Abstract

sIt is a very exciting time for the critical study of heritage discourse and practice for the MENA region, and the diverse and critical responses to my article stand as proof. In this article, I proposed to confront the challenges of studying and supporting regional traditions of heritage preservation in the era of heritage internationalism that sees the emergence and dominance of UNESCO as an authoritative and far-reaching ideology. It is true that there are other ideologies and institutions that we could and do consider in our work. As Mulder and Straughn point out in their interventions, our field-based observations continue to capture heritage making at different locales that result from ingenuity, strategy and unique intellectual traditions that cannot simply be foregrounded with a formulaic anti-Western warning. Thinking exclusively in dichotomous terms around the existence of a dominant discourse (the infamous authorized heritage discourse, or AHD) undermines hybridity and disarms local agency. Nevertheless, ignoring the specific historical and political turns that make global heritage discourse uninviting to an entire region has done far worse. Young argues that the ‘global preservation tradition that is at the heart of Rico’s critique does not just stand at odds with Muslim communities, and