Many studies have addressed the significant role of the local communities in heritage protection as facilitator to promote various activities rather than as sharer to enjoy heritage. We analyze this problem by focusing on two Japanese cases: the Sannai Maruyama and Goshono sites, which show the extreme differences in roles as played out through local communities’ involvement, particularly active participation. Methodologically, our study explores both community-based and comparative approaches, with data collection combining reviews, on-site observation, and interviews. We discuss two cases through three different aspects: diversity of local communities, various participatory approaches, and the range of impacts from local communities’ participation. Our critical scrutiny of the similarities and differences between two such participatory models reveals that internal sharing is much more vital than external publicity in order to ensure long-term involvement of local communities. We should stress the interior model for the sustainable conservation and utilization of most archaeological sites.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2024 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: