Global Reconstructionism: A New Model of Architectural Preservation. The Case of Palmyra by Andreas Leonidou

Global Reconstruc/onism: A New Model of Architectural Preserva/on The Case of Palmyra

Andreas Leonidou

A disserta/on submi@ed in par/al fulďŹ lment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture (MArch) at Manchester School of Architecture April 2018

STUDENT AND ACADEMIC SERVICES Faculty of Arts & Humanities

Coursework Cover Sheet

LEONIDOU Andreas

Instructions. 1 Print this Cover Sheet. 2 Check all the details below are correct. 3 Tick the Yes box if this is a Group Submission. 4 Write the name of the tutor who will be marking this work. 5 Tick the confirmation box. 6 Attach/include the sheet with your work. 7 Submit your work by the submission deadline to the appropriate location. 8 An email receipt will be sent to your MMU email account. Late Submissions. Penalties will be incurred in accordance with the University regulations for late submission. See the MMU Student Handbook for more information www.mmu.ac.uk/studenthandbook

Course Code

Course Name

1630

MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE

Year

Student Number

17102819

Unit Code

Unit Name

1D7Z0812 1718 9Z1F

Research 2: Dissertation

Assignment Code

Assignment Description

1PORT100

1 Portfolio 100%

Submission Deadline

Submission Location

16 April 2018

Geoffrey Manton Submission Boxes (Student Hub)

This work is a Group Submission

Yes

Name of Marking Tutor

LĂ&#x2030;A-CATHERINE SZACKA

I confirm that the information above is correct and that I have read and understood the University Assessment Regulations contained in the Student Handbook with regard to plagiarism. I confirm that this is all my own work. X Tick box to confirm

Date Received (Office Use Only)

Generated 11-Apr-2018 13:58

17000002481067

“How works of art were looked a/er and protected in the past, reveals how they were seen and valued. The same is true about why we care for things now. To future genera>ons it will reveal a lot about us-assuming we have not destroyed most of the things we inherited” Adam Lowe (Brown,2017:online)

ABSTRACT

This study examines the digital reproduc/on of cultural heritage as a new form of preserva/on by looking at recent events of warfare and violence caused by the Islamic State on the ancient site of Palmyra in Syria. The research provides an indispensable apprehension of the implica/ons of such digital technologies as a means of preserva/on within the context of war and imperilled regions.

The research follows the evolu/on of architectural preserva/on through /me and

looks at major war events, such as WWII, and consequent post-war reconstruc/on and reproduc/on ac/ons. Exper/se on cultural heritage copies and museology is introduced as a method to bring forward new material and inform on-going thinking related to new forms of digital preserva/on bound by condi/ons of warfare.

The methods used, result in the iden/ďŹ ca/on of themes that focus on the broader

implica/ons of digital copies as a means of preserva/on. Through the discussion of the themes, it is iden/ďŹ ed that the implementa/on of digital documenta/on and reproduc/on of cultural heritage is a complex ma@er that requires being supported by clear inten/ons within a meaningful context. Through inves/ga/on of the case study of the digi/sa/on of Palmyra, it is argued that war has the power to act as a catalyst for new crea/on and that digital reproduc/on are to be treated as museum objects if they are to be used as part of the greater collec/on of cultural heritage.â&#x20AC;Š

AUTHORS DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this disserta/on has been composed solely by myself and that it has not been submi@ed, in whole or in part, for any other degree at any other ins/tu/on. Except where states otherwise by reference, the work presented is en/rely my own.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dedicated to my parents, Leonidas and Alexia. I owe it all to you. Thank you.

I would like to thank my disserta/on supervisor Dr LĂŠa-Catherine Szacka of the Manchester Architecture Research Group (MARg) at the University of Manchester, for her extremely valuable insight and knowledge on the topic and research work. I am very grateful for the advice and direc/on she provided over the course of this work. I would also like to thank the interviewees and experts, Brendan Cormier and Kostas Arvani/s, for their /me and for providing invaluable input for this work.

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Descrip6on

Page

Cultural Beheading, visualisa6on by ar6sts Humam Alsalim and Rami Bakhos Cover (Crea6ve Havens, 2016)

2.1

Henry Cole’s Conven6on for Promo6ng Universally Reproduc6on of Works of Art for the Beneﬁts of Museum of All Countries, 1867 (Cormier, 2016)

2.2

The Cast Courts, Room 46B, Victoria and Albert Museum (Gintoﬀ, 2015)

2.3

The al-Nuri mosque in Mosul, Iraq, a_er that a`acks by ISIS, July 2017 (Nike, 2017)

2.4

The Historic Centre of Warsaw, May 1944 (Sobczyk, 2010)

2.5

The City Centre of Ro`erdam, May 1940 (The Na6onal Archives Catalog, no date)

2.6

Pain6ng of the Historic Centre of Warsaw in the 18th century, Bernardo Bello`o (Mersom, 2015)

2.7

Warsaw Historic Centre, 2013 (Mourby, 2015)

2.8

A World of Fragile Parts exhibi6on, Venice Architecture Biennale 2016 (Gray, 2017)

2.9

The rubble of an ancient church following an earthquake, April 2015 (Kumar, 2015)

2.10

Historically each new preserva6on policy has protected architecture of smaller age (OMA, no date)

2.11

Barcode Beijing, illustra6on of proposal over the geographical map of Beijing (OMA, no date)

2.12

Pain6ng of the Westminster Hall Fire, George B. Campion, 1834 (Hewison, 2016)

2.13

The Ethics of Dust at Westminster Hall, Jorge Otero-Pailos, 2016 (Hewison, 2016)

2.14

The original Bust of Nefer66 discovered in 1912, Neues Museum, Berlin (Gintoﬀ, 2015)

2.15

The Other Nefer66, Nora Al-Badri and Jan Nikolai Nelles, 2015 (Gintoﬀ, 2015)

2.16

The original Tomb of Tutankhamen (Lowe and Macmillan-Sco`, 2017)

22 iv

2.17

The copy of Tutankhamen's Tomb (Lowe and Macmillan-Sco`, 2017)

2.18

Digital scanning of the original Tomb of Tutankhamen (Lowe, 2015)

2.19

Data converted into a three-dimensional digital model (Lowe, 2015)

2.20

Relief-prin6ng of a part of the facsimile of the tomb (Lowe and Macmillan-Sco`, 2017)

2.21

Construc6on of the copy of the tomb (Lowe, 2015)

2.22

A member of ISIS destroying the Assyrian Winged Lion, Mosul, Iraq, 2015 (Cain, 2016)

2.23

Virtual Reality experience of Mosul before the a`acks, Rekrei (Cain, 2016)

2.24

Rekeri's digital reconstruc6on of the entrance to the Northwest Palace (Jacob, 2016)

4.1

Loca6on of Palmyra within Syria (Eakin, 2016)

4.2

Overview of Palmyra (Gintoﬀ, 2016)

4.3

The Silk Road (Eakin, 2016)

4.4

Caravans crossing Palmyra, 1930 (Jeﬀries, 2015)

4.5

Destruc6on of the Temple of Bel. Taken from the video made by ISIS, 2016 (Clammer, 2016)

4.6

The Temple of Bel before the a`ack (Jeﬀries, 2015)

4.7

The remains of the Temple of Bel a_er the a`ack (Clammer, 2016)

4.8

Soldiers standing on the rubble of the Temple of Bel, 2017 (Eakin, 2016)

4.9

Palmyra’s Roman Theatre, 2008 (Duncan, 2015)

4.10

Palmyra’s Roman Theatre, 2008 (Clammer, 2016)

4.11

Bassel Khartabil and Jon Philips in the background, 2011 (Steuer, 2017)

4.12

Use of photogrammetry to reproduce a refugee shelter in Calais, Sam Jacob 40 Studio, 2015. Presented at the A World of Fragile Parts Exhibi6on, Venice Architecture Biennale 2016 (Gintoﬀ, 2015)

4.13

FreeBassel campaign poster in the Netherlands, 2013 (CC Netherlands, no date)

4.14

Palmyra’s bombarded Tetrapylon reproduced by #NewPalmyra (#NewPalmyra, no date)

4.15

#NewPalmyra’s photographs crowdsourcing instruc6ons (#NewPalmyra, 2013)

4.16

Wikimedia digital model upload instruc6ons (Wikimedia Commons)

4.17

The digital copy of Lion of Al-lãt, #NewPalmyra (#NewPalmyra, no date)

4.18

The original Lion of Al-lãt (Koerner, 2018)

4.19

The statue as destroyed by ISIS (Koerner, 2018)

4.20

Digital model of the state of Temple of Bel 2,000 years ago, #NewPalmyra (Clammer, 2016)

4.21

The digital model of the remnants of the Temple of Bel by #NewPalmyra. This is how it looks when opened on a 3D-modelling so_ware. (screenshot)

4.22

Renderings of the Temple of Bel, #NewPalmyra (#NewPalmyra, no date)

4.23

Palmyra showcased in a virtual environment (#NewPalmyra, no date)

4.24

The digital copy of the Roman Theatre as seen on the online database, #NewPalmyra (screenshot)

4.25

The facsimile of the Palmyra’s Arch in Trafalgar Square, London, 2016 (Voon, 2016)

4.26

The facsimile of the Palmyra’s Arch in Trafalgar Square, London, 2016 (Factum Founda6on, 2016)

4.27

The Triumphal Arch before the a`ack, 2010 (Factum Founda6on, 2016)

4.28

The remains of the Triumphal Arch before the a`ack, 2015 (Clammer, 2016)

4.29

Volunteers with digital scanning devices in Palmyra, 2017 (Langton, 2018)

4.30

Transla6ng scanning into a three-dimensional digital model, IDA (Ins6tute of Digital Archaeology, no date)

4.31

Transla6ng scanning into a three-dimensional digital model, IDA Ins6tute of Digital Archaeology, no date)

4.32

The making of the facsimile of the Triumphal Arch, IDA, 2016 (Ins6tute of Digital Archaeology, no date)

4.33

The making of the facsimile of the Triumphal Arch, IDA, 2016 (Ins6tute of Digital Archaeology, no date)

4.34

The making of the facsimile of the Triumphal Arch, IDA, 2016 (Ins6tute of Digital Archaeology, no date)

vii

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

AUTHORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

[05] DISCUSSION

Copy

The Power of War

Flux

Context and Aim

Privacy / Security / Maintenance

[01] INTRODUCTION

Ownership

[02] LITERATURE REVIEW The Origins of Preserva/on

[06] CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cultural Heritage and Violence

New Forms of Preserva/on

APPENDIX

[03] METHODOLOGY

[04] CASE STUDY: PALMYRA AT RISK Venice of the Sands Project 01: #NewPalmyra Project 02: Ins/tute of Digital Archaeology

TOTAL WORD COUNT: 12,128 (excluding: List of Figures, Contents, Bibliography and Appendices)â&#x20AC;©

â&#x20AC;©

{INTRODUCTION}

The reproduc/on of cultural heritage has evolved immensely over the past two decades due to technological innova/ons in the form of digital scanning and manufacturing (Gray, 2017). Historically, reproduc/ons of artefacts, as a means of preserva/on, rose from the need for sharing cultural knowledge and informa/on around the world (Lamprakos, 2014). This study is looking at different forms of preserva/on that emerge from the clash of war and cultural heritage. The mo/ve of the study lies in an interest in post-war ac/ons within war zones and regions facing adverse circumstances. The research specifically rose through a curiosity caused by the technological innova/on that was sparked in the field of preserva/on, following the destruc/ve on the ancient site of Palmyra, Syria in 2015.

This research focuses on Palmyra as a case study, and analyses the evolving

rela/onship between war and preserva/on. The study raises, analyses and a@empts to answer the ques/on of how exploring two projects dealing with the digital documenta/on and reproduc/on of the destroyed ancient site of Palmyra in Syria can inform on-going thinking related to new forms of digital preserva/on in the context of war zones and places in conﬂict and at risk. Cultural heritage preserva/on in the form of digital scanning and reproduc/on is rela/vely new, and it is growing in parallel with events of war. This peculiar correla/on is explored in parallel to an inves/ga/on of cultural heritage, preserva/on and the value of copies. The research explores this associa/on around events of the Syrian War, and par/cularly the atroci/es on cultural heritage by the terrorist group known as the Islamic State.

The world’s socie/es and communi/es have been con/nuously evolving since

the dawn of civilisa/on, and as an ever-evolving civilisa/on, we consistently develop and dismantle our built environment for be@er or worse. This evolu/on carries with it our iden/ty and heritage, in the form of cultural memory and physical monuments that translate into the present. Since its emergence, our cultural iden/ty has been facing threats of war and conﬂict, and associated destruc/on, aiming at cleansing culture and memory. As humans, we have naturally evolved around protec/ng our cultural individuality for the present and future, through preserving our built environment. Preserva/on was born from the ashes of war. Since the late eighteenth

century, war and preserva/on have been evolving at a constant rate, reaching the epitome of cultural cleansing and destruc/on of the twen/eth century. The selected projects dealing with the digital scanning, sharing and recrea/ng of Palmyra, are analysed further. These projects coupled with the case study of Palmyra, are then used as a method to ini/ate discussion through interviews that explore and unpack broader topics around new forms of digital preserva/on.

The literature review that follows is a key chapter to the study as it generates

a founda/onal understanding of the past and present state of preserva/on within the context of conďŹ&#x201A;ict. It explores how architectural preserva/on was ini/ated as a movement, and follows the way it has evolved over the years, from copies in the form of plaster casts to three-dimensional digital models. Several examples are used to illustrate this progress. Moreover, the context of war and reproduc/on is inves/gated through looking closely at the example of the post-war reproduc/on of the WWIIdestroyed city of Warsaw in Poland. The precedent allows for the crea/on of a be@er understanding around preserva/on prac/ces that evolved through the years under the urgency implied by warfare and violence.

â&#x20AC;©

{LITERATURE REVIEW}

The literature review is an inves/ga/on of the movement of preserva/on through /me and warfare. It is broken down into three parts where the diﬀerence between reproduc/on and reconstruc/on is made clear by the use of case studies, and several examples of projects and ini/a/ves. It begins with an understanding of the ins/ga/on of preserva/on as a movement, and its growth during the nineteenth century through the introduc/on of the reproduc/on of monuments and artefacts. The second part focuses on acts of violence towards architecture and cultural heritage, not merely war crimes and destruc/on, but also natural deteriora/on through weathering and mass tourism. Finally, the third part explores current approaches to preserva/on, driven by modern technology and new methods of working and trea/ng cultural heritage. Throughout this literature review, two main examples are used to illustrate the diversity of methods and ways of approach to reconstruc/on and preserva/on. These are the reconstruc/on of the destroyed “Old Town” of Warsaw aoer WWII and the work of Factum Arte, a workshop dedicated to the reproduc/on of cultural heritage. A further selec/on of precedents and projects of similar prac/ces are used to support these examples, in the context of the research ques/on, leading to the analysis and understanding of the primary case study of focus for this work, the digital documenta/on and reconstruc/on of the ancient site of Palmyra in Syria.

THE ORIGINS OF PRESERVATION Following the destruc/ve French Revolu/on and reign of Napoleon, at the end of the eighteenth century, the French government a@empted to unify the country and introduce a sense of na/onalism. Arrhenius (2012), a professor of Architectural History and Conserva/on in the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, stated that this moment in /me was the ﬁrst understanding and prac/ce of architectural preserva/on. During that period, the idea that buildings generate valuable cultural memory and create a sense of iden/ty was formed. As a result, the restora/on of damaged and destructed artefacts, from around the country, became a high priority. As Lending (2017) explained, the

preserva/on movement in France resonated across the Western Civilisa/on during the nineteenth century. Bergera and Otero-Pailos (2013), stated that advancements in photography, and later its documenta/on and archival, made possible the ins/tu/onalisa/on of preserva/on and the crea/on of a sense of professionalism in the ﬁeld. Arrhenius (2012), asserts that, at the /me, the world saw a rise in the sensibility around future-prooﬁng structures and artefacts of vital importance in the history and memory of a place.

During the 1867 Exposi>on Universelle in Paris, Henry Cole, the founding director

of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, published the Conven>on for Promo>ng Universally Reproduc>on of Works of Art for the Benefits of Museum of All Countries (Fig. 2.1). The declara/on, signed by fioeen European princes, was driven by the advancement of the technologies of photography, plaster-cas/ng and electrotyping, that allowed for architectural details and artefacts to be reproduced with far greater accuracy and efficiency, never seen before (Gray, 2017). Lending (2017:21) explained that the conven/on was, “Prac/cal and procedural, global in scope, brief in phrasing, and aiming at immediate ac/on. This visionary document theorized [sic] plaster monuments as an architectural mass medium, as rapidly developing reproduc/ve technologies allowed for the dissemina/on of architecture on an unprecedented scale.”Addi/onally, Cole iden/fied the poten/al of these reproduc/ons as an educa/onal tool, which led to the crea/on of the Cast Courts, V&As collec/on of plaster copies. The Cast Courts (Fig. 2.2) are two enormous gallery-style rooms within the museum, dedicated for the archiving and showcasing of reproduc/ons of monuments and artefacts from around the world, such as Michelangelo’s David and Trajan’s Column (Hunt, 2017). “With the advent of new technology, Cole wanted museums to make their collec/ons accessible to all,” (Hunt, 2017:online). He hoped that this ini/a/ve would be replicated across other ins/tu/ons from around the world, which would, in turn, encourage the sharing of these copies amongst them. The Cast Courts have been open to the public since 1867 (Lending, 2015). The plaster copy, of an Unknown Woman, created in 1889 at the V&A, is the only remnant of the artefact, aoer the original, fabricated in 1461, was heavily damaged during the Second World War in Berlin (Cormier, 2016b).

A series of charters on architectural conserva/on appeared during the inter-war

and post-war periods following the destruc/on and defacing of monuments and artefacts.

