Graffiti at Heritage Places: Vandalism as Cultural Significance or Conservation Sacrilege?

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 16 October 2014, At: 16:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Time and Mind: The Journal ofArchaeology, Consciousness and CulturePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtam20

Graffiti at Heritage Places: Vandalismas Cultural Significance or ConservationSacrilege?Samuel Oliver Crichton Merrillaa Sam Merrill has a BA in Ancient History and Archaeology from theUniversity of Birmingham in the UK and an MA in World HeritageStudies from the Brandenburgische Technishe Universität Cottbusin Germany. He has conducted research and fieldwork in Australia,Egypt, Germany Kenya, Laos, the UK, and Zambia. His mainresearch areas are: cultural landscape analysis; the heritageof vandalism and graffiti; heritage management and tourism asinternational development strategies; and difficult heritage anddark tourism. He is currently undertaking his doctorate at theGeography Department of University College London.Published online: 28 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Samuel Oliver Crichton Merrill (2011) Graffiti at Heritage Places: Vandalismas Cultural Significance or Conservation Sacrilege?, Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology,Consciousness and Culture, 4:1, 59-75

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175169711X12893985693711

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtam20

http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175169711X12893985693711

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Time and Mind Volume 4—Issue 1—March 2011, pp. 59–76

Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture

Volume 4—Issue 1March 2011pp. 59–76DOI 10.2752/175169711X12893985693711

Reprints available directly

from the publishers

Photocopying permitted by

licence only

© Berg 2011

Graffi ti at Heritage Places: Vandalism as Cultural Signifi cance or Conservation Sacrilege?Samuel Oliver Crichton Merrill

Sam Merrill has a BA in Ancient History and Archaeology

from the University of Birmingham in the UK and an MA

in World Heritage Studies from the Brandenburgische

Technishe Universität Cottbus in Germany. He has conducted

research and fi eldwork in Australia, Egypt, Germany, Kenya,

Laos, the UK, and Zambia. His main research areas are:

cultural landscape analysis; the heritage of vandalism and

graffi ti; heritage management and tourism as international

development strategies; and diffi cult heritage and dark

tourism. He is currently undertaking his doctorate at the

Geography Department of University College London.

[email protected]

AbstractCurrent heritage best practice aims to avoid strategies that focus solely on single, often arbitrary periods or narratives in a site’s history in favor of those that recognize all of the site’s layers of signifi cance. This situation was born from similar concerns to those that made archaeology critically self refl ect and adopt positions that attempted to overcome inherent preconceptions and biases. However, the treatment of forms of vandalism at heritage sites, such as graffi ti, often stands in juxtaposition to the sites’ other layers of signifi cance and reveals that heritage management is yet to address all of its own biases. This article discusses the cultural signifi cance of graffi ti vandalism at heritage sites. It argues that new ways of theorizing about heritage and its destruction are required and that heritage management should adopt perspectives akin to archaeology’s post-processualism in order to ensure that the signifi cance of contemporary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

60 Graffi ti at Heritage Places Samuel Oliver Crichton Merrill


graffi ti vandalism is not lost by strategies that view it primarily as conservation sacrilege. To do this, the article considers the origin, defi nition, and types of heritage vandalism before focusing on graffi ti in relation to three case studies and then examining the relevant perspectives that archaeological and heritage theory can offer. The article aims to provide a further departure point from which to discuss the signifi cance of vandalism at heritage places and in particular graffi ti and its treatment.

Keywords: vandalism, graffi ti, rock art, heritage management, archaeology, post-processualism

IntroductionThis article investigates the relationship

between heritage and vandalism within the

frameworks provided by archaeological

and heritage theory. It considers whether

vandalism in the form of graffi ti at heritage

places embodies or negates the cultural

signifi cance of preexisting heritage. It also

questions whether these acts of vandalism

can themselves constitute heritage. To

achieve these aims this article reviews the

origins and types of vandalism and develops

a twofold defi nition of “heritage vandalism.”

It then presents three case studies illustrating

the diffi culties posed when approaching

heritage vandalism and, specifi cally, graffi ti.

Finally, it discusses some relevant theoretical

approaches offered by archaeology and

heritage management and recommends new

ways to theorize heritage vandalism.

Origins and Defi nitionsThe term “vandalism” is associated with the

ethnic groups of eastern Germania during

the fi rst and second centuries AD and post-

Roman kingdoms and the tribal populations

of medieval Scandinavia, who have all been

referred to individually as Vandals. Despite

the lack of a clearly defi ned or homogenous

Vandal identity, the ethnic group is attributed

with the plundering of Gaul, Spain, Rome,

and North Africa during the fourth and

fi fth centuries AD (Pohl 2004: 31–2). The

modern use of the term originates from

the widespread intentional destruction of

the cultural property owned by the French

monarchy and nobility during the decade

after the French Revolution. The term, fi rst

coined by Grégoire in 1794, hoped to deter

the continued destruction that Grégoire

considered cast France in a bad international

light, stating, “barbarians and slaves detest

knowledge and destroy works of art: free

men love and conserve them” (cited in

Jokilehto 2002: 70–1). The extent and scale

of the vandalism during this period has been

recognized to constitute state-endorsed

vandalism or iconoclasm (discussed in more

detail below) on the grounds that legislation

passed soon after the uprising of the Paris

Commune in 1792 stated:

All monuments containing traces of

feudalism, of whatever nature, that still

remain in churches, or other public place,

and even those in private homes, shall,

without the slightest delay, be destroyed by

the communes. (cited in Idzerda 1954: 16)

The events of the 1871 Paris Commune

had further implications for how vandalism

was considered. Nietzsche reacted to the

burning of the Tuileries by stating, “we are

all of us responsible for such terror coming

to light, so that we must make sure we do

not ascribe to those unfortunates alone

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Samuel Oliver Crichton Merrill Graffi ti at Heritage Places 61


the crime of fi ghting against culture.” In

other words, acts of vandalism led by the

“unfortunates” or “impoverished” (Nietzsche

1969[1871]) represented a “criminal culture”

that contributed to the wider “universal

culture” (Klossowski 2005: 7–8). Nietzsche

may arguably have been one of the fi rst

individuals to theorize that vandalism was

an outward manifestation of culture and

therefore embodied cultural signifi cance.

Vandalism’s link to barbarity and

criminality became more ingrained by

Lemkin’s report entitled Acts Constituting a

General (Transnational) Danger Considered as

Offences against the Law of Nations (1933).

The report proposed that two signifi cant

new offenses be placed among the offenses

of law of nations, in other words to be

considered as international crimes. The

fi rst, “The Acts of Barbarity,” was later re-

termed genocide. The second, “The Acts of

Vandalism,” recognized that,

An attack targeting a collectivity can also

take the form of systematic and organized

destruction of the art and cultural

heritage in which the unique genius and

achievement of a collectivity are revealed

in fi elds of science, arts and literature.

(Lemkin 1933)

Although not adopted as an international

crime at this time, the international

community, motivated by the widespread

destruction of the Second World War,

eventually recognized the need for legislation

that protected cultural property against acts

of vandalism. In 1956, the Hague Convention

for the Protection of Cultural Property in

the Event of Armed Confl ict (the Hague

Convention) entered into force. Article 5,

paragraph 3, states that,

The High Contracting Parties further

undertake to prohibit, prevent and, if

necessary, put a stop to any form of theft,

pillage or misappropriation of, and any

acts of vandalism directed against, cultural

property. (UNESCO 1954)

The integration of vandalism directed

against cultural property into international

legislation refl ected not just the state’s

responsibility with regards to vandalism’s

prevention but also its potential culpability.

On this scale acts of destruction are often

considered in terms of iconoclasm or state

vandalism. Iconoclasm, generally defi ned

as the doctrine, practice, or stance of an

iconoclast, one who destroys religious

images and opposes their veneration and/

or targets established beliefs and institutions,

has been applied to numerous examples

throughout history when culturally signifi cant

icons or symbols have been intentionally

destroyed, most often in pursuit of religious

or political motives. Iconoclasm in general is

associated with widespread and numerous

acts of destruction but can just as easily be

epitomized by a single, isolated act. Similarly,

iconoclasm is often attributed to large-scale

entities such as religious groups, states, or

ruling regimes, but individuals can also be

iconoclastic. These irregularities blur the

boundary between iconoclasm and state

vandalism and as such they are often seen

as roughly synonymous with one another.

Where a possible distinction lies is in the

authority behind the latter. Perhaps the most

recently cited example of state vandalism

is that which occurred in March 2001 in

Bamiyan, Afghanistan, when two ancient

Buddha statues which had been carved

into sandstone cliffs in the third and fi fth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



centuries AD and stood at 53 and 36 m

in height were demolished by the military

and paramilitary forces of the Taliban

government (Francioni and Lenzerini 2003).

Evidence suggested that the destruction of

these Buddha statues represented part of a

systematic plan to totally eradicate ancient

Afghan cultural heritage and that, whilst the

Taliban government offi cially legitimized this

on religious grounds, their destruction also

served political motives in representing an

act of defi ance towards the United Nations

(UN), the international community, and the

sanctions brought against them in response

to their indirect and direct involvement in

terrorism (Francioni and Lenzerini 2003).

While the Taliban government lacked

legitimacy, Francioni and Lenzerini use

the precedence set by sanctions brought

against Southern Rhodesia in the 1960s

to demonstrate that “effective sovereignty

over a territory is the only necessary

requirement for imposing sanctions on a

government, irrespective of whether such

government may technically be considered

a state under international law” (ibid.: 630).

In accordance, they argue that the Taliban

government’s actions of state vandalism

constitute an international crime as breaching

both customary international law, as

demonstrated by various recent precedents,

and in breaking the specifi c conditions of

the United Nations Education, Scientifi c and

Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO) 1972

Convention Concerning the Protection

of World Cultural and Natural Heritage

(The World Heritage Convention), which

Afghanistan ratifi ed in 1979. These actions

did not represent a specifi c violation to the

1954 Hague Convention for the simple fact

that Afghanistan has not ratifi ed it. However,

returning to the text of Article 5 quoted

above, another important observation

can be drawn besides that relating to the

responsibility and culpability of the state in

cases of vandalism.

The Article’s explicit reference to cultural

property refl ects vandalism’s disengagement

from its original subject. Vandalism is no

longer purely associated with cultural

property and heritage, but instead it is now

considered a criminal activity defi ned by

the act of destruction rather than by the

subject of that destruction. This is refl ected

by contemporary dictionary defi nitions,

which focus on vandalism’s characteristics

as an intentional or malicious act to destroy,

damage, or deface the property of another,

whether cultural or not. Vandalism’s origins

are inextricably linked to cultural property

yet the modern term has been extended

to relate to all privately or publicly owned

property.

For the most part, therefore, there is a

need to reconcile acts of vandalism with

the cultural property, which they originally

targeted, and thereby recognize vandalism’s

potential cultural signifi cance. This article

adopts the following twofold defi nition of

heritage vandalism based on distinctions of

place and content:

• Place: Acts of vandalism that affect

preexisting heritage or cultural

property and that may embody cultural

signifi cance.

• Content: Acts of vandalism that

embody cultural signifi cance.

The application of these defi nitions will not

be straightforward. Decisions made regarding

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



the extent to which individual acts of

vandalism embody cultural signifi cance or not

will depend on a multitude of other factors.

These include the nature and motivation

of the perpetrator (which can range from

individual, through subcultural or cultural

groups, to states, and be classifi ed as amongst

others as cultural, religious, or political),

and the scale, type, form, and location of

the vandalism itself. Whilst an exhaustive

discussion of all these factors lies outside

the scope of this article, consideration of

one particular form of vandalism, graffi ti, in

three case studies illustrates the diffi culties

in determining whether individual acts of

vandalism encompass cultural signifi cance or

not.

Graffi tiGraffi ti has been defi ned as the

“unauthorised act of painting, writing,

scratching and etching onto or into public or

private property” and often affl icts heritage

places including rock art, monuments, and

architectural sites (Keats 2008: 24). Graffi ti

refl ects “someone’s urge to say something—

to comment, to inform, entertain, persuade,

offend or simply to confi rm his or her own

existence here on earth” (Ellis 1985: 1). Baker

considers the latter of these motivations

in terms of a simple “I am” statement, a

reaffi rmation of one’s being, that is equally

present in what could be considered as

the earliest examples of graffi ti, namely

prehistoric rock art, in the form of images

of human hands and feet (2002: 23). Graffi ti

conforms to the wider motivations behind

vandalism, which have been categorized as

acquisitive, tactical, ideological, vindictive, play,

malicious, and innocuous (Wilson 1987: 3)

and often appears as tags, throw ups, murals,

masterpieces, or stencils. Besides symbolizing

particular subcultures it can be argued

that ideologically motivated graffi ti refl ects

contemporary society and encompasses

academic and cultural signifi cance.

