heritage futures Archives

Decolonising the future

2026-02-21

Cornelius Holtorf was invited to present the 9th Annual Heritage Lecture at the Cambridge Heritage Research Centre, University of Cambridge, UK (20 February 2026). In front of an audience of 60+ students and researchers in cultural heritage he gave a lecture on decolonising the future:

Decolonising the Future: From Preserving Memory across Generations to Sustaining the (Re-)Generation of Memory

Resprouting tree in front of the Ishinomaki Kadonowaki Elementary School

The field of ‘heritage futures’ explores the roles cultural heritage plays in negotiating relations between present and future societies. In many contemporary contexts, cultural heritage is to be preserved explicitly for the benefit of future generations. Such efforts are typically grounded in the assumption that present-day values and narratives of heritage will be shared and appreciated in the future. The preservation of cultural heritage may indeed create benefits, much as a less polluted, better preserved, and more sustainable natural environment is likely to benefit those who come after us. Implicitly, we expect our preservation practices to ensure that we will be remembered as good ancestors.

Yet to what extent do the tangible and intangible legacies we leave behind constitute attempts to establish control over future human (and indeed some non-human) beings? Does heritage preservation inadvertently colonize those who will live in the future by imposing our present-day values and priorities upon them? If so, is this problematic in ways comparable to the colonisation of living peoples in the past, a legacy with which we are still grappling today? Do we therefore need to decolonize the future?

I address this challenge by asking how we might make sense of the past through memory in a world where the future is not what it used to be. Two case-studies will help me to explore what this shift may entail. Both concern forms of memory and heritage created in the present to benefit the future, and both relate to nuclear power, a domain that has long provoked existential questions about the future of humanity. First, I examine the memorialisation of the 3/11 disaster, following the major earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan’s northeastern coast in 2011 and led to the nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Second, I consider strategies designed to preserve awareness of nuclear waste repositories across many generations and for up to one million years.

In conclusion, I invite the audience to consider an alternative approach to heritage futures that may, in fact, reflect how memory has always functioned (because the future may never have been what it used to be). I propose moving away from present-day strategies aimed at transmitting memory unchanged across generations, towards an acceptance of continuous processes of (re-)generating memory and the changes this entails. My point is that it may not be the values we currently ascribe to heritage that endure over time, but rather the processes through which heritage is continually revalued. Can and should such a post-preservational approach contribute to decolonizing the future?

Uranium: What We Leave Behind Comes First

2026-02-20

Uranium, heritage futures, and environmental assessment

When uranium is discussed, the conversation usually starts with risk: toxicity, radiation, standards, limits. But risk is not the beginning of the story.

Before uranium becomes a health concern, it becomes something else:
◻︎ a long-lived inheritance.

Heritage is whatever persists beyond us and must be dealt with by those who follow. Some of it is chosen. Much of it is not. Industrial societies, in particular, generate large amounts of unintentional material heritage: substances, residues, and infrastructures that remain active long after their usefulness — and often their caretakers — are gone. Uranium belongs squarely in that category.

Long before we calculate doses to people or compliance margins, uranium has already become a durable inheritance that future societies must manage. This is where heritage futures and environmental assessment intersect.

Why Risk Frameworks Matter — but Come Later

Because uranium persists, institutions attempt to manage it through risk frameworks.

Historically, these frameworks have made a clear division:

▸ uranium → treated mainly as a chemical toxicant
▸ radium → treated as the radiological concern

This separation is deeply embedded in regulations, monitoring programs, and safety assessments. It has also shaped how responsibility is understood and communicated across time. But it carries an implicit assumption:

▹ that radium, not uranium, controls radiological ingestion risk.

What the Research Shows

In my latest paper, published in Science of the Total Environment, I tested this assumption directly. Two key results emerge:

▸ Uranium is not radiologically negligible, even where international guideline values are fully respected.

▸ Dose delivery is controlled by mobility, and groundwater systems are typically charged far more with uranium than with radium.

In other words, although radium is more radiotoxic per decay, uranium often dominates radiological ingestion risk simply because there is much more of it dissolved in water.

Why This Matters for Heritage — Not Just Compliance

Seen through a heritage lens, this result has a deeper meaning. The continued use of radium as a universal proxy for uranium-related radiological risk is not just a technical shortcut. It is a legacy assumption, inherited from earlier regulatory cultures.

