粤北明清木构建筑营造技艺研究

Introduction

  • 近年来,华南理工大学的程建军教授的《岭南古代大式殿堂建筑构架研究》涉及到粤北地区几处殿堂的研究,大范围的研究工作尚未展开。本文研究的内容在建筑类型上主要包括学宫、会馆、寺院、祠堂、衙署、大型民居、园林中的主要建筑以及建筑群中的次要建筑,是与人民生活密切相关的一类建筑。由于粤北地区位置的特殊性,传统建筑大量而广泛的存在于乡土社会中,其建筑形制、等级以及设计水平更容易受到地域、功能、习俗、业主、匠师等不同主客观因素影响制约。
  • 于粤北传统建筑的广泛性、多样性,建筑大木构架中往往保存较多的原生性的特点,将会更直接的反应出早期岭南木构架的传承关系,粤北地处赣粤古道,尤其南雄是古代进入广东的必经之道,木构架设计法则将体现起承转合的影响力。粤北地区传统建筑在建筑构架的表现上为更多的灵活性、多样性、复杂性与开放性,对其发展演变的脉络的梳理、设计规律的总结与设计方法的探索将有助于对岭南殿堂建筑大木构架的研究,同时也是岭南传统建筑研究的有益补充。
  • 以梁思成、刘敦桢等为代表的第一代建筑史学家就对中国古代建筑大木构架进行了系统深入的研究,以二人为主要研究者的营造学社展开调查、测绘,研究了大量古建筑实例,发表数十份科学调查报告和图纸,为大木构架研究积累了详实可靠的例证;梁思成细致研究了《清工程做法》、《营造法式》两部古代典籍,为后人研究大木构架奠定了坚实基础。先后完成的著作主要有《清式营造则例》(1934 年)、《营造法式注释》(卷上)(1980 年)、《中国古代建筑史》(刘敦桢 1980 年)、《中国古代木结构建筑技术(战国—北宋)》(陈明达 1990 年)、《中国建筑类型与结构》(刘致平 2000 年)、《应县木塔》(陈明达 2001 年)、《中国住宅概说》(刘敦桢 2004 年)、《中国建筑史》(梁思成 2011 年)等。

国内对于古代建筑大木构架的研究

  • 一批古建筑学者从各自不同角度对中国古建筑大木构架进行详细、深入研究,取得一批丰硕的研究成果,其中影响力较大的有:陈明达先生《营造法式大木作制度研究》一书,结合现在保存实例对《营造法式》中规定的大木作制度进行详细阐释;杨鸿勋先生《建筑考古学论文集》,将考古学引入古建筑研究领域中;潘谷西先生的文章《营造法式初探》(一、二、三、四)中提出《营造法式》与江南建筑有着密切关系,对法式中殿堂、厅堂、余屋的用料、构造、建筑式样的区别进行详细阐释;并将古代建筑的长、宽、高从大木制度的角度剖析为建筑类别、正面间数、间广、檐柱高度、屋深、屋顶样式、铺座、材等八个方面,化繁为简,为古建筑构架研究提供方向性的指引。徐伯安先生的文章《营造法式斗栱形制解疑探微》、结合实例对大木构架中斗栱形制、布局原则进行清晰、详尽的解释;张十庆先生专著《中日古代建筑大木技术的源流与变迁》、《营造法式变造用材制度探析》(一、二)、《营造法式研究札记—论以中为法的模数构成》、《营造法式的技术源流与江南建筑的关联探析》、《营造法式栱长构成及其意义解析》、《古代建筑的尺度构成探析》、《从建构思维看古代建筑结构的类型与演化》等文章中立足于江南地区从建筑学、文化学、社会学、类型学、宗教学等多学科、多角度对《营造法式》中大木做法从源流、尺度、用材、技术等角度进行分析;《中国江南禅宗寺院建筑》文中对木构架有较为深刻的认识,研究的侧重点放在江南地区传统建筑,大量的案例研究,文中可借鉴的研究方法较多。潘谷西、何建中著《<营造法式>解读》,作者充分尊重原书的基本理论,用现代的语言及图示对《营造法式》进行解析,见解独到、分析精确、一语中的。
  • 蔡军、张健著《<工程做法则例>中大木设计体系》,将日本建筑史学领域的研究方法和思路,来对中国传统建筑进行解读。在整理、研究《工程做法则例》中古典建筑设计的模数化体系时,运用日本的“木割”理论,能够图表化、形象化地清晰表达古典建筑书籍中繁杂的文字,系统化解读其设计技法。郭华瑜《明代官式建筑大木作》,对大量明代官式建筑遗构进行了考察、测绘,并对比分析了明代官式做法与宋、元、清各代官式建筑做法的异同之处,对明代大木构架的传承和发展进行了分析与总结,大木构架的类型有殿堂结构形式、厅堂结构形式、柱梁结构形式、楼阁结构形式;并分析了大木构架的平面构成、剖面、立面构成,进而分析了屋顶的做法、斗栱的类型等。

国内关于传统营造技艺的研究

  • 了解古代建筑制度和技术,主要从梁思成、刘敦桢等《<营造法式>注释》(梁思成)、《清式营造则例》(梁思成)、《营造法原》(清 姚承祖)等历代建筑技术专书,1983 年文化部文物保护护科研究所主编的《中国古建筑修缮技术》是对传统古建修建做出了详细的指导;1991 年马炳坚先生的《中国古建筑木作营造技术》着眼点在于对于北京官式做法及北方地方传统建筑做法,从宏观的角度,较为通俗详尽。2001 年出版的《中国古代建筑史》(第一~五卷),以历史时间为线索,分时期对于中国传统建做出较为详尽的梳理,是中国古建筑技术宏观发展史的巨著;2003 年潘谷西先生主编的《中国建筑史》等,都涉及传统建筑的营造技艺。
  • 井庆升《清式大木作操作工艺》重在做法上,详细记录了大木的构件尺度,及安装方法,记录了我国清代的许多大木作操作工艺。刘大可《中国古建筑瓦石营法》以明、清官式建筑的做法为主线,主要介绍了古建筑土作、瓦作和石作的传统营造方法和法式,包括地基、台基、墙体、屋顶及地面等部位的样式变化、构造关系、比例尺度、规矩做法以及建筑材料等方面的知识。
  • 近年来,各建筑高校建筑学专业博士生也进行了传统建筑木构架营造技艺方面的研究。乔迅翔的《宋代建筑营造技术基础研究》,是对于宋代传统建筑营造技术的问题研究。其认为建筑的基本要素包括工和料。工,即劳动者,包括工匠和役夫;料,即劳动对象;在整个官方营造体系中,由营造机构来进行统辖管理。文中阐述了宋代营造机构的发展沿革及其构成,并且对于宋代工匠、役夫的成分、地位等展开讨论,在建筑的工程管理中如何发挥营造团队的作用,并研究相应的管理运作程序和和管理制度,关注营造工序中的每一个环节,从设计、选址、备工备料、到施工营建,力求还原当时营造的轮廓,对于测量、起重与运输等工程数学的具体技术问题也有展开讨论。后面对于《营造法式》中的功限、料例等条文进行了着重探讨。
  • 中国艺术研究院马全宝博士的《江南木构架营造技艺比较研究》,文中讨论了江南木构作为我国传统建筑体系中的重要组成部分,以木材为主要结构材料的建筑体系,传统建筑的营造技艺经过不断发展、完善,成为一个完整科学的技术体系,是东方传统营造水平的代表。江南殿庭构架规模较大,面宽有二至九间,进深达六至十二界,规模形式较高。利用比较研究的方法,通过比较江南周边地区以及北方和中原地区的传统木构架,对江南木构架建筑的历史发展变化进行了探讨,指出作为我国南方重要的营造体系的江南木构架,代表了当时先进的建筑技术水平和技术特征,体现出及江南地区木构营造技艺的地域多样性。
  • 杂志期刊文章有的龙非了的《论中国古建筑之系统及营造工程》、孙大章的《民居建筑的插梁架浅论》、张十庆的《古代建筑的尺度构成探析(一、二、三)》、李浈《官尺·营造尺·鲁班尺—古代建筑实践中用尺制度初探》、张玉瑜的《大木怕安—传统大木作上架技艺研究》、王世仁《明清时期的民间木构建筑技术》等都涉及到了传统建筑营造技术与过程的相关知识。

