Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
The range and definition of heritage is wide: for the last forty years, numerous guidelines, recommendations and principles have sought to delimit the scope of heritage. Today, the term spans from individual buildings and sites, to groups of buildings, historical areas, towns, environments, social factors and, more recently, to intangible heritage (Ahmad, 2006, p.299). Intangible heritage is described as the collection of shared values and collective memories. UNESCO identifies heritage as our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Both cultural and natural heritage are irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration. These unique and diverse places make up our world’s heritage.
The two poles of material and immaterial goods, connected with a responsibility for conservation and various comprehensive preservation agreements, are the end result and final outcome of heritage. The final outcome is organized through institutions, expertise, and job profiles, and at the end heritage is used as a marketing resource. The perceived risk of loss triggers the mechanisms of recognition, conservation and preservation. However, preservation is always based on a selection, because not everything can be preserved and glorified. At the same time, conflicts may arise between marginalized interest groups and those in power, based on differing interests. The social process whose final outcome is the presentation and interpretation of heritage is describes as heritagization. It is about the usage of the past where heritage is used as a resource to achieve certain social goals (Poria, 2010, p.218).
In this paper I would like to draw attention to different points of conflict which may occur in the course of heritagization, using the historical site of Petra in Jordan as a concrete case study.