UNESCO

Chair on Heritage Futures

Culture, Heritage, and Climate Change

2022-01-01

During the week 6-10 December 2021, about 100 researchers and practitioners from around the world were given the opportunity to attend an international meeting on culture, heritage, and climate change. I was among them (as the only one from Sweden). Here is a short report.

The meeting was the first of its kind and co-sponsored by UNESCO, ICOMOS and the IPCC, with senior leaders of these organizations giving weight to the gathering, from Hoseung Lee, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to Ernesto Ottone Ramirez, Assistant Director-General for Culture of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and Teresa Patricio, President of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The organization team of the meeting had included Will Megarry (ICOMOS Focal Point for Climate Change and Heritage), Jyoti Hosagrahar (Deputy Director, UNESCO World Heritage Centre) and Debra Roberts (Co-Chair, Working Group II, IPCC) as Meeting Co-Chairs, and Hana Morel as the Scientific Co-ordinator.

The main aims of the meeting were on the one hand to advance mutual discussions on culture, heritage, and climate change between global representatives of these three organizations and on the other hand to compile a report to the IPCC, in the run-up to its seventh assessment cycle in 2022, advocating for a stronger consideration of culture and heritage in climate change mitigation and adaptation. The previously unfulfilled potential for the future of culture and heritage in relation to climate change was seen to lie in two areas in particular: cultural governance in the present and the opportunity for humanity to learn from the past.

From the perspective of the IPPC, studying the causes, impacts and responses to climate change, the realms of culture and heritage were considered to have much untapped potential. Climate change is so comprehensive a challenge that all of society must respond and all parts of human lives must be considered.

The meeting consisted of a public introductory session and several public plenary discussions on the three main themes previously selected: Knowledge Systems, Impacts, and Solutions (recordings accessible here). Each theme was also the topic of an extensive precirculated White Paper. In addition, there were many small group discussions of ca 6-10 participants (plus rapporteurs) among the invited experts, dedicated to specific questions related to the three themes but also open for more general exchanges. I participated in seven of these closed sessions.

The following is a spontaneous discussion of some of the main issues that caught my attention and sparked my interest during any of the public or closed sessions, arranged by theme.  

Knowledge Systems

The first theme was all about recognizing and respecting diverse global knowledge systems and the need to co-produce relevant knowledge, combining different epistemologies, to inform global decision-making on climate issues.

Shadreck Chirikure (University of Cape Town, South Africa) spoke of “a parliament of knowledge without any hierarchy” and that meant without Western scientific knowledge at the top. Instead, he advocated for local communities to be given a voice to speak for themselves, establishing a “democracy of knowledge”, as he put it. The plea against modern education to create a more balanced way of life without assumed supremacy of the scientific knowledge system was echoed by indigenous representative Pasang Sherpa (Nepal). Indeed, all on the panel seemed to be agreeing on that point.

The problem with this, as I see it, is that climate change is a global problem which to understand and address requires science. That does not mean that science is the only way to understand and address climate change, but certainly it is of particular significance, given the entire intellectual tradition linked to the idea of enlightenment that led to much progress of understanding the world and creating technology that works in it. To insist on the significance of scientific knowledge does not mean to defend the ills of colonialism and inequality but rather can help in finding viable alternatives to practices causing harm. It surprised (and frightened) me that there seemed to be considerable anti-science sentiments underlying the discussions associated with this theme.

If all knowledge systems really were of equal validity to understand and address climate change, on what grounds could we dismiss the knowledge of climate change deniers, various conspiracy theories, or indeed of all sorts of other extraordinary beliefs about the world that some people hold? What is it that makes some indigenous and local knowledge more worth defending and being respected than others?

In one small group discussion, we discussed whether the IPCC should draw on evidence that wasn’t either peer-reviewed or scientific grey literature (which is required now). The question was effectively on what grounds the IPCC could trust other sources it may want to use.

To draw fully on local and indigenous knowledge, a wider range of evidence needs to be permissible. Communities should be involved in participatory processes and given the opportunity to express themselves in whatever form they prefer (as Chirikure had emphasised earlier). There is thus a need to consider a variety of new qualitative criteria for relevant cultural knowledge, but they can be hard to assess and measure which also may make results from different contexts difficult to compare with each other. Innovative approaches for solving this problem still need to be identified and agreed on.

