Classifying heritage by states of decay, restoration, and transformation for tourism, teaching, and research: ‘un-freezing' sites in time to reveal additional meanings

Figures & data

Table 1. Classifications for post-construction history of heritage sites using four descriptive factors.

Abandoned (natural reclamation)	Deteriorated or looted (decay stages)	Maintained (restored)	Transformed (other than tourism)
A.1. Unexcavated, Uncleared site within natural context of human changes to surrounding natural landscape	D.1. Original site, standing, with original affixed art and worship objects on site	R.1. (continuous to ‘Date') Maintained by original culture, replicating and restoring but not changing	T.1. (as of ‘Date') Same functional use but with additional design or icons of an evolving culture
A.2. Unexcavated, uncleared site but with surrounding areas cleared for contemporary usage	D.2. Original site, fallen, with original affixed art and worship objects on site	R.2. (as of ‘Date') Restored through replication of original construction with original materials	T.2. (as of ‘Date') Same functional use but with additional design or icons of a different culture
A.3. Exposed, unrestored site	D.3. Original site, standing, stripped of affixed art	R.3. (as of ‘Date') Partially restored using materials found on site but without additional art; may just be foundations without any wooden structures	T.3. (as of ‘Date') Different functional use (other than tourism) by same or different culture with some design changes
A.4. Excavated site, to uncover buried art work and other materials used at the site.	D.4. Original site, fallen, stripped of affixed art	R.4. (as of ‘Date') Recent restoration using modern materials replacing original	T.4. (as of ‘Date') Unrecognizable transformation but incorporating some original elements
	D.5. Desecrated site stripped of affixed art and some building materials
	D.6. Site stripped of all building materials but retaining landscape and infrastructure (baray, roads, and outline)
	D.7. Ghost site, identifiable by place name or written or oral history

Table 2. Test of the post-construction history classifications for generic structures from different cultures and time periods.

Generic type of heritage	Applicability of the four descriptive factors and suggested modifications
	Abandoned (natural reclamation)	Deteriorated	Maintained (restored)	Transformed
Roman Aqueducts, the first century	Yes, the same categories can be applied	The seven categories can be merged into four because there was no art work. Either they are standing, fallen, visible as roads or waterways or just place names	Yes, the same categories can be applied	Yes, the same categories can be applied, though it is hard to imagine an aqueduct transformed
Ma Vien and Trung Sisters (‘Hai Ba Trung') citadels the first century	Yes, the same categories can be applied. Here, if there were interior houses and forts with weapons and or artwork, that would need to be excavated (an additional third category as to whether there has been excavation)	The art work would have been inside and the citadels are dirt or rock, so the list can be modified into only four categories: all walls and gates, some walls, outlines of walls and place names	Yes, the same categories can be applied	Yes, the same categories can be applied. Sometimes walls are transformed into roads
Vauban Style Nguyen Dynasty Vietnamese citadels, the nineteenth century or earlier Vauban forts in Europe	Not really applicable because they are recent and in city centers but an additional category can be added as to whether interiors were excavated	Yes, the same categories can be applied. ‘Art' here would be the design elements of the gates	Yes, the same categories can be applied	Yes, the same categories can be applied. Sometimes brick walls are transformed into jails or parks
French colonial schools or churches, the early twentieth century	Not really applicable because they are too recent but some places in war zones are abandoned	Yes. Here the ‘art' applies to the design elements and gardens	Yes, the same categories can be applied but it only applies to the building itself, not to the furniture and décor that require a different set of descriptions	Yes, the same categories can be applied but the determination of ‘function' of French buildings can be ambiguous and needs to be clarified in the descriptions
American military landing strips and airports in Southeast Asia, 1954–1975	Yes, the same categories can be applied	Yes, the same categories can be applied for airports, because there were buildings. For just landing strips, either the strip is still there or it is not (two categories only)	Yes, the same categories can be applied	Yes, the same categories can be applied. Sometimes these strips have become streets or markets

Table 3. Three possible classification types for prior structures: modern restoration, transformation, or demolition and replacement.

Maintenance (restoration) of prior structure	Transformation of prior structure	Demolition and replacement of prior structure
PR.1. (prior structure from ‘Date') Restoration using modern materials replacing original	PT.1. (prior structure from ‘Date') Same functional use but with additional design or icons of an evolving culture	PD.1. (prior structure from ‘Date') Destruction of prior structure erasing all elements but for same function
	PT.2. (prior structure from ‘Date') Same functional use as that of a previous and different culture but with additional design or icons	PD.2. (prior structure from ‘Date') Destruction of prior structure erasing all elements for new function
	PT.3. (prior structure from ‘Date') Different functional use (other than tourism) by same or different cultures with some design changes
	PT.4. (prior structure from ‘Date') Unrecognizable transformation but incorporating some original elements