, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 153–174 | Cite as

Heritage Beyond Borders: Australian Approaches to Extra-National Built Heritage

  • Amy Clarke


The rights of the state to protect heritage within its borders, to ratify international conventions and to cooperate in bilateral engagements have been foundational concepts of heritage governance. Extreme circumstances may result in an intervention by non-state parties, but in times of peace it is typically the state that prevails. Drawing from recent efforts (2000s) of the Australian Federal Government to create a ‘List of Overseas Places of Historic Significance to Australia’, this paper explores the complications that can arise from the privileging of state authority in current approaches to heritage. This serves as a point of departure for considering the more widely applicable contradictions, limitations and loopholes of a global approach that favours the ‘state’ and the ramifications this might have for heritage diplomacy.

Key words

Australia Extra-national Heritage diplomacy 


Les droits de l’État à protéger son patrimoine à l’intérieur de ses frontières, ratifier des conventions internationales et coopérer dans le cadre d’initiatives bilatérales sont des concepts fondamentaux de la gouvernance patrimoniale. Des entités non étatiques pourraient intervenir dans des cas extrêmes, mais en temps de paix, l’État a généralement préséance. En s’inspirant des initiatives récentes (années 2000) du gouvernement fédéral australien pour créer une « liste des lieux étrangers ayant une importance historique pour l’Australie » , le présent article explore les complications que peut entraîner la position privilégiée de l’autorité d’État dans le contexte des approches patrimoniales courantes. De là, l’article considère les contradictions, limitations et lacunes plus largement applicables d’une approche mondiale qui favorise l’État, et les ramifications que cela pourrait avoir pour la diplomatie patrimoniale.


Los derechos del estado para proteger el patrimonio dentro de sus fronteras, para ratificar convenios, y para cooperar en compromisos bilaterales, han sido conceptos fundacionales de la gobernanza patrimonial. Circunstancias extremas pueden dar lugar a una intervención por partes no estatales, pero en tiempos de paz normalmente es el estado el que prevalece. Recurriendo a esfuerzos recientes (años 2000) del Gobierno Federal australiano para crear una ‘Lista de Lugares de Ultramar de Significado Histórico para Australia’, el presente documento explora las complicaciones que pueden surgir de privilegiar la autoridad estatal en los enfoques actuales con respecto al patrimonio. Esto sirve como punto de partida para considerar las contradicciones, las limitaciones y las fisuras más ampliamente aplicables de un enfoque global que favorece al ‘estado’, y las ramificaciones que esto podría tener para la diplomacia patrimonial.



The author would like to thank Richard M. Hutchings and Joshua Dent for facilitating the ‘Archaeology and the Late Modern State’ panel at the Association of Critical Heritage Studies conference in Montreal (2016), and for their efforts in editing this Special Issue. The author is also thankful for the suggestions of peer reviewers on an earlier version of this paper.


