This course is designed to provide an introduction to FESA concepts and methods involved in the forensic investigation into, and provision of expert opinion on, culturally-based tenure claims to lands, waters and/or natural resources.

The course introduces social anthropological concepts, terms and definitions relevant to culturally-based land claims, including: An introduction to the identification of autochthonous models of tenure, mechanisms of tenure transmission, and mechanisms for realising tenure; Contextual legal-administrative factors relevant to developing appropriate theoretical models of land tenure; Relevant consultation, data collection and analytical techniques, with a focus on geospatial mapping and population networks; Participatory mapping techniques involving claimants, and; Legal-administrative variations between statutory and common law regimes relevant to land claims.

Tutor biography

Dr James Rose is a forensic and expert social anthropologist specialising in culturally-based land claims, cultural heritage protection, data governance and geographic information systems. His methodological focus includes network-based population dynamics and social and kinship network analysis. James holds two decades' experience working with Australian state, territory and federal government agencies and departments, Commonwealth institutes, industry regulators, health service providers, universities, community-controlled organisations, and the private sector, and is a Senior Research Fellow with the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health.

University of Melbourne: https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/profile/843112-james-rose

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4983-1393

Private consulting website: https://www.relational.net.au

Watch a recording of James Rose discussing Forensic Expert Social Anthropology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ryb1wyU2aE 

Course objective & structure

Upon completion, students will have a working knowledge of forensic and expert social anthropological terms, definitions and concepts relevant to culturally based land claims, including elementary theoretical principles and methodological techniques. Students will develop an understanding of the relationship between national-level legal-administrative land claim regimes and international conventions, based on relevant case studies.

The course will be delivered synchronously in a virtual format over 8 x 1-hour classes. Each class will be comprised of a seminar oriented towards recommended readings and case studies, followed by class discussion.

Classes are designed to introduce students to contemporary best-practice in the subject area by orienting them towards case studies based on the tutor’s professional experience and leading relevant literature. The discussion component of each class is intended to allow students to familiarise themselves via a semi-structured Q&A format with the tutor.

Summary of seminar topics

• Class 1: Identifying communities of culturally-defined land owners
• Class 2: Identifying appropriate idea systems for land tenure modelling
• Class 3: Linking culturally-defined communities to areas of land
• Class 4: Modelling and analysing culturally-defined communities
• Class 5: Modelling and analysing land areas
• Class 6: Integrating models of community and models of land
• Class 7: Participatory Mapping in Land Claims
• Class 8: International Examples of National-Level Land Claim Processes

Further information about classes:

Class 1: Identifying communities of culturally-defined land owners

This class introduces social anthropological definitions of culturally-based land tenure, using a 3-part model comprising: a) autochthonous models of tenure; b) autochthonous mechanisms of tenure transmission, and; c) autochthonous mechanisms for realising tenure. The class will focus on a) models of tenure arising from systems of ideas spanning kinship, language, religion and economy; b) mechanisms of transmission including heredity and exchange, and; c) mechanisms for the realisation of tenure, including ownership, custodianship and stewardship.

Questions:

1. What are the key features of idea systems by which communities of people define their claims to land?
2. What are the key features of the mechanisms by which claims to land are transmitted?
3. What are the key features of the mechanisms by which claims to land are realised?
4. Why is isomorphism between idea systems a critical factor in modelling land tenure?

Class 2: Identifying appropriate idea systems for land tenure modelling

Legal-administrative processes vary significantly with regard to statutory and common law requirements for demonstrating culturally-based land tenure. This means that FESA practitioners must select appropriate idea systems on which to model land tenure, according to a range of contextual factors. This class introduces principles for identifying the most appropriate idea systems on which to model land tenure, using the three-part model introduced in Class 1. The class will focus particularly on the interdependence between claims to ownership, custodianship and stewardship of land.

Questions:

1. What are some of the key international examples of culturally-based land claim regimes?
2. What is the key difference between statutory and common law requirements for FESA input, with regard to culturally-based claims to land?
3. What are some of the historical factors that should be considered when identifying appropriate parameters for modelling culturally-based land tenure?
4. How are ownership, custodianship, and stewardship affected by historical factors, and how does this influence the identification of appropriate bases for modelling tenure?

