log symposium in tunis 2012 world heritage education. arts...
TRANSCRIPT
Prof. Dr. Jutta Ströter-Bender, University Paderborn, Germany
Eurolog Symposium in Tunis 2012
World Heritage Education. Arts and Research.
Intercultural Communication through Material Culture and Arts
1. World Heritage Education
UNESCO – World Heritage sites, which currently include 962 monuments in 157 countries (status in
July 2012), are universally recognised as ideal places for authentically teaching history, art, culture
and nature of each national, as well as the regional context and global dimensions. At present, 37
World Heritage sites are located in Germany, including three archaeological sites:
The Roman Monuments in Trier (World Heritage site since 1986),
The Roman Frontier or Limes as a transnational World Heritage site (World Heritage
site since 2005)
Prehistoric pile dwellings around the Alps, also transnational (World Heritage site
since 2011).
In addition, several World Heritage sites in Germany are influenced by the lasting philosophical
achievements of the 18th and 19
th Centuries, which are reflected in their architectural features and
cultural spheres. Examples of such World Heritage sites include:
Classical Weimar with its poet houses and public gardens (World Heritage site since
1998)
The Dessau-Wörlitz Garden Realm (World Heritage site since 2000)
The architectural constructions and historical collections of the Berliner Museum
Island, which embodies the spirit of the museum traditional of the 19th and early 20
th
Century (World Heritage site since 1999).
All World Heritage sites have a clear and binding educational mandate according to the UNECO
convention, which goes far beyond an offer of cultural tourism. In this context, World Heritage sites
are not only individual monuments, but rather authentic places, areas and landscapes of knowledge
interconnected to the individual biographies of citizens of the region and tourists, as well as national
and international relations. Many factors play a role in conveying knowledge on World Heritage sites,
including norms, common values, concepts of reality, thought and behavioural patterns, as well as
(aesthetic) perceptions, mentality and lifestyle of a society, together with their interaction with their
cultural heritage – and at the same time, these are sites where lifelong learning and the acquisition of
cultural and intercultural competences are possible.
Germany has initiated the implementation according to UNESCO guidelines on the educational
mission of World Heritage sites and the promotion of cultural diversity, and has now established a
new cultural-political and highly relevant field of research called World Heritage Education.
The concept involves an open research and scientific landscape formed by interdisciplinary networks
(http://www.unesco.de/6721. May 2012). In this nationwide research network, World Heritage sites
are defined, where practical, as places for university-based research, teaching and knowledge transfer,
where the world can be explored and discovered with all the senses and the significance for the global
community can be learnt and understood along the lines of the UNESCO conventions (Schefers und
Ströter-Bender 2009).
The intention is to open World Heritage sites as places of intercultural encounter according to the
peace-making ideals of UNESCO and to recognise them in the context of a global network for
intercultural dialogue (German UNESCO Commission: Berlin Resolution May 4, 2012;) Stralsunder
Declaration II. 6. June 22, 2012; (Dippon 2012).
The potential of possible content and delivery methods in the context of archaeological monuments
and museums is immense, but in many ways not yet exhausted; especially considering the objectives
of integration and identity formation for wide sections of the population, and in conjunction with the
impulses of intercultural education and the UNESCO Convention on cultural diversity
(http://www.unesco.de/kulturelle-vielfalt).
World Heritage Education at the University of Paderborn
Since 2002, the Department of Art Studies at the University of Paderborn has dedicated a module in
their art teacher training curriculum to World Heritage Education. Research into basic teaching
methods within the framework of world heritage for the next generation represents the central focus
for future teachers in World Heritage Education. The teaching of cultural heritage during teacher
training, whether focusing on regional aspects or on world heritage, is a long-term initiative intended
to be sustainable for the next generation. In approximately 20 years 50% of the next generation in
Germany will have a migrant background. As a consequence, it is a political goal to discover and
implement common space for cultural practices in the context of multicultural coexistence. Research
and development of methodologies within the framework of the World Heritage Education will
highlight the reconciliation potential that lies in the history, art and culture of World Heritage sites.
