Workshop Proceedings Edited by Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Anca Claudia Prodan Sponsored by StuRa BTU Cottbus and the IGS Heritage Studies June 14-16, 2011 @ BTU Cottbus, Germany Organized by the International Ph.D. students of the IGS Heritage Studies Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century International Ph.D. Workshop Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century June 14 -16, 2011 @BTU Cottbus Workshop Proceedings Edited by Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa, and Anca Claudia Prodan. International Graduate School Heritage Studies - Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus Main Building HG 4.34 Konrad-Wachsmann-Allee 1 D-03046 Cottbus Germany Tel.: +49 (0)355 - 69 3479 Fax.: +49 (0)355 - 69 4749 Web: http://www.tu-cottbus.de/btu/de/gradschool.html
Editors: Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Anca Claudia Prodan Cover design: Maya Ishizawa Layout and Design of e-PuB: Maya Ishizawa Photographs: BTU Multimediazentrum/ Alexander Kinzelt/ Dejan Majer 2012 by International Graduate School: Heritage Studies at Cottbus University The rights for this publication as a compilation are with the International Graduate School Heritage Studies. The rights for individual articles appearing in this publication are with their respective authors. This publication cannot be used for commer- cial purposes. Any kind of reproduction of this publication as a compilation, or of the individual articles appearing in it, requires the permission of the International Graduate School Heritage Studies, respectively that of the authors. International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century CONTENTS Acknowledgements List of Participants Introduction Anca Claudia Prodan, Ph.D. candidate at IGS: Heritage Studies .................................................................................................................... 1 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Keynote Address by Prof. Dr. Marie-Thers ALbert, Director of the IGS: Heritage Studies Bndicte Gaillard and Zi-ming Wong, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies.......................................................................................... 5 Reflections on a Dialogue with Dr. Roland Bernecker Anca Claudia Prodan, Ph.D. candidate at IGS: Heritage Studies .................................................................................................................. 10
Introduction to Panel 1: Heritage, Identity and Conflict Dariya Afanasyeva, Chang Liu and Zi-Ming Wong, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies ..................................................................... 15 Summary of Round Tables Panel 1: Heritage, Identity and Conflict Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Zi-Ming Wong, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies ............................................................. 19 Introduction to Panel 2: Communities and Heritage Protection Bndicte Gaillard and Maya Ishizawa, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies ..................................................................................... 27 Summary of Round Tables Panel 2: Communities and Heritage Protection Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Zi-Ming Wong, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies .............................................................. 32 Introduction to Panel 3: Mediating Heritage through Representations Shina Erlewein, Vernica Montero-Fayad and Anca Prodan, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies ........................................................ 39 Summary of Round Tables Panel 3: Mediating through Heritage Representations Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Zi-Ming Wong, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies .............................................................. 42 Conclusions and Outlook The Organizing Team ............................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Annex 1: Abstracts of participants ........................................................................................................................................ 50 Conflicting Identity and its Impact on Heritage Somi Chatterjee, Consultant and Conservation Architect, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, Kolkata, India ..................... 51 The Heritage of Loss: Preservation of Performance-based Artworks Ana Raquel Dinger Moreira Duarte, Student and Researcher, Portuguese Catholic University, Portugal ...................................................... 52 The Local Representation of World Heritage: Community Involvement in Preserving Heritage City Centres in Peru Mathieu Dormaels, Ph.D. candidate, Universit du Qubec Montral, Montral, Canada .......................................................................... 53 I International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century CONTENTS Conceptualizing World Heritage: A Conflicting History Aurlie Elisa Gfeller, Ambizione fellow, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland ................... 54 Intangible Heritage is Virtual Heritage Thorolf Lipp, Filmmaker and Owner of Arcadia Filmproduktion, Berlin, Germany....................................................................................... 55 Building a Documentation Strategy for World Heritage Properties in bringing together Different Stakeholders Ona Vileikis, Doctoral Researcher, Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation. KULeuven, Heverlee, Belgium ........................ 56 Annex 2: Articles of participants ............................................................................................................................................ 57 Commons Theories Applied to Community and World Heritage: Some Case Studies Aldo Buzio, Ph.D. candidate, Politecnico di Torino, Italy and Alessio Re, Researcher, SiTI Higher Institute on Territorial Systems for Innovation ............................................................................................................................................................. 58 Craftsmanship, Science and the Senses: A Few Brief Insights Jrn Bohlmann, Ph.D. candidate, Norwegian University of Science and Technology / Sr-Trndelag University College, Trondheim, Norway ..................................................................................................................................................................... 66 Art and Culture Strategies for Historical City Centres under Risk: the Lima Case Carlos Leon-Xjimenez,Ph.D. researcher in the Urban Heritage Research Group, Institute for European Urbanism, Bauhaus-Universitt Weimar, Gemany ...................................................................................................................................................... 72 The Local List: A New Conservation Philosophy for the 21st Century? Carol Ludwig, Postgraduate Researcher, School of Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, England, UK ........................... 78 . Cultural Heritage, Everyday Ethnicity and Religiosity in a Romanian Village Raluca Mateoc, PhD Candidate in Social Anthropology, University of Fribourg, Switzerland ........................................................................ 86 Understanding Decision-making in the Built Heritage Practice in London, UK Ruchit Purohit and Yamuna Kaluarachchi, School of Surveying and Planning, Kingston University, United Kingdom .................................. 92 Ayahuasca: International Proscribed Drug or Intangible Heritage? Leonardo Rodrguez Prez, Associate researcher, Pierre du Bois Foundation for Current History, Switzerland ........................................... 100 Changes and Conflicts in Traditional Management Practices Saparya Varma, Consultant, Conservation Architect, India ....................................................................................................................... 104 Challenges of Protecting a Living World Heritage Site; The Case of Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex, Iran Solmaz Yadollahi, MA, Conservation Architect, Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism organization, Iran ............................. 110 Annex 3: Organizers Profiles .............................................................................................................................................. 116 II III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We, the Organizing Team, would like to thank: International Graduate School: Heritage Studies and the Student Council (StuRa) at BTU Cottbus for their kind financial support. Prof. Marie-Theres Albert for her continuous advice throughout the preparation of the Workshop. Ms. Steffi Schillem and Mr. Robert Rode for technical assistance. German Commission for UNESCO and Marielle Richon at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre in Paris for their assistance in promoting the Workshop online. The International Information and Communication Mediacentre (IKMZ) at BTU Cottbus for kindly providing us with the rooms, as well as for press coverage. Cornelia Wilke for giving us a hand with taking notes during the workshop and preparing the minutes. Last but not least, we are very grateful to all Workshop participants, particularly to those who contrib- uted their comments and additions to the texts in this publication. **** GUESTS Prof. Dr. Marie-Theres Albert, Director IGS HS, BTU Cottbus, Germany Dr. Roland Bernecker, Secretary General German Commission for UNESCO Manuel Peters, Chair of Intercultural Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany Robert Rode, Coordinator IGS, BTU Cottbus, Germany Britta Rudolff, Chair of Cultural Heritage Management, BTU Cottbus, Germany Klaus Zehbe, Chair of Intercultural Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany OBSERVER Zhu Yujie, University of Heidelberg, Germany IV LIST OF PARTICIPANTS PRESENTERS Jrn Bohlmann, Sr-Trndelag University College, Norway Aldo Buzio, Politecnico di Torino, Italy Somi Chatterjee, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, India Ana Dinger, Portuguese Catholic University, Portugal Mathieu Dormaels, Universit du Qubec, Canada Aurlie Gfeller, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Switzerland Carlos Len-Ximnez, Bauhaus-Universitt Weimar, Gemany Thorolf Lipp, Arcadia Filmproduktion, Germany Carol Ludwig, Northumbria University, UK Raluca Mateoc, University of Fribourg, Switzerland Ruchit Purohit, Kingston University, UK Leonardo Rodriguez-Perez, Pierre du Bois Foundation for Current History, Switzerland Ona Vileikis Tamayo, KULeuven, Belgium Saparya Varma, Conservation Architect, India Solmaz Yadollahi, ICHHTO, Iran
ORGANIZING TEAM IGS HS/ FACILITATORS Dariya Afanasyeva Tiziana Destino Shina Erlewein Veronica Montero Fayad Bndicte Gaillard Maya Ishizawa Chang Liu Frank Mller Steven Ojoo Anca Claudia Prodan Zi-Ming Wong EXTERNAL MINUTE-TAKER Cornelia Wilke, Master Student WHS , BTU Cottbus, Germany International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century INTRODUCTION In June 2011 the International Graduate School: Heritage Studies at BTU Cottbus organized a PhD workshop aimed at mapping challenges and perspectives for understanding heritage as framed in scientific research. The programme was divided into three thematic sessions focusing on: (1) Heritage, Identity and Conflict; (2) Communities and Heritage Protection; and (3) Mediating Heritage through Representations. The interest was to get into contact with young researchers and professionals, coming from different disciplinary backgrounds working in the field of Heritage, with the purpose of genera- ting a knowledge base of concepts and approaches that cut across the thematic areas of the workshop. This article presents the background and content of the workshop and it provides an introduction to the workshop proceedings at hand. Workshop Report The international PhD workshop Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century was organized by eleven PhD students of the IGS HS, who passionately worked on its concep- tion, development, and implementation (1). The workshop took place at the Brandenburg Technical University (BTU) Cottbus, Germany, from 14 to 16 June 2011. It was organized in the framework of the 20th anniversary of the BTU, which, over a whole week, celebrated through countless programmes and events (2). Although initial impetus to organize an event came from the director of the IGS HS, Prof. Dr. Marie- Theres Albert, the idea of organizing a workshop and not a conference or other type of event came from the PhD students themselves. This choice was informed by their interest in interacting more closely with like-minded young researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds but with an inter- est in the topic of heritage. According to the experience gained by students at the IGS HS an interdisciplinary study programme they considered that the feedback received by discussing researches in small groups is a valuable tool. Especially in an interdisciplinary field like heritage studies, such small group discussions facilitate the bringing together of perspectives from different disciplinary backgrounds, allowing one to gain new insights into ones own research subject. Furthermore, according to the experience gained by students at the IGS HS an international study programme they considered that bringing together different cultural perspectives can similarly be an enriching experience. As a result, the students of the IGS HS set themselves to organize an international and interdisciplinary workshop open for young researchers with interests in networking for heritage. by Anca Claudia Prodan 1 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century The Workshop was the first international event organized by the IGS HS, a very young programme which started its activities only in May 2010. The PhD Programme is still very young but it was esta- blished on the basis of a longer experience in the field of heritage accumulated at BTU over the years. It represents the development of the Master Programme in World Heritage Studies, which has been going on at BTU already for twelve years. Here, heritage-related research has been intensively supported by the Chair of Intercultural Studies, some of whose interests lie in the field of intercultural competence and in research on discourses of culture and heritage. Due to its contribution to UNESCOs work the Chair in Intercultural Studies was awarded the title UNESCO Chair in Heritage Studies in 2003. In comparison to the Master Programme that focuses mainly on World Heritage, the structured PhD programme is much broader and it carries out research in five main focus areas: 1. Tangible Heritage in the Context of Global Change focusing, among others, on built heritage and the impacts of factors such as global tourism, climate change or urban development; 2. Intangible Heritage / Religion / Identity / Diversity developing the topic of intangible heritage and expanding on conventional scientific constructs of heritage and identity. Among others, this area also looks at the relation between tangible and intangible heritage; 3. Sustainable Protection and Use of Heritage in the Context of Innovative Conceptions of Heritage focusing on concepts such as economic, social, cultural or ecological sustainability and also aiming to assess the potential and limits of participatory approaches to heritage protection; 4. Cultural Landscapes investigating, for instance, the relation nature-culture, the relation between land-use and biodiversity or between cultural landscapes and cultural diversity; 5. Mediation of Heritage through Innovative Technologies researching the potential of new technology in the field of heritage education and promotion, including the UNESCO MoW programme, which preserves documentary heritage. The PhD students who organized the workshop are doing research in the above named five focus areas and their researchers together offered a basis for, and are reflected in, the three thematic sessions of the workshop: 1. Heritage, Identity and Conflict 2. Communities and Heritage Protection 3. Mediating Heritage through Representations These three thematic sessions consisted in presentation followed by roundtable discussions. During these sessions, presentations were delivered by workshop participants. The purpose was to get 2 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century quainted with each others research. These sessions were reserved for presentations by participants only. The students of the IGS HS did not present their researches within these thematic sessions because they presented their research as poster presentation on the second day of the workshop. Workshop participants were invited to join this poster presentation, which was organized by BTU in the framework of another event taking place as part of the 20th anniversary (3). This event was a so-called research party and was headed by the motto: knowledge/science brings joy / knowledge/science brings friends (4). The three thematic sessions were chaired by students of the IGS HS: Steven Ojoo for the first panel, Bndicte Gaillard for the second, and Shina Erlewein for the third. Each session was followed by roundtable discussions, where workshop participants formed smaller groups to discuss predefined questions as well as problems raised during their presentations. Roundtable discussions were moderated by students of the IGS HS: Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Zi-Ming Wong. In addition to presentations and discussions, a keynote address was given by Prof. Marie-Theres Albert on the first day of the workshop. It presented different perspectives and understandings of heritage and so from the very beginning participants had a broad overview of the complexities of understand- ing heritage. This keynote followed the welcome address that opened the event and was delivered by Anca Claudia Prodan on behalf of the students of the IGS HS. On the first day of the workshop there was also a special session given by our guest Dr. Roland Bernecker, Secretary General of the German Commission for UNESCO. This session was interactive and it consisted in a brief speech by Dr. Bernecker and the discussion between him and workshop participants that followed. The workshop ended with a public wrap-up plenary session, where conclusions were drawn and open questions were identified. Apart from hard work space was left also for fun. The workshop was accompanied by a socio-cultural event which was organized at the end of the workshop in cooperation with master students and alumni of World Heritage Studies. Workshop Proceedings The publication at hand is a compilation combining texts written by the workshop organizers to report on the activities and discussions carried out during the workshop, and short abstracts and articles submitted for publication by workshop participants. The order of articles does not follow the order in which they were presented during the workshop. In the proceedings at hand articles were re-arranged for convenience and are ordered as follows: The publication starts with an article by Bndicte Gaillard and Zi-Ming Wong, who report on the keynote address delivered by Prof. Marie-Theres Albert. This is followed by a similar report prepared by Anca Claudia Prodan to present highlights from the special session with Dr. Roland Bernecker. As next, six articles containing panel descriptions and summaries of roundtable discussions were com- 3 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century bined and they highlight some of the most important matters that were discussed. Panel descriptions are meant to provide information regarding the focus of each panel. They include key points from presentations of participants and brief descriptions of the researches done by students of the IGS HS, which were the basis of the themes covered by the three panels. The article reporting on panel 1 was prepared by Dariya Afanasyeva. The second panel is described in an article written by Bndicte Gaillard and Maya Ishizawa. Finally, the description of panel 3 was prepared by Veronica Montero Fayad, Shina Erlewein, and Anca Claudia Prodan. Summaries for the roundtable discussions were written by their respective moderators Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Zi-Ming Wong. The summaries of roundtable discussions were also sent to workshop participants, who contributed to their preparation. General conclusions of the workshop were prepared by the organizing team of the Ph.D. Workshop on the basis of the conclusions drawn together with participants during the last day of the workshop. The annexes contain the articles submitted by workshop participants. Participants, who were not able to submit articles, have submitted abstracts, which are also included in the annexes. The main aim of the workshop was to provide a forum for discussion, where young researchers gain new insights and understandings of heritage. The publication at hand reflects this aim and it is mainly intended as infor- mational material. Therefore, articles submitted by workshop participants were not sent to a scientific committee for revision. However, they were simultaneously reviewed by several Ph.D. students of the IGS HS. Interference of reviewers with the language and writing style used by workshop participants in their articles has been minimal. Interference with the information presented in articles was entirely avoided, although it does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or those of the IGS HS.
