1. !
CoP MEETINGS 3 & 4!
Ghent, May 2013!
!!
inspiration &!
innovation in!
interpretation!
!
!
connecting the future
to the present practice
of heritage communication!
!
wrap-up!
& reader!
!
!!!

2. First day (innovation of communicating heritage)
✦ Where and how to find new ways of engaging and inspiring heritage communication
in order to enhance the quality of our communication?
✦ Should we look to other succesful heritage projects or should we look outside our
field in order to innovate?
✦ Is gaming the state of the art example of heritage interpretation?
✦ How to approach this way of communicating and interacting?
✦ What is a really good example of network / platform you already use to inspire you
and provide you with knowledge?
✦ Why does this work so well and how can we use this together?

3. Second day (connecting the future to the present practice)
✦ Is it possible to maintain a network that helps us to develop visions of the future of
heritage interpretation?
What do we need for that?
✦ What are the great challenges we are facing now and in the near future, which
questions will we have to answer within one or five years?
How can we discover them quicker and share our insights on it easier?
✦ Combining research, knowledge and practical experience: must we adhere to the
highest possible standard of research and criteria for quality, or can we combine high
standard research with common sense and practical experience?
What is the most useful result for innovation?
✦ In what way can and should we use technology. Who will be paying for our network?
With whom do you want to share this future?
Who should be involved and participate?

4. workshop (semi-open space)
✦ propose a question or theme that you want to discuss
✦ enhance the question / theme by adding knowledge, experience, questions
✦ we choose 4 propositions
✦ who wants to lead the discussion?
✦ use your 2 feet to join or leave a of the four discussions, or do some online
crowdsourcing
✦ ask, propose, add, collect information, ask further, write down, draw
✦ results (plenary)

5. ✦ A Community of Practise helps us to enhance the quest for new insights and
inspiration
true / false
✦ (“To disclose our main treasures for a broad audience, we have to let visitors
participate, involve them in the proces of interpreting and contextualizing heritage
and engage as many people as possible”)
Our visitors are the most inspiring source we have
true / false
✦ Inspiration is over glorified. What we need is science, research and leadership
true / false

6. ✦ In order to innovate we need to invite other experts, known and unknown to us,
from within and outside the heritage field, to join our conversation
true / false
✦ To be innovative is to be connected. We need to bridge structural holes
between different sectors
true / false
✦ keywords for innovation are
intelligence
creativity
infrastructure
human interest
trust
...

7. ✦ In order to make our efforts sustainable on the long term, we need money and
commitment from the government
true / false
✦ Making heritage relevant means making it sustainable. We can make it relevant
by using networks, semantics, open data, social media
true / false
✦ The future is never sustainable. Technology changes fast. People don’t. We
should invest in people / technology.
why?

8. !SUMMARY
The Community of Practice in Ghent was full of presentations, with a wide variety of examples.
From means to inform hikers about the environment and the natural species richness in a
nature reserve, to multimedia showing how things used to be, when Romans ruled, learning that
ingenious constructions make it possible that an ancient Roman harbour gate is shown, while
protecting it against the construction of a subway line underneath and supporting the beautifull
museum above.
We saw how aerial photography from archives can tell an almost emotional story and convince
visitors how devastating WWI was for a large area in Belgium,for villages and villagers, leaving
not much behind for archaeologists to find and study. By using Kinect technology visitors can
surf their way through a 3D (virtual) reconstruction of an Etruscan sepulchral chamber. But we
also understood that using signing, with well elaborated texts and images to guide visitors along
historic city walls, will still reach many more people than smartphones will do nowadays.
We pondered on issues such as ‘How are the public expectations towards heritage institutions
evolving?’ Or ‘How heritage, leisure and tourism can enhance each other online, confronting the
past with present events, news and trends. Does that mean innovation as process, or innovation
as a way of life? We discovered how a game invite youngsters to look at the hidden history and
treasures in their town, but is gamification really the future of heritage interpretation? We found
out that minimal interaction still can lead to intense experience. And we were asked whether it is
possible to develop visions of the future of heritage interpretation by the right network (size), the
right people (quality) and the right tools to develop and share visions of the future of heritage
interpretation.
!The questions for this meeting were:
- Could you make a summary of your use of knowledge sources, such as fact sheets,
brainstorms, best practices and communities to do research, gathering knowledge and
discussing it with peers; both online and offline? What is the position of the CoP meeting in
this?
!- Where and how to find new ways of engaging and inspiring heritage communication in order
to enhance the quality of our communication? Should we look to other succesful heritage
projects or should we look outside our field in order to innovate? Is gaming the state of the art
example of heritage interpretation? How to approach this way of communicating and
interacting?
!- What do you think is a really good example of network / platform you already use to inspire
you and provide you with knowledge? Why does this work so well and how can we use this
together?
!- Budgets (and budget cuts) will influence our practice, work and organisation. Do we all agree
on that or are there other, more important perspectives to ponder about?
!- Is it possible to maintain a network that helps us to develop visions of the future of heritage
interpretation? What do we need for that?
!- What are the great challenges we are facing now and in the near future, which questions will
we have to answer within one or five years? How can we discover them quicker and share our
insights on it easier?
!- Combining research, knowledge and practical experience: must we adhere to the highest
possible standard of research and criteria for quality, or can we combine high standard

9. research with common sense and practical experience? What is the most useful result for
innovation?
!- In what way can and should we use technology. Who will be paying for our network? With
whom do you want to share this future? Who should be involved and participate?!
!Because we had so many interesting presentations there was not that much time for discussion
during the meeting. And after a first day of presentations we got a great guided tour through a
part of Ghent, especially in the (remains of the) inspiring St Bavo's Abbey. Then it was time for a
delicious meal and we had plenty of time to continue to discuss with each other and talk about
the projects being worked on. The second day we had about the same amount of interesting
presentations and another inspiring tour in the 'Vooruit' building complex.
!Main finding of this CoP could be that many ways and many means exist in informing about
heritage. For us that is especially archaeology and historic sites. Whether we use photography
or text, mobile devices, multimedia or gameplay, telling stories and connecting these stories to
artefacts, visual remains, or archival information, is more important than the technical
infrastructure. Yet we can't do without these networks and data.
Engaging and connecting visitors, listening to their stories will not only contextualize the
findings, but also lead to more and profound support from these visitors. Heritage interpretation
is not just about information, it is about making heritage relevant, whenever, wherever. Not just
skills or technique, but understanding and connecting. How this can be improved will remain as
a subject for discussion and exchange of knowledge.
And of course we would really like to hear from all attendees what their main findings were.
Perhaps you could send us your two most important conclusions? Or your questions, since a
good question can be a guide to new knowledge...
!Last subject we discussed at the CoP was the inheritage.eu platform. Will it be usefull for
exchanging knowledge and expertise? Will it help us to innovate? How? Are there enough
fellow professionals who like to be involved and are willing to contribute?
Although the inheritage.eu network is emerging, there is no network whatsoever that will keep
on growing or even exist just because it is there on the worldwide web.
We need an editorial direction and input from experts to make this platform relevant. When we
discussed this in May, there were about 140 followers on twitter and since then, the amount of
followers has more than doubled. Which means more than 1 followers each day... And there is
still a lot to discuss and to discover.
!If the Inheritage.eu network can help us to ask questions and try together to answer them, like
we already do in the Portico project, that would really be a great succes for all of us!
!As stated in the preliminary remarks for the CoP, we know the Portico project enables us to
identify the main issues and discuss them with colleagues from different countries, each with
their own practice and specific challenges. I would like to repeat what was written in these
preliminary remarks.
A Community of Practise helps us to enhance the quest for new insights. Without innovation
there will not be the suitable solutions for the great issues we are facing now and in the near
future. Innovation in both proficiency and approach are extremely important for all experts in
heritage, whether it is managing in situ find locations, or communicating meaning and
exchanging relevance. Maybe we could go a step further and think about the transition we are
experiencing. We are entering a more horizontal organized society. Many people have acces to
media, unlimited knowledge and production tools, like 3D printers. Not everyone wants to be
involved in archaeology, but archaeologists should engage with society and tell, show, let

10. people experience why it is relevant for them and their everydays life. Nowadays we are talking
about the circular economy, but there are thousands years of knowledge about circular
economy in our heritage. Still we are thinking in projects and subsidies, where we should think
in a process and make our visitors part of this proces.
!We tend to think that making heritage relevant means letting people become involved. Not just
us, as experts, but also the stakeholders like (local) government, entrepreneurs, cultural
institutions, schools, funds and foundations, tourists, residents... Let’s call it our audience.
To disclose our main treasures for this broad audience, to let visitors participate in archeology
on site, involve them in the proces of interpreting and contextualizing heritage and engage as
many people as possible, we will have to innovate continuously, seek for the best and even
better techniques, share knowledge and experience. That is the innovation part. The transition
means we should alter our attitude towards heritage interpretation and communication. In
addition we should be able to discuss the ethics, sustainability and responsibility with our
audience or make it possible for our audiences to discuss this with us.
!!!CONCLUSION and INVITATION
We have to continue investigating new developments and trends in heritage interpretation for
achaeology, historic cities and in situ sites and to discuss the possibilities of audience
participation in the proces of communicating heritage and making it relevant for society. As
society is changing rapidly and new technologies profoundly affect these changes, we have to
exchange knowledge, experience en insights in a frequent way to keep up with all the
possibilities and challenges. A combination of informal communities of practice, an online
platform and social media can support or even enhance this exchange.
!Therefore we invite everyone involved in the Portico project, and all our colleagues worldwide,
to join our conversations and take part in making our heritage relevant for as many people as
possible.
!!

11. } new website - growing network {

12. temporary figurative mark,
needed for Twitter, Facebook etc.

13. the former website
full of great content, almost outdated

14. the former website
what do we need?

15. the former website
who do we meet?

