CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship - Winter/Summer 2011


Beyond “Preserving the Past for the Future”: Contemporary Relevance and Historic Preservation

By Dirk H. R. Spennemann

In an age when economic rationalism seems to rule all government decision making, cultural heritage management is continually called upon to justify its existence, and in particular to justify the expenditure of money and time, as well as of lost development opportunities, on aspects of the past.1 Heritage tourism, as well as co-operative agreements between communities and owners of places, has been advocated as a means to fund what is perceived to be a “drain on society.” The underlying ideology appears to be that heritage and historic preservation are a cost rather than an asset and an investment in society—and economists will always argue that costs need to be reduced.2

We historic preservation managers have to shoulder some of the blame for the perception that heritage is a cost rather than an asset. Much of our public stance has been to argue that we are “preserving the past for the future.” The “future” is some nebulous concept that is beyond the three to four year time line of politicians driven by re-election cycles. As a result, public officials often do not appreciate the value of heritage.3 We have failed to express unequivocally, and publicly, that the past has relevance to the present and that the judicious use of our heritage is indeed a community asset in a continually changing world. The longer that the views of political decision-makers remain unchecked, the greater the gap will become between the perception of “cost” and the perception of heritage as an asset.

Historic preservationists face a problem similar to that faced by Edward John Smith, Captain of the Titanic, on that fateful night of April 15, 1912: we know there’s fog out there, and we know there may be icebergs. Yet internal company pressures, and complacency, treat the situation as business as usual. Once the iceberg is clearly in sight, it’s too late to alter the course. Unless we as a profession wish to book a passage on the Titanic we should consider a paradigm shift. We need to change the conversation about the relevancy of historic preservation.

Based on an examination of futurist concepts and statements in historic preservation, I explore the role of the past for future generations and will advocate the role the past can, and should, play for the present.

Conceptual Framing

In a broad conceptual framing, cultural heritage is the result of people’s interactions with the environment and one another. The outcome of these processes is reflected in a number of forms and is generally divided within two typologies of cultural heritage: tangible (built environment, sites, landscapes, objects, and artifacts) and intangible (language, folklore, skills, and customs).4 The community, from local to international, ascribes values of varied strength and importance to these expressions of cultural heritage. Heritage managers assess the values projected onto cultural heritage places by the public against predetermined criteria to determine their significance.5 Preservation theory holds that such evaluation enables us to identify, protect, and manage important aspects of the past for the benefit of present and future generations.6

The discussion of heritage values has seen a move from the purely historical and architectural layers of cultural significance to an increased appreciation of the fact that social and community values underpin all heritage.7 Because cultural heritage, as well as values in general, is a human construct, the values that underpin and circumscribe what people define as heritage are purely human projections onto an essentially value-free animate or inanimate world.

Subjective valuation, revaluation, and ultimately prioritization occur consciously and subconsciously on a continual basis. If a choice has to be made, individuals tend to be prepared to “trade-off” one value against another.8 Just as an individual’s values underpin the personal value assessment, the congruence of individual values creates values held by communities. As with all values, cultural heritage values are variable between communities as well as between the socioeconomic layers within a community. Moreover, values change over time and thereby create a semifluid state in heritage valuations.9 Heritage professions need to acknowledge such fluidity of projected values, both on an individual and a collective level, with continuously shifting ground rules.10 The central figure in the valuations is the individual, and the central generation is the present one.

At the same time, the heritage profession has espoused a futurist stance in arguing that heritage sites need to be managed and preserved in a spirit of altruistic stewardship for the benefit of future generations.11 I examine this notion of “Preserving the Past for the Future” by first surveying the ubiquity of the notion and then discussing the validity of the concept.

The Rhetoric

Phrases such as “Preserving the Past for the Future” abound in public documents, information pages, policy statements, and justifications for actions. The underlying sentiment is expressed in a number of phrases that, with slight semantic variations, are all derived from three components (Table 1).

The notion of “Preserving the past for the future” exists in various sub-disciplines of cultural heritage management such as the built environment; archives; library sciences; museums; and historical societies; and has been used to describe the programs undertaken by heritage professionals.13

Some phrases have become standard references. A case in point is the phrase “Save the past for the future” which was used as the title of two conferences and subsequent publications by the Society for American Archaeology.14 This language has now become almost a battle cry for the protection of the (predominantly archeological) past and which is a frequently used slogan for the archeology weeks/months organized by many U.S. states.15

Understandably, it has also been appropriated as a phrase by commercial companies, offering a range of heritage-related services, such as general cultural heritage management; preservation; but also museum/exhibit design and interpretation; cemeteries and monument maintenance; photo and image restoration and manipulation; and videography.16 More unusual is the use of the tagline “Preserving the past for the future” for a company selling historic V8 engines.17

Prevalence of the Rhetoric

My research has found that in the U.S., the futurist phraseology is predominantly used among nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups, as well as among the educational sector.18 While it is underrepresented on (federal and state) government websites, the phraseology is substantially over-represented in the commercial sector, with the phrase “safeguarding the future” almost being the sole privilege of the commercial domain.

