Back to All Events

Understanding wartime narratives in the digital age

>> View Selected Student Poster submissions

Summary

This year, the International Seminar on Heritage Interpretation and Presentation for Future Generations will address the growing challenges to understanding narratives of war at heritage sites. The inclusion of underrepresented voices related to war is necessary for a balanced understanding of history and countering disinformation, bias, and discrimination.

Our goal is to collect the best practices for interpreting and presenting heritage sites related to various human rights issues during wartime. We will also advocate for the role of civil society and media for a balanced delivery of holistic history in countering historical revisionism and the spread of fake news. Additionally, we aim to promote future generations’ understanding of and participation in approaching history and human rights issues through heritage interpretation.

The event is open to all interested individuals, and we encourage you to join us for this important discussion. The seminar will take place on June 15th, 2023 at VU Amsterdam, and will also be accessible through Zoom. See ‘the quick menu’ above to register.

 

Welcome addresses (direct link)

Dong-Joon Jo (direct link)
Professor at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, Seoul National University

Francesco Bandarin (direct link)
Founder of OurWorldHeritage / Special Advisor to the Director-General of ICCROM/ Former UNESCO ADG for Culture

Gert-Jan Burgers (direct link)
Professor in the Heritage of Cultural Landscapes and Urban Environments at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Keynote presentation

“Possibilities for Alternative Narratives at Resistant Sites” (direct link)

by Andrew Gordon
Professor at the Department of History, Harvard University

  • My interest in this topic stems from my frustration at the narrowness of the Japanese government’s nomination of the Meiji Era Industrial Revolution Sites for inscription as World Heritage Sites. As a labor history, I had studied the social and economic and political significance of these and similar locations in depth. In my presentation I will first describe the two problems I see in the way the nomination was put forward. First, limiting the nomination to the Meiji era prevents a full understanding of the significance these sites in Japanese and global history. It omits the history of the devastation caused by forced labor mobilization during World War II. It also omits the importance of these locations in the postwar history of Japan. Second, it fails to acknowledge the histories of forced labor (prison labor), accidents, disease during the Meiji era itself, as well as the foundational role played by these locations in enabling Japan to establish its empire, first with colonization of Taiwan, then Korea. In the second half of my talk I will discuss possible strategies for changing this narrow presentation. One strategy of course is to raise protest toward the Japanese government, through UNESCO or directly. But this is unlikely to result in significant changes. Other possibilities include bringing to public attention the significant alternative interpretations already found at these and the many other sites in Japan of industrial heritage. I will offer examples of some of these places. Finally, I will raise the possibility of using new technologies to offer visitors access to alternative understandings of the history of these and other resistant sites.

  • Andrew Gordon is the Lee and Juliet Folger Fund Professor of History at Harvard University. His teaching and research focus on modern Japan. He has written, edited, or translated numerous books and has published articles in journals in the United States, Japan, Great Britain, France, and Germany. His textbook, A Modern History of Japan (Oxford University Press, 2002), has been published in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean translations. Updated English editions were published in 2008, 2013, and 2019.

    Gordon’s first book was The Evolution of Labor Relations in Japan: Heavy Industry, 1853-1955 (1985). A Japanese translation and expanded edition was published by Iwanami Shoten (2012). His second book, Labor and Imperial Democracy in Prewar Japan (1991), won the John King Fairbank Prize in 1992 for the best book on modern East Asian history. He wrote The Wages of Affluence: Labor and Management in Postwar Japan ( 1998) and Fabricating Consumers: The Sewing Machine in Modern Japan (2011). From 2015-2017 he published several articles on the historical context of Japan’s so-called “lost decades” of the 1990s through the present.

    His current research examines how government officials, historians, local citizens, artists, and activists have understood Japan’s industrial heritage, especially since sites such as coal and copper mines began to shut down in the 1960s and 1970s. He is interested in how the presentation of industrial heritage changes when governments and international organizations such as UNESCO become part of the process of heritage curation.

    Gordon chaired the Harvard History Department (2004-07) and was Director of the Reischauer Institute for Japanese Studies (1998-2004 and 2010-2011), and Acting Director of the Asia Center (2016-2017). In 2023 and 2023 he has served as Visiting Professor at Tokyo College. In 2014, he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Special Roundtable: World Heritage Convention and Sites of Recent Conflicts (direct link)

with Christina Cameron (direct link)
Canada Research Chair in Built Heritage at the University of Montreal

  • From the beginning of implementation, the World Heritage Committee received proposals for sites of recent conflicts. The Committee concluded that such places could be divisive and used to promote nationalist agendas in contradiction to the purpose of the World Heritage Convention. In 1979, the Committee therefore decided that sites of recent conflicts should be treated as rare exceptions, with one site standing as a symbol for a series of similar sites. Until recently, this guidance has remained unchanged, as such sites represent less than one percent of the current World Heritage List, now numbered at 1157 sites. Under pressure to consider several new proposals to inscribe such sites, after lengthy debates the World Heritage Committee adopted in January 2023 new guiding principles for sites of memory associated with recent conflicts. This presentation examines the definitions, challenges and best practices in this new policy framework. What kind of places are included? What are the sensitive issues that need to be addressed? How should States Parties prepare World Heritage nominations to ensure that sensitive issues are dealt with in ways that avoid further conflict and nationalist agendas? The new policy framework is designed to use World Heritage sites as places of reconciliation that contribute to UNESCO’s peace-building mandate.

  • Christina Cameron (Canada) CM PhD, professor emeritus, held the Canada Research Chair in Built Heritage at the University of Montreal from 2005 to 2019 where she directed a research program on heritage conservation. She previously served as Director General of National Historic Sites with Parks Canada for more than thirty-five years, providing national direction for the conservation and management of Canada’s historic places.

    She has worked with the World Heritage Convention since 1987, heading the Canadian delegation for two decades and chairing the World Heritage Committee sessions in 1990 (Banff) and 2008 (Québec).

    She has shown leadership in the intellectual development of the World Heritage Convention as chair of expert meetings on strategic planning (1990-1992), historic canals (1994), the global strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List (1994), cultural landscapes (1998) and a proposed World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (2000-2001). In collaboration with UNESCO, she has spearheaded the World Heritage Oral Archives project which features over 60 interviews with key players of the early implementation of the convention, now available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/oralarchives/ With co-author Mechtild Rössler, she published Many Voices, One Vision: The Early Years of the World Heritage Convention (2013) which has subsequently been translated into French, Russian and Chinese. In June 2023, her edited book on Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century will be published by Springer Nature.

    In 2007, she received the Outstanding Achievement Award of the Public Service of Canada, the country’s highest recognition for public service. She was appointed to the Order of Canada in 2014 and received the Prix du Québec Gérard-Morisset in 2018 for her contributions to heritage conservation in Canada and abroad. She is a founding member of OurWorldHeritage.

with Vera Lacoeuilhe (direct link)
Deputy Permanent Delegate at Permanent Delegation of St. Lucia

  • The number of Sites of Memory became a growing trend among nominations by States Parties lead the 42nd session of the World Heritage Committee to request an Expert Meeting of Experts on sites associated with memories of recent conflict especially after the complicated discussion of a site presented by France and Belgium “Funerary and Memorial sites of the First World War”.

    Some member states believed that sites of memory did not belong to the World Heritage Convention that is based on tangible heritage inscribed under specific criteria that can hardly apply to them. Moreover, some Member States strongly believed the Sites of Memory; especially those associated with recent conflict if included in the WHC will create tensions and may prove to be very conflictual and divisive as there can be several perspectives to describe the same historical event. Member States feared that inscribing such sites would mean accepting one narrative to the detriment of others.

    When it inscribed Auschwitz Birkenau (criterion VI), the World Heritage Committee established the principle of Exceptionality, meaning that one site could stand as a symbol for all similar sites. However, this exceptionality did not survive as many other sites of memory, including some associated with recent conflict, were added to the World Heritage List.

