You're still proposing to deal with the lowest common denominator, only in a different way.

Indeed. A more direct, active way with the goal of not impacting those who abide by the rules.

Without saying which way is better, your claiming that fines are more 'direct' than putting physical barriers in the way is blatantly not true, barriers being the ultimate direct prevention.

I'm talking about direct retribution over prevention i.e. people visiting the sites without touching anything aren't directly impacted by those who do touch, however they're directly impacted by putting up glossy glass over those same sites.

Those visiting the sites who do touch that which they're told not to face direct retribution and serve as a warning to others not to do the same.

> hefty fines and enforcing

I am not sure if that's the right approach - that would be like deciding to punish animals in a zoo for crossing a line instead of having physical barriers installed.

er, humans have agency to follow instruction easily in a way that animals do not.

Hmm, if it's just rules/fines, the chances are 0% that no one touches the thing, because it seems like guaranteed that an idiot will one day walk in there and touch something they're not meant to touch.

So if you want to preserve it, probably barriers/distance is the only good enough protection.

Putting any of this on display, barriers or no, means you're slowly destroying it. If preservation were the primary aim, nobody would be allowed inside except epigraphers and photographers. Want to see these monuments? Look at the photographs, drawings, and models like this.

They have, but a lot of people can't be arsed.