Notes: (1) The eleven Ph.D. students mentioned were enrolled at the IGS HS at the time when the workshop was organized. Since then, the composition of Ph.D. students has changed. A brief biography and research profile of each Ph.D. student involved in the organi- zation of the workshop is provided on Annex 3. To see the profiles of current Ph.D. students please visit the website of the Graduate School: http://www.tu-cottbus.de/btu/de/gradschool/heritage-studies/profile/phd-students.html (2) The Ph.D. Workshop was one of the two heritage-related events that took place during BTUs one-week anniversary. The other event was a Conference World Heritage and Sustainable Development organized by the Master Programme in World Heritage Studies (WHS) and the WHS Alumni organization (IAWHP e.V.) (3) This event was organized by the International Graduate School, which consists in five different classes. IGS HS represents, in fact, one of these five classes. (4) Translated from German by the author; in original Forschungsparty: Wissen schafft Freu(n)de 4 **** International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Keynote Address by Prof. Dr. Marie-Theres Albert, Director of the IGS: Heritage Studies by Bndicte Gaillard and Zi-Ming Wong The Ph.D Workshop opened with a key note address by Prof. Dr. Marie-Theres Albert, Director of the International Graduate School: Heritage Studies. Prof. Albert is also co-founder and former Director of the Master Programme in World Heritage Studies established at BTU in 1999 and she has been Chair-holder of the UNESCO Chair in Heritage Studies since 2003. In her speech, she discussed the meaning of heritage and shared her reflections on the understanding of heritage, relating its construction to a historical process. Making a distinction between authorised and non-authorised discourses of heritage, as she would term it, she discussed the protection of tangible and intangible heritage and thereby provided useful insights into the complexities of this topic. In short, her keynote address covered various perspectives and understandings of heritage, some of which are presented below in this article Prof. Marie-Theres Albert, Director of the International Graduate School: Heritage Studies, delivered her keynote speech on June 14th, 2011 to mark the opening of the three-day Ph.D Workshop entitled Understanding Heritage - Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century. After welcoming the work- shop participants from all over the world, Prof. Albert pointed to the title of the workshop by way of mapping out the challenges to be addressed: Can we understand heritage? What does heritage actually mean? These are the basic questions one needs to reflect upon as one approaches the three thematic topics of this workshop, namely issues of identity and conflicts in heritage, of community participation in heritage protection, and finally of mediating heritage through representation. Prof. Albert hence went on to share with the participants her personal reflections on understanding heri- tage. In this article the authors present the reflections shared by Prof. Albert with the participants by reporting, in the first part, on the challenges that the definition of heritage raises and, in the second part, presenting different perspectives represented by the discourses on the understanding of heritage. 5 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century blems as a legacy of history. Prof. Albert thus brought to attention the fact that every individual, every culture or society would have to make sense of their legacy, as produced in the course of history, by drawing on these experiences to shape the present or future life. There are values handed down through successive generations, but each generation would also be shaping their own values, as they decide which of the inherited circumstances to preserve, to improve on or to change completely. For this reason Prof. Albert demonstrated that the way people handle inherited circumstances is constructed. In order to illustrate her statements, Prof. Albert related a personal experience she had during a visit to Oskar Schindlers factory in Krakow, which has been turned into a museum. At that time, there was a new exhibition on the attack of Krakow by Nazi forces during World War II. Though what it related was a period of German history that took place before Prof. Albert was even born, the exhibition made her feel uneasy at being reminded of this national legacy. She stated that it is likely that other Germans, who would belong to the same community as she does, would have similar feelings when seeing the exhibition. At their turn, Polish colleagues, or Polish as well as German members of the Jewish communities attending the same exhibition, would probably have different feelings about the same historical legacy. Prof. Albert explained why this is so. By belonging to a community people have similar interpretations of historical circumstances because they share similar values that they, as mem- bers of that community, gain through educational and socialisation processes. As a result, different communities tend to interpret differently the same historical event, and this is an illustration of why the ways people deal with inherited circumstances are constructed. Professor Marie-Theres Albert giving the keynote speech. Alexander Kinzelt Defining Heritage Prof. Albert started by interrogating the very idea of heritage. She made clear that if one examines dictionary definitions of the word heritage one would find different understandings of the word. As she pointed out quoting the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, some may refer to property that is devolved to the heir from the deceased, others refer to it as a kind of gift. She added that most of these characterise heritage as a tangible good or commodity. However, there is also one definition of heritage as inherited circumstances, which, according to Prof. Albert, illustrates meanings consisting of social events and coinciding experi- ences. These refer to benefits as well as pro- 6 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Moving to the construction of identity through the historical experiences, Prof. Albert stressed that this general function of heritage, namely to shape identity, existed long before the inflationary use of the term identity within the context of the tangible heritage discourse, a discourse which gained prominence with the World Heritage Convention. To illustrate how heritage is involved in the shaping of peoples identity, Prof. Albert cited the example of a research on immigrants to the United States of America. A 33-year-old immigrant was quoted in the book The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life: I have a family of my own, and I want to instil a sense of family values in them by being around their extended family. I wasnt born here in the U.S. Im a transplant. My family immigrated here. Being around my family gives my children a different culture than what theyre surrounded with. It gives them a broader base. They are able to see the best of both worlds. (Rosenzweig and Thelen, 1998, p. 59) Here, one sees how heritage is linked to the preservation and negotiation of values and norms in shaping identity, declared Prof. Albert. Furthermore, the development of identity, in fact, occurs through a process of socialisation, whereby knowledge is passed down from one generation to another. Prof. Albert clarified that socialisation processes vary depending on national, social, gender or status specific factors. Consequently, the values that are developed out of these processes vary, too. Thus, Prof. Albert suggested that this is exactly what creates the diversity of human life and the construction of heritage is determined by this diversity, too. There is yet another way of constructing heritage. Heritage, Prof. Albert said, may also be understood as the traditions, qualities or cultural achievements of a country, which have existed for a long time and have great importance for the country. This meaning of heritage departs from the context of social or cultural events or from the influence of socialisation on the shaping of values and behavioural patterns. Prof. Albert showed that in this context heritage is understood as qualities and achievements of a country and is invested in tangible and intangible properties as the source of identity for a nation. According to Prof. Albert such a material understanding of heritage as bearer of identity moves closer to the context of the UNESCO conventions in preserving cultural heritage. Hence in order to understand heritage, Prof. Albert indicated, it is necessary to determine the contexts, in other words the discourses, in which heritage is constructed in the context of both its tangi- ble and intangible function. Understanding heritage through the Heritage Discourses Before entering a discussion on heritage discourse, Prof. Albert specified that the term discourse, just like the term heritage, belongs to a specific disciplinary and epistemological context. After recalling that discourse is attached to the poststructuralism of Michel Foucault or to the critical theory of Jrgen Habermas and Hans Otto Apel, Prof. Albert explained that she uses the epistemological 7 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century construction of communicative rationality because of its immanent potential to capture communica- tive structures and arguments and to processually develop them. In order to understand heritage, it is also necessary to understand the discourses in which heritage is constructed. Thus, Prof. Albert while referring to the concept of authorised heritage discourse deve- loped by Laurajane Smith (2006) introduced the concept of non-authorised heritage discourse. With these concepts she analysed the discourses on the material and immaterial constructions of heritage. Prof. Albert cited the argument developed by Laurajane Smith who says that an authorized heritage discourse has been constructed by the global UNESCO community including experts and advisors in the field of heritage. In this context the discourse created can be considered as hegemonic since it initially focused only on the tangible heritage with a strong predominance of the Western countries. To illustrate this observation, Prof. Albert discussed the 1972 World Heritage Convention and the defined Outstanding Universal Value which seem to imply that the material heritage itself possesses an immanent value. Prof. Albert mentioned that the criteria developed under the concept of Outstanding Universal Value enable the experts to use these qualitative characteristics in order to enlist heritage and thus legitimize quantity. Looking at the World Heritage List and the over- representation of cultural properties from Europe and North America (53.5% of 911 inscribed sites as of 2010) compared to the rest of the world, it demonstrates the verifiability of Smiths remark that the authorized discourse is focused on European tangible heritage. Prof. Albert underlined that the heritage discourse of the 1972 World Heritage Convention in fact has to be understood against the background of the 1970s and 1980s modernisation and industrialisa- tion, when social development was dictated by technological and economic advances, and nature was seen as subordinate to culture. Contrasting the experts who belong to the authorised heritage discourse with the communities who belong to the non-authorised heritage discourse, Prof. Albert emphasised the fact that even though the communities are not as recognized as the experts the interventions they provide are much more innovative than those discussed in the authorised discourse. Prof. Albert argued that the understand- ing of heritage as in the authorised heritage discourse of the experts, may be contrasted with that of the community as belonging to a non-authorised heritage discourse that helps people locate themselves socially, politically, economically or culturally. She proved that heritage as such may be conceived as a process of engaging with the present world and creating a sense of identity. Thus, Prof. Albert argued that in moving from the authorised discourse to the non-authorised discourse the subject of research changes: while the focus is on universal values elaborated by the UNESCO community under the authorised heritage discourse, this focus moves to community involvement and their contri- bution to heritage in the non-authorised discourse. This shift in focus also implies a change in disciplines, epistemology and methods. To illustrate this point, Prof. Albert referred to the issue of management and legal ownership of land at the World Heritage site Kakadu National Park (Australia) where a joint management of the site has 8 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century has been negotiated between the white Australians and the Aborigines. A second example cited concerns the issue of religious identity, hence also of the intangible value, of a heritage site, as seen in the case of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, which was the subject of the Ph.D thesis of Dr. Britta Rudolff. Prof. Albert said that within the authorised heritage discourse new discourses have developed in the last years. As she stated, the authorised discourse evolved from a focus on the materiality of heritage and the label World Heritage to the immaterial constructions of heritage that emerged with the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). This discourse on immate- rial heritage focuses on the five following aspects of immaterial expressions: (1) oral traditions and expressions, (2) performing arts, (3) social practices, rituals and festivities, (4) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe, and (5) traditional craft techniques. Prof. Albert empha- sised that as opposed to the listing of World Heritage sites in the context of the Convention on the Intangible Heritage one can see two main changes: first in the geographical representation of the intangible heritage inscribed (mainly Asia and Latin America) and secondly in that there are region- ally (culturally and economically) influenced constructions of this heritage. Despite these differences the two discourses are not distinguished from each other. These changes reflect a substitution of the authorised heritage discourse on material heritage with an authorised discourse on immaterial heritage. With the authorised discourse on immaterial heritage, the communities are encouraged to be what Prof. Albert describes as the initiators for their own development including all facets of what is understood as human development including the socio-economic development. Thus, this author- ised discourse on immaterial heritage can be considered as a progressive discourse since it considers heritage as a cultural process. However, the aforementioned construction of inherited circumstances is still missing in this discourse. In conclusion, Prof. Albert noted that the different discourses on heritage have popularized the mean- ing of the past for the understanding of the future. However, Prof. Albert deplored the fact that the potential of process-related determination of heritage for the development of identities and awareness is not utilized. She also regretted that the identification of material and immaterial heritage for its protection is dominated by national political interests. Finally, Prof. Albert concluded that heritage discourse should be taken out of its narrow interpretation frame of well-known discourses and their experts, and should rather be accessible to people, to give them the possibility of an own under- standing of history and thus to let them comprehend and interpret heritage by themselves. **** 9 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Reflections on a Dialogue with Dr. Roland Bernecker by Anca Claudia Prodan On the first day of the Workshop a special session was organized to give some input to the roundtable discussions that took place in its context. The input came from Dr. Roland Bernecker, Secretary General of the German Commission for UNESCO, who enriched the workshop with his presence and contri- bution. His genuine interest in the intelligence of the younger generation(1) the words he used when expressing his appreciation for the work of young researchers made participants feel that their contribution to the heritage discourse was relevant. This encouraged participants to raise ques- tions and created an atmosphere that facilitated dialogue and interaction. Words cannot recreate that atmosphere, but by summarizing Dr. Berneckers words can help to restore something of its spirit. Summarizing his contribution, however, is not an easy task. His views were pointed but at the same time they were general enough to be rich in mean- ing. Trying to present his views one runs the risk of making them sound too general and superficial, or too imbued with ones personal interpretation. Fully aware of the challenge, this article still aims to present the contribution given by Dr. Bernecker by recounting his views and the dialogue he had with the participants. The contribution of Dr. Bernecker consisted, for example, in insights regarding how UNESCO works, insights one can only gain after a longer involvement in UNESCO. Participants came to learn, for instance, about the complex role of National Commissions. As he explained, these are neither govern- ment nor civil society but they have to know both how the government works and how the civil society feels. A balanced knowledge of the two was evident throughout his speech. However, in his discussion, insights into UNESCOs work were more prominent not only because of Dr. Berneckers involvement in UNESCO, but also because participants, through their questions, showed an interest to know more about it. For instance, there was an interest to know more about UNESCOs intergovernmental struc- ture and how it works, because it influences heritage-related activities and discourses on a local level; the relation of a people to a place changes when the place is being attached the heritage label by governmental bodies or UNESCO, or the character of places changes especially when their values are Dr. Bernecker listening to questions raised by workshop participants Alexander Kinzelt 10 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century their values are filtered through international selection criteria as those applied by UNESCO with regards to World Heritage Sites. Dr. Bernecker admitted that the system of UNESCO may be confusing through its heritage concepts and criteria but at the same time he emphasized the opportunities, which it opens up. In this regard participants added examples, in which the nomination process for inscribing sites on the World Heritage List determined local authorities to improve the state of conservation of the respective sites. Dr. Bernecker confirmed that the World Heritage Convention can be an instrument that can stand against the dynamics of destruction. He added his own example the de-listing from the World Heritage List of the German site Dresden Elbe Valley(2) saying that, regardless of the conflicts which surrounded this case, discussing aesthetic dimensions of landscape on a political level was an opportunity for making authorities more attentive and