AC5007 - Batch 8 - LI RUOHAN

From Physical Conservation to Digital Reconstruction: Evaluating the Authenticity of Dunhuang Mogao Grottoes in a New Frame

LI RUOHAN

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE Department of Architecture Master of Arts in Architectural Conservation Program 2025

Abstract This study investigates how authenticity is redefined in the digital conservation of cultural heritage, focusing on the case of Mogao Cave 285 at Dunhuang. As digital tools increasingly mediate heritage experiences, the concept of authenticity has evolved from material fidelity to include experiential, interpretive, and procedural dimensions. This research proposes a framework to evaluate digital authenticity comprehensively.

Methodologically, the study adopts a mixed-methods approach. It includes process tracing of the digital reconstruction workflow, expert interviews with technical and conservation professionals, and a questionnaire to assess how authenticity is constructed and perceived. The subject of analysis is “Encountering Dunhuang,” a WeChat-based interactive platform that digitally reconstructs Cave 285 using VR, 3D modelling, and multimedia narratives.

The analysis reveals that while traditional authenticity dimensions (as defined in the Nara Document) are partially preserved through digital means, new challenges arise. The digital production process achieved technical fidelity and narrative clarity, yet showed limitations in interpretive transparency and participatory inclusion.

Survey results confirm strong user engagement in immersive storytelling but highlight a lack of polyvocality and co-creation.

This research contributes to the discourse by bridging production analysis with user perception and suggesting a holistic evaluative framework for digital authenticity.

It provides practical insights for future digital heritage projects, advocating for design strategies that uphold transparency, inclusiveness, and contextual meaning beyond technical reproduction.

1

Acknowledgements This research would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of many individuals. I would first like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Johannes Widodo, whose patient guidance, critical insights, and deep understanding of heritage theory have shaped this work from beginning to end. His encouragement throughout the writing process allowed me to refine my ideas amid complexity.

I would also like to thank the Dunhuang Academy for developing such wonderful heritage experience and providing public archives to a wealth of publicly available digital materials. The richness of these resources played a crucial role in enabling a comprehensive evaluation.

I am sincerely grateful to the teachers and fellow students who generously participated in interviews and questionnaire and shared their perspectives on authenticity, conservation, and digital engagement. Their reflections offered invaluable grounding for this research. To my cohort in the Architectural Conservation program, your perspectives during our communications helped navigate the delicate balance between study and live. Special thanks go to my friend Zhang Yuntian, whose continuous support, feedback, and timely encouragement sustained me through the most demanding phases of revision.

Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my parents. Thank you for being the most unconditional supporters of my journey. Your trust, patience, and unwavering encouragement gave me the strength to keep going even in the most uncertain moments.

2

Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ 2 List of Figure .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1

Research Background...........................................................................................................................................6

1.2

Research Scope and Methods ...........................................................................................................................7

1.3

Research Significance ...........................................................................................................................................9

Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1

Reconceptualizing Authenticity in a Digital Age .................................................................................. 11

2.2

Reframing Authenticity in Practice............................................................................................................. 14

2.3

Summary: Transformation of Authenticity Dimensions .................................................................. 17

2.4

Gaps in the Discourse of Authenticity in Digital Heritage................................................................ 22

Statement of Research Question and Hypotheses ....................................................................... 24 3.1

Questions ................................................................................................................................................................. 24

3.2

Hypothesis .............................................................................................................................................................. 24

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 25 4.1

Research Design ................................................................................................................................................... 25

4.2

Theoretical Framework.................................................................................................................................... 25

4.3

Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 26

4.4

Validity and Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 27

Research on the Cave 285 of Mogao Grottoes ............................................................................... 28 5.1

The Authenticity of Mogao Cave 285 ......................................................................................................... 28

5.2

Digital Process: Technology, Process and Presentation ................................................................... 33

5.3

Interview Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 40

5.4

Questionnaire Findings .................................................................................................................................... 43

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 47 6.1

Continuity of Traditional Authenticity Dimensions............................................................................ 47

6.2

The Expression of Authenticity through Production and Perception ........................................ 49

6.3

Views from different stakeholders ............................................................................................................. 54

6.4

Limitation ................................................................................................................................................................ 55

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 57

References ............................................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................................. 66 Appendix B .............................................................................................................................................................. 67 Appendix C .............................................................................................................................................................. 68 Appendix D .............................................................................................................................................................. 69

3

(Word Count: 9559)

4

List of Figure Figure 1 Encountering Dunhuang Poster (Source: Dunhuang Academy) Figure 2 Highly Detailed Photogrammetric Model of ACCORD (Source: Unknown) Figure 3 Western Han Tomb M27 digital Program (Source: Unknown) Figure 4 Comparison of Authenticity Dimensions between Traditional and Digital Contexts (Source: Author) Figure 5 Panoramic interior view of Cave 285 (Source: Dunhuang Academy) Figure 6 Sectional elevation and floor plan of Mogao Cave (Source: W. Yan) Figure 7 Painting on the wall (Source: Dunhuang Academy) Figure 8 Illustrative Map of the Mogao Grottoes Cave Distribution (Source: Planet Research Institute) Figure 9 Getty Institute helps the conservation of Mogao Grottoes (Source: By Neville Agnew) Figure 10 Digital Process of Mogao 285 (Source: Author) Figure 11 Digital Collection of Mogao Caves (Source: Dunhuang Academy) Figure 12 Digital Processing of Mogao Caves (Source: Dunhuang Academy) Figure 13 – 21 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang (Source: Dunhuang Academy)

5

1

Introduction

1.1 Research Background The concept of authenticity has long been seen as the cornerstone of cultural heritage preservation, now it has entered an era of profound reinterpretation. As digital technologies permeate heritage conservation, they challenge the traditional paradigms of authenticity defined by physical tangibility and material integrity.

UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (2011) acknowledges that digitization has become a double-edged sword that while enabling unprecedented access to endangered sites, it risks diluting the aura of originality through virtual reconstructions. The Mogao Grottoes at Dunhuang, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a pinnacle of Buddhist art, epitomize this tension. Since the 1990s, the Dunhuang Academy has pioneered digital preservation techniques, culminating in ambitious projects like “Digital Dunhuang” and “Virtual Tour of Dunhuang.” These initiatives, particularly the immersive digital experience of Cave 285 which is a representative work among all the caves, have sparked debates such as an pixels and algorithms convey the spiritual gravitas of millennia-old murals? Does a 4Kresolution scan of flaking pigments honor or distort the patina of time? Such questions reflect a broader ontological shift in which digital heritage is not merely a replica but a renegotiation of cultural meaning.

This research positions itself at the cross of critical heritage studies and digital humanities, interrogating how emerging technologies reconfigure authenticity’s epistemological boundaries.

6

1.2 Research Scope and Methods This study investigates the evolving discourse of authenticity in digital heritage conservation, focusing on the digital reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285. Cave 285, dating back to the Western Wei period, is one of the earliest dated caves in the Mogao Grottoes, renowned for its rich iconography and well-preserved murals. Its unique blend of artistic styles from various cultures makes it a representative example of the historical and cultural significance of the Mogao Grottoes.

In recent years, digital technologies have rapidly advanced, leading to innovative approaches in cultural heritage preservation. The "Encountering Dunhuang" project, initiated by the Dunhuang Academy, is the first large-scale VR project focusing on Cave 285. This project exemplifies a forward-thinking approach to digital heritage, combining high-precision 3D modeling, game engine rendering, and immersive VR experiences (Figure 1) to recreate the cave's intricate details.

To enhance accessibility and user engagement, the project also offers an online experience through the "Yunyou Dunhuang" WeChat mini-program. This platform allows users to explore the digital reconstruction of Cave 285 without the need for VR equipment, providing a convenient and interactive way to experience the cave's art and history. Therefore, the choice of “Encountering Dunhuang” published on the WeChat mini-program as the research object is convenient for the researcher but also forward-looking and informative, which helps to deeply understand how digital technology can reshape the authenticity of cultural heritage in the whole process, and to explore the role of human-computer interaction in the dissemination of digital heritage.

7

Figure 1 Encountering Dunhuang Poster

Note. Offline VR immersive experience of Encountering Dunhuang. Image provided by the Dunhuang Academy.

While previous studies have often focused on isolated aspects of digital authenticity, this research adopts a comprehensive approach by analysing the entire production cycle of a digital heritage project. It examines how traditional notions of authenticity are reshaped through digital processes and how human and institutional actions influence these transformations. The study emphasizes not only data preservation and digital restoration but also the interactions between users and digital heritage.

Methodologically, this research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative techniques. The qualitative component includes process tracing based on technical reports and scholarly literature, as well as expert interviews to assess stakeholder intentions and values. The quantitative component involves a user-centered survey focused on digital authenticity perception. These metrics are aligned to four proposed dimensions: Reconstruction Method and Techniques, Interpretive Transparency and Traceability, Immersive Experience and Narrative, and Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality.

8

Through this comprehensive lens, the study aims to contribute a framework for evaluating authenticity as a relational and evolving phenomenon, deeply shaped by production contexts, interpretive decisions, and user engagement in the digital age.

1.3 Research Significance This research addresses the growing but fragmented discourse on digital authenticity in heritage conservation. While the emergence of immersive technologies and digital reconstructions has challenged traditional material-based understandings of authenticity, little attention has been given to how authenticity is actively translated, negotiated, or lost in the process of digital production. This study contributes to the field by proposing a dual-pathway evaluation model.

On the one hand, it analyses the design and documentation process of the digital reconstruction of Cave 285 to examine how traditional dimensions of authenticity are retained, altered, or replaced during the technical translation. It evaluates this through the dimensions of Reconstruction Method and Techniques and Interpretive Transparency and Traceability, which remain underexplored in current literature.

On the other hand, the study investigates how digital authenticity is perceived, accepted, or contested by users through questionnaires and interviews, focusing on the dimensions of Immersive Experience and Narrative and Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality. By combining production analysis and stakeholder perception, the research offers an integrative understanding of authenticity not only as a technical concern but also as a user-centered, affective, and negotiated experience.

9

Practically, the study provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating authenticity in digital heritage projects, bridging technical rigor with audience reception. It contributes actionable insights for cultural heritage developers, curators, and digital designers, helping them to identify and manage authenticity risks and to make informed decisions about how to responsibly communicate historical meaning through digital means. The study ultimately positions authenticity as a translational practice, where the past is not simply reproduced but meaningfully rearticulated through new media.

10

2

Literature Review

This literature review examines the existing discourse on how the application of digital technologies in architectural heritage conservation affects the definitions of authenticity, focusing on their relationship to the architectural conservation goals.

It also explores the definition, transformation, or critique of authenticity within the digital domain, including theoretical and practical perspectives. Besides, it highlights the gaps in current research and identifies areas for further study.

2.1 Reconceptualizing Authenticity in a Digital Age Authenticity has long been a fundamental principle in heritage conservation, shaping the way historical buildings and cultural sites are preserved and interpreted. Traditionally, authenticity has been closely associated with material integrity, as emphasized in the Venice Charter (1964) and later expanded in the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994), which expanded the scope beyond physical attributes, emphasizing that authenticity is dependent on the context, incorporating form, materials, use, setting, spirit, and traditions. It called for respect toward cultural diversity and emphasized that judgments on authenticity must be culturally situated and based on credible sources of information.

However, the progress of digital technologies ranging from 3D scanning and digital reconstructions to virtual reality and even AI-driven restorations has significantly challenged and reshaped how authenticity is conceptualized and operationalized.

Scholars increasingly acknowledge that authenticity in a digital context has transcended material fidelity.

11

Early critical perspectives, such as Walter Benjamin’s (1936) theory of “aura,” framed mechanical and digital reproduction as a process that inherently diminishes authenticity. From this materialist viewpoint, the original object’s uniqueness, historical trace, and physical presence confer an irreproducible quality. Similarly, Witcomb (2010) underscored the perceived dichotomy between original artifacts and their digital replicas, where the latter are often seen as inauthentic due to their detachment from physicality and time.

In contrast, Latour and Lowe (2011) proposed a more fluid and relational approach, arguing that authenticity lies not in the substance of an object but in the continuity of cultural knowledge. More and more scholars admit that authenticity in heritage extends beyond material fidelity to include contextual which can be seen as cultural significance (Morcillo, Schaaf, Schneider, & Trotha, 2017), informational which can be seen as fidelity of narrative and data aspect (Saad Hanif, 2023). As Balbo et al.

(2024) highlight, the London Charter avoids rigid claims of authenticity, instead advocating for transparency, documentation, and reproducibility in computerbased visualization, shifting the locus of authenticity from materiality to epistemic integrity.

Recent research underscores that digital heritage is not merely a substitute, but a medium that alters the very terms by which authenticity is constructed, communicated, and experienced. Scholars such as Abdelmonem (2017) and Di Franco et al. (2018) critically examine the effects of digital interventions on cultural meaning, memory, and perception. For example, while digital reproductions can enhance cultural accessibility, they risk replacing the physical experience of heritage with virtual encounters, altering the way people engage with historical

12

sites (Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco et al, 2018). This perspective aligns with the Seville Principles (2011), which emphasize that digital reconstructions should be based on rigorous scientific research and explicitly communicate uncertainties to ensure they do not mislead the public. The challenge is no longer just about whether a digital replica is accurate, but what kind of authenticity it performs, and for whom.

On the other hand, research provide a critical examination of digital heritage’s implications for authenticity. They evaluate challenges in the digital replication of built heritage, including reproduction quality, motivations, unintended outcomes, and philosophical questions on history.

Rouhani (2023) warns that digital

representations may lead to a loss of material authenticity and contribute to the phenomenon of "digital colonialism", where powerful institutions control access to digital heritage while local communities remain excluded from decision-making.

Moreover, digital heritage engages new audiences through virtual exhibitions, interactive reconstructions, and immersive experiences, shifting attention from static preservation to experiential participation.

In this evolving context, authenticity must be reconceptualized not as a fixed property, but as a relational, negotiated, and dynamic phenomenon that encompasses both physical heritage and its digital manifestations. The focus of current discourse has thus moved beyond simply identifying material substitutes, to asking how digital heritage constructs new forms of truth, presence, and authority.

These emerging conversations set the stage for reconsidering what authenticity means in the digital age, and invite a deeper interrogation of the criteria by which authenticity is now constituted.

13

2.2 Reframing Authenticity in Practice While theoretical discourse has reconceptualized authenticity in the digital age, practical applications reveal how authenticity is negotiated, challenged, and redefined through practical digital heritage projects. These cases illuminate how different aspects of authenticity are transformed through technological mediation.

Below are key examples that illustrate these dynamics.

One significant case that illustrates the practical transformation of authenticity in digital heritage conservation is the 3D documentation of the Christ Antiphonitis Church in Cyprus. This Byzantine-era structure, partially damaged during conflict, was digitally recorded and modelled according to the principles outlined in the London

Charter,

which

emphasizes

transparency,

documentation,

and

reproducibility over mere visual fidelity (Hermon & Niccolucci, 2018). The project employed high-resolution 3D scanning, photogrammetry, and archival integration to produce a digital replica that not only preserved the formal characteristics of the building but also served as a research and interpretive tool. Rather than aiming for aesthetic perfection or immersive realism, the project foregrounded intellectual integrity,

carefully

recording

modelling

choices,

identifying

hypothetical

reconstructions, and referencing all source materials used. In doing so, the authenticity of the digital model became less about replicating the “aura” of the original and more about ensuring that each intervention could be traced, justified, and reviewed. As Galeazzi (2018) notes, such practices represent a shift toward epistemic authenticity, where value lies in the scientific transparency and procedural rigor behind the model rather than its visual or material correspondence to the original. The Church of Christ Antiphonitis project thus exemplifies how

14

digital heritage can uphold authenticity not by mimicking the object itself, but by faithfully encoding and exposing the knowledge structure surrounding it.

Another illustrative example of how authenticity is redefined in digital heritage practices is the ACCORD Project (Archaeology Community Co-Production of Research Resources), undertaken in Scotland between 2013 and 2015 (Figure 2).

Unlike traditional top-down heritage documentation projects led by experts, ACCORD embraced a community-led, co-creation model, empowering local groups to use photogrammetry and digital recording tools to document sites that held cultural or personal significance. The project’s methodology was grounded in principles of participation, transparency, and multivocality, which fundamentally challenged conventional notions of authenticity as a fixed, expert-defined quality.

Instead, the project demonstrated that authenticity can emerge from collaborative meaning-making, where multiple interpretations coexist and the heritage object is not a passive subject of representation but a dynamic medium for dialogue and identity formation. As Jeffrey et al. (2015) argue, digital models produced through co-design are not less authentic for lacking precision, but are authentic in how they reflect community values, memory, and ownership. By involving stakeholders in every stage from data collection to interpretation, ACCORD reframed authenticity as a relational construct, shaped by the process of engagement rather than solely the technical outcome. The project offers a compelling model for how digital heritage can enable socially embedded authenticity, grounded in shared authority and emotional connection rather than material exactness.

15

Figure 2 Highly Detailed Photogrammetric Model of ACCORD

Note. Copyright Access Archaeology and ACCORD CC-BY.

A further case that reflects the shifting conception of authenticity in digital heritage is the Western Han Tomb M27 digital reconstruction project in China (Figure 3).

This project, as analysed by Di Franco and Galeazzi (2013), utilized 3D modelling and interactive digital maps to digitally reconstruct and narratively interpret the rich iconographic program of the tomb murals. Unlike projects focused on structural accuracy or preservation of physical form, this initiative prioritized the semantic relationships embedded in the spatial and symbolic arrangement of the murals.

