Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
John Schofield
(University of York)
- Location:
- Wills OCC
- Start time:
- 19 December, 2010 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 2
Short Abstract:
Cultural heritage traditionally concerns the iconic but has become increasingly democratic (eg. the Faro Convention 2005). This session explores how we might think and act locally, irrespective of whether our governments ratify Faro.
Long Abstract:
Cultural heritage traditionally concerns the outstanding and the iconic. For ancient times, everyday items and places become special by virtue of age. For more recent periods, everyday items remain ordinary, unnoticed and taken for granted. Yet these closely familiar items and places are what often interest the public most, a public that is increasingly engaged, informed and empowered.
Officially, attention remains focused on the outstanding. Local concerns, while recognised within national interests (the 'spot listing as democracy' argument), are often deemed less significant by those in authority. Yet heritage is becoming more democratic and the Faro Convention (2005) on 'the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society', sees the need to 'involve everyone in the process of defining and managing cultural heritage'; of 'promoting dialogue'; and of recognising every person's right to 'engage with the cultural heritage of their choice'. Faro thus challenges the prevalence of a normative, authoritarian view of cultural heritage, at least complementing it with an alternative view that 'counter-maps' the established order. Faro may or may not be ratified by any particular government, but it exists and already exerts influence on thought and behaviours. This session attempts to explore these and other closely related issues, teasing out some of the tensions that exist within cultural heritage practice between expert views and alternate opinion, whether local, marginal or simply other. Proposals are welcome that reflect on the Faro Convention, explore theoretical perspectives on inclusivity and authority, or with examples of how counter mapping can be achieved.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Sarah Wolferstan (University College London)
Paper short abstract:
Social critiques have called for international organisations to take a positive moral ethical position in striving for social justice in Europe. Paradigm shifts will not fully take hold unless they are translated into political and administrative strategies for the day-to-day work of public authorities.
Paper long abstract:
With Faro, for the first time a legal instrument has risked a new and expanded definition of Cultural Heritage. It is not that which is or must be conserved; buried or upstanding monuments, objects moveable or immovable, ensembles or landscapes, but rather 'a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, independently of ownership, as a reflection and an expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions'. Heritage values are perceived by citizens, which may include 'heritage communities': defined as groups that transcend national, ethnic or linguistic boundaries and therefore groups with a stake in a 'Common European heritage', also defined by the convention as a 'shared source of remembrance, understanding, identity, cohesion and creativity' and 'ideals, principles and values' which in turn generate the idea of a common responsibility.
Although Faro has been ratified in less than ten Member States, the Council of Europe (CoE) is already promoting the convention through its monitoring activities and practical projects in South East Europe and the Caucausus. This paper presents two case studies concerning projects I have been involved in as a consultant to the CoE; the first looks at how Faro has been introduced into the Granada Convention monitoring project; the second concerns practical work going on in South East Europe and again, looks at dialogue between different groups responsible for heritage in national and local government, with a focus on Kosovo.
Stephanie Koerner (Liverpool University )
Paper short abstract:
The bearing upon the session´s aims of Dewey´s insights of the historiality of ‘public issues’ are explored.
Paper long abstract:
My contribution explores - in light of circumstances where controversies over by and for whom plurality of lived cultural heritage is conserved are enmeshed in the deepening life quality inequalities of ´risk society´ - something of the bearing upon the sessions aims of insights that 'public issues' are not simplified versions of more complex problems, which demand authoritative expertise. To the contrary, it is the most complex problems―the problems that hitherto predominant institutions and paradigms do not or cannot address―that spark the emergence of publics and means (perhaps, such as the 2005 Faro convention) to reframe what is meant by the 'common good'.
Mats Burstrom (Stockholm University)
Paper short abstract:
How does an archaeologist working within heritage management best represent the general public? It may be argued that as a professional expert the archaeologist has a particular responsibility to stand up for other values than those that are spontaneously embraced by various societal groups.
Paper long abstract:
The need for dialogue between heritage management and various societal groups is now widely recognized. This is a great improvement which has changed the role of the professional expert. It is no longer sufficient to just have expert knowledge within your scholarly field; you must also be able to conduct a two-way communication with people outside that field who have other interests and priorities. How the heritage management should respond to these different views is however a delicate matter. It is not self-evident that the management best represents the public interest by making the public's opinion their own. It may, on the contrary, be argued that the professional expert has a particular responsibility to stand up for other values than those that are spontaneously embraced by the public.
Cornelia Kleinitz (Humboldt University Berlin)
Paper short abstract:
On the basis of a case study the paper investigates the intricacies of (European-led) cultural heritage practices - and local responses to these - in a non-European context.