Furthermore, there is also growing

awareness of graffi ti’s paradoxical status as

both an art form and a criminal offense.

Although graffi ti’s artistic motivations are

less often considered, the burgeoning corpus

of academic and artistic literature along

with graffi ti’s infi ltration into other media

forms (Halsey and Young 2006: 276; Keats

2008: 26) highlights its growing status as an

art form. Therefore, it can be argued that

some examples of graffi ti represent heritage

on their artistic merit and also due to the

academic and cultural signifi cance they

embody as mirrors of contemporary society.

Case Studies

Lajuad Rock Art Site, Western SaharaRock art is extremely fragile and its location

often makes it vulnerable to vandals

(Higgins 1992: 228). As a result examples

of vandalized rock art are as widespread as

the art itself. This is illustrated by the case

of Lajuad in the Western Sahara. On the

31 January 2008 The Times reported that

rock art dating to 6,000 BP located in Lajuad

had been vandalized by UN Peacekeepers

(Alberge 2008). The perpetrators had

spray-painted tag-like graffi ti up to a meter in

height, across the site (Figures 1 and 2).

The peacekeepers responsible for the

graffi ti were part of the UN Mission for the

Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)

and were monitoring a ceasefi re between

the occupying Moroccan forces and the

independence-seeking Polisario Front

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



(Brooks 2008a). The political climate of the

area, which is recognized as a Polisario Front

administered “Free Zone” (Brooks 2005:

414), has led to signifi cant obstacles to the

site’s proposed rehabilitation. Despite the

fact that a UN intervention was responsible

for the vandalism, UNESCO are only

willing to provide low-level assistance to

MINURSO due to the reluctance of the UN

to interact with the Polisario Front, which is

neither a UN member nor a unanimously

accepted government. Equally, UNESCO’s

unwillingness to contribute expertise or

funds to the rehabilitation effort beyond

recommending independent experts

may relate to a reluctance to offend the

Moroccan government (Brooks 2008b,

2008c), which is a UN member responsible

for eight World Heritage Sites (WHC

2008). It also remains unclear as to whether

rehabilitation efforts are possible without

causing further damage to the sites (Brooks

2008b). Whilst political and conservation

agendas collide it seems that very few have

stopped to consider whether these acts of

graffi ti should be reversed or not. It could

be argued that the graffi ti should be partly

retained as a contemporary commentary,

which relates to the political climate of the

Fig 1 The extent of the graffi ti

at the Lajuad rock art site.

(Photo: Nick Brooks)

Fig 2 One example of the graffi ti at the Lajuad

rock art site displaying prehistoric engravings with

traces of pigment. (Photo: Nick Brooks)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



area and its status as a “Free Zone,” the

creation of which dates to 1991 when the

UN brokered a ceasefi re, ending hostilities

that had lasted since the 1975 Moroccan

invasion of the area (Norwegian Refuge

Council (NRC) 2008: 2). Edvard Roos states

that “in free zones … established norms

and obligations are neutralized.” As such,

a prerequisite atmosphere for vandalism

is created where accepted societal norms

and defi nitions are not powerful enough

to prevent attacks on the dominant order

that attempt to replace existing values with

those of a particular actor—in this case the

vandal. These attacks relate to the need to

create values and norms that ensure the

security of the actor, as its security cannot

be built upon the norms and defi nitions of

a social order that belong to others (Roos

1992: 76). Therefore, whilst the MINURSO

graffi ti may not be considered signifi cant

on its artistic merit it can be recognized

to embody political signifi cance and be

symbolic of a period of unrest that has

spanned thirty-three years and which has

created a metaphorical and physical “Free

Zone” complete with an atmosphere of

suspended cultural and political norms that

has allowed an actor, in this case members

of the MINURSO, to attempt to exert

their dominance and ensure their security

and legitimacy in the area. The complete

restoration of the site and removal of all

the traces of graffi ti would in fact result in

the sanitization of the site’s recent history.

It would, in short, represent the censorship

of events and actions that call into question

MINURSO’s legitimate presence in the

confl ict zone; events and actions that could

only have escalated confl icts as opposed to

mediate them.

The Wandjina Rock Art of the Kimberley, Western AustraliaIn 1987 similar headlines spread across

Australia following accusations that ancient

rock art had been defaced and desecrated

(Bowdler 1988: 41). In this instance the

nature of the accuser and accused revealed

further the politics of heritage vandalism

and the diffi culties that surround its

defi nition. This case study also highlights

how physical acts comparable to vandalism

encompass cultural signifi cance and

continuing tradition.

The Wanang Ngari Association of

Derby (WNAD), an Aboriginal organization

representing Kimberley groups, was

accused of vandalism as they undertook a

repainting project funded by an Australian

Commonwealth agency as a Commonwealth

Employment Programme (Bowdler 1988:

40, 44). The project had been explicitly

designed to “re-establish traditional ties with

areas of country … and rejuvenate ritual

and ceremonial practices for the Ngarinyin

people” (Randolph and Clarke, cited in

Bowdler 1988: 44). The activity of repainting

selected sites was clearly stated before funds

were granted and was representative of a

traditional practice that must be carried out

to ensure that the Wandjinas are cared for,

continue to retain their power, and can “be

shared and given to the next generation”

(Mowarljarli and Peck 1987: 72). In essence,

Wandjinas are ancestral spirit fi gures that

control the weather (Maynard 1975: 57).

Whilst, contemporary Aboriginals do not

claim to have created the original Wandjina

paintings and instead consider them inherited

from the spirits themselves (Crawford, in

Bowdler 1988: 42), the paintings and the act

of repainting them are seen as an integral

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



part of their traditional culture (Bowdler

1988: 42).