Through digitally mediated storytelling and navigation, users could explore mythological motifs and cosmological themes embedded in the tomb’s artwork, offering a deeper cultural and intellectual engagement with the site. In this context, authenticity is less concerned with the material substance or location of the original tomb, and more with the ability of digital representation to convey cultural meaning and symbolic coherence. Galeazzi argues that such projects mark a shift toward experiential and narrative authenticity, where the focus lies on the interpretive frameworks and cognitive immersion they afford, rather than their fidelity to

16

physical remnants. By reconstructing not only space but also context and cosmology, the Western Han Tomb project exemplifies how digital heritage can enable alternative, meaning-driven forms of authenticity that extend beyond the material paradigm.

Figure 3 Western Han Tomb M27 digital Program

Note. Powerwall visualisation and motion capture facility at UC Merced. Unknown Author

2.3 Summary: Transformation of Authenticity Dimensions The emergence of digital technology has not only challenged traditional understandings of authenticity but also transformed its core evaluative dimensions.

Whereas traditional heritage conservation emphasized material substance, original function, and historic craftsmanship, digital practices have introduced new standards such as data fidelity, user immersion, and interpretive transparency.

These new criteria do not simply replace older ones, but rather reflect a paradigm shift from preservation of physical fabric to preservation of meaning, experience, and epistemic rigor.

17

To visualize this shift, Figure 4 below contrasts the traditional dimensions of authenticity, as defined by the Nara Document (1994), with new authenticity dimensions emerging from digital heritage practices

18

Figure 4 Comparison of Authenticity Dimensions between Traditional and Digital Contexts

Note. By Author

19

The first is the authenticity of reconstruction method and techniques, which highlights the importance of how digital reconstructions are created, what technologies are used, what methodological choices are made, and how these choices affect both accuracy and interpretive legitimacy. Rather than viewing authenticity as an inherent property of the physical object, this dimension emphasizes the credibility of the reconstruction process itself. High-resolution scanning, photogrammetry, and modelling protocols are judged not only for their technical precision, but also for the clarity of their sources, the transparency of their assumptions, and the replicability of their workflows (Hermon & Niccolucci, 2008; Galeazzi, 2018). In this sense, authenticity shifts from the physical “truth” of the object to the epistemic reliability of the digital surrogate, based on reproducible and well-documented methodology.

Secondly, the rise of technologies has foregrounded the importance of immersive experience and narrative, which concerns the user's emotional and embodied engagement in virtual environments. Unlike traditional authenticity rooted in material aura, this dimension values experiential presence, which achieved through spatial realism, sensory design, and narrative flow (Di Franco et al., 2018). In this context, authenticity is perceived subjectively, as an affective relationship between the viewer and the heritage environment, rather than as a static property of the object itself.

The third is the authenticity of multimodal expression and multi-vocal, which reflects the shift from singular, authoritative narratives toward pluralistic, inclusive, and interactive interpretations of heritage. This dimension emphasizes the role of

20

multimodal communication, combining visual, textual, auditory, and spatial media, to facilitate layered storytelling and encourage multiple perspectives, including those of local communities and non-expert participants (Beale, 2018; Di Franco et al., 2018). Rather than relying solely on expert curation, digital heritage platforms increasingly enable collaborative meaning-making, where diverse stakeholders cocreate interpretations, reframe cultural significance, and contribute to a more democratic construction of authenticity (Jeffery, 2015). By embracing co-production and polyphony, this dimension redefines authenticity as socially negotiated and culturally inclusive, rather than monolithic or institutionally imposed.

Lastly, Interpretive transparency and traceability addresse the ethical and epistemological imperative to distinguish fact from speculation in digital models. As digital reconstructions often involve hypothesizing missing elements, it becomes essential to document sources, clarify uncertainty, and label speculative components (Galeazzi, 2018). This dimension is central to the London Charter (2009), which insists that all interpretive decisions be openly recorded and peerreviewable, thereby promoting accountability and critical reflexivity in digital heritage work.

In summary, four main dimensions of authenticity which include Reconstruction Method and Techniques, Immersive Experience and Narrative, Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality and Interpretive Transparency and Traceability have been identified and analysed to capture the evolving standards of what constitutes the authentic in virtual reconstructions in the context of digital heritage conservation. Together, these dimensions reflect a shift from object-based authenticity to a more process-oriented, user-sensitive, and communicatively 21

grounded framework, redefining how authenticity is constructed, experienced, and validated in the digital age.

2.4 Gaps in the Discourse of Authenticity in Digital Heritage While the theoretical reconceptualization of authenticity in the digital age has gained increasing attention, the current discourse remains fragmented and uneven.

A large body of scholarship addresses the philosophical and technical foundations of digital authenticity, including debates on the role of materiality (Benjamin, 1936), process transparency (Hermon & Niccolucci, 2008), and user-centred experience (Di Franco et al., 2018). Yet two key gaps in this discourse remain insufficiently explored.

First, although scholars have acknowledged that authenticity is shifting from a material condition to a technologically mediated process, there is still a lack of detailed investigation into how traditional authenticity dimensions are inherited, translated, or abandoned in actual digital conservation projects. For instance, while many case studies describe the technical procedures of 3D scanning, modelling, and presentation, few examine how these processes retain or reinterpret attributes such as form, setting, or spiritual meaning. The absence of systematic frameworks to trace the continuity or rupture between traditional authenticity values and digital reconstruction practices leaves a theoretical gap in understanding what is preserved, transformed, or lost during the digitization of heritage. In particular, dimensions such as Reconstruction Methods and Interpretive Transparency are

22

frequently cited as desirable principles, but remain understudied in terms of practical evaluation and design impact.

Second, existing literature tends to prioritize production and technical documentation over audience perception. While immersive technologies and virtual exhibitions are praised for increasing access, relatively few studies investigate how digital authenticity is perceived, trusted, or emotionally experienced by different stakeholders. The user’s role in validating or contesting authenticity, particularly through subjective dimensions such as immersion, emotional resonance, or multivocal interpretation, has received limited attention. Consequently, dimensions like Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality or Narrative Immersion have been conceptually proposed, but lack empirical substantiation grounded in user feedback.

In conclusion, the discourse on authenticity in digital heritage has advanced in its theoretical scope, but remains disconnected from empirical, practice-based insights.

There is a pressing need for integrated frameworks that can link production processes with perception outcomes, thereby bridging the gap between conceptual ideals and actual audience experiences. This study addresses these gaps by evaluating the digital reconstruction of Cave 285 in the Mogao Grottoes across both processual and experiential dimensions, providing a dual-perspective contribution to the ongoing discourse on digital authenticity.

23

3

Statement of Research Question and Hypotheses

3.1 Questions •

How are the traditional dimensions of authenticity, as defined in the Nara Document, expressed, transformed, or omitted during the digital conservation process of Mogao Cave 285?

•

In what ways do methodological and technical decisions throughout the digital production process of Mogao Cave 285 influence the authenticity of the final digital representation?

•

How do different stakeholders such as heritage experts, developers, general audiences differ in their understanding of what constitutes authenticity in digital Mogao Cave 285?

3.2 Hypothesis •

The digital conservation process of Cave 285 selectively transforms traditional authenticity dimensions, with form, spatial logic, and symbolic meaning being more effectively preserved than material or functional aspects.

•

Authenticity is in how transparently and rigorously each stage of the digital production is conducted. A credible team, precise scanning techniques, clear reconstruction boundaries, and honest narrative labelling all contribute to users' trust in the digital product.

•

Perceptions of authenticity vary by user group. Experts prioritize technical precision and source transparency, while general users value emotional resonance and narrative coherence.

24

4

Methodology

This study adopts a combination of qualitative and quantitive approach to investigate how authenticity is translated and reconstructed in the digital conservation of Cave 285 at the Mogao Grottoes. The research seeks to evaluate the extent to which traditional authenticity dimensions are preserved or transformed, and how emerging digital authenticity dimensions are constructed both through the digital production process and through user perception.

4.1 Research Design The structure of this research follows a two-path analytical model, corresponding to two complementary perspectives on authenticity in digital heritage. One path which focus on process-based evaluation examines how authenticity is expressed and translated through the technological and design process of digital reconstruction.

Another path which focus on perception-based evaluation assesses how authenticity is perceived and validated by different stakeholder groups. Each path targets two of the four proposed digital authenticity dimensions as shown in the Figure 1.

4.2 Theoretical Framework The research is grounded in the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994) for evaluating traditional authenticity, which includes dimensions such as form, materials, function, setting, and spirit. These are used to establish a baseline evaluation of Cave 285's original cultural and historical significance.

To evaluate authenticity in digital heritage, the study proposes four dimensions derived from critical literature on digital heritage theory: Reconstruction method and 25

techniques, Interpretive transparency and traceability, Immersive experience and narrative, and Multimodal expression and multi-vocality 4.3 Data Collection and Analysis 4.3.1. Technical Process Evaluation To assess the digital reconstruction process of Cave 285, the study conducts an indepth content analysis of these resources. This analysis evaluates the presence or absence of transparency, methodological rigor, and source attribution to determine whether the digital reproduction meets the demand of authenticity.

•

Official project documentation from the Dunhuang Academy and Digital Dunhuang platform

•

Publications detailing the methods of 3D scanning, photogrammetry, modelling, and exhibition design

•

Public digital outputs, including VR experiences, video renderings, and interactive web portals.

4.3.2 Interviews and Survey To capture audience and expert perceptions, the study conducts the qualitative research through interviews and quantitate questionnaire survey.

•

Interviews with three stakeholder groups: digital technical experts, conservation professionals, and local community members.

•

A questionnaire survey as shown in Appendix C distributed to participants who have experienced both offline visit of Mogao Grottoes and the digital Cave 285 “Encountering Dunhuang” through the online platform of WeChat mini-programme.

26

4.4 Validity and Limitations By combining theoretical mapping, process tracing, and user perception analysis, this study offers an overall assessment of how authenticity is transformed in digital heritage practice. It does not seek to measure authenticity as a fixed attribute, but to reveal how it is constructed, negotiated, and validated through both technological practices and human experience.

However, limitations include the restricted availability of internal design documentation, and the variation in user familiarity with the heritage context, which may influence the measure of perception of authenticity.

27

5

Research on the Cave 285 of Mogao Grottoes

5.1 The Authenticity of Mogao Cave 285 The authenticity of Cave 285 at the Mogao Grottoes can be effectively interpreted through the classical framework proposed by the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994). These dimensions provide a comprehensive lens through which to understand the enduring cultural, historical, and spiritual values embedded in this early Western Wei cave.

Cave 285 demonstrates a highly coherent visual and spatial configuration that reflects the ritual and cosmological worldview of its time. Its central-pillar layout, axial orientation, and nested wall niches reflect architectural conventions of the Western Wei dynasty (Figure 5 & 6). The visual program is uniquely intercultural because of the western wall features deities such as Maheśvara, Sūrya, and Candra drawn from Buddhist, Hindu, and possibly Zoroastrian traditions, suggesting layered narrative registers embedded in its visual schema (Zhang, 2009). The coherent design thus reflects the doctrinal and ritualistic worldview of the time, supporting a historically authentic interpretive framework.

In terms of materials and substance, the murals in Cave 285 retain their original mineral pigments such as malachite green and cinnabar red, which were applied over finely prepared earthen plaster. Despite environmental deterioration, the preservation of cinnabar reds and malachite greens testifies to the longevity of its material fabric. As Agnew, Demas, Sullivan, and Wang (2024) note, early conservation efforts consciously avoided repainting or over-cleaning, respecting the visual and historical patina of the surface as a record of the past.

28

Figure 5 Panoramic interior view of Cave 285, Mogao Grottoes

Note. From Cave 285, by Dunhuang Academy, 2024, eDunhuang (https://www.e-dunhuang.com/cave/10.0001/0001.0001.0285).

Figure 6 Sectional elevation and floor plan of Mogao Cave

Note. From The Structural Design and Sculptures of the Mogao Grottoes (Fig. 5-2), by W. Yan, 1951, Cultural Relics Reference Materials, Issue 5.

29

Originally created as a devotional space for Buddhist visualization, Cave 285 functioned both as a symbolic mandala and a physical site of pilgrimage. The cave’s painted cosmograms, such as the solar chariot of the Sun Deva and the lunar procession of Moon Devi (Figure 7), were intended to structure ritual perception and spiritual orientation (Zhang, 2009). Although no longer used for worship, the architectural and iconographic integrity sustains its ritual function in a symbolic sense.

Figure 7 Painting on the wall

Note. The four slopes of the cave ceiling depict figures such as Apsaras, the Thunder God, Feilian, Vermilion Bird (Zhuque), Wuhuo, Kaimei, Fuxi, and Nüwa, while the edges feature 35 images of mountain-dwelling Chan monks.

The cave’s creation employed traditional Dunhuang practices in carving, plastering, and pigment layering. These methods were transmitted from Central Asian and Indian prototypes yet localized through the technical innovations of the Dunhuang school. The use of symbolic figures in hierarchical registers reflects conventions established during the earlier Northern Dynasties but modified through regional craft knowledge (Pan, 2009).

30

The cave’s physical context, including location and setting, also reinforces its authenticity (Figure 8). Cave 285’s placement within the Mogao cliffside is vital to its authenticity.

Its relationship to neighbouring caves, ritual paths, and the desert environment contributes to its historical and environmental coherence. As Neville Agnew et al. (2024) emphasizes, setting is not merely visual but the encompasses natural light, acoustic containment, and climatic fragility, all of which shaped both the creation and conservation of the murals.

Figure 8 Illustrative Map of the Mogao Grottoes Cave Distribution

Note. From Please Rotate Your Screen to View: A Visual Guide to the Mogao Caves, by J. Zhang & T. Wang,

2024,

Planet

Research

Institute

via

WeChat

Official

Account

(https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/4RkTKYS7xLt55SZu_uuJaw).

The spiritual atmosphere of Cave 285 is equally integral to its authenticity. Visitors have reported emotional and contemplative reactions, particularly due to the enclosed spatiality and the symbolic narrative density. Wang (2023) refers to this affective engagement as “experiencing authenticity,” which remains grounded in the original spiritual intent of the space.

31

Finally, internal and external factors, including heritage policy, conservation philosophy, and international cooperation, contribute to maintaining the cave’s authenticity. Since the 1980s, collaboration between the Dunhuang Academy and international partners such as the Getty Conservation Institute has emphasized minimal intervention and scientific documentation (Figure 9). These efforts have ensured long-term stabilization without eroding the cave’s historical character or interpretive integrity.

Figure 9 Getty Institute helps the conservation of Mogao Grottoes

Note. Image of The J. Paul Getty Trust. From Los Angeles Times (2014), illustrating the Getty Conservation Institute’s long-term collaboration with the Dunhuang Academy. By Neville Agnew.

Taken together, these seven dimensions confirm that Cave 285 retains a high degree of integrity and authenticity. Its material fabric, artistic logic, ritual function, environmental context, and emotional impact remain legible and culturally resonant. This traditional framework provides a baseline for assessing how emerging digital interventions might preserve, reinterpret, or transform the authenticity of Cave 285 in the next stage of heritage practice.

32

5.2 Digital Process: Technology, Process and Presentation Figure 10 Digital Process of Mogao 285

Note. By Author

5.2.1 Overall The digital reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285 was not a single act of visual reproduction but a multi-phase process involving cross-disciplinary collaboration, advanced technological integration, and iterative narrative design. To evaluate how authenticity is expressed or potentially obscured, through this digital heritage project, it is first necessary to reconstruct the key phases of its production process.

Figure 10 above outlines the six primary stages involved in the digital development of Cave 285, from institutional coordination to public-facing presentation. These stages were identified through a review of published literature, technical documentation, and public project records, and form the basis for the subsequent

33

evaluation of how digital authenticity is embedded, translated, or disrupted during the reconstruction process.

5.2.2 Digital Process The digital conservation of Cave 285 at the Mogao Grottoes demonstrates a comprehensive, multi-stage workflow encompassing technical documentation, modelling, restoration, content creation, and public presentation. While this process reflects a globally leading practice, each stage also reveals inherent challenges and areas for improvement.

The project initiation and stakeholder coordination phase ensures interdisciplinary collaboration and goal alignment. The involvement of the Dunhuang Academy, research institutions, and technology partners forms a robust foundation for crosssector synergy. However, scholars note that early-stage planning often lacks standardized evaluation metrics and transparent reporting mechanisms, which can obscure accountability and impede iterative learning (Yan, 2023).

During the research planning and cave selection phase, site prioritization is typically guided by conservation urgency and scholarly interest. Yet, several studies suggest that selection criteria has risk about relying on subjective judgment or external funding directives, rather than holistic assessments of cultural significance, representational diversity, or public engagement impact (Wu, 2022).

The data collection and condition assessment phase (Figure 11) employs advanced tools such as photogrammetry, LiDAR, and structured light scanning to capture

34

geometric and chromatic information. These technologies enable detailed digital twins, but they remain sensitive to environmental constraints like poor lighting, spatial narrowness, and object occlusion, especially in the confined architecture of Dunhuang’s grottoes (Song, 2022). As noted by Liu (2015), obtaining consistent lighting and accurate colour reproduction across frescoed surfaces remains a technical bottleneck.

Figure 11 Digital Collection of Mogao Caves

Note.

From

Dunhuang

Academy,

2024,

Dunhuang

Academy

Official

Website

(https://www.dha.ac.cn/info/1018/4618.htm).

In the 3D modelling and image stitching stage (Figure 12), datasets are integrated into high-resolution panoramic surfaces and spatially calibrated meshes. While the modelling software supports high fidelity, the processing requirements are intensive, generating gigabyte-scale files that challenge current computing environments (Liu, 2015). This stage is also where workflow bottlenecks are most apparent, demanding further optimization of data processing pipelines and automated alignment protocols.

35

Figure 12 Digital Processing of Mogao Caves

Note.

From

Dunhuang

Academy,

2024,

Dunhuang

Academy

Official

Website

(https://www.dha.ac.cn/info/1018/4618.htm).