receptive to the heritage discourse. The contribution of Dr. Bernecker also consisted in information about the broader background against which the heritage discourse takes place in UNESCO. In his view, it is similarly important to understand this context, apart from understanding the heritage discourse. This context is informed, in fact, by the general mission of UNESCO to create a better world; or, as stated in its Constitution, to build peace in the minds of men through the moral and intellectual solidarity of mankind. In this regard, his insights about UNESCOs work were peculiar in comparison to the panel presentations that preceded his speech(3). Each presentation related in specific ways to the notion of conflict and there was a general understanding among participants that, one way or another, heritage is linked with conflict. One would have expected that at his turn Dr. Bernecker will expand on this link. But instead, he softened such an understanding through arguments pointed with words like cooperation and solidarity. He did not deny that heritage can be related with conflicts and that, in many instances, they are related. He even reminded participants that not just heritage, but culture geneally, has been used throughout history not only to build and maintain communities but also to compete and to fight others. Yet, he rally, has been used throughout history not only to build and maintain communi- ties but also to compete and to fight others. Yet, he also wanted participants to reflect on heritage as a source of coopera- tion, not just one of conflict. Perhaps the best example given in this regard was the World Heritage Convention itself because it resulted from the solidarity of the inter- national community, who cooperated in the saving of sites that are relevant beyond borders. The history of the World Heritage Convention was mentioned previ- ously by one participant, who is doing research on the development of the World 11 Dr. Bernecker in a conversation with workshop organizer Bndicte Gaillard Alexander Kinzelt International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Heritage Convention through time(4). Dr. Bernecker noted the significant contribution which such research can make, because people have to know that this Convention was initially an instrument of international assistance; only in the course of time it has turned into an instrument of prestige or a tool for drawing economic benefits. Reflecting on the roots of the World Heritage Convention, Dr. Bernecker confessed that for him, this is one of the most fantastic instruments of cooperation which the international community has ever designed. Furthermore, he underlined that UNESCO also con- nects pieces of the world and this makes its work fascinating. It is perhaps not too much to say that all workshop participants could agree with this, since the workshop itself did no less than indeed connecting pieces of the world. And even if not all participants subscribed to his view, it is noteworthy that during roundtable discussions several examples were given by participants to show how heritage can be a source of cooperation and of dialogue(5). Further contribution of Dr. Bernecker consisted in insights regarding the complementarities between the scientific study of heritage and the work of UNESCO, each having its specific mission. Without deny- ing the relevance of political matters in the heritage discourse after all UNESCO is an intergovern- mental organization Dr. Bernecker stressed the actual involvement and contribution of experts, without whom, in his view, the system could not function. While discussing about the contribution experts could bring, he also underlined the contribution of young researchers. As exemplified above, the system of UNESCO may be confusing. Yet, UNESCO operates on an administrative level. Therefore, it is the duty of experts to contribute by enhancing the understanding of this system on a local level, and by clarifying concepts and functions of heritage. This was something which participants largely agreed upon during roundtable discussions(6). They also agreed that clarifying concepts and functions is even more important today because participatory approaches have moved front stage, thus bringing stakeholders with different interests together and increasing the need to understand the different meanings each attaches to heritage. The contribution of Dr. Bernecker was not limited to insights about the work of UNESCO, but consisted also in reflections regarding the function of heritage in contemporary society. One often hears criticism that heritage is reduced to its economic values; that it is exploited for tourism purposes or for enter- tainment, as participants shared in their presentations or at roundtables. Such criticism often asserts that heritage is not just a stone structure or an object, which can be fenced off or put up on display. Dr Bernecker agreed that heritage is more than that; it is a complex system of knowledge. But then he went on and challenged participants with some questions. If we agree that heritage is a complex system of knowledge, can we still relate to this knowledge? Do we actually need it? Are we still using it? Reflecting on the dynamics of human societies and the intergenerational transmission of heritage, he questioned what future generations would do with the heritage we preserve today. Will they enjoy going to the opera or listening to classical music? Or rather will these be played up only for nostalgia or for the sake of a few elites? He underlined that these were important questions and referred to examples presented by participants, which reflected the impact of mo-ernization on heritage and its 12 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century dernization on heritage and its transmission(7). Noteworthy inputs were generated by his bringing in the notion of performance and guiding participants to consider it in relation to two different ways of engaging with life. Performance, on the one hand, is used by most people to say that they have obtained good results. On the other hand, the notion also refers to the act of doing something, or performing a certain movement like in arts or in rituals. The former understanding rests on an abstract notion of achievement; the latter implies an enhanced awareness regarding ones own senses. Contemporary society is, in Dr. Berneckers view, overly inclined towards the former understanding of performance. People are excessively result-oriented. They are constantly struggling to obtain some- thing and get somewhere. The latter meaning of performance is the one that is often forgotten. For Dr. Bernecker safeguarding intangible heritage, which is based on rituals and social connectivity, can increase awareness of the importance of the human senses. For sustaining his own arguments he turned to research presented by participants; and referring to one of these researches one that explores the significance of the senses in the transmission of intangible heritage(8) he underlined once again his appreciation for the contribution of the younger generation. Views shared by Dr. Bernecker gave useful insights into UNESCOs work. At the same time they were useful starting points that encouraged participants to initiate their own reflections. But they were also useful because they gave more impetus for active involvement. Asked about the future prospects of UNESCO as organization, Dr. Bernecker replied that the younger generation is best positioned to answer such a question. And while passing this question over, he underlined that answering it was important for the direction humanity will take. For all that, the direction humanity will take surely depends also on the kind of open and constructive dialogue that he successfully sustained during the workshop. Notes: (1) This article is based on material recorded at the workshop during the special session with Dr. Roland Bernecker. The ideas expressed in this article represent the author's personal interpretation of the recorded material. The language used is that of the author and it does not represent the exact words of Dr. Bernecker, unless specifically stated. (2) This was the first cultural site ever to be de-listed from the World Heritage List against the will of the State Party on whose territory the site is located. (3) The reference is to the presentations of Aurlie Elisa Gfeller, Jrn Bohlmann, Somi Chatteriee, Saparya Varma, Leonardo Rodrigues Perez; See papers and abstracts based on these presentations in Annex 1 on p. 50 (abstracts), and Annex 2 on p. 57 (articles). (4) See abstract of Aurlie Elisa Gfeller on p. 54. **** 13 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century (5) See Summaries of Roundtable Discussions on pp. 19-26 (Panel 1), 32-38 (Panel 2), and 42-47 (Panel 3). (6) See Summaries of Roundtable Discussions on pp. 19-26 (Panel 1), 32-38 (Panel 2), and 42-47 (Panel 3). (7) See article of Saparya Varma on pp. 104-109. (8) See article of Jrn Bohlmann on pp. 66-71. 14 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Introduction to Panel 1: Heritage, Identity and Conflict Heritage is not only about objects, such as monuments and artefacts, but also about cultural practices, in all their manifestations, which play a key role in the construction of identities in contemporary societies. Learning about heritage may enrich our awareness of cultural roots, and at the same time, it also helps us understand and appreciate differences of other cultures. However, heritage may also become a cause or a scene of conflict, not only limited to armed con- flict but also relating to the contestation of meaning and interpretation of tangi- ble and intangible heritage. This is an increasing challenge in the 21st century, particularly in the context of cosmopolitan and multicultural societies, where perceptions of history, cultural goods and traditional arts are heavily laden with social and political implications. How is it, exactly, that heritage shapes identi- ties? How can heritage help open the doors for intercultural dialogue? And how can one resolve identity-related conflicts where heritage is at stake? These were the questions addressed in the framework of this panel. When we speak of heritage, what we mean is not only material heritage, such as buildings, archaeo- logical remains, monuments, landscapes or other tangible culture- and nature-related manifestations. We are also referring to intangible manifestations of heritage, which are defined by the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage as practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith that individuals, or communities, recognize both as part of their cultural herit- age, and as part of their daily life. Panel 1 dealt with living heritage. It impacts and largely conditions our feeling of belonging, of being part of a larger group of individuals sharing the same traditions, values and worldviews. Herit- age here is understood as a cultural resource - an aggregation of traditions, myths, values and inherit- ances, which are conveyed from the past to the future through artifacts, mythologies, memories and rituals. 15 by Dariya Afanasyeva, Chang Liu, and Zi-Ming Wong International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century When we learn about heritage, when we perceive it as our own, it makes us more aware of our roots. In other words, heritage plays a key role in construction and representation of identities in contempo- rary societies. By identity we understand a group of characteristics that define who we are, how we are viewed by other people, and how we are different from them. It is constructed in terms of association with a number of important social groups, including family, gender, place of residence, economic position, and ethnicity. Last but not least, heritage is a highly political process a social and cultural construct firmly embed- ded in the relationships of power. Being malleable to the needs of power, it is often subject to contesta- tion. Archaeological sites, religious monuments, ethnic traditions, and traditional customs become targets of violence arising from inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts, as well as to struggle between representatives of different social strata within one ethnic or religious group. However, heritage- related contestation does not only imply physically aggressive or armed conflicts. It can find expres- sion yet in a different kind of conflict that often does not involve direct violence, but still causes tension within and between societies. This is an increasing challenge in the 21st century, particularly in the context of cosmopolitan and multicultural societies, where perceptions of history, cultural goods and traditional arts are heavily laden with social and political implications. Within the IGS HS the theme of this panel is studied by four doctoral candidates. Zi-Ming Wongs doctoral thesis explores intercultural dialogue in a culturally diverse nation, using intangible cultural heritage as medium. Chang Lius doctoral thesis examines the safeguarding and sustainability of intangible cultural herit- age in Socialist China through an analysis of Daoqing shadow theatres experience in Huanxian. Based on the case study of the sacred landscapes in Crimea (Ukraine), Dariya Afanasyevas doctoral research explores the ways in which intangible values attached to a landscape by the people contribute to both protection of this landscape and the shaping of peoples cultural and religious identity. Steve Ojoos (1) research is based on a case study of the relations between the Luo and Luhya ethnic groups in Kenya. It captures the applicability of traditional knowledge and practices as key to resolv- ing ethnic conflicts. The thesis assesses traditional elements of ethnic conflict resolution that could be integrated into modern resolution strategies. Among invited researchers dealing with the issues highlighted in the framework of this panel, were: Aurlie Elisa Gfeller, post-doctoral fellow at the European University Institute in San Domenico di 16 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century sole, Italy. Her presentation investigated the evolution of the notion of world heritage between the 1972 WH Convention and 2010. In particular, she focused on four issues: (1) how and to which extent key stakeholders came to view WH in more inclusive terms, in view of the critique of WH Conventions Eurocentric bias; (2) re-conceptualization of the relationship between natural and cultural heritage, and the emergence of the category of cultural landscapes; (3) evolution of the practices of the WH Committee with regards to places commemorating human atrocities (the so-called dark heritage); and (4) the changing approach towards the WH classification of sites in danger. Jrn Bohlmann, a PhD candidate at the Trondheim University College in Trondheim, Norway dealt with the human senses and their role in traditional craftsmanship, with a focus on the heritage of Norwe- gian boatbuilding. Mr. Bohlmann argued that mastery of skills in traditional crafts should be regarded as part of Norwegian intangible heritage. His research aspires to answer the following questions: (1) how far traditional craftsmanship should be perceived in the context of ethnic, national and geographical conditions; (2) to which extent this craftsmanship is the result of regional, social and cultural resources; and (3) whether it is possible to discover transnational identity in this particular Norwegian boat-wreck. Leonardo Rodriguez-Perez, associate researcher at the Pierre du Bois Foundation for Current History in Geneva, Switzerland, dealt with the indigenous uses of Ayahuasca (an Amazon brew prepared in order to induce shamanic experiences) and possibilities for their recognition as intangible heritage. He focused on the cases of Peru and Colombia. The questions Mr. Rodriguez-Perez posed were: (1) could not Ayahuasca shamanism tourism be seen as compatible with the nature of shamanism; (2) does only indigenous shamanism have to be considered intangible heritage, or is there a theoretical possi- bility to consider rituals from shamanism tourism as intangible heritage, even though they have no linkage with indigenous culture and identity; and (3) should ritual uses of Ayahuasca be treated as a problem of civil right in terms of religious freedom, instead of a cultural and indigenous identity issue? Saparya Varma, consultant and conservation architect at Hampi WH Area Management Author- ity, India, dealt with the changes and conflicts in traditional management practices with relation to issues in property management in Kerala, India. In the case of India, traditional societies, histori- cally, devised an efficient system of social stratifi- cation where people were divided into castes and sub-castes, based on their occupation. In the 19th and the 20th centuries, with increased social 17 Ms. Saparya Varma presenting her paper in Panel 1. BTU Multimediazentrum International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century sciousness, several legal reforms were enforced that aimed at bringing about an egalitarian society. There reforms had both positive and negative impacts. The goal of Ms. Varmas research was to discuss these impacts on the tangible and intangible heritage, with specific relevance to two castes the Nam- budiris and the Nairs. Based on the presentations, and the discussions at the round tables that followed, it was concluded that both heritage and identity are very complex and versatile concepts, which mutually enrich, and form, each other. Importantly, identity is not something necessarily related to a place. It is a construct often inseparable from political issues and instruments of social influence. In the end effect, every person can give her or his own answer to the question of how heritage shapes her or his identity, on different levels. Notes: (1) Steven Ojoo is now a former student of the IGS HS. The research of Somi Chatterjee, who also works at Hampi WH Area Management Authority in India, focused on conflicting identity and its impact on cultural resources, based on a series of case studies. Looking at the formation of culture as a complex and dynamic process, it aimed at developing tools that can help to better understand, retain and appreciate identity. It also looks into the role of professionals and policy-makers in the creation of these tools and attempts to identify issues that lead to conflicts within a society or among different societies. Ms. Somi Chatterjee giving her presentation for Panel 1. BTU Multimediazentrum **** 18 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Summary of Round Tables Panel 1: Heritage, Identity and Conflict by Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Zi-ming Wong Three round tables were organized for discussions after each panel session, facilitated by the authors of this summary. There are three working questions that were suggested by the organizers for brainstorming about relevant topics to the panels that were connected to the problematics raised during the presen- tations. Here, we summarize the conclusions for the Panel on Heritage, Identity and Conflict and invited the participants to add reflections and correct points that were not clear. Question 1. How is it, exactly, that heritage shapes identities?