In another discussion, we deliberated whether the climate crisis requires humanity to develop a new integrated knowledge system that all humans could share jointly. Maybe a unified body of knowledge could be manifested in an alternative kind of world heritage, too.

Impacts

The second theme focussed on risks, losses and damage associated with climate change and its impact. (Unfortunately, due to timetable clashes I missed most of the discussions associated with this theme.)

Although the IPCC and many politicians and activists put much emphasis on ‘risks’ and ‘threats’, in one small group discussion we agreed that such terms are not always empowering people and, therefore, problematic. Talking about risks and threats emphasises what people may be losing according to contemporary value systems rather than what we wish to guarantee for people according to whatever value system, even in the future, for example wellbeing, safety, thriving.

This discussion brought home to us how important language is in identifying shared strategies and communicating with different audiences. The three co-organizing bodies of the meeting all spoke different languages and addressed in parts different people. Finding a common agenda will require reconsidering the language being used.

Solutions

The final theme addressed solutions to climate change—how to facilitate transformative change and create alternative futures. The underlying concrete question was how cultural heritage could contribute to responses and solutions of climate change.

The initial panel recalled the comprehensive 2019 ICOMOS report “Futures of our Past” and the 2021 updated UNESCO Policy on World Heritage and Climate Change. These documents draw attention not only to the fact that culture and heritage are always at the heart of climate change and thus also need to be part of any solutions but also to cultural heritage as a valuable resource for adaptation strategies and increased resilience.

In his statement, Robin Coningham (UNESCO Chair on Archaeological Ethics and Practice in Cultural Heritage at Durham, UK) emphasised that heritage provides a record of successful and unsuccessful past adaptations. In that sense, he suggested that ancient technology may unlock the resilience of communities by revealing unique cultural adaptations containing important lessons for the future.

Rohit Jigyasu (ICCROM) added that adaptation does not only refer to ancient building techniques and other practical solutions but also comes in the form of holistic knowledge embedded in all aspects of people’s lives. He also made clear that any knowledge has always evolved, and that knowledge of the past should not be romanticized but must be combined with possibilities offered by modern technology to be taken into the future. Indeed, the White Paper on Solutions, too, acknowledges the risk of culturalism (p. 56) and a need to challenge essentialist notions of cultural stability (p. 21).

In one of the small group discussions associated with this theme, we problematized the colonial and modernist idea of salvaging cultures in past and present, which lies at the origin of both anthropology and archaeology. In fact, culture and heritage are constantly renewing themselves and should not be seen exclusively in terms of threats, loss, and damage. Indeed, climate change and culture change are not the enemies of heritage, but they also create new heritage, compensating for some that may have been lost. After all, as archaeologists including the rescuers of Abu Simbel know, destructive events can have positive outcomes for heritage and culture too. (All this brought us back to the point made earlier about the significance of language and issues with terminology such as the IPCC’s references of ‘loss’ and ‘damage’.)

I also took away from all the presentations and discussions on culture- and heritage-based solutions to the challenges provided by climate change that

  • all science-based solutions are socially, politically, and culturally entangled
  • the affective power of cultural heritage and cultural creativity is a powerful tool to be harnessed for climate action and adaptation (but at the same time there is a risk that climate action turns into an uncritical climate religion offering higher meaning to life and promising a path to salvation…)
  • there is a risk that climate action deprives many people outside the Global North of cultural aspirations for the future which are legitimate and ought to be respected
  • a focus on the collective human endeavour, dialogue and cooperation is more significant than the emphasis on conserving national and other forms of potentially divisive heritage.

Overall

What struck me a lot is that the contributors to the open panels and even many participants in the closed session often agreed with each other on the main positions and points being made, just adding different examples and perspectives. Whereas this was intellectually disappointing, it demonstrated shared concerns and a common agenda.

