Teaching Archaeological Heritage Management. Towards a Change in Paradigms

Abstract

The concept of archaeological heritage management (AHM) has been key to wider archaeological research and preservation agendas for some decades. Many universities and other education providers now offer what is best termed heritage management education (HME) in various forms. The emphasis is commonly on archaeological aspects of heritage in a broad sense and different terms are often interchangeable in practice. In an innovative working-conference held in Tampere, Finland, we initiated a debate on what the components of AHM as a course or curriculum should include. We brought together international specialists and discussed connected questions around policy, practice, research and teaching/training, at local, national, transnational and World Heritage levels. In this article we take the Tampere discussions further, focusing especially on the meaning, necessity, implications and prerequisites of interdisciplinary HME. We offer our thoughts on developing HME that reflects the contemporary aspects and needs of heritage and its management.

Exploring participatory heritage governance after the EU Faro Convention

“…First, the capacity of transforming the power-authority roles within a professional system determined by expertization of knowledge. In plain words: "how much social participation are we [heritage expertise] willing to accept (...) how much knowledge-power are we willing to give up, and what degree of autonomy in management can we tolerate" (Jiménez-Esquinas, 2019, p.111 [9] Schofield, 2015, Sutcliffe, 2014, Willems, et al, 2018.…”

“…And secondly, how well equipped, skilled or trained are heritage experts to ensure better and fruitful engagements with heritage communities willing to follow the Faro way. In this new heritage management context, it is urgent to create multidisciplinary teams with professional profiles in conducting participative processes with skills in intersectionality, cultural and social mediation, conflict resolution and local politics diplomacy (after Schofield, 2015; Sutcliffe, 2014; Willems et al , 2018).…”

Archaeological Sites’ Management, Interpretation, and Tourism Development—A Success Story and Future Challenges: The Case of Bibracte, France

“…Furthermore, the concept of heritage management, according to [15], is the protection of the dual legacy of natural and cultural heritage and the identity of local communities. Ultimately, heritage management is a collective process that encompasses site identification, stakeholders' involvement, conservation assessment, significance statement, current management appraisal, and strategy definition [16][17][18][19]. A review of the literature suggests that heritage management could be approached to valorize different heritage resources, such as archaeological sites, natural parks, heritage properties, and artifacts [20,21].…”

Dacian Fortresses in Orastie Mountains: Management of Heritage Structures

“…By 2017, Romania has registered eight sites: (1) Danube Delta (1991, natural site), (2) Beech and virgin forests in the Carpathians and other regions of Europe (2017, natural site), (3) Moldova's Churches (1993), (4) Horezu Monastery (1993), (5) The villages with fortified churches in Transylvania (1993), (6) The Dacian Fortresses from the Orastie Mountains (1999), (7) The historical centre of Sighisoara (1999) and (8) The wooden churches from Maramureș (1999). Regarding Romania, there is also an indicative list, completed in 2017 by the National Institute of Heritage, which includes 18 cultural sites and a natural one [1].…”

“…Studies in recent years concerning the management of heritage structures highlight that heritage management must be approached from a multi and interdisciplinary point of view, thus highlighting its holistic nature [7]. Still, they also bring forward that heritage management is not only connected to the preservation of the tangible and intangible value of the site but should also involve local communities [8].…”