Page 1

Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage

Sebastian Schröder-Esch

Introduction: considering cultural heritage Abstract This opening article provides a concise introduction to the subject of this book and an overview of the structure and topics covered. The central issues covered in this book are outlined in a series of nine hypotheses: - The term heritage is becoming ever more popular, its meaning less and less clear - Heritage doesn’t exist, heritage is made - Heritage is made in the present, not in the past - All heritage is cultural - All heritage is intangible - Heritage is not all-embracing, it is selective - No heritage is without a specific purpose - Heritage can be uncomfortable and unpleasant - Heritage is not solely a cultural resource, but (potentially) also an economic resource Finally, the aims of this volume and its content and structure will be explained briefly, together with a introduction to each of the contributions.

1

What’s in a word? – Nine hypotheses on cultural heritage

The first thing one might expect to find in the introduction to a volume on the practical dimensions of cultural heritage is a clear definition of what “heritage” actually is. To be clear from the outset, the topic of heritage is such that neither this introduction nor the authors’ contributions that follow are able to provide an unequivocal definition. What this introduction can do, is provide an outline of the central topic of this book and so help to communicate an understanding of the central issues, concepts and common denominators that are discussed in the contributions in this volume. The following nine short considerations are intended to help outline the conceptual principles of heritage and the issues and problems involved when dealing with heritage. An explanation of the aims and structure of this volume follow, together with a short introduction to each of the contributions.



Translation from German: Julian Reisenberger.




Sebastian Schröder-Esch: Introduction

The term heritage is becoming ever more popular, its meaning less and less clear

In recent years the use of the term heritage has become increasingly fashionable. It has quite obviously become “trendy” to talk of heritage in the most varied of contexts. This specific reference to our past is particularly common in the area of tourism: tourist information brochures around the world praise the (apparent) importance of local heritage as ‘must-see’ locations. Throughout Europe, conspicuous brown signs along the motorway signal their presence. The term heritage also enjoys widespread use in other areas of public life: if one were to note all occurrences of the term, the list would include all manner of educational initiatives, historic research, regional geography etc. as well as, more interestingly, increasing use in documents and strategies for regional development and planning at several levels – not least that of the European Union.  This ‘trend’ does not help clarify the semantic precision of the term “heritage”. For every attempt to define heritage more precisely, numerous ambiguous and blurred uses of the term occur elsewhere.  One should note that in almost all circumstances, it is very rare to find an explanation as to what heritage actually applies to. However, this is perhaps the secret of its success: it is precisely because everyone can point to heritage without having to define what they mean, and because everyone understands something under the term heritage, that its use has become so popular. It is not necessary to go into any further detail (or for that matter critical reflection). →

Heritage doesn’t exist, heritage is made

Leaving aside semantic fuzziness for a moment, how should we best imagine heritage? Does heritage mean objects that we have inherited from our predecessors? If that is the case, our role would be purely that of the passive recipient. We would have no influence over the condition and import of what we have inherited or over its value. This does not seem plausible. Instead of this rather essentialist understanding of heritage, i.e. where specific artefacts have some kind of intrinsic special quality which transmits through the course of history, and is subjected to a linear progression of historic events, heritage can alternatively be understood as a construct. In principle, heritage can be seen as a meaning accorded to selected artefacts or circumstances as part of the ongoing discursive process of societal negotiation. “Heritage” is therefore not a stable property that is intrinsic to a particular thing – it is something that can be ascribed (given) or something that can be denied (removed). The question as to which historical

Interest in heritage has also increased steadily across a wide variety of academic disciplines since the 1990s, resulting in a marked increase in publications and events concerning heritage. In this respect, it would be of interest to ascertain exactly what relationship the increased use of the term “heritage” has to the other aforementioned areas of public life.

The German suffix “Erbe” is used in many different ways and contexts. Related terms, which are often arise in conjunction with the concept of heritage (and are also used inconsistently) include: patrimony, legacy, inheritance/disinheritance, history, past, preservation/conservation, monument, cultural property, memorial, memory/remembrance/commemoration (and forgetting!), museum/museumification (“musealisation”), mummification, fossilisation etc.