That assumption:

▸ fragments what is chemically and physically unified,
▸ hides part of the long-term burden, and
▸ narrows how responsibility is framed across generations.

Turning the Perspective Around

The main message is not that past frameworks were wrong. It is that the material heritage we have created no longer fits comfortably within them.

Uranium is not just the parent of radium in a decay chain. In water-mediated environments, it often becomes the parent of dose — and therefore of risk.

Recognizing this does not overturn radiological protection. It strengthens its internal coherence. And, more importantly, it clarifies what kind of heritage we are actually passing on — material, persistent, ethical, and administrative, and inescapably shared with the future.

New histories for new futures

2026-01-11

Historian Sandra Mass reflected in an important new book on Zukünftige Vergangenheiten (Future Pasts) on what it means, and could mean, to be writing history in the Anthropocene. This is a timely topic very relevant to the concept of ‘heritage futures,’ for it addresses ‘history futures’. By that I do not only (even mainly) mean the future of researching and teaching history, as she mostly does, but rather the significance today of composing stories of the past that enhance people’s capacity of meeting the challenges of the future (but see her discussion on p. 46-7). As I see it, the primary question is not which future pasts (i.e. descriptions of our present) future historians should be presenting but which present and future histories (i.e. accounts of the past) are most likely to benefit future presents.

This does not mean that the future and people’s future needs are predetermined and can be foreseen. But Mass agrees as well that the future is no longer entirely open either, as climate change and nuclear waste, for example, create facts that reduce future human options (p. 33, 103-4). Following Zoltán Simon, it may even be that humanity as such will be threatened in an entirely novel future taking the hit of climate change, nuclear war, and/or artificial intelligence (p. 106). What does that possible prospect mean for future history, potentially lacking significance in an altogether different reality? Could history in such a world cease to exist even without humanity to end (p. 107)?

The end of history? An illustration of the present text by ChatGPT.

Sandra Mass writes particularly convincing and insightful in her extensive discussion of “More-Than-Human-History,” an emerging focus that is particularly pertinent for understanding the Anthropocene and goes far beyond existing environmental history. Such a non-anthropocentric history will be helpful for placing Homo Sapiens into a larger planetary perspective fostering much needed insights and understandings of past, present, and future realities that can push the historic disciplines beyond many past agendas that are possibly losing in significance.

In this context, what Mass missed is not only the many obvious (to me anyway) links to Archaeology and the work of archaeologists. Clearly, she is aware of the potential of archaeology (p. 35) and considers it easy to integrate archaeology and some other neighbouring disciplines into historical agendas (p. 179-80). Fine! More seriously is her omission of the significance of heritage and history culture (Geschichtskultur) for addressing the challenges of the Anthropocene.

Prominent scholars in historically oriented disciplines (including Pierre Nora, David Lowenthal, and Ian Hodder) argued that in a societal perspective, the significance of cultural heritage (and purposefully constructed sites of memory) has been superseding that of history (and living memory of the past). What will matter in future societies, I therefore suggest, is not primarily the extent to which scholarly knowledge will be able to represent important historical path dependencies during our and subsequent presents. Instead, what will matter more is the extent to which stories about the past manifested in cultural heritage relate, or will relate, to people’s lives and inform human behaviour by expressing and reinforcing particular collective identities, values, and mindsets that may or may not be in the best interest of future generations.

I argue therefore that historians, archaeologists, and others have important roles in shaping the future by giving attention to heritage futures now: the role of heritage in managing the relations between present and future societies.

New publication: Foresight in Heritage

2026-01-07

A new publication focusing on the value of Foresight in heritage was just published with Gustav Wollentz from the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures as a co-author. The article is named “Foresight in heritage: fostering future consciousness to proactively face change”, by Hana Morel, myself, Sarah Forgesson, Amy Iwasaki and Alison Heritage.

It is the first academic publication coming out from our engagement with ICCROM’s Strategic Foresight initiative, which has been piloting Foresight in heritage on a global level. It is a collaboration that is important since very little has been done in this area, and so much remains to be done.

The paper introduces Foresight as a structured approach that is increasingly employed across industries and disciplines for anticipating future change and proposes its utility for the heritage sector. We illustrate how integrating greater Foresight into heritage practice can encourage proactive engagement with emerging trends; develop resilient strategies for heritage research, planning and management; and locate where heritage-based actions can bring transformative change.

