To understand heritage, an assessment of history and heritage needs to be examined. It can be suggested that history and heritage conceive of and use the past in similar ways. History accepts the existence of episodes from the past in much the same way as geography assumes the existence of places hat can be described, however imperfectly, as really existing even if not directly experienced by the narrator, on the basis of whatever record is available and selected for use (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). Heritage makes similar expectations, for example, the past is assumed to exist, even the sense as Atlantis exist, as products of a creative imagination, in response to the needs of the creator. The inheritor determines heritage, all heritage is someone’s heritage, and that someone determines that I exists. It is thus a product of the present, purposefully developed in response to current needs or demands for it, and shaped by those requirements. It makes to sorts of intergenerational links both of which are determined by the present. The president selects an inheritance from an imagined past for current use and decides what should be passed on to an imagined future. This can be seen in the city of Tombstone and its use of the heritage model to produce tourism from its historic resources. Consequently, both history and heritage make a selective use of the past for current purposes and transform it through interpretation (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). History is what a historian regards as worth recording and heritage is what contemporary society chooses to inherit and pass on. The distinction is only that in heritage, current and future uses are paramount, the resources more varied, including much that historians would regard as ahist... ... middle of paper ... ...hip of the past. The relationship between these provides a useful historical background to the development of CRM in the context of post-colonial America. Further, as social problems become more complex and governance becomes an important technique of power, archaeology is translated into institutions concerned with governing the meaning of the past. Foucault’s examination of the history of power/knowledge places expertise and intellectuals into a network of power relations that developed, in part, out of his examination of the Christian notion of “pastoral care” (citation unknown). Knowledge and the “truth” claims of intellectuals become part of the practices and policies of modern liberal rule. In a sense, knowledge and expertise take on a “stewarding” and pastoral role. Archaeology takes on this role with respect to the archaeological record and material culture.
“A Pilgrim’s Visit to The Five Terraces Mountains”. Making of the Modern World 12: Classical & Medieval Tradition. Trans. Richard F. Burton. Ed. Janet Smarr. La Jolla: University Readers, 2012. 108-110. Print.
John Douglas questions the reliability of applying the three common models used to analyze exchange in the archaeological record; World Systems Theory, peer polity interaction, and prestige goods economy. He then explores their expectations and assumptions with data analysis of pre-Paquime mortuary goods from northwest Chihuahua, Mexico. His comparisons demonstrate inadequacies in all three models, and the author points out that there are many potential explanations for long distance exchanges other than those offered by the three common models in use by archaeologists today. I agree with his recommendation that we have "a more open-ended approach in which exchange is viewed as a search for power contested both within and between societies."
and Memory in a World Without Relics.” Past and Present. The Past and Present Society,
If you ask the majority of citizens in the United States about their opinion on the validity of geography-based cultural heritage claims, chances are they will either look at you like you are crazy or dive into an explanation about the most recent show they saw on the history channel about the repatriation of the Kennewick Man. Like any other topic, a person’s scope of knowledge in regards to archaeology is limited to the material that they have been exposed to. In today’s society, the majority of this information is gleaned from popular media sources such as National Geographic, the History Channel, Wikipedia, and other mainstream “educational” resources. Although very popular, these resources often offer interpretations that sensationalize and misrepresent archaeological data. The media is the main conduit of educational information and therefore, has a societal obligation to accurately portray archaeological findings and data.
The study of past events have been a common practice of mankind since the verbal telling of stories by our ancestors. William Cronon, in his article “Why the Past Matters,” asserts that the remembrance of the past “keeps us in place.” Our individual memories and experiences shape how we act in our daily lives. In addition to influencing us at an individual level, our collective history binds us together as a society. Without knowing where we have been or what we have experienced, it is nearly impossible to judge progress or know which courses of action to pursue. The goal of the historian is to analyze and explain past events, of which they rarely have firsthand memory of, and apply the gained knowledge to make connections with current and future events.
Eve Haque illustrates the genealogy of royal commissions through Foucault, who contends that it “operates on a field of entangled and confused parchments, on documents that have been scratched over and recopied many times” (Haque 19). This interwoven web demonstrates the intrinsic value in history through genealogy and how it affects commission work. According to Foucault it can be outlined by three main method elements: eventialization, decent and emergence (Haque 19). However, the recording of singular events, even if they are absent, is a challenging concept. The discursive and non-discursive ways to understand eventialization force a reconsidering of how historical moments have shaped society and ...
Archaeology is the closest thing we have to a time machine. It is the only way we can know the unrecorded, and sometimes even the recorded, past. History may be written by the victorious, but archaeology is about the common people. There are archaeological sites ranging in age from thousands-of-years-old prehistoric habitations, to the Egyptian pyramids, to World War II military bases. As a means of obtaining knowledge about our collective past, archaeology has been unsurpassed. It is the literal and figurative digging up of the forgotten past.