    Within this context, after a lot of heated debate and studies by experts, the Committee finally decided to create the Open-Ended Working Group that I had the honor to Chair.

    Several States Parties believed that the Sites of Memory already inscribed on the List cannot represent them. They argued that States Parties have different histories and different stories to tell, linked to their memories and identities. The Open Ended Working Group was therefore given the difficult task of finding a solution to this issue and proposing recommendations to the World Heritage Committee.

  • Vera Lacoeuilhe is a diplomat and a lecturer. She completed a B.A. in political science and administration at the American University of Beirut (1979) and an M.A. in Near and Middle Eastern studies at New York University (1983). She is the Deputy Permanent Delegate of Saint Lucia to UNESCO and the Representative to the Executive Board. She also and served as the Alternate Representative of the Head of Government of Saint Lucia to the International Organization of Francophonie (OIF) (2001-2016).

    She teaches International Organizations at Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne University since 2013 and the UNESCO Cultural Conventions at Sciences Po Paris since 2018. Vera Lacoeuilhe international level recognition as an authority on the UN System. In January 2016, she became a member of the “Independent Team of Advisors” (ITA) established by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), in charge of making recommendations on the long term positioning of the United Nations Development System in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

    Vera Lacoeuilhe chaired several Intergovernmental Committees such as the 27th session of the World Heritage Committee, the 1st Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention and the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

    She also chaired the negotiations of several UNESCO standard setting instruments such as the Recommendation on Open Science, the Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscapes, the Drafting Group on the International Convention Against Doping in Sport, the Open Ended Working Group on Sites of Memory Associated with Recent Conflicts, as well as many political issues on the agendas of the Executive Board and the General Conference.

with Souayibou Varissou (direct link)
Executive Director, African World Heritage Fund

  • The interpretation and positioning of sites of recent conflict have recently raised lot of discussion in the World Heritage community. The issue in hand is not simple especially when one looks at it from related parties’ perspective. On one hand, according to O. Beazley & C. Cameron who conducted an independent study on sites associated with recent conflicts and other negative and divisive memories, at least 4 of the 18 “memory” sites inscribed on the World Heritage List may clearly be labelled of “recent conflict”. These are Auschwitz Birkenau German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945) in Poland (1979), Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) in Japan (1996), Robben Island in South Africa (1999) and Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2005).

    A few studies mainly implemented after the issue has been extensively discussed at the 42nd Session of the World Heritage Committee, Manama, Bahrain (Decisions 42 COM 5A; 8B.24 & 8) have concluded that World Heritage framework was not suitable to accommodate sites of recent conflict especially those bearing negative and divisive memories. In contrary, regional contexts including from the Africa region have stated otherwise. Among the arguments for such assertion and advocating that World Heritage actors stay away from a priori qualifying positions, the discussion has also emphasized the positive impact of memory sites of recent conflict in nation building (national cohesion and peace consolidation) and the fact that a “case to case” evaluation constitutes the “fairest and most objective and neutral” way to go. It’s also my personal belief that the current instruments, actors, and processes to assess World Heritage nomination projects and files are applicable to memory sites of recent conflict no matter their qualifier from time to time.

  • Mr. Souayibou Varissou is a heritage practitioner from the Republic of Benin.

    As a field archaeologist from 1992 to 2003, he undertook field research related particularly to the period of the transatlantic slave trade in his country. As a lecturer in Archaeology and Heritage Sciences at the National University of Benin from 1998 to 2005, he influenced the academic life and professional carrier of hundreds of students and youth in Benin and beyond. In the same period, he was also lecturer in various fields (projects design, management planning and community empowerment) at the School of African Heritage (EPA) based in Porto-Novo, Benin.

    Mr. Varissou is also known as heritage professional having been involved as participants, resource person or coordinator in a series of capacity building programs such as Africa 2009 (1999-2010) for immovable cultural heritage in Africa, World Heritage Nomination Training Course in Africa (since 2008), Risk Preparedness in Africa (since 2009) and Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Business at World Heritage Sites (since 2013) as a strategy to sustain heritage sites. He was also involved in various World Heritage projects including experts’ meetings, nomination evaluations (Grand Bassam, Cote d’Ivoire) and reactive monitoring (Djenne, Mali).

    As a Site Manager, Mr. Varissou was involved in cultural programs in natural parks in West Africa (1997-2003). He also initiated and managed the rehabilitation program of the Botanic Garden of Porto Novo (renamed Jardin des Plantes et de la Nature), an evolving cultural landscape located in the heart of the capital city of Benin and carrying multiple values including natural and associated. Mr. Varissou was manager of the garden from 1998 to 2005.

    As a Cultural and Heritage institution manager, he coordinated an EU-funded Cultural Development Programme in Benin named Support Programme to Decentralized Cultural Initiatives PSICD (2005-2008) before joining in 2009 the African World Heritage Fund (AWHF) in South Africa as a Programme Specialist. Since 2018 and after 12 months acting period, the Board confirmed him as Executive Director of AWHF. He has demonstrated significant advocacy and fundraising skills having raised more than 8 million USD for the development of World Heritage in Africa. Mr Varissou has recently been appointed, in May 2023, Director General of the National Agency for the Development of Tourist Heritage (ANPT) in Benin, opening a new chapter of his professional journey as manager of cultural institutions in Africa. Mr. Varissou conducted a series of field research and is author of dozens of publications including a “Guide of Cultural Landscapes in Porto-Novo and its region” (2002), “Memory Trees in the Bight of Benin” (2004), “The sacred groves in the Bight of Benin, a misunderstood heritage?” (2018) and “Management Practices in the Garden of Plants and Nature of Porto-Novo Benin” (2022).

Moderator:

Gert-Jan Burgers
Professor in the Heritage of Cultural Landscapes and Urban Environments at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

  • Gert-Jan Burgers is full professor in History and Heritage of Cultural Landscapes and Urban Environments at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VUA). He is also director of CLUE+, the VUA interfaculty Institute for Culture, Cognition, History and Heritage and project leader of the EU Marie Curie International Training Network ‘Heriland’. The latter project brings together an interdiscplinary group of researchers with 25 academic, public and private partners to employ 15 Phd researchers throughout Europe, all working on heritage and spatial planning.

    The greater part of his academic career Burgers has been concerned with urban and rural landscape studies and heritage planning (conceptually as well as applied), in particular in the Mediterranean. He has published ten books and over seventy articles, delivered over sixty invited papers at international conferences, and organised twentyfive international workshops and congresses. He was director of the Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome (2012-2013) and head of the heritage and ancient studies departments of the same institute (2006-2013).

Session 1: Multiple Aspects in Interpreting Wartime Heritage (direct link)

“Dissonant and/or Competing Memories on heritage Sites and their Interpretation” (direct link)

by Michael Turner
Co-Chair holder in Urban Design and Conservation Studies, Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design

  • Kristallnacht, 1938, was a defining moment, changing the course of history. Can the Jewish heritage destroyed before and during World War II be reconstructed? The divergent case studies of the three ShUM cities, Speyer, Worms, and Mainz, in Germany provide a glimpse into the debate and an appraisal of the moment in time. The values both in time and place are linked to eschatological thought and the relevant Mishnaic texts in the sanctification of religious buildings.

    What remained in Europe were the ruins, the memory of places and events, and the resilience of the human spirit. However, there are compounded memories and multiple voices, ever changing, challenging the identities of real and virtual communities. The competing debate is between the essentialists and existentialists in their approach to reconstruction.

    World War II has provided diverse paradigms and today, we are at a critical point in time between the transpositions of personal to collective memories and where time is needed for reflection as the light of the past becomes dimmer and the perspectives becomes sharper. The World Heritage debates shed light on the cultural differences through the polemics of the inscriptions as the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in 1979 and in 1996 of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. Nothing is more poignant than the interpretation and meaning of these events and the implication on the aftermath.