Morel H, Wollentz G, Forgesson S, Iwasaki A, Heritage A (2025;), “Foresight in heritage: fostering future consciousness to proactively face change”. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-12-2024-0298

Gustav Wollentz, UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures

Living Heritage in a Changing World

2025-12-21

I argued recently, that cultural heritage has much to contribute to the world’s future agenda. In particular, it can help normalize transformation, in a world that changes and needs to change. Heritage sites like Stonehenge in England have been absorbing comprehensive transformations over longs period of time. Their story is not a story of conservation and continuity, whether of a monument or of a living tradition, but it is a story of managing and adapting to all kinds of changes, by again and again becoming something else.

A new book by Xuanlin Liu, significantly entitled Living Heritage in a Changing World and based on her PhD thesis at the University of York, shows that something similar can be said about a type of artefacts. In relation to the ger, or yurt, a traditional dwelling of nomadic communities in Mongolia and China, Liu shows how heritage is an evolving, adapting, and therefore dynamic process:

“The Mongolian ger, initially crafted from simple wooden frameworks, has undergone significant transformations due to cultural, industrial and environmental imperatives. Over time, it has incorporated new materials such as iron, concrete and hybrid steel-wood structures, reflecting shifting policy landscapes and environmental concerns.” (p. 175)

Figure: some modern gers for sale on the internet.

In Liu’s analysis, these adaptations underscore the inherently fluid nature of heritage. She considers such continuous transformations as “instrumental in ensuring that heritage endures across diverse cultural and societal landscapes” (p. 177). Such an “inclusive, dynamic and comprehensive” understanding of the ger and, by implication, of other objects, is what makes heritage into “living heritage”.

This is a welcome and timely argument, reminding me of the wider implications of what I once argued in my own PhD thesis about the life histories of prehistoric monuments in Northeast Germany, written during the 1990s. It also links the study of movable heritage to ongoing discussions in other sections of Heritage Studies and heritage management, including those dealing with the preservation of historic buildings and the management of intangible heritage. Heritage policy and legislation will need to find more ways of accommodating these views, embracing change, adaptation and creation—ultimately increasing the benefits of heritage for living and future generations in changing societies.

Liu concludes: “In this new framework, the essence of cultural heritage is no longer limited to the preservation of its material form but centres on the creative transformation of its cultural logic.” This perspective, for her, makes heritage management “a creative, forward-looking cultural practice” (p. 182), and I agree.

EU Intergenerational Fairness

2025-12-20

The 2025 Scoping Report for the EU Intergenerational Fairness Strategy, under the remit of Glenn Micallef, European Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture and Sport, is a very interesting document for ‘heritage futures’. It does not give culture a specific role. But heritage and the past are explicitly considered, which is interesting.

The report stresses the benefits of “intergenerational dialogue” and adopts a perspective of human generations as “intertwined lives” resulting in “intergenerational solidarity”, leading to the conclusion that “it is our responsibility to care for past, current, and future generations’ well-being” (p. 13).

Significantly, the authors argue that “the intertwining can be extended to past generations, with their heritage, legacy and traumas, and future generations, with their needs, interests, and rights. (…) This new approach extends the focus from the now to a broader horizon, encouraging us to act as “a good ancestor” to future generations.” (p. 13)

The report expresses among the preliminary elements of a vision for an intergenerationally fair EU that what may be required includes “bringing the past and the heritage to enrich the long-term perspective” (p. 21).

These formulations remain a little vague and it remains open not only how we can care today for past generations’ well-being but also how the distinct contribution of heritage differs from that of knowing the past. But this is still the first time I can remember having seen in such a transnational document an explicit appreciation of a positive value of heritage in the context of future-making (and not just in the context of present-day benefits for living people or in relation to safeguarding existing forms of culture in the future).

World Futures Day 2025 at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris

2025-12-04

Compiled by Helena Rydén, Assistant to the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University.

On 2 December, UNESCO hosted World Futures Day at UNESCO HQ in Paris under the theme “Anticipation in an Era of Volatility.” The event showcased UNESCO’s approach to addressing global challenges through futures thinking and foresight. It also highlighted the role of UNESCO’s network of over 1,100 University Chairs, including 35 focused on Futures Studies, in identifying emerging issues worldwide. Our Chair on Heritage Futures is one of them and was represented not only by Chairholder Cornelius Holtorf but also by affiliated researcher Claudio Pescatore and by Helena Rydén.

The event gathered around 700 registered participants—mainly from Europe, including many Paris-based attendees—from diverse backgrounds: academia, UNESCO Chairs, students, UNESCO staff, policymakers, and industry representatives. The venue itself, rich in history and adorned with works by among others Picasso and Giacometti, provided a cultural backdrop. Sessions alternated between French and English with simultaneous interpretation.

Helena Rydén, Assistant to the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University waiting for the World Futures Day to start!

A keynote lecture by French philosopher Éric Sadin “The Future of Humanity in an Era of Omniscient Artificial Intelligence,” argued that generative AI marks a turning point in human history. He warned of its social consequences, particularly in education, and urged critical reflection on what remains for humanity when learning and creativity are delegated to machines.

A panel followed, exploring how complex systems perspectives and education systems can help societies navigate AI-driven futures while safeguarding humanity and planetary well-being. Speakers included Rosa Vásquez Espinoza, Tanja Hichert, Michael Shamiyeh, and François Taddei, moderated by Gustavo Merino, Director, Social Policies, UNESCO.

Other sessions addressed systemic change, resilience, and international cooperation, with contributions from global thought leaders and UNESCO senior officials. Closing remarks by UNESCO’s Gustav Merino reinforced UNESCO’s mandate to strengthen shared humanity through education, science, culture, and communication.

A digital exhibition, “Good Ancestors: Art & Culture for Future Generations,” ran in the Ségur Hall, linking art and culture across time. The original exhibit was organised by a team around Michael Münker and supported by two missions to the UN in support of the UN Declaration on Future Generations. The exhibit was proposed for this event at UNESCO by Cornelius Holtorf.

At the reception in the evening Cornelius Holtorf, holder of the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University and the new UNESCO Director-General, Dr Khaled El-Enany, an Egyptologist and former Egyptian Minister of Cultural Heritage, had the opportunity to shake hands and briefly discuss heritage futures. Photo Claudio Pescatore.

Some UNESCO Chairs on Futures Studies gathered at the reception in the evening.

Futures workshop at World Futures Day 2025

Compiled by Helena Rydén, Assistant to the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University.

World Futures Day (WFD) on 2 December 2025 explored the theme “Anticipation in an Era of Volatility” at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. One of the highlights was the afternoon futures workshop, “Crisis Preparedness and Beyond: Future-Making Through Culture and Heritage,” where Vicky Karaiskou and Cornelius Holtorf—both UNESCO Chairs—engaged a large (ca 50) and enthusiastic audience.

Vicky Karaiskou and Cornelius Holtorf at UNESCO HQ in Paris 2 December 2025 preparing for the afternoon session.

After statements by UNESCO, the European Commission and CrisisReady*, Vicky and Cornelius took the lead and guided us through the workshop. Both are deeply interested in the culture and values that shape us as human beings—Vicky focusing on the visual dimension.

Vicky Karaiskou explains: “I explore the profound implications of cultural visual narratives, shedding light on how they shape our individual and collective memory, as well as societal perceptions. Visuality examines the origins of our perceptions and assumptions because they deeply influence how we perceive the present, how we engage with the past, and how we envision the future.”

Cornelius Holtorf describes: “Heritage Futures are concerned with the roles of heritage in managing the relations between present and future societies, e.g. through anticipation, planning, and prefiguration.”

The workshop was truly engaging. We began by discussing what forms a collective identity: Who are we? How do culture and heritage make people who they are? Language, food, family and education were among the ideas raised. Next, we reflected on how our collective identities are relevant or affected in an anticipated crisis? We agreed that care—both as a human trait and as something that must be learned—was essential. Finally, we were asked to imagine future scenarios on how our collective identities could be used for crisis prevention, resolution, and recovery in the future?

The goal was to help us focus on the origins of our perspectives and assumptions, which deeply impact how we envision the future. Our group envisioned a natural disaster scenario where our collective identity, empathy, emotions, and local context were crucial for decision-making.

If the aim was to foster empathy, inspire positive change, and promote inclusiveness and social resilience for an equitable future, the workshop certainly succeeded. By envisioning the future beyond the uncertainty of the unknown, we learned how to mobilize and stimulate inspiring thinking, feeling, and acting—unlocking new ideas for creative solutions.