Furthermore, it will show how this could be made fruitful and how world heritage, art and history can
be “newly” interpreted and perceived in order to support participation and the integration processes of
various groups of the population.
fig.1
fig.2
fig. 3
2. The Museum Suitcase Project
Information from museums, monuments, World Heritage sites and other sites of cultural or natural
importance can be communicated in a demonstrative manner through the appropriate presentation of
selected themes in a “Miniature Museum” or so-called “Museum Suitcase”. A selection of
representative materials and objects (originals / often replicas) are presented in a tightly limited
collection space together with complete lessons, which provide multi-perspective access to the
important aspects of each monument and museum collection. The concept represents various temporal
and spatial contexts and scientific-historical levels, while combining stimulation for creative
processes. The media used is both educational and artistic in that exhibits and presentations
“condense” several classical functions of the museum context, such as the collection and preservation,
archiving, documentation, presentation, staging and teaching. The concept is based on the didactic
tradition of “reality teaching” and the culture of staging a “chamber of wonder”. They are orientated
on historical and current presentation methods of museums and collections, as well as the concept of
the “wild amateur museum” (Janelli 2012). Museum Suitcases also equally apply strategies of
contemporary art with biographical-oriented techniques and performance practices. They are also, at
the same time, exhibitions that are not finalised, but rather expand are one comes closer to each of the
themes. They open dimensions of “discovery” and practical learning through cultural and practical
experience; also in the field of adult education. Museum Suitcases are used in universities and schools,
during guided tours, as preparation for excursions, in the design of exhibitions and within the
framework of aesthetic education projects. They are an interface between “public didactic and cultural
education” (Dannecker und Thielking; Hgg. 2012).
The definition of a Museum Suitcase, however, is to this day unclear, despite the detailed information
in the standard German reference “History on Tour” (Geschichte auf Reisen) (2005: 48f.) by Hans
Joachim Gach. The term “material” or “learning box” according to Gach is a haphazard, unstructured
collection of objects, whereas the term “Museum Suitcase” is more connected with the functions of
museums and the systematic arrangement of exhibits. Museum Suitcases, which are also known as
“Museum Kits” in English, are in most cases not factory made, but rather unique and small archives
that have been created with a lot of effort and engagement from institutions, individual teachers and
also school classes. They contain material in the long tradition of so-called “reality teaching” with
individually produced teaching materials. Within the framework of “discovery” and “exemplary”
learning, the Museum Suitcase is recognised as a particularly impressive and successful medium.
Between 2002 and 2012, the University of Paderborn and its students have developed the Museum
Suitcase project from a school-orientated teaching project to an independent teaching and research
field with doctoral dissertations and scientific publications (Ströter-Bender 2009) on material culture
and traditional aesthetic practice (architectural models and craftsmanship among others). In addition,
the Museum Suitcase project has been further developed with diverse staging during independent
exhibitions at countless German World Heritage sites, in which they acted as stand-alone ambassadors
for World Heritage. The project has been recognised with the following awards: University of
Paderborn Research Prize 2002, winning project in the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research competition: Spirit Inspires. The Year of Human Science. Museum Suitcase for Classical
Weimar in Anna Amalia 2007. A total of over 450 Museum Suitcase projects have been created over
the last decade and many of their concepts are publically available in the digital Museum Suitcase
archive (http://www.uni-paderborn.de/index.php?id=30921).
