziku za vsako pripoved ali zgodbo). Iz- delana je poenostavljena spletna stran za osebe z motnjo v duševnem razvoju. Ta platforma je bila v celoti zasno- vana v skladu s smernicami za dostopnost spletne vsebi- ne (WCAG) 2.1, ki spodbuja dostopno spletno vsebino. Upoštevane so bile tudi osnovne in napredne smernice Unesca za pripravo na dostopno digitalno dokumentar- no dediščino (UNESCO 2020). Na vsakem koraku di- gitalizacije dokumentov smo upoštevali dostopnost, na- menili smo dovolj sredstev za invalidnost, v vsak korak smo vključili invalide in strokovnjake s področja invali- dnosti, vsebino smo opisali v preprostem in razumljivem jeziku. Celotna platforma je bila ustvarjena z mislijo na dostopnost, za različne zainteresirane strani pa je bilo or- ganizirano usposabljanje za ozaveščanje o dostopnosti. References Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) (2008). Universal design for learning guidelines version 1.0. Available at: http://www.cast.org/publications/ UDLguidelines/version1.html Giusti, E. 2008. “Improving visitor access.” In Digital technologies and the museum experience: Handheld guides and other media, edited by Loïc Tallon and Kevin Walker, 97–108. Lanham: AltaMira Press. Gunnerup, S. 2009. Achieving full participation through Universal Design. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe. int/16805a2a1e. Hall, T. E., A. Meyer and D. H. Rose 2012. An introduction to universal design for learning: Questions and answers. In Universal Design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications, edited by Tracey E., Hall, Anne Meyer and David H. Rose, 1–9. New York: The Guilford Press. Каровска Ристовска, А. 2014. Компаративна анализа на структурата на американскиот и македонскиот знаковен јазик-докторска дисертација. Скопје: Филозофски факултет. http:// hdl.handle.net/20.500.12188/2808. Karovska Ristovska, A., N. Minov, A. Jakimovski and M. Jovanov 2021. “Accessible and digitalized cultural heritage for persons with disabilities.” In International Antalya Scientific Research and Innovative Studies Congress, edited by A. Jakimovski and E. Rizova, 54–67. Side: Institute of Economic Development and Social Research. King-Sears, P. 2014. “Introduction to learning disability quarterly special series on universal design for learning: Part one of two.” Learning Disabilities Quarterly 37 (2): 68–70. Mishev, K., A. Karovska Ristovska, D. Trajanov, T. Eftimov and M. Simjanoska 2020. “MAKEDONKA: Applied Deep Learning Model for Text-to-Speech Synthesis in Macedonian Language.” Applied Sciences 10 (19): 6882. https://doi. org/10.3390/app10196882. Mishev, K., A. Karovska Ristovska, O. Rashikj- Canevska and M. Simjanoska 2022. “Assistive e-Learning Modules to Aid Education Process of Students with Visual and Hearing Impairment: A Case Study in North Macedonia.” In ICT Innovations 2021. Digital Transformation, Innovations 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 1521, edited by Ljupcho Antovski and Goce Armenski, 145–159. Springer, Cham. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-031-04206-5_11. Picone, R. 2022. “Universal Design and Interoperable Digital Platforms between Conservation and New Fruition Opportunities. The Case Study of Arriana’s Domus in Pompeii.” In Transforming our World through Universal Design for Human Development, st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i u n iv er sa l d es ig n a n d c u lt u r a l h er it a g e 33 Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Universal Design, edited by Ilaria Garofolo, Giulia Bencini and Alberto Arenghi, 459–466. IOS press. https://ebooks.iospress.nl/ volumearticle/60642. Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G. and S. G. Daley 2013. “Providing Access to Engagement in Learning: The Potential of Universal Design for Learning in Museum Design.” Curator: The Museum Journal 56 (3): 307– 321. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12030. Salmen, J. P. S. 1998. Everyone’s welcome: The Americans with Disabilities Act and museums. Takoma Park, MD: Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc. Станојковска-Трајковска, Н., C. Георгиевска, A. Каровска Ристовска, Б. Каровска Андоновска and O. Рашиќ-Цаневска 2017. Анализа на состојбата на лицата со интелектуална попреченост и комбинирани пречки во Република Македонија. Скопје: Хелсиншки комитет за човекови права во Република Македонија. Stodden, R., K. Roberts, K. Takahashi, H. Jin Park and N. J. Stodden 2012. “Use of text- to-speech software to improve reading skills of high school struggling readers.” Procedia Computer Science 14: 359–362. UNESCO 2020. Accessible Digital Documentary Heritage: Guidelines for the preparation of documentary heritage in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000374995. Wood, S. G., J. H. Moxley, E. L. Tighe and R. K. Wagner 2018. “Does Use of Text-to- Speech and Related Read-Aloud Tools Improve Reading Comprehension for Students With Reading Disabilities? A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of learning disabilities 51 (1): 73–84. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022219416688170. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i 35 ht t ps://doi .org /10. 26493/2350-54 43.10(2)35-42 © aut hor/aut hors Abstract In the period of last 50 years, the discussion of what authenticity really means changed from questions about realism, representation and reality in aesthetics and media studies, to “authenticity as idea” relat- ed to national identity and cultural heritage, as well as “authenticity as strategy” in marketing and place branding. Consequently, we can today define heritage tourism more narrowly as a phenomenon based on visitors’ motivations and perceptions rather than on specific site attributes. New perspectives of pres- entations, including the use of ICT devices are broadening the perspective of heritage tourism shifting it in to the world of virtual reality. Currently the presentation, this is the consumption of cultural her- itage, is shifting from “authentic” material environments and experiences in to the hyper-realistic digi- tal ones the differences between the capacities for consumption between different members of the so- ciety become reduced. Key words: authenticity, cultural tourism, cultural heritage, archaeology, ICT, disabilities Izvleček V obdobju zadnjih 50 let se je razprava o tem, kaj avtentičnost v resnici pomeni, premaknila od vprašanj o realizmu, reprezentaciji in realnosti v estetiki in medijskih študijah do »avtentičnosti kot ideje«, pove- zane z nacionalno identiteto in kulturno dediščino, pa tudi »avtentičnosti kot strategije« pri trženju in blagovni znamki krajev. Posledično lahko danes dediščinski turizem opredelimo ožje kot pojav, ki te- melji na motivaciji in percepciji obiskovalcev, ne pa na posebnih lastnostih območja. Nove perspektive predstavitev, vključno z uporabo IKT naprav, širijo perspektivo dediščinskega turizma in ga selijo v svet virtualne resničnosti. Trenutno se prezentacija, to je potrošnja kulturne dediščine, premakne iz »avten- tičnih« materialnih okolij in izkušenj v hiperrealistična digitalna, se zmanjšajo razlike med zmožnost- mi potrošnje med različnimi člani družbe. Ključne besede: avtentičnost, kulturni turizem, kulturna dediščina, ICT, posebne potrebe What do you really want? Kaj zares želite? Boris Kavur University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities, Slovenia boris.kavur@upr.si Martina Blečić Kavur University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities, Slovenia martina.blecic.kavur@upr.si Introduction: Seeing THE past Archaeology, when not trying to be an ac-ademic discipline and disseminate the results of research only within the aca- demic community, it has an aspiration to pres- ent to the public as accurate as possible authentic illustration of the past – it reconstructs the au- thentic landscapes, rebuilds the authentic archi- tecture, exhibits the authentic items and at least but not at last, presents the authentic archaeo- logical interpretation. The main problem arising is the academic archaeological systematic fail- ure of any form of social responsibility towards the public hiding behind an unimpregnable wall of arguments defining the imaginary no- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i tion of authenticity in archaeological interpreta- tion. Limping behind lesson philosophy learned in the beginning of the 20th century when it be- came obvious that authentic visions, no matter how deeply felt, may be damaging when they do not sufficiently account for our responsibility to- ward others (Gardiner 2015, 99), or in the case of archaeology the interested public. With oth- er words – in the 20th century the scientifically vaguely but legally all-encompassing principle of authenticity is at least on the rhetorical level the basic and primary principle of the protection of historical and cultural heritage. Although it is mostly employed as an argument without real economic measurable background, it is legally considered being the key to the standard for as- cribing value to heritage and consequently creat- ing the basis for its 3P – preservation, presenta- tion and promotion. In the last decade numerous authors saw the peril of destroying the authenticity of cultural heritage as the initial stage of a process that will lead to the disappearance of important histori- cal information and the lack of awareness of au- thenticity (Mi and Wang 2021). They noted that: - At the material level, the protection and re- pair behavior to often damages the authen- ticity of the structures it was intended to protect. A failure to restore the original structure or the material selection, diffe- rent from the original material, functional- ly change the original functional purpose of the heritage. - At the material level, too often the unfavora- ble supervision of the government instituti- ons, ignoration of the investors and owners as well as the weak protection awareness of the general public, make the authenticity of cultural heritage lost in the development process. - At the non-material level, the lack of authen- ticity protection for culture and perception 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- ral integrity, and the simplification of cultu- ral diversity. - At the environmental level on which his- tory depends, the historical space envi- ronment, surrounding residents and natu- ral environment considerations on which historical heritage relies, have led to the de- struction of the surrounding environment of cultural relics and historic sites. These processes made the original distinctive spa- ces lose their authenticity. Looking through the arguments, we real- ize that today a museum or an archaeological site is a place of total iconism – an allegory of the modern consumer society glorifying total passivity in the observation of the past. Its visi- tors must behave like dehumanized – access to each attraction is regulated by means that dis- courage any individual initiative. The gaze upon the monument is defined, prescribed… and it is not only the real thing, but institutionally me- diated abundance of reconstructed truth, if the visitor obeys the regulations. And it is the role of archaeologists, the scientists, to reconstruct a credible and “objective” past, to present the au- thentic archaeological heritage. But here it seems that that the foundations of the archaeological idea of authenticity were shaken by the theoretical discussions (based on practical practices) in tourism studies, and more recently by the inclusion of modern tech- nologies in to the process of presenting the past. Everything enhanced and virtual became the new reality, reality distancing itself from the ba- sic archaeological notion of authenticity based on material remains, and shifting slowly towards the authenticity based on information as such, based on knowledge about the past. Selling the experience Although not in the field, in the academic litera- ture the contemporary tourist has been ridiculed for his manner of, motivation for, and achieve- ment in travel. Basically, numerous authors de- scribing the quest of tourists for authenticity in (cultural) tourism in the last 50 years have evi- st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 36 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i w h a t d o y o u r ea ll y w a n t? 37 dently underestimated the potential of cultural tourism and the potential of the interested tour- ists to influence the development of the tourist sector. Especially in regard to the role of cultural tourism based in the presentation of cultural her- itage and its role in the sustainable development. It was Daniel J. Boorstin that already in 1961 mentioned that the Americans suffer from extravagant expectations (Boorstin 2002) and that members of a modern society individually provide the market and create demands for the illusions that flood our experiences, illusions that deceive ourselves. Derived from his percep- tion of the modern society was also the conclu- sion that modern tourists do not seek authentic- ity at all – in their search of only entertainment and enjoyment they are easily satisfied by an in- authentic tourism experience. In the past, he claimed, the traveler was active and traveling required much planning, time and money. In modern times the tourist expects all planning to be done for him with no risk involved. Even when not being part of mass-tourism, the tour- ist has guidebooks to tell him what to see, with a star system so he knows what is most important. Based more on his perception of the American society, he assumed that people were no longer experiencing reality in their lives; in their quest for the unfamiliar they were being presented a series of pseudo-events. Tourism, especially large scale, mass tourism, was seen as being just an- other example of how American life had become overpowered by pseudo-events and contrived ex- periences. He concluded that the tourists only seldom liked authenticity of to them often unin- telligible foreign cultures, but instead preferred their own provincial expectations. Translated in to the language of archaeology we could ob- serve that the public presentations were focused on the “modern” aspects of the past, archaeolo- gy was pushing the limits of modern behavior, modern practices and modern relations back in to the past. The past was being appropriated in the basic sense of the word. A decade later it was Dean MacCannell, that presented a revised view of tourism and tourist motivation. His tourist was not a vic- tim of a contrived and illusory culture, but in- stead on a quest for authenticity that involved paying homage to the symbols of modernity. Still it was the first time that he introduced the concept of staged authenticity in tourism (Mac- Cannell 1973). The term “staged authenticity” is one used by tourism and cultural resource man- agement researchers to define a way that tradi- tional, or in the case of archaeology past, cul- tures are presented (i.e. staged) to outsiders. It can be manufactured by tourism professionals (in theme parks, performances and such), but it can be the way that locals perceive what tourists want to see and experience. Consequently, tour- ists are not allowed to see real life as lived by the natives, to see the original archaeological herit- age since these “back regions” are hidden from tourists and reserved only for the indigenous populations or for professional specialists. At best, tourists are shown “front regions” that are designed to look like the real thing. The indus- try specialized in the efforts providing the tour- ist with the feeling he had an authentic tourist experience, and prohibiting him to realize he has failed in his quest. But how was the motivation for tour- ism perceived at the end of the seventies. John Compton (1979) suggested several motives, in- cluding: escape (from the drudgery of everyday life), relaxation, prestige, especially among those who do not travel, regression (i.e., being able to act immaturely without being judged by one’s reference groups), education and novelty. Actu- ally, with the notion of novelty he turned the whole narrative upside down – novelty was a rel- ative concept without any semantic relation to authenticity. Everything goes – everything was a novelty for the tourist. The past was slowly con- quering it’s grandeur. But in the beginning of eighties Umberto Eco (1983) published a series of essays with a hy- percritical description of the contemporary tour- ist industry. Discussing mostly American post- modern tourist attraction, he described them as being hyper-real. Their deliberate creation was st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 38 a process where the American imagination de- manded the real thing but the market fabricat- ed the absolute fake. Derived from the Ameri- can concept of prosperity, which is focused on having more than is needed, it produced artifi- cial tourist attractions that try to be extravagant and better than the original. He concluded that it is certain that tourists prefer hyper-realism to real sites. And archaeology was actually follow- ing if not even creating the trend – it was the pe- riod of reconstructions and reenactments, where the past, to be presented crated anew following the demands and expectations of the consumers (Barker 2010; Hartford 2016). However, tourists may simply be satisfy- ing different types of utility – of form, time and place (Cohen 2002). While seeing a real prehis- toric painted cave in a real setting might be pre- ferred, it may simply not be possible, given time and place constraints. Also, it must be admitted, the tourist may not wish to suffer the travails of a trip to a remote locale. Seeing a real Roman city has a major constraint – since the best pre- served are in the remotest regions of the today “civilized” world visiting them poses to the aver- age tourist a major problem directly addressing the time, money and efforts the tourists are able (and willing) to invest. And since there are no time machines to take travelers back to the “real thing,” with the help of hyper-realism the tour- ist satisfices his experience, while perhaps actual- ly learning something about the “real thing.” The end of century, with the development of technol- ogy and with the introduction of practices that explained and promoted archaeological heritage, enabled experiences that were better than real, authentic in their own way. But it was John Urry (2002) that described the trends in the new millennium, claiming that the post-tourist knows that they are a tour- ist and that tourism is a game, or rather a whole series of games with multiple texts and no sin- gle, authentic tourist experience. Further he not- ed that the post-tourist takes pleasure in the fact that so many tourist experiences are available so all of these motivations can be satisfied. It was all based or actually adapted to the notion that the modern or actually post-modern (post-tour- ist) is a critical consumer that embraces open- ly the increasingly inauthentic, commercialized and simulated experiences offered by the tour- ism industry. And the presentations of the past – including museums, archaeological parks and reenactment events, are a constituent element of cultural tourism. Although developed still in the eighties these concepts make more sense in the last two decades when the post-modern world is characterized by globalization, hyper-consumer- ism, the experience economy and new develop- ments in technology. Consumers have numerous choices and possibilities, and often undertake seemingly incompatible activities simultaneous- ly in order to capitalize on this array of oppor- tunities. Cultural tourism is no exception (Ko- białka 2013). It was in 2007 that in the monumental vol- ume Tourism and Politics, Debbie Lisle described the rise of dark tourism as the last real experi- ence in the post-tourist world (Lisle 2007). She demonstrated that the myth of modern tourism is centered on the possibility of encountering au- thentic difference, a claim actually less possible if we take into consideration the fact that tourism is a global industry from the 1990s. She claimed that the only “real” places in the world are con- flict areas and war zones affiliated with death and violence and that the Dark tourism tell us a great deal about the relationship between tour- ism and conflict. They illustrate that places of conflict are not excised by the tourist gaze, but are instead integral to it. In the same year James Gilmore and Joseph Pine published the book Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want – they were not only thinking of tourism, but of consumer culture in general (Gilomre and Pine 2007). They claimed that people increasingly see the world in terms of real and fake, and because of the shift to the experience economy want to buy something real from someone genuine. Today goods and ser- vices are no longer enough – what consumers want today are experiences described as memo- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i w h a t d o y o u r ea ll y w a n t? 39 rable events that engage them in an inherently personal way. As paid-for experiences prolifer- ate, people now decide where and when to spend their money and their time. But in a world in- creasingly filled with deliberately and sensation- ally staged experiences, in an increasingly unreal world, consumers choose to buy or not buy based on how real they perceive an offering to be. They claim that business today, therefore, is all about being real. Original. Genuine. Sincere. Authen- tic. Presenting the real past. And of course, this brings us back to the objects of dark tourism, el- ements of archaeological heritage linked to con- flicts and death as the optimal places to present the authentic reconstruction of the past. Anticipating the future one might argue that as long as the tourist thinks a fantasy-lad- en tourist site or experience is real, then this is simply inauthentic – if the tourist knows the site is fake, and still likes it, perhaps even more than seeing the real thing, then this is hyper-reality. However, this taxonomy condemns as merely in- authentic many tourist sites and experiences that are so fantastic that the traveler should have re- alized they were fake, and perhaps did so on at least some level of consciousness (Cohen 2002). Conclusion: Participating – a dialogue with authenticity For tourism studies, allegations of inauthentic- ity generally relate to staged events and touris- tic experience that fail the objective authentici- ty test – it assumes that there is an undistorted standard to determine what is or is not genuine (Umbach and Humphrey 2018). But is it really so? Here we can come to assess the appropriate- ness of authenticity, not in terms of the appro- priateness of its explanatory and constitutive be- liefs but instead in terms of whether an instance of authenticity successfully plays the functional role that it is “meant” to play. And archaeology has a problem with that – as a discipline it has a problem in defining what is it meant to do. To preserve the authentic landscape, feature, item… or to explain? It is easy to hide behind the pres- ervation of the authentic but hard to explain it. In this period of nearly 50 years, the discus- sion of what authenticity really means has been going on in many different academic fields, from questions about realism, representation and re- ality in aesthetics and media studies, to “authen- ticity as idea” related to national identity and cultural heritage, as well as “authenticity as strat- egy” in marketing and place branding. All these discussions influenced the question of authentic- ity as a cultural concept in tourism and consum- er culture from different analytical views, and re- lated the discussions of authenticity in tourism studies to other theoretical and academic fields – in our case archaeology as a specific constitu- tional element of cultural heritage. In the last two decades it was argued that authenticity is a spent issue in tourism – that it is no longer relevant to tourists, a redundant con- cept which they no longer concern themselves with. However, the fact that authenticity lacks a universal definition does not prove its redun- dancy. It simply shows that the concept has not reached “basic concept status,” but then, it does not have to. As long as tourists continue to con- cern themselves with evaluating authenticity of cultural objects and experiences by whatever cri- teria they apply, then authenticity should remain firmly embedded in the development of tourism theory (Mkono 2012). But is it still credible to consider and ana- lyze consumer behavior as an expression of false consciousness? If we accept that authenticity is never objective, but always constructed, then we should take seriously accounts whereby consum- ers themselves perceive their experience as au- thentic. Empirical studies have explored con- sumers’ own voices, and uncovered processes whereby consumers experience acts of consump- tion as helping them achieve moments, or subjec- tive states, of authenticity. They see themselves not as duped victims of false consciousness, but as active agents capable of framing and pursuing life-goals with a degree of autonomy. Numer- ous authors suggested that we ought to take such positions seriously and treat consumers (in this case tourists) as active agents in the production st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 40 and performance of authenticity (Umbach and Humphrey 2018). Consequently, we can define heritage tour- ism more narrowly as a phenomenon based on visitors’ motivations and perceptions rather than on specific site attributes. This means that herit- age tourism is not only tourism in places catego- rized as heritage or historic places based purely on the fact that they present history, but histo- ry featured is part of the experience and partial- ly links it with motivations for the trip (Poria, Butler and Airey 2003). In this sense, authen- ticity is actually performed, and through the term performative authenticity authors linked the two positions that have emerged in tourism studies with