    The interpretations of the past are measured through our attitudes to the future. Faced with rupture, the cultural and religious beliefs offer a future for the afterlife, if at all. The problem arises when the afterlife becomes mutually exclusive and the future ideal has only one path. All sites of conscience are sites of memory but not the reverse. “The need to remember often competes with the equally strong pressure to forget. Even with the best of intentions such as to promote reconciliation after deeply divided events by “turning the page” erasing the past can prevent new generations from learning critical lessons and destroy opportunities to build a peaceful future.”

    The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, CWGC, is re-evaluating its education and awareness programme the futility of war? At El-Alamein, how far must the Italian and German memorials be associated with the CWGC cemetery? Would this add to the ‘integrity’ of the site extending the narrative? Or perhaps be an insult to the memory of the fallen soldiers? New statements of significance that may be more inclusive.

    The traumatic experiences of two world wars in the 20th century with millions killed are embodied in a series of events culminating in the debate on genocide and crimes against humanity, becoming the basis for international criminal law. The serial nomination may provide the capacity for understanding the decade of events from the Zeppelinfeld in Nuremberg 1935 to villa Am Großen Wannsee, and from Auschwitz-Birkenau back to Courtroom 600 in Nuremberg and on to the Palace of Peace in the Hague in 1945 are events that should be a warning of the slippery slopes in the loss if human rights and dignity.

  • Professor Michael Turner is an architect and urbanist, the UNESCO Chairholder in Urban Design and Conservation Studies at the Bezalel, Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem. With international research and activities in urban sustainability, heritage, social inclusion and urban spaces, he has lectured and published widely on these subjects. Since 1997, he has been a member of the International Expert Committee monitoring the Auschwitz-Birkenau World Heritage site and a founding member of the ICOMOS Scientific Committee on Sites of Religions and Ritual. During 2005-2009, he served a term of office on the World Heritage Committee and is currently special envoy to the World Heritage Centre Director focusing on Culture for Development and the implementation of the UNESCO Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscapes. Committed to civil society he is a founding member of the OurWorldHeritage initiative and now coordinating the UN-Habitat university consortium on heritopolis - heritage and the metropolis.

“International Approach of Interpretation and Presentation for Wartime Heritage” (direct link)

by Sue Hodges
President of ICOMOS-ICIP

  • My presentation looks at a conflict that began in 1788 and whose effects continue today: the Australian Frontier Wars.

    The dispossession of Australia’s First Nations people by the British was violent and ongoing. Many First Nations people died during the Frontier Wars, which began in 1788 and lasted sporadically for around 150 years, as well as from introduced diseases such as smallpox. Australia’s First Peoples suffered staggering losses. After the frontier violence, First Nations people were taken from their Traditional Lands, placed onto Missions and Reserves, were forbidden to speak their language or practise their culture and had their children removed and sent to European families (these children are known as the ‘Stolen Generations’). Around 50,000 of the 450,000 ‘Forgotten Generation’ out-of-home care children were Aboriginal children. In the first half of the 20th century, the Australian government attempted to create a white nation under the ‘white Australia policy’, which was advanced through assimilation policies based on an idea that First Nations people would ‘die out’. Aboriginal people were not recognised as citizens until 1967.

    In important respects, the effects of the Frontier Wars continue today in the forms of generational trauma and social and economic disadvantage. The land now known as Australia has never been ceded to the colonisers. The history of massacres, poisonings and the near-eradication of Aboriginal people live on daily in the memories of many Traditional Owners. Contemporary movements towards Treaty, Sovereignty and an Indigenous Voice to Parliament show that the legacy of invasion is present today.

    This origin story of this British colony has rarely been told outside the academy. The Frontier Wars have just been acknowledged by Australia’s official commemorative institution, the Australian War Memorial, and are rarely acknowledged at all in rural or metropolitan Australia. By contrast, Australia’s massive losses at Gallipoli during World War I are commemorated annually on the Anzac Day public holiday. My presentation will examine the importance of bringing the ‘shadow histories’ of the Frontier Wars to light in the public arena. It will address the challenges and rewards of interpreting difficult and contested First Nations histories in two high-profile public metropolitan projects, the Melbourne Arts Centre Transformation and Fitzroy Gasworks, and at two regional museums. Further, it will demonstrate the importance of co-creating interpretation with First Nations groups and the challenge of engaging architects, designers and key stakeholders with the concept that heritage interpretation needs to tackle post-colonial issues.

    During my presentation, I will share cultural stories from members of two Traditional Owner groups, the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung and Wadawurrung people of the Kulin Nation (now known as Melbourne). These will not only show that interpretation of the Frontier Wars and their aftermath plays a vital role in changing people’s lives today, but also that telling personal stories is a way of healing the traumas of the past.

  • Sue is an historian extensive experience in the fields of heritage interpretation. Her business, SHP, operates in Australia and internationally. Sue is the President of the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites, a Member of the ICOMOS Advisory Committee and an International Expert Member of the Foundazione Romualdo Del Bianco. She was a member of the UNESCO Working Group on Sites of Memory in 2019, an invited speaker at the 40th and 41st Sessions of the World Heritage Committee and an Expert Advisor for ICOMOS on the interpretation of the Meiji sites.

    Sue is both an academic and practitioner. For SHP, Sue works extensively with First Nations groups in Australia on the co-creation and codesign of interpretation, which includes interpreting contested and difficult histories and commissioning First Nations artists and consultants. She is currently completing a PhD on the value of heritage interpretation at the University of Technology, Sydney.

Panel Discussion (direct link)

with Nakano Ryoko
Professor, Faculty of Law, Kanazawa University

  • Despite the varied and fragmented nature of memories, how can we effectively pursue a journey towards peace and reconciliation by engaging in reflection and commemoration of the past? In light of this query, I would like to present three points for discussion.

    First, while there is an increasing expectation within liberal democracies to acknowledge and reflect upon the injustices committed, some individuals and groups rigidly adhere to promoting a selective memory of the past while rejecting alternative perspectives. The challenge of heritage conflicts is further compounded by the fact that heritage is not solely about the past but also about the present and future. How can we resist the temptation to exploit historical memories to serve specific interests in the present? This question may extend beyond the purview of heritage studies and delve into the realm of other fields including politics.

    Second, heritage in tangible forms is a powerful tool to influence how visitors perceive and remember the past. How is it possible to design inclusive and neutral spaces that accommodate diverse perspectives and cultures? From Singapore’s Civilian War Memorial to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, efforts have been made to design heritage sites and memorials in a way that is neutral and acceptable to diverse audiences. In an increasingly globalized world, striking a balance between preserving culturally and historically specific elements and integrating diverse voices for humanity poses a significant challenge on heritage planners/architects/practitioners.

    Third, this session serves as a crucial reminder that heritage and remembrance play a vital role in achieving justice. Building museums and memorials may be useful for education and raising people’s awareness, but what seems more important is the creation of an open and inclusive society that allows the sharing of stories by individuals who have undergone traumatic experiences or find themselves in disadvantaged positions. In this sense, making heritage for peace and reconciliation is part of a broader (liberal) project for the creation of an inclusive community.

  • Ryoko Nakano is a professor of International Relations and the Faculty Head of International Studies at Kanazawa University in Japan. Her research interests encompass a wide range of topics such as security and foreign policy, identity politics, and global governance. She has made significant contributions to the field of heritage and international politics by exploring the political dynamics of heritage production and promotion in East Asia.

    Dr. Nakano is the editor of a special issue titled ‘Mobilizing Nostalgia in Asia’ (International Journal of Asian Studies 18:1, 2021) and the author of the book Beyond the Western Liberal Order: Yanaihara

    Tadao and Empire as Society (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). Her scholarly articles have been published in prestigious journals such as the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Contemporary Politics, The Pacific Review, Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, GR2P, and International Relations.