A large proportion of historical societies in the U.S. (37.9 percent) merely connect the past with the future in a formulaic fashion (“Preserving the/our Past for the/our Future”,) the others are individual in their approaches and often specific about what role the past shall play for the future.19 Terms such as “enlightening,” “enriching,” “insuring,” “informing,” “serving,” and “a present” are constructs that assume that the past will be of benefit to the future, while terms such as “charting,” and “building” demonstrate that the past shall play an active role in the way the future is shaped. These organizations project themselves as preserving the past with some ulterior, futurist motive in the mold of the stewardship concept. Very rare are examples of a full understanding of the time continuum and a fully futurist stance, demonstrating an understanding of how the past—and the present, for that matter—can influence, if not shape, the future.

There can be little doubt that such futurist rhetoric has a public education element to it that may entice people to consider that “the past” is not just something completed, but that it also may have a future of some description. As intended, at least with the posters and event themes, this usage may well beneficially influence a number of people to positively modify their behavior toward the past and its manifestations; the ubiquity of the statements, however, also carries the risk that we, as the heritage profession, actually start believing it ourselves.

I consider this concept, or at least the underlying philosophical stance, to be a fallacy that effectively sidelines the profession and undermines its effectiveness in the contemporary world.

Despite our best efforts, we are likely to stand accused by future generations that through the conservation actions (and non-actions) we are taking today, we are actively shaping the past according to our present values and that we have constrained the choices future heritage managers will be able make, saddling the future with our own perception(s) of the past.

Challenging the Theoretical Foundations

The question we have to ask is for whom do we actually preserve this past? As was shown above, it is widely asserted that the preservation of the past is done for the benefit of future generations who, by unspoken assumption, are sure to be grateful for the actions we are taking today. But, on reflection, is that a valid argument to make?

In his keynote address to the European Commission Conference on sustainable heritage management, Ugo Mifsud Bonnici noted that “[t]he stewardship of the cultural heritage is a collective obligation of the present toward future generations,” while Richard Morris went further when he proclaimed that “stewardship of the cultural heritage is a mark of a civilized society.”20 Yet little critique of the concept and its applicability to heritage management has occurred. The term “stewardship for cultural heritage” has almost become synonymous with “cultural heritage management” if one considers the application of the phraseology mainly in the U.S. (see, for example, the subtitle of CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship and various state historic preservation plans); the United Kingdom, Norway, and even in the Philippines.

David Lowenthal has explored the futurist arguments for stewardship in historic preservation, outlining that the motivations for the futurist stance can be ethical (ensuring to pass on as good or better than we have now); conscientious (not wishing to be seen as despoilers); familial (wishing our grandchildren will inhabit a beneficial world); and pragmatic (intergenerational justice). He traces the development of the futurist stance of stewardship arguing that while heritage and nostalgia have been a refuge for the present generation to escape the fears of the future, we should not ignore the future but start shaping it. He does, however, not critique the concept’s applicability for heritage management.21

Heritage management has appropriated the terminology of “stewardship” from the arena of natural resource management. In the natural environment, the term stewardship entails the concept that natural resources have been here for a very long time, well before the advent of people, and that each generation of people is entrusted with the management of this environment in a way that it can be handed on to the next generation in the same or better state than it was found, with the underlying notion of a clear interdependency of human existence and the natural environment in which the former is grounded. By that notion, we are not owners of the land, but mere custodians and “stewards.” While the ecological meshing of natural environment and physical human existence can be demonstrated, the same concept cannot be uncritically applied to the cultural environment.

The cultural environment is continually, and rapidly, changing. Unlike changes to the natural environment that may have direct ecological consequences to human existence, changes to the cultural environment do not. At their worst, they may affect the mental health of some communities, but tend to do so for a segment only. Moreover, human culture is a continually evolving construct that cannot be preserved in perpetuity, unchanged over extended periods of time, a characteristic that runs counter to the premise of stewardship. Rather, we have to acknowledge that cultural change is inevitable and that this cultural change will generate changes in community values which underpin the management of heritage places. Stewardship of culture is an impossible concept unless we wish to limit an individual’s right to cultural self-determination and expression by engaging in extensive social engineering and the manipulation of community values.

To return to the original question: is our preservation intervention for the benefit of our children’s children, as we claim, or is it merely for our own benefit in the present?