2.1 Henry Cole’s Conven=on, 1867

2.2 The Cast Courts, Room 46B, Victoria and Albert Museum

The Athens Charter for the Restora>on of Historic Monuments, produced during The First Interna>onal Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments in 1931, set the basis towards a general framework of protec/ng the world’s historical and cultural heritage (Lamprakos, 2014). Each country was asked to commit to defining its cultural heritage and protec/ng it within the context of its tradi/ons and culture. Arrhenius (2012) explained that the charter represented the first major ini/a/ve to s/mulate interna/onal debate around conserva/on issues. Moreover, in 1965, the historicist principles of The Athens Charter of 1931 were advocated and re-introduced as universal values, within The Venice Charter for the conserva/on of Monuments and Sites. The charter introduced an unprecedented focus and emphasis on authen/city and stressed the importance of the physical context when dealing with a historic site or building (Arrhenius, 2012). Lamprakos (2014), a professor at the School of Architecture, Planning and Preserva/on at the University of Maryland, stated that this resulted in substan/al and complex objects, such as landscapes and neighbourhoods, being treated as cultural heritage, therefore gaining similar significance as ancient monuments and artefacts. She argued that this process is causing large parts of the built environment to be frozen in /me, a situa/on which is unsustainable in social, cultural and economic terms.

Following Henry Cole’s 1867 declara/on, the Victoria & Albert Museum has

iden/ﬁed the need for an updated policy regarding copies, which would be be@er suited to modern-day technologies (Gray, 2017). The Reproduc/ons of Art and Cultural Heritage (ReACH) conven/on, was established in December 2017 at the V&A in London and was signed by mul/ple interna/onal ins/tu/ons and organisa/ons, including UNESCO and the Smithsonian Ins/tu/on in Washington, DC. “The declara/on retains the spirit of Cole’s original,” (Gray, 2017). It has evolved out of the urgent need to protect cultural heritage from violence, such as the acts of war against monuments in Syria and Iraq by militants known variously as ISIS, ISIL, Daesh or Islamic State (Fig. 2.3) (Cocks, 2018). Simon (2016:online) explained that, “This project is not so much a protocol as a process that will open up to the world.” Besides, the project explores how the approach to reproduc/on, storage and sharing of artefacts can be rethought with twenty-ﬁrst-century prac/ces. Aguerre (2017), ReACH Project Director, explained that ReACH aims to encourage ins/tu/ons and individuals in digitally documen/ng cultural heritage, especially the endangered artefacts, and dissemina/ng them among themselves, while also making them available to the public.

â&#x20AC;©

2.3 The al-Nuri mosque in Mosul, Iraq, aQer that aRacks by ISIS in July 2017

CULTURAL HERITAGE AND VIOLENCE Franchi (2016), a professor in Ancient History and Archaeology at the University of Trento, explained that heritage is a piece of property that is mostly inherited and passed down from genera/on to genera/on. Heritage could consist of monetary value and property, but in the case of cultural heritage it retains the symbols and expressions of culture, shared values, customs and tradi/ons. Cultural heritage encourages a sense of unity and belonging within groups and socie/es, and allows us to enhance the understanding of our history, past and origins (Franchi, 2016). UNESCO (no date), The United Na/ons Educa/ons Scien/fic and Cultural Organiza/on, defined and divided the term cultural heritage into several categories. UNESCO (no date) explained that cultural heritage consists of tangible and intangible material, with the first being movable or immovable. Movable heritage refers to pain/ngs, sculptures, coins and manuscripts. This research focuses on the immovable cultural heritage, in other words, the artefacts and large-scale objects such as structures, monuments, artefacts and ancient sites.

In most cases, the loss, deteriora/on, ruina/on and destruc/on of cultural

heritage is associated with violence. Thinking about the violence of warfare one could recall memories and images of ci/es like Dresden, Warsaw (Fig. 2.4) and Ro@erdam (Fig. 2.5) being raised to the ground during the Second World War (WWII) (Mersom, 2016). Bevan (2006:16), stated that, “In /mes of conflict, buildings are inevitably damaged or destroyed. However, there has always been another war against architecture: the deliberate destruc/on of the built artefacts of a people or na/on as an aspect of ethnic cleansing, of crea/ng terror or of maintaining divisions.” These violent acts of war are not a thing of the past, as illustrated by the recent ferocious a@acks in the Middle East and the loss and suffering of human lives, all part of the Syrian War. One could also picture the shocking imagery of acts of terrorism and unconscionable violence caused by terrorist and militant groups, upon invading and wiping out significant fragments of cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq, in ci/es like Palmyra, Mosul and Nimrud (Romey, 2016). In war, public architectural spaces such as places of worship and auditoriums take on a much higher quality and meaning.

During warfare built monuments represent the presence of society and

community, and hold together cultural memory, which is in turn evidence of iden/ty extending from past and solidifying in the present (Boyd and Linehan, 2013). Architecture

â&#x20AC;©

2.4 The Historic Centre of Warsaw, May 1944

2.5 The City Centre of RoRerdam, May 1940

is something that is being created to outlive us. As Bevan (2006) stated, architecture is humanity’s a@empt to take hold of eternity. When Bevan (2006), compared the loss of lives to the loss of architectural monuments, he stated that we expect people to die and for lives to end, but we the loss of a monument to civilisa/on is something different. He also argued that demolished monuments not be solely collateral damage, but instead deliberate acts of cultural cleansing. Moreover, a lost human life is one of us, but a lost monument is all of us for eternity (Bevan 2006). Coughenour (2016), a digital archaeologist, argued the importance of cultural heritage, “Cultural heritage is about our shared, global history. It helps us connect with our ancestors and their stories. However, we are losing pieces of it every day to natural disasters and in areas of conflict. Of course, the loss of human life is the most heartbreaking loss, but cultural heritage offers us a way to preserve the memory of people for future genera/ons.”

Territorial power, cultural and na/onal iden/ty cleansing were at the core of the

oblitera/on of the Warsaw, Poland, during WWII. The Nazis, in retalia/on to the Warsaw Uprising, in August 1944, razed the Polish capital to the ground, and more than 85% of the historic centre lied in ruina/on and rubble (Sobczyk, 2010). Mersom 2016:online) explained that, “It was suggested that the remains of the city should be leo to memorialise the war, and the en/re capital be relocated.” Sørensen and Viejo-Rose (2015), stated that the reconstruc/on of society following a conflict is incredibly complex and mul/faceted. Monuments and landscapes are significant agents of post-war reconstruc/on, while their meanings change as they become sites of compe//on over historical narra/ves. Gliński (2003), a Polish historian and journalist, explained that the need for interna/onal recogni/on, from Stalin’s side during the upcoming Yalta conference, coupled with the constant influx of people from nearby destroyed towns, were the reasons that called for the immediate reconstruc/on of the city. If it were not for the precise and carefully detailed streetscapes (Fig. 2.6), painted during the eighteenth century by the Vene/an painter Bernardo Bello@o, Warsaw’s historic town would look more like post-war Ro@erdam of a tabula rasa approach (Mourby, 2015). Bello@o’s twenty-two pain/ngs remained intact during the war, and they are, even today, the only records of the city's existence and appearance before its destruc/on. A@empts at reconstruc/ng historical sites and structures, on a smaller scale, were recorded before, in Venice for instance, aoer damaging fires. However, this was the first /me that a city centre was reconstructed in its en/rety, with such close resemblance to the original ((Arrhenius,

â&#x20AC;Š

2.6 Pain=ng of the Historic Centre of Warsaw in the 18th century, Bernardo BelloRo

2.7 Warsaw Historic Centre, 2013

2012). However, Warsaw’s ac/on of mimicking the past has been both heavily cri/cised and championed locally but also interna/onally (Mersom, 2016). Despite cri/cism and dismissal, in 1980 UNESCO listed the Historic Centre as a World Heritage Site. According to UNESCO (2014), the city’s historic centre an outstanding specimen (Fig. 2.7) of a near-total reconstruc/on of a period in history covering the thirteenth to the twen/eth century.

The exhibi/on A World Fragile Parts (Fig. 2.8), organised by the V&A Museum for

the Venice Architecture Biennale 2016 was dedicated solely to copies of cultural heritage. It focused on responses to loss of cultural heritage over the centuries and posi/oned the visitor within the context of violence and poli/cal conﬂict while emphasising on the delicacy of our built environment. Cormier (2016a:18), the curator of the exhibi/on and an expert in copies explained that, “The prominence of these images reminds us, again and again, the fragility of our material world.” However, in other cases, cultural heritage is ravaged by natural disasters, such as earthquakes and tsunamis. Although most of these events can be predicted today using advanced instruments, what one can do to stop or prevent them from happening is very limited (Cormier, 2016b). These natural phenomena are bringing historical sites and ci/es to the ground, as in the cases of Kathmandu, Nepal in 2015 (Fig. 2.9), and Kermanshah, Iran in 2017 (Roshan, 2017). Moreover, violence and destruc/on of cultural heritage comes in another, more insidious, form through soo factors, such as mass tourism, neglect, accident and urbanisa/on, that wear away historical sites, artefacts and monuments. “There’s the case of the Greenpeace ac/vists, for instance, who in 2004 irreversibly damaged Peru’s Nazca Lines, when they trespassed onto the site placing large yellow cloth le@ers that ironically read ‘Time for Change’,” (Cormier,2016a:18). Cormier (2016a), explained that these types of violence are less reported, when compared to warfare damages, but are without a doubt more pervasive.

NEW FORMS OF PRESERVATION Over the past ﬁoeen years, Rem Koolhaas has been implying an urgency in the ﬁeld of architectural preserva/on through the work of his prac/ce OMA, and its research-focused branch AMO (Koolhaas, 2014). “We are living in an incredibly exci/ng and slightly absurd moment, namely that preserva/on is overtaking us,” (Fig. 2.10) (Koolhaas, 2004:online). It

â&#x20AC;Š

2.8 A World of Fragile Parts exhibi=on, Venice Architecture Biennale 2016

2.9 The rubble of an ancient church following an earthquake, April 2015

is a type of urgency that does not necessarily require for one to be more proac/ve and vigilant, bu/nstead, approach preserva/on from a different perspec/ve, and experiment with new methods, technologies and ideas (Otero-Pailos et al., 2016). Koolhaas presented his firm posi/oning amongst the no/ons of preserva/on and site specificity, during the occasion of two lectures at the Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preserva/on (GSAPP) in 2004 and 2009, where he made his provoca/ve statements on preserva/on prac/ces and the need for a context as driver. At the /me the content of the lectures came as bewilderment to cri/cs and preserva/onists, especially when it came from the man who a few years before shook the industry once more with the phrase “fuck context” (Koolhaas et al. 1998:502). Koolhaas (2012) revealed that almost twelve-percent of the world’s surface is protected under some preserva/on declara/on or conven/on, such as UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites list. It is an interes/ng observa/on as it illustrates that even though our urban environment is an ever-changing organism, growing at a rapid pace, there is a world of radical stasis associated with it (Koolhaas, 2014). It is ironic to think that many of our archaeological sites and structures, of great cultural significance from around the world, are deemed to be preserved and protected forever, while at the same /me being doomed to fade and weather away inevitably.

AMO proposed a conceptual preserva/on scheme, Barcode Beijing (Fig. 2.11)

which raised an interes/ng aspect, the no/on of choice. Meaning, the ability to ac/vely choose what to be preserved, a ma@er that we take for granted nowadays Koolhaas, 2014). Otero-Pailos (2016:142), a professor and director of Historic Preserva/on at GSAPP, explained the signiﬁcance of choice in cultural heritage, “Culture is not something out there wai/ng for us to come and preserve. Choosing that, in a sense, is the origin of culture.” Barcode Beijing explored the ability for one to choose what to protect, showcase and keep forever. Through this, AMO proposed a conceptual preserva/on strategy where preserva/on is acted upon a set of horizontal bands across a geographic area, in this case, the city of Beijing. To preserve something, it has to fall within one of these band; otherwise, it is leo as is, standing against the test of /me, society and conﬂict (Koolhaas, 2014). Koolhaas (2014), argues that if we preserve everything, from the bad, mediocre, unno/ced, una@rac/ve, beau/ful, ancient and modern, then we retain an exact image of a place, frozen in /me. This theore/cal proposal and thinking was a fascina/ng encounter and an inspira/on for this research regarding preserva/on, and par/cularly, the

â&#x20AC;Š

2.10 Historically each new preserva=on policy has protected architecture of smaller age

2.11 Barcode Beijing, illustra=on of proposal over the geographical map of Beijing

monuments and artefacts that we decide not to protect with the result of losing them forever.

Another example of a similar way of thinking is the work of Jorge Otero-Pailos,

on the grounds of what he calls experimental preserva/on. “Experimental preserva/on is a prac/ce that cri/cally reevaluates and some/mes challenges preserva/on conven/ons. The star/ng point of experimental preserva/on is doubt,” (Otero-pailos et al. 2016). Through The Ethics of Dust exhibi/on series in 2015 and 2016, he explored and proposed the no/on of pollu/on, accumulated on the surface of historical and protected monuments and artefacts, as part of history, which in turn could be comprehended and physically preserved as cultural heritage. His interest and preoccupa/on lie in the speckles of dust and dirt that cover protected artefacts and monuments, and the fact that these are taken for granted and removed without any considera/on or debate (Hewison, 2016). Otero-Pailos (2016), explained that in the case of Doge’s Palace in Venice, almost every wall, was cleaned through an aggressive process of washing to cater for the tourists’ aesthe/c taste of clean white stone and marble. “What I did was to paint that last wall with latex. It is a very cu{ng edge cleaning technique. The latex dries and transfers the pollu/on onto the latex from the stone and cleans the wall,” (Otero-Pailos, 2016:online). Essen/ally the outcome is a cast of layers and layers of pollu/on over the years. In the case of the Westminster Hall (Fig. 2.12), the walls have not been cleaned for over one thousand years and held gunpowder and dirt on their surface (Searle, 2016). Compara/vely to AMO’s manifesto discussed earlier, Otero-Pailos argues that the unno/ced, in this case, the pollu/on, is part of our cultural heritage and a bridge to the future (Fig. 2.13). Raskin (2011), explained that Otero-Pailos’ exhibi/on is following the steps of John Ruskin, the Bri/sh art and architecture theorist, and his book called The Ethics of The Dust, published in 1865 (Searle, 2016). Ruskin spent long periods in Venice, recording and repor/ng on the conserva/on work of the /me through the use of the daguerreotype photographic process (Arrhenius, 2012). He believed that dust and dirt are inherent parts a building’s history and possess values that can inform us of our past. He championed the idea that buildings should remain as undisturbed as possible so that their age could be respected and honoured (Arrhenius, 2012). Ruskin’s ideas and wri/ng about preserva/on were inﬂuen/al, but conten/ous, as is Otero-Pailos’ work. Ouroussoﬀ (2011:online), an art cri/c at Hyperallergic periodical, cri/cised Otero-Pailos work by saying that, “The result [the exhibi/on] is a new form of historical amnesia, one that,

â&#x20AC;Š

2.12 Pain=ng of the Westminster Hall Fire, George B. Campion, 1834

2.13 The Ethics of Dust at Westminster Hall, Jorge Otero-Pailos, 2016

perversely, only further alienates us from the past.” At the end of the 53rd Venice Art Biennale, Otero-Pailos oﬀered to donate the cast to the Doge’s Palace, by arguing that it was integral to the palace and its history, but the Palace turned the oﬀer down. Conversely to Otero-Pailos’ work, Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, Ruskin’s contemporary, and equally prominent architect and theorist of the nineteenth century, followed an opposing approach to preserva/on. He added new elements to buildings through his restora/on work and argued that monuments should be remade, updated and restored un/l they need to reach a state of perfec/on and comple/on (Raskin, 2011).

An object of par/cular importance concerning modern copies in preserva/on is

The Other Nefer>>, which was on display during the A World of Fragile Parts exhibi/on in Venice in 2016. The object is a replica of the statue of the head of former Egyp/an Queen, Nefer//, discovered in 1912, which was on display in Neues Museum in Berlin since 1924 (Fig. 2.14). The museum refused mul/ple calls and eﬀorts from Egypt to return the artefact were refused by the Museum, which has, in turn, digitally scanned the artefact without ever publishing it (Jacob, 2016). The ar/sts, Nora Al-Badri and Jan Nikolai Nelles, dedicated to dissemina/ng the beau/ful object, scanned the head of Nefer// using a concealed Xbox Kinect mo/on sensor, during a visit to the museum, without permission. The ar/sts used the data to create a three-dimensional digital model of the ancient artefact (Fig. 2.15), which was then 3D-printed in plas/c (Fig. 2.16) and disseminated online (Wilder, 2018). This act is perhaps a radical form of repression but challenges how the world perceives the digi/sa/on and fast produc/on of facsimiles. The copy is now in the permanent collec/on of the American University of Cairo, Egypt. “This new version repatriated as a digital ghost, a solid shadow displayed in /me and space,” (Jacob, 2016:online). The facsimile stands as a symbol of hope that one day the original will return to Egypt.

Factum Arte, a workshop located in the outskirts of Madrid, Spain, was

established as a response to acts of violence against cultural heritage. Jeffrey (2017), an American journalist, explains that Factum Arte operates as a sort of Renaissance workshop employing people with different skills, ranging from architects, sooware designers, technicians, conservators, ar/sts and ar/sans. The workshop makes copies with a cause, not to mislead but to understand, inform and help preserve (Jeffrey, 2017). The studio uses advanced 3D-scanning technology, implemented with extremely precise laser

â&#x20AC;Š

2.14 The original Bust of Nefer==, Neues Museum, Berlin

2.15 The Other Nefer==, Nora Al-Badri and Jan Nikolai Nelles, 2015

scanners and bespoke sooware to conduct its delicate scanning and prin/ng work (Lowe, 2015).

Factum Arte’s principal work was the facsimile of King Tutankhamen’s tomb (Fig.