Obviously, this is not meant as a blanket statement – there are always exceptions. I am referring here to (and criticising) a general impression.










Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage

events and artefacts and which traditions and customs fall within the category of “heritage” (and which don’t – see below), as well as how they are to be interpreted can never be answered comprehensively. Dealing with heritage is dependent upon a large number of cultural factors and is subject to continually changing circumstances. What we can affirm, is that “heritage” is a process of ascribing importance, i.e. one of signification. →

Heritage is made in the present, not in the past

So, if heritage is a construct, a new question arises: how much of heritage can be attributed to the past and how much to the present (not to mention the future)? As discussed above, heritage can be seen as a way of dealing with the past (and at the same time an interpretation of the past), not in the sense of a singular aspect or event in the past but rather the process of being past. As a result heritage is always and inevitably subject to change. Both temporal dimensions of heritage can be integrated by imagining the construct of heritage as a process that takes part in the respective present and explicitly refers to times past. This notion suggests that heritage is above all present-centred – a condition that is often forgotten, or at least not sufficiently considered. In this respect, the future can be considered from the point of view that the potential heritage of the future will draw upon what we are currently creating – i.e. in today’s present, or the past of the future. The inter-relationship of these temporal dimensions is often applied normatively: the memory of specific historical events (and what they teach us) must be preserved for generations to come. →

All heritage is cultural

A common assumption is that heritage can be categorised in two groups: cultural heritage and natural heritage. Occasionally a further subdivision, cultural landscape, is used which encompasses elements of both natural and cultural heritage. In the context of the above deliberations on the concept of heritage, it appears that such differentiations have only limited meaning and legitimacy. If, as discussed earlier, we are distancing ourselves from the essentialist view of heritage (and of society and culture in general) in favour of a ‘culturalist’ viewpoint, i.e. heritage as the construction and negotiation of meaning, then all heritage is cultural per se. We are concerned here with representation, i.e. knowledge that is the product of discourse, knowledge whose content is subject to continual change over time. Suitable subdivisions can only sensibly be applied to the phenomena to which the attribute ‘heritage’ is applied (or not as the case may be). Admittedly it does make a difference whether a building is considered as heritage, e.g. in the sense  

 

Csáky and Sommer (2005) speak of heritage as a “socio-cultural practice”. The term “the past” is somewhat difficult, as it implies the (prior) existence of a single, objective past. In reality “the past” cannot be objectively experienced – it is itself a construct informed by culture and as such is subject to change. According to another saying, heritage is “the memory of the future”. Borley (2003: 104) cites Simon Schama’s discussion of the cultural essence of nature and landscape in “Landscape and Memory”: “(...) although we are accustomed to separate nature and human perception into two realms, they are in fact indivisible. Before it can even be a repose for the senses, landscape is a work of the mind. Its scenery is built up as much from strata of memory as it is from layers of rock”.




Sebastian Schröder-Esch: Introduction

of a historic monument, or a so-called natural landscape. Differentiation can therefore be useful, particularly when considering ways of dealing with and caring for whatever it may be that has been accorded heritage status. →

All heritage is intangible

A similar train of thought can be used to approach the differentiation between tangible and intangible (spiritual) heritage, a differentiation that has recently become ever more prevalent, not least as a consequence of the UNESCO. However, according to our deliberations, every form of heritage is intangible, as it is first and foremost derived from cultural knowledge. Again, as with the (erroneous) opposition of natural and cultural heritage discussed above, the differentiation is better made between the objects of signification. By way of example: a piece of classical music has a different materiality from the concert hall in which it is played. If both are to be determined to be part of our heritage, then this is an expression of a particular idea or attitude that we connect with these things, i.e. an intangible phenomenon.10 →