The main goal of the meeting to give culture and heritage a place at the table where climate change is being discussed was perhaps achieved, and future collaborations between IPCC, UNESCO and ICOMOS have become much more likely. But the reason for this may have been different than intended. The White Papers were too extensive and launched only a few days before the event so that detailed readings and discussions during the meeting were impossible. Moreover, many of the questions set for detailed discussion in the small group discussions were too specific and impossible to address without any prior preparations.

The main benefit were the discussions themselves, creating improved understanding of many important issues for all the global participants working with climate change in various contexts. These joint discussions created social capital between the participants which hopefully can be put to good use in future work on this im­portant topic. 

Kulturarvets digitalisering och framtiden

2021-12-30

Jag har läst en mycket väl underbyggt och intressant bok om kulturarvets digitalisering och vad det faktiskt innebär. Konstigt nog är sådana klara analyser fortfarande sälsynta bland alla stora teknologi-drivna initiativ och projekt.

Henrik Summanen beskriver i “Kulturarvets digitalisering” vilka vägar framåt som finns för Sveriges arkiv, bibliotek och museer för att fungera i ett samhälle där användarna är huvudsakligen digitala. Nyckeln, han skriver, är förståelse för vad det digitala i grunden handlar om och på vilka sätt det omförhandlar institutionernas traditionella möten med användaren.

Jag var särskilt intresserad av vad Summanen, efter 20 år av verksamhet inom området, rekommenderar inför framtiden – och blev inte besviken. Bland hans väl underbyggda råd finns följande utmaningar, väl värd att fundera mer om:

  • Den digitala kompetensen handlar om att förstå vart samhället är på väg och hur vi ska anpassa oss till detta, och till framtidens användning.
  • Våra traditionella institutioners struktur är inte optimerad för digital användning. Vi måste optimera för horisontella informationsstrukturer, till skillnad från de traditionella vertikala.
  • Användarperspektivet bör dominera alla insatser och analyser, inte förvaltningsperspektivet.

Long-term insights in New Zealand

2021-12-22

According to the New Zealand Public Service Act 2020 (Section 8), departments of New Zealand public service must prepare long-term insights briefings and present them to the appropriate Minister at least once every 3 years. Their purpose is to make available into the public domain information and impartial analysis about medium- and long-term trends, risks, and opportunities that affect or may affect New Zealand and New Zealand society.

There is considerable information and guidance available for this process (here is a good entry point), including the following thoughts:

  • The New Zealand public service has a duty of stewardship, to look ahead and provide advice on future challenges and opportunities.
  • The public service isn’t immune to having immediate and urgent matters crowd out the future. Maintaining a focus on the long term requires appropriate investment and an intentional approach. It requires a public service that values foresight – to think, anticipate and act with the future interests of people in New Zealand front and centre.
  • The Briefings are think pieces on the future, not government policy. The Briefings are an opportunity to enhance public debate on long-term issues and usefully contribute to future decision making – not only by government but also by Māori, business, academia, not-for-profit organisations, and the wider public.’

The public is suggested to be informed like this (among others): 

We need to make sure that New Zealand considers and is ready for the future. The Briefings will help us collectively as a country to think about, and plan for, the future. They will identify and explore the long-term issues that matter for the future wellbeing of people in New Zealand. Each Briefing will explore a different topic.

The future is everyone’s responsibility, affecting us and future generations. Everyone can have their say on what topics the Briefings should cover. The Briefings are not current government policy. The Briefings are to provide information and insights that could be used in the future by anyone. They will help all of us to make decisions about the future.

New Zealand also provides a very useful guidance to existing principles and techniques of futures thinking, containing also links to additional resources elsewhere.

These briefings apply to all departments in the New Zealand public service, including the Ministry for Culture & Heritage. I am very curious to learn more!

Historic cities and the future

2021-12-16

Cornelius Holtorf was invited to contribute to an Experts Round Table as part of the World Heritage City Lab – Historic Cities, Climate Change, Water, and Energy convened by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science of the Netherlands in the context of the 10th Anniversary of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) (16-17 December 2021).

In his contribution on 16 December, addressing approx. 90 global participants, he argued for the significance of futures literacy in making strategic decisions on the historic urban landscape, keeping in mind changing social, cultural and economic processes and values, as emphasised in the HUL Recommendations with its strong people-centred approach.

