INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCLG209
Heritage, Globalisation and Development
Course Handbook
TERM2 2015-16
15 Credits
Moodle site: https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=9106
Turnitin Class ID: 2971100
Turnitin Password: IoA1516
Course Co-ordinator: Rodney Harrison (IoA Room 605)
r.harrison@ucl.ac.uk
Above: Fragments of the Berlin Wall conserved in situ. Photograph by Rodney Harrison.
1
UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
TERM TWO 2015-16
ARCLG209: HERITAGE, GLOBALISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Course Coordinator: Dr. Rodney Harrison
Contact: r.harrison@ucl.ac.uk
With guest speakers where announced
Teaching Assistants
Yunci Cai, yunci.cai.13@ucl.ac.uk
Paul Tourle, paul.tourle.10@ucl.ac.uk
Constance Wyndham, c.wyndham.11@ucl.ac.uk
Support with assignment work
Georgios Alexopoulos, georgios.alexopoulos@ucl.ac.uk
Lectures are held on Tuesdays at 4-6pm in IoA Room 612.
Seminars will be held in one-hour sessions on Wednesdays (10-11am, 11-12am, 12-1pm,
1-2pm, 2-3pm, 3-4pm) in B13 [Basement floor, IoA] OR Taviton (14) 128 OR Taviton (16)
535. Students will choose a one hour slot at the beginning of Term.
Group Site Visits will be held on Mondays in weeks 2, 4 and 8 at times and places
agreed within your seminar groups.
2
Weekly Lecture/Seminar Schedule Spring Term 2016
Week 1
Lecture 1 (12/1): Heritage and Globalisation
Seminar 1 (13/1): An introduction to interdisciplinary methodologies for
heritage research
Week 2
Lecture 2 (19/1): Heritage and Development: ‘Paired Opposites’? (Guest
Lecturer: Professor Mike Rowlands, UCL)
Seminar 2 (20/1): An introduction to participant observation and heritage
ethnography
Week 3
Lecture 3 (26/1): Current Issues in Heritage Management: Development and
Participation (Guest Lecturer: Sarah May, IoA, UCL)
Seminar 3 (27/1): Discourse analysis
Week 4
Lecture 4 (2/2): Mapping Heritage and Development Networks: From Global
to Local Perspectives (Guest Lecturer: Gai Jorayev, CAA, UCL)
Seminar 4 (3/2): Mapping and understanding heritage values
Week 5
Lecture 5 (9/2): Managing Islamic Values in Museums and Heritage (Guest
Lecturer: Trinidad Rico, Texas A&M Qatar)
Seminar 5 (10/2): Internet ethnography and digital methodologies
READING WEEK: Monday 15 February-Friday 19 February
No lectures or seminars
Week 6
Lecture 6 (23/2): Heritage and conflict - can the past heal the present?
(Guest Lecturer: Constance Wyndham, IoA, UCL)
Seminar 6 (24/2): Visual methods
Week 7
Lecture 7 (1/3): Global Markets and Illicit Trade: Development and
Exploitation (Guest Lecturer: Kathy Tubb, IoA, UCL)
Seminar 7 (2/3): Conducting interviews, surveys and audience research
Week 8
Lecture 8 (8/3): Current heritage developments in China (Guest Lecturer:
Professor Mike Rowlands, UCL)
Seminar 8 (9/3): Research ethics
Week 9
Lecture 9 (15/3): On the ‘Values’ of Heritage: Visitibility, zoological
multiculturalism and culture as a ‘surface’ of intervention and government
Seminar 9 (16/3): Selecting a research topic
Week 10
Lecture 10 (22/3): Assembling alternative futures for heritage: Towards an
ontological politics of (and for) heritage in the age of the Anthropocene
Seminar 10 (23/3): Actor Network Analyses
3
Overview
This course forms the second half of the MACHS core course, but is also available as an
optional course. Students who have not taken the Term 1 MACHS core course ARCLG234
Critical Perspectives on Cultural Heritage should make sure they have read the
preparatory material listed below early in Term 2.
Over the 10 weeks of term we pursue a critical exploration of cultural heritage by focusing
on the issues surrounding the applied context of heritage and the complex relationships of
heritage to globalisation and the field of development. We aim to explore the concept and
field of development in complex and diverse ways, and thus we examine development and
its associated agendas such as poverty reduction, advocacy, human/cultural rights,
citizenship, aid, humanitarianism, environmentalism, post-conflict reconstruction and
wellbeing alongside a broader consideration of experiences of modernity, globalisation and
change. The local – or ‘glocalised’ – impacts of such experiences are a central critical
concern.
We explore the role of a diverse range of heritage brokers, development and funding
agencies, and advocacy organisations in facilitating or resisting heritage development and
map the diverse global and globalising ‘actors’ involved in such networks. From macro to
micro contexts we critically examine how, for example, the World Bank, UN/UNESCO, the
Getty, the Aga Khan Foundation, interact with other ‘actors’ and how these groups operate
alongside regional/ local agencies, NGOs and campaigning/ protest groups outside of
mainstream heritage development. UK, European and international case studies will be
drawn upon to investigate emergent themes and issues and to engage in institutional
analyses. We also address the changing nature of cultural heritage management and the
transformation of professional skills and responsibilities in relation to questions of
globalisation, shifting cosmopolitan identities and the politics and practice of heritage in the
early twenty-first century.
Basic texts
Preliminary reading (compulsory for students who have not taken ARCLG234 Critical
Perspectives on Cultural Heritage)
Harrison, R. (2013) Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge, London and New York.
Students might also find the following helpful in preparing for the course.
Lafrenz Samuels, K. and T. Rico (eds) (2015) Heritage keywords: rhetoric and
redescription in cultural heritage. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. (note this is
currently on order and may not be available until some time after the first week of term).
Meskell, L. (2015) Global heritage: A Reader. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, M.A.
Core/set texts
Davies, C.A. (2008) Reflexive ethnography: a guide to researching selves and others.
Routledge, London and New York.
General texts (which will be helpful throughout the module)
Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at Large. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
4
Byrne, D. 2014 Counterheritage: Critical Perspectives on Heritage Conservation in Asia.
Routledge, Abingdon and New York.
De la Torre, M. (ed.) (2002) Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report.
Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. (online at
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/assessing.
pdf)
Eppich, R. and A. Chabbi (eds) (2008) Recording, Documentation, and Information
Management for the Conservation of Heritage Places: Illustrated Examples. Getty
Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. (online at
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/recordim_vol2.
html)
Harrison, R. (2013) Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge, London and New York.
Labadi, S. and C. Long (eds) (2010) Heritage and Globalization. Routledge, Abingdon and
New York.
Lafrenz Samuels, K. and T. Rico (eds) (2015) Heritage keywords: rhetoric and
redescription in cultural heritage. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Meskell, L. (2011) The Nature of Heritage: The New South Africa. Wiley-Blackwell,
Malden, M.A.
Meskell, L. (2015) Global heritage: A Reader. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, M.A.
Radcliffe, S.A. (ed.) (2006) Culture and development in a globalizing world: geographies,
actors, and paradigms. Routledge, Abingdon and New York.
Rose, G. (2001) Visual Methodologies: An introduction to Researching with Visual
Materials. Sage, London. (Available as e-book through the Library)
Stig Sørenson. M.L. and J. Carman (eds) (2008) Heritage Studies: methods and
approaches. Routledge, Abingdon and New York. (Available as e-book through the library)
Tsing, A.L. (2005) Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton University
Press.
Methods of assessment
This course is assessed by means of one piece of coursework, of between 3,800-4,200
words, which contributes 100% to the final grade for the course. This assignment aims to
develop specific research and analytical skills and critical engagement with the course
topics. Students will produce a piece of ethnographic writing which investigates a question
or issue of their choice relating to course theme of heritage, globalisation and
development. Students will research a particular initiative/ project/ context via critical
analysis of policy documents and the collection of primary data, including the mapping of
diverse ‘glocal’ actor networks; the observation and analysis of place and spatial
dynamics; structured/semi-structured oral interviews; and/or the study of material and
visual culture. Students will be encouraged to select the focus case study/site for their
essay early in the term, to form the basis for their practical tasks relating to the seminars.
Students will need to have the topic of their assignment formally approved, to ensure it
5
relates sufficiently to course themes, by the last seminar of the term. The due date for the
assignment is Friday 22nd April 2016.
Teaching methods
The course is taught by means of 10 two-hour lectures, 10 one-hour seminars and 3
site/field visits. The lectures will consist of presentations on particular key themes/issues.
Students will be divided in smaller teams for their Wednesday seminar sessions which
focus on critical discussion of methodologies for researching heritage. The seminars relate
closely to MACHS site/field visits held on Mondays during Term 2.
Workload
There will be 20 hours of lectures, 10 hours of seminars and 20 hours of practical activities
(field visits and activities to be undertaken in the student’s own time) for this course.
Students will be expected to undertake around 60 hours of reading for the course, plus 40
hours preparing for and producing the assessed work. This adds up to a total workload of
150 hours for the course.
Prerequisites
While there are no formal prerequisites for this course, students are advised that previous
attendance at the Term 1 MACHS core course ARCLG234 Critical Perspectives on
Cultural Heritage is likely to facilitate comprehension of the material presented in this
course. Students who have not taken ARCLG234 should read the preparatory material
listed in the reading list as early as possible in Term 2.
6
2
AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT
Aims
This course aims to explore the relationship between heritage, globalisation and
development through a focus on ‘real world’ case studies which exemplify the political,
economic and social aspects of heritage policy and practice. The course also aims to
equip students with the basic ethnographically informed methodologies with which to
document and critically investigate heritage in comparative local, national and
transnational contexts.
Objectives
The central objectives are to:
• critically examine cultural heritage as an applied, operational, practical and
grounded phenomenon;
• to understand policy-orientated issues in their social, material and political contexts;
• to relate these to intellectual and conceptual concerns;
• to challenge routinised definitions of heritage and of development.
To introduce students to:
• key concepts in heritage studies;
• key academic research skills and methodologies;
• task-led, field-based research into heritage and development issues;
• relevant resources, sources, guidelines and networks/agencies.
To familiarize students with:
• the role of key cultural heritage and development agencies working in global,
national, regional and local contexts;
• practical, operational examples of how to engage in the heritage context as
practitioners, - i.e. as resource managers, conservators, heritage/museum
professionals, NGO workers and as ethnographers and researchers;
• the relationships of tangible/intangible heritage and identity-work to grounded legal
and ethical issues, for example, those relating to heritage protection, revivalism,
capacity building and post-conflict reconstruction and to concerns over illicit trade,
looting and repatriation;
• the role of ‘stake-holders’, activists, advocates etc… and issues of social inclusion,
cultural/ human rights and the public presentation of heritage resources is a further
key issue we critically address.
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of the course students should be able to:
• appreciate the intimate relationships and tensions between conceptual analyses of
cultural heritage and the variety of global applied operational contexts and be aware
of the need to develop critical frameworks to understand these interrelationships in
their fullest sense; and
• be familiar with a range of research skills and methods necessary to the critical
investigation of heritage, globalisation and development (this forms a background to
the development of skills and methods necessary for the completion of the final
dissertation).
Coursework
7
This course is assessed by means of one piece of coursework, of between 3,800-4,200
words, which contributes 100% to the final grade for the course. This assignment aims to
develop specific research and analytical skills and critical engagement with the course
topics. Students will produce a piece of ethnographic writing which investigates a question
or issue of their choice relating to course theme of heritage, globalisation and
development. Students will research a particular initiative/ project/ context via critical
analysis of policy documents and the collection of primary data, including the mapping of
diverse ‘glocal’ actor networks; the observation and analysis of place and spatial
dynamics; structured/semi-structured oral interviews; and/or the study of material and
visual culture. Students will be encouraged to select the focus case study/site for their
essay early in the term, to form the basis for their practical tasks relating to the seminars.
Students will need to have the topic of their assignment approved, to ensure it relates
sufficiently to course themes, by the last seminar of the term. The due date for the
assignment is Friday 22nd April 2016.
If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should discuss this with
the Course Co-ordinator. The assignment will be discussed in more detail in the lectures
and seminars at the beginning of term, and sample assignments from previous years will
be made available to students to view during term.
Students are not permitted to re-write and re-submit essays in order to try to improve their
marks. However, students may be permitted, in advance of the deadline for a given
assignment, to submit for comment a brief outline of the assignment.
The nature of the assignment and possible approaches to it will be discussed in class, in
advance of the submission deadline.
Word Counts
The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of
figure and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references,
captions and contents of tables and figures, appendices, and wording of citations in the
text.
Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no
penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply
for your guidance to indicate the sort of length that is expected.
Submission procedures
Students are required to submit hard copy of all coursework to the course co-ordinators
pigeon hole via the Red Essay Box at Reception by the appropriate deadline. The
coursework must be stapled to a completed coversheet (available from the web, from
outside Room 411A or from the library)
Students should put their Candidate Number on all coursework. This is a 5 digit
alphanumeric code and can be found on Portico: it is different from the Student Number/
ID. Please also put the Candidate Number and course code on each page of the work.
It is also essential that students put their Candidate Number at the start of the title line on
Turnitin, followed by the short title of the coursework.. – eg YBPR6 Funerary practices
8
Please note the stringent UCL-wide penalties for late submission given below. Late
submission will be penalized in accordance with these regulations unless permission has
been granted and an Extension Request Form (ERF) completed.
Date-stamping will be via ‘Turnitin’ (see below), so in addition to submitting hard copy,
students must also submit their work to Turnitin by the midnight on the day of the
deadline.
Students who encounter technical problems submitting their work to Turnitin should email
the nature of the problem to ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk in advance of the deadline in order that
the Turnitin Advisers can notify the Course Co-ordinator that it may be appropriate to
waive the late submission penalty.