Heritage is not all-embracing, it is selective

A common assumption, conscious or subconscious, is that “the heritage” implies the existence of a clearly defined and more or less complete or intact collection of material artefacts or handed-down knowledge. However, in the context of our deliberations on heritage, this is not tenable as it disregards the notion of heritage as a construct. In fact, an essential aspect of the notion of a construct is the aspect of selection. Ashworth notes that “heritage planning and management (...) inevitably involves selection: choice inevitably implies foregoing other non-selected alternatives.”11 And Kieniewicz remarks: “If we accept that culture is the sum total of information produced by the generations (...), then heritage is the part deemed essential to the existence of bonds and the definition of identity. In such an understanding, not everything that remains after previous generations (...) is our heritage. (...) Heritage is thus not so much what has been left to us as it is the part chosen and acknowledged as one’s own and as needed in the work of one’s own nature.”12 When dealing with cultural heritage in practice, all actors should be aware that heritage is always a “matter of selection and acceptance”13, and that with the declaration and care of particular aspects of our history as heritage, other ‘potential heritage’ may necessarily be neglected or even ignored. The result



The term ‘intangible heritage’ is used increasingly. Purchla (2005: 59) remarks: “Heritage is memory, choice and identity – hence the recent rapid increase in the importance of non-material heritage”.

Ashworth (2003): 109. The author differentiates between heritage and preservation with regard to the respective selection criteria: In the case of preservation they are “intrinsic, immutable and objectively deduced” (or claim/wish to be), in the case of heritage they appear “extrinsic, changeable and subjectively deduced”.

12

Kieniewicz (2003): 86.

13

Tomaszewski (2003): 133; “It is not all the things that the past generations have left us, but what we want to accept of it and what we want to take responsibility for. No one forces anybody to accept a bequest, especially if inheritance tax has to be paid on it.”

10

11

10

See the UNESCO “Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage” from 2003 (http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=16429&URL_DO=DO_ TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html).


Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage

of this selection process is that a certain view of the past arises nolens volens, a view which begs justification. Ideally actors in the field of cultural heritage should disclose their reasons and criteria for the declaration of certain aspects of history as heritage to the public in general – and if not public, then at least be sure of their reasons themselves. → No heritage is without a specific purpose If one accepts the notion of heritage as a process of selective perception, negotiation and interpretation of history from the viewpoint of the present, the question arises as to which actors are responsible: who decides which aspects of “the past” are deemed important, which history and stories are to be told and how they are to be interpreted? Likewise, what are the decisive motives behind the selection? The hypothesis here is that the construction of heritage is never independent of motives, but that it always serves the safeguarding of interests and pursuit of particular aims. An awareness of this, assuming one subscribes to this opinion, has a number of important consequences, not least in a normative sense: all those involved in dealing with heritage should act credibly, i.e. be aware of and able to explain the motivations and aims behind their activities. An involvement with heritage for its own sake is neither credible nor sufficiently legitimate, particularly in times of limited public finances and the potentially contestable nature of the concept of heritage. →

Heritage can be uncomfortable and unpleasant

Given the numerous references to heritage, cultural or otherwise, in the tourism branch or in urban or regional marketing, one could be forgiven for assuming that heritage concerns only the favourable and harmonious testaments to a past commonly perceived as the “good old days”. In the first instance, these are of course image campaigns which aim primarily to create an attractive impression with a view to commercial exploitation of the heritage in question. A more critical or profound reflection on the past and its meaning for today is unfortunately seldom the case, although this should not come as a surprise. However, in our context – a non-commercial and academic interest in heritage – it should be noted that communal heritage can also encompass less pleasant aspects. In its most extreme form this includes the so-called “heritage of atrocity” (Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2000) but in almost all cases less extreme negative aspects of heritage become evident upon closer serious inspection. It is not difficult to understand the lack of attention given to such aspects by the heritage industry, perhaps with the exception of museums on war or torture. However, given this tendency it is all the more important that the uncomfortable or even unpleasant aspects of history are not neglected. →

Heritage is not solely a cultural resource, but (potentially) also an economic resource

