Cultural Heritage and Human Rights: a Holistic Approach Beyond The Hague

Introduction

“Mr President, Honourable Judges, it must be said, and it must be said clearly: to intentionally direct an attack against historic monuments and buildings dedicated to religion constitutes a war crime, duly punishable under the Rome Statute. These are serious crimes which must be dealt with at the hands of justice.”1 With this statement, Fatou Bensouda, prosecutor of the International Criminal Court of The Hague (ICC), opened the trial of Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, a Malian citizen who, in 2012, planned and executed the destruction of mausoleums and mosques in Timbuktu, Mali, in name of the Al-Qaeda affiliated group Ansar Dine.2

Al Mahdi’s conviction as a war criminal was the first in history based solely in cultural property destruction3 and it was claimed as groundbreaking by heritage institutions and practitioners. Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO stated that “the decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a landmark in gaining recognition for the importance of heritage for humanity as a whole and for the communities that have preserved it over the centuries”4.

However, human rights advocates showed some concern regarding human rights issues in the trial. For instance, Erica Bussey, the Amnesty International's Senior Legal Advisor for Africa, stressed the fact that “while this case breaks new ground for the ICC, we must not lose sight of the need to ensure accountability for other crimes under international law”. Bussey was referring to the utter absence of investigation on the sexual violence allegations against Al Mahdi.5

Such reactions from human rights advocates on the trial shed some light to a historical discussion6 around the concepts of 'heritage' and 'humanity'. On the one hand, the argument that cultural heritage destruction is a human right issue and that “[i]t is impossible to separate a people’s cultural heritage from the people itself and that people’s rights.”7. On the other hand, the understanding that trial single-mindedness in cultural property damage might represent the opposite of the aforementioned statement. In other words, through such a view, one might have the impression that human lives are less valuable than buildings and artifacts.

This paper aims to holistically discuss the concepts of cultural heritage and human rights in different spheres other than international law. In order to critically examine the aforementioned topic, it is necessary to look beyond The Hague’s tribunal walls to understand the context that leads to militant groups to destroy cultural property. It is also essential to reflect on how the criteria to define cultural heritage might reinforce the scenario that leads to destruction of cultural heritage. Moreover, to discuss humanitarianism within cultural heritage meaningfully, it is crucial to criticize the lack of participation of communities who usually do not take part on their own heritage management.

Architectural criminal, iconoclasm and spectacle

Up to the recent history of wars, the destruction of historical buildings and monuments were usually collateral effects of certain military strategies. In other words, the perpetrators’ main objectives were usually either the extermination of the inhabitants of a given building or the destruction of certain strategic sites. But recently, targeting cultural property with the intention of destroying people's memories and identities and/or to challenge a specific status quo or a given symbol became the reasons for different actions perpetrated by the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and the Al-Qaeda 'franchise'.8

The case of Timbuktu's mausoleums and mosques illustrates how the destruction can be motivated by the importance that Western societies give to physical representations of heritage, such as buildings and artifacts. As Lucia Allias narrates:

"Ansar Dine monitored the activities of local inhabitants at ten mosques and mausolea for several months, but only ordered their destruction after they were inscribed on UNESCO’s list of heritage under threat in June 2012. In October, the group re-started destruction on the eve of an international meeting in Bamako, and in December, it was in response to a UN security resolution to send an occupying force to northern Mali that further ‘hidden mausoleums in the city’ were found and attacked."9

Were the practices of saint images veneration by Timbuktu's inhabitants being considered blasphemous10 by Ansar Dine the main reasons to perpetrate these acts? If the site were not inscribed in Unesco's list, it would have the same fate?