a) Conclusions Round Table 1. Facilitator: Maya Ishizawa (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Participants: Bndicte Gaillard (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Vernica Montero- Fayad (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Manuel Peters (Intercultural Studies, BTU Cottbus), Ruchit Purohit (Kingston University London, UK), Aldo Buzio (Politecnico di Torino, Italy), Saparya Varma (Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, India), Mathieu Dormaels (Universit du Quebec Montral, Canada), Frank Mller (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany). First of all, we had to define our concepts: what is identity? And, what is heritage? For us, identity and heritage seemed to be similar concepts that are forming each other. Identity shapes heritage and herit- age shapes identity. Consequently, the formation of identities is not one-folded and heritage is not only producing identities, but identities are also producing heritage. On the other hand, we pointed out the possibility of identity to become an instrument of exclusion. The heritage related to this official identity could be exclusive, such as the case of illegal migrants, that are not citizens of the country where they arrived and the heritage of that place does not represent them; on the contrary, it generates conflicts for their integration in the new contexts. We discussed about the need to define and explain heritage in order to understand its relationship to identity. Which definitions of Heritage shall we use? There is the definition of UNESCO that is the concept we are usually applying but if heritage is not framed in an institutional context, as an opera- tional concept, it could be everything. 19 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century concept we are usually applying but if heritage is not framed in an institutional context, as an opera- tional concept, it could be everything. Moreover, in the search for a definition of heritage, we conclude that heritage is tangible and intangible, without separation, and that intangible cultural heritage occurs before tangible cultural heritage. We found that identity seemed to be a concept inherent to human culture but not reflected in every context as in Western culture. The identity is dynamic and, heritage and identity are processes. When identity changes or is re-created, heritage follows. Identity is not necessarily related to a place. It is a construction, and sometimes it is based on political issues. Then the question of who constructs the identity came into discussion. Is the identity created by communities or imposed by external actors? For instance, after the Independence of India from United Kingdom, the new government wanted to reinforce the sense of a nation a political entity called India. The pre-colonization India or the sub-continent did not exist as an entity post- independence. The leaders needed a concept of nation therefore principalities (like the princely state of Rajasthan, Nizam`s estates) or large chunks of independent sovereignties were amalgamated under an understanding. So, India in the post- independence sought to create a nation and national identity. Another example that could be illustrative is the case of the building of the national identity in Norway based on the Viking past and the symbol of the Viking boats as referred in Jrns presentation. If identity is created by heritage, there exists the creation of heritage based on new kinds of identity: the global identity, European identity, Italian identity. For example, locals in the wine region in Italy didnt see their landscape as heritage. Then, a move- ment was created by UNESCO, politicians, and civil society in order to build an identity based on the wine region concept. Different discourses were addressed, e.g. the green discourse. This was man- aged as a proposal of a new identity for the people living in this area. After ten years, locals accepted that this was their heritage. Locals of the region already had an identity, but a new observation with regards to their landscape as heritage was suggested, and the identity changed in relation to this new idea of heritage. The process of recreation of communities and sensibilities generates new identities, new visions on heritage. 20 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century b) Conclusions Round Table 2. Facilitator: Dariya Afanasyeva (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Participants: Thorolf Lipp (Arcadia Filmproduktion Berlin, Germany), Leonardo Rodriguez Perez (Pierre du Bois Foundation for Current History, Switzerland), Raluca Mateoc (University of Fribourg, Switzerland), Ona Vileikis (Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation, KULeuven, Belgium), Solmaz Yadollahi (Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism Organization), Jrn Bohlmann (Trondheim University College and NTNU, Norway), Klaus Zehbe (Chair Intercultural Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Tiziana Destino (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Steven Ojoo (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Chang Liu (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) In order to answer the question of how heritage shapes identity, it is important to define and contextu- alize identity. There are different forms of identity, including collective identity and individual identity. Also important is that collective identity could result from individual identity, and the other way round. As it was discussed, no person can be a carrier of any single layer of identity. On one level, we are all separate individuals (physical beings, if one may say so); on other levels, however, we become part of a larger scheme of belonging, such as family, ethnic group. Therefore, when we ask how heritage can shape identity we have to define, first of all, what aspect, and what level of identity we are talking about; as well as the scale, and the nature of heritage in ques- tion. We may talk about natural heritage, as the place of belonging of a person a place where one was born, raised; a certain natural surroundings that one perceives as home. On the other hand, we may speak of cultural heritage, in its various manifestations, which is not necessarily linked to any specific place geographically. Here, again, there is a wide variety of scales, and levels of belonging. Hence, each of us can give her or his own answer as to how heritage shapes her or his identity, on its different levels. By reflecting on who we are (as single individuals, as members of our families, as members of social and ethnic groups, as citizens of a certain state). Whichever level we take - our herit- age, both natural and cultural, both tangible and intangible is an indispensable context in the process of becoming who we are; and it is in this way that it shapes us. On the other hand, we can safely say that this process is reciprocal: heritage shapes identity, and identity also shapes heritage. 21 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century c) Conclusions Round Table 3. Facilitator: Zi-Ming Wong (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Participants: Ana Dinger (UCP Portuguese Catholic University, Portugal), Carlos Len-Ximnez (Independent researcher), Carol Ludwig (Northumbria University, School of the Built and Natural Environment, UK), Aurlie Gfeller (European University Institute, Italy), Somi Chatterjee (Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, India), Shina Erlewein (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Cornelia Wilke (World Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Anca Prodan (IGS: Herit- age Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Heritage in its original meaning as stated in a dictionary would simply refer to inheritance, specifically private property. It is commented that the World Heritage Convention (1972) was a move from an earlier concept of cultural property. The concept of identity for heritage would not find its significance given in this UNESCO framework as identity depends on how local inhabitants shape or affirm it. In fact, the discourse of heritage has become far removed from a local sense of identity and has become more of an invention of curators or heritage promoters. If you look at the case of heritage in Florence, it has become more a matter of tourism instead of identity of the local people. Authorities define identities according to economic benefits. Instead of identity it becomes a matter of branding. (Some note that such acts of branding bear a danger in freezing culture, creating non-authentic objects and even denying the rights of traditional craftsmen as creators.) According to the Intangible Heritage Convention, heritage is something to be safeguarded as it relates to cultural identity. However, if we look at the example of the Viking boat making, the techniques have changed along the way, so when we say it is heritage that one identifies with, it is maybe more of a contemporary interpretation rather than a historical investigation. State Parties are often not so interested in the history of community identity. The authorities are using a different language which the community may not identify with. There are researchers who are more interested in deconstructing the process of how identity is defined through the practice of heritage. There are others who take a strategic approach on the issue of identity, and hence their interest in heritage studies is a form of social action or activism.The difference may depend on positions related to the epistemological background of the researcherin anthropology, sociology or more specific disciplines. 22 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Question 2. How can heritage help open the doors for intercultural dialogue? a) Conclusions Round Table 1. Is it possible that heritage promotes intercultural dialogue? For us it seemed possible that heritage open the doors for intercultural dialogue. We examine several examples from different heritage expressions in the world. The Carnival in Nottingham created by the Afro (and) Caribbean communities has been well received by other communities belonging to different cultures. People all over United Kingdom go to the Carni- val. The Afro (and) Caribbean communities assume United Kingdom as their own country, and at the same time they preserve their original identity related to their ancestors. The intercultural dialogue is open not only among the different cultures that attend the Carnival that is a cultural manifestation from the Afro (and) Caribbean communities, but also an intercultural dialogue within the community itself, that is British and at the same time, Afro-Caribbean. Another example of intercultural dialogue promoted this time by a heritage site is the Mezquita in Iceland. This site has benn occupied by different cultures over time. The building has been maintained and the function kept. The symbol used related to the different religions changed and the space was transformed. The Kazan Kremlin (Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation) is a site in which different cultures have occupied the same space. Before the nomination on the World Heritage List, the local authorities rebuilt a mosque like the one that stood at this exact same place before the Tsar Ivan IV conquered this territory near the Volga. Now the Kazan Kremlin consists of a mosque and an Orthodox cathedral. The local authorities used the reconstruction of the mosque and the inscription on the World Heritage List to reaffirm the Tatar identity that was present even before the construction of the Kremlin and which survived and cohabited with the Russian identity ever since. Then, heritage sites are maintained, but the functions change over time according to different occupa- tions. Archaeological site in a Valley between India and Pakistan has open doors for dialogue between both countries. The people from the Valley are identified themselves to the same place whether they are from India or from Pakistan. This example illustrates how boundaries were created by new nations where people are identified to a place and not to a modern state. 23 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century However, intercultural dialogue is not necessarily an international dialogue. In the previous case, probably the people inhabiting the Valley belong to the same cultural group, but when they become citizens of different countries, their identity is re-created. Then, the question arises, how dialogue can be built from below, a dialogue generated by the commu- nities and not imposed by frameworks created by national governments? b) Conclusions Round Table 2. Again, as was the case with the previous question, one must first define what kind of heritage we are talking about. On the general level of discussion, it can be concluded that being the expression of peoples collective identity (including cultural identity), heritage is the means through which this identity can be explained to the others. By observing our traditions, our values, ways of behaviour; as well as seeing what we have produced collectively as representatives of a certain cultural group, people from outside of this group can, potentially, understand better what are the different aspects of life that are of importance to us. In this way, heritage may serve as a means of communicating of cultural (and other) values between different groups of people. When such communication is mutual it has a high potential of enabling a better understanding of the other on both sides. c) Conclusions Round Table 3. Intercultural dialogue has often been associated with heritage in cultural tourism. But with regards to how heritage may help promote intercultural dialogue, some are more optimistic than others. An example discussed is the intangible heritage of Vedic chanting. It is not only a religious tradition; it is even associated with a particular caste in India. People who identify with it believe that it has vibra- tions that will also be relevant to people of other cultures (The vedic chants can produce a special resonance in the atmosphere that influences ones mental state, according to results ofclinical experi- ments in India on psychological stress and depression it is cited), but people of other cultural back- grounds would still have a different position on relevance of the practice to others, based on social or cultural arguments. Another example may be the practice of yoga in the western society. Is it really intercultural when somebody of another culture is romanticizing it and interpreting it in a different way? There is an issue of whether one is respecting the traditional dance of another culture, which has religious origin, or when one treats it as a form of entertainment. Whether heritage can open the doors for intercultural dialogue can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. (The question is whether one adopts the practice in its totality without questioning the principles. Yoga exercises for example are only a fraction of a holistic self-disciplined living known as Yoga.) 24 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Question 3. And how can one resolve identity-related conflicts where heritage is at stake? a) Conclusions Round Table 1. A conflict of identity is a conflict of heritage, because conflicts are usually related to identity. Moreover, when there is a conflict, identities are re-affirmed or rejected. Intercultural dialogue generated through heritage can be an instrument for solving conflict. In order to solve a conflict, it is necessary to promote understanding. This understanding comes from explanations and definitions. Identities, heritage, boundaries need to be defined and explained. Identity can divide or unite. That is why identity is used as a political tool, and the construction of identity is lead by political intentions. For example, in the case of UNESCO, there is a political intention of promoting peace through culture, education and intercultural dialogue, and the unifying concept of World Heritage was created. But who has the right over heritage? The international community, the State, the local communities, the visitors? Who decides what to conserve and what to destroy? An example is the destruction of the Buddhas in the Bamiyan Valley by Talibans in 2001. Taliban made a political statement by dynamit- ing them. For Taliban, this action was justified, because they have destroyed idols. However, for the international community, this has been an act of intolerance. Then, Taliban decided to destroy, and afterwards, the international community, through UNESCO, decides to reconstruct them. How is the Buddhist or Afghan community being engaded in this discussion? The building of identities results in a political process ruled by the entities that have the power. In India, dressing traditions are very diverse but they are progressively being reduced to one tradition that is being generalized all over India. Who decides which tradition is taken? And how is that this particular culture is becoming powerful? 25 Workshop pariticipants in the Round Table discussions. Alexander Kinzelt International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Consequently there is a conflict between the ruling identity and the non-authorized identities. Culture and identities are processes and they are adapted through time, influenced by political factors. b) Conclusions Round Table 2. This question was not discussed. c) Conclusions Round Table 3. This depends on specificities of the cases, it may not be appropriate to generalize. It all comes back to the problem that one may not even agree with having a universal definition by which heritage should be interpreted. In fact, maybe there should never be a universal definition as that may also be a preclusion of diversity for individuals and communities. 26 **** International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Introduction to Panel 2: Communities and Heritage Protection The protection of cultural and natural heritage greatly depends on the involve- ment of various community stakeholders. Local communities have the primary role in maintaining and transmitting heritage but they are not the only actors with an interest in its protection. Sometimes the demands of the various actors involved local communities but also external actors such as tourists, NGOs, governmental institutions, urban developers, etc - are driven by different under- standings of the role of heritage and the need for its protection. Consequently this panel assessed the following questions: what are the perceptions of exter- nal actors, vis--vis internal actors, with regard to their function in the protec- tion of heritage? If these perceptions are contradictory, should they be recon- ciled into a common understanding of heritage protection? What are the chal- lenges of involving these communities into the long term protection of herit- age? Increasing awareness of the importance of local communities participation in heritage protection, leads us, heritage researchers, to find alternative ways to include participative strategies and commu- nal involvement in decision-making in the fields of conservation and management. However, commu- nities not only refer to local communities to whom usually heritage belongs but also the external communities that can be related to and can benefit from heritage. In this panel, we addressed the concept of communities as an inclusive concept referring to all the stakeholders with an interest in heritage, even if their perceptions and roles with regards to heritage can be conflictive. The panel discussed the problematic of bottom-up versus top-down approaches in heritage protection. On the one hand, local communities seem to be the most appropriate agents to protect their own herit- age, but sometimes, they may not be aware of its value, or lack appreciation of it. Moreover, in cases where traditional local knowledge is involved in the production of heritage, the safeguarding of this knowledge is often in danger due to external influences, such as development, modernization and tourism. Often, the importance of intangible cultural heritage is not sufficiently considered in the institutional strategies of heritage protection. 27 by Bndicte Gaillard and Maya Ishizawa International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century On the other hand, the external communities, - which includes not only visitors but also interna- tional organizations such as UNESCO, ICOMOS, IUCN; central governments and governmental institu- tions in whose hands national and regional policies for heritage protection lie; NGOs supporting and promoting heritage protection; urban developers, transnational organizations and corporations that are being confronted to heritage conservation regulations - deal with and often govern over heritage that does not belong to them. Here, under Heritage we consider, both natural and cultural, both tangi- ble and intangible heritage, since all of these categories are interlinked and dependant on each other. Heritage has become then an asset for the local communities, and also, a resource for external communities. We distinguished two types of protection: the Legal Protection and the Active Protection. The first type of protection depends on external stakeholders, such as governments and international organizations. The second type of protection is mostly undertaken by local communities. The main challenge is to activate heritage protection among local actors and to find ways of influencing and intervening in the Legal Protection from the bottom to the top, from the local level to the national, regional and interna- tional levels. The theme of this panel arose from the researches carried out at the IGS: Heritage Studies by the PhD students who were involved in the organization of the workshop. For instance, the question of how to make local communities aware of the value of their heritage and enable them to enjoy and benefit from it, by increasing their appreciation, was being developed by Tiziana Destino (1) , through case studies from architectural heritage in the Mediterranean Basin. How to incorporate local communities and their traditional knowledge into cultural landscapes conser- vation is being studied by Maya Ishizawa, based on a comparison between heritage sites in the Pyrnes and the Andes. Frank Mller (2) was researching, from a historical perspective, the changes in the cultural landscape of Peitz triggered by local communities and by external stakeholders through agriculture, forestry and mining. Finally, Bndicte Gaillard, is focusing on the case of the delisting of the Dresden Elbe Valley from the World Heritage List in 2009 in order to understand the dynamics between the local community and the external stakeholders arisen by the dispute over protecting heritage or permitting development. During this panel we had the chance to listen to similar research topics dealing also with issues related to the active or non-active participation of communities in heritage protection. Researches presented by workshop participants covered different regions of the world, as well as issues related 28 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century to the legal aspects of protection that sometimes are exclusive in that they dont consider local commu- nities as important stakeholders of heritage. Two strategies were criticized, the concept of cultural district as applied in Italy, and the concept of protection of urban World Heritage sites, as applied in Peru. Aldo Buzio (article in p. 58) presented the problems of the the cultural district approach for local communities involvement in historic centres or larger areas. He proposed the concept of cultural commons instead for implementing commu- nity involvement by presenting an evaluation study of eight World Heritage sites in Italy, and the nomination process of the cultural landscape of Langhe Roero Monferrato. Mathieu Dormaels (abstract in p. 53) presented the complexity of urban World Heritage sites as cultural heritage. He explained how the studies on this topic tend to not consider inhabitants of these heritage sites and their perceptions. If considered, they are seen as secondary actors but not as stake- holders in the process of heritagization, contrary to the institutions that have a leading role. On the other hand, some cases, with more inclusive approaches involving local communities and exter- nal stakeholders in heritage protection were presented through a case study in Jordan and another case in the Romanian Dobrogea region. Ona Vileikis (abstract in p. 56) presented the Risk Management Plan process for Petra Archaeological Park inscribed in the World Heritage List since 1985. She explained how local communities, national and local agencies, students and international experts were involved in the process of preparing this document. This was an experience where the protection of the site as a priority for internal and exter- nal actors alike brought about a collaborative project for the benefit of all stakeholders. Raluca Mateoc (article in p. 86) presented the case of a Romanian village inhabited by ethnic Turks that according to the media, authorities intended to nominate for the World Heritage List. In this village, as she explained, there is a heritage tourism project with the aim of transforming the place into an open-air museum. Different stakeholders such as the political elites, the Turkish Businessmen Association and the members of the ethnic groups are involved in this heritage transmission process, although they have different views and interests towards this project. Moreover, the problematic of different stakeholders interests and perceptions was also the focus of the presentation by Solmaz Yadollahi (article in p. 110) who spoke about the World Heritage site of Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex located in Eastern-Azarbaijan province at the north west of Iran. She focused on the challenges of adopting appropriate policies to protect this living World Heritage site and explain that the reasons for these challenges may be found in the existence of diverse and some- times conflicting perceptions. 