Building upon our previous considerations, heritage can be viewed as a resource that can be utilised by different actors in society. Of particular importance is that the use of heritage as a resource need not solely be cultural in

11


Sebastian Schröder-Esch: Introduction

nature but can also be utilised effectively to pursue political as well as economic aims.14 Purchla states: “heritage is not only the sum of the preserved historic objects within an area. On the one hand it is symbolic dimension, connected with the interpretation of heritage as a sacrum, but on the other hand it is also a market product”.15 The differentiation between such aspects is commonly blurred and depends very much upon the specific viewpoints and interests of the respective actors. Given the widespread applicability (if not instrumentalisation) of heritage, how are decisions reached as to how best deal with existing heritage and its exploitation? We have already considered heritage as a process of selection and representation; add to this the question of primary objectives in the use of heritage as a resource, and tension and conflicts between the different stakeholders involved are inevitable.16 It is not uncommon to find that the use of heritage as an economic resource is often incompatible with cultural aims (e.g. conservation), or that the prioritisation of cultural or historic importance of heritage sites hinders its effective marketing.

2 The aims of this book This volume aims to examine and discuss the complex themes of cultural heritage from a variety of different perspectives. Common to all the contributions in this book is that they are all concerned with the issues and problems that result from practical involvement with cultural heritage. Individual authors have chosen to examine conceptual issues, others have concentrated more on aspects of practical implementation.17 Most of the specific examples and case studies presented in this book are from Central and Eastern Europe. As the title of the book suggests, the primary emphasis of the book as a whole is on aspects of the practical purpose-driven use of cultural heritage. This does not imply that cultural heritage, and everything that may fall under this term, should receive any less commitment from the state and society as a whole in order to maintain and preserve it for its own sake. The focus of this book is elsewhere: the contributions discuss the potential of heritage as a resource for other relevant aims and uses in society, as well as the effect of such revaluation or instrumentalisation on the substance of the heritage itself.18 A driving 14

This fact is of particular importance for the HERMES project, as it explicitly understands heritage as an active factor for development.

15

Purchla (2005): 22; elsewhere Purchla uses the term “commoditum” in opposition to “sacrum”. Evans (1999: 5/6) discusses the term “heritage industry” und notes that “in recent years there has been a tremendous interest in ‘representing the past’ through preservation and presentation of material artefacts (...). These displays and collections have a diversity of purposes – for public education, tourism, entertainment, as well as for memorabilia and oral and social history projects.”

The issue of different actors, interests and conflicts in dealing with heritage is a central topic of the third HERMES Symposium in June 2006. Contributions will be published in the second volume of the HERMES books.

The use of the term “practical implementation of heritage” is somewhat tautological, as according to Csáky and Sommer, heritage is itself already a socio-cultural practice. What is meant is the practical application of heritage concepts in tourist projects, cultural education etc. as opposed to the theoretical consideration of heritage.

The question of which word most appropriately describes the use of heritage was the subject of discussion during the second HERMES symposium. The word “utilisation” was viewed as being more commonly used to describe utilisation of waste products and deemed unsuitable in the context of culture; “activation” describes certain aspects of working with cultural

16

17

18

12


Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage

question behind many of the contributions is the question of how cultural heritage can best be used as a sustainable resource for regional development, i.e. not solely for short term exploitation but as an active factor in the balanced social and economic development of local and regional communities. In other words, it concerns the potential of the concept of cultural heritage in the context of regional and local development strategies as well as associated problems which arise in the tensions between commodification, commercialisation and the communication of cultural values and education. The authors’ contributions in this book represent a selection of different approaches and specific empirical examples from the wide field of practical involvement with cultural heritage – they cannot represent an exhaustive consideration of the topic as a whole. In addition to the issues considered, this publication also documents the work of the HERMES Project, an Interreg IIIB project funded by the European Union, in particular the work of the academic network.19 It contains author contributions presented at the second HERMES-symposium on the 28 th and 29 th October 2005 in Krakow, Poland entitled “Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage – promotion, utilization, and its consequences” or those that were subsequently submitted in writing. In addition to this publication in printed form, the results of the HERMES project are also available online via the Internet. All contributions will be made available free of charge on the project homepage (www.swkk.de/hermes) under the heading “Research”, in some cases together with digital recordings of the presentation from the symposium. Likewise, forthcoming contributions from the next symposia in 2006 will be made available in the same manner.