Preparing for UNESCO World Conference on Cultural Policies and Sustainable Development (Mondiacult) 2022 in Mexico

2021-12-13

  • Preparing The UNESCO World Conference on Cultural Policies and Sustainable Development (Mondiacult) will be held in Mexico from September 28-30, 2022
  • Online Consultation on the 13 December 2021 (Cornelius Holtorf, Professor of Archaeology and holder of the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University on the Strengthening synergies between culture and
    education for human-centred development and sustainabilityMore information: https://www.gob.mx/sre/prensa/unesco-unanimously-approves-holding-mondiacult-2022-in-mexico?idiom=en

The Nordic Ministers of Culture approved the following Declaration: https://www.norden.org/en/declaration/art-and-culture-promoters-sustainable-development

Meeting with UNESCO, ICOMOS, IPCC on culture and climate change

2021-12-06

Cornelius Holtorf, UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures

6-10 December 2021, Cornelius Holtorf Professor of Archaeology and holder of the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University, will participate in a unique meeting between United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The idea is to strengthen synergies between culture and climate change science.

The meeting will bring together over one hundred experts from 45 countries across all regions and will bring research, expertise, and insights from wide disciplines. The meeting aims to establish a scientific merit to integrate cultural dimensions in climate action through three key areas: (1) vulnerability and understanding risks, (2) intangible cultural heritage, diverse knowledge systems and climate change, and (3) the role of cultural and natural heritage for climate action. The meeting will also include public-facing events, details of which can be found on the project website.

This meeting is an opportunity to showcase the significance of culture in relation to climate change. The way in which cultural heritage is discussed in relation to climate change has become much more sophisticated and relevant, no longer mainly about heritage ending up under rising water levels, says Cornelius Holtorf. This is a result of a dedicated effort by many people and initiatives.

Culture shapes how people make sense and therefore act in the world. Often, what people consider important in their lives is connected to cultural patterns derived from the past – their cultural heritage. Culture and cultural heritage are the key to assist present and future generations in adapting to changing circumstances, together.

More about the Chair:

https://lnu.se/en/unescochair

UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures is a member of the Climate Heritage Network.

More information about the meeting 6-10 December 2021:

https://www.cultureclimatemeeting.org/

Forskningsprojekt om framtidsperspektiv hos ungdomar i utsatt stadsdel

2021-12-03

Linnéuniversitetet och Växjö kommun samarbetar i ett forskningsprojekt som startar våren 2022. Projektet kommer att studera framtidsperspektiv hos ungdomar som är bosatta i den utsatta stadsdelen Araby i Växjö.

Araby är en stadsdel med stor mångfald, men som också räknas som särskilt utsatt av polisen på grund av hög arbetslöshet och kriminalitet. Syftet med projektet är att stärka banden mellan ungdomar i Araby, kommunala organisationer och offentliga kulturarvsaktörer. Forskningen kommer att ge konkreta och praktiska förslag till kulturaktörer i utvecklingen och förmedlingen av kulturarv i en miljö som präglas av stor mångfald. Det övergripande syftet är att ge kulturaktörer i Växjö kommun bättre redskap för att skapa delaktighet, och på så vis bidra till den sociala sammanhållningen.

Tanken är att resultatet från detta projekt kommer att vara till nytta för kulturaktörer utanför Växjö, som ett inspirerande exempel.

Partners och roller:
Projektet fokuserar på samverkan med flera aktörer. Fältarbetet kommer att bedrivas av Gustav Wollentz från Nordiskt centrum för kulturarvspedagogik, som är samarbetspartner med Centrum för tillämpat kulturarv vid Linnéuniversitetet. Under första året kommer intervjuer och fältarbete genomföras i Araby för att samla in perspektiv. Under andra året kommer fokus ligga på hur resultaten från fältarbetet år 1 kan hjälpa offentliga kulturarvsaktörer att skapa delaktighet och mångfald.

Ökat framtidsmedvetande kommer sannolikt att bli alltmer betydelsefullt inom kulturarvssektorn och i samhället i stort, och är viktigt för att kunna möta de utmaningar som samhället står inför.