History has a strange way of coming back around when it comes to human civilization. It has been said repeatedly that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. However, just because there is a potential for danger in the future, this does not mean that humanity must ignore what once was. History is normally remembered through what is known as a memorial. When a memorial is put into a physical representation, it is then known as a monument.The need to memorialize events or people is complex; in some cases, monuments honor moments of great achievement, while in other cases, monuments pay homage to deep sacrifice. A monument's size, location, and materials are all considerations in planning and creating a memorial to the past. Examples of such feats are the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, and even Mount Rushmore. For the latter of the
Through out the years we have seen numerous changes and evolution in the theories that make up archaeology. Archaeology was initially seen as a type of history or a historical study it focused mainly on the explication of the past, as well as gathering data to set chronologies. However many archaeologists feel that archaeology should focus on the explanation of the past rather than the explication of it. The first transformation that was documented produced “Processual Archaeology” it evolved from the old historical and antiquarian ways. Processual Archaeology was developed as a science, but was still deemed as inadequate to archaeologists in the 1990's. Post processual archaeology is the result of the criticism that processual archaeology has faced. It emphasizes the subjectivity of archaeological interpretations. Processual archaeologists however believed heavily on the scientific method therefore the data the derived was almost always objective. There is an obvious clash between these two schools of thought, one being subjective the other being objective, it's no wonder why there is a discrepancy between concepts such as culture. This research paper aims to examine in detail, Lewis Binford and the processual method of culture construction and compare it with Ian Hodder and the post processual method. By doing so I expect to find a discrepancy between their concepts of culture and how but more importantly why this discrepancy exists.
A nation’s legacy is created by the people, for the people. The legacy fashioned by a nation is known as its cultural heritage which is defined by the withstanding creations of a society (“Cultural Heritage” Web). A civilization’s cultural heritage allows future generations to learn of the past and the present generation to express what is current. Written documents and literature are important aspects of a nation’s cultural heritage because of the various perspectives and opinions expressed (Kirk Web). The American society has a long history expressed by thousands of tangible artifacts and intangible stories, but some creations receive more respect as a part of our heritage than others. Literature, for example, allows us to gain a better understanding of the country, people, and feelings of the times. The classics are revered for its formal presentation and its withstanding presence, while other written pieces are cast aside.
For this paper, I will first explain my theoretical perspective then discuss my archaeologist and his work.
When first reading Carr’s point of view upon history, I was surprised that he did not immediately spring into the discussion regarding the definition of history, rather choosing to discuss differing perspectives upon how history is written and remembered over a recent period of time. Although earlier historians believed a point of “ultimate” history would trump all others in significance (exemplified by Acton’s reports to the Cambridge University Press), more contemporary historians consider a book of history to be a book without a back cover, containing an infinite amount of blank pages waiting to record events that have not yet occurred. Carr then chooses to reveal his definition of history: events with a significant amount of attention upon
History is around us all and for most of us history is just a museum away. However a misrepresentation of artifacts in museum can negatively impact generations to come. The history of a civilization whether it be past or present society can learn from. It is important that these artifacts are portrayed in a manner of respect with integrity. Correctly displayed artifacts from past cultures can have a profound impact on the way one views a civilization. Some people have correctly figured out how to display these objects; others have struggled to find a credible way to show the past.
In these articles the author is dealing with the definition of intangible cultural heritage, effects and possible outcomes, obstacles and opportunities as well as efficiency, all regarded to the Convention.
"Incidentally, I despise everything which merely instructs me without increasing or immediately enlivening my activity." These are Goethe's words. With them, as with a heartfelt expression of Ceterum censeo [I judge otherwise], our consideration of the worth and the worthlessness of history may begin. For this work is to set down why, in the spirit of Goethe's saying, we must seriously despise instruction without vitality, knowledge which enervates activity, and history as an expensive surplus of knowledge and a luxury, because we lack what is still most essential to us and because what is superfluous is hostile to what is essential. To be sure, we need history. But we need it in a manner different from the way in which the spoilt idler in the garden of knowledge uses it, no matter how elegantly he may look down on our coarse and graceless needs and distresses. That is, we need it for life and action, not for a comfortable turning away from life and action or merely for glossing over the egotistical life and the cowardly bad act. We wish to use history only insofar as it serves living. But there is a degree of doing history and a valuing of it through which life atrophies and degenerates. To bring this phenomenon to light as a remarkable symptom of our time is every bit as necessary as it may be painful.