3 Content and structure of the book The structure of this book follows that of the main topic areas discussed in the second HERMES Symposium in Krakow, Poland. The individual contributions from the authors are grouped according to these headings. Part one: Conceptual considerations The book opens with an examination of conceptual considerations in the context of cultural heritage. In the first chapter “Heritage, culture and economy: the urban nexus”, Brian Graham (Belfast) conceptualises heritage as the meaning ascribed to the past in the respective present. Accordingly, heritage itself is conceptualised as the meanings attached to the past in the present and is regarded as a knowledge defined within social, political, cultural and economic contexts. The interrelationships between these aspects, especially between the economic and cultural uses of heritage are examined in the context of the urban realm, differentiating further between the external and internal city. heritage but not in its entirety; “valorisation” is not commonly used in English and when, then more often in another context. The term “revaluation” seems most suitable – it is neutral and expresses the value inherent in heritage. 19

For further information on the HERMES project, see the contribution in this volume by Sebastian Schröder-Esch and the project website: www.swkk.de/hermes.

13


Sebastian Schröder-Esch: Introduction

Kerstin Manz (Paris) discusses the topic of “World Heritage – from concept to implementation”. She describes the development and aims of the UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage as well as the most important aspects of its implementation. In particular the World Heritage List, the most visible implementation of the convention, is described and discussed in detail. Part two: (Re)presenting heritage The second part of this volume considers different forms of presentation and representation of heritage. When considering this topic one should be aware of a fundamental distinction: as discussed earlier heritage is per definitionem a certain representation of the past, but it can also be presented, or represented, in a variety of different ways. In both respects, the different possible aims and motives of the different stakeholders working with heritage play a key role in these considerations. In the first chapter of this section Giovanni Pinna (Milan) takes a critical look at the museum as a classical established institution concerned with cultural heritage and its role in promoting the cultural growth of the community. Taking the example of Italy, Pinna addresses “The intellectual organisation of museums” arguing that economic optimisation should not be undertaken blindly at the cost of the actual purpose of the museum. A key aspect, according to Pinna, is that the qualifications of the museum staff and curation should not overemphasise (marketing) managerial skills. Lars Wieneke, Tobias Weiß and Jens Geelhaar (Weimar) examine the context of the museum from a very different perspective: “Digitales Osmantinum: from concept to implementation” describes the concept and development of a digital museum guide system (dmgs) for the Wieland Museum in Oßmannstedt near Weimar. They discuss how best to integrate modern technology to support the curatorial concept and how this can be achieved as seamlessly as possible without compromising the authenticity of the location, the museum artefacts or intruding upon the museum visitors’ experience. By contrast, the third contribution in this section “Mental time machines: internalising heritage in action” by Łucja Piekarska-Duraj’ (Krakow) takes the discussion beyond the context of the museum and examines other forms of increasing awareness and interest in cultural heritage. Using projects from the region in and around Krakow in southern Poland, she describes two interactive approaches: teaching with heritage and the creation of visual representations of place as a joint product of residents and artists. Both cases actively encourage involvement of the local inhabitants to create and communicate a direct experience. Anja B. Nelle (Cottbus) examines a further aspect of the presentation and communication of cultural heritage. In “Mapping museality in world heritage towns: a tool to analyse conflicts between the presentation and utilisation of heritage” she compares tourist attractions and heritage sites with museums and comes to the conclusion that the ‘museumification’ of places can have significant consequences for the residents and the vitality of the place in question. She presents a method for analysing the degree of musealisation of heritage sites.