16. the new network
1. the website - same content

17. the new network
1. website: cases categorized, tagged

18. the new network
1. website: level & mode as body of thought

19. the new network
1. website: submit a case, your case

20. the new network
1. website: part of a community

21. the new network
1. website: part of a community

22. the new network
1. website: part of a conversation

23. the new network
1. website: crosslinks

24. the new network
1. website: crossmedia

25. the new network
1. website: crowdsourced

26. the new network
2. social media: crowdsourced

27. the new network
2. social media: followers

28. the new network
2. social media: permanent beta

29. the new network
2. social media: meeting places

30. the new network
2. social media: starting conversations

31. the new network
3. measuring outreach + influence

32. the new network
3. influence & impact

33. the new network
3. follow and lead: exchange, learn

34. the new network
4. connect, combine networks

35. the new network
4. connect, combine online & offline
our group photo could be here...

36. the new network
5. join us, invite others, there’s more to come!

37. the new network
6. next steps: joining other networks & platforms,
building authority, forming partnerships

38. the new network
6. making the network selfsustaining and
growing

39. the new network
6. next steps: forming an editorial board. What’s
in it for you. Do you want to take part?

40. the new network
6. next steps: what would you suggest?

41. Thank you!
...

42. Inspiration and Innovation versus
Quality Criteria for Interpretation
Patrick Lehnes
Abstract for the Portico CoP Meetings in Ghent – May 2013
Founded in 2010 Interpret Europe is a still young association of some 120 experts in heritage interpretation
that aims to give this profession a voice at a European scale. Since 2013 the organisation is recognised as
an advocacy network by the EU's Culture Programme.
One of the reasons for founding Interpret Europe was the lack of a common understanding in the field of in
situ heritage communication targeted to non-expert visitors. The quality of interpretive offerings varies to a
large extend in Europe. In most European countries the approach and principles of heritage interpretation
are still widely unknown even among heritage specialists.
The history of Interpret Europe is linked to a transnational LEADER cooperation that strived to establish
quality criteria as a means to foster professionalism in rural heritage interpretation. Experience then showed
that even big museums and urban heritage interpretation could benefit from such quality criteria backed up
by a leading European expert network.
Even basic good practices that have been established already long ago in the USA are mostly not met in
Europe. For this reason it seems to be crucial to establish commonly accepted quality criteria and to ensure
that already existing know-how is more systematically applied in practice.
What do inspiration and innovation mean in this context? Within the larger European picture, is innovation in
heritage interpretation really top priority as long as already existing know-how and basic quality criteria are
not yet met?
From this background the paper will discuss the relationship between the need to establish general quality
criteria and the role of inspiration and innovation in interpretation. It will look at how a structured collaboration
of professionals can integrate both, advanced innovation defining new state-of-the-art and basic quality
criteria, in order to further and foster professional interpretation in Europe.
Patrick Lehnes has worked at Freiburg University and as free-lance consultant in Central Europe, the
Mediterranean and the South Caucasus. He initiated the founding of Interpret Europe and is legal
representative of this experts' association. He is convinced that, for an applied discipline such as heritage
interpretation, the best academic research always fits with common sense and enlightens practical
experience.

43. Inspiration and Innovation versus
Quality Criteria for Interpretation
Patrick Lehnes
Interpret Europe - European Association for Heritage Interpretation e.V.
PORTICO CoP Workshop: Ghent May 2013

44. Interpret Europe
European Association for Heritage Interpretation
2010
➢ Foundation in Slovenia
➢ 27 founding members
2013:
➢ 123 members from 30 countries
➢ acknowledged as advocacy network by the
EU's Culture Programme

45. Interpret Europe's mission
➢ to fostering good practice and research in
heritage interpretation throughout Europe
!
www.interpret-europe.net

46. Information ≠ Interpretation
➢ Dates
➢ Names
➢ Places
➢ Facts
➢ Descriptions
➢ Translations of
technical terms
➢ Rules
➢ Carefully selected
phenomena and
information
➢ Greater context that
reveals significance
and new insights
➢ Provokes interest
➢ Relates to the visitor
➢ Follows a dramaturgy

47. Interpreters build bridges that give
access to experience heritage
Ordinary

48. Good interpretation
➢ relies on
inspiration
and creativity
➢ does not always
need to employ
innovation
➢ urgently needs
accepted
quality criteria

49. The wide spread fallacy
of decision makers
➢ Experts in the subject matter have the
knowledge about the resource…
…thus they are capable to explain it to
the public
➢ That's not quite true

50. Poor results…
➢ …but nobody cares
➢ …as almost nobody evaluates
➢ …and the competitors are much
cheaper!
➢ A pilot project demonstrating
good practice is needed!

51. Belchenland
Discovery
Trails
1999 - 2001

52. Visitors’ feedback at the
tourist information
➢ “It makes you
wish to discover
all of them”
➢ The
breakthrough for
interpretation?

53. Innovative best practice projects
- or the pilot project pitfall
➢ Enthusiasm in one valley…
➢ …but other local project
teams didn’t notice the pilot
project
➢ Some take on single
innovative elements without
understanding the whole

54. The pitfall

55. Transinterpret idea
➢ Avoid reinventing the wheel!
!
➢ Recommendations
➢ Coaching for local initiatives
➢ Quality Mark

56. ! Transnational co-operation
➢ Germany
➢ Italy
➢ Switzerland
➢ Greece

57. Transinterpret
➢ Evaluation of already
existing know-how
➢ to distil concrete
recommendations
➢ that can potentially serve
as quality standards

58. Central database and
individual coaching
Project coaching
and checklists
Feedback to enhance
recommendations

59. Recommendations and standards

60. Recommendations and standards (2)

61. Transinterpret
networking
structure
Partner area 4
(e.g. Appennino Genovese)
Local projects
4A 4B 4C …
Coaching Feedback
Region (e.g. Greece)
Partner area 1
Local projects
1A 1B 1C …
Partner area 2
Local projects
2A 2B 2C …
Partner area 3
Local projects
3A 3B 3C …
Regional Advisory Centre
Coaching
Feedback
Centre de Ressources /
Virtual Centre
➢Common Knowledge Base
➢Website
➢Training
➢Controlling…
Actualised
knowledge base
Proposals for additional &
optimised recommendations
Regional Advisory Centre
Coaching
Feedback
Senior
advisors

62. Quality criteria must allow for flexibility
➢ No project team is obliged to follow
the criteria blindly…
➢ …as interpretation highlights
particularities and special features,
and different contexts…
➢ …as interpretation relies on
creativity…
➢ …as they are not perfect…
➢ …but they have to be taken
seriously into account

63. Evolutionary approach
➢ Assessment
against quality
criteria:
> 75 % required
for the quality
label
➢ Visitor studies
➢ Stakeholder
interviews
Evaluation
International
Workshops

64. Does it work?
➢ Belchen – Schauinsland
➢ Assessment checklists:
Belchen 87 %
Schauinsland 56 %

65. Does it work?
➢ Belchen – Schauinsland
➢ Assessment checklists:
Belchen 87 %
Schauinsland 56 %
➢ Visitor surveys

66. Traditional trail (Schauinsland)
Pasture beech Mountain forest Plants Rocks
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
22%
23% 22%
10%
51%
58%
63%
79%
How much did people read? Schauinsland trail
(n=252)
entire panel text nothing (or headline only)

67. Interpretive trail (Belchen)
Plants Ravens Timber line Soil erosion Rift valley Alpine vista Alpine
animals
Glacier Nature
protection
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
55%
58%
53%
55%
52%
71%
58% 57%
49%
How much did people read on the Belchen trail?
(n=536)
entire panel text nothing (or headline only)

68. Quality criteria for the
network of professionals
➢ Lessons-learnt and innovation
result in a constantly refined
'living system'
● Different cultures and mentalities
● Different target groups
● New forms of interpretation
➢ Common understanding…
…or disagreement
➢ Tasks for research

69. Practical experience
➢ Coaching / Implementation of
more than 50 rural projects
➢ Some very successful,
some have obvious shortcomings
➢ Quality criteria backed up by two
universities (or EU project) are not
taken seriously

70. Thesis 1
➢ Quality criteria cannot replace inspiration
and creativity,
➢ but they can establish a minimum standard,
help avoid shortcomings and thus enhance
practice at a European scale

71. Thesis 2
➢ Every piece of heritage interpretation
needs inspiration in order
to meet quality criteria
in practice

72. Thesis 3
➢ Innovation in interpretation
is a 'nice to have'
➢ but it must be based on systematically
taking into account the quality criteria (or
rather the consolidated body of knowledge
and experience).
➢ Such projects might become true
lighthouse projects

73. Thesis 4
➢ We need networking of leading heritage
interpretation professionals
➢ in order to share and evaluate innovation
that can lead to enhanced quality criteria.

74. To become widely
acknowledged and accepted
Quality criteria in interpretation
➢ must be relevant for practice
➢ must ensure an added value
➢ must be backed up by 'the' profession, i.e. a
trustworthy organisation of leading experts
➢ must not restrict innovation and inspiration
➢ but provide a framework context for
inspiration and innovation
www.interpret-europe.net

75. Conclusion
➢ From such a point of view internationally
accepted quality criteria for interpretation
are of highest importance
➢ to enhance the performance of
interpretation Europe wide
and add value for
heritage sites,
society and,
➢ decision
makers

76. Interpretation...
...is a service for visitors designed
to inspire them
- by exciting their interest in a place's natural
or cultural assets and
- by revealing significant meanings and ideas.

77. Background
➢ Competition with other
heritage communicators
● Graphic-designers, landscape
planners
● Archeologists, biologists,
foresters, geographers,
ethnologist, historians,…
● Voluntary heritage enthusiasts
➢ 'Interpretation' unknown
by most decision makers

78. Professional interpretation
involves significant effort
➢ Sound and systematic
planning
➢ Target group profile
➢ Deep analysis of the
resource
➢ Multi stakeholder
involvement
➢ Creativity and skills to develop an appealing
story line....

79. The Chester Portico Project
Telling the story of the City Walls and Towers
Is gamification the future of heritage interpretation?
David Masters
This presentation will describe how the Chester Portico project has told the story of the City Walls
and Towers. It will review the interpretive masterplanning process, and outline the resulting
interpretation projects.
The presentation will focus in particular on the development of new and innovative media, and the
lessons learnt during the design and development process. The presentation will also discuss how
some of the innovative elements were developed through research into new developments in
heritage interpretation, and by drawing on experience in other fields.
Some suggestions will also be made about the practicalities of networking and existing networks
that can help to disseminate the Portico experience.
Although gamification is a whole subject in itself, David is going to try and bring a presentation
prepared by one of his colleagues called ‘Is gamification the future of heritage interpretation?’
about David
David brings wide-ranging experience of interpretive planning, implementation, research and
evaluation to Imagemakers, working for clients throughout the UK, Europe, Africa and South
America. A specialist interpretive planner and copywriter, he has produced advisory and best
practice guidelines for the Heritage Lottery Fund; delivered numerous workshops, lectures and
seminars; and edited the award-winning Interpret Scotland journal. He is also Commissioning Editor
of the Interpretation Journal, the ‘best practice’ publication of the Association of Heritage
Interpretation (AHI).
Imagemakers are a dedicated team of visitor experience and interpretation strategists, consultants
and designers working throughout the heritage, cultural and tourism sectors. “We believe in the
power of great storytelling and beautiful design to bring heritage alive for visitors.”

80. In#Flanders#Earth:#from#air#photo#to#
museum#application
Dr. Birger Stichelbaut, Department of Archaeology - Ghent University
The centennial of the First World War (1914-1918) is rapidly approaching and the public
interest in the heritage and landscape of this worldwide conflict is rising. One of the most
prominent museums dealing with the First World War along the former Western Front is the
In Flanders Fields Museum in Ypres. The renewed permanent exhibition of the museum
opened last year in June 2012 and was designed by Tijdsbeeld & Pièce Montée.
Visitors of the museum, especially the younger generation, do not have a personal link
anymore with the war. This means that new ways have to be found to engage with the visitors,
draw their attention and tell the story of this violent episode in history and what happened in
the region almost hundred years ago. One of the focus points of the In Flanders Fields
Museum is the landscape of the First World War. Now that the last living witnesses who
experienced the horrors of the Great War passed away, this war landscape is becoming the real
“last witness” of this conflict. Several displays in the museum’s new exhibition focus on this
landscape aspect. One of them is “the In Flanders Earth” application.
During the First World War, millions of aerial photographs were taken by all fighting
countries. These were taken all over the different theatres of war (the Western Front in
Belgium and France, Eastern Front, Gallipoli, Palestine, Isonzo Front, etc…), documenting a
cultural landscape from which the relicts often remain visible as scars on the landscape. Most
often however this landscape is preserved beneath the surface as archaeological heritage,
invisible to the hundreds of thousands of annual visitors of the Ypres Salient (the frontlines
around Ypres). Since 2005 the Department of Archaeology (Ghent University) explores the
archaeological potential of these historical aerial photographs. They proved to be an excellent
source for the mapping, inventory and analysis of the conflict archaeology of the First World
War and its landscape. An on-going aerial survey project aims to map every single war
features which is visible on 20.000 digitized historical aerial photographs. This results in a
huge and unparalleled GIS dataset of already over 110.000 mapped war features (trenches,
bunkers, barbed wire entanglement, barracks, ammunition dumps, airfields, …). The In
Flanders Fields Museum became interested in expanding this research into a larger area and
invested in this aerial photography project.
The aerial photographs which were taken during the conflict provide an unparalleled record of
both the progress of the war and the destruction of the landscape. Until recently these
remarkable records of World War One have only been used a simple illustrations. This
presentation explores how thousands of these images are now converted into a primary source
on their own. Providing a unique bird’s eye view of the conflict landscape of World War One
in a Google-Earth like application, called “In Flanders Earth”.
This powerpoint will focus on the content and development of what we believe is an
innovative museum application. In Flanders Earth provides a rarely explored vertical
perspective on the Western Front. Thousands of historical aerial photographs are made

81. available in an interface inspired by Google-Earth. A modern day vertical aerial photograph
provides the basis for the application. This layer is superimposed with thousands of historical
aerial photographs which are geopositioned (georectified) in a Geographical Information
System (GIS- software). Users of the application are encouraged to confront the present day
landscape with the war landscape by browsing through the landscape of the Province of West-
Flanders. The presentation will not only focus on the used methodology, but will also explore
why the vertical perspective was chosen and it will highlight some of the content of the
application.
This collaborative project between Ghent University, the In Flanders Fields Museum and
Tijdsbeeld & Pièce Montée is an example of how scientific research can – and should – have
a public outreach. Instead of reaching limited numbers of other interested scientific
researchers through publications, now hundreds of thousands of visitors can be reached each
year. Hopefully changing their thoughts or perception of the Great War and its heritage in
Belgium. University based (and funded) scientific research seldom acknowledges the
importance of science communication and interacting with the general public. Yet, many
scientific research projects in the fields of archaeology, history and also geography focus on
unique aspect of heritage (i.e. 3d extraction, stereoscopy, visualisation, etc.) and could be
adapted for heritage communication and museum purposes. A challenge for the future is in
our in our opinion a change in mentality so that young researcher are encouraged to
collaborate in these project and are acknowledged for this by universities.
Fig. Interface of In Flanders Earth

82. Heritage 2020: new roads or back to basics?
Fien Danniau
The heritage sector finds itself in a phase of transition: the entry of digital media on a large scale and the
professionalization of the sector leave their mark. Recently optimism, it seems, is put on hold: for who are we
digitizing and modelling all this heritage for? Who will deliver the narratives as the gap between research and
the heritage sector enlarges? Do we reach for goals or do we reach for five minutes of fame? Who is setting
our pace?
After a time of abundance and seemingly infinite opportunities the time seems right to get back to basics:
what, why and for whom are we communicating heritage? Are the fundamentals of heritage communication
really shifting? How are the public expectations towards heritage institutions evolving? In order to make this
evaluation we need to dare reporting about and reflecting on our projects, the good and the bad. My
contribution aims to bring a current lay of the field, with its challenges and opportunities, in order to define
our goals for the future.
Fien Danniau (1983) is master of History. From 2007 untill 2008 she worked as a staff member at Faro,
Vlaams steunpunt voor cultureel erfgoed. Since 2009 she works as a scientific collaborator at the Institute for
Public History at the History Department of Ghent University. In the context of several public history projects
she attends to digital history and gives advise to the heritage sector concerning public history. She
conceptualised inter alia www.UGentMemorie.be and www.Gent1913.be.
Momentarlily she works on an ‘innovation in history education’ project concerning digital timelines, sets up
the new Ghent Centre for Digital Humanities and prepares the bicentennial of Ghent University in 2017.
Danniau, Mantels en Verbruggen, 'Towards a Renewed University History: UGentMemorie and the Merits of
Public History, Academic Heritage and Digital History in Commemorating the University', Studium 5 (2012,3),
179-192.
Danniau, ‘Digital public history?’, article submitted for the theme number on digital history of the BMGN Low
Countries review (anticipated end of 2013).
fien.danniau@ugent.be @fiendanniau
www.linkedin.com/pub/fien-danniau/11/293/273
www.ipg.ugent.be, www.facebook.com/publieksgeschiedenis

83. Portico Project, Cop Wp2
A harbour gate in Roman Cologne
PD Dr. Alfred Schäfer - Römisch-Germanisches Museum der
Stadt Köln
Kontakt Cologne:
Dr. Marcus Trier, Direktor des Römisch-Germanischen Museums der Stadt Köln,
email: marcus.trier@stadt-koeln.de
PD Dr. Alfred Schäfer; Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln,
email: Alfred.schaefer@stadt-koeln.de
Roncalliplatz 4, 50667 Köln;
Abstract in keywords for CoP Meeting Portico Project
Scheduled for May 21 and 22 in Ghent
Title: A harbour gate in Roman Cologne
1. Example of one investigation that demonstrate best practice: A Roman harbour gate
in Cologne / Archaeology of the Roman harbour
1.1 The archaeological investigations of the “Römisch-Germanisches Museum der
Stadt Köln” can be shown exemplarily on the basis of the excavations on the Kurt-
Hackenberg-Platz not far from the choir of the city’s cathedral. At this place a Roman
harbour gate was excavated during 2007/2008. It was one of the five gates that faced
the Rhine along the city-wall of Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium (CCAA).
2. excavation, hand measurements, laser scanning, digital reconstruction, realtime ap-
plication, Colonia/3D see http://www.colonia3d.de/
2.1 The structural remains of the Roman harbour gate at Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz in
Cologne were documented with detailed hand-drawings. On the basis of the hand

84. measurements, georeferenced plans and elevation-drawings were prepared that en-
abled a three-dimensional reconstruction. During a further operation, the gatehouse
was recorded as part of the 3D-visualisation of the Roman town: see International
Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies, Workshop 15, Wien 2010,
380-393; ebook http://www.stadtarchaeologie.at/?page_id=4268
3. managing in situ find location: from excavation to museum, a new underground build-
ing for visitors
4. Contemporary innovation strategies / communication platforms and knowledge ecol-
ogy, heritage communication and heritage network
4.1 exhibition Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln; see
http://www.behance.net/gallery/Time-tunnel/5951059
4.2 KölnTourismus; see
http://www.koelntourismus.de/sehenswertes-kultur/museen/staedtische-museen/roem
isch-germanisches-museum.html
4.3 Archaeology of the Roman borderlines, see Current World Archaeology in print and
“Der Limes” 2012, Heft 2, 20-23;
http://www.deutsche-limeskommission.de/fileadmin/dlk/images/dlk/pdfs/Der_Limes_0
2_2012.pdf
4.4 The archaeology of the Roman harbour in Cologne as part for the harbour-project,
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; see
http://www.spp-haefen.de/de/die-projekte/der-rhein-als-europaeische-verkehrsachse/
4.5 A world heritage site in progress: The harbour gate as part of the frontiers of the Ro-
man Empire (extension), tentative lists of the Netherlands; see
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5636/
4.6 Connecting different world heritage sites in the future: The Porta Nigra in Trier and the
Roman Rhine front of Cologne; two projects linked, see
http://www.volksfreund.de/nachrichten/region/trier/Heute-in-der-Trierer-Zeitung-Die-G
eheimnisse-des-schwarzen-Tors;art754,3502371
PD Dr. Alfred Schäfer
Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln

85. 32 Issue 59CURRENTWORLDARCHAEOLOGY
Cologne
Revealing a
Roman gateway
to the Rhine
Archaeologists in Cologne are completing
the city’s biggest project of its kind ahead
of construction for a new railway network.
When finished, commuters will buy their
tickets and board their trains just metres above
the newly discovered remains of a Roman
harbour on the former banks of the Rhine, as
Alfred Schäfer and Marcus Trier explain.
LEFT ABOVE In the shadow of Cologne’s magnificent cathedral, archaeologists have
uncovered the city’s Roman gateway to the mighty River Rhine.
BELOW Roman town wall on the Rhine side; the northern harbour gate and drain
outlet beneath Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz in Cologne.
PHOTO:Römisch-GermanischesMuseumderStadtKöln
COLOGNE
BERLIN
G E R M A N Y
DUSSELDORF
ESSEN
FRANKFURT
R I V E R R H I N E
GERMANY

86. www.world-archaeology.com 33CURRENTWORLDARCHAEOLOGY
F
or the past ten years,
archaeologists from the
Römisch-Germanisches
Museum have been digging
an area of Cologne destined to
become part of the new north-south city
railway. The 4km-long route runs from
the Central Station into the southern
part of the city. Most of it lies 20m to
27m (65ft to 89ft) below the ground,
safely well below archaeologically
relevant levels, and therefore of
little threat to ancient structures.
However, where foundation
piles for stations and service
access points are required,
the building work poses
a very real danger to any
archaeological remains.
The construction of
the North-South Urban
railway is a mammoth
project, and the
associated archaeology
represents the most
extensive study into Cologne’s buried
past to date. So far, the archaeologists,
led by Alfred Schäfer and Marcus Trier,
have investigated an area 30,000m² (3ha)
– roughly the size of four football pitches –
and about 13m (43ft) below ground.
Most of the foundations for the modern
development lie in a region that once
formed the banks of the River Rhine, before
it became silted up in the 2nd century AD.
Beneath Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz, in the
shadow of the magnificent choir of the
city’s cathedral – the largest Gothic church
in Northern Europe – are the wonderfully
preserved remains of a monumental
gateway to this harbour. Excavation took
place here in 2007/2008 and, with the
results now collated, we are confident we
will be able to get a clear idea of how this
entrance to the city would have appeared
to the local inhabitants since the end of the
1st century AD.
Advancement
through technology
The gateway beneath Kurt-Hackenberg-
Platz is one of five Roman gates that once
looked out onto the Rhine along the river
section of city-wall of Colonia Claudia Ara
Agrippinensium (CCAA) – so named after
Agrippina, wife of the emperor Claudius,
who was born here and who petitioned
GERMANY
ABOVE Reconstruction of the Roman colonia
at Cologne.
BELOW Digital terrain model of Roman Cologne
as it was at the end of the 1st century AD.
COLOGNE: A
POTTED HISTORY
One of Germany’s oldest cities, Cologne can
trace its history back more than 2,000 years.
In c.20/19 BC, a Germanic tribe called the
Ubii were resettled on the left bank of the
Rhine, where the Romans founded a town
called Oppidum Ubiorum. This 'settlement
of the Ubii’ was Romanised from its outset.
This was the birthplace of Agrippina
the Younger, who in AD 50 petitioned her
husband, Emperor Claudius, to elevate
the site to the status of a colonia. The
settlement was renamed ColoniaClaudiaAra
Agrippinensium, later shortened to Colonia–
the root of the city’s modern name.
In c.AD 84 the colonia was made the
capital of the province of Germania
Inferior, and in AD 260 it became the
capital of the breakaway ‘Gallic Empire’
before the rebellious territories were
retaken 14 years later.
Throughout the 4th century the colonia
was pillaged by the Franks, finally falling to
them in the early 5th century AD.
IMAGE:Colonia3D

87. 34 Issue 59CURRENTWORLDARCHAEOLOGY
Revealing the gatehouse
What did the harbour gate at Kurt-
Hackenberg-Platz look like? We found
evidence of a substructure at the base of
the lowest river terrace on the inward
looking face of the city wall that would
support a rectangular gatehouse 7.4m
(24ft) wide and 6.5m (21ft) deep. Through
it would have run the northernmost
decumanus – the so-called ‘Harbour
Street’. This passageway through the
gate measures 2.7m (9ft) between the
red sandstone blocks. A manhole cover
belonging to a maintenance shaft found
during excavation indicates the level
of the pavement within the gatehouse.
Beneath it, the underground drain flowed
along the axis of the street, under the
gateway and into the river from an outlet
in front of the town wall.
The plan of the gatehouse, therefore,
gives us a clue to its design, enough, at
least, for a rough reconstruction, including
the height of the tower’s roof – estimated
to be about 13.5m (44ft) in high.
The foundations of the Roman town
wall were 3m (10ft) wide and 3.2m (10ft
6in) deep, and rested on the firm gravel
of the river terrace. They were made
up of opus caementicium and covered in
greywacke. They lie in waterlogged soil at
just about the level of groundwater, and,
as a result, the anaerobic conditions have
ensured that the foundations' wooden
shuttering has survived in a remarkably
fine state of preservation.
Analysis by Cologne University’s
The projecting sewer outlet is made up of
ashlar blocks of tufa faced by limestone
blocks, resting on a foundation of opus
caementicium (Roman cement).
The passageway through the ‘harbour
gate’ runs over great slabs that cover the
sewer. In the Late Roman period, the
entrance was sealed with re-used worked
stones, or spolia.
Clearly, the Roman engineers who
designed and built this gateway were
exceptionally skilled; the red sandstone
blocks in the wall above the slabs covering
the sewer are an integral structural
element of the tower’s gate jamb. Such
high calibre workmanship would have
required a considerable level of technical
expertise.
for the city’s colony status (see box on
p.33). Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz was built as
part of the regeneration project following
the end of World War II. It lies on top of an
old secondary channel of the Rhine, home
to the port that belonged to the 1st century
AD Roman town. The natural harbour
basin was about 60-70m (197-230ft) wide
and about 1km (0.7 miles) long.
The land to the west rises to form an area
of higher ground above the high water
mark on the banks of the Rhine. It is here
that the town was originally founded in
the last 10 years BC; the Roman walls on
the banks of the Rhine mark the borders
around this section of the old city. The site
was clearly chosen by the first settlers for its
location above the floodplains along the
left bank of the Rhine, looking out towards
the channel of the old river and the river
island.
Nearly 2m (6ft 6in) beneath Kurt-
Hackenberg-Platz, the consortium
KölnArchäologie, under the supervision
of archaeologists from the Römisch-
Germanisches Museum, came across
the monumental remains of these
fortifications, facing onto the Rhine.
A section of the Roman town wall,
about 25m long, crossed the modern
construction pit in a north-south
direction. The view from the south side
looks towards the town wall and the outlet
of the main sewer which ran through the
foundations of the Roman gatehouse.
ABOVE The substructure of Cologne's ‘harbour
gate’ underlying Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz, seen from
the north on the inner face of the town wall.
BELOW Digital reconstruction of the northern
Harbour Gate of Roman Cologne
IMAGE:RGM
IMAGE:Römisch-GermanischesMuseum/Colonia3D

88. www.world-archaeology.com 35CURRENTWORLDARCHAEOLOGY
GERMANY
along with additional posts, also served
as pile-foundations to support a wooden
walkway that ran at the same height as
the base of the wall. A ramp comprising
fragments of greywacke piled against the
walkway apparently served as a quay for
the loading and unloading of ships and
boats, even at low water levels.
The Dendrochronology Laboratory at
Cologne University examined 150 oak
stakes that made up a section of the plank
wall, and analysis confirmed that all the
trees from which they cut were felled in
AD 89.
Trading hub
Of the five gatehouses on the Roman wall
along the Rhine, this so-called Harbour
Gate that would have linked the town
behind it to the Roman harbour on the
and thickness varies only very slightly,
reflecting, once again, the superb quality
of craftsmanship of the Roman builders.
A contiguous row of vertical oak stakes
along the edge of the riverbank was
found in front of the conifer shuttering,
situated 4m (13ft) beyond the town
wall and parallel to it. It appears, from
its stratigraphic relationship with the
structure behind it, that this line of
wooden stakes was installed to shore up
the earth along the waterfront ahead of
the construction trench for the Roman
town wall. Furthermore, the plank wall,
Dendrochronology Laboratory established
that this shuttering was made of conifer
timber; that the trees were felled in
the Black Forest; and that they were
transported down the Rhine to be sawn to
size on site at Cologne. The planks were,
on average, about 8m (26ft) long, about
30cm (1ft) wide, and between 3.5cm
and 4cm (1.3-1.6in) thick. The width
ABOVE The wooden shuttering on the inner-
face of the Roman town wall’s foundation was
extremely well preserved, thanks to the water-logged
conditions of the soil at near ground water levels.
THIS BOX Reconstruction of the harbour gate with its ramp for landing ships.
The wooden casing of the foundations was extremely well preserved due to the
levels of groundwater.
After the foundations had been poured, the rising walls of the harbour gate
were established, approximately 8m in height. This work was accompanied by
the construction of a main sewer that ran under the door pening and flowed
outside the city walls. Over wooden ramps that led to the level of the pier, the
harbour gate connected the area of the port with the inner Roman city.
Such high calibre
workmanship
would have
required
considerable
technical
expertise.
PHOTO:Römisch-GermanischesMuseumIMAGES:Römisch-GermanischesMuseum/Colonia3D

89. 36 Issue 59CURRENTWORLDARCHAEOLOGY
occurred shortly after the decision was
made to promote CCAA to the status of
provincial capital of Germania Inferior in
c.AD 84. Construction work was almost
certainly undertaken by the military, and
visitors to Cologne’s bank of the Rhine at
this time would have been confronted by
one huge building site.
However, almost as soon as construction
of the town wall was complete, the
harbour basin had become fully silted
up. By the middle of the 2nd century
AD, the river island, formerly close to
the bank, was attached to it. It is almost
certain that the main harbour of Roman
Cologne was then located on the west side
that remained open to the Rhine, and the
Roman settlement extended along the
eastern bank of the island. The area of the
river island itself was transformed into a
transshipment point with storage facilities
and commercial buildings. Later, during
the 4th century, walls were built to shore
up the north and south of the island.
Just how much building work took
place during the Medieval period
along the former channel of the River
Rhine, however, will be another story
for CWA and further revelations about
the archaeology of the North-South
Underground line of Cologne.
also recovered the remains of sunken – or
abandoned – wooden flat bottomed boats
that, with their shallow draughts and
wide hulls, were specifically designed for
transporting large quantities of goods
along the river.
The ‘harbour gate’, the city wall, and
the drain outlet, as well as the wooden
walkway along the base of the wall’s outer
face, were all part of an extensive building
project that included construction of the
town’s fortifications in about AD 90/91
– possibly during the rule of Domitian
(AD 81-96).
It can be no coincidence that this all
river below. Thanks to the slower current
in the partially silted Rhine channel, it was
ideal for river traffic, and Colonia Claudia
became a busy trading hub, importing and
exporting a wide variety of goods. This,
certainly, is reflected in huge quantity
of small finds found during excavation,
including an unusually high number
of fragments of Roman amphorae for
carrying wine, spice sauce, and olive oil.
More than 1,500,000 small finds were
recovered from the former harbour basin
– though much of this included rubbish
from the centre of Cologne that had been
dumped into the river along its bank. We
LEFT Fragments of amphorae with tituli dipinti (painted inscription), one with
information about imported sweet olives, found beneath Kurt-Hackenberg-Platz.
ABOVE A boathook, dating to the middle of the 1st century AD, just one of the
huge quantity of finds recovered from the former riverbank of the Rhine.
BELOW Roman shipwreck recovered from
the excavation beside the remains of the
harbour gate. The waterlogged site's anaerobic
conditions preserved the wooden ship,
allowing archaeologists to create a miniature
model, using around 1,000 nails, as in the mid-
1st century AD.
SOURCE Dr Alfred Schäfer, Römisch-
Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln, alfred.
schaefer@stadt-koeln.de; Dr Marcus Trier,
Direktor des Römisch-Germanisches Museum
der Stadt Köln, marcus.trier@stadt-koeln.de
FURTHER INFORMATION
For more about the 3D reconstruction of
Roman Cologne, visit: www.colonia3d.de/
GERMANY
IMAGE:RBAd017894/AWegner

90. Need$for$innova,on
Menno%Heling
Community%of%Prac4ce:%statements%&%ques4ons%9%Por4co%project,%Ghent%may%21%/%22%2013
Innova&on'as'process'or'innova&on'as'a'way'of'life?
Is'there'a'consensus'on'the'need'for'innova&on'in'engaging'as'many'people'as'possible?
Main'objec&ve'is'to'foster'innova&on;'but'do'we'have'a'clear'picture'of'a'defini&on'of'innova&on;'
and'how'it'fits'in'our'strategy'to'achieve'our'heritage'goals'in'the'long'term?
To'work'and'labor'on'innova&on'means'perspira&on;'that’s'what'a'community'is'for;'in'mean&me:'
innova&on'is'derived'from'inspira&on'as'a'result'of'crea&ve'thinking.'
Innova&on'is'based'on'the'sharing'and'management'of'informa&on,'but'only'leads'to'‘new'maEer’'as'
a'result'of'insight.'Not'all'groupmembers'are'geared'towards'crea&ve'thinking.'We'do'not'share'the'
same'DNA'(crea&ve'and'entrepreneurial)'to'excell'as'leaders'in'the'innova&on'process.'And'we'do'
need'leaders'(by'example).
Focus'on'and'iden&fy'which'roles'in'the'community'of'prac&ce'are'instrumental'and'essen&al'to'
create'an'innova&ve'environment.'Who'is'the'leader,'who'is'the'fascillitator'etc.
ANer'distribu&on'of'responsibility'for'different'parts'of'the'process,'small'groups'can'engage'in'
training'innova&ve'thinking.'
PP
Other'statements:
P Why'a'lack'of'innova&on?'Answers'before'pretending'to'start'a'community'of'prac&ce'‘’to'
foster'innova&on’’.'(no'entrepreneurship,'no'compe&&on,'no'urgency'or'accountability)
P Need'for'innova&on:'only'in'our'partnership'with'users'/'public?'But'also'in'our'core'business'
(which'is'what?'Selling'Heritage'as'a'touris&c'service?'Uncovering'the'past?'Whose'past'/'
heritage?'And'whose'culture?'Who'is'leN'out?)
To'set'up'a'COP:
P Need'for'leaders
P Need'for'thought'provoking'content'(ar&cles,'cases,'presenta&ons)
P Need'for'infrastructure
''

91. P Need'for'commitment'from'members'of'the'heritage'community'(par&cipa&on'only'
1P100P10.000)
P Need'for'change'and'ac&on'and'no'objec&ons,'please
How'to'start'a'movement?
P Are'we'clear'on'principles'and'strategy?
P How'do'we'embrace'the'first'followers'(TED'talks)
P Do'we'all'need'a'traineeship'in'social'media'and'community'management?'(how'many'of'the'
par&cipants'of'the'COP'3+4'are'really'ac&ve'3.0?
P Do'we'embrace'the'2.0'way'of'thinking?
P How'do'we'experience'synergy'in'sharing'and'par&cipa&ng'in'this'new'society'as'a'network?'
P Read'Peter'Sloterdijk’s'magnum'opus:'Spheres
Turn'the'heritage'sector'into'a'business!
P Apply'the'Golden'Circle:'have'a'dream
P No'monopoly'on'quality'of'content
P From'quality'control'to'quality'management'an'beyond
P End'users'and'emancipa&on'of'the'masses'(Castells)
P Focus'on'doing'things'TOGETHER'to'create'a'sense'of'OWNERSHIP,'two'main'objec&ves'for'
the'coming'decade.
P etcetera
contact:'Menno'Heling
0031P631974866
menno@iNhenisnow.nl
www.iNhenisnow.nl
www.facebook.com/iNhenisnow
www.twiEer.com/iNhenisnow
www.pinterest.com/iNhenisnow
''

92. Portico'CoP'presentation'
Ghent,'May'22,'2013'

93. Questions)CoP14
• How to develop and maintain a network /community?
B-2-C or B-2-B?
• if then is now as a B-2-C network (C/PCoP)
• Cooperation with heritage, culture and leisure industries
• Challenges: valuecase iso business case
• Trends, markets, competition => innovation
• Innovation in user interaction
• Quality control => quality management (user = consumer => producer: prosumer role changes)
!
!
!
!
!
!
2

94. Serious)quote)1
Natalia Grincheva:
‘The Canada’s Got Treasures portal, by claiming to present cultural heritage of the
country through the eyes of the public, provides only a platform for social control
and for media representation of an artificially constructed collective identity of
Canada.
The project once again illuminates the expanding power of media representations in
producing identities and shaping the relationship between the self and society’.
!
!
!
!
3

95. A)m(b)ission)
• To become the #1 community platform on culture, heritage and tourism
!
• Access to culture, high and low
• if then is now = food for thought
• Participation for all, no groups excluded
• Inspire, share, contribute: Do culture your way!
!
!
!
!
!
4

103. 12
Layers'of'meaning

104. Communities:'working'together
New'communities'and'targetgroups'for'culture'and'tourism
!
• Users:'heavy'users'to'daytrippers'
• Experts:'heritage'and'content'
professionals'''
• Business'Partners:'museums,'archives,'
leisure'industry'(hotels,'travel'agencies),'
regions,'cities'
• Strategic'Partners:'affiliate'partners'like'
Zoover'and'Dinnersite,'Europeana,'
Amazon.com,'media'partners'
13

105. Traffic
Year #'users source'traffic'%
Per'week Per'year %'unique %'repeat Strategische'
Partners
Business'Partners Experts Users
2013 ''6.250 '''325.000 80 20 40 30 10 20'
2014 29.000 1.500.000 75 25 20 30 20 30
2015 56.000 2.900.000 70 30 15 20 25 40

106. Revenue Model / PMCs
!
2013 - 2016'
• Partner+ pages'
• Extra products / services (guide POD)'
• Use of content and content distribution
• Licensing deals'
• Affiliate partners'
!
2017 - 2018'
• Sponsoring'
• Affiliate revenue
• Webshops and other services'
!
Roll out in EU and beyond

107. Milestones
16
Nr Overzicht
1 Grant'AgentschapNL'2010Z2012'(Innovatie'Cultuuruitingen)'
2 www.ifthenisnow.nl'in'bèta'live'since'sept'2012'(Drupal,'API'connections)
3 >100.000'articles
4 Mapview
5 Registration'and'participation'by'end'users:'in'4'weeks'more'than'200'active'accounts
6 More'than'2.000'heavy'users
7 Cooperation'with'traffic'builders'like'Zoover,'Dinnersite,'RouteYou,'Europeana,'Museumkaart'and'
others
8 Cooperation'with'professionals'ánd'amateurZexperts'
9 >100'volunteers'for'testing'and'development'of'site
10 Professionally'trained'editorial'team
11 Brand'development
12 Pilotprojects:'city'pages,'hotel'partners'and'cultural'partners

108. Just'launched:'
if#then#is#now#City'Page'

113. if'then'is'now'MarCom'principles
!
• Brand development: long term focus on ideas and vision
• Value case iso business case
• Process of loyalty creation
• Concepting: followers iso targetgroups
• Emotional involvement for all: followers in all socio-demographics
• Start with fans and make ambassadors
22

114. Vision'on'heritage
!
• Need to connect heritage to contemporary context
• Innovation in presenting Then and Now
• Translation of history in essays/mirrors to create room for thought
• Connection with leisure partners in a community of meaning
(hotelstories)
• Heritage is not limited by borders
23

115. Relation'/'identity'Who(m)
!
Inspiration, expert (but not top down), listening partner for
• Users (cultural tourists, day trippers and hardcore users (need for local,
national of European identity)
• Experts in need for dynamic context (by journalists and user generated
content)
• Leisure partners
• City and region partners (dynamic and interactive new way of city
promotion)
24