国内对于岭南大木构架研究现状

  • 一直以来,华南理工大学、东南大学、华侨大学等高校和台湾地区的很多专家学者都倾注大量的心血对岭南地区传统建筑构架与设计方法孜孜以求的进行探索研究,也取得了丰硕的成果。上个世纪 40 年代以后,以华南理工大学建筑学院的龙庆忠教授为代表的一批学者教授,数十年来对许多岭南重要的古建筑进行了大量的测绘和研究工作,发表多篇学术价值很高的论文和专著。如龙庆忠先生的“中国古建筑在结构上的伟大成就”、“南海神庙”、“瑰玮奇特、天南奇观的容县古经略台—真武阁”等系列论文,对岭南古建筑的构架和设计方法上作了考据和论证;陆元鼎、魏彦均教授的《广东民居》对广东民居及祠堂的布局、形制及构架和装饰进行了系统的研究论述;邓其生教授对岭南园林进行详细勘察,对岭南园林的布局格体、设计手法以及园林建筑的形体、体量进行深入探讨研究;吴庆洲教授的“粤西古建筑瑰宝”、“肇庆梅庵”和“德庆悦城龙母庙”的研究对岭南早期的大木式建筑的形制做了详尽的分析;程建军教授多年来一直对岭南古建筑的大木构架进行大量细致的研究,并发表了多篇论文和专著,如“南海神庙大殿复原研究”、“广州光孝寺大雄宝殿大木构架研究”、“广府式殿堂大木结构技术研究”、 “粤东福佬系大木式构架研究”、 “压白尺法初探”和《岭南古代大式殿堂建筑构架研究》对岭南大式殿堂建筑构架和设计方法进行了系统性的总结,提出很多权威的见解等。
  • 李哲扬老师致力于粤东传统建筑大木构架的研究和学习,其论文《潮汕传统建筑大木构架研究》、《潮汕传统大木构架建构方式考察》对粤东潮汕传统建筑的大木构架历史形态、发展规律和建构方式进行了深入挖掘,阐述了潮汕传统建筑体系是广义闽南建筑系统中的一个子系统,同时具有潮汕地区的自身自然地理及发展历史特点,它也是一个相当独立的、具有鲜明个性的区域建筑体系。该文就是针对潮汕传统建筑体系中大木构架的形态式样、构成尺度、设计匠法等多方面进行深入分析研究的一篇论文。同属岭南系统中的一部分,该论文对于本文的写作有很大的参考价值。论文研究的对象包括传统建筑实体与工匠技艺,作者进行了充分的前期调研工作,并通过匠师访谈、摄影、测绘等方式,获得了大量的第一手资料,首次披露建筑“水布”做法等内容,论文中,对影响潮汕地区传统建筑体系产生与发展的历史、地理因素进行了综合的分析,并简要地回顾了该区传统建筑的发展历史。对部分潮汕传统建筑名词进行了收集、整理、图解等的工作。其中选取了六个突出的殿堂实例,作为整体构架设计的分析对象,着重研究分析了它们的尺度构成设计特点;其余的众多实例则为研究该区传统大木构架的时代特征提供了实物支持。文中对于潮汕大木构架设计法的探讨,主要着力于尺度、用尺、尺法等的探讨,还对潮汕传统建筑中所蕴涵沉淀的古制源流进行了考证分析。
  • 东南大学张玉瑜博士的论文《实践中的营造智慧—福建传统大木匠师技艺抢救性研究》,致力于福建传统营造技艺的抢救性研究,通过现场调研查访,对大木构架设计的主导者—匠师进行系统研究,对福建地区传统建造体系中的木匠技术和大木作技术进行记录、解构与分析研究,另外也对木作雕刻、油作、漆作等进行分析。来揭示左右大木构架设计过程中派系师承、设计尺法、风俗禁忌等影响因素,开拓了大木构架研究的新思路。
  • 台湾著名学者李乾朗先生对台湾传统建筑匠艺进行研究整理,对台湾地区传统建筑设计手法进行系统总结。认为对于中国传统建筑营造而言,中国建筑具有顽强的延续性;继承多于发展;中国建筑具有强烈的普遍性;虽地方与官式、地方之间存有差异,但汉地建筑同属一个建筑文化和技术体系;营造技术体系是实践基础上的操作系统,有其特定规律,如简明性、方便性、习惯性等。