2.16) in Luxor, Egypt. The original was damaged by increasing tourism (Jobey, 2013). The pain/ng and prepara/on of the original burial chamber were done quickly, as the pharaoh died unexpectedly at the age of nineteen, stated Zalewski (2016), the Features Director at New Yorker magazine. Consequently, ancient Egyp/ans applied plaster on a substandard limestone and sealed the tomb before the paint and mummy had dried. Moreover, due to built-up moisture and heat in the small space, byproducts of the respira/on of 7,000 visitors each day, the plaster was forced to expand, contract and peel away (Jobey, 2013). These factors of violence and consequent slow destruc/on inspired the digital documenta/on and reproduc/on (Fig. 2.17) of the burial chamber in 2009 by Adam Lowe, ar/st and founder of Factum Arte, and a team of professionals specialising in spa/al digital scanning. The data sets generated through scanning were compiled and collated using computer sooware that produced a precise digital copy (Lowe, 2015). Jobey (2013:online), an author and journalist, explained that, “They use non-contact 3D laser scanning and digital photography into 2D and 3D forms that replicate the original in exact surface and proﬁle detail” (Fig. 2.18). The process of colla/ng the data and erec/ng the physical copy took two years, considerably longer than it took the ancient Egyp/ans to create the original.

Zalewski (2016), says that many Egyptologists expect that the original tomb, will

be closed to the public one day, to save it from collapse and complete destruc/on. The lifespan of the facsimile, now located next to the original, is unknown but the scanning data has no expiry date. Lowe (2016) explained that one could pinpoint future damage on the tomb by comparing data sets (Fig. 2.19) compiled in 2009 with future ones. “The facsimiles we are making are building bridges between new technologies, crao skills and a forensic interest in why things look as they do,” (Lowe, 2016:online). Similar to the role of the Cast Courts discussed earlier, Factum Arte’s work allows the public to perceive artefacts that are ooen impossible to approach and interact with in person. The noncontact approach (Fig. 2.20) in Factum Arte’s work is fascina/ng prac/ce, revolu/onary in the ﬁeld of preserva/on (Zalewski, 2016).

The concept of crowdsourcing data and informa/on is another upcoming

method and form of digital preserva/on. Rekrei is a project that started oﬀ as a response

â&#x20AC;Š

2.16 The original Tomb of Tutankhamen

2.17 The copy of Tutankhamen's Tomb

to the violent destruc/on of cultural heritage at the city of Mosul, Iraq, by ISIS in 2015 (Fig. 2.21) (Biggs, 2015). Coughenour (2016), a digital archaeologist and Founder of Rekrei, emphasised the reasons behind Rekrei’s digital approach, “We believe that 3D-prin/ng does not oﬀer a straighÄorward solu/on to lost heritage. Once an object is destroyed, it is gone.” Rekrei crowdsourced photographs taken before ISIS looted and bombed artefacts and monuments and used them to create a digital museum, embedded with virtual reality technology, that allows one to move virtually (Fig. 2.22) through the streets of Mosul as it once stood (Fig. 2.23).

â&#x20AC;Š

2.18 Digital scanning of the original tomb

2.19 Data converted into a three-dimensional digital model

2.20 Relief-prin=ng of a part of the facsimile of the tomb

â&#x20AC;©

2.21 Construc=on of the copy of the tomb

â&#x20AC;Š

2.22 A member of ISIS destroying the Assyrian Winged Lion, Mosul, Iraq, 2015

2.23 Virtual Reality experience of Mosul before the aRacks

2.24 Rekeri's digital reconstruc=on of the entrance to the Northwest Palace

â&#x20AC;©

{METHODOLOGY}

For this research, two projects, (#NewPalmyra and the Ins/tute of Digital Archaeology) of parallel digital documenta/on of the ancient site of Palmyra, were selected. To cri/cally examine and interpret these projects, thorough research and inves/ga/on will be performed, aimed at iden/fying the origins of Palmyra to understand its signiﬁcance and symbolism in the context of war and violence. The informa/on about Palmyra will be presented in chronological order, from the city´s emergence and peak period of wealth two-thousand years ago, to the recent catastrophes caused by ISIS, in 2017. Also, these projects will be used to iden/fy and analyse themes and topics regarding new forms of digital preserva/on. Moreover, through the use of interview as a means to gather new informa/on, two perspec/ves of the digital reconstruc/on of Palmyra will be presented.

Tracing the origins and evolu/on of architectural preserva/on through /me and

conflict is a significant part of this research. The literature review will act as a point of reference when it comes to discussing the development of new methods of preserva/on later on. This research focuses on new methods of digital presenta/on, illustrated through the analysis of the selected projects. Specific focus is given to the digital and open-source nature of both these projects, which inform new, interna/onally widespread, methods of preserva/on. The selected projects of focus and the Syrian War are recent affairs and are s/ll ongoing, which makes tracking their development challenging. The inves/ga/on and repor/ng of these ma@ers in literature are ooen very brief and shallow, which opposes clarity and generates confusion. This is why the use of interviews are used in the frame of this research, as a means of gathering new insight and exploring different perspec/ves on the topic of new forms of preserva/on. These different perspec/ves and views come from a careful selec/on and interviewing of two individuals, who specialise in the fields of copies of cultural heritage and museology, which are directly or indirectly related to the research ques/on. The interviewees have informed this research with a diverse spectrum of new specialised knowledge and informa/on. The first interviewee, Brendan Cormier, is a Canadian writer, urban designer and curator of the A World of Fragile Parts exhibi/on at the Venice Architecture Biennale in 2016, is an expert in copies of artefacts. The second interviewee, Kostas Arvani/s, is a Greek Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Museology at the University of Manchester, with

his research interests ranging from archaeology to cultural heritage and digital media. Due to the background and specialisa/on of each interviewee, the interviews were structured and performed diﬀerently. Cormier, for example, has a deeper, more thorough understanding and knowledge on digital preserva/on, whereas Arvani/s was not aware of the projects which the research focuses on at the /me of the interview, but was given brief informa/on on the case study and projects. The inten/on of this selec/on was done to avoid biased responses, and to allow for a fresh perspec/ve on the case study. The interview with Cormier was conducted over the phone, while the one with Arvani/s was done in person.

For the interviews, several ques/ons were given to provide structure and steer

the conversa/on, but the interviewees were given enough freedom to expand further on the broader contexts of their specialism. According to Lucas (2016:83), “Such freedom allows the interviewee to elaborate on topics that interest them, and to take the conversa/on oﬀ on a number of tangents.” Therefore, in this case, a semi-structured interview was deemed to be the best format, allowing the interviewees to speak freely without being restricted within the boundary of structured ques/ons.

â&#x20AC;©

{CASE STUDY: PALMYRA AT RISK}

VENICE OF THE SANDS The ruins of the ancient site and city of Palmyra lie in the Tadmorean desert, 250km north-east of Damascus (Fig. 4.1), at the geographical centre of Syria. The city is surrounded by mountains, springs, ﬁelds and dry ﬂatlands. Layers and layers of classical columns, temples, auditoriums, market squares and streets make up its broken and ruinous state (Fig. 4.2). Palmyra was once an epitome of civilisa/on and mul/cultural society (Veyne, 2017).

Under the Seleucid Kings, Tadmor became a prosperous and wealthy city, un/l it

was annexed to the Roman empire at 64 BC. McLaughlin, (2016), a lecturer in Archaeology and Ancient History at Queen’s University Belfast explained that it fell under the rule of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, and was incorporated into the Roman territory of Syria which is when it inherited its name ‘Palmyra’. The Roman Empire, at the /me, was at the height of its power with a territory extending from Morocco to Syria. However, Palmyra was unlike any other city or place in the empire. At its height, the ancient site has been a mul/cultural hotspot, with its very own wri/ng form and dialect of the Aramaic language, the Palmyrene (Fig.2.3) (Veyne, 2017).

Around the period of the reign of the Roman Empire, and over centuries, a

network of mul/ple routes gradually emerged, which connected se@lements, communi/es and countries to one another. This network was known as the ‘Silk Road’ (Fig. 4.3) and connected the great Empires of Rome, China and Persia. Chinese silk, Indian spices and Arabic incense, precious goods for the Empires of that period, were the most common commodi/es to be transported via the Silk Road. Moreover, professional merchants who travelled along the Silk Road made huge proﬁts by equipping nomads, who then established ci/es on which exchange and rest could take place. These ci/es became incredibly rich through taxa/on and control of the masses of nomadic people that crossed it. Palmyra was one of those ci/es and stops. “The city [Palmyra] made a fortune protec/ng and taxing the caravans (Fig. 4.4) that passed through her gates,” (Duncan, 2015:online). People from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds met at Palmyra,

â&#x20AC;©

4.1 Loca=on of Palmyra within Syria

4.2 Overview of Palmyra, 2013

consequently turning the city into more than just a trade hub of exchanging goods, but also a place o sharing ideas, skills and technologies. “Palmyra was unusual, occupying an outlying loca/on and separated from other Syrian ci/es by a wide expanse of desert,” (McLaughlin, 2016:24). This geographic disconnec/on is what made Palmyra a prominent and wealthy hub. It allowed the city to maintain a high level of independence, never seen before, protected and supported by the Roman and Parthian Empires of the /me, at the West and East (Veyne, 2017).

Today, Palmyra preserves remarkable examples of monumental architecture and

a unique blend of Graeco-Roman architecture infused with Persian elements (Veyne, 2017). The grand architecture remains a symbol of the city’s prosperity during its apex. In May 2015, ISIS occupied, bombarded and looted the ancient city (Fig. 4.5). The city was recaptured by the Syrian Government a few months later, but ISIS returned with more ammuni/on and recruits, to reoccupy it in December 2016 (Clammer, 2016). This second occupa/on lasted only three months aoer Iranian and Russian forces pushed the extremists out of the ancient city, but it was by far the most catastrophic. Many of the monuments, such as the Temples of Bel (Fig. 4.6 and 4.7) and Baalshamin, were reduced to rubble during that occupa/on (McLaughlin, 2016). According to Cooper (2017), a reporter on Syrian ma@ers, ISIS has been losing ground in Syria and Iraq since then, but its barbaric acts are far from over.

There are mul/ple reasons as to why Palmyra became the target of the Islamic

State. On an oﬃcial statement, UNESCO (2015:online) stated that, “Palmyra symbolizes [sic] everything that extremists abhor-cultural diversity, dialogue between cultures, the encounter of peoples of all origins in this caravan city between Europe and Asia.” Moreover, ISIS did not only destroy Palmyra for the sake of it, but they also looted the ancient city and traded artefacts to fuel their ac/vi/es (Burch, 2017). However, Coghland and Moody (2015), explained that the Islamic State a@empted to jus/fy their barbaric acts by claiming that they are eradica/ng sorcery, apostasy and idolatry.

â&#x20AC;©

4.3 The Silk Road

4.4 Caravans crossing Palmyra, 1930

â&#x20AC;©

4.5 Destruc=on of the Temple of Bel by ISIS, 2016

â&#x20AC;Š

4.6 The Temple of Bel before the war

4.7 The remains of the Temple of Bel aQer the war

â&#x20AC;Š

4.8 Soldiers standing on the rubble of the Temple of Bel, 2017

4.9 Palmyra’s Roman Theatre, 2008

4.10 Palmyra’s Roman Theatre, 2016

PROJECT 01: #NEWPALMYRA #NewPalmyra is a relaunched project that aims to reconstruct Palmyra in virtual space, by gathering data from people around the world and crea/ng three-dimensional digital models, which are then shared over the web (Su, 2017). The project was created by Jon Philips and Barry Threw, two American computer scien/sts and virtual media designers, to honour Bassel Khartabil (Fig. 4.11), an internet ac/vist, who started the work on virtual Palmyra a few years before (O’Brien, 2017).

Bassel Khartabil was a Syrian sooware and video game developer, born in 1981.

He believed that freedom should be shared and distributed through the use of the internet, which was slowly emerging in the Arab countries. He joined Crea/ve Commons (CC), an organisa/on devoted to expand and disseminate digital media available for people to build upon legally, and became a regular contributor. Steuer (2017:online), the crea/ve director of CC and a good friend of Khartabil, stated that, “Bassel wasn’t [sic] par/cularly radical, but he believed the Syrian people should have a basic understanding of the technology and tools that many of us take for granted.”

Khartabil dedicated his life to the transparency and openness of the web in Syria.

He endorsed his vision peacefully through conferences and public demonstra/ons in Syria and abroad. In 2012 he was captured by the Syrian Government during a series of protests and demonstra/ons in Damascus, known as the ‘Arab Spring’. Khartabil was detained secretly for three years un/l he was executed in 2015 (Alice, 2017).

From a young age, Khartabil had a dream of recrea/ng Palmyra in a three-

dimensional digital space. He planned to release Palmyra online, for free, with the aim of informing and inspiring individuals, organisa/ons and ins/tu/ons from around the world to do the same for their countries’ cultural heritage (Steuer, 2017). In 2005, at the age of 20, he began documen/ng the ancient ruins of Palmyra through taking hundreds of photographs which were converted to digital data (Su, 2017). The process of using photographs to gather informa/on about physical space is called photogrammetry (Fig. 4.12), and it has been used since the incep/on of modern photography. Khartabil’s work focused on retrac/ng informa/on from photographs and conver/ng them into point cloud

â&#x20AC;Š

4.11 Bassel Khartabil and Jon Philips in the background, 2011

4.12 Use of photogrammetry to reproduce a refugee shelter in Calais, 2015

digital data which were then used to create Palmyra as a virtual environment and develop its monuments into three-dimensional digital models (Smith, 2016).

Soon aoer Khartabil was detained, a group of his friends at Crea/ve Commons

launched an online campaign, #FreeBassel (Fig. 4.13), to raise awareness of his work, contribu/ons to open culture, and unfortunate death. Khartabil’s project to digitally preserve Palmyra was relaunched and kept alive by the people behind #FreeBassel, Jon Philips and Barry Threw, who met Khartabil during a CC conference in San Diego in 2003. #NewPalmyra digitally created, 3D-printed and exhibited facsimiles of Palmyra’s monuments (Fig. 4.14) before they were systema/cally destroyed by ISIS (Steuer, 2017). The project is building on Khartabil’s original work of recrea/ng and reconstruc/ng the ancient city as an immersive 3D virtual environment and now con/nues to gather data (Fig. 4.15) on Palmyra from volunteers and interna/onal organisa/ons, to complete his vision in his honour (Su, 2017). Moreover, Philips (2017), co-founder of #NewPalmyra, stated that the project is an online community plaÄorm and data repository, dedicated to the digital documenta/on and dissemina/on of the ancient site in public domain. The digital models are uploaded with a Crea/ve Commons Zero License (CC0), meaning that they can be used for commercial purposes (Philips et al., 2017). Philips et al. (2017) clariﬁed that the project does not compensate for the loss, destruc/on or decay of these priceless monuments, but instead, it aims at keeping the memory of the past alive, intact and freely available for successive genera/ons.

Furthermore, the Mozilla Founda/on (2017), a digital open-source and non-

proﬁt organisa/on, has announced that, in August 2017, #NewPalmyra has partnered with Crea/ve Commons, Wikimedia Founda/on, Mozilla Founda/on and Jimmy Wales Founda/on to establish the £35,000 annual Bassel Khartabil Fellowship that supports individuals in oppressed communi/es to promote open culture. The Fellowship and the #FreeBassel campaign show #NewPalmyra’s inten/ons of represen/ng and suppor/ng Khartabil’s dream and vision of promo/ng and free culture and open knowledge (FreeBassel2013, 2017).

Wikimedia Commons is a media ﬁle database that makes available freely-

licensed educa/onal media content for everyone. It uses the same concept as Wikipedia, meaning that anyone can upload, download and edit the content (Saunders, 2018). In February 2018, Wikimedia has publicly enabled a new feature (Fig. 4.16) on its website that allows anyone to upload, download and edit three-dimensional digital models (Isler

â&#x20AC;Š

4.13 FreeBassel campaign poster in the Netherlands, 2013

4.14 Palmyraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bombarded Tetrapylon reproduced by #NewPalmyra

and Koerner, 2018). Saunders (2018:online), a journalist for the 3Dprint blog, stated that, “This isn’t [sic] merely a piece of exci/ng news, but a big deal.”In honour of Khartabil, the ﬁrst ﬁle to be uploaded was the digital copy of the Lion of Al-lãt statue, (Fig. 4.17) which has been developed by him and completed by #NewPalmyra. The statue was once a@ached (Fig. 4.18) to the temple of a pre-Islamic goddess in Palmyra and was destroyed (Fig. 4.19) by ISIS in 2015 (Jackson, 2018).

â&#x20AC;Š

4.15 #NewPalmyraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s photographs crowdsourcing instruc=ons

4.16 Wikimedia digital model upload instruc=ons

4.17 The digital copy of Lion of Al-lãt, #NewPalmyra

4.18 The original Lion of Al-lãt

4.19 The statue as destroyed by ISIS

â&#x20AC;Š

4.20 Digital model of the state of Temple of Bel 2,000 years ago, #NewPalmyra

4.21 The digital model of the remnants of the Temple of Bel, #NewPalmyra

â&#x20AC;©

4.22 Renderings of the Temple of Bel, #NewPalmyra

4.23 Palmyra showcased in a virtual environment, #NewPalmyra

â&#x20AC;Š

4.24 The digital copy of the Roman Theatre as seen on the online database, #NewPalmyra

PROJECT 02: INSTITUTE OF DIGITAL ARCHAEOLOGY In 2016, and for the dura/on of a few days, a me/culous facsimile of the two-thousandyear-old ‘Triumphal Arch’ in Palmyra was erected in Trafalgar Square, London (Fig. 4.25 and 4.26) The original Arch, built by the Romans during the reign of the Roman Emperor Sep/mius Severus (193-211 AD), was obliterated by ISIS in October 2015 (Fig. 4.27 and 4.28), during their first occupa/on of the ancient city (O’Leary, 2016). The five-meter-high copy was 3D-printed on Egyp/an marble in an Italian quarry by robo/c arms and travelled to London to begin its journey around the world. Turner (2016), a journalist for BBC, stated that the copy is an act of awareness and defiance of the terrorist group’s atroci/es. The Arch facsimile was a project led by the Ins/tute of Digital Archaeology (IDA), an interna/onal partnership and ini/a/ve between the University of Oxford, Harvard University and Dubai’s Museum of Future, established in 2012 (O’Leary, 2016). The IDA stated that the inten/on behind the reproduc/on is to show ISIS that what they destroy can be rebuild, and disempower them with technology in that way (Jenkins, 2016). Mar/n (2015), a journalist for Forbes, explained that the IDA was at first founded with the aim of documen/ng classical inscrip/ons across the Middle East, but instead turned into a cultural heritage emergency service, following a@acks on cultural heritage during the Syrian War.