14


Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage

Part three: Heritage in the context of local and regional development The central question of this section, and indeed the entire HERMES project, is: to what degree can heritage (and culture in general) contribute to societal and economic development without negatively over-exploiting the heritage in question?20 In order to discuss the complex issue, it is necessary first to define what is meant by “development”. 21 A common conclusion among the articles in this section is the relatively recent opinion that local and regional development does not solely concern economic aspects but also encompasses social and general cultural dimensions; keywords such as “regional awareness” and “regional identity” spring to mind, as well as civil society and local commitment. These non-economic ‘soft’ factors are all too often neglected in public and political discussions, partly because they are difficult to quantify. In addition, the view described earlier that cultural heritage represents a (potential) economic resource is also the subject of ongoing debate. 22 Eva Kráľová (Bratislava) in her contribution entitled “Cultural traditions as an aspect of spatial planning and local development” examines a series of concrete examples from Slovakia. She argues that local cultural traditions can be an important factor for regional development, especially in an age of increasing globalisation, and that this should not be ignored in regional development concepts. The conservation of cultural variety at a local scale in all its different manifestations should be a central aim of regional planning throughout Europe. Also drawing upon examples from Eastern Europe, Monika A. Murzyn (Krakow) examines another perspective on the issue of local development in her contribution “New interpretations and commercialisation of heritage in Krakow after 1989”. She analyses how the dramatically changed context following the fundamental transformations since the end of communist times have effected the way in which cultural heritage is viewed, and describes the chances and dangers that can result from a primarily private-sector commercialisation of heritage. Citing the example of Jewish heritage in Krakow, she shows how a previously repressed heritage can be resurrected as a result of changing conditions; at the same time she points to a variety of problems and conflicts resulting from the new found enthusiasm for Jewish heritage. In “Defining and applying ‘heritage’ in the context of development issues. Experiences and impressions from the Interreg project HERMES”, Sebastian SchröderEsch (Weimar) considers both conceptual issues of heritage as well as their relevance for the practical activities of the HERMES project. He addresses the question of the suitability of the concept of heritage in general and in particular with a view to promoting local and regional development. He draws positive conclusions in both cases, with some reservations, and points to the difficulty of drawing and transferring generalised conclusions. 20

See for example Eser, Beaujean (2002) for further discussions on this topic.

21

The term “development” can have different connotations in different languages. In English, development can have a negative undertone, whereas the German word “Entwicklung” is strictly neutral. In the contributions in this volume, the term “development” is used on the whole in a neutral or positive sense, roughly equivalent to “growth”.

See for example Purchla (2005: 22): “The fact that culture is still seen as a non-productive sector in a way fans the flames of the conflict between what we define as heritage and what we define as development”.

22

15


Sebastian Schröder-Esch: Introduction

Part four: Heritage and tourism Tourism and holidaymaking are the most widespread and established forms of revaluating cultural heritage in a commercial context. Of particular interest in this volume is the area of cultural tourism (although difficult to define), which has experienced a shift from a previously elite interest area to a mainstream tourism phenomenon of considerable economic volume. 23 The actors in the tourism branch typically have a specific view of heritage: in a free-market economy, heritage is a resource that can be exploited for profit-seeking purposes. The effect such exploitation can have on the actual heritage or heritage site itself has been observed and discussed at length. 24 In addition to the physical ‘erosion’ of the heritage itself, e.g. the effect of large numbers of visitors on historic monuments, a specific problem arises as a result of the rapidly fluctuating trends in the tourism industry as well as the selective emphasis upon aspects of heritage that are particularly conducive to marketing. Piccinato remarks: “When historic cities and the tourist industry meet (...) it is the latter that sets the rules. Its economic muscle is too great and its power to divert its masses elsewhere too immediate. (...) It happens that the historic cities are transformed by the pressure exerted by tourism, often with astonishing speed, to conform to the image or stereotype the tourists bring with them, so that they can check, in the short time they have available, that the product corresponds to the description they have been given.”25 The four contributions of this last section of the book examine different issues in the area of “heritage and tourism”. Nevertheless, all the contributions regard the use of heritage for tourism as a chance that local and regional communities or those responsible for heritage protection should use. Justus H. Ulbricht (Weimar) draws upon the example of Weimar to discuss the question of competing interests in the use of heritage: “Business or cultural education? Ambivalent approaches to European cultural heritage”. How can a compromise be reached between both these areas, the commercial exploitation of heritage on the one hand and the preservation and communication of Weimar’s complex and manifold heritage as a cultural good on the other? He comes to the conclusion that in Weimar, these aims are often mutually exclusive but notes that some commendable approaches to combining culture with commerce are being undertaken. Célia Galeotti (Magdeburg) describes the Interreg IIIB-Project “Transromanica: the Trans-European Route of Romanesque Architecture”. Through the declaration and marketing of a trans-national thematic tourism route highlighting 23