国内对于粤北大木构架研究现状

  • 粤北地区木构架目前的研究少有问津。近年来,程建军教授主持了粤北地区几处学宫的修缮项目,并多次带领博硕研究生深入粤北地区,对古建筑考察研究。
  • 程建军《岭南古代大式殿堂建筑构架研究》该文讲述了岭南古代建筑的地理与历史文化背景,岭南大式殿堂建筑的概念与类型,岭南大式殿堂建筑木构架形式分析,岭南大式殿堂建筑木构架形式再分析,广府大式殿堂建筑木构架的时代特征与加工工艺,岭南大式殿堂建筑木构架中的古制,粤东福佬系大式殿堂大木构架名词与设计方法,岭南古建筑与日本古建筑的关系。文中涉及到粤北地区的韶州府学宫大成殿,并对其进行了简要分析。
  • 民居系列丛书《广东民居》中对粤北地区民居及祠堂的木构架进行了部分研究。广东工业大学的朱雪梅教授《粤北地区传统村落形态和建筑文化研究》关于粤北地区的传统民居构架类型有部分研究,还有一些学者对于粤北的构架有零星的研究工作,更大范围的研究工作尚未展开。
  • 岭南建筑经典丛书岭南古村落系列《走进古村落》粤北卷,从村落聚居入手,谈及村落文化在地域上表现出的水乡文化、山居文化、海洋文化的特点,又因移民南迁及向海外拓展的缘故,同时表现出移民文化和侨乡文化等多样性特征,内容涉及到粤北的12 个古村落,主要从文化、装饰角度来讨论民风、民俗,关于传统建筑营造技术,木构架的相关理论几乎没有提及。

国外相关研究

  • 研究中国传统的木构技术,推而广之到国际范围,那么主要有关联的还是东亚地区,日本、韩国、朝鲜等地区,尤其是日本,在文化上与中国具有同源性,从唐代吸收借鉴中国的传统技术,而后发展自成体系,研究成果比较丰富。
  • “他山之石,可以攻玉”,中国和日本两国建筑文化之间有特定的源流关系,日本建筑界对于大木构架研究的方法、成果值得我们借鉴、学习。日本学者对于建筑理论的研究不仅表现在总体上的全面广泛,而且尤其在建筑细部上,深入而具体。日本建筑史研究作为一门独立的学问,已经取得了很多成果,研究方法也渐趋成熟。浅野清通过遗构修理所作的考古实证性研究,著作《唐招提寺金堂复原考》、《法隆寺建筑综观》、《奈良时代建筑の研究》、《东大寺华法堂的现状及其复原的考察》;关口欣也以遗构为主要研究对象,对所有现存的中世禅宗寺院,从平面、构架、柱高、斗栱、装饰细部等诸方面展开研究,力图寻求其形制,构成及其发展演变的规律,汇编成专集《禅宗建筑的研究》等。关野贞先生试图将一个新的科学方法应用于建筑考古学研究上,提出判定建筑年代时可以根据营造尺的性质进行尺度判断,并在其广泛应用于后期日本建筑史的研究上。
  • 学者竹岛卓一的《营造法式の研究》全书共三卷。对于总制、泥作、砖作、彩画作、窑作等进行了系统的体系研究。并将《营造法式》各卷均译成日文。河田克博等重点研究了日本近世建筑书中唐样建筑的设计技法。
  • 日本铃木充教授对于中国的《营造法原》进行了分类研究,分别从解题与台基、平房楼房、提栈、厅堂总论、厅堂及其材料等五个部分展开讨论,是对《营造法原》比较系统的研究,也为更多日本学者了解江南营造做法提供资料。
  • 欧美。由于中西方文化背景差异较大,欧美对于中国古典建筑的研究较少,以翻译介绍为主,少有专题研究。Else Glahn 著《Chinese Building Standards in the 12th Century》(1981)将《营造法式》译为英文,增加了《营造法式》的国际知名度,该书以翻译为主,注解为辅,少有研究。关于中国古典建筑研究有 Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt 的专著《Liao Architecture》和期刊论文 The Tang Architectural Icon and the Politics of Chinese Architectural History(2004)。

 

Counterheritage: Critical Perspectives on Heritage Conservation in Asia (Routledge Studies in Heritage)

Introduction

  • Popular religion and antiquities collecting constitutes the principle themes of Counterheritage. 
  • Along with Smith (2004, 2006), I view heritage discourse as essentially hegemonic (Bryne 1991, 1996). There is, as it were, a compact among heritage practitioners not to notice that heritage discourse constructs its own subject, that it constructs heritage items out of old things. This ‘not noticing’ may on the face of it seem innocent, but its effects are corrosive.
  • [But this is not Smith says in her book. Yes she argues that heritage is a discourse and a construct, but heritage practitioners as participants are acutely aware of the situation too].
  • The coinage ‘counterheritage’ denotes not an attack on heritage practice but an insistence on transparency. The book argues for a more democratic heritage practice, one that respects the existence of other ways of relating to old things and one prepared to take a clear-eyed view of its own history. 
  • I have advocated a ‘countermapping’ approach which, identifying the map as a technology of power in colonial and post-colonial settings, works to inscribe on maps those elements of the culture and historic of marginalised groups that official heritage mapping practices have neglected to ‘notice’.
  • Heritage’s opposition to the accretion of new on old fabric… Popular religion, by contrast, favours the piling up of fabric upon fabric, renovation upon renovation, according to the logic that spirits and deities are honoured by the labour and funding expended in the renewal and elboration of the fabric of their temples and shrines. Whereas heritage conservation seeks to stabilise built fabric, popular religion cannot seem to abide stasis.
  • Heritage discourse shares with archaeology with modern, Cartesian view that matter is inert and passive (Olsen 2010). This licenses conservators to treat temples as purely human artefacts rather than as phenomena that arise from the bundled effects of divine and human agency. Heritage discourse is wedded to modernity. Ontologically, it proceeds from modern secular rationalism. 
  • Asian popular religion, on the other hand, frames the world in a way similar ot that pertaining during the European Renaissance when all phenomena are created by God.

Conservation in the Age of Consensus

Introduction

  • [quite UK-specific]
  • There is therefore tremendous continuity in the basic principles that define the historic environment and the way government considers it should be managed, since the late 1960s/early 1970s. These derive from a justification for conservation based upon cultural values relating to architectural quality, historic importance and archaeological significance: to defining places as special. However, what has shifted fundamentally in official pronouncements during this period is the benefits that are argued to derive from this activity. An official document such as Preservation and Change (Ministry of Housing and Local Government 1967) set out brief statements of the value of conservation relating to beauty and visible history. In the 1970s, there was rhetorical emphasis on the social value of conservation, and in the 1980s stress on its economic potential. By the time of the government’s policy advice document PPG15, benefits were argued to include value in terms of national identity, quality of life, local distinctiveness, leisure and recreation and economic prosperity. Force for Our Future, a more recent government statement on the heritage was even more fulsome. It waxed lyrically and extensively about the role of conservation in establishing environmental quality and identity, local distinctiveness and continuity and as an active part of social processes, including community cohesion and social inclusion, and as a stimulus for creative new architecture. Furthermore, conservation was held to aid economic processes and economic regeneration in particular.
  • [but is it possible to separate the cultural values form the social/economic value of heritage?]
  • However, despite these sweeping statements, these are benefits that may (or may not) follow decisions to protect based upon essentially traditional criteria of specialness, and where guidance on conservation management decisions emphasises first and foremost the importance of sustaining cultural worth defined around issues of fabric and aesthetics.
  • [But this is simply not true. Cultural worth is defined through, firstly, the materiality of the heritage, then the community’s definitions of heritage, then intangible heritage, then more often a layering of values. The definitions of cultural value is not at all static.]