For Islamic extremist groups like Ansar Dine, the motivation in terms of iconoclast concepts might be a secondary aim of the destruction. Turning these acts into spectacles is indeed their ultimate goal. An audience that not only watches but also contributes to disseminate the images of destruction in multiple media vehicles enables the spectacle.11 Moreover, by 'spectacularizing' the destruction, the concept of iconoclasm12, that they use to explain their actions, is contradicted. In this context, iconoclasm does not exist without the media environment and its audiences and this relationship produces a “duality of iconoclasm - its tendency to produce images in the process of destroying them.”13 This change of iconoclasm' emphasis from artifact to image clearly plays an important role in another destruction of heritage event: namely the destruction of artifacts in Mosul, Iraq, in 2015.14

The destruction of artifacts from the Assyrian and Akkadian empires in the city’s central museum by ISIS was documented in a five-minute video by its perpetrators and published by the “press office of the province of Nineveh [the region around Mosul]”.15 In the video, a representative of ISIS who speaks to the camera explains the group's motivation, inspired by the prophet Muhammad’s destruction of idols in Mecca: “These statues and idols, these artifacts, if God has ordered its removal, they became worthless to us even if they are worth billions of dollars”.16

By “spectacularizing” these actions of destructions, the destructed monuments were elevated to the level of art as they highlighted these sites and put them once again in history17. So that, the claim made by Amir al-Jumaili, a professor at the Archaeology College in Mosul, that “with the destruction of these artifacts, we can no longer be proud of Mosul’s civilization”18 may not be accurate. Indeed, by the dissemination of the images of the destruction, the Mosul's civilization heritage has caught the international community attention. As Stubbletfield points out, the “temporal instantaneity of media networks grant the monument the capacity to achieve an extraordinary, if only momentary, (negative) presence.”19

The essentialism and the afterlife of places and artifacts

The prosecutor in Timbuktu's mausolea case, Fatou Bensouda, brought to The Hague the “prevalent international preservation theories” in her statements. As Lucia Allais describes, Bensouda asserted that once the “authentic materials [were] destroyed”, “the roots of an entire people” were also destroyed in a way that no restoration would be able to bring them back.20 Hence the essentialism of place has been addressed as the only possible way to bridge cultural heritage and human rights. In other words, lived spaces would be imperative to keep “its authenticity and truthfulness”.21

There are meaningful and valuable ways to give an afterlife to destroyed landscapes through the representation of its destruction. These representations depict and construct meaning over the acts of violence against landscape and “demonstrate that in many cases, destruction is less an end-point—the straightforward expression of political will—than the beginning of a process of meaning-making”.22 So that, the absence of a monument does not mean it will be lost or forgotten but rather than its existence could be defined, for instance, through a “specific mode of image production”.23 As Robert S. Nelson and Margaret Olin describe, once the monument’s “potential for destruction or defacement” begins to function as “the most meaningful aspect of the monument’s existence as an object,” then its destruction becomes its realization, its primary means of signifying.”24

Regarding to Timbuktu's mausolea destruction, Allais precisely concludes:

"After all, Al Mahdi had intervened in the city’s medial landscape with his megaphone and his laptop as much as with his pick-axe and his Kalashnikov. The contest for defining the global “human” continues now, as international institutions continue to publicize their involvement in Timbuktu, keeping its architecture alive by circulating it on networks of communication. After the destruction and reconstruction of its mausoleums, Timbuktu’s architectural history becomes a media archaeology, one which may help get past the pitfalls of colonialist histories."25

In other words, it is crucial for a contemporary heritage practice to recognize the role that the representation of destruction or the reconstruction play in the field, as important as the physical existence of buildings and artifacts.

UNESCO and 'universal' values

“We are Muslims; what is UNESCO?(...) For us, their indignation is an atonement.”26 This statement of Sanda Ould Boumama, the spokesperson of the militant group responsible for Timbuktu's mausolea destruction, reflects the clash-of-civilization thesis, a superficial and dangerous argument commonly present among Islamist extremist groups and widespread in Western institutions' discourse27.

