Recent attempts to include and assess public heritage in the accounts of governments and charities are controversial. There are many kinds of value, not merely financial, and various measurement bases. This chapter examines why and how we account (if at all) for heritage assets bringing out the surrounding controversy. Is public heritage an asset that should be included in the reported wealth of public bodies and nations? Investigated valuation methods include accounting approaches and economic valuation by revealed preferences and stated preferences, these are considered in relation to the decisions to be made on public heritage. Although the conceptual and practical problems surrounding valuation and reporting of public heritage are immense, pragmatic solutions should be sought. Multidisciplinary approaches are necessary to make informed decisions on management, financing, and the allocation of resources for public heritage.
This chapter explores the contemporary significance of agricultural heritage, a concept in which the largely cultural and societal concerns for heritage preservation are shuffled into those related to nature conservation and the development of agriculture. Both heritage preservation and nature conservation cast mutually constitutive and relatively fixed ideas of past nature and culture into present and future. Agriculture, too, arrives heavily burdened with inherited meaning, as historically and materially it is “Exhibit A” in the powerful modern narrative of “Culture” gradually rising over “Nature.” In this context, agricultural heritage is almost automatically cast as a relic of the past ways of traditional peoples and their less efficient, less useful, pre-Modern natures. This chapter suggests instead that agricultural heritage represents one of humankind’s richest bodies of environmental experience and most successful manners of conveying knowledge through time, providing material examples of alternative knowledge of nature itself.
Australia has myriad rock art places that have special significance to their many Indigenous owners and a heritage resource of outstanding universal value to all humankind. The appropriate management of those places involves particular heritage considerations because of the multiple layers of significance at stake. The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act of 1999, a federal instrument, defines the criteria for the recognition of national heritage values and forms the basis for identifying the most significant natural and cultural heritage places in Australia. This chapter provides a research-based management logic for including significant rock art places on Australia’s National Heritage List. This thematic approach, founded on current Australian rock art research, recognizes the thematic structure adopted by UNESCO in its assessment of World Heritage Outstanding Universal Values, since there are logical synergies for synchronizing Australia’s National Heritage List with World Heritage Listing.
The aim of this chapter is to review basic components and procedures regarding rock art conservation and management for archaeologists and anybody else who may be interested in such endeavours. Rock art considered relevant to this chapter includes iconographic pictures, ‘abstract’ designs, and any other artificial discernable markings placed on rock surfaces (including sideward-facing vertical cliffs, cave walls, downward-facing ceilings, side- and upward-facing boulders [either natural or placed there by people], and upward-facing horizontal bedrock pavements). This chapter emphasizes that proper knowledge of and experience in working with rock art in any particular area is essential when recording, conserving, managing, and interpreting it. Proper identification, knowledge, and recording of rock art include various scales of observation, ranging from the macro-landscape scale to the micro-scale of rock surface stratigraphy. Coming up with practical solutions requires a working knowledge of both the physical sciences and the humanities.
This chapter considers community conflicts arising over the aesthetic character of homes when advocates use government policies and regulations to impose historic preservation values. Historic preservation is organized as a cosmology that values and seeks to restore original architectural forms as representations of history. Homeowner advocates for preservation are motivated by their own home restoration experiences with material agency, while local municipalities employ “aesthetic governmentality” techniques with graphic codes to help shape homeowner perceptions and change aesthetic norms. Conflicts in two southern California cities illustrate how preservationist residents use regulations to actively protect houses against remodels by “uninformed” homeowners. In another city, affluent Chinese immigrants propose mansion-sized remodels of bungalow houses as a counter aesthetic to preservation. Each aesthetic promotes a distinct but also contrasting moral suburban landscape.
This chapter traces the gestation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and the rise of the World Heritage title to a global brand and major catalyst for heritage aspirations, activities, and discourses. Despite conceptual reforms in the 1990s and a more nation-centered mode of World Heritage Committee operations since 2010, Northern dominance and biases persist. Global co-custodianship of sites has remained largely symbolic and the contribution of World Heritage to international cooperation and site conservation is uneven. World Heritage has clearly broadened conceptions of cultural heritage, even if inconsistently. Social effects of site designation tend to be complex, producing both winners and losers on the local level, with external actors extending their influence. Recent financial difficulties make ambitious change unlikely for the coming years. The power of the World Heritage title is increasingly at the mercy of the treaty states’ internal conditions, rather than of the global institutional framework.
Questions of legal and cultural rights over rock art are particularly compelling given the very different significance the art holds for Indigenous people compared to that recognized by a more general public. In the past, conflicts have arisen between the interests of the Indigenous people and those of the nation state, or of non-Indigenous mining or tourism ventures. This chapter examines the legal rights that Indigenous people have to rock art sites on their land, as well as legal issues arising over the ownership and reproduction of rock art. It examines intellectual property law, including copyright, trade marks, and breach of confidence laws, as well as cultural heritage protection laws. Finally, it considers some of the broader cultural and ethical issues raised by non-Indigenous use of rock art imagery.
This article criticizes the reduction of Cultural Heritages to Cultural Capital or Cultural Commons. Whereas economists usually reduce heritages to their capital aspects (standard capital for equipment, human and social capital, natural capital, and cultural capital) or to their commons aspects (stock of resources managed by a community), we consider the components of Cultural Heritages (CH) to carry different (and generally intertwined) dimensions that prevent abstraction of the non-economic dimensions of heritages when analyzing their economic dimension. Rather than dodging the question of their multi-dimensionality, we use it as our starting point in explaining the debates about how these heritages should be defined and managed, and the necessity of considering the differing points of view and interests (both material and symbolic) of the various stakeholders.
Robert H. Winthrop
This article is concerned with caring for place, the interweaving of community, landscape, and culture. Culturally reflexive stewardship (crs) involves actions to sustain a way of life, motivated by a shared appreciation of place, landscape, and region, and expressed through practices that transmit cultural knowledge and affirm a social identity. The article first contrasts two resource regimes, one based on a logic of tradeoffs and markets, the other on a logic of stewardship. Second, it presents the key characteristics of crs, emphasizing the linkage of intellectual content (local knowledge) with an ethical imperative based in the symbolic qualities of place. Finally, the article explores the relationship of stewardship to social organization, and offers examples of crs in three modes, termed “living in place,” “conservation and recovery,” and “polarization and protest.”
This chapter argues that critical heritage studies needs to consider not only what culture and heritage says about a place or space, but also what kinds of future possibilities and potentialities (becoming) are produced. This involves a thorough understanding about how time works in the narratives that heritage studies develop around a place. Narratives here are imagined as assemblages of signs, symbols, practices, and institutions. Using a case study of Cornwall in the South-West of the United Kingdom, the chapter considers how assembled narratives of Cornwall impact how the region is perceived and the effects that this has on future economic development.