In Situ: The Contraindications of World Heritage

Abstract

In light of contemporary discussions on the preservation of world heritage, this article considers the cultural costs of archaeological reconstruction and site development. Popular, political and scholarly discussions often presume that the preservation of material heritage functions as a shining knight battling the dark forces of destruction. Yet far from purely constructive, sites we think of as authentically historical are often reconstructions. Their resurrection often depends on the erasure of intermediary traditions and the displacement of local communities, making them highly contested political symbols. As political frameworks shift, the tension between preservation and destruction established through this process often serves as propaganda. Examining the effects of archaeological site reconstruction on local populations at Tadmur (Palmyra, Syria); Geyre (Aphrodisias, Turkey); Wadi Halfa (Abu Simbel, Egypt and Sudan); and Bamiyan (Afghanistan), this article examines the dangers in the instrumentalization of world heritage as a rhetoric of ownership that pits civilization against barbarism without considering the complex costs that accrue as we access the past. The past can only retain value for the future if it does not come at the cost of the living present.

Visiting Dark Murals: An Ethnographic Approach to the Sustainability of Heritage

“…Forgetting an event is not always the best option for taking an educational point of view about our history [10]. However, for Shaw [54], the instrumentalisation of world heritage does not always consider the complex costs that are added when the past is accessed. One of the challenges in this area is to help the general public to understand the mural so they identify with its message [16,56].…”

“…Conversely, forgetting or brushing an event under the carpet is not always the best option for taking an educational point of view about our history, accepting that the event happened [10]. However, for Shaw [54], the instrumentalisation of world heritage does not always consider the complex costs that are added when the past is accessed.…”