EXAM QUESTIONS -> 2 out of 3 questions will come from this
list. The third question is a “thinking question” based on the
knowledge tested here.
Antiquity to Antiquarians
A basic text for the course and the exam is Anne Eriksen, From Antiquities to Heritage.
Transformations of Cultural Memory, New York-Oxford, Berghahn, 2016. Specific strong
attention (study) must be given to the introduction, chapter 1 and chapter 9: quotes of
these three texts can be used to construct a question.
It is contrasted with another basic text by David Harvey, The History of Heritage. This text
deserves your attention, both the general remarks in the first pages and the evolution of
the Avebury case (in case a question is asked about that case, it will be: discuss the
Avebury case in the light of the book by Anne Eriksen and the argument Harvey develops
in the article The History of Heritage in two pages).
PART I — ANNE ERIKSEN
Anne Eriksen’s book starts from a simple but crucial observation: the past has not
always been understood as “heritage.” What we now call heritage is the result of
historical transformations in how societies relate to time, memory, and material
remains.
Heritage is therefore:
• not timeless
• not natural
• not self-evident
It is a modern cultural category that needs explanation.
In earlier centuries, people spoke of antiquities, relics, or curiosities rather than
“heritage.” Collectors and scholars known as antiquarians in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries studied old things out of curiosity, aesthetic admiration, or
patriotism. Their work produced immense knowledge about the past but lacked
the moral and institutional dimension that characterises modern heritage.
The modern shift occurred when societies began to see the past as endangered, when
ruins and monuments were no longer simply admired but needed protection. This
marked the rise of a moral and emotional relationship with history: the sense that we
owe care to what came before us.
,Eriksen connects this change to the emergence of modern historical consciousness ->
the awareness that time moves forward, that history progresses, and that the past can
be lost. Heritage thus arises as a response to loss and to the instability of modernity.
According to Anne Eriksen, heritage only becomes possible with a new experience of
time. Modern historical consciousness is marked by the perception that the past is
irreversibly past, the future is open and uncertain, and the present becomes a
moment of responsibility. This creates a new awareness that the past can disappear
permanently, that loss is irreversible, and that preservation therefore becomes
meaningful. Heritage emerges as a response to this temporal shift.
In this context, heritage must be understood as part of cultural memory. It is a form of
memory that is materialised (objects, monuments, sites), institutionalised (museums,
archives, laws), and stabilised over time. Such memory is inherently selective, reflects
authority and power, and privileges certain pasts over others. Heritage is therefore
never neutral.
Anne Eriksen adopts a genealogical approach to heritage. Rather than searching for a
single origin or a linear development, she traces gradual transformations, paying
particular attention to ruptures, shifts, and changes in meaning. This perspective
shows that heritage is not a natural or timeless category, but something that is
historically contingent, shaped by social, political, and cultural contexts, and
produced through discourses and practices over time.
From this follows Eriksen’s key idea that heritage is always present-centred. Objects,
buildings, or traditions do not become heritage automatically simply because they are
old. Heritage requires selection, interpretation, and legitimation, all of which take
place in the present. Power and authority are therefore always involved in deciding
what counts as heritage and what does not.
Heritage, in this view, tells us as much about the values, concerns, and identities of
the present as about the past itself.
The nineteenth century marks a decisive turning point. Monuments become symbols of
collective identity, preservation is framed as a moral duty, and institutions are created
to safeguard the past. This period represents the transition from antiquarian interest to
modern heritage consciousness, in which the past is actively protected, interpreted,
and managed in the present. Eriksen devotes a key section to what she calls the Cult of
Monuments. During this period, preserving monuments became a moral and patriotic
duty. Monuments were no longer merely aesthetic objects but symbols of national
continuity. Saving them meant saving the nation’s memory.
,In Anne Eriksen’s analysis, heritage expands dramatically in the late 20th and early
21st centuries. What counts as heritage now includes everyday objects, industrial
and working-class sites, popular culture, intangible practices, and digital heritage.
This expansion does not reflect newly discovered intrinsic values in the past, but
changing societal values in the present, what societies choose to care about now.
Chapter 9 shows that contemporary heritage is strongly shaped by presentism.
Heritage is increasingly justified through aims such as social inclusion, participation,
well-being, identity, and democratic access. As a result, heritage is no longer only
about safeguarding objects; it is framed as something that people actively do.
This leads to the emphasis on “doing heritage”: participation, projects, events, and
engagement. The process of heritage work—who is involved, how, and why—often
becomes as important as, or even more important than, the material remains
themselves. Heritage thus appears as dynamic and socially constructed, shaped by
contemporary needs and expectations.
PART II — DAVID HARVEY
According to David Harvey, heritage should be understood as a process rather than a
thing. It is not a fixed inheritance from the past, but the way societies use, interpret,
and mobilise the past in the present. Heritage is continuously reshaped by political,
economic, and cultural forces, which means there is no single origin or stable definition
of heritage.
Harvey strongly links heritage to power and identity. Heritage always involves authority
and control over interpretation. Central questions are who defines what counts as
heritage, who manages it, who has access, and whose past is being represented.
