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