According to Esra Akcan, the clash-of-civilization argument “sees separated and self-contained areas in the world rather than their intertwined histories, as if these geographical areas have never shared ideas, images, objects, and technologies that travel back and forth between them”.28 This concept is usually a key point in cultural heritage as its discourse commonly goes around the contrast between 'our' values and 'their' values. Both war and the destruction of cultural heritage in Middle East29 have been framed accordingly to a Western view that produces a simplistic dichotomy: the international community protecting the “universal” values in one side and the “Islamic world” destroying them in the other.30. This argument, according to Akcan, feeds the endless cycle of war and destruction.31

If what is considered cultural heritage is defined under this clash-of-civilization argument, shouldn't be the practice of cultural institutions to challenge it in order to do not reinforce the clash between 'our universal values' and 'their will to destroy it'? Akcan argues that “to criticize meaningfully” the destruction of cultural heritage in the Middle East and anywhere, it is necessary first to criticize the institutions and the criteria used to define what is considered cultural heritage, as those criteria have been "constructed along with the same geopolitical favoritisms and disciplined by the same state apparatus that leads to war”32.

First, the cultural heritage criteria based on the universality concept used by UNESCO and Western governments is problematic. In order to protect the “outstanding universal values” of communities, local values, which are important to those groups’ inheritance, may be left aside.33 As Akcan reflects, “isn't it a contradiction to mourn for the destruction of monuments of cultural heritage, but not the destruction of Palestinian villages?”34

Moreover, Non-Western countries resists to the idea of universality because their own values are not considered as universal as Western values. For instance, the 1994 Nara Convention, in Japan, disagreed with the definition of universal architectural authenticity drafted in the 1964 Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites by stating that authenticity can be defined culturally. Silverman and Ruggles explain it: “instead of the Western priority given to fixity of physical material, other cultures might place value on the significance of a site, the ritual associated with it, or the periodic renewal or replenishment of its architectural fabric.”35

Another issue is the relation between UNESCO and governments. It affects cultural heritage practice locally and it is problematic within Western societies too. As Silverman and Ruggles point out, “UNESCO is a government entity itself, [therefore] it valorizes national governments”. It means that minority communities might be powerless to address their interests “when they are at odds with the agenda of the nation” because they have no option unless to “seek mediation and redress from the very entity, that is, their adversary”.36

Therefore, to reflect critically on the destruction of heritage, it is necessary to heritage practice to engage with humanity “rather than a selected affinity group”.37 However, “clash-of-civilizations and nationalist arguments” that leads to conflict38 might be inherent to cultural heritage discourse. Silverman and Ruggles point out that if in one hand heritage “can promote self-knowledge, facilitate communication and learning”, on the other can be “a tool for oppression”. Heritage can promote union but can also divide. This condition puts heritage as a paradoxical issue in the “United Nations' call for universal human rights”.39

'Everybody's heritage' and the everyday places in cultural heritage discourse

If the cultural property criteria framed by UNESCO, institutions and governments creates a paradox in relation to human right issues, changing some perspectives in cultural heritage discourse could be an important step to a holistic approach in relation to heritage and humanity. Two initiatives – the European Landscape Convention and the Faro Convention – propose some paths towards a more humanitarian oriented heritage practice. In the European Landscape Convention, also known as Florence Convention, the local and ordinary places have been accounted in cultural heritage field. The convention is defined as “a reflection of European identity and diversity, the landscape is our living natural and cultural heritage, be it ordinary or outstanding, urban or rural, on land or in water”.40

In the Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, known as Faro Convention, the emphasis on “the important aspects of heritage as they relate to human rights and democracy”41 is clear in the intention to link humanity and cultural property. The convention concern is to promote “a wider understanding of heritage and its relationship to communities and society” and to encourage us “to recognize that objects and places are not, in themselves, what is important about cultural heritage. They are important because of the meanings and uses that people attach to them and the values they represent”42. Moreover, it highlights the concept of 'everybody's heritage' by recognizing “the need to put people and human values at the centre of an enlarged and cross-disciplinary concept of cultural heritage” and that “every person has a right to engage with the cultural heritage of their choice”.43