Paper long abstract:
European archaeologists from time to time find themselves engaged in other parts of the globe, where they act as external 'heritage specialists'. In parts of the African continent, due to rapid development, archaeological research and heritage management is increasingly undertaken in the context of salvage projects. Often, these projects are linked to the large-scale destruction not only of cultural resources but also of local people's livelihoods. Recently, one of these projects, the Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project at the Fourth Nile Cataract in northern Sudan, was faced with an unprecedented level of local resentment. While the 'dead' archaeological heritage had been the focus of the rescue missions, only few engaged with the living heritage or the concerns and wishes of the local Manasir people. This relegated locals to roles either as workmen or as passive bystanders to the archaeological exploitation of their land, which was driven by a variety of expert agendas. Local responses involved claims to ownership of the antiquities unearthed by the experts (thus contesting the national antiquities laws), the demand for a local museum and large-scale illicit digging for 'treasure'. Eventually the archaeologists were expelled from Manasir territory and the salvage project was prematurely terminated. This led to soul-searching among at least some of the external 'experts'. In the face of more immediate problems, can we really accuse local people of disregarding future generations' right to their heritage? Does the right to a cultural heritage also involve the duty to honour cultural heritage? And whose heritage is it, anyway?
Gísli Pálsson (University of Iceland)
Paper short abstract:
An exploration of the abandoned building site as locus of authorized heritage, intangible heritage and counter-heritage. Main themes include: ruinscapes, heritage, emplaced memory. The building sites are in Reykjavík, abandoned and left unfinished in the wake of the economic collapse of 2007.
Paper long abstract:
Iceland's economy expanded significantly in the 21st century leading up to 2007, and the effects of the global economic collapse were harrowing. At the time, Reykjavík was undergoing significant redevelopment, with many of the new building projects recognizably 'new' and distinct from what had been built before, built according to the aesthetic mores and needs of a parvenu elite. Many of these projects are now unfinished and will remain so for the foreseeable future. What will become of these sites? Can they be viewed as a heritage of the inimitable years of 2004-2007, when no expenses were spared in 'hypermodernizing' Reykjavík?
While the current legislation certainly does not favour the formulation of recent materiality as heritage, there is a growing recognition worldwide for archaeology and the heritage industry to come to terms with our recent past. In this paper I will discuss recent developments in heritage practice as well as recent scholarship in a range of fields that shed light on the value and meaning of ruins and places of abjection.
Mark Horton (University of Bristol)
Paper short abstract:
TBC
Paper long abstract:
The conservation of the historic environment often requires expert judgements of value and significance, which have been developed through academic debate and discourse. In some areas, this academic context has been either lacking or based upon a very limited understanding of the evidence. The paper will address some of the issues within the maritime historic environment, where many of the assets lie well outside what might normally be considered as important by the academy, but are often the subject of passionate debate about their importance by local communities. Three case studies will be examined to illustrate when these local communities or individuals have taken up the cause of maritime heritage, and how their activities have influenced the wider national debate. The first will be the Purton Hulks, in Gloucestershire, where there has been a long campaign to protect and conserve them by a local friends group. Secondly I will consider the City of Adelaide - Britain's most complete 19th century clipper, shortly to be sent to Australia, by the Scottish Executive. Finally, I will examine the plight of 400+ 1 WW wrecks in the Bristol channel, and the absence of any effective protection or academic study.
Paul Graves-Brown
Paper short abstract:
Unlike most, but not all, past societies, modernity is characterised by its planned spaces. Yet even here the liminal finds its way, like weeds growing in cracked concrete. This paper will explore the cultural significance of such places and their role in the collision of social values.
Paper long abstract:
Unlike most, but not all, past societies, modernity is characterised by its planned spaces. Yet even here the liminal finds its way, like weeds growing in cracked concrete. Some such places are the byproduct of planning; what are termed SLOAPs (sites left over after planning). Some emerge at the boundaries of planned space, others are the direct consequences of planned geometry, like Gould's "spandrells of San Marco". Many are integral to the plan, but come to be socially marginal; Augé's "non-places". Nevertheless such places can come to be important; the locii of DIY heritage.
This paper will explore the cultural significance of such places and their role in the collision of social values.
Rachael Kiddey (University of York)
Paper short abstract:
Mapping contemporary Bristol with homeless people reveals a culture left purposefully unrecorded; systematically and repeatedly made invisible. Ideas raised include how traditional functions of heritage i.e. to pass on established ‘truths’ and model desirable lifestyles jar with experiences borne by homeless people and how the ‘treasure trove’ attitude to artefacts prevents the dirty, insanitary and illegal from being considered ‘heritage’. Counter mapping reveals long legacies of ‘places of exclusion’ within Bristol.