29 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Two case studies from United Kingdom illustrated some examples of processes for heritage protection and legal instruments used for including local communities in heritage conservation. Ruchit Purohit (article in p. 92), presented the role of decision-making processes in heritage practice. He examined decision-making theory and showed the complexity of decision-making processes where different factors and stakeholders are shaping them constantly. Carol Ludwig (article in p. 78) discussed the authorised heritage discourse. She argued that this discourse questions the interpretation of local heritage by key stakeholders during the Local List process in the context of Great Britain. She showed that this interpretation that is dominant and receives legitimisation could enter into conflict with other competing interpretations that may be marginalised or discredited. Finally, a possible strategy for involving local communities in heritage protection was presented by Carlos Len-Xjimnez (article in p. 72) who examined Lima Historical Centre (LHC) in Peru, a World Heritage site under risk. He focused on the development and evaluation of contemporary art and alter- native architectural interventions and explained how local communities could take part in the discus- sion about urban heritage in order to develop sustainable solutions for this living city centre and in order to avoid musealization. After listening to the participants presentations and sharing the results of the roundtables on this panel dedicated to Communities and Heritage Protection, one major open question arose: is there a need for a common understanding of heritage between stakeholders (internal and external)? On the one hand, there is a need for a common language in order to protect heritage but the various internal and external stakeholders have different interests. Thus, there is need to focus on the follow- ing important point: to enable stakeholders to work together even if they have different interests. In this case, this pragmatic approach states that there is not really a need for a common understanding of heritage but the need is located on the finding of a common language so that internal and external stakeholders may communicate. On the other hand, the perspective one takes to look at heritage matters in the development of a common understanding or common language has to be taken into account because, for example practitioners and scholars do not necessarily adopt the same view on heritage. Moreover, one can argue that a common understanding is the basis to build an exchange of knowledge later on. Espe- cially while speaking of local communities it is important to reach a common agreement first, so that later on one can put into practice exactly what local communities considered appropriate for the protection of their own heritage. In this regard, the concept of the commons might be brought in the discussion because it represents a tool and a process to help the local communities become part of the decisions and actions 30 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century concerning the protection of heritage. It represents a process of mutual understanding and of resolu- tion of conflicts which gives the possibility to regulate the sharing of competences and decisions without following a top-down approach. However, one should not forget about heritage interpretation because different actors have different interpretations even if a common language exists. So communication is always asymmetrical and it rarely happens that actors arrive at a common level of understanding. Finally, the debate stays open: on how to achieve a common understanding of heritage among stake- holders, or the sufficiency of a common language that would contribute to best protect heritage, while giving the word to communities. This is fundamental in order to fully involve them in a matter that primarily concerns them. Notes: (1) Tiziana Destino is now a former student of the IGS HS. (2) Frank Mller is now a former student of the IGS HS. **** 31 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Summary of Round Tables Panel 2: Communities and Heritage Protection Three round tables were organized for discussions after each panel session, facilitated by the authors of this summary. There are three working questions that were suggested by the organizers for brainstorming about relevant topics to the panels that were connected to the problematics raised during the presen- tations. Here, we summarize the conclusions for the Panel on Heritage, Identity and Conflict and invited the participants to add reflections and correct points that were not clear. Question 1. What are the perceptions of external actors, vis--vis internal actors, with regard to their function in the protection of heritage? a) Conclusions Round Table 1. Facilitator: Maya Ishizawa (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Participants: Bndicte Gaillard (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Vernica Montero- Fayad (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Ruchit Purohit (Kingston University London, UK), Solmaz Yadollahi (Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism Organization), Aldo Buzio (Politecnico di Torino, Italy), Aurlie Gfeller (European University Institute, Italy), Saparya Varma (Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, India), Frank Mller (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Actors in heritage protection are not homogenous. Local communities are not one group but several groups, and these groups are differentiated according to their power. Different actors have different perceptions regarding heritage protection depending on which groups of stakeholders they belong to. There are actors influenced by economic interest, political interest, and interests of everyday life. However, the decisions and guidelines are generally taken and developed through a top-down approach. Certain actors control a certain kind of knowledge, e.g. expert knowledge, based on which decisions are made by governments. So, internal actors, understood as the local communities, can be perceived by external actors differently according to their power over cultural resources. by Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa, and Zi-ming Wong 32 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Nonetheless, awareness of heritage value is generally promoted by external actors, e.g. experts andgovernments. Therefore, for experts, or external actors, it is important to find a balance of inter- ests and strategies for negotiations according to the interest of each group. In some cases, the government has excluded local communities from decision-making gradually in the course of time. In Iran for instance, the trend of formation of the administrative and legal systems shows that since the 19th century the government has become the main and central decision-maker for all aspects of economic and social life. As a result, in historic cities and other heritage places which contribute to the contemporary social life, the local communities as the owners and developers of these places have the lowest power and effectiveness in decision-making process comparing to other economic and political actors particularly the government. For compromising involving internal actors in heritage protection, there is a need of education for heritage appreciation, however, the conflict appears between the intergenerational and institutional interests in heritage conservation and the right of new generations to choose, what to protect, what to value. The guidance of the government on heritage appreciation is usually biased by political interests. The conflict arises between the value of heritage recognition, as seen by experts and the government, and the local communities own agency regarding their heritage. Therefore, the awareness of the position and interest of the different actors (e.g. we want to protect as heritage professionals) could generate an exchange of interests, promoting negotiation and dialogue, i.e. to give and to take. b) Conclusions Round Table 2. Facilitator: Dariya Afanasyeva (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Participants: Thorolf Lipp (Arcadia Filmproduktion Berlin, Germany), Leonardo Rodriguez Perez (Pierre du Bois Foundation for Current History, Switzerland), Raluca Mateoc (University of Fribourg, Switzerland), Ona Vileikis (Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation, KULeuven, Belgium), Jrn Bohlmann (Trondheim University College and NTNU, Norway), Klaus Zehbe (Chair Intercultural Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Tiziana Destino (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Steven Ojoo (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Chang Liu (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Mathieu Dormaels (Universit du Quebec Montral, Canada). The first question to be asked in the course of discussion was which communities we mean by inter- nal actors? Community can include a wide range of people, united by a variety of common feelings, and common factors. Are we talking about local inhabitants? If so, then are we actually sure that all 33 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century that the heritage we talk about has an equally outstanding value for all of them? Furthermore, it is by no means necessary that if one belongs to a certain community, she or he shares the views and attitudes of the majority. Hence, presenting community as a homogenous group(s) of internal actors is no more than a very practical, and also very political, way of dealing with stake- holders. At the same time, it was discussed that one does not have to be a local (in the sense of inhabitance) in order to feel connection to a heritage place, and to perceive oneself as an internal actor in the matters regarding this heritage. An example was given of festivals, where locals participate alongside visitors from other places and both groups feel equally touched by and connected to the event. All this leads us to doubt whether the distinction between internal and external actors is the one possi- ble to be made in way that is not too arbitrary. If we speak of distinctively external actors, such as government bodies, or tourism organizations then the question can be answered by saying that obviously, such actors have a much more practical approach towards heritage than those who perceive it as their own. Another issue, apart from financial interests arising from such actors participation in heritage protection, in that the latter feel entitled to impose their visions of heritage on the internal actors; they tend to assume that being outsiders (and probably educated as experts in certain fields of heritage protection and management), they tend to interfere with local dynamics and offer their expert advice. Whether or not such advice is appropri- ate, and really serves the benefits of internal actors, and heritage itself is a matter of discussion. The round-table group had varying opinions on the matter. In general terms, it was agreed that situation can only be judged upon based on concrete cases. c) Conclusions Round Table 3. Facilitator: Zi-Ming Wong (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Participants: Ana Dinger (UCP Portuguese Catholic University, Portugal), Carlos Len-Ximnez (Independent researcher), Carol Ludwig (Northumbria University, School of the Built and Natural Environment, UK), Somi Chatterjee (Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, India), Shina Erlewein (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Cornelia Wilke (World Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Anca Prodan (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) For external actors in the protection of heritage, the issue is often just tourism and money. For the internal actors, as in the inhabitants, they may be concerned about practical issues like the amount of garbage from tourism, or prices being pushed up due to tourism. Tourism may create a problem of 34 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century of garbage from tourism, or prices being pushed up due to tourism. Tourism may create a problem of child labor during tourism season in India for instance. In some cases of museums, businessmen who sponsor a project may want heritage presented according to the way they want it, and political authori- ties have their own agenda too. Sometimes heritage becomes hijacked for business projects. Building spaces may even be planned for such projects. Sometimes local people are dependent on income from tourism and it is a concern for them if the tourism numbers do not meet their expectations. For shop owners, it is the shop space that matters instead of the heritage. Question 2. If these perceptions are contradictory, should they be reconciled into a common understanding of heritage protection? a) Conclusions Round Table 1. In order to generate a common understanding between external and internal actors, as well as among different external groups and internal groups, it is necessary to have consciousness of ones own position and interest (each actor position and interest) regarding heritage and develop negotiation strategies with local representatives and experts as facilitators. The concept of communities needs to be questioned because a more specific definition is needed in order to deal with the interests of different actors. Communities, and local communities are not homo- geneous groups, and even in one identified group, there could be different motivations and under- standings of heritage. Also it is important to note that sometimes the visible stakeholders are only powerful stakeholders and other less powerful stakeholders may be excluded or invisibilized in the processes of negotiation. b) Conclusions Round Table 2. As discussed under question 1 above, it would be very simplistic to assume that all local communi- ties are homogenous units of people driven by similar motivations and sharing similar opinions on the matter of heritage. In general terms, it can be said that first of all, it is not imperative that all stakeholders share the same opinion. But if in certain cases it is, then any sort of agreement, or reconciliation, between internal and external actors can only be reached when there is a) clear communication between different stakeholders; b) recognition, on the side of every stakeholder, of the subjectivity of their position and acceptance of the fact that all actors have their own private interests, which will not be readily under- 35 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century tion and acceptance of the fact that all actors have their own private interests, which will not be readily understood by the others; and c) a sincere desire to act jointly, in consultation with each other, and taking into consideration other actors concerns. b) Conclusions Round Table 3. Due to globalization, everybody may claim heritage for their own interests. It is hard to say who the internal and external actors are. It is not necessary to get a common understanding among different stakeholders. With regards to the concept of commons, it may be seen as a form of unlimited resource or just a form of authorized discourse. Some legal concept is needed. We may use the term local community but the definition of what is external and what is internal may not be useful because things are dynamic. However, it is also argued that local communities need to retain the value of herit- age according to their own approach, for instance the way Japanese temples are reconstructed, which does not follow the western idea of authenticity. Interpretations are subjective. Question 3. What are the challenges of involving these communities into the long-term pro- tection of heritage? a) Conclusions Round Table 1. The first challenge is to define specifically the term communities because there are several actors inside the community of inhabitants. Secondly, it is important to notice the differences between long-term interest to present generations of stakeholders and the interests of the new generations, which values may change compare to the present values. However, it is also relevant to remember that the aim of heritage protection is the maintenance of cultural and natural values for the future generations. Therefore, one of the challenges is to define which communities are interested in the long-term protection of heritage, to define which heritage needs to be protected, and for whom. Will these new stakeholders be interested in the protection of that heritage in the long term? Furthermore, the concept of heritage is not understood by everybody in the same way. It is not a fixed concept. Therefore, different ideas of heritage result in different ideas of what to protect, and then, on how to involve communities or stakeholders. We may ask ourselves, is it the past that we are trying to conserve and freeze? Or is it that we want to protect or preserve the present that is disappearing? If so, why not let it disappear? Maybe because of the need of a collective memory, the existing emotional 36 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century existing emotional dimension of the past as disappearing present, the links of this disappearing present to our identities However, the past could also be related to political questions, for instance, when events from the past represent landmarks for a nation, a country or a community. Education appears to be an important instrument for communicating the values of the past that need to be regenerated or protected for the future. The two-way education in which experts and local people can learn from each other is the right approach, not a one-way approach in which experts dictate the values of the heritage to the local people who are a significant and integrated part of heritage and (in many cases) the creators of the heritage. Family objects and family residence belong to the history of an individual, community, or locality, and sometimes even to that of a nation. Shall we teach and transmit these values to the next generations as it has been traditionally done in the scale of the family? Will this turn out to be a manipulation of interest according to whom decides what to transmit and what to leave disappear? Finally, the main challenge for heritage protection in the long term lies in confronting the conflict of interests among present stakeholders, future stakeholders and power relationships. It is fundamental to position ourselves (as researchers, experts on heritage) and understand the position of the different stakeholders in order to allow their involvement. Moreover, it is fundamental to understand the influ- ence of political decisions on what is protected as heritage and how politics and economy play a major role on the choices we make. b) Conclusions Round Table 2. This question is very similar to the previous two in the sense that it is not so easy to identify who the local community includes. Local communities are not homogenous. Neither are they unchanging. Workshop participants in Round Table discussions. Dejan Majer 37 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Values evolve; people migrate; understanding of what heritage is, and what it means for those who feel related to it, changes overtime. Heritage protection, and involvement of any stakeholders in this process (both internal and external), especially in the long run, is therefore a big challenge. Are exter- nal actors (e.g. heritage experts) more knowledgeable as to what strategies will be more sustainable for heritage protection than those, which local communities can offer? Is it the other way round? There is no single answer to any of these questions. It remains open and largely dependant on concrete ca- ses b) Conclusions Round Table 3. Usually, it is up to experts to decide how heritage is preserved, instead of having involvement of the local community. But certain forms of intangible heritage belong traditionally to only particular fami- lies. So, if one does not want to teach the art to an external community, does anybody have the right to force him? Many times the local community is classified according to practical needs in the conserva- tion process. When external actors have the power to decide what is going to be preserved in a locality and how, it may just turn into a kind of zoo. **** 38 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Introduction to Panel 3: Mediating Heritage through Representations In this session heritage was approached as representation. The aim was to explore heritage mediation strategies, by focusing on the function of represen- tations in shaping the understanding of heritage. When heritage becomes a representation it passes through a process by which it is disembodied from its originating context, transferred to a new one, and re-embodied as representa- tion. Whether in the form of museum exhibitions or as digital images, represen- tations may only capture selected aspects of heritage, at the expense of others. Thus, they provide partial understandings of the heritage they depict, convey- ing the particular view of their creators. In order to analyze this process and how it changes the understanding of heritage the session centered on the following questions: By which means does the representation of heritage occur and how do these means influence the process of representation? How do herit- age representations differ from the heritage they represent? If heritage becomes a representation can it still be considered heritage and by whom? The topic of this panel arose from the themes of the Ph.D. students from the IGS HS, which are directly or indirectly related with the notion of representation and approach it from different perspectives. For instance, Shina Erleweins research focuses on the role of audio-visual media in the representation and construction of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH). Vernica Montero-Fayads research is concerned with the linkage between the conceptions of cultural identity and their implementation in museums representations of indigenous people. Finally, Anca Prodans research does not look at the content of representations, but rather at the physical tools, or the medium which enables the creation and distribution of representations. These different approaches led us to consider, during this thematic session, several defnitions of representation. These are summarized below. By making recourse to the notion of representation this panel spoke about the re-production and re-construction of reality. More precisely, we regarded representation not as a reflection of the surrounding world, but as process of giving meaning and interpreting the objects, people and events of the world. We acknowledge with it that representation contributes to shape reality by producing an interpretation of it. 39 by Shina Erlewein, Vernica Montero-Fayad, and Anca Claudia Prodan International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century In this regard we considered representation as a semiotic act, in which a set of meanings and imageries about the world are produced and circulated within and between social groups. Because these meaning-producing practices occur within and among groups, it can be said that representation is a social practice. However, meanings vary according to different social groups and even within a single social group. Moreover, this semiotic act involves processes of selection by which only certain aspects of reality are retained while others are excluded from being interpreted and signified. This is happening due to the fact that the object or subject of representation is first disembodied from its originating context and, then transferred to a new one and, by using a certain medium such as a written text, oral communica- tion, or still and moving images, it is re-embodied as representation. In this case, representation(s) become objects or products that (re)construct selected aspects of the surrounding world. Examples of representations understood from such a perspective are: postcards of a heritage site, or a travel diary of a tourist, or the scanned version of a document of the 11th century, or a documentary film about a dance in a village. In the process of permanently interpreting and giving meaning to the world, the initial meanings may change. Thus we can say that representations participate in anchoring memory, in remembering and forgetting, inclusion and exclusion. In this regard, Ana Dingers presentation (abstract in p. 52) dealt with the preservation of performance-based artworks and the notion of the inaugural event that may be represented. She pointed out the differences between the representations and the event they represent, as well as the processes involved. She explained that in the intent of repeating or replicating the inaugural event, new aspects are added as supplements, while part of the original act gets lost. In the