University of Groningen

Faculty of Spatial Sciences

International School of Spatial Policy Studies
Pré-Berlin Paper

Contested|Heritage in Berlin

André Bogni - s3020541

Nathália Striebel - s3020584

Professor: Paul van Steen

Supervisor: Mathijs de Jong

Groningen, 03 May 2016

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Research Goal ..............................................................................................................................................4

Research Questions .....................................................................................................................................4

Heritage: Culture and Time..........................................................................................................................5

Contested Heritage: Relations of Power and Identity...................................................................................6

Placing the Contested Heritage discussion: The city of Berlin................................................................7

Berlin Wall as a material Barrier..................................................................................................................10

Berlin Wall as an immaterial Barrier…………...............................................................................................11

Berlin Wall as a contested heritage………...................................................................................................13

The Palace of the Republic…………………………..............................................................................................14

Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................18

Fieldwork Questions…………………………........................................................................................................19

References……............................................................................................................................................ 20

2
Introduction

A crucial aspect of human expression, that is responsible for connecting generations and
generations through time, is heritage: Not specifically about the cultural products related to the
material legacy of a group or nation, heritage is much more about how we interpret, in the present,
these collective memories (Tunbridge, J. E., & Ashworth, G. J. 1996).

Heritage thus, could be seen as a human form of transmitting itself through years,
maintaining alive collective identifications, everyday rituals and traditions. However, the
interesting point of this concept is that, as it depends of human interpretation, it is also about
forgetting the past. By neglecting or highlighting past selectively, the manipulation of the
collective legacy can, thus, reinforce a certain collective identity, or, by hiding ‘undesirable’ facts,
open space to the establishment of new ones. This aspect have been used actively throughout
human history, reinforcing ideologies, and legitimizing power structures (David Harvey, 2001).

This paper will analyze the concept of heritage, and how the subjectivity of this topic,
consequently, turns it into a contested matter, especially when the target of the discussion take
place at ,historically contested, urban centers. In order to illustrate this theoretical discussion, the
city of Berlin, a city marked by dramatic political and extreme ideological disputes, is going to be
analyzed in order to understand how the city have been dealing with its turbulent past and how its
heritage has been managed through time.

Specifically, it will focus on how the management of the city’s legacy was (and is still
today) used in order to legitimize governments and ideologies, since Hitler’s plans to rebuild the
capital with the Nazi’s view, going to the divided history of the post-WWII and Cold War, till
discussions of the present days. Two significant examples will be aborted throughout the paper:
The Berlin Wall and the contested history of the former Palace of the Republic.

3
Research Goal

The main objective of this research is to analyze the concept of heritage, by discussing the
reasons why it is considered a contested subject, in the context of the German capital, Berlin. Once
that the city of Berlin was stage of intense struggles for political power, the research aims to
understand how heritage was, and is still used as a political, social and ideological toll. In order to
illustrate these process two cases of study will be analyzed: The Berlin Wall and the Palace of the
Republic, highlighting the contested characteristic of heritage.

Research Questions

- Which is the definition of heritage, and why it is so contested?

- In which ways human legacy could be manipulated in order to reinforce (or not) a collective
identity and structures of power?

- How does the the concept of contested heritage appears on Berlin’s turbulent history?

- What have been done with remnants of the city’s division in the post-conflict scenario?

- Which are the consequences of preserving, or not, a heritage site? Who is benefited from
that?