The accusations of vandalism came from

a white pastoralist on whose property some

of the rock art was located. The complaints

focused on the lack of respect shown for

earlier paintings, the use of inappropriate

materials and the involvement of a

traditionally unacceptable demographic of

“young town dwellers of both sexes.” Even

though an investigation revealed that these

complaints were unfounded and whilst the

economic interests of the white pastoralist

became evident, the funding was withdrawn

during the investigation and eventually

turned down by WNAD in protest at their

treatment (Bowdler 1988: 45).

This case study demonstrates the

diffi culty of defi ning acts of vandalism. The

repainting was an intentional destructive act

against existing cultural property but was

done so with the intention of reinforcing

and maintaining that property’s cultural

signifi cance and continuing a contemporary

tradition. This example, whilst not strictly

representing vandalism, highlights how

similar physical actions can be considered as

vandalism by one stakeholder and a culturally

signifi cant tradition by another.

Such accusations highlight cultural

differences relating to ownership, cultural

continuation, and values. In this case the

academic, aesthetic, and economic values

held by some confl icted directly with the

continuing social and spiritual values that the

Aboriginal community ascribed to the images.

This value confl ict is illustrated perfectly by

Bowdler’s departing question to archaeologists,

“what is more important, the preservation of

a few relics of the recent past, or the active

continuation of that living culture?” (1988: 47).

Banksy’s Graffi ti (Numerous Locations Worldwide)The artistic nature of graffi ti is increasingly

being acknowledged, as is its signifi cance

to contemporary subcultures. As such it is

persuasive to suggest that some forms of

contemporary graffi ti should be considered

as heritage to be preserved for the benefi t

of future generations. This is particularly

true of emergent post-graffi ti or neo-graffi ti,

which represents street art in “fl ux between

established ideas and new directions” and in

transition between a criminal activity and an

accepted art form. Banksy, the British street

artist, is possibly the best single example of

this transition (Dickens 2008: 473–4).

The aesthetic and political nature of

Banksy’s varied portfolio reinforces the

argument that graffi ti can constitute heritage

and embody cultural signifi cance. Banksy’s

work refl ects the growing public sentiment

and political ideology that questions the

contemporary consumerist and globalized

society. His use of stencils, in particular

his signature rat characters, also illustrates

the general shift from typographic written

graffi ti to iconographic street logos in

response to the infl uence of branding

and advertising in the modern metropolis.

Besides stenciling, Banksy is also responsible

for written graffi ti, wall murals, sculpture,

drawings, fi lm, and installation pieces. In

many cases the location of his work holds

signifi cance. This is particularly true of his

“art terrorism,” which involved interventions

into the collections of major high-art

institutions such as the British Museum,

the Louvre, and the American Museum of

Natural History. Besides the pieces’ individual

political messages there is the overarching

“critique of the undemocratic elite nature

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



of the art establishment” (Dickens 2008:

473–6). Banksy’s use of humor and irony

confl icts with universal ethical codes in

order to convey his political message in a

provocative yet not overtly polemic way. The

political focus of his work has, historically, had

various subjects. Originally stemming from

issues of the legality of graffi ti, the state of

contemporary society, and the appropriation

of public space by advertising, Banksy’s

subject matter has moved to more critical

contemporary global concerns, such as global

poverty, human rights, the war on terror,

and globalization (Brassett 2009: 230, 232).

His willingness to directly engage with these

global concerns is illustrated by the nine

stenciled works he created on the Palestinian

side of Israel’s West Bank security barrier in

2005 (Jones 2005) and the “Santa’s Ghetto”

exhibition that he organized in Bethlehem

over Christmas 2007. Both were designed to

draw attention to the situation in Palestine

(Kennard 2008). One of these artworks

shows a donkey undergoing an identity

check, commentating on the juxtaposition

of Bethlehem’s biblical associations with its

current political climate.

Banksy and other street artists like him

have broken traditional boundaries between

high and low culture by reframing graffi ti as

something to be valued rather than despised

(Dickens 2008: 474). They achieve this by

being able to “move back and forth between

culture and counter culture, operating inside

and outside the system” (MacAdam, in

Dickens 2008: 477). As a mobile subculture

they offer a unique perspective on current

affairs and contemporary society through

a medium that can break the norms and

conventions that restrict other art forms,

whilst maintaining high levels of exposure.

Picasso once stated, “Art is the lie that

makes us realise the truth, at least the truth

that we are given to understand” (1923).

Therefore, art plays an important role

in conveying truths but these truths can

only be understood if they are given or

handed down. It can be argued that graffi ti

represents one of the truest or—as Banksy

himself states—“more honest” art forms in

existence (2006: 8). The selectivity of the

art world and its consideration of graffi ti

solely as vandalism that should be removed

is leading to a transmission of mistruths to

future generations. The notion stands that

some graffi ti, particularly post-graffi ti as

exemplifi ed by Banksy, represents heritage

that is culturally signifi cant for its artistic value

and also for the sociopolitical commentary it

offers about the world we live in today and

others will strive to understand in the future.

Theoretical PerspectivesThe three case studies have exemplifi ed the

defi nitions of heritage vandalism proposed

earlier. They also refl ect the complexity and

multiplicity of the factors that infl uence the

consideration of vandalism at heritage places

and its prospective merits or drawbacks. For

a clearer understanding of these factors and

in order to provide a foundation from which

to theorize about heritage vandalism further,

it is benefi cial to consider some of the

relevant theoretical perspectives offered by

archaeology and heritage management. This

should not be considered as an exhaustive

discussion of theory relating to vandalism

nor indeed an articulation of all of the

nexuses between vandalism, archaeology, and

heritage but it will serve to demonstrate the

particular concerns raised when addressing

the potential of vandalism and in particular

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



graffi ti to embody cultural signifi cance. Other

disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and

criminology have theorized vandalism and

graffi ti extensively and often in reference

to subcultures and notions of gender,

age, identity, and power (for example see

Macdonald 2001). An appreciation of these

subcultures and their vandalism reveals

further potential connections to the theories

and practices of archaeology and heritage

management, especially those linked to the

transience of intangible heritage and the

impact of commercialization on concepts

of authenticity. Leaving these concerns aside

for the moment it is benefi cial to start a

theoretical discussion by fi rst focusing on

how vandalism has been valued as both

archaeology and heritage.