Because of this, heritage plays a crucial role in identity formation at local, national, and
global levels, often reinforcing dominant narratives while marginalising others.
A core contribution of Harvey is his distinction between retrospective and prospective
dimensions of heritage. Heritage is retrospective because it deals with what has
survived from the past, but it is also prospective because it involves decisions about
what should be transmitted to the future. Heritage therefore shapes tomorrow as
much as it remembers yesterday.
Finally, Harvey distinguishes between “big heritage” and “small heritages.” Big
heritage refers to large-scale, institutional, state-driven narratives, while small heritages
include everyday, local, and informal practices. Harvey warns that focusing only on
, oXicial heritage risks silencing local voices and alternative memories, reminding us that
heritage is always plural, contested, and negotiated.
PART III — ERIKSEN AND HARVEY
The word “contrasted” does not mean that Anne Eriksen and David Harvey disagree. It
means they approach heritage from diSerent perspectives.
Eriksen explains how heritage became possible as a modern, present-centred way of
relating to the past. She traces long-term changes in historical consciousness, showing
that heritage emerges when the past is seen as irreversibly lost and preservation
becomes a responsibility of the present.
Harvey, in contrast, focuses on how heritage works in practice. For him, heritage is not
a fixed object but a continuous social and political process, shaped by power, identity,
and negotiation. His discussion of Avebury shows how heritage meanings are
constantly redefined by diXerent actors and how heritage is both retrospective and
future-oriented.
è The texts are contrasted because Eriksen provides a conceptual genealogy of
heritage, while Harvey shows its social and political functioning. They are
complementary rather than opposing
PART IV – AVEBURY CASE
The case of Avebury can be understood particularly well when read through the
combined perspectives of Anne Eriksen and David Harvey. Together, they show that
heritage is neither self-evident nor stable, but historically produced and socially
negotiated.
From Eriksen’s perspective, Avebury exemplifies how heritage depends on a modern
experience of time. For centuries, the stones at Avebury were not treated as heritage at
all. They were dismantled, reused in buildings, or ignored, because material remains
were not yet understood as carriers of historical responsibility. This corresponds to
Eriksen’s argument that interest in the past is not the same as heritage. Only when the
past comes to be perceived as irreversibly lost, and when preservation becomes a
moral concern of the present, can sites like Avebury be reclassified as heritage.
Avebury’s transformation into a protected monument thus reflects the emergence of
modern heritage consciousness, not a timeless valuation of the stones themselves.
Harvey’s analysis shifts the focus from how heritage becomes thinkable to how it
operates in practice. In The History of Heritage, Avebury is used to demonstrate that
list. The third question is a “thinking question” based on the
knowledge tested here.
Antiquity to Antiquarians
A basic text for the course and the exam is Anne Eriksen, From Antiquities to Heritage.
Transformations of Cultural Memory, New York-Oxford, Berghahn, 2016. Specific strong
attention (study) must be given to the introduction, chapter 1 and chapter 9: quotes of
these three texts can be used to construct a question.
It is contrasted with another basic text by David Harvey, The History of Heritage. This text
deserves your attention, both the general remarks in the first pages and the evolution of
the Avebury case (in case a question is asked about that case, it will be: discuss the
Avebury case in the light of the book by Anne Eriksen and the argument Harvey develops
in the article The History of Heritage in two pages).
PART I — ANNE ERIKSEN
Anne Eriksen’s book starts from a simple but crucial observation: the past has not
always been understood as “heritage.” What we now call heritage is the result of
historical transformations in how societies relate to time, memory, and material
remains.
Heritage is therefore:
• not timeless
• not natural
• not self-evident
It is a modern cultural category that needs explanation.
In earlier centuries, people spoke of antiquities, relics, or curiosities rather than
“heritage.” Collectors and scholars known as antiquarians in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries studied old things out of curiosity, aesthetic admiration, or
patriotism. Their work produced immense knowledge about the past but lacked
the moral and institutional dimension that characterises modern heritage.
The modern shift occurred when societies began to see the past as endangered, when
ruins and monuments were no longer simply admired but needed protection. This
marked the rise of a moral and emotional relationship with history: the sense that we
owe care to what came before us.
,Eriksen connects this change to the emergence of modern historical consciousness ->
the awareness that time moves forward, that history progresses, and that the past can
be lost. Heritage thus arises as a response to loss and to the instability of modernity.
According to Anne Eriksen, heritage only becomes possible with a new experience of
time. Modern historical consciousness is marked by the perception that the past is
irreversibly past, the future is open and uncertain, and the present becomes a
moment of responsibility. This creates a new awareness that the past can disappear
permanently, that loss is irreversible, and that preservation therefore becomes
meaningful. Heritage emerges as a response to this temporal shift.
In this context, heritage must be understood as part of cultural memory. It is a form of
memory that is materialised (objects, monuments, sites), institutionalised (museums,
archives, laws), and stabilised over time. Such memory is inherently selective, reflects
authority and power, and privileges certain pasts over others. Heritage is therefore
never neutral.