  1. Alomes, S. 2002. Beyond ‘Kangaroo Valley’: the Rituals of Australian London. Australian Studies 17(1):3–24.Google Scholar
  2. Alomes, S. 2005. The ‘Dominance’ of Nationalism in a Globalising Australia. Australian Studies 20(1–2):77–98.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Senate (2005) Matters Relating to the Gallipoli Peninsula (Finance and Public Administration References Committee), Commonwealth of AustraliaCanberra.,Google Scholar
  4. Bantick, C. 2005. Nobel but not a Hero. Courier Mail (Brisbane), 5 January: 21.Google Scholar
  5. Beaumont, J. 2009. Contested Trans-National Heritage: the Demolition of Changi Prison, Singapore. International Journal of Heritage Studies 14(4):298–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaumont, J. 2013. The Thai-Burma Railway: A Cultural Route? Historic Environment 25(3):100–113.Google Scholar
  7. Beaumont, J. 2015a. Commemoration in Australia: A Memory orgy? Australian Journal of Political Science 50(3):536–544.Google Scholar
  8. Beaumont, J. 2015b. Remembering Australia’s First World War. Australian Historical Studies 46(1):1–6.Google Scholar
  9. Beaumont, J. 2016. The Diplomacy of Extra-Territorial Heritage: the Kokoda Track, Papua New Guinea. International Journal of Heritage Studies 22(5):355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bull, N., Panton, D. 2000. Drafting the Vimy Charter for Conservation of Battlefield Terrain. APT Bulletin 31(4):5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Camilleri, J. 2003. A leap into the Past—in the Name of the ‘National Interest’. Australian Journal of International Affairs 57(3):431–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke, A. 2014. Scotland in Kolkata: Transnational Heritage, Cultural Diplomacy and City Image. Historic Environment 26(3):86–97.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, A. 2016. Digital Heritage Diplomacy and the Scottish Ten Initiative. Future Anterior 13(1):51–64.Google Scholar
  14. Commonwealth of Australia (1997) In the National Interest: Australia’s Foreign and Trade Policy (White Paper), Commonwealth of AustraliaCanberra.,Google Scholar
  15. Commonwealth of Australia (2003) Advancing the National Interest: Australia’s Foreign and Trade Policy (White Paper), Commonwealth of AustraliaCanberra.,Google Scholar
  16. Commonwealth of Australia (2007) Gazette Notice: Inclusion of Places in the List of Overseas Places of Historic Significance to Australia, Department of the Environment and Water ResourcesCommonwealth of Australia, Canberra.,Google Scholar
  17. Commonwealth of Australia (2015) Australian Heritage Strategy, Commonwealth of AustraliaCanberra.,Google Scholar
  18. Cowlishaw, G. 2006. On ‘Getting It Wrong’: Collateral Damage in the History Wars. Australian Historical Studies 37(127):181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davison, G. (1991) A Brief History of the Australian Heritage Movement. In A Heritage Handbookpp. 14–27, edited by G. Davisonand C. McConville, Allen and UnwinSydney.,Google Scholar
  20. Department of Environment and Water Resources (DEWR). 2007a. Brief: Status of the List of Overseas Places of Historic Significance to Australia (LOPHSA), 20 February. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
  21. DEWR. 2007b. Government Memo (In Confidence): List of Overseas Places of Historic Significance to Australia, 9 May. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
  22. DEWR. 2007c. Memo/Recommendation (Unclassified)—Listing of Overseas Places of Historic Significance, May. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
  23. Department of the Environment. 2013. Australia House, The Strand, London, OS, United Kingdom (Place ID# 106165), Australian Heritage Database,;search=list_code%3DCHL%3Blegal_status%3D35%3Bkeyword_PD%3D0%3Bkeyword_SS%3D0%3Bkeyword_PH%3D0;place_id=106165.
  24. Firth, S. (2005) Australia in International Politics: An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy, Allen & UnwinSt. Leonards, N.S.W.,Google Scholar
  25. Gammage, B. 2007. The Anzac Cemetery. Australian Historical Studies 38(129):124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goff, P. (2013) Cultural Diplomacy. In Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacypp. 419–435, edited by AF Cooper, J Heineand R Thakur, Oxford UPOxford.,Google Scholar
  27. Handler, R. 2003. Cultural Property and Culture Theory. Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3):353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, R. 2013. Forgetting to Remember, Remembering to Forget: Late Modern Heritage Practices, Sustainability and the ‘Crisis’ of Accumulation of the Past. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19(6):579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Historic England. 2016a. 18 Gun Battery and Flanking Battery, Kings Stairs, Sallyport, Pointbarracks, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Database.
  30. Historic England. 2016b. The Pavilion at Lord’s Cricket Ground, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Database.
  31. Historic England. 2016c. The Square Tower, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Database.
  32. Hudson, P. 2005. Turkey Thwarts Howard’s Gallipoli Heritage Plan. The Age (Melbourne), 10 April: Proquest Database.Google Scholar
  33. Johnson, C. 2007. John Howard’s ‘Values’ and Australian Identity. Australian Journal of Political Science 42(2):195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelly, P. 2012. Strange Legacy: Debt and Doubt—Bali 10 years on. Australian (Sydney), 6 October:15.Google Scholar
  35. Labadi, S. 2007. Representations of the Nation and Cultural Diversity in Discourses on World Heritage. Journal of Social Archaeology 7(2):147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Logan, W., Witcomb, A. 2013. Messages from Long Tan, Vietnam. Critical Asian Studies 45(2):255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Macintyre, S., Clark, A. (2003) The History Wars, Melbourne UPMelbourne.,Google Scholar
  38. Mayflower 400. 2016. Autumn Statement Delivers Fair Wind for Mayflower 400 UK. Mayflower 400,
  39. McKenna, M., Ward, S. 2007. ‘It was Really Moving, Mate’: The Gallipoli Pilgrimage and Sentimental Nationalism in Australia. Australian Historical Studies 38(129):141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McSweeny, L. 2003. Kokoda and Anzac Cove could be Heritage-Listed. Australian Associated Press (General News), 21 August: ProQuest Database.Google Scholar
  41. Mitchell, S. 2007. Overseas Heritage Site Plan Dropped—ANZAC Day 2007. The Australian (Sydney). 26 April: 6.Google Scholar
  42. Page, J. 2013. Shipwreck Diplomacy: China takes Territorial Dispute to New Depths. Wall Street Journal, 2 December:A1.Google Scholar
  43. Robertson, J. 2016. Anger as Vietnam Cancels Event Marking 50 Years Since Battle of Long Tan. The Guardian (Australia), 17 August:
  44. Scates, B. 2002. In Gallipoli’s Shadow: Pilgrimage, Memory, Mourning and the Great War. Australian Historical Studies 33(119):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seal, G. 2007. Anzac: The Sacred in the Secular. Journal of Australian Studies 31(91):135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tranter, B., Donoghue, J. 2007. Colonial and Post-Colonial Aspects of Australian Identity. The British Journal of Sociology 58(2):165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Turnbull, M. (2007) Letter from Minister for the Environment and Water Resources to The Hon Alexander Downer MP (Minister for Foreign Affairs) RE: LOPHSA, 9 May, Office of the Minister for the Environment and Water ResourcesCanberra.,Google Scholar
  48. Vale, S., Freestone, R. 2012. The Things We Wanted to Keep: the Commonwealth and the National Estate 1969-1974. Historic Environment 24(3):12–18.Google Scholar
  49. Winter, T. 2015. Heritage Diplomacy. International Journal of Heritage Studies 21(10):997–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Witcomb, A. 2012. On Memory, Affect and Atonement: the Long Tan Memorial Cross(es). Historic Environment 24(3):35–42.Google Scholar
  51. Ziino, B. 2006. Who Owns Gallipoli? Australia’s Gallipoli Anxieties 1915–2005. Journal of Australian Studies 30(88):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversity of the Sunshine CoastNew FarmAustralia

Personalised recommendations