John Schofield's article “Forget About 'Heritage': Place, Ethics and the Faro Convention” is centered in this approach. He claims that, in opposition to the traditional concept of being a “set of things”, heritage is created by “contemporary thought and social action” and it encompasses different perspectives related to the way we reflect and deal with those things44. He adds that people are becoming more aware and engaged in this new perspective of cultural heritage:

"Many people have no interest in Stonehenge, or other monuments on the World Heritage List, or (in the UK) the Schedule of Ancient Monuments, yet they will value the place they were born, or a garden, or a street corner, for some memory associated with it. Slowly, steadily, this view of the wider landscape and its diversity is being articulated, in the media and in everyday thought. As development continues to change our familiar landscape, people increasingly feel the impact of change and the speed and significance of it. People are also now (with widespread access to the Internet and social networking/media) more aware of how to engage the process, how to object or to voice opinions."45

Sue Clifford, from the British project Common Ground46, adds that it is not the traditional historical sites that isolated defines the significance of places, but “a messy mingling of things tangible and intangible, fixed and transient, big and small, ordinary and special.” She guides her practice around the concept of 'local distinctiveness', which aims to help people to “articulate meaning” about their place by “descriptively engage{ing] with each other”.47 This new perspective brings the question of how heritage practice can embody such broad concept and ensure that the participation is meaningful for everyone involved. It is also relevant to reflect when people's memory can be addressed as heritage. Sybille Frank states that social memories related to places can only become heritage “when it is presented there as heritage, opening it up to public debate”.48

Even if the engagement of 'non-experts' in heritage is growing - albeit they may call it by a different word49 -, many people don't think their stories are relevant. They still have the “big stories of the past” as a reference of what matters.50 Schofield argues that this perception can be changed by talking about 'place' or 'landscape' instead of 'heritage' as people understand that landscape is everywhere and that everyone is related to places. He endorses the Faro convention statements by asserting that heritage practice must be redefined otherwise there is a risk of heritage to be elitist.51 The reassessment of heritage practice in these terms, within a bottom-top approach, is fundamental in the conflux of human rights and cultural heritage. In order to achieve it, the role of the institutions and consequently the authorities and experts also need to be critically revised.

The expert and the landscape

As the community involvement in the heritage practice is becoming more significant, the concern about process wherein heritage experts are engaged with 'non-experts' becomes more relevant. This increased attention to involve non-experts is a consequence of traditional disciplines such as archaeology being not able to fulfill the community interests within this new approach of cultural heritage practice. Especially in relation to minorities or marginalized groups who haven't taken part in their own heritage process.52

Heritage is recognized as something that every person can deal with, but non-experts usually see themselves as non-qualified to discuss heritage values as they might think their personal views are not relevant or cannot fit in what they imagine as the 'scientific' language or context inherent to the professional field.53 According to John Schofield, this view is changing in this new approach of cultural heritage:

People not only have an interest and a stake now; they also have a voice and increasingly there are mechanisms to ensure those voices are heard. And here we do come back to content, because what these many, diverse and often disenfranchised people are telling us can be surprising. These multiple views of heritage, of what matters and why, take us beyond the conventional boundaries of heritage. They take us beyond its comfort zone, from the special and the exceptional places and things, to the everyday.54

The mechanisms that ensure that communities viewpoint to be heard are also a focus of another change: the inclusion of multidisciplines, beyond the archaeology and related fields. The necessity to involve a trans-disciplinary approach is result of the landscape concept getting more relevance in heritage discourses. According to Graham Fairclough, the complex and multiple concept of landscape, which is “not simply (as some archaeologists treat it) just as heritage covering large areas”, implies a “trans-disciplinary integration”. He claims that landscape might be “the most inter-disciplinary forum of all” and therefore the link between the professionals and academic disciplines that work with different aspects of environment is crucial. The “trans-disciplinary” quality of this approach connects multiple disciplines and public voice inclusion, an approach “that go beyond all of the disciplines into 'real' life”.55 Besides that and according to the European Landscape Convention definition, the landscape “only really exist in people's perception”. As people usually do not separate the heritage in its natural or cultural aspects, they have a holistic view, considering place or landscape as a whole. It is not easy for the experts to have this holistic point of view.56

