Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:19:57.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The second coming of Palmyra. A technological prison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2020

Trinidad Rico
Trinidad Rico*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, Department of Art History, 71 Hamilton St, New Brunswick, NJ08901, USA
*
Email: trinidad.rico@rutgers.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , December 2020 , pp. 125 - 126
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cunliffe, E., 2016: Should we 3D print a new Palmyra?, The conversation, 31 March 2016, at https://theconversation.com/should-we-3d-print-a-new-palmyra-57014.Google Scholar
Future Foundation, Dubai, 2017: Dubai Future Foundation’s reconstructed Palmyra arch wins prestigious award at University of Oxford, at www.dubaifuture.gov.ae/dubai-future-foundations-reconstructed-palmyra-arch-wins-prestigious-award-at-university-of-oxford.Google Scholar
Joyce, R.A., and Gillespie, S.D., 2015: Making things out of objects that move, in Joyce, R.A. and Gillespie, S.D. (eds), Things in motion. Object itineraries in anthropological practice, Santa Fe, 3–20.Google Scholar
Meskell, L.M., 2018: A future in ruins. UNESCO, world heritage, and the dream of peace, New York.Google Scholar
Mulder, S., 2016: Evliyalarin ve sultanlarin türbeleri (Shrines for saints and sultans. On the destruction of local heritage sites by ISIS), Aktüel arkeoloji (Archaeology today), June 2016, 92–99.Google Scholar
Mulder, S., 2020 (forthcoming): War and recovery, in Insoll, T., Fenwick, C. and Walker, B. (eds), The Oxford handbook of Islamic archaeology, Oxford. Google Scholar
Rico, T., 2015: Heritage at risk. The authority and autonomy of a dominant preservation framework, in Lafrenz-Samuels, K. and Rico, T. (eds), Heritage keywords. Rhetoric and redescription in cultural heritage, Boulder, CO, 147–162.Google Scholar
Rico, T., 2017: Technology, technocracy, and the promise of ‘alternative’ heritage values, in Silverman, H., Waterton, E. and Watson, S. (eds), Heritage in action, New York, 217–230.Google Scholar
Stobiecka, M., forthcoming: Towards a critical archeological museum, in Westmont, V.C. (ed.), Critical public archaeology.Google Scholar
Thompson, E.L., 2018: Recreating the past in our own image. Contemporary artists’ reactions to the digitization of threatened cultural heritage sites in the Middle East, Future anterior. Journal of historic preservation, history, theory, and criticism 15 (1), 45–56.Google Scholar
Thompson, E.L., 2017: Legal and ethical considerations for digital recreations of cultural heritage, Chapman law review 20 (1), 153–176.Google Scholar