Augmented experiences in archeological sites: Presentation of Alexandria Troas Podium Temple to visitor experience


  • Hakan Anay image/svg+xml Eskişehir Osmangazi University

    (Hakan Anay has bachelors, masters and Ph.D. degrees in architecture from the Middle East Technical University. Fields of interests are architectural design, design research, design criticism and theory.  He is one of the editors of the Architecture Theory Library project in ESOGU with Ulku Ozten) and currently working on Augmented Reality in Architecture, with a particular emphasis on presentation of built-heritage and design of augmented experiences.

  • Ülkü Özten image/svg+xml Eskişehir Osmangazi University

    (Ulku Ozten holds masters and Ph.D. degrees in Architecture from the Middle East Technical University. She teaches architectural theory and conducts design studio in Osmangazi University Department of Architecture. Fields of interests are epistemology, theory and criticism of architectural design, architectural research. She is one of the editors of the Architecture Theory Library project in ESOGU with Hakan Anay) and currently working on experience of space in terms of AR.

  • Merve Ünal image/svg+xml Eskişehir Osmangazi University

    Merve Unal graduated from Necmettin Erbakan University, Department of Architecture in 2018. She completed her master's degree in Building Science at Eskişehir Osmangazi University in 2021 and started her doctorate education. She is still continuing her doctorate education. She is currently working in the fields of Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and Artificial Intelligence within the scope of 100/2000 PhD Project.

  • Erhan Öztepe image/svg+xml Ankara University

    Erhan Oztepe, who graduated from Ankara University, Faculty of Language, History and Geography, Department of Classical Archeology in 1988, completed his master's degree in 1991 and his doctorate in 1999 in the same department. He continues to work as a professor at Ankara University, where he started to work as a research assistant in 1992. He has been chairing the Alexandria Troas Excavations since 2011. Since 2009, he has been a member of the Trabzon and Çanakkale Cultural Heritage Preservation Regional Board of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. His fields of interests are Greek sculpture, Greek and Roman iconography, Cyprus archeology, archaic and classical Cyprus sculpture.



Alexandria Troas, archaelogy, architectural (Re)presentation, Augmented Reality (AR), visitor experience


Set aside the issues concerning their excavation, documentation, and conservation, as far as their presentation to the public experience is concerned, Archaeological sites represent a special case of cultural heritage that come with distinctive set of conditions and demands, posing a problem situation deserving a special treatment. Problem is manifold: The presentation should be informative, entertaining, and educational, all accomplished through an active corporeal and mental participation where interactivity and immersion must be the key. The setting must provide a holistic, comprehensible experience by completing “missing parts and layers,” and contextualizing it, perhaps through a story, a theme, or a background. Any intervention must be non-invasive, reversible and updateable; alternatives and different layers must be presented, preferably, synchronously. Above all, final setting should be subordinate to the primacies of “conservation of cultural heritage,” while providing an intellectually and physically accessible and sustainable overall historical environment. This has been an age-old issue for the scholars, a genuine challenge due to the ill-defined nature of the problem situation itself. The present study departs from the proposition that, Augmented Reality(AR), by definition, has a potential to contribute to such a problem situation. AR is a combination of real and virtual worlds, where “virtual” could complement what was missing in the real and new objects and layers might be woven together, into one new reality where active bodily and mental participation and interaction is possible. Though it might seem implied in the definition, the proposition still needs a rigorous investigation since AR is a rapidly emerging but still quite a young field that has a long way to go; and since, research on AR’s specific adoption to presentation of archaeological sites, apart from few examples, is still an unbeaten path. The present multidisciplinary study aims to take a step towards such an investigation. Established upon a detailed investigation and analysis of examples, the present study involves development of an AR application of a selected case: “Alexandria Troas Podium Temple,” followed by a field study. In the present report, we share our experience and observations of the process and the implementation. In conclusion, we propose that AR is a serious candidate to be a considerable asset for the presentation of archaeological sites for the visitor experience, without compromising the universal norms of conservation of cultural heritage. We also argue that AR seems to have its own agenda, coming with unprecedented possibilities still to be appreciated and adopted, which in turn might help us to go beyond the conventional conceptions and modes of conservation of cultural heritage and presentation.


Metrics Loading ...