Paper long abstract:
Central Bristol features a wealth of traditional heritage including the place from which John Cabot sailed, the Matthew and a plethora of architecture dating to the city's richest years as a global maritime hub. Surrounding these sites are 'gap sites' and 'development opportunities', squats, hostels, bandstands and bushes known to homeless people as shelter, places to 'work', drink and take drugs and places to 'skipper'(sleep). Interpretation of Bristol's historic landscape has never previously included the experience of homeless people. Faro recognises 'the role of cultural heritage in the construction of a peaceful and democratic society, and in the processes of sustainable development and the promotion of cultural diversity'. The use of counter mapping aids the inclusion of silent voices, enriching the wider understanding of the built environment, patterns that form within it and how these impact on society.
Melissa Beattie
Paper short abstract:
At Mermaid Quay in Cardiff Bay stands a memorial to a fictional character from the locally-shot television series Torchwood. This has led to any number of responses and brought up a number of issues about whose heritage it is and how it is represented.
Paper long abstract:
At Mermaid Quay in Cardiff Bay stands a memorial to a fictional character from the locally-shot television series Torchwood. This has led to any number of responses, from approval and acceptance by many, including the Mermaid Quay management and members of the local community, to innocent confusion by some over the character's fictional nature, and even to aggressive hostility from a few due to the character having been bisexual. This paper will examine these variant responses and discuss the attendant issues of whose heritage is being represented, under whose control is it displayed, and what can happen when the various opinions on the matter come into conflict.
Dominic Walker (University of Cambridge)
Paper short abstract:
I will explore approaches to the democratic management of World Heritage Sites, and how the concerns of locals may be made compatible with the conservation of 'outstanding universal values'.
Paper long abstract:
The 'outstanding universal values' of UNESCO World Heritage Sites are traditionally valued over and above local viewpoints. Although UNESCO has more recently recognised the need to involve local communities in the management of World Heritage Sites, tensions may continue to exist between the views of heritage experts and local communities. Using as a case study the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape, a World Heritage Site in South Wales, I will explore how the management of World Heritage Sites may become more democratic.
The main economic base of the Blaenavon area—coalmining—declined through the 20th century and mining finally ceased in 1980. Attempts to address economic and social decline has revolved around the industrial heritage. As part of these regeneration processes, the industrial landscape was nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List, being inscribed in 2000. Attempts are being made to make commensurable the pursuit of conserving the posited outstanding universal values whilst addressing local values and needs. However, tensions have arisen within the local community due to the ways in which they have been involved in managing the heritage. I will argue that a more democratic and truly collaborative approach to managing World Heritage is needed in order to more effectively achieve aims such as community empowerment and 'social inclusion'. In this way, the authority usually afforded to heritage experts may need to be renegotiated.
Don Henson (Council for British Archaeology)
Paper short abstract:
An exploration of heritage sites near the south bank in Southwark, to exemplify the differences in treatment between national and local heritages. Issues to be covered will include who designates heritage, and the tensions between commercial and non-commercial heritage sites.
Paper long abstract:
The south bank area of Southwark contains a number of heritage sites: HMS Belfast, the Golden Hinde, Winchester Palace, the sites of the Globe and Rose Theatres, the modern Globe Theatre and less obvious heritage sites like the Clink Prison and a Victorian prostitutes' cemetery. The ownership of these sites and their designation as 'heritage' is very varied. The area exemplifies in microcosm the tensions involved in how we define and accept heritage, including issues of commercialism and democratisation.
Roger Doonan (Sheffield)
Paper short abstract:
Authenticity is a contentious concept having been endorsed and dismissed equally by academics. Here we seek to establish if ideas of Authenticity are useful in archaeology and whether they can help guide practice so as to better understand where value can be located in 'the' archaeological process.
Paper long abstract:
Postmodernist thought has made the idea of personal authenticity, the idea of being true to one's self, a difficult idea to sustain. Whilst individual authenticity has been a central concern for philosophers from Heidegger to Sartre, it now remains largely unattractive or unresolved. This session seeks to develop ideas of authenticity, not at the individual level, but at the level of practice.
Whilst critics of authenticity have dismissed ideas of an `authentic' self as a delusion this session asks if the idea of institutional authenticity can be used to envalue and guide aspects of practice.
This is not to abandon ideas of personal authenticity entirely. If the challenge to the individual is no longer to find oneself but to create oneself, then can one do so through engaging with authentic institutions. Can we meaningfully ask if archaeology can be true to itself?
One approach maybe to acknowledge the existence of archaeology as signifying the maturity of our species as it is a practice which turns humanity towards itself to explore its relations with itself and the universe whilst being in the world. Can this turning of humanity towards itself establish 'humanness' as a measuring stick of value? Can the idea of 'humanness' be used as a moral imperative which guides practice?
We wish to examine how establishing 'humanness' as a central value in archaeology might contrast with existing institutional practices which prioritise resource management and values grounded in instrumental reasoning that strive for efficiencies and rationality in cultural production.