The digital restoration and hypothetical reconstruction phase presents ethical and methodological concerns. While virtual inpainting and reconstructive modelling techniques allow for visual completeness, researchers emphasize the importance of marking and documenting speculative elements to preserve interpretive transparency (Fu, Ma and Sun, 2023). Variation across projects in labelling hypothetical components risks undermining viewer trust and authenticity.

In narrative and multimedia content development (Figure 13-18), interdisciplinary teams script, visualize, and spatially embed storytelling components. The shift toward multimodal presentation, including text, voiceover, and interactive elements, enriches the user experience (). However, much of the content remains expertdriven, with limited co-production or incorporation of local or community voices, which hinders the goal of polyvocal authenticity (Kong, 2018).

36

Figure 13 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Start

Figure 14 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Site Introduction of Cave 285

Figure 15 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Entrance of Cave 285

37

Figure 16 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Plots of Cave 285

Figure 17 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Mainline Interaction of Cave 285

Figure 18 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Subjective Interaction of Cave 285

Note. Screenshots from the mobile game Encountering Dunhuang, which digitally reconstructs and gamifies elements of Dunhuang heritage through interactive exploration. From Encountering Dunhuang on WeChat Mini-Program Platform, by Tencent Aurora Studio & Dunhuang Academy.

38

Platform integration and user interface design have evolved considerably through initiatives like the Digital Dunhuang website and VR-based displays. Still, limitations persist: usability studies report that complex navigation structures, weak mobile compatibility, and lack of multilingual interfaces restrict access and inclusivity (Song, 2022; Kong, 2021).

Finally, the digital archiving and dissemination phase has achieved considerable reach via online platforms and public exhibitions. Yet challenges remain in terms of data standardization, long-term accessibility, and the lack of feedback mechanisms (Kong, 2021). Scholars also highlight unresolved issues related to copyright management and metadata transparency, which limit the reuse and open sharing of digital heritage assets (Wei, Li and Tan, 2021).

In summary, the digital workflow at Mogao Cave 285 reflects a pioneering integration of heritage science, computational modelling, and public storytelling.

Nonetheless, the process reveals persistent gaps in planning transparency, participatory inclusivity, technical robustness, and interpretive accountability, each of which has implications for how authenticity is constructed and perceived throughout the digital lifecycle.

39

5.3 Interview Findings 5.3.1 Perspective of Technical Experts The digital expert involved in the Mogao Grottoes project emphasized the technical rigor of their methodology, which combined laser scanning and multispectral imaging to achieve precise geometric accuracy and faithful colour reproduction. One of their main concerns was to maintain transparency in the digital reconstruction process. Damaged sections of murals that were digitally restored using algorithms were clearly marked, allowing viewers to distinguish between what was based on physical data and what was reconstructed hypothetically. In their view, authenticity in digital heritage should be understood not as the preservation of material originality, but as the construction of verifiable data integrity.

Further emphasizing this approach, the head of data management at the Dunhuang Academy, noted that advances in imaging have significantly improved the fidelity of digital documentation. He described the evolution in digital systems as not merely a technical upgrade, but a structural shift in how heritage is preserved and experienced. These improvements were framed as foundational for ensuring that digital representations maintain both precision and trustworthiness.

However, some debates emerged over certain features of the virtual tour, such as dynamic lighting simulation (Figure 10). The engineer noted that many users felt this feature helped them better understand how the murals might have originally appeared, but some scholars argued that the ability to adjust lighting settings introduced an ahistorical interpretation, since the original caves were designed to be perceived under very specific and limited lighting conditions.

40

5.3.2 Perspective of Conservation Expert A heritage conservationist acknowledged that digitization has played an important role in reducing physical visitation pressure on sensitive sites. They cited the example of Cave 220, where the number of on-site visitors significantly decreased after digital alternatives were introduced. At the same time, they expressed concern that virtual experiences might dilute the aura and spatial presence of the original site. To address this issue, it was made standard practice for digital exhibitions to include conservation metadata, reinforcing the idea that digitization serves as a record of vulnerability rather than a replacement of the original.

Adding to this, another heritage expert at the Dunhuang Academy, emphasized the importance of adapting digital capture strategies to the specific conditions of each cave. He explained that each grotto has its own personality and technical needs, and thus, digitization should not be standardized but tailored. This conservationoriented perspective underscores the notion that methodological flexibility is key to sustaining authenticity across different cave environments.

One of the most debated topics involved the use of AI-generated reconstructions of lost paintings from the Northern Liang dynasty. Some critics questioned whether such probabilistic reconstructions could be reconciled with the principles of authenticity laid out in the Nara Document, particularly the emphasis on authenticity of process. In response, proponents argued that as long as uncertainty and algorithmic assumptions were clearly disclosed, such practices remained within the bounds of scholarly responsibility.

41

5.3.3 Local Community from Dunhuang City, Gansu Province Interviews with local residents in Dunhuang reveal a nuanced perspective on the digital preservation initiatives of the Mogao Grottoes. Many community members appreciate the role of digital platforms, such as the "Digital Dunhuang" project, in promoting cultural heritage and reducing the physical strain on the ancient sites. As one resident noted, "The virtual tours have brought global attention to our heritage, allowing people worldwide to experience the beauty of the caves without causing damage to the actual site."

Economic considerations also emerge from the community's perspective. While digital tourism has increased interest in Dunhuang, the financial benefits are not always felt at the local level. Small business owners and local guides have observed that the influx of virtual visitors does not translate into economic support for the community. As one shopkeeper mentioned, "People see the caves online, but they don't come here to buy our crafts or experience our hospitality." These insights highlight the importance of integrating local voices into the digital preservation process. Ensuring that the community's cultural expressions and economic wellbeing are considered can lead to more inclusive and authentic representations of Dunhuang's rich heritage.

42

5.4 Questionnaire Findings 5.4.1 Questionnaire Design To investigate how users perceive authenticity in the digital representation of Mogao Cave 285, a structured questionnaire was developed around two core dimensions of digital authenticity: Immersive Experience and Narrative and Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality. These two dimensions reflect the evolving understanding of authenticity in the digital age. It is not a fixed material condition, but a construct shaped by emotional engagement, narrative depth, multimodal delivery, and cultural inclusiveness.

Each dimension was further operationalized into four interrelated sub-dimensions, allowing for a more granular assessment of how authenticity is constructed through both experiential immersion and interpretive diversity. The full structure comprises eight subdimensions, each represented by items (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to capture quantitative insight. The design logic and question allocation are illustrated in Appendix C. Dimension 1: Immersive Experience and Narrative This dimension captures how users engage with the digital cave on both spatial and emotional levels. It is composed of the following four subdimensions below.

•

Spatial Presence: Measures the user’s sense of being "inside" the cave, including loss of awareness of the real-world environment.

•

Affective Atmosphere: Assesses whether symbolic, acoustic, or visual elements evoke emotional or spiritual responses.

43

•

Narrative Engagement: Evaluates the coherence, clarity, and sequential flow of interpretive content.

•

General Immersive Evaluation: Gauges the perceived meaningfulness and affective impact of the experience compared to traditional exhibitions.

Dimension 2: Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality This dimension focuses on the inclusivity and representational complexity of the digital heritage experience. It includes the following subdimensions.

•

Media Diversity: Assesses the presence and integration of varied media types.

•

Interpretive Clarity: Evaluates the coherence and consistency across different media formats, and whether they aid understanding without overwhelming the user.

•

Polyvocal Representation: Investigates whether the experience incorporates multiple perspectives and reflects interpretive plurality.

•

Participatory Engagement: Measures whether users feel empowered to explore content on their own terms and express feedback or contribute interpretive input.

5.4.2 Questionnaire Response To evaluate how users perceive digital authenticity in the virtual representation of Mogao Cave 285, a structured questionnaire was administered to 24 participants.

The responses were organized into two primary dimensions, Immersive Experience and Narrative (IEN) and Multi-modal Expression and Multi-vocality (MEM), each further divided into four sub-dimensions. The results shown in Appendix D offer

44

insights into how users cognitively and affectively engage with the digital experience.

In the Immersive Experience and Narrative, users reported relatively high engagement. Notably, the item "I believe this digital experience is a meaningful way to connect with cultural heritage" (GI1) received the highest mean score (M = 4.58, SD = 0.53), suggesting a strong overall sense of cultural relevance and emotional resonance. Similarly, items evaluating Narrative Engagement (NE1: M = 4.33, SD = 0.66; NE2: M = 4.21, SD = 0.70) showed that users found the interpretive flow coherent and instructive. However, the item "I became less aware of my real-world surroundings" (SP2) scored relatively low (M = 3.00, SD = 1.10), indicating that full spatial immersion was not uniformly achieved.

The Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality dimension revealed a more mixed response. Items on Media Diversity and Interpretive Clarity, such as "I found that the combination of multiple media formats made the experience more engaging" (MD1: M = 4.29, SD = 0.82) and "The different media elements supported each other and told a coherent story" (IC1: M = 4.17, SD = 0.81) were positively received. In contrast, the item "I noticed that multiple interpretations of the cave were presented" (MR1) had the lowest overall mean (M = 2.50, SD = 0.93), suggesting that users did not perceive strong evidence of interpretive plurality or polyvocality in the experience.

Responses to Participatory Engagement were divided. While many participants agreed that users should have more opportunities to contribute to digital heritage content (PE2: M = 4.54, SD = 0.64), fewer agreed that the current platform encouraged personal exploration or customization (PE1: M = 3.04, SD = 1.18). This

45

indicates a potential gap between user expectations for involvement and the current degree of interactivity.

Overall, the questionnaire results suggest that while the digital experience of Mogao Cave 285 is well-received in terms of clarity, coherence, and emotional connection, there is room for further development in enhancing user immersion, representing multiple cultural perspectives, and enabling participatory engagement. These findings will be further analyzed in relation to the production process and expert interviews in the following chapters.

46

6

Discussion

6.1 Continuity of Traditional Authenticity Dimensions The traditional dimensions of authenticity, including form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, spirit and feeling, and internal or external factors, which provide a foundational framework for understanding the historical and cultural significance of Cave 285.

However, in the context of digital conservation, these dimensions are not simply replicated. Rather, they are translated, layered, and reorganized across the technical and experiential structures of digital representation.

As summarized in Table A, each traditional attribute can be retained to some extent, but through new channels such as 3D modelling, immersive VR environments, multimodal narration, or interactive annotation. For example, “form and design” is translated not only through geometric modelling but also through immersive walkthroughs and spatial navigation, engaging both Reconstruction Method and Techniques and Immersive Experience. Similarly, “materials and substance” are expressed through high-resolution surface imaging and visual layering, aligning with both technical accuracy and interpretive transparency.

Informed by both the production workflow and experiential analysis, a set of critical elements was identified as instrumental in enhancing the expression of authenticity in the digital representation of Cave 285. These include technical modules such as scanning, 3D modelling, colour correction, and environmental scans, which contribute to geometric and chromatic fidelity. In parallel, narrative mechanisms, such as layered storytelling, symbolic navigation, and expert commentary, play a vital role in interpretive transparency and cultural coherence. Furthermore, 47

immersive features such as sound design, emotional cues, and panoramic walkthroughs help construct affective and spatial presence. These components, when effectively integrated with clear documentation layers and contextual framing, serve not only as tools for visualization but as active agents in shaping perceived digital authenticity.

One key finding is that the traditional authenticity dimensions outlined in the Nara Document do not correspond one-to-one with the newly proposed dimensions of digital authenticity. Instead, these two sets of dimensions operate at different levels and serve different purposes. The traditional seven dimensions describe the inherent attributes of heritage objects such as material, setting, function, and spirit and are primarily concerned with maintaining integrity in physical conservation and presentation. In contrast, the four digital authenticity dimensions proposed in this study do not seek to replicate material properties directly. Rather, they describe how authenticity is constructed, translated, and perceived through digital processes and human interaction.

Because digital environments cannot convey physical qualities in a direct sensory manner, the traditional dimensions are necessarily mediated, edited, translated, and restructured through digital tools. As such, the traditional framework remains essential in determining what aspects of heritage need to be preserved or faithfully rendered. However, the digital authenticity dimensions operate as a “next-level” evaluative structure, focusing on how the design, storytelling, and user experience can preserve or distort those traditional qualities. They are not substitutes but pathways to ensure that the values embedded in material authenticity are thoughtfully re-expressed in the digital realm.

48

This layered and hybrid mapping reveals that the four proposed digital authenticity dimensions are not replacements, but evolved frameworks that absorb, redistribute, and reinterpret the traditional values of authenticity. This conceptual continuity will serve as the analytical foundation for the following sections. Particular attention will be paid to how specific elements of Cave 285, such as iconographic structure, spatial hierarchy, and emotional resonance, are preserved, reconfigured, or omitted, and what this implies for the broader discourse on digital authenticity.

6.2 The Expression of Authenticity through Production and Perception The expression of authenticity in the digital reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285 manifests as a dynamic interaction between production design and audience perception. By analysing the multi-phase digital workflow from team coordination to public dissemination alongside interview insights and user survey responses, this section explores how each of the four digital authenticity dimensions was either reinforced or undermined, and how the attributes of Cave 285 are overlooked through specific decisions and user experiences.

A critical aspect of assessing digital authenticity lies in examining how specific production stages either preserved or compromised the expression of key authenticity attributes of Cave 285 combined Appendix A and Appendix B. The first dimension, Reconstruction Method and Techniques, is well-reflected in the project’s application of advanced technologies and methodical workflow. The reconstruction process of Cave 285 demonstrates a notable degree of technical competence, as evidenced by the application of high-resolution scanning, photogrammetry, and panoramic walkthroughs that collectively supported the accurate rendering of 49

architectural form, mural layout, and chromatic depth. These efforts successfully facilitated the digital translation of key traditional authenticity attributes such as “Form and Design” and “Materials and Substance.” However, technical bottlenecks emerged at multiple stages of the workflow. For example, environmental constraints during data acquisition may compromise lighting consistency and colour fidelity, while the integration of massive model files revealed the risk of inefficiencies in processing and calibration (Figure 19). These issues collectively limited the project's ability to convey the full material logic and spatial intent of the original cave, and weakened the credibility of the digital model as an accountable surrogate.

Figure 19 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang

Note. This is a screenshot taken at the maximum zoom level of the interface; the actual mural details and colors are not presented in high resolution. Additionally, the original dim lighting of the cave may affect viewers’ interpretation and understanding of the artwork.

The second dimension, Interpretive Transparency and Traceability, is partially expressed in the digital presentation and public feedback. Efforts to maintain interpretive clarity in the digital Cave 285 reconstruction were visible in elements such as metadata documentation, expert commentary, and selective labeling of algorithmic 50

reconstructions, which aimed to distinguish hypothetical content from verified empirical data. These components partially supported the accurate representation of authenticity attributes like “Spirit and Feeling,” “Use and Function,” and “Traditions and Techniques,” which rely on contextual awareness and interpretive nuance. However, issues remain in the interpretive process. First, the interaction design of the digital platform presents a singular, expert-defined narrative without offering layered viewpoints or alternative interpretations, undermining interpretive openness. Furthermore, speculative or reconstructed elements were not accompanied by explicit interpretive annotations, which diminishes transparency in distinguishing between historical fact and reconstruction.

Second, while internal documentation exists, traceability is largely inaccessible to nonexpert users and the interested public. No clear mechanisms are in place to make modelling assumptions, data sources, or version histories visible to general audiences, thereby is possible a disconnect between institutional accountability and public understanding. As a result, the traceability of interpretive decisions is structurally constrained, weakening the overall communicative integrity of the digital reproduction.

Figure 20 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang

Note. The virtual experience interface allows only fixed-point rotational viewing, limiting spatial immersion by restricting free movement through the cave environment.

51

Combined the result of questionnaire (Appendix D) and transformation of traditional authenticity (Appendix A), the third dimension, Immersive Experience and Narrative, was generally well received by users, with a mean score of 3.91 across subdimensions. Questionnaire responses showed that participants felt emotionally connected to the digital representation of Cave 285, and they appreciated the clarity and coherence of the storytelling elements. Visual sequencing, symbolic content, and affective cues such as color and sound helped reinforce the narrative structure and the spiritual atmosphere of the original site. In terms of traditional authenticity, this dimension effectively supported the transformation of attributes such as “Spirit and Feeling,” “Use and Function,” and partially, “Location and Setting,” by reconstructing not only spatial form but symbolic meaning. However, the lower score in spatial immersion indicates a gap between conceptual understanding and embodied experience. While panoramic walkthroughs and virtual navigation were employed, the virtual environment did not fully replicate the sense of enclosure, acoustics, or movement logic found in the physical cave (Figure 20). Moreover, the experience lacked elements of ritual rhythm or guided pacing, which are crucial for ritual-oriented interpretation. As a result, immersive authenticity was achieved at a cognitive and emotional level, but remained limited in sensory and performative depth.

Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality, serves as the last dimension, is more ambivalent, with an average score of 3.86 and notably low ratings in “Polyvocal Representation” (M = 2.50). While users found the media presentation diverse and coherent, which mostly because of the well integration of text, audio, and visuals, they perceived the content as predominantly expert-led and lacking interpretive variety. This

52

undermines the transformation of authenticity attributes like “Traditions and Techniques” and “Other Internal/External Factors,” which depend on multivocal interpretation and participatory insight. Although features such as expert commentary and narrative layering were present, they did not offer opportunities for local voices, alternative readings, or audience interactivity (Figure 21). The lack of visible user pathways for contributing or responding further weakened the participatory potential of the platform. Therefore, while multimodal communication was technically effective, the digital experience fell short in enabling inclusivity and interpretive plurality, reinforcing a one-dimensional narrative structure rather than cultivating a shared sense of meaning-making.

Figure 21 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang

Note. The interactive system presents smooth visuals, elegant music, and refined textual content.

53

6.3 Views from different stakeholders Authenticity in digital heritage is not universally defined, but negotiated among different stakeholders who bring divergent priorities and evaluative frameworks.

