Challenging Authorized Heritage Discourse: A Repatriation Project in Atacameño Territory (Northern Chile)

1. Theoretical Issues 2. Tourism and Heritage - Pluralist Imaginings 3. Heritage Discourse and its Representations 4. Sandals and Togas. The Cinematic Imaginative and the Tourist Experiences of Roman Heritage sites. 5. Empty Promises and Historical Amnesia. The Dangers of Heritage Tourism as a Development Strategy. 6. Complexifying the notion of heritage inscription and the unauthorised interpretation 7. Using immersive and interactive approaches to interpreting traumatic experiences for tourists. potentials and limits 8. Country Matters. the rural historic as an authorised heritage discourse - in England 9. Shanghai Expo. meeting the world, hosting a people 10. Surface Collection... integration of traveller, travel sensibility and discipline. ways of seeing and being in place 11. Cambodian experiences of the manifestation and management dynamics of intangible heritage and tourism at a World Heritage Site 12. Heritage for Sale. the misrepresentation of voice and Indigeneity in Northern Chile 13. Local Heritage Tourism in Cuzco, Peru. Palimpsests of Monumentality and Spatialized Identities in the Land of the Incas 14. Clustering Industrial Heritage Tourists. Motivations for Visiting a Mining Site 15. Indigenous Australian heritage and story telling 16. African natural heritage

This paper analyses the national-level intangible cultural heritage (ICH) stone carving in Quyang, Hebei Province, by adopting a critical heritage approach. It extends the value of existing research on ICH commoditisation and localised authorised heritage discourse (AHD) by showing how entrepreneurs who are also local cultural practitioners play a significant role in enhancing the official heritage discourse. Specifically, it examines how prominent entrepreneurs, in collaboration with the government and academic institutions, contribute to enhancing AHD by emphasising artistic and economic value. This collaboration contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the interaction between economic capital and heritage discourse. It reveals a broader trend in which economic capital significantly impacts social capital and cultural acknowledgement, thereby bolstering official AHD on the role of stone carving in poverty alleviation and cultural industry expansion. It also highlights how this AHD idealises heritage, often overlooking its inherent diversity and the various values that encompass economic resilience, emotion, communal memory, and identity. Finally, I illustrate how locals gravitate towards AHD despite their ambivalence and disagreements with the selection criteria endorsed by official discourse.

This article investigates the authorised heritage discourse (AHD) through the lens of conservation planning practice. The AHD is characterised as an exclusionary discourse that privileges the physical nature of ‘heritage’, defined scientifically by ‘experts’. Set within the context of wider international trends towards more inclusive heritage practices, the article advances understanding of the contemporary AHD. Using local heritage designation as an investigatory platform, a thesis is developed to explain professional representations of heritage operating in this setting. In doing so, a pervasive, yet nuanced AHD is exposed. At the same time, a complex variety of contextual factors that constrain radical readjustment of the AHD are also uncovered. These include struggles over the subjectivity and operationalisation of social and cultural heritage values in rational planning environments. The conclusions drawn from this research challenge and subtly refine the AHD, and crucially, propose that wider trends in the heritage discourse cannot be adequately implemented within the current legal apparatus and mind-set of traditional rational planning. The article suggests that further research is required to understand how the multiple and diverse layers of heritage meanings can be emplaced and legitimised within planning settings.