respect to the concept of authen- ticity – on one side object related (authentici- ty synonymous to original and trace) and sub- ject related modes of authenticity (existential authenticity covering bodily feelings, emotion- al ties, identity construction and narration relat- ed to place) (Knudsen and Waade 2010). The lat- er corresponding to the evolution of the modern cultural tourist that was transformed from con- suming the vision about past history, passing to consuming past cultural, historical and natural resources as well as intangible heritage and at- tractions to finally actively performing a struc- tured decision-making process based on criteria of desirable leisure experiences such as engaging in social interaction, doing something worth- while, feeling comfortable and at ease in one’s surrounding, being challenged by new experi- ences, having the opportunity to learn and par- ticipating actively (Sheng and Chen 2012; Di Pi- etro et al. 2014). Especially the young generation asked for a different cultural consumption mod- el – knowledge-based activities that are partici- pative in situ (Papathanasiou-Zuhrt and Weiss- Ibáñez 2014). Especially in this population the use of modern ICT devices, included in to the daily activities, enabled the changes in cultural consumptions. Not that the only facilitated the broad information remotely but also facilitated the access and consumption for categories of as- sets that were previously considered being less accessible (Vasile et al. 2015). And further they stimulated all the senses allowing the consump- tion of the information in both terms of educa- tion and entertainment (Addis 2005). It is exactly the ICT devices that in a spe- cific area of cultural heritage consumption, in our focus in the case of archaeology, can ena- ble, when discussing the involvement of persons with disabilities the shift form the discussion about minorized identities towards a common experience. Since disability is not a personal trait that an individual possesses but a way of seeing things, consuming information, that in- cludes the whole of society (Fraser 2018, 12–20). And in the moment when the presentation, this is the consumption of cultural heritage is trans- formed from “authentic” material environments in to the hyper-realistic digital ones the differ- ences between the capacities for consumption between different members of the society be- come reduced. Modernizing the presentation of cultural heritage becomes “normalization” of the consuming society. Implementing virtual heritage technologies can, beside advertising the archaeological sites and promoting the events on them, be used as means documenting the heritage and reducing its vulnerability, caused by exposure of access. But most important it allows to resurrect the complexity of destroyed or not accessible sites and items (Farid and Ezzat 2018). Information and communication technology in the role of as- sistive technologies forms a collective and inter- active support for knowledge and performs dif- ferent roles pursuant to the type of disability to enable the consumption of cultural information and to address the question of authenticity of in- formation provided. Summary In the period of last 50 years, the discussion of what au- thenticity really means changed from questions about realism, representation and reality in aesthetics and me- dia studies, to “authenticity as idea” related to national identity and cultural heritage, as well as “authenticity as strategy” in marketing and place branding. All these dis- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i w h a t d o y o u r ea ll y w a n t? 41 cussions influenced the role of promotion of cultural heritage and especially archaeology in cultural tourism and consumer culture. Consequently, we can today define heritage tourism more narrowly as a phenomenon based on visitors’ mo- tivations and perceptions rather than on specific site at- tributes. This means that heritage tourism is not only tourism in places categorized as heritage or histor- ic places based purely on the fact that they present his- tory, but history featured is part of the experience and partially links it with motivations for the trip. New per- spectives of presentations, including the use of ICT de- vices are broadening the perspective of heritage tourism shifting it in to the world of virtual reality. It is exactly the ICT devices that in a specific area of cul- tural heritage consumption, in our focus in the case of archaeology, can enable, when discussing the involve- ment of persons with special needs the shift form the discussion about minorized identities towards a com- mon experience. And in the moment when the pres- entation, this is the consumption of cultural heritage, is shifting from “authentic” material environments and ex- periences in to the hyper-realistic digital ones the differ- ences between the capacities for consumption between different members of the society become reduced. Povzetek V obdobju zadnjih 50 let se je razprava o tem, kaj avten- tičnost v resnici pomeni, premaknila od vprašanj o rea- lizmu, reprezentaciji in realnosti v estetiki in medijskih študijah do »avtentičnosti kot ideje«, povezane z naci- onalno identiteto in kulturno dediščino, pa tudi »av- tentičnosti kot strategije« pri trženju in blagovni znam- ki krajev. Vse te razprave so vplivale na vlogo promocije kulturne dediščine in predvsem arheologije v kultur- nem turizmu in potrošniški kulturi. Posledično lahko danes dediščinski turizem opredeli- mo ožje kot pojav, ki temelji na motivaciji in percepci- ji obiskovalcev, ne pa na posebnih lastnostih območja. To pomeni, da dediščinski turizem ni samo turizem na krajih, ki so kategorizirani kot dediščina ali zgodovinski kraji zgolj na podlagi dejstva, da predstavljajo zgodovi- no, ampak je predstavljena zgodovina del izkušnje in jo delno povezuje z motivacijo za potovanje. Nove per- spektive predstavitev, vključno z uporabo IKT naprav, širijo perspektivo dediščinskega turizma in ga selijo v svet virtualne resničnosti. Ravno IKT naprave lahko na določenem področju po- trošnje kulturne dediščine, v našem fokusu v prime- ru arheologije, omogočijo, da se pri razpravi o vključe- vanju oseb s posebnimi potrebami premik od razprave o minoriziranih identitetah k skupni izkušnji. In v tre- nutku, ko se prezentacija, to je potrošnja kulturne de- diščine, premakne iz »avtentičnih« materialnih oko- lij in izkušenj v hiperrealistična digitalna, se zmanjšajo razlike med zmožnostmi potrošnje med različnimi čla- ni družbe. References Addis, M. 2005. “New technologies and cultural consumption – edutainment is born!” European Journal of Marketing 39 (7/8): 729–736. Barker, A. W. 2010. “Exhibiting archaeology: Archaeology and Museums.” Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 293–308. Boorstin, D. J. 2002. The Image. A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. 25th Anniversary Edition, New York: Vintage Books. Cohen, J. 2002. “The contemporary Tourist: Is Everything Old New Again?” Advances in Consumer Research 29: 31–35. Compton, J. L. 1979. “Motivations for Pleasure Vacation.” Annals of Tourism Research 6: 408–424. Di Pietro, L., R. Gugilielmetti Mugion, G. Mattia and M. F. Renzi 2015. “Cultural heritage and consumer behaviour: a survey on Italian cultural visitors.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 5 (1): 61–81. Eco, U. 1983. Travels in Hyperreality. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Farid, M. M. A. and A. A. Ezzat 2018. “The cultural and economical impacts of using virtual heritage in archaeological sites in Egypt.” Proceedings of Science and Technology 1 (2): 183–197. Fraser, B. 2018. Cognitive Disability Aesthetics. Visual Culture, Disability Representations, st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 42 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i and the (In)Visibility of Cognitive Difference. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gardiner, R. 2015. Gender, Authenitcity and Leadership. Thinking with Arendt. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gilmore, J. H. and J. B. Pine 2007. Authenticity. What Consumers Really Want. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hartford, S. 2016. “The Value of Experience: Lessons from a Study of Reenactment.” EXARC Journal Issue 2016/1. https://exarc. net/ark:/88735/10232 Knudsen, B. M. and A. M. Waade 2010. “Performative Authenticity in Tourism and Spatial experience: Rethinking the Relations Between Travel, Place and Emotion.” In Re-Investing Authenticity. Tourism, Place and Emotions, edited by B. M. Knudsen and A. M. Waade, 1–19. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Kobiałka, D. 2013. “Time travels in archaeology. Between Hollywood films and historical re-enactment?” AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology 3, 110–130. Lisle, D. 2007. “Defending Voyeurism: Dark Tourism and the Problem of Global Security.” In Touris and Politics. Global Frameworks and Local Realities, edited by P. M. Burnes and M. Vovelli, 333–345. Amsterdam: Elsevier. MacCannell, D. 1973. “Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings.” American Journal of Sociology 79 (3): 589–603. Mi, F. and Y. Wang 2021. “A Summary of the Study on the Authenticity of Traditional Village Architecture Space.” Open Journal of Social Sciences 9: 228–240. Mkono, M. 2012. “Authenticity does matter.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1): 480– 483. Papathanasiou-Zuhrt, D. and D. F. Weiss- Ibáñez 2014. “Cognitive processing of information with visitor value in cultural heritage environments. The case of the SEE TCP SAGITTARIUS 2011-2014.” Procedia Economics and Finance 15: 303– 311. Poria, Y., R. Butler and D. Airey 2003. “The Core of Heritage Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 30 (1): 238–254. Sheng. C. W. and M. C. Chen 2012. “A study of experience expectations of museum visitors.” Tourism Management 33 (1): 53– 50. Umbach, M. and M. Humphrey 2018. Authenticity: The Cultural History of a Polithical Concept. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Urry J. 2002. The Tourist Gaze. Second Edition. London: Sage Publications. Vasile, V., M.-R. Surugiu, I.-A. Login and C. Anca 2015. “Changes in cultural heritage consumption model: Challenges and limits.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 188: 42–52. 43 © aut hor/aut horsst ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Museum accessibility: development of good practice for the promotion of archaeological heritage Muzejska dostopnost: razvoj dobre prakse za promocijo arheološke dediščine Zrinka Mileusnić University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities, Slovenia zrinka.mileusnic@fhs.upr.si Aleksandra Bugar Zagreb City Museum, Croatia abugar@mgz.hr Abstract In the article, we present the importance of accessibility of archaeological heritage to all types of muse- um visitors. Through the example of the previous activities of the Zagreb City Museum, we will focus on good practices of promotion and cooperation between the museum and certain groups of visitors with special needs, i.e. people with disabilities. We will focus on the exhibition project’s design concept to promote archaeology for the entire public and the possibility of its upgrade. In doing so, we will look back at the effects of completed activities so far but also warn about potential challenges and possible ways to solve them. Key words: archaeology, promotion, exhibition, people with disabilities, accessibility, inclusion Izvleček V članku predstavljamo pomen dostopnosti arheološke dediščine vsem tipom muzejskih obiskovalcev. Na primeru dosedanjih aktivnosti Mestnega muzeja Zagreb se bomo osredotočili na dobre prakse pro- mocije in sodelovanja med muzejem in določenimi skupinami obiskovalcev s posebnimi potrebami, tj. invalidi. Posebno pozornost bomo namenili zasnovi razstavnega projekta z namenom promocije arhe- ologije za celotno javnost in možnosti njene nadgradnje. Pri tem se bomo ozrli na učinke dosedanjih opravljenih aktivnosti, hkrati pa opozorili na morebitne izzive in načine njihovega reševanja. Ključne besede: arheologija, promocija, razstava, osebe s posebnimi potrebami, dostopnost, vključenost Introduction The new museum definition1 was approved the Extraordinary General Assembly of ICOM in Prague on 24 August 2022: “A museum is a not-for-profit, permanent institution in the service of society that re- searches, collects, conserves, interprets and exhibits tangible and intangible heritage. Open to the public, accessible and inclusive, museums foster diversity and sustainabili- 1 https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/ EN_EGA2022_MuseumDefinition_WDoc_Final-2.pdf ty. They operate and communicate ethical- ly, professionally and with the participation of communities, offering varied experienc- es for education, enjoyment, reflection, and knowledge sharing.” We must be aware that the new museum definition is not an initial step, suggesting what museums must become in the future. However, it is a reflection of the changes and adaptations museums have undergone and the definition of their purpose and role in contemporary society. Its importance also arises from the fact that the process of defining a contemporary museum was ht t ps://doi .org /10. 26493/2350-54 43.10(2)43-56 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i complex. Since 2019 it has been organised by de- veloping and implementing the specific meth- odology, including the response and needs of museums worldwide. The long process that led to the new definition included open commu- nication with the museum society and visibil- ity of the specific phases of this research to so- ciety in general. The process was inclusive, and by its previously mentioned accessibility to the public, we might conclude that it depicted one of the essential features of museums – inclusion and accessibility. The idea and development of museums as inclusive and accessible can be traced for sever- al decades, and both terms can be understood as complementary. If the museum works towards inclusiveness, it must respond to the needs of so- ciety and work on adaptations to become acces- sible. On the other hand, working on accessibil- ity means that the museum must be responsive to the needs of society and, by a participatory ap- proach, learn about the adaptations that should be done. One can define different groups of visi- tors on the level of society and inclusive aspects of museums. Most adaptations focus on groups of people such as the socially impaired, minor- ities, and people with disabilities. The basic idea of identification of these groups and the need for their inclusion into museums lies in the fact that they do not visit museums regularly for different reasons. To name some, they are unaware of what museums offer them, and they are not convinced that museums represent them, or they might feel their presence in the museum is not wanted. Suppose we sum up these potential doubts that these groups of potential visitors might have and the possible lack of adaptations in the museums for their needs. In that case, they become exclud- ed groups of visitors. Additional challenges for inclusive and ac- cessible museums arise from the different needs of the society in which museums are situated, the different goals of museums’ contents and strategies, and the different physical aspects of museum architecture. In some cases, museum buildings are protected as cultural monuments that do not allow the complete freedom of im- plementing adaptations. The digitalisation and possibilities of using different new technologies and tools can ease the process of these adapta- tions. However, the fast growth and changes in technological development can also mean imple- menting new and expensive digital infrastruc- ture that becomes outdated and sometimes use- less in a short period. Another challenge is the museum’s strategy for inclusion and accessibility, which must address all the museum employees and train them for the adaptations. At the same time, it has to educate the general public and the standard types of visitors to understand the ad- aptations and accept specific groups of visitors. Considering all these facts, challenges for all museums in becoming inclusive and accessi- ble are immense and complex. Museums should make adaptations because, in this way, they can collaborate to create an inclusive and equitable society. Based on their specifics, many museums have developed different toolkits with solutions for implementing inclusiveness and accessibil- ity to help other museums with their adapta- tions. These processes are slow and must follow the persistent goal and strategy. In this article, we present examples of good practice and adap- tation for the visitors with special needs that sat- isfy and incorporate the museum’s primary goals to become inclusive and accessible, focusing on promoting archaeological heritage. For many years, the Zagreb City Museum has been working on adapting its permanent ex- hibition to disabled people, especially blind and partially sighted people. It has introduced the Info Tactile Points program and the Dialogue through Touch program. A series of activities take place – workshops, occasional exhibitions, campaigns, and publications aimed at peo- ple with disabilities. However, none of the pro- grams is intended only for people with disabil- ities, and instead, efforts are made to make the programs, at least in part, interesting for every- one. The goal is to sensitize the public to the needs of people with disabilities, their visibility st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 44 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i m u se u m a c c es si bi li t y: d ev el o pm en t o f g o o d pr ac ti c e f o r th e p ro m o ti o n o f a rc h a eo lo g ic a l h er it ag e 45 and real inclusion in society. As a place open to all social groups, which cooperates with various associations and constantly promotes accessibil- ity for people with disabilities, the Zagreb City Museum is also recognized by the internation- al museum community COME-IN!2 and at the end of 2020 was awarded the COME-IN! La- bel – an innovative promotional tool awarded to museums that have reached notable improve- ments in the field of accessibility. After that, the museum intensified its work on the adaptation of temporary showcases and museum spaces and continued with the adaptation of the permanent exhibition to meet contemporary societal de- mands and create a museum which is a place for everyone! The Zagreb City Museum and work models with people with disabilities As a complex cultural and historical museum, the Zagreb City Museum has changed four lo- cations and was situated in six permanent struc- 2 https://www.interreg-central.eu/Content.Node/COME- IN.html tures during its 115 years, the last one in 1997. A year later, the archaeological part of the perma- nent exhibition was open. On 2,223 m² there are 4,500 exhibited objects, organized through 45 themes, ranging from archaeology to the 20th century.3 It includes a part of the archaeological site presented in situ, explored from 1989 to 1997. This part of the museum is a unique place in the town’s historic core where visitors can see orig- inal parts of the archaeological site and related objects. Archaeological remains are partly on the ground floor, but about 300 m2 are in situ (fig. 1; Mašić 2007, 310–311). Because of this combined kind of presentation of archaeological heritage, the museum’s permanent exhibition is unique in the Zagreb area. Display of parts of the prehis- toric settlement, pre-medieval rampart, and part of the late medieval settlement have immeasura- bly enriched the interpretation of the city’s old- est history. 3 The Zagreb City Museum has 30 collections, 8 collec- tions-donations to the City of Zagreb, a documentation department, an IT department, a pedagogical-andragogi- cal department, conservation-restoration workshops and a library. Figure 1: Parts of the Zagreb City Museum – Poor Clares’ Monastery Site in situ within the permanent display of the Zagreb City Museum (photo: Miljenko Gregl, Zagreb City Museum). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 46 The museum has the unique task of stimu- lating visitors’ interest in Zagreb. Key points of the development of the capital of Croatia, in- cluding some peculiarities, are included in dif- ferent contexts and interpretation and presenta- tion methods, following the expectations and needs of contemporary society (Premerl 1994, 10–18; ibid 2007, 29–71; Kolveshi 2007, 7–9). For more than 25 years, the Zagreb City Museum has been working on quality commu- nication with its visitors and taking special care of people with disabilities. However, programs are not designed only for one group of visitors - people with disabilities - precisely to avoid ghet- toization - but all programs strive to be designed so that everyone uses them, that they are accept- able and valuable to everyone in a certain way (Leiner 2016, 49–50). In 2005, the Guide for the Blind and Visual- ly Impaired was created in Croatian Braille and enlarged print with maps and photos of museum objects printed in colour and raised print (fig. 2; Leiner 2005). It was the first museum guide in- tended for blind and deaf-blind people in Croa- tia (Leiner 2016, 50). The same guide received its English edition in 2010 (Leiner 2010). The im- petus for the creation of the guide were work- shops with blind and deaf-blind people and the realization that most had rarely visited a muse- um until then because they did not feel welcome (Leiner 2016, 51). Created in intensive coopera- tion with experts and users in the Croatian As- sociation of the Blind, this guide became the ba- sis for the further intensive cooperation between the Museum and Associations of Persons with Disabilities.4 4 MGZ cooperates with numerous associations of people with disabilities (Croatian Association of the Blind, Cro- atian Association of Deaf-Blind Persons “Dodir”, Theater of the Blind and Visually Impaired “Novi Život”, Associ- ation of the Blind Zagreb, UGsO - Association of Deaf- Blind Persons of the City of Zagreb, Society for the Pro- motion of Inclusion Zagreb), with associations for chil- dren’s rights and gender equality and other institutions (Zagreb elementary schools, cultural centres, homes for the elderly and infirm, children’s hospital in Klaićeva, Gol- jak - hospital for the protection of children with mobili- ty and neurodevelopmental disabilities, Suvag Polyclinic, Center for Education and education Slava Raškaj Zagreb, and other museums). Figure 2: Guide to Zagreb City Museum for the blind, partially sighted, deaf-blind and all those who have diffi- culties with seeing (photo: Miljenko Gregl, Zagreb City Museum). In 2010, the Zagreb City Museum be- gan adapting its permanent exhibition to peo- ple with disabilities, especially blind and visual- ly impaired and deaf-blind people, through the Info Tactile Points program (fig. 3, 4).5 The ad- aptation began precisely in the archaeological part of the permanent exhibition, where the first main texts and texts in Braille were placed. Rep- licas of archaeological objects were made – three ceramic vessels from the Zagreb City Museum – Poor Clare monastery, a stone axe made of crys- tal, an accidental find from the Zagreb area and a metal helmet from the Budinjak site. The concept of adaptation is essentially sim- ple – in each theme of the permanent exhibition, the main texts are in enlarged print in Croatian and smaller font in English and German. Be- neath the main texts of the 1 x 1 m format, bev- elled surfaces are placed for the abbreviated texts in Croatian Braille and in enlarged print. Below, 5 The Info Tactile Points program was designed and led by Vesna Leiner, a museum consultant - pedagogue, until her retirement in 2022. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i m u se u m a c c es si bi li t y: d ev el o pm en t o f g o o d pr ac ti c e f o r th e p ro m o ti o n o f a rc h a eo lo g ic a l h er it ag e 47 on the right, on the same slope, tactile displays are applied - interpretations of floor plans or pic- tures or graphics (at first on paper), or a small- er shelf is installed on the right, on which is at- tached a replica of an object or a tactile display that interprets a picture, graphic, floor plan, and the like. The objects are made of original mate- rials or similar – examples of ceramic and metal. The creation of these replicas went through the fingers of collaborators in the Croatian Associ- ation of the Blind. They learned from their mis- takes, and the abundance of details decreased over time. They tried to find the most efficient way of presentation that would be clear to a blind person and most legible with fingers. Over time, many objects were replaced by displays in more durable material because tactile displays on paper wore out and did not always meet all the needs of blind people. Almost all tactile displays on paper are gradually being re- placed by tactile displays performed in acrystal. Replicas are also made in acrystal, and with the touch and feel under the fingers, and the repro- duced details, it mostly meets the needs of blind and partially sighted people. The author of the replicas and 3D renderings is professor Mladen Mikulin, an academic sculptor who intensively collaborated and consulted with blind people in the Croatian Association of the Blind. Follow- ing their descriptions, remarks and wishes, he creates objects that aesthetically meet high cri- teria, are functionally legible to blind people and provide information that helps them create an idea about the object. In essence, tactile info points are not in- tended only for people with disabilities (Fig. 5). The main descriptions are intended for all visi- tors, and the fact that the adaptation for blind people takes place in the same position is just the way to equality and sensitizing the public to the needs of all people, sighted and blind. Every- one, not only blind people, can feel replicas. In this way, the sighted person touches the object in the museum. At the same time, they realise that there is also a text in Braille. This combination develops into meaningful communication with Figure 4: Special guide through the permanent exhi- bition of the Zagreb City Museum for a blind and deaf -blind persons (photo: Miljenko Gregl, Zagreb City Museum). Figure 3: Tactile representation from Guide to Za- greb City Museum - photo of a portable hearth from Early Iron Age (photo: Miljenko Gregl, Zagreb City Museum). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 48 heritage, the museum as a communicator of her- itage and with all users. It is a slow but straightforward way to think about equality and the needs of those who need help. Children are educated this way from a young age, and the Zagreb City Museum, as part of the primary school curriculum, is an ex- cellent place for the presentation and sensitizing of all ages for the needs of people with disabil- ities. One of the more recent works is the pic- ture book The mole Talpa explores by the Muse- um of the City of Zagreb, intended for preschool children and children in the lower elementa- ry grades. Namely, the blind mole, as a muse- um guide, takes sighted children on a tour of the museum and teaches them not only about the heritage and history of Zagreb but also about how the museum is experienced and interpreted by the blind and visually impaired (Leiner 2021). Talpa, the mole (fig. 6), has become the mascot, Figure 5: Example of Info tactile point within a permanent display of the Zagreb City Museum (photo: Miljenko Gregl, Zagreb City Museum). Figure 6: Talpa (Mole) – mascot of adaptation of perma- nent display to blind and visually impaired people at the Zagreb City Museum (photo: Miljenko Gregl, Zagreb City Museum). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i m u se u m a c c es si bi li t y: d ev el o pm en t o f g o o d pr ac ti c e f o r th e p ro m o ti o n o f a rc h a eo lo g ic a l h er it ag e 49 the protected sign of the adaptation for people with disabilities. The explanation is in the lob- by in front of the entrance to the permanent ex- hibition. It includes essential explanations about the adaptation of the museum, in enlarged print, with the description in Croatian Braille and the sculpture of the mole Talpa by Mladen Mikulin, which blind and partially sighted people, as well as everyone else, can feel. The museum’s permanent exhibition is re- plenished yearly with new Braille replicas and texts. Currently, 42 replicas and 49 texts in Braille are installed in the permanent display, which means that the adaptation, as mentioned above, covers approximately 90% of the perma- nent display. Work on adaptation continues. Likewise, although controversial, we decided to offer some original objects in the permanent ex- hibition, which are in good condition, conserved and preserved, to blind people to feel them: parts of architectural plastic, metal doors of shops, stone crowns of wells, metal parts of old bicy- cles, baby carriages, bells and the like and sever- al museographic aids such as old models of the city. For blind people, the experience of touch- ing originals that are not particularly fragile is invaluable. Dialogue through touch is a program that includes various educational actions - creative workshops, lectures, exhibitions, events, hu- manitarian campaigns and plays. If necessary, leaflets, catalogues of inclusive exhibitions in en- larged print and exhibition texts are printed in Braille. International White Cane Day is regu- larly celebrated on October 15, and in 2022 we started celebrating the International Day of Per- sons with Disabilities on December 3rd. A Cro- atian sign language translator is hired at all ex- hibition openings and major events and at the Open Day for people with disabilities on the first Tuesday of every month. An audio guide for blind and partially sighted visitors was introduced in 2012, and due to outdated technology, it will be replaced by more modern devices. As of 2020, the museum website is digitally accessible. The Zagreb City Museum is part of the international community of small and medi- um-sized museums COME-IN! The goal of COME-IN! project was to valorise the cultur- al heritage of Central Europe, with the desire to make small and medium-sized museums ac- cessible to visitors with disabilities. The project also encouraged these goals through the manu- al for museum employees COME-IN! Guide / Guidelines (in 6 languages), followed by seven pilot actions and educational training for muse- um employees. Based on the experiences in the project, an innovative promotional tool was created – COME-IN! label awarded to museums that have done a lot in the field of accessibility was also awarded to the Zagreb City Museum at the end of 2020. The museum is recognised as a place open to all social groups and cooperates with various associations, and constantly pro- motes accessibility for people with disabilities. After that, the Zagreb City Museum intensified its work on adaptations of occasional exhibitions and museum spaces. Moreover, it continued with adaptations of the permanent exhibition and the demands that this community promotes – a museum is a place for everyone! This started the further evaluation process because the status is temporary. In the same year, the museum hosted the exhibition Stone on stone – Roman architecture of northwestern Istria of the Maritime Muse- um Sergej Mašera from Piran, an archaeologi- cal-themed exhibition, which was adjusted to the height of the pedestals, texts in Braille, and enlarged print, replicas of objects and tactile rep- resentations (floor plans) and to persons with disabilities. It incentivised the Zagreb City Mu- seum to design two exhibitions suitable for all and accessible to persons with disabilities. The first art exhibition of busts, Touching art – Mladen Mikulin6, opened in the summer of 2021 due to the height of the pedestals, texts in Braille and enlarged print, and the fact that 6 The authors of the exhibition concept were Vesna Leiner, museum consultant pedagogue and Aleksandra Bugar, se- nior curator of the Zagreb City Museum. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 50 all the sculptures – busts of famous people from the world of culture, sports and politics, in plas- ter or cast in bronze, they can be touched, adapt- ed to people with disabilities and intended for just about everyone (Leiner 2021). In 2021, the exhibition was hosted in the Vukovar City Mu- seum, and in 2022 in Opatija, in the Juraj Šporer gallery (Leiner and Bugar 2022). The second exhibition is Zagreb in spe / Small objects – big stories.7 Concept and model of exhibition for all The Exhibition Small Items - Great Stories is the first in a series of Zagreb in spe exhibitions.8 The intention is to regularly present to the Za- greb City Museum audience various aspects of 7 The author of the exhibition is Aleksandra Bugar, senior curator of the Zagreb City Museum. 8 https://mgz.hr/en/exhibitions/%e2%80%9ezagreb-in- spe%e2%80%9c-_--mali-predmeti---velike-pri%c4%8de, 1603.html people’s lives in the past who lived in the area now occupied by Zagreb and Zagreb Coun- ty through future archaeological exhibitions (Bugar 2022). The starting point of this reflection is that only by understanding the past through learn- ing about different archaeological sites across the city, we try to sensitise the viewing public to the need for more active preservation and affirma- tion of the archaeological cultural heritage pres- ent in the area we live in (Fig. 7). In short, the exhibition Zagreb in spe / Small Items - Great Stories is smaller, but com- plex archaeological exhibition, designed to be accessible for all visitors and adapted for people with disabilities. Although almost every major city hides strata from prehistory, antiquity and the Me- dieval Era in its foundations, Zagreb City Mu- seum’s Permanent Exhibition, and parts of the Figure 7: A view of the setting of the exhibition Zagreb in spe / Small Items – Great Stories at the Zagreb City Muse- um (photo: Miljenko Gregl, Zagreb City Museum). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i m u se u m a c c es si bi li t y: d ev el o pm en t o f g o o d pr ac ti c e f o r th e p ro m o ti o n o f a rc h a eo lo g ic a l h er it ag e 51 City before the City presented at the site of dis- covery in situ have long been telling the story of the complex archaeological and historical chang- es of the city of Zagreb. With every new piece of archaeological research Zagreb reveals new items and stories. Which new story to choose to inter- est visitors and point them to the archaeological potential and Zagreb’s ancient past? It was the starting point for creation of the exhibition Zagreb in spe / Small Items – Great Stories – it was conceived as an insight into the roots and development of the city. But not only that - making the exhibition accessible for all visitors and adapted for people with disabilities also guided the exhibition design and selection of items. Therefore, it is compressed as much as possible – from the large quantity of archaeo- logical materials held in Zagreb City Museum, those selected for this occasion were – only six. Six original items and six replicas. Blind people experience world tactilely, and by feeling replicas they can create an idea of what the object looks like, what materials it is made from and what its surface and shape are like. Therefore, the chosen subjects, due to prac- ticality, were relatively small in format but are ideal for tactile exploration. Aesthetically they may seem imperfect because they are only con- solidated, but they were chosen for other reasons that are important to archaeologists and muse- ologists – each of these objects tells a unique sto- ry. They introduce us to a period that spans sev- eral thousand years, from prehistory to the Early Middle Ages. These are the periods that precede our traditional understanding of the emergence of the City as we know, namely the founding of the Zagreb Diocese in 1094 and the Golden Bula charter of Bela IV to Gradec in 1242. This is Za- greb in spe’ – a story less known for which writ- ten sources are scarce or missing entirely. We are Figure 8: Exhibition Zagreb in spe / Small Items – Great Stories – display cases with original exhibits, replicas of ob- jects that blind people can touch, and abbreviated texts in braille (photo: Miljenko Gregl, Zagreb City Museum). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 52 introduced to these objects from the five sites in which they were found, so in many ways they are like small portraits of the City itself. A tactile map of the location of these archaeological sites was also created for the exhibition. The preparation of this exhibition consid- ered certain technical adaptation standards - six identical display cases were designed for six items and their replicas. The height of display cases for example, i.e., the position of the original item, is slightly lower – most people will notice that they have to bend down to get a good look at an ex- hibit, but for children and wheelchair users this height is ideal. The original item is housed in a plexiglas cube. Below, on the inclined surface, abbreviated texts are applied in Braille and in en- larged print, following the example of the Info tactile points in the permanent display. Small- er shelves with attached replicas that blind peo- ple, but also all other visitors, can touch are po- sitioned on the right side. Textual descriptions about sites and objects are placed right next to the showcases. They are bilingual (Croatian and English) and the font size and line spacing are legible for visually impaired people. All texts were also translated into Croatian sign language and were played on a nearby display (fig. 8, 9).9 The exhibition was well-received by all visi- tors and sparked interest in guest appearances in other museums. After the Zagreb City Museum, the exhibition was opened in the Vučedol cul- ture museum in Vukovar, on the eve of the In- ternational White Cane Day, which is celebrat- ed on October 15 (Bugar and Hutinec 2022).10 9 Due to limited funds, as usual, some ideas could not be re- alized. It would be ideal if the entire exhibition was accom- panied by relief floor strips for blind people with a white cane. This was not possible, so they were placed in a smaller format only in front of the showcases, as a kind of marker. 10 https://mgz.hr/hr/izlozbe/izlozba/gostovanje-izlozbe-% e2%80%9ezagreb-in-spe-_mali-predmeti---velike-pri% c4%8de%e2%80%9c-u-muzeju,3478.html Figure 9: Exhibition Zagreb in spe / Small Items – Great Stories – a detail of display cases with original object, replica and abbreviated texts in braille (photo: Miljenko Gregl, Zagreb City Museum). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i m u se u m a c c es si bi li t y: d ev el o pm en t o f g o o d pr ac ti c e f o r th e p ro m o ti o n o f a rc h a eo lo g ic a l h er it ag e 53 The educational program accompanying the exhibition included jewellery-making work- shops based on prehistoric jewellery, and three guest lectures by archaeologists11 inspired by the theme of the exhibition – small objects that tell great and interesting stories. Conclusion The presented examples of adaptations at the Za- greb City Museum were chosen because of their specifics and tackle many of the challenges we have mentioned in the introductory chapter. Its main challenge is the museum’s location in the city’s historical part, including the building it- self. The open physical access, including the ac- cessible public or private transportation to the museum, and more extensive adaptations in the museum building must include several minor adaptive interventions in space, which will prob- ably never satisfy the needs of all the groups of visitors with special needs. However, this lack of physical adaptations might be lessened by using new technological and digital devices that will benefit visitors most of the museum experience. The long-lasting adaptive works have prov- en that making a museum inclusive and accessi- ble takes a long time. They must include several aspects of museum work, including communica- tion, workshops, and organised programmes for potential visitors with special needs and their so- cieties. As was shown, this communication and final products must go through different stag- es, including the constant evaluation processes, to make necessary improvements. It is also clear that the museum must take these steps towards being inclusive and accessible based on the exist- ing strategy. It works well if it focuses on the de- velopment of adaptations for the specific type of visitors with special needs that can be later used for the strategy or even the beginning of oth- er adaptations. The positive approach shown by the presented examples is the inclusion and development of minor adaptations of the per- manent exhibition. This way museum can also 11 Professor emeritus ddr. Mitja Guštin, Mirela Hutinec, the director of the Vučedol culture museum and dr. Zrinka Mileusnić from University of Primorska. quickly improve adaptations without more sig- nificant impacts on the exhibition itself or any greater financial burden. Another positive as- pect of the gradual introduction of adaptations to the permanent exhibition is the establishment of communication with regular visitors, who are educated and learn to accept the presence of vis- itors with special needs through the experience of the tactile info points, Braille and similar presentations. During our research, we found out that to attract visitors with special needs, the museum offers organised guided visits and other adapt- ed activities, primarily for free and in collabora- tion with different societies of people with spe- cial needs. As free admittance is not included in the final sum of all visitors, we could not gain an insight into the number of visits. We find that this is the main current challenge to be solved. Even though visitors with special needs are vis- iting the museum, and their awareness of the adapted museum programmes and accessibility has probably changed over time, this could not be measured by the possible increase in the num- ber of their visits. We are also unable to recog- nise which types of visitors with special needs have accepted all the changes and have also be- come regular visitors. This information would also be valuable for the future planning and up- grades of adaptations for the specific types of vis- itors with special needs that still do not recog- nise that a museum is also a place for them. The positive side of the presented examples shows that the process of becoming inclusive and accessible must be wholly integrated with the museum’s primary purpose and goals in so- ciety. Zagreb City Museum mainly aims to pro- mote the city’s history from its earliest begin- nings to its recent history. A significant part of the city’s history and development can be rec- ognised and interpreted only through archaeo- logical finds. Finds in the museum have been ex- cavated throughout the city and removed from their original context. As such, their interpre- tive potential is smaller than seeing them in situ, but it offers the museum curators the possibili- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 54 ty of applying the creative ways of their interpre- tation. By using only six archaeological objects as the basis for the interpretation of six histori- cal periods of the city of Zagreb and implemen- tation of adaptations for the physically, visually impaired, and deaf visitors, the exhibition Za- greb in spe shows an excellent example of the in- ventive way of communicating heritage inclu- sively. We believe the exhibition is an example of good practice in adapting an occasional ex- hibition for people with disabilities. Its value is formed in the museological concept in service of the archaeological story. Affirming the archae- ological heritage is, in this example, also sensi- tising the regular public to the needs of people with disabilities. This exhibition can now serve as an excellent example for other curators and museums. Inclusive exhibitions will become the standard in some ideal times in the future. Summary The new definition of the museum depicts its role and impact in contemporary society as inclusive and acces- sible institutions. The path to becoming such a muse- um presents several challenges, ranging from the overall open access to the museum on the level of transporta- tion, adaptations of the museum architecture that can be challenging by their status as cultural monuments, recognising the groups of visitors with special needs in the society, communication with these groups to learn about their needs and make the adaptations, motiva- tion of visitors with special needs to visit the museums, building strategies with a coordinated approach to the museum’s main goals and the goals of inclusion and ac- cessibility and education of regular visitors, including children, about the inclusion. Zagreb City Museum has a long history of working with visitors with disabilities. In 25 years, it has chosen the approach of the introduction of adaptations, mainly for the blind and sight-impaired people, into the perma- nent exhibition. In time, additional adaptations, tools and programmes have been developed and have influ- enced the learning process of the regular visitors and raised their awareness about visitors with disabilities and their needs. This approach has enabled museum em- ployees to learn and improve adaptations and has been awarded the COME-IN label. The long-lasting work- ing and learning process has inspired the museum cu- rators to create a temporary exhibition with included adaptations for several groups of visitors with special needs that communicates the story of the oldest histo- ry of Zagreb through six objects equally with all visitors and enables the regular visitors to learn about the inclu- sion. The exhibition presents an excellent example of an inclusive exhibition. Its simple form enables easy trans- port and greater dissemination of the city’s history and inclusive approach in the museum. Povzetek Nova definicija muzeja kaže na njegovo vlogo in vpliv v sodobni družbi kot vključujoče in dostopne institu- cije. Pot do takšnega muzeja predstavlja več izzivov, od vsesplošnega odprtega dostopa do muzeja na ravni tran- sporta; prilagoditev muzejske arhitekture, ki je zaradi statusa kulturnih spomenikov lahko zahtevna; prepo- znavanja skupin obiskovalcev s posebnimi potrebami v družbi; komunikacija s temi skupinami za spoznava- nje njihovih potreb; motivacija obiskovalcev s posebni- mi potrebami za obisk muzejev; oblikovanje strategij z usklajenim pristopom k ciljem muzeja in ciljem vključe- vanja in dostopnosti ter izobraževanje rednih obiskoval- cev, tudi otrok, o inkluziji. Zagrebški mestni muzej ima dolgo zgodovino dela z obiskovalci s posebnimi potrebami. V 25 letih se je od- ločil za pristop uvajanja prilagoditev v stalno razstavo, predvsem za slepe in slabovidne. Sčasoma so se razvile dodatne prilagoditve, orodja in programi, ki so vpliva- li na učni proces rednih obiskovalcev in dvignili njihovo zavest o obiskovalcih invalidih in njihovih potrebah. Ta pristop je zaposlenim v muzeju omogočil učenje o prila- goditvah in njihovo izboljšanje in je muzej prejel ozna- ko COME-IN. Dolgotrajen proces dela in učenja je navdihnil muzejske kustose, da so ustvarili začasno razstavo z vključenimi prilagoditvami za več skupin obiskovalcev s posebnimi potrebami, ki zgodbo o najstarejši zgodovini Zagreba preko šestih predmetov enakovredno posreduje vsem obiskovalcem, obenem pa rednim obiskovalcem omo- goča, da se seznanijo z inkluzijo. Razstava predstavlja odličen primer inkluzivne razstave. Njegova preprosta oblika omogoča enostaven transport in večjo disemina- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i m u se u m a c c es si bi li t y: d ev el o pm en t o f g o o d pr ac ti c e f o r th e p ro m o ti o n o f a rc h a eo lo g ic a l h er it ag e 55 cijo zgodbe o zgodovini mesta ter o vključujočem pris- topu v muzejih. References Bugar, A. 2022. Zagreb in spe /Mali predmeti – Velike priče = Zagreb in spe / Small Items - Great Stories. Exhibition catalogue. Zagreb: Muzej grada Zagreba. (in press). Bugar, A. and M. Hutinec. 2022. Zagreb in spe / mali predmeti – velike priče. Leaflet. Zagreb: Muzej grada Zagreba. Kolveshi, Ž. 2007. Stota obljetnica Muzeja grada Zagreba, 1907–2007. Zagreb: Muzej grada Zagreba. Leiner, V. 2005. Vodič po muzeju grada Zagreba: za slijepe, slabovidne, gluhoslijepe i sve one koji imaju poteškoće s vidom. Zagreb: Muzej grada Zagreba. Leiner, V. 2010. Guide to Zagreb City Museum: for the blind, partially sighted, deaf-blind and all those who have difficulties with seeing. Zagreb: Zagreb City Museum. Leiner, V. 2016. “Kako približiti muzej osobama s invaliditetom: publikacije za slijepe i slabovidne osobe – Vodič po Muzeju grada Zagreba.” In Publikacije za osobe s invaliditetom – nakladnički izazov za muzeje, edited by S. Radovanlija Mileusnić, 49–60. Zagreb: Muzejski dokumentacijski centar. Leiner, V. 2020. Krtica Talpa istražuje muzej grada Zagreba. Zagreb: Muzej grada Zagreba. Leiner, V. 2021. Dodirom do umjetnosti – Mladen Mikulin = Touching art. Exhibition catalogue. Zagreb: Muzej grada Zagreba. Leiner, V. and A. Bugar 2022. Dodirom do umjetnosti Mladen Mikulin. Leaflet. Opatija: Umjetnički paviljon Juraj Šporer. Mašić, B. 2007. “Zagreb – Museum of the City of Zagreb – Convent of the Poor Clares.” In One Hundred Croatian Archaeological Sites, edited by A. Durman, 310–311. Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža. Premerl, N. 1994. “Od ideje do novog stalnog postava Muzeja grada Zagreba.” Informatica Museologica 1 (4): 10–18. Premerl, N. 2007. “Povijest muzeja grada Zagreba u zrcalu stalnih postava.” In Stoljeće Muzeja grada Zagreba, edited by G. Arčabić, 28–71. Zagreb: Muzej grada Zagreba. Online resources COME-IN! Accessed September 5, 2022. https:/www.interreg central.eu/Content. Node/COME-IN.html ICOM Museum definition Accessed October 1, https://icom.museum/wp-content/ uploads/2022/07/EN_EGA2022_ MuseumDefinition_WDoc_Final-2.pdf Muzej grada Zagreba. „Zagreb in spe / Mali predmeti – velike priče“ Accessed September 2, 2022. https:// mgz.hr/hr/izlozbe/povremene- izlozbe/%e2%80%9ezagreb-in- spe%e2%80%9c-_--mali-predmeti---velike- pri%c4%8de,1603.html Muzej grada Zagreba. „Zagreb in spe – Small Items -Great Stories“. Accessed September 2, 2022. https://mgz.hr/ en/exhibitions/%e2%80%9ezagreb-in- spe%e2%80%9c-_--mali-predmeti---velike- pri%c4%8de,1603.html Muzej grada Zagreba. „Gostovanje izložbe „Zagreb in spe / Mali predmeti – velike priče u Muzeju vučedolske kulture, Vukovar“. Accessed September 2, 2022. https://mgz.hr/hr/izlozbe/izlozba/ gostovanje-izlozbe-%E2%80%9Ezagreb- in-spe-_mali-predmeti---velike- pri%C4%8De%E2%80%9C-u- muzeju,3478.html Muzej grada Zagreba. „Predavanje Uzdravlje, braćo!“Uz izložbu Mali predmeti – velike priče“. Accessed September 2, 2022. https://mgz.hr/hr/dogadanja/ predavanje-%e2%80%9euzdravlje- bra%c4%87o!