116. Community'(oP)'Strategy
How to start a movement?
!
• One
• Few
• Many
!
Challenge: how to build a community?
Why?
How to finance a process of development?
25

117. Serious)quote)2
Agnes Alfandari:
‘The augmented museum is permeable. It is not the sole holder of
knowledge. It not ontly aims to share its resources with the greatest
number, but it must also be entriched by the contributions of all’.
!
!
!
!
26

119. Heritage: what's in it for me?
Anne Vroegop
In the current situation of budget cuts and declining numbers of visitors it is important that
heritage institutions reinforce their position in society, argues interaction designer Anne
Vroegop. Gameprinciples and service design thinking are effective tools in reaching this
goal. Heritage institutions might look more into the commercial sector to find inspiration.
In the heritage sector one can discern two kinds of technological innovation aiming at efficiency
enhancement and the creation of new opportunities.
The first kind concerns professional access and research, where scientific standards are applied. In
archeological research for instance, new VirtualReality applications enable the creation of a accurate historic
reconstruction of a site.
The second kind concerns the accessibility of heritage. Technological innovations enable the application of
gameprinciples and the development of new digital services.
The innovation of (scientific) research however, demands different standards and approaches than the
innovation of accessibility. In research only the highest standards are applied, while in the area of access for
the public creativity and common sense play a far larger role.
This article gives an incentive to think about technological innovation in the access to heritage.
Minimal interaction, intense experience
Below I will give two examples of innovative applications in reaching out to the audience, with limited use of
technology, but with great value for the audience.
Starting September 2013, young visitors of the EYE Filminstitute in Amsterdam can use a augmented reality
app, called “EYEwalk”, while they are led through the building and get an explanation of the history of
filmmaking. This tour on a iPad mini is actually a short movie with actors, that gives the user the illusion that
he is being led by geospecific data and that he can interact with the space around him.
EYEwalk

120. Also the next example shows that heritage games do not need state of the art technology.
Do you take the wounded soldier with you or do you leave him behind? Will you join the army or the
resistance? One question is even more confronting than the other in the interactive documentary “Onder
vuur”. The documentary tells a true story about the war near Srebrenica; the visitor has to empathize with a
soldier and make decisions in his position. Depending on his choices a different line of story deploys. Even
six years after the opening of the installation the documentary still has a heavy impact on the audience. The
installation in the Legermuseum is an example where the evocation of emotions, new technologies and
minimal interaction join together in a environment where a story based on historical facts is told.
The essence of a good interactive documentary is in the quality of the story and the well defined, often
simple actions that the visitor has to perform to advance in the documentary. One way to do this, like in Delft,
is to offer the visitor a choice of scenarios.
Move your audience with game principles
The explanation for the success of these interactive documentaries/games is that they are based on
gameprinciples, with a clear ‘what is in it for me’. The best games move and touch people, because they are
strongly anchored in a gameprinciple – a intrinsic motivation to play the game. The installation in Delft is
based on escapism and curiosity: visitors escape their own reality by immersing in an other reality for a short
while and want to know how the story ends.
Heritage institutions could cleverly use this by developing forms of presentation based on gameprinciples
that fit the targetgroup. This requires that heritage institutions do active research in the needs of their
targetgroup and develop forms relating to the collection that enrich the life of their targetgroup. Indeed
something only is of value when it makes life easier or more pleasant. Moving people and making their lives
more pleasant and more easy, that is the essence.
Service design thinking for a clever application
Indeed, this is service design thinking in a nutshell. In the commercial sector this way of thinking is more
common: for example with a chip in your Nike running shoes, you can monitor your running activities with the
joining Nike+---app and share the results by social media. This kind of application makes the product (the
running shoe) more meaningful to the runner.

121. In the heritage sector new technologies gain ground slowly.
The Rijksmuseum was ahead of it’s time in 2008 with the
Rijkswidget, an app that showed a different object of the
collection on your screen every day. In the same year,
Kissdaweb developed a enormous slotmachine , that was
projected on canalhouses in Amsterdam. Instead of images
of fruit, pieces of the collection of the Zuiderzeemuseum
were shown. With three in a row users could win free
entrance tickets for the museum. When hitting the jackpot,
one made a chance to stay a night in the museum. It is a
rewarding principle that directly shows the heritage
consumer what is in it for them.
And recently a library in Boekarest established itself in a
subwaystation. The walls are decorated with prints of
bookcovers provided with QR---codes. By scanning the
code, passers by can start reading on the go!
Slotmachine in Amsterdam
A challenge: from visitor to user
Many heritage institutions face budget cuts that force them to follow a more commercial policy. The biggest
challenge is not to cut on expertise. Another challenge is the development of new services and tools.
Institutions will only succeed if they perform frequent online and offline surveys among their target groups
and translate the outcomes to new functions and tasks within the institutions.
QR---codes in Boekarest

122. To keep playing a relevant role, heritage institutions have to show that they have to offer something
substantial to society, by moving people and by entertaining them substantively. The success of the
mentioned examples shows that heritage institutions have to grow towards a situation in which they view the
visitor as a ‘user’--- someone that uses their collection, instead of someone who just passively consumes a
painting or film. Usersurveys, preferrably executed by in---house digital media experts, render essential
data. Gaming and service---design---principles help to translate this information into forms of presentation
that personally move people and enrich their lives. Forms, in other words, that add value to life and that help
institutions to confirm their right of existence.
Networking is ‘hot’
Heritage institutions do not only enhance their position in society with apps, QR---codes and the application
of gameprinciples. It is no new insight that a lot can be gained by participating in online networks. These are
not only places to share knowledge, but also to share new visions on the interpretation of heritage collective
thinking on the future. For this reason alone should the active participation in online networks be part of the
regular tasks of anyone working in a heritage institution.
A far more pregnant question is which network deserves the attention of the institution. In the world of
heritage one might well speak of a overabundance of international networks, so the most important question
seems to be, which network delivers the most value.
Participating in networks of your fellow professionals helps to keep up and to create a sense of
connectedness, but it is important also to cross boundaries and to look for new networks, that are related to
the professional area, so new cross connections are created. In doing so, the commercial sector deserves
more attention than it is getting at the moment.
Unanswered questions
Between now and the next five years, we will have to find answers to the following questions:
1 --- how can we establish new cooperations
2 --- how can we keep on innovating
3 --- what influence does the changing role of social media have on the institutions
4 --- how do we prevent fragmentation of the networks
5 --- how can we go on questioning our own right of existence
Anne Vroegop works as interaction designer and conceptdeveloper for her own company
Kissdaweb and is also connected to the EYE film institute as coordinator of digital
presentations.

123. Digital innovation at the Allard Pierson
Museum / University of Amsterdam
Dr. Wim Hupperetz, director Allard Pierson Museum
The Allard Pierson Museum is working closely together with the media studies
department in different (EU funded) projects on digital innovation related to
museology. Some projects and initiatives are described below.
The NewMedia Lab
(www.v-must.net)
The NewMedia Laboratory is located within the Allard Pierson Museum, in Amsterdam. Incorporated
into the permanent exhibition space of the APM, the NewMedia Lab will be a “living lab” that will serve
as the primary location for Virtual Museum(VM) evaluation activities in WP7 of V-MusT.net and WP6
activities in the meSch project. While the NewMedia Lab is ideally suited for on-site evaluation of VM
within the context of a traditional museum, we also equip the NewMedia Lab to handle a variety of
evaluation approaches that will be applied to online and mobile VM applications as well.
At present, we have already dedicated a space in the museum to the setup of such a Lab and have
been conducting early evaluation on the Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini Galassi Tomb, a VM
application using natural interaction developed through the Etruscanning project (European project,
Culture 2007).
The aim of the NewMedia Laboratory is to provide a primary location for evaluation activities , as well
as serve as a place for students, researchers, developers and SMEs to experiment with VM within a
museum context. Although the NewMedia Lab is ideally located for evaluation of VM within the context
of a traditional museum environment, it will also be equipped with the necessary resources to facilitate
the testing and evaluation of online and mobile VM technologies. We develop the NewMedia Lab in
such a way that it can be integrated into the museum, connecting the museum experience to the VM,
or can be closed off to facilitate controlled experimentation and evaluation. Furthermore, we intend to
ensure the NewMedia Lab is equipped in a manner that allows it to be mobilized for the evaluation of
VM in other locations outside of the Allard Pierson Museum of Archaeology.
Etruscanning 3D in Short
(http://regolinigalassi.wordpress.com/)
This project started from
a basic idea of bringing
objects from an
Etruscan tomb together
with the original space.
Since this could not be
done with the original
objects in the original
space, this had to be
done in a virtual way.
Etruscanning 3D was a
close collaboration
between museum
curators, archaeologists,
software developers,
interactive designers,
exhibition designers,
specialists in
storytelling, consultants
in digitization and digital
restoration, evaluation