    Prior to her current position at Kanazawa University, Dr. Nakano served as an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore (2008-2016). Dr. Nakano earned her Doctor of Philosophy in International Relations from the University of Oxford, a Master of Economic and Social Studies from Aberystwyth University, and a Master of Arts in Politics from Kobe University.

with Gerhard Lenz
Managing Director/ Foundation Director, Rammelsberg World Heritage Site Goslar GmbH

    • Giving victims a voice For a long time, the Federal Republic of Germany also found it difficult to face the history of the Third Reich. Only in 1985 did the then Federal President von Weizsäcker demand “sincere willingness to learn from one’s own history” and for an active commemoration of the suffering of those who were abducted and uprooted through forced labour. In this context, numerous Ukrainian forced laborers were interviewed at the Rammelsberg World Heritage Site from 1999 to 2002 in order to give them a voice as part of a subsequent hearing of evidence. This “securing of evidence” in the aftermath is becoming increasingly important against the background of the fact that contemporary witnesses are dying out and the transition to collective memory, which is influenced by the media at will.

    • Preserve or decode “crime scenes” The memory of the victims fades on the one hand with the loss of authentic places, on the other hand with the danger that future generations will no longer be able to clearly distinguish whether the historical documents look at the historical moment from the perspective of the perpetrator or the victim, disconnected from the location. For example, there are only three photographs taken by the victims of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp themselves – until spring 1945 all other photographs have been taken by the perpetrators.

    • Places of remembrance to overcome the “shadow history” As part of an archaeological excavation from October 2021 to October 2023, the Rammelsberg World Heritage Site unearthed the remains of the “Winterthal forced labor camp”. To date, the history of forced labor has also been documented as part of an abstract permanent exhibition; however, this gives the crime scene a new visibility that will be integrated into the “normal management of the museum”.

    • World cultural heritage and ambivalence of memory The simultaneous inscription of the Peace Monument in Hiroshima and the idea of the Bauhaus in 1996 documents the tension in the culture of remembrance. If the Bauhaus was originally founded to create a different modernity through the unity of art and technology due to the horrors of World War I, the ruins of the Hiroshima Cathedral as a result of the atomic bombing are a memorial to the Janus head of modernity.

    • Memory as a prerequisite for futures Thus, the culture of remembrance is a necessary prerequisite for opening up different futures.

  • Gerhard Lenz is a historian, exhibition organizer and sociologist. He was head of department at the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation and director of the Hessian Brown Coal Mining Museum in Borken as well as deputy chairman of the Hessian Museum Association. Since July 2012 Gerhard Lenz has been Managing Director of the Rammelsberg World Heritage Site and Director of the Foundation for the World Heritage Site Rammelsberg Mine, Old Town of Goslar and Upper Harz Water Management.

Moderator:

Dong-Joon Jo
Professor at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, Seoul National University

  • Dong-Joon JO is a professor at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, Seoul National University. His research interests lie in International Organizations, Interstate Conflict, and Nuclear Proliferation. And he is currently a board member for the Korean Association of International Studies, a member of the Council for the International Political Science Association.

Session 2: The role of youth in wartime heritage interpretation and presentation (direct link)

“Heritage Presentation in New Media Platform” (direct link)

by Hwayong Jeong
Travel YouTuber

  • I. Purpose and Background ExplanationNew media platforms make it easier and simpler to communicate and understand cultural heritage to the public. In addition, the public can interact with contents creators (comment, live stream, vote) to obtain the latest information and new perspectives on heritage.

    II. Approach to ResearchSince 2019, I have been engaged in activities as a historical travel YouTuber, directly visiting numerous cultural heritage sites worldwide. I have produced YouTube videos on-site, delivering the appearance and interpretation of cultural heritage to millions of viewers. It should be noted that this abstract and presentation are based on my experiences.

    III. Contents of Research and Development of the Main Text
    1. From an Ordinary construction Material Salesperson to a youtube Creator
    2. The Power of New Media Platforms!
    3. Who, How, and What is Transmitted in Heritage Communication on Media Platforms?
    4. Future Approaches to Heritage Communication on Media Platforms
    5. Concerns about the transmission of cultural heritage to future generations and ways to overcome it.

    IV. Wartime heritage: As a history travel creator, the most important point is a neutral attitude. And it’s a good idea to visit wartime heritage places in person and include them in content. The public will be more impressed by direct experience in the field. Lastly, by adding the opinions of experts or local friends, people will be able to experience the historical and cultural heritage more vividly.

    V. Summary of results: The supply of new media is a golden opportunity to make the transmission of heritage more effective and broader. Vivid content will not only help the public increase awareness and knowledge of

  • Mr. Hwayong (YouTube: Traveleryong) is a historical travel YouTuber who visits world heritage sites around the world. Mr. hwayong was a salesperson for an ordinary building materials company. However, he quit his company at the age of 32 (in 2019) for his true dream and took on the challenge of being a history travel YouTuber.

    His areas of particular interest are archeology and the history of Central Asian nomadic peoples. Plus, religion and war heritage are also his favorite points. Since 2019, he has visited Gobeklitepe, the zero point of world ancient history, Alacahöyük with Hittite ruins, and Sarajevo, where World War I broke out. And the YouTube videos he filmed at cultural heritage sites drew enthusiastic cheers and surprising responses from Korean viewers.

    He strongly believes that media platforms such as YouTube are a great opportunity to promote the importance of cultural heritage.

“Wartime heritage (mis)interpretation among Nigeria’s young generation: Insights from the Legacies of Biafra Heritage Project” (direct link)

by Stanley Jachike Onyemechalu
PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge

  • History and memory are critical for proper wartime heritage interpretation. V.T. Nguyen writes that, “all wars are fought twice; the first time on the battlefield, the second time in memory,”. Hence, it is important to understand how ‘memory battles’ are waged in post-conflict communities, and how this impact on wartime heritage interpretation by the younger generation. Since the Biafra war (1967-1970) ended, successive Nigerian governments have continued to stifle the war history and its memorialisation. By stopping the teaching of History in schools in 2007, the government created a gap in knowledge about a war which legacies are still being felt. Paradoxically, this spurred (or coincided with) increasing people-led efforts to ‘salvage the situation’ via visual representations in museums and through digital media, resulting in dissonant narratives and memorialisation of the Biafra war history, and the weaponization of the Biafra war heritage by parochial/radical groups.

    In this paper, I present insights from the Legacies of Biafra Heritage Project (LBHP) an offshoot from my ongoing PhD research on the complex intersections of cultural heritage and the legacies of violent conflicts in the context of the Biafra war. The overall aim of the LBHP is to explore the level of intergenerational knowledge/memory transfer of the Biafra war among young people (age 16-25) in Igboland of south-eastern Nigeria and how this might impact their interpretations of the Biafra war heritage. The project does this by exploring: (i) how young people in Igboland perceive the heritage interpretation of the Biafra war, and what sources feed these perceptions? (ii) how museums and other ‘agents of memory’ employ new media and visual representations to bridge the gap (created by the government) in knowledge of the Biafra war history, and how this impacts the heritage interpretation of the war. Over 300 questionnaires were distributed across 10 schools (eight secondary schools and two universities) to students between 16-25. Also, the sites of two prominent museums on the Biafra war National War Museum, Umuahia (NWMU) and Centre for Memories, Enugu (CFME) were visited and several interviews were conducted with key staff.

    The study found that the younger generation’s perception of the Biafra war heritage interpretation was influenced by the sources of these perceptions including movies, social media, class conversations, and stories from parents/elders. It also found that while the NWMU which is government owned exists to foreground the Federal Government’s own heritage interpretation of the Biafra war, the CFME which is community-led exists to counter the narratives in the former through visual representations and digital media.

    Results from the LBHP show the significance of historical accuracy for proper wartime heritage interpretation, especially among the younger generation. This paper contends that wartime heritage interpretation (also reflected in the memoryscape) is a product of the prevailing historical narratives surrounding it. It goes further to suggest policy recommendations for stakeholders in post-conflict situations, like Nigeria, to forestall future conflict by allowing for democratised and proper wartime heritage interpretations.