ICOMOS China Charter

Foreword

In China one of the major issues for cultural heritage is how to deal with the relationship between socio-economic development and heritage conservation in order that both economic development and heritage conservation come out winners.

China is presently going through a phase of rapid development. Many places simply pursue the economic benefits of cultural heritage and ignore conservation of the property. In some areas people may even damage a site for shortterm economic gain. There are some places that realize the importance of heritage conservation after becoming more economically developed and invest considerable funds for conservation purposes. However, many undertake conservation without following appropriate theories and what may have started off as good intention ends up with negative results. In order to address these problems, more effort has been put into education so that the public in general and all stakeholders understand that  cultural heritage can play a positive role in society today. At the same time, law enforcement has been strengthened with priority placed on criminal investigation in cases of destruction of heritage sites. More importantly, research into the theory of conservation has been enhanced and appropriate concepts and theories have been used to guide us in finding solutions to questions that still remain. For example, as
a result of extensive theoretical research we have undertaken on appropriate use of heritage sites, we conclude that appropriate use is the best means of maintaining the vitality of a site in contemporary life as well as an important means of promoting the conservation of both its physical remains and values. This has already become a consensus among the professionals.

New issues emerge in the conservation of cultural heritage sites during times of rapid economic and social development. For these reasons it has been necessary to revise and supplement the original content of the China Principles so as to better address the main issues presently facing heritage conservation.

While emphasising historic, artistic and scientific values of heritage sites, the revised China Principles also recognizes cultural and social values based on theoretical research and practices in heritage conservation and use both in China and internationally. In addition to cultural and social values that are attributed to physical remains of many heritage sites, social value is demonstrated when a heritage site generates social benefits in aspects such as maintaining knowledge and spiritual continuity and enhancing social coherence, while cultural value is closely connected to cultural diversity and intangible heritage. The concepts of cultural and social values have further enriched the categories and meanings of China’s cultural heritage, and have played a positive role in constructing the value based theoretical system of Chinese heritage conservation.

Interpretation and presentation of heritage sites. The new version of the China Principles regards reconstruction of a destroyed historic building as a means of interpretation and presentation, which defines the nature and values of reconstructed buildings, thus settling a long disputed issue in the conservation of China’s historic structures.

The Past is a Foreign Country

Lowenthal, David, 1985

Introduction

  • ‘None of the past definitively eludes our intense involvement. What we are now indifferent to once meant much or may later do so. That being so, I survey the past not only through lenses of memory and history but also through present-day perspectives – impassioned views of right and wrong, good and evil, ownership and alienation, identity and entitlement. We descry the past both for its sake and for our sake. Neither historian nor layman is ever aloof or detached from it. To know is to care, to care is to use, to use is to transform the past. Continually refashioned, the remade past continuously remoulds us.’ (Lowenthal, 2015)
  • ‘But I also consider invented heritage, no less than revealed history, both inescapable and indispensable. In fabricating the past ‘we tell ourselves who we are, where we came from, and to what we belong’.’ (Wood, G.S. quoted in Lowenthal, 2015).
  • That they did indeed do things differently is a quite recent perception. During most of history scholars scarcely differentiated past from present, referring even to remote events, if at all, as though just then occurring. Up to the nineteenth century the historical past was generally thought much like the present.
  • This outlook had two particular consequences. Past departures from present standards were praised as virtuous or condemned as depraved. And since past circumstances seemed comparable and hence relevant to present concerns, history served as a source of useful exemplars. A past explained in terms similar to the present also suited common views of why things happened as they had.
  • Only in the late eighteenth century did Europeans begin to conceive the past as different, not just another country but a congeries of foreign lands shaped by unique histories and personalities. This new past gradually ceased to provide comparative lessons. Instead it became cherished for validating and exalting the present. This aroused urges to preserve and restore monuments and memories as emblems of communal identity, continuity, and aspiration.
  • Growing global participation likewise broadened UNESCO’s World Heritage Site
    designations, while cosmopolitanism spurred revision of the canonical 1964 Venice Charter. That document had accorded prime value to western Europe’s surviving marble monuments and stone and brick buildings. Less durable wooden architecture predominant in Norway and Japan led conservators to focus on rebuilt form rather than original substance; I joined the 1990s Bergen workshop and the Nara conference that rewrote criteria of authenticity accordingly. A decade later other cultural differences in heritage fuelled a similar drive to celebrate and protect intangible heritage. Where structures and artefacts soon decayed or were customarily replaced by new creations, what truly mattered was the maintenance of traditional skills and crafts, arts, and genres de vie.
  • Various academic initiatives – at UNESCO, ICCROM, the Getty Conservation Institute, and elsewhere – foundered for want of institutional support, in a budgetary climate that confined past-related benefits to immediate economic payoffs.
  • I had already penned a book that took off from where The Past Is a Foreign Country ended.24 In it I distinguished the rising cult of heritage – partisan manipulations of the past – from historians’ impartial and consensual efforts to understand it. Appropriating the past for parti pris purposes, heritage purged its foreignness. The past’s growing domestication now threatened to subvert this book’s premise.
  • This book comprises four broad themes: wanting, disputing, knowing, and remaking the past. Part I reviews how the past enriches and impoverishes us, and why we embrace or shun it. Part II surveys competing viewpoints about things past and present, old and new. How we become aware of and learn about the past, and how we respond to such knowledge, occupies part III. Part IV considers how we save and change the received past; why its vestiges are salvaged or contrived; and how these alterations affect the past and ourselves. I show how the past, once virtually indistinguishable from the present, became ever more foreign, yet increasingly suffused by present hopes and habits.
  • Chapters 5 and 6 explore responses to ageing, decay, and marks of use and wear, as distinct from indicators of a historical past. Artefacts and institutions are commonly assigned lifespans analogous to our own, their ageing likened to human old age – a condition usually dismayingly repellent, as shown in Chapter 5. Decay suggests not only enfeeblement and incipient demise, but corruption and evil, caricatured in venomous portrayals of senile impotent geezers and withered witch-like crones. Although medical advance has multiplied the numbers and political clout of the elderly, age-averse stereotypes and nursing-home horrors show geriatric animus unabated. Bias against the fact and look of age extends from humans to other creatures, natural features, nations and states,
    and most artefacts. Almost all are beautiful and virtuous when young, ugly and depraved when aged and decrepit.
  • Ageism is far from universal, however. Chapter 6 details how marks of age are felt to enhance the beauty and value of certain artefacts – notably buildings and paintings. Long ago admired in China and Japan, wear and tear became widely prized in Europe in the sixteenth century, first for confirming and authenticating antiquity, then as attractive in their own right. Monumental ruin and decay first acclaimed as memento mori later betokened picturesque aesthetic. Age appreciation earlier progressed from long-buried Chinese bronzes and neo-Romantic fondness for fragmented sculpture to time-softened varnished paintings. Today it includes Cor-Ten structures and sculptures meant to rust, artworks admired as they evanesce, and corroding industrial and military ruins. But the public in general shuns the appearance of age. Teddy bears and retro pubs aside, most old things should look new-made. But impassioned differences between friends and foes of the patina of age surface in continuing controversy over cleaning buildings and restoring
    paintings.
  • Memory and history both derive and gain authority from physical remains (Chapter 9). Tangible survivals’ vivid immediacy helps assure us there really was a past. Physical remains have limited evidentiary worth: themselves mute, they require interpretation. Moreover, differing rates of erosion and demolition skew the material record. But however depleted by time and use, relics crucially bridge then and now. They confirm or deny what we think of the past, symbolize or memorialize communal links among generations, and provide archaeological metaphors that illumine history and memory. Locales and relics are objects of curiosity or beauty, historical evidence, and talismans of continuity reified by
    visceral contact with the past. However ill-informed our responses, they bespeak our concern with what has been. All knowledge of the past requires caring about it – feeling pleasure or disgust, awe or disdain, hope or despair about its legacies.
  • Surviving relics and recollections undergo ceaseless change, much of it of our ownn making. Even when we strive to save bygone things and thoughts intact, we cannot avoid altering them. Some changes are made unconsciously, others reluctantly, still others deliberately. Chapters 10 to 12 examine how and why we transform the past, and how such changes affect our environs and ourselves.
  • Simply to identify something as ‘past’ affects its ambience: recognition entails marking, protecting, and enhancing relics to make them more accessible, secure, or attractive. Preserving things (Chapter 10) inevitably transforms them, often in unintended and undesired ways. Appreciation if not survival may require moving relics from original locales. Enshrined in historical precincts yet immersed in the trappings of present-day management, vestiges of the past seem newly contrived. Present choices – whether to retain relics in situ or to shift them, to leave them fragmented or to make them whole again – vitally affect how the past is experienced.
  • Imitations, fakes, and new works inspired by earlier prototypes extend and alter auras of antiquity. The fame or scarcity of originals begets replicas that copy, emulate, or echo the old. Creations that hark back to or reflect some attribute of a bygone era have for two millennia dominated the cultural landscape of the Western world. Modern awareness of classical architecture derives from an amalgam of Hellenistic, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Romantic, and Victorian works, in which extant Greek and Roman remains are sparse. Frequently mistaken for originals, copies and replicas may be preferred to them for their completeness, their freshness, or their accordance with modern taste and expectations. Originals often seem less ‘authentic’ than current views of what things past should have been.