re-presentation of the performance there is an inevitable loss and addition of meanings. In this panel we further acknowledged that representations are never innocent and objective. This is because representations always convey the particular view of the ones who create representations and are shaped by the conditions and means which led to their existence. Looking at who is doing the representation and with what purpose, representation acquires a political dimension. When representations imply the action of speaking of and of speaking for, of acting on behalf or instead of someone, not necessarily with his or her consent, representations also become political acts. In this case, representation means stepping on someones place intending to speak or act for the needs and desires of somebody. A useful contribution that addressed the shortcoming of speaking on behalf of someone else was offered by Thorolf Lipps presentation (abstract in p. 55). He gave an example of how the use of internet technologies can be ideal tools for enabling multi- vocality and multi-sitedness, empowerment and experiment, cooperation and coproduction in the mediation and representation of Intangible Cultural Heritage. His presentation pin- 40 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century pointed at a dialogical way of constructing a representation of heritage between the producers or owners of heritage and those who intend to represent their heritage, taking advantage of new technologies. To sum up, this panel spoke about representation as a construction of reality which involves semiotics acts. These semiotic acts are the processes by which social groups make sense of reality by giving meaning to the objects, people and events of the world. We also considered that representation implies processes of selection through which certain aspects of reality are chosen to be remembered or forgot- ten. In this regard we also talked about representation(s) as objects or products. Finally, this panel acknowledged that representation is never objective and that it has a political connotation. Represen- tation becomes political when some represents others, that is, when someone stands for or speaks for someone else. After hearing the presentations and sharing the results of the roundtables on this panel, some conclu- sions and open questions could be drawn. On the one hand, heritage is not static but rather dynamic and changes during time. However, given the fact that representations of heritage intend to capture heritage, the question that arose is: how can representations acknowledge the living and therewith the processual character of heritage, in particular of Intangible Heritage? How can one avoid the museali- zation, freezing, folklorization or exotization heritage while representing it? On the other hand, there is not a single and unique representation of heritage. Since representations are socially made, multiple and simultaneous representations and interpretations exist side by side according to the different meanings the social groups give to the objects, people and events of the world. It can be said that there are different layers of significance that not necessarily coincide. How- ever, we have to ask how can these different and not always compatible representations of heritage be reconciled or translated into one that fosters a more embracing understanding of the heritage represented? Last but not least, there is an open space for reflection upon those kinds of representations that are likely to become heritage in the future and the implications they may have on the understanding of the heritage that is constructed in the present, and on the actors involved in its representation. **** 41 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century Summary of Round Tables Panel 3: Mediating Heritage through Representations by Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa, and Zi-ming Wong Three round tables were organized for discussions after each panel session, facilitated by the authors of this summary. There are three working questions that were suggested by the organizers for brainstorming about relevant topics to the panels that were connected to the problematics raised during the presen- tations. Here, we summarize the conclusions for the Panel on Heritage, Identity and Conflict and invited the participants to add reflections and correct points that were not clear. Question 1. By which means does the representation of heritage occur and how do these means influence the process of representation? a) Conclusions Round Table 1. Facilitator: Maya Ishizawa (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Participants: Bndicte Gaillard (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Vernica Montero- Fayad (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Manuel Peters (Intercultural Studies, BTU Cottbus), Aurlie Gfeller (European University Institute, Italy), Carol Ludwig (Northumbria University, School of the Built and Natural Environment, UK), Ruchit Purohit (Kingston University London, UK), Solmaz Yadollahi (Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism Organization), Leonardo Rodriguez Perez (Pierre du Bois Foundation for Current History, Switzerland). An emblematic institutional example for means of heritage representation are the museums and the objects exhibited in them, which are intended to represent communities in a period of time. In the history of museums it has been clarified that the representations of heritage obeyed political interests, and these representations are biased towards Western perspectives at the expense of non-western cultures (e.g. the ethnologic museums). More and more video has been used for recording cultural expressions. Some may perceive this means 42 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century means of representation as a means of freezing intangible heritage. Here arises the problem of the representation of living heritage. Furthermore, it is important as observers, to identify the context and time in order to recognize the contemporaneity of the document. In this way it is better understood how the means of representation have influenced the representation itself and how this results as an interpretation of heritage how this results in heritage interpretation? How it is interpreted? The means of reproduction are also means of documentation, and the problem of means of reproduc- tion is that it is always an interpretation, which can be taken as a learning process, but it does not embody the truth of the heritage represented. Video and TV have resulted more accessible (e.g. documentary) than museums, as means of represen- tation of heritage. Nonetheless, any representation is given from a specific perspective and it does not give information only from the object (culture-people) represented, but also from the representer (curator-video- maker). It is important to be aware that means and perspectives of representation may obey a political discourse dominant in a period of time, the period of time when the representation was elaborated. Moreover, there is not necessarily an agreement between the representer (curator-video maker, etc) and the observer, or between the representer and the object (culture-people) represented. The repre- senter provides material and the observer may or may not accept the representation of reality, but the material is present, and the observer can make its own interpretation based on this material. b) Conclusions Round Table 2. Facilitator: Dariya Afanasyeva (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Participants: Thorolf Lipp (Arcadia Filmproduktion Berlin, Germany), Mathieu Dormaels (Universit du Quebec Montral, Canada), Jrn Bohlmann (Trondheim University College and NTNU, Norway), Carlos Len-Ximnez (Independent researcher), Saparya Varma (Hampi World Heritage Area Manage- ment Authority, India), Klaus Zehbe (Chair Intercultural Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Tiziana Destino (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Steven Ojoo (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Chang Liu (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Heritage can be recorded and then represented in a multitude of ways. Some of them aspire to look at heritage from different perspectives, others limit themselves to only one. In any case, heritage representation is always about taking into consideration perceptions of this heritage by certain groups 43 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century of people, whose opinions are formed in a definite social, political and economic context. Different forms of heritage representation were discussed, notably filming, as compared to histories and facts recorded in books, or stories transmitted orally from generation to generation. In all these cases, behind a representation there is always an author the one whose vision is reflected; also, when heritage (e.g. a certain tradition, a social or religious happening) is recorded, it is imbedded in time, and hence, the way it becomes represented and shown to the audience is frozen in the moment when filming took place. The figure of the author is crucial, because it is the author who decides which aspects of heritage should be shown, how, in which context, and with which comments. This leads to the danger of one-sided, biased representation. The aim, therefore, is on the one hand to accept that representation is never completely identical to the heritage it represents; and on the other hand, to involve more participatory approaches where the voices of those who live in the heritage, or practice the tradition in questions are heard; when they are invited to take part, and consulted with. Some round table participants argued that written records (such as archives, or descriptions in literary sources), enable a broader perspectives on heritage in terms of time frame, because more new details are added continuously, and changes are recorded. It therefore becomes easier to trace and recog- nize that heritage is not static, but evolving, and to see what changes it undergoes c) Conclusions Round Table 3. Facilitator: Zi-Ming Wong (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) Participants: Ana Dinger (UCP Portuguese Catholic University, Portugal), Aldo Buzio (Politecnico di Torino, Italy), Raluca Mateoc (University of Fribourg, Switzerland), Ona Vileikis (Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation, KULeuven, Belgium), Somi Chatterjee (Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, India), Shina Erlewein (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Cornelia Wilke (World Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Anca Prodan (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany) All representations of heritage refer to certain practices that go back into history. This contrasts with performance art, which comes from a futuristic outlook. But is not all heritage a kind of representation in itself, of certain values or identity? Performance art, however, is free to interpretation where mean- ing or identity is concerned. From a philosophical point of view, the way our heritage is constructed may not be by accident. The world is always asking itself the same questions. It may be argued that heritage is not simply something that is constructed, but that it has been in existence the whole time. The idea of intangible heritage is a departure from the European materialism, it is a 44 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century form of critique and an attempt to see things in a larger context. However, heritage is a form of sign or symbol. When you see a dance, you always want to know the meanings behind it, not just witness the expressions. One can also say that heritage interpretation is an attempt to identify layers of significance of past artifacts like a Palimpsest. So, is World Heritage a kind of world ethos only because we articulate it? When we discuss intangible heritage, we are pushing the limits of the word heritage. Heritage is actually a focal point to help us understand what culture means. But one may disagree with the point of view that heritage consists of layers of historical significance waiting for us to discover. Every time one writes a history book, one is actually making assumptions according to the time in which he lives. This is the constructivist position. From the structuralist position, however, there are always the same fundamental questions with the same answers. The use of television to represent heritage is an attempt to represent heritage in a different narrative form from what one may have by writing a history book. We need to re-negotiate our culture and television as way to engage the audience. Question 2. How do heritage representations differ from the heritage they represent? a) Conclusions Round Table 1. The representation of heritage is always an interpretation and shows the perspective over an object represented that does not necessarily transmits the meanings these objects had for the community that fabricated them. It is the same case for other means, such as filming. The representation of heritage constructs heritage as such. It is an external view of the heritage of someone else. b) Conclusions Round Table 2. As discussed under question 1 above, heritage representation is never the same as heritage itself, because it always entails limitation of perspective, and often, commodification of heritage. Heritage becomes an object. The feelings these representations evoke are not the same as the feelings the heritage evokes when it is lived as a personal experience. Representation is something that is constructed, by selected individuals, for distinct purposes. These are its limits. 45 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century b) Conclusions Round Table 3. The way that heritage is represented varies. Representation of heritage through media, like television, is about expressions and feelings that one can sense with the body. The use of performance arts would not be to represent heritage as such, but to transfer knowledge and to reflect critically. Taking the example of Indian dance performance, is the meaning behind the dance still important when all that tourists are interested in is just the physical form? Heritage may become commodified in this way. Then again, after some generations, people may not understand the older form of Indian dance and may instead be using pop culture to explain the old mythology. Does it then become a new form of heritage? There are always meanings behind a ritual, and if a temple remains standing but the mean- ing is lost, it is not the same heritage anymore. Between structuralism and constructivism there is an intermediary zone that is hard to capture.
UNESCO may fail in representation of heritage due to the way it is structured. Most forms of heritage are influenced by religion, but State Parties may choose to assume a secular perspective as religion which is not in their comfort zone. But how can we not acknowledge religious faith when we discuss heritage? Question 3. If heritage becomes a representation can it still be considered heritage and by whom? a) Conclusions Round Table 1. Heritage representation is still heritage but at a different level. The document itself is not necessarily heritage. Depending on the defintion given to heritage, after a certain amount of time, this Workshop participants in Round Table discussions. Dejan Majer 46 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century document may acquire value as heritage. For example, in Italy, buildings and documents become heritage after some time of existence. For instance, a video about cultural expressions such as ritual dance, is not heritage itself. It is a repre- sentation of heritage, and it may be a means to document but not necessarily to safeguard heritage. There is a need for a distinct process in order to become heritage the process of patrimonialization or heritagization. If the process does not occur, a representation rests in an archive. But what is the difference between an archive and heritage? The difference could be that heritage is something selected from the past to become heritage, and archive is just a means to record something from the past. Document and archive or heritage and archive, the importance relies in the definitions given to these words, the way they are understood. What is important is to define with which definitions as a researcher one is working with (e.g. heritage can be archive, archive heritage, etc.). b) Conclusions Round Table 2. It was discussed that it is hard to predict what will be heritage in the future. What will be the under- standing of this term, and the significance of what we consider heritage at the present time? Even if we speak of oral tradition of passing heritage from one generation to the other (which is a living tradition) can we really be sure that such heritage, in the form of narratives related to certain characters and events, will be relevant in a hundred years from now? Will future generations be able to actually relate to what is being told? Same question can be asked about other forms of heritage representations. At the same time, it is very probable that what we now do not see as heritage, will become such. b) Conclusions Round Table 3. One example of representation becoming heritage is something like the work of anthropologist and film maker John Marshall, who documented a South African tribe over a span of 50 years. In fact the Memory of the World Program itself is a form of representation as heritage. If somebody 100 years later discovers the documentary films that some of us make today on World Heritage, maybe some may consider these films as heritage, too? **** 47 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK The Workshop brought together Ph.D. students and post-doctorate researchers from a wide range of international universities and institutions involved in research in the broad field of Heritage Studies. The aim of the Workshop was to facilitate scholarly exchange and collaboration on the theoretical and methodological State-of-the-Art in heritage research. Workshop discussions covered three main themes: identity and conflict; communities and protection; and representation and mediation. They were carried out in the form of round table discussions led by facilitators on the basis of pre-defined questions put forward by workshop organizers, as well as on the issues raised by participants in their presentations. At the same time recourse was made to the keynote address of Prof. Dr. Marie-Theres Albert and the special session with Dr. Roland Bernecker. The last session of the workshop was an open plenary session in which the results of the roundtables were briefly presented, followed by an open discussion, whose aim was to draw some general conclusions of the workshop and to identify the ques- tions that still remain open. The results of roundtables have been summarized in three articles . The purpose of the current section is to point out two new inputs, which were given during the final plenary session. The first refers to the ethical responsibilities of the researcher. The second addresses knowl- edge exchange with regards to different disciplinary approaches and methodologies one can take to study heritage. Throughout the workshop much was said about the role of stakeholders in heritage and the different interests of internal and external actors, and how these interests influence their position vis--vis herit- age. However, the plenary session focused on the researcher, who is no less than a stakeholder with an interest in heritage. In this regard it was emphasized that the concept of heritage has to be speci- fied from the outset and the position of the researchers and experts towards heritage has to be made clear. Making clear the researchers standpoint with regards to the investigation they are carrying out serves two different goals: on the one hand, this is helpful in order to avoid misunderstandings within the scientific community; on the other hand, it facilitates the development of common understanding on the issue by all stakeholders. In addition, researchers and experts in heritage must be aware of their responsibility towards the communities involved, and of the fact that the results of their investiga- tion will have an immediate impact upon the latter. In the course of research, heritage is being constructed and reconstructed, and the way researchers tackle the subject of their scientific quest brings consequences in real life. Furthermore, in the scientific community the researcher is said to have an obligation towards protecting the interests of all those involved in the research, even if this may interfere with his/her own. Therefore the question whether research is done for the sake of science, the community, or both, represents a crucial issue that all heritage researchers have to consider even before embarking on their scientific journey. by the Organizing Team 48 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century The second input received during the plenary session concerns the scientific approaches used for research in the interdisciplinary field of heritage. Scholars and their theories were mentioned as part of presentations. Names included Walter Benjamin, Marshall McLuhan, Friedrich Nietzsche, Elinor Ostrom, Laurajane Smith, James Clifford, Heidi Gilpin and Peggy Phelan. However, discussion regard- ing some of these names was reopened during the plenary session because there was a wish to exchange some more on theoretical and methodological questions. The interest was related mainly to how selection of appropriate theories and methods from the wide range of available choices can be done; and on how different disciplinary perspectives and their underlying epistemologies influence the research design. Due to the limited timeframe, these aspects could not be discussed as in depth as we would have wished, but the workshop did not come to an end before deciding that solutions should be found for exchanging again on our experience with heritage. going on at BTU already for twelve years. Here, heritage-related research has been intensively supported by the Chair of Intercultural Studies, some of whose interests lie in the field of intercultural competence and in research on discourses of culture and heritage. the written record of our reflections and the memory of what we experienced as a most pleasant event. Furthermore, as experienced at the Workshop, it is useful to engage in lively debates. Therefore, an online discussion board was established to enable us to exchange our points of view and to continue the engaging discussion that was initiated during the Workshop. Coming together to think about heri- tage was a task worth pursuing. It has indeed enhanced our understanding of what heritage can be, how it can be approached and researched, and the Workshop has definitely achieved its aim. If the reader has come one step closer to his or her own understanding of heritage, or if at least an interest in thinking about heritage has awaken, then the Workshop has succeeded even more. The Workshop was meant to give insights into understanding heritage and its challenges. Steps were taken in this direc- tion, and what was given and gained is summa- rized in this publication. Yet, we do not claim to have covered all facets of heritage. There is plenty of room for future discus- sions. In this regard, the current publication offers a basis and represents **** Group picture of the Workshop participants, the Organizing Team and BTU staff. Alexander Kinzelt 49 ANNEX 1: Abstracts of participants 50 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 51 Conflicting Identity and its Impact on Heritage
Somi Chatterjee *
Consultant and Conservation Architect, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, Kolkata, India
Abstract
World over, there is a growing importance adhered to understanding culture, appreciating diversity and identity today. Conflict ensuing from a lack of understanding has resulted in the loss of our irreplaceable resources. Formation of culture is a complex and dynamic process and shaped by events leading to either evolution of new culture, modification of an existing practice or sometimes, development of a factor of resilience towards change. This has a ripple effect, one of which is the creation or modification of identity, as perceived by an individual, group, community, society, race, region or a nation. Another important effect is the simultaneous creation of products or assets (may be heritage), whether tangible or intangible, in various forms, functions and philosophy, which further defines the identity and makes the same more apparent to a larger diaspora or the global community. Depending on the nature of event, is yet another important effect - the acceptance or denial of an identity reciprocating in the response generated towards heritage. Drawing from a series of cases, this paper aims at developing tools that help better understand and appreciate our identity, therefore communicating the past to the future generation responsibly. The paper has three parts: first, objectively understanding the processes through which identity is formed and retained and understanding the importance of both; second, identifying issues that lead to conflict within a society or among different societies and the impact of conflicting identities on our cultural resources. The final section looks at the role of professionals and policy-makers to create tools to retain the identity, context and culture by resolving conflicts.