Based on user survey data and stakeholder interviews, this section compares how digital authenticity is perceived and valued across three main groups: technical experts, heritage conservation professionals, the local community, and the general users. Each group focuses on different dimensions of authenticity, reflecting their respective disciplinary perspectives and practical concerns.

In the case of the digital reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285, four key perspectives emerge.

Technical experts place significant emphasis on the Reconstruction Method and Techniques dimension. Their primary concern lies in the accuracy, reproducibility, and fidelity of the digital outputs. Interviews revealed their pride in technologies.

However, they acknowledged limitations in immersive realism technologies which need to be progressed. Conservation professionals, by contrast, foreground the Interpretive Transparency and

Traceability

dimension.

Their

interviews

underscored the importance of clearly labeling speculative reconstructions and contextualizing narrative components within conservation documentation. They also expressed concern that virtual experiences might compromise the spiritual aura and contemplative function of the cave by over-aestheticizing or decontextualizing the content where make users misunderstand the traditional authenticity. The local community, including traditional knowledge holders and residents of Dunhuang, expressed a mixed view, focused heavily on the while they appreciated the exposure brought by the digital platform and acknowledged its educational value, they were critical of the lack of participatory mechanisms. Finally,

54

survey results from the general audience reinforce this divergence. High scores in “Narrative Engagement” and “Affective Atmosphere” show that users value the emotional and symbolic clarity of the digital experience. However, low scores in “Polyvocal Representation” and “Participatory Engagement” mirror the local stakeholders’ concerns, indicating that the digital platform remains largely onedirectional and curatorially driven.

6.4 Limitation While this study offers a multi-dimensional evaluation of authenticity in the digital reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285, several limitations should be acknowledged.

First, the scope of the research is restricted to a single cave and its corresponding digital project, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other heritage sites with different cultural, technical, or institutional contexts. Although Cave 285 holds exceptional historical and symbolic value, conclusions drawn from its case may not apply uniformly to projects with different conservation philosophies or digital production models.

Second, the analysis of the digital process primarily relies on published technical documentation, secondary literature, and platform outputs. Due to limited access to internal project records or development archives, some assumptions about workflow decisions and technical justifications remain interpretive rather than fully verifiable. In particular, the analysis of traceability and metadata transparency is constrained by the lack of back-end access to internal annotation systems or versioning protocols.

55

Third, while the study integrates both qualitative and quantitative methods, the user perception data is based on a relatively small sample size (n = 24), limiting the statistical robustness of the findings. The survey results offer valuable insight into experiential and affective responses, but may not capture the full diversity of user expectations, particularly across different demographic or cultural backgrounds.

Lastly, although stakeholder interviews included representatives from technical, conservation, and local perspectives, the voices of broader public users, tourists, and minority cultural practitioners remain underrepresented. Future studies may benefit from more ethnographic or participatory methods to more fully capture how diverse communities interact with and interpret digital heritage products.

In sum, while the study provides a structured framework for assessing authenticity in digital heritage, it remains a situated inquiry. Further research across multiple sites, platforms, and user groups is necessary to refine and test the proposed dimensions of digital authenticity at scale.

56

7

Conclusion

This study has proposed a multi-dimensional framework for evaluating authenticity in the context of digital heritage, using the reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285 as a focused case study. Moving beyond the traditional material-centric perspective, it introduces four key dimensions:

Reconstruction Method and Techniques,

Interpretive Transparency and Traceability, Immersive Experience and Narrative, and Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality, to assess how authenticity is shaped through digital processes and user interaction. These dimensions collectively highlight that digital authenticity is not a direct substitute for traditional authenticity but a reframed mode of expression.

The analysis reveals that the expression of authenticity in digital heritage is neither fixed nor monolithic. Through a full-process evaluation—from team coordination and data acquisition to modelling, content design, and public presentation. This research systematically reviewed how the digital reconstruction of Cave 285 aligns or deviates from traditional authenticity values. It assessed both the production process and user perception using literature review, process audit, stakeholder interviews, and a structured questionnaire. The findings suggest that while technical fidelity and narrative structure were largely successful in supporting immersive and affective authenticity, critical gaps remain in interpretive transparency, multi-vocal representation, and participatory inclusion. These issues highlight the importance of not only producing accurate digital content but also communicating its limitations and enabling a more pluralistic engagement with heritage meaning.

This study attempts to bridge production analysis, perceptual evaluation, and theoretical reflection in the understanding of digital authenticity. However, due to 57

the wide scope of the investigation, many aspects could only be addressed in a preliminary manner. Although the research encompasses the full digital lifecycle, including data acquisition, modelling, narrative design, and user interaction, each of these stages warrants deeper, more focused exploration. Specific areas such as the technical validation of reconstruction processes, the emotional and cognitive dynamics of immersive engagement, and the implications of narrative authority offer important directions for further detailed study.

Despite these limitations, the primary aim of this research has been to propose a holistic evaluative framework that helps illuminate how authenticity is shaped, expressed, and interpreted in digital heritage practices. The framework developed in this study is intended to provide a useful reference for future work by scholars, designers, and institutions involved in digital cultural heritage.

Future research should consider applying this framework to a wider range of case studies, engaging larger and more diverse audiences, and incorporating participatory design methodologies. Additionally, the refinement and validation of the four digital authenticity dimensions through interdisciplinary collaboration will be necessary to strengthen their applicability and robustness. Over time, these efforts may contribute to the development of a practical and ethically grounded system for evaluating digital authenticity ，

one that supports transparent,

inclusive, and meaningful digital heritage experiences.

58

References Abdelmonem, M. G. (2017). Architectural and urban heritage in the digital age: dilemmas of authenticity, originality and reproduction. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 11(3), 5-15.

Agnew, N., Dimas, M., Sullivan, S., & Wang, P. (2024). Principles, planning, and conservation: Collaborative protection at the Mogao Grottoes. Dunhuang Research,

(04),

18–29.

https://doi.org/10.13584/j.cnki.issn1000-

4106.2024.04.002 Aiello, D., & Bolognesi, C. (2020). Reliving history: the digital reconstruction of the convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. Virtual Archaeology Review, 11(23), 106-126.

Arzomand, K., Rustell, M., & Kalganova, T. (2024). From ruins to reconstruction: Harnessing text-to-image AI for restoring historical architectures.

Balletti, C., D'Agnano, F., Guerra, F., & Vernier, P. (2016). From point cloud to digital fabrication: a tangible reconstruction of Ca'Venier dei Leoni, the Guggenheim museum in Venice. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 3(5), 43-49.

Beacham, R., Denard, H., & F. Niccolucci, 2006. An Introduction to The London Charter, in The e-volution of Information Communication and Technology in Cultural Heritage, Proceedings of VAST 2006, eds M. Ioannides, D. Arnold, F. Niccolucci, K. Mania. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 263–9.

Beim, N. (2025). Dematerializing Riegl’s Modern Cult of Monuments. Edinburgh Architecture Research, 39.

59

Benjamin,

W.,

1936,

Das

Kunstwerk

im

Zeitalter

seiner

technischen

Reproduzierbarkeit.

Benjamin, W., 1968. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books. Boorstin, O.J. 1964.

The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper and Row. Boccardi, G. (2019). Authenticity in the heritage context: A reflection beyond the Nara document. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10(1), 4-18.

Chen, Z., & Fan, J. (2016). The application of cultural and technological integration in cultural heritage protection: A case study of the digitalization of the Mogao Grottoes.

Dunhuang

Research,

(2),

100–107.

https://doi.org/10.13584/j.cnki.issn1000-4106.2016.02.014 Clarke, A., & Paine, A. (2018). The rhetoric of reproduction: built heritage in a digital age. Digital cultural heritage: Future Visions, 112-130.

Costa, E., Balletti, C., Beltrame, C., Guerra, F., & Vernier, P. (2016). Digital survey techniques for the documentation of wooden shipwrecks. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 41, 237-242.

Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., Galeazzi, F., & Vassallo, V. (2018). Introduction: Why authenticity still matters today (Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions). McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.27033 Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., & Galeazzi, F. (2013). Western Han Dynasty mural tombs: from the use of integrated technologies to the cybermap.

60

Duval, M., Smith, B., Gauchon, C., Mayer, L., & Malgat, C. (2020). “I have visited the Chauvet Cave”: the heritage experience of a rock art replica. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(2), 142-162.

Fan, J. (2009). Application of digital technology in the protection and exhibition of the

Dunhuang

Grottoes.

Dunhuang

Research,

(6),

1–3.

https://doi.org/10.13584/j.cnki.issn1000-4106.2009.06.014 Fu, X., Ma, X., & Sun, Z. (2019). Digital restoration of damaged murals: A case study of

Dunhuang

murals.

Art

Education

Research,

(1),

21–25.

https://doi.org/10.16272/j.cnki.cn11-1392/j.2019.01.007 Galeazzi, F. (2018). 3-D virtual replicas and simulations of the past:“real” or “fake” representations?. Current Anthropology, 59(3), 268-286.

Galeazzi, F., & Vassallo, V. Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions.

Gauchon, C., & Malgat, C. (2019). Rock Art cave and replica: what kind of Heritage experience?.

Gu, A. (2015). Digital representation of Dunhuang culture and tourist experience design (Master’s thesis). Northwest Normal University.

Guo, Q., & Zhang, G. (2024). Research on the application trend of VR technology in Dunhuang mural art (2012–2023). New Chu Culture, (7), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.20133/j.cnki.CN42-1932/G1.2024.07.018 Hanif, S. (2023, June). The aspects of authenticity in the digitalization of cultural heritage: A drifting paradigm. In 2023 International Conference on

61

Sustaining Heritage: Innovative and Digital Approaches (ICSH) (pp. 39-44).

IEEE. Han, J., & Lei, Z. (2025). Application of digital display technology in the protection of cultural heritage at the Mogao Grottoes. China Cultural Relics Science Research, (2), 157–159.

Hermon, S., Niccolucci, F., Di Giuseppantonio, P., Di Franco, F., & Vassallo, V. (2018).

Digital authenticity and the London Charter. Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions, 37-47.

Jeffrey, S., Love, S., & Poyade, M. (2021). The digital Laocoön: replication, narrative and authenticity. Museum & Society, 19(2), 166-183.

Jeffrey S., Hale A., Jones C., Jones S. & M. Maxwell, 2015, The ACCORD project: Archaeological

Community

Co-Production

of

Research

Resources.

Proceedings of CAA2014 21st Century Archaeology: Concepts, methods and tools, 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Paris, 22.4.2014 – 25.4.2014, eds F. Giligny, F. Djindjian, L. Costa, P. Moscati, S. Robert. Oxford: Archaeopress, 289–95.

Jiang, N. (2024). Digital preservation and dissemination of Dunhuang art in the context of artificial intelligence. Art Observation, (3), 90–97.

Kong, L. (2018). Construction of digital communication modeling of cultural heritage: A case study on Mogao Grottoes, Dunhuang (Master’s thesis). Northwest Minzu University, China.

62

Latour, B., & Lowe, A. (2011). The Migration of the Aura Exploring the Original Through Its Fac similes. Switching Codes Thinking Through Digital Technology in the Humanities and the Arts, 275-297.

Lau, R. W. K. (2010). Revisiting authenticity: A Social Realist Approach. Annals of Tourism

Research,

37(2),

478–498.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.11.002 Liu, G., Zhang, J., & Diao, C. (2005). Research on 3D digital technology of the Dunhuang Mogao Grottoes. Dunhuang Research, (4), 104–109.

Morcillo, J. M., Schaaf, F., Schneider, R. H., & Robertson-von Trotha, C. Y. (2017).

Authenticity through VR-based documentation of cultural heritage. A theoretical

approach

based

on

conservation

and

documentation

practices. Virtual Archaeology Review, 8(16), 35-43.

Muñoz Morcillo, J., Schaaf, F., Schneider, R., & Robertson-von Trotha, C. Y. (2016, October). Authenticities and virtual reality the case studies Jupiter Column and Kaleidophonic Dog. In 8th International congress on archaeology, computer graphics, cultural heritage and innovation (pp. 484-487). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València.

Pan, J., & Liu, S. (2022). Opportunities and challenges in the preservation and transmission of Dunhuang culture under globalization: A case study of the Mogao Grottoes. Modern Business Trade and Industry, 43(11), 19–20. https://doi.org/10.19311/j.cnki.1672-3198.2022.11.009

63

Pietroni, E., & Ferdani, D. (2021). Virtual restoration and virtual reconstruction in cultural heritage: terminology, methodologies, visual representation techniques and cognitive models. Information, 12(4), 167.

Remondino, F., & Stylianidis, E. (2016). 3D recording, documentation and management of cultural heritage (Vol. 2). Dunbeath, UK: Whittles Publishing.

Rouhani, B. (2023). Ethically Digital: Contested Cultural Heritage in Digital Context. Studies in Digital Heritage, 7(1), 1-16.

Sheng, J., & Li, X. (2020). The “Digital Dunhuang” Project and the digital development of China’s cultural heritage archives. Journal of Social Science of Harbin Normal University, (5), 152–156.

Song, L., & Li, D. (2010). Preliminary application of panorama in digitalization of Dunhuang

Grottoes.

Dunhuang

Research,

(6),

93–97.

https://doi.org/10.13584/j.cnki.issn1000-4106.2010.06.022 Stanga, C., Spinelli, C., Brumana, R., Oreni, D., Valente, R., & Banfi, F. (2017). A nd virtual notebook about the basilica of S. Ambrogio in Milan: information modeling for the communication of historical phases subtraction process. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 42, 653-660.

The Nara Document On Authenticity. 1994. UNESCO NARA Document on Authenticity.

Accessed

5

unesco.org/document/9379.

64

January

2017:

http://whc.

Venice charter. ICOMOS International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter). Accessed 5 January 2017. https:// www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf.

Wei, J., Li, X., Tan, H., & Li, F. (2025). Research on the digital protection of the Dunhuang Mogao Grottoes: A case study of the Beidaxiang Cave. China Market.

Advance

online

publication.

https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.3358.F.20250305.1435.002 Witcomb, A., 2010. The Materiality of Virtual Technologies: A New Approach to Thinking about the Impact of Multimedia in Museums, in Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse, eds S. Kenderdine and F. Cameron.

Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 35–48.

Wu, J. (n.d.). Digital development of mural cultural heritage: A case study of Dunhuang Mogao Grottoes. Dunhuang Academy.

Wood, B. (2020). A review of the concept of authenticity in heritage, with particular reference to historic houses. Collections, 16(1), 8-33.

Yan, T. (n.d.). Protection design of the front architecture of Mogao Grottoes (Master’s thesis). Kunming University of Science and Technology, China.

Yuanlin, Z. (2009). Dialogue Among the Civilizations: the Origin of the Three Guardian Deities’ Images in Cave 285, Mogao Grottoes. Silk Road, 33(48), 33.

65

Appendix A Transformation of Traditional Authenticity Dimensions to Digital Process

66

Appendix B Digital Process and Identified Issues

67

Appendix C Questionnaire Design

68

Appendix D Questionnaire Result

69

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

From Preservation to Digital Reconstruction.docx

Similarity Index

By: Ruohan Li

4%

As of: Apr 22, 2025 9:20:08 AM 11,726 words - 44 matches - 39 sources

Mode: Similarity Report

paper text: From Physical Conservation to Digital Reconstruction: Evaluating the Authenticity of Dunhuang Mogao Grottos in a New Frame LI RUOHAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE Department of Architecture Master of Arts in Architectural Conservation Program 2025 Abstract This study investigates how authenticity is redefined in

the digital

conservation

of cultural heritage

, focusing

on the

case

of

7

Mogao Cave 285 at Dunhuang. As digital tools increasingly mediate heritage experiences, the concept of authenticity has evolved from material fidelity to include experiential, interpretive, and procedural dimensions. This research proposes a framework to evaluate digital authenticity comprehensively. Methodologically, the study adopts a mixedmethods approach. It includes process tracing of the digital reconstruction workflow, expert interviews with technical and conservation professionals, and a questionnaire to assess how authenticity is constructed and perceived. The subject of analysis is “Encountering Dunhuang,” a WeChat-based interactive platform that digitally reconstructs Cave 285 using VR, 3D modelling, and multimedia narratives. The analysis reveals that while traditional authenticity dimensions (as defined in the Nara Document) are partially preserved through digital means, new challenges arise. The digital production process achieved technical fidelity and narrative clarity, yet showed limitations in interpretive transparency and participatory inclusion. Survey results confirm strong user engagement in immersive storytelling but highlight a lack of polyvocality and co-creation. This research contributes to the discourse by bridging production analysis with user perception and suggesting a holistic evaluative framework for digital authenticity. It provides practical insights for future digital heritage projects, advocating for design strategies that uphold transparency, inclusiveness, and contextual meaning beyond technical reproduction.

Acknowledgements This encouragement

research

would not have been possible without the support and

of many individuals. I would

first

like to

express

my

6

heartfelt gratitude

to

my supervisor, Professor Johannes Widodo, whose patient guidance, critical insights, and deep understanding of heritage theory have shaped this work from beginning to end. His encouragement throughout the writing process allowed me to refine my ideas amid complexity. I would also like to thank the Dunhuang Academy for developing such wonderful heritage experience and providing public archives to a wealth of publicly available digital materials. The richness of these resources played a crucial role in enabling a comprehensive evaluation. I am sincerely grateful to the https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

1/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

teachers and fellow students who generously participated in interviews and questionnaire and shared their perspectives on authenticity, conservation, and digital engagement. Their reflections offered invaluable grounding for this research.

To my cohort in the Architectural Conservation program, your perspectives during our communications helped navigate the delicate balance between study and live. Special thanks go to my friend Zhang Yuntian, whose continuous support, feedback, and timely encouragement sustained me through the most demanding phases of revision. Finally,

I would like to express my

deepest

gratitude to

my parents.