%e2%80%9c-uz-izlozbu- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 56 %e2%80%9emali-predmeti---velike- pri%c4%8de%e2%80%9c,3434.html Muzej grada Zagreba. „Predavanje Terina iz Vučedola – najstariji datum u svjetskoj prapovijesti. Uz izložbu Mali predmeti – velike priče“. Accessed September 2, 2022. https://mgz.hr/hr/dogadanja/predavanje- %e2%80%9eterina-s-vu%c4%8dedola- i-najprecizniji-datum-u-svjetskoj- prapovijesti%e2%80%9c,3436.html Muzej grada Zagreba. „Predavanje dar s posvetom – priča o kapetanu i tajni njegova broda. Uz izložbu Mali predmeti – velike priče“. Accessed September 2, 2022. https://mgz.hr/hr/dogadanja/ predavanje-%e2%80%9edar-s-posvetom-- -pri%c4%8da-o-kapetanu-i-tajni-njegova- broda%e2%80%9d-uz,3450.html st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Abstract The paper presents activities that were carried out in the framework of the project “Virtual reconstruc- tion and making a model of a Macedonian tomb in Ohrid” with the main aim of promoting and pre- senting archaeological cultural heritage inaccessible to the broader public. Creating the virtual recon- struction and digital 3D model gave the Macedonian tomb in Ohrid “visual access”. Thus, despite being completely isolated, the tomb is now accessible to everyone for inclusive learning and acquiring new knowledge or simply as a tourist attraction of exceptional regional cultural and historical significance. Key words: Ohrid, Macedonian tomb, virtual reconstruction, 3D Model Izvleček V prispevku so predstavljene aktivnosti, ki so bile izvedene v okviru projekta »Virtualna rekonstrukci- ja in izdelava makete grobnice makedonskega tipa v Ohridu« z glavnim ciljem promocije in predstavi- tve širši javnosti nedostopne arheološke kulturne dediščine. Ustvarjanje konceptualne virtualne rekon- strukcije in digitalnega 3D modela je makedonski grobnici v Ohridu omogočilo »vizualni dostop«. Tako je grobnica kljub popolni izoliranosti postala dostopna vsakomur za inkluzivno učenje in prido- bivanje novih znanj ter preprosto tudi kot lokalna turistična zanimivost posebnega kulturno-zgodo- vinskega pomena. Ključne besede: Ohrid, grobnica makedonskega tipa, virtualna rekonstrukcija, 3D model Virtual accessibility of the Macedonian tomb in Ohrid Virtualna dostopnost grobnice makedonskega tipa v Ohridu Ivan Malezanov National Institution for Protection of Monuments of Culture and Museum Ohrid, North Macedonia malezanov.im@gmail.com Martina Blečić Kavur University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities, Slovenia martina.blecic.kavur@upr.si 57 Introduction Ohrid is a region of outstanding cultural and historical value, dating back to pre-historic times. Classical antiquity was a period when the area was of great importance. Perhaps the main reason for this is the fact that the historic Candavian road and the later Ro- man Via Egnatia passed through the territory, connecting the western Adriatic with the eastern Aegean and the southern Balkans (Битракова Грозданова 1988, 37–52; Митревски 2013, 234; Bitrakova Grozdanova 2021). Consequent- ly, many archaeological sites reflect the status of the place and the importance of the people who lived there during the Macedonian rule and the flourishing of Hellenistic art. The monumental tomb of the Macedonian type in Ohrid is an ex- cellent example of this hypothesis. The tomb was found on the hill Varosh above the Ohrid Lake, at the site “Karagjulev- ci” (fig. 1), directly above the ancient theatre. For many years, this tomb was forgotten and inacces- sible to the public, probably due to the impossi- bility of its physical presentation since the struc- ture is located on private property (Битракова Грозданова and Кузман 1999; 2017; Kuzman ht t ps://doi .org /10. 26493/2350-54 43.10(2)57-66 © aut hor/aut hors st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i 2009; cf. Guštin and Kuzman 2016). Therefore, a detailed and systematic archaeological inves- tigation of the area is almost impossible under these circumstances. This gave rise to the idea of producing a modern documentation, presenta- tion, and promotion of the Ohrid archaeological monument, which is physically inaccessible to the general public but is crucial for understand- ing the ancient cultural heritage of this region. Another Macedonian tomb is located quite far from Ohrid (66 km), in Staro Bonche, in the northern Pelagonian plain (Jakimovski 2011; 2015, 32–41; cf. Guštin and Kuzman 2016). De- spite their distance and architectural differences, according to the current state of research, they are the only examples of this type of preserved funerary architecture in Northern Macedonia (fig. 1). In this study, an introductory overview of the funerary architecture of the Macedonian tombs is presented, as well as a history of research and previous findings interpreting the Macedo- nian tomb at Ohrid. The architecture, techni- cal description and state of preservation of this building are then discussed. The virtual recon- struction, visual restoration and 3D digital mod- el of the tomb are described in detail. Finally, we emphasize how persons with disabilities and all types of special needs can make full use of vir- tual reconstructions and 3D models. Thus, these results support the main goal and perspective of the international project Accessible and Digi- tized Cultural Heritage for persons with disabili- ties (Lilcikj et al. 2022; cf. Karovska and Minov in this publication), to which this issue of Studia universitatis hereditati is dedicated. Macedonian tomb in Ohrid Macedonian tombs appear in the Late Clas- sical and Hellenistic periods, from the 4th to the 2nd century BCE as a type of burial, first of kings and then of the upper classes. In the are- as that were under Macedonian influence or un- der Macedonian occupation, numerous tombs are known. The best known are the tombs near the great centres of that time e.g. at Vergina, Lefkadia, Derveni, Amphipolis, or Philippi in northern Greece (fig. 1; Tomlinson 1977; Mill- er 1982; Andronikos 1993; Tsimbidou-Avlonitou 2005; Borza and Palagia 2007; D’Angelo 2010; Schmidt-Dounas 2016). Most Macedonian tombs were plundered, so that especially the un- looted tombs at Vergina and Derveni are impor- tant sources of information on burial customs and social organisation in ancient Macedonia (Sismanidis 1997; Tsimbidou-Avlonitou 2005; st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 58 Figure 1. The distribution of the Macedonian tomb sites mentioned in the text (on the basis of Google Earth 2022; elaborated by M. Blečić Kavur). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i v ir t u a l a c c es si bi li t y o f t h e m a c ed o n ia n t o m b in o h r id 59 cf. Palagia 2022). The emergence and develop- ment of such Hellenistic funerary architecture is associated with the wealth and expansion of the Macedonian kingdom (D’Angelo 2010; Stam- pouloglou et al. 2019; cf. Palagia 2022). Macedo- nian tombs were constructed underground and covered by an artificial tumulus. They have the following architectural elements: a rectangular burial chamber and/or one or two antecham- bers, a dromos, a passage leading to the entrance of the main chamber where the funerary rites are performed, and a monumental façade (Mill- er 1982; Schmidt-Dounas 2016; Stampouloglou et al. 2019; Stampouloglou et al. 2020; Palagia 2022). The first detailed analysis of the Macedonian tomb at Ohrid was conducted in 1996 and subse- quently published by Vera Bitrakova Grozdano- va and Pasko Kuzman (Битракова Грозданова and Кузман 1999; 2017; Kuzman 2009). They presented the history of the research and its use during World War I, when it was a hiding place for Bulgarian soldiers. The first research was car- ried out in the 1950s by Vasil Lahtov, who reo- pened the tomb and installed an iron gate in the dromos for protection. In 1984 Vlado Malenko started an excavation in the antechamber. No small finds of material culture were found, so it is assumed that the tomb was plundered in the past. Based on its characteristic architectural ele- ments and solid construction, it has been dated to the late 4th or early 3rd century BCE (Битракова Грозданова and Кузман 1999; Kuzman 2009; Bitrakova Grozdanova 2022). As far as the archi- tectural and decorative elements are concerned, the tomb at Pydna is the most similar (Sisman- idis 1997; Stampouloglou et al. 2019; Stampou- loglou et al. 2020), which has already been pre- sented and argumented in the interpretation of the Ohrid tomb (Битракова Грозданова and Кузман 1999; 2017). Architecture and state of preservation In 2021, a group of young archaeologists, stu- dents, civil engineers and expert archaeologists conducted the project entitled “Virtual recon- struction and model of a Macedonian tomb in Ohrid” (fig. 2). The project promoter was the As- sociation for the Protection and Sustainable De- velopment of the Environment Regional Green Centre Ohrid, in cooperation with the NI Insti- tute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Museum Ohrid with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Northern Macedo- nia. It was divided into three phases – field docu- mentation, analysis and digitization of technical documentation, and virtual reconstruction, res- toration and modelling of the tomb. During the first activity, the tomb was tech- nically recorded and digitally photographed with modern technology (fig. 2). A total station could not be used for the technical documenta- Figure 2. The survey and documentation of the Ohrid tomb (photo I. Malezanov, D. Angjelkovski). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 60 tion due to time constraints and the difficult ter- rain. Therefore, a laser distance measurer was em- ployed to determine the dimensions of the tomb. In addition, numerous photographs were taken with a DSLR camera, which were necessary for the creation of 2D drawings and 3D models of detailed geometric documentation. The last analysis in 2021 documented that the ground plan of the tomb consisted of a dro- mos (2.3×0.83 m), an antechamber (1.65×2.8 m) and a chamber (3.95×3.11 m) (fig. 3). The ante- chamber and the main chamber are covered by a continuous barrel-vaulted roof. In the cham- ber there are traces of two burial beds (klinai) on which the deceased were placed. The tomb was built from massive hewn limestone blocks, and no binding material was used in its construction. The limestone blocks are arranged in four rows in the opus quadratum technique, while the fifth row of stone slabs is slightly inclined towards the dromos to support the roof beams (fig. 3–6). Be- tween the antechamber and the chamber there is a trapezoidal door with typically made stone jambs rising diagonally and supporting a lin- tel that overhangs them (fig. 5, 6; Битракова Грозданова and Кузман 1999). The floor of the Figure 3. Ground plan and cross-section of the Macedonian tomb in Ohrid (produced by A. Boyadzieva and K. Denkovski, elaborated by M. Blečić Kavur). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i v ir t u a l a c c es si bi li t y o f t h e m a c ed o n ia n t o m b in o h r id 61Figure 4. View of the northwestern wall of the chamber (photo by I. Malezanov; virtual reconstruction produced by K. Denkovski). Figure 5. View of a) the entrance from the antechamber to the chamber, b) the exit from the antechamber to the dro- mos, c) the exit from the chamber, and d) the northeastern wall of the chamber (produced by K. Denkovski, elaborated M. Blečić Kavur). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 62 tomb is made of hydraulic mortar, which is still preserved in the chamber. In the antechamber, unfortunately, the floor has not been preserved due to the contemporary use of the tomb or due to earlier research. The wall decoration in the an- techamber and in the chamber consists of stucco and mortar painted different colours, of which the Pompeian-red predominates (fig. 4–6). On the 2.89 m high northwest wall of the chamber are a 10 cm high plinth and a 1.24 m high stucco orthostat imitating marble slabs. The area above the 1 m high orthostat is paint- ed red (fig. 5). In previous researches, the high- est part of the wall was depicted with blue paint (Битракова Грозданова and Кузман 1999, 13; 2017), which was not confirmed during the field documentation, as the last 55 cm do not have any painted surface. The exit wall of the chamber has the same dimensions. The door is 80 cm wide and the stone structure on which the door was installed has an interesting detail on the side of the cham- ber, which tells us that one of the stone blocks broke during installation, so it was fixed with iron, that is, a kind of clamp. On the other hand, the entrance from the antechamber to the cham- ber has a 1.27 m high orthostat, identical to the one in the chamber. The red paint covered the same height, while the unpainted part is only 40 cm high. Finally, the exit wall from the an- techamber to the dromos, similar to the north- western wall, has a 10 cm high base, an orthostat of 1.24 m, a 1 m band paint red and an unpainted part of 40 cm (fig. 5). On the southwest side of the chamber, the floor and wall show traces of destruction, prob- ably by illegal excavators. At the entrance itself, above the antechamber, the roof is also badly de- stroyed. This probably happened during the First World War, as evidenced by the inscriptions on the southwestern wall of the chamber. It is interesting to note that during this ac- tivity the temperature inside the tomb was meas- ured regularly and indicated a constant tem- perature of 14°C. However, in the presence of three people, the temperature inside the tomb increased by 4°C, which means that it reached 18°C in only 10 minutes. Since the temperature inside the tomb fluctuates, daily visits would af- fect the humidity and damage the wall paint- ings. This is another reason why the tomb should be conserved and presented in a virtual edition, such as a 3D model based on visualizations. Virtual reconstruction and 3D model The next phase was the creation of a virtual re- construction of the tomb, i.e. the analysis and digitization of the technical geometric docu- mentation. Besides digital documentation, vir- tual reconstruction is very important because it is the only way to visualize the tomb under the currently available conditions. The aim of this activity was to present the documented tomb to a wider public. Thus, an information board with a short description of the tomb and a QR code to access the virtual reconstruction was placed near the site. The third activity, also aimed at the pub- lic presentation of the tomb, was the creation of an ideal reconstruction, virtual restoration and model of the tomb, for which the textured 3D models are necessary. Three-dimensional digi- tization has become an integral part of cultur- al heritage documentation and brings significant benefits to studies of reconstruction and resto- ration of architectural structures, archaeological sites, and historical monuments (Stampouloglou et al. 2019). Thus, a model of the Ohrid Tomb was produced using a 3D printer and later artisti- cally painted (fig. 7). In this way, researchers and visitors can now better understand the original appearance of the monument, even though safe- ty reasons prohibit actual physical restoration of the tomb. With the 3D model, we also wanted to show how the tomb looked in three dimensions so that people with different types of disabilities could see and touch it. We can now touch and feel the tomb in detail, especially its construc- tion and the architecture. This result allowed equal participation in the broader cultural activ- ities of Ohrid. It therefore provides an excellent opportunity to involve different audiences (chil- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i v ir t u a l a c c es si bi li t y o f t h e m a c ed o n ia n t o m b in o h r id 63 dren, persons with disabilities, seniors...) in the promotion of the common quality of life associ- ated with our social and cultural values. Figure 7. 3D model of the Macedonian tomb in Ohrid (produced by I. Malezanov). Conclusion Macedonian tombs were luxurious funerary monuments for the Macedonian elite and aris- tocracy. In addition to ancient Macedonia, these tombs have been found in Thrace, Thessaly, Asia Minor, and Euboea (Miller 1993; D’Angelo 2010; Schmidt-Dounas 2016; Palagia 2022). In con- trast to the magnificent Macedonian tombs with attractive facades, such as those at Vergina, Pel- la, Agia Paraskevi, Agios Athanasios, etc. (An- dronikos 1993; Sismanidis 1997; Tsimbidou-Av- lonitou 2005; Stampouloglou et al. 2020; cf. Palagia 2022), the tomb of Ohrid has a simple facade. Nevertheless, due to its solid construc- tion, the techniques of interior decoration and the use of colours and stucco, it undoubtedly be- longs to the Macedonian tombs with the near- est example, the tomb of Pydna (Битракова Грозданова and Кузман 1999; cf. Stampou- loglou et al. 2020). Consequently, an exception- al dignitary and his wife were most likely buried in it (Кузман 2010, 58–59). Therefore, the inter- pretation that it is the burial of a historical fig- ure Aeropos, depicted in ancient written sources as the ruler of Lychnidos in the 3rd century BCE, has also been offered (Битракова Грозданова and Кузман 1999; Блажевска 2013, 677; Bitrak- ova Grozdanova 2021, 426). However, the so- called provinciality of the building, the reduc- tion of the architectural and decorative elements as well as the simplicity of the facade speak for a dating of the tomb into the 3rd century BCE, which could be confirmed at least hypothetical- ly by the assumption of lavish burial of Aeropos at this place. For many years this Macedonian tomb in Ohrid was forgotten or neglected because it was not accessible to the public. With the produc- tion of the virtual reconstruction, a visual resto- ration and the 3D model of the tomb, we wanted to present to a wider public why this tomb is so important for the whole Ohrid region. The fact is the elite of Lychnidos were buried in the Mac- edonian way in the 3rd century BCE, adopting Figure 6. Ideal virtual reconstruction and visual restoration of the entrance from antechamber to the chamber and the exit from the chamber (produced by K. Denkovski). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 64 the innovations of Hellenistic monumental fu- nerary architecture. Archaeological heritage belongs to all, and access to it should be guaranteed to all. The Eu- ropean Commission (2003) sees accessibili- ty and inclusion as key to sustainable develop- ment and believes that it enhances the quality of life and makes the environment more livea- ble (Kajda, Michalik and Kobiałka 2015). There- fore, it is necessary to provide people with disa- bilities with various opportunities to participate in economic, social and cultural life (UNESCO 2020). Not only people with disabilities, but also the entire population is affected by accessibil- ity: Parents of young children, the elderly, peo- ple with temporary mobility limitations, etc. The lack of accessibility prevents them from ex- periencing and understanding their own herit- age. With the aim of increasing accessibility and making changes in this regard, we have succeed- ed in presenting the significant archaeological heritage of Ohrid to a wide audience and tour- ists through virtual reconstruction and visual restoration. We believe that such an approach is our future standard, both in the profession and in the promotion of the (in)accessible heritage. Summary The Macedonian tomb in Ohrid symbolises one of the most important architectural representations of the tomb buildings from the Hellenistic period in the ter- ritory of Northern Macedonia. Architecturally, the tomb consists of a dromos, an antechamber and a cham- ber. The entire tomb is made of stone blocks without binding material and is decorated with stucco deco- ration and mortar. The largest area is covered by Pom- peian red paint, which was found in the middle zone of the tomb’s walls. The tomb is dated to the 3rd centu- ry BCE and was probably commissioned by a resident of Lychnidos who belonged to the aristocracy or rulers of the city at that time. Traces of two klinai were found inside, which means that two people were buried in the chamber. For many years this Macedonian tomb in Ohrid was forgotten and/or neglected because it was not accessible to the public. With the realization of the virtual recon- struction, a visual restoration and the 3D model of the tomb, we wanted to present to a wider public, especial- ly to persons with different types of disabilities, why this tomb is so historically important for the whole Ohrid region. The tomb is now accessible to everyone for in- clusive learning and acquiring new knowledge about ar- chaeology, or simply as a tourist attraction of cultural and historical significance. Povzetek Makedonska grobnica na Ohridu je eden najpomemb- nejših arhitekturnih predstavnikov grobnih stavb iz helenističnega obdobja na ozemlju Severne Makedo- nije. Arhitekturno je sestavljena iz dromosa (hodnika), preddverja in komore. Celotna grobnica je izdelana iz kamnitih blokov brez veziva in je okrašena s štukatur- nim okrasjem in ometom. Največjo površino pokriva pompejanska rdeča barva, ki je bila najdena v srednjem pasu sten grobnice. Datirana je v 3. stoletje pr. n. št. in jo je verjetno naročil prebivalec Lihnida, ki je pripadal ta- kratni aristokraciji ali vladarjem mesta. V notranjosti so bili najdeni sledovi dveh klinei, kar pomeni, da sta bili v grobni komori pokopani dve osebi. Dolga leta je bila ta ohridska grobnica pozabljena in/ ali zanemarjena, saj ni bila dostopna javnosti. Z izvedbo virtualne rekonstrukcije, vizualne obnove in 3D-mode- la smo želeli širši javnosti, zlasti osebam z različnimi vr- stami invalidnosti, predstaviti, zakaj je ta grobnica tako zagodovinsko pomembna za celotno ohridsko regijo. Grobnica je zdaj dostopna vsem za vključujoče učenje in pridobivanje novih znanj ali preprosto kot turistična znamenitost kulturnega in zgodovinskega pomena. References Andronikos, M. 1987. “Some Reflections on the Macedonian Tombs.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 82: 1–16. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0068245400020256 Andronikos, M. 1993. Vergina. The Royal Tombs. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon Битракова Грозданова, В. 1988. “Прилог за Via Egnatia на делницата Lychnidos – Pons Servilii.” Лихнид 6: 37–52. Bitrakova Grozdanova, V. 2021. “The town of Lychnidos between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC: New archaeological st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i v ir t u a l a c c es si bi li t y o f t h e m a c ed o n ia n t o m b in o h r id 65 evidence.” In Ancient Macedonia VIII: Macedonia from the Death of Philip II to Augustus’ Rise to Power. The eighth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, November 21-24, 2017, edited by V. Pappas and D. Terzopoulou, 425– 435. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan studies. Bitrakova Grozdanova, V. and P. Kuzman 2017. “Lychnidos dans la haute antiquite (nouvelles preuves archeologiques).” In Lychnidos et Dassaretie, V. Bitrakova Grozdanova, 101–122. Skopje: Académie Macédonienne des Sciences et des Arts – Librairie “Matica Makedonska.” Блажевска, С. 2013. “Раната антика и хеленистичкиот период во Македонија (Археологија).” In Mакедонија: милениумски културно – историски факти. Tом 2, edited by П. Кузман, E. Димитрова and J. Донев, 637–731. Cкопје: Медиа принт Македонија – Yниверзитет Eвробалкан. Borza, E. and O. Palagia 2007. The chronology of the Macedonian royal tombs at Vergina. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 122: 81–127. D’Angelo, B. 2010. “The evolution of the Macedonian tomb: Hellenistic funerary architecture revisited.” Patrimonuim 3 (7– 8): 57–68. Guštin, M. and P. Kuzman 2016. “The Elitte: the Upper Vardar River Region in the Period from the Reign of Philip II of Macedon until the Reign of Diadochi.” In Funerary practices during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and Southeast Europe: Proceedings of the 14th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology in Čačak, Serbia, 24th - 27th September 2015, edited by V. Sirbiu, M. Jevtić, K. Dmitrović and M. Ljuština, 313–332. Beograd – Čačak: University of Belgrade – National museum Čačak. Jakimovski, A. 2011. “Das königliche makedonische Grab in der Nähe von Bonče.“ Folia archaeologica Balkanica II: 165–179. Jakimovski, A. 2015. “Staro Bonce.“ In Visoka and Staro Bonce. Center of the Kingdom of Pelagonia and the Royal Tomb of Pavla Cuka. V. Lilchikj Adams and A. Jakimovski, 27–42. Skopje: Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Macedonia. Kajda, K., T. Michalik and D. Kobiałka 2015. “Heritage for All - A Contribution to the Inclusion of People with Intellectual Disabilities in Archaeology: A Polish Perspective.” Current Swedish Archeaology 23: 131–156. Kuzman, P. 2009. Macedonian Type of Tomb in Varos – Ohrid.” Macedonian Archaeological News 3 (1). www.mav.mk/ index.php?lang=en Miller, G. S. 1982. “Macedonian tombs: Their Architecture and Architectural Decoration.” Ιn Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times. Studies in the History of Art 10, edited by B. Barr-Sharrar and E. N. Borza, 153–171. Washington: National Gallery of Art. Miller, G. S. 1993. The Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles: a Painted Macedonian Tomb. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. Митревски, Д. 2013. “Праисторија во Република Македонија (Археологија).” In In Mакедонија: милениумски културно – историски факти. Tом 2, edited by П. Кузман, E. Димитрова and J. Донев, 83– 266. Cкопје: Медиа принт Македонија – Yниверзитет Eвробалкан. Palagia, O. 2022. “Macedonian vaulted tombs.” In Oxford Classical Dictionary. https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780199381135.013.8826 Schmidt-Dounas, B. 2016. “Macedonian Grave Tumuli.” In Tumulus as Sema: Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC, edited by O. Henry and U. Kelp, 101–142. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 66 Stampouloglou, M., O. Toska, S. Tapinaki, G. Kontogianni, M. Skamantzari and A. Georgopoulos 2019. “3D documentation and virtual archaeological restoration of Macedonian tombs.” International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Science, XLII-2/W11, 1073–1080. https:// doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII- 2-W11-1073-2019. Stampouloglou, M., O. Toska, S. Tapinaki, G. Kontogianni, M. Skamantzari and A. Georgopoulos 2020. “Archaeological anastylosis of two Macedonian tombs in a 3D virtual environment.” Virtual Archaeology Review 11 (22): 26–40. Tomlinson, R. A., 1977. “Vaulting Techniques of the Macedonian Tombs.” In Ancient Macedonia II: The second International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, 19-24 August 1973, edited by B. Laourdas and C. I. Makaronas, 473–479. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies. Tsimbidou-Avlonitou, M. 2005. Μακεδονικοί τάφοι στον Φοίνικα και στον Άγιο Αθανάσιο Θεσσαλονίκης / The Macedonian Tombs at Phinikas and Ayios Athanasios in the area of Thessaloniki. Athens. Online resources Council of Europe (2003). Towards full social inclusion of people with disabilities. (Recommendation No.1592). Accessed November 15, 2022. https://rm.coe. int/09000016807a07f9 UNESCO 2020. Accessible Digital Documentary Heritage: Guidelines for the preparation of documentary heritage in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. Accessed September 28, 2022. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000374995. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Abstract The article presents the results of the archaeological research of a temple – heroon from the Roman pe- riod in Barovo (Demir Kapija, Northern Macedonia). Based on the research carried out, and the archi- tectural elements found, we have managed to create an ideal reconstruction of the temple with the roof, or rather, to get an impression of how the temple probably looked before its destruction. Within the framework of the Erasmus+ AD HOC project (Accessible and Digitised Cultural Heritage for Per- sons with Disabilities), a three-dimensional digital reconstruction, a visual restoration and a 3D mod- el of the temple were created. This model will be used in a variety of educational activities for audienc- es with all types of disabilities. Key words: temple – heroon, Roman period, 3D digital reconstruction Izvleček Članek predstavlja rezultate arheološke raziskave templja – heroona iz rimskega obdobja v Barovu (De- mir Kapija, Severna Makedonija). Na podlagi opravljenih raziskav in najdenih arhitekturnih elemen- tov nam je uspelo ustvariti idealno rekonstrukcijo templja s streho, oziroma pridobiti vpogled, kako je tempelj verjetno izgledal pred uničenjem. V okviru projekta Erasmus+ AD HOC (Dostopna in digita- lizirana kulturna dediščina za osebe s posebnimi potrebami) je bila izdelana tridimenzionalna digitalna rekonstrukcija, vizualna restavracija in 3D model templja. Ta model se bo uporabljal v različnih izobra- ževalnih dejavnostih za občinstvo z vsemi vrstami posebnih potreb. Ključne besede: tempelj-heroon, rimsko obdobje, 3D digitalna rekonstrukcija The Roman temple – heroon of Gramadje, Barovo – Demir Kapija Rimski tempelj – heroon iz Gramadja, Barovo – Demir Kapija Viktor Lilchikj Adamsen Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Faculty of Philosophy, North Macedonia viktorlilcik@gmail.com Antonio Jakimovski Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Faculty of Philosophy, North Macedonia antonio@fzf.ukim.edu.mk Marjan Jovanov Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Faculty of Philosophy, North Macedonia marjan@fzf.ukim.edu.mk 67 Introduction The village of Barovo is located in the val-ley of the gold-bearing river Boshava, which rises from the mountain Kozhuv. It is located 17 km from the town of Negotino and 12 km southwest of Demir Kapija. Along the river valley there are several ancient settle- ments near the villages of Gorna Boshava, Kula, Konopishte, Gradishte, Koprishnica and others. Two archaeological sites were discovered in the immediate vicinity of Barovo – Ridot, an an- cient village from the early Roman period of the 1st – 2nd century, and Gramadje, a temple-heroon with a necropolis (Лилчиќ 2001, 319). The sec- ond one is located 1 km south of the village. The first information about discoveries of stone remains of a temple was mentioned by Vo- jislav Radovanović (Радовановиħ 1924, 318) and later by Nikola Vulić (Вулиħ 1933, 101–103; ibid 1941-48, 54). Years later, Viktor Lilchikj ht t ps://doi .org /10. 26493/2350-54 43.10(2)67-75 © aut hor/aut hors st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i conducted a survey of the site (Лилчиќ 1986; ibid 1987, 135–148; Lilčić 1988). He assumed the location of the heroon, illustrated the pres- ent stone architectural remains of the temple, and proposed a reconstruction of the roof area of the building. Documented were approximate- ly twenty stone architectural elements - profiled and decorated stone slabs with portraits, ani- mal figures, lion heads on the vertical zones of the gesims/gaison, architraves, cornices, parts of marble statues and others (Лилчиќ 1987, 135– 148; ibid 2001, 319–338). However, he was unable to locate the archi- tecture itself. Its remains were scattered over a large area around Gramadje hill and were par- ticularly badly preserved. Decades ago, they had been pulled out of the field with metal ropes by workers of the local agricultural cooperative to clear the ground for deep ploughing. According to information from local residents, the largest blocks were even blown up with explosives. Archaeological excavations in 2012 and 2016 The ancient site considered one of the most im- portant cultural heritage sites in the Tikvesh st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 68 Figure 1: Geographical location of the archaeological site of Gramadje – Barovo. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i t h e ro m a n t em pl e – h er o o n o f g r a m a d je , b a ro v o – d em ir k a pi ja 69 Figure 3: Surface findings of architectural elements and stone sculptures (archaeological campaign 2012; photo V. Lilchikj Adamsen). Figure 2: Uncovering the base of the temple-heroon with architectural elements and marble sculptures (archaeological campaign 2012; photo A. Jakimovski). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 70 region due to its architectural remains was ar- chaeologically explored and excavated in 2012 to determine the exact location of the architecture and discover additional architectural elements that would allow for reconstruction. Several test trenches were excavated on the larger area, where the architectural elements were scattered. On the western plateau of the hill called Gramadje, three control trenches of 10 m in length did not produce any results. Two trenches were excavated on the hill where the location of the architecture was as- sumed. In both of them were discovered founda- tions of architecture that was interpreted as be- ing secular. The foundations and crepidoma of the heroon as well as several stone architectur- al elements were discovered in 2012 at a third location. Most of the architectural elements were lo- cated towards the west from the foundations – several of them were discovered not far from the place of their fall. For the reconstruction were of special importance fragments of the ceiling cas- sette with a representation of the claws of an ea- gle or a griffin, a part of a cornice with a den- ticula and a sima with reliefs of lion heads that served as spouts for rainwater from the roof. Further, was discovered massive frontal acrote- ria with acanthus leaf decoration superimposed with a towering central palmette, a decoration unknown until now in Northern Macedonia. Research continued in 2016 and the goal was to complete the excavations of the interior of the temple. The discovered architectural el- ements and the foundation enabled the recon- struction of the temple with its roof. Figure 4: The base of the temple-heroon with architectural elements (archaeological campaign 2012, M. 1: 50; archive of the UKIM). Architecture and architectural elements Tympanum of the temple: Four corner elements originating from the front and back of the tem- ple have been preserved. The tympanum is com- posed of a horizontal wreath without a sima, which is consisted of five continuous bands and the total height of the entire zone is 0.19 m. The lowest is the toothed zone (denticula) with de- pressions (imersecriones) that have an oblique profile. Followed by a narrow cymatium over st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i t h e ro m a n t em pl e – h er o o n o f g r a m a d je , b a ro v o – d em ir k a pi ja 71 which a gaison is placed – it has a flat front side and is rounded at the bottom. In the recessed zone of the gaison, at the corners between the pediment and the side façade, we see small ap- ple-shaped rosettes, of which only one was pre- served. Above the gaison there is a kyma with a rounded profile, and another rectangular pro- filed zone (plinth). Figure 5: Monumental parts of the tympanum in situ (archaeological campaign 2012; photo V. Lilchikj Adamsen). All four lower corners of the tympanums are more or less preserved. They are covered by a simplified crown profile at an angle of 26 de- grees. The central elements, most probably dec- orated, were not discovered. Oblique tympanum crowns with the raking sima. They framed the upper, gable side of the tympanum. Small frag- ments of the very lower parts were preserved. Their profile is similar to that of the horizontal parts of the wreath. Figure 6: Fragment of an architrave with a frieze from the front (archaeological campaign 2012; photo A. Jakimovski). Architrave with frieze: Recognised was a sin- gle left corner element that was with the usual epistyle profile divided into five horizontal, band- ed zones with a total height is 0.26 m. The lower three zones are flat and with alternating graded outcrops and are followed by a cymatium-cornice with a rounded profile and a flat plinth. The frieze zone is located above the archi- trave and it consists of three basic surfaces and has a height of 0.18 m. A flat belt below, retracted by 20 mm inwards, followed by a vertical flat belt with an oblique profile towards the outside and a flat belt projecting above in line with the plinth of the architrave. Along the inner sides, at the height of the frieze, the epistyle beam was gradu- ally cut by about 0.12 m. This incision served for the support mounting of the horizontal plates from the ceiling above the front portico of the temple. The same profiling as on the front side continues on the left side of the block. On the upper side towards the ends, the block has two rectangular holes, for metal joints with the ex- tended stone elements. Cornice: Eight fragments of the cornice above the sidewalls were preserved. Four of them were incorporated into the aforementioned cor- ner cusped blocks. The profile of the cornice consists of the following zones: denticula, nar- row cymatium, then projecting, internally hol- lowed gaison, rounded cymatium, straight sima st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 72 and a plinth. In the sima on all four-corner den- tils we see sculptured lions’ heads. Three heads were preserved, one of which because it was bro- ken off, was transferred to the National Muse- um of Negotino. The tops of the cornice blocks have rectangular holes for metal joints. The av- erage height of the profiled zone of the wreath is 0.297 m., which is exactly one Roman foot (pes). Ceiling panels: five parts of these plates were discovered. They allow the reconstruction of the size of the roof. Namely, the porch would be covered with five such plates and their total area measured 3.10 x 1.20 m. or 10.5 x 3 feet. Only parts of five plates gave been preserved. Figure 7: Part of the cornice above the sidewalls (archae- ological campaign 2012; photo A. Jakimovski). Figure 8: Fragments of ceiling plates with portraits (archaeological campaign 2012; V. Lilchikj Adamsen). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i t h e ro m a n t em pl e – h er o o n o f g r a m a d je , b a ro v o – d em ir k a pi ja 73 On the middle, two are portraits of a man and a woman. The woman is young, dressed in a robe with folds. She has neatly combed hair, parted in the middle and gathered at the back. This hairstyle is common on early Roman tomb- stones, dated mainly from the 2nd – 3rd century (Вулић 1941-1948, 34, no. 82, 112, no. 143, 375, 177, no. 373, 179, no. 333; Соколовска 1987, 50– 51, no. 35–38). The man has a slightly longer and wider neck, but part of the head was broken off. On the third plate, we see a dolphin. Perhaps it is the plate noted by Vulić, writing of “a fish on the left and above it a leaf ” (Вулић 1933, 101). On the fourth plate, we see an ara – altar. In the ceiling cassettes, we see portraits of ordinary people, according to which we could conclude that it is a posthumous object – a mau- soleum. It seems that the custom of building mausoleums for the wealthiest families or indi- viduals in Macedonia became popular during the Roman imperial period since more and more such buildings are being discovered. Columns and capitals: Although columns were mentioned by Radovanović (Радовановић 1924, 318) only a single capitel was discovered in 2012. Stylobate: During the excavations were dis- covered 15 stone elements forming the substruc- ture of the temple. Fragments of marble statues: Discovered were an upper part of a male torso (Bitrako- va Grozdanova and Nikoloska 2022, no. 92, 81), and four smaller fragments. Three of them are the lower parts of the body, covered by a fold- ed dress, while the fourth represents a muscle – a triceps. The torso of the sculpture was discov- ered on the outer side of the southern wall of the architecture. Conclusion The discovered architecture was most probably erected by or for a prominent citizen in the 2nd or 3rd century AD. It is the first excavated example of such a building that contains almost all the ar- chitectural elements enabling a complete recon- struction. Its importance is accentuated by the representative architecture and the fragment- ed marble statue of a man discovered most like- ly belonging to the owner. It was the positioning of statues of individuals and not deities in such a prominent place in the temple that points to a posthumous character of the building or, in our terms, a heroon. Figure 9: Fragment of the torso of a male marble sculpture (archaeological campaign 2012; photo A. Jakimovski). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 74 During the Erasmus+ AD HOC project (Accessible and Digitised Cultural Heritage for persons with disabilities) a complete three-di- mensional digital reconstruction, visual restora- tion and 3D model of the temple was made. Summary The temple-heroon in Gramadje (Barovo) was erected on a gentle slope with a wide panoramic view towards the Barovo plateau in the south. It was a rectangular building with a northwest-southwest orientation and 5.40 to 3.50 meters in size. The form of the architecture - its characteristic func- tional and decorative details, enable us to reconstruct the purpose as well as the dating of the building. Not only the architecture but mostly the preserved frag- ments of sculpture and the portraits from the plates in the celing suggest a dating of the temple-heroon from Barovo into the second half of the 2nd and early 3rd century. In the framework of the Erasmus+ AD HOC project (Accessible and Digitised Cultural Heritage for persons with disabilities) a complete three-dimensional digital reconstruction, visual restoration and 3D model of the temple was created. This model will be used in a variety of educational activities for persons with all kinds of dis- abilities, especially for the children with visual impair- ments from the state school for blind DUCOR “Dimi- tar Vlahov” from Skopje. Povzetek Tempelj-heroon (mavzolej) v Gramadju (Barovo) je bil zgrajen na položnem pobočju s širokim panoramskim razgledom proti Barovski planoti na jugu. Gre za pravo- kotno stavbo z orientacijo severozahod-jugozahod veli- kosti 5,40 x 3,50 metrov. Oblika arhitekture - njeni značilni funkcionalni in de- korativni detajli nam omogočajo rekonstrukcijo na- membnosti in datacije objekta. Ne samo arhitektura, predvsem ohranjeni fragmenti kiparstva in portreti s plošč v stropu nakazujejo na datacijo templja-heroona iz Barova v drugo polovico 2. in začetek 3. stoletja. V okviru projekta Erasmus+ AD HOC (Dostopna in digitalizirana kulturna dediščina za osebe s posebni- mi potrebami) je bila narejena tridimenzionalna digi- talna rekonstrukcija, vizualna restavracija in 3D model templja. Ta model se bo uporabljal v različnih izobraže- valnih dejavnostih za osebe z vsemi vrstami oviranosti, še posebej za otroke z motnjami vida iz šole za slepe DUCOR “Dimitar Vlahov” iz Skopja. References Bitrakova Grozdanova, V. and A. Nikoloska, eds. 2002. Corpus Signorum Imperii Roman, North Macedonia. Volume I/1. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Лилчиќ, В. 1986. “Гробни едикули и мавзолеи од античко време во СР Figure 10: 3D digital reconstruction and restoration of the temple-heroon in Gramadje – Barovo (produced by K. Denkovski). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i t h e ro m a n t em pl e – h er o o n o f g r a m a d je , b a ro v o – d em ir k a pi ja 75 Македонија.” Историја XXII (2): 281– 289. Лилчиќ, В. 1987. “Антички храм кај Барово.” Годишен зборник на Филозофскиот факултет 40: 135–148. Lilčić, V. 1998. “The Heroon of Barovo.” Macedonian Heritage 6: 42–79. Лилчиќ, В. 2001. “Македонскиот камен за боговите, христијаните и за живот по животот.” PhD diss., Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje. Радовановић, В. 1924. Тиквеш и Рајец: антропогеографска испитивања, Насеља и порекло становништва. Српски етнографски зборник, Књига 17. Београд: Српска краљевска академија. Соколовска, В. 1987. Античката скулптура во СР Македонија. Скопје: Музеј на Македонија. Вулић, Н. 1933. “Антички споменици наше земље.” Споменик Српскe краљевскe академијe LXXV: 3–91. Вулић, Н. 1941-1948. “Антички споменици наше земље.” Споменик Српскe краљевскe академијe LXXXXVIIII: 1–279. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Abstract The paper presents two aspects crucial for a sustainable and inclusive development of public archaeo- logical sites: how to display and interpret archaeological remains, based on their entity, state of conser- vation, potentials and possibilities of investors, and how to make them accessible also to people with disabilities. For the first task we developed a new digital tool, which guides the user through a detailed questionnaire about the specifics of the archaeological site and the user’s wishes. Based on the given an- swers, the tool provides the most suitable solutions for presenting archaeological remains. Some of the suggested solutions also fit people with disabilities, some can be adapted to them and in many cases the combination of different approaches provides a sufficient grade of inclusion, ensuring a shared fruition of the remains by different target groups. Concerning accessibility of archaeological sites to people with disabilities we will highlight main principles and fields of intervention. Key words: archaeological park, digital tool, presentation, inclusion, people with disabilities Izvleček Članek predstavlja dva ključna vidika za trajnostni in inkluziven razvoj javnih arheoloških najdišč: kako prikazati in interpretirati arheološke ostaline glede na njihovo entiteto, stanje ohranjenosti, potencia- le in možnosti investitorjev ter kako jih narediti dostopne za osebe z oviranostmi. Prvi vidik predstavlja novo digitalno orodje, ki uporabnika vodi skozi natančen vprašalnik o posebnostih arheološkega naj- dišča in uporabnikovih željah. Na podlagi podanih odgovorov orodje ponuja najprimernejše rešitve za prezentacijo arheoloških ostalin. Nekatere od predlaganih rešitev so ustrezne za osebe z različnimi ovi- ranostmi, nekatere je mogoče prilagoditi. V mnogih primerih pa kombinacija različnih pristopov zago- tavlja zadostno stopnjo inkluzije, katere rezultat je skupna prezentacija ostalin, ki je primerna za različne ciljne skupine. V zvezi z dostopnostjo arheoloških najdišč osebam z oviranostmi izpostavljamo glavna načela in področja ukrepanja. Ključne besede: arheološki park, digitalno orodje, prezentacija, inkluzija, osebe z oviranostmi Presentation and interpretation of public archaeological sites looking towards sustainability and inclusion Prezentacija in interpretacija javnih arheoloških najdišč s pogledom na trajnost in inkluzijo Katharina Zanier Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Development division, Ljubljana, Slovenia University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology, Ljubljana, Slovenia katharina.zanier@ff.uni-lj.si Tajda Senica Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Development division, Ljubljana, Slovenia tajda.senica@zvkds.si Nejc Dolinar Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Development division, Ljubljana, Slovenia nejc.dolinar@zvkds.si 77 ht t ps://doi .org /10. 26493/2350-54 43.10(2)77-98 © aut hor/aut hors st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Introduction Archaeological parks1 are one of the more popular types of archaeological tourism products (Egri 2022; Zanier and Seni- ca forthcoming). Nevertheless, the high-quali- ty presentation and at the same time, high-qual- ity preservation and protection of both movable and immovable archaeological remains in ar- chaeological parks and other archaeological ar- eas are quite complex. Because of the different specifics of the archaeological sites such as dif- ferent budget disponibility or the condition of the remains, not every presentation is suita- ble for every archaeological site. To help choose the most suitable presentation for archaeologi- cal park or similar areas at the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia in the cooperation with the company 3APPES we developed the ArcheoDanube’s archaeological park tool Yesterday-today-tomorrow that is a complete novelty on a global scale, as there is no comparable tool on the market yet (Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia 2022). The tool can be used by all managers of ar- chaeological parks or other interested stake- holders, especially municipal or regional ad- ministrations, national agencies, museums, specific management authorities, associations, SMEs, and similar. The tool can also be used by the general public in order to understand con- ditions that influence decisions in the presenta- tion of archaeological heritage, but also in the perspective of local participatory projects. Its user-friendly structure and graphics can attract new audiences to the topic of archaeological presentations and its use within archeotourism. 1 The term is often used in different ways, to define any kind of open-air archaeological site. In the Archeodanube project (Zanier and Ratej 2021, 153–154; Egri 2021, 7; Za- nier and Ratej forthcoming) we decided to adopt the defi- nition which is in use in Croatian legislation: “An archae- ological park is a researched, protected and presented ar- chaeological site or its part that includes informative and didactic components of presentation and interpretation in order to raise awareness of the importance of archaeologi- cal heritage” (Zakon 2020). In the process of development of archaeo- logical parks and similar sites, visitors with dif- ferent disabilities are often forgotten and as a re- sult, they are excluded from society because they are not offered equal opportunities. Some of the solutions suggested by the tool are also suitable for people with different disabilities, some can be adapted to them and in many cases, the com- bination of different approaches provides a suffi- cient grade of inclusion, ensuring shared fruition of the remains by different target groups. The tool is available for free and was devel- oped within the ArcheoDanube project (Ar- chaeological Park in urban areas as a tool for Local Sustainable Development). The project connects 15 project partners from 11 countries. It is implemented within the Interreg Danube Transnational Programme and is co-funded by the European Union (ERDF, IPA, ENI funds). Among the main goals of the project are improv- ing the management and experience of archaeo- logical heritage based on the creation of archae- ological parks, involving the local community in the management and promotion of their archae- ological heritage and increasing the visibility of archaeological parks and cities of the Danube Region in the form of a transnational sustaina- ble tourism product. Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow tool The new digital tool (fig. 1) is suitable for any- one who wants to establish a new archaeologi- cal park or modernise an existing one or simply wants to present archaeological remains in other archaeologically relevant areas. The tool guides the user through a detailed questionnaire that includes the specifics of the archaeological site and additional infrastructure that the user may wish to have in their archaeological park or site. In the end, based on the given answers, the tool suggests most suitable solutions for presenting archaeological remains. The tool does not specifically focus on peo- ple with disabilities, as it is aimed to assist us- ers in finding solutions for presentation and in- terpretation, which are appropriate for different st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 78 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i pr es en ta t io n a n d in t er pr et a t io n o f pu bl ic a rc h a eo lo g ic a l si t es .. . 79 target groups, with and without disabilities. The ultimate goal of inclusion should namely be to equally engage mentioned different audiences, as well as encourage shared fruition and mutu- al learning processes. Users should therefore ac- tively adapt the solutions suggested by the tool to different target groups taking into consider- ation different categories (age, nationality, disa- bility, etc.). Questions and answers Through a set of questions (Table 1), answered by the user, the tool gets all information necessary for suggesting the most suitable solutions for the presentation and interpretation of archaeologi- cal heritage at a specific site. Table 1: Questions of the Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow tool. Questions relevant for in situ presentation and interpretation of archaeological remains In which country is your archaeological park? What is the budget you intend to invest in the presentation/ arrangement of your archaeological park? How big is the area you want to present? In which setting do you plan to display your archaeological remains? Is the archaeological park located in an urban or a rural area? How will the archaeological remains you intend to display look like? Will the archaeological remains be displayed in situ? What materials are the elements you want to display made of? What is the current state of conservation of the archaeologi- cal/architectural remains? Figure 1: Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow tool in use (photo Tajda Senica). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 80 Questions relevant for in situ presentation and interpretation of archaeological remains Do the remains you wish to display need to be consolidated, conserved and/or restored? Is there sufficient archaeological data in order to reconstruct/ interpret the original appearance of the building? Will the displayed archaeological remains require additional protection measures? Will the archaeological park be freely accessible to the public without fences and entrance fee? If the archaeological park will not be freely accessible, does it already have the basic (required) security infrastructure (fenc- ing, suitable entrance, security)? Do you plan to erect a building for reception (ticket office and possibly other purposes - souvenir shop, cafe ...) Do you plan to have sanitary buildings (toilets) in the archae- ological park? Do you plan to erect building(s) of any other purpose? What regular maintenance will the archaeological park require? Will you have an annual budget or other means for ensuring regular basic maintenance at the archaeological park (mainte- nance of the displayed archaeological remains, grass-mowing, maintenance of trails, disposal of litter ...)? Do you have or intend to have a management plan? Will you or another institution manage the archaeological park area after the initial investment? The first question of the tool relates to the country in which the archaeological park is lo- cated which is mostly related to value and cur- rency of budget levels2. In the case, partner coun- tries of the Archeodanube project (Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Re- public, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia) were included, as well as the op- tion “other”. In all likelihood, the most important factor is the budget that is planned to be invested in the arrangement of the archaeological park, because with a low budget, we have very limited options regarding what we can achieve and how the site 2 Of course each country has its own national laws which concern archaeological heritage, especially protection, which have to be taken into account when planning en- hancement works in archaeological sites: cf. Zanier and Ratej 2021, 66–106; Egri 2021, passim. can be presented. Currency varies depending on the selected country, otherwise the possible an- swers in Euros are: up to 10.000, 10.000–50.000, 50.000–100.000 and more than 100.000. A lot also depends on the size of the area that is planned to be presented because even if we have a smaller budget, we still have more options available in a smaller area to make a high-quality presentation with this budget versus in the large one. Possible answers are: small (up to 100 m2), medium (up to 500 m2) and large (over 500 m2). The user then has to answer, in which set- ting the archaeological presentation is planned, possible answers are: open-air, with roofing, in- door, mixed (open-air, roofed and/or indoor), the existing in situ display of the remains is ap- propriate and investments in this field are not planned and physical display of archaeological remains and any other investment in this field are not planned. In many cases, roofing needs to be provided over certain elements of heritage in order to protect it. Sometimes the remains, we want to display, are too fragile for the outside en- vironment and a building needs to be erected around the displayed area in order to ensure the appropriate climate for the remains. The location itself is also important to be considered when establishing an archaeological park, because if the site is located in rural area it is usually more difficult to reach the target au- dience or a sufficient number of visitors with which the costs of operating the park can be at least partially or fully covered, especially if there are no other sources of income. In this case, it is necessary to consider whether it is even worth investing in the presentation of such a park. On the other hand in rural areas there is a bigger pos- sibility that the archaeological park can be ex- panded and developed into an important tourist attraction if we compare it to the park in urban areas which faces many more obstacles since they are usually very limited in terms of space. A lot also depends on how the archaeolog- ical remains are planned to be displayed. Will they be hidden underground and not visible to the public, or will they be seen as ruins, inte- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i pr es en ta t io n a n d in t er pr et a t io n o f pu bl ic a rc h a eo lo g ic a l si t es .. . 81 grated into modern/functional elements or ful- ly reconstructed? The latter can be very complex from the point of view of preservation and pro- tection but also from the perspective of correct interpretation of the archaeological heritage, es- pecially if we do not have all the necessary in- formation on how exactly the remains used to look in the past when they still served their orig- inal purpose. Relating to this issue it is also im- portant if the archaeological remains will be dis- played in situ or they will be relocated to some other location. Given this, it is necessary to re- mind: when possible, in situ presentations are preferred. However, when presentations in ur- ban areas are planned, it is sometimes not possi- ble to adapt current urban layout to the planned archaeological park, but vice-versa. In some cas- es, remains that are found under existing roads or houses cannot be displayed in situ for obvious reasons. In this case, relocation of the remains can be an option. Conditions and restoration techniques im- plied for in situ presentation depend on the ma- terials we want to display. Different materi- als also require different maintenance methods thus, it is essential to be informed on what mate- rials are the elements that are planned to be dis- played made off. Possible answers are stone or fired brick architecture, frescoes, mosaics, wood- en architecture, earth or mud brick architecture, portable archaeological artefacts3 and other or materials that are not known yet. The question about the state of conserva- tion of the archaeological/architectural remains has possible answers: remains are buried/under- ground, preserved at foundation level, standing architecture or elements integrated into mod- ern architecture. If the remains are hidden un- derground we let visitors’ imaginations run free, so it is especially important how we approach the 3 Portable archaeological artefacts are objects that people created, modified or used. These artefacts include things such as tools, weapons, vessels, clothing and decorative ele- ments made out of stone, bone, metal, wood or some other organic materials. Their main characteristic is portability, which separates them from archaeological features, such as postholes, pits, walls, pillars and other architectural ele- ments, which are non-portable (or immovable). interpretation of such remains, about which we usually do not have much information ourselves. The following questions deal with the topic if the remains that are planned to be displayed need protection in form of conservation and/ or restoration and if there is sufficient archaeo- logical data in order to reconstruct/interpret the original appearance of the building. In order for remains to be adequately pro- tected some require additional protection meas- ures like humidity control (water drainage), fencing or other measures such as walkways, and footbridges. Rarely no additional protection measures are needed if we want the archaeolog- ical remains to be properly protected. Another important question regards accessibility for the public. If the archaeological park is freely accessi- ble without fences and entrance fee it is definite- ly more accessible to the general public, it does not need working hours and requires less staff. On the other hand, in this way the remains are more exposed to vandalism. If we have the site protected with basic security infrastructure such as fencing, additional security and suitable en- trance the remains are more protected. With col- lecting the entrance fee we can cover part of the costs for the maintenance of the park. In the case of collecting an entrance fee, it is recommended to plan to erect a building for reception such as a ticket office that can also include a souvenir shop or a coffee shop. A very simple variant of a recep- tion building can be built with a small budget, but it is advised that the attention is payed to the aesthetical suitability of such a building. Sanitary facilities are almost mandato- ry, especially if we collect entrance fees because upon payment, a higher level of service is auto- matically expected. Building proper sanitation for the park can be expensive. It is advised that proper sanitary buildings are built with proper sanitation. Of course, portable toilets can be a budget-friendly or a temporary option, but they can have a repelling effect for the visitors who want to enjoy the presented heritage. If such portable toilets are planned, they should be ar- st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 82 ranged in a disguised setting with ensured reg- ular cleaning. To erect a building(s) of any other purpose such as a playground for children means higher investment and maintenance costs, but on the other hand it can attract more visitors and pro- vide them with a better overall experience. For example, if the visitor urgently needs sanitary fa- cilities and is not provided it is meaningless that he received a high-quality interpretation of ar- chaeological remains because this addition- al need that was not satisfied spoils the overall experience. Regular maintenance is required for the displayed remains, additional infrastructure and overall visitor experience. In the digital tool pos- sible answers are maintenance of archaeologi- cal remains, grass-mowing, litter disposal, heat- ing, maintenance of trails, signposts, panels and maintenance of complex visitor infrastructure such as sanitary facilities, interactive equipment, reception building or visitor interpretation cen- tre. For example, we can’t just place the litter dis- posal and then forget about them, as they would fill up quickly and consequently represent a neg- ative experience for visitors. All such elements need to be maintained even the text on the in- terpretive panels may fade over time and need to be replaced. That is why an annual budget or other means for ensuring regular basic maintenance at the archaeological park are required and the tool specifically asks users about this. If no budget is foreseen for this purpose, the tool will not sug- gest presentation and interpretation solutions which require demanding maintenance. Main- taining a good and desirable archaeological park for years after the opening/renovation is crucial in maintaining interest for the park. Depend- ing on the size and complexity, regular mainte- nance can be more or less demanding, but it can be greatly simplified when we involve local mu- nicipalities in at least the basic tasks such as lit- ter disposal, grass-mowing and similar tasks, for which it already has a well-organised service. In the case of a low budget, one of the solutions can also be voluntary work with a straightforward system, which has proven to be a very effective solution in many countries. A well set management plan is essential if the archaeological park is planned to run suc- cessfully in the long term, because it helps all the people involved in the organisation to clear- ly follow the goals and vision that were set. If the management plan is good, everyone knows what his responsibilities and roles are. For example, it must be determined exactly who is in charge of mowing the grass so that there will be no wait- ing on who will do it and during this time the site can become overgrown and unsuitable for visitors. Last but not least when establishing an ar- chaeological park it should be appointed who will manage the park after the initial investment. Even though the site is open to the public and requires little maintenance, it is recommend- ed that is properly managed to achieve sustaina- ble results and that it will not become another of the many failed projects that can be traced in the field of cultural heritage and archaeology, which initially have enormous potential, but a problem arises with the further management of the site. Results Based on the given answers the Yesterday-To- day-Tomorrow tool calculates and provides the most suitable solutions for the foreseen budget and size of the archaeological park. Although the tool’s suggestions are in no way obligato- ry, they can be seen as the most logical solution applicable to the specifics of the archaeological park that is described during the questionnaire. Possible solutions suggested by the tool are list- ed in table 2. Table 2: Possible results of the Yesterday-Today-Tomor- row tool. Possible solutions for in situ presentation and interpretation of archaeological remains Establishment of trails with benches, signposts and ornamentation. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i pr es en ta t io n a n d in t er pr et a t io n o f pu bl ic a rc h a eo lo g ic a l si t es .. . 83 Possible solutions for in situ presentation and interpretation of archaeological remains Placement of interpretative panels (only text and figures; not interactive). Establishment of additional digital content available through QR codes (applied to interpretative panels, benches or signposts). Establishment of a mobile app. Publication of printed material (guidebooks, children books, brochures, leaflets, site plans ...). Placement of fixed audio-visual, tactile and multimedia dis- plays and tools (speakers, touch screens, stereoscopes, models, tactile reproductions, fixed didactic equipment ...). Establishment of a visitor interpretation centre (a room or other place with digital presentations with TV, AR/VR equipment, models, didactic tools, tactile reproductions, rep- licas ...; also equipment or material that can be used on the site like audio-guide and AR/VR mobile equipment, guidebooks, brochures, site plans ...). In situ display of consolidated or slightly integrated stone ar- chitectural elements (walls, stone pavements ...). In situ display of restored wooden architectural elements. In situ display of restored frescoes and mosaics. Reconstruction of architectural elements (true to scale recon- struction of a destroyed building attempting to reproduce its original appearance and materials). Anastylosis (restoration of a ruined building by reassembling fallen elements: original components are placed back into their original position). Integration of original features by using alternative elements (replacement of missing parts by clearly different materials and stylized forms). Substitution of original features by using alternative elements (display of ground plans of buried archaeological remains by using vegetation/shrubs or noticeable materials inserted into the paving). Light projection and holograms of archaeological remains. The establishment of trails with benches, signposts and ornamentation is the most stand- ard solution when establishing an archaeological park and is classified within the process of land- scaping. As described in Egri (2021, 41): “The main role of landscaping is to shape the area of an archaeological park in a way that the heritage is highlighted and the whole experience is enjoy- able for the visitors. However, landscaping works must consider all requirements that ensure the integrity of the archaeological heritage, includ- ing the legal ones, and other elements that are important for the site development.” Placement of indoor or outdoor interpre- tive panels that include only text and figures and are not interactive can also be classified as one of more basic solutions which usually do not re- quire such a large investment. Nevertheless not all information is suitable for display on inter- pretive panels. It is necessary to be aware of who the target audience is, which is important in the preparation of a good interpretation. Good com- munication throughout interpretive panels is achieved with a clear structure, emphasis on the main topic, with regard less is more and simple language. As Tilden (1977, 20) stated: “It is far better that the visitor to a preserved area, natu- ral, historic or prehistoric, should leave with one or more whole pictures in his mind, than with a mélange of information that leaves him in doubt as to the essence of the place, and even in doubt as to why the area has been preserved at all.” Pre- cisely for this reason: “In presenting and inter- preting the historical story of the heritage site, it is necessary to be selective and to decide which elements will be of most interest to the kind of people that the site will attract” (Feilden and Jokiletho 1998, 114). At the same time, a multi- lingual approach should be envisaged, in order to make the content available to different audi- ences, also with disabilities, by including at least some basic aids like relief images, Braille and easy read method. Placement of interactive and tactile tools, such as stereoscopes (fig. 2), models, tactile re- productions, fixed didactic equipment, as well as audio-visual and multimedia displays that in- clude speakers, touch screens, and other similar equipment with films, animations, games and 3D visualisations usually costs much more than the installation of basic interpretive panels with- out interactive features. Interactive displays are more memorable and stimulating for the visitors than regular displays. It can even include func- tions that provides different smells (for example of different fruits whose stones were find on the st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 84 archaeological site and could represent the food that the former inhabitants consumed) which can enrich the visitors’ experience especially it is beneficial for the visitors with different disabili- ties, such as e.g. the visual impairment. Visitors with different disabilities are usually deprived and forgotten in the process of establishing ar- chaeological parks and other archaeological rele- vant areas, because the site is not adapted to their needs. With the use of audio-visual and multi- media displays we can adapt and bring the sto- ry of the park closer to them. The Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites advise that we must not forget that: “The media used to interpret the history of the site should be chosen to be as effective as possible for all visi- tors, without harming the appearance or ambi- ence of the heritage site” (Feilden and Jokilehto 1998, 114). It is understandable that we proba- bly cannot adapt the entire path beside the ar- chaeological remains for visitors that use wheel- chairs without affecting the remains. However, we can arrange areas or use other equipment to bring the experience closer to them. For exam- ple, in the time of the coronavirus lockdown, vir- tual tours of the sites became more popular, due to which this technology also began to develop more. Figure 2: Different ways of displaying archaeological remains of the Late Roman defence system Claustra Alpium Iuliarum at the site of Gradišče near Rob (Slovenia). 1) The site before excavation (photo Andrej Blatnik). 2) Excavat- ed and consolidated section of the barrier wall: as the course of the wall is clearly visible as a ridge, only its first part was unearthed and displayed (photo Tajda Senica). 3) Information and 3D reconstructions are provided by an interpre- tive panel and an archaeo-stereoscope (photo Tajda Senica). 4) Reconstructed view of the wall visible through the ar- chaeo-stereoscope (made by Link 3D). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i pr es en ta t io n a n d in t er pr et a t io n o f pu bl ic a rc h a eo lo g ic a l si t es .. . 85 Additional digital content can be made available also through QR codes which are ap- plied to interpretative panels, benches, signposts or printed materials. This solution is cost-ef- fective and can be suitable for different target groups, also those with different disabilities, as the content connected to the QR codes can be designed in very diverse ways, but of course it presupposes the use of appropriate smartphones and internet disponibility. Mobile apps are a popular solution for im- proving accessibility, presentation and interpre- tation of archaeological remains. They can be combined with aspects of gamification and they can also be easily adapted to visitors with differ- ent disabilities, involving different senses and of- fering different utilities. For example, in the pro- ject Claustra+ a mobile app was developed, that includes (besides many other utilities) also audio guides which are beneficial for users with visual impairment (Oxygen Tech 2020). The publication of printed material (such as guidebooks, children books, brochures, leaflets, site plans, etc.) is a basic, but efficient way to me- diate interpretation about archaeological sites to the audience. The solution is mostly cost-effec- tive and can also be adapted for people with dif- ferent disabilities, for example for visual impair- ment the material can be printed in Braille. For the information to be accessible for people with learning disability, elders, and hearing impair- ment or also for those whose content language is their second, the text should be written in easy read method. In the end it is also crucial to iden- tify suitable places for the distribution of print- ed materials otherwise it can be difficult to reach the desired target groups. The establishment of a visitor interpretation centre can especially if placed at the entrance of the site provide a good introduction or a basic in- sight into the story of the archaeological site. It is also beneficial for visitors with different disabil- ities which in this way can avoid potential dan- gers of the diverse terrain of the site itself, if that is not adapted to their needs. An interpretation centre can be a complex offering also other facil- ities (reception, sanitary, etc.) or simply a room with displays of digital presentations and recon- structions, AR/VR equipment, models, didactic tools, tactile reproductions, replicas, etc. It can also host equipment or material that can be used on the site like audio-guides and AR/VR mo- bile equipment, guidebooks, brochures and site plans. An advantage of interpretation centres is the fact that they are usually covered with a roof and contents are available over the whole year. In situ presentation is the conservation and displaying of archaeological remains in their original location in order to maintain their sig- nificance and authenticity (Egri 2021, 153). Con- ditions and restoration techniques implied for in situ presentation depend on the materials of the remains, as defined by the user in the question- naire. In situ display can be performed sub divo (without any shelter) or under a protective struc- ture. Archaeological remains composed of frag- ile materials (organic materials, mosaics, plaster, etc.) have to be protected by buildings, shelters, glass walkways, seasonal removable coverings or other similar means (Stanley-Price and Jokileh- to 2002; Aslan 2007). Frequently, archaeological remains don’t only need to be consolidated, but also additionally protected from standing water or water folds. For this purpose, different kinds of drainage structures (channels, substrates, etc.) have to be planned, with minimal impact on the archaeological remains. In situ display of archaeological remains is particularly demanding especially because of their fragmentary nature; principles developed by conservation and restoration science have to be respected (Stanley-Price and King 2009), but also parameters concerning the specific situation affect the decision on how to display in situ ar- chaeological remains, as shown in Table 3. Main procedures used for in situ display of archaeological remains are listed in Table 3 and have advantages and disadvantages, which are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs and Tables 4, 5 and 6. Conservation or consolidation of the orig- inal substance (as it was unearthed) ensures a st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 86 high level of authenticity, which has an intrinsic value for most visitors, as visitors stay in queues to see original art works, not their reproductions. However, it does not facilitate direct reading or interpretation of the remains, but this issue can be supported and solved by adopting proper in- terpretative media. It also leaves the original sub- stance almost exposed to the effects of weather (Table 4; fig. 3), which can be overcome by apply- ing protective structures. Integration is normally performed by add- ing small parts to the original structure in order to provide stability (e.g. by filling in gaps with- in walls), better protection (e.g. by adding a wall topper to seal the original part of the wall), and improved water drainage (e.g. by adding a sloped Table 3: In situ display of archaeological remains: issues, principles, parameters and possible procedures. Issues specifically related to in situ display of archaeological remains • The state of conservation of archaeological remains is mostly fragmentary (in some cases only minimal parts of the original buildings or features survived – there are very few examples where the original substance is preserved almost in its entirety, like in Akrotiri or Pompeii and other sites of the Vesuvian area); • In most cases there is no proper documentation showing the original appearance of the archaeological structures, i.e. building documentation or similar, which would allow a matching reconstruction of the original (there are several exceptions, for ex- ample more recently dated archaeological heritage for whom building documentation, including drawings and photographs, can be found in archives); • Archaeological sites are often multi-period phenomena, where the layout and function of the structures and other features had changed from one period or phase to another; • Original building materials have different conservation needs, and some cannot survive if exposed to air, rain, sunlight, tem- perature changes, etc.; besides different types of physical display, the possibility of additional protective structures should be considered. Principles to be respected in conservation/restoration works • Authenticity (authenticity of the remains has to be preserved); • Compatibility (materials used for conservation and restoration works have to be compatible with the original ones); • Reversibility (materials used for conservation and restoration works have to be reversible); • Minimal intervention (conservation and restoration interventions have to be as limited as possible). Parameters influencing the decision how to in situ display archaeological remains • Type, size, materials and state of conservation of the archaeological remains; • Quantity and quality of information about the archaeological remains; • Maintenance capacities; • Available budget. Possible procedures for in situ display of archaeological remains • Conservation, i.e. consolidation; • Integration; • Reconstruction; • Anastylosis; • Translocation; • Integration of original features using alternative elements; • Substitution of original features using alternative elements. Figure 3: Rijeka (Croatia), display of the consolidated structures of the late Roman principia within the city cen- tre (photo Petar Fabijan). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i pr es en ta t io n a n d in t er pr et a t io n o f pu bl ic a rc h a eo lo g ic a l si t es .. . 87 wall topper to eliminate excess water quickly). Integration has similar advantages and disad- vantages to consolidation and can be regarded as a suitable compromise between safeguarding au- thenticity and implementing practical solutions intended for an easier conservation of archaeo- logical remains, especially sub divo, i.e. without additional protective structures (Table 4; fig. 4). Figure 4: Solin near Kostrena (Croatia), slightly inte- grated structures of a late Roman fortlet (photo Petar Fabijan). Table 4: Advantages and disadvantages of conservation/ consolidation and integration. Conservation/consolidation • Ensures a high level of authenticity; • Maintenance require- ments are affordable, but especially in the case of sub divo conser- vation continuous care is needed. • Does not facilitate di- rect reading or interpre- tation of the remains; • Lets the original sub- stance exposed to the effects of weather. Integration • Ensures a high level of authenticity; • Maintenance require- ments are affordable. • Does not facilitate di- rect reading or interpre- tation of the remains; • In some cases, this solu- tion is still not suffi- cient to safeguard spe- cific fragile materials of the original structure and additional protec- tive elements have to be foreseen. In archaeology, a reconstruction normal- ly represents the rebuilding of the hypothetical appearance of usually one phase of a building or feature of a site (fig. 5). Because of many dis- advantages, listed also in Table 5, in situ recon- structions are generally not supported by inter- national doctrinal documents and conventions – this is also the case of the Convention Con- cerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO 1972), for which authenticity is an indispensable value. Conse- quently, some UNESCO candidatures of recon- structed sites have been frequently amended or rejected. There are specific conditions for recon- structions to be admissible: - Reliable and detailed data about the origi- nal appearance have to be available and used in order to correctly plan the reconstructi- on; - Especially in the case of monuments de- stroyed during wars, their reconstruction is regarded as a way of healing open war wo- unds (which, if left open, would instigate hate – see for example the reconstruction of the Mostar Bridge as a symbol of reconcilia- tion). These conditions are rarely fulfilled in the case of archaeological heritage, so the choice to nevertheless reconstruct archaeological sites is at least controversial. If fragile materials of an ar- chaeological site are going to be displayed and the reconstruction can at the same time help to protect them from weather conditions, then the reconstruction can be justified from the point of st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 88 view of protection. The process of reconstruc- tion can be an educative process itself and the finished building can be an important didactic tool for visitors (Stanley-Price 2009, 36). Still, it would be preferable to place reconstructions out- side the site perimeter, in order to prevent their disturbance and to give visitors the possibility to admire the original remains and compare them to the reconstructions. Figure 5: Saalburg (Germany), porta decumana recon- struction (photo Gorinin, https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/File:Saalburg-Porta.Decumana.01.JPG). Anastylosis is the restoration of a ruined building or monument by reassembling fallen original elements that have to be placed back into their original positions; new materials can also be incorporated in order to provide struc- tural integrity and stability. The Venice Charter of 1964 has defined specific criteria for anastylo- sis, which are still valid: a) the original condition of the structure must be confirmed scientifical- ly, b) the correct placement of each component must be determined, c) supplemental compo- nents must be limited to those necessary for stability and must be recognizable (ICOMOS 1964). It is therefore clear that anastylosis is con- ceivable especially in the case of structures made of specifically shaped building elements, where the original position of every component can be deduced from its form and dimensions (to other types of structures the technique cannot proper- ly applied) (Table 5; fig. 6). Figure 6: Šempeter (Slovenia), mausoleum of Ennius reas- sembled by anastylosis (photo Jacquesverlaeken, https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sempeter_v_Savin- jski_dolini_Necropolis_Enius_1.JPG). Anastylosis is sometimes used in combina- tion with translocation (Kołakowski 2015), per- formed when a monument has to be moved from one location to another, by disassembling or cut- ting it into parts and then reassembling it by anastylosis at the new location (Table 5; fig. 7). st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i pr es en ta t io n a n d in t er pr et a t io n o f pu bl ic a rc h a eo lo g ic a l si t es .. . 89 Figure 7: Abu Simbel (Egypt), the Great Temple after translocation (photo Pepaserbio, https://commons.wiki- media.org/wiki/File:Abu_Simbel_main_temple.jpg). The integration of original features by us- 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). Reconstruction • Reconstructions are immediately understood by the pub- lic (though the reconstruction represents just one possible interpretation of the site, so what the visitors will so easily perceive is not the original appearance itself, but a particu- lar idea of that); • They offer protection to fragile types of materials which cannot be preserved sub divo; • They can host collections or other facilities, but the latter can severely affect the original substance; • A reconstructed building can be easily open to the public throughout the year; • The process of reconstruction can be an educative pro- cess itself and the finished building can be an important didactic tool for visitors, helping them to better under- stand the past of the site. Still, it is not necessary to do that in situ (thus affecting the remains), as there can be addi- tional areas intended for reconstructions and experimen- tal archaeology; • A reconstructed building can perhaps attract more visitors and thus generate more income for the public or private authorities that manage it (Stanley-Price, 2009, 36), though additional research has to be performed in order to verify this assumption. • Reconstructions can inhibit the proper completion and viewing of the original substance of the site, and the re- spective structures can even damage the archaeological re- mains. Technically, it is possible to create less invasive and reversible reconstructions, but these are often raising the implementation costs; • Normally, several elements have to be reconstructed in a hypothetical way, so if the original substance of a build- ing is, for example, preserved only at foundation level, fre- quently there is no information about the original location of the doors and windows, or the height of the ceiling etc. These are relevant architectural details that affect the inter- nal communication, lighting and volume of the building, so there is the risk to recreate a building with erroneous characteristics as a hypothetical reconstruction. Authen- ticity is in this case curtailed due to using non-original ma- terials and also wrong architectural features; • Just one hypothetical view of the original appearance will be shown (interpretive media allow to show different pos- sible reconstructions), and that cannot be easily changed if additional research will indicate that the reconstruction is wrong; • 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. Table 5: Advantages and disadvantages of reconstruc- tions, anastylosis and translocation. st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 90 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Figure 8: Veii (Italy), Portonaccio temple with architec- tural elements indicated by stylized additions (photo Liv- ioandronico2013, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Tempio_di_veio.JPG). In some cases, archaeological remains themselves cannot be displayed directly, for ex- ample, because the area has to be used for other non-compatible purposes, or the type of materi- als of the original substance are not suitable for display. One option is the substitution of origi- nal features by using alternative elements which allows displaying ground plans of archaeologi- cal remains by using vegetation/shrubs or differ- ent building materials inserted into the paving. This kind of display could be appropriate for ar- chaeological sites where the remains are main- ly known from non-invasive research, especial- ly geophysical surveys. In some cases, viewing platforms can be necessary in order to fully ap- preciate such true to scale ground plans, as well as additional explanation by interpretive media (Table 6; fig. 9). Figure 9: Künzing (Germany), visualisation of the Ro- man amphitheatre using a simple wooden structure (photo Katharina Zanier). In situ integration of the missing parts and substitution of the whole can be performed also in an immaterial way, using light projections and holograms. These solutions are not invasive and surely represent appealing attractions due to their innovative character (Table 6; fig. 10). Anastylosis • High level of authenticity, if the reassembling is made correctly; • Immediate and overall understanding of the building and its features. • The material is usually left exposed to the effects of weath- er; this can be overcome by applying additional protective structures; • The process of reassembling and replacement can affect the original substance of the structure; • Some elements may have been reused in different build- ings from different periods, so their use in one reassembled structure prevents their use in others; • There is always a risk of mistakes in reassembling the elements. Translocation • Sometimes translocation is the only way to save a monu- ment from destruction. • High costs and technical difficulties. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i pr es en ta t io n a n d in t er pr et a t io n o f pu bl ic a rc h a eo lo g ic a l si t es .. . 91 Figure 10: Bamyan Valley (Afghanistan), projection by Zhang Xinyu and Liang Hong of one of the two Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban in 2001 (photo Zhang Xinyu/Xinhua Press/Corbis, source: Marazuela Kim, 2015, 49). Accessibility of archaeological sites for visitors with different disabilities To provide accessibility of archaeological sites is an obligation to the society, however in reality that is not always guaranteed. Especially inclu- sion with accessibility of the archaeological re- mains for visitors with different disabilities, that represent a third of the total world population, is often forgotten in the process of establishing ar- chaeological parks and similar sites which leads to repetitive discriminatory policies and practic- es (Masliković and Tomić 2015; Casiddu 2020, 186; United Nations Department of Econom- ic and Social Affairs Disability 2022). Inclusion can be defined as the concept of ensuring equal rights and access to opportunities by creating the best possible conditions for people with dif- ferent disabilities and members of other minori- ty groups (Kobal Grum and Kobal 2009; Cam- bridge Dictionary 2022). Inclusion can also be described as a fight for the equality of all people and at the same time a battle against capitalism and its logic of exclusion (Rutar 2010, 40). For people with different disabilities to experience their fundamental rights and freedoms that pro- vide equal opportunities, a number of national and international laws were written and should be taken into account in the process of establish- ing archaeological parks and similar sites (Çetin- er 2018). In the document Union of Equality: Table 6: Advantages and disadvantages of integration or substitution of original features using alternative elements, light projections and holograms. Integration of original features using alternative elements • Can easily be adapted in order to minimise the impact on the archaeological remains; • By offering an abstract idea of the original features, the vis- itor can be stimulated to think about the site and interact with it; • The procedure allows to show different development phas- es of the site; • It can be easily combined with the installation of protec- tive structures. • Can be confusing for non-expert visitors; • Costs for design and implementation of such projects, in- cluding frequently used materials, are normally very high. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 92 Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabili- ties 2021–2030 that was prepared by the Europe- an Union (2021, 20) is written: “Accessible and inclusive art and culture, sport, leisure, recrea- tional activities, and tourism are essential for full participation in society. They increase wellbeing and give everyone, including persons with disa- bilities, the opportunity to develop and utilise their potential.” Greater awareness in the field of accessible tourism, which also includes archae- ological tourism with archaeological parks and similar sites, began in 1989, when a report by ex- perts entitled “Tourism for all” was published (Raspor and Macuh 2021, 71). Accessible tour- ism can be described as: “Making efforts to ca- ter for the needs of a wide range of consumers by removing institutional or attitudinal obstacles” (Sakarneh and Katanani 2021, 268). On the other hand, archaeological remains represent a particularly sensitive category of her- itage that requires special measures of preserva- tion and protection and is in most cases, espe- cially in Slovenia, located in difficult-to-access terrain, which represents a bigger challenge of how to ensure physical accessibility to such loca- tions. In such cases, the use of digital technology and virtual tours can be a great alternative with the use of Virtual Reality (VR) systems or desk- top computers (Kyrlitsias et al. 2020), which can also be adapted for users with different disabili- ties. When ensuring accessibility, it is necessary to take into account that visitors have different disabilities such as mobility, sensory, intellec- tual, learning disabilities and other disabilities such as diabetes, allergies, etc., which have dif- ferent needs and require very different adapta- tions to be able to ensure inclusion for all poten- tial visitors. Visitors with physical and mobility disabilities Visitors with physical and mobility disabilities are not only wheelchair users; visitors with re- duced mobility and reduced dexterity (for exam- ple visitors with reduced mobility in their legs that use walking cane or with reduced mobili- ty in their arms) also have physical limitations despite the differences in their positions. This group of visitors includes people with (Inclusive City Maker 2021a): - Spinal cord injuries, - Cerebral palsy, - Spina bifida, - Multiple sclerosis, - Heart diseases, - Arthritis, - Parkinson’s disease, - Epilepsy, - Respiratory disorders, - Carpal tunnel syndrome, - Dwarfism, etc. For visitors with different physical and mo- bility disabilities ergonomic adaptations of the site should be included in the establishing pro- cess. Parking areas of archaeological sites should include reserved parking spaces near the main entrance. Entrances and information points should be adapted with large doors and lowered Substitution of original features using alternative elements • The original substance of the archaeological remains can be preserved intact and without disturbance underground; • Different development phases can be displayed; • The area can be easily used for other purposes; • It is a mostly cost-effective solution. • If vegetation/shrubs are used for display, they will need continuous maintenance; • Visitors could have some problems understanding it, but they can be supported by higher viewpoints and addition- al interpretive media. In situ integration or substitution of archaeological remains using light projections and holograms • No impact on the original substance of the archaeologi- cal remains; • Different development phases can be displayed; • Attractiveness due to the innovative character. • Limited to specific light conditions/time in the day; • Especially for holograms, costs are high, and at the time being they are therefore used mostly for objects of limited dimensions like movable archaeological finds. pr es en ta t io n a n d in t er pr et a t io n o f pu bl ic a rc h a eo lo g ic a l si t es .. . 93 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i counters. For example, placement of promo- tional material and information counters with staff should not be placed too high because in that case visitors that use wheelchairs and visi- tors with dwarfism cannot reach the promotion- al material, nor can they communicate proper- ly with the staff if they cannot even see them. If turnstiles are used at the entrance with elec- tronic ticket control, they should be lowered and include dedicated airlocks for visitors that use wheelchairs. Paths around archaeological sites should be adapted in such a way that archaeolog- ical remains are not endangered and are at the same time easily accessible for visitors that use wheelchairs or have other mobility disabilities. That means that paths around the site should be wide, even, with lower curbs, without obsta- cles, protected with fence and inclusion of sev- eral resting points. Benches, tables, drinking fountains and information panels around the site should also be adapted and accessible. Stairs should be nonslip and protected with handrails. Visitor interpretation centre with several floors should include suitable elevators. If the archae- ological site provides sanitary building, it also should be adapted with the option to call for help if needed (Çetiner 2018, 56–57; Inclusive City Maker 2021a). Visitors with invisible disabilities Not all visitors with disabilities have visible dis- abilities, for example, visitors with sensorial dis- abilities such as hearing and visual impairments are less visible and obvious, but still require spe- cial adaptations to ensure equal opportunities. Of all people with disabilities, 80% have invis- ible disabilities. This group of visitors includes people with (Inclusive City Maker 2021b): - Visual impairment, - Hearing impairment, - Voice disorder, - Heart diseases, - Bipolar disorders, - Certain forms of autism, - Dyslexia, - Alzheimer’s disease, - Diabetes mellitus, - Coeliac disease, - Post-traumatic-disorders, etc. When it comes to the accessibility of ar- chaeological sites, we mostly have in mind phys- ical and informational accessibility at the loca- tion of the archaeological site itself. Information about archaeological sites on mobile apps, print- ed materials and especially on official websites is rarely adapted for people with different disa- bilities. For example, an easy read method that adapts written information to make it easier to understand not only assists visitors with intel- lectual and learning disabilities, but also benefits elderly visitors or visitors whose language of in- formation is not their native language. In Slove- nia alone, more than half a million people need adaptation of information in an easy read meth- od (Knapp 2019, 9). It is necessary to know who the target visitors are and always test the infor- mation with test readers. Easy read information should be written with (Haramija and Knapp 2019, 30): - Non-serif letters, - Minimum font size 14, - Clear title, - Use of easier words and explanation of diffi- cult ones, - Left alignment, - Short sentences, - Sufficiently large spacing between lines, - Use of images that are clearly visible, etc. As explained before, information can be adapted and made accessible in several formats and through diverse media (Egri 2021), which can be more or less appropriate for visitors with different disabilities and can be as such com- bined in order to meet their needs: - Interpretive panels, - Audio-guides on separate devices or apps that can be downloaded on mobile phones, st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 94 - Audio-visual and multimedia displays, - Digital media (websites, apps, downloada- ble content, QR codes, etc.), - Printed materials, etc. Visitors with visual and hearing impair- ment are mainly facing communication bar- riers, as they need adapted forms and methods of communication and information. For visi- tors with visual impairment, the interpretation of the archaeological site can be adapted with audio, tactile, or olfactory equipment that will improve their experience. Paths around archae- ological site should be even, without obstacles, adjusted in the tactile paving system and pro- tected by fence in more dangerous areas. Printed material should also be written in Braille. Tac- tile method of interpretation should be used for better understanding of maps, objects and oth- er models that are presented at site. Pictures can be vividly described in audio method. Video in- terpretations should include audio descriptions and other audio effects. For visitors with hearing impairment subtitles, sign language, or incorpo- ration of a certified deaf interpreter should be included in interpretation. Vibration and light effects can also be included for better interpreta- tion. Guided tours on the site can also be adapt- ed in this way (Rebernik 2014; Naniopoulos and Tsalis 2015). The use of sign language is not only helpful for visitors with hearing impairment but is also beneficial for visitors with autism, apha- sia, Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy (Berke 2021). Organized lectures, workshops, guided tours and courses on the archaeological sites can all be adapted for visitors with different disabil- ities. Archaeological sites with restaurants and cafes should also take into considerations visi- tors with disabilities such as diabetes mellitus, coeliac disease or different food allergies who too often depend on pre-prepared food that they bring with them, because providers do not adjust their offer to them or they only have one dish on the menu to choose from. Conclusions In the process of establishing an archaeological park, it is necessary to think of all people includ- ing their diversity, as their disabilities can be very different (from movement, sight, and hearing to intellectual). Unfortunately, presentation and interpretation at archaeological sites frequent- ly do not take into consideration people with disabilities. Therefore, for example, the ICO- MOS Ename Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites does not mention disabilities with any word (ICOMOS 2008). The same applies to the Faro Conven- tion on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Council of Europe 2005). In general, this lack of consideration of people with disabilities is prob- ably more evident in the fruition of immovable cultural heritage than in museums. Immovable cultural heritage and especially archaeological sites represent on their own a cat- egory with special needs. It is important to bear in mind a basic, but crucial requirement, already mentioned in the Venice Charter for the Con- servation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites: “The sites of monuments must be the ob- ject of special care in order to safeguard their in- tegrity and ensure that they are cleared and pre- sented in a seemly manner” (ICOMOS 1964). For this reason, every decision regarding the presentation of archaeological remains should be made in accordance with a long-term vision and with the actual disponibilities. In order to achieve sustainability it is also important to in- volve the local community and have its support (Egri 2021). To choose between different possible solu- tions of presentation and interpretation can be very challenging and our tool can in this rep- resent a valid support, but users of course have to actively shape proposed solutions. As already mentioned, the tool does not specifically focus on people with disabilities. It is aimed to assist users in finding solutions, which are appropriate for different target groups, with and without dis- abilities, encouraging shared fruition of archaeo- logical sites and thorough inclusion. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i pr es en ta t io n a n d in t er pr et a t io n o f pu bl ic a rc h a eo lo g ic a l si t es .. . 