  • Stanley Jachike Onyemechalu is a Gates Cambridge Scholar and PhD Candidate in Archaeology at King’s College, University of Cambridge, UK. His research, which was awarded the Emslie Horniman Anthropological Scholarship Fund by the Royal Anthropological Institute, explores the intersections of cultural heritage and the legacies of violent conflicts in the context of the Nigeria-Biafra war (1967-1970). He is the current Book Reviews Editor for the Archaeological Review from Cambridge (ARC) and has a Lectureship in Archaeology and Heritage Studies with the University of Nigeria. Stanley is also co-Editor of the forthcoming volume, ‘Archaeology and the Publics’, for the ARC. His research interests cut across (post-)Conflict Memory, (post-) Conflict-heritage, Indigenous and Decolonial Heritage, Museum Studies, and Community Archaeology.

“Interpreting heritage in times of conflict for wider protection in the international law framework” (direct link)

by Anisha Patel
PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law at Europa-Universität Viadrina

  • The concept of what ‘heritage’ entails has been evolving over time. The contemporary discourse on heritage identifies it as a process and is focused on people and the intangible elements that give meaning and significance to the tangible. Beyond the heritage field, scholars in peace and conflict studies have argued that identity and heritage are intertwined and in times of conflict, especially protracted conflict, wherein this relationship becomes critical and can be detrimental to the conflict-affected communities.

    Parallelly, there has been a transformation in the international law framework for the protection of heritage in times of conflict as reflected in the most recent Policy on Cultural Heritage published by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in 2021, which identifies heritage as a process and acknowledges its connection with identities of people. However, this evolution in the legal framework has been limited since the very nature of international law still makes it a framework centred around States Parties and their actions rather than individuals. It is also of relevance that majority of the core conventions in international law related to armed conflict still belong to the post WWII era and express a limited understanding of heritage and by extension, its protection.

    The interaction between the contemporary understanding of heritage on one hand and its characterisation in international law on the other is critical as it can impact what is being protected and hence can potentially affect the root causes of the conflict. In this context, sensitive interpretation of heritage becomes key in acknowledging the multiple values and meanings that coexist. By making space for different narratives to be heard, a sensitive approach to interpretation of heritage therefore has the potential to allow for a leveraging a broader range of international norms to protect heritage in times of conflict.

    The research thus aims to discuss the interpretation of heritage in times of conflict and its impact on the protection offered under international law norms. It does so through the case of the World Heritage Site ‘Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir’ and other olive farming communities in the region. The research identifies the values of the site as outlined in the OUV while discussing it in the wider context of the conflict to include perspectives of different stakeholders associated with the cultural practice of olive farming. It then analyses the possibilities of enhancing the protection offered to the practice of olive farming through nuanced heritage interpretation.

  • Anisha is currently a doctoral researcher at the Faculty of Law at Europa-Universität Viadrina, Germany with a focus on international law, identity, and heritage in times of conflict. She has an undergraduate degree in Architecture, an MA in World Heritage Studies, and an LL.M. in International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Anisha is currently a legal researcher at Law for Palestine, an international non-governmental organisation, where she works on analysing the effects of the destruction of heritage on the identities of communities through the framework of international law norms. Previously, she has worked as a consultant with ICCROM’s First Aid and Resilience for Cultural Heritage in Times of Crises Programme on the development and publication of the Community-Based Heritage Indicators for Peace Tool, which uses a community-centred approach, highlighting the types and expressions of heritage that matter most to conflict-affected people and, by extension, those that could have the greatest role to play in restoring positive peace. Anisha has also worked with governmental organisations as a World Heritage Specialist focusing on developing nomination dossiers, management planning, capacity building, stakeholder participation, and policy development.

“Reconstructing the Ferhadija mosque in Bosnia and Herzegovina” (direct link)

by Karlijn Hulshof
Student of MA Heritage and Memory Studies, Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam

  • The wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the Dayton Accords in 1995, almost 30 years ago. Multiple scholars, however, have argued that the conflict has continued in the field of cultural heritage. Heritage became one of the targets of violence during the wars. For instance, Yugoslav heritage was destroyed to break with the past. After the wars, the presence of (new) cultural heritage ensured the visibility of national identities in the public space.

    Especially religious heritage was under threat and subject to destruction in the 1990s. The Ferhadija mosque, located in the city center of Banja Luka, was destroyed on the 7th of May 1993. After the war, the reconstruction proved difficult for multiple reasons. The mosque finally reopened its doors in 2016. The Ferhadija mosque remains only an island representing Bosniak identity in the capital city of Republika Srpska, one of two entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Ferhadija clashes with the dominant, visible memory in the rest of the city center that at times glorifies the convicted war criminal Ratko Mladić. It is therefore essential that the Ferhadija mosque remains a visible and present object in the city for many. I elaborate on these memory dynamics in and around Banja Luka and aim to answer the question: How does heritage highlight tensions in Banja Luka? The discussion centers around a before-, during-, and after-conflict analysis of the Ferhadija mosque.

  • My name is Karlijn Hulshof (24). I am a student of the MA Heritage and Memory Studies at the University of Amsterdam. For the past few months, I have been working as an intern for the Ministry of Defense on cultural property protection. The area of the former Yugoslavia is one of my main research interests, especially the relationship between heritage, memory, and conflict.

    At the University of Groningen, I completed a BA degree in European Languages and Cultures. There, I devoted time to learning the Russian language and had the chance to visit Moscow for an Erasmus exchange. I extended my BA studies during the first two years of COVID at the BA Slavic Studies of the University of Amsterdam. The studies allowed me to follow the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian track and enabled me to improve my language skills during a semester in Zagreb. Learning the language means delving into a culture, so I feel grateful I got the opportunity to do so.

    Combining heritage studies with my background in Slavic studies has opened up interesting new angles into both subjects. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on the Ferhadija mosque in Banja Luka with the audience. It will shed light on the importance of heritage during and after conflict.

Panel discussion (direct link)

with Francesco Bandarin
Special Advisor to the Director-General of ICCROM / Former UNESCO ADG for Culture / Founder of OWH (Italy)

  • General: Heritage plays an important role in the preservation of memory of past events, good or bad. The memorial function of heritage is perhaps the most difficult to interpret and preserve in the long term, as it tends to vanish with the passage of generations. Heritage plays a role in preserving the living memory of past events, until all the living memory is possible. After that, it becomes historical memory, and interpretation plays an even bigger role.

    Wartime heritage: Heritage of wars is considered ‘dissonant’ or ‘negative’ as it brings out memories of atrocities and conflicts. There is a growing interest in preserving wartime heritage as part of collective memories. Even the World Heritage Convention (not without controversies) has taken a decisive step to include wartime sites in the World, Heritage List. Interpretation of wartime heritage requires special attention as in conflicts there is always one side that has won and one that has lost. Reconciliation efforts should be at the forefront of every interpretation scheme.

    Role of youth: Youth has the task responsibility to carry on the memory of wartime events, whether they were present or involved (Syria, Iraq, Mali, Ukraine) or not (WW II, Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.). Youth can benefit from training in heritage interpretation, to understand and address the complexity of issues related to wartime memories. Youth can play a significant role in maintaining memory and defining heritage interpretation for the future and in leading reconciliation processes.

  • Francesco Bandarin is an Architect and Urban Planner, specialized in Urban Conservation. He holds degrees in Architecture (IUAV Venice) and City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley) and has been Professor of Urban Planning and Urban Conservation at the University of Venice (IUAV) from 1980 to 2016.

    From 2000 to 2010 he was Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and Secretary of the World Heritage Convention. From 2010 to 2018 he served as Assistant Director-General of UNESCO for Culture.

