Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective

Foreword

Foreword Being in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Southampton in the early 1980s was exciting. Peter Ucko had arrived as the new professor and department head and had immediately set about dramatically revising the curriculum, introducing new topics and ideas, moving the subject on from a fascinating academic discipline to one that is vibrant, exciting, and, crucially, socially important and relevant. Within a few years we were deep in the organization of, what turned out to be, the First World Archaeological Congress (WAC-1), a meeting that most now accept changed dramatically the world of archaeology and heritage management. WAC-1 was based around themes that broke down academic, chronological , and geographic boundaries, allowing colleagues from around the world to debate with each other on an equal footing. For me, one of the most important and relevant topics discussed was public archaeology and cultural resource management, organized in a series of sessions by Henry Cleere, then the director of the Council for British Archaeology. Cleere had never let his potentially restricting title and role as director for British archaeology get in his way of globetrotting, and he traveled, in particular at that time to other parts of Europe and the United States, forging links and seeing how different countries dealt with managing their heritage. Others had worked on heritage management in their own countries, working within their own legal frameworks—one immediately thinks of Charles McGimsey and Hester Davis—but in these sessions came a rallying cry to do more, to compare and contrast, and to learn from each other. One of the things that had come out of Cleere’s travels was, in 1984, the publication of Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage—the first published attempt to compare and contrast heritage management in more than one country. The volume certainly influenced the topic’s inclusion within the WAC-1 program, and the sessions Cleere organized resulted in the publication of Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World (1989), the ninth volume of the One World Archaeology series; this volume built upon and broadened the approach and coverage contained in his Approaches of 1984. Sitting in those lecture theaters in Southampton in 1986 and listening to the wide range of experts Cleere had gathered together was little less than a life- xi Foreword changing experience for me. The speakers confirmed that I had found the area of archaeology in which I wanted to specialize. They showed that there were other people who understood that the issues were important, that there were other people who cared, not just about the stories held within sites that could be unlocked by archaeological investigation, but also about the relevance of those sites to the present and the future. In his preface to the pre-circulated papers for the WAC-1, Cleere indicated that he hoped the papers would “serve to demonstrate the diversity of problems confronting cultural resource management archaeologists and provide an opportunity to compare and contrast the efficacy of the solutions adopted.” They did that and so much more. However, the world has moved on significantly since the 1980s. For example, few could have predicted the enormous success of the World Heritage Convention , not only in creating an impressive, increasingly representative, list of sites with so-called outstanding universal value but also, and perhaps more importantly , in championing the improved management of World Heritage sites. This has led generally to improved management of large parts of the wider cultural heritage across the globe. Much of this improvement stems from understanding that there are a wide range of frequently conflicting interests affecting the cultural heritage. Working for English Heritage (the government’s advisor on all heritage matters) in the 1980s and 1990s, I was struck by the speed of change: from site management based around a quinquennial architectural review of monuments (effectively how to ensure that the historic remains continued to stand for a further five years), to a far more comprehensive style of management. This wider view recognized the importance of a much larger range of professional interests than just those of the specialist archaeologist or architect—for the first time including, as almost equals, those professionals concerned with education, interpretation, and visitor management. Cleere’s focus in 1984 in Approaches had been on the legal instruments available to protect the heritage: a heritage essentially identified, ranked in importance , controlled, and managed by archaeologists and architects. Discussions at WAC-1 and since have altered that focus: now the question...