Heritage is in essence dissonant, especially colonial heritage in postcolonial nations. Via questionnaire surveys and interviews, this study investigates Kulangsu in Xiamen, China, a colonial heritage site mainly developed in the 19th and 20th centuries, to unveil the local government’s authorised heritage discourse (AHD) of the site and how tourists perceive the colonial past of Kulangsu and construct their own heritage discourse(s). Results show that, when considering the colonial history of the site, neither the AHD promoted by the authorities nor the tourists’ lay discourses are necessarily negative. However, tension implicitly arises between the tourists’ demand for comprehensive heritage information and the authorities’ selective interpretation of the site. Although the AHD affects lay discourses to some extent, most tourists expect the authorities to present more complete and neutral information about heritage so they can reflect and forge their own conception of colonial legacies. From a critical heritage studies perspective, this tension reflects the power imbalance between the authorities and the tourists and reminds the authorities and heritage experts to rethink heritage tourism and conservation in terms of heritage interpretation. This paper, therefore, calls for additional reflection on the legitimacy of selective interpretation, which implicates a complex process of intricate reasoning that is underpinned by the power imbalance between the authorities and the tourists, ultimately resulting in an AHD.

The music of vocal-instrumental ensemble Pesniary is recognized in Belarus as a cultural heritage that must be saved and protected. In this paper, the approach of critical heritage studies is used to show, how this meaning of heritage is created, what heritage discourses exist in Belarus and how they constitute different meanings of heritage. The focus of the paper is on the confrontation and interrelation between the authorized, self-authorized and unauthorized heritage discourses. As well, the use of heritage for the constitution of national identity narratives is analyzed. The key points of the preservation and management of heritage in Belarus are the establishment of the heritage continuation and authenticity, exclusion of contradictory interpretations of the heritage, its interrelation to the particular version of the past, and hence the particular identity narrative. One of the main actors in the authorized heritage discourse is the government that puts efforts into recognizing and funding the one version of the heritage that corresponds with the state's cultural policy. Self-authorized and unauthorized heritage discourses use the Pesniary heritage to express national components of the collective identity and rejuvenate the past.

Heritage conversation has continuously elicited genuine concern from stakeholders, evokes controversies, and creates disputes in determining its worldview that is truly considered universal. The concern on the adopted Eurocentric perspective of Authorised Heritage Discourse(AHD) and the emerging calls for an Alternative Heritage Discourse (ALHD) constructivist and transformative post-modernist worldview. The sustainability concerns for all indigenous and national cultures that are in accordance with their unique value system are here considered paramount. The study essentially, undertook a critical review of the historical evolution of the heritage discourse, through the three major charters and conventions of 1964, 1972, and 2003 towards contextualising the discourse perspective. The study was undertaken through a critical review of relevant literature chronologically on the heritage subject matter. The study product is the development of a framework for ALHD that is conscious of the indigenous communities’ value systems within Sub-Saharan Africa. The study recommended the use of an integrated heritage discourse framework for the identification, documentation, and conservation of indigenous heritage features and landscapes jointly by all stakeholders towards ensuring that sustainable transgenerational heritage is bequeathed.

The article discusses the Pelimannitalo in Kaustinen, an Ostrobothnian farmhouse that was moved from Veteli to the centre of Kaustinen in 1974. Built in the early 19th century and known as Aapintupa, the house was previously used as a residential building, although it was rebuilt in Kaustinen as a concert and event venue, which is how it continues to function today. The article analyses the heritage process of Pelimannitalo, the experiences associated with it, and its integration into the so-called authorised heritage discourse related to folk music. The case is analysed through archive material and the researchers' own fieldwork. In the article, we argue that the heritage process related to the Pelimannitalo is complex and contradictory, and that the authorised heritage discourse is strongly reflected in the experience of the place. We discuss how some of the residents of Kaustinen did not initially want the Pelimannitalo in the centre of Kaustinen in the 1970s, as it meant demolishing the older Youth Association House, which was important to the community. However, invoking national and regional cultural heritage values, people in positions of authority in the locality pushed the relocation project through. In this article, we refer to this process as a forced place experience. After the house was built, both locals and outsiders adopted the authorised heritage discourse, which is still reflected in how the place is experienced and interpreted. We describe this with the concept of heritigising place experience. During the 2020s, the cultural heritage process has been reinforced by, among other things, the inclusion of Kaustinen fiddle playing on the UNESCO list (2021). The article shows that the heritage discourse on folk music has been created for a long time and often intentionally, and that this is reflected in the places and experiences that are perceived as characteristic of folk music.

