Chapter 7 Heritage and Violence Alfredo González-Ruibal and Martin Hall Introduction For a long time, heritage has been associated with positive and productive values: the construction of ideas of community and nation, and even international identities. During the last decade and a half, however, there has been a growing concern with the legacies of violence, the product of a hundred years of global, civil, and ethnic wars, genocides, colonialism, and dictatorship. This is a fast-growing subfield in heritage studies and the deployment of heritage consumption. A variety of descriptors have been proposed: negative, dissonant, painful, dark, difficult (Biran, Poria, and Oren 2011; Dolff-Bonekämper 2002; Logan and Reeves 2008; MacDonald 2009; Meskell 2002; Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). In parallel, archaeologists and heritage practitioners have been paying closer attention to the conflicts that emerge in cases of apparently peaceful heritage, including classic lieux de mémoire. We will not refer to these here, as they will be tackled in other chapters (see De Cesari and Herzfeld in this volume). We will focus on heritage that is directly associated with violence. A general distinction can be drawn between heritage that is a direct outcome of violence, such as battlefields, concentration camps, memorials, mass graves, and prisons, and heritage that existed before conflict but was touched by it and therefore changed forever. This can include traditional heritage sites (such as Dresden’s old town or Canterbury Cathedral), as well as everyday environments such as urban settings or agricultural landscapes. Examples here are the lasting heritage of apartheid and the ways in which this is inscribed on the land, and the killing fields of Cambodia (Hall 2001, 2009a; Totten and Parsons 2012).