“I have visited the Chauvet Cave”: the heritage experience of a rock art replica

Abstract

When making cultural heritage sites available for tourism, the use of partial or complete replicas can enable the public to see a heritage object/site that must remain closed to ensure its preservation, or due to its difficult access. What happens when the challenges of conservation, prohibiting any form of in situ access to an archaeological site, coupled with the challenges of presenting it to the public, are addressed through the creation of a replica that is presented as entirely faithful and which becomes the place where the visitor can experience "heritage"? Drawing from ten years of research, we explore the links between the Chauvet-Pont d'Arc Cave and its replica, the Pont d'Arc Cavern, both located in the southern Ardèche region of France. After discussing the role of authenticity and experience in the heritage process, an analysis of the characteristics of the Pont d'Arc Cavern highlights the emphasis placed on the emotional realm. We then discuss the possibilities for transferring the heritage values of the original cave to the replica based on how the replica is received by the visitors. Finally, this article addresses issues currently raised by the use of virtual reality in the field of cultural heritage (Dewi 2017), and participates in a fundamental consideration of the nature and use of Heritage (Smith 2006;Meskell 2012).

The Janus-faced Dilemma of Rock Art Heritage Management in Europe: A Double Dialectic Process between Conservation and Public Outreach, Transmission and Exclusion

“…The cave is thus perceived and treated as a work of art, via a monumental approach (Aujoulat 2004). By presenting the copy as place where one can experience that which defines heritage, the heritage actors participate in a transfer of heritagity between the original cave and the copy (Duval et al 2019b), and even more so, they convey the values and characteristics based on which, according to them, the original cave constitutes heritage, therefore reproducing the values of elites.…”

“…Partial or total copy or facsimile. The aim, in this case, is to reconstruct the rock art sites and replace them within an environment similar to that of the original site, thus enabling the visitors to more fully experience this type of heritage (Duval et al 2019b). These copies-facsimiles are presented to be the best compromise to achieve the most efficient conservation and optimal touristic development of a site since these two aims become completely dissociated from one another once a facsimile has been created.…”

“…Far from being uniform and identical, the construction of a facsimile reflects the choices made by the various actors involved in the process, whether in terms of the location, the construction modalities, or scenographic projects (cf. Cachat et al 2012;Malgat et al 2012 ;Malgat et al 2015 ;Duval et al 2019b. See also James 2016James , 2017 Other than the reproductions of the Altamira ceiling, which take centre stage in the gardens of the National Archaeological Museum in Madrid and the Deutsches Museum in Munich, and correspond more to mobile archaeological artefacts, the facsimiles are located in immediate proximity to the decorated caves that they represent.…”

“…Even it if is different, the main question is whether this feeling of authenticity is satisfying to the visitors. On this topic, the research conducted on the visitors to the Chauvet 2-Ardèche Cave (Duval et al 2019b), enriched by observations made in the Vézère Valley and the Cantabria/Basque Country region (Stummer 2019), demonstrate that the qualification of an authentic experience depends largely on the care taken to create a simulacrum of the underground environment (sensation of going underground, dim lighting, humidity, odour, underground landscape), in other words, the role of materiality in the construction of a credible work (Foster and Curtis 2016;Holtorf 2013;Jones and Yarrow 2013). The differences between Lascaux 2 and Lascaux 4 (Figures 3a, 2b, 2c and 2d) are partly because Lascaux 2 has remained open to the public (even if it was the necessity to close it that justified the construction of Lascaux 4), with sold-out visits in the high tourist season, praised by the visitors and tourism actors in the region: Seriously, if you must choose between the two, go to Lascaux 2, this visit is much more intimate, it feels like we're in the real cave, with the smell and humidity.…”

“…Moreover, this exclusion of visitors raises the question of the durability and meaning of the heritage-making process (Smith 2006). Based on previous research that demonstrated the essential role of experience in that which is considered as heritage (Duval et al 2019b, Jones 2010, we can legitimately ask to what degree the sites closed to visitors can still be considered as heritage-sites. In other words, can the management of accessibility to rock art sites result in a form of de-heritage-making process, with the motivation to transmit these sites in the long term leading to the subtraction, or even confiscation, of rock art sites from the public domain?…”