Piccinato (2003): 128.

24

See for example Purchla (2005: 31-32) who however points to the chances offered by tourism: “Tourism, which to a large extent is rooted in the cultural context of heritage, is today – especially for our historic cities – both an opportunity and a threat. It also has the opportunity to become not only an important mechanism for the development of many centres, but also an effective instrument of protection. This, however, requires an integrated approach to the questions of cultural heritage, urban functions and market.”

Piccinato (2003): 128; see also Purchla (2005: 32). One of the conclusions of a congress of historic cities inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1995 was that “tourism should not be the dominant aspect of a city’s economy. The domination of tourism leads to excess and has many negative effects, even including the destruction of historical monuments” (cited in Purchla, 2005: 56-57).

25

16


Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage

the heritage of the Romanesque in Europe, the project aims both to stimulate tourism at a local level as well as to highlight common areas of identity across boundaries between regions and states. The contribution discusses the issues involved in coordinating activities and supporting marketing across a wide area and network of partners. A similar project is discussed in the contribution by Jana Laasch, Kerstin Greiling and Christoph Pienkoss (Berlin) entitled “The European Route of Brick Gothic. Activating cultural heritage for local and regional development”. Here too a thematic element from a particular epoch and style – in this case the brick gothic – serves to anchor individual historic monuments within a common heritage. Again the focus lies on how to best exploit the potential of heritage for the purposes of tourism in selected states in the Baltic region. A discussion of concrete case studies leads to a detailed examination of the problem of heritage activation, its possibilities and limitations. In the final contribution in this volume, Bertram Welker and Marie-Theres Albert (Cottbus) discuss the aims, contents and structure of a Master course for heritage professionals: “World Heritage Studies at the Brandenburg University of Technology – concepts and experiences”. Particular attention is given to the issue of the use of heritage for the purposes of tourism, and to the need for and relevance of heritage education as a field of study at university level.

Bibliography Anderson, Benedict (1991): Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised ed. (original ed. 1983), London etc.: Verso. Ashworth, G.J. (1998): The conserved European city as cultural symbol: the meaning of the text. - In: Graham, Brian (ed.): Modern Europe. Place, Culture and Identity. London: 261-286. Ashworth, Gregory J. (2003): Paradigms and Paradoxes in Planning the Past. - In: Purchla, Jacek (ed.): Central Europe: A New Dimension of Heritage. Kraków: 109-121. Borley, Lester (2003): To See Ourselves as Others See Us: Reflections on Cultural Identity. - In: Purchla, Jacek (ed.): Central Europe: A New Dimension of Heritage. Kraków: 101-107. Boswell, David; Evans, Jessica (eds; 1999): Representing the Nation: A Reader. Histories, heritage and museums. London etc.: Routledge. Csáky, Moritz; Sommer, Monika (eds; 2005): Kulturerbe als soziokulturelle Praxis. Innsbruck etc.: StudienVerlag (= Gedächtnis - Erinnerung Identität; 6).