  • Anay, H., Özten, Ü., & Özten Anay, M. (2014). Towards a Common Framework to Operate with: Mediating Experience Design and Architecture In Designing Experience: The Ballerina on the Elephant, edited by Peter Benz. Hong Kong.
  • Azuma, R. (1997). A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385.
  • Benz, P. (2015). Experience design. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • Canciani, M., & Saccone, M. (2016). 3D Survey and Augmented Reality for Cultural Heritage. The Case Study of Aurelian Wall at Castra Praetoria in Rome. In The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences.
  • Caudell, T. P., & Mizell, D. (1992). Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. System Sciences, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference.
  • Cook, J. M. (1973). The Troad. An Archaeological and Topographical Study. Oxford: Clarendon.
  • Dewey, J. (1980). Art as Experience. New York: Perigee Books.
  • Eisenstein, S. (1989). Montage and Architecture. Assemblage(10), 110-131.
  • Eisenstein, S., & Gerould, D. (1974). Montage of Attractions: For "Enough Stupidity in Every Wiseman". The Drama Review, 18(1), 77-85.
  • Feuser, S. (2009). Der Hafen von Alexandria Troas: Asia-Minor-Studien. Forschungsstelle Asia Minor im Seminar für Alte Geschichte der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster.
  • Feuser, S. (2011). The Roman Harbour of Alexandria Troas. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology no. 40 (2):256-273., 40(2), 256-273.
  • Finat, J., Martinez-Jimenez, J. L., Alvarez-Diaz, S., & Finat-Saez, J. (2015). Augmented Reality to Preserve Hidden Vestiges in Historical Sites: a Case Study. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Infortion Sciences.
  • Glavic, J. A. (2014). Eutychus in Acts and in the Church: The Narrative Significance of Acts 20:6-12. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 24(2), 179-206.
  • Görkay, K. (2002). An Early-Imperial Podium Temple at Alexandria Troas. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving: Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology no:8.
  • Hassenzahl, M., Eckoldt, K., Diefenbach, S., Laschke, M., Len, E., & Kim, J. (2013). Designing Moments of Meaning and Pleasure. Experience Design and Happiness. International Journal of Design, 7(3).
  • Karigiannis, J., & Stricker, D. (2002). Archeoguide: an augmented reality guide for archaeological sites. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 22 (5), 52-60.
  • Körpe, R. (2015). Son Arkeolojik Bulgular Işığında Aziz Paulus'un İkinci Kutsal Görev Gezisinde Troas Yolculuğu. Seleucia ad Calycadnum I, 51-76.
  • Liestøl, G. (2011). Learning Through Situated Simulations: Exploring Mobile Augmented Reality. ECAR Research Bulletin(1), 1-13.
  • Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IECE Tansactions on Information and systems no. E77-D, 12(12), 1321-1329.
  • Özten, Ü. (2019). Montage and Experience Architecture. Online Journal of Art and Design, 7(4).
  • Öztepe, E. (2012). The Ancient City of Alexandria Troas. In F. Ö. (Ed.), Çanakkale (pp. 248-273 ). İstanbul : Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Öztepe, E. (2019). Marmor Troadense Ticaretinde Alexandria Troas’ın Rolü” Kültürlerin Bağlantısı. Anadolu Ek Dizi , I(9).
  • Papagiannakis, G., Martene, A., Thalmann, N. M., & Thalmann, D. (2005). Mixing Virtual and Real Scenes in the site of Ancient Pompeii. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 16(1), 11-24.
  • Ricl, M. (1997). Alexandreia Troas in the Hellenistic Period. Melanges D'Historie et D'Epigraphie.
  • Schwerteim, E. (2002). Alexandria Troas. Çanakkale Troas Arkeoloji Buluşması.
  • Shedroff, N. (2001). Experience Design 1. Waite Group Press.
  • Texier, C. H. (2002). Küçük Asya: Coğrafyası, Tarihi ve Arkeolojisi. Ankara: Enformasyon ve Dökümantasyon Hizmetleri Vakfı Yayınları.
  • Vlahakis, V., Karigiannis, J., Tsotros, M., & Gounaris, M. (2002). ARCHEOGUIDE: first results of an augmented reality, mobile computing system in cultural heritage sites. Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Virtual Reality, Archeology and Cultural Heritage. Glyfada, Greece.
  • Wellner, P., Mackay, W., & Gold, R. (1993). Mack to the Real World. Communications of the ACM, 36(7), 24-26.
  • Wilson, M. (2020). Eutychus in Troas: The Architecture and Archaeology of his Fall. Biblica 2020, pp., 101(2), 231-247.




How to Cite

Anay, H., Özten, Ülkü ., Ünal, M., & Öztepe, E. . (2022). Augmented experiences in archeological sites: Presentation of Alexandria Troas Podium Temple to visitor experience. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 3(1), 24–40.



Research Articles

Funding data