Cultural heritage plays an important part in the rehabilitation process in post-war societies because it forms the physical part of an ethnic groups’ identity. In countries of the former Yugoslavia...Show moreCultural heritage plays an important part in the rehabilitation process in post-war societies because it forms the physical part of an ethnic groups’ identity. In countries of the former Yugoslavia, a shared narrative is used for rehabilitation purposes and implemented through the reconstruction of cultural heritage. Because the various ethnic groups living in countries of the former Yugoslavia have their own divergent memories to the war, reconstruction as a form of rehabilitation is difficult and disputed. In this thesis, I will show that the main difficulty of rehabilitation through the reconstruction of cultural heritage lies in the fact that it is used as a forced shared narrative, which does not enhance co-operation between ethnic groups, but effectively cements the already existing ethnic segregation. The archaeological heritage manager plays a key role in resolving this problem. Through his extensive background knowledge and methodology, the archaeological heritage manager forms a link between the local community, the national government and international community. Thus, while the national governments, through the involvement of the international community, saw the reconstruction of cultural heritage as a trigger for regional stabilization, results show that it is better used for the revitalization of the local community. Through this, rehabilitation will follow. This thesis focuses on the rehabilitation through the reconstruction of cultural heritage in countries of the former Yugoslavia and focuses on the difficulties there. However, through recognizing these difficulties and coming up with opportunities, the results will be implementable in comparable situations and will add to the solution on how rehabilitation in post-war countries can best be achieved.Show less
Attitudes toward the past can be recognised in many different ways. European worldview in physical protection of cultural heritage, reflecting in the formal heritage laws, has frequently carved out...Show moreAttitudes toward the past can be recognised in many different ways. European worldview in physical protection of cultural heritage, reflecting in the formal heritage laws, has frequently carved out social elements of such heritage rooted in indigenous societies, for example, the belief of sacredness. This research, therefore, focuses on problems that probably arose during the introduction of Western legal systems to protect cultural heritage in non-Western societies: Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Canada and Australia. From the study on sociology and history of law, it shows that European-based law when first introduced to the regions has very often excluded customary law which obtained social respect. This created a gap between legal comprehension and people who are the subject to law. Up to present day these European influences of the legal system regarding to heritage management can still be discerned in international conventions. To bridge this gap, two suggestions are given in this research: one to work cooperatively between the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage and the 2003 UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions; another to reinterpret in situ preservation in the 2001 UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention as a way to treat the site with respect. The integration of traditional practices and heritage laws make it possible for indigenous and local people to gain more understanding of the heritage laws and thus to obey to these laws more easily. Hypothetically, the formal heritage laws become more effective.Show less
In this thesis, the current situation on the cooperation between archaeologists and building archaeologists is discussed. Several stakeholders have been taken into account, including educational...Show moreIn this thesis, the current situation on the cooperation between archaeologists and building archaeologists is discussed. Several stakeholders have been taken into account, including educational institutes, a selected amount of municipalities, the Cultural Heritage Agency (RCE), private advice bureaus, an independent foundation as well as rules and regulations concerning both disciplines. Furthermore, several case studies have been outlined concerning proper and less proper integration of archaeological and building archaeological cooperation. Finally, an advice is provided on how conditions can be optimized to facilitate integrated cooperation of the two disciplines. One of the main conclusions is that archaeological research is recorded in the Monument Act (Monumentenwet 1988) and is therefore legally required. Building archaeology is, however, mostly carried out playing and advisory role and is not legally required. Leading from this, for archaeological research all kinds of rules and regulations exist and is furthermore organised into detail, also concerning education. This is in strong contrast with building archaeology which is only carried out on the basis of guidelines, is organised less extensively and is supported by almost no education. One of the main advices is given to the RCE. Here, only since 2009, the two disciplines are organised again under one governmental apparatus. Because of this, the two disciplines are not yet tuned in on each other comprehensively and there is still too much a dichotomy between the two disciplines on this level. The given advice is to let the RCE organise a special project (as has already taken place once) to let the two disciplines come closer together by discussing the opportunities that can be created in order to let cooperation go more smooth and to heave the unnecessary imaginary boundary between the two disciplines. Once archaeology and building archaeology are tuned in on each other better on the national level, the rest of the Dutch heritage management community will probably follow this lead.Show less