Thank you for being

13

the most unconditional supporters of my journey. Your trust, patience, and unwavering encouragement gave me the strength to keep going even in the most uncertain moments.

Table of Contents Abstract

3

........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Figure...............................................................................................................................................

6

1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................

5

7 1.1 Research Background..........................................................................................................................7 1.2 Research Scope

and

Methods...........................................................................................................8

Significance ....................................................................................................................... 11 ........................................................................................................................13

1.3 Research 2 Literature Review

2.1

Reconceptualizing Authenticity in a Digital Age................................................................... 13 2.2 Reframing Authenticity in Practice ............................................................................................ 16 2.3 Summary: Transformation of Authenticity Dimensions................................................... 20 2.4 Gaps in the Discourse of Authenticity in Digital Heritage ................................................ 24 3 4 Statement of Research Question and Hypotheses..........................................................26 3.1 Questions................................................................................................................................................ 26 3.2 Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................................. 26

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................27

9

4.1 Research Design .................................................................................................................................. 27 4.2 Framework ................................................................................................................... https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

27 4.3

Theoretical Data Collection 2/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

and

Similarity Report

Analysis ......................................................................................................... 28 4.4

Limitations ..................................................................................................................

Validity

and

29

5 Research on the Cave 285 of Mogao Grottoes..................................................................30 5.1 The Authenticity of Mogao Cave 285 ......................................................................................... 30 5.2 Digital Process: Technology, Process and Presentation.................................................... 35 5.3 Interview Findings............................................................................................................................. 42 5.4 Questionnaire Findings.................................................................................................................... 45 6 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................49 6.1 Continuity of Traditional Authenticity Dimensions ............................................................ 49 6.2 The Expression of Authenticity through Production and Perception......................... 52 6.3 Views from different stakeholders ............................................................................................. 57 6.4 Limitation............................................................................................................................................... 59 7 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................61 References ................................................................................................................................................. 64

Appendix A

12

................................................................................................................................................ 72 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................ 73 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................ 74 Appendix D ................................................................................................................................................ 75 (Word Count: 9559)

List of

Figure Figure

1

Encountering Dunhuang Poster (Source: Dunhuang Academy) Figure 2 Highly Detailed Photogrammetric Model of ACCORD (Source: Unknown) Figure 3 Western Han Tomb M27 digital Program (Source: Unknown) Figure 4 Comparison of Authenticity Dimensions between Traditional and Digital Contexts (Source: Author) Figure 5 Panoramic interior view of Cave 285 (Source: Dunhuang Academy) Figure 6 Sectional elevation and floor plan of Mogao Cave (Source: W. Yan) Figure 7 Painting on the wall (Source: Dunhuang Academy) Figure 8 Illustrative Map of the Mogao Grottoes Cave Distribution (Source: Planet Research Institute) Figure 9 Getty Institute helps the conservation of Mogao Grottoes (Source: By Neville Agnew) Figure 10 Digital Process of Mogao 285 (Source: Author) Figure 11 Digital Collection of Mogao Caves (Source: Dunhuang Academy) Figure 12 Digital Processing of Mogao Caves (Source: Dunhuang Academy) Figure 13 – 21 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang (Source: Dunhuang Academy)

1 Introduction 1.1

Research

Background The

concept

of authenticity has

long

been

15

seen as the cornerstone of cultural heritage preservation, now it has entered an era of profound reinterpretation. As digital technologies permeate heritage conservation, they challenge the traditional paradigms of authenticity defined by https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

3/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

physical tangibility and material integrity.

UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape

28

(2011) acknowledges that digitization has become a double-edged sword that while enabling unprecedented access to endangered sites, it risks diluting the aura of originality through virtual reconstructions. The Mogao Grottoes at Dunhuang,

a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a

4

pinnacle of Buddhist art, epitomize this tension. Since the 1990s, the Dunhuang Academy has pioneered digital preservation techniques, culminating in ambitious projects like “Digital Dunhuang” and “Virtual Tour of Dunhuang.” These initiatives, particularly the immersive digital experience of Cave 285 which is a representative work among all the caves, have sparked debates such as an pixels and algorithms convey the spiritual gravitas of millennia-old murals? Does a 4Kresolution scan of flaking pigments honor or distort the patina of time? Such questions reflect a broader ontological shift in which digital heritage is not merely a replica but a renegotiation of cultural meaning. This research positions itself at the cross of critical heritage studies and digital humanities, interrogating how emerging technologies reconfigure authenticity’s epistemological boundaries. 1.2 Research Scope and Methods This study investigates the evolving discourse of authenticity in digital heritage conservation, focusing on the digital reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285. Cave 285,

dating back to the

Western Wei

period

, is

one

of

the

39

earliest dated caves in the Mogao Grottoes, renowned for its rich iconography and well-preserved murals. Its unique blend of artistic styles from various cultures makes it a representative example

of the historical and cultural significance of the

27

Mogao Grottoes. In recent years, digital technologies have rapidly advanced, leading to innovative approaches in cultural heritage preservation. The "Encountering Dunhuang" project, initiated by the Dunhuang Academy, is the first large-scale VR project focusing on Cave 285. This project exemplifies a forward-thinking approach to digital heritage, combining high-precision 3D modeling, game engine rendering, and immersive VR experiences (Figure 1) to recreate the cave's intricate details. To enhance accessibility and user engagement, the project also offers an online experience through the "Yunyou Dunhuang" WeChat mini-program. This platform allows users to explore the digital reconstruction of Cave 285 without the need for VR equipment, providing a convenient and interactive way to experience the cave's art and history.

Therefore, the choice of “Encountering Dunhuang” published on the WeChat mini-program as the research object is https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

4/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

convenient for the researcher but also forward-looking and informative, which helps to deeply understand how digital technology can reshape the authenticity

of cultural heritage in the interaction

whole process,

and

to explore

the role of

human-computer

16

in

the dissemination of digital heritage. Figure 1 Encountering Dunhuang Poster Note. Offline VR immersive experience of Encountering Dunhuang. Image provided by the Dunhuang Academy. While previous studies have often focused on isolated aspects of digital authenticity, this research adopts a comprehensive approach by analysing the entire production cycle of a digital heritage project. It examines how traditional notions of authenticity are reshaped through digital processes and how human and institutional actions influence these transformations. The study emphasizes not only data preservation and digital restoration but also the interactions between users and digital heritage.

Methodologically,

this research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative techniques.

2

The qualitative component

includes process tracing based on technical reports and scholarly literature, as well as expert interviews to assess stakeholder intentions and values. The quantitative component involves a user-centered survey focused on digital authenticity perception. These metrics are aligned to four proposed dimensions: Reconstruction Method and Techniques, Interpretive Transparency and Traceability, Immersive Experience and Narrative, and Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality. Through this comprehensive lens, the study aims to contribute a framework for evaluating authenticity as a relational and evolving phenomenon, deeply shaped by production contexts, interpretive decisions, and user engagement in the digital age. 1.3 Research Significance This research addresses the growing but fragmented discourse on digital authenticity in heritage conservation. While the emergence of immersive technologies and digital reconstructions has challenged traditional material- based understandings of authenticity, little attention has been given to how authenticity is actively translated, negotiated, or lost in the process of digital production.

This study contributes to the field by

proposing

a

32

dual-pathway evaluation model. On the one hand, it analyses the design and documentation process of the digital reconstruction of Cave 285 to examine how traditional dimensions of authenticity are retained, altered, or replaced during the technical translation. It evaluates this through the dimensions of Reconstruction Method and Techniques and Interpretive Transparency and Traceability, which remain underexplored in current literature. On the other hand, the study investigates how digital authenticity is perceived, accepted, or contested by users through questionnaires and interviews, focusing on the dimensions of Immersive Experience and Narrative and Multimodal Expression and Multivocality. By combining production analysis and stakeholder perception, the research offers an integrative understanding https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

5/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

of authenticity not only as a technical concern but also as a user-centered, affective, and negotiated experience.

Practically, the study provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating authenticity in digital heritage projects, bridging technical rigor with audience reception. It contributes actionable insights for cultural heritage developers, curators, and digital designers, helping them to identify and manage authenticity risks and to make informed decisions about how to responsibly communicate historical meaning through digital means. The study ultimately positions authenticity as a translational practice, where the past is not simply reproduced but meaningfully rearticulated through new media. 2 Literature Review This literature review examines the existing discourse on how the application of digital technologies in architectural heritage conservation affects the definitions of authenticity, focusing on their relationship to the architectural conservation goals. It also explores the definition, transformation, or critique of authenticity within the digital domain, including theoretical and practical perspectives. Besides, it highlights the gaps in current research and identifies areas for further study. 2.1 Reconceptualizing Authenticity in a Digital Age Authenticity has long been a fundamental principle in heritage conservation, shaping the way historical buildings and cultural sites are preserved and interpreted. Traditionally, authenticity has been closely associated with material integrity, as emphasized in

the Venice Charter (1964) and which expanded

later expanded in

the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994

),

1

the

scope beyond physical attributes, emphasizing that authenticity is dependent on the context, incorporating form, materials, use, setting, spirit, and traditions. It called for respect toward cultural diversity and emphasized that judgments on authenticity must be culturally situated and based on credible sources of information. However, the progress of digital technologies ranging from 3D scanning and digital reconstructions to virtual reality and even AIdriven restorations has significantly challenged and reshaped how authenticity is conceptualized and operationalized.

Scholars increasingly acknowledge that authenticity in a digital context has transcended material fidelity. Early critical perspectives, such as Walter Benjamin’s (1936) theory of “aura,” framed mechanical and digital reproduction as a process that inherently diminishes authenticity. From this materialist viewpoint, the original object’s uniqueness, historical trace, and physical presence confer an irreproducible quality. Similarly, Witcomb (2010) underscored the perceived dichotomy between original artifacts and their digital replicas, where the latter are often seen as inauthentic due to their detachment from physicality and time. In contrast, Latour and Lowe (2011) proposed a more fluid and relational approach, arguing that authenticity lies not in the substance of an object but in the continuity of cultural knowledge. More and more scholars admit that authenticity in heritage extends beyond material fidelity to include contextual which can be seen as cultural significance (Morcillo, Schaaf, Schneider, & Trotha, 2017), informational which can be seen as fidelity of narrative and data aspect (Saad Hanif, 2023). As Balbo et al. (2024) highlight, the London Charter avoids rigid claims of authenticity, instead advocating for transparency, documentation, and reproducibility in computer-based visualization, shifting the locus of authenticity from materiality to epistemic integrity. Recent research underscores that digital heritage is not merely a substitute, but a medium that alters the very terms by which authenticity is constructed, communicated, and experienced. Scholars such as Abdelmonem (2017) and Di Franco et al. (2018) critically examine the effects of digital interventions on cultural meaning, memory, and perception. For example, while digital reproductions can enhance cultural accessibility, they risk replacing the physical experience of heritage with virtual encounters, altering the way people engage with historical sites ( https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

6/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco et al

, 2018).

This

perspective aligns

with the

8

Seville Principles (2011), which emphasize that digital reconstructions should be based on rigorous scientific research and explicitly communicate uncertainties to ensure they do not mislead the public. The challenge is no longer just about whether a digital replica is accurate, but what kind of authenticity it performs, and for whom. On the other hand, research provide a critical examination of digital heritage’s implications for authenticity. They evaluate challenges in the digital replication of built heritage, including reproduction quality, motivations, unintended outcomes, and philosophical questions on history. Rouhani (2023) warns that digital representations may lead to a loss of material authenticity and contribute to the phenomenon of "digital colonialism", where powerful institutions control access to digital heritage while local communities remain excluded from decision-making. Moreover, digital heritage engages new audiences through virtual exhibitions, interactive reconstructions, and immersive experiences, shifting attention from static preservation to experiential participation. In this evolving context, authenticity must be reconceptualized not as a fixed property, but as a relational, negotiated, and dynamic phenomenon that encompasses both physical heritage and its digital manifestations. The focus of current discourse has thus moved beyond simply identifying material substitutes, to asking how digital heritage constructs new forms of truth, presence, and authority. These emerging conversations set the stage for reconsidering what authenticity means in the digital age, and invite a deeper interrogation of the criteria by which authenticity is now constituted. 2.2 Reframing Authenticity in Practice While theoretical discourse has reconceptualized authenticity in the digital age, practical applications reveal how authenticity is negotiated, challenged, and redefined through practical digital heritage projects. These cases illuminate how different aspects of authenticity are transformed through technological mediation. Below are key examples that illustrate these dynamics. One significant case that illustrates the practical transformation

of authenticity in

digital

heritage conservation

is

the

3D documentation

of the

35

Christ Antiphonitis Church in Cyprus. This Byzantine-era structure, partially damaged during conflict, was digitally recorded and modelled according to the principles outlined in the London Charter, which emphasizes transparency, documentation, and reproducibility over mere visual fidelity (Hermon & Niccolucci, 2018). The project employed highresolution 3D scanning, photogrammetry, and archival integration to produce a digital replica that not only preserved the formal characteristics of the building but also served as a research and interpretive tool. Rather than aiming for aesthetic perfection or immersive realism, the project foregrounded intellectual integrity, carefully recording modelling choices, identifying hypothetical reconstructions, and referencing all source materials used. In doing so, the authenticity of the digital model became less about replicating the “aura” of the original and more about ensuring that each intervention could be traced, justified, and reviewed. As Galeazzi (2018) notes, such practices represent a shift toward epistemic authenticity, where value lies in the scientific transparency and procedural rigor behind the model rather than its visual or material correspondence to the original. The Church of Christ Antiphonitis project thus exemplifies how digital heritage can uphold authenticity not by mimicking the object itself, but by faithfully encoding and exposing the

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

7/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

knowledge structure surrounding it. Another illustrative example of how authenticity is redefined in digital heritage practices is

the ACCORD Project undertaken

(Archaeology

Community Co- Production of Research Resources

),

8

in

Scotland between 2013 and 2015 (Figure 2). Unlike traditional top-down heritage documentation projects led by experts, ACCORD embraced a community-led, co-creation model, empowering local groups to use photogrammetry and digital recording tools to document sites that held cultural or personal significance. The project’s methodology was grounded in principles of participation, transparency, and multivocality, which fundamentally challenged conventional notions of authenticity as a fixed, expert-defined quality. Instead, the project demonstrated that authenticity can emerge from collaborative meaning- making, where multiple interpretations coexist and the heritage object is not a passive subject of representation but a dynamic medium for dialogue and identity formation. As Jeffrey et al. (2015) argue, digital models produced through co-design are not less authentic for lacking precision, but are authentic in how they reflect community values, memory, and ownership. By involving stakeholders in every stage from data collection to interpretation, ACCORD reframed authenticity as a relational construct, shaped by the process of engagement rather than solely the technical outcome. The project offers a compelling model for how digital heritage can enable socially embedded authenticity, grounded in shared authority and emotional connection rather than material exactness. Figure 2 Highly Detailed Photogrammetric Model of ACCORD Note.

Copyright Access Archaeology and ACCORD CC-BY. A

33

further case that reflects the shifting conception of authenticity in digital heritage is the Western Han Tomb M27 digital reconstruction project in China (Figure 3). This project, as analysed by Di Franco and Galeazzi (2013), utilized 3D modelling and interactive digital maps to digitally reconstruct and narratively interpret the rich iconographic program of the tomb murals. Unlike projects focused on structural accuracy or preservation of physical form, this initiative prioritized the semantic relationships embedded in the spatial and symbolic arrangement of the murals. Through digitally mediated storytelling and navigation, users could explore mythological motifs and cosmological themes embedded in the tomb’s artwork, offering a deeper cultural and intellectual engagement with the site. In this context, authenticity is less concerned with the material substance or location of the original tomb, and more with the ability of digital representation to convey cultural meaning and symbolic coherence. Galeazzi argues that such projects mark a shift toward experiential and narrative authenticity, where the focus lies on the interpretive frameworks and cognitive immersion they afford, rather than their fidelity to physical remnants. By reconstructing not only space but also context and cosmology, the Western Han Tomb project exemplifies how digital heritage can enable alternative, meaning-driven forms of authenticity that extend beyond the material paradigm. Figure 3 Western Han Tomb M27 digital Program Note.