4
Heritage: culture and time

Through years of existence, the humankind has developed several ways of transmitting and
expressing itself: Rituals, languages, writing systems, paintings, dances, music, food and
architecture are some examples of cultural products that represent people's expressions. These
representations of human interaction can vary in space - different geographical locations,
representing distinctive communities and identities - and through time - as a living entity. These
kind of cultural meanings are fluid and ultimately created through doing and through the
aspirations of the present, legitimized through the creation and recreation of a sense of linkage to
the past, that can also be called ‘heritage’ (Smith, L. 2006)

The definition found in the Cambridge English Dictionary¹, states that heritage means
“Features belonging to the culture of a particular society, such as traditions, languages, or
buildings, that were created in the past and still have historical importance”. It is important to
note that heritage is not only related to material objects (such as buildings, memorials, etc…), but
is also related to immaterial expressions (traditions, languages, etc...) of a community or nation.
Going deeper in this view, could be said that material objects, as sites and buildings, are not
heritage in themselves. While these products are often important, heritage is more about what goes
on at these places, being a cultural process that uses material objects as a tool to facilitate the time-
exchange of meaning from past to the present. (Smith, L. 2006)

When talking about time, it is necessary to say that heritage is not directly related to the
study of what happened in the past. Instead, heritage is concerned with the way the memories
(physical or abstract) are used in the present with contemporary purposes, whether they are
economic or cultural (including political and social factors) and choose to bequeath to a future. In
other words, the contents, interpretations and representations of the past are selected according to
the demands of the present, adapting and defining meanings and traditions. Thus, heritage can be
seen as the process (in the present) of interpretation and reinterpretation of the past. (Ashworth, G.
J; Graham, B. J., 2005)

Due to the subjectivity of this concept, that depends on the human interpretation of what
might be - or not - ‘historically significant’ (thinking about what is being interpreted, how and by
whom), heritage is not always something consensual. The different interpretations of the past,

5
representing different interests (sometimes from conflicting social classes, political parties, etc..),
are responsible for the existence of many possible heritages, causing what is also known as the
concept of dissonant heritage. (Ashworth, G. J; Graham, B. J., 2005)

Contested Heritage: Relations of Power and Identity

According to Ashworth (1996), heritage is simultaneously knowledge, a cultural product

and a political resource. It is knowledge because is related with collective awareness of
humankind’s legacy, representing diverse expressions and memories of the past, handled in the
present to reinforce and transmit a desired identity. It is a cultural product because represents a
collective patrimony, socially constructed, that highlight people’s desires and ways of thinking,
reinforcing the idea of identification, being on a small social scale (a family, a group of friends,
etc…) or larger spheres (communities, cities, nations, etc…). Finally, due to the capacity of
reinforce (or not) a certain collective identity, according to a certain standing ideology, it is a
political resource, possessing a substantial socio-political function.

David Harvey (2001) notes that the socio-political function of heritage, making use of the
past to construct ideas of collective identities, is part of the human condition, and that throughout
human history people have actively managed and treasured material (and immaterial) aspects of
the past for this purpose. Harvey also defines heritage as a process concerned with the
legitimization of the power of national and other cultural/social identities.

Indeed, as state Graham et al. (2005), the idea of choosing selectively what material or
immaterial expressions from the past a given society must keep (or not) will inevitably reflect the
view of dominant social, religious or ethnic groups, legitimizing certain discourses by validating
and reproducing certain social and cultural values.

Ashworth (1996), however, draws our attention to the complexity of this process: The
collective identity related to heritage handling cannot be explicable in terms of a single simple
dominant ideology projected from definable dominant producers to subordinate passive
consumers. Instead, this process is both internal and external, constituted of a multifaceted
relationship, carrying on it the many identities, images, desires and purposes. Thus, heritage takes

6
a variety of official (dominant-sponsored) and unofficial forms, the latter often seen as
subversive/counter-culture.

(Example of heritage being contested as tradition: The zwarte piet discussion on Netherlands. Source: Media Nu.)

If heritage is a dissonant concept even in well-established power structures and nations,

what could be said about periods of history where even the relations of power were being disputed
and contested? In order to better understand and illustrate the complexity of this topic, the next
sections will analyze the many changes (physical and political) that the city of Berlin has passed
since periods of the WWII, going through the Cold War and beyond, taking a close look at two
significant examples of heritage being contested: The Berlin Wall and the former Palace of the
Republic.

Placing the Contested Heritage discussion: The City of Berlin

When analyzing intense disputes for political and economic power, involving the usage of
a place’s heritage in order to promote a certain political ideology, the turbulent history of the
German capital, Berlin, is an intriguing example, once that, power relations deeply scarred the
social, cultural, political, ideological and, consequently, urban development of the city. Although
the political and social instability in Berlin were more accentuated through the years of the second
World War and Cold War, it is possible to identify previous periods of the history, when the
identity of the city was ,already, being contested.

After 1871, when the German Nation was declared, the political importance of Berlin was
solidified, and the pace of the city’s economic and cultural development quickened: In 1871, the

7
city’s central district and outlying communities were home to 932,000 inhabitants. Already in
1900, twenty nine years later, the city’s inhabitants numbered 1,9 million, reaching 4,1 million by
1925 (Heinzel, 2008)

The 20’s, also known as the Golden Twenties, was perhaps the decade (before the second
war) in which the modern identity of the city more taken shape. Berlin became an important center
of science, arts (cinema, paintings, music, etc…), industries and military affairs. In order to follow
the modern identity of the city, architects such as Peter Behrens, Bruno Taut, and Erich
Mendelsohn, developed experimental modern approaches to the urban design in response to the
effects of industrialization, the rapid growth of the city, and the profound social and cultural shifts
that resulted. (Pugh, E. 2014)

When, in 1933 Adolf Hitler took the power, Berlin’s reputation as the capital of modernity
was well established. He did not accepted that identity of the city, not considering it a “true capital”
of the Nazi’s Empire. So great was his aversion to Berlin that he is said to have felt no dismay over
the prospect of its destruction by British bombs (Applegate C. 1990). Due to that, Hitler,
concertedly with his chief architect, Albert Speer, created several intervention plans to the city,
desiring to build monumental classic structures in order to replace the former heritage of the
modernity times. The plans would purge the city of those populations and buildings that did not
fit into the Nazi worldview and, in so doing, re-create Berlin as a stage on which the politics and
ideology of the new regime would unfold. For this purpose, Speer carefully considered the
emotional and psychological impact of the new plan to ensure that visitors and residents of the
new capital would be awed by the power of the Nazis (Applegate C. 1990).

(Hitler’s Plans for Berlin. source: Dailymail UK)

8
 This represents the way that Hitler has dealt with the city’s heritage, when he took the
power: Denying the modern identity of Berlin in order to build his own projects, following a classic
character, with the face of the new political structure, the Nazi regime. A good example of material
heritage manipulation used in order to reinforce a given power structure. Hopefully, despite some
modifications on the city, most of Hitler’s utopian plans to rebuild Berlin on a monumental scale
was never realized, and his period of insanity ended in 1945 with the conclusion of the World War
II. The end of the war marked the beginning of a new set of political struggles and a period of
growing divides within Germany and Berlin: The Cold War.

By January 1944, Allied forces had agreed that the country would be divided into three
zones of occupation, to be administered by Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Yalta
conference, held in February 1945, confirmed these earlier plans with some changes, which
included adding France as a fourth occupying power. It was also determined that the capital city
of Berlin would be divided as well, since it was too strategically important to cede to just one of
the four powers. (Pugh, E. 2014)

Therefore, on May 23 1949, the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD), or Federal Republic

of Germany (FRG, West Germany) was founded, and some months later, in October of the same
year, the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), or German Democratic Republic (GDR, East
Germany) was declared, in opposition. When GDR was founded, Berlin became the capital of the
new country, however, the debate about the city’s status would not be resolved until 1961, when
the closure of the border between eastern and western Berlin definitively divided the city for the
long term. (Pugh, E. 2014)

Taking into consideration the traumatic history of Berlin, a city that has been the scene of
violent struggles over political power, it's possible to imagine the deepness of the scars left by
those confronting ideological disputes for power on the Germanic capital and the remaining
influences on the daily life of the citizens. In this point of view, if the political structure of power
was so intensely contested in several periods of Berlin’s history, consequently, the remaining
aspects of the city’s heritage is also something questionable.