Class 3: Linking culturally-defined communities to areas of land

Using the three-part model introduced in Class 1, this class describes methods for identifying areas of land over which a given autochthonous community asserts tenure according to culturally-specific idea systems.

Questions:

1. How can autochthonous systems of ideas about types of relationship between types of people be used to create formal models of land tenure?
2. What types of information need to be collected and what types of data need to be processed from this information in order to build formal models of land tenure?
3. What is the minimum requirement for such formal models to be considered reasonably probative?

Class 4: Modelling and analysing culturally-defined communities

This class introduces technical methods for modelling communities of culturally-defined land tenure holders, including matrices and networks, where land tenure comprises an extensible attribute of these models. The class introduces methods for analysing these models using entry-level software.

Questions:

1. How can matrices be used to model data on culturally-based land tenure?
2. How are network models built from matrices?
3. How can network theory be used to model communities of culturally-defined land tenure holders?
4. What are the relative merits of matrix and network models for demonstrating culturally-based land tenure?

Class 5: Modelling and analysing land areas

This class introduces technical methods for modelling areas of land, including elementary geospatial models, and methods for analysing these models using entry-level software.

Questions:

1. What are the three key elementary objects used in geographic information systems (GIS) and how are they used to model geography?
2. What are the key features of all GIS software?
3. What are some examples of industry standard GIS software and what are some of the basic differences between them?
4. What are the basic functions of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in fieldwork associated with mapping land claim areas?

Class 6: Integrating models of community and models of land

This class describes theories and methods for linking models of communities and models of land into integrated systemic models of tenure, mechanisms of transmission, and mechanisms for the realisation of tenure. The class introduces methods for visualising these integrated models using entry-level software.

Questions:

1. What are the contrasts between conventional territorial mapping and FESA mapping in the context of land claims?
2. What opportunities are conferred by existing GIS and GPS technologies for FESA mapping?
3. What are two key methods for integrating matrix and network models into GIS models?
4. What are the two key corollary methods for detecting association between culturally-based tenure-holding communities and specific areas of land?
5. What are the relative merits of these two integrated models and attendant corollary methods for detecting association?

Class 7: Participatory Mapping in Land Claims

This class overviews approaches to participatory mapping in legal-administrative settings, and reviews relevant international examples of participatory mapping as a form of forensic investigation.

Questions:

1. What are the merits of participatory mapping as a FESA investigative technique?
2. What are some of the risks that participatory mapping can introduce and how can these risks be managed?
3. What are the distinct data collection methods involved in local and remote participatory mapping?

Class 8: International Examples of National-Level Land Claim Processes

This class revisits variations between statutory and common law land claim regimes introduced in Class 2, and introduces specific international examples of each where FESA practitioners play a role.

Questions:

1. What are the key differences between statutory and common law frameworks for culturally-based land claims, from the perspective of potential FESA involvement?
2. How do historical factors that vary within and between statutory and common law jurisdictions affect the role of FESA practitioners, and the scope of their involvement?
3. What are some of the potential technological opportunities and constraints that FESA practitioners might consider in assessing the scope of their involvement in a culturally-based land claim?

Please email education@therai.org.uk with any questions.

This course examines the relationship between art and anthropology covering the latest theories, and debates in the field.

Anthropology and Art have mutually-entwined histories. In this course, we shall look at the relationships that historically tied these disciplines through a series of topics of current relevance. Questions raised during our examination of specific issues such as ‘primitivism,’ ‘exoticism,’ and the development of new contexts for the, collection, display, and consumption of art, among others, will help you to mature critical skills, and cross-cultural perspectives. Drawing on a vast repertoire and expertise of anthropologists and art historians, the course will address museum specialists, curators, gallerists, collectors, and theorists’ concerns over the nature of art, and what turns certain items into valuable objects.

Key words: Art and Anthropology; History of Anthropology; World Arts; Crafts; Folk Arts; Material Culture; Tourist Arts; Museum Anthropology; Ethnographic Artefacts

Tutor biography

Dr. Max Carocci is Adjunct Professor of Art History and Visual Culture at the Richmond American University in London. For more than twenty years he has been teaching anthropology, art, visual and material culture in a variety of universities across the UK (Birkbeck College, Goldsmiths College, Chelsea College of Art, UCL, University of East Anglia). In addition to his academic career, he has served as curator at the British Museum, the Weltkulturen Museum Frankfurt, the Venice Biennale, and several institutions (including the RAI), and galleries in Britain and abroad. Max has published widely on a variety of subjects at the intersection of Anthropology and Art. Among his latest publications,Art, Observation, and an Anthropology of Illustration(co-edited with Stephanie Pratt, Bloomsbury, 2022), andArt, Shamanism and Animism(co-edited with Robert J. Wallis, MDPI: Basel, 2022).

https://www.maxcarocci.com/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/max-carocci-62a50b17/

https://richmond-uk.academia.edu/MaxCarocci

Course objective & structure

The course is taught remotely. It is divided into 10 sessions based on lectures (power points presentations), complemented by small group conversation, and question and answers. Students are invited to fully participate in the discussion and analysis to hone their skills and develop new ones

You will be learning about issues that are germane to the management, interpretation, and evaluation of world peoples’ cultural property, arts, and crafts. It is expected that by the end of the course you will have developed analytical and critical skills through evaluative and comprehensive summaries of current issues related to the nature of art, and questions of perception and representation.

Summary of seminar topics

• Week 1 – Introducing Art and Anthropology.
• Week 2 - Non-Western Artefacts in the West.
• Week 3 – Ethnographic Artefacts versus Art.
• Week 4 - Form and Function.
• Week 5 – Structures and Symbols.
• Week 6 – Authorship, Authenticity and Provenance.
• Week 7 – Heritage, Inspiration, Ethics, and Cultural Appropriation.
• Week 8 - Decolonising Art Practices and Museums.
• Week 9 –Contemporary Worlds.
• Week 10 – Future Directions and Recap.

Further information about classes:

Week 1 – Introducing Art and Anthropology.

The historically distinct disciplines of art history and anthropology have developed their theories and methods in separate geographical areas: Europe and countries under the European influence, and the rest of the world respectively. Although anthropology brought to the attention of the academic community examples from different cultures, art history has been slow in embracing the study of arts from most parts of the world. In this session, we look at the historical trajectories that turned art history and anthropology to opposite directions as a way to examine the emergence of large theoretical and methodological gaps that have rendered the discussion of most world regions’ arts marginal to the cross-cultural study of artefacts, and aesthetics in most Western academic circles outside anthropology.

Questions:

1. How do art history and anthropology differ?

2. What are the scopes and aims of the two disciplines?

3. What questions will each of the two disciplines ask?

4. Why did anthropology mostly focus on non-Western cultures?

5. To what extent is art history only concerned with European and European-influenced cultures?

Week 2 - Non-Western Artefacts in the West.

Cultures have been in contact for millennia and objects exchanged hands since antiquity through trade, curiosity, and anthropological research. In this brief excursus of West’s multiple engagements with non-Western artefacts, we uncover the impact they had on the European imagination, from Renaissance cabinets of curiosity to Picasso and the Surrealists’ collecting of African and ‘tribal’ arts. A short history of the birth and differentiation of various types of museums will contextualise the ways in which European discourses on non-Western arts have been constructed on ideas of cultural difference (ethnographic arts), primitivism (prehistoric and tribal arts), exoticism (tourist arts), and orientalism (decorative and applied arts from eastern countries) to analyse how even today, art beyond the West is perceived and valued according to these standards. Between week 2 and week 3 students will be asked to visit a museum in anticipation of a class discussion in week 3 (e.g. Horniman Museum, British Museum, Wellcome collections London, Oxford Pitt Rivers, Cambridge Museum of Anthropology, Ashmolean, Brighton Pavillion, etc.).

Questions:

1. How have ideas of primitivism, orientalism, exoticism and cultural difference impacted European understandings of non-Western artefacts?

2. To what extent can we link the idea of collecting with Europe’s colonial past?

3. When did the notion of the ‘primitive’ emerge and why?

4. In what context can we talk about ‘tribal’ arts?

5. What is the status of ‘oriental’ arts in the Western imagination?

Week 3 – Ethnographic Artefacts versus Art.