The exhibits for the Museum Suitcase are individually prepared by students on the basis of their own
research and teaching questions and curatorial concepts, following preparatory excursions in
university seminars and workshop sessions. This provides access to a wealth of practical experience
with materials that are often unfamiliar, through practicing aesthetic production and through teaching
work in the university context. Aside from the acquisition of basic cultural and historical science
knowledge and discourses, students develop a wide spectrum of craftsmanship and artistic experience
and competence, while questioning artistic strategies and collection concepts. Through the perspective
of exhibition experience and teaching practice, students additionally reflect upon the Museum Suitcase
exhibition concept concerning aspects such as participation, curatorial strategy, gender, the
possibilities of achieving a scientific discourse on memory and the tangible and intangible practices of
memory cultures (Tewes 2009).
Aside from the university education goals, a central intention of the project is also to give future
teachers concrete materials and objects to broaden their spectrum of methodologies and content for
later work in the classroom (Gach 2005; Ströter-Bender 2009). The project follows in the footsteps of
a so-called “archaeology of traditional forms of teaching and learning” (Foucault 1981).
fig.4
fig.5
3. Archaeology of Teaching and Learning
The Museum Suitcase project is also interested in the “archaeology of forms of teaching and learning”,
which is part of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001, Article 8). This
specifically means “incorporating, where appropriate, traditional pedagogies into the education
process with a view to preserving and making full use of culturally appropriate methods of
communication and transmission of knowledge”. In this way questions are connected, for example
whether traditions from the history of the “chamber of wonder in a box” or the antique collection from
the 18th Century are also relevant for the present day, and these can be used to aesthetically teach
cultural heritage.
The great success of Museum Suitcases in various applications in exhibitions, museums and schools
lies in the fact that a visually-oriented culture dominates the present aesthetic socialisation. Many of
the materials, experiences and workmanship techniques that were familiar to earlier generations are no
longer accessible or familiar to adolescents.
For this very reason, the University of Paderborn set up a Museum Suitcase Workshop. Sennett
described the activities in the workshop as a form of material practice and a site between thinking,
creative practice and technical virtuosity where the “dialogue with materials” takes place (Sennett
2008: 170); which can also be applied to central forms of the Museum Suitcase. These aspects vary in
their complexity between reflection processes, design practice (Gethmann und Hauser 2009), control
in the development process and possible discoveries and developments. The Museum Suitcase project
connects with the fundamental experiences of materials of different qualities (Raff 2008; Wagner und
Rübel 2010) and the learning of handicraft and artistic techniques through various workshop
traditions and their historical lines (mosaic patterns, model building, sketching, painting, object
design, writing forms, textiles, restoration techniques). These aspects are always connected with the
dimensions of future teaching and communication of the underlying concepts.
Museum Suitcases give not only the possibly to gain experience with objects and craftsmanship, but
also to provide a “space” to tell stories. They offer a chance for fantasies to develop, stories of fairy
tales and legends to be told, for the invention of fictive biographies, the learning of poems and text
from literature and the singing of songs and the use of musical instruments. In this way, the concrete
application of the Museum Suitcase in the field of archaeology and archaeological sites can be
expanded.
fig.6
4. Material Culture and Transcultural Teaching
At the interface of translating and interpreting cultural spaces, the Museum Suitcase, with its objects
and collections in design and implementation, expresses not only the concrete implementation of
artistic concepts, research and current scientific practice, but also cultural standards and interpretations
of the world and transcultural teaching fields (Ströter-Bender 2010, 2012). The Museum Suitcase
collection objectively formulates “material commentary” and scientific focal points. From a cultural
studies perspective, the exhibits can be considered actors (Ferus und Rübel 2009) who translate and
represent discursive and transcultural fields in art and cultural history, in particular:
- in the perception of their materiality and the related artisanal and artistic practices and
aesthetic traditions,
- through research, presentation and discussion on the production of meanings and cultural
identities, values and memories of material cultures (Döring und Thielmann 2008: 7-48),
- at the interface between immateriality and materiality.
These aspects therefore prove that discourse on material culture, material and production is a special
“field of dialogue” in transcultural learning. Material and object experience in the context of
archaeology allow space for a “different” experience of time, combined with the knowledge or even
potential perceptions of occasional resistant production techniques.
Multiple perspectives of material and production can be employed in archaeological research to look
at material hierarchies (valuable – worthless) (Raff 2008) and the history of (artistic) materials and
their intercultural transfers, paths and spaces. Several examples include the cultural history of the
Incense Trade Route, the history of colour pigmentation or the “migration of technology”, such as the
production of weapons and tools.
fig.7
5. Archaeology in World Heritage Education: Provenance. Restitution. Mediation.
The spectrum of topics under “Provenance. Restitution. Mediation”, in conjunction with the concepts
of teaching in the Museum Case project, also seem to be a significant field of dialogue for
archaeological topics where conflicts and mediation-prone themes can be resolved through
constructive mediation with examples of cultural heritage discourses represented from multiple
perspectives.
Results of the now independently established and rapidly growing research into provenance and looted
art have fundamentally changed the historical view of archaeological spaces and museum collections,
and has initiated controversial restitution discourse on a cultural-political level. From a legal and an art
studies perspective, the following categories are covered by provenance and looted art research (Anton
2010-2013): stolen art (for example Savoy 2011), smuggled national cultural property, illegal antiquity
trafficking, Nazi stolen art, art stolen during conflicts and looted art, so-called “degenerate art”, looted
art stored in the former Soviet Union states (for example, the excavations of Heinrich Schliemann in
Troy, which is today in Moscow), nationalised cultural goods during the reign of dictatorial regimes
and colonial and artefact-sharing related cultural heritage relocation (Wolf 2010). Examples of
provenance research in recent history can be seen through the work of the Art Loss Register in London
(www.artloss.com).
The current debates concerning the results of provenance and restitution research, and the perspectives
that have arisen as a consequence on the history of collections, museums, exhibition practices and
exhibit transfers, all lead to a reflection of scientific historical relationships. They change the image of
various fields of archaeological and art history. They open up critical potentials in national and
international cultural heritage discussions, the interpretation of the past and the multiple dimensions of
a hidden economy in the development of collections of historical artefacts (and their mechanisms of
exclusion). The research results flow into the in-depth perception of the history of staging exhibitions
in museums and their public didactic. At the same time, these debates refer to the history of cultural
hierarchies in the evaluation of material culture and artistic objects, their materials, production
methods and technologies. They expand the cultural cartography and the knowledge on important
milestones in history.
The transnational and conflict-prone levels of provenance research and the transfer and restitution
discourse concerning artwork and objects belong to the practice of mediation. In one way, mediation
practices in museum discourse are defined as a cultural strategy that mediates between artwork and the
public (Thiéblemont-Dollet; Ed. 2008). Within the framework of the Museum Suitcase project,
however, these are conceived in extended versions that are as individual as the institutional efforts to
understand, conciliate and redress in the context of cultural and educational politics. In this sense, the
mediation idea also addresses the concerns of UNESCO and World Heritage Education by
maintaining respect for cultural diversity as the common heritage of mankind and to preserve and
strengthen the field of peace education through basic communication skills in verbal form, image
formulations and educational layers (Wiegelmann-Bals 2010).
Archaeological pieces of art and their transferal through collection strategies, conflict (robbery,
destruction, disappearance, remediation in new contexts), as well as through expropriations under the
darker side of culture and the potential of mediation – and opening these issues for mediation in
cultural work, museum education and schools – form a central concern of the Museum Suitcase
project. Narrative maps and the mapping of trails, roads and events open forms of dialogue and refer
visually and materially to levels of mediation. Architectural models in suitcases allow the
reconstruction of missing and destroyed constructions and open associated “repair procedures”.
Reconstructed objects or replicas become the starting point of “object histories” and their intertwined
pathways in robbery, art trade and museum collection.
fig.8
fig.9
6. Museum Suitcase Strategies
Alongside teaching techniques of material culture (mosaics, pottery, basket weaving) and the
representation of object histories, and in particular the use of fictitious biography suitcases, the
invention of a so-called “aesthetic biography” has proven to be a successful “transferable” Museum
Suitcase strategy to convey information on archaeology under the key aspects of provenance,
restitution and mediation. This imaginative method of applied Museum Suitcase concept is intensified
by dedication to well-known personalities from history, as well as unknown identities such as grave
robbers, perpetrators and victims, slaves, children, researchers, travellers and artists. Distant historical
events and specific occurrences are brought into the mediation process vividly and impressively.
Smaller, fragmented records and objects such as pieces of clothing, dolls, everyday objects or personal
jewellery give life to the imaginary biography.
Deception and forgeries in the framework of artistic education concepts can be used as alternative
models of reality experiences in order to expand access, break perception patterns and lead to deeper
understanding. The borders between the truth, scientific results and inventiveness are further
broadened by fictitious biographies and constructed references to reality. As a consequence, working
with aesthetic biographical methodologies always leads to discussions of their didactic legitimacy -
here the well-known strategies of contemporary artists could be significant (such as the example of the
American photographic artist Cindy Sherman, who was born in 1953).
As symbolic representatives of cultural and natural heritage sites, collections, historical events and
biographies, Museum Suitcases are part of a continuously evolving spectrum in World Heritage
Education. It is an extraordinary medium that is sustainable and will not “go out of fashion” quickly.
The materials and objects in a Museum Suitcase will not necessarily be used in many applications.
The suitcases and chest spaces allow the gathering of numerous “used” objects. They can be often set
up “without money” and created solely through the use of found objects and collectors’ items. So-
called “poor” materials or replicas can also form the basis of complete kits. For example, the
reconstruction of a simple canvas bag used by a pilgrim in the early Middle Ages required only dry
bread, shells in a small round wooden box, a sketchbook, a wooden walking stick and beeswax.
The different levels of World Heritage Education form an immense potential for people to discover
that natural and cultural heritage is actually a common heritage for present and future generations.
Here, cooperation networks between museums, World Heritage sites, universities and also with
teacher colleges are more than useful.
Translation: Scott Hemphill
fig.10
6. Literature and Internet Sources
M. Anton: Handbuch Kulturgüterschutz und Kunstrestitutionsrecht, Band 1-6, Berlin/ New York
2010-2013.
F. Balke, M. Muhle, A. von Schöning (Hg.): Die Wiederkehr der Dinge, Berlin 2011.
F. Büchler: Reliefs im Schulunterricht. Ein Verlust der Ästhetik, in: A. Bürgi (Hg.), Europa Miniature.
Die kulturelle Bedeutung des Reliefs. 16. bis 21. Jahrhundert, Zürich 2007, 193-202.
W. Dannecker, S. Thielking (Hgg.): Öffentliche Didaktik und Kulturvermittlung, Bielefeld 2012
(Hannoversche Beiträge zur Kulturvermittlung und Didaktik 2).
L. Daston, P. Galison: Objektivität, Frankfurt am Main 2007.
P. Dippon: Lernort UNESCO-Welterbe. Eine akteurs- und institutionsbasierte Analyse des
Bildungsanspruchs im Spannungsfeld von Postulat und Praxis, Dissertation in Drucklegung,
Universität Heidelberg 2012.
K. Ferus, D. Rübel, K. Rübel (Hg.): Die Tücke des Objekts. Vom Umgang mit Dingen, Berlin 2009
(Schriftenreihe der Isa Lohmann-Siems-Stiftung, 2).
M. Foucault: Archäologie des Wissens, Frankfurt am Main 1981.
H. J. Gach: Geschichte auf Reisen. Historisches Lernen mit Museumskoffern, Schwalbach am Taunus
2005.
D. Gethmann, S. Hauser (Hg.): Kulturtechnik Entwerfen. Praktiken, Konzepte und Medien in
Architektur und Design Science, Bielefeld 2009.