95 An example of good practice in this field is the Archaeological and Landscape Park of the Valley of the Temples in Sicily, where the offer is adapted for visitors with different disabilities. For visitors with sensory disabilities informa- tion is provided through QR codes with videos and sign language and also Braille panels are in- stalled. About 85% of the paths through the park are adapted to visitors with physical disabilities and their levels of difficulty are clearly indicat- ed. Free shuttle service and free rental service of electric wheelchairs is also provided. For visitors with intellectual disabilities specifically adapted guided tours are offered. The café and restaurant of the archaeological park also offer a variety of gluten-free products for visitors with special di- ets (Parco Valle dei Templi Agrigento 2022). At the same time, the archaeological park offers contents and utilities of the highest quality also for visitors without disabilities. We hope that our tool will in general help to improve presentation and interpretation at ar- chaeological sites, which is frequently defective, not only for people with disabilities. New efforts aimed to improve this field should be seen as an opportunity for inclusive thinking and acting. Summary The paper highlights two essential aspects related to sustainability and inclusion, which should be taken into consideration in the process of establishing and further development of archaeological parks or other forms of public archaeological sites. The article addresses the topic of presentation and interpretation of archaeolog- ical sites depending on their entity, conservation sta- tus, and development potentials, as well as accessibility of the sites, contents and services for all kind of visitors. We explain the first aspect through a detailed presenta- tion of the new digital tool Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow that was developed within the ArcheoDanube project and is a complete novelty on the world market. It guides the user through a detailed questionnaire about the spe- cifics of the archaeological site and the user’s preferenc- es. At the end of the questionnaire, the tool (based on the given answers) suggests the most suitable solutions for presentation and interpretation of the archaeologi- cal remains. Proposed solutions provide inclusion aim- ing at accessibility for visitors without and with different disabilities, as they can be adapted for different target groups. Ensuring accessibility of the most relevant ar- chaeological sites is an obligation to society, but mainly due to its complexity, this is not always fulfilled in prac- tice. The presentation of archaeological remains is for its own demanding because of their fragile and fragmen- tary nature that requires special preservation and pro- tection measures as well as particularly effective inter- pretation solutions. They are often located in areas that are physically difficult to access, which represents an even greater challenge in the process of ensuring acces- sibility, especially for visitors with different disabilities that require special adjustments in order to fulfil their needs. The second aspect of the article highlights pre- cisely this issue on how to ensure inclusion and a qual- ity interpretation of archaeological remains for visitors with different disabilities. Presented are different sug- gestions for the adaptation of the presentation and in- terpretation of archaeological sites for visitors with vis- ible disabilities, such as mobility, as well as for visitors with different invisible disabilities. Povzetek Prispevek izpostavlja dva bistvena vidika, povezana s koncepti trajnosti in inkluzije, ki bi se morala upošteva- ti pri procesu ustanavljanja ali nadaljnjega razvoja arhe- oloških parkov oziroma drugih oblik javno dostopnih arheoloških najdišč. Članek obravnava prezentacijo in interpretacijo arheoloških najdišč glede na njihovo en- titeto, stanje ohranjenosti in potencialne možnosti ra- zvoja in hkrati tematiko dostopnosti najdišč, vsebin in storitev s strani vseh obiskovalcev. Prvi vidik predstavlja- mo s podrobno predstavitvijo novega digitalnega orod- ja Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow, ki je bilo razvito v okviru projekta ArcheoDanube in je popolna novost na sve- tovnem trgu. Uporabnika vodi skozi podroben vpra- šalnik o posebnostih arheološkega najdišča in uporab- nikovih željah. Na koncu vprašalnika orodje na podlagi podanih odgovorov predlaga najprimernejše rešitve za prezentacijo in interpretacijo arheoloških ostalin. Rešit- ve zagotavljajo inkluzijo z vidika dostopnosti za obisko- valce brez in z različnimi oviranostmi, saj jih je mogoče prilagoditi različnim ciljnim skupinam. Zagotavljanje dostopnosti najpomembnejših arheoloških najdišč je st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 96 obveznost do družbe, ki pa predvsem zaradi svoje kom- pleksnosti v praksi ni vedno izpolnjena. Prezentacija ar- heoloških ostalin je sama po sebi zahtevna zaradi njiho- ve krhke in fragmentarne narave, ki zahteva posebne ukrepe ohranjanja in varovanja ter še posebej učinko- vite rešitve pri interpretaciji. Pogosto se arheološke os- taline nahajajo na fizično težje dostopnem terenu, kar predstavlja še večji izziv pri zagotavljanju dostopnosti, še posebej za obiskovalce z različnimi oviranostmi, ki potrebujejo posebne prilagoditve za zadovoljitev svo- jih potreb. Drugi del prispevka izpostavlja prav to pro- blematiko, kako zagotoviti inkluzijo in kvalitetno inter- pretacijo arheoloških ostalin za obiskovalce z različnimi oviranostmi. Predstavljeni so različni predlogi prezenta- cije in interpretacije arheoloških najdišč za obiskovalce z vidnimi oviranostmi, kot so gibalne, ter za obiskovalce z nevidnimi oviranostmi. References Aslan, Z. M. 2007. “The design of protective structures for the conservation and presentation of archaeological sites.” PhD diss., University College London. Berke, J. 2021. “Who Uses Sign Language?” Last modified March 1, 2021. https:// www.verywellhealth.com/sign-language- nonverbal-users-1046848 Cambridge Dictionary. 2022. “Meaning of inclusion in English.” Accessed October 10, 2022. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ dictionary/english/inclusion Casiddu, N. 2020. “Moving Through. The Issue of Accessibility and Archaeological Sites.” In An Integrated Approach for an Archaeological and Environmental Park in South-Eastern Turkey, edited by Nicolò Marchetti et al., 185–192. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32754- 5_9 Council of Europe. 2005. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Faro: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe. int/1680083746. Çetiner, M. 2018. “An inquiry into the accessibility of archaeological sites for people with physical disabilities.” Master's Thesis, Middle East Technical University. Oxygen Tech. 2020. “Claustra.” Accessed October 10, 2022. https://play.google. com/store/apps/details?id=com.oxygen. tech&hl=en&gl=US Egri, M., ed. 2021. Guidebook for designing Local Archeo Plans. Cluj-Napoca: Institute of Archaeology and Art History. https:// www.zvkds.si/sites/www.zvkds.si/files/u5/ guidebook_for_designing_laps.pdf Egri, M., ed. 2022. E-handbook for the management of enhancement projects on urban archaeological sites: Integration with a sustainable tourism. Cluj-Napoca: Institute of Archaeology and Art History. https://www.zvkds.si/sites/www.zvkds.si/ files/u5/ehandbook.pdf European Union. 2021. Union of Equality: Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021–2030. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main. ICOMOS. 1964. The Venice Charter. Paris: ICOMOS. https://www.icomos.org/ centre_documentation/bib/2012_ charte%20de%20venise.pdf ICOMOS. 2008. The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites. Quebec: ICOMOS. http:// icip.icomos.org/downloads/ICOMOS_ Interpretation_Charter_ENG_04_10_08. pdf Inclusive City Maker. 2021a. “What Accessibility Solutions for Different Types of Physical Disabilities?” Accessed October 10, 2022. https://www.inclusivecitymaker. com/accessibility-solutions-different-types- physical-disabilities/ Inclusive City Maker. 2021b. “Invisible Disabilities: 80% of Disabled People Are Concerned!” Accessed October 10, 2022. https://www.inclusivecitymaker.com/ invisible-disabilities-80-of-disabled-people- are-concerned/ st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i pr es en ta t io n a n d in t er pr et a t io n o f pu bl ic a rc h a eo lo g ic a l si t es .. . 97 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia. 2022. “ArheoDanube’s archaeological park tool: Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow.” Accessed August 8, 2022. https://atool.zvkds.si/ Kandic, O. 1990. “Interpolation as a Form of Protection of cultural Monuments and the Problem of Restoring the Exonarthex of the Sopocani Monastery Church.” In ICOMOS, a quarter of a century, achievements and future prospects, 9th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium, Symposium papers: 577–579. Bern: ICOMOS. Knapp, T., ed. 2019. 10 zmot in 10 resnic o lahkem branju. Podgorje pri Slovenj Gradcu: Zavod RISA, Center za splošno, funkcionalno in kulturno opismenjevanje. Kobal Grum, D., and B. Kobal, eds. 2009. Poti do inkluzije. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Kołakowski, T. 2015. “Translocation of historic monuments as an economic project.” Ad alta: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 5 (2): 31–35. Kyrlitsias, C., M. Christofi, D. Michael- Grigoriou, D. Banakou, and A. Ioannou. 2020. “A Virtual Tour of a Hardly Accessible Archaeological Site: The Effect of Immersive Virtual Reality on User Experience, Learning and Attitude Change.” Frontiers in Computer Science 2 (23). Springer and Higher Education Press. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.00023 Marazuela Kim, A. 2015. “Re-enchantment and Iconoclasm in an Age of Images.” The Hedgehog Review 17 (3): 48–54. Masliković, M., and B. M. Tomić. 2015. “Accessibility of archaeological sites to people with disabilities.” Starinar 65: 221– 227. https://doi.org/10.2298/STA1565221M Naniopoulos, A., and P. Tsalis. 2015. “A methodology for facing the accessibility of monuments developed and realised in Thessaloniki, Greece.” Journal of Tourism Futures 1 (3): 240–253. Parco Valle dei Templi Agrigento. 2022. “Disabbled friendly: Valley of the temples park grants full access to everyone.” Accessed October 5, 2022. https://www. parcovalledeitempli.it/en/disabled- friendly/ Raspor, A., and B. Macuh. 2021. Trajnostno naravnani dostopni turizem. Dolga Poljana: Perfectus. Rebernik, N. 2014. “Dostopnost arheološke kulturne dediščine za osebe z gibalno, senzorno, mentalno ali intelektualno oviranostjo – Poskus zasnove dostopnega ekomuzeja na primeru paleolitskega najdišča Potočka zijalka.” Arheo 31: 109– 144. Rutar, D. 2010. INKLUZIJA in inkluzivnost: model nudenja pomoči učiteljem pri delu z dijaki s posebnimi potrebami, ki so integrirani v redne oddelke. Ljubljana: Center RS za poklicno izobraževanje. Sakarneh, M. A., and H. J. Katanani. 2021. “Obstacles Facing Disabled People in Accessing the Historical and Archaeological Sites in Jordan.” Journal of Educational and Social Research 11 (2): 267–275. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr- 2021-0045 Stamatović Vučković, S., and K. Kujundžić. 2018. “Cultural Center in Kotor Designed by the Architect Zdravko Moslavac. Interpolation as a Means of Valorization of Architectural Heritage.” Znanstveni časopis za arhitekturu i urbanizam / A Scholarly Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning 26, 2(56): 333–347. Stanley-Price, N. 2009. The Reconstruction of Ruins, Principles and Practice. In Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths,edited by Alison Richmond and Alison Bracker, 32–46. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Stanley-Price, N., and J. Jokilehto. 2002. “The decision to shelter archaeological sites: Three case-studies from Sicily.” Conservation and Management of st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 98 Archaeological Sites 5 (1–2): 19–34. https:// doi.org/10.1179/cma.2002.5.1-2.19 Stanley-Price, N., and J. King, eds. 2009. Conserving the authentic: essays in honour of Jukka Jokilehto. Roma: ICCROM. Tilden, F. 1977. Interpreting Our Heritage. 3rd ed. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. UNESCO. 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. http://whc.unesco.org/ archive/convention-en.pdf United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Disability. 2022. “Promoting accessible tourism for all.” Accessed October 10, 2022. https://www.un.org/ development/desa/disabilities/issues/ promoting-accessible-tourism-for-all.html Zakon. 2020. Zakon o zaštiti i očuvanju kulturnih dobara, Narodne novine Republike Hrvatske, 69/99, 151/03, 157/03, 100/04, 87/09, 88/10, 61/11, 25/12, 136/12, 157/13, 152/14, 98/15, 44/17, 90/18, 32/20, 62/20, 117/21. https://www.zakon. hr/z/340/Zakon-o-za%C5%A1titi-i- o%C4%8Duvanju-kulturnih-dobara Zanier, K., and R. Ratej, eds. 2021. Baseline study of the ArcheoDanube project. Ljubljana: Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine. https://www.zvkds.si/sites/ www.zvkds.si/files/u5/archeodanube_ baseline_study.pdf Zanier, K. and R. Ratej. Forthcoming. “Urbana arheologija za javnost: arheološki parki in lokalni arheološki načrti.” Arheo. Zanier, K., and T. Senica. Forthcoming. “Archaeological Tourism Products: Definition and development.” Academica Turistica - Tourism and Innovation Journal. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i AD HOC – Accessible and Digitalized Heritage of Culture for Persons with Disabilities: a project and its results AD HOC – Dostopna in digitalizirana kulturna dediščina za osebe s posebnimi potrebami: projekt in njegovi rezultati Martina Blečić Kavur University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities, Slovenia martina.blecic.kavur@upr.si Boris Kavur University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities, Slovenia boris.kavur@upr.si 99 Management and protection of archaeo-logical heritage nowadays is unthinka-ble without the active participation of the general public. Gone are the days when ar- chaeology was a discipline and technique acces- sible only to a narrow academic circle and sup- ported exclusively by national or international funding agencies. Archaeology and archaeolog- ical heritage should be accessible to different profiles, including persons with special needs: People with visual or hearing impairments and people with intellectual disabilities. These groups have been largely denied access to their archaeological heritage and deprived of the op- portunity to fully experience their past. The aim of the project AD HOC – Ac- cessible and Digitalized Heritage of Culture for Persons with Disabilities was to create a strate- gic partnership in the field of higher education to develop and share innovative practices in the field of digitization of cultural heritage and its accessibility for persons with disabilities. The overall goal was to bring archaeological cultur- al heritage closer to the public, including diverse populations, preferably through the creation of a website and online courses developed by univer- sity educators that promote different approach- es to presenting the topic. The project activities made archaeological heritage more visible to the general public and popularized conservation sci- ence. The main work in the project was organ- ized in the form of 4 Intellectual Outputs – clus- ters of activities in which partners, contributing their specific experience based on their areas of expertise, participated in the creation of a com- mon product. IO1 – Field and desktop research was in- tended to define least accessible archaeological and cultural heritage in participant countries. It was conducted with the purpose to define which aspects of the archaeological cultural heritage can be digitalized and made accessible to the wider population including persons with disa- bilities. Within this activity, the parameters for digitalization of certain types of archaeological heritage were set. IO2 – Digitalization of archaeological her- itage will prepare the material for the creation of a web site used for the promotion and education about archaeological heritage. The main goal of this activity was the optimization of using mod- ern technologies and testing possibilities of ma- nipulation with data in order to present archae- ological heritage. IO3 – Accessibility of the digitalized ar- chaeological heritage through a web site as ad- aptation of the digitalized archaeological and cultural heritage content for students with dis- abilities focusing on vision and hearing impair- ments and intellectual disabilities. The main goal of the activity was making archaeology and cultural heritage more accessible to marginal- ized groups. ht t ps://doi .org /10. 26493/2350-54 43.10(2)99-104 © aut hor/aut hors st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i IO4 – Creation of online courses for the promotion and interpretation of archaeologi- cal heritage. Developed by university teachers of different profiles it was intended for the wid- er public including persons with disabilities. Ar- chaeological heritage presented in the form of basic concepts and case studies of topics relevant for the understanding of human societies in the past. The researchers from the Faculty of Hu- manities of the University of Primorska, who participated in all the activities, invested most of their time and experience in the creation of the intellectual outputs 3 and 4 of the activities, or- ganized a learning and training activity (LTTA 2), multiplier event (ME 4) and the final event of the project partners (TM4). They focused on the creation of a website, a platform with infor- mation about what archaeology is about, and on- line courses proposing how archaeology should be presented to the wider public, children, and especially people with special needs, creating an interwoven network of the content presenting archaeological heritage. The main product of IO 3 was the creation of a website that enables learning about the past through archaeology. The website is structured to represent the past through concepts such as living, eating, loving, making war, and dying, and includes adapted text that is easily under- stood by both the public and people with in- tellectual disabilities. Although archaeological sites from all partner countries are presented, most of the cases featured are from Slovenia and Northern Macedonia. Some of the most inter- nationally significant but sometimes difficult to access sites and finds are presented, such as the cave of Divje Babe, the Bronze Age settlements of Sodolek and Ormož and the cemetery of Za- vrč, the Iron Age finds from the cemeteries of Brezje, Vače, Novo Mesto and Srednica, the Ro- man Age tombs from Miklavž and Zagonce, and the mediaeval city of Koper and the city walls of Piran. The visual design of the site and the nec- essary preparation of the visual material were also adapted to the needs and abilities of the var- ious users. Supplemented by the created blocks and plug-ins that make sign language videos and text-to-speech applications easily accessible, it offers a number of additional features that make it exceptionally transparent and user-friendly. The final activity of the project, IO 4, was the creation of a freely accessible educational platform. This platform was created by members of the Faculty of Humanities in Moodle pro- gramme and contains content from the website that has been transformed into educational ma- terial. With its accessibility features, it can easi- ly be used to introduce archaeology to children and the public, as well as to persons with disabil- ities. The content of the website is presented in a visually enriched and textually reduced version of PowerPoint presentations, which have been translated into all languages of the participating countries and into English. Sign language videos interpreting key elements of the texts from the presentations were also added. The medium al- lowed us to enrich the content with additional videos introducing the sites discussed, as well as three-dimensional scans and videos presenting the digitized artefacts of these sites. The April 2022 partners meeting was for the Learning Teaching Training Activity (LTTA 2). It was organized by the teachers and researchers of the Faculty of Humanities and the Faculty of Education of the University of Primorska in co- operation with other project partners. The ac- tivity had a wide reach as it was attended by nu- merous members of the University, students, and professionals working in various institutions in the region. The organized training activity was primarily aimed at presenting the development and implementation of online curricula in the field of cultural and archaeological heritage. In order to address the complexity of field-specific issues in the presentation of archaeological herit- age, a broader range of programs was created. It included introductions to relevant topics in edu- cation, tourism, and historic preservation, with an emphasis on the potential for adaptations for persons with disabilities. st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 10 0 A D H O C – A C C E SS IB L E A N D D IG IT A L IZ E D H E R IT A G E O F C U LT U R E .. . 10 1 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 10 2 Participants gained valuable insights into the results and experiences of the host partner institution, both in the conference and in the practical field work. Various previous projects and project results related to the research and promotion of the cultural heritage of the Uni- versity of Primorska were presented – starting in the city itself and slowly expanding to the sur- rounding area. Introducing Koper and its herit- age was just the beginning, the Roman villa in Simonov zaliv (bay) was presented as an example of an archaeological park with a developed infra- structure and an organised programme of pres- entations for the public – with special attention to the people with disabilities. We also presented the infrastructure and activities of the Centre of Excellence InnoRenew CoE in Izola, as well as an example of a successful initiative of the Uni- versity of Primorska, which in cooperation with regional and international partners has created a modern international research infrastructure. From the University led Aquarium to the park of freestanding monumental stone sculptures Forma Viva in Portorož, on the path of good practises was also presented The Rodik Mythical Park, as well as the potential of the surrounding area such as the Castle of Socerb and the Church of the Holy Trinity in Hrastovlje. The fourth multiplier event (MP 4) of the project was included in the European Research- ers Night, organized at the University during the last weekend of September. In the ARTLabora- tory of the Institute of Archaeology and Herit- age, 2D and 3D technologies for the digitization of archaeological heritage and technologies for the preliminary analysis of archaeological finds were presented to the public (and especially to re- gional schools). The inclusion of an internation- al event allowed us to increase the impact, as the organization provided additional promotional opportunities for the activities, not to mention the numerous visitors to the presentations. The final event of the project, the Fourth Transnational Meeting (TM 4), was again or- ganized at the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Primorska. At this final meeting, all participating organizations contributed to the visibility and sustainability of the project results so far. One of the outcomes of the pro- ject is the derivation of a framework for the cre- ation of new approaches to the creation of acces- sible online materials in the field of cultural and archaeological heritage, new curricula for on- line courses and new open educational resources (OER) for people with special needs. The inno- vative value of the project lies in the accessibility of OER and the development of greater compat- ibility with special technology, easy connection to screen readers and speech recognition soft- ware for the visually impaired. In addition to concluding comments, project ideas and future collaboration opportunities between the part- ners were discussed during this meeting. This issue of Studia Universitatis Hereditati is dedicated to presenting challenges we have en- countered, case studies we have examined, and solutions we have proposed. st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i A D H O C – A C C E SS IB L E A N D D IG IT A L IZ E D H E R IT A G E O F C U LT U R E .. . 10 3 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st u d ia u n iv er si ta t is h er ed it a t i, le t n ik 10 (2 02 2) , š t ev il k a 2 / v o lu m e 10 (2 02 2) , n u m be r 2 10 4 st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i st ud ia universitatis he re d it at i Studia universitatis hereditati je humanistična znanstvena revija za raziskave in teorijo kulturne dediščine z mednarodnim uredniškim odborom. Objavlja znanstvene in strokovne članke s širšega področja kulturne dediščine (arheologija, arhitektura, etnologija, jezikoslovje, literarna, kulturna, glasbena, intelektualna, religijska, vojaška zgodovina, zgodovina idej itn.) in pregledne članke ter recenzije tako domačih kot tujih monografij z omenjenih področij. Revija izhaja dvakrat letno. Izdajata jo Fakulteta za humanistične študije (Oddelek za arheologijo in dediščino) in Založba Univerze na Primorskem. Poglavitni namen revije je prispevati k razvoju raziskav kulturne dediščine v najširšem in k topoglednemu interdisciplinarnemu pristopu k teoretičnim in praktičnim raziskovalnim vprašanjem. Tako revija posebno pozornost namenja razvoju slovenske znanstvene in strokovne terminologije, konceptov in paradigem na področju raziskovanja kulturne dediščine v okviru humanističnih ved. Naslov uredništva Studia universitatis hereditati, uredniški odbor / editorial board Fakulteta za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem, Titov trg 5, SI-6000 Koper suh.editorial@fhs.upr.si Navodila za avtorje Guidelines for authors Norme redazionali Založba Univerze na Primorskem www.hippocampus.si issn 2350-54 43