If there is any other unexpected crisis on the submission day, students should e-mail the
Course Co-ordinator, and follow this up with a completed ERF
Please see the Coursework Guidelines on the IoA website (or your Degree Handbook) for
further details of penalties.
The Turnitin 'Class ID' is 2971100 and the 'Class Enrolment Password' is IoA1516
Further information is given on the IoA website. Turnitin advisers will be available to help
you via email: ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk if needed.
Timescale for return of marked coursework to students
You can expect to receive your marked work within four calendar weeks of the official
submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a written
explanation from the marker, you should notify the IoA’s Academic Administrator, Judy
Medrington.
Keeping copies
Please note that it is an Institute requirement that you retain a copy (this can be electronic)
of all coursework submitted. When your marked essay is returned to you, you should
return it to the marker within two weeks.
Citing of sources
Coursework should be expressed in a student’s own words giving the exact source of any
ideas, information, diagrams etc. that are taken from the work of others. Any direct
quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed between
inverted commas. Plagiarism is regarded as a very serious irregularity which can
carry very heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to read and abide by the requirements
for presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism to be found in the IoA
‘Coursework Guidelines’ on the IoA website
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook
AVOIDING PLAGIARISM
The term “plagiarism” means presenting material (words, figures etc.) in a way that
allows the reader to believe that it is the work of the author he or she is reading, when it is
in fact the creation of another person.
In academic and other circles, plagiarism is regarded as theft of intellectual
property. UCL regulations, all detected plagiarism is to be penalized and noted on the
student’s record, irrespective of whether the plagiarism is committed knowingly or
unintentionally. The whole process of an allegation of plagiarism and its investigation is
9
likely to cause considerable personal embarrassment and to leave a very unpleasant
memory in addition to the practical consequences of the penalty. The penalties can be
surprisingly severe and may include failing a course or a whole degree. It is thus important
to take deliberate steps to avoid any inadvertent plagiarism.
Avoiding plagiarism should start at the stage of taking notes. In your notes, it should
be wholly clear what is taken directly from a source, what is a paraphrase of the content of
a source and what is your own synthesis or original thought. Make sure you include
sources and relevant page numbers in your notes.
When writing an essay any words and special meanings, any special phrases, any
clauses or sentences taken directly from a source must be enclosed in inverted commas
and followed by a reference to the source in brackets. It is not generally necessary to use
direct quotations except when comparing particular terms or phrases used by different
authors. Similarly, all figures and tables taken from sources must have their origin
acknowledged in the caption. Captions do not contribute to any maximum word lengths.
Paraphrased information taken from a source must be followed by a reference to
the source. If a paragraph contains information from several sources, it must be made
clear what information comes from where: a list of sources at the end of the paragraph is
not sufficient. Please cite sources of information fully, including page numbers where
appropriate, in order to avoid any risk of plagiarism: citations in the text do not contribute to
any maximum word count.
To guard further against inadvertent plagiarism, you may find it helpful to write a
plan of your coursework answer or essay and to write the coursework primarily on the
basis of your plan, only referring to sources or notes when you need to check something
specific such as a page number for a citation.
COLLUSION, except where required, is also an examination offence. While
discussing topics and questions with fellow students is one of the benefits of learning in a
university environment, you should always plan and write your coursework answers
entirely independently.
10
3
SCHEDULE AND SYLLABUS
Teaching schedule
Group Field/site visits will be held in weeks 2, 4 and 8 on Mondays at times and places
to be agreed within your seminar group.
Lectures will be held each week from 16:00-18:00 on Tuesdays, in IoA Room 612.
Seminars
Students will be divided into groups for seminar sessions. Seminars will be held in onehour sessions on Wednesdays (10-11am, 11-12am, 12-1pm, 1-2pm, 2-3pm, 3-4pm) in
B13 [Basement floor, IoA] OR Taviton (14) 128 OR Taviton (16) 535. Students will choose
a one hour slot at the beginning of Term.
To keep groups small enough for effective discussion, it is essential that students attend
the group to which they have been assigned. If they need to attend a different group for a
particular session, they should arrange to swap with another student from that group, and
confirm this arrangement with the Seminar Coordinator/Teaching Assistant.
Seminars will have associated readings, practical tasks and/or site visits which students
will be asked to complete before the seminar.
The seminar sessions work alongside the lectures, and while they are related, they have in
themselves distinct purposes. As such seminars are to be used to:
I.
Discuss the critical issues arising from lectures and from essential readings/ related
resources
II.
Develop an applied heritage focus by positioning London as a ‘fieldwork’ or applied
heritage context for students to engage in specific weekly tasks
III.
Acquire applied research skills and methods. Seminar sessions are thus
predominantly applied, practice-led and task-based.
Students are expected to do the recommended reading for both seminars AND lectures
each week.
11
Week 1
Lecture 1 (12/1, 4-6pm): Cultural Heritage and Globalisation
Rodney Harrison
The first part of this lecture provides a general introduction to the course and its themes
and an opportunity for students to allocate themselves to Wednesday seminar groups. The
second part of the lecture focusses specifically on the ways in which heritage might be
said to be linked with, or might be itself, a globalising force. Rather than seeing the global
spread of specific ideas about heritage and the appropriate procedures for its
management simply as a consequence of the adoption of international treaties and
conventions, I suggest that heritage in general, and ‘World Heritage’ in particular, is itself a
globalising process—a series of material and discursive design interventions which
actively remake the past in the present and in doing so, remake the world in particular
ways. Eschewing a focus on discourse alone, I argue the need for a ‘material-semiotic’
approach to understand these phenomena, drawing on concepts from actor-network,
assemblage and governmentality theory which will underpin the rest of the course.
Readings
Appadurai, A. (2010) How Histories Make Geographies: Circulation and Context in a
Global Perspective. Transcultural Studies 1: 4-13 (online at http://archiv.ub.uniheidelberg.de/ojs/index.php/transcultural/article/view/6129)
Meskell, L. (2015) Introduction: Globalising Heritage. In L. Meskell (ed.) Global Heritage: A
Reader. Wiley-Blackwell; pp. 1-21.
Meskell, L. and C. Brumann (2015) UNESCO and New World Orders. In L. Meskell (ed.)
Global Heritage: A Reader. Wiley-Blackwell; pp. 22-42.
Tsing, A.L. (2005) Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton University
Press. (Introduction)
Seminar 1 (13/1): An introduction to interdisciplinary methodologies for heritage
research
Task: No practical task this week.
Seminar: In this week’s seminar we will discuss different kinds of methodologies for
heritage research, and approaches to selecting appropriate topics and methods.
Readings
Davies, C.A. (2008) Reflexive ethnography: a guide to researching selves and others.
Routledge, London and New York. (Chapter 2-Selecting topics and methods)
Filippucci, P. (2008) Heritage and Methodology: A View from Social Anthropology. In M.L.
Stig Sørenson and J. Carman (eds) Heritage Studies: methods and approaches.
Routledge, Abingdon and New York; pp. 319-325.
