Transnational turns for archaeological heritage: From conservation to development, governments to governance

Samuels, Kathryn Lafrenz

doi:10.1080/00934690.2016.1174031

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The search for institutional innovations in climate governance is the rationale for this study to develop a CCRS for WHS. More broadly, heritage resources and heritage practices increasingly cross national borders, underscoring the need for the further development of heritage management paradigms within transnational frameworks [39,71].…”

Section: Discussion: Climate Communication Recognition Schemes As a Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The growth of the World Heritage List to over 1100 sites also tracks a sea change in heritage management in global contexts more broadly, from management models built around preservation and conservation to those built around economic development [39,40]. Conservation and development have been two sides of the same coin since at least the 1940s, with the rise of international cooperation over heritage resources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Ecolabel for the World Heritage Brand? Developing a Climate Communication Recognition Scheme for Heritage Sites

Samuels

Platts

2020

Climate

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study develops a climate communication recognition scheme (CCRS) for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites (WHS), in order to explore the communicative power of heritage to mobilize stakeholders around climate change. We present this scheme with the aim to influence site management and tourist decision-making by increasing climate awareness at heritage sites and among visitors and encouraging the incorporation of carbon management into heritage site management. Given the deficits and dysfunction in international governance for climate mitigation and inspired by transnational environmental governance tools such as ecolabels and environmental product information schemes, we offer “climate communication recognition schemes” as a corollary tool for transnational climate governance and communication. We assess and develop four dimensions for the CCRS, featuring 50 WHS: carbon footprint analysis, narrative potential, sustainability practices, and the impacts of climate change on heritage resources. In our development of a CCRS, this study builds on the “branding” value and recognition of UNESCO World Heritage, set against the backdrop of increasing tourism—including the projected doubling of international air travel in the next 15–20 years—and the implications of this growth for climate change. The CCRS, titled Climate Footprints of Heritage Tourism, is available online as an ArcGIS StoryMap.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Climate Communication Recognition Schemes As a Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Ecolabel for the World Heritage Brand? Developing a Climate Communication Recognition Scheme for Heritage Sites

Samuels

Platts

2020

Climate

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meskell 2012aMeskell , 2015Meskell , 2016Meskell , 2018Brumann 2014aBrumann , 2017Bertacchini et al 2016;Brown et al 2019;Hølleland and Wood 2019). Researchers have also highlighted how the holy grail of socio-economic development is changing the values of heritage beyond UNESCO (Silberman 2014), and how institutions like the World Bank are defining archaeological heritage management globally (Samuels 2016(Samuels , 2019. By cultivating such a dual gaze, studying up can contribute to more balanced descriptions of what makes contemporary heritage regimes "tick".…”

Section: What Is the Point Of Studying Up?mentioning

confidence: 99%

How (Not) to “Study Up”: Points and Pitfalls When Studying International Heritage Regimes

Hølleland

Niklasson

2020

Journal of Field Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeological fieldwork is no longer what it used to be. Over the last decades archaeologists have begun to "study up". Approaching regional, national and international heritage regimes, they have empirically scrutinized how institutions and people in positions of influence shape what will count as "our common past" tomorrow. This has paved the way for a deeper and more nuanced understanding of contemporary heritage governance. It has also meant stepping onto a minefield of ethical and methodological challenges that archaeologists are often unprepared for. In this article we address some of the points and pitfalls of investigating international heritage regimes, starting from our own experiences studying UNESCO and the EU and putting them in conversation with the experiences of other scholars studying up. By reflecting on the reasons for studying up, and discussing the hands-on challenges of access, anonymity, and research reception, we aim to promote a stronger and more transparent tradition of studying up in archaeology.

show abstract

“…Income from visitors and tourists is vital for local communities in some of the European sections of the Roman frontier. Before the recent military and political difficulties, tourism also acted as a crucially important source of income for communities living close to the well-known Classical monuments of the southern and eastern Mediterranean regions (Mattingly, 2011: 70–1; Lafrenz Samuels & Totten, 2012: 22–3; Mattingly et al, 2013: 92–93).…”

Section: Bordering Migration and The Values Of Roman Frontiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The extension of World Heritage Site status to the other European sections of the Frontiers of the Roman Empire is pioneering a transnational approach to celebrate cultural encounter and the connective aspects of borders in both the ancient past and the contemporary age. These activities call on a broader range of values derived from the Roman Empire than those of colonialism and imperialism (see Lafrenz Samules & Totten, 2012: 23), including ideas of mobility and cultural integration. Breeze and colleagues, in a study of the Roman frontiers in Slovakia, have noted that: ‘The very commonality of Roman frontiers demands that they are treated as a single monument.…”

Section: Bordering Migration and The Values Of Roman Frontiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontiers and Mobilities: The Frontiers of the Roman Empire and Europe

Hingley

2017

Eur. j. archaeol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses questions relating to the 'Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site' and seeks to introduce into this initiative some concepts derived from recent writings on contemporary mobilities and bordering, exploring the possibility of creating greater engagement between the two academic fields of 'border studies' and 'Roman Frontier Studies'. By examining the relationship between the Roman Frontiers initiative and the European Union's stated aims of integration and the dissolution of borders, it argues in favour of crossing intellectual borders between the study of the present and the past to promote the value of the Roman frontiers as a means of reflecting on contemporary problems facing Europe. This article considers the potential roles of Roman Frontier Studies in this debate by emphasizing frontiers as places of encounter and transformation.

show abstract

Transnational turns for archaeological heritage: From conservation to development, governments to governance

Cited by 17 publications

References 69 publications

An Ecolabel for the World Heritage Brand? Developing a Climate Communication Recognition Scheme for Heritage Sites

An Ecolabel for the World Heritage Brand? Developing a Climate Communication Recognition Scheme for Heritage Sites

How (Not) to “Study Up”: Points and Pitfalls When Studying International Heritage Regimes

Frontiers and Mobilities: The Frontiers of the Roman Empire and Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About