* Contact Author: Somi Chatterjee, Consultant and Conservation Architect, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, Kolkata, India
E-mail: ar_somichatterjee@yahoo.co.in
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 52 The Heritage of Loss: Preservation of Performance-based Artworks
Ana Raquel Dinger Moreira Duarte *
Student and Researcher, Portuguese Catholic University, Portugal
Abstract
Different epithets have been used to categorize an artwork linked to an event (something happening in a specific time and space frame that somehow is absorbed by the art world/sphere/system). For the current research purposes and in the present text, the term used will be performance-based artworks. Re-presentations, that are simultaneously representations, sometimes taking disparate forms, follow what is determined as the first or inaugural presentation. Even if artists that develop performance-based projects resist to its former (re)presentations or even to its documentation, both musealization and the constraints of historical inclusion seem to be as much unavoidable as influential. The necessary materialization or tangibility of those (re)presentations may have a prevalent symbolic, iconic or indexical relation to the referent ('the inaugural event') but there is always an interval, there is always difference between presentations. The present research focuses on how curatorial and conservation strategies address that interval. Facing a perhaps impossible task, the one to overcome displacement and disappearance (words we can find in the writings of Heidi Gilpin and Peggy Phelan), conservators and curators (and many other actors that concur to the construction of the identity of the work) pursue this apparently paradoxical intent. Each (re)presentation has something of presence and something of absence, and the chain of presentations incorporates subtractions and supplements. Why, then, the attempt to preserve the work/memory of the work if that implies a heritage of loss? Choosing not to try would be translated into a loss of heritage. Performance-based artworks appear to be a prolific object of analysis and subject for thought when we wish to reflect upon mediation and to problematize representation.
* Contact Author: Ana Dinger, Student and Researcher, Portuguese Catholic University, Portugal
E-mail: dinger.a@gmail.com
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 53 The Local Representation of World Heritage: Community Involvement in Preserving Heritage City Centres in Peru
Mathieu Dormaels *
PhD Candidate, Universit du Qubec Montra, Montral, Canada
Abstract
My research focuses on urban World Heritage Sites, which were the subject of recent studies, and form a complex category of cultural heritage sites. These studies are not really considering the inhabitants of these sites, and when they do, its as secondary actors and not really as stakeholders in the heritagization process, where institutions have the leading roles. But why cant we consider inhabitants as the core of the heritage value of urban sites? From this perspective, discourses of inhabitants of a heritage site, which is the place they live in, and the ways and strategies they use so as to make it their own, constructing collective representations, would become essential in the heritagization process. Understanding how people, as social groups, can live and feel at home at World Heritage Sites would be necessary to comprehend this phenomena. What we would like to study in this research is precisely this local social heritagization, and its relations with the institutional heritagization inherent to this kind of heritage. Entering the World Heritage List, for an urban site, means transformations in representations, but also in the built environment. These transformations, which can also be identified as heritagization produce new elements, new heritage with hybrid characteristics. In this work we suggest that those changes in representations and built environment are interconnected and have influence on each other. Based on the analysis of Peruvian city centres, and particularly Arequipa centre, we propose to understand heritagization phenomena through a hermeneutic approach, which should permit to highlight the possible links, or their absence, between these processes and changes. We dont pretend to create a general theory because from our perspective it would be meaningless. We aim at understanding the construction of these sites in a new contextualized way.
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 54 Conceptualizing World Heritage: A Conflicting History
Aurlie Elisa Gfeller *
Ambizione fellow, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland
Abstract
This paper outlines a research project on the history of World Heritage. The 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage institutionalized the idea of a global heritage representing the diverse manifestations of humanity and nature. The notion of what constitutes the common heritage of mankind is highly contested and has evolved over time. By uncovering this history, this project will show how the process of defining and redefining heritage reflects concerns about changing identities in a globalizing world.
Specifically, the main question that this project seeks to answer is: why and how has the World Heritage Convention evolved from an instrument which was essentially designed to grant international recognition to, and preserve Western monuments, to a more encompassing tool including, for instance, Latin American industrial sites or Asian rice fields? The early 1990s were a critical turning point in this regard. In 1992, the World Heritage Committee adopted recommendations on the creation of a new category recognizing the links between natural and cultural heritage, namely, cultural landscapes. In 1994, the Committee launched the Global Strategy for a Balanced and Representative World Heritage List in order to improve the geographical and thematic representativeness of the List. Finally, that same year, a group of experts meeting in Nara, Japan, produced a text introducing the notion of cultural relativism in the assessment of authenticity. The main hypothesis of this project is that the transformations occurring within the notion of global heritage reflected not only changing understandings of culture in Western scholarly circles but also the rising geopolitical weight and assertiveness of non-Western actors.
This paper offers insights into the project by sketching out one case study: the efforts to transform the World Heritage List into a genuinely representative instrument. It delineates research questions: what caused the shift towards an anthropological understanding of heritage at international level? What was the role of experts vis--vis government officials and international civil servants? What was the role of non-Western agents? And why were programmatic changes only partially implemented? It also outlines the sources notably, interviews with historical actors and the archives of governmental and non-governmental international organizations and the proposed approach: the reconstruction of debates and negotiations and an analysis of reform implementation.
This paper also discusses the relevance of the project. Through its diachronic perspective, this project will highlight the importance of understanding past debates and controversies to address current challenges in the field of heritage and World Heritage in particular. By probing the interconnections between international politics, memory, culture, and nature conservation, it will also be a valuable contribution to the field of international and global history.
* Contact Author: Aurlie Elisa Gfeller, Ambizione fellow, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland
E-mail: aurelie.gfeller@eui.eu
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 55 Intangible Heritage is Virtual Heritage
Thorolf Lipp *
Filmmaker and Owner of Arcadia Filmproduktion, Berlin, Germany
Abstract
Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) never exists as such - it needs to be mediated to come into being. Naturally, ICH is mediated by humans acting as mediums. As a consequence, only few people will ever be able to observe these performances in real time. But because one of the aims of the UNESCO Convention on ICH is to raise awareness of these cultural expressions internationally, they need to be transformed into medial representations that can transcend space and time.
This is a paradox situation. Firstly, the specific quality of ICH consists in many ways in its ability to remain open to changing circumstances. Secondly, every medial representation of reality is achieved at the cost of its ir-realization. Representing ICH comprises many complex and diverse processes: selecting, picturing, adapting, disseminating, digitizing and archiving being only some of them. In the course of working on an epistemology for a comprehensive future methodology for the creation of representations of ICH, an entirely new field of research emerges that encompasses discourses of Cultural and Visual Anthropology, the Anthropology of Knowledge, Heritage and Memory Studies.
In this talk I will try to indicate some aspects of the complexity of the problem. I discuss the need to move away from classical discourses of, for example, ethnographic film and its ever present idea of representing culture as a master narrative. Rather, we need to take into account present and future internet technologies as the most adequate tool for disseminating and archiving ICH. Key ideas for a comprehensive epistemology on the representation of ICH are multivocality and multisitedness, empowerement and experiment, cooperation and co-production. Finally I argue, that we have to accept that Intangible Heritage is, due to the nature of the medial representations that inhabit the worlds global cultural memory, always Virtual Heritage
* Contact Author: Thorolf Lipp, Filmmaker and Owner of Arcadia Filmproduktion, Sickingenstrasse 4, 10553 Berlin
E-mail: lipp@arcadia-film.de Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 56 Building a Documentation Strategy for World Heritage Properties in bringing together Different Stakeholders
Ona Vileikis *
Doctoral Researcher, Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation. KULeuven, Heverlee, Belgium
Abstract
The documentation of World Heritage Properties plays a relevant role in both, understanding heritage places, and protecting them from the risks that are affecting the integrity and values for which the properties were listed. Management strategies for these properties should be based on an informed decision making, which includes the incorporation of as much and as accurate information as possible and its endowment to all stakeholders involved. Moreover, heritage information must be consistent and reliable to evaluate the threats to the property and monitor its condition through time. To achieve this, proper dialogue among the various actors is indispensable. This research presents as a case study the Risk Mapping of the Petra Archaeological Park in Jordan. Since 1985 the property is inscribed on the World Heritage List, but still lacks a Management Plan and adequate definition of boundaries and buffer zones. Moreover, tourism is increasing and the park is threatened by various natural and anthropogenic risks affecting monuments, visitors and the local community alike. Therefore, it was necessary to both carry out a risk mapping and define the boundaries and buffer zones. Following UNESCOs requirements, the UNESCO Office Amman together with the Petra Development and Tourism Regional Authority (PDTRA) and the Department of Antiquities (DoA) in consultation with international experts, set in motion the development of a Risk Management Plan as a first step for a more effective protection of the property. A documentation strategy has been proposed with three major stages, (1) a collection and analysis of the data, (2) diagnosis of the state of conservation, and (3) vulnerability of heritage associated with the current risks. This strategy involves the local community, the national and local agencies, students and international experts. Additionally, it aims to keep the memory of the property by using new digital documentation tools and by providing documentation standards. At the end a map with possible threads and risks was provided to the park authority that serves as an inventory and a basis for follow-up risk mapping, and future monitoring and risk quantification possibilities. Additionally, training of DOA and PDTRA officials by experts in the field led to capacity building with regard to heritage management activities.
* Contact Author: Ona Vileikis, Doctoral Researcher, Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation. KULeuven, Heverlee, Belgium
E-mail: ona.vileikis@asro.kuleuven.be
ANNEX 2: Articles of participants 57 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 58 Commons Theories Applied to Community and World Heritage: Some Case Studies.
Aldo Buzio *
PhD Candidate, Politecnico di Torino, Italy
Alessio Re Researcher, SiTI Higher Institute on Territorial Systems for Innovation
Abstract
The issue of this paper is to explore the potential inclusion of the concept of cultural commons into the UNESCO vision and approach on culture. Considering the debate around World Cultural Heritage, a shift from the theory of cultural districts to the innovative idea of cultural commons may be useful in understanding new forms of World Heritage sites. This debate focused around the same concept of value and followed a complete shift in the consideration of what should be considered heritage of humanity. This paper could also contribute to facing the challenges posed by heritage management in relation with local communities, for instance, evaluating social carrying capacity for safeguarding cultural values and authenticity. This proposal is intended as a potential contribution to the growing literature on UNESCO World Heritage sites, sometimes pointing out new challenges in which the solution has still to be clearly identified.
Keywords: world heritage, heritage management, cultural commons
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to investigate the evolution of the notion of cultural heritage following the UNESCO approach. Moreover it will show how these recent developments in the cultural heritage conceptualization are close to the definition of cultural commons. Moving from the more classical ideas of tangible cultural heritage towards new forms of more intangible and dynamic culture expressions, the paper will show how UNESCO follows an international theoretical debate in its definitions and how those definitions could be interpreted using new approaches, such as cultural commons. When the UNESCO Convention was designed in 1972, the idea was to protect the most valuable forms of heritage from the attacks of deterioration or modernization. Internet was just born and mass tourism was affecting a few cultural destinations; in such a scenario the kind of heritage included was mainly represented by European monuments or archaeological sites. On a theoretical side the idea of cultural district was presenting an interesting solution for the management of heritage sites, but they should have some geographical characteristics as to be diffused on the territory and based on a diffused material culture. In the text we describe the process taken by UNESCO during the 40 years of the Convention with regards to the continuous evolution of the heritage concept. All the cases will demonstrate the huge difference between the first kind of sites inscribed on the list and the new sites in the process to be nominated. In the second part those new site categories will be analysed with the lens of the cultural commons approach. In the last part, once adopted the cultural commons viewpoint, it will be explained how it could be useful for the governance of those sites and in the designing of specific policies for the inclusion of the local community in the management of the site.
2. From 1972 to the Third Millennium Concept of Heritage
Approved in 1972, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and came into force in 1976. It has since now (October 2011) been ratified by 188 States Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Aldo Buzio, Alessio Re 59 Parties across the globe. The Convention, with 936 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, can probably be considered one of the most effective heritage policies at a global level. According to Article 1, the following three categories shall be considered as cultural heritage: monuments groups of buildings sites
Following this definition of cultural heritage, the World Heritage List was adopted for protecting the so-called Outstanding Universal Value of monuments, groups of buildings and sites. The notion of outstanding universal value is the key and central concept of the Convention, based on the idea that some cultural and natural heritage sites are of such outstanding and universal importance for all the people of the world (preamble of the Convention) indiscriminately, that they need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of mankind as a whole. This kind of approach can be seen as strategically related to the concept of cultural district, in the sense that some of the World Heritage Sites could be considered to have the characteristics used for describing the approach to cultural districts. A district could be identified in places where a system of economic activities is clustered in a defined area and some resources, like tacit knowledge, trust, institutions, are shared among the members of the community. One of the features of the well known concept of cultural district is given, for example, by the concentration, in a well defined area, of cultural facilities, such as museums, artists studios and shops, libraries and art schools (Santagata, 2002). These features are also proper for describing some of the sites recognized as World Heritage, during the last years, in the terms of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. In this sense a particular kind of WHS could be understood as cultural districts, and this particular approach could be implemented in the management of the site, both using the logic of the CPR (common-pool resource) protection and the museum cultural district. First, the notions of a World Heritage Site and that of cultural district appear to be strongly related with the concepts of time and space; as the World Heritage List includes goods that represent a specific culture in a given time and space, the cultural district used to consider the products from a specific material culture, again delimited in a specific time and space. Many examples taken from Italian World Heritage sites can be seen as significative: among them the Caltagirone district (Baroque towns of Val di Noto), the Murano district (Venice and its lagoon), Naples and, more recently the Val d'Orcia and Val Camonica. In the case of Caltagirone, in the south part of Sicily, the local production of ceramics crafts is strongly related, from an aesthetic point of view, with the baroque style seen on the churches inscribed on the World Heritage List. Murano is the small island in the Venice lagoon where all the production of the glass piece of art is concentrated; those goods represent Venice and its culture all around the world and constitute a fundamental part of the value protected by UNESCO. Considering the crib production or the artisanal tradition in Naples, exactly like for the glasses in Venice, we can find that in a small area of the city (San Gregorio Armeno) all the biggest artists and producers have their shops and there is a continuous exchange of knowledge and trust among the different stakeholders. Val dOrcia and Val Camonica are two very different valleys, one in Tuscany and one in the northern mountain area of Lombardia. The first one is well-known for the landscape qualities and the wine production while Val Camonica hosts one of the biggest UNESCO sites of prehistoric rock art and its considered a cultural district for the strong artisanal production and the mountain tourism systems. All those examples from Italian geography help us in arguing that those WHS that present the characteristics of a cultural district could be managed with strategies taken from that literature, and that could be very helpful in conserving the material culture of Outstanding Value. Second, we should consider that at present the concept of cultural districts appears not to be enough flexible for understanding many new complex forms of contemporary cultural production and consumption. The concept of art has passed through infinite revolutions in the last 40 years and we cant imagine what will be in the future. Conserving and safeguarding contemporary art pieces now means dealing with new practices and very high rates of innovation. For instance, due to the diffusion of new technologies, strong consideration for spatial components of production tends to lose its physical meaning without decreasing in importance. Taking
60 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Aldo Buzio, Alessio Re into consideration, for instance, the form of art created and diffused through Internet, we can still recognize forms of the so-called Marshallian atmosphere, distinguishing the cultural districts, but the place of production moved into the virtual reality and web 2.0, a well defined but not physical place. The same phenomena could be recognized in the new chains of consumption and distribution based on Internet, like social networks and e-commerce.
Moving back to UNESCO World Heritage List, we can notice even in this field how much discussions and reflections on and around the concept of cultural value have become central in debates and practices, moving away from the one expressed in the 1972 Convention. The concept of heritage has changed considerably, being extended from the beginning of the 1980s to include intangible expressions, as defined in the 2003 Convention for the safeguarding of intangible heritage, such as popular festivities, spiritual customs, holy rites, intellectual material goods. Cultural heritage does not end at monuments and collections of objects. It also includes traditions or living expressions inherited from our ancestors and passed on to our descendants, such as the ones from oral traditions to knowledge, practices and skills necessary to produce traditional crafts. According to the definition stated in the 2003 Convention for the safeguarding of intangible heritage, there are five broad domains in which intangible, cultural heritage is manifested: - Oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; - Performing arts; - Social practices, rituals and festive events; - Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; - Traditional craftsmanship; (UNESCO, 2003) Those categories, as well as serial sites among different nations, the cultural routes (introduced in 1993) and the so-called cultural landscapes (introduced in 1994) are just single thematic examples of how UNESCO changed and is still changing its tools and its interpretation of heritage, trying to adapt to a more credible vision of contemporary cultural heritage. These efforts reflect and show clearly the fact that in the contemporary view, cultural heritage is considered as living heritage. Dance, music, theatre and craft traditions are invaluable because they manifest dynamic communities and are a driving force in cultural diversity. They are constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and they provide communities with a sense of identity and continuity. While they are bound to tradition, they are also constantly evolving and depend on the community to maintain and transmit them to future generations. Despite their individualities, tangible and intangible cultural heritage together create a full picture of the richness and diversity of the worlds cultural traditions. The 2004 Yamato Declaration (on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage) affirms that safeguarding tangible and intangible cultural heritage demands an integrated approach that recognizes both their interdependence and their distinct characters. (UNESCO Bangkok, 2008) Culture comprises arts and science, politics and economy, language and religion of a specific group, as well as life expressions developed in historical processes under specific temporal and spatial conditions. This new viewpoint on culture brings a strong revolution in analysing cultures that now appear as a dynamic process always subject to different influences to which they react, develop, adapt and change.