 

 

Review by Stanley J. Onyemechalu

2021-11-19

Cultural Heritage and the Future. Edited by C. Holtorf and A. Högberg. Routledge, 2021.

Reviewed by Stanley J. Onyemechalu, PhD student in Heritage, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge; Assistant Lecturer in Archaeology and Heritage Studies, University of Nigeria; E-mail: stanley.onyemechalu@unn.edu.ng .

The book is an edited volume with contributions by respected authors from different disciplines discussing the connections between cultural heritage and the future – ‘heritage futures’. In 17 chapters split within four sections, the book aims to build “capacity in futures thinking and futures literacy among researchers and practitioners throughout the heritage sector” (p. xix). Ipso facto, I expected to read how it explored the relationship between cultural heritage and a very much uncertain future, especially in the face of rising tensions and unending conflicts. If heritage is this process of negotiating what to inherit from the past for use in the present and what to transmit from the present to the future, what then is the ‘future’ of communities whose process of inheritance/bequeathing have been truncated by violent conflict (civil wars, colonialism, slavery) or natural disasters? Prott (1997) reminds us that, in the face of war and violence, the first and foremost desire of humans is to get safety for themselves and family; every other thing [read: tangible heritage] is secondary and often neglected. The book fails to properly engage case studies representative of communities in ‘unstable’ regions, where cultural heritage is at a higher risk of being misused, abused, weaponised or destroyed. Makes one wonder if ‘futures thinking’ in heritage is a privileged exercise exclusive to those who live in communities with relatively ‘stable presents’ – which is not much of the world.

In addition to the usual perseveration with tangible heritage case studies (e.g., UNESCO’s World Heritage List), the book tries to cover ‘new’ bases in heritage futures (see chapters 9, 10 & 12). The book also makes references to intangible heritage but not as in-depth as I expected. Not doing so, again, excludes certain communities, like in Africa, where oral history, beliefs and traditional creative processes are ascribed higher value and are better preserved than material objects (Onyemechalu & Ugwuanyi, 2021; Mire, 2007). Bringing back my earlier point about the incidences of conflicts and instability in many regions of the world, Holtorf (2015) in Avrami (chapter 13) notes that “physical loss does not necessarily curtail the functioning of cultural heritage”. Hence, intangible heritage – which is able to sustain the functioning of cultural heritage in the face of physical loss – is the soul of ‘heritage futures’. This means that learning about other cultures’ prioritisation of intangible heritage may afford an opportunity to formulate a wholistic and sustainable plan for cultural heritage futures. In doing so, we may not have to worry about limited spatial and conservation resources occasioned by “unending world heritage listings” (Avrami, chapter 13).

This book unfortunately lacks contributions from African and other under-represented communities. The book editors themselves acknowledged the underrepresentation of case studies from “significant parts of the world” (p. 2) and welcomed critics and other scholars to contribute to this all-important ongoing conversation. On the bright side, the book engages heritage futures with the notions of atemporality (Graves-Brown, chapter 15) and ephemerality (DeSilvey, chapter 14) in interesting ways that can shed light on the realities of many communities in the global south and their approaches to heritage. Futures making or planning within critical heritage studies should be inclusive of other voices and experiences, lest it fails to be different from the past – creating ‘difficult futures’.

Often, the discussions about the future of heritage assumes that there will be an episodic end to the present humanity and the beginning of an entirely new humanity that will meet what we have ‘kept’ for them. However, there is no clear-cut line separating one human generation from the other. The book notes the uncertainty in whether the heritage we are racing to preserve will be seen by the future generations as a gift or a burden (May, Chapter 3), but struggles to define who makes up the ‘future generation’. Is it children now, or are the ones yet unborn? Are we referring to tomorrow, next year, next decade or the next century? Where should our plans for the ‘future’ of heritage end, and why? Is it definable? These are the kinds of questions that this book set out to explore, which it did quite satisfactorily (especially in sections 1 on the future in heritage studies and heritage management & section 4 on heritage and future-making). This book reminds us that: though we cannot change the past, we can change the way it is remembered in the present; though we cannot change the future, as it were, we can try to leave a template for its change. Plans for the future of cultural heritage should not be cast in stone or locked up in vaults but should be easily accessible, amenable and open-ended. That is, allowing future generations the opportunity to exert their own will and agency over their past, present and future.