Archaeology and HeritageThe value of historic examples of vandalism

has long been recognized within archaeology

as a historic record that can be academically

scrutinized to help interpret the past.

Cocroft et al. recognize that “murals, graffi ti

and casual doodles connect directly with

a moment in time and with past residents,

be these ancient Egyptian artists, Roman

soldiers or recent service personnel.” At

military sites graffi ti can communicate a

wealth of knowledge about “messages of

protests …, cultures at bases, functions of

spaces within them, individuality and …

re-use” (Cocroft et al. 2006). From ancient

Egypt, commemorative graffi ti on the left

leg of the colossus of Memnon attests to a

state visit by the Roman Emperor Hadrian

in AD 130 (Daly and Petry 1998: 15). From

ancient Mesopotamia, an etched Royal

Game of Ur board on the base of a Neo-

Assyrian winged bull statue from Khorsabad,

displayed in the British Museum, reveals

the true extent of the game’s popularity

and its accessibility to people besides

royalty. In European prehistory, evidence of

Pleistocene vandalism highlights distinctions

in human occupations at the Cosquer Cave

located in the Calanques, near Marseilles in

France. In the case of the latter, the animal

fi gurative art and hand stencils associated

with an occupation dated to 30,000 BP were

vandalized by people associated with a

later occupation of around 20,000 BP. This

vandalism, Guthrie notes, appears in a form

that is “almost identical to cave vandalism

today” (Guthrie 2005: 198–9).

Whilst commentary such as this highlights

universal and general norms of society, so

often the focus of processual archaeology,

the products of graffi ti and vandalism

themselves also represent the infl uence of

individuals. As such they form an important

resource to proponents of the post-

processual school of thought who emphasize

the role of the individual in theories of

material culture and social change. Post-

processualism also provides a template

to be followed by heritage professionals

when considering how best to deal with

acts of vandalism at heritage places. One

of post-processualism’s most preeminent

contributions to archaeological theory is its

refl exive stance. As such it recognizes that

truths, interpretations, and observations of

archaeological data are not simple, neutral,

or value free (Gamble 2008: 8, 37–8). They

are biased by “the social milieus in which

archaeology is practiced” and therefore,

every decoding of the past represents

“another encoding, largely determined

by the presuppositions, experiences and

associations” of each archaeologist (Trigger

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



1998: 16–17). The result is an archaeology

that favors multiple versions of the past

(Gamble 2008: 8) as it becomes harder to

empirically state that one version is truer

than another (Trigger 1998: 21–2). Whilst

this degree of subjectivity is of concern

to many archaeologists (Gamble 2008:

38) it also offers archaeology a solution

to its biases by being “informed by an

ever increasing number of viewpoints and

constrained by more data” (Trigger 1998: 23).

It is in this outlook that post-processualism

can enlighten heritage professionals.

Whilst archaeologists strive to interpret

the past and establish facts, heritage

professionals are concerned with the

presentation of these pasts and facts as site

narratives and themes, and the conservation

of the locations to which they are linked.

These narratives and themes are often

constructed on ideas of cultural signifi cance

and like archaeological interpretations

are value-laden and vulnerable to biases.

The political nature of heritage is widely

recognized. As Graham et al. state: “Heritage

is a knowledge, a cultural product and a

political resource” and just like archaeology

it “is negotiated … within specifi c social and

intellectual circumstances” (2005: 30). This

recognition has led heritage professionals

to adopt an increasingly refl exive stance,

which assumes a wider inclusivity when it

comes to concepts of cultural signifi cance

and its interpretation. Tilden recognized

that interpretation should aim to present a

“whole rather than a part” (1977: 9). The

Burra Charter supports this holistic approach

when evaluating cultural signifi cance by

recognizing that it embodies a wide range

of values that may change over time and

differ between variant individuals or groups

(Australia ICOMOS 1999). Likewise the

Nara Document on Authenticity reveals

a relativist standpoint that acknowledges

the value held in diversity. It recognizes

“the legitimacy of the cultural values of all

parties” and that all “cultures and societies

are rooted in the particular forms and means

of tangible and intangible expression which

constitute their heritage, and these should

be respected” (UNESCO 1994: Para 6 and

7). The seeds of these holistic approaches

to heritage were sown by the famous words

of William Morris in the Society for the

Protection of Ancient Buildings manifesto

of 1877. He warned that the nineteenth

century would have “no style of its own

amidst its wide knowledge of the styles of

other centuries” due to the fatalistic idea of

favoring one arbitrary point of a building’s

history over another, in the belief that

restoration to this point, would create a living

authentic testimony to the building’s history

(Morris 1877).

These perspectives would suggest that

graffi ti as a form of vandalism should be

recognized as one of a site’s many layers

of history, which for some represent the

outward manifestation of their culture

and embody cultural signifi cance. Often,

however, the treatment of graffi ti stands in

juxtaposition to this view: the MINURSO

graffi ti in the Western Sahara looks set to

be removed, criticism of the WNAD project

led to its discontinuation (Bowdler 1988: 46;

Brooks 2008d) and repainting of aboriginal

rock art remains a contentious issue today,

and Banksy’s post-graffi ti continues to be

removed by British local councils (BBC

2008). Similarly, the general view of the

heritage sector towards vandalism and

graffi ti is characterized by an inconsistency

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



of approach and a lack of clear guidance

pertaining to the potential value of graffi ti

across heritage contexts. English Heritage

has published a technical advice note on

the removal and prevention of graffi ti on

historic buildings and monuments within

which only the last three sentences, as if as

an afterthought, considers the possibility of

historically important graffi ti (1999). More

recently, however, it has published guidelines

specifi cally for military wall art including

graffi ti thereby refl ecting the elevated

attention paid to graffi ti in military contexts

(Cocroft et al. 2004). Along similar lines, the

International Centre for the Study of the

Preservation and Conservation of Cultural

Property (ICCROM) runs awareness

projects aimed at stopping it amongst young

demographics (2006) demonstrating again

that graffi ti is most often considered as a

threat or risk to culturally signifi cant heritage

rather than a potential asset to it. Improved

graffi ti removal technology (Tyson 1996) will

exacerbate these issues as graffi ti can now

be removed with such ease and speed that it

may be removed before its possible value is

considered.