The study investigates heritage practices in a Chinese village, by describing the tensions that have played out among different voices, meanings and understandings centred on the village’s heritage. In the process of ‘heritageisation’, stakeholders that include the state, the local government, the villagers and the principal lineage strive to negotiate different cultural meanings, values and the traditions. Consequently, three different heritage discourses coexist alongside each other in one locality. On the one hand, the ‘authorised heritage discourse’ is taken up by the government to weave and frame a narrative of nation-building around a Memorial Park. On the other hand, the village uses the past to foster local identity of the place in an attempt to attract tourists. For its part, the major lineage in the village uses the ancestral hall to continue the long tradition of remembering their ancestors via worshiping ceremonies. In between are a medley of heritage sites and artefacts existing in a state of flux and struggle over their conservation. The authors contend that, no matter how mundane, grand or hybrid, assemblages of rich and locally meaningful heritage, such as depicted in this article, should be cherished and utilised for the present agenda of cultural construction in rural China.

This article investigates the gaps and problems in heritage policymaking in the Philippines. It examines how national heritage, as encoded in the 2009 National Cultural Heritage Act (Republic Act No. 10066) and enacted in practice, yields unintended dissonant consequences. . It argues that heritage management in the Philippines aligns with the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and has been shaped by the dominance of the Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD) – an international heritage discourse that prioritises tangible, scientific, and nationally defined values. This approach has generated friction with local communities and stakeholders, whose understandings of heritage often emphasise lived practices, oral traditions, and place-based meanings. However, the dissonance between the AHD and local realities has also prompted shifts within national policy, making it more responsive to intangible cultural heritage. By examining these tensions – both between national and local actors and within state institutions – the article reveals how official heritage discourse is being reshaped in practice.

Although heritage in the digital age and heritage digitisation have received increasing scholarly attention, critical reflection on new media heritage politics as individuals, communities and institutions transmit heritage remains an unexplored area. This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature by exploring the representation of Chinese Nüshu (literally women’s scripts) on new media platforms, paying particular attention to the centralised nature of Chinese AHD and its decentralisation through digital, democratic grassroots practices on heritage new media. Using a mixed-method approach combining qualitative and quantitative techniques, this study conducted a digital ethnography on several Nüshu social media communities from 2017 to 2022 and more than fifty in-depth interviews with twenty-three Nüshu stakeholders including official and unofficial transmitters, local officials, heritage experts, and local residence. The study finds dynamic negotiations in terms of cultural (re)production, power transformation, actors’ empowerment, and identity construction between the local authorised heritage discourse (AHD) and folk heritage discourse on new media. Furthermore, as a form of decentralisation of local AHD, the study demonstrates the presence of digital heritage democratisation in China through new media. However, this creates the potential for new discursive hegemony in folk heritage society. Recently, short-form content’s popularity has rapidly risen; the study reveals the complex politics of ‘positivity’ in relation to the representation of heritage on short-form video platforms in China.

New technologies have been argued to drive a more inclusive heritage discourse that accommodates a plurality of narratives. This article aims to examine this assumption based on the analysis of the heritage digitalisation strategies of Doha and Singapore. These cities have made significant investments in heritage preservation and digital technologies, positioning themselves as smart, creative, and culturally diverse urban centres. At the core of these strategies are transmedia heritage districts, which, despite having limited physical remnants of the past, revive their heritage across a range of online and offline channels. Based on an analysis of policy documents and on fieldwork in these cities, this article raises questions regarding the transformative power of the digital and its ability to democratise and pluralise the heritage discourse. I argue that while heritage digitalisation can function as a tool to showcase openness, strategically empower co-opted civic dynamics, it can also reinforce the prevailing heritage narrative. The transmedia heritage district serves as a policy instrument that displays the civic potential of digital heritage technologies in order to enable urban transformation and incorporate selected minority voices into the authorised heritage discourse.

