Session 1
The
Meaning of Common Heritage
Presented
by Professor Simon Goldhill, a visiting expert and
Professor of Greek from Cambridge
University.
Professor
Goldhill raised numerous questions focused on the meaning
of shared heritage illustrated through the explanation of
several Greek words. Professor Goldhill posed several
provocative questions such as; "What would happen if we
termed the sites as 'sites of contested cultural heritage?"
He asserted that "the written explanation of a site be a
brief set of facts, the truth, which none the less
recognizes the different histories of the site, which notes
its symbolic role and its historical functions, and tries
to indicate why people have cared about it, without forcing
any particular agenda".
The lecture was followed by a lengthy question and answer
session focused on defining terms, language and
practicality. There was general support for the word
"shared" as an expression of the positive influence the
PUSH project hopes to have on the understanding of the
shared heritage in the region. A semantics discussion
ensued which aimed to clarify the definitions of the
following terms: shared, dialogue, cultural understanding
and heritage. It was agreed that the notion of heritage
changes in space and time and its interpretation is what is
important in a contested country. A dominating subject was
the issue of inclusivity versus exclusivity in the
narrative. It was agreed that we must define which physical
sites we would like to include and that there must be a
strong narrative thread which connects the serial sites.
After several hours of discussion numerous questions
remained unresolved such as: Do we have the ability to
respect and understand the other's interpretation? How do
we remain in constant recognition of the other? How do we
allow multiple stories to be told while not destroying the
archeological evidence? Numerous questions surrounding the
political issue of ownership followed, not only in terms of
physical possession but also in terms of sharing a memory.
Several participants noted that truth is in it of itself a
contested issue and that human engagement in a site is what
is important since people transfer onto the physical site
the human story and value. The fundamental interest of the
project is not only to explore the different narratives but
also to allow a person to separate the history and
tradition of the land from his/her national identity
allowing for greater historical honesty and understanding.
The discussion ended in a practical discussion of how to
use cultural heritage sites to promote dialogue and
cultural awareness and an analysis of the project's
available tools and next steps.