The reason for this juxtaposition lies

in the politicized nature of heritage and

its role in the construction of identity and

“the Other.” When “the Other” is defi ned

as “groups—both internal and external to

a state with competing often confl icting,

beliefs, values and aspirations,” the position

of vandals and graffi ti artists becomes clear

(Graham et al. 2005: 30). They are easily

identifi able as an internal “Other,” who

confl ict with the identifi able and acceptable

norms of the state, and as such represent

Klossowski’s “criminal culture” (2005: 7). It

follows that as this “Other” they are avoided

and excluded by the identity so defi ned

(Douglas, cited in Graham et al. 2005: 31).

The disparate amount of attention paid to

acts of graffi ti by heritage professionals, who

act as constructors of identity, represents a

form of avoidance and exclusion.

The times are, however, slowly changing.

The cultural signifi cance of graffi ti is beginning

to be recognized in certain heritage contexts.

In prisons, whilst most custodial staff share

the traditional view of urban graffi ti held by

municipal staff and whilst offensive graffi ti

is removed, graffi ti’s value is recognized

and many examples are retained, even if

kept from public view (Wilson 2008: 67–8).

Furthermore, in some prisons a feature is

made of the graffi ti and its value appreciated

in terms of a “resonant textual layer in an

already signifi cant site,” which contributes

a “suppressed subtext” of the collective

memory (Palmer 1997: 105). As mentioned

earlier, graffi ti has also received respectful

consideration at modern military sites and

installations where it is recognized as “part

of the site’s narrative” (Schofi eld 2005:

76). Perhaps tellingly, both these contexts

relate to a recent past contemporary with

the acts of vandalism themselves. This

refl ects arbitrary distinctions that heritage

professionals often incorrectly draw between

a heritage site’s perceived primary period of

historical signifi cance and its ongoing history.

As long as heritage professionals continue to

emphasis certain parts of a site’s history over

its whole, the removal of recent examples

of vandalism, whether culturally signifi cant or

not, will continue.

This trend is exemplifi ed by recent

events in Berlin, where the East Side Gallery

removed many of the graffi ti murals that

made it a famous tourist spot, in order

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



to renovate the remains of the Berlin

wall beneath, in time for the twentieth

anniversary of its fall. Whilst artists were

invited back to repaint their contributions

and the decision makers were adamant that

no other action could have been taken, the

policy outraged some original contributing

artists and raises clear concerns regarding

the authenticity and inclusivity of the site

(Paterson 2009). This has occurred despite

recognition that the graffi ti contributed

signifi cantly to the decision to retain the

section of the wall in the fi rst place and that

the graffi ti itself holds symbolic and artistic

value (Schofi eld 2003, 40). Ironically, this

example comes from the same city in which

Norman Foster’s archaeological approach to

the renovation of the Reichstag represents

the exact opposite and arguably a best

practice model for the treatment of graffi ti at

heritage places. Foster’s decision to retain the

graffi ti left by Russian troops in 1944, whilst

controversial (Barnstone 2005: 189–90),

respected the importance of the moment

when Berlin fell during the Second World

War and the graffi ti as a historic record of

that moment. Foster stated:

I came to realize that the Reichstag’s fabric

bears the imprint of time and events

more powerfully than any exhibit could

convey. I was convinced that it should not

be sanitized. Preserving these scars allows

the building to become a living museum of

German history. (cited in Barnstone 2005:

190)

Holtorf states that “history is about change”

and “historical change can mean that

some heritage disappears.” He argues that

“destruction and loss” including acts of

vandalism and graffi ti “are not the opposite

of heritage but … part of its very substance.”

Heritage professionals, therefore, must fi nd

new ways to theorize heritage in order

to deal with the reconceptualization of

heritage’s relationship with destruction

(Holtorf 2006: 107–8). Post-processualism

can provide the inspiration for one of these

new ways to theorize about heritage and has

pertinence to the consideration of acts of

vandalism as culturally signifi cant heritage.

Preemptive Post-processualismIn using Walter Benjamin’s analysis of Paul

Klee’s Angelus novus as a departure point,

Baker summarizes the perspective of the

archaeologist and architect as opposed. Both

are situated in the present but they “look in

different directions … One says how it was,

the other how it may be” (Baker 2002: 36).

Both face limitations and both their creations,

whether buildings or interpretations of the

past, are open to change and are dynamic

(Baker 2002: 36). A building may not be used

in the way the architect intended and the

archaeologist whilst building the past cannot

guarantee that their interpretations will

persevere. Whilst the archaeologist may build

the past and the architect the future, the

heritage professional infl uences how those

pasts are used in the future. The heritage

professional is situated somewhere between

the archaeologist and architect, turning

their head from side to side, from the past

to the future and vice versa. It is this ability

to look forward with the intent to refl ect

on the present as the past that provides

an interesting perspective. The adoption

of a preemptive post-processualist stance

encourages the retention of contemporary

acts of vandalism for their value in conveying

an authentic past, our present, in the future.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



Otherwise, the consistent sanitization of the

material remnants of our present will inhibit

its accurate interpretation in the future.

In other words, heritage practices today

should not bias our future archaeological

interpretations of our present. Whether,

this represents a way to overcome Holtorf ’s

perceived “fundamentalist ideology of

heritage preservationism” or is simply an

extension of that ideology into a new

context remains to be seen (2006: 102). As

the Christian Social Union politician Wolfgang

Zeitelmann commented of the Reichstag’s

Russian graffi ti, “I think that is an illness of

our age, that we keep scribbles, as if they

were holy” (cited in Baker 2002: 20). Leaving

aside this highly politicized example, the

argument for retaining examples of vandalism

or graffi ti, or in the very least having them

recorded, particularly those which refl ect

contemporary political and cultural ideologies

or new art forms, is a persuasive one that

should be debated further. In some places

the active discussion of these matters has

begun. In Melbourne, Australia, debate has

been steadily growing as to whether some

of the city’s graffi ti artworks should be

heritage listed (Boulton 2003). On one side

it has raised the concerns of anti-vandalism

groups and on the other it has encouraged

heritage professionals to recognize graffi ti’s

cultural signifi cance on political and artistic

grounds (ABC 2008a). Perhaps the most

interesting outcome of the debate is the

acknowledgment that to many and often

to the graffi ti artists themselves, graffi ti

represents intangible heritage, which should

remain an ephemeral living art form and

avoid active preservation (ABC 2008b). In

recognition of this perspective credence

is lent to a process of preservation by

record as opposed to long-term listing and

conservation.

ConclusionIn conclusion, this article has attempted

to demonstrate that to date there is no

theoretical consensus on how best to

deal with vandalism at heritage places

or an existing conservation framework

for contemporary vandalism that could

constitute (future) heritage. Discussion

of various case studies has illustrated the

complex factors that infl uence how the

interplay of heritage and graffi ti, as a form

of vandalism, is perceived by archaeologists

and heritage professionals including factors

that relate to the ways that different

polities conceptualize identity and cultural

signifi cance within their individual political

structures and value systems. Investigation

into the wider theoretical approaches of

archaeology and the heritage profession

towards graffi ti has revealed common issues,

such as their ongoing endeavor for objectivity,

but also distinctions in the degree to which

they have achieved this objectivity and the

ends that they pursue. Whilst archaeological

approaches highlight the academic value

that vandalism may yield in the future and its

status as a contemporary social commentary,

the approaches of heritage professionals

suggest that vandalism still needs to legitimize

its prospective conservation in terms of

cultural signifi cance. This legitimization may

be most easily achieved by encompassing

aesthetic value. Overall, to truly grasp the

relationship between heritage and vandalism,

heritage professionals must adopt new

theoretical approaches, which stimulate new

ways of considering heritage. Indeed, the

need to reconceptualize the relationship

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



of heritage and destruction has already

been recognized (Holtorf 2006). The

adoption of a preemptive post-processualist

approach moves towards fulfi lling this

by emphasizing cultural authenticity over

cultural signifi cance and acknowledging

how the contemporary actions of heritage

professionals and archaeologists will

determine the retrospective understanding

of the present in the future. In practical terms

these emerging theories may encourage the

actual preservation of examples of vandalism

or facilitate their preservation by record.

Decisions regarding which examples to

preserve will, however, continue to refl ect

contemporary politics and values, factors

that ultimately determine whether vandalism

at heritage places represents cultural

signifi cance or conservation sacrilege.

AcknowledgmentsThe author would like to thank and

acknowledge the advice, support, and

refl ections offered by Nick Brooks, Peter

Burman, Daryl Guse, Cornelius Holtorf,

Lilly Hornung, Colin Long, Olivia Porter,

Peter Randolph, Keir Reeves, Leo Schmidt,

and Klaus Zehbe. Conversation and

communication with each of these individuals

helped frame consideration of the subject

matter. Gratitude is also extended to the

journal editors and reviewers for their

guidance and insight. This article was originally

prepared for the Contemporary and

Historical Archaeology in Theory (CHAT)

Group’s 2008 conference, “Heritage CHAT”;

as such, the author would like to thank Hilary

Orange, Sefryn Penrose, and John Schofi eld

for their help and suggestions. This article

would not have been possible without the

support of The Leverhulme Trust.

References

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation),

2008a. National Trust Considers Heritage

Listing for Graffi ti. http://www.abc.net.au/news/

stories/2008/06/23/2282814.htm (accessed 8

January 2009).

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation),

2008b. Melbourne Graffi ti Considered for

Heritage Protection http://www.abc.net.au/news/

stories/2008/06/23/2282978.htm (accessed 8

January 2009).

Alberge, D., 2008. “UN Vandals Spray Graffi ti on

Sahara’s Prehistoric Art.” The Times 31 January.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_

and_entertainment/visual_arts/article3280058.ece

(accessed 21 October 2008).

Australia ICOMOS (International Council on

Monuments and Sites), 1999. The Burra Charter :

The Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation

of Places of Cultural Signifi cance. Burwood: Australia

ICOMOS.

Baker, F., 2002. “The Red Army Graffi ti in the

Reichstag, Berlin: Politics of Rock-Art in a

Contemporary European Urban Landscape,” in G.

Nash and C. Chippindale (eds), European Landscapes

of Rock-Art. London and New York: Routledge, pp.

20–39.

Banksy, 2006. Wall and Piece, 2nd edn. London:

Century

Barnstone, D.A., 2005. The Transparent State:

Architecture and Politics in Postwar Germany. New

York: Routledge

BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), 2008.

Council Orders Banksy Art Removal. http://news.bbc.

co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7688251.stm

(accessed 20 January 2009).

Boulton, M., 2003. “Graffi ti May be Granted

a Wall of Protection.” The Age, Melbourne,

2 December. http://www.theage.com.au/

articles/2003/12/01/1070127349953.html (accessed

12 January 2009).

Bowdler, S., 1988. “Repainting Australian Rock Art.”

Antiquity 62(23): 517–23.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



Brassett, J., 2009. “British Irony, Global Justice: A

Pragmatic Reading of Chris Brown, Banksy and Ricky

Gervais.” Review of International Studies 35: 219–45.

Brooks, N., 2005. “Cultural Heritage and Confl ict: The

Threatened Archaeology of Western Sahara.” The

Journal of North African Studies 304: 413–39.

Brooks, N., 2008a. UN Personnel Vandalise

Archaeological Sites. http://nickbrooks.wordpress.

com/2007/12/18/vandalised-rockshelter-lajuad/


Brooks, N., 2008b. Cultural Heritage Plays Second

Fiddle to Politics at UNESCO. http://nickbrooks.

wordpress.com/2008/06/23/cultural-heritage-plays-

second-fi ddle-to-politics-at-unesco/ (accessed 21

October 2008).

Brooks, N., 2008c. Rock Art Update http://nickbrooks.

wordpress.com/2008/10/06/rock-art-update/


Brooks, N., 2008d, Rock Art Update II http://

nickbrooks.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/rock-art-

update-ii/ (accessed 5 January 2009).

Cocroft, W., Devlin, D., Schofi eld, J., and Thomas,

R.J.C., 2004. Military Wall Art: Guidelines on its

Signifi cance, Conservation and Management. Swindon:

English Heritage.

Cocroft, W., Devlin, D., Schofi eld, J., and Thomas,

R.J.C., 2006. “Art of War.” British Archaeology 86.