Aoer the destruc/on of the sixth-century Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban in

2001, it was expected that ISIS would most likely commit similar destruc/on to cultural heritage in Palmyra during its occupa/on (Langton, 2018). Hence, the IDA in collabora/on with UNESCO established The Million Image Database Project (MIDP), which aimed at compiling a complete photographic record of endangered sites and monuments in the Middle East (Gray, 2015). Halterman (2015:online) explained that, “The idea is that volunteers will capture one million images by the end of next year and 20 million images by the end of 2017.” The MIDP distributed ﬁve-thousand digital mapping cameras to volunteers in endangered historical sites around the Middle East (Fig. 4.29) (O’Leary, 2016). According to Coghlan and Moody (2016), the cameras cost £20 and are designed and built to be user-friendly, and allow users who lack specialised 3D-scanning skills, such

4.25 and 4.26 The facsimile of the Palmyra’s Arch in Trafalgar Square, London, 2016

as museum workers and volunteers, to operate them and upload images to the database. A few of these devices were shipped and distributed to volunteers in Palmyra, around the same /me ISIS was moving into the city (Gayle, 2015). The MIDP gathered this data and collated them to create a three-dimensional digital model of the Arch that was then used by the IDA for the construc/on of the physical copy (Halterman, 2015).

The implementa/on of digital methods of preserva/on is where the similari/es

between IDA and #NewPalmyra end. #NewPalmyra is a non-proﬁt ini/a/ve ins/gated by an individual and now run by a community, whereas the IDA is an interna/onal ini/a/ve, with a diverse range of interests and objec/ves at stake (Voon, 2016). Following the unveiling of the £100,000 facsimile of the Triumphal Arch in London, the IDA has managed to reach an annual budget of £2.5m (Turner, 2016). Heathcote (2016) explained that the IDA’s ac/ons and budget were cri/cised by archaeologists who believe that the money could be be@er spent on Palmyra’s exis/ng monuments. Addi/onally, Factum Founda/on (2016), explained that none of the statements made by the IDA about replacing the destroyed original with the copy, came to frui/on. Moreover, aoer receiving mul/ple simpliﬁca/on altera/ons, the copy was constructed two-thirds of the original scale and height of sixteen meters (Langton, 2016). Addi/onally, according to Voon (2016), a reporter at the Hyperallergic periodical, the 12-ton copy is only a small part of the triple arch. Turner (2016) argued that these factors devalue the Arch regarding its monumentality, and make the copy appear as a fake which does not represent the original.

The projects were deliberately selected to demonstrate that even though there

are mul/ple a@empts and ini/a/ves in digitally preserving Palmyra, they are driven by diﬀerent aims with divergent output as an outcome. Furthermore, the case study of Palmyra and the projects explored earlier were used as subjects of discussion within the interviews. The non-structured nature of the interviews allowed for the conversa/on to unfold onto broader topics regarding the implica/ons of new forms of digital preserva/on in the context of warfare. The iden/ﬁed themes are presented in the following sec/on.

â&#x20AC;Š

4.27 The Triumphal Arch before the aRack, 2010

4.28 The remains of the Triumphal Arch before the aRack, 2015

â&#x20AC;Š

4.29 Volunteers with digital scanning devices in Palmyra, 2017

â&#x20AC;Š

4.30 and 4.31 Transla=ng scanning into a three-dimensional digital model, IDA

â&#x20AC;Š

4.32, 4.33 and 4.34 The making of the facsimile of the Triumphal Arch, IDA, 2016

â&#x20AC;©

{DISCUSSION}

Following the explora/on and discussion of the case study and projects, the data collected from the interviews of Brendan Cormier and Kostas Arvani/s was analysed. Through the interviews, several key themes and topics in the context of war and digital cultural heritage were iden/ﬁed. Within this sec/on the topics will be separately expanded and discussed, to inform an understanding as to how the digital recording of Palmyra informs on-going thinking related to new forms of digital preserva/on in the context of endangered regions and warfare. Informa/on and examples explored from the literature review will support the statements and claims that will be made.

COPY There is a direct correla/on between the number of /mes an object is reproduced and the esteemed worth of the original, Cormier stated. “The more you copy, the more value the original accrues,” he commented. Arvani/s agreed on the statement and added that a copy would not merely create more interest, but also generate an unbalanced interest in sites and monuments that have been digi/sed and disseminated, as opposed to those who have not.

Arvani/s said that the ma@er of digital technologies and their impact on

museums, has been challenging cultural ins/tu/ons around the world for many years now. It became apparent, he explained, that there is a direct associa/on between the quan/ty and quality of a copy and the impact and signiﬁcance of the original. To illustrate his point, he used the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam as an example. The Rijksmuseum is digitally recording and uploading many of its artworks on a new database, online and free for commercial purposes. The database is called Rijksstudio, and it is home to more than 600,000 digital copies of works of art (Taggart, 2017). The database aims to s/mulate educa/on and crea/vity through digital copies of artworks. This ini/a/ve was not implemented just because the necessary technology and means are available (Taggart, 2017). Arvani/s explained that the museum holds an annual compe//on where ar/sts are invited to innovate and invent new products using the digi/sed works of art. These new products showcase the power of copies to act as a catalyst for new crea/on, in this case,

pain/ngs reintroduced as clothing, furniture and other everyday objects. Cormier stated that by further modifying the copies of originals, new objects start to emerge and the line between original and copy becomes blurred, as the copy starts becoming an original in its own right.

THE POWER OF WAR In the nineteenth century, the museum was more interested in educa/on and, copies were perceived as a great tool to share knowledge and informa/on around the world (Gray, 2017). Cormier stated that there is a shio in the percep/on of copies in modern society, “It wasn’t [sic] considered nega/ve to make a copy of something and bring it to a museum. Nowadays you would never do it.” He explained that copyright was a nineteenth-century innova/on, so the current s/gma behind copies in the twen/eth century had not existed yet. During the first half of the twen/eth century, the copy was a type of prac/ce and method of preserva/on that was not favoured by museums and conserva/on organisa/ons, explained Cormier. Numerous copies were discarded during this period, around the world, and it was not un/l WWII that copies started to regain their societal value (Mersom, 2016). As seen in the case of Warsaw, the decision to recreate the city’s historic centre as a replica of the past was perceived as conten/ous and a barbaric post-war response, yet that exact copy of Warsaw's centre is praised and protected today. The case of Warsaw is arguably similar to the change in the percep/on of copies throughout the centuries. One can observe a similar pa@ern, and it could be argued that war is ooen a s/mulus of such changes and new movements. Aoer the war came the rise of modernism in architecture, a /me when the copy fell out of fashion once more. However, the introduc/on of advanced technologies in the twenty-first century has allowed the experimenta/on in the field of cultural heritage (Otero Pailos et al., 2016).

Such experimenta/on explores need for preserva/on grown out of violence,

either that is weather or war. The Syrian War and associated acts of terrorism inﬂuenced a new shio and a global interest in digital archaeology and reproduc/on, as seen by the mul/tude of ini/a/ves to scan Palmyra. By tracing copies throughout history, the context of war appeared to be a fer/le ground for experimenta/on and new methods of cultural heritage preserva/on. Bevan (2006) argued that war brings opportunity. Projects such as

#NewPalmyra and the IDA were born directly out of such opportuni/es. Opportuni/es that rise within war zones carry change and progress (Bevan, 2006). To illustrate, #NewPalmyra started before the Syrian War, but became something diﬀerent during the war, according to Cormier. The aim and inten/on of the project adapted around events that occurred during the war.

As discussed earlier, extensive scanning took place right aoer ISIS’s ﬁrst

occupa/on and consequent damages to Palmyra. When ISIS returned to re-occupy Palmyra, and deliver their most destruc/ve a@acks, they were aware that large parts of the ancient site were scanned, but this did not stop them at all from completely oblitera/ng and loo/ng monuments and objects. The ruins of the Temple of Bel is a prime example, as it has been scanned and released online by #NewPalmyra before ISIS’ second occupa/on, however, this did not prevent the original from being bombarded. Cormier stated that ISIS and other militants groups would con/nue to destroy cultural heritage, regardless of the digital technologies and preserva/on prac/ces available. This shows that even though new methods of preserva/on were introduced within warfare, they do not possess the ability to gain control over war. However, Arvani/s argued that digital copies have the power to represent society throughout history, just like museum objects do.

FLUX All physical objects and monuments are in a state of flux, Cormier stated. This state is a condi/on of constant destruc/on and deteriora/on, where objects are modified due to factors such as weathering, accident, and war. Talking about the facsimiles held at V&A’s Cast Courts collec/on, Cormier explained that copies start to become more faithful representa/ons of what the originals looked like when they were made. “It’s [sic] a strange kind of paradox,” he commented. When a monument is located in a noncontrolled environment, which is the case with most of the world’s cultural heritage, is subject to deteriora/on, and there is nothing one can do to stop this. There are methods of preserva/on and conserva/on that slow down this process but never completely halt it, or even naturally reverse it. Cormier explained that, “Any kind of capture of an object, whether it would be a plaster cast or a two-dimensional digital file is gonna be a snapshot of a /me, of the state of that thing.” However, Arvani/s stated that digital scanning

technology allows us to create mul/ple layers of such snapshots in /me that allow for comparison, and rollback to speciﬁc moments in /me, i.e. post-war destruc/on, and assess the damage and learn from it. As Factum Arte’s founder Lowe (2016) explained, digital data does not have an expiry date, and it is not under the threat of /me and weather. However, just like physical artefacts, digital copies can be altered, therefore they require to be stored safely and securely.

CONTEXT AND AIM Preserva/on cultural heritage should not merely be exploi/ng the available technology and documenta/on and dissemina/ng of digital copies, rather than having clear inten/ons of why use the technology, especially before deciding to undertake an ac/on of preserva/on, Arvani/s asserted. He stated that it all has to do with the context and aim behind decisions regarding preserva/on. One should ﬁrst of all understand what it is that could be digitally reproduced, and decide on the reasons to support this ac/on, judged by the signiﬁcance of the artefact and its impact to the broader community. These fundamental when decisions it comes to copying valuable pieces of culture that are going to remain for mul/ple years in the future. Following these conversa/ons comes the ra/onale behind moving towards the means of preserving an object, either that is a classical, modern or experimental method. This reasoning allows one to step out of what technology is capable of doing, as some/mes technology moves ahead reason, explained Arvani/s. He stated that, just because the technology to digitally scan and reproduce cultural heritage exists, does not mean it should be used.

#NewPalmyra and the IDA were two out of the twelve ini/a/ves that digitally

scanned Palmyra, since the terrorist a@acks. Cormier explained that with so many diﬀerent groups involved in the scanning process, the problem of communica/on arises, where these groups do not have contact with one another. In the case of Palmyra, this lack of communica/on and coordina/on results in vast amounts of data being stored on mul/ple servers across the globe, which end up serving no purpose at the moment. Cormier argued that if these ini/a/ves could get together, perhaps a complete and very detailed version of Palmyra would exist today in digital space. He stated that this issue of miscommunica/on comes to the aims of each body, and most likely the legal framework

and interna/onal poli/cs. However, as discussed earlier, by the endorsement of the ReACH ini/a/ve in December 2017, it appears that preserva/on policy is beginning to catch up with digital technology regarding the preserva/on of endangered cultural heritage.

Furthermore, in the case of the digi/sa/on of Palmyra, the most crucial debates

that need to take place are concerning the short-term and long-term use of projects such as #NewPalmyra and the IDA. Meaning, making clear whom the users of these digital copies are intended to be, and whether that would change in /me. Arvani/s explained that the same debates take place in the museum ﬁeld, par/cularly before the planning of a new exhibi/on or collec/on. The problem with digitally documen/ng and uploading cultural heritage in public domain, just because technology allows it, is that nobody downloads it or does anything with it, plainly because nobody knows what the use of it is or even why it was digi/sed in the ﬁrst place. Cormier stated that this issue is a new nature of risks that open source databases, such as Wikimedia, will face as the number of uploaded digital models grows. He explained that, as this number grows, online databases and repositories would be loaded with junky models and duplica/ons of all types of styles and forms, and nobody would be able to trace their origin.

Recently, Cormier explained, the cultural heritage industry has started looking at

the wildlife preserva/on industry clues on how to decentralise and democra/se their work. Currently, in the field of wildlife preserva/on, similarly to cultural heritage preserva/on, there is a significant amount of interest amongst non-professionals and hobbyists. Cormier explained, that in the bird watching field, for example, there are millions of bird watching enthusiasts around the world who gather large amounts of data, in the form of bird popula/ons and migra/on numbers, purely out of personal interest and passion. The wildlife preserva/on industry is exploi/ng this interest and collects the data for observa/on, preserva/on and research purposes. The prac/ce of crowdsourcing data and informa/on is not recent, but it has evolved during the past two decades in the cultural heritage field as well, due to technological innova/ons and the introduc/on of new methods of documenta/on, such as three-dimensional digital mapping. As discussed earlier, Rekrei is a project that works solely across the lines of crowdsourcing and uses material that already exists to digi/se cultural heritage. Arvani/s clarified that this is a concept of crea/ng something new, in this case, a virtual museum, by using images

already uploaded on the web. Although this media content is already shared, one needs to know what it is that is required to be done and how, to be able to locate them, explained Cormier. The Million Image Database of the IDA is a blend between preserva/on and crowdsourcing prac/ces, where volunteers were given scanning devices to record Palmyra at their own /me extensively. Addi/onally, Scanathon is a comparable ini/a/ve, where according to Cormier, “Museums invite people to come in and scan their objects and upload them onto a server.” Again this is a use of non-professional and public interest in cultural heritage, in crea/ng something that usually requires enormous amounts of eﬀort and resources, but as Arvani/s asserted that with the lack of clear and meaningful aims, one merely creates endless amounts of sta/c data that would never be accessed.

PRIVACY / SECURITY / MAINTENANCE No one can claim ownership over a two-thousand-year-old site, such as Palmyra, but there are organisa/ons responsible for protec/ng and maintaining it, such as UNESCO, Cormier explained. However, as Arvani/s argued, when dealing with something that could poten/ally be uploaded in public domain, with an open license, the complex no/ons of privacy and security, come strongly into play. He stated that if digital copies are treated as another version of our original cultural heritage collec/on, then the ways of storing and keeping them safe need to be taken into serious considera/on. Meaning that, If one relies on this digital data for an increasing amount of /me in the future and also plans to use it on mul/ple occasions, such as the reconstruc/on of the Triumphal Arch by the IDA, then the data needs to be treated as a museum object. Furthermore, this places databases such as Wikimedia under scru/ny, as to whether open licensing is the ideal way to treat such digital data. Perhaps there should not be an ‘ideal’ way. Anyone could download a digital copy, i.e. a museum object, from Wikimedia, but ques/ons around the security and privacy of the ‘original’ copy need to be addressed, stated Arvani/s. If we give access to anyone to modify that copy, then we are facing the risk of losing that data forever. The long-term maintenance of digital data and copies requires being thought and decided upon, similarly to museum artefacts. It is perhaps a diﬀerent kind of maintenance, not a physical one, but one that has to do with keeping the digital copy unaltered and up-to-

date with current sooware, through reforma{ng. These prac/ces of privacy, security and maintenance are especially important when it comes to cases where the original artefact no longer exists, such as the Temple of Bel in Syria.

OWNERSHIP

No ma@er which digital scanning device is being used, the principle and way of

working are the same. The device creates a laser beam, and for every surface it hits, it records a point in space. Scanning an artefact results in vast amounts of data that then need to be processed and converted into a three-dimensional digital model, Cormier explained. The process is never fully automa/c, meaning that even at a small frac/on, the digital output is partly a product of manual manipula/on, a process most ooen associated with the risk of human error. Most of the /mes this manipula/on and modifica/on have to do with filling gaps in the 3D digital model within a specific sooware. Cormier explained that, “You need a way of accurate representa/on of what has been scanned and what has been rendered. There is a lot of debate right now, simply about the transparency of these methods.” A single human error in the processing of crea/ng a digital model could poten/ally lead to an error that becomes part of history and gets carried away throughout future genera/ons. Moreover, even though data derived from digital scanning might be fixed, there is a mul/tude of ways of transla/ng it into a three-dimensional digital model. This means that digital models exported vary greatly from organisa/on to organisa/on, even though the differences might be minuscule. Arvani/s stated that although the ownership of the digital copy is a great issue, it is not necessarily a nega/ve problem. He explained that, “We need to acknowledge that these are very accurate models, but there is a process of decision-making that needs to be transparent to understand who par/cipates and which decisions have been made around it.”

â&#x20AC;©

{CONCLUSION}

The reason I conducted this research was to a@empt to go beyond what digital technologies are capable of offering in the field of cultural heritage preserva/on; a ma@er explored within the literature study. By examining the case of Palmyra and associated new forms of digital preserva/on, through the methods of literature and interviewing, I have managed to unpack the modern world of digital copies of cultural heritage and reveal its complexity through a series of themes. The use of the #NewPalmyra and IDA projects to inform on-going thinking related to digital methods of preserva/on proved to be a point of ins/ga/on of conversa/ons, through the interviews conducted, that does not seem to take place in the field of cultural heritage.

Through the discussion of the themes stated above, I iden/ﬁed that the ﬁeld of

digital copies appears to be consonant with war zones and placed in conﬂict and at risk. As seen through the case study and projects presented, warfare has the power to act as a catalyst for new development. This development can take the shape of a revived city or regarding this research, the model of new forms of preserva/on. Destruc/on oﬀers opportunity, which in turn allows for freedom to experiment with new approaches and techniques.

As discussed earlier, assuming that digital documenta/on and dissemina/on are

the way to preserve Palmyra, and other imperilled regions, then this data should be treated as part of a museum collec/on. Only when digital copies are treated as museum objects, one can assure that they stand the test of /me, and remain meaningful representa/ons of our civilisa/on throughout history. Digital data would allow for succeeding genera/ons not merely to learn about what was inherited or created during the past two or three decades, but also acquire an understanding of the phases our cultural heritage has been through, and the mul/tude of layers that establish societal iden//es. Most importantly, in order to reach the moment when digital copies are perceived as honest depic/ons of cultural heritage, clear and direct context and inten/ons must be set to support the copies’ claim throughout modern history.

This study encourages the considera/on of the implica/ons of using digital

technology as a new form of preserva/on of cultural heritage in the context of violence within war zones. I believe that the ﬁndings presented in this study are essen/al to the

academic field as they provide a fundamental apprehension of the nature of such modern technologies and the significa/on of digitally reproducing and dissemina/ng cultural heritage in the modern day. The research study introduces various ma@ers derived from the implementa/on of these new form of preserva/on, which I hope they would inspire further explora/on and inves/ga/on within the academic field. Moreover, as a con/nua/on of this work, the feasibility of a universal database to store and share digital copies, is a project that I will a@empt to develop as a possible PhD thesis in the future.

The destruc/on of Palmyra was a milestone in the explora/on of new digital

methods of preserva/on. What the IDA achieved with the copy of the Triumphal Arch, was to raise awareness of the destruc/on of cultural heritage and oﬀer a possible solu/on. Palmyra was a testbed for these technologies, which can now be adapted to oppressed regions around the world that face ac/ons of war, while also be further developed to avoid such devasta/ng events from happening. For this reason, I believe the digi/sa/on of Palmyra will come to a halt in the near future, and digital scanning and reproduc/on will take a much broader form that responds to the needs and losses of sites and communi/es around the globe.

The main limitation of this study, was time. For this study, a lot of time was spent

examining and investigating preservation, war and the evolution of copies, as it proved to be crucial in the development of the discussion and arguments. The time limit created boundaries as to the amount of new data that could be gathered and analysed. With more time in hand, I would have been able to explore some of the topics raised in the discussion in more depth and criticism, perhaps suppor/ng them with material from more interviews.

I am conﬁdent that Wikimedia will become a plaÄorm that sets in mo/on ‘Global

Reproduc/onism,’ where digital cultural heritage could be stored and disseminated in a meaningful way, as more organisa/ons and ins/tu/ons realise its poten/al and tackle its risks. I believe that some/me in the future, digital copies of cultural heritage will become a be@er representa/on of history, when compared to the ever-deteriora/ng originals, and will start to become originals in their own right.

As Koolhaas (2014) stated, our ci/es are in a radical stasis with a large amount of

the built environment being preserved and protected. New forms of digital preserva/on could allow us to redeﬁne the way we perceive and design our ci/es. If cultural heritage was digitally documented and disseminated in a meaningful way, perhaps we could adopt

a more ﬂexible approach to our ci/es and allow our built environment to be@er adapt into future circumstances and condi/ons of conﬂict.

â&#x20AC;©

{BIBLIOGRAPHY}

#NewPalmyra. (no date) ‘The Arch of Triumph’. #NewPalmyra. Al-Azm, A. (2015) 'Why ISIS Wants to Destroy Syria's Cultural Heritage.' Time. Arrhenius, T. (2012) The Fragile Monument, on Conserva>on and Modernity. London : Ar/ﬁce Books : Black Dog Publishing. Factum Arte. (2015). ‘Factum Arte’s Work in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Nefertari and Se/ I.’ FactumArte. Augerre, A. (2017) ‘Reproduc/on of Art and Cultural Heritage: What is the ReACH Project?’ Bergera, I. and Otero-Pailos, J. (2013) 'Photography and Preserva/on.' Future Anterior, 10(2) pp. 3-5. Bevan, R. (2006) The Destruc>on of Memory: Architecture at War. London: London : Reak/on. Biggs, J. (2015) 'Project Mosul Aims To Resurrect The Ar/facts Destroyed By ISIS.' TechCrunch. Biggs, M. (2017) 'Reduced to Rubble by ISIS, Archaeologists See a New Day for Ancient City of Nimrud.' PBS. Bond, S. (2016) 'The Ethics of 3D-prin/ng Syria's Cultural Heritage.' Forbes. Bowerscock, G. W. (2015) 'The Venice of the Sands in Peril.' NY Books.

Boyd, G. A. and Linehan, D. (2013) Ordnance : War + Architecture & Space. Farnham: Farnham : Ashgate. Brown, J. (2017) 'How high-tech replicas can help save our cultural heritage.' PBS. Burch, S. (2017) 'A Virtual Oasis: Trafalgar Square's Arch of Palmyra.' ArchNet-IJAR : Interna/onal Journal of Architectural Research, 11(3) pp. 58-77. Cain, A. (2016). ;How Crowdsourcing Brought an ISIS-Destroyed Museum Back to Life.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Artsy. Cairns, S. a. (2014) Buildings Must Die : A Perverse View of Architecture. Cambridge, Massachuse@s : The MIT Press. Charlesworth, E. (2006) Architects Without Fron>ers: War, Reconstruc>on and Design Responsibility. Oxford and Burlington: Architectural Press, Elsevier. Ching, N. (2017) 'Thousands of Iraqi Civilians, Trapped in Mosul, Face 'Extreme Danger'.' VOA News. Clammer, P. (2016) 'Erasing Isis: How 3D Technology Now Lets Us Copy and Rebuild En/re Ci/es.' The Guardian. Coghlan, T. and Moody, O. (2015) 'High Tech Plan to Save Ancient Sites From Isis.' The Sunday Times. Cooper, H. (2017) 'ISIS Is on Its Heels, but Figh/ng to the Death.' The New York Times. Cormier, B. (2016a) A World of Fragile Parts. V&A Publishing. Cormier, B. (2016b) 'The New Power of Copies.'

Coughenour, C. (2016) ‘How Your Pictures Can Help Reclaim Lost history’. TED: Ideas Worth Spreading. Cunliffe, E. (2016) ‘Should we 3D Print a New Palmyra? : The Conversa/on.’ Denker, A. (2017) ‘Palmyra As It Once Was: 3D Virtual Reconstruc/on and Visualiza/on of an Irreplaceable Lost Treasure.’ Vol. 42, pp. 565-572. Duncan, M. (2015) 'When Palmyra Rivaled the Roman Empire.' Reuters. Dunmore, C. (2016) 'How Art is Helping Syrian Refugees Keep Their Culture Alive.' The Guardian. Eakin, H. (2016) 'Ancient Syrian Sites: A Different Story of Destruc/on.' NY Books. Founda/on, F. (2016) IDA Palmyra Arch copy. Factum Founda/on for Digital Technology in Conserva/on. Foyle, J. (2015) 'Is it Time to Rethink Our Ideas About Preserving World Heritage?' Financial Times. Franchi, E. (2016). ‘On Cultural Heritage’. Khan Academy. FreeBassel2013. (2017) A’nnouncing Bassel Khartabil Free Culture Fellowship at #wikimania2017 @freebassel.’ Youtube.com. Gintoff, V. (2016). ‘The V&A Presents "A World of Fragile Parts" at the Venice Biennale's Applied Arts Pavilion’. Archdaily. Gliński, M. (2003) 'How Warsaw Came Close to Never Being Rebuilt.' Culture Poland. Gray, M. (2015). ‘Digital Innova/on of the Year: The Million Image Database’. Apollo Magazine.

Gray, M. (2017). ‘Why it’s Time to Talk Seriously About Digital Reproduc/ons.’ Apollo Magazine. Halterman, T. E. (2015). ‘The Million Image Database Project: A 'Flood' of 3D Cameras to Turn the Tide Against ISIS Vandals.’ 3Dprint. Harbison, R. (2015) Ruins and Fragments: Tales of Loss and Rediscovery. London, UK: Reak/on Books. Haria, R. (2017). ‘Dubai Combats ISIS Destruc/on with 3D Printed Artefact Reconstruc/ons at UN HQ.’ 3D Prin/ng Industry. Harrowell, E. (2016) 'Looking for the Future in the Rubble of Palmyra: Destruc/on, Reconstruc/on and Iden/ty.' Geoforum, 69 pp. 81-83. Havens, C. (2016) ‘Cultural Beheading’. Crea/ve Havens: Syrian Ar/sts and Their Studios. Heathcote, E. (2016) 'Ghost of Palmyra’s Arch Rises in Trafalgar Square.' Financial Times. Hewison, R. (2016). ‘If walls could talk…The Ethics of Dust at Westminster Hall’. Apollo Magazine. Hunt, T. (2017) 'The real work of art in the age of reproduc/on.' Financial Times. Isler, R. and Koerner, C. (2018) ‘You Can Now Upload 3D Models to Wikimedia Commons’. Wikimedia. Jackson, B. (2018) 'Wikipedia Goes 3D Allowing Users to Upload .STLS for Digital Reference.' 3D Prin/ng Industry. Jacob, S. (2016). ‘The Copy in Contemporary Culture is Both Despised and Feared.’

Jeffries, S. (2015) 'ISIS’s destruc/on of Palmyra: ‘The heart has been ripped out of the city'.' The Guardian. Jenkins, S. (2016) 'Aoer Palmyra, the message to Isis: what you destroy, we will rebuild.' The Guardian. Jobey, L. (2013) 'Conserva/on: Factum Arte Remaking History.' Financial Times. Jones, J. (2016) 'Palmyra must not be fixed. History would never forgive us.' The Guardian. Jones, J. (2017) 'Factum Arte: the art copyists giving the Renaissance a renaissance.' The Guardian. Kaiser, S. (2017). ‘The Fate of Bassel Khartabil.’ Zenith Magazine. Karimi, P. and Rabbat, N. (2016) 'The Demise and Aoerlife of Ar/facts. The Destruc/on of Cultural Heritage: From Napoléon to ISIS.’ Kingsley, P. (2014) 'Exact replica of Tutankhamun's tomb unveiled in Egypt.' Koolhaas, R. (2004) 'Preserva/on is Overtaking Us.' Future Anterior, 1(2) pp. 1-3. Koolhaas, R. (2014) Preserva>on is Overtaking Us. New York: GSAPP Transcripts. Koolhaas, R., Mau, B., Sigler, J. and Werlemann, H. (1998b) Small, Medium, Large, ExtraLarge : Office for Metropolitan Architecture. 2nd ed. ed., New York: New York : Monacelli Press. Kumar, N. (2015). ‘Kathmandu on Edge Aoer Deadly Quake Ravages Nepal.’ Time. Lamprakos, M. (2014) 'Riegl’s “Modern Cult of Monuments” and The Problem of Value.' Change Over Time, 4(2) pp. 418-435.

Langton, J. (2018) 'Can technology help restore Syria's lost archaeological heritage?' The Na/onal. Lasky, J. (2016). ‘The cultural legacy of pollu/on.’ TED Ideas. Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press. Lending, M. (2015) 'Promenade Among Words and Things: The Gallery as Catalogue, the Catalogue as Gallery.' Architectural Histories, 3(1) pp. 1-22. Lending, M. a. (2017) Plaster Monuments: Architecture and the Power of Reproduc>on. Princeton : Princeton University Press. Lowe, A. (2015) Datareality. In: Anterior, F. Future Anterior. Vol. 12, pp. 72-81. Lowe, A. and Macmillan-Sco@, J. (2017). ‘Recrea/ng Tutankhamen's Tomb.’ RAWi. Lucas, R. (2016) Research Methods for Architecture. London : Laurence King Publishing. Mackay, M. (2016) 'Indiana Jones with a 3-D camera? Hi-tech ﬁght to save an/qui/es from ISIS.' CNN. Maclean, R. (2017) 'Desecrated But S/ll Majes/c: inside Palmyra Aoer Second ISIS Occupa/on.' The Guardian. Maher, K., Merkley, R. and Surman, M. (2017) ‘Announcing the Bassel Khartabil Free Culture Fellowship.’ Mozilla. Mairs, J. (2016) 'V&A features Sam Jacob's replica refugee shelter in copying exhibi/on at Venice Biennale.' Dezeen.

Malone-France, K. and Otero-Pailos, J. (2016) 'Preserva/on Art: An Interview with Jorge Otero-Pailos.' Forum Journal, 30(3) pp. 7-18. Mar/n, G. (2015) 'How England's Ins/tute Of Digital Archeology Will Preserve The Art Isis Wants to Destroy.' Forbes. Mar/nelli, N. (2010) 'The Art of Replica/ng Masterpieces.' Art, Wall Street Journal, p. W. 8. McLaughlin, R. (2016) 'When All Roads Led to Palmyra.' History Today, 66(7) pp. 22-30. Mersom, D. (2016) 'Story of ci/es #28: How Postwar Warsaw was Rebuilt Using 18th Century Pain/ngs.' The Guardian. Moshenska, G. (2015) 'Curated Ruins and the Endurance of Conﬂict Heritage.' Conserva/on and Management of Archaeological Sites, 17(1) pp. 77-90. Mourby, A. (2015) 'Where are the World's Most War-Damaged Ci/es?' The Guardian. CC Netherlands. (no date) ‘Free Bassel.’ Crea/ve Commons Netherlands. Nicholls, M. (2015) 'Digital Archaeology and Reconstruc/on.' History Today. O'Brien, D. (2017) ‘Bassel Khartabil, In Memoriam.’ EFF. O'Brien, J. (2015) 'Palmyra: Ruins That Inspired the Architecture of Power.' BBC. O'Leary, M. (2016) 'Million Image Database Preserves World Cultural Legacies.' Informa/on Today, 33(9) pp. 16-17. OMA (no date) ‘Beijing Preserva/on.’ OMA.

Otero-Pailos, J. (2011) 'The Ambivalence of Smoke: Pollu/on and Modern Historiography.' Grey Room, (44) pp. 90-113. Otero-Pailos, J. (2016). ‘Experimental Preserva/on.’ Places Journal. Otero-Pailos, J. e., Langdalen, E. e. and Arrhenius, T. e. (2016) Experimental Preserva>on. Zürich, Switzerland : Lars Müller Publishers. Ouroussoﬀ, N. (2011) 'An Architect’s Fear That Preserva/on Distorts.' The New York Times. Pelkonen, E.-L. e., Chan, C. e., Tasman, D. A. (2015) Exhibi>ng Architecture : A Paradox? : New Haven, Connec/cut : Yale School of Architecture,; New York, New York : Actar D. Philips, J., Threw, B., Ghazi Safadi, N., Pillault, T., Adams, C., Banes, S. and Campbell, L. (2016) Cost of Freedom: A Collec>ve Inquiry. [Accessd Online] Crea/ve Commons. Raskin, L. (2011) 'Jorge Otero-Pailos and the Ethics of Preserva/on.' Places Journal. Romey, K. (2015). ‘Why ISIS Hates Archaeology and Blew Up Ancient Iraqi Palace.’ Na/onal Geographic. Romey, K. (2016). ‘Iconic Ancient Sites Ravaged in ISIS’s Last Stand in Iraq.’ Na/onal Geographic. Roshan, H. (2017) 'Earthquake and Historic Sites in Iran.' World Cultural Heritage Voices. Sa{n, A. (2015). ‘Meet The Master of Reproduc/on.’ Chris/e's Magazine. Saunders, S. (2018). ‘For the First Time, You Can Upload 3D Models to Wikimedia Commons.’ 3DPrint. Sco@, F. (2008) On altering architecture. London : Routledge

Searle, A. (2016) 'The Ethics of Dust: a latex requiem for a dying Westminster.' The Guardian. Shaheen, K. (2017) 'Isis Destroys Tetrapylon Monument in Palmyra.' The Guardian. Simon, S. (2016) ‘Upon Reclaiming Palmyra, The Controversial Side Of Digital Reconstruc/on.’ In: Michel, R. NPR Weekend Edi/on Saturday. Simon, S. (2016) ‘Saving Palmyra: A Discussion with Yale's Cultural Heritage Expert Stefan Simon.’ Archdaily. Smith, C. (2018). ‘Photogrammetry and its use in mapping.’ KnowTechie. Smith, P. D. (2012) City: A Guidebook for the Urban Age. New York, U.S.A.: Bloomsbury. Sobczyk, M. (2010) 'Warsaw, a City Once Reduced to Rubble.' The Wall Street Journal. Somers Cocks, A. (2018) 'A New Era for Heritage Reproduc/on.' The Arts Newpaper. Stanley-Price, N. (2009) 'The Reconstruc/on of Ruins: Principles and Prac/ce.' Conserva/on: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, Stenning, S. (2015). ‘Destroying Cultural Heritage: More Than Just Material Damage.’ Bri/sh Council Voices Magazine. Steuer, E. (2017). ‘Bassel Khartabil's Story Proves Online Ac/vism is S/ll Powerful.’ Wired. Su, A. (2017). ‘How One Syrian Fought to the Death for A Free Internet.’ Wired. Sørensen, M. L. S. and Viejo-Rose, D. (2015) War and Cultural Heritage: Biographies of Place. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taggart, E. ‘Rijksmuseum Digi/zes 600,000+ Works of Art, Making Masterpieces Available Online.’ My Modern Met. Turner, L. (2016) 'Palmyra's Arch of Triumph Recreated in London.' BBC. UNESCO (no,date). ‘Deﬁni/on of The Cultural Heritage.’ UNESCO. (2014) ‘Historic Centre of Warsaw.’ UNESCO. Veyne, P. (2017) Palmyra: An Irreplaceable Treasure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press Vincent, M. and Coughenour, C. (2016) 'Crowdsourcing the Reconstruc/on of Lost Heritage.' GIM Interna/onal. Vinegar, A. and Otero-Pailos, J. (2012) 'On Preserving the Openness of the Monument.' Future Anterior, 9(2) pp. I-VI. Voon, C. (2016). ‘What’s the Value of Recrea/ng the Palmyra Arch with Digital Technology?’ Hyperallergic. W. Allison, E. and Peters, L. (2011) Historic Preserva>on and the Livable City. New York City: John Wiley & Sons Inc. W. Semes, S. (2009) The Future of the Past: A Conserva>on Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preserva>on. First ed., New York City: W. W. Norton & Company. Whitmarsh, T. (2015) 'Tolerant and Mul/cultural, Palmyra Stood for Everything Isis Hates.' The Guardian. Wilder, C. (2016) 'Swiping a Priceless An/quity With a Scanner and a 3-D Printer.' The New York Times.

