I have written quite a bit about the above in virtual heritage and this terms has since shown itself in quite a few papers (Flynn, Tyler-Jones, Tost et al.) but now I feel compelled to state

• I wrote about cultural presence because it and social presence seem conflated in ISPR telepresence/presence literature and
• UNESCO’s terms of culture and cultural heritage did not seem linked to the aims and results of many virtual heritage projects and
• Culture and Society are not the same, and I wrote about that in the latest MIT Presence journal.
• Archaeology and heritage sites don’t all have cultural presence that we could or should always try to simulate in digital heritage projects.
• Cultural presence isn’t the sole criterion for virtual heritage but it is interesting when thinking about simulated designed places (and why virtual heritage and otherwise historic places seem so shallow compared to real places).
• I should update my thoughts on this so people won’t think I believe cultural presence is the be-all and end-all!