This book talks about the future of heritage in the same way that people talk about the future of the earth and climate change – since the tragedy of climate change is the destruction of heritage. While I agree that heritage is a “futuristic field”, as the book declares, it seems as though a lot of the debates about heritage futures in this book dwell too much on the future and what/how we bequeath than on the present and what/how we inherit. The notion of utility in heritage (Smith, 2006; Ugwuanyi & Schofield, 2018) is instructive here as it ensures that more caution is taken with talks about heritage futures. Our preoccupation with the future might lead to the ‘suffering’ of the present. Across many cultures, the past is embodied in elders and the future in children. That means that we can look to the children now as our insight into the more uncertain, distant future. This book superbly does this in chapter 3. We spend so much energy trying to be ‘good ancestors’, how about we strive to be ‘good descendants’ first? (Hicks, 2021).

This book may not quite contain what you expect – as it is not primarily about the future of heritage – but it is undoubtedly a significant text for anyone interested in exploring the interconnections between cultural heritage and the future.

References

Hicks, D. (2021) “Is a decolonial historical archaeology possible?” Keynote Address for the 2021 Australian Society for Historical Archaeology (ASHA) Online Conference. https://asha.org.au/2021-asha-conference/

Mire, S. (2007). Preserving knowledge, not objects: A Somali perspective for heritage management and archaeological research. The African Archaeological Review, 24 (3/4), 49-71. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40743448.

Onyemechalu, J. S. and Ugwuanyi, J. K. (2021). Íhé Ńkètá and Òkè: concepts and practice of indigenous cultural heritage management in the Igbo cultural area of south-eastern Nigeria. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-12-2020-0177.

Prott, L. V. (1997). Principles for the resolution of disputes concerning cultural heritage displaced during the second world war. In E. Simpson (Ed.) The Spoils of War. New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc.

Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203602263

Ugwuanyi, J. K. and Schofield, J. (2018) Permanence, temporality and the rhythms of life: Exploring significance of the village arena in Igbo culture. World Archaeology, 60 (1), 7 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2018.1473164

—

A revised version of this review was published in Antiquity 2022.

Forum Kulturarv

2021-11-09

Cornelius Holtorf and Helena Rydén represented the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at the Cultural Heritage Forum “Cultural Heritage for the Future” held 8-9 November 2021 in Gothenburg, Sweden, and attended by 150 participants and 27 exhibitors.

Helena Rydén managed an exhibition displaying information about the Chair and samples of its publications and other work. Cornelius Holtorf held a one-hour plenary session on “We need to work more with the future in the cultural heritage sector!”, featuring a short lecture, two films, much interaction with the public, and a panel debate with Tina Lindström (Kalmar County Museum) and Johan Swahn (The Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review, MKG). Together, we presented and discussed how the cultural heritage sector can work with the future and why this is important, with special examples taken from cultural heritage pedagogy (timetravelling to the future at Kalmar County Museum) and concerning long-term memory of repositories of nuclear waste. After the session, several participants described the experience as “an eye-opener”.

Review by Gilmara Benevides

2021-11-06

HOLTORF, Cornelius, HÖGBERG, Anders (eds.) Cultural Heritage and the Future. London/New York: Routledge, 2021.

Reviewed by Gilmara Benevides, PhD. Professor of Law at Faculdades Integradas do Ceará (UniFIC), Brazil. E-mail: gilmara.benevides@yahoo.com.br.

The field of Cultural Heritage Studies is vast, multidisciplinary and diversified. The issues are usually rooted in events that took place in the past and the interpretation of the consequences of these events in the present time. However, in the book Cultural Heritage and the Future, nineteen authors chosen among academics and experts in the areas of human and social sciences enter into the association between cultural heritage and the future, through different theoretical analyses on heritage management and conservation, archaeological theory and political archeology.