Let us for a moment consider our own values when applied, in retrospect, to the developments of the 1960s and 1970s. History has shown that urban planners of the 1960s and 1970s have much to answer for when it comes to the widespread destruction of heritage town centers in the name of urban renewal, the “improvement” of traffic conditions, and the permissibility of unsympathetic urban infill. It must be remembered that these acts did not occur in a vacuum, but at time when heritage management existed in the form of the National Trust advocating the preservation of structures. That at the time the National Trust’s advocacy (in both Australia and the USA) was limited to the preservation of the grand mansions and other architecturally exceptional properties merely underlines the point: the theoretical foundations of the heritage profession and the underlying values of what is to be regarded as heritage are mutable qualities.22 While we today decry the inaction of the immediate past, the heritage managers at the time did not necessarily see it as problematic. In Australia it was eventually the force of the unions who, through green bans, limited the destruction of Australia’s urban centers.23

Given that we regard the heritage managers of the past as having acted short-sightedly, albeit in good faith, any assumption by the present generation of heritage managers that we know what future generations will want us to preserve is nothing but hubris.

At the present state of research, any assumption that we preserve the places for future generations to enjoy is without foundation: we cannot predict the values that may be held by our children in the future, let alone by their children. Upon reflection, we can expect that we may well stand accused by future generations of inappropriately, or at best, ineptly managing our present and thus their past, just as much as we criticize the actions of the generations that went before us, deploring environmental degradation or the loss of building fabric. Despite our best efforts, we are likely to stand accused by future generations that through the conservation actions (and non-actions) we are taking today, we are actively shaping the past according to our present values and that we have constrained the choices future heritage managers will be able make, saddling the future with our own perception(s) of the past.

In view of the above, then, the rationale for the preservation of our past—that we are doing so in an altruistic fashion for the benefit of future generations—can no longer stand. We have to face up to the reality that we are shaping the past in our image, that we are doing this for the present. Essentially we are preserving the past for our own benefit, we are preserving the past for ourselves.

Only if we accept that the notion of an altruistic preservation of the past for the benefit of future generations is a fallacy, only then, I believe, we can move on and start making the past meaningful for the present. At this point it is necessary to state one point quite clearly: the above does not hand the present generation carte blanche at disfiguring, over-exploiting, or destroying the heritage assets in the name of short–term commercial opportunities.


Some practitioners will argue that the past is already being used for the benefit of the present and will point to tourism. Cultural heritage has indeed long been used for the development of local tourism opportunities that are supposed to be sustainable and that are geared at generating income for the local communities.24 The impacts of linking historic preservation to tourism development, the “Faustian Bargain” that seemingly needs to be struck, has been discussed at length both in terms of the process and in terms of its impacts both on the physical fabric and on social environment.25

Social and physical impacts aside, the mere choice of which sites should be selected for interpretation and which themes and “messages” should be used to interpret a given site/place are inherently social and political decisions as they will influence, if not fundamentally shape, how the visitors and, in the case of school visits, the emergent generation of a local community will interpret the past. But, as will be shown below, merely using the past as a means of generating tourism revenue for individuals and parts of the community is underselling its potential.


Other practitioners are concerned that the use of the past for the needs of the present is open to willful political manipulation. There are indeed a number of cases that can be easily pointed out as cautionary tales.

Since sites and structures are the tangible manifestation of a community’s cultural expression, the preservation or non-preservation of a given place represents an expression of values held by the decision-makers, and thus an expression of their political will. On occasion that political will may not be quite congruent with the expectations of the wider community. In homogenous societies, such actions tend to lead to disenchantment and the feeling of discontent—and, in extreme cases, to disenfranchisement. In ethnically heterogeneous societies, however, such decisions have more serious undertones and implications as they are readily interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as politically motivated actions designed to undermine the cultural expression and manifestation of a sector of the community. Such interpretation is possible both in cases where the majority marginalizes a minority, and in cases where a numeric minority exerts political control over the majority. In extreme cases, cultural heritage sites become specific targets of destruction, be it during ethnic unrest (e.g. the temple complex of Ayodhya, Gujarat, India); during civil war (e.g. the bridge at Mostar, Bosnia); as an expression of victory (e.g. toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein, Baghdad); or as an administrative decision to remove religiously offensive icons (e.g. the Buddha statues of Bamiyan, Afghanistan).26 In all cases, it can be argued that the “offenders” dealt with the heritage in the context of their own contemporary values as they understood and applied them.