Stig Sørenson, M.L and J. Carman (2008) Introduction. In M.L. Stig Sørenson and J.
Carman (eds) Heritage Studies: methods and approaches. Routledge, Abingdon and New
York; pp. 3-10.
12
Uzzell, D. (2008) Where is the discipline in heritage studies? A view from environmental
psychology. In M.L. Stig Sørenson and J. Carman (eds) Heritage Studies: methods and
approaches. Routledge, Abingdon and New York; pp. 326-333.
13
Week 2
Group Site Visit 1 (18/1, time and location to be confirmed with your seminar group
during Week 1 Seminar)
Lecture 2 (19/1, 4-6pm): Heritage and Development: Paired Opposites?
Professor Mike Rowlands, Anthropology, UCL
“The biggest challenge facing UNESCO in 2002 is to make the public realise that cultural
heritage …is also a factor in development” (UNESCO Universal Declaration on cultural
diversity 2001:1)
“Culture, in all its dimensions, is a fundamental component of sustainable development”
(UNESCO The power of culture for development 2010:2)
These quotes resonate with the aspiration that heritage is and will be even more so a
factor in building sustainable economic development policies. We will examine several
paradoxes in these statements: first the clash between development and conservation,
second the assumptions of universal heritage value; third heritage as a regime of expert
knowledges that applies ‘culture’ in practical situations. We will look in particular at the role
of Tony Blair’s Africa Commission promoting heritage development in Africa and the case
of Mali and its current state of exclusion.
Readings
*Byrne, D. (1991) Western hegemony in archaeological heritage management. History and
anthropology 5: 269-276.
*Cleere, H. (2000) The World Heritage Convention in the Third World. In F.P. McManomon
and A. Hatton (eds) Cultural resource management in contemporary society: Perspectives
on managing and presenting the heritage. London: Routledge; pp 99-106.
Escobar, A. (1991) Anthropology and the development Encounter: the making and
marketing of development anthropology American Ethnologist 18 (4): 68-82.
Ferguson ,J. (1990) “Introduction” in The Anti Politics Machine: development,
depoliticisation and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis and London: University of
Minnesota Press.
*Joy,C. (2007) Enchanting Town of Mud: Djenne a World Heritage site in Mali. In F. de
Jong and M. Rowlands (eds) Reclaiming Heritage: alternative imaginaries of memory in
West Africa, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, pp. 145–160.
Restrepo, E and A. Escobar (2005) Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise:
Steps to a World Anthropologies Framework. Critique of Anthropology 25(2) 99–129.
Seminar 2 (20/1): An introduction to participant observation and heritage
ethnography
Task: Group Site Visit (time and location to be agreed in Week 1 Seminar, suggest
Monday 10-12) to discuss ways in which we approach heritage sites ethnographically.
14
Seminar: In this week’s seminar we will reflect on the Monday site visit, focussing
specifically on the role of ethnography in heritage research. This session will build on the
readings from week 1 regarding the selection of topics and appropriate methods with
which to explore them and provide an opportunity to reflect on some specific examples of
heritage ethnography which exemplify some of these methods.
Reading
Butler, Beverley (2006) The Tree, the Tower and the Shaman: The Material Culture of
Resistance of the No M11 Link Roads Protest of Wanstead and Leytonstone, London.
Journal of Material Culture 1(3): 337-363.
Davies, C.A. (2008) Reflexive ethnography: a guide to researching selves and others.
Routledge, London and New York. (Chapter 4 Observing/Participating)
Gordillo, G. (2014). Rubble: The Afterlife of Destruction. Duke University Press, Durham
and London. (Chapter 10: The Return of the Indians).
Low, S. (2002) Anthropological-Ethnographic Methods for the Assessment of Cultural
Values in Heritage Conservation. In M. De la Torre (ed.) Assessing the Values of Cultural
Heritage: Research Report. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. (online at
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/assessing.
pdf); pp. 31-49.
Meskell, L. (2011) The Nature of Heritage: The New South Africa. Wiley-Blackwell,
Malden, M.A. (Chapter 7: ‘Kruger is a Gold Rock’).
Palmer, C. (2009) Reflections on the practice of ethnography within Heritage Tourism. In
M.L. Stig Sørenson and J. Carman (eds) Heritage Studies: methods and approaches.
Routledge, Abingdon and New York; pp. 123-139.
Tsing, A.L. (2005) Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton University
Press. (Chapter 1: Frontiers of Capitalism)
15
Week 3
Lecture 3 (26/1, 4-6pm): Current Issues in Heritage Management: Development,
Participation & Tourism
Guest Lecturer: Sarah May, IoA, UCL
Archaeological site and landscape management encompasses a variety of issues and
concerns, such as conservation and interpretation, sustainable tourism, and local
community participation. Reactive intervention is clearly not sufficient to ensure the
sustainability of the resource, or the needs of contemporary society. Increasing pressures,
for example from rising cultural tourism, globalisation and short-term economic strategies,
are some of the reasons why integrated management has become, in recent years, an
appealing approach to both the conservation and use of cultural resources.
International organisations, such as ICOMOS, ICCROM, UNESCO and the Getty
Conservation Institute, are pushing an agenda of holistic and integrated archaeological site
management, but in this the primacy of the conservation ethic appears to remain
unchallenged. Among several possible types of management, the model that has emerged
through the Australian Burra Charter has acquired wide currency, mainly for its approach
to the issue of local community involvement, and the ethical and ideological concepts of
valuing the resource.
Do we have an intellectual framework for the ethical management of archaeological
resources? Are issues of poverty relief (UN Agenda 21) and sustainable communities
given sufficient attention?
Readings
Agnew, N. and Bridgland, J. (eds) (2006) Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating
Archaeology and Conservation. Proceedings of the Conservation Theme at the 5th World
Archaeological Congress, Washington, D.C., 22-26 June 2003. Los Angles: Getty
Conservation Institute
LA AGN
(online
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/of_past_for_fut
ure.html )
De la Torre, M. (ed) (2002) Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. Los Angeles: The
Getty Conservation Institute. Download as pdf from
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/resources/reports.html
Khouri-Dagher, N. (2006) Heritage: Living places managed by local people, UNESCO
Sources 115: 10-11
McManamon, F. P., Stout, A. & Barnes, J. A. (eds) (2008) Managing Archaeological
Resources: Global Context, National Programs, Local Actions. Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast Press
INST ARCH AG MCM
United Nations (2003) Agenda 21. UN Available at:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
UNEP (2003) Tourism and Local Agenda 21. The Role of Local Authorities in Sustainable
Tourism. UNEP: Paris
16
Seminar 3 (27/1): Discourse analysis
Task: No practical task this week-please concentrate on doing as much of the reading as
possible.
Seminar: Look at Kirschenblatt-Gimblett’s discussion of the Smithsonian Folklife Festival
and Waterton, Smith and Campbell’s analysis of the Burra Charter as different ways of
approaching discourse analysis and discuss the place of discourse analysis within heritage
ethnography and the study of globalisation and development more generally.
