Percepción ciudadana del patrimonio mundial y la arqueología en tres ciudades españolasprimeros casos de estudio

  1. Castillo, Alicia 1
  2. Domínguez, Marta 2
  3. Yáñez, Ana 3
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid Facultad de Geografía e Historia. Departamento de Prehistoria
  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología. Departamento de Sociología II
  3. 3 Universidad Complutense de Madrid Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología. Sección Departamental de Derecho Administrativo
Journal:
Complutum

ISSN: 1131-6993 1988-2327

Year of publication: 2016

Issue Title: Interpreting the Past through Participatory Approaches: Ideals and Challenges in Archaeological Practice

Volume: 27

Issue: 2

Pages: 295-314

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/CMPL.54747 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Complutum

Metrics

Cited by

  • Scopus Cited by: 5 (29-01-2024)
  • Dialnet Métricas Cited by: 4 (18-02-2024)
  • Web of Science Cited by: 5 (19-10-2023)
  • Dimensions Cited by: 4 (06-01-2024)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Year 2016
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.186
  • Best Quartile: Q2
  • Area: Archeology (arts and humanities) Quartile: Q2 Rank in area: 116/314
  • Area: History Quartile: Q2 Rank in area: 320/1276
  • Area: Archeology Quartile: Q2 Rank in area: 118/294

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

  • Year 2016
  • Journal Impact: 0.270
  • Field: HISTORIA Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 37/310
  • Field: ARQUEOLOGÍA Y PREHISTORIA Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 12/61

CIRC

  • Social Sciences: A
  • Human Sciences: A+

Scopus CiteScore

  • Year 2016
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 0.2
  • Area: History Percentile: 42
  • Area: Archeology (arts and humanities) Percentile: 33
  • Area: Archeology Percentile: 33

Dimensions

(Data updated as of 06-01-2024)
  • Total citations: 4
  • Recent citations (2 years): 2
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR): 1.8

Abstract

This text presents a first methodological experience aimed at understanding the social perception of the archaeological dimension and of World Heritage (WH) in three Spanish cities. Firstly, the rationale behind this kind of study is considered as resulting from previous research performed. This research revealed that archaeological heritage is absent in many of the European and Latin-American cities inscribed in the WH list. Secondly, Alcalá de Henares, Córdoba and Toledo, the three cities selected as case-studies, are briefly presented. All of them have developed archaeological heritage management strategies at least from the 1980’s onward; however, they are “less spectacular or socially recognized” than other “classical archaeological cities” in Spain. Thirdly, the methodology, composed of qualitative and quantitative techniques, is called into question since it is necessary to keep on working on it. Finally, the main results of each case study are compared and analyzed. Significantly, we observed a marked indifference among the inhabitants of these cities regarding the town’s archaeology and World Heritage. Additionally, there is an absolute disconnect between expert and the lay people visions. Consequently, it was necessary to reflect upon the problem and to perform (sometimes even more recurrently) social-perception studies to bridge the gap between both visions and to justify the efforts made to preserve and study Cultural Heritage.