124. specialists and many others who contributed their knowledge and expertise to the project. This list of
collaborators shows how this innovative project went beyond many traditional borders and domains.
Within the project, we were able to establish an international cooperation in digital acquisition, digital
restoration, and 3D representation. Through exhibitions, blogs, videos, and publications, we were able
to realize a new approach to the communication of Etruscan tombs and collections in exhibitions in the
Netherlands and Belgium. At the end of the project, the final resulting applications will be installed for
permanent use in the Vatican Museums, Villa Giulia (Rome) and Museum Formello (Veio).
Furthermore, this project proved that it is possible to enable and support cultural heritage institutions
to create, run and exchange digital 3D reconstructions.
3D Reconstruction as a Research Tool
The 3D visualisation of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb has not only proven to be an essential tool for
obtaining greater knowledge about the tomb and Etruscan funerary customs, it also provides an
attractive way to present research results. In our multidisciplinary approach to the realization of this 3D
visualization, we re-examined and re-interpreted earlier publications on the archaeological context of
the finds, and reached new conclusions regarding the location of the objects within the tomb. Through
the virtual reconstruction, we were able to place the objects virtually in the tomb, allowing us to identify
inconsistencies in the source material and to determine the most plausible configuration for the
objects. Using 3D visualization as our research instrument, we were able to study the tomb on another
level.
Digitization and Digital Restoration
During the first phase of the Etruscanning 3D project, the famous Regolini-Galassi tomb from the
Sorbo necropolis in Cerveteri was selected to be virtually restored. Using advanced techniques for
digital acquisition, including laser scanning and photogrammetry, the tomb and most of its objects
were rendered and restored, and subsequently placed in their original locations within the virtual tomb.
The project has been developing through a complex methodological approach; from the collection of
existing data, to new topographical digital acquisition. Several ontologies of data have been acquired
and elaborated upon, according to the typology and topology of the artefacts; including point clouds
from laser scanner, photogrammetric data (dense stereo matching), and computer graphics.
The Application
The Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb was first installed for public use in both the
Allard Pierson Museum (Amsterdam, NL) and the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden (Leiden, NL), as part
of a joint exhibition on the Etruscan civilization, entitled Etruscans: Eminent Women, Men of Power.
The most innovative element of the Virtual Reality application developed for Regolini-Galassi tomb is
the paradigm of interaction based on the use of natural interfaces. This means that the user moves
inside the 3D space through just his body movements alone. The public now had the possibility to
explore the virtual tomb, to get near the artefacts, and to listen to the narrative contents directly from
the voices of the prestigious Etruscan personages buried inside; the princess and the warrior, to which
the precious objects were dedicated. All of this is possible by moving in the space in front of the
projection of the virtual tomb, in a very simple and natural way, without a mouse, keyboard, joystick or
consol.
Evaluation
The presentation of the tomb employed a natural interaction interface which allowed users to enter
and explore the virtual tomb using a map on the floor with certain ‘hot spots’ indicated where short
stories about the objects in the tomb could be heard. Throughout the exhibition period, the virtual
reconstruction was evaluated to determine the added value of incorporating such an application into a
museum exhibition and how users responded when confronted with a technological application in a
traditional museum environment.
The results of the evaluation study presented in this publication offered a great deal of insight into the
user experience of the presented case study, the Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb.
Reflecting upon the results of this evaluation study, the added value of embedding the installation into
the exhibition was three fold; contextual, educational, and museological.
Contextualization
The participants recognized the importance of the installation for providing a clearer understanding of
the original placement and purpose of the objects from the Regolini-Galassi tomb. Providing
contextualization virtually, as it was done in the Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb,
gives museum visitors an opportunity to better understand the objects, their use and origins, while
protecting the original objects from the potential harm that can come from physically handling and
moving objects to prepare for a traditional, object-based exhibition. Furthermore, the installation
provided a unique opportunity to experience virtual objects in a virtually reconstructed environment,
which is something that would not be possible using the original objects. Generally, the participants in
the study were able to identify and praise the improved contextualization of the objects that the
installation offered. Although their expressed attitude was that such virtual representations of objects

125. and environments should not attempt to replace the presence of authentic objects, rather they should
complement and supplement the more traditional style of object-based exhibition presentations.
Educational Value
The Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb offered additional education value, to
supplement the content provided in the exhibition. When participants evaluated their experience after
the installation and the exhibition, the results showed greater confidence in participant responses
when they had experienced both the installation and the exhibition. When examined separately, users
were able to provide correct responses to the questions asked after each the installation and the
exhibition, but once both parts of the study had been completed, the results show that the participants
were more certain of their answers than they were after completing only the installation or the
exhibition. The content presented in both the installation and the exhibition served to reinforce each
other, creating a more enriching experience for the museum visitor.
Museological Value
The museological value of embedding the Virtual Reconstruction of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb into the
Etruscan exhibition is reflected in both the enhanced contextualization of the presented collections and
the reinforcement of educational content shared between the installation and the exhibition. More than
this, however, the results show that the way museum experiences are being defined by visitors is
evolving to include a broader range of content dissemination styles, including a more generally
accepted presence of technology integrated into museum presentations. The acceptance of
technology and Virtual Museum applications in museums by visitors will undoubtedly impact the future
study of museology, especially as more museum directors are starting to recognize the value of
incorporating technology in museums.
Dissemination
The methods applied in Etruscanning 3D are not only multidisciplinary but also present a new
approach to cross-media dissemination. Starting with traditional museum exhibitions that attracted
unto now some 130.000 visitors, and eight publications, from both academic conferences and broad
public media, we also achieved widespread outreach through presentations at a Science festival, a
blog (with more than 30.000 page views) and several YouTube videos. This could explain the interest
from state-of-the art museums, like the Vatican Museums and the Louvre, who are eager to show the
Etruscanning 3D installation.
Exchange Mechanism in Museum Domain
This project was triggered by the exhibition entitled Etruscans: Eminent Women, Men of Power at the
Allard Pierson Museum (Amsterdam) and the National Museum of Antiquities (Leiden). Furthermore,
we wanted to create a real exchange in such a way that collaboration on the loans from several Italian
partners would be used to create digital content that we could give to the Italian partners in return. In
this way, a sustainable and more fruitful relationship was created between cultural institutions. One of
the side effects is that, since we have a multidisciplinary team, the museum partners were in contact
with more technical researchers from other domains. This also resulted in exchange, and sometimes
confrontation, of different perspectives.

126. Material encounters with digital cultural heritage
(http://mesch-project.eu)
One of the aims of meSch is to realize tangible interaction with digital heritage. This could for instance
be realized by interaction based on sensors in smart objects or – much more physically challenging for
visitors – by using gesture based interaction. The April Meetup of the Virtual Museum Network
Amsterdam was about ‘Linking the Virtual and the Real’ and focused on a specific project that uses
gestures to interact with the virtual reconstruction of a tomb. Opportunities and challenges that arise
when museums use virtual reconstructions to re-contextualize objects were discussed.Starting point of
the discussion was an interactive in the Allard Pierson museum which combines virtual reconstruction
and Kinect technology to allow visitors to virtually explore museum objects.
The Etruscanning application is a virtual reconstruction of an Etruscan tomb containing virtually
restored objects which were found in the tomb and which are now mostly on display at the Vatican
museums. Visitors can navigate through the tomb by making hand and arm gestures and can select
objects to find out more about them. See: http://www.meetup.com/Virtual-Museum-Network-
Amsterdam/
Dr. Wim Hupperetz, director Allard Pierson Museum
http://www.linkedin.com/in/wimhupperetz
http://uva.academia.edu/WimHupperetz

127. Strategists. Designers. Web developers. Consultants. Managers.
CHALLENGING AMBITION.
TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA
Abstract Martijn Arts
In this abstract I will try to answer all questions connecting the future
to present practice briefly. Here are the questions.
1. Is it possible to maintain a network that helps us to develop visions
of the future of heritage interpretation? What do we need for that?
2. What are the great challenges we are facing now and in the near
future, which questions will we have to answer within one or five
years? How can we discover them quicker and share our insights on
it easier?
3. Combining research, knowledge and practical experience: must we
adhere to the highest possible standard of research and criteria for
quality, or can we combine high standard research with common
sense and practical experience? What is the most useful result for
innovation?
4. In what way can and should we use technology. Who will be paying
for our network? With whom do you want to share this future? Who
should be involved and participate?
Before answering these questions I included a manifesto to this
abstract. I believe the Portico network is helped if it creates an
inspiring mission (or manifesto) of it's own. This mission (or manifesto)
should be fundamental, futuristic and inspiring so that all partners and
connected people are clear in this. That will define the identity of
Portico.
My answers to all questions are listed below:
1. Is it possible to maintain a network that helps us to develop visions
of the future of heritage interpretation? What do we need for that?
MY ANSWER: Yes, it is possible to develop visions of the future of
heritage interpretation. What you need is simple: (1) the right network
as in size and (2) the right people as in quality and (3) the right tools to
develop and share visions of the future of heritage interpretation.
(1) the right network as in size
A good network of people has a minimum and a maximum. Online this
network can and need be bigger than offline networks. Smaller than
the minimum results in two little activity to be maintainable. Large
networks results in loss of overview and loss of the quality of people.
The maximum and minimum depends on the community or network.
Some long tail networks can be very small whilst still being active.
Others can be very large without losing efficiency. It is very important
to know your minimum and maximum, even if these numbers are

128. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA
merely goals. A strategy should be layed down to reach these numbers
or goals.
My presumption is that Portico is and should be an online platform. My
estimation is that the Portico network should contain minimum 10
european cities, not necessarily of different countries. I also estimate
that these cities should be represented by at least 5 different heritage
or archaeological organizations (= 50 organizations) and at least 2
persons per organization (= 100 persons). The maximum would be 30
european cities, 15 different heritage or archaeological organizations
on average (= 450 organizations) and 3 persons per organization on
average (= 1.350 persons).
(2) the right people as in quality
In order for the network to become active, people should meet the
right people. This causes the registration to be very important. The
cities that will be registered, need to be of somewhat the same size
and archaeological character, otherwise different subgroups will come
into life. This could not be a problem. I do believe however that Portico
is best off with a homogeneous set of cities that are medium sized to
large in their country, not being the largest. The registration procedure
should be open and well prepared. By preparing this registration
procedure, the network strategy is tested and improved upon. I advice
that new cities are asked to join the network and these candidates are
chosen by the members of Portico. This forces Portico to look outside
the closed group and to add one city every period, like e.g. every half
year. This will greatly improve the dynamics of the network.
The best archaeological organizations should be included in the
network. This is what the new candidate cities are tested upon. This
requirement is important, if this is not met, some of the other
organizations will be disappointed and become less active. What
exactly 'the best' is needs to be decided upon. But it seems logical that
that has to do with future and innovation and archaeology or heritage.
(3) the right tools to develop and share visions of the future of heritage
interpretation
There are lots of tools that are important. So many that it is not
possible to state the best set of tools. I do advice to use as many open
tools as possible for the following purposes:
- (Open) Storage: Like CKAN or MySQL with an open API;
- Co-creation: Like Google Docs/Apps, Basecamp, Workspace et
cetera;
- Displaying/marketing: Like Wordpress or Drupal and/or Behance;
- Personal messaging: I advice an smartphone App using Titanium/
Appcelerator;

129. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA
- Monitoring: Like Sparkwise, Google Analytics, social cardio et
cetera;
- Social media: Like Slideshare, Pinterest/Flickr, Behance;
- Networking: Linkedin;
- Knowlegde: Wikimedia and/or Wikipedia.
In order for everybody to truly become active I would suggest an App
that can be used to view the latest messages, projects and ideas as
well as to enter new messages, projects and ideas. This will be the
activity lifeline.
There are lots of good examples of active suggestion websites likes
hunch.com and coolhunter.com. A good example of a website that
solves problems in an 'open innovation' way is OpenIDEO.com. A good
example of a website that encourages everybody to enter new ideas is
Kickstarter.com but also sellanapp.com.
Apart from these online tools, you can of course also use offline tools
like events, CoP's an annual report or book et cetera. We believe in the
combination of physical events with an online network.
2. What are the great challenges we are facing now and in the near
future, which questions will we have to answer within one or five years?
How can we discover them quicker and share our insights on it easier?
I see the following challenges as the greatest challenges:
- Technology in the core: Technology is evolving rapidly which makes
the job of heritage experts and archaeologists more and more
technical. Technical staff is scarce. The solution to this will be to focus
on using proven technology or consumer based technology or to
include technologists in the team (including a technical roadmap).
- Rapid web developments: Developments on the web follow up on
each other faster and faster. How to choose for one development and
invest in it and not for another. E.g. should we choose to invest in AR
or not? And in Google Glass or not? And if yes, when should we do
that? Choosing the right developments and starting a continuous web
R&D will be a challenge.
- Economy and entrepreneurship: Everything will be measured more
and more. Business models and business cases will be desired by
sponsors and funders. The business will become more and more based
on economy. This results in a need for entrepreneurs in the
organization that normally do not want a regular contract. The
question will be how to involve and engage these cultural
entrepreneurs. This, combined with the retracting role of the
government in funding makes this challenge very important.

130. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA
- Fundamental knowledge: Fewer and fewer students choose to deepen
their knowledge in cultural science. How to find the right researchers
that are equipped with the right skills.
- Experience (and) marketing: Most projects need cultural consumer
focus. Consumers are rapidly diverted and need to be 'entertained'.
Young people do not read a lot and they do not excel at being
concentrated. This results in the necessary of knowledge of marketing
and experience marketing. The results of heritage need to be 'sold' to
he public.
- Open innovation and Open Data: The crowd can be used to help in
innovation like is done at OpenIDEO.com. This requires an open
structure of he organization. It should be able to work together with
outsiders, developers and agencies. Open Data is also part of this
challenge. Knowlegde about these technologies, these methodologies
is important. The shift in culture is also a challenge.
- Co-operation: I believe that more and more heritage and
archaeological organizations will merge or disappear. This is a
challenge of its own, because it generates an inward focus whereas an
external focus on technological, economic and marketing trends is
necessary.
There are probably a lot more challenges but this is just a handful of
challenges I foresee. You can discover these challenges, and more
importantly their solutions, more quickly if all Portico partners stress
and share their current and future challenges regularly, e.g. every (half)
year. Solutions can be shared more frequently, but these need a
connection to the challenge for which it is a solution. By linking these,
the challenges will become more important and visible. The solutions
will then be less 'just an idea' and more strategic.

131. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA
3. Combining research, knowledge and practical experience: must we
adhere to the highest possible standard of research and criteria for
quality, or can we combine high standard research with common sense
and practical experience? What is the most useful result for innovation?
The current approach to innovation is to use ideas like 'lean startup',
'continuous development' and 'continuous beta', which means that you
need to fast, flexible and not use the highest possible standard. The
first result of both R&D as well as innovation is never the end result
that becomes a success. Most web startups have developed and
redeveloped over four versions of their web innovation before it is
released ad successful. This is completely different than the old dogma
of industrial production and research. In an open innovation
environment, continuous experimentation is very important. This
requires the right mentality, culture, (IT-) architecture and more.
I always advice a dual approach for all classic and modern
organizations. On the one side, use a IT-like structure that is
implemented based on the highest standards. Let this structure suit al
processes that are core business and that need to be also of the
highest standards. On the other side implement an 'experimentation
room, group and ICT-structure' that is used to continuously innovate.
The best innovations can become a new venture or can even be
improved upon so that it becomes integrated in the core business.
Then it needs to follow the highest standards.
4. In what way can and should we use technology. Who will be paying
for our network? With whom do you want to share this future? Who
should be involved and participate?
Technology should always be used as a means to an end of course. The
end or the goal should be defined first before technology is chosen or
used. Only if technology becomes part of the core business of an
archaeological organization then R&D of technology itself is an option.
Technology is set implemented together with partners in an open
structure. If costs can be shared between partners this will reduce the
cost for the organization itself. The results should be implemented per
organization however. To be more precise: invest collectively in
developing frameworks, standard modules, adapters et cetera (like
Drupal and its modules and CKAN and its modules). Use grants from
the government as much as possible to improve digitization, open
data, innovation and more.

132. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA
I do not really understand what is many by 'who should be involved and
participate'. In short I believe at least head of collections (heritage),
head of Reseach (& Development) and head of Web of Marketing. This,
for me, is the go den triangle: content, technology and (online)
marketing.
5. examples
1. Maritime Museum - THE MARITIME MUSEUM
1001 ITEMS. COUNTLESS SEAFARING STORIES
Mijnscheepvaartmuseum.nl was launched in the autumn of 2011
simultaneously with the opening of the Dutch Maritime Museum. Ever
since its launch, around 1500 E-xpos have been uploaded every month
on mijnscheepvaartmuseum.nl:
http://www.totalactivemedia.nl/maritime-museum
2. Netherlands Insitute for Image & Sound - COLLECTIVE MEMORIES
BROUGHT TO LIFE, A seamless blend between online and offline

133. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA
experience:
http://www.totalactivemedia.nl/beeld-en-geluid
3. Oneindig Noord-Holland (Infinite North-Holland) - STORY
PLATFORM AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CAMPAIGN
The Dutch province Noord-Holland introduced the online story
platform called ‘Oneindig Noord-Holland. With the help of original &
editorial stories and routes the project aims to make a stronger
connection with the culture and touristic attractions of Noord-Holland.
The concept ‘Proef Noord-Holland’ is in fact a call for action: ‘Try-out
North-Holland’ – send in your historical Noord-Holland recipes and
one of our renowned master-chefs will have it prepared as a
contemporary dish.
http://www.totalactivemedia.nl/oneindig-noord-holland
4. ARTS HOLLAND, THE WORLD’S ARTS DISTRICT; achieving good
online exposure for the Dutch cultural offer towards international
audiences. This initiative concerns a unique combination of three core-
strengths: innovation, tourism and culture:
http://www.totalactivemedia.nl/nederlands-uitburo-arts-holland-the-
worlds-art-district

134. TOTAL ACTIVE MEDIA
5. Social Cardio app
Social Cardio helps you keep track of your online reputation by
measuring your social pulse. Its main feature is the real-time
monitoring of your online activity on a cardiograph, and comparing it
to the benchmarks that are important for you. Social Cardio visually
plots your social pulse on a timeline, by using a simple algorithm to
calculate the score:
http://socialcardioapp.com

135. Introduction
This manifesto is made by a believer in cultural change. Change that is necessary
in the heritage sector because the world has changed a lot in the past decade due
to the use of online and social media. The heritage sector is loosing its connection with
society. The rules of the game have changed and to reconnect, the institutions have
to play the game according to the new rules. To enable them to do so, the government
has to change its own rules too. This manifesto is an appeal to the minister of culture
to enable this change.
Manifesto
BY: Martijn Arts, believer in Change.
FOR: The Permanent Committee for Education, Culture and Science of the
Dutch House of Representatives.
GOVERNMENT: The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science plans to take this
manifesto in consideration when formulating future policy.
AIM: Influence cultural policy based on the belief that ‘More for less’is definitely
possible, but the sector can co-operate in regulations and legislation.
MOTTO: ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste!’
Measures
Six measures needed to play the new game of cultural heritage.
1
Heritage is social capital. Social capital that should be free for all to see and use.
Social capital that is publicly available in all representations. Moreover, these
collections in all representations must be publicly available though the internet.
All digital collections should be OpenData with a creative commons CC ZERO
license. All collections are therefore available for and by developers in order to
create services that can be used to let anyone see and use it.
2
Open collections are like raw material for building a society and a national identity.
Heritage institutions should be a utility (Dutch: NUTS) company and all heritage
should be publicly available. The government is responsible for the cultural
infrastructure and cultural education. The government is not responsible
for culture (= content) itself.
3
Culture thrives in an open and diverse context. Freedom, open communication
and co-operation is crucial for culture to flourish. The government should strive to
eliminate all possible issues and barriers for open communication and co-operation.
In order to support the mixing and remixing of cultural heritage, both classic as well
as modern, current copyrights will be limited.
4
Building and maintaining a sound Heritage sector is of vital importance to levels
of society, be it local, national and international. Where society sets out rules and
structures, culture blurs them and binds peoples. Comparisons and benchmarks
stimulate transparency and co-operation. An attempt must be made to compare
and benchmark nations and localities.
5
Culture is the economic spark of society. Creativity, design, play and art fuels
society and generates economic development. Where economic freedoms
should be regulated, taxed and limited, culture should be
stimulated, deregulated and de-taxed.
6
Stimulating cultural activity equals stimulating society and economic development
and should be regarded as such in making policy. All stimuli should only be
implemented if durable plans have been made. A durable company needs to lay
forward a ROI plan and break-even moment in order for investors to invest.
If large investments or long lead-times are necessary, long-term contracts must
be agreed upon. The same holds for cultural plans.
We call for a strong government and a strong cultural sector with respect to digital
cultural heritage. The cultural sector invites policy makers to set out and co-create
new standards within 2012 based on the eight rules listed above. These standards will
be the new gameplay of the sector. A gameplay aimed at achieving more with less.
In order to grow and unite.
Signed by you?
MANIFESTO