Wilkin, K. (2017) 'Rachel Whiteread at Tate Britain.' The New Criterion, 36(3) pp. 39-42. Woodman, E. (2016) 'It is Great That We can 3D-print Vandalised Temples, But is That The Way to Repair Palmyra?' The Architects Journal, 243(9) p. 67. Zalewski, D. (2016) 'The Factory of Fakes.' The New Yorker, 92(39) p. 66.â&#x20AC;Š

â&#x20AC;©

{APPENDIX}

Interview 01 Date: 17/03/2018 Interviewee: Brendan Cormier Brendan Cormier is a Canadian writer, curator, and urban designer based in London. He is currently the lead curator of 20th and 21st Century Design for the Shekou Partnership at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Prior to this he served as the managing editor of Volume Magazine. - - Andreas Leonidou = Interviewer Brendan Cormier - Interviewee - - - Andreas: How did you become interested in this world of copies of cultural heritage? Brendan: The world of copies. Well, it’s a bit of a long story, but uh, I started working at the V&A on a bigger project which was a new gallery in China, in Shenzhen, which we opened in December and I was working on that for 3 years on beginning to end to get it up and opera/onal. During that /me I was doing some research into Shenzhen, and Shenzhen has this phenomenon called the Huachang Bay electronics market, and more specifically the phenomenon called Shenghzai which technically means molten rubber, but uh has come to refer to any kind of electronic device thats a no-name, knock-off product. So, you go to this market and you see lots of copies Samsung and iPhones . What happened at the market is that actually through a long process of small non-companies copying these bigger brands, you get a subtle kind of evolu/onary form of crea/vity. And by that i mean every /me a copy is made, a small modifica/on is inserted into that copy. And over several itera/ons you start to get a completely new objects. Whats interes/ng with the economy of Shenzhen, and Shangzhai in par/cular, is that these objects start to fill a gap in the market that didn’t exist

before. So there are all these famous examples in the market where a certain type of phone has come out of it so one is called an elderly mobile, so thats basically a dumb phone with big bu@ons and a loud speaker and its meant to be for people who are old, who don't have familiarity with the smart phone and it sells really well, for instance. Thats an interes/ng moment where you have these kinds of copying as this kind of catalyst for new crea/on. Which is something that I find really interes/ng. And its author-less. Its even hard to track down who made it, who came up with the original idea at this or that part. In a way that reflects a lot of crea/vity and making in the past. So copyright is something that came into existence in the 19th century. If you go to the V&A, in fact, the number one maker, or the, you-know, in the labels we have, will be Unknown. You know, we cant actually put a name in the maker. A.: This is interes/ng. B: If you go to Jingdezhen […] which is a po@ery centre for the last thousand years in China, and you have a series of kind of making of itera/ve form making that happens in a mass. Without a person behind it. So that was the original interest in copying, and then I had an opportunity to do a show in Venice, which was the World of Fragile Parts show, and I was really taken aback or surprised that the museum itself (V&A) dedicated two major galleries of copies, so the plaster cast courts and digging into it a li@le bit I understood more gradually that this was the 19th century moment. Where the museum was very much interested in educa/on. Like I said copyright was a 19th century innova/on, or introduced in the 19th century. So, at that moment, the s/gma behind the copy hadn’t yet existed. It really only came into existence in the 20th century, so there was a very specific and straight forward kind of goal that the museum wanted me to achieve, and that was to show the public the best examples of art and architecture. It wasn’t considered nega/ve to make a copy of something and bring it to a museum. Nowadays you would never do it. You would never make a copy of Michelangelo’s David and show it in a place, and if you did you would be considered backwards maybe. But in the 19th century was perfectly legi/mate. You actually had this whole economy that emerged in the 19th century. Several museums around the world, all commissioning different plaster cast companies and making copies of famous monuments and to bring it back to the museum. So in Pi@sburgh in the Carnegie museum it has a vast cast court, and in fact all these museum were collec/ng them. Funny enough you

get to the 20th century and people start to change their mind about casts. You actually see a moment where a lot of these casts are thrown out and discarded. They are not considered worthy of being in the museum. Its only by an accident in history that some museums kept their cast courts, like the V&A’s. There are really weird moments in /me that are now being preserved. A.: So, what does that mean when you are saying you cannot really make a copy and have it in a museum? Is that becoming illegal or is it because its conten/ous? B.: It’s because the changing expecta/on of what a museum should be. By the 20th century you get this growing expecta/ons that a museum is a place to find an original. To go see an original. There is not a real, clear, understanding why copying, showing copies in a museum, went out of favour, but we can mark a kind of changing a{tude in the 21st century. You could argue many cases for why in the beginning of the 20th century the museum shioed to a place of originals and not a place of copies. One of the reasons could be, thinking of mass produc/on, so 20th century mass produc/on really takes off. It becomes much easier, especially through photography, and this is an argument, that photography actually kills the plaster cast, in that it becomes much easier to see an image of a famous work of art in a public book, or through a photograph. All of a sudden this incredibly expensive endeavour, because it was very expensive to make these plaster casts, you start to see an alterna/ve which is why don't we just simply distribute these images through photography. Photography is much cheaper, you can store a lot of photographs, infinitely more photographs […]. Plaster casts need constant care and upkeep so you always have to take care of it. We have like wri@en correspondence, like directors of the museum saying, you know, Trajan’s Column is such a pain in the ass. Can we just get rid of it. So, its a long story. At one point they tried to move all the casts of all the museums, the Bri/sh Museum, the V&A, they wanted to move them actually to an external site which was the Crystal Palace in Sydenham. There was a fire and the Crystal Palace burned down, so that plan […]. Its all an accident of history that […]. So, yeah, in the 20th we began to think museums as places of original, so the copy went out of favour, but as I would argue, in essence, we s/ll, in a way, the museum has been, you know, heavily ac/ve in the produc/on of copies in digital imagery. So its interes/ng, and I probably gonna bore you with all these details, but almost at the same /me the museum set up its cast produc/on, it set up a photography studio. The V&A was actually one of the first

museum in the world to act and systema/cally photograph its collec/on. So to create a twodimensional copy of the object through a photograph. Now everything is based in […], you can go and search the collec/on of a museum and every museum has a vast photographic archive of all the collec/ons, so we never stopped producing copies in a way, but copies have kind of move to the background, while the display spaces has become dedicated to originals. The other thing that interested me at the /me is that a lot of these copies accidentally, through the fact that they were in the museum, became tools of preserva/on. Because you’ve got a very good, accurate, backup of a three-dimensional piece, and so a lot of these, lets say Trajan’s Column or the Church Portal from Bologna, these of course are outside. They are exposed to the elements, exposed to pollu/on, exposed to accident over the course the course of 150 years. So, over/me because the museum is taking care of its plaster casts, the plaster casts started to outperform the original. Its star/ng to become a more faithful representa/on of what the original looked like 150 years ago, than the original looks like today. Its a strange kind of paradox. A.: Its facilita/ng as well to see that happening actually. Its like in the case of Factum Arte, the case of the Tutankhamen’s Tomb which is being in a sense decayed through mass tourism, and by these act of soo violence. Its really interes/ng to see that the copy will survive aoer the original. B.: In a sense highlights the fact that all objects are in a state of ﬂux. A.: Yeah B.: So, nothing is, and this is a classic problem of preserva/on when people decide to, lets say Palmyra for instance, if there is an ini/a/ve to re-build Palmyra, or rebuild the destroyed Palmyra, the classic kind of preserva/onists’s ques/on in to what state do we rebuild it. Because its been in a constant state of constant, slow, destruc/on for two-thousand years. A.: Yes, exactly. B.: So that is one of the things to think about. Any kind of capture of an object, whether it would be a plaster cast, or a two-dimensional digital ﬁle is gonna be a snapshot of a /me, of

the state of that thing. So, yeah that was the impetus for the project and that was also around the Venice project was around a /me where I […] a lot of construc/on. The thought was, you know, had we captured perfect copies of these things, you know, would have that been a way to remedy the destruc/on. But on the same /me digging into a […] all these kinds of projects that […]. Projects like Project Mosul which was scanning the Internet for imagery, the reconstruc/on through photogrammetry. You just see this whole digital world of being a […] world of reproduc/ons and a lot of other possibili/es. A.: Steering a bit towards the Palmyra case. In the case of war, because that’s, I believe that is sort of a different approach to it, because what interests me to look at these cases is that there is an urgency when it comes to war, conflict and destruc/on, eventual destruc/on. But then looking at these two projects of kind of digital recording, they seem to be slower than the act of war in a way. They seem not to be reflec/ng that, what needs to happen, straight aoer a war. They seem to be much slower in what they are trying to do. Perhaps they should be slower. B.: NewPalmyra began before the war. It was kind of a pet project by this guy Bassel Khartabil. Its a strange project because as far as I understand, it turned into something else during the war. He was trying to open-source, recreate a digital model of what Palmyra might have looked like back in the day. Then it was taken over by the open source community. He had a@ended some conferences and became friends with a couple guys in San Fransisco, who are big into Crea/ve Commons. When he went missing, it was those guys, Jon Philips and Barry Threw, who then turned the project into more than an advocacy project to talk about his case and then fact that he was missing and to raise awareness about his case basically. It's not clear what that project actually wants to achieve now that its been confirmed that he is dead. They confirmed it I think a couple of months ago. They are star/ng a fellowship, but in a way the actual modelling of Palmyra was actually a kind of a red herring almost a kind of Trojan’s horse for, talking about other stuff. A.: I find it a bit strange as well. Because when looking at these two projects, in the case of NewPalmyra, one can obviously go into the website and download the models, which is a model that looks like what, in the case of the Temple of Bel for example, looks like the temple when it first got built back in two-thousand years ago.

B.: Exactly. That has always been the goal of the project. The guy, Bassel Khartabil, was a gaming-sooware developer. So, he kind of wanted to create a virtual environment to experience a fantasy of Palmyra and what it might have looked like, back in the day. Its definitely not an archaeological project in the true sense of kind of more scien/fic endeavours of trying to capture details of the project. A.: I am looking at the a@empts of the Ins/tute of Digital Archaeology now, which they seem to be spending a lot of money on this. They seem to have a big budget on kind of these projects that they do. For example, the Arch of Triumph that they put up costed around £100,000, as I have learned, and I am almost thinking that there is these two par/es that try to do something about it, record Palmyra in a way. And I am thinking, why wouldn’t they approach each other in a way, could they approach each other and perhaps do it together and try and make it into one common piece. B.: This goes beyond even just those two organisa/ons, but a wider problem of coordina/on, of gathering. So when we were holding a series of talks over last year, I discovered that, I think some people have counted between 7 and 12 different ini/a/ves to scan Palmyra, from different organisa/ons, since the a@acks. The Russians did some major scanning, ICONEM which is another interes/ng one. I think I men/oned it before in one of our emails. A.: Yes you did. It is a really interes/ng and ambi/ous a@empt. B.: They did some scanning. Different archaeological socie/es. I think the Bri/sh Museum did some stuff. There is all these uncoordinated scans that all exist somewhere on different servers, but its talking with each other about this thats the problem. This has to do with, you know, going back to your proposal, of course which is a very good proposal to create a universal database of scanned objects. This is the huge problem right now, that nobody is talking to each other. Part of that has to do with a legal framework. So who owns the data. Partly with interna/onal poli/cs. And part of that has to do with the part of that s/ll a decent plaÄorm for hos/ng huge datasets doesn’t exist. These datasets are massive, right. They are terabytes of data. And I think that what you see online is a reduced, kind of low-res version of what’s actually been scanned right now. Even CyArk, I don't know if you looked at CyArk’s

website. CyArk are definitely worth you checking out. They are, I think, the first major organisa/on to do large scale scans of heritage sites. They are based in San Fransisco and they have just partnered with Google’s Arts and Culture Ins/tute now, to come up with a way of hos/ng their models in a more meaningful way. There are several of these organisa/ons that operate in tandem. There’s another one called the Zamani Project. They are based in Cape Town, and they do a lot of scans of African cultural heritage and they all suffer with this problem of being able to host their data and scans online in a more meaningful way. But also they suffer from the fact that any scan they do, os lets say, the Zamani Project goes to Ethiopia and the want to, there are all these amazing cave churches in Ethiopia and they want to scan them, they have to operate within the legal framework of the Cultural Heritage Ministry of Ethiopia. That ooen means that because of the lack of a clear framework of who owns data, a major reac/on to say that for the Cultural Heritage of Ethiopia, we own the data and you can’t share. So, there is another kind of broader struggle happening right now which is the open access movement which is, you know, with very good games made by Crea/ve Commons and other organisa/ons, to say that we need a clear framework for how to share data and who owns this data. Because without that, you get this problem of seven different scans of Palmyra and nobody talking to each other. A.: Exactly yes. I have recently came across Wikimedia. They recently released a new feature on their website where you can now upload digital models. The first one to go up was the statue of the Lion of Lat in Palmyra, that got destroyed by ISIS. B.: Yeah, that looks great. A.: I was thinking, they’ve got that license, the Crea/ve Commons Zero license, which is basically anyone can download it and do anything with it. I am thinking, what does that mean for cultural heritage? If we get to an extreme scenario where we really upload everything on that database, and everything is CC0, what does that mean for Palmyra? What does that mean for such sites in a way? B.: I think its good. Probably. I think, its digital data right? What do you think when you say what does that mean for Palmyra? Like what are the […].

A.: The 3D models right now seem to be really simplis/c, in the way that you can download it and it is just really basic forms and geometry, which is not that detailed. I am thinking if that could become a really detailed one like the Arch of Triumph that got reconstructed, any organisa/on could download it and recreate it, not just at a smaller scale, but can literally recreate Palmyra in that sense. B.: Yeah, they could. I mean the funny thing is that we have to remember that we are crea/ng, recrea/ng monuments all the /me. I mean actually it was just a […]. Somebody talk me about in Nashville in the United States, they recreated a 1:1 concrete recrea/on of the Parthenon. A.: Yes, I saw that. It is incredible. B.: It’s unbelievable. This kind of idea has existed for a long /me. It’s not like, I don’t know if you are insinua/ng that a threat or that is poten/ally bad to recreate. I don’t know what you think, but I don’t think so. A.: In one sense, it could be bad and threatening I believe. B.: It could be tacky. It could be like, not that cool, but then we just not go to it, you know. We just don’t consider that an important place. […] nobody is going to mistake the copy’s original. That’s one of the things that people come back to. What happened during this work, one of the classic ques/ons that I get is don’t you think a world full of proliferated copies will somehow do harm to the original, somehow cheapen the original. And actually the argument is exactly the opposite. So, what is the most reproduced art image in the world? Probably the Mona Lisa. What is the most in-demand object to go see at the moment, in a museum? Probably the Mona Lisa. There is a direct correla/on between the amount of reproduc/on of an object and the esteemed worth of the original. A.: That is very interes/ng. B.: The more you copy, the more value the original accrues.

A.: Then one could even, instead of copying, in a sense modify it and recreate it which kind of changes the iden/ty of the object. You can s/ll do it. B.: Yeah, I mean you can s/ll do it. Like Macau in China where they’ve got full scale recrea/ons of the Eiffel Tower, of Venice, you know, these are major modifica/ons. They are never 1:1, they are always kind of […], and they are kind of funny to see, and people enjoy them. And again nobody is gonna mistake them for the real Eiffel Tower or the real Venice. That’s why […] made the argument, you know, that if tourism is a growing problem right? We have a limited set of heritage sites, which doesn't really grow, you know? And we have a growing popula/on of people now with access to go and see these sites, and who want to go and see these sites. In the case of Venice, you can’t really duplicate Venice. It’s always gonna be the original Venice where people are going and people want to go to, but if you can create a cheesy Venice in Macau, then that will sa/sfy the appe/tes of some people, you are definitely relieving pressure of the original Venice. A.: Yes, it sounds odd at first but makes total sense. It reminds me a place called Hallsta@, in Austria, which got recreated exactly somewhere in China. The Chinese obviously then would visit that instead of the original, therefore relieving it from the pressure of tourism, just like Venice. B.: Its the same in America you know. Americans don’t really like to travel abroad and Las Vegas has become the kind of perfect simulacrum for them to kind of get their travel pleasures sa/sfied in a certain way. That’s a bit tangental??? but you do see it as a kind of interes/ng provoca/on. The copy as a solu/on. A.: Yes, indeed. Going back to the IDA now, they reconstructed the Arch of Palmyra, which to the eyes of the people who have never visited the original in a way, seems even like they have brought it from the actual Palmyra. It is much different though as it is a modifica/on 2/3 the original monumental scale, with different materials and techniques being used. B.: The material is the same apparently. It’s the same Egyp/an marble, but its fresh cut so it doesn't have the pa@ern of age. It wasn’t constructed the way you would have constructed the Arch, you know, block by block, but as a single mass, using a robo/c arm. Which is also by

the way a really interes/ng preserva/on conundrum. Which is, robo/c arms today, opera/ng by a very high quality scan, given enough /me can create a more faithful figura/ve reproduc/on, you know, following the exact form of the original, than if you would have created it in an original way. Its a conflict between methods. A robo/c arm is definitely not the method with which the original was made, but in a way it can be more accurate than the original, because it’s opera/ng with the use of a digital file. Versus a more authen/c reconstruc/on method which will be using real labourers, and cu{ng stone, which will be authen/c in one way but inauthen/c or inaccurate in another way. So you have this kind of conundrum. A.: Yes, and in that sense using the digital data, one could even recreate the weathering, erosion and show ageing and /me in a way, that responds to the present moment. Talking about these kind of open database, I am beginning to think what such complica/ons might rise, in the case of let say Palmyra, when they unite these ini/a/ves and we create a database of Palmyra, making it available online, even if its partly destroyed. Do you think there are any complica/ons that could arise in this case? What does this mean for Palmyra then? B.: For the actual site of Palmyra? A.: Yes. B.: I actually don’t think of many complica/ons really. The fact that you have a digital file of it online, it is like asking what is the complica/on of having a very good digital file of Mona Lisa online, for the actual Mona Lisa. It would actually make it more popular. But beyond that I don’t know. A.: We have seen these ini/a/ves from ins/tu/ons and organisa/ons, which for example the Million Image Database crowdsourced images from the public as well and sent scanners over with the help of volunteers. Do you think, as public, we could create our own as well? If, I guess, the method becomes simple, the method of photogrammetry or scanning.

