dc.contributor.author
Holtorf, Cornelius
dc.date.accessioned
2020-09-01T12:58:19Z
dc.date.available
2024-04-15T12:58:19Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/42903
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-42619
dc.description.abstract
Heritage futures are about the roles of heritage in managing the relations between present and future societies, e.g. through anticipation and planning. This topic has only rarely been addressed in the heritage sector and its literature (Högberg et al. 2017), although this is now changing (see especially Harrison et al. forthcoming; Holtorf and Högberg forthcoming a). It is surprising that critical heritage studies and heritage management are only now beginning to take seriously the consequences for the future of temporal variation in interpreting and using heritage. By now it has become widely accepted that key concepts of heritage management and interpretation such as ownership, authenticity, use and value are culturally specific and variable in space. But it has not yet been fully understood that they are also variable over time, with important consequences for the possible impacts of heritage on future societies and thus how we might best manage heritage today for the benefit of future generations (Holtorf and Kono 2015).
Recently, the archaeological anthropologist Lewis Borck (2018) presented a very interesting discussion of heritage practices as future-making, addressing exactly these questions. From his perspective, archaeology is political practice and should always acknowledge its political nature. Studying patterns in the selection of World Heritage sites in North America and the Caribbean as a case-study, Borck argues that “archaeologists use the past in the present to construct a history for the production of the future” (2018: 232). He links his discussion not only to current work on the politics of collective memory in relation to history, archaeology and heritage but also to a body of social theory including George W. Wallis’ sociological notion of chronopolitics and Mikhail M. Bakhtin’s concept of chronotopes, originally developed in literary theory (Borck 2018: 234-235). Borck is particularly interested in discussing patterns of constructing future history.
en
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subject
zukünftige Geschichte
de
dc.subject
Zukunftsgestaltung
de
dc.subject
Management von Kulturerbe
de
dc.subject
cultural heritage
en
dc.subject
future history
en
dc.subject
future-making
en
dc.subject
heritage management
en
dc.subject.ddc
900 Geschichte und Geografie::900 Geschichte::901 Geschichtsphilosophie, Geschichtstheorie
dc.title
Heritage Futures, Prefiguration and World Heritage
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dc.title.translated
Heritage Futures, Präfiguration und Welterbe
de
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.6105/journal.fka.2020.9.1
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
Forum Kritische Archäologie
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
Streitraum: Heritage Futures
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart
1
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend
5
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
9 (2020)
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.url
www.kritischearchaeologie.de
refubium.affiliation
Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
2194-346X