To include the 'real' people's perception in the heritage discourses, however, implies in finding ethical and meaningful ways - in terms of culture and social relevance - to engage people with heritage practices.57 Dominic Walker reflects on issues as authority and empowerment that can be critical when an expert in heritage has authority but do not have legitimate knowledge about a group of people's heritage. It is needed a change in the position of the expert: from authority to “collaborator or advocate for others”.58 Even if people's perceptions on their own landscape have been included in the heritage practice in the last years, the authority over the interpretation of those perceptions is still prevalent. Walker explains that the community view points in many cases have been considered subjective or not relevant and have been used to “supplement a mainstream, objective heritage narrative, rather than affording others the authority to vocalize their alternative viewpoints on a separate and at least equal footing”. His question “how can we decide between competing versions of heritage?” is difficult to answer. There is no simple ways to solve conflicting views, as they might be consequence of divergent ways of experience the world.59 60

Conclusion

This new approach, in which communities have the ownership of their own heritage discourse, might be the path towards a more humanitarian heritage practice. Despite all the complexities it implies, like politics and ethical aspects for instance, a bottom-top approach may be the only way to avoid the risk of heritage to incur in nationalist arguments that lead to conflict. Yet this requires that cultural heritage experts and their institutions look critically to the way their practice reinforces the clash-of-civilization argument. Moreover, by considering the destruction a “form of construction” and giving to the destructed buildings and artifacts “another life through their representations”61, the spectacle of terror aimed by extremist groups might lose its impact. Hence this trend to forge an iconoclast concept as an excuse to play the clash-of-civilization game might decrease. Finally, to really bridge heritage with humanity a spectacular trial, such as the one that took place in The Hague, might not suffice. It is necessary to transform cultural heritage by broadening its concept and making its practice trans-disciplinary. More important, it is necessary to really consider human rights its ultimate goal.

1Fatou Bensouda, 'Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, at the opening of Trial in the case against Mr Ahmad Al-Faqi Al Mahdi', International Criminal Court, <https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=otp-stat-al-mahdi-160822> [accessed 15th April 2017]

2Lucia Allais, 'Amplified Humanity and the Architectural Criminal', E-flux Architecture, <http://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/66870/amplified-humanity-and-the-architectural-criminal/> [accessed 06th April 2017]

3Helen Walasek, 'Is the destruction of cultural property a war crime?', Apollo, https://www.apollo-magazine.com/is-the-destruction-of-cultural-property-a-war-crime/> [accessed 15th April 2017]

4UNESCO, 'Timbuktu Trial: "A major step towards peace and reconciliation in Mali"', <http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1559> [accessed 15th April 2017]

5Amnesty International, 'Mali: ICC trial over destruction of cultural property in Timbuktu shows need for broader accountability', <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/08/mali-icc-trial-over-destruction-of-cultural-property-in-timbuktu-shows-need-for-broader-accountability/> [accessed 15th April 2017]

6The concepts of heritage and humanity have been separated in international law since after the World War II. This separation can be seen in the 1954 Hague Convention where heritage laws framed architecture as a collective property and in the 1948 Human Rights Declaration where humanity is a concept related to the individual. In the Genocide Convention there was no reference to cultural heritage. However, Allais points out that the separation can be seen after these laws. After the World War I, the “Europe’s cultural elite became consumed with debates about whether armies had been more concerned with their art than with their citizens. Fearing that humans and things might have to compete for protection in future wars, international lawyers found themselves split for much of the twentieth century in an apparent opposition: advocate either for culture or for human rights.” Lucia Allais.