The preface and introduction are written by the book’s editors, archaeologists Cornelius Holtorf and Anders Högberg. Following on from the introduction “Cultural heritage as a futuristic field”, the book is divided into four sections: “The future in heritage studies and heritage management” (Section 1); “The future in cultural heritage” (Section 2); “Re-thinking heritage futures” (Section 3) and “Heritage and future-making” (Section 4). The book contains seventeen short chapters and ends with “Final Reflections: The Future of Heritage”. The book is designed to reach academics and students in the fields of cultural heritage studies, museums, archeology, anthropology, architecture, conservation, sociology, history and geography.

Despite bringing case studies from various parts of the world (Europe, China, Japan, North America, South Africa, Australia and others), the book is based on the scientific understanding of “cultural heritage” and the “future” as per the worldviews of mostly Western researchers, aware that their research will reach an academic audience that is largely found in the countries of the Global North (developed countries). Particularly, as a Brazilian historian, anthropologist and jurist who studies cultural heritage, I was interested in reading the book after learning that one of the book’s editors – Cornelius Holtorf – had published an article in Revista de Arqueologia, a scientific journal in Brazil and is known by renowned researchers in Brazil such as Rita Poloni and Pedro Funari.

Specifically, Rodney Harrison’s article, “Heritage practices as future-making practices”, on the Svalbard Global Seed Vault (SGSV) caught my attention. In my view, global food shortages are already an urgent problem for current generations. Here, in this study, it is possible to see that there is already some anticipatory seed storage strategy, whose ultimate goal is to maintain duplicates of seeds for the long-term conservation of a genetic bank of plants all over the planet. Brazil, a country known for its great natural wealth and biodiversity, has already sent three batches of seeds to the SGSV between 2014 and 2020.

On the other hand, it is clear that there are specific artifacts left behind that, despite being symbols of human futuristic progress, cause countless problems today that still do not have a long-term solution. For example: space junk, according to the discussion in “Future visions and the heritage of space: Nostalgia for infinity” – a very interesting dialogue between Alice Gorman and Sarah May. The excess of artifacts can go from being a cultural asset to being a disaster for the future.

In turn, nuclear waste is seen as a particular kind of cultural heritage of the future, as revealed by Cornelius Holtorf and Anders Högberg in “What lies ahead? Nuclear waste as cultural heritage of the future”. Radioactive heritage is also an object under analysis in “Radioactive heritage of the future: A legacy of risk”, by Marcos Buser, Abraham Van Luik, Roger Nelson and Cornelius Holtorf. In a very specific way, these two articles dialogue with each other and bring a warning about the dangers of this legacy for the next generations, although without imposing a tone of apocalyptic prediction. After all, no one can predict how future generations will manage this waste.

In the last chapter, “Final Thoughts: The Future of Heritage”, Anders Högberg and Cornelius Holtorf discuss the results of an earlier study in which they conducted more than 60 interviews with professionals in the cultural heritage sector. The study showed that professionals found it difficult to think about what kind of future they were working on. Instead, they held back in the present, in the short term, given the lack of opportunities to think about the future at a deeper level. They concluded that this difficulty stemmed from the lack of shared professional strategies on “how to deal with the future in heritage management or how to think about the future of heritage”.

As an alternative, Högberg and Holtorf present some possible strategies: the first is a way of applying “expiry dates” to future decisions about cultural heritage in the short, medium or long term. The second possible strategy focuses on “empowering future generations” in various ways.

As for the third possibility, it concerns the future of heritage and education. The idea of ​​creating a curriculum for cultural heritage specialists struck me as very interesting. I was completely ignorant of the idea of ​​“futures literacy ”, so I needed to get extra information about this concept, elaborated by Riel Miller.

The concept of “futures literacy” has been developed within UNESCO as one of the competences for the 21st century: “the universally accessible skill that builds on the innate human capacity to imagine the future, offers a clear, field tested solution to poverty-of-the-imagination.” The use of this concept seemed very adequate, with regard to the future of heritage and education.

Finally, it is possible to say that the book Cultural Heritage and the Future, despite bringing together intellectuals from different areas, has a considerable balance of ideas. Perhaps, in the near future, Anders Högberg and Cornelius Holtorf will feel the need to elaborate a new book, this time about the future of heritage post-2020, to think about the future of heritage from this new collective perspective.