"In Europe and the United States there is a proliferation of archaeological sites that occur to fully or partially reconstructed public. This practice is normal in many countries, is heavily disputed in others. This confrontation in favor or against the archaeological reconstructions is which justifies a debate on what sites can start rebuilding, under what conditions and with what criteria would be desirable to intervene in order to ensure, on the one hand, the conservation of the sites, preserving its authenticity, and, secondly, to stimulate scientific research of an experimental nature and rigor in its didactic presentation and to comply with the obligation of all equipment of this type, which is simply to generate knowledge.

The necessary debate on what to do in the future leads the authors of this essay to discuss mainly the validity of the reconstructions in situ. Models of interpretation of existing archaeological heritage, ie the model of the fossil sites, the reservoir object moves, the replica sites and in situ reconstructions, the latter is the need today an important debate because the reservoir fossilizations are unquestionably legitimate options, that undisputed; also based options in building replicas of the archaeological site does not affect the conservation of the original remains and the problem is only rigor; on shipments of monuments and archaeological remains and there is general agreement that are not shared but exceptionally recommended; therefore, the in situ interventions are to be placed today, as two centuries ago, in the center of the debate.