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.