Powerwall visualisation and motion capture facility at UC Merced. Unknown Author 2.3 Summary: Transformation of Authenticity Dimensions The emergence of digital technology has not only challenged traditional understandings of authenticity but also transformed its core evaluative dimensions. Whereas traditional heritage conservation emphasized https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

8/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

material substance, original function, and historic craftsmanship, digital practices have introduced new standards such as data fidelity, user immersion, and interpretive transparency. These new criteria do not simply replace older ones, but rather reflect a paradigm shift from preservation of physical fabric to preservation of meaning, experience, and epistemic rigor. To visualize this shift, Figure 4 below contrasts the traditional dimensions

of authenticity, as defined

by

the Nara Document

(1994), with new

authenticity

26

dimensions emerging from digital heritage practices Figure 4 Comparison of Authenticity Dimensions between Traditional and Digital Contexts Note. By Author The first is the authenticity of reconstruction method and techniques, which highlights the importance of how digital reconstructions are created, what technologies are used, what methodological choices are made, and how these choices affect both accuracy and interpretive legitimacy. Rather than viewing authenticity as an inherent property of the physical object, this dimension emphasizes the credibility of the reconstruction process itself. High-resolution scanning, photogrammetry, and modelling protocols are judged not only for their technical precision, but also for the clarity of their sources, the transparency of their assumptions, and the replicability of their workflows (Hermon & Niccolucci, 2008; Galeazzi, 2018). In this sense, authenticity shifts from the physical “truth” of the object to the epistemic reliability of the digital surrogate, based on reproducible and welldocumented methodology. Secondly, the rise of technologies has foregrounded the importance of immersive experience and narrative, which concerns the user's emotional and embodied engagement in virtual environments. Unlike traditional authenticity rooted in material aura, this dimension values experiential presence, which achieved through spatial realism, sensory design, and narrative flow (Di Franco et al., 2018). In this context, authenticity is perceived subjectively, as an affective relationship between the viewer and the heritage environment, rather than as a static property of the object itself. The third is the authenticity of multimodal expression and multi-vocal, which reflects the shift from singular, authoritative narratives toward pluralistic, inclusive, and interactive interpretations of heritage. This dimension emphasizes the role of multimodal communication, combining visual, textual, auditory, and spatial media, to facilitate layered storytelling and encourage multiple perspectives, including those of local communities and non-expert participants (Beale, 2018; Di Franco et al., 2018). Rather than relying solely on expert curation, digital heritage platforms increasingly enable collaborative meaning-making, where diverse stakeholders co-create interpretations, reframe cultural significance, and contribute to a more democratic construction of authenticity (Jeffery, 2015). By embracing coproduction and polyphony, this dimension redefines authenticity as socially negotiated and culturally inclusive, rather than monolithic or institutionally imposed. Lastly, Interpretive transparency and traceability addresse the ethical and epistemological imperative to distinguish fact from speculation in digital models. As digital reconstructions often involve hypothesizing missing elements, it becomes essential to document sources, clarify uncertainty, and label speculative components (Galeazzi, 2018). This dimension is central to the London Charter (2009), which insists that all interpretive decisions be openly recorded and peer-reviewable, thereby promoting accountability and critical reflexivity in digital heritage work. In summary, four main dimensions of authenticity which include Reconstruction Method and Techniques, Immersive Experience and Narrative, Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality and Interpretive Transparency and Traceability have been identified and analysed to capture the evolving standards of what constitutes the authentic in virtual reconstructions in the context of digital heritage conservation. Together, these dimensions reflect a shift from object-based authenticity to a more process-oriented, user-sensitive, and communicatively grounded https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

9/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

framework, redefining how authenticity is constructed, experienced, and validated in the digital age. 2.4 Gaps in the Discourse

of Authenticity in authenticity

in

Digital

Heritage

While

the

theoretical reconceptualization

of

24

the

digital age has gained increasing attention, the current discourse remains fragmented and uneven. A large body of scholarship addresses the philosophical and technical foundations of digital authenticity, including debates on the role of materiality (Benjamin, 1936), process transparency (Hermon & Niccolucci, 2008), and user-centred experience (Di Franco et al., 2018). Yet two key gaps in this discourse remain insufficiently explored. First, although scholars have acknowledged that authenticity is shifting from a material condition to a technologically mediated process, there is still a lack of detailed investigation into how traditional authenticity dimensions are inherited, translated, or abandoned in actual digital conservation projects. For instance, while many case studies describe the technical procedures of 3D scanning, modelling, and presentation, few examine how these processes retain or reinterpret attributes such as form, setting, or spiritual meaning. The absence of systematic frameworks to trace the continuity or rupture between traditional authenticity values and digital reconstruction practices leaves a theoretical gap in understanding what is preserved, transformed, or lost during the digitization of heritage. In particular, dimensions such as Reconstruction Methods and Interpretive Transparency are frequently cited as desirable principles, but remain understudied in terms of practical evaluation and design impact. Second, existing literature tends to prioritize production and technical documentation over audience perception. While immersive technologies and virtual exhibitions are praised for increasing access, relatively few studies investigate how digital authenticity is perceived, trusted, or emotionally experienced by different stakeholders. The user’s role in validating or contesting authenticity, particularly through subjective dimensions such as immersion, emotional resonance, or multivocal interpretation, has received limited attention. Consequently, dimensions like Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality or Narrative Immersion have been conceptually proposed, but lack empirical substantiation grounded in user feedback. In conclusion, the discourse on authenticity in digital heritage has advanced in its theoretical scope, but remains disconnected from empirical, practicebased insights. There is a pressing need for integrated frameworks that can link production processes with perception outcomes, thereby bridging the gap between conceptual ideals and actual audience experiences. This study addresses these gaps by evaluating the digital reconstruction of Cave 285 in the Mogao Grottoes across both processual and experiential dimensions, providing a dual-perspective contribution to the ongoing discourse on digital authenticity. 3 Statement of Research Question and Hypotheses 3.1 Questions ? How are the traditional dimensions

of authenticity, as defined in the Nara Document

25

, expressed, transformed, or omitted during the digital conservation process of Mogao Cave 285? ? In what ways do methodological and technical decisions throughout the digital production process of Mogao Cave 285 influence the authenticity of the final digital representation? ? How do different stakeholders such as heritage experts, developers, general audiences differ in their understanding of what constitutes authenticity in digital Mogao Cave 285? 3.2 https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

10/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

Hypothesis ? The digital conservation process of Cave 285 selectively transforms traditional authenticity dimensions, with form, spatial logic, and symbolic meaning being more effectively preserved than material or functional aspects. ?

Authenticity is in how transparently and rigorously each stage of the digital production is conducted. A credible team, precise scanning techniques, clear reconstruction boundaries, and honest narrative labelling all contribute to users' trust in the digital product. ? Perceptions of authenticity vary by user group. Experts prioritize technical precision and source transparency, while general users value emotional resonance and narrative coherence. 4 Methodology This study adopts a combination of qualitative and quantitive approach to investigate how authenticity is translated and reconstructed in the digital conservation of Cave 285 at the Mogao Grottoes. The research seeks to evaluate the extent to which traditional authenticity dimensions are preserved or transformed, and how emerging digital authenticity dimensions are constructed both through the digital production process and through user perception.

4.1 Research Design The

structure

of

this

research

follows

a

36

two-path analytical model, corresponding to two complementary perspectives on authenticity in digital heritage. One path which focus on process-based evaluation examines how authenticity is expressed and translated through the technological and design process of digital reconstruction. Another path which focus on perception- based evaluation assesses how authenticity is perceived and validated by different stakeholder groups. Each path targets two of the four proposed digital authenticity dimensions as shown in the Figure 1. 4.2 Theoretical Framework The research is grounded

in the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994

) for evaluating traditional

authenticity

30

, which includes dimensions such as form, materials, function, setting, and spirit. These are used to establish a baseline evaluation of Cave 285's original cultural and historical significance. To evaluate authenticity in digital heritage, the study proposes four dimensions derived from critical literature on digital heritage theory: Reconstruction method and techniques, Interpretive transparency and traceability, Immersive experience and narrative, and Multimodal expression and multi-vocality

4.3 Data Collection and Analysis 4.3.1

. Technical

Process

17

Evaluation To assess the digital reconstruction process of Cave 285, the study conducts an in-depth content analysis of these resources. This analysis evaluates the presence or absence of transparency, methodological rigor, and source attribution to determine whether the digital reproduction meets the demand of authenticity. ? Official project documentation from the Dunhuang Academy and Digital Dunhuang platform ? Publications detailing the methods of 3D scanning, photogrammetry, modelling, and exhibition design ? Public digital outputs, including VR experiences, video renderings, and interactive web portals. 4.3.2 Interviews and Survey To capture audience and expert perceptions, the study conducts the qualitative research through interviews and quantitate questionnaire survey. ? Interviews with three stakeholder groups: digital technical experts, conservation professionals, and local community members. ? A https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

11/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

questionnaire survey as shown in Appendix C distributed to participants who have experienced both offline visit of Mogao Grottoes and the digital Cave 285 “Encountering Dunhuang” through the online platform of WeChat miniprogramme. 4.4 Validity and Limitations By combining theoretical mapping, process tracing, and user perception analysis, this study offers an overall assessment of how authenticity is transformed in digital heritage practice. It does not seek to measure authenticity as a fixed attribute, but to reveal how it is constructed, negotiated, and validated through both technological practices and human experience. However, limitations include the restricted availability of internal design documentation, and the variation in user familiarity with the heritage context, which may influence the measure of perception of authenticity. 5 Research on the Cave 285 of Mogao Grottoes 5.1 The Authenticity of Mogao Cave 285 The authenticity of Cave 285 at the Mogao Grottoes can be effectively interpreted through the classical framework proposed by the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994). These dimensions provide a comprehensive lens through which to understand the enduring cultural, historical, and spiritual values embedded in this early Western Wei cave. Cave 285 demonstrates a highly coherent visual and spatial configuration that reflects the ritual and cosmological worldview of its time. Its central-pillar layout, axial orientation, and nested wall niches reflect architectural conventions of the Western Wei dynasty (Figure 5 & 6). The visual program is uniquely intercultural because of the western wall features deities such as Maheśvara, Sūrya, and Candra drawn from Buddhist, Hindu, and possibly Zoroastrian traditions, suggesting layered narrative registers embedded in its visual schema (Zhang, 2009). The coherent design thus reflects the doctrinal and ritualistic worldview of the time, supporting a historically authentic interpretive framework. In terms of materials and substance, the murals in Cave 285 retain their original mineral pigments such as malachite green and cinnabar red, which were applied over finely prepared earthen plaster. Despite environmental deterioration, the preservation of cinnabar reds and malachite greens testifies to the longevity of its material fabric. As Agnew, Demas, Sullivan, and Wang (2024) note, early conservation efforts consciously avoided repainting or over-cleaning, respecting the visual and historical patina of the surface as a record of the past. Figure 5 Panoramic interior view of Cave 285, Mogao Grottoes Note. From Cave 285, by Dunhuang Academy, 2024, eDunhuang (https://www.e-dunhuang.com/cave/10.0001/0001.0001.0285). Figure 6 Sectional elevation and floor plan of Mogao Cave Note. From The Structural Design and Sculptures of the Mogao Grottoes (Fig. 5-2), by W. Yan, 1951, Cultural Relics Reference Materials, Issue 5. Originally created as a devotional space for Buddhist visualization, Cave 285 functioned both as a symbolic mandala and a physical site of pilgrimage. The cave’s painted cosmograms, such as the solar chariot of the Sun Deva and the lunar procession of Moon Devi (Figure 7), were intended to structure ritual perception and spiritual orientation (Zhang, 2009). Although no longer used for worship, the architectural and iconographic integrity sustains its ritual function in a symbolic sense. Figure 7 Painting on the wall Note. The four slopes of the cave ceiling depict figures such as Apsaras, the Thunder God, Feilian, Vermilion Bird (Zhuque), Wuhuo, Kaimei, Fuxi, and Nüwa, while the edges feature 35 images of mountain-dwelling Chan monks. The cave’s creation employed traditional Dunhuang practices in carving, plastering, and pigment layering. These methods were transmitted from Central Asian and Indian prototypes yet localized through the technical innovations of the Dunhuang school. The use of symbolic figures in hierarchical registers reflects conventions established during the earlier Northern Dynasties but modified through regional craft knowledge (Pan, 2009). The cave’s physical context, including location and setting, also reinforces its authenticity (Figure 8). Cave 285’s placement within the Mogao cliffside is vital to its authenticity. Its relationship to neighbouring caves, ritual paths, and the desert environment contributes to its historical and environmental coherence. As Neville Agnew et al. (2024) emphasizes, setting is not merely visual but the encompasses natural light, acoustic containment, and climatic fragility, all of which shaped both the creation and conservation of the murals. Figure 8 Illustrative Map of the Mogao Grottoes https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

12/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

Cave Distribution Note. From Please Rotate Your Screen to View: A Visual Guide to the Mogao Caves, by J. Zhang & T. Wang, 2024, Planet Research Institute via

WeChat Official Account (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s

10

/4RkTKYS7xLt55SZu_uuJaw). The spiritual atmosphere of Cave 285 is equally integral to its authenticity. Visitors have reported emotional and contemplative reactions, particularly due to the enclosed spatiality and the symbolic narrative density. Wang (2023) refers to this affective engagement as “experiencing authenticity,” which remains grounded in the original spiritual intent of the space. Finally, internal and external factors, including heritage policy, conservation philosophy, and international cooperation, contribute to maintaining the cave’s authenticity. Since the 1980s, collaboration between the Dunhuang Academy and international partners such as the Getty Conservation Institute has emphasized minimal intervention and scientific documentation (Figure 9). These efforts have ensured long-term stabilization without eroding the cave’s historical character or interpretive integrity. Figure 9 Getty Institute helps the conservation of Mogao Grottoes Note. Image of The J. Paul Getty Trust. From Los Angeles Times (2014), illustrating the Getty Conservation Institute’s long-term collaboration with the Dunhuang Academy. By Neville Agnew. Taken together, these seven dimensions confirm that Cave 285 retains a high degree of integrity and authenticity. Its material fabric, artistic logic, ritual function, environmental context, and emotional impact remain legible and culturally resonant. This traditional framework provides a baseline for assessing how emerging digital interventions might preserve, reinterpret, or transform the authenticity of Cave 285 in the next stage of heritage practice. 5.2 Digital Process: Technology, Process and Presentation Figure 10 Digital Process of Mogao 285 Note. By Author 5.2.1 Overall The digital reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285 was not a single act of visual reproduction but a multi-phase process involving cross-disciplinary collaboration, advanced technological integration, and iterative narrative design. To evaluate how authenticity is expressed or potentially obscured, through this digital heritage project, it is first necessary to reconstruct the key phases of its production process. Figure 10 above outlines the six primary stages involved in the digital development of Cave 285, from institutional coordination to public-facing presentation. These stages were identified through a review of published literature, technical documentation, and public project records, and form the basis for the subsequent evaluation of how digital authenticity is embedded, translated, or disrupted during the reconstruction process. 5.2.2 Digital Process The digital conservation of Cave 285 at the Mogao Grottoes demonstrates a comprehensive, multi-stage workflow encompassing technical documentation, modelling, restoration, content creation, and public presentation.

While this process reflects a globally leading practice, each stage also reveals inherent challenges and areas for improvement. The project initiation and stakeholder coordination phase ensures interdisciplinary collaboration and goal alignment. The involvement of the Dunhuang Academy, research institutions, and technology partners forms a robust foundation for cross-sector synergy. However, scholars note that early- stage planning often lacks standardized evaluation metrics and transparent reporting mechanisms, which can obscure accountability and impede iterative learning (Yan, 2023). During the research planning and cave selection phase, site prioritization is typically guided by conservation urgency and scholarly interest. Yet, several studies suggest that selection criteria has risk about relying on subjective judgment or external funding directives, rather than holistic assessments of cultural significance, representational diversity, or public engagement impact (Wu, 2022). The data collection and condition assessment phase (Figure 11) employs advanced tools such as photogrammetry, LiDAR, and structured light scanning to capture https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

13/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

geometric and chromatic information. These technologies enable detailed digital twins, but they remain sensitive to environmental constraints like poor lighting, spatial narrowness, and object occlusion, especially in the confined architecture of Dunhuang’s grottoes (Song, 2022). As noted by Liu (2015), obtaining consistent lighting and accurate colour reproduction across frescoed surfaces remains a technical bottleneck. Figure 11 Digital Collection of Mogao Caves Note. From Dunhuang Academy, 2024, Dunhuang Academy Official Website (https://www.dha.ac.cn/info/1018/4618.htm). In the 3D modelling and image stitching stage (Figure 12), datasets are integrated into high-resolution panoramic surfaces and spatially calibrated meshes. While the modelling software supports high fidelity, the processing requirements are intensive, generating gigabyte-scale files that challenge current computing environments (Liu, 2015). This stage is also where workflow bottlenecks are most apparent, demanding further optimization of data processing pipelines and automated alignment protocols. Figure 12 Digital Processing of Mogao Caves Note. From Dunhuang Academy, 2024, Dunhuang Academy Official Website (https://www.dha.ac.cn/info/1018/4618.htm). The digital restoration and hypothetical reconstruction phase presents ethical and methodological concerns. While virtual inpainting and reconstructive modelling techniques allow for visual completeness, researchers emphasize the importance of marking and documenting speculative elements to preserve interpretive transparency (Fu, Ma and Sun, 2023). Variation across projects in labelling hypothetical components risks undermining viewer trust and authenticity. In narrative and multimedia content development (Figure 13-18), interdisciplinary teams script, visualize, and spatially embed storytelling components. The shift toward multimodal presentation, including text, voiceover, and interactive elements, enriches the user experience (). However, much of the content remains expert-driven, with limited co-production or incorporation of local or community voices, which hinders the goal of polyvocal authenticity (Kong, 2018). Figure 13 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Start Figure 14 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Site Introduction of Cave 285 Figure 15 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Entrance of Cave 285 Figure 16 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Plots of Cave 285 Figure 17 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Mainline Interaction of Cave 285 Figure 18 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang: Subjective Interaction of Cave 285 Note. Screenshots from the mobile game Encountering Dunhuang, which digitally reconstructs and gamifies elements of Dunhuang heritage through interactive exploration. From Encountering Dunhuang on WeChat Mini-Program Platform, by Tencent Aurora Studio & Dunhuang Academy. Platform integration and user interface design have evolved considerably through initiatives like the Digital Dunhuang website and VR-based displays. Still, limitations persist: usability studies report that complex navigation structures, weak mobile compatibility, and lack of multilingual interfaces restrict access and inclusivity (Song, 2022; Kong, 2021). Finally, the digital archiving and dissemination phase has achieved considerable reach via online platforms and public exhibitions. Yet challenges remain in terms of data standardization, long-term accessibility, and the lack of feedback mechanisms (Kong, 2021).

Scholars also highlight unresolved issues related to copyright management and metadata transparency, which limit the reuse and open sharing of digital heritage assets (Wei, Li and Tan, 2021). In summary, the digital workflow at Mogao Cave 285 reflects a pioneering integration of heritage science, computational modelling, and public storytelling.

