The definition of cultural heritage and historical studies is of fundamental importance, especially after the significant degree of institutionalization of the former in recent decades, which has encroached not only upon historical studies, but upon the interpretive and research fields of all humanities and social sciences. This intervention does not take place along the traditional development curve of the formation of new disciplines, as was the case in previous crises in historiography – instead of manifesting as an academic paradigm shift, it is a response to current political and social needs. In order to create a manage- able framework to study the history of heritage, the paper first draws up three regimes which, rather than following one another sequentially, were integrated into one another during the twentieth century, resulting in today’s complex dis- course of cultural heritage. Applying fuzzy logic in this case is a new approach to grasp the disintegration of the traditional science/non-science dichotomy through the comparative analysis of the institutionalization of cultural heritage studies and public history in the US, the UK, France and Germany. The western examples will be followed by describing the delayed – but all the more intense – emergence and subsequent institutionalization of Hungarian cultural heritage concept. The reception of this concept is a clear indicator of how far the given country has come in processing its past, how a given political system facilitates or pathologizes this process, and how involved historical studies are in the socialization of reflexivity.

The study aims to make the contemporary developments and research results of cultural heritage, specifically urban heritage, relevant and applicable for historical analysis, through the detailed examination of the controversy surrounding the UNESCO World Heritage status of Vienna’s Old Town and the 2005 Vienna Conference. Both these events were milestones in the history of international legislation regulating urban heritage protection. Analysing this controversy is informative not only regarding the local and international stakeholders’ views, but also because it contributed to the evolution of a new concept, that of the historical urban landscape, which in turn has become an integral part of the conceptual history of cultural heritage. The analysis concerns two major parallel themes. On one hand, it examines the contemporary self-representation of Vienna; on the other, it provides a historical overview of the 2001–2003 controversy and its resolutions. The study demonstrates the synergy of various levels of Vienna’s urban identity (local, regional, international) as well as the social practice and professional conflicts of interest behind the use of the historical urban landscape concept as the universal framework of urban heritage management.

Nincs absztrakt.

Nincs absztrakt.

This article is a first attempt to define and analyse the system of Transylvanian market places on the basis of the 1820 tax roll, which is the only available source for this type of analysis from the period before regular censuses. Since the vast majority of the villages declared numerous market places, it is not possible to set up market areas exclusively dependent on one market centre (pure market area). The Principality of Transylvania could be rather characterised by a great number of market centres with overlapping market areas, which shows an important demand for exchange as well as an extended, but premature market system. Similarly to contemporary European urbanization trends, Transylvania is experiencing the phase of structural urbanization in the first third of the 19th century. The regional differences of Transylvanian could be highlighted by the statistical analysis of the market place declarations of the villages. The Northern part of the Principality is covered by numerous market places including the most important ones (Marosvásárhely/Targu Mures, Kolozsvár/Cluj) in the whole of Transylvania. In this region many villages declare more than ten market places, which shows the great demand for new economic solutions for the increasing problem of overpopulation. Though the 1820 tax roll does not include the Saxon part of the Principality, it is possible to sketch its market place structure based on the declarations from neighbouring areas. Here one can note a less numerous, but more mature market place system, in which the importance of a market place correlates with its size and administrative function. The Eastern part of Transylvania is characterized by a rather poor market system, in which some market place manage to establish a pure market area. Concerning the integration of the Transylvanian market place system to that of the neighbouring countries, there can be seen a strong relationship only between the North Eastern part of Hungary and the North Western part of Transylvania. Other borders do not seem to be crossed by important trade lines. Itmust be noted, however, that the tax roll analysis could not refer to long distance commerce.

Nincs absztrakt.