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba86/feat4.shtml


Daly, W. M. and Petry, C. F., 1998. The Cambridge

History of Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Dickens, L., 2008. “Placing Post-Graffi ti: The Journey

of the Peckham Rock.” Cultural Geographies 15:

471–96.

Ellis, R., 1985. The All New Australian Graffi ti.

Melbourne: Sun Books.

English Heritage, 1999. Graffi ti on Historic Buildings

and Monuments: Methods of Removal and Prevention.

Technical Advisory Note. London: English Heritage.

Francioni, F. and Lenzerini, F., 2003. “The Destruction

of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law.”

European Journal of International Law 14(4): 619–51.

Gamble, C., 2008. Archaeology: The Basics. New York:

Routledge.

Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J., and Tunbridge, J.E., 2005.

“The Uses and Abuses of Heritage,” in G. Corsane

(ed.), Heritage, Museums and Galleries an Introductory

Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 26–37.

Guthrie, R.D., 2005. The Nature of Paleolithic Art.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Halsey, M. and Young, A., 2006. “Our Desires are

Ungovernable—Writing Graffi ti in Urban Space.”

Theoretical Criminology 10(3): 275–306.

Higgins, H.C., 1992. “Rock Art Vandalism: Causes and

Prevention,” in H.H. Christensen, D.R. Johnson, and

M. H. Brookes (eds), Vandalism: Research, Prevention,

and Social Policy. Portland, OR: US Department of

Agriculture, pp. 221–32.

Holtorf, C., 2006. “Can Less be More? Heritage in

the Age of Terrorism.” Public Archaeology 5: 101–9.

ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of

the Preservation and Conservation of Cultural

Property), 2006. Activity: Stop Graffi ti. http://www.

iccrom.org/eng/05advocacy_en/05_02models_

en/06posters02_en.shtml (accessed on 25

November 2008).

Idzerda, S.J., 1954. “Iconoclasm during the French

Revolution.” The American Historical Review 60(1):

13–26.

Jokilehto, J., 2002. History of Architectural Conservation.

Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jones, S., 2005, “Spray Can Prankster Tackles Israel’s

Security Barrier.” The Guardian, 5 August. www.

guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/05/israel.artsnews


Keats, G., 2008. “The Motivations behind Graffi ti.”

Security Insider February/March: 24–8.

Kennard, P., 2008. “Art Attack.” The New Statesman,

21 January: 38–40.

Klossowski, P., 2005. Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle.

Trans. D.W. Smith. London: Continuum.

Lemkin, R., 1933. Acts Constituting a General

(Transnational) Danger Considered as Offences

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014



Against the Law of Nations. www.preventgenocide.

org/lemkin/madrid1933-english.htm (accessed 17

October 2008).

Macdonald, N., 2001. The Graffi ti Subculture—Youth,

Masculinity and Identity in London and New York.

Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Maynard, L., 1975. “Restoration of Aboriginal Rock

Art: The Moral Problem.” Australian Archaeology 3:

54–60.

Morris, W., 1877. The Society for the Protection of

Ancient Buildings Manifesto. www.spab.org.uk/html/

what-is-spab/the-manifesto/ (accessed 12 March

2009).

Mowarljarli, D. and Peck, C., 1987. “Ngarinyin Cultural

Continuity: A Project to Teach the Young People the

Culture, Including the Repainting of the Wandjina

Rock Art Sites.” Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 71–8.

Nietzsche, F.W., 1969[1871]. “Letter to Carl von

Gersdorff, 21 June 1871,” in C. Middleton (ed. &

trans.), Selected Letters of Friedrich Nietzsche. Chicago,

IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 80–1.

NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council), 2008. Norwegian

Refugee Council Report: Western Sahara, Occupied

Country, Displaced People. http://www.nrc.no/arch/_

img/9258989.pdf (accessed 21 October 2008).

Paterson, T., 2009. “The Stolen Kiss: The Berlin

Wall Mural is Erased.” The Independent, 28 March.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/

art/news/the-stolen-kiss-the-berlin-wall-mural-is-

erased-1656053.html (accessed 29 March 2009).

Palmer, D., 1997. “In the Anonymity of a Murmur:

Graffi ti and the Construction of the Past at the

Fremantle Prison,” in J. Gregory (ed.), Historical Traces.

Perth: Centre for Western Australian History, pp.

104–15.

Picasso, P., 1923. “Picasso Speaks.” The Arts New York,

May 1923 (reprinted in A.J. Barr, 1946, Picasso. New

York: Museum of Modern Art, pp. 270–1).

Pohl, W., 2004. “The Vandals: Fragments of a

Narrative,” in: A. H. Merrills (ed.), Vandals, Romans

and Berbers New Perspectives on Late Antique North

Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 31–48.

Roos, H.E., 1992. “Vandalism as a Symbolic Act in

‘Free Zones,’” in H.H. Christensen, D.R. Johnson, and

M.H. Brookes (eds), Vandalism: Research, Prevention,

and Social Policy. Portland, OR: US Department of

Agriculture, pp. 71–87.

Schofi eld, J., 2003. “Memories and Monuments in

Berlin: A Cold War Narrative.” Historic Environment

17(1): 36–41.

Schofi eld, J., 2005. Combat Archaeology: Material

Culture and Modern Confl ict. London: Duckworth.

Tilden, F., 1977. Interpreting Our Heritage, 3rd edn.

Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Trigger, B.G., 1998. “Archaeology and Epistemology:

Dialoguing across the Darwinian Chasm.” American

Journal of Archaeology 102: 1–34.

Tyson, P., 1996. “Graffi ti Busters.” Technology Review

99(16): 16.

UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientifi c and

Cultural Organisation), 1954. The Hague Convention

for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event

of Armed Confl ict, Hague, 14 May. The Hague:

UNESCO.

UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientifi c and

Cultural Organisation), 1994. The Nara Document on

Authenticity, 1–6 November. Nara: UNESCO.

Wilson, J.Z., 2008. Prison: Cultural Memory and Dark

Tourism. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Wilson, P., 1987. Graffi ti and Vandalism on Public

Transport (no. 6 Research brief). Canberra: Australian

Institute of Criminology.

WHC (World Heritage Centre), 2008. The World

Heritage List. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list (accessed

15 March 2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

16:

21 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Graffiti at Heritage Places: Vandalism as Cultural Significance or Conservation Sacrilege?