7Karima Bennoune, 'Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights', United Nations, <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N16/254/44/PDF/N1625444.pdf?OpenElement> [accessed 15th April 2017] pp. 15

8Pamela Karimi and Nasser Rabbat, 'The Demise and Afterlife of Artifacts', Aggregate, <http://we-aggregate.org/piece/the-demise-and-afterlife-of-artifacts> [accessed on 6th April 2017]

9Lucia Allais

10BBC News, 'Timbuktu mausoleums in Mali rebuilt after destruction' <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33587325> [accessed 15th April 2017]

11Esra Akcan, 'Modernity as Perpetual War or Perpetual Peace?', Aggregate, <http://we-aggregate.org/piece/modernity-as-perpetual-war-or-perpetual-peace> [accessed 6th April 2017]

12Ansar Dine justified the destruction by the iconoclasm concept by the assumption that what should be protected and preserved it is not the built objects but rather the Earth itself and its surface. The destruction of those built objects would have the intention of creating a place “upon which the law of Allah can now be applied”. Lucia Allais

13Thomas Stubblefield, 'Iconoclasm beyond Negation: Globalization and Image Production in Mosul', Aggregate, <http://we-aggregate.org/piece/iconoclasm-beyond-negation-globalization-and-image-production-in-mosul> [accessed 6th April 2017]

14'Ibid.'

15Kareem Shaheen, 'Isis fighters destroy ancient artefacts at Mosul museum', The Guardian,< https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/isis-fighters-destroy-ancient-artefacts-mosul-museum-iraq> [accessed 6th April 2017]

16'Ibid.'

17Thomas Stubblefield

18Kareem Shaheen

19Thomas Stubblefield

20Lucia Allais

21Lucia Allais

22Keith Bresnahan and J. M. Mancini, 'Introduction' in Architecture and Armed Conflict ed. JoAnne Mancini and Keith Bresnahan (Taylor and Francis, 2014) pp. 3

23Thomas Stubblefield

24'Ibid.'

25Lucia Allais

26'Ibid.'

27In his article “We All Swim Together”, Edward Said criticizes the clash of civilization thesis proposed by Samuel Huntington in 1993. Huntington's thesis was taken as proved by the reactions of governments and media vehicles just after the 11th September terrorist attack. Said argues that “the basic model of west versus the rest (the cold war opposition reformulated) is what has persisted (…) it speaks to how much simpler it is to make bellicose statements for the purpose of mobilizing collective passions than to reflect, examine, sort out what it is we are dealing with in reality, the interconnectedness of innumerable lives, "ours" as well as "theirs". (Edward Said, 'We all swim together', New Statesman, <https://www.newstatesman.com/node/194193> [accessed 15th April 2017]

Edward Said's arguments are aligned to Esra Akcan's idea of clash-of-civilization arguments playing an important role in the cultural heritage traditional discourse.

28Esra Akcan

29The term 'Middle East' was created to designate the “the lands around the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, extending from Morocco to the Arabian Peninsula and Iran and, by some definitions, sometimes beyond” ('Middle East', Britannica Online Academic Edition (2017) <http://academic.eb.com/> [accessed 6th April 2017] ) during the colonialist period in the late nineteenth-century. It wasn't created considering the region inhabitants' perspective and had the intention to designated an “other”. This concept is aligned to a mindset that keeps the clash-of-civilization arguments alive. Esra Akcan

30Pamela Karimi and Nasser Rabbat

31Esra Akcan

32Esra Akcan

33Dominic Walker, 'Local World Heritage: Relocating Expertise in World Heritage Management' in Who Needs Experts? Counter-mapping Cultural Heritage, ed. John Schofield (Taylor and Francis, 2016) pp. 181

34Esra Akcan

35Helaine Silverman and D. Fairchild Ruggles, 'Cultural Heritage and Human Rights' in Cultural Heritage and Human Rights ed. Helaine Silverman and D. Fairchild Ruggles (New York: Springer, 2007) pp. 4

36Helaine Silverman and D. Fairchild Ruggles, pp. 18

37Esra Akcan

38'Ibid.'