Reading
Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2006) World Heritage and Cultural Economics. In I. Karp, C.
Krantz, L. Szwaja and T. Ybarra-Frausto (eds) Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global
Transformations, Duke University Press, Durham and London; pp. 161-202.
Rose, G. (2001) Visual Methodologies: An introduction to Researching with Visual
Materials. Sage, London (Chapter 6 Discourse Analysis 1)
Smith, L. (2006) Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London and New York.
Waterton, E., L. Smith and G. Campbell (2006) The Utility of Discourse Analysis to
Heritage Studies: The Burra Charter and Social Inclusion. International Journal of Heritage
Studies 12(4): 339-355.
A note on content analysis:
You might also be interested in a quantitative methodology for dealing with the analysis of
texts and images-content analysis. There is a useful outline of the method here
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=61 In relation to images, see also
Gillian Rose Visual Methodologies Chapter 3.
17
Week 4
Group Site Visit 2 (1/2, time and location to be confirmed with your seminar group)
Lecture 4 (2/2 4-6pm): Mapping Heritage and Development Networks: From Global to
Local Perspectives
Guest Lecturer: Gai Jorayev, CAA, UCL
In this session we map out the key agencies engaged in heritage initiatives and in
development networks. Our focus is upon discourse analysis vis-à-vis the agendas,
buzzwords, aims and objectives, from which we draw out emergent themes in order to plot
the role of such networks in global and local contexts. Through discussing the roles of
international organisations such as UNESCO, the World Bank and other development
agencies we will look at the practicalities of implementing global visions in local, national
levels. Case study discussions will include World Heritage Site nominations and their
perceived importance for the local development. The speaker’s recent experience in
Central Asia and Africa will be used to highlight some contradictions in global agendas of
heritage management and local expectations.
Readings:
UNESCO, Our Creative Diversity Report
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001055/105586e.pdf
WHS & Economic Gain Report
http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/393968/WHSTheEconomicGain
FinalReport.pdf
Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development at the World Bank
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTURBANDEVELOPMENT/EXT
CHD/0,,menuPK:430436~pagePK:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK:430430,00.html
The Council of Europe's "Heritage and Beyond"
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Identities/PatrimoineBD_en.pdf
Seminar 4 (3/2): Mapping and understanding heritage values
Seminar: Discussion of readings and field visit-how can different forms of mapping be
used to understand various forms of heritage value ethnographically?
Reading:
English, T. 2002 The sea and the rock gives us a feed: mapping and managing
Gumbaingirr wild resource use places. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.
Online at
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/GumbaingirrTheSeaAndThe
RockGivesUsAFeed.pdf
Garden, M.C.E. 2008 The Heritagescape: Looking at heritage sites. In M.L. Stig Sørenson
and J. Carman (eds) Heritage Studies: methods and approaches. Routledge, Abingdon
and New York; pp. 270-291.
18
Harrison, R. (2004) Shared Landscapes. UNSW Press, Sydney. Online here
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/Shared_Landscapes.pdf
(Chapters 3 and 6 or 9)
Lillehammer, G. (2008) Making them draw: The use of drawings when researching public
attitudes towards the past. In M.L. Stig Sørenson and J. Carman (eds) Heritage Studies:
methods and approaches. Routledge, Abingdon and New York; pp. 253-269.
Mason, R. 2002 Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and
Choices. In M. De la Torre (ed.) Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research
Report. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. (online at
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/assessing.
pdf); pp. 3-30.
Participatory mapping toolkit
http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/morgancentre/methods-andresources/toolkits/toolkit-3/
Weizman, E. (2007). Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation. Verso. (Chapter 1)
19
Week 5
Lecture 5 (9/2, 4-6pm): Managing Islamic Values in Museums and Heritage
Guest lecturer: Trinidad Rico, Texas A&M University at Qatar
This lecture offers an overview of the challenges that have been discussed so far in the
literature, associated with heritage practices, regarding the management of Islamic values
in museums and heritage. Although discussions of Islamic values do not have a strong
presence in heritage studies yet, this lecture considers other approaches that can be
borrowed from relevant disciplines to engage with Islamic materiality, authenticity, integrity
and ethics.
Readings:
Elias, J.J. 2012 Aisha’s Cushion: Religious art, perception, and practice in Islam.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Prologue).
Shalem, A. 2012. Multivalent Paradigms of Interpretation and the Aura or Anima of the
Object, in Junod. B. et al Islamic Art and the Museum. London: Saqi. p. 101-115
George, K. 2010. Picturing Islam: Art and ethics in a Muslim lifeworld. Malden and Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwel. (Introduction: Picturing Islam)
Paine, C. 2013. Religious Objects in Museums: Private Lives and Public Duties. London:
Bloomsbury (Introduction)
Rico, T. 2014. Islamophobia and the location of heritage debates in the Arabian Peninsula.
In K. Exell and T. Rico (ed.): Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula: Debates,
Discourses and Practice. Farnham: Ashgate.
Seminar 5 (10/2): Internet ethnography and digital methodologies
Task: This week you should choose a heritage related website or online forum as the
focus for discussion, drawing on the methods outlined in the reading.
Seminar: Discussion of readings and practical task. Students should come prepared to
speak for c.5 minutes each.
Reading:
Davies, C.A. (2008) Reflexive ethnography: a guide to researching selves and others.
Routledge, London and New York. (Chapter 7 Internet Ethnography)
Harris, Clare. (2013). Digital Dilemmas: The Ethnographic Museum as Distributive
Institution. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 5 (2): 125-136.
https://www.isca.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/ISCA/JASO/2013/2-Harris.pdf
Harrison, R. (2009) Excavating Second Life: cyber-archaeologies, heritage and virtual
settlements. Journal of Material Culture 14(1): 75-106. Online at
http://mcu.sagepub.com/content/14/1/75.full.pdf+html?ijkey=iFintDrrmgoXQ&keytype=ref&
siteid=spmcu&utm_source=eNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1J22
Further reading:
20
Chrichton, S. and S. Kinash (2003) Virtual Ethnography: Interactive Interviewing Online as
Method. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 29(2). Online at
http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/40/37
Dicks, B., B. Mason, A. Coffey and P. Atkinson (2005) Qualitative Research and
Hypermedia: Ethnography for the Digital Age. Sage: London.
Miller, D. and D. Slater (2001) The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Berg: London.
Wilson, S.M. and L.C. Peterson (2002). The Anthropology of Online Communities. Annual
Review of Anthropology 31: 449–467.
21
Week 6
Lecture 6 (23/2, 4-6pm): Heritage and conflict - can the past heal the present?
Guest lecturer: Constance Wyndham, IoA, UCL
This lecture will provide a broad overview of the role of cultural heritage in post-conflict
scenarios. The first part will look at the ‘cultural turn’ in international development
discourse and subsequent shift in the language of international bodies towards claims that
cultural heritage and museums can promote human rights and social inclusion in postconflict scenarios. The second will examine the complexities of the ‘heritage for
development’ approach, focussing on the nexus of politics and heritage preservation
through several case studies of current heritage preservation projects in Afghanistan.
Readings:
Butler, B & Rowlands, M. 2007. Conflict and heritage care, Anthropology Today, 23 (1): 12
Winter, T. 2008. Post-conflict Heritage and Tourism in Cambodia: The Burden of Angkor.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(6): 524-539.
Giblin, J. 2014. Post-conflict heritage: symbolic healing and cultural renewal. International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(5): 500-518.
Luke, C. 2013. Cultural sovereignty in the Balkans and Turkey: The politics of preservation
and rehabilitation, Journal of Social Archaeology, 13(3): 350-370
Wyndham, C., 2014. Reconstructing Afghan Identity: Nation-building, International
Relations and the Safeguarding of Afghanistan’s Buddhist Heritage. In: P. Basu and W.
Modest (eds), Museums, Heritage and International Development. London and New York:
Routledge, pp. 123 – 142. [Held by Library]
Seminar 6 (24/2): Visual methods
Task: This week you should choose a single heritage related image to bring to class to
discuss, drawing on the readings on visual methods in heritage ethnography below. You
might find the list of questions in Gillian Rose’s book on pages 188-190 a useful starting
point for thinking about how the image(s) might be explored critically.
Seminar: Discussion of readings and practical task. Students should come prepared to
speak for c.5 minutes each.
Readings:
Davies, C.A. (2008) Reflexive ethnography: a guide to researching selves and others.
Routledge, London and New York. (Chapter 6 Visual Methods)
Harrison, R. and A. Linkman (2010) Critical approaches to heritage. In R. Harrison (ed)
Understanding the politics of heritage. Manchester University Press in association with the
Open University, Manchester and Milton Keynes; pp. 43-80.
Moser, S. (2010) The Devil is in the Detail: Museum displays and the creation of
knowledge. Museum Anthropology 33(1): 22-32.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/j.1548-1379.2010.01072.x/pdf
22
Rose, G. (2001) Visual Methodologies: An introduction to Researching with Visual
Materials. Sage, London. (Introduction; Chapter 1 Researching visual materials: towards a
critical visual methodology; and Chapter 7 Discourse Analysis 2)
Sterling, C. (2014) Photography, Preservation, and Ethics at Angkor. Future Anterior 11(1):
70-83.
Yiakoumaki, V. (2007). Archiving ‘Heritage’, Reconstructing the ‘Area’: Conducting AudioVisual Ethnography in EU-Sponsored Research. In Sarah Pink (ed) Visual Interventions:
Αpplied Visual Anthropology. Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 143-176.
23
Week 7
Lecture 7 (1/3, 4-6pm): Global Markets and Illicit Trade: Development and
Exploitation
Guest Lecturer: Kathy Tubb, IoA, UCL
In this session we address links between illicit trade, antiquities markets and auction
houses. We extend our critical examination to the exploitative aspects in contexts of
poverty of both the traffic of objects & also the links with the traffic in human remains/body
parts. Should cultural heritage be traded freely as a commodity? Are there differences
between selling fine art and selling antiquities? What are the difficulties involved in trying to
trade licitly? The marketing strategies used by dealers will be explored as will the
consequences of an uncontrolled market on the archaeological heritage.
Reading:
Brodie, Neil, Jenny Doole and Peter Watson. 2000. Stealing History: the Illicit Trade in
Cultural Material. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
http://www2.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/iarc/research/illicit_trade.pdf
Byrne, D. 2014. Counterheritage: Critical Perspectives on Heritage in Asia. Routledge,
Abingdon and New York. Chapter 9 ‘The problem with looting’; pp. 179-199.
Lidington, Helen. 2002. The role of the internet in removing ‘shackles of the saleroom’:
Anytime, anyplace, anything, anywhere. Public Archaeology 2(2), 67-84.
Tubb, K.W. 2007. Forum. Irreconcilable Differences? Papers from the Institute of
Archaeology 18, 1-9 and 23-5.See also, responses by John Boardman, Neil Brodie,
Ricardo Elia and Lawrence Kaye.
Further reading:
Brodie N.J. and K.W. Tubb (eds). 2002. Illicit Antiquities: the theft of culture and the
extinction of archaeology. London: Routledge.
Mackenzie, Simon. 2005. Going, going, gone: regulating the market in illicit antiquities.
Leicester: Institute of Art and Law.
O'Keefe, Patrick and Lyndel Prott. eds. 2011. Cultural Heritage Conventions and Other
Instruments: A Compendium with Commentaries. Builth Wells, Wales: Institute of Art and
Law.
Tubb, K.W. 2012. Extreme or Commonplace: The Collecting of Unprovenanced
Antiquities. Pp. 57-74 in Were, G. and J.C.H. King (eds.) Extreme Collecting: Challenging
Practices for 21st Century Museums. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Watson, P. and C. Todeschini. 2006. The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted
Antiquities, From Italy’s Tomb Raiders to the World’s Greatest Museums. New York:
Public Affairs.
Online sources:
24
chasingaphrodite.com is a blog set up by investigative journalists who are interested in
uncovering significant information that relates to the illicit trade in antiquities.
David Gill’s blog ‘Looting Matters’ contains much interesting information. Available at:
http://www.lootingmatters.blogspot.com/
Rick St Hilaire’s blog http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.co.uk/ is very useful in following
developing cases in the USA.
University of Glasgow’s http://traffickingculture.org/ website is concerned with research
into the global traffic in looted cultural material and includes an encyclopaedia and news
among other things.
The Museum Security network is also a useful source of information.
SAFE (Saving Antiquities for Everyone)
http://www.savingantiquities.org/
IFAR (International Foundation for Art Research)
http://www.ifar.org/home.php
Seminar 7 (2/3): Conducting interviews, surveys and audience research
Reading:
Byrne, D. (2014) Counter-mapping and Migrancy on the Georges River. In J. Schofield
(ed.) Who Needs Experts? Counter-mapping Cultural Heritage. Ashgate; pp. 77-91.
Davies, C.A. (2008) Reflexive ethnography: a guide to researching selves and others.
Routledge, London and New York. (Chapter 5 Interviewing)
Rose, G. (2001) Visual Methodologies: An introduction to Researching with Visual
Materials. Sage, London. (Chapter 8 Other methods, mixing methods, especially the
section on Audience research).
Stig Sørenson, M.L (2008) Between the lines and in the Margins: Interviewing people
about attitudes to heritage and identity. In M.L. Stig Sørenson and J. Carman (eds)
Heritage Studies: methods and approaches. Routledge, Abingdon and New York; pp.164177.
Thomas, Martin. (2001) A Multicultural landscape: National parks and the Macedonian
experience. Pluto Press, Annadale. Online at
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/MulticulturalLandscape.pdf
Winter, T. (2007) Post-Conflict Heritage, Postcolonial Tourism: Culture, politics and
development at Angkor. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. (Chapter 5, ‘Angkor in the
Frame’).
25
Week 8
Group Site Visit 3 (7/3, time and location to be confirmed with your seminar group)
Lecture 8 (8/3, 4-6pm): Cultural heritage in China
Guest Lecturer: Professor Mike Rowlands, Anthropology, UCL
Debates about what constitutes cultural heritage in China are becoming increasingly
diverse as new locally-inspired and private heritage projects come to the fore. Private
associations and NGOs working to conserve buildings and local cultural practices abound,
and young people, journalists, local activists and many others are lending their support to
small-scale, often privately inspired conservation projects in increasing numbers. Yet state
policy is dominated by UNESCO models of heritage incorporated into ambitious local
development strategies and premised on a Western aesthetic of monumentalism. Local
culture and ‘civilisation’ are preserved through the transformative processes of
modernization, and ‘authenticity’ appears to mean removing evidence of decay and
returning relics to original states in ‘modern’ ways. This contrasts with local memories and
cultural knowledge, as well as understandings of cultural value as the shared ownership
and transmission of a cultural past for the public good
Readings
Evans, Harriet and Michael Rowlands (2015) Reconceptualising heritage in China:
museums, development and shifting dynamics of power. In P. Basu and W. Modest (eds)
Museums, Heritage and International Development. Routledge, Abingdon and New York;
pp. 272-294.
Oakes, Tim. (1998) Tourism and Modernity in China. Routledge, London and New York.
Oakes, Tim. (2006) The village as theme park: Mimesis and authenticity in Chinese
tourism. Tim Oakes and Louisa Schein (eds) Translocal China: Linkages, Identities, and
the Reimagining of Space. Routledge, London and New York; pp. 166-192.
Su, Xiaobo and Teo, Peggy. (2009) The Politics of Heritage Tourism in China: A View from
Lijiang. Routledge, Abingdon and New York.
Seminar 8 (9/3): Research ethics
Task: Complete online Moodle ethics training and read through IoA research ethics
guidelines.
Seminar: Students should come prepared to discuss any particular ethical issues which
might arise in relation to their proposed ethnographic assignment topic and how they
intend to design and conduct their research in an ethical manner, drawing on the reading
and online courses. This seminar will provide an opportunity to consider ethical issues in
heritage research more broadly through an exploration of ethical questions raised by
Kiddey and Thomas’ work.
Reading
Davies, C.A. (2008) Reflexive ethnography: a guide to researching selves and others.
Routledge, London and New York. (Chapter 3 Ethics and Politics)
26
IoA Research Ethics for Students and online Moodle training-see links at
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/ethics
Kersel, M. (2009) Walking a fine line: Obtaining sensitive information using a valid
methodology. In M.L. Stig Sørenson and J. Carman (eds) Heritage Studies: methods and
approaches. Routledge, Abingdon and New York; pp. 178-200.
Kiddey, Rachael (2014) Punks and Drunks: Counter-mapping homelessness in Bristol and
York. In J. Schofield (ed.) Who Needs Experts? Counter-mapping Cultural Heritage.
Ashgate; pp. 165-180.
Thomas, Mandy (2002) Moving landscapes: National parks and the Vietnamese
experience. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney. Online at
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/movingLandscapes.pdf
27
Week 9
Lecture 9 (15/3, 4-6pm): On the ‘Values’ of Heritage: Visitibility, zoological
multiculturalism and culture as a ‘surface’ of intervention and government
Rodney Harrison
This lecture considers recent international developments in relation to heritage, diversity
and individual and collective universal rights, focussing on the ways in which ‘culture’
within such contexts comes to function as a surface for intervention and government.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the simultaneous standardisation and differentiation (c.f.
Salazar 2010) of global tourism and in the emancipatory place which ‘culture’ assumes in
discourses of heritage and its role in economic development. The lecture will critically
explore the notion of ‘value’ as it has been employed in relation to cultural economics on
the one hand, and practices of social government on the other.
Readings
*Bennett, T. (2006) Exhibition, Difference and the Logic of Culture. In I. Karp, C. Krantz,
L. Szwaja and T. Ybarra-Frausto (eds) Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global
Transformations, Duke University Press, Durham and London; pp. 46–69.
González-Ruibal, A. (2009) Vernacular Cosmopolitanism: An Archaeological Critique of
Universalistic Reason. In L. Meskell (ed.) Cosmopolitan Archaeologies. Duke University
Press, Durham and London; pp. 113–139.
*Harrison, R. (2013) Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge, Abingdon and New York
(Chapter 7).
*Radcliffe, S.A. (2006) Culture in development thinking: geographies, actors and
paradigms. In S.A. Radcliffe (ed.) Culture and development in a globalizing world:
geographies, actors, and paradigms. Routledge, Abingdon and New York; 1-29.
Salazar, N. (2010) The globalisation of heritage through tourism: Balancing
standardisation and differentiation. In Labadi, S. and C. Long (eds) Heritage and
Globalization. Routledge, Abingdon and New York; pp. 130-146.
Starr, F. (2010) The business of heritage and the private sector. In Labadi, S. and C. Long
(eds) Heritage and Globalization. Routledge, Abingdon and New York; pp. 130-146.
Watts, N. (2006) Culture, Development, and Neo-liberalism. In S.A. Radcliffe (ed.) Culture
and development in a globalizing world: geographies, actors, and paradigms. Routledge,
Abingdon and New York; 30-57.
Seminar 9 (17/3): Selecting a research topic
Task: Select your ‘field’ site or case study for your assignment. You should come prepared
to discuss your case study at the seminar.
Seminar: Introduce your ‘case study’ or field site to the seminar group, discussing how it
relates to the broad themes of heritage/globalisation/development.
(no readings for seminar this week)
28
Week 10
Lecture 10 (22/3, 4-6pm): Assembling alternative futures for heritage: Towards an
ontological politics of (and for) heritage in the age of the Anthropocene
Rodney Harrison
Rather than rehearse what have become well known arguments regarding the indivisibility
of ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, this lecture considers the implications of the expanded field which
is created for ‘heritage’, as one of the principal arenas in which this modern division has
been maintained, when this dissolution is taken as given. It does so against the
background of the issues raised by the acknowledgement that we live in a geological era
in which what we once took for granted as the ‘human’ and ‘non-human’ have also
become folded together in complicated ways. I will make particular reference to a new
research programme ‘Assembling alternative futures for heritage’ which is concerned with
exploring the ways in which specific forms of value, and indeed, the ‘future’ itself, is
assembled in a broad and heterogeneous variety of ‘alternative’ domains—from nuclear
waste disposal sites, to seed banks, frozen ark projects and endangered language
conservation projects—and the potential for the development of innovative knowledge
transfer across such domains to highlight the connections between that which we have
conventionally called 'cultural heritage' and other issues of contemporary and future
ecological and social concern. The future of ‘heritage’ after culture in relation to
development will also be considered.
Reading:
Dibley, B. (2012) ‘The Shape of Things to Come’: Seven Theses on the Anthropocene and
Attachment. Australian Humanities Review 52: 139-153.
Harrison, R. (2013) Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge, Abingdon and New York
(Chapters 9 and 10).