As heritage consists in a subjective and volatile aspect of society, which does not have a
unique form of interpretation - variating in time and space (and also subordinated to personal

9
opinion) - in several cases, heritage was managed to benefit a group of society and in order to
reinforce a specific ideology. In the case of Berlin, this came in an even more complex way, due
to the numerous changes that the capital suffered on its political and social structure, meaning that,
over the history of the city, different groups managed the legacy of the urban heritage in different
(contested) ways, reinforcing (or not) their ideologies and identity aspirations. In order to illustrate
this usage of the heritage, the two case of study will be analyzed: the Berlin Wall and Palace of
the Republic.

Berlin Wall as a material barrier

The establishment of the Berlin Wall was a political process based on diverging ideological
aspects. The initial stage of physical segregation was first established in 1946, when the Soviet
administration set up a demarcation line dividing Berlin into two sectors, those of West Berlin and
East Berlin. In 1949 the Soviets terminated the blockade and Germany was constituted by two
separate states those of West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany – FRG) and East Germany
(German Democratic Republic – GDR), each having its own currency and administration. Even
before the erection of the Berlin Wall, the city of Berlin was already divided by a rough
demarcation line, which was established in 1946 by the Soviets. (Frederick, T. 2007)

(Demarcation line established in 1946. Source: Dailymail UK)

Between 1946 and 1961 an important demographic change happened, three and a half
million citizens migrated from East Germany to West Germany. This mass population migration
not only threatened the economy of the communist sector but it was, also, seen as a failure of the

10
regime. Therefore, drastic measures were applied in order to avoid the uncontrolled migration, and
on August 13th 1961, soldiers and civilians started building the Berlin Wall. During the 28 years
of its existence, four generation walls had been installed in order to secure the economy and
political status of East Germany. (Video Source;Berlin Wall: Deconstructed.)

The Berlin Wall stood until November 9, 1989, when the head of the East German
Communist Party announced that citizens of the GDR could cross the border whenever they
pleased. Nevertheless, the fall of the Berlin Wall initialized another, uneasy, transition, the one
towards democracy and unification. A transition deeply affected by segregation patterns. Berlin is
still transitioning and this transition has been divided into several phases with the formation of
various committees for dealing with different aspects of the process of reconciliation such as
victimhood, legacy, urban development, collective memory, human rights and heritage. ( Jon, C.
2010)

Berlin Wall - as an immaterial barrier

However, the Berlin Wall does not exist anymore as a physical barrier, the Wall still
remains in the memory of each one of the citizens, which were directly or indirectly affected by
the brutalism of the aggressive division. Thus, the Wall has only fell down in a material point of
view, once that until today it represents the immaterial segregation of the city. This mental
permanency of the Berlin frontier is very well observed in the social fabric of unified Berlin, as a
consequence of the long term existence of the Wall, which profoundly accentuated the distinctions
between West and East Berliners, such as the lack of democratic skills in the East side population,
cultural differences, the permanent dislocation and unemployment that have made many of them
still feel like second class citizens. (Mayer, M. 2012)

11
 (Over 20 years since the Berlin Wall was dismantled the effects of separating the city can still be seen from
space. The yellow lights correspond to East Berlin and the greener tones show West Berlin. Source: ESA/NASA)

Beyond the social consequences of the Wall, the presence of these frontier was also
responsible for several spatial modifications in the city, it disrupted the urban fabric of the city by
dislocating residences, business and services and from having central and equal distribution it
developed two opposite direction distributional areas. What is more, there was duplication of the
infrastructure, institutions and services that additionally burden the urban entity and contributed to
the city’s sprawl. Nowadays, many structures in Berlin remain vacant and several sites look like
ghost areas from another era, those areas which were affected by the course of the border are
described as an “urban scar” of the Wall, once that consist in a tangible statement of its astonishing
existence. (Polly, F. and Leo, S. 2007)

(Berlin before and after 1949. Source: Anna Margaritova)

12
 In this point of view, it is possible to have an idea of the outcomes of this process of social
and political segregation, taking into consideration that even when physical boundaries are
removed they remain in people’s memories and that is something that cannot be easily erased or
destroyed, such as a concrete wall.

Berlin Wall - as a contested heritage

With the reunification of the city in 1989, and the fall of the Wall, a new discussion was
raised between western and eastern Berliners: What should be done with the physical remains of
those periods of political division? Should they destroy that obscure past, ending years of suffering
and fear? Or should they keep this memory alive in order to the future generations became aware
of the atrocity generated by the segregation, and, consequently avoid this narrative from happening
again?

(Different perceptions of the Wall. Source: Berlin Divided City Wordpress)

13
 A large percentage of population agreed with the maintenance of a portion of the Wall as
a memorial for the purpose of educating the public about the events and the wall itself by providing
an understanding about justice, human rights and freedom. This practice, which Hope Harrison
(1998) defines as a “democratic memory culture”, will help Berliners, and Germany in general, to
accept and overcome their difficult past. However, this opinion still raises controversial reactions.

Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) states that the discomfort generated by ‘negative heritage
places’ (that recall periods of human atrocity or natural disasters), on commemorating sites of
human trauma, highlights that heritage is something related to consensual - comfortable and
harmonious - views about the past. However, as heritage has a particular power to legitimize
someone’s sense of place, all heritage is uncomfortable to someone else, in the sense that, by
legitimizing one size of the coin, the other may be ‘disinherited’, remembering the contested aspect
of heritage.

In addition, another aspect of the contested heritage of the Wall appears in the present days:
the city has been using this heritage site in order to promote tourism and economic value, once the
structure perhaps is the most known symbol of the post-war period. That fact draws our attention
to the complexity of that subject, once the ‘alienated-tourism’ could change, through time, what
the Wall means, affecting locals memories and Berliner’s identity.

The Palace of the Republic

Another example that efficiently illustrates how the city of Berlin is marked by a storyline
of contested ideological disputes on dealing with its heritage is the Palace of the Republic, a
building that took place of the former City Palace by order of the GDR. In 1443, under the
command of the Prussian King, the Stadtschloss (City Palace) was built in the center of Berlin,
representing the power and ideals of the political structure of that time. Over the centuries, the
building had some little changes on its design, most carried by the architects Andreas Schlüter and
Friedrich Schinkel, but the essence of the icon was only disturbed during the World War II, after
being bombed, becoming partly damaged. (Karpinsky, S. A., 2014)

14
 (The Stadtschloss, partly damaged after it was gutted by Allied Bombs. Source: Dailymail UK)

Although it could have been repaired - at that time it was still being used by the Berlin
Humboldt University - in 1950 the German Democratic Republic authorities, despite several West
German protests, decided to blown up the building, that, by the view of the GDR, did not represent
the standing ideology of the party, reinforcing an identity that the communists avoid in their ruling
times. The empty space where the Stadtschloss had stood was named Marx-Engels-Platz, being
used as a parade ground (Karpinsky, S. A., 2014). It was the beginning of a long discussion over
the disputed identity of the area. Not only the attempt to erase the old building heritage, but even
the name give to the empty space (symbolically referring to Marx and Engels) are examples of
how the cultural patrimony can be handled in order to reinforce (or obfuscate) certain ideologies.

In 1964, the GDR started to make some interventions in the area, a new ‘Staatsrat’ or
‘Council of State’ was built on part of the site, but the most remarkable alteration came only lately,
from 1973 to 1976, during the reign of Erich Honecker: a large modernist building was built, the
‘Palast der Republik’ (Palace of the Republic), occupying most of the site of the former
Stadtschloss. The new building, with its modernist facade and style, quickly became one of the
most popular buildings in East Berlin. (Tangen 2006)

15
 (Palace of the Republic. Source: Dailymail UK)