Anne Eriksen adopts a genealogical approach to heritage. Rather than searching for a
single origin or a linear development, she traces gradual transformations, paying
particular attention to ruptures, shifts, and changes in meaning. This perspective
shows that heritage is not a natural or timeless category, but something that is
historically contingent, shaped by social, political, and cultural contexts, and
produced through discourses and practices over time.
From this follows Eriksen’s key idea that heritage is always present-centred. Objects,
buildings, or traditions do not become heritage automatically simply because they are
old. Heritage requires selection, interpretation, and legitimation, all of which take
place in the present. Power and authority are therefore always involved in deciding
what counts as heritage and what does not.
Heritage, in this view, tells us as much about the values, concerns, and identities of
the present as about the past itself.
The nineteenth century marks a decisive turning point. Monuments become symbols of
collective identity, preservation is framed as a moral duty, and institutions are created
to safeguard the past. This period represents the transition from antiquarian interest to
modern heritage consciousness, in which the past is actively protected, interpreted,
and managed in the present. Eriksen devotes a key section to what she calls the Cult of
Monuments. During this period, preserving monuments became a moral and patriotic
duty. Monuments were no longer merely aesthetic objects but symbols of national
continuity. Saving them meant saving the nation’s memory.
,In Anne Eriksen’s analysis, heritage expands dramatically in the late 20th and early
21st centuries. What counts as heritage now includes everyday objects, industrial
and working-class sites, popular culture, intangible practices, and digital heritage.
This expansion does not reflect newly discovered intrinsic values in the past, but
changing societal values in the present, what societies choose to care about now.
Chapter 9 shows that contemporary heritage is strongly shaped by presentism.
Heritage is increasingly justified through aims such as social inclusion, participation,
well-being, identity, and democratic access. As a result, heritage is no longer only
about safeguarding objects; it is framed as something that people actively do.
This leads to the emphasis on “doing heritage”: participation, projects, events, and
engagement. The process of heritage work—who is involved, how, and why—often
becomes as important as, or even more important than, the material remains
themselves. Heritage thus appears as dynamic and socially constructed, shaped by
contemporary needs and expectations.
PART II — DAVID HARVEY
According to David Harvey, heritage should be understood as a process rather than a
thing. It is not a fixed inheritance from the past, but the way societies use, interpret,
and mobilise the past in the present. Heritage is continuously reshaped by political,
economic, and cultural forces, which means there is no single origin or stable definition
of heritage.
Harvey strongly links heritage to power and identity. Heritage always involves authority
and control over interpretation. Central questions are who defines what counts as
heritage, who manages it, who has access, and whose past is being represented.
Because of this, heritage plays a crucial role in identity formation at local, national, and
global levels, often reinforcing dominant narratives while marginalising others.
A core contribution of Harvey is his distinction between retrospective and prospective
dimensions of heritage. Heritage is retrospective because it deals with what has
survived from the past, but it is also prospective because it involves decisions about
what should be transmitted to the future. Heritage therefore shapes tomorrow as
much as it remembers yesterday.
Finally, Harvey distinguishes between “big heritage” and “small heritages.” Big
heritage refers to large-scale, institutional, state-driven narratives, while small heritages
include everyday, local, and informal practices. Harvey warns that focusing only on
, oXicial heritage risks silencing local voices and alternative memories, reminding us that
heritage is always plural, contested, and negotiated.
PART III — ERIKSEN AND HARVEY
The word “contrasted” does not mean that Anne Eriksen and David Harvey disagree. It
means they approach heritage from diSerent perspectives.
Eriksen explains how heritage became possible as a modern, present-centred way of
relating to the past. She traces long-term changes in historical consciousness, showing
that heritage emerges when the past is seen as irreversibly lost and preservation
becomes a responsibility of the present.
Harvey, in contrast, focuses on how heritage works in practice. For him, heritage is not
a fixed object but a continuous social and political process, shaped by power, identity,
and negotiation. His discussion of Avebury shows how heritage meanings are
constantly redefined by diXerent actors and how heritage is both retrospective and
future-oriented.
è The texts are contrasted because Eriksen provides a conceptual genealogy of
heritage, while Harvey shows its social and political functioning. They are
complementary rather than opposing
PART IV – AVEBURY CASE
The case of Avebury can be understood particularly well when read through the
combined perspectives of Anne Eriksen and David Harvey. Together, they show that
heritage is neither self-evident nor stable, but historically produced and socially
negotiated.
From Eriksen’s perspective, Avebury exemplifies how heritage depends on a modern
experience of time. For centuries, the stones at Avebury were not treated as heritage at
all. They were dismantled, reused in buildings, or ignored, because material remains
were not yet understood as carriers of historical responsibility. This corresponds to
Eriksen’s argument that interest in the past is not the same as heritage. Only when the
past comes to be perceived as irreversibly lost, and when preservation becomes a
moral concern of the present, can sites like Avebury be reclassified as heritage.
Avebury’s transformation into a protected monument thus reflects the emergence of
modern heritage consciousness, not a timeless valuation of the stones themselves.
Harvey’s analysis shifts the focus from how heritage becomes thinkable to how it
operates in practice. In The History of Heritage, Avebury is used to demonstrate that