The mass destruction of Bosnian cultural heritage was used as a tool of ethnic cleansing and genocide during the final decade of the 20th century. This paper examines it and the post-war response to that destruction and process of coming to terms with the resultant social trauma in terms of their potential for (re)defining the complex relations between heritage reconstruction and building human resilience. A quarter century after the end of armed conflict in Bosnia and the signing of the Dayton peace agreement, the processes of post-war social and economic recovery are still underway, with cultural heritage playing a non-negligible role in them. The integration of heritage in implementing the peace agreement is reflected in all the post-war phases of Bosnian life at two parallel levels. The first is the official level, overdetermined by the balance of political consensus and tensions, expressed through the legislative framework and the activities of public institutions. At that level, heritage discourse, including the determination of what heritage is reconstructible, has served the politics of the day, which have over the past 25 years oscillated between impulses towards ever deeper social division, on the one hand, and a search for connective values for the establishment of social trust, on the other. This paper presents an analysis of how authorized heritage discourse (AHD), as expressed through the activities of the Commission to protect National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the international organizations –UNESCO, the Council of Europe, and the European Commission – have reflected and supported this post-war politics and the economic reality. There is also a contrasting analysis of the inclusive discourse on heritage, established through attempts by individuals and communities to use the reconstruction of damaged cultural landscapes to realise a non-discriminatory approach to the right to heritage and its evaluation, given the need to process social trauma. The example of Bosnia throws light on how confronting the violent reformulation of cultural memory as a means of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and post-war exclusionism can revive inclusive discourse on heritage as a spontaneous method of building social and societal resilience and ultimately a tool for peacebuilding.

Conservation of built heritage is a key planning process and goal which shapes urban development outcomes across European cities. In Ireland, conservation of the built heritage is a key part of the planning framework, albeit one that is, in comparative terms, only recently established. While it is widely recognized that the underlying rationale for conservation of built heritage varies considerably (from cultural priorities to place marketing), the literature suggests that heritage and conservation professionals perform a key role in controlling decision-making through an official or “authorized” heritage discourse (AHD), emphasizing expert values and knowledge and based around selective heritage storylines often reflecting elite tastes. Drawing on policy and practice in Ireland, in this paper, we contribute to these debates by further unpacking the AHD, exploring tensions within the heritage policy elite through examination of competing views and representations relating to the purpose of built heritage protection. Based on a discourse analysis following interviews with key national actors, we identify two key narratives—a “museum-curatorial” discourse and an “inclusive heritage” discourse—which in turn frame conservation practices. We argue that subtle variations of heritage meanings have the potential to either reproduce (museum-curatorial discourse) or challenge (inclusive heritage discourse) conventional modes of practice, particularly relating to the relationship between built heritage and identity and the role of public engagement.

This article evaluates how nationalist narratives affect the display of Roman artefacts in national museums. The unique nature of national museums as 'cultural constitutions' and arbiters of the 'Authorised Heritage Discourse' is discussed. This article builds upon previous work by demonstrating how nationalist influence affects the display of Roman artefacts, specifically through the use of two case studies: the British Museum in London and the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. Museum displays are assessed for indications of nationalist influence through consideration of the use of space and collection composition as well as textual analysis of gallery signage and artefact descriptions. The two museums' divergent approaches to national narrative are then compared.

It has been widely accepted that elements of the historic environment have been deployed to create an 'authorized heritage discourse' which supports the 'top-down' reinforcement of particular identities. Archaeology can be a vehicle for the expression of alternative identities. This article looks at the ways in which the historic environment has been used in Telford, an English new town created in the 1960s, both to support the creation of this new place, and in opposition to it. A community archaeology project undertaken by the author in 2010 is described, and forms the basis of a discussion on the role of communities in heritage, the ways in which community identities may shift, and how relationships between communities and the historic environment profession may evolve.