Dellios, A., 2015. Marginal or mainstream? Migrant centres as grassroots and official heritage’

Abstract

Migrant heritage, as a grassroots practice seeking to commemorate pre- and post-war migrant communities and their contributions, emerged in Australia from the 1980s. Since that time, its appeal has continued to grow. It now receives, in some form, state sanction and is policed by the same state and national legislation as other cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible. This article seeks to complicate understandings of migrant heritage as a marginal practice, specifically by interrogating the use-value of particular narratives in the Australian context – that is, how do individuals, communities and other groups (the grassroots) draw on sanctioned and publicly circulating narratives to mark their site as heritage-worthy? Ideas of what constitutes official and unofficial heritage can be mutually inclusive – a dialectical process. I analyse this in relation to the commemoration of former post-war migrant reception centres in Australia.

 

Bibliography

Ashworth, JE & Tunbridge, G. J. 1995. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. Here.

Bryne, Denis, 2014, Counterheritage: Critical Perspectives on Heritage Conservation in Asia. Introduction. (kindle)

Cairns, Stephen and Jacobs, Jane M. (2014), Buildings Must Die: A Perverse View of Architecture (own) Excerpts, Biblio

Collins, George R. and Collins, Christiane Crasemann, 1986, Camillo Sitte: The Birth of Modern City Planning (own) Camillo Sitte: The Birth of Modern City Planning

Foscari, Giulia, 2014, Elements of Venice (own) Elements of Venice

Girouard, Mark, Cities and People

Harrison, Rodney, 2013, Heritage, A Critical Approach (kindle) Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 5

Harvey, D.C. (2001) ‘Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: Temporality, Meaning and the Scope of Heritage Studies’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 7( 4): 319– 338. Here.(pdf)

ICOMOS China Charter, 2015, foreword. (pdf)

Moll-Murata, Christine, 2008, Chinese Guilds from the 17th to the 20th Centuries: An Overview in Return of the Guilds, Lucassen, Jan, De Moor, Tine and Luiten van Zanden, Jan (eds), pp 213-247 (physical book) Here.

Mumford, Lewis, 1961, The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects (amazon) https://www.amazon.co.uk/City-History-Origins-Transformations-Prospects/dp/0156180359

Murphy, Richard, 2014, Lecture on Carlo Scarpa (YouTube) Carlo Scarpa (in Richard Murphy’s Lecture) also available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_78_KQZiP8

Pendlebury, John, 2008, Conservation in the Age of Consensus, Introduction (kindle)

Ridout, Brian, 2013, Timber Decay in Buildings, The Conservation Approach to Treatment Timber Decay in Buildings

Rowe, Colin, 1978, Collage City (pdf) PDF online; in folder D:\[Texts]

Scappettone, Jennifer, 2014, Killing the Moonlight: Modernism in Venice (own) Killing the Moonlight

Sennett, Richard, 2008, The Craftsman (pdf) Prologue, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3

Smith, Laurajane, 2006, Uses of Heritage, Part I Chapter 1, Part I Chapter 2, Part II, Part III, Conclusion

Tunbridge, JE and Ashworth, GJ, 1996, Dissonant heritage: the management of the past as a resource in conflict, Introduction (pdf)

UCL, Selected Reading List from UCL

Reading List on Cultural Heritage

Selected from UCL Archaeology Department, Critical Perspectives on Cultural Heritage

Affleck, J, Yehuda Kalay, Thomas Kvan, (eds) , 2008, New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage

Aikawa-Faure, N., 2009. From the Proclamation of Masterpieces to the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage.

Alivizatou, M., 2012. The Paradoxes of Intangible Heritage. In: M. L. Stefano, P. Davis & G. Corsane (eds), Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, pp. 9-22.