    He is Special Advisor of the Director-General of ICCROM. He is member of ICOMOS, of ICOM, Senior Advisor to the Aga Khan Trust for Culture, and member of the Advisory Council of the Smithsonian Centre for Folklife and Cultural Heritage. He is founder and member of Our World Heritage.

with Jean-Louis Luxen
Professor Emeritus of Université Catholique de Louvain / Former Secretary-General of ICOMOS (Belgium)

  • Engaging young people in wartime heritage interpretation ensures the continuity of collective memory for future generations. The purpose is also to cultivate a critical thinking about the origins of conflicts, to develop a sense of responsibility and to promote peacebuilding efforts. As a priority, advantage should be taken of the particular openness of young people to important.

    Contemporary practices:- Their easy command of new technologies of information and communication (social media, digital tools, virtual reality...) allows them to involve the public in interactive exchanges about the realities of conflicts and in immersive experiences.- Their tendency of critical analysis of society should be built on to analyse the causes of war and to question the various narratives, analysing the historical events and the complexities of armed conflicts.- Their taste for artistic expression (theatre, music, visual arts...) can bring an emotional, profound connection with the disastrous (human and material) consequences of war.- Their idealism in peace building and dialogue can make them activists for peace and conflict prevention and resolution.

    There are also various other classical ways for youth to be engaged:- Preserving historical knowledge and being aware of wartime history and of war crimes.- Taking part in documentation activities and collecting interviews of survivors and veterans.- Participating in commemorative events that make the memory of past conflicts remains alive.

  • Jean-Louis Luxen holds a PhD in Law (Louvain) and a Master Degree in Economics (Stanford). As a senior civil servant, he was in charge of Cultural affairs, involved in Heritage conservation since the 1970’s, in his country, Belgium, and at the Council of Europe, where he served as President of the Heritage Steering Committee from 1989 to 1993. As Secretary General of ICOMOS, from 1993 to 2002, he took part in the preparation of the Nara Conference and in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. From 2008 to 2013, he acted as Senior Legal Expert of the Euromed Heritage programme for the strengthening of the institutional and legislative framework. From 2007 to 2019, he was Board member of the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience. In 2018, he was asked by the World Heritage Centre to chair the Working Group on “Interpretation of Sites of Memory”. He is Professor Emeritus at the University of Louvain.

Moderator:

Jihon Kim
Research Fellow, Seoul National University/ Adjunct Professor, Konkuk University

  • Dr. Jihon Kim is a visiting fellow at the Institute of International Studies at Seoul National University. She is an adjunct professor at the Graduate School of World Heritage Studies at Konkuk University and a chief of the Division of International Cooperation Programme at the Korean National Commission for UNESCO. She also served as a public legislative officer at the Ministry of Government Legislation, and was a research fellow at UNIDROIT. Her research interests are international cultural heritage law, international organizations, and non-State actors. She has written numerous publications on heritage issues, including Non-State Actors in the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Springer, 2021).

 

Session 3: Role of Various Stakeholders in Presenting Wartime Heritage (direct link)

“Advocacy of Civil Organization for Sites of Conscience Related to War” (direct link)

by Jan van Wagtendonk
President, Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts

  • “Ladies and gentlemen,

    My name is Jan van Wagtendonk, President of the Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts.

    The Objective of the Foundation is to look after the interests of the Dutch, victims of war crimes perpetrated by the Japanese government during the Second World War. The Dutch were kept inside and outside concentration camps in Dutch East Indies and other territories under control of the Japanese government. Most of them survived due the atomic bombs. However they still feel the physical and mental terror as of today. They suffered materially and immaterially. They lost everything as the Jews in Europe.

    As president I am involved in pursuing the present Japanese government to admit their moral responsibilities for the war crimes committed, but ignored by them in their educational systems and historic memories.

    Wartime Heritage, Interpretation and Presentation for Future is therefor an essential part of the longer term activities of the Foundation. The UNESCO in their program protecting the worlds cultural and natural heritage is important for the Foundation.

    In 2015 during a conference in Bonn, Germany I advocated strongly to remember and rectify Japan’s wrongdoing during World War Two. During the conference Japan’s application to enlist as a World Heritage property “Sites of Japan’s Meiji Industrial Revolution: Iron and Steel, Shipbuilding and Coal Mining ” was discussed. On behalf of the many Dutch Prisoner’s of War employed by companies on the sites. They stayed in the concentration camps as workers, better word slaves, for these companies. In the application to become an Outstanding Universal Value the war history of the sites was deliberately ignored. I objected to this application as inappropriate and of very bad taste. My objection was not heard! However the UNESCO insisted that an understanding of the full history of each property was to be presented at the sites.

    The government of Japan in 2015 accepted the UNESCO World Heritage Committee decision that the ”Outstanding Universal Value” of the property had been evaluated and had been inscribed on the World Heritage List. Japan welcomed the decision and responded sincerely to develop a interpretive strategy which allows “an understanding of the FULL history of each site”. More specifically Japan is prepared to take measures that allow an understanding that there were a large number of Koreans and others who were brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions in the 1940s at some of the sites, and that during World War II, the government of Japan also implemented its policy of requisition.”

    That was in 2015, in Bonn.

    Of the 4385 Dutch POW’s employed in Japan 695 were victims of forced labor at the sites. Many died and those who survived were disabled and suffered from memories and fear. In 2021 again I pointed out to the Chairperson of the 44th Session World Heritage Committee of UNESCO that I, on behalf of the Dutch POW’s, had objected in 2015 to the nomination of the Meiji Industrial Revolution sites as to be inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List.

    At the same time I wrote the Japanse Prime Minister his Excellency Yoshihide Suga in a strong letter that the Japanese government was ignoring its sincere promise to develop an interpretive strategy to allow an understanding of the full history of each site. The Japanese ambassador in The Hague responded to the letter that it has all to do with what is the meaning of “an understanding of the full history of each site”. It was and is still clear that the Japanse political institutions try to whitewash the World War Two history by ignoring their the full history of each site on the Heritage List.

    The UNESCO Committee expressed its concern that the so called interpretative strategy for presentation of the property is concentrated at the Industrial Heritage Information Center in Tokyo far away from the Sites in Nagasaki.

    The UNESCO Committee requested immediate information improvements at the sites. In particular on the issues of forced labor of Koreans and others and the implantation of the requisition policy of 1944.

    The purpose of remembering the victims is still non existent.

    It falls short in acknowledging best international practice.

    The exhibition at the Information Centre in Tokyo as a measure to remember the victims fails. Instead it attempts to distort history by exclusively presenting selective testimonies from former Japanese residents, who deny any discrimination or abuse at the sites!

    What does it mean now in 2023?

    In particular with the ongoing Ukrainian war at hand. Reliable Memories and Interpretation of Wartime Heritage for Future Generation requires genuine truth and independent analyses.

    Political institutions such UNESCO are suspect as they are politically influenced and are dependent on their finances by major contributors, nations as Japan! The United States are no longer a member.

    However the UNESCO directors maintain there utmost commitment to adhere to the Outstanding Universal Value principles including best international practices for interpretation strategies on the interpretation of the full history of the property, both during and outside of the period in considering its Outstanding Universal Value.

    It means that not only that UNESCO ambassadors need to control UNESCO’s commitment to its principles but also that UNESCO should not hesitate to delist the Outstanding Universal Value property from the World Heritage List if the Outstanding Universal Value property fails its commitment to disclose the full history.

    To that aspect organizations like the Foundation of Japanese Debt have a duty to fulfill. I thank prof Dong-Joon Jo for given me the opportunity to present our commitment and tell our sad story. Thank for your attention.

  • My father was a plantation manager, coffee and rubber.

    During the Japanese occupation of Dutch East Indies my farther and grandfather were murdered by the Kempeitai, the Japanese military police.

    After the war I left with my mother Dutch East Indies for the Netherlands.

    After my junior education I was conscripted into the Royal Dutch Navy left ranked as officer. After the military service I studied economics at the Rotterdam University now named Erasmus. Graduated as bachelor economics.

    Joined Shell International in overseas commercial and financial positions .

    Retired early after 25 years of service in the Netherlands.

    Joined the Dutch PTT as managing director real estate.