Nonetheless, the process reveals persistent gaps in planning transparency, participatory inclusivity, technical robustness, and interpretive accountability, each of which has implications for how authenticity is constructed and perceived throughout the digital lifecycle. 5.3 Interview Findings 5.3.1 Perspective of Technical Experts The digital expert involved in the Mogao Grottoes project emphasized the technical rigor of their methodology, which combined laser scanning and multispectral imaging to achieve precise geometric accuracy and faithful colour reproduction. One of their main concerns was to maintain transparency in the digital reconstruction process. Damaged sections of murals that https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

14/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

were digitally restored using algorithms were clearly marked, allowing viewers to distinguish between what was based on physical data and what was reconstructed hypothetically. In their view, authenticity in digital heritage should be understood not as the preservation of material originality, but as the construction of verifiable data integrity. Further emphasizing this approach, the head of data management at the Dunhuang Academy, noted that advances in imaging have significantly improved the fidelity of digital documentation. He described the evolution in digital systems as not merely a technical upgrade, but a structural shift in how heritage is preserved and experienced. These improvements were framed as foundational for ensuring that digital representations maintain both precision and trustworthiness.

However, some debates emerged over certain features of the virtual tour, such as dynamic lighting simulation (Figure 10). The engineer noted that many users felt this feature helped them better understand how the murals might have originally appeared, but some scholars argued that the ability to adjust lighting settings introduced an ahistorical interpretation, since the original caves were designed to be perceived under very specific and limited lighting conditions.

5.3.2 Perspective of Conservation Expert A heritage conservationist acknowledged that digitization has played an important role in reducing physical visitation pressure on sensitive sites. They cited the example of Cave 220, where the number of on-site visitors significantly decreased after digital alternatives were introduced. At the same time, they expressed concern that virtual experiences might dilute the aura and spatial presence of the original site. To address this issue, it was made standard practice for digital exhibitions to include conservation metadata, reinforcing the idea that digitization serves as a record of vulnerability rather than a replacement of the original. Adding to this, another heritage expert at the Dunhuang Academy, emphasized the importance of adapting digital capture strategies to the specific conditions of each cave. He explained that each grotto has its own personality and technical needs, and thus, digitization should not be standardized but tailored. This conservation-oriented perspective underscores the notion that methodological flexibility is key to sustaining authenticity across different cave environments. One of the most debated topics involved the use of AI-generated reconstructions of lost paintings from the Northern Liang dynasty. Some critics questioned whether such probabilistic reconstructions could be reconciled with the

principles of authenticity authenticity

of process.

laid out

in the Nara Document

, particularly the emphasis

on

14

In

response, proponents argued that as long as uncertainty and algorithmic assumptions were clearly disclosed, such practices remained within the bounds of scholarly responsibility. 5.3.3 Local Community from Dunhuang City, Gansu Province Interviews with local residents in Dunhuang reveal a nuanced perspective on the digital preservation initiatives of the Mogao Grottoes. Many community members appreciate the role of digital platforms, such as the "Digital Dunhuang" project, in promoting cultural heritage and reducing the physical strain on the ancient sites. As one resident noted, "The virtual tours have brought global attention to our heritage, allowing people worldwide to experience the beauty of the caves without causing damage to the actual site." Economic considerations also emerge from the community's perspective. While digital tourism has increased interest in Dunhuang, the financial benefits are not always felt at the local level. Small business owners and local guides have observed that the influx of virtual visitors does not translate into economic support for the community. As one shopkeeper mentioned, "People see the caves online, but they don't come here to buy our crafts or experience our hospitality." These insights highlight the importance of integrating local voices into the digital preservation process. Ensuring that the community's cultural expressions and https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

15/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

economic well-being are considered can lead to more inclusive and authentic representations of Dunhuang's rich heritage. 5.4 Questionnaire Findings 5.4.1 Questionnaire Design To investigate how users perceive authenticity in the digital representation of Mogao Cave 285, a structured questionnaire was developed around two core dimensions of digital authenticity: Immersive Experience and Narrative and Multi-modal Expression and Multi-vocality. These two dimensions reflect the evolving understanding of authenticity in the digital age. It is not a fixed material condition, but a construct shaped by emotional engagement, narrative depth, multimodal delivery, and cultural inclusiveness. Each dimension was further operationalized into four interrelated sub- dimensions, allowing for a more granular assessment of how authenticity is constructed through both experiential immersion and interpretive diversity. The full structure comprises eight subdimensions, each represented by items (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to capture quantitative insight. The design logic and question allocation are illustrated in Appendix C. Dimension 1: Immersive Experience and Narrative This dimension captures how users engage with the digital cave on both spatial and emotional levels. It is composed of the following four subdimensions below. ? Spatial Presence: Measures the user’s sense of being "inside" the cave, including loss of awareness of the real-world environment. ? Affective Atmosphere: Assesses whether symbolic, acoustic, or visual elements evoke emotional or spiritual responses. ? Narrative Engagement: Evaluates the coherence, clarity, and sequential flow of interpretive content. ? General Immersive Evaluation: Gauges the perceived meaningfulness and affective impact of the experience compared to traditional exhibitions. Dimension 2: Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality This dimension focuses on the inclusivity and representational complexity of the digital heritage experience. It includes the following subdimensions. ? Media Diversity: Assesses the presence and integration of varied media types. ? Interpretive Clarity: Evaluates the coherence and consistency across different media formats, and whether they aid understanding without overwhelming the user. ? Polyvocal Representation: Investigates whether the experience incorporates multiple perspectives and reflects interpretive plurality. ? Participatory Engagement: Measures whether users feel empowered to explore content on their own terms and express feedback or contribute interpretive input. 5.4.2 Questionnaire Response To evaluate how users perceive digital authenticity in the virtual representation of Mogao Cave 285, a structured questionnaire was administered to 24 participants. The responses were organized into two primary dimensions, Immersive Experience and Narrative (IEN) and Multi- modal Expression and Multi-vocality (MEM), each further divided into four sub-dimensions. The results shown in Appendix D offer insights into how users cognitively and affectively engage with the digital experience. In the Immersive Experience and Narrative, users reported relatively high engagement. Notably, the item "I believe this digital experience is a meaningful way to connect with cultural heritage" (GI1) received

the highest mean score (M = 4.58, SD = 0

18

.53), suggesting a strong overall sense of cultural relevance and emotional resonance. Similarly, items evaluating Narrative Engagement (NE1:

M=4

.33,

SD = 0

.66; NE2:

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

M=4

.21,

SD = 0

34

16/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

.70) showed that users found the interpretive flow coherent and instructive. However, the item "I became less aware of my real-world surroundings" (SP2) scored relatively low (M = 3.00, SD = 1.10), indicating that full spatial immersion was not uniformly achieved. The Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality dimension revealed a more mixed response.

Items on Media Diversity and Interpretive Clarity, such as "I found that the combination of multiple media formats made the experience more engaging" (MD1: M = 4.29, SD = 0.82) and "The different media elements supported each other and told a coherent story" (IC1: M = 4.17, SD = 0.81) were positively received. In contrast, the item "I noticed that multiple interpretations of the cave were presented" (MR1) had the lowest overall mean (M = 2.50, SD = 0.93), suggesting that users did not perceive strong evidence of interpretive plurality or polyvocality in the experience. Responses to Participatory Engagement were divided. While many participants agreed that users should have more opportunities to contribute to digital heritage content (PE2: M = 4.54, SD = 0.64), fewer agreed that the current platform encouraged personal exploration or customization (PE1: M = 3.04, SD = 1.18). This indicates a potential gap between user expectations for involvement and the current degree of interactivity. Overall, the questionnaire results suggest that while the digital experience of Mogao Cave 285 is well-received in terms of clarity, coherence, and emotional connection, there is room for further development in enhancing user immersion, representing multiple cultural perspectives, and enabling participatory engagement. These findings will be further analyzed in relation to the production process and expert interviews in the following chapters. 6 Discussion 6.1 Continuity of Traditional Authenticity Dimensions The traditional dimensions

of authenticity

, including

form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions

and techniques, location and setting, spirit and feeling, and internal

or

1

external factors

, which provide a foundational framework for understanding

the historical and cultural significance of

Cave 285. However,

in the

29

context of digital conservation, these dimensions are not simply replicated. Rather, they are translated, layered, and reorganized across the technical and experiential structures of digital representation. As summarized in Table A, each traditional attribute can be retained to some extent, but through new channels such as 3D modelling, immersive VR environments, multimodal narration, or interactive annotation. For example, “form and design” is translated not only through geometric modelling but also through immersive walkthroughs and spatial navigation, engaging both Reconstruction Method and Techniques and Immersive Experience. Similarly, “materials and substance” are expressed through high-resolution surface imaging and visual layering, aligning with both technical accuracy and interpretive transparency. Informed by both the production workflow and experiential analysis, a set of critical elements was identified as instrumental in enhancing the expression of authenticity in the digital representation of Cave 285. These include technical modules such as scanning, 3D modelling, colour correction, and environmental scans, which contribute to geometric and chromatic fidelity. In parallel, narrative mechanisms, such as layered storytelling, symbolic navigation, and expert commentary, play a vital role in interpretive transparency and cultural coherence. Furthermore, immersive features such as sound design, emotional cues, and panoramic walkthroughs help construct affective and spatial https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

17/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

presence. These components, when effectively integrated with clear documentation layers and contextual framing, serve not only as tools for visualization but as active agents in shaping perceived digital authenticity. One key finding is that the traditional authenticity dimensions outlined in the Nara Document do not correspond one-to-one with the newly proposed dimensions of digital authenticity. Instead, these two sets of dimensions operate at different levels and serve different purposes. The traditional seven dimensions describe the inherent attributes of heritage objects

such as material, setting, function, and spirit and

37

are primarily concerned with maintaining integrity in physical conservation and presentation. In contrast, the four digital authenticity dimensions proposed in this study do not seek to replicate material properties directly. Rather, they describe how authenticity is constructed, translated, and perceived through digital processes and human interaction. Because digital environments cannot convey physical qualities in a direct sensory manner, the traditional dimensions are necessarily mediated, edited, translated, and restructured through digital tools. As such, the traditional framework remains essential in determining what aspects of heritage need to be preserved or faithfully rendered. However, the digital authenticity dimensions operate as a “next-level” evaluative structure, focusing on how the design, storytelling, and user experience can preserve or distort those traditional qualities. They are not substitutes but pathways to ensure that the values embedded in material authenticity are thoughtfully re-expressed in the digital realm. This layered and hybrid mapping reveals that the four proposed digital authenticity dimensions are not replacements, but evolved frameworks that absorb, redistribute, and reinterpret the traditional values of authenticity. This conceptual continuity will serve as the analytical foundation for the following sections. Particular attention will be paid to how specific elements of Cave 285, such as iconographic structure, spatial hierarchy, and emotional resonance, are preserved, reconfigured, or omitted, and what this implies for the broader discourse on digital authenticity. 6.2 The Expression of Authenticity through Production and Perception The expression of authenticity in the digital reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285 manifests as a dynamic interaction between production design and audience perception. By analysing the multi-phase digital workflow from team coordination to public dissemination alongside interview insights and user survey responses, this section explores how each of the four digital authenticity dimensions was either reinforced or undermined, and how the attributes of Cave 285 are overlooked through specific decisions and user experiences. A critical aspect of assessing digital authenticity lies in examining how specific production stages either preserved or compromised the expression of key authenticity attributes of Cave 285 combined Appendix A and Appendix B. The first dimension, Reconstruction Method and Techniques, is well-reflected in the project’s application of advanced technologies and methodical workflow. The reconstruction process of Cave 285 demonstrates a notable degree of technical competence, as evidenced by the application of high-resolution scanning, photogrammetry, and panoramic walkthroughs that collectively supported the accurate rendering of architectural form, mural layout, and chromatic depth. These efforts successfully facilitated the digital translation of key traditional authenticity attributes

such as “Form and Design

” and “

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

Materials and Substance

11

18/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

.” However, technical bottlenecks emerged at multiple stages of the workflow. For example, environmental constraints during data acquisition may compromise lighting consistency and colour fidelity, while the integration of massive model files revealed the risk of inefficiencies in processing and calibration (Figure 19). These issues collectively limited the project's ability to convey the full material logic and spatial intent of the original cave, and weakened the credibility of the digital model as an accountable surrogate. Figure 19 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang Note. This is a screenshot taken at the maximum zoom level of the interface; the actual mural details and colors are not presented in high resolution. Additionally, the original dim lighting of the cave may affect viewers’ interpretation and understanding of the artwork. The second dimension, Interpretive Transparency and Traceability, is partially expressed in the digital presentation and public feedback. Efforts to maintain interpretive clarity in the digital Cave 285 reconstruction were visible in elements such as metadata documentation, expert commentary, and selective labeling of algorithmic reconstructions, which aimed to distinguish hypothetical content from verified empirical data. These components partially supported the accurate representation of authenticity attributes like “

Spirit and Feeling,” “Use and Function

,” and “

Traditions

and

Techniques

38

,” which rely on contextual awareness and interpretive nuance. However, issues remain in the interpretive process. First, the interaction design of the digital platform presents a singular, expert-defined narrative without offering layered viewpoints or alternative interpretations, undermining interpretive openness. Furthermore, speculative or reconstructed elements were not accompanied by explicit interpretive annotations, which diminishes transparency in distinguishing between historical fact and reconstruction. Second, while internal documentation exists, traceability is largely inaccessible to non-expert users and the interested public. No clear mechanisms are in place to make modelling assumptions, data sources, or version histories visible to general audiences, thereby is possible a disconnect between institutional accountability and public understanding. As a result, the traceability of interpretive decisions is structurally constrained, weakening the overall communicative integrity of the digital reproduction. Figure 20 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang Note. The virtual experience interface allows only fixed-point rotational viewing, limiting spatial immersion by restricting free movement through the cave environment. Combined the result of questionnaire (Appendix D) and transformation of traditional authenticity (Appendix A), the third dimension, Immersive Experience and Narrative, was generally well received by users, with a mean score of 3.91 across subdimensions. Questionnaire responses showed that participants felt emotionally connected to the digital representation of Cave 285, and they appreciated the clarity and coherence of the storytelling elements. Visual sequencing, symbolic content, and affective cues such as color and sound helped reinforce the narrative structure and the spiritual atmosphere of the original site. In terms of traditional authenticity, this dimension effectively supported the transformation of

attributes such as “Spirit and Feeling

4

,” “

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

19/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Use and Function,” and

Similarity Report

partially, “

Location and Setting

4

,” by reconstructing not only spatial form but symbolic meaning. However, the lower score in spatial immersion indicates a gap between conceptual understanding and embodied experience. While panoramic walkthroughs and virtual navigation were employed, the virtual environment did not fully replicate the sense of enclosure, acoustics, or movement logic found in the physical cave (Figure 20). Moreover, the experience lacked elements of ritual rhythm or guided pacing, which are crucial for ritual-oriented interpretation. As a result, immersive authenticity was achieved at a cognitive and emotional level, but remained limited in sensory and performative depth. Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality, serves as the last dimension, is more ambivalent, with an average score of 3.86 and notably low ratings in “Polyvocal Representation” (M = 2.50). While users found the media presentation diverse and coherent, which mostly because of the well integration of text, audio, and visuals, they perceived the content as predominantly expert-led and lacking interpretive variety. This undermines the transformation of authenticity attributes like “

Traditions and Techniques” and “Other Internal/External Factors,” which

21

depend on multivocal interpretation and participatory insight. Although features such as expert commentary and narrative layering were present, they did not offer opportunities for local voices, alternative readings, or audience interactivity (Figure 21). The lack of visible user pathways for contributing or responding further weakened the participatory potential of the platform. Therefore, while multimodal communication was technically effective, the digital experience fell short in enabling inclusivity and interpretive plurality, reinforcing a one-dimensional narrative structure rather than cultivating a shared sense of meaning-making. Figure 21 Screenshot from Encountering Dunhuang Note. The interactive system presents smooth visuals, elegant music, and refined textual content. 6.3 Views from different stakeholders Authenticity in digital heritage is not universally defined, but negotiated among different stakeholders who bring divergent priorities and evaluative frameworks. Based on user survey data and stakeholder interviews, this section compares how digital authenticity is perceived and valued across three main groups: technical experts, heritage conservation professionals, the local community, and the general users. Each group focuses on different dimensions of authenticity, reflecting their respective disciplinary perspectives and practical concerns. In the case of the digital reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285, four key perspectives emerge. Technical experts place significant emphasis on the Reconstruction Method and Techniques dimension. Their primary concern lies in the accuracy, reproducibility, and fidelity of the digital outputs. Interviews revealed their pride in technologies. However, they acknowledged limitations in immersive realism technologies which need to be progressed. Conservation professionals, by contrast, foreground the Interpretive Transparency and Traceability dimension. Their interviews underscored the importance of clearly labeling speculative reconstructions and contextualizing narrative components within conservation documentation. They also expressed concern that virtual experiences might compromise the spiritual aura and contemplative function of the cave by over-aestheticizing or decontextualizing the content where make users misunderstand the traditional authenticity.

