There is an ongoing debate about whether historical sites should be open to the public or completely closed. This essay argues that both views are too extreme. Instead, a balanced approach integrating technology and visitor limitations should be adopted.
On the one hand, advocates of closing historical sites are mainly concerned about conservation. High visitor numbers could cause irreversible damage to cultural heritage. Typically, large volumes of carbon dioxide from tourists can erode the cave wall materials and pigments on the Murals in the Mogao Grottoes, causing detrimental damage. Critically, such damage is neither repairable nor reversible. Moreover, the sheer number of tourists could place a heavy strain on maintenance. Were these cultural sites to be closed, the facilities and buildings could last longer, drastically reducing the need for frequent repairs. However, this practice could undermine visitors’ cultural experience. This concern must be weighed against the benefits of public access.
On the other hand, opponents of closure contend that access to cultural relics enhances visitors’ experience and strengthens cultural identity. Specifically, by visiting cultural heritage in person, individuals can gain an immersive experience and truly appreciate the wisdom of ancient civilisations. For instance, when standing on the Great Wall, tourists can truly appreciate the magnificence of this great project. By contrast, online pictures of the Great Wall provide a far less impressive feeling. Furthermore, such practice offers a chance to connect with one’s cultural roots, thus boosting people’s sense of belonging. Nevertheless, unlimited access could cause degradation of cultural relics.
In my opinion, neither practice is viable. A balanced approach that combines technology with visitor quotas should be adopted. For vulnerable historical sites, authorities could employ three dimensional scanning technology to create a realistic virtual experience for visitors. Simultaneously, a quota system could be implemented to limit the number of visitors. In this way, not only can the sites be protected, but visitors can also have the opportunity to appreciate the cultural heritage without causing harm.
In conclusion, historical sites should neither be completely closed nor entirely open without restrictions. Appropriate technologies and visitor management policies should be introduced to benefit both the preservation of the sites and the experience of visitors.