39Helaine Silverman and D. Fairchild Ruggles, p. 3

40European Landscape Convention web site, <http://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape> [accessed 06th April 2017]

41Council of Europe, 'Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention, 2005)', <http://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/faro-convention> [accessed 06th April 2017]

42'Idib.'

43John Schofield, 'Forget About ‘Heritage’: Place, Ethics and the Faro Convention' in The Ethics of Cultural Heritage, ed. Tracy Ireland and John Schofield (New York: Springer, 2015) pp. 200

44John Schofield, 'Forget About 'Heritage'', p. 198

45John Schofield, 'Forget About 'Heritage'', p. 199

46The Common Ground project, founded in 1983 by Sue Clifford, Angela King and Roger Deakin, “seek[s] imaginative ways to engage people with their local environment”. One of its most important projects is the Parish Maps, which starts in the 1980s and stills roll out. <https://www.commonground.org.uk/> [accessed 06th April 2017]

47Sue Clifford, 'Local Distinctiveness: Everyday Places and How to Find Them' in Local Heritage, Global Context, ed. John Schofield (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011) pp. 15

48Sybille Frank, 'Urban Commons and Urban Heritage' in Heritage as Common(s): Common(s) as Heritage, ed. Henric Benesh, Ingrid Martins Holmberg, Feras Hammami and Evren Uzer (Gothenburg/Stockholm: Makadam, 2015) pp. 26

49Schofield suggests that to practice ethical heritage, it might be necessary to use alternative words to replace the term heritage. As the exemplifies: “The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is an organisation within the UK which exists to promote heritage, including its social and community benefits, and while they retain the word ‘heritage’ (as they must), they usefully present it in such a way as to make it more accessible: ‘We do not define heritage, instead we encourage people to identify their own heritage and explain why it is valued by themselves and others’”. John Schofield, 'Forget About 'Heritage'', p. 198

50John Schofield, 'Forget About 'Heritage'', p. 208

51'Ibid.'

52Dominic Walker, p. 182

53John Schofield, 'Heritage Expertise and the Everyday: Citizens and Authority in the Twenty-first Century' in in Who Needs Experts? Counter-mapping Cultural Heritage, ed. John Schofield (Taylor and Francis, 2016) pp. 1

54'Idib.'

55Graham Fairclough, 'New Heritage, an Introductory Essay – People, Landscape and Change' in The Heritage Reader, ed. Graham Fairclough, Rodney Harrison, John H. Jameson Jr. and John Schofield (London: Routledge, 2008) pp. 298

56'Idib.'

57John Schofield, 'Forget About 'Heritage'', p. 198

58Dominic Walker, p. 183

59Dominic Walker, p. 182

60Another important issue related to the role of the expert, is the empowerment of local communities with expertise in heritage sites protection, specially in war context. As Melissa Gronlund, in her article about the conference "Safeguarding Endangered Cultural Heritage", hosted by France's President François Hollande and the United Arab Emirates' Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in December 2016, states, “Indeed, it is the local populations, in countless examples in Iraq, Mali, fiyria, and elsewhere, who have put their own lives at risk to protect art and architecture. Curators have smuggled out scrolls and hidden them in their homes; local citizens have covered statues too heavy to move with sandbags to limit the damage from shelling. In most conflict situations, the international community can do very little except monitor and then disseminate information to their own troops. Empowering local communities with expertise in protecting heritage sites is also a means of reversing the flow of capital and knowledge from the West to the Middle East and Southeast Asia.” Melissa Gronlun, 'Destroyers of Worlds', Artforum International, 55/7 (2017) pp. 109, <https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/docview/1877373886?accountid=11162> [accessed 06th April 2017]

61Thomas Stubblefield