The local community, including traditional knowledge holders and residents of Dunhuang, expressed a mixed view, focused heavily on the while they appreciated the exposure brought by the digital platform and acknowledged its

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

20/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

educational value, they were critical of the lack of participatory mechanisms. Finally, survey results from the general audience reinforce this divergence. High scores in “Narrative Engagement” and “Affective Atmosphere” show that users value the emotional and symbolic clarity of the digital experience. However, low scores in “Polyvocal Representation” and “Participatory Engagement” mirror the local stakeholders’ concerns, indicating that the digital platform remains largely one-directional and curatorially driven. 6.4 Limitation While this study offers a multi-dimensional evaluation of authenticity in the digital reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285, several

limitations should be acknowledged

. First,

the scope of the research

19

is restricted to a single cave and its corresponding digital project, limiting

the generalizability of the

findings

to other

heritage sites with

different cultural

23

, technical, or institutional contexts. Although Cave 285 holds exceptional historical and symbolic value, conclusions drawn from its case may not apply uniformly to projects with different conservation philosophies or digital production models. Second, the analysis of the digital process primarily relies on published technical documentation, secondary literature, and platform outputs. Due to limited access to internal project records or development archives, some assumptions about workflow decisions and technical justifications remain interpretive rather than fully verifiable. In particular, the analysis of traceability and metadata transparency is constrained by the lack of back-end access to internal annotation systems or versioning protocols. Third, while the study integrates both qualitative and quantitative methods, the user perception data is based on a relatively small

sample size (n

= 24),

limiting the

statistical robustness

of the

findings. The survey

31

results

offer valuable insight into experiential and affective responses, but may not capture the full diversity of user expectations, particularly across different demographic or cultural backgrounds. Lastly, although stakeholder interviews included representatives from technical, conservation, and local perspectives, the voices of broader public users, tourists, and minority cultural practitioners remain underrepresented. Future studies may benefit from more ethnographic or participatory methods to more fully capture how diverse communities interact with and interpret digital heritage products. In sum, while the study provides a structured framework for assessing authenticity in digital heritage, it remains a situated inquiry. Further research across multiple sites, platforms, and user groups is necessary to refine and test the proposed dimensions of digital authenticity at scale. 7

Conclusion This study has proposed a

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

multi-dimensional

framework for evaluating

authenticity 7

21/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

in

the

Similarity Report

context

of

digital heritage, using the reconstruction of Mogao Cave 285 as a focused case study. Moving beyond the traditional material-centric perspective, it introduces four key dimensions: Reconstruction Method and Techniques, Interpretive Transparency and Traceability, Immersive Experience and Narrative, and Multimodal Expression and Multi-vocality, to assess how authenticity is shaped through digital processes and user interaction. These dimensions collectively highlight that digital authenticity is not a direct substitute for traditional authenticity but a reframed mode of expression.

The analysis reveals that the expression of authenticity in digital heritage is neither fixed nor monolithic. Through a fullprocess evaluation—from team coordination and data acquisition to modelling, content design, and public presentation.

This research systematically reviewed how the digital reconstruction of Cave 285 aligns or deviates from traditional authenticity values. It assessed both the production process and user perception using literature review, process audit, stakeholder interviews, and a structured questionnaire. The findings suggest that while technical fidelity and narrative structure were largely successful in supporting immersive and affective authenticity, critical gaps remain in interpretive transparency, multi-vocal representation, and participatory inclusion. These issues highlight the importance of not only producing accurate digital content but also communicating its limitations and enabling a more pluralistic engagement with heritage meaning. This study attempts to bridge production analysis, perceptual evaluation, and theoretical reflection in the understanding of digital authenticity. However, due to the wide scope of the investigation, many aspects could only be addressed in a preliminary manner. Although the research encompasses the full digital lifecycle, including data acquisition, modelling, narrative design, and user interaction, each of these stages warrants deeper, more focused exploration. Specific areas such as the technical validation of reconstruction processes, the emotional and cognitive dynamics of immersive engagement, and the implications of narrative authority offer important directions for further detailed study. Despite these limitations,

the primary

aim

of this research

has been

to

propose

a

holistic evaluative

20

framework that

helps illuminate how authenticity is shaped, expressed, and interpreted in digital heritage practices. The framework developed in

this study is

intended

to provide a

useful

reference for

22

future work by scholars, designers, and institutions involved in digital cultural heritage. Future research should consider applying this framework to a wider range of case studies, engaging larger and more diverse audiences, and incorporating participatory design methodologies. Additionally, the refinement and validation of the four digital authenticity dimensions through interdisciplinary collaboration will be necessary to strengthen their applicability and robustness. Over time, these efforts may contribute to the development of a practical and ethically grounded system for

， one that supports transparent, inclusive, and meaningful digital heritage experiences.

evaluating digital authenticity

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

22/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

References Abdelmonem, M. G. (2017). Architectural and urban heritage in the digital age: dilemmas of authenticity, originality and reproduction. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 11(3), 5-15. Agnew, N., Dimas, M., Sullivan, S., & Wang, P. (2024). Principles, planning, and conservation: Collaborative protection at the Mogao Grottoes. Dunhuang Research, (04), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.13584/j.cnki.issn1000-4106.2024.04.002 Aiello, D., & Bolognesi, C. (2020). Reliving history: the digital reconstruction of the convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan.

Virtual Archaeology Review, 11(23), 106-126. Arzomand, K., Rustell, M., & Kalganova, T. (2024). From ruins to reconstruction: Harnessing text-to-image AI for restoring historical architectures. Balletti, C., D'Agnano, F., Guerra, F., & Vernier, P. (2016). From point cloud to digital fabrication: a tangible reconstruction of Ca'Venier dei Leoni, the Guggenheim museum in Venice. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 3(5), 43-49. Beacham, R., Denard, H., & F. Niccolucci, 2006. An Introduction to The London Charter, in The evolution of Information Communication and Technology in Cultural Heritage, Proceedings of VAST 2006, eds M. Ioannides, D. Arnold, F. Niccolucci, K. Mania. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 263–9. Beim, N. (2025). Dematerializing Riegl’s Modern Cult of Monuments. Edinburgh Architecture Research, 39. Benjamin, W., 1936, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit. Benjamin, W., 1968. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books. Boorstin, O.J. 1964. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper and Row. Boccardi, G. (2019). Authenticity in the heritage context: A reflection beyond the Nara document. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 10(1), 4-18. Chen, Z., & Fan, J. (2016). The application of cultural and technological integration in cultural heritage protection: A case study of the digitalization of the Mogao Grottoes. Dunhuang Research, (2), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.13584/j.cnki.issn10004106.2016.02.014 Clarke, A., & Paine, A. (2018). The rhetoric of reproduction: built heritage in a digital age. Digital cultural heritage: Future Visions, 112-130. Costa, E., Balletti, C., Beltrame, C., Guerra, F., & Vernier, P. (2016). Digital survey techniques for the documentation of wooden shipwrecks. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 41, 237-242. Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., Galeazzi, F., & Vassallo, V. (2018). Introduction: Why authenticity still matters today (Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions). McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.27033 Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., & Galeazzi, F. (2013). Western Han Dynasty mural tombs: from the use of integrated technologies to the cybermap. Duval, M., Smith, B., Gauchon, C., Mayer, L., & Malgat, C. (2020). “I have visited the Chauvet Cave”: the heritage experience of a rock art replica. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(2), 142-162.

Fan, J. (2009). Application of digital technology in the protection and exhibition of the Dunhuang Grottoes. Dunhuang Research, (6), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.13584/j.cnki.issn1000-4106.2009.06.014 Fu, X., Ma, X., & Sun, Z. (2019). Digital restoration of damaged murals: A case study of Dunhuang murals. Art Education Research, (1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.16272/j.cnki.cn11-1392/j.2019.01.007 Galeazzi, F. (2018). 3-D virtual replicas and simulations of the past:“real” or “fake” representations?. Current Anthropology, 59(3), 268-286. Galeazzi, F., & Vassallo, V. Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions. Gauchon, C., & Malgat, C. (2019). Rock Art cave and replica: what kind of Heritage experience?. Gu, A. (2015). Digital representation of Dunhuang culture and tourist experience design (Master’s thesis). Northwest Normal University. Guo, Q., & Zhang, G. (2024). Research on the application trend of VR technology in Dunhuang mural art (2012–2023). New Chu Culture, (7), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.20133/j.cnki.CN421932/G1.2024.07.018 Hanif, S. (2023, June). The aspects of authenticity in the digitalization of cultural heritage: A drifting paradigm. In 2023 International Conference on Sustaining Heritage: Innovative and Digital Approaches (ICSH) (pp. 39-44). IEEE. Han, J., & Lei, Z. (2025). Application of digital display technology in the protection of cultural heritage at the Mogao Grottoes. China Cultural Relics Science Research, (2), 157–159. Hermon, S., Niccolucci, F., Di https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

23/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

Giuseppantonio, P., Di Franco, F., & Vassallo, V. (2018). Digital authenticity and the London Charter. Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions, 37-47. Jeffrey, S., Love, S., & Poyade, M. (2021). The digital Laocoön: replication, narrative and authenticity. Museum & Society, 19(2), 166-183. Jeffrey S., Hale A., Jones C., Jones S. & M. Maxwell, 2015, The ACCORD project: Archaeological Community Co-Production of Research Resources.

Proceedings of CAA2014 21st Century Archaeology: Concepts, methods and tools, 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Paris, 22.4.2014 – 25.4.2014, eds F. Giligny, F. Djindjian, L. Costa, P. Moscati, S. Robert. Oxford: Archaeopress, 289–95. Jiang, N. (2024). Digital preservation and dissemination of Dunhuang art in the context of artificial intelligence. Art Observation, (3), 90–97. Kong, L. (2018).

Construction of digital communication modeling of cultural heritage: A case study on Mogao Grottoes, Dunhuang (Master’s thesis). Northwest Minzu University, China. Latour, B., & Lowe, A. (2011). The Migration of the Aura Exploring the Original Through Its Fac similes. Switching Codes Thinking Through Digital Technology in the Humanities and the Arts, 275-297. Lau, R. W. K. (2010). Revisiting authenticity: A Social Realist Approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2), 478–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.11.002 Liu, G., Zhang, J., & Diao, C. (2005). Research on 3D digital technology of the Dunhuang Mogao Grottoes. Dunhuang Research, (4), 104–109. Morcillo, J. M., Schaaf, F., Schneider, R. H., & Robertson-von Trotha, C. Y. (2017). Authenticity through VR-based documentation of cultural heritage. A theoretical approach based on conservation and documentation practices. Virtual Archaeology Review, 8(16), 35-43. Muñoz Morcillo, J., Schaaf, F., Schneider, R., & Robertson-von Trotha, C. Y. (2016, October). Authenticities and virtual reality the case studies Jupiter Column and Kaleidophonic Dog. In 8th International congress on archaeology, computer graphics, cultural heritage and innovation (pp. 484-487). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. Pan, J., & Liu, S. (2022).

Opportunities and challenges in the preservation and transmission of Dunhuang culture under globalization: A case study of the Mogao Grottoes. Modern Business Trade and Industry, 43(11), 19– 20. https://doi.org/10.19311/j.cnki.1672-3198.2022.11.009 Pietroni, E., & Ferdani, D. (2021). Virtual restoration and virtual reconstruction in cultural heritage: terminology, methodologies, visual representation techniques and cognitive models.

Information, 12(4), 167. Remondino, F., & Stylianidis, E. (2016). 3D recording, documentation and management of cultural heritage (Vol. 2). Dunbeath, UK: Whittles Publishing. Rouhani, B. (2023). Ethically Digital: Contested Cultural Heritage in Digital Context. Studies in Digital Heritage, 7(1), 1-16. Sheng, J., & Li, X. (2020). The “Digital Dunhuang” Project and the digital development of China’s cultural heritage archives. Journal of Social Science of Harbin Normal University, (5), 152–156. Song, L., & Li, D. (2010). Preliminary application of panorama in digitalization of Dunhuang Grottoes. Dunhuang Research, (6), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.13584/j.cnki.issn1000-4106.2010.06.022 Stanga, C., Spinelli, C., Brumana, R., Oreni, D., Valente, R., & Banfi, F. (2017). A nd virtual notebook about the basilica of S. Ambrogio in Milan: information modeling for the communication of historical phases subtraction process. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 42, 653-660. The Nara Document On Authenticity. 1994. UNESCO NARA Document on Authenticity. Accessed 5 January 2017: http://whc. unesco.org/document/9379. Venice charter. ICOMOS International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter). Accessed 5 January 2017. https:// www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf.

Wei, J., Li, X., Tan, H., & Li, F. (2025). Research on the digital protection of the Dunhuang Mogao Grottoes: A case study of the Beidaxiang Cave. China Market. Advance online publication. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.3358.F.20250305.1435.002 Witcomb, A., 2010. The Materiality of Virtual Technologies: A New Approach to Thinking about the Impact of Multimedia in Museums, in Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse, eds S. Kenderdine and F. Cameron. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 35–48. Wu, J. (n.d.). Digital development of mural cultural heritage: A case study of Dunhuang Mogao https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

24/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

Grottoes. Dunhuang Academy. Wood, B. (2020). A review of the concept of authenticity in heritage, with particular reference to historic houses. Collections, 16(1), 8-33. Yan, T. (n.d.). Protection design of the front architecture of Mogao Grottoes (Master’s thesis). Kunming University of Science and Technology, China. Yuanlin, Z. (2009). Dialogue Among the Civilizations: the Origin of the Three Guardian Deities’ Images in Cave 285, Mogao Grottoes. Silk Road, 33(48), 33.

Appendix A Transformation of Traditional Authenticity Dimensions to Digital Process Appendix B Digital Process and Identified Issues Appendix C Questionnaire Design Appendix D Questionnaire Result

sources:

1

36 words / < 1% match - Internet from 20-Feb-2023 12:00AM www.emerald.com

2

14 words / < 1% match - Internet from 07-Feb-2025 12:00AM www.coursehero.com

3

11 words / < 1% match - Internet from 28-Mar-2025 12:00AM www.coursehero.com

4

5

6

7

8

9

20 words / < 1% match - Crossref "Sustainable Management of Historic Settlements in Asia", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024

20 words / < 1% match - Internet from 02-Apr-2025 12:00AM jyx.jyu.fi

20 words / < 1% match - Internet Liddell, Frances. "The Crypto-Museum: Investigating the impact of blockchain and NFTs on digital ownership, authority, and authenticity in museums", 2022

19 words / < 1% match - Internet from 01-Feb-2025 12:00AM iceb.johogo.com

19 words / < 1% match - Internet Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, Paola, Galeazzi, Fabrizio, Vassallo, Valentina. "Authenticity and cultural heritage in the age of 3D digital reproductions", 'Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)', 2018

18 words / < 1% match - ProQuest Ramgath, Wayne. "Determinants of CEO Remuneration, for JSE Listed Financial Service Organisations", University of Pretoria (South Africa), 2023

10

9 words / < 1% match - Internet from 07-Sep-2023 12:00AM link.springer.com

11

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 08-May-2020 12:00AM link.springer.com

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

25/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

12

15 words / < 1% match - Internet from 30-Nov-2024 12:00AM researchwap.com

13

12 words / < 1% match - Internet from 11-Feb-2025 12:00AM escholarship.org

14

10 words / < 1% match - Crossref Aleksandar Milojković, Uroš Antić, Ana Stanojević, Ljiljana Jevremović et al. "Perception of Authenticity of a UNESCO Heritage Site: New Infill Design and Integrity Protection in the Old Town of Ohrid, North Macedonia", Sustainability, 2025

15

10 words / < 1% match - Internet from 12-Jan-2023 12:00AM ap-st01.ext.exlibrisgroup.com

16

10 words / < 1% match - Internet from 17-Oct-2023 12:00AM perpus.univpancasila.ac.id

17

10 words / < 1% match - Internet from 22-Jan-2025 12:00AM pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

18

9 words / < 1% match - Internet from 04-Dec-2024 12:00AM www.ijrp.org

19

9 words / < 1% match - Internet from 20-Apr-2025 12:00AM www.irjeas.org

20

9 words / < 1% match - Internet from 03-Apr-2025 12:00AM www.journal.amorfati.id

21

9 words / < 1% match - Internet from 16-Jul-2024 12:00AM www.researchsquare.com

22

8 words / < 1% match - Crossref "Cross-Cultural Design", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2023

23

24

25

8 words / < 1% match - Publications Andres Artal-Tur, Metin Kozak. "Culture and Cultures in Tourism - Exploring New Trends", Routledge, 2020

8 words / < 1% match - Crossref Anna Vichnevetskaia. "Implications of the Use of Virtual Reality in Heritage Conservation", 2021 IEEE 7th International Conference on Virtual Reality (ICVR), 2021

8 words / < 1% match - Publications

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

26/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

Similarity Report

Harold Kalman, Marcus R. Létourneau. "Heritage Planning - Principles and Process", Routledge, 2020

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

8 words / < 1% match - Crossref Jennie Sjöholm. "Authenticity and relocation of built heritage: the urban transformation of Kiruna, Sweden", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 2017

8 words / < 1% match - Crossref Jie Ling, Ran Wang, Li Ou Yang. "Chapter 30 Revitalizing Community Identity Through Interactive Art Installations: A Case Study of Gan Zhu Tan Hydropower Station in Zuotan Village", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025

8 words / < 1% match - Publications Kapila D. Silva, Ken Taylor, David S. Jones. "The Routledge Handbook of Cultural Landscape Heritage in The Asia-Pacific", Routledge, 2022

8 words / < 1% match - ProQuest Kunis, Adam J.. "COVID-19’s Attack on Tourism and the Adventure Communities That Defended It", The University of British Columbia (Canada)

8 words / < 1% match - Publications Patrick Daly, Tim Winter. "Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia", Routledge, 2012

8 words / < 1% match - ProQuest Shirey, Hope J.. "The Effectiveness of Interdisciplinary Collaborative Vocabulary Practices With Eighth-Grade Students.", Gwynedd Mercy University

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 14-Jan-2025 12:00AM eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk

8 words / < 1% match - Internet Jeffrey, Stuart, Jones, Siân, Maxwell, Mhairi, Hale, Alex, Jones, Cara. "3D visualisation, communities and the production of significance", 'Informa UK Limited', 2020

34

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 18-Nov-2024 12:00AM muic.mahidol.ac.th

35

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 21-Nov-2023 12:00AM opus4.kobv.de

36

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 24-Apr-2023 12:00AM www.diva-portal.se

37

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 27-Feb-2023 12:00AM www.mdpi.com

38

8 words / < 1% match - Internet from 13-Feb-2023 12:00AM www.researchgate.net

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

27/28

22/04/2025, 12:44

39

Similarity Report

7 words / < 1% match - ProQuest Sheridan, Isilay Tiarnagh. "Value Assesment at the Intersection of Nature and Industry the Case of Çamalti Saltern.", Middle East Technical University (Turkey), 2024

https://app.ithenticate.com/en_us/report/115293468/similarity

28/28