    After the split up of PTT into Post and Telecom I became a consultant/investor in real estate. In the Netherlands I spend time with charities, such as for homeless people, a hospital, education and the Foundation Japanese Horary Debts.

    The latter as president I was much involved in the way Japanese forces mistreated Dutch civilians and military during the Japanese occupation of Dutch East Indies. Including my little brother of 3 years who died as a result of mistreating, my father and grandfather killed by the Kempetai, and my mother and myself who were interned in concentration camps.

    My name is Jan van Wagtendonk, President of the Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts.

    The Objective of the Foundation is to look after the interests of the Dutch, victims of war crimes perpetrated by the Japanese government during the Second World War. The Dutch were kept inside and outside concentration camps in Dutch East Indies and other territories under control of the Japanese government. Most of them survived due the atomic bombs. However they still feel the physical and mental terror as of today. They suffered materially and immaterially. They lost everything as the Jews in Europe.

    As president I am involved in pursuing the present Japanese government to admit their moral responsibilities for the war crimes committed, but ignored by them in their educational systems and historic memories.

    Wartime Heritage, Interpretation and Presentation for Future is therefor an essential part of the longer term activities of the Foundation. The UNESCO in their program protecting the worlds cultural and natural heritage is important for the Foundation.

    In 2015 during a conference in Bonn, Germany I advocated strongly to remember and rectify Japan’s wrongdoing during World War Two. During the conference Japan’s application to enlist as a World Heritage property “Sites of Japan’s Meiji Industrial Revolution: Iron and Steel, Shipbuilding and Coal Mining ” was discussed. On behalf of the many Dutch Prisoner’s of War employed by companies on the sites. They stayed in the concentration camps as workers, better word slaves, for these companies.

    In the application to become an Outstanding Universal Value the war history of the sites was deliberately ignored. I objected to this application as inappropriate and of very bad taste. My objection was not heard! However the UNESCO insisted that an understanding of the full history of each property was to be presented at the sites.

    The government of Japan in 2015 accepted the UNESCO World Heritage Committee decision that the ”Outstanding Universal Value” of the property had been evaluated and had been inscribed on the World Heritage List. Japan welcomed the decision and responded sincerely to develop a interpretive strategy which allows “an understanding of the FULL history of each site”.

    More specifically Japan is prepared to take measures that allow an understanding that there were a large number of Koreans and others who were brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions in the 1940s at some of the sites, and that during World War II, the government of Japan also implemented its policy of requisition.

“Survivals' Movement for Remembrance of War related to Heritage Sites” (direct link)

by Elizabeth Silkes
Executive Director of International Coalition of Sites of Conscience) (USA)

  • Reporting from Dachau concentration camp after its liberation on April 29, 1945, journalist Martha Gellhorn wrote, “We were blind and unbelieving and slow, and that we can never be again. We must know there can never be peace if there is cruelty like this in the world. And if we ever again tolerate such cruelty we have no right to peace.” Eight decades after Gellhorn wrote those words, antisemitism is surging across the globe. Hate crimes including violence against Jewish people in the streets, mass shootings at synagogues, and desecration of Jewish cemeteries and Holocaust memorials have risen to record levels over the past five years. These incidents are fueled not only by violent extremists, but by populist leaders, celebrities, and others in positions of power who promote conspiracy theories and spread hate online and in-person. Holocaust denialism is rampant as well, as larger efforts to erase histories of atrocity, systemic oppression, and colonial domination escalate globally.

    It is in this environment that Sites of Conscience around the world are uniting in a movement to preserve memory, promote truth and pursue justice. With over 350 members--established and emerging museums, historic sites, archives and memory initiatives--in 65 countries, the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience works hand in hand with communities to amplify marginalized voices and counter what author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie calls “the single stories” simplistic narratives that exclude the experiences, needs and voices of minority groups, contributing to divisive rhetoric, negative stereotypes, discrimination, hatred and violence. Through projects such as “Correcting the Record”, which supports the identification and correction of absences, both historic and contemporary, in museum collections and exhibits, and “Living Archives”, which supports the collection of oral histories through local archives and memory projects, Sites of Conscience are breaking new ground in equipping communities to advocate for memory, truth and justice. Centering formerly excluded experiences can play a vital social role in countering top-down narratives that perpetuate exclusion and in increasing understanding of the complex, systemic issues that drive inequality, hate, and violence today. One approach that shows particular promise in moving audiences to a place of deeper understanding is prioritizing intersectionality in the narratives shared at Sites of Conscience. Highlighting and exploring intersecting forces of power as well as intersectional lived experiences opens the door to new opportunities for the connection, compassion, and action that is necessary for social and political transformation at this moment of profound polarization the world over.

  • As Executive Director of the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience, Elizabeth Silkes guides the strategic growth of a thriving consortium of 350 museums, historic sites and memory initiatives working to preserve memory, promote truth and pursue justice in 65 countries. Through regional and issue-based networks, the Coalition supports Sites of Conscience across the globe in developing innovative civic engagement, transitional justice and human rights programs through exhibit design and methodological guidance, peer-learning exchanges, project grants, and joint advocacy initiatives. Prior to joining the Coalition, Elizabeth served as CEO of Cinereach, a foundation supporting film and media projects focused on social change, and as Executive Director of FilmAid International, a humanitarian relief organization using film and video to address the needs of refugees and other displaced communities. Prior to joining FilmAid, she led the major gifts program at Amnesty International USA to record growth while advocating for human rights in the US and abroad. Her extensive experience with community-based memory and media projects gives her a unique perspective on the power of the personal story to move audiences from past to present and memory to action. As a featured speaker at conferences and workshops around the world, Elizabeth has addressed issues ranging from psycho-social relief initiatives in displaced communities to the role of memory in creating lasting cultures of peace and human rights in post-conflict settings and emerging democracies. She has served on the board of ICOM-US, the U.S. National

    Committee of the International Council of Museums; as an International Advisor to the Accounts of the Conflict project at the University of Ulster INCORE; as an international advisor to UNESCO; and a member of the Law Advisory Council for the Fetzer Institute.

“A Pioneering Study (1915) on Post-war Reconstruction by Jean Laurent Hasse (1849-1925)” (direct link)

by Yonca Erkan
Professor of Built Heritage at University of Antwerp

  • Post-war reconstruction studies as a discipline date back to 1940s especially after WWII. The Google n-gram viewer, analysing published books on “post-war reconstruction” clearly shows the peak in 1944, and a silent period before. This situation is seconded by Pieter Uyttenhoye in his article titled ‘Continuities in Belgian wartime reconstruction planning’ (1990), who mentions that there was simply no theoretical paradigm or operational know-how at the beginning of the WWI to help solve essential and material tasks. Progressive Belgians of the time came together and positioned themselves against the ‘middle class ideology of the private property of the 19th century, ‘laissez-faire liberalism’, leading towards the first urban planning law in 1915 following the destruction of the WWI.

    This paper will introduce a pioneering study written following the WWI in Belgium by the liberal architect Jean Laurent Hasse (1849-1925), “De La Restauration Dégats Causés Par La Guerre”, 1915. This publication is not only unique because it is a precursor, but also because the book starts with a verse “Tous les Belges sont égaux devant la loi” (All Belgians are equal before the law), indicating that all his following views will sit on a rights based approach. This publication is born out of Hasse’s involvement in the ‘Committee on the Assessment of War Damages’ in Berchem, Antwerp (1914), culminated in a map prepared by in collaboration with De De Vroey Somers rendering the sites damaged by the Zeplin bombings. Independently, this publication brings Hasse’s views on how to tackle the problem of rebuilding both from the perspective of architecture but also from the social & humanitarian angles. Unfortunately, this work has not been widely used and Hasse did not receive much recognition by the architectural historians until today, although his contribution to Antwerp urban environment is extensive, on the one hand through his architectural endeavours that extents from private houses to commercial and industrial complexes, on the other hand through his scholarly works. Almost 100 years after his departure, this paper aims to introduce Hasse, who was the recipient of numerous international recognition and awards, selected as the ‘National Grand Master’ of the Great Orient of Belgium Masonic Lodge and one of the key initiators of international Expositions in Belgium.