Bibliographic References

  • Almansa Sánchez, J. (2006) La imagen popular de la Arqueología en Madrid. ArqueoWeb [online], vol. 8, n.º 1 http://www.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb [Accessed 5/06/2013]
  • Castillo, A. (2015). Mapping stakeholders in archaeological heritage management, in H.Von Dries.; van der Linde, S.J.; and Strecker, A. (eds.): Fernweh, crossing borders and connecting people in archaeological heritage management. Essays in honour of prof. Willem J.H. Willems. Leiden: Sidestone Press. 64-7.
  • Castillo, A., Querol, M.A. (2014). Archaeological Dimension of World Heritage: From Prevention to Social Implications. In Castillo (Ed.). 2014. Archaeological Dimension of World Heritage: From Prevention to Social Implications. EEUU. Springer: 1-11.
  • Castillo, A., Menéndez, S. (2014) Managing Urban Archaeological Heritage: Latin American Case Studies International Journal of Cultural Property, 21: 55-77.
  • Castillo, A. Yañez, A., Domínguez, M., Salto-Weiss, I. (2015) Citizenship and heritage commitment: looking for participatory methodologies adapted to the urban cultural heritage context. Proceedings of Scientific Symposium "Heritage and Landscape as Human Values" ICOMOS 18 General Assembly2014. Italy.
  • Castillo, A.(2013) Archaeological Heritage management in the World Heritage: a proposal from Preventive Archaeology. Jansson, B. (Ed) The Significance of World Heritage: Origins, Management, Consequences The Future of the World Heritage Convention in a Nordic Perspective Papers Presented at Two Conferences in Falun (Sweden) 2010 and in Vasa (Finland) 2011. University of Dalarna. Sweden: 179-195. Reviewed paper presentation
  • Castillo, A., Mestre; M. (2012) Ciudades Patrimonio Mundial y sus delimitaciones: casos de estudio en España. Proceedings of Conference: Paisaje cultural urbano e identidad territorial 2° Coloquio Internacional RIGPAC, Florence 2012. Italy: 906-919.
  • Balme , J.; Wilson , M. (2004) Perceptions of Archaeology in Australia amongst educated young Australians. Australian Archaeology, n.º 58, pp. 19-24
  • Ibáñez Alfonso, M.A. (2013) El patrimonio arqueológico de Sevilla, una reflexión desde la arqueología pública. PH investigación [en línea], n.º 1, diciembre de 2013, pp. 89-106 http://www.iaph.es/phinvestigacion/index.php/phinvestigacion/article/view/10 [Accessed: 20/06/2014]
  • Martëns, G., Castillo, A. (2012). Arqueología y Patrimonio Mundial: internet y la difusión del conocimiento. In Castillo, A. (Ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Archaeology. 2012. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Madrid: 709-720.
  • Martínez, B, Castillo, A.(2007). Preventive Archaeology in Spain"In Bozoky ed. European Preventive Archaeology. Papers of the EPAC meeting, 2004. Vilnius. 187-208 Ed. Consejo de Europa. Letonia.
  • Méndez, A.(1991) La protección del Patrimonio Arqueológico. El ejemplo de Alcalá de Henares Arqueología, Paleontología y Etnografía, 2. Ed: Consejería de Cultura. Comunidad de Madrid. 267-290.
  • Méndez, A. (2000) El Patrimonio Arqueológico en la ciudad de Alcalá de Henares. El parque arqueológico “Ciudad romana de Complutum” Ciudad, Arqueología y Desarrollo. La Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. Primer Congreso Internacional. Consejería de Educación de la CM, Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, Museu D´Historia de la Ciutat de Barcelona. Alcalá de Henares, septiembre de 2000. Madrid: 89-113.
  • Morate Martín, G. (2007) Conocimiento y percepción del patrimonio histórico en la sociedad española. E-rph: revista electrónica de patrimonio histórico, n.º 1, diciembre 2007 <http://www.revistadepatrimonio.es> [Accessed: 30/07/2013]
  • Morate Martín, G. (2012) (Ed). Conocimiento y percepción del patrimonio histórica en la sociedad española. Fundación Caja Madrid. Madrid. Spain.
  • Mori (2000) Attitudes Towards the Heritage. Research Study Conducted for English Heritage [en línea] .London: English Heritage, 2000 <http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/> [Accessed: 23/06/2013]
  • Murillo, J. (2006) La gestión del Patrimonio Arqueológico en el ámbito del Plan Especial del Casco Histórico y del Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Córdoba. In Actas de las terceras jornadas de Patrimonio Arqueológico en la Comunidad de Madrid. Madrid. Spain: 21-37.
  • Pokotylo D.; Guppy, N. (1999) Public Opinion and Archaeological Heritage: Views from Outside the Profession. American Antiquity, 1999, vol. 64, n.º 3, pp. 400-416
  • Pokotylo, D.;Mason, A. (1991) Public Attitudes towards Archaeological Resources and their Management in Ehrenhard, J.E.; Smith, G.S.(ed.) Protecting the Past: Readings in Archaeological Resource Protection. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 9-18.
  • Poria Yaniv, Reichel Arie, Cohen Raviv. (2013). Tourists perceptions of World Heritage Site and its designation. Tourism Management, 2013, 35, 272-274.
  • Prats, L. (2003).Patrimonio+turismo= ¿desarrollo? Pasos 1: 127-36
  • Querol, M.A. (2010) Manual de Gestión del Patrimonio Cultural. Madrid: Akal, 2010
  • Ramos, M.; Duganne, D. (2000) Exploring public perceptions and attitudes about archaeology sl: Harris Interactive, 2000 <http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA/pubedu/nrptdraft4.pdf> [Accessed: 6/05/2012]
  • Ruíz Taboada (2010) Historia Arqueológica de la Vega Baja, Toledo. In Querol 2010: 228.
  • Sagardoy, T;Castillo, A. (2012). Estrategias para la protección del patrimonio arqueológico: comparativa entre ciudades declaradas Patrimonio Mundial en el contexto Europeo. .In Castillo, A. (Ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Archaeology. 2012. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Madrid: 86-105.
  • Sánchez-Carretero, C. (2012). Heritage Regimes and the Camino de Santiago: Gaps and Logics, in Bendix, R.F.; Eggert, A. And Peselmann, A. (eds.) Heritage Regimes and the State. Göttingen Studies in Cultural Property. Vol. 6. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen
  • Sanchez Chiquito, M.S. (2007) Toledo: la gestión de un Conjunto Histórico declarado Patrimonio de la Humanidad. Coord. by María del Mar Zarzalejos Prieto, Miguel Angel García Valero, Luis Benítez de Lugo Enrich, 2007 Actas del I Congreso de Patrimonio Histórico de Castilla-La Mancha: La gestión del Patrimonio Histórico Regional: homenaje a Victoria Cabrera Valdés / Vol. 1: 29-42
  • Sanchez Chiquito, M.S. (2011) El Consorcio de Toledo: la rehabilitación de la ciudad y su valoración. Her&Mus: heritage & museography, 2011, Vol. 3, N.1.
  • Sars, F. De; Cambe, G. (2011) Image de l´archéologie auprès du grand public [en línea]. sl: Ipsos/INRAP, 2011 (Etude n° 10-050090-01)<http://www.inrap.fr/userdata/c_bloc_file/12/12047/12047_fichier_IPSOS-archeologie.pdf> [Accessed: 20/05/2014]
  • Troitiño, Ma. (1995) Ciudad y patrimonio cultural: el centro histórico de Cuenca. Anales de Geografia, 15. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
  • Yañez, A. (2012) ¿Cómo consideran los jueces el Patrimonio Mundial y la Arqueología en sus decisiones? Respuesta e incidencia en el planeamiento territorial. In Castillo, A. (Ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Archaeology. 2012. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Madrid: 497-510
  • Zimmer, J.; WilK, R.; Pyburn, A. (1995) A Survey of Attitudes and Values in Archaeological Practice. Society for American Archaeology Bulletin, 1995, vol. 13, n.º 5, pp. 10-12