A. Jannelli: Wilde Museen. Zur Museologie des Amateurmuseums, Bielefeld 2012.
T. Raff: Die Sprache der Materialien. Anleitung zu einer Ikonologie der Werkstoffe, 2. Auflage,
Münster 2008.
D. Rübel (Hg.): Materialästhetik. Quellentexte zu Kunst, Design und Architektur, Berlin 2005.
B. Savoy: Kunstraub. Napoleons Konfiszierungen in Deutschland und die europäischen Folgen, Köln
2011.
B. Savoy: Nofretete. Eine deutsch-französische Affäre 1912-1931, Köln 2011.
H. Schefers, J. Ströter-Bender (Hg.): WORLD HERITAGE EDUCATION. Ergebnisprotokoll des
ersten Kamingesprächs über Konturen und Ziele pädagogischer Arbeit an UNESCO-Welterbestätten
(World Heritage Education) am 2. und 3. Oktober 2008 im Herrenhaus des Staatsparks Fürstenlager.
Überarbeitet von Dr. Susanne Braun, PD Dr. Andrea Richter, Prof. Dr. Ingrid Schoberth und Prof. Dr.
Hildegard Vieregg, Unveröffentlichtes Dokument 2009.
R. Sennett: HandWerk, Berlin 2008.
J. Ströter-Bender: Didaktik und ästhetische Präsenz. Dreidimensionale Modelle in kulturellen
Räumen, in: W. Dannecker, S. Thielking (Hg.), Öffentliche Didaktik und Kulturvermittlung, Bielefeld
2012 (Hannoversche Beiträge zur Kulturvermittlung und Didaktik 2), 207-218.
J. Ströter-Bender: Modelle, Materielle Kultur und World Heritage Education. Zur Aktualität von
Bildungstraditionen, in: J. Ströter-Bender (Hg.), World Heritage Education. Positionen und Diskurse,
Band 4, Marburg 2010 (=Kontext. Kunst. Kulturelle Bildung.).
J. Ströter-Bender (Hg.): World Heritage Education. Positionen und Diskurse zur Vermittlung des
UNESCO-Welterbes, Marburg 2010.
J. Ströter-Bender: Museumskoffer, Material- und Ideenkisten. Projekte zum Sammeln, Erkunden,
Ausstellen und Gestalten für den Kunstunterricht der Primarstufe, der Sekundarstufe I und die
Museumspädagogik, Marburg 2009.
J. Ströter-Bender: Museumskoffer und interkulturelle Vermittlung, in: Thüringer Institut für
Lehrerfortbildung, Lehrplanentwicklung und Medien (Hg.), Ich wollte einfach mal raus:
Interkultureller Dialog – gestern und heute. Erfahrungen. Perspektiven. Reflexionen, Weimar 2008
(Materialien/Thüringer Institut für Lehrerfortbildung, Lehrplanentwicklung und Medien, 140), 68-69.
J. Ströter-Bender: Teaching World Heritage – Learning Paths and Museum Coffers, in: M.-T. Albert
(Hg.), Training Strategies for World Heritage Management, Bonn 2007, 74-79.
J. Ströter-Bender, H. Wolter: Das Weltkulturerbe der UNESCO im Kunstunterricht. Materialien für
die Grundschule, Donauwörth: Auer, Kunstunterricht der Primarstufe, der Sekundarstufe I und die
Museumspädagogik, Marburg 2005.
J. Ströter-Bender: Lebensräume von Kunst und Wissen. UNESCO-Welterbestätten in Nordrhein-
Westfalen. Exkursionshinweise, Basisinformationen, Unterrichtsmaterialien, ästhetische Zugänge,
Paderborn 2004.
J. Tewes, Museumskoffer und Kunstunterricht, in: World Heritage and Arts Education 1 (2009).
S. Thiéblemont-Dollet (Ed.): Art, médiation et interculturalité, Nancy 2008.
B. Verwiebe: Verlust und Wiederkehr. Verlorene und zurückgewonnene Werke der Nationalgalerie,
Berlin 2010.
M. Wagner, D. Rübel, S. Hackenschmidt (Hg.): Lexikon des künstlerischen Materials. Werkstoffe der
modernen Kunst von Abfall bis Zinn, 2. Auflage, München 2010.
A. Wiegelmann-Bals: Mediative Verfahren im Kontext der World Heritage Education, in: J. Ströter-
Bender (Hg.), World Heritage Education. Positionen und Diskurse, Band 4, Marburg 2010 (=Kontext.
Kunst. Kulturelle Bildung.), 79 – 92.
N. Wolf: Beute. Kunst. Transfers. Eine andere Kunstgeschichte, Wiesbaden 2010.
List of Internet References:
General declaration of cultural diversity (31st UNESCO General Conference, November 2001 in
Paris): http://www.unesco.de/443.html?&L=0 (Status: 10.7.2009, 9.14 am)
Working Group World Heritage Education: http://www.unesco.de/6721 (Status: 14.7.2012, 12.00pm)
The digital Museum Suitcase archive at the University of Paderborn: http://www.uni-
paderborn.de/index.php?id=30921
Digital Newspaper: World Heritage and Arts Education (5th edition since 2009): http://groups.uni-
paderborn.de/stroeter-bender/WHAE/index.html
Art Loss Register: (www.artloss.com) / Lost Art Databank: (www.lostart.de) (Status: 14.7.2012,
12.00pm)
Stralsund Declaration of the German UNESCO Commission. 22nd
June 2012:
http://www.unesco.de/stralsunder_resolution.html (Status: 14.7.2012, 12.00pm)
UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity: http://www.unesco.de/kulturelle-vielfalt (Status:
14.7.2012, 12.00pm)
The Washington Declaration and its application in Germany:
http://www.lostart.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/5140/publicationFile/29/Handreichung.pdf (Status:
14.7.2012, 12.00pm)
7. List of Illustrations
Prof. Dr. Jutta Ströter-Bender
World Heritage Education. Arts and Research.
Intercultural Communication through Material Culture and Arts
Abbildungsverzeichnis (alle Fotos Jutta Ströter-Bender bis auf Nr. 4 )
Kapitel 1 World Heritage Education
1. Roman House. Welterbe Klassik. Stiftung. Weimar
2. Grafic: Science House of the World Heritage Education (Jutta Ströter-Bender/ Eva Koch)
3. Grafic: Theme fields of the World Heritage Education (Jutta Ströter-Bender / Eva Koch)
Kapitel 2 The Museum Suitcase Project
4. The Museum Suitcase project. Photo Patricia Cabaleiro de Meuser
5. The Museum Suitcase by Sabrina Zimmermann. The Tales of the Gebrüder Grimm. 2012
Kapitel 3 Archaeology of Teaching and Learning
6. The Museum Suitcase by Peter Lepp. Bionic. Birds and Feathers. Weltnaturerbe Alte
Buchenwälder Deutschland. 2011
Kapitel 4 Material Culture and Transcultural Teaching
7. The Museum Suitcase by Young-Ran Kim. History of the Writing Culture in Corea. 2012
Kapitel 5 Archaeology in World Heritage Education: Provenance. Restitution. Mediation.
8. The Museum Suitcase by Thomas Contze. World Heritage Epidauros. 2010
9. Mediation: The Museum Suitcase by Sarah Kass. Destiny of a Jewish Girl in Ausschwitz.
2011
Kapitel 6 Museum Suitcase Strategies
10. Exhibition in a hall of the Ruhrland Museums. Welterbesonntag in der Zeche Zollverein.
Essen. Presentation of awarded Museum Suitcases. 2010