Following this logic, the new forms of heritage recognition, strongly recommended by the historic scientist and clearly showed in the recent inscriptions to the World Heritage List, can be seen and interpreted as a good example, again in the direction of de-materialization of the concept of heritage adopted by UNESCO. Thinking, for instance, of serial sites and cultural routes (inscribed or under proposal) like the Camino de Santiago 1 , the Main Andean Road, the Silk road, the Vikings routes, the Teutonic route for the crusades, the Venetian trade route and so on, they are the geographical representation of a cultural heritage that crosses the national borders but still defines or used to define a specific cultural community.
1 It was the first cultural route added into the WHL, in 1993. Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Aldo Buzio, Alessio Re 61 The nature of the concept is open, dynamic and evocative and offers a privileged framework in which mutual understanding and a plural approach to history and culture can operate. It is based on population movement, encounters and dialogue, cultural exchanges and cross-fertilization, taking place both in space and time.
People that walked the pilgrimage routes shared a sense of belonging to the same values, not depending on their nationalities but based on the fact of participating in a ritual that has been practiced for centuries. Cities and villages built on the Silk Road symbolize in their architecture the passage of different cultures that create a specific style, present on the whole road. In this sense also these kinds of narrative sites (sites narrating an historical period/activity/complexity of events linked with different places) are a case of cultural commons; the number of pilgrims or merchants has no limitation but strongly influence the creation and transmission of the culture itself 2 . Again, the case of cultural landscapes is maybe even more representative, in consideration of their productive characterization. The same concept of landscape, as the one of space comes from remote theories, whose intention is to give an interpretation to the complex features of a given territory. Each culture creates a specific relationship with nature through the years, originating places with specific characters becoming the mirror of the society that created them. All these examples of new forms of cultural heritage, that link together the various UNESCO tools, seem to be unified by one crucial concept. It is only the community itself that can decide whether or not something is part of its heritage and, to every community or group, each element of its intangible heritage has value that can neither be quantified nor compared to other elements of other communities heritage (UNESCO Bangkok, 2008). All these key concepts seem to be also a good description of what a cultural commons could be.
3. Cultural Commons and other Forms of Heritage
The Convention for Intangible Cultural Heritage
2 Among this typology, as examples, the proposal of Leipzig (Germany), narrating the music history of the town, and of the Pearling in Bahrain. conceives intangible heritage as a phenomenon always being created and recreated, transmitted from generation to generation or shared from one community to another. In the Conventions words, it is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history. In this sense, expressions like the Canto a Tenore of the Sardinian shepherds or Vedic Chanting of Indian Brahmins inscribed on the UNESCO Intangible Heritage List in 2008, represent good examples of cultural commons. They are traditional knowledge transmitted along centuries; they represent a specific community, whose members could be spread around the world but still recognize themselves in the shared singing tradition. In this paper we are trying to enlarge this approach to other forms of cultures considered by UNESCOs conventions. For doing this let us start from basic considerations about CPR and intangible heritage: non excludability and rivalry. According to the classical analysis on CPR, those are characterized by the fact that new actors are not excludable from consumption very easily but as the number of consumer increases there are possible negative externalities such as congestion effects. Going into a cultural example, a UNESCO Intangible Heritage, anyone could potentially learn and sing the Canto a Tenore or the Vedic Chanting exactly like every prepared fisherman could go to a lake to fish, as told by Hardin in the Tragedy of Commons paper (Hardin, 1968). As the number of fishermen increases the characteristics of the fishing will change due to congestion effects, and the available number of fish per fisherman will decrease. In similar way congestion effects could change the realism of the Sardinian or Indian traditions if too many people participate to the performances of traditional chants. The theory of the tragedy of the commons refers usually to CPR management in the cases where the property of the resources is shared by various people. According to Hardins analysis every consumer will maximise his consumption and this behaviour will lead to the complete exhaustion of the resource. To give an example from land management, if a field is property of the whole community, each member will use it for grazing their cows but the total number of cows will be too high and there wont be enough grass to feed all of them.
62 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Aldo Buzio, Alessio Re
Analysing traditional cultural heritage from an UNESCO viewpoint, worried about safeguarding the cultural heritage, we should not forget the risk of overexposure due to growing participation.
Is there a form of tragedy of the commons also for cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible? The topic is strictly related to tourism, and becomes a critical issue when heritage is the major attraction of tourists.
Authentic and genuine values of heritage may in fact be compromised in the process of making it more attractive to the tastes of consumers. Heritage (tangible and intangible) may get standardized and homogenized in the local communitys concerted efforts to present it in a more congruous manner to the tourists. A good example of Hardins phenomena could be represented by performing events like rituals and ceremonies: the more the festival is exploited on the market the more it risks to be compromised in its authenticity; carrying capacity could be easily overlapped, compromising the fragile equilibrium between traditions and local community. For example, the Dragon Boat Festival in China, like many other events in the Intangible Heritage List, with ceremonies, dances performances displayed on the river, is exposed to high risks of being compromised if too many people start moving there in an uncontrolled way; exactly like Venezia, Lijiang or Quito that are losing day by day their authentic value for the inhabitants. An authentic object of cultural heritage, therefore, is a movement-inducing medium that not only indexes the link between individuals and his culture, but constructively conjoins the two. If a heritage object connects an individual with the socio-cultural milieu from which he came, UNESCOs World Heritage objects are intended to transcend the temporal and spatial situatedness of one cultures heritage claims... (Di Giovine, 2009). If we differentiate UNESCO cultural heritage from other cultural commons, introducing a maximum carrying capacity, there is no difference considering the minimum number of users. Exactly like Facebook, UNESCO tangible and intangible heritage needs a critical mass to survive; empty archaeological sites or abandoned traditions risk to disappear and to lose their value. The concept of vulnerability and risk of disappearance fits perfectly with the idea of identifying a minimum number of users that can guarantee the proper development of heritage and the start-up of positive reactions.
UNESCO underlines quite strongly this aspect of safeguarding the intangible heritage because negative effects on it are irreversible: once the tradition is compromised it will be almost impossible to move back. For that reason the List of Intangible Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding aims to protect the intangible heritage in strong danger of disappearing. Traditional Li textile techniques in China, inscribed in 2009 on the List of Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding, are one of these cases. This complex set of material cultural traditions and rituals is going to fade away just because present market characteristics, rules and trends make it impossible for those products to have a real business chance and produce profits. The simple exposure of traditional goods to the international market is not a possible solution. Being incapable of producing for a global market the output will be the increase of illegal (at least in my understanding, what is illegal is obviously not original; no need to use both) copies made in low labour cost countries. What happened with Murano glass could confirm this quite evidently. What we suggest is the identification of two different lines of carrying capacity for these forms of cultural heritage. Under the minimum carrying capacity the good will disappear, if it is an intangible cultural good, or will become useless and empty, if it's a tangible cultural heritage. Over the maximum carrying capacity the good risks to be compromised in its authenticity and physical integrity.
A research on those topics is conduced by Mansfeld and Jonas studying the rural tourism in several kibbutzim (this is the plural form of kibbutz) in the northern area of Israel. They argue the existence of a socio-cultural carrying capacity represents the resistance of the local population to the changes introduced by tourists. Once the maximum capacity is exceeded, the local population considers tourism as a damage instead of benefit and starts reacting against this phenomenon, compromising the authentic value of the place and the significance of the experience for Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Aldo Buzio, Alessio Re 63 the visitor (Mansfeld, 2006). In short, ...measuring tourism carrying capacity does not have to lead to a single number. Even when this is achieved, this limit does not necessarily obey to objectively, unchangeable, ever lasting criteria. An upper and lower limit of TCC can be of more use than a fixed value. TCC assessment should provide not only maximum but also the minimum level of development, which is the lower level necessary for sustaining local communities. (Pedersen, 2002)
4. Governance and Cultural Commons
One possible solution for helping the survival of this kind of traditions could come from the studies on the commons made by Ostrom and Hess (Hess and Ostrom, 2007), in which the active involvement of the local community is essential for guaranteeing a sustainable use of the resource. An approach in the governance of common heritage is well described for the organization of cultural districts, see, for example, San Gregorio Armeno in Naples (Manna, Marrelli, 2007), where the setting up of producers association represents the optimal solution for safeguarding the traditional knowledge from an uncontrolled opening to the international market of counterfeited goods. In the field of UNESCO World Heritage sites some similar examples already exist as well. The Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests in Kenya are listed under the World Heritage List and are also related to the Intangible Heritage List. The forests represent a sacred place for the Mijikenda inhabitants and are the place where they perform rituals. They were closed to external visitors for the sake of protecting the spirit of the place. With the flow of time the situation has changed a lot: from the natural side the forest risks to disappear due to forest destruction; while from the intangible point of view the forest risks to disappear because no more people are willing to take care of it. The inscription under the UNESCO lists aims to preserve the forest and conserve its values. For proper conservation of these values, the elders community is involved and the Kambi (Councils of Elders) is appointed to directly manage the preservation of the tangible and intangible aspects, also regulating tourist flows. This system was established because after the inscription on the WHL a big increase of tourists was expected, and because the sacred value of the forest for the inhabitants would be compromised, if an un-pure person enters the forests. Thanks to self-regulation of the tourist flow, decided in agreement with the elders, the forest could be purified thanks to specific magical rituals. Doing so, the local community would be able to keep the sacred rituals alive and would benefit from the economic development generated by tourism, finding out the correct balance between conservation and tourist market. In this case the two lines of the carrying capacity are naturally exploited and managed. If we consider the Mijikenda culture, and its relation with the forest as a cultural commons constituted by traditions and practices, the direct involvement of the local community represents the optimal solution for the management of cultural heritage, both from the tangible and the intangible side. If we take Ostroms eight rules for governing the commons (Ostrom, 1990), we can identify in this process: clearly defined boundaries, rules for resource use, participation of users in the modification of rules, internal rules respected by external authorities, self- monitoring, and conflict-resolution mechanism.
The knowledge and skills handed down from generation to generation together with a delicate social balance have helped to create a landscape as well as musical and other cultural traditions that testify to the harmony between people and their environment. Both the terraces and the chants are endangered. Local experts and practitioners claim that coordinated protection action is required and that neither the terraces nor the chants can be safeguarded in isolation.
The theory of cultural commons may help in understanding these forms of culture created thanks to a strong exchange of information, with a shared knowledge and with recognizable forms of production; and could, in this sense, potentially play a role in facing these issues and address the problems in the right direction, not considering the management as something separate by the cultural characters of the site, but in itself as a cultural product of the local culture. We can notice that using the cultural commons prospective, the whole WHL could be considered as a unique commons. A global community of owners and visitors sharing similar values and interests could be
64 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Aldo Buzio, Alessio Re identified. This new approach leads to considering the World Heritage List as a cultural resource in its unity and not as a simple list of cultural goods of exceptional value. The differences of nation, tangibility, categories would be naturally harmonized and would become the strength of a complex global network. Adopting this perspective, a huge number of issues requires to be explored, starting from those still unsolved, such as the credibility of listed heritage (see Vilnius conference, 2006), the meaning to be attributed to the protection of intangible-based heritage categories (see the debate animated by ICOMOS) (Araoz, 2010), the distribution of resources (Bertacchini et al., 2010), and, not last, the one of incorporating culture into development policies, supporting the development of the cultural sector through creative industries.
Bibliography
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso.
Araoz, G. (2010). Scoping the Road Ahead for ICOMOS: protection of intangible-based heritage categories, presentation at the ICOMOS International Committee meeting on Conservations theories and philosophy, Prague.
Ashworth, G. (1998). Heritage, Identity and Interpreting a European Sense of Place, in Uzzell D. Ballantyne R. (eds) Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation: Problems and Prospects,11232, London: The Stationery Office.
Batisse, M., Bolla G. (2005). The Invention of World Heritage, Paris, Association des Anciens Fonctionnaires de l'UNESCO (AAFU), Club Histoire. (History Papers 2)
Bertacchini, E. et al.(2009). Enhancing the valorisation of UNESCO World Heritage Sites: a Pigouvian Approach, Turin: working paper CSS EBLA.
Buzio, A. et al. (2010). Creativity and cultures: Towards a 6th C for UNESCO World Heritage policies?, in REM Research on Education and Media 2(2), 107-120, Trento: Edizioni Erikson.
Cleere, H. (1996). The Concept of Outstanding Universal Value in the World Heritage Convention, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 1(4) 22733.
Cleere, H. (2000). The World Heritage Convention in the Third World, in McManamon F., Hatton A., Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society: Perspectives on Managing and Presenting the Past, pp. 99106, London: Routledge.
De la Torre, M. (2001). Values and Site Management: New Case Studies, The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter 16(2) URL: http:// www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/ 16_2/news_in_cons2.html
Di, Giovine M. A. (2009). The Heritage-Scape: UNESCO, world heritage and tourism, Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Greffe, X. (2010). Urban Cultural Landscapes: An Economic Approach, working paper for CSS EBLA, 01/2010.
Hardin, G., (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162 (3859): 12431248.
Hess, C. and Ostrom E., (2007). Understanding Knowledge As a Commons, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Hides S., (1997). The Genealogy of Material Culture and Cultural Identity, in Pearce S. (ed.) Experiencing Material Culture in the Western World. Contemporary Issues in Museum Culture. London: Leicester University Press, pp. 1135.
ICOMOS, (2004). The World Heritage List: Filling the Gap An Action Plan for the Future. Paris.
Labadi, S. (2007a). World Heritage: Challenges for the Millennium. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Labadi, S. (2007b). Representations of the nation and Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Aldo Buzio, Alessio Re 65 cultural diversity in discourses on World Heritage, in Journal of Social Archaeology 7(2), pp.147-170.
Manna, A. and Marrelli M., (2007). Distretto Culturale di San Gregorio Armeno. Il presepe napoletano. La Produzione e lOfferta, working paper CSS-EBLA 06/2007.
Mansfeld, Y. and Jonas, A. (2006). Evaluating the socio cultural carrying capacity of rural tourism communities: a 'value stretch' approach, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 97(5,9) pp. 581599.
Mason, R. (2002). Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices, in De la Torre M. (ed.), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage. Research Report, pp. 530, Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
Ostrom E., (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Pedersen, A. (2002). Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites. World Heritage a Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers. UNDP, UNESCO.
Santagata,W. (2002). Cultural Districts, Property Rights and Sustainable Economic Growth, in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, N.26.
Santagata, W. (2008). La fabbrica della cultura, Bologna: Il Mulino. (English version).
Stankey, G. et al. (1985). The limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Ogden.
Thorsell, J. (2003). World Heritage Convention: Effectiveness 19922002 and Lessons for Governance. Gland, Switzerland/Gatineau, Quebec, IUCN/Parks Canada.
UNESCO. (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. URL (consulted February 2007): http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf
UNESCO. (1994). Expert Meeting on the Global Strategy and Thematic Studies for a Representative World Heritage List (2022 June 1994). World Heritage Committee 18th Session (1217 December 1994). Paris: UNESCO. WHC-94/CONF.003/INF.6, URL (consulted January 2004): http://whc.unesco.org/ archive/global94.htm
UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, Paris
UNESCO Bangkok. (2008). Safeguarding Intangible Heritage and Sustainable Cultural Tourism: Opportunities and Challenges. UNESCO Bangkok.
* Contact Author: Aldo Buzio, PhD Candidate Department of Housing and City, Politecnico di Torino
E-mail: aldo.buzio@polito.it Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 66 Craftsmanship, Science and the Senses: A Few Brief Insights
Jrn Bohlmann *
PhD Candidate, Norwegian University of Science and Technology / Sr-Trndelag University College, Trondheim, Norway
Abