The EU Commissioner för Intergenerational Fairness recently published a report entitled Inherited Futures. Citizens – Objects – Stories. I downloaded it here I think but it is no longer available there now (if anybody finds it please let me know).
This 200+pages-report documents the objects and stories of 150 randomly selected citizens from all 27 EU Member States who were asked what intergenerational fairness means to them.
The objects and stories they selected make intergenerational relations tangible and personal. Many of these citizens chose what reminds them of their grandparents, what they care about for the future, and/or what they choose to pass on to their children or grandchildren. As the Introduction to the report concluded, many objects are small bridges between past and future.
This collection of citizens’ objects and stories is in fact a collection of ‘heritage futures’, exemplifying how cultural heritage can manage the relations between present and future societies in people’s ordinary lives.
Golestan Palace, a UNESCO World Heritage site, was severely damaged on 2 March 2026 during the USA–Israel war against Iran. According to Khabaronline (2026), portable artefacts had been transferred to storage during the twelve-day war in June, and only the buildings themselves were affected by the explosions. The palace dates back to the fifteenth century and includes several buildings, gardens, exhibition halls, and galleries. It was used and developed mainly during the Safavid (1501–1736) and Qajar (1789–1925) dynasties, and was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2013. It remains the only UNESCO-registered site in the capital city of Iran.
One of the most significant aspects of the palace is its vast archive, which includes more than 60,000 historical photographs, 9000 negatives and videos, and around 1,520 albums. For many years, independent scholars, researchers who do not work for the Iranian state, had great difficulty accessing this archive. In June 2024, however, an anonymous individual or group uploaded part of the photographic collection online (about 3200 photos). Their identity has never been revealed, and it remains unclear how they were able to access, digitize, and publish the albums in the public domain.
When the archive became available, I began to reflect on why access to these materials had been so restricted. The albums contain hundreds of photographs from the late nineteenth century, particularly images from the court and the harem of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar (1831–1896) and his many wives. These photographs reveal social norms or communities that the Islamic Republic has long denied or labeled as “westernized”: enslaved people, men holding hands, same-sex lovers, the king’s wives posing semi-nude before his camera, and a society far more complex and diverse than the homogenized image of the past promoted by the state.
Among these albums, one is especially important for understanding the concept of heritage in modern Iran: Album 137. I first learned about this album in 2011 after one of my students (S.) told me she had encountered it in Golestan Palace while she was there for another reason. She mentioned that the album contained photographs related to the archaeological excavations at Susa.
Maryam Dezhamkhooy, S., and I went to the palace to search for it. By chance, we met Dr. Chahriar Adl (1944-2015), an Iranian archaeologist, there. He kindly helped us obtain permission to make copies of the photographs. This was something that would have been nearly impossible without his support.
These photographs were later made public together with the rest of the archive. Album 137 contains 27 photographs related to the excavations at Susa led by Jean-Jacques de Morgan (1857–1924). According to the album’s description page, the photographs were taken in 1899–1900 (1317 A.H.) by a man named Heidar Milani while he was passing through Susa on his return mission from the southwestern province of Iran (Arabestan at the time and now, Khouzestan). In his note, Milani uses the phrase hasab-al amr-e al-a’laa, indicating that he took the photographs following an order from a higher political authority.
People consisting of de Morgan (Figure 2), his assistant (Figure 3), and workers (Figure 4) appear in eleven of the photographs, offering a rare glimpse of how he conducted his excavations. De Morgan, originally a geologist, used mining techniques to excavate archaeological sites and caused considerable damage to sites in Iran and Egypt, such as Susa. He dug a large tunnel through the main mound at Susa and destroyed the archaeological layers, made big holes that compromised the preservation of the site very difficult till now. Milani’s captions note that the workers visible in the photographs were indigenous Arab inhabitants of the region.
Another revealing detail appears on the cover of the album: a note written by a retired Iranian archaeologist who, after the 1979 revolution, had been responsible for overseeing archaeological institutions (Papoli-Yazdi, 2023). The note is dated 10 April 2011 and records that three other members of the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization and the University of Tehran accompanied him on his visit (which indicates the importance and formality of the visit).
In the photographs where de Morgan appears, he is always positioned at the center. The large groups of local workers surrounding him remain anonymous through the photographer’s lens, or their bodies are only used as a scale to promote the size of an archaeological finding (Figure 5).
French missionaries, antiquarians, and archaeologists played a crucial role in shaping the modern idea of the identity of Iranians as a nation-state in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They transformed a largely mythical past into one defined by monuments and archaeological sites such as Susa, without considering the narratives of local communities and indigenous researchers.
During the past century, heritage in Iran has repeatedly been at the center of tensions between state power and nationalist narratives. At times, these two forces have overlapped, jointly marginalizing the perspectives of indigenous communities as well as those of independent researchers. Yet there has always been a third force, colonialism, one whose influence is often denied by both the state and nationalist discourse. Iranian nationalism frequently frames the country’s heritage as exceptional and uniquely its own, leaving little room to acknowledge external structures of power.
Today, however, the role of colonialism is bolder. The buildings of Golestan Palace have been damaged by explosions for the first time in their long history, despite standing in the center of a city that has endured Russian imperial influence, revolutions, coups, invasion by Allies, and two world wars.
However, Golestan Palace is not merely a collection of buildings. It also houses one of the largest historical archives in the world, whose preservation ensures the possibility of recovering at least part of the past, which has been mainly written by the states and colonizers; the preservation of this archive allows the denied and ignored heritage and past to be reinterpreted, re-narrated, and rewritten in the future. The destruction of Golestan Palace will transform the future of the past.
This destruction raises new questions about the future of the palace and its archive, as well as the future of archaeological narratives and the history of the heritage idea in Iran. Where is the archive? Is it possible that authorities/colonizers destroy unwanted parts of it? Will independent researchers be able to access the materials of Golestan Palace in the future? Or will the next political order conceal, reinterpret, or selectively reveal them in order to shape a new narrative in the future about Iran’s heritage and the history of archaeology within the country?
Leila Papoli-Yazdi Archaeologist of the contemporary past and Garbologist and member of the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures
Papoli-Yazdi, L. (2023) Confessions of a Green Notebook: Reading Unpublished Documents About the Oppression of Iranian Archaeology Professors During the 1980s. Archaeologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-022-09468-9
Captions:
Figure 1- Debris at the historical monument Golestan Palace after it was damaged in an Israeli and U.S. strike, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 3, 2026. Photographer: Majid Asgaripour
Figure 2 – The caption reads: “Monsieur de Morgan, himself giving instructions to the workers” (photo 137-7-1, from Album 137). Photographer: Heidar Milani.
Figure 3 – The caption reads: “The man with the black hat is Monsieur de Morgan, and the man with the white hat is Monsieur Jacquier (?), present at the work taking place in the mentioned ditch” (photo 137-7-4, Album 137). Photographer: Heidar Milani.
Figure 4 – The caption reads: “Arab workers digging the mentioned ditch” (photo 137-10-1, from Album 137). Photographer: Heidar Milani.
Figure 5- Victory of Naram-Sin over the mountain tribe of the Lullubi and their king Satuni, Louvre. The caption describes the scene of the stele (photo 137-13, from Album 137). Photographer: Heidar Milani.
Cornelius Holtorf visited the Leverhulme Heritage for Global Challenges Research Centre established in 2022 at the University of York, UK. All the Centre’s work “begins from the premise that there is an urgent need to develop new ways of thinking about and managing heritage.”
The Leverhulme Centre is housed in the historic King’s Manor building and led by Professor Emma Waterton (centre) and Dr Hayley Saul (right).
During the morning, Holtorf met 14 researchers at the Centre to discuss their ongoing research. Later gave a lecture entitled “Decolonising the Future: From Preserving Memory across Generations to Sustaining the (Re-)Generation of Memory” for a combined physical and digital audience of around 50 (5-6 March 2026).
Anders Högberg published a paper in which he discusses the significance of Artificial General Intelligence in the context of human cognitive co-evolution.
ABSTRACT: This perspective article brings to focus the unpredictable trajectory of AI-human cognitive co-evolution. Challenging the notion of a fixed ‘Stone Age brain’, it emphasizes the adaptive and plastic nature of human cognition shaped by millions of years of technological engagement. Underlining the need for anticipatory thinking, it asks: What do we need to know now, to be able to recognize what people need to understand in a yet unexplored future of AI-human cognitive co-evolution? Rather than presenting empirical findings, this theoretical and exploratory piece seeks to stimulate reflection and dialog on how AI’s integration into human life may transform our notions of humanness, as AI systems are reshaping human cognition, relationships, and socio-technical practices.
Högberg asks: how might AI-human collaboration redefine future understandings of what it means to be human?
Högberg, A. 2026. Becoming human in the age of AI: cognitive co-evolutionary processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 16:1734048. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1734048
The title of his talk was “Humanity’s Uranium as a Planetary Liability – Its Chemical and Radiological Toxicity, Ecological Debt, and the Governance Gap.” Here is a 10-point summary:
Uranium in the Earth’s crust belongs to geology: dispersed, buffered, and governed by natural timescales.
Once extracted, it leaves geology and enters history — becoming part of human systems, decisions, and liabilities.
Less than 1% is fissioned for energy; more than 99% remains as a long-lived material stock.
Uranium is not consumed — it is redistributed into tailings, depleted uranium, fuels, and wastes.
Its decay chain regenerates over time, while the uranium parent remains essentially undepleted.
The hazard is therefore persistent, combining chemical mobility and radiological renewal.
Remediation can manage flux and exposure, but it does not erase the underlying inventory.
Dilution depends on finite environmental buffering capacity and cannot be a durable solution.
Long-term safety requires working with natural processes — containment, geochemical stability, and stewardship — rather than assuming closure against them.
A sustainability debate that ignores this enduring, mobilised uranium inventory rests on an incomplete material accounting.
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, 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.
Further Reading
C. Pescatore (2026). Integrating uranium radiological ingestion risk into environmental safety assessment alongside radium. Science of the Total Environment, 1011, 181055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.181055
Claudio Pescatore is a member of the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University
As many as four of us (Emily Hanscam, Gustav Wollentz, Marcy Rockman and Cornelius Holtorf) participated actively in a stimulating workshop in Höör (Scania, Sweden) on Hopemaking, bringing together artists, an art curator, and scholars at Linnaeus University in English Literature and us in Archaeology with different agendas exploring common ground.
The project explores hopemaking as a way of countering the paralyzing predisposition to imagine future disaster as inevitable and of nurturing alternative cultures of hope and resilience. In the project, we collaborate with three local artists and Kalmar Art Museum in the context of their exhibition entitled “Survival Kit”.
Particularly exciting was to meet the two artists behind Kultivator, Malin and Mathieu. In their experimental work, they combine art with agriculture. For our project, they are keen to contribute to hopemaking by visualizing different futures. We are very excited! 🙂
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.
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
[…] The new funding for this and a number of additional smaller projects, means that the Climate Heritage Network is…
[…] Chair on Heritage Futures « Culture, cultural heritage and COP26 […]
[…] mer på Unescoprofessurens blogg http://blogg.lnu.se/unesco/?p=1061 Besök Öland 2050! […]