The activities of Nazi Germany in using ethnographic and archeological research to bolster its territorial claims in the lead up to the Munich Conference, as well as during World War II are a reminder that research and management into any archeological and heritage sites can have political consequences.27 The political (ab)use of heritage is greater where the past lends itself to greater personal or community interpretations, such as in the case of archeological sites. The ideologically-colored interpretation of the past by archeologists in Nazi Germany, by the German Democratic Republic, and by the “free” capitalist West are cases in point.28 Likewise, political realities of the day influenced publications.29

The strong community attachment to heritage can be used both for negative means, as shown above, but also for positive nation-building outcomes. Examples, for the latter, are Zimbabwe or the Swiss Lake dwellings. By reaching back into the past to a perceived common base, the great ruins of Zimbabwe were used to forge the identity (and name) of a post-colonial nation state encompassing a multi-ethnic community bounded by outside-imposed non-traditional boundaries.30 In the same vein, the 1854 discovery of the Neolithic and Bronze Age pile dwellings in the Swiss lakes allowed Swiss politicians, still struggling to heal the wounds of a very divisive religious war (“Sonderbundskrieg” of 1847), to demonstrate the common roots of all Swiss regardless of religion.31 Soon after, the Swiss lake dwellings became a national icon, one that still holds a special place in Swiss national identity.

Heritage management always was and always will be a value-driven and thus politically charged set of practices.


While some historic preservation professionals remain somewhat naïve by claiming that archeology, cultural resource management, and heritage are apolitical, others point to the negative examples mentioned above as warnings that practitioners should never get involved in the social and political use of the past and its sites.

I believe that, as historic preservation professionals, we are not fulfilling our ethical obligations to the present generation if we are taking a stance that sees cultural heritage management either as apolitical or one that acknowledges the past as a politically-loaded entity and, because of that, steps back from the obligation of using it responsibly (for example by claiming we are preserving the past for the future and thereby elegantly side-stepping the present). Any non-fulfillment of that ethical obligation will harm current society.

Jon Calame and Kirstin Sechler ask “is preservation missing the point?” arguing that cultural heritage should be placed in the service of social development of communities recovering from trauma. The authors focus on the need to change the conceptual framework, arguing that cultural heritage has a role to play in the immediate post-war reconstruction of communities ravaged by war or civil unrest.32 While the authors are on the right track, they do not go far enough: cultural heritage management should be an essential part of social policy, domestically and internationally. I conceive historic preservation as part of community and social services. To exemplify this, let us consider some aspects of place theory.

Place Theory

Psychologically, we seek out the familiar in our environs.33 The nature and extent of personal attachment to a place has been the focus of a considerable body of work in disciplines such as anthropology, environmental psychology, sociology, geography, and mental and allied health. A number of terms are being used in the discussion. Francis T. McAndrew (1998) describes attachment to place as “…a positive affective association between individuals and their residential environments, an association that creates feelings of comfort and security.”34 In contrast, a sense of place is related to concepts of identity and the experiences that result from this interaction.35 Rootedness is described as a temporal concept within which a strong attachment or bond to place has developed over time.36 Place identity is a merger of personality with a place. Through personal attachment to a physical place, a person acquires a sense of belonging and purpose in that place, which in turn gives meaning to life.37

Policy makers in Europe have become aware of such meaning of place. The Helsinki Declaration of the European Union emphasizes the contribution of cultural heritage to sustainable development. In a discussion paper for the Council of Europe it was argued that heritage matters because “it is part of our quality of life” through shaping places, cultural identity and memory, and by providing amenity values to the community.38 More significantly, the same paper links the recognition of “the importance of the cultural heritage in defining a sense of identity, of belonging to a community, a place, a region” to an understanding that “cultural heritage …has the potential to contribute to social cohesion and democratic citizenship.”39

Given the connection between attachment to a physical place, that is, a person’s sense of belonging and the resultant meaning to life, it is not surprising that heritage places suffer if the community feels disconnected from the place (resulting in neglect and vandalism) and that the community suffers if the heritage fabric is damaged or destroyed.40 The loss of sense of place and identity encountered in communities displaced or relocated due to environmental change or infrastructure development can be attributed to the loss of familiar cultural markers in the physical environment.41 Moreover, the loss of “place” as a result of the widespread destruction of natural disasters has been linked to psychological problems and ultimately community health.42 On the other side of the ledger, communities tend to recover faster from natural disasters if the key features of their environment, the iconographic buildings and sites of the cultural environment have not been destroyed.43 This observation has led to calls not only to ensure that disaster management plans are drawn up for historic properties but, moreover, to consider historic properties as part of critical infrastructure in disaster responses.44

Heritage for Today

Preserving the past for the future in some altruistic sense of responsibility towards the next generation is all fine and well. However, it misses the point that the past has a role to play in the present, in the maintenance of a socially cohesive and mentally healthy community. It is this present generation that should reap the benefits in a communal, albeit not a personal egotistical way. If we wish that our cultural heritage indeed has a future, then heritage must be relevant to the present, and that implies it must be relevant to the aspirations of the present-day communities. It is incumbent on us heritage professionals to demonstrate that relevance. It is our task to prove that historic preservation is not the luxury of the “chattering classes,” but that it forms an integral part of a community as a whole.

Because heritage plays a major, if not central role to the identity of the present, we should legitimately advocate that we are managing the heritage in the first instance for the benefit of the present generation and in the second instance for the future—a future as we construct it, to be through judiciously and proactively (by means of strategic foresight) managing the current as well as the emergent heritage.45

We live in a world of continual change. The current rate of technological and social change, exacerbated by factors such as globalization and international terrorism, and inter-punctuated by natural disasters impacts, economic upheavals, and uncertainties on the personal, local, and international levels. It is not very surprising that people in search of certainty look to the past to provide it, both their personal and their collective past. Twenty-five years ago David Lowenthal examined the issues in his seminal work The Past is a Foreign Country.46 Little has changed.

The connection between attachment to a physical place, a person’s sense of belonging, and the resultant meaning to life that can be evoked by heritage places makes them unique psychological anchors at a time of uncertainty. The ethical management and preservation of these places should not occur out of a sense of “stewardship” for future generations, but out of a moral obligation to foster the well being of contemporary society: in that vein, then historic preservation is an essential part of social services and community health.

Moving Forward

If we wish to move forward and ensure that our past indeed has a vibrant future, then we have to effect some paradigm change. It can be surmised that the public will respond positively to an argument that we should be enjoying the past for the present—indeed, as far as the public is concerned, there is likely to be little difference, except that the past becomes somewhat more prominent in public consciousness. The main constituency affected by the paradigm shift will be that of heritage managers, who are well trained, yet molded into a confined outlook on heritage through their education as archeologists or architects, as well as through continued exposure to commercial pressures.47 Cultural heritage managers tend to be firmly wedded to “tradition” and “custom.” Overall, the profession moves only slowly towards change.

To effect change, we may have to consider some conceptual approaches borrowed from futures research. As Sohail Inayatullah has argued, any development will have to rely on future natives (those who grew up in a culture of change and who are capable for long-view projections that are continually adapted as the future emerges) and on future migrants (those who have grown up in a time prior to the culture of continual change but who understand the need to and are capable of adapting to new circumstances.) Future avoiders, so said Inayatullah, should be “quarantined” so that their fears do not spread to the other two groups. Attempts at transforming them were regarded as a “waste of time.”48

The discipline of historic preservation faces the problem that the majority of its practitioners, and many of them in influential positions, must unequivocally be classed as future avoiders. This fact is well camouflaged by the public futurist stance (“Preserving the Past for the Future”) taken by many historical societies.49 Given that future avoiders form the majority, quarantining them will be an impossible task. Thus there is a need of transforming them either to future migrants or at least to future neutrals, a postulated group of people whose behavior remains neutral at the prospect of change, and who, at the very least, are not obstructionist. Following Inayatullah’s reasoning, the mainstay of development will be future migrants, who while rooted in the past, are capable of driving the cultural change, which is informed by future natives with long-range visions. Future migrants, also, have a much greater credibility ratio with the future neutrals and the future avoiders, while future natives are seen as “off the scale.” The only way to achieve a transformation of any sort is by gradually but continually upward-extending the conceptual envelope within which heritage professionals operate. The necessary paradigm shift that challenges the retrospective nature of cultural heritage management has to be achieved gradually.

The conceptual trajectory is reasonably clear: There is already widespread use of cultural heritage sites as tourist attractions, which are in essence making use of heritage for the benefit for the present. So far, such examinations of such developments have confined themselves to assessing the economic benefit to the host community, the impact of the visitors of the site and the community, as well as the underlying ideology of interpretation. While the future migrants among practitioners will accept the reasoning put forward in this paper and will move ahead, the future avoiders and future neutrals will require “evidence” of the benefits.

These benefits can be demonstrated: There is a need to critically examine the importance of these developments for the consolidation of community identity. It can be posited that in-depth studies of cultural tourism developments can provide data demonstrating to what extent the preservation and interpretation of heritage assets has added to community pride, identity, and social cohesiveness. When assessing and evaluating positive outcomes, however, care needs to be exercised to disentangle the issues of social versus economic benefit. Uncritical interpretation might read the positive reception of economic returns as a benefit of the social relevance of the heritage assets. Likewise, when assessing the extent of negative outcomes, the matter of impact and community stress caused by the increased visitation needs to be separated from the social value of the heritage sites per se. Further, there is room to carry out qualitative “postmortem” studies assessing the relative role cultural heritage played in disaster recovery situations, again with the aim of determining the value of heritage for the community cohesiveness and recovery. Finally, there is space for case studies looking at the incidence of mental health problems and other psychosomatic community health issues and the extent of community identity and heritage.

It is up to the future migrants among us to carry out research into these aspects and strengthen the case for contemporary social relevance. Failure to do so will leave us historic preservation professionals open to criticism that we have stood by, idle while the society around us was suffering.

About the Author

Dirk H. R. Spennemann is Associate Professor in Cultural Heritage Management, School of Environmental and Information Sciences and Institute of Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, P.O. Box 789, Albury NSW 2640, Australia. e-mail:


1. Productivity Commission, Conservation of Australia’s Historic Heritage Places: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report, No. 37, April 6, 2006 (Canberra, AU: Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2006). Available online at

2. This trend can be observed in the USA, as exemplified by the public speech by the former Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, John Nau, on occasion of the 30th annual conference of the California Preservation Foundation (held in Riverside March 2005) and by the report by the Australian Productivity Commission (Productivity Commission 2005– update to 2006).

3. Kenneth C. Wolensky, Honoring the Past, Planning for the Future: Pennsylvania’s Historic Preservation Plan 2006–2011. (Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2006).

4. M. Pearson and S. Sullivan, Looking after heritage places: The basics of heritage planning for managers, landowners, and administrators (Melbourne, AU: Melbourne University Press, 1995).

5. P. Marquis-Kyle and M. Walker, The Illustrated Burra Charter: Making Good Decisions about the Care of Important Heritage Places (Canberra, AU: Australia ICOMOS Inc., 1996), and Australian Heritage Commission, “A sense of place: A conversation in three cultures,” Australian Heritage Commission Technical Publications Series 1 (1990). Canberra, AU: Australian Government Publishing Service.

6. M. Pearson and S. Sullivan, Looking after heritage places: The basics of heritage planning for managers, landowners, and administrators (Melbourne, AU: Melbourne University Press, 1995), and W.J. Murtagh, Keeping Time:The History and Theory of Preservation in America (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1997).

7. M. Pearson and S. Sullivan, Looking after heritage places: The basics of heritage planning for managers, landowners, and administrators (Melbourne, AU: Melbourne University Press, 1995), Shaun Canning and Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “Contested space: social value and the assessment of cultural significance in New South Wales, Australia,” in Heritage Landscapes: Understanding Place and Communities, pp. 457-468, eds. M.M.Cotter, W.E Boyd, and J.E Gardiner (Lismore, NSW, AU: Southern Cross University Press, 2001), Dirk H.R. Spennemann,“Your solution, their problem. Their solution, your problem: The Gordian Knot of Cultural Heritage Planning and Management at the Local Government Level,” disP 42 no. 164 (2006a): 30–40, and Kate Clark, ed. Capturing the Public Value of Heritage: The Proceedings of the London Conference, 25-26, January 2006 (Swindon, UK: English Heritage, 2006).

8. Exceptions are some Indigenous societies where values may be held canonically and thus any trading off between values cannot occur (cf. Lockwood & Spennemann 2001 for discussion).

9. M. Lockwood and Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “Value conflicts between natural and cultural heritage conservation—Australian experience and the contribution of economics,” in Heritage Economics:Challenges for heritage conservation and sustainable development in the 21st Century. (Canberra, AU: Australian Heritage Commission, 2001), 216-242.

10. Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “The Ethics of treading on Neil Armstrong’s Footsteps,” Space Policy 20 no. 4 (2004): 279-290.

11. c.f. Kentucky Heritage Council, Planning to Preserve: 2004-2009 State Historic Preservation Plan for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Heritage Council, State Historic Preservation Office, 2003).

12. Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “The Public Manifestation of the Futurist Stance of Historic Preservation: A Rapid Appraisal of World-Wide Web,” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, under review.

13. See, for examples, Delaware State Historic Preservation Office, The Future of Our Past: Planning for Historic Preservation in Delaware, 2001- 2005 (Dover, DE: Delaware State Historic Preservation Office, 2001), Christian Medical College, Archives Home, Preserving the Past for the Future. Christian Medical College, Vellore, India. Available online at, accessed on December 6, 2005, Clara Budnik and Rosa Maria Fernández de Zamora. “Preserving the past for the future.” Paper presented at the 66th IFLA Council and General Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, August 13-18 2000, online at, accessed on December 4, 2005, the Pioneer Florida Museum Association Inc. website. Available online at ttp://, accessed on December 6, 2005, and University of Pennsylvania, “Architectural Conservation Laboratory: Preserving the Past for the Future,” news release, March 11, 2003. Available online at, accessed on December 6, 2005.

14. Society for American Archaeology, Save the Past for the Future: Actions for the 1990s, Final Report, Taos Working Conference on Preventing Archaeological Looting and Vandalism. (Taos, NM: Fort Burgwin Research Center,1990), and Society for American Archaeology, Save the Past for the Future II: Report of the Working Conference, Breckenridge, Colorado, September 19-22, 1994. (Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology, 1995).

15. Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “The Public Manifestation of the Futurist Stance of Historic Preservation: A Rapid Appraisal of World-Wide Web,” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, under review.

16. See WYUKA Historical Foundation, “Preserving the Past for the Future” WYUKA Historical Foundation associated with the WYUKA Funeral Home, Cemetery & Park. Available online at, accessed on December 6, 2005, and Richard D. Wood, Videographer specializing in family and corporate interviews, “Saving the Past for the Future.” Website available at, accessed on December 6, 2005.

17. See StaufferV8Inc.—Preserving the past for the future. Available online at, accessed on December 4, 2005.

18. Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “The Public Manifestation of the Futurist Stance of Historic Preservation: A Rapid Appraisal of World-Wide Web,” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, under review.

19. Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “The Futurist Stance of Historical Societies: An analysis of positioning statements,” International Journal of Arts Management 9 no. 2 (2007):4-15.

20. Ugo Mifsud Bonnici. Opening Plenary Address presented at the 6th European Commission Conference “Sustaining Europe’s Cultural Heritage: From Research to Policy.” London, England, September 1-3, 2004. (London,UK: UCL Centre for Sustainable Heritage, 2004). Available online at, and Richard Morris, “Birdsong returns, but history is lost,” British Archaeology 42 (1999). Available online at, accessed on December 4, 2005.

21. David Lowenthal, “Stewarding the Future,” CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 2 no. 2 (2005): 20-39.

22. Graeme Davison, “A brief history of the Australian heritage movement,” in A Heritage Handbook, eds. Graeme Davison and Chris McConville (Sydney, AU: Allen & Unwin, 1991), 14–27, and W.J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1997).

23. Graeme Davison, “A brief history of the Australian heritage movement,” in A Heritage Handbook, eds. Graeme Davison and Chris McConville (Sydney, AU: Allen & Unwin, 1991), 14–27.

24. T.C. Chang, “Heritage as a Tourism Commodity: Traversing the Tourist–Local Divide,” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 18 no. 1 (1997):46-68, A. Drost, “Developing Sustainable Tourism for World Heritage Sites,” Annals of Tourism Research 23 no. 2 (1996): 479–492, and Silvia Caserta and Antonio Paolo Russo, ”More Means Worse: Asymmetric Information, Spatial Displacement and Sustainable Heritage Tourism,” Journal of Cultural Economics 26 no. 4 (2002): 245-260.

25. Jon Calame and Kirstin Sechler, “Is Preservation Missing the Point? Cultural Heritage in the Service of Social Development,” Future Anterior 1 no. 1 (2004): 58–64, and Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “Visitors and their Impact: Protecting Heritage Ecotourism Places from their Clientele,” in Cultural Interpretation of Heritage Sites in the Pacific, eds. Dirk H.R. Spennemann and Neal Putt (Suva, Fiji: Pacific Islands Museums Association/Association des Musées des Îles du Pacifique, 2001), 187-228.

26. John Poppeliers, “A New World Order and Historic Preservation,” CRM Magazine 17 no. 3 (1994): 3-4, Colin Kaiser, “Crimes Against Culture—The Former Yugoslavia,” The UNESCO Courier 53 no. 9 (2000): 41-42, Sean Aday, John Cluverius, and Steven Livingston,” As Goes the Statue, So Goes the War: The Emergence of the Victory Frame in Television Coverage of the Iraq War,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 49, no. 3(2005): 314-331, and M. Barry, “The Destruction of Bamyan,” World Heritage Review 20, no. 1 (2001): 4-13.

27. Maria Magdalena Blombergowa, Archäologische Funde im Dienst der Propaganda am Beispiel der Ergebnisse in Łódź in den Jahren 1939-1945 In: Achim Leube und Morton Hegewisch (Hrsg.): Prähistorie und Nationalsozialismus. Die mittel-und osteuropäische Ur-und Frühgeschichtsforschung in den Jahren 1933-1945. Studien zur Wissenschafts-und Universitätsgeschichte 2(Heidelberg,DE: Sunchron Wissenschaftsverlag, 2002), 289-292.

28. See, for critique, Hans Reinerth, Vorgeschichte der deutschen Stämme. Germanische Tat und “Kultur aus deutschem Boden. Erster Band. Urgermanen und Westgermanen. (Leipzig, DE: Bibliographisches Institut, 1940a), Hans Reinerth, Vorgeschichte der deutschen Stämme. Germanische Tat und Kultur aus deutschem Boden. Zweiter Band. Westgermanen. (Leipzig, DE: Bibliographisches Institut, 1940b), and Hans Reinerth, Vorgeschichte der deutschen Stämme. Germanische Tat und Kultur aus deutschem Boden. Dritter Band Ostgermanen und Nordgermanen. (Leipzig, DE: Bibliographisches Institut, 1940c), and Gunter Schöbel and Hans Reinerth, Forscher-NS-Funktionär - Museumsleiter. In: Achim Leube und Morton Hegewisch (Hrsg.): Prähistorie und Nationalsozialismus. Die mittel-und osteuropäische Ur-und Frühgeschichtsforschung in den Jahren 1933-1945. Studien zur Wissenschafts- und Universitätsgeschichte 2 (Heidelberg,DE: Sunchron Wissenschaftsverlag,2002), 321-396.

29. A good example is publication on the Germanic sites in the former German Democratic Republic. While the distribution maps plot sites in Western Germany, no sites were plotted east of the Oder-Neisse Line, the post-World War II boundary to Poland (Krüger 1976, opp. P. 380), so as not to offend the Polish government. In view of the history of the 1938 claims to Czechoslovakia, this step was understandable albeit creating a wrong spatial mapping impression to the uninitiated.

30. Webber Ndoro, “The Preservation and Presentation of Great Zimbabwe,” Antiquity 68 no. 260 (1994): 616-623.

31. Hans-Georg Bandi, “Pfahlbaubilder und Pfahlbaumodelle des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Archäologie der Schweiz 2, no. 1 (1979): 28-32, and Albert Hafner, 150 Jahre Pfahlbauforschung am Bielersee. Der Seebutz Heimatbuch des Seelandes und Murtengebietes, (2004) pp. 29–44.

32. Jon Calame and Kirstin Sechler, “Is Preservation Missing the Point? Cultural Heritage in the Service of Social Development,” Future Anterior 1 no. 1 (2004): 58–64.

33. Marie Fried, “Continuities and discontinuities of place,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 no. 3 (2000): 193–205.

34. Francis T. McAndrew, “The Measurement of Rootedness and the prediction of attachment to home-towns in college students,” The Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 (1998): 409-417.

35. Robert Hay, “Sense of Place in Developmental Context,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 (1998): 5–29, and Australian Heritage Commission, “A sense of place: A conversation in three cultures,” Australian Heritage Commission Technical Publications Series 1 (1990) Canberra. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

36. Robert Hay, “Sense of Place in Developmental Context,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 (1998): 5–29.

37. Prohansky et al 1983.

38. The London Group, “Forward Planning: The Function of Cultural Heritage in a Changing Europe.” Discussion paper. (Strasbourg, FR: Council of Europe, 2002). Available online at

39. Ibid., section 2.3

40. B. Hull, M. Lam, and G. Vigo, “Place identity: Symbols of Self in the Urban Fabric,” Landscape and Urban Planning 28(1994): 109-120.

41. Peter Read, Returning to Nothing: The Meaning of Lost Places (Melbourne, AU: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

42. B. Raphael, When disaster strikes: A handbook for the caring professions (London, UK: Unwin Hyman, 1990), and Eve Gruntfest, “Long Term Social and Economic Impacts of Extreme Floods.” Paper presented at the United States-Italy Research Workshop on Hydrometerology, Impacts, and Management of Extreme Floods, Perugia, Italy, November 13-17 1995.

43. D. Chapman, Natural Hazards, 2nd ed. (Melbourne, AU: Oxford University Press, 1999), and Historic Preservation Division and Georgia Department of Natural Resources, After the Flood: Rebuilding Communities through Historic Preservation (Atlanta, GA: Historic Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1997.)

44. Dirk H.R. Spennemann and David W. Look, “From Conflict to dialogue, from dialogue to cooperation, from cooperation to preservation,” in Disaster Management Programs for Historic Sites, eds. Dirk H.R. Spennemann and David W. Look (San Francisco and Albury, NSW: Association for Preservation Technology, Western Chapter and Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, 1998),175-188, and Dirk H.R. Spennemann and Kristy Graham,“The importance of heritage preservation in natural disaster situations,” International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 7 no. 6/7 (2007):993-1001.

45. Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “Heritage Futures in Regional Australia Stewardship, the Pre-cautionary Principle or Strategic Foresight?” Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, under review.

46. David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1984).

47. Shaun Canning and Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “Contested space: social value and the assessment of cultural significance in New South Wales, Australia,” in Heritage Landscapes: Understanding Place and Communities, pp. 457-468, eds. M.M. Cotter, W.E. Boyd, and J.E Gardiner (Lismore, NSW, AU: Southern Cross University Press, 2001.)

48. S. Inayatullah, “Future Avoiders, Migrants and Natives,” Journal of Futures Studies 9 (2004):

83-86. 49. Dirk H.R. Spennemann, “The Futurist Stance of Historical Societies: An analysis of positioning statements,” International Journal of Arts Management 9 no. 2 (2007): 4-15.