Anderson, B., 1983. Imagined Communities. London: Verso.

Andrea Witcomb & Kristal Buckley AM (2013) ‘Engaging with the future of ‘critical heritage studies’: looking back in order to look forward’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(6), 562-578.

Anico, M. and Peralta, E., 2009, (eds). Heritage and Identity- Engagement and Demission in the Contemporary World. London: Routledge.

Appadurai, A., 1986. The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Augé, M., 1995. Non-Places. Translated by John Howe. London and New York: Verso

Aykan, B., 2015. Patenting’ Karagöz: UNESCO, nationalism and multinational intangible heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies May 2015, pp. 1-13.

Bal, Mieke, 1985. Narratology: introduction to the theory of narrative. 2nd Edition. Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press.

Barthel-Bouchier, Diane and Hui, Ming Min, 2007. Places of Cosmopolitan Memory. Globality Studies Journal 5(7).

Barthes, Roland, 2000. The blue guide. In: R. Barthes and Lavers, A. (eds), Mythologies. London: Vintage, pp. 74-77.

Basu, P. and Coleman, S. M., “Introduction: migrant worlds, material cultures” in Mobilities, 3(3), 2008, pages 313-330.

Beck, Ulrich, 2000. The Cosmopolitan Perspective: The Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity. The British Journal of Sociology 51(1), pp. 79-105.

Bender, Barbara, Landscape : politics and perspectives, Berg, 1993. Note: Esp. Intro. and ‘Stonehenge – Contested Landscape’: 205-245

Benton, T., and Curtis, P., 2010. The Heritage of Public Commemoration. In: T. Benton (ed.), Understanding Heritage and Memory. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 44-87.

Bevan, R., 2006. The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War. London: Reaktion Books

Bhabha, H.K., 1994. The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge.

Boldrick, S. & Clay, R. (eds.) 2007. Iconoclasm: Contested Objects, Contested Terms. (London: Ashgate)

Boniface, Priscilla, Fowler, P. J, Heritage and tourism in “the global village”, Routledge, 1993. Note: Esp. Intro. Chapters 1, 3, 4 & 11

Bourdieu, Pierre, 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Boym, S, 2001. The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books.

Britton, S, G., “The Political Economy of Tourism in the Third world” in Annals of tourism research, 9, 1982, pages 331-358

Brown, Michael, “Can culture be copyrighted?” in Current anthropology, 39(2), 1998, pages 193-222

Butler, B. 2006, Heritage and the Present Past. In: C. Tilley et al. (eds), Handbook of material culture London: Sage, Chapter 29.

Butler, B., 2006 b, “Three Concepts” – Hospitality, Cosmopolitanism and Human Dignity: Reconceptualising Heritage Futures. Archaeologies: The Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 2(2), pp. 67-69.

Carr, David, 2003. The promise of cultural institutions. Walnut, CA: AltaMira Press.

Chaplin, Sarah, Stara, Alexandra. 2009. Curating architecture and the city. London: Routledge

Chappell, E.A., 1999. Open-Air Museums: Architectural History for the Masses. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 58(3), pp. 334-341.

Cleere, H, 2000. The World Heritage Convention in the Third World. In: F. McManamon and A. Halton (eds), Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society. London: Routledge, pp. 99- 106.

Cleere, H., “Cultural Landscapes as world heritage” in Conservation and management of archaeological sites, 1(1), 1995, pages 63-68

Cleere, H., “The concept of ‘outstanding universal value” in Conservation and management of archaeological sites, 1(4), 1996, pages 227-233

Cleere, H., “The World Heritage Convention in the Third World” in Cultural resource management in contemporary society : perspectives on managing and presenting the past by McManamon, Francis P, Hatton, Alf, Routledge, 2000, pages 99-106   

Cleere, H., “The World Heritage Convention: Management by and for whom?” in A future for archaeology : the past in the present by Ucko, Peter J, Layton, Robert, Shennan, Stephen, Stone, Peter G., UCL Press, 2006, pages 65-74

Cleere, H., 1995. Cultural Landscapes as world heritage. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 1(1), pp. 63-68.

Cleere, H., 1996. The concept of ‘outstanding universal value’ in the World Heritage Convention. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 1(4), pp. 227-233.

Cleere, H., 2001. Uneasy Bedfellows: Universality and Cultural Heritage. In: P. Stone, R. Layton and J. Thomas (eds). Destruction and conservation of cultural property. London: Routledge, pp. 22-29.

Cleere, H., 2006. The World Heritage Convention: Management by and for whom? In: P. Ucko, R. Layton, S. Shennan and P. Stone (eds). A future for archaeology: the past in the present. London: UCL Press, pp. 65-74.

Clifford, James, 1988. The predicament of culture: twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, Note: ‘On collecting art and culture’, pp. 215- 250.

Cohen, E., “Authenticity and Comodification in Tourism” in Annals of tourism research, 15(3), 1988, pages 371-386

Coleman, Simon, Eade, John, 2004. Reframing pilgrimage: cultures in motion. London: Routledge. Note: Introduction.

Conil-Lacoste, Michel, The story of a grand design : Unesco 1946-1993, people, events and achievements, Unesco Publishing, 1994

Coombe, Rosemary J, The cultural life of intellectual properties: authorship, appropriation, and the law, Duke University Press, 1998

Daly, P. and Winter, T., (eds), 2012. Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia. London and New York: Routledge.

De Jong, F. 2007. A Masterpiece of Masquerading: Contradictions of Conservation in Intangible Heritage, in: De Jong, F. and Rowlands, M. (eds) Reclaiming Heritage: Alternative Imaginaries of Memory in West Africa, 161-184. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.   

Derrida, J. 2002b. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. London and New York: Routledge.

Derrida, J. and Prenowitz, E., 1996. Archive fever: a Freudian impression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, J., 2002a. Ethics, Institutions and the Right to Philosophy. Plymouth: Rowan & Littlefield.

Domanska, E., 2006. The Material Presence of the Past. History and Theory, 45, pp. 337–348.

Dorfman, E. (ed,) Intangible Natural Heritage – New Perspectives on Natural Objects Heritage Trouble: Recent Work on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Property, International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (1): 40-61 Ruggles & H. Silverman (eds), Intangible Heritage Embodied. London & New York: Springer, pp.1-14.

Fairclough, G., Harrison, R., et al., 2007. The Heritage Reader. London: Routledge.

Foucault, M., 1989. The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge.

Friedman J., “The Past in the Future: History and the Politics of Identity” in American anthropologist, 94(4), 1992, pages 837-859

Gillis, J. R., 1994. Memory and Identity: The History of a Relationship. In: J. Gillis (ed.), Commemorations: the politics of national identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3- 24.