Owing diverse functions (host of a theater, discotheques, restaurants, day care centers,
stores, concert halls and even a bowling alley) and being visited by about 15,000 people a day
(some even called it their second home), the seat of the GDR parliament was, expeditiously,
assuming its role on giving to Eastern Berliners a new collective identity - now aligned with the
GDR worldview. Year by year, the population’s connection to that new icon was increasingly
growing and becoming stronger, what lately, with the reunification of Berlin, turned up into a
cause of new disagreements. (Tangen 2006)

After the collapse of the communist regime in 1989, western construction inspectors
discovered that the building was seriously contaminated with asbestos, and, due to health hazard,
ordered its interdiction in 1990. While a substantial part of Eastern Berliners missed their most
important cultural center and meeting point, the sealed Palace remained in many eyes (mainly for
western) as a symbolic legacy of a poisonous and authoritarian state. (Ladd, B. 1997)

Some years later, the Berlin city government ordered the decontamination of the asbestos,
a process that started in 1998 which was only completed in 2003, when a group of local architects,
artists and activists, moved by their collective identification with the building, started occupying
the Palace as a temporary art space. It was the last days of the icon: In November of the same year,

16
2003, the German Federal Government decided for the demolishment of the building. Due to
several protests and petitions, the demolishment works started only in 2006, tearing the building
down in 2009. (Karpinsky, S. A., 2014).

The reasons for the demolition were mainly based on ecological matters, still over risk of
asbestos pollution, but some authors (Karpinsky S. A, 2014; Kuhrmann, A. 2009) see on this action
an opportunity that the government had to erase the history of division under years of GDR
administration, putting an ending point in one of the most representative symbol of the communist
party.

The discussion became even more intense with the government decision of building the
“Humboldt-Forum” on the empty space: The new building has a very similar shape of the former
baroque Stadtschloss - it has replicas of the historical facades of the Royal Residence on three
sides, but the interior and the backside is to be a modern structure to serve as a cultural museum
and forum. While pro-construction groups argued that the rebuilding of the Stadtschloss would
restore the unity and integrity of the historical center of Berlin - forgetting a symbol of the division
period - opponents of the project argues that the area, even without the former Palace of the
Republic, is itself of historical significance, linked to many Berliners’ life and identity.
(Kuhrmann, A. 2009)

(Humboldt-Forum project. Source: Berliner Zeitung)

17
 As the inauguration of the Humboldt-Forum is scheduled only to 2019, this example of
heritage being contested represents a present discussion. In one hand, the construction stimulate
the creation of new perspectives, aligned with new unified capital identity, representing - with the
partially modern style - a vision that the city wants to promote. On another hand, the project -
neglecting the memories of the Palace of the Republic - ignores recent chapters of Germany’s
history and people's memories (Kuhrmann, A. 2009). This process shows a dubious, selective
opinion of history, validating Ashworth’s (1996) thesis that “heritage is as much about forgetting
as remembering the past.”

Conclusions

With the discussions over the way the city of Berlin has been dealing with its material and
immaterial legacy and memories, under its turbulent political and social past, we return to the point
of departure of the discussion of contested heritage: In which ways human legacy could be
manipulated in order to reinforce (or not) a collective identity and structures of power?

The succession of divergent ruling forces, in the city of Berlin, illustrates well this question.
As heritage could be used in order to exalts a given ideology or identity, the urban framework of
Berlin carry on itself many scars of contested political times, consequently, periods of contested
heritage. Not only material memories, as remains of the Berlin Wall, could be related to that scars.
Even the lack of physical reminiscences - as the demolishment of the Palace of the Republic, now
a ‘non-place’ - leaves marks on the city’s inhabitants and on the collective identity of the capital.

The continuity of the heritage concept draws our attention even to the present days, as
Berlin is still handling with its collective memories, and now, much more than a political way, the
city is exploring the touristic and economic values of its historical sites (what also rises contested
views). Identity and memory is not simply represented by a heritage place, instead, it is something
actively and continually recreated and negotiated, according to economical, political and social
needs of the present. It is thus simultaneously about change and continuity, where the ideas of
‘being’ are constituted, rehearsed, contested, negotiated and ultimately remade (Smith, L. 2006)

18
Fieldwork Questions:

1 - Which aspects of Berliners’ heritage call more attention due to the way it was managed?

Before the fieldwork in Berlin, the expectation around this question was to find spots in
the city where the turbulent ideological history of Berlin could be exemplified. More specifically,
we thought about places that might have been managed by the government in order to reinforce a
certain ideology after the reunification of the city (also forgetting the previous duality between
east and west).
However, beside some physical evidences of this process, as could be seen in the area of
the former Palace of the Republic (today the Humboldt Forum under construction – site of
controversial decisions), we think that the aspect that called more attention was the way that the
inhabitants themselves uses and manages the historical heritage of the city.
Many heritage sites of the city are today somehow “under control” of the inhabitants, that
are making use and managing it accordingly to their desires and views. The east side gallery is an
example of it, the different uses of the industrial old buildings also, but a place that concentrate
quite well this aspects is the former Tempelhof airport.

2 - Nowadays, is it possible to distinguish the previous division of east and west Berlin? in which
aspects?

3 - How does the memorials of the Berlin Wall are used nowadays, for whom?

4 - Is there any historical site that has its memory changed due to touristic activities?

19
5 - In which spots of the city, the heritage is more visibly contested?

References.

Applegate, C. (1990), A Nation of Provincials: the German idea of Heimat, University of California Press 1990.

Ashworth, G. J. and Graham, B. J.(2005), Senses of Place: Sense of Time (Aldershot: Ashgate)

Celia Applegate, A Nation of Provincials: The German Idea of Heimat (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 19.

Dumper, M. and Larkin, C. (2012) The Politics of Heritage and the Limitations of International Agency in Divided Cities: The role
of UNESCO in Jerusalem's Old City. Review of International Studies, 38(1), pp.25-52

20
Pugh, E. (2014) Architecture, Politics, and Identity in Divided Berlin; Pittsburg University, 2014.

Frederick, T. (2007), The Berlin Wall; a World Divided 1961-1989, p.7

Harvey, David C. Heritage pasts and heritage Presents: Temporality, Meaning and the Scope of
Heritage Studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, Volume 7, No. 4. (2001) 319-338.

Heinzel, A. and Tuchscherer, C. (2008) 'Melderechtlich registrierte Ausländer in Berlin 1991 bis 2007' Zeitsschrift für amtliche
Statistik Berlin Brandenburg, 3(08). Online. Avaiable http://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/pms/2011/11-02-04.pdf
(accessed 27 April 2016)

Jon, C. (2010) Charlesworth Esther, p. 129

Karpinski, S. A. (2014). ‘’Contested spaces: Imagining Berlin's divided past through debated sites of heritage tourism’’. Doctoral
dissertation, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY.

Kuhrmann, Anke (2009), The Palace of the Republic in Berlin - The demolition of a Politically and Aesthetically Burdened Building
(Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus 2009)

Ladd, Brian (1997), The Ghosts of Berlin: Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape (University Of Chicago Press
1997).

Mayer, M. (2002), New Lines of Division in the New Berlin, p.2

Polly, F. and Leo, S. (2007) The Berlin Wall: Border, Fragment, World Heritage, p.208

Robert H. Haddow, Pavilions of Plenty: Exhibiting American Culture Abroad in the 1950s (Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press, 1997); Hixson, Parting the Curtain.

Smith, L. (2006), Uses of Heritage; London : Routledge, 2006

Tangen, O. Jr. (2006) Documentary movie: The Brokedown Palast - Berlin Erases its Communist Past. Production Company
Clockwise Media 2006.

Tunbridge, J. E., & Ashworth, G. J. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past as a resource in conflict. Chichester:
J. Wiley.

Video Source; Busting the Berlin Wall;Berlin Wall: Deconstructed.

21