The 2003 UNESCO Convention definition of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) covers religious practices and rites, as can be seen from normative descriptions and dozens of actual examples, many of which are Catholic religious traditions. The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), practiced in one form or another for over 1500 years by an ever-increasing number of peoples and nations and in possession of a common stable set of rules, meets the UNESCO criteria for listing as ICH; in fact, it is arguably the best possible example. It is also a complicated one. After the Catholic Church’s liturgical reform in the 1960s and 1970s, new rites were introduced and the old rites were officially abandoned; nevertheless, a minority of clergy and laity continued to celebrate the TLM, and, over time, the legitimacy of their attachment to it was recognised by several popes, who also spoke regularly of the great value of the Church’s cultural and artistic patrimony and recommended that it remained joined with its religious origins. In contrast, the current pope, Francis, has recently become opposed to the continuation of the old rites. Be this as it may, it is quite possible that such a threatened but deeply appreciated international ICH as the TLM could be proposed for listing by several states that (unlike the Holy See) have signed the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, to give it a recognition appropriate to its immense historical and present-day cultural value.

The concept of genealogical memory is commonly presumed to be synonymous with family or intergenerational memory. However, this paper asserts the necessity for a more detailed examination, seeking to refine and contextualize these notions from a genealogist’s perspective. Exploring the focal point of this study, genealogical memory unveils distinctive characteristics that warrant meticulous scrutiny. Foremost among these characteristics is its intentional nature and inherently reconstructive essence, enabling the recollection of long-deceased ancestors and contemplation of their fates. Consequently, genealogical memory proves invaluable in bridging the ‘floating gap’ between communicative and cultural memory, as posited by Jan Vansina’s conceptualization. The primary objective of this article is to comprehensively explore and structure the concept of genealogical memory, with a particular focus on the genealogist’s role as a memory-maker.

Cultural heritage is increasingly mobilized as a tool of international engagement, yet the diplomatic uses of heritage remain conceptually underdeveloped and analytically fragmented. This paper introduces the Heritage Diplomacy Spectrum, a multidimensional framework that maps how states and affiliated actors use heritage—both tangible and intangible—to pursue strategic, symbolic, and normative goals in cross-border contexts. Drawing on critical heritage studies, international relations, and memory politics, this study identifies six analytical dimensions (e.g., proactive vs. reactive, cultural vs. historical, strategic vs. moral) and develops seven ideal types of heritage diplomacy, ranging from soft power projection to post-dependency and corrective diplomacy. These ideal types, constructed in the Weberian tradition, serve as heuristic tools to illuminate the varied motivations and diplomatic postures underlying heritage-based engagement. A central matrix is presented to illustrate how each type aligns with different strategic logics and affective registers. This study argues that heritage diplomacy constitutes a distinct modality of heritage governance—one that transcends soft power narratives and encompasses conflict, reconciliation, symbolic redress, and identity assertion. The framework contributes both to theory-building and policy analysis, offering a diagnostic lens through which the ethical, political, and communicative dimensions of heritage diplomacy can be more systematically understood.

Background Values-based approaches are central to architectural heritage conservation, yet their institutionalisation has often transformed analytical value typologies into normative-operational templates. This stabilisation risks obscuring the dynamic, negotiated, and context-dependent nature of heritage significance, particularly in settings shaped by rupture, displacement, and coexistence. Such limitations are especially evident in residual and clustered heritage contexts, where architectural heritage persists amid discontinuity, layered memories, and competing narratives. This study addresses the need for a more flexible conceptualisation of value attribution capable of accounting for transformation, plurality, and perspective-dependence. Methods The research adopts a qualitative, conceptual methodology combining an interdisciplinary narrative literature review with an attribute-based analysis of heritage value typologies. A genealogical mapping of value frameworks across architecture, archaeology, sociology, and economics was conducted, followed by the development of a Value–Attribute (V>A) matrix to identify shared and overlapping conceptual properties. These analytical steps were situated within a critical discourse on residual and clustered heritage contexts. Building on this foundation, the study develops a metamorphic interpretive framework to analyse how heritage values evolve, overlap, and diverge over time and across stakeholders. Results The analysis demonstrates that many established value typologies rely on porous and overlapping definitions, which become problematic when applied as fixed assessment categories in complex socio-political contexts. The study identifies three recurrent modes of value transformation: accretive values, where meanings accumulate over time; palimpsestic values, where earlier interpretations are partially overwritten yet remain traceable; and refracted values, where meanings diverge across cultural, political, or emotional perspectives. These modes reveal how architectural heritage significance is continuously reconfigured rather than replaced, particularly in contexts marked by displacement, forced coexistence, or contested memory. Conclusions The paper proposes metamorphic heritage values as a heuristic and reflective lens rather than a new classificatory system. By shifting attention from enumerating values to tracing their transformation, the framework supports a more adaptive, pluralistic, and context-sensitive approach to heritage assessment. This perspective enhances the capacity of values-based methodologies to engage with residual and clustered heritage and contributes to broader debates on the epistemology of heritage valuation and conservation practice.