B.: It’s already happening. You have websites such as Sketchfab and Scan The World, and both these websites operate as crowdsourced plaÄorms in which people can upload models that they have made, say from their phones or from more fancy equipment. Now you have Wiki Commons, also allowing for the uploading of models. To a certain degree that’s already happening. What are current […] of people. Especially in the archaeology commi@ee we have, is ensuring that the metadata of those 3D files is clear. So, its about understanding the equipment that was used to make the model, the date that it was made on, etc etc. The danger is having lots of kind of junky models being uploaded and nobody knowing where it was made. The other thing that you have to think about, with 3D models. is that you can make a 3D model through photogrammetry, but at the end of there’s gonna bit a lot of hand work. There are gonna be holes in the model, which you would then have to manually fill in. And so, what a lot of people in the field are saying is that you need a way of accurate representa/on of what has been scanned and what has been rendered. There is a lot of debate right now, simply about the transparency of these methods. A.: This could be really complicated, especially for people without this specialised skillset to do it on their own. B.: Of course. A.: I am thinking that if that becomes simple enough and user friendly, one could go out in the local neighbourhood and document the area. B.: It’s really simple now as well. There is 123D Catch, but I don’t know what it’s called now, but you could just go out now and make a model of the car si{ng in front of your flat, without too much trouble. In a way, we are already there. You know the whole Scanathon at museums as well. Where museums invite people to come in and scan their objects and upload them onto a server. A.: Interes/ng. I was not aware of this. B.: Yeah. There is massive poten/al for a very decentralised […]. I mean in a way what people are specula/ng is that it would become like photography online, it would become like video

making online, where people just upload, and probably it won’t become as […]. It will s/ll probably stay rela/vely niche because you know photography and video are popular medium. There are a lot of examples of this kind of crowdsourcing ac/vity. One of them that I just read about is that the cultural heritage industry is actually looking at the wildlife preserva/on industry for clues on how to decentralise their work, and how to democra/se their work. What the wildlife preserva/on scenes does really well is it brings together a group of hobbyists, lets say birdwatchers. You know, there are millions of birdwatchers in the world and they love watching birds. So, they harness that energy and interest in birds to gather data about bird popula/ons, and through that data, wildlife preserva/on socie/es are able to make be@er decisions. So, there is a lot of talk in the cultural heritage scene that how can we harness that interest from a public in cultural heritage preserva/on to be going out into their towns and villages and capturing cultural heritage that they think it’s interes/ng and uploading it onto a site. A.: Yes, exactly that. This could be possible, but what is the incen/ve and mo/va/ons given then? B.: It’s the same incen/ve, I mean you already have…there’s a project called Describing Egypt. That again was just a couple of ar/sts you felt really passionately about Egyp/an cultural heritage and they knew it was at the /me when it was rela/vely diﬃcult to access a lot of these sites, especially for foreigners. So they went out and created these very good 360-degree visualisa/ons of these sites. Completely for hobby and fun. I think the more you get people to realise that this is something you can do, the more people are likely to do, just for fun, just for passion, for feeling a sense of purpose. That they are doing something worthwhile. A.: If we go back to the idea of war and conﬂict, do you think there should be a dis/nc/on in the sense that when we record something and we upload it in that database in a way, should there be any kind of restric/ons or divisions in the type of cultural heritage we upload so as to keep that memory of the events that happened alive? So, in the case of Palmyra, obviously this whole movements and ini/a/ves rose aoer the war and events of destruc/on, but could we somehow showcase that.

B.: The destruc/on itself? A.: Yes. And make that memory dis/nct. Because by just uploading a model, I think that simply doesn’t say much about it. A model of two-thousand years and a model of 3 days ago, in that way, don’t really say much about the place and the events that have occurred. So say, we have everything online, one might say we don’t have to visit Palmyra anymore, then future genera/ons might never find out about its story. B.: Well, I think that’s the mistake again. To think that we have something online, means that we won’t visit it anymore, and I think its precisely the opposite. Because something is online, the more likely you are to visit something. Then you raise the issue of mul/-temporal scanning. To understand what a place looked like at different moments in /me, and I think that this is one of the most interes/ng things. It’s possible and it is already been done with Palmyra. You know, there were two […] on Palmyra. So they did scans before, they did scans aoer the a@acks and they did scans aoer the second a@acks. So you have mul/ple /mes and models understanding the various states of ruin that the site has been in. I think that’s gonna be the future. People are going to be recording regularly the state of these places in 3D. To understand how they change every /me. A.: Where would you think this movement is going? This movement powered by all these ini/a/ves. Perhaps around the case of these two projects in recording Palmyra. For example, the IDA has even stated that they are going to place the Arch at its original site, close to where the original used to be. B.: I know the IDA personally, and maybe this part shouldn’t be public. Perhaps I shouldn’t be saying this publicly. The operate much within the own road map. They are opportunists. So, I wouldn’t put much stalk in what they say on their website because they seem to switch, and take a different path, every other day. I don’t even know if the Million Image Database is even happening. It’s kind of hard to understand where they are going. That’s all to say. They do stuff but they are not a very serious organisa/on. With NewPalmyra, they started a fellowship so I think they are probably going away from the actual issue of Palmyra itself and become much more of a plaÄorm which offers opportuni/es of digital culture, of digital heritage.

A.: Become slightly more generic then? B.: Yes. I can put you in touch with Barry and he will tell you much more what they are up to. A.: That would be great. Going on their website, to download these models of Palmyra’s monuments, they appear to be 30%, 20% complete. It seems to be a sort of stasis. Perhaps they have stopped recording it. It was a bit sad to see that actually, because it seemed like a really ambi/ous and interes/ng ini/a/ve to have these online, but it never gets made or completed in a way, then that’s a bit of a shame. B.: Yes, I know. Many of these organisa/ons are very fragile. They have lots of ini/al energy and they might peak at the beginning. Most are a hobby /me of individuals. They are not making money out of it. But I don’t see that as par/cularly bad, even if these projects only get 20% done. The 20% they’ve done is already really interes/ng. The Wiki Commons I think is huge. I think we are going to see a lot more interes/ng ac/vity. Just a lot more people upload their 3D models online and that being as easily accessible as a large format image or a video is today. A.: This can change, in a way, can act as the means of photography which you can obtain online and manipulate, turn it into an illustra/on, modify it and make it your own, if it does not have an original ar/st, author or owner. In that case you could turn the ancient site, into a modern, personal, version. B.: Legally speaking, all these sites are public domain. There’s no copyright holder over a twothousand year old site. So, you’ve always been able to make it your own, it’s just easier to make it your own now. A.: This is what allows all these interna/onal organisa/ons to go there and record right? As there is nothing that can stop them in a way. B.: Well, legally speaking, public domain there s/ll is kind of ownership of a site. So there’s people who say we own the site, and who can say we don’t let you step on the site. It’s a

ma@er of nego/a/ng permission with local museums and ins/tutes which are in charge of maintaining a certain site. So that’s why, up to know it is interna/onal organisa/ons doing a lot of that work, because they are the ones who have the power and the […], to be able to make those deals. A.: Going back to when ISIS firstly occupied Palmyra, when they decided to destroy the site, do you think it would make a difference if they knew that the whole site existed online? Do you think they would s/ll do it? B.: It’s a really good ques/ons. I think, at the end of the day, it was the video that they produced of the explosion which was ul/mately a piece of propaganda, that was the most important think for them instead of the actual site. I don’t think they really gave two shits if Palmyra was standing or not. They just knew that a video of this thing exploding would have exactly the desired effects that they wanted. So, the ques/on is really, in the future, is the video of something exploding going to an effec/ve piece of propaganda? And then we have to bring that back on what is going to be our collec/ve future’s understanding of cultural heritage. So, if we know something can be rebuild really easily using digital technology, are we gonna care as much? My guess is yes, we would s/ll care. Because we s/ll, going back to what I’ve said in the past, the original is s/ll the original and even if you can recreate something is s/ll a bit shi@y if the original gets destroyed. So, I think sadly ISIS will con/nue to blow up things, regardless of our 3D technologies. A.: Yes, you are right. Because it was that video that had a huge impact and made ripples around the world, and travelled everywhere in a ma@er of hours. That’s exactly what they wanted to achieve.

B.: […] had a beau/ful statement when I was talking to him during the show, we were talking about monuments and poli/cal statements and he was saying that in eﬀect, all monuments serve to be a poli/cal statement right? They are three-dimensional poli/cal statements. Now the plume cloud that originated from the explosion, equated with itself being a poli/cal statement, therefore a kind of monument. So the plume cloud becomes a temporary

monument that lasts for ﬁve to seven minutes. Anyway, it’s out of the ques/on but I thought it was an interes/ng one. A.: Like the part that was in the exhibi/on in Venice, Bomb Cloud Atlas right? B.: That was his piece. That let to us modelling the bombs. A.: Interes/ng yes, as it is something that doesn’t really exist as a solid form, or as foam in that ma@er. B.: Yes, the extreme ephemerality of being frozen in space is surprisingly powerful. A.: I believe this is all. I wouldn’t like to take more of your /me. I would appreciate it if you could get me in contact with one of the guys from NewPalmyra. B.: Yes I will do that. When do you hand-in your work? How much /me have you got? A.: Handing it in exactly one month. B.: That is /ght. Good luck with that. A.: Yes it is /ght but I am enjoying it very much, and learn a lot every single day. B.: It’s a really amazingly fascina/ng ﬁeld right now, which I also accidentally found myself into. You know it’s something that has a lot of…you can think about it for a long /me. There are a lot of avenues to explore. It’s a really rich terrain. Well, very nice to talk to you. A.: Very nice to talk to you as well. Thank you very much for your /me. B.: Yes I will do that, no problem.

Interview 02 Date: 20/03/2018 Interviewee: Kostas ArvaniTs Senior Lecturer in Museology at the University of Manchester. His research interests cross the ﬁelds of museology, archaeology, cultural heritage, and digital media. His recent work has focused on the emergence of a data culture in cultural organisa/ons Kostas is also interested in no/ons and prac/ces of heritage ac/vism: drawing on the case of the Amphipolis tomb, he’s researching the impact of social media on the coproduc/on and crowd-sourcing of interpreta/ons of the past and how these interact with no/ons of authority in cultural professionalism. He’s par/cularly interested in the museology of technology, that is the cri/cal analysis of the use of digital, social and mobile media in museums for purposes of cura/on, interpreta/on, evalua/on and audience engagement. - - Andreas Leonidou = Interviewer Kostas Arvani/s - Interviewee - - - Andreas: Are you aware of the history and recent catastrophic events in Palmyra? Kostas: Generally yes. I haven’t followed the stories in kind of great detail, but I am aware of the destruc/ons of the archaeological sites and the arts, a few years ago, 3-4 years ago in Syria. But my knowledge is limited to say. A: I suppose this came through media and news reports, am I right? K: It’s primarily through media reports, but I think I might have seen a couple of ar/cles as well on the case. I wouldn’t be able to kind of quote from the today though.

A: From what you know about Palmyra, do you think it is important to share and disseminate its history and these recents stories and events of war and the a@acks? K: I think the history of any archaeological site is obviously very important, because it is part of the historical contexts that one is to preserve around the material culture of a site or… This is what kind of gives it importance. The kind of, the objects and the remains themselves do not have necessarily an importance in themselves, they gain importance from where they come from or when they come from, and who gives them, and so on. Now if you are asking whether because of the par/cular significance that this site had in the past, whether this makes it more valuable for preserva/on today, I suppose I would say yes. If its of excep/onal ar/s/c, I suppose, value or its of a excep/onal historical value for whatever reason, then it obviously makes it more importantly to be maintained and preserved as a site. But at the same /me, how we defined importance in a cultural site, its very contextual, very /me sensi/ve. Today we think about value in a specific way, 500 years ago it was different, 500 years from now would be different. I suppose I am even contradic/ng myself here when I say, that we s/ll need to work within our current context. Based on the way we understand the value of archaeological remains today, whether an archaeological site is of par/cular significance, that yes affects the way we should communicate that historical significance. A: It might be a ma@er of memory as well. For example, the media focused around Palmyra for a couple of years when it was occupied, and now they have gone really quiet. The site has been in a sort of stasis since then. The Syrian Government has clarified that the site will be reconstructed, but now nothing is really happening. People started ques/ons now, how all these resources were spend to document and record that during the way, but what about all the memories and suffering of the people that came along during the war. Do you think we can share memories as well, through these new methods of digital preserva/on, as explained earlier? K: I think, in many ways, I’ll say the fact that the site has been damaged and the fact that there is war happening it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is more important. I

think the everydayness and the memory of an archaeological site, shouldn’t be dependent on whether it is under threat or not under threat. If there is an archaeological management structure and process ensures that what is preserved is both the stories and kind of the contemporary ways that people relate to these archaeological s/es. Then if a war happens, if destruc/on happens, then you have that already in place. If you are looking at a way to salvage, if you are doing this as a reac/on to destruc/on, in many ways you have lost the game. You have lost the kind of opportunity. It’s very reac/onary and by defini/on it will be something that is focused on that par/cular site, whether lessons can be then applied to other sites I’m less sure about. I think we need a much more proac/ve and approach that is not defined by a par/cular event that is a war, destruc/on or an earthquake, whatever it is. Yes, I think it is important to capture those memories and those stories but I think when you do it reac/vely, I don’t think it would be as effec/ve. Having said that, it would probably mobilise more people now than it would mobilise at /me of peace, to par/cipate in this. A: The points you made are really interes/ng. It sort of always works like that, when it all starts surfacing up aoer a big event, that usually involves some sort of destruc/on. K: Palmyra is not the only archaeological site that has been destroyed. There is a lot of similar sites and some have been kind of gained more visibility, especially through media, and one is to ask why it is so, and whether these stories and the significance behind those is driven by experts or poli/cians or other people. So, why Palmyra and not some other site? A: Yes, especially in the complex case of the Syrian War and par/cularly ISIS, there are dozens of such sites around the Middle East that have been heavily damaged or at /me even obliterated. There are also sites with much more damage than Palmyra. Buddhas of Bamiyan for example in Iraq have been completely destroyed by ISIS. Palmyra s/ll stands in that way, and I believe it represents something about the way we perceive and preserve culture, and stands as a message for our modern socie/es. This fact is what pushes kind of these efforts, as Palmyra can s/ll be scanned today, even aoer it has been partly destroyed.

100

K: Exactly. And the other we are supposed to remember, and I am not an expert in the archaeological research around Palmyra, but I assume there is more research done on this historical site, because of its historical and archaeological signiﬁcance. There is already data and informa/on about the history of the site, while other sites that are not important-archaeologically or historically-that are also destroyed, we kind of lose more from them not being our focus of a@en/on, the focus of kind of projects like 3Dscanning or mobilising kind of people on the ground. A: Yes, that is perhaps true and a good point. Before the war, Palmyra was Syria’s most visited tourist a@rac/on, and a huge asset for the country. Now, as I said, it lies on a kind of state of ruin and stasis. Do you think making Palmyra digital, and available to be downloaded online, by basically anyone, to be used commercially, would have an impact on that? So, let’s assume Palmyra the war is over and Palmyra once again becomes this jewel and regain the grandiose status it once has, do you think making the site digital would have an impact on the number of people that would visit it? K: Yes, it would have an impact. I won’t say it would have a nega/ve impact, it would probably have a posi/ve impact. Because the more you know about… It is the same discussion we have with museums and kind of websites of museums and virtual museums and so on. The arguments in the 1990s where if we have a museum website, people would stop going to museums because they can ﬁnd anything online. What those 15 years have shown is that the access to digital versions of collec/ons in museums have actually generated more interest and more visita/on to museums. People don’t not-go to museums because they can see something online, and I assume the same would happen with arcaheological sites. If anything it would probably create more interest. If anything it would probably create propor/onally an unbalanced interest in sites that have been digi/sed, as opposed to sites that have not been digi/sed and shared online. We ooen say that if it’s not online then it is probably not on site. If something doesn’t have a digital presence, it would probably be less visited.