Graham, B. and P. Howard (2008) ‘Heritage and Identity’, in B. Graham and P. Howard (eds) The Ashgate Companion to Heritage and Identity, London: Ashgate, pp. 1– 17. (kindle)

González-Ruibal, A. 2008. Time to destroy. An archaeology of supermodernity. Current Anthropology 49(2): 247-279

Hafstein, V. Tr., 2009. Intangible heritage as a list: from masterpieces to representation. In: L. Smith & N. Akagawa (eds), Intangible Heritage, pp. 93-111.

Hall, S., 2000. Whose heritage?: un-settling ‘the heritage’, re-imagining the post nation. Third Text, 49, pp. 3-13. *Introductory session article

Harrison, David, Hitchcock, Michael, The politics of world heritage: negotiating tourism and conservation, Channel View Publications, 2005

Harrison, R., 2013. Heritage: Critical Approaches. London and New York: Routledge.

Harrison, Rodney. 2013. ‘Forgetting to remember, remembering to forget: late modern heritage practices, sustainability and the ‘crisis’ of accumulation of the past.’ International Journal of Heritage Studies 19(6), pp. 579-595

Harrison, S., “Identity as a scarce resource” in Social anthropology, 7(3), pages 239-251

Hell, Julian and Schönle, Andreas (eds). 2010. Ruins of Modernity. Durham NC and London: Duke University Press. Note: all chapters good but esp. Intro

Hewison, Robert, 1987. The Heritage Industry: Britain in a climate of decline . London: Methuen, Note: introduction, chapter one.

Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M., eds., 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hobsbawm, E., and Ranger, T., 1983. The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holtorf, C. & Fairclough, G., 2013. The New Heritage and re-shapings of the past. In: A. GonzalezRuibal (ed.) Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of Modernity. (London & New York: Routledge), pp. 197-210   

Holtorf, C. and Piccini, A. (eds), 2009. Contemporary Archaeologies: Excavating Now. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.   

Holtorf, C., “Is the Past a Non-Renewable Resource?” in Destruction and conservation of cultural property by Stone, Peter G., Layton, Robert, Thomas, Julian, Routledge, 2001   

Holtorf, C., 2013. On Pastness: A Reconsideration of Materiality in Archaeological Object Authenticity. Anthropological Quarterly, 86 (2), 427–443.

Huyssen, A., 1995. Twilight Memories: Marking time in a culture of amnesia. New York and London: Routledge

Huyssen, A., 2006. Nostalgia for Ruins. Grey Room 23(Spring), pages 6-21

Huyssen, Andreas. 2010. Authentic Ruins: Products of Modernity. In: Julia Hell and Andreas Schönle (eds). Ruins of Modernity. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, pages 17-28.

Hylland Eriksen, Thomas, 2003. Between universalism and relativism: a critique of the UNESCO concept of culture. In: J. Cowan, M. Dembour, and R. Wilson (eds), Culture and rights: anthropological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127-148.

Ingold, T., 1996. Key Debates in Anthropology. London: Routledge.

Jacobs, Jane, 1996. Edge of empire: postcolonialism and the city, London and New York: Routledge, Note: “Authentically Yours: Detouring the Map” pp. 132-163.

Jones, Sian, 2009. Experiencing authenticity at heritage sites: some implications for heritage management and conservation. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 11(2), pp. 133-147.

Jones, Sian, 2010. “Negotiating authentic objects and authentic selves: beyond the deconstruction of authenticity.” Journal of Material Culture 15(2), pp. 181-203.

Jones, Sian, 2010. Monuments, memory and identity: exploring the social value of place. Conservation Bulletin 63, pp. 22-24.

Keyan Titchen, S. M., 1996. On the Construction of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’: Some Comments on the Implementation of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, Conservation and management of archaeological sites 1(4), pp. 235-242

Kingston, S., “Review article on Authenticity” in Journal of material culture, 4(3), 1999

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B, 2004, Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production, “Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production.” in Museum, 56(1-2), pages 52-65

Kreps, C, 2008. “Indigenous Curation, Museums and Intangible Cultural Heritage.” In: Kreps, Christina F, Liberating culture : cross-cultural perspectives on museums, curation, and heritage preservation, Routledge, 2003. Note: Esp Ch4: Reclaiming the spirit of culture: native Americans and cultural restitution.

Kreps, Christina, 2003. Liberating culture: cross-cultural perspectives on museums, curation, and heritage preservation. London and New York: Routledge, Note: CHAPTER 3 Note: Chapter 3, pp. 46-78.

Labadi, S. and Long, C. (eds), 2010. Heritage and Globalisation. London and New York: Routledge, Note: pp. 192-201.

Latour, B., 2002. What Is Iconoclash? Or Is There a World Beyond the Image Wars? [see http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/downloads/84- ICONOCLASH%20PDF.pdf

Latour, Bruno, Weibel, Peter, 2005 .Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. Karlsruhe: Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe.

Lee, C., 2014. ‘Welcome to London’: Spectral Spaces in Sherlock Holmes’s Metropolis. Cultural Studies Review, 20(2), pp. 172-195

Legg, S., 2004. Memory and Nostalgia. Cultural Geographies 11(1), pp. 99-107

Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 1977. Structural anthropology. Harmondsworth: Penguin, Note: History and Anthropology.

Lidchi, H., “The Poetics and Politics of Exhibiting Other Cultures” in Representation : cultural representations and signifying practices by Hall, Stuart (ed.), Sage in association with the Open University, 1997, pages 119-219.

Lowenthal, D., 1975. Past time, present place: landscape and memory. Geographical Review 65, pp. 1-36 (pdf)

Lowenthal, David, 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pdf)

MacDonald, S., 2013. Memorylands: Heritage and Identity in Europe Today. London and New York: Routledge. [E-Book]

McBryde, I., “The Ambiguities of authenticity – rock of faith or shifting sands?’ Nara Conference on authenticity in relation to the World Heritage Convention” in Conservation and management of archaeological sites, 2, 1997, pages 93-100

Merriman, N., 1996. Defining Heritage. Journal of Material Culture 1(3), pp. 377-386. Millenson, Susan Feinberg, 1987. Sir John Soane’s Museum. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press

Merryman J., “Two ways of thinking about cultural property” in The American journal of international law, 80, 1986, pages 831-853

Meskell, L., 2010. Human Rights and Heritage Ethics. Anthropological Quarterly 83(4), pp. 839–860.

Messenger, Phyllis, Fagan, Brian, 1999. The ethics of collecting cultural property: whose culture? Whose property?. 2nd Edition. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Miller, D., 2007. Artefacts and the meaning of things. In: S. Knell (Ed.), Museums in the material world. London and New York: Routledge, 2007, pp. 166-186.