Holtorf, C. (2013) On Pastness: A Reconsideration of Materiality in Archaeological
Object Authenticity. Anthropological Quarterly 86(2): 427-443
Latour, B. (2011) Waiting for Gaia. Composing the common world through art and politics,
a lecture at the French Institute for the lauching of SPEAP in London, November 2011.
Online at http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/124-GAIA-LONDON-SPEAP_0.pdf
Radcliffe, S.A. (2006) Conclusions: The Future of Culture and Development. In S.A.
Radcliffe (ed.) Culture and development in a globalizing world: geographies, actors, and
paradigms. Routledge, Abingdon and New York; 228-237.
Rico, T. (2014) The limits of a ‘heritage at risk’ framework: The construction of postdisaster cultural heritage in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Journal of Social Archaeology 14(2)
157–176.
Seminar 10 (23/3): Actor Network Analyses
Task: Drawing on the approaches outlined in the readings, produce a list of the networks
and actors involved in your own case study and be prepared to discuss your work in class.
29
Seminar: Discussion of readings and practical task. Students should come prepared to
speak for c.5 minutes each.
Readings:
Byrne, S., A. Clarke, R. Harrison and R. Torrence (2011) Networks, Agents and Objects:
Frameworks for Unpacking Museum Collections. In S. Byrne, A. Clarke, R. Harrison and
R. Torrence (eds) Unpacking the Collection: Networks of Material and Social Agency in the
Museum. Springer, New York; pp. 3-26.
Davies, C.A. (2008) Reflexive ethnography: a guide to researching selves and others.
Routledge, London and New York. (Chapter 8 Structuring research: Surveys, networks,
discourse analysis)
Harrison, R. 2013 Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge, Abingdon and New York
(Chapters 2 and 6).
Joy, C. (2011). Negotiating material identities: young men and modernity in Djenné.
Journal of Material Culture 16(4) 389–400.
Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.
Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. (“Third Move: Connecting Sites”; pages
219-236).
Macdonald, S. (2009) Reassembling Nuremberg, Reassembling Heritage. Journal of
Cultural Economy 2(1-2): 117-134.
30
4
ONLINE RESOURCES
The full UCL Institute of Archaeology coursework guidelines are given here:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook
Online reading list
http://readinglists.ucl.ac.uk/lists/B398743D-A86E-B4FB-D714-189D22BA7263.html
Moodle
https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=9106
5
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Attendance
A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the
lecturer by email. Departments are required to report each student’s attendance to UCL
Registry at frequent intervals throughout each term. Students are expected to attend at
least 70% of classes.
Information for intercollegiate and interdepartmental students
Students enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should collect hard copy of the
Institute’s coursework guidelines from Judy Medrington’s office (411A).
Feedback
In trying to make this course as effective as possible, we welcome feedback from students
during the course of the year. All students are asked to give their views on the course in
an anonymous questionnaire which will be circulated at one of the last sessions of the
course. These questionnaires are taken seriously and help the Course Co-ordinator to
develop the course. The summarised responses are considered by the Institute's StaffStudent Consultative Committee, Teaching Committee, and by the Faculty Teaching
Committee.
If students are concerned about any aspect of this course we hope they will feel able to
talk to the Course Co-ordinator, but if they feel this is not appropriate, they should consult
their Personal Tutor, the Academic Administrator (Judy Medrington), or the Chair of
Teaching Committee (Dr. Karen Wright).
31
APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2015-16 (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY)
This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to courses. It is
not a substitute for the full documentation, with which all students should become familiar.
For full information on Institute policies and procedures, see the following website:
http://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/archadmin
For UCL policies and procedures, see the Academic Regulations and the UCL Academic
Manual:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/
GENERAL MATTERS
ATTENDANCE: A minimum attendance of 70% is required. A register will be taken at
each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email.
DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers
whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should
indicate it on each coursework cover sheet.
COURSEWORK
SUBMISSION PROCEDURES: You must submit a hardcopy of coursework to the Coordinator's pigeon-hole via the Red Essay Box at Reception (or, in the case of first year
undergraduate work, to room 411a) by stated deadlines. Coursework must be stapled to a
completed coversheet (available from IoA website; the rack outside Room 411A; or the
Library). You should put your Candidate Number (a 5 digit alphanumeric code, found on
Portico. Please note that this number changes each year) and Course Code on all
coursework. It is also essential that you put your Candidate Number at the start of the title
line on Turnitin, followed by the short title of the coursework (example: YBPR6 Funerary
practices).
LATE SUBMISSION: Late submission is penalized in accordance with UCL regulations,
unless permission for late submission has been granted. The penalties are as follows: i) A
penalty of 5 percentage marks should be applied to coursework submitted the calendar
day after the deadline (calendar day 1); ii) A penalty of 15 percentage marks should be
applied to coursework submitted on calendar day 2 after the deadline through to calendar
day 7; iii) A mark of zero should be recorded for coursework submitted on calendar day 8
after the deadline through to the end of the second week of third term. Nevertheless, the
assessment will be considered to be complete provided the coursework contains material
than can be assessed; iv) Coursework submitted after the end of the second week of third
term will not be marked and the assessment will be incomplete.
GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: New UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of
extensions for coursework have been introduced with effect from the 2015-16 session.
Full details will be circulated to all students and will be made available on the IoA intranet.
Note that Course Coordinators are no longer permitted to grant extensions. All requests for
extensions must be submitted on a new UCL form, together with supporting
documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on for consideration.
Please be aware that the grounds that are now acceptable are limited. Those with longterm difficulties should contact UCL Student Support and Wellbeing to make special
arrangements.
TURNITIN: Date-stamping is via Turnitin, so in addition to submitting hard copy, you must
also submit your work to Turnitin by midnight on the deadline day. If you have questions or
problems with Turnitin, contact ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk.
32
RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked
coursework within four calendar weeks of the submission deadline. If you do not receive
your work within this period, or a written explanation, notify the Academic Administrator.
When your marked essay is returned to you, return it to the Course Co-ordinator within two
weeks. You must retain a copy of all coursework submitted.
WORD LENGTH: Essay word-lengths are normally expressed in terms of a recommended
range. Not included in the word count are the bibliography, appendices, tables, graphs,
captions to figures, tables, graphs. You must indicate word length (minus exclusions) on
the cover sheet. Exceeding the maximum word-length expressed for the essay will be
penalized in accordance with UCL penalties for over-length work.
CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed in
your own words, citing the exact source (author, date and page number; website address if
applicable) of any ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the work of
others. This applies to all media (books, articles, websites, images, figures, etc.). Any
direct quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed
between quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious irregularity, which can carry heavy
penalties. It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for presentation, referencing
and avoidance of plagiarism. Make sure you understand definitions of plagiarism and the
procedures and penalties as detailed in UCL regulations: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/currentstudents/guidelines/plagiarism
RESOURCES
MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the course on Moodle. For help with
Moodle, please contact Nicola Cockerton, Room 411a (nicola.cockerton@ucl.ac.uk).
33