    This paper will offer a good basis for a discussion on reviewing the evolution of studies on post-war reconstruction and recovery since Hasse’s initial attempt. In order to provide a comparison, the UNESCO and the World Bank joint framework, the CURE, that focuses on investing in culture, urban regeneration, and resilience in an integrated manner will be used. It is hoped that Hasse’s comprehensive views on the theory of post-war reconstruction will add a new depth on current discussions towards rebuilding and recovery processes.

  • Prof. Dr. Yonca Erkan, is the UNESCO Chair on the Management and Promotion of World Heritage Sites: New Media and Community Involvement at Kadir Has University, Istanbul (since 2015) and Professor of Heritage Studies at the University of Antwerp since 2022. In 2018, she worked as senior consultant at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, as the HUL/World Heritage Cities Programme Coordinator. She has been a jury member of the European Union Cultural Heritage EUROPA NOSTRA Awards since 2015. She served at the Turkish National Commission for UNESCO (2011-2014) as the vice-president of the Tangible Heritage Committee, during which she represented Turkey at the 38th World Heritage Committee as cultural heritage expert. She published articles on diverse aspects of conservation of heritage ranging from urban heritage, historic urban landscape approach, railway heritage, industrial heritage and water heritage among others. Currently, she is the coordinator of the research project EU Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska Curie RISE Project titled “Sustainable Management of Industrial Heritage as a Resource for Urban Development” (2021–2025) where 13 institutions in six countries are involved.

    She is an architect (1993, Yıldız Technical University), received her first Master’s Degree in Architectural Conservation (1996, Yıldız Technical University) a second S.March.S. Degree in Islamic Art & Architecture (1998, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and got her PhD Degree in Architectural Conservation (2007, Istanbul Technical University). Her PhD Thesis on the Impacts of the Anatolian Railway and Its Preservation received the best PhD Thesis Award in 2007 by the Chamber of Architects in Turkey.

Panel discussion (direct link)

with Shikha Jain

Vice President, ICOFORT ICOMOS / Rapporteur of the 45th session of the World Heritage Committee

  • Recording and Interpreting Stakeholders’ Narratives of Wartime Heritage.

    The three cases presented in this session bring forth the complexity of wartime narratives in the context of a range of military heritage sites across the world. They also help to reflect on possible ways forward through various forms of interpretive media to communicate the multiple stories associated with such events.

    The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience brings forth the significant role that NGOs can play in recording, preserving and commemorating the multiple voices of wartime heritage and sites of conflict across the world. It showcases an excellent example where the network sustains and promotes peace rooted in collective shared human experiences that go beyond administrative and political boundaries of countries. What makes such a network even stronger and cross cutting is the focus on intersectionality.

    For a completely holistic interpretation strategy, it is very important to address each and every peculiar contextuality of the multiple stakeholders involved in situations of war or conflict.

    The presentation by the Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts throws light on the contestations associated with recently inscribed wartime World Heritage Sites by UNESCO. It also points to the commitment of a nation state in interpreting the various histories of a wartime site while inscribing such a site as a collective heritage of humanity.

    The post war reconstruction from a social architectural perspective in the Belgian context is a very relevant example in the current scenario for recovery and rebuilding.

    Collectively, these presentations indicate the need for experiential, secular and spatial perspectives for future interpretations of wartime heritage.

  • Dr. Shikha Jain has an extensive portfolio on cultural heritage of India that covers World Heritage, Cultural Landscapes, Conservation, Heritage based Development and Museum Planning of several projects for the Government of India, State Governments and international organizations such as the Getty Foundation and the World Monuments Fund.

    As an international expert on World Heritage, she has advised government organizations in Singapore, Malaysia, UAE, Myanmar and UNESCO Offices at Jakarta, Indonesia and Myanmar and, worked as consultant to the UNESCO New Delhi on specific missions. She has steered several UNESCO World Heritage listings in India. She represented India as a Cultural Heritage expert in the UNESCO World Heritage Committee during India’s elected term in Committee from 2011-2015 and, is currently representing India as a bureau member on behalf of Government of India in the forthcoming 45th World Heritage Committee Session of UNESCO.

    She is Vice President, ICOFORT, ICOMOS, and an expert member of the International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes, ICOMOS.

with Tokie Laotan-Brown

Co-Founder, Foundation for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Nigeria

  • African Political Stakeholders: Memorization of a Singular Story:

    Wartime sites are bearers of difficult histories and the memories are continued causes of pain for affected communities. By working with all stakeholders to begin independent, honest and open truth reconciliation processes, affected communities can come to terms with what has occurred. Regions in Africa, that suffer from constant ethnic community clashes due to limited resources and land parcel boundaries tend to have leaders who for political reasons influence both the content and the audience for memorization consumption. The methodology on which the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience relies on, from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Forensic, Social, Personal and Reconciliatory Truths have to include African cultural sensitivities as part of the methodology. Consensus building between affected communities is essential for peaceful co-existence and building social solidarity as a crucial step in reestablishing social solidarity within affected communities. Adopting local cultural dialectics that place an emphasis on sharing and equitable resource distribution has to be part of the process. This ensures that affected communities embrace and help restore progressive cultural attitudes and values that promote an environment conducive in memorialising peace building. Responsive stakeholders must include civil societies affected by war, by engaging them in a continual transitional peace reconciliation process to enable a more culturally responsive conscience towards lasting peace or a “Never Again” approach.

  • Dr Tokie Laotan-Brown, Heritage Architect at Merging Ecologies. Board Member, Our World Heritage. Scientific Member- Scientific Committee, Graduate Programme in Cultural Heritage Studies at the University of Nova Goricia, Slovenia. Foundation for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Nigeria. Expert Voting Member, International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes (ISCCL) and Member-Nigeria NC, International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS-IFLA). Author & Lecturer, RIBA Approved CPD Core Program For 2022 “Legislation Vs The Preservation Of Character: The Conservation Debate. Building Conservation And Heritage.”

    Her interests include: Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Strategies, Conservation Management Plans, Cultural Landscape Characterizations Assessments, World Heritage Nomination Dossiers, Community Engagement Activities with Natural and Cultural Sites, Earth, Stone and Timber Restorations, Rehabilitations and Reconfigurations, Retrofits and Energy Efficiency, Post Occupancy Analysis, African Cities and Urban -Rural Fragmentations.

Moderator:

Maaike Goedkoop
Secretary-General OurWorldHeritage

  • Maaike Goedkoop studied architecture and urban planning at Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands. Following her studies, she specialized in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, with a particular focus on Heritage Impact Assessment through projects conducted in Germany, Sweden, and Croatia. During her volunteer work for OurWorldHeritage, she developed her affinity for collaborating with local and global communities, and played a key role in building OurWorldHeritage from the ground up. She was instrumental in establishing the Global Outreach team, which played a crucial role in promoting OurWorldHeritage’s #2021debate. In her capacity as Secretary General of OurWorldHeritage, she remains dedicated to volunteering and driving the continuous development of the organization. Her primary objective is to empower and amplify the voices of local communities actively engaged in the preservation of heritage values.

    Furthermore, Maaike Goedkoop also works as a project manager for a scientific consortium based at ETH Zurich University in Switzerland. Her project concentrates on the assessment and implementation of wood-based bio-economies, encompassing aspects from sustainable forest management and climate change impacts, to wood innovation and construction. Her goal is to continue expanding local and global networks and pursue informed and sustainable change.

 

Rapporteur: Amy Wilson (direct link)

 

Organisators:

Previous
May 10

Conversations with Communities: Heritage & Climate Change
Next
June 24

INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION OF CONTESTED HERITAGE TOWARDS TRUTH AND PEACE-BUILDING