Anthropology’s interest in cultural diversity is behind the creation of large collections of artefacts from all the world regions. Often these objects are stored and displayed in museums specifically build for them in the 19th c. Items gathered in ethnographic collections stand in stark contrast with art pieces that epitomise national heritages. With this lecture we aim at highlighting the subtle differences there are between folk traditions, cultural heritage, ethnographic objects, national collections, and high arts. These classifications will be juxtaposed to make sense of the contextual perceptions associated with diverse cultural productions from different parts of the world. We will specifically focus on the art-artefact nexus that still polarises popular perceptions and representations circulating in various places.

Questions:

1. How has the division between art and artefact been used in Western institutional discourse?

2. What is the status of artefacts in places where they are presented as ‘folk’ culture?

3. What are the differences between folk and ethnographic arts?

4. To what extent can contemporary non-Western arts be considered ‘ethnographic’?

5. What are the implications for dividing high art from ethnographic and folk art?

Week 4 - Form and Function.

An anthropological study of art does not simply mean introducing non-Western arts in the comparative analysis of objects with aesthetic value, it is a more complex exercise that questions what counts as art, one that analyses whether or not what we can usually call ‘art’ practices (painting, sculpture, performance etc.) can be applicable to objects and experiences that in contexts outside the West may not be classified as such. Here we address how at the beginning anthropology began to study art produced in areas outside Europe, progressively moving away from formal analyses of objects and diffusion of ideas (Boas) to study their function from the vantage point of social structure (Sieber). Here we examine the limitations and advantages of using diffusionist and structural-functionalist ideas in the study of art developed in early anthropology.

Questions:

1. How far can a study of form and function take an anthropological analysis of artefacts?

2. What are the limitations and benefits of using a diffusionist framework for an understanding of artistic changes?

3. What was Boas’s most ground-breaking contribution to the study of non-Western arts?

4. What is anthropology’s aim in studying non-Western arts if its object is not limited to studying aesthetics?

5. How do we deal with artefacts that appear to be ‘art’ in places where there is no such concept?

Week 5 – Structures and Symbols.

Developments within anthropology shifted the attention from the function of objects to their inherent communicative potential. Art began to be interpreted as a symbolic language (Levi Strauss), then as text (Geertz), until anthropologists started looking at the materiality of objects to develop new theories (Miller). In this latter phase objects and humans were discussed as mutually constituted through practice. This new perspective was further developed into the notion of the agency of objects (Gell), which became extremely influential in new shifts towards anthropological theories of art. Agency theory eventually led to a new interest in local ideas about the active role of things, and how they are frequently thought to be alive. This lesson looks at the implications for direct applications of these theories to a study of artefacts worldwide.

Questions:

1. What was Levi-Strauss’s contribution to art history, and the study of art in anthropology?

2. Why did anthropologists after Levi-Strauss engaged with the materiality of objects?

3. Following Gell’s theory, how far can stretch the notion that objects have ‘agency’?

4. In many places artefacts embody the presence of invisible entities, what are the implications for collectors, museum professionals and gallerists?

5. How can we explain the communicative potential of objects in non-Western contexts?

Week 6 – Authorship, Authenticity and Provenance.

Art historical prerogatives and parameters have very frequently offered a template for museums, galleries and collectors. Issues of provenance, authenticity and authorship are germane to the valuation of art/ethnographic/folk objects that circulate in multiple ways through art market circuits, auction houses, and museum acquisition channels. Here we discuss the implications and consequences for framing art pieces in terms of their market value, and the impact that connoisseurship may have in establishing aesthetic standards, economic worth, and prestige for individual pieces and eventually, entire collections.

Questions:

1. How important is to determine an object’s authorship?

2. To what extent we can say that traditional cultures are unchanging?

3. What are the implications for applying aesthetic judgements to non-western artefacts?

4. How compatible are European and non-Western aesthetic systems?

5. Why do Western institutions insist on the provenance of non-Western artefacts?

Week 7 – Heritage, Inspiration, Ethics, and Cultural Appropriation.

Peoples whose objects have been acquired during colonialism often consider items part of these collections as their cultural heritage. Claiming legitimacy on these items’ designs and specificity results in harsh diatribes on who has the right to produce, sell, or market art inspired by them, or that uses traditional motifs more generally. While the issue of authorship is not a universal concern, the mounting interest in these questions has generated legal and moral dilemmas for the display of non-Western objects more generally. Importantly, it has highlighted important problems related to the ethics of dispossession, the sale of art pieces from questionable sources, and representation of sensitive material (secret, religious, controversial) in museums and galleries to the larger public.

Questions:

1. ‘Ethnic’ arts are source of inspiration for designers, fashion stylists and artists, how legitimate are non-Western peoples’ accusations of cultural appropriation?

2. Inspiration and creativity are at the core of Western market’s driving forces, how ethical is the use of non-Western motifs in Western-produced merchandise?

3. On what bases have display and sale of sacred objects in museums, auctions, and galleries been criticised?

4. How can museums, galleries, collectors, and auction houses respond to the mounting criticism of being the soft arm of neo-colonial ideologies?

5. What could institutions do to integrate non-Eurocentric strategies in their practice?

Week 8 - Decolonising Art Practices and Museums.

In the post-colonial era the active presence of non-Western and indigenous artists has radically reshaped the discourse and practices of art markets, museum representations, as well as collecting. Increasing pressure to relinquish colonial legacies entrenched in institutional operations of museums, art galleries, and auction houses have put in sharp focus minorities’ issues about power, notions of value, and problems of access to networks. Institutional marginalisation has prevented many artists around the world to actively engage with high-end trade markets limiting their creations to being perceived as either simple expressions of their cultures, or poor derivative copies of Western templates/models. This lesson also covers issues of repatriation and the establishment of tribal museums and indigenously-run cultural centres.

Questions:

1. What were the consequences of postcolonial independence for heritage, art, and folklore?

2. What are the differences between postcolonial states, and settler colonial states with regards to the arts and heritage?

3. How do socioeconomic differences impact non-Western artists/craftspeople access to art trade networks?

4. What place do minority, indigenous, and postcolonial arts have in the current art trade?

5. How far have galleries, auction houses, and museums engaged with postcolonial critiques?

Week 9 –Contemporary Worlds.

Biennales, museums, and art galleries are becoming increasingly more attuned to the emergence of new voices from the peripheries of the art historical world. Starting from the earliest attempts at creating new forums for the display and sale of non-European and indigenous arts, the lecture will cover the often contentious curatorial choices that over time have guided public perceptions of the art trade’s new ventures (investments in Aboriginal, Tribal Indian, or African arts), and the establishment of new discourses around them. This lesson will also address the most recent attempts at involving increasingly more artists in the art market by way of temporary exhibitions, and the effect of specialised galleries’ activities (e.g. expert forums, artist talks, educational lectures, round tables etc.).

Questions:

1. How can we explain the absence of indigenous, and non-Western artists in the art trade circuits?

2. What can non-Western artists contribute to the art discourse and anthropology?

3. Why would anthropology be interested in contemporary non-Western art and artists?

4. What is the role of the ethnic-contemporary art dichotomy in today’s art market?

5. How can we explain the overwhelming interest in some non-Western regional arts and the lack of attention to other areas?

Week 10 – Future Directions and Recap.

The complex issues engendered by the multiple intersections between all the actors that have roles in museums, art trade, and source communities (the makers of the arts outside the West) offer interesting new possibilities for the practice of both art and anthropology. In particular, they underscore the necessity of contextually evaluating the premises upon which professionals working in these fields may base their choices for working with specific communities. Contexts generated by the various connections between artists, source communities, collectors, gallerists and museum professionals indicate new exciting avenues for the exploration of alternative ways of working with and across disciplinary boundaries that so far have bound, both practically and discursively, activities and theories to their respective disciplines. In this session we explore new possibilities to advance novel approaches for dealing with art at the crossroad between art history and anthropology.

Questions:

1. How will museums deal with contemporary artists from areas well represented in their ethnographic collections?

2. What future productive areas of engagement can we foresee between source communities, collectors, and institutions (e.g. galleries, museums, art trade, and auction houses)?

3. How useful could it be to apply different strategies of interaction between source communities, collectors, galleries, museums, art trade, and auction houses?

4. To what extent art history and anthropology will remain separate domain of investigation in the foreseeable future?

5. Museums and galleries’ attention to artefacts limits our understanding of arts as the study of objects. Will there ever be a chance to challenge this model with alternative scenarios?

View our other courses here.

This course is designed to provide an introduction to FESA concepts and methods involved in the identification and preservation of sacred sites and objects, including natural and synthetic structures and objects that are revered as religiously significant by culturally distinct communities.

The course introduces social anthropological concepts, terms and definitions relevant to tangible cultural heritage preservation, focussing on legal and social scientific definitions of 'sacredness' as they apply to natural and synthetic structures and objects. The course will explore: The roles of sacred sites and objects as expressions of religious systems of ideas; Methods for identifying culturally significant sites, objects and relevant community knowledge holders in interview settings; The development of international conventions for the protection of tangible cultural heritage following World War 2, and; The interaction between national-level preservation regimes and international conventions.

Tutor biography

Dr James Rose is a forensic and expert social anthropologist specialising in culturally-based land claims, cultural heritage protection, data governance and geographic information systems. His methodological focus includes network-based population dynamics and social and kinship network analysis. James holds two decades' experience working with Australian state, territory and federal government agencies and departments, Commonwealth institutes, industry regulators, health service providers, universities, community-controlled organisations, and the private sector, and is a Senior Research Fellow with the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health.

University of Melbourne: https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/profile/843112-james-rose

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4983-1393

Private consulting website: https://www.relational.net.au

Watch a recording of James Rose discussing Forensic Expert Social Anthropology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ryb1wyU2aE 

Course objective & structure

Upon completion, students will have a working knowledge of forensic and expert social anthropological terms, definitions and concepts relevant to cultural heritage protection focussing on sacred sites and objects, elementary theoretical principles and methodological techniques Students will develop an understanding of the relationship between national-level legal-administrative regimes and international conventions related to cultural heritage preservation based on relevant case studies.

The course will be delivered synchronously in a virtual format over 8 x 1-hour classes. Each class will be comprised of a seminar oriented towards recommended readings and case studies, followed by class discussion.

Classes are designed to introduce students to contemporary best-practice in the subject area by orienting them towards case studies based on the tutor’s professional experience and leading relevant literature. The discussion component of each class is intended to allow students to familiarise themselves via a semi-structured Q&A format with the tutor.

Summary of seminar topics

• Class 1: Terms and Definitions
• Class 2: Religious significance
• Class 3: Field Methods Part A, Identifying Sites, Objects and Knowledge-Holders
• Class 4: Field Methods Part B, Recording Cultural Significance
• Class 5: Field Methods Part C, Recording Physical Features
• Class 6: International Conventions
• Class 7: National Cultural Heritage protection & Repatriation Case Studies
• Class 8: Sites, Objects and Religion

Further information about classes:

Class 1: Terms and Definitions

This class introduces social anthropological concepts, terms and definitions associated with tangible cultural heritage preservation. The class focuses on consilient legal and social scientific definitions of 'sacredness', as they apply to natural and synthetic structures and objects.

Questions:

1. What is meant by ‘tangible cultural heritage’ as distinct from ‘intangible cultural heritage’?
2. What is the relationship between tangible and intangible cultural heritage?
3. What is the role of social anthropology in the preservation of tangible cultural heritage?
4. What is the role of FESA practice in the preservation of tangible cultural heritage?

Class 2: Religious significance

This class explores the roles of sacred sites and objects as expressions of religious systems of ideas. We will focus on the social functions of religious worship, particularly the collective reification of abstract, collectively-held models of sociality, and prescriptive and proscriptive ideational modelling encoded in religious ritual and mythology.

Questions:

1. How does the concept of ‘sacredness’ distinguish certain types of tangible cultural heritage from tangible cultural heritage more generally?
2. What are the links between systems of religious ideas and sacred sites and objects as a specific type of tangible cultural heritage?
3. What are the features of the gradient distinguishing tangible cultural heritage, culturally significant sites, and sacred sites?

