A critical discussion of value typologies for heritage conservation and management is offered, from the perspective of objects-and urban conservation, in light of a review of published literature on heritage values. It is suggested that value typologies are often designed and implemented without understanding the implicit consequences of the inclusion and omission of 'values'. It is also suggested that typologies often fail to prompt the necessary questions to develop satisfactorily detailed understandings of heritage significance, resulting in decisions being based on implicit, rather than explicit, value assessments in practice. Mindful of the problems associated with 'universalising' context specific typologies, a broad framework for assessing and communicating significance is proposed. In order to encourage holistic approaches, the framework is designed to combat the false dichotomies of cultural/natural and tangible/intangible heritage; it is hoped this will make the framework widely applicable. Without downplaying the necessity of diverse participation in assessing significance, the framework is designed to identify aspects of weakness and preference in cases where adequate consultation is not possible.
This article is the product of prolonged wrestling with the question of how heritage professionals and researchers can facilitate and sustain public agency in caring for heritage in the UK during austerity without exploiting volunteers or devaluing professionals. It offers critical perspectives on efforts made to democratise heritage in the UK by increasing public participation through a critique of neoliberalism and the rise of neoliberal approaches in the heritage sector. It argues that the adoption of neoliberal approaches, such as crowdsourcing, that profess to democratise yet reinforce existing power structures, is the inevitable result of insisting on protecting material culture from harm, despite the continuing accumulation of more 'heritage'. Drawing on critical perspectives on participation from a number of disciplines, it is suggested that efforts to increase public participation in heritage cannot hope to avoid exploiting volunteers, devaluing professionals and marginalising traditionally underrepresented demographics unless they also let go of the perceived need to protect the materiality of the past. Drawing on Sarah May's archaeology of contemporary tigers, this article argues that the application of endangerment narratives to heritage reinforces uncritical understandings of both heritage and volunteering that preclude heritage from fulfilling its potential function as a contemporary social process.
No abstract
In this article I caution the assertions made in the 2018 volume of NAR on the future of archaeology that archaeology is well on its way to decolonising itself and that 'open' archaeologies that invite public participation and utilise new digital technologies are inherently ethical. I begin by critiquing the exclusively positive connotations of archaeology, digital technologies and public participation, before drawing on critiques of the 'simple deficit model' within science communication, which I argue are equally applicable to public archaeology. I use the 'simple deficit model' and a review of shifting perspectives on legitimate heritage expertise to lay the foundation for an archaeology that is both 'open' and 'ethical'. I conclude that, as in science communication, such an archaeology requires archaeologists to develop more accurate understandings of both archaeology and publics.
Within the heritage sector there is widespread recognition that the accelerating effects of climate and other changes will necessitate reconsideration of the care of at-risk places and properties. Heritage organisations and agencies are developing new ways to identify and measure future threats, and to prioritise resources accordingly. For some designated assets, it is becoming clear, it may be necessary to manage processes of decline and transformation. Drawing on insights gathered from conversations with natural and historic environment practitioners and regulators, this paper highlights current practice and policy around managed decline, with a focus on the English context. In seeking to address some of the limitations of current approaches, this paper introduces a new conceptual framework: adaptive release. Adaptive release, as presented here, reflects a decision to accommodate the dynamic transformation of a heritage asset and its associated values and significance, with reference to wider landscape settings. The focus is on iterative management over extended timeframes, involving some relinquishment of control and a commitment to ongoing monitoring and interpretation. The concept of adaptive release is presented provisionally, rather than prescriptively, to expand the range of options available to natural and historic environment professionals in responding to inevitable change.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.