Miller, D., 2008. The comfort of things. Cambridge: Polity, Note: read ‘Prologue’, ‘Portrait 1: Empty’, ‘Portrait 2: Full’

Mitchell, J. P., 2006. “Performance” in: Handbook of Material Culture by Tilley, Chris. Sage, pages 384-401.

Moshenska, G., 2012. Unbuilt Heritage: Conceptualising Absences in the Historic Environment. In: S. May, H. Orange, and S. Penrose, (eds), The Good, the Bad and the Unbuilt: Handling the Heritage of the Recent Past. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 123–126. 

Myers, F., 2001. The empire of things: regimes of value and material culture. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Nas, P.J.M., “Masterpieces of Oral and Intangible Culture: Reflections on the UNESCO World Heritage List” in Current anthropology, 43(1), 2002, pages 139-148

Nash,D., The Anthropology of Tourism in Anthropology Today, 20(3). Note: Introduction to a special issue on tourism Parkin, D., ‘Mementoes as Transitional Objects in Human Displacement’ in Journal of Material Culture, 4(3), 1999

Nelson, Robert and Olin, Margaret (eds). 2003. Monuments and memory, made and unmade. London and Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Note: several useful chapters, particularly Intro, Epilogue, and Elsner.

Nora, P., 1989. Between Memory and History: Lieux de Mémoire. Representations 26(1), pp. 7-25. Norman, K., 2011. Should the UK Be Nominating More World Heritage Sites? http://www.presentpasts.info/article/view/pp.49/86 O’Neill, M., 2004. Enlightenment Museums – universal or merely global?, Museums and Society http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/museumstudies/museumsociety/documents/volumes/oneill.pdf

Oliver, P., 2001. Re-Presenting and Representing the Vernacular: The Open-Air Museum. In: N. AlSayyad (ed.), Consuming, tradition, manufacturing heritag : global norms and urban forms in the age of tourism. London:: Routledge, pp. 191-211.

Psarra, Sophia, 2009. Architecture and narrative: the formation of space and cultural. London: Routledge. Note: ‘Victorian Knowledge’, pages 137-158. 

Rapaport, H., 2003. Later Derrida: Reading the Recent Work. London and New York: Routledge, Note: Chapter Three: ‘Archive Trauma’ pp. 75-97.

Reed, A. ‘Of Routes and Roots: Paths for Understanding Diasporic Heritage’ in: Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research by Waterton, E., Watson, S. (eds), 2015, Palgrave Macmillan: England and New York. Rojek, C., ’Indexing., Dragging and the Social Construction of Tourist Sights’ in Touring cultures : transformations of travel and theory by Rojek, Chris, Urry, John, Routledge, 1997   

Roth, Leland M., 1994. Understanding architecture: its elements, history and meaning. London: Icon Editions.

Rowlands, M., “Heritage and Cultural Property.” in The material culture reader by Buchli, Victor, Berg, 2002, pages 105-110   

Rowlands, Michael, “Cultural Rights and Wrongs: Uses of the Concept of Property” in: Property in question : value transformation in the global economy by Verdery, Katherine, Humphrey, Caroline, Berg, 2004, pages 207-226

Ruggles, D. F.& Silverman, H., 2009. From Tangible to Intangible Heritage.  

Sahlins, Marshall, Culture in practice: selected essays, Zone Books, 2000   

Said, E., 2003. Freud and the Non-European. London: Verso.

Samuel, Raphael, 1994. Theatres of memory. Volume 1. London: Verso. Note: Especially read “Semantics and heritage baiting”.

Sebald, W. G., Translated by A. Bell. 2004. On the Natural History of Destruction.. New York: The Modern Library

Singh, Kishore, “UNESCO and Cultural Rights” in Cultural rights and wrongs: a collection of essays in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Unesco, 1998, pages 146-160.

 

Smith, Laurajane and Akagawa, Natsuko (eds.), 2009. Intangible Heritage. London: Routledge, pp. 13-44.

Starobinski, J., 1966. The idea of nostalgia. Diogenes, 56, pp. 81-103.

Stolcke, V., “Talking Culture: New Boundaries, New Rhetorics of Exclusion in Europe” in Current anthropology, 36 (1), 1995, pages 1-24

Stone, Peter G., Layton, Robert, Thomas, Julian, Destruction and conservation of cultural property, Routledge, 2001. Note: This volume contains a number of papers on Ayodhya and other conflicts.

Stotesbury, J.A. ‘Time, History, Memory: photographic life narratives and the albums of strangers’ in: Temporalities, Autobiography and Everyday Life by Campbell, J., Harbord, J. (eds), 2002, Manchester University Press.

Street, Brian and Hallam, Elizabeth (eds), 2000. Cultural encounters: representing ‘otherness’, London and New York: Routledge. Hallam (eds), Cultural encounters: representing ‘otherness’. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 155-193.

Thomas F. King, 2007. Our Unprotected Heritage – Whitewashing the Destruction of Our Cultural and Natural Environment. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Tilley, C., “Performing Culture in the Global Village” in Critique of Anthropology, 17, pages 67-89

Tilley, C., 1994. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths, and monuments. Oxford: Berg Note: ‘Space, place, landscape and perception: phenomenological perspectives pages’, pp. 7-34.

Titchen, S. M., “On the Construction of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’: Some Comments on the Implementation of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention” in Conservation and management of archaeological sites, 1(4), 1996, pages 235-242

Tolia-Kelly, P., Waterton, E., Watson, S., 2016. Heritage, Affect and Emotion: Politics, Practices and Infrastructures. London: Routledge.   

Tomlinson, J. ‘Globalised Culture: The Triumph of the West?’ in: The City Cultures Reader (second edition) by Miles, M., Hall, T., Borden, I. (eds), 2004, London: Routledge.

Tucker, H. and Carnegie, E., 2014. World heritage and the contradictions of ‘universal value’. Annals of Tourism Research 47, pp. 63–76. 2. Byrne, Denis, 2004. Chartering Heritage in Asia’s Postmodern World. Conservation: The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter, 19(2).

Urry, J., 1996. How Societies remember the Past. In: S. Macdonald and G. Fyfe (eds). Theorizing museums: representing identity and diversity in a changing world. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 45-65.

Urry, John, Consuming places, Routledge, 1995. Note: Part III & Part IV

Urry, John, The tourist gaze, 2nd Edition, SAGE, 2002. Note: Introduction.

Varvantakis, C., 2009. A Monument to Dismantlement. Memory Studies 2(1), pp. 27-38

Waterton, E. and Watson, S., 2014. The Semiotics of Heritage Tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications.