Cultural heritage management: power, values

and identity
Ana Pereira Roders"*
CHRISTINA LUKE & MORAG KERSEL. US cultural now encompasses not only experts and decision-
diplomacy and archaeology. Sofr power, hard heritage.makers but also otber stakebolder groups sucb as
xi-f-l69 pages, 5 tables. 2013. Abingdon: Routledge; owners, users, citizens, representatives of focus groups
978-0-415-64549-2 bardback 80. and investors.
ROBERT J. SHEPHERD & LARRY YU. Heritage Tbis dmocratisation is generally welcomed and
management, tourism, and governance in China. considered to mirror tbe role of cultural beritage in
contemporary society (De la Torre & Mason 2002).
xii-1-90 pages, 21 colour illustrations, 3 tables. 2013.
New York: Springer, 978-1-4614-6917-0 paperback It bas, bowever, also brougbt new opinions to tbe
$49.95. debate, otber 'cultural values' (Labadi 2007; Pereira
LABADI. UNESCO, cultural heritage and Roders 2007), wbicb bave increased tbe complexity of
Outstanding Universal Value. Value-based analyses cultural
of beritage management and prompted debate
amongst heritage scholars. The three books under
the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage
review bere are sensitive to tbese evolving concepts
Conventions. xi-|-191 pages, 10 b&w illustrations.
and eacb contributes critical analyses towards better
2013. Lanbam (MD): Altamira; 978-0-7591-2256-
understanding of heritage. In particular, they offer
7 bardback 51.95.
an outlook on cultural beritage management wbicb
Over recent decades, enables comparison between experiences in the USA,
tbe concept of 'ber- Cbina and tbe wider world.
itage' bas evolved
and expanded. From
predominantly cul-
tural and tangible,
beritage is now also Soft power, hard heritage
recognised as natu-
Christina Luke and Morag M. Kersel are academics
ral, mixed and intangible (Smitb 2006; Veldpaus etal.
based in the USA, witb training and experience in
2013). Tbe concept of'protection' bas also evolved,
arcbaeology and bistoric preservation in museums,
from an approach where beritage was largely isolated
cultural organisations and tbe US Department of
and objectified, avoiding cbange at all costs, to an
State. Tbeir fieldwork is global, witb case studies
approacb wbere beritage is multi-layered in cultural
in Latin America, tbe Eastern Mediterranean and
significance and a driver of sustainable development,
Africa. Tbeir sbared interests are cultural beritage
and where change is expected and management
policy, cultural diplomacy and legislation concerning
required (Jokilebto 1998; Teutnico & Matero 2003;
tbe management of arcbaeological artefacts and
Pereira Roders 2013).
cultural landscapes in international settings. In US
Tbe evolution of tbese concepts is refiected in cultural diplomacy and archaeology, Luke & Kersel
tbe increasingly diverse backgrounds of tbe experts contribute to tbe state-of-the-art in cultural heritage
involved in beritage studies, drawing from fields management with a critical analysis of the role
beyond tbe traditional disciplines of arcbaeology, of archaeological projects in fostering international
art bistory and arcbitecture. Similar change has relations and cultural diplomacy, taking the USA as a
bappened to cultural beritage management which case study.

Department ofthe Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, Vertigo Building, De Wielen, 5600
MB Eindhoven, the Netherlands (Email: a.r.pereira@bwk.tue.nl)
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
ANTIQUITY 88 (2014): 663-666 http://antiquity.ac.tik/ant/088/ant0880663.btm
663
 Review
Luke & Kersel consider US arcbaeology abroad a 'sofi'
tool for international cultural diplomacy, officially
Operationalised but seldom studied. Tbey bridge
tbeoretical and empirical arguments, to demonstrate
tbis relationsbip atid provide rieb illustrative examples
of bow US arcbaeology abroad bas acted to tbe benefit
of US cultural diplomacy. Even if critical, Luke &
Kersel remain optimistic. Tbey bigbligbt tbe role of
tbe varied UNESCO Conventions and operational
guidelines, but also specific tools sucb as tbe
UNESCO Database of National Cultural Heritage
Laws. Tbe main conclusions bigbligbt tbe lack of
cooperation between public and private partners
and intra-national activities. Tbey also suggest a
bandful of remarkable strengtbs wbere arcbaeology
and cultural beritage programmes could assist cultural
diplomacy, sucb as cross-collaboration, enjoyment,
flexibility, creativity and adaptabilitya contribution
to a 'smart' cultural diplomacy tbat strategically
balances 'bard' witb 'soft:' powers. Togetber, Luke &
Kersel bave defined and explored a new aspect of
beritage; tbeir work will stimulate furtber researcb
on tbe interaction between field arcbaeologists and
government.
Managing the past to serve the
present
Also based in tbe USA, Robert J. Sbepberd and
Liang (Larry) Yu are academics witb training and
experience in political science atid bistory, cultural assess assumptions about tbe distinctiveness and
studies and tourism. Tbeir fieldwork is in Asia,
primarily Cbina. In tbeir book, tbey cross-examine
tbe political, economic and social processes of culturalctiltural diversity over sameness. Significant attention
beritage management in Cbina, as well as exploring
bow tbese processes impact on local communities.
Heritage management, tourism, and governance in interpretations of global concepts sucb as civilisation
China is part of tbe 'Springer briefs in arcbaeological and civil society.
beritage management' series edited by Douglas
Comer, Helaine Silverman and Willem Willems,
in conjunction witb tbe ICOMOS International
Committee on Arcbaeological Heritage Management.
Tbe series addresses critical contemporary cballenges
and illustrates pioneering work in arcbaeological
beritage management, taking a broad interpretation
of tbe concepts of arcbaeology, beritage and policy.
Sbepberd & Yu provide a critical evaluation of
cbanging visions of tbe management of tangible
ctJtural beritage assets in Cbina over tbe past
two decades. Tbe narrative is embedded in a
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
contextual review, going back to tbe Zbou Dynasty,
constructed to clarify tbe transformation in cultural
beritage management from Maoist socialism to global
neoliberalism. Tbis narrative evolves from Mao's
dictum to "make tbe past serve tbe present and
make foreign tbings serve Cbina (guwei jinyong)"
(p. 15).
Sbepberd & Yu explain tbe ratification of tbe
UNESCO World Heritage Convention by tbe
Cbinese government in 1985 and subsequent
integration of cultural beritage management into
tbe national Five-Year Plans. Accordingly, cultural
beritage assets bave become economic resources
exploitable for tourism and political resources
wbicb can build patriotism and contribute to tbe
modernisation of Cbina. Sbepberd & Yu argue
tbat tbe modern Cbinese perspective on cultural
beritage management is rooted in tbe combination
of two dictums: tbe Buddbist focus on intangible
beritage and tbe Maoist focus on material growtb.
Tbey note, bowever, tbat tbe impact of tbese two
dictums on beritage management, affecting cultural
and natural resources, bas only recently begun
to be critically questioned. Tbey draw attention
to different attitudes towards autbenticity and
imitations, comparing Cbinese and Western ('Euro-
American') perspectives, to illustrate and argue tbe
validity of global perspectives in cultural beritage
management.
Sbepberd & Yu also investigate ctxltural beritage
management during an era of globalisation to
bomogeneity of norms and values sbared at
community and global levels, and tbe empbasis on
is given to explaining tbe role of local communities
in cultural beritage management, as well as Cbinese
Tbe conclusions note tbe unique opportunity
to use Cbina as an experimental laboratory of
ctiltural beritage management as a result of tbe
tmprecedented speed of decision-making, rapid
economic development and tbe restilting impact on
cultural beritage assets, botb tangible and intangible.
Sbepberd & Yu bigbligbt tbe need to deepen
discussion about wbat to protect, bow to protect it,
and wbo sbould be involved. Tbey urge a stronger
role botb for local communities and for experts
in national decision-making concerning cultural
beritage management.
664
 Review
UNESCO Heritage Conventions
and cultural values
Sophia Labadi is an academic based in tbe UK,
with training and experience bridging political
sciences, cultural beritage studies and arcbaeology in
academic institutions and regional and international
organisations. Interested in topics ranging ftom
migration, museums, heritage regeneration and
development, Labadi is best known for her pioneering
work bridging cultural beritage management
and globalisation, where UNESCO Heritage
Conventions and cultural values play a crucial role.
In UNESCO, cultural heritage, and Outstanding
Universal Value, Labadi contributes to undetstanding
of cultural heritage management with a critical
analysis of the two International Conventions
developed by UNESCO concerning the protection
of cultural and natural heritage. The 1972 World
Heritage Convention and 2003 Intangible Cultural
Heritage Convention ate compared tbrougb a mixed
metbodology, combining close analysis of UNESCO
policy with observations made during key UNESCO
meetings and in-depth case studies from Asia, Europe
and Latin America.
Labadi questions the role of globalisation in cultutal
betitage management, departing ftom the assumption
that the UNESCO World Heritage Convention
is Eurocentric and dominated by a European
interpretation of cultural heritage. She also challenges
the 'neo-colonialist' interpretation of the World
Heritage Convention noting that its implementation
and the nominations of national heritage properties
for World Heritage designation are voluntary and led
by autonomous States Parties.
Labadi analyses the official narratives presented by
States Parties to the World Heritage Convention
systematically, with in-depth consideration of 114
nomination dossiers, in search of subversions of domi-
nant values and their interpretation over time, ftamed
within national constructions of the past, and aligned
to key concepts, such as tourism, development,
sustainability, intangible heritage and authenticity.
Labadi also discusses ctucial trends such as the
petsistence of intrinsic values in official narratives, as
well as tbe important role of the formal discipline
of heritage preservation. Notions of truth and
credibility are considered to influence how values are
endorsed by fellow experts, decision-makers and local
communities. She highlights the imbalance between
665
intrinsic and relativistic values, denoting a tendency
to underline the tangible dimension of beritage,
when intangibility seems to play a crucial role in its
protection and vice versa. Labadi stresses the patadox
in respecting both representativeness and selectivity
within a single designation: the World Heritage Site.
The principal conclusions take an historic perspective,
looking back over the past 40 years and noting the
contribution of the UNESCO Convention to date
as well as deliberation on what it could become if
ftilly implemented. The departute from a nationalistic
approach, tbe match in notions and definitions be-
tween countries, the reduction of diversity in decision-
making around heritage management, and tbe inter-
relation between the World Heritage Convention and
the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention are a
few of the many inspiring recommendations Labadi
presents both to scholars and practitioners.
An outlook on cultural heritage
management
All three books are direct contributions to cultural
heritage management, each one adding innovative
thoughts to the existing body of knowledge: Luke
& Kersel explore the role of US fieldwotk overseas
on international cultural diplomacy; through Chinese
heritage. Shepherd & Yu open a new perspective
on understanding heritage concepts globally; and
Labadi explores how the two UNESCO Conventions
have been interpreted by States Parties in their
nomination dossiers. Together, these books emphasise
the important role of UNESCO and its conventions
both for heritage management and heritage studies.
They not only contribute to the definition of
common ground, exchanging best practice and
sharing resources but also to increasing awareness,
reducing stereotyping and improving understanding
about tbe diversity of values.
Arguments are presented for and against different
concepts: Western and non-Western, tangible and
intangible. The evidence-based approaches adopted
by the authors, building critical analyses of
policies and events, has permitted futthet steps
to be taken in understanding these concepts:
their differences, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats. Nonetheless, questions remain, for
example siurrounding distinctions between Western
and non-Western perspectives: are these differences
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
 Review
behavioural, reflecting tradition- and innovation-led
societies, independent of their territories?
These three pioneering contributions help us to
understand archaeology in its societal context,
strengthening existing knowledge and building new
bridges with other disciplines. Together they offer
a new perspective on heritage, its definitions and
management; they speak not only to other scholars of
heritage, but also to organisarions and governments
involved in heritage management and of wider
international cultural diplomacy.
References
D E LA TORRE, M . & R. MASON. 2002. Introduction, in
M. De la Torre (ed.) Assessing the values ofcultural
heritage. Research report. 3. Los Angeles (GA): Getty
Conservation Institute.
JOKILEHTO, J. 1998. International trends in historic
preservation: from ancient monuments to living
cultures. APT Bulletin 29(3/4): 17-19.
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
666
LABADI, S. 2007. Representations ofthe nation and
cultural diversity in discourses on Wodd Heritage.
Journal of Social Archaeology 7: 147-70.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469605307077466
PEREIRA RODERS, A. 2007. Re-architecture: lifespan
rehabilitation of built heritage. Eindhoven:
Eindhoven University of Technology.
- 2013. Lessons from island of Mozambique on limits
of acceptable change, in R. van Oers (ed.) Swahili
historic urban landscapes: 41-50. Paris: UNESGO.
SMITH, L. 2006. The uses of heritage. London:
Routledge.
TEUTNICO, M.T. & E MATERO. 2003. Managing
change: sustainable approaches to the conservation of
the built environment. Los Angeles (GA): Getty
Gonservation Institute.
VELDPAUS, L., A . PEREIRA RODERS & B.
GOLENBRANDER. 2013. Urban heritage: putting the
past into the future. The Historic Fnvironment:
Policy & Practice 4: 18-33. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1179/1756750513Z.00000000022
Copyright of Antiquity is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.