Class 3: Field Methods Part A, Identifying Sites, Objects and Knowledge-Holders

This class is the first in a three-part introduction to field methods in FESA practice associated with cultural heritage preservation. The first class describes methods for identifying culturally significant sites, objects and relevant community knowledge holders in interview settings. Students will learn how to identify community members with relevant and specific knowledge, and how to arrange interviews in a respectful, ethical and practical way.

Questions:

1. How can culturally significant sites and objects be distinguished from other forms of tangible cultural heritage in a community setting?
2. How can the specialist holders of knowledge about culturally significant sites and objects be identified from among a more general community of culture-bearers?
3. How should such knowledge-holders be approached in the course of FESA practice?

Class 4: Field Methods Part B, Recording Cultural Significance

The second class in this three-part series extends the introduction to interview methods relevant to recording the cultural significance of sacred sites and objects, by focusing on interview structure and strategy. In the previous class, we learnt how to identify knowledge holders and arrange interviews. In the current class, students will learn how to undertake recording both remotely and locally, utilising targeted interview methods suitable to a range of field conditions. We return to the definition of intangible cultural heritage introduced in Class 1, and demonstrate how to treat field recordings as a form of cultural property.

Questions:

1. After specialist holders of knowledge about culturally significant sites and objects have been identified, how can rapport be established in the course of an initial interview?
2. What are key interview techniques for maximising the likelihood of future return interviews and introductions to other knowledge holders?
3. What are some of the ways in which the relevance and integrity of information collected in from specialist knowledge holders be assessed?
4. How should the content and medium of interview records be treated following interview? 

Class 5: Field Methods Part C, Recording Physical Features

The third class in this three-part series on field methods describes introductory methods for text-based, photographic, video and geospatial baseline recording. This class focuses on the recording of on site location, extent, characteristics and condition. 

Questions:

1. What are the key features of any given culturally significant site that should be recorded in the course of related FESA investigation?
2. What is the basic minimum information that should be recorded in order for these features to be sufficiently documented?
3. What kind of hardware is necessary for such recording?
4. What kind of software is necessary for such recordings to be stored?

Class 6: International Conventions

This class outlines the development of international conventions for the protection of tangible cultural heritage following World War 2, changing historical contexts in which this development has occurred, changing definitions of cultural heritage itself, and changing approaches to its preservation. 

Questions:

1. What is the developmental history of international conventions for the protection and preservation of cultural heritage?
2. What are some key features of the conventions in this developmental history?
3. What are some of the key critiques of these conventions?
4. From a general perspective, how is the role of social anthropology be characterised in relation to these conventions?
5. From a more specific perspective, and drawing on Classes 4 and 5, how might the role of FESA be characterised in relation to these conventions?

Class 7: National Cultural Heritage protection & Repatriation Case Studies

This class explores the interaction between national-level tangible cultural heritage preservation regimes, international conventions, and social anthropology at a general level. We focus on mechanisms for the repatriation of sacred objects that have been removed from their communities of origin. Building on concepts covered in Classes 3 and 4, students will be introduced to contemporary best-practice methods for handling field records as an auxiliary form of cultural property attached to extant sites and objects.

Questions:

1. How do variations in national-level tangible cultural heritage preservation regimes reflect the distinct statutory histories of their host nations?
2. How do international and national cultural heritage protection regimes interact with repatriation processes?
3. How can FESA practice pre-emptively support repatriation processes?

Class 8: Sites, Objects and Religion

This class concludes the course by recapitulating concepts introduced in Class 1. We reconsider the social roles, functions and relations in which sacred sites and objects form essential factors, within the broader domain of social activity known as religion. Further readings are introduced, focussing more specifically on the roles of sacred sites and objects within systems of religion, including their political and economic functions, and the social relations that are mediated by them.

Questions:

1. What are the functions of sacred sites and objects within religious domains of sociality?
2. How do sacred sites and objects mediate political and economic relations? 
3. What role do religious domains of sociality play in the overall cultural cohesion of a society?

Please email education@therai.org.uk with any questions.