101

A: It reminds me of the case of Mona Lisa, that popped up on one of my interviews for this research. It is most downloaded image online, and at the same /me the most visited object in a museum. There is probably an interes/ng correla/on here. K: It is a correla/on, and I think one way to think about it, whether accessing a digital version of an object or a site online, how do you call that. Ooen we say that these are online visitors. But a visitor is a different thing, much more specific. It has a specific way that it can be defined, in the physical space. I assume, again I have not followed that, people who download an image of Mona Lisa, they are not downloading it for the same reasons that they go to visit it in the physical space. They download it because they want to create a meme or a gif or… A: Modify it in any way. K: Yes, modify it, exactly. There is a different kind of online behaviour that affects what we access online and how we behave in the physical space. A: It is similar to what one of the projects of my focus is trying to do, #NewPalmyra. It started off before the Syrian war by this guy Bassel Khartabil, a Syrian sooware developer. He had this vision of crea/ng Palmyra in a 3D virtual evnronment that one can walk through digitally and look at the sites and monuments, in a very simplis/c way. He had started doing that through taking photographs, and using them as a tool to help him recreate this digital environment. Since then he has been captured and executed by the Syrian government aoer ac/vely par/cipa/ng in some freedom of speech demonstra/ons and movements. The project has been taken over by some ther guys involved in the Crea/ve Commons field, and now they have sort of developed that into 3D models where one can download. They received massive a@en/on on the media, and a great momentum during the war, but now it has been an extremely quite side of Palmyra’s digitalisa/on, and you can see that by the models online which appear to be 20-30% complete. One might say that they might not even finish them. But does it ma@er though? Do they need to finish? Perhaps it’s this idea of ins/ga/on, where somebody else takes over aoerwards. A ma@er of a collec/ve ac/on perhaps.

102

K: These are 3D models right? A: Yes, 3D models which can be downloaded as .stl general format and opened on almost every 3D modelling sooware. One can then 3D-print, modify them. K: I think when it comes to the use of technology in this way, it is all about context. It is why you are doing that. If you are a researcher or if you are a kind of a user who finds this digital file online, it means that you can download it and print it, if you have a 3D printer, whatever, but it’s what is the context of doing that. Whether something has been downloaded or finished or not, it also has to do with the mo/va/on behind that and the outcome. What does one want to achieve by doing that. I’ll give you an example of a similar thing. I assume it’s a similar thing, because as I said I am not very familiar with this par/cular case. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, has developed what they call the Rijksstudio which is an online space where you can download high resolu/on image of most of the artworks. Thousands of artworks are given online for free, and you can actually use them for commercial purposes, something very unusual for the museum sector. Usually museums would say you download or we can sell you a high resolu/on version. A: But they own them in a way right? K: Yes they own the copyrights. So, usually, you can use these for your own personal purposes but not for commercial purposes. But the Rijksmuseum say, do whatever you want with it. Every year they have a compe//on to find the most interes/ng or exci/ng product that has come out of people using those images. Things like wallpapers and jewellery and all sorts of things. People use it to make money. They use it for commercial purposes. Anyone can go online and create an account and start downloading images. I have done this myself just for the sake of it, but I haven’t done anything with the images. People get excited and curious with people they can do, because they can do them, but if there isn’t the context that supports the use of it or the long /me use of that par/cular sooware or image, people would lose interest. I am not quite sure if the a similar or parallel project to the ones you are referring, but

103

to me the context of use and the context of access plays a significant role on whether something is downloaded or printed out or not. Does this answer the ques/on? A: Yes it absolutely does. The no/on of context and sort of aim behind some ac/ons is really significant I believe and a major driver as you have clearly men/oned. It brings this back to the second project of my research. It is much more of an interna/onal a@empt to record and digitalise cultural heritage over the spectrum of a mul/tude of sites, but nothing is really visible and transparent in what they do. They are quite secre/ve in what they do. They have recently released online the 3D model of the Arch of Triumph in Palmyra, which has been destroyed by ISIS completely. They have reconstructed it with the same material, in two-thirds of the original scale, and by using mechanical, automated robots. They then placed it around the world star/ng from Trafalgar Square in London, as an a@empt to disseminate the message that whatever ISIS is going to destroy, we are gonna rebuild. This was the aoer the first occupa/on of Palmyra by ISIS. Then ISIS reoccupied the site and obliterated even more monuments. The IDA came back aoer this and stated that they are going to place this replica of the arch next to where they original used to be. This caused an uproar within the public opinion. It sort of divided the public. This bring me to the ques/on of whether one should document something digitally and keep it for oneself or disseminate it and allow for anything to happen, even for a possible reconstruc/on by anybody? K: I think one of the ways to approach that is to understand where the value lies in the original and the 3D copy of the Palmyra Arch. In Western cultures a lot of the value of an object comes from the metonymic rela/onship with the past. The fact that this arch or this object was created by people in specific dates in the past, twothousand years ago, it con/nued to exist for all this /me and then destroyed. That linked the past, that metonymic rela/onship to the past is where we put value and this is how ooen we defined authen/city and originality and the authen/c value of an object. It’s authen/c because it was created back then by that civilisa/on in that cultural and geographical and chronological context. That is why put value to it. There are other ways that one can define value which isn’t that metonymic rela/onship, but it has to do with the way things are presented. For example, there is a museum in

104

Japan, called Otsuka Museum, is a museum has lots of artworks, of Western countries, that are all copies. Very precise copies of pain/ngs from Leonardo and other kind of famous ar/sts. The museum doesn’t claim to have originals, but it has very high resolu/on artworks. The value there is that what the museum wanted to do, is to allow or enable the visitors to come across artworks of renaissance and other periods of western art that look the same way, or as close as possible, to the original, and that kind of experience. The value was not in the fact that this was an authen/c piece of work that was in Florence one-thousand years ago, but it looks like the original. The value there is different to that metonymic rela/onship to the past. The value is that it looks the way original artworks look like. If we take this into considera/on, whether if you put the copy of the Palmyra Arch, even in smaller scale, in the physical space, what you are arguing there what the value is reconstruc/ng something that used to be in that locality and it looks like-the one you are reconstruc/ng-a very accurate representa/on of that original arch. Even though it is much smaller. I suppose this can be rec/fied, and made into the original scale and size. Those ques/ons about reconstruc/on and representa/on of copies are not new. In museums and archaeology we’ve been talking about copies and replicas for many years. There is a par/cular value of having copies and replicas of objects. A: This probably takes us to Wikimedia’s ac/ons and field of work. It is basically similar to Wikipedia, it uses the same algorithm and concept, but deals with all kinds of media. Wikimedia’s newly released feature allows for the uploading of digital models of anything really. The models are uploading on public domain with a CC0 license, which essen/ally means they can be used for commercial purposes, but for the moment nobody really uploads anything. #NewPalmyra uploaded their incomplete models on the database as a tribute to Khartabil who was executed. If we, let’s say, Wikimedia becomes this database where our cultural heritage can be stored there in a meaningful way, then what does that mean for the museum, as an ins/tute? And can a museum be in our pockets or become our living rooms in that sense? K: Yes, absolutely. Museums have been dealing with these kind of ques/ons for the past 10-15 years, even longer than that. The idea of the museum as not just a physical

105

space where visitors go and visit it and see an objects or a collec/on. A museum as a manifesta/on of its aims. If the aim of the museums is to present and engage people with par/cular cultures and histories through material and immaterial objects, it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t necessarily mean that this needs to take place in the physical space of the cultural ins/tu/on. It can be done through diďŹ&#x20AC;erent ways. Museums have actually done that beyond digital technologies. We talk about copies before. They take copies to schools and they talk about their collec/ons in this way. The postcards that they do, the catalogs, the books, all these are ways through which they disseminate the knowledge that they create. So, the digital comes to respond to something that has been going on for many years, but obviously because of the capabili/es of this technology, it gives them more opportuni/es, more things to experiment with. I think the more problema/c issue is not so much whether the museum becomes a museum on the move-a mobile museum. Not even the ques/on whether what this means for the physical space, whether people would s/ll go, as I think that people would s/ll go to the physical space. But who owns those 3D digital copies. Who are the owners and where ownership lies. Projects like this where there are no barriers in ownership, that it is quite interes/ng. There are ques/ons around security and privacy of data here, that need to be addressed by museums or similar cultural ins/tu/ons. If we are trea/ng those digital copies as another version of the collec/on that we have, then we need to think how we maintain those digital copies. Where are they stored, who has access to them and what is the long term and maintenance and preserva/on of this data. If we are relying on this digital data for an increasing amount of ac/vi/es in the future, then we need to treat them as a museum object. A: Exactly. I suppose this is even more signiďŹ cant at cases where there is no original. The original is gone, as a vic/m of some kind of violence. It is now just a memory that exists in this state. In the case of Palmyra, the temples that were obliterated only exist in photographs, memories obviously and 3D digital models now. Who gets to own these data and informa/on then? Legally speaking, nobody can really claim ownership over a two-thousand-year-old site. Does it belong to the individual or the organisa/on that has performed or funded the digital scanning? But then if this is disseminated and uploaded online on public domain, then is available for anyone and

106

anything. Looking at Wikipedia, there is a similar kind of risk, where anybody can edit and re-upload, drama/cally altering history in a way. K: Yes, precisely. I think this is where interes/ng ques/ons around what is authen/c in a 3D digital model begin to rise. There is a preconcep/on that 3D models or 3D scanned copies are the most accurate digital representa/ons of a 3D object. I think this is something that we need to address, as a preconcep/on. I am not an expert obviously in 3D scanning, but I assume there are lots of decisions involved in what data are used and what data are omi@ed in the final version of a 3D copy. It is not an objec/ve process or a factual process. A: Yes you are right. When these huge amounts of scanning data are converted into a digital 3D model, they are never 100% accurate. There are always small holes and missing informa/on across these models. These then have to be manually filled-in. So, perhaps is how we dis/nguish, visually, the difference between these two ac/ons of represen/ng reality. K: The human element is present. It is not something that is solely machine generated. I am not saying that this is a problem, but I think that We need to acknowledge that these are very accurate models, but there is a process of decisionmaking that needs to be transparent in order to understand who par/cipates and which decisions have been made around it. Maybe in the end it doesn’t ma@er too much. There is a ques/on here whether we are […] minuscule decisions that do not really make any visual difference to a 3D copy. I am not exactly sure what the answer to that is then, but it is a really interes/ng aspect. I find it interes/ng that there is a narra/ve that assumes that 3D copies and 3D scanned objects and 3D printed objects are complete replicas, or very true replicas, and I think that this is not the case. A: When it comes to making such a digital database, then there are museums, ins/tu/ons and organisa/ons from around the world doing that. Each one of them would probably have their own criteria, you know, this is how we gather data, convert it and do our 3D models, that do not necessarily match others. Basically when such models are up on the database, everything might be different in the way they have

107

been recorded. The methods and processes might not be the same. Some mind get allocated more /me than others as well. Do you think there could be something like what UNESCO is doing, conserving the world’s cultural heritage, that takes care of this global database and material? Take care of recording our cultural heritage? K: I think there is a point here which has to do with the fact that we need some kind of guidance. Even exis/ng cultural bodies to create regula/ons and guidance on how we think about and treat digital objects. I am not necessarily saying we need something new, a new organisa/on, because there are already numerous ones, like UNESCO Conven/on of Digital Heritage. Many are currently in place and in many ways you don’t want to create something that becomes an opposi/on to these exis/ng bodies, but instead embed the digital aspect of the prac/ces and policies of these cultural bodies. A: During the Syrian War, and straight aoer ISIS’s ﬁrst occupa/on of Palmyra, there were somewhere between 7 and 12 diﬀerent scanning a@empts and ini/a/ves of scanning Palmyra. Two of these are the ones that I am focusing my research on. There was a major lack of coordina/on between these organisa/on and ins/tu/ons, from all over the world, from Russia, to Dubai and the United States. They all rushed in with cameras and scanning devices before ISIS returned for the second occupa/on, to record as much as possible. They did manage to record Palmyra, and these huge amounts of data now belong to mul/ple servers somewhere in the world. They did not really come together though. One might argue that if they came together, perhaps we would have Palmyra on a digital environment by now. It is perhaps a ma@er of global poli/cs as well. K: That is one thing yes. One problem is that we are trea/ng digital technology and its use, in similar ways that we are trea/ng analog technology. Having lots of people rushing to the site with cameras and so on, it feels very non-digital. It feels very manual. It’s like sending people to keep notes on something. Almost not taking advantage of the capabili/es of technology and le{ng exis/ng cultural behaviours to limit the possibili/es that technology allows us to have. I suppose it also has to do with the fact that these digital mediated way are s/ll very new and there is not much

108

experience behind it. You end up with loads of data and you are not quite sure how to use them and what is the best way to use them. Also how to sell them and who to sell with. We need to be thinking in a more holis/c, well holis/c is a word everybody uses I suppose, but in a way that thinks about the digital product as something that has a life cycle and different lives as well. Not just how you create the digital data, but also who is it for and how it is going to be used. I find that ooen when we use technology to do a number of ways in archaeology or in museums, we do it for sake of using technology, because we can use technology. More importantly the ques/ons here are why we are doing it and who is going to use this data and how it is going to preserved and shared and with whom and so on. If this ques/ons are not answered from the outset then it becomes much more difficult to answer them aoerwards. The way you answer those ques/ons actually defines the way you would actually do the digi/sa/on in the first instance. A: Yes, I totally agree. This technology has been even translated and placed within our smartphones today. Our phones are very powerful machines and are capable of undertaking numerous complex tasks that we are not even aware of. Today certain sooware allow us to digitally scan our physical world. One can create digital models with a personal smartphone. Anyone can download these applica/ons and do it. Then what do you do with the model? You have the op/on to upload and share it. There are several websites that you can upload it such as Wikimedia-which was discussed earlier-and Sketchfab, but then you could end up with scrappy models, and perhaps thousands of versions of one single object, where you would probably just wanted one. We could do that. We could essen/ally go out and use our smartphones to record our local cultural heritage, but we don’t do it. Nobody really does it. I am not saying we should. What do you think is the reason behind this? Perhaps people are not aware of this capability and op/on, or simply do not care. K: I think there are a number of issues. There is the issue of cost involved. These things are never cheap. A: It can be done by downloading a free app and taking several photos though.

109

K: The crowdsourcing element is quite useful. The fact that people carry technologies with them as well. Ooen on these kind of projects where one can use a phone to do X or Y, what is missing again is the context. Yes, I can use my phone to take photographs of an archaeological site but if I don’t know why I’m doing it, where will that file end up to, and how it is going to be used, either I would do or lose interest or don’t do it at all. I think you have a point here which is the technology exists and can be used in a very simple and straighÄorward way and maybe we just use what people have in their pockets to do all this. To capture cultural heritage in different formats, but I think that s/ll needs a structure and modera/on and someone to lead and manage it. In many ways, it actually needs more modera/on and more management when you have all these, hundreds and tens of hundreds of people par/cipa/ng in a project like this. A: It is similar to another ini/a/ve called Rekrei, which instead of going out there and scanning cultural heritage monuments and sites, they use material that already exists through mass tourism and interest. Thousands of tourists, perhaps millions visit our cultural heritage sites and take perhaps an infinite number of photos which ooen do not acquire any use. Rekrei crowdsources these photos and uses them to recreate digital models of cultural heritage, with a prime focus in destructed sites across the Middle East and par/cularly in Iraq, following acts of war violence. The argument in this case though could be that it is not that accurate as each photo is a snapshot of a different period of a monument, so in a way what is created at the end is a version of a span of 30-40 years for example. But then does it ma@er? K: Well again it depends what is the ques/on you are asking. What is the aim behind that. A: Meaning what you actually want to do and achieve with that? K: Yes. I remember there was a project that Microsoo used to have, called Silverlight I think. It would collate photographs that people took of a site or a building and use an algorithm to understand which photograph goes next to which, and then collate all this. It was really interes/ng and very close to what you are saying. Again there were some gaps and so on, but they were not that important I suppose. It comes back to

110

the ques/ons you were asking before. Is it the of the same period and what are we trying to achieve. If it’s a ma@er of of… I think lots of these ac/ons make sense when there is an emergency and people come up with these ac/ons when there is an emergency. People can be mobilised when there is an emergency. I think it’s much more difficult to do that on a day-today-day life. Maybe that is fine. Maybe what you do is to prepare for that emergency, and you have a plan where that involves ge{ng people to use their phones to do a number of things in that emergency. Maybe that is good enough for what’s for. There might also be other smaller project that one could do with schools, that perhaps don’t have such ambi/ous goals but are much more specific to the things that students are taught in schools. The value then is related to the ques/ons that the teacher wants to ask and address. I think what we s/ll struggling to come to terms with is that digital technology doesn’t have barriers, boundaries and borders. It is universal in many ways. There is a desire to create the ul/mate process of digi/sing everything with very simple terms and processes. Definitely the technology exists, but what does not exists and subsequently what the limita/on is that technology although might not have any boundaries, it works within socie/es that s/ll have boundaries of race, culture, na/onal boundaries. It is not as ubiquitous and simple as we think it is I suppose. A: It is not as clear as we think it is yes. We try to do whatever we are capable of, push it to the extreme and just do it. Our thinking perhaps is that, we can do so we might as well do it and then we will see about it and decide what to do with it. At the end we might end up not doing anything with this data and informa/on. K: There are two arguments here. One is that, we can do so we might as well do it and find a jus/fica/on of why we did it and a purpose for it later. That could be quite a crea/ve process, because when you have a very high resolu/on copy and representa/on of a whole archaeological site, that could spark different ideas of how to use it. The other approach is, don’t do it un/l you know why you are doing it. Do not digi/se a whole archaeological site before you know why you are doing and who for. I can see the value in both, but the problem is ooen about financing, about money. It is very resource intensive and expensive to do large scale digi/sa/on when you don’t have a clear idea of what the aims are. Even if you are invi/ng and involving

111

people to par/cipate, the problem there is not necessarily the financial aspect, but that you need to maintain people’s involvement and interest for a long /me, unless it is something very /me specific, very /me sensi/ve that does not require a longer commitment for people. A: I suppose that when there is an aim or context to drive the digi/sa/on, then the process of scanning and documen/ng might be more focused and specific, which might end up becoming much more efficient in terms of resources. That is everything from my side. Your answer were very good and I believe there is good material for me to take forward to my research work. K: That is really good. You are focusing on a very interes/ng subject here, and the fact that you are talking about very recent events makes it even more relevant today than ever. Good luck with your work. A: Thank you, and also thank you very much for your /me Mr. Arvani/s.

112