17


Sebastian Schröder-Esch: Introduction

Deffner, Alex; Konstadakopulos, Dimitrios; Psycharis, Yannis (eds; 2003): Culture and Regional Economic Development in Europe. Cultural, political and social perspectives. Volos: University of Thessaly Press. Eser, Thiemo W.; Beaujean, Katja (2002): Kultur als räumlicher Entwicklungsfaktor im EUREK und in der transnationalen Zusammenarbeit unter INTERREG. - In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 2002 (4/5): 207-214. Evans, Jessica (1999): Introduction. Nation and representation. - In: Boswell, David; Evans, Jessica (eds): Representing the Nation: A Reader. Histories, heritage and museums. London etc.: 1-8. Graham, Brian (1998): The past in Europe‘s present: diversity, identity and the construction of place. - In: Graham, Brian (ed.): Modern Europe. Place, Culture and Identity. London: 19-49. Graham, Brian (ed.; 1998): Modern Europe. Place, Culture and Identity. London: Arnold. Graham, Brian; Ashworth, G.J.; Tunbridge, John E. (2000): A Geography of Heritage. Power, Culture & Economy. London: Arnold. Hall, Stuart (ed.; 2002): Representation. Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. 2nd ed., London etc.: Sage (= Culture, media and identities). Howard, Peter (2003): Heritage. Management, Interpretation, Identity. London etc.: Continuum, IX. Kieniewicz, Jan (2003): Standing at the Door: Reading the Heritage and Choosing the Affiliation. - In: Purchla, Jacek (ed.): Central Europe: A New Dimension of Heritage. Kraków: 81-92. Kunzmann, Klaus R. (2002): Kultur, Wirtschaft und Raumentwicklung. - In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 4/5.2002: 185-197. Piccinato, Giorgio (2003): Heritage Planning Around the World: Opportunities, Threats and Contradictions. - In: Purchla, Jacek (ed.): Central Europe: A New Dimension of Heritage. Kraków: 123-129. Purchla, Jacek (2003): Central Europe - A New Dimension of Heritage. In: Purchla, Jacek (ed.): Central Europe: A New Dimension of Heritage. Kraków: 7-9. Purchla, Jacek (2005): Heritage and Transformation. Kraków: International Cultural Centre in Cracow, Malopolska School of Public Administration at the Cracow University of Economics. Purchla, Jacek (ed.; 2003): Central Europe: A New Dimension of Heritage. Kraków: International Cultural Centre (= Yearly No. 13).

18


Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage

Tomaszewski, Andrzej (2003): Central Europe: Cultural Property and Cultural Heritage. - In: Purchla, Jacek (ed.): Central Europe: A New Dimension of Heritage. Kraków: 131-135. Tunbridge, John E. (1998): The question of heritage in European cultural conflict. - In: Graham, Brian (ed.): Modern Europe. Place, Culture and Identity. London: 236-260. Urry, John (1999): Gazing on history. - In: Boswell, David; Evans, Jessica (eds): Representing the Nation: A Reader. Histories, heritage and museums. London etc.: 208-232.

Author Sebastian Schröder-Esch, born 1972 in Göttingen (Germany), holds an M.A. degree in Geography, East European History and Slavic Studies from the Albert-Ludwig-University in Freiburg (Germany), and an M.E.S. degree (Master of European Studies) from the European Centre for Public Policy in Berlin (Germany). He is currently (2004–2006) working as an academic assistant on the Interreg project HERMES at the Bauhaus-University Weimar (Germany). His main research interests focus on political geography (especially Central & Eastern Europe), the politics of culture and identity, and on geographical aspects of European integration. Contact Bauhaus-University Weimar, Chair of Sociology and Social History of the City Weimar/Germany www.uni-weimar.de/urbanistik Further information is available from www.swkk.de/hermes E-mail: sebastian.schroeder@archit.uni-weimar.de or Schroeder-Esch@web.de

19

HERMES Volume 1 Schroeder-Esch 1  

HERMES publications, vol. 1 - Sebastian Schröder-Esch (1)