Several participants said this workshop was the highlight of the day, and some even asked to exchange contact details with us, expressing interest in visiting the Chairs for a period.

Want to learn more about the UNESCO Chairs?

Vicky Karaiskou’s Chair
Cornelius Holtorf’s Chair

*The session started with short background statements to the topic by:
Ana Videkanic, Crisis Coordination Officer, Crisis Response and Preparedness, UNESCO
Karalyn Monteil, Head of Unit, Culture and Emergencies, Culture Sector, UNESCO
Anne-Katrin Bock, Policy Analyst, EU Policy Lab, European Commission
Andrew Schroeder, Co-Director, CrisisReady, and V-P, Research and Analysis for Direct Relief

Framtidskanon

2025-11-28

Cornelius Holtorf was invited to the Cultural Heritage Forum 2025 of the Cultural Heritage Academy to attend an afternoon at the University of Gothenburg dedicated to a discussion of the cultural canon for Sweden. He presented a talk entitled “Future canon – from historical to future-oriented frames of reference” and participated in a panel with, among others, Lars Trägårdh who had led the government’s Commission to suggest the content of such a cultural canon for Sweden (27 November 2025).

The other members of the panel were

Lars Trägårdh, professor i historia och ordförande i den kommitté som regeringen tillsatt som tagit fram en svensk kulturkanon.
Åsa Arping, professor i litteraturvetenskap vid Göteborgs universitet.
Karin Nilsson, Verksamhetschef och tf överintendent ArkDes.
Moderator: Lena Ulrika Rudeke, verksamhets- och programansvarig för Göteborgs universitets programverksamhet vid Jonsereds herrgård och koordinator, Unesco Litteraturstaden Göteborg, medlem i CCHS advisory board.

A review of the event written by Vivian Smits has been published here: https://www.gu.se/nyheter/med-kulturkanon-i-centrum.

Abstract for my contribution:

Framtidskanon: från historiska till framtidsinriktade referensramar

Det svenska samhället är en del av en värld där mänskligheten står inför avgörande utmaningar: klimatkrisen, krig, ojämlikhet, pandemier, den globala ekonomin med mera. Kultur och kulturarv, som rör hur människor förstår världen, varandra och sig själva, är centrala för att kunna möta dessa frågor. De skapar gemensamma referensramar som formar medborgarnas självbilder, värderingar, uttryckssätt och handlingsmönster. I mitt bidrag vill jag förskjuta perspektivet från en historiskt inriktad referensram till en framtidsinriktad. Jag utgår från att framtiden är större än Sverige, men belyser med exempel hur en framtidskanon kan bidra till att människor i Sverige: tänker långsiktigt och hoppfullt, blir bättre rustade att hantera förändringar, utvecklas till sådana de vill bli framöver, samt stärker sammanhållning, solidaritet och tillit både inom och mellan samhällen. En framtidskanon kan dessutom sprida den kunskap som bedöms vara mest angelägen för framtiden i Sverige och i världen.

A Global Framework for Research and Action

The UK National Commission for UNESCO has introduced a new Climate Action and Sustainability Framework alongside a Research Agenda, designed to leverage UNESCO sites as living laboratories for climate resilience and sustainable futures.

The publications align closely with the ARCHE (Alliance for Research on Cultural Heritage in Europe) Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, the emerging Horizon Europe Resilient Cultural Heritage Partnership, and UNESCO’s global priorities on climate, culture, and sustainable development. They provide a ready-made platform for UK and international partners to collaborate on transdisciplinary research, Living Labs, open data infrastructures, and evidence-based policy.

Sarah May, affiliated with the Chair, serves as Co-Director at ButCH and is an active member of the UKNC Research & Innovation Group.

ButCH stands for Bureau for the Contemporary and Historic.

It is an organization involved in UNESCO-related climate and heritage research, and in this context, ButCH helps convene and manage the activities of the UKNC Research & Innovation Group, focusing on developing and delivering strategic research agendas around climate resilience and cultural heritage.

UKNC stands for UK National Commission for UNESCO

The publications are available here:

https://unesco.org.uk/news/unesco-uk-launches-framework-for-place-based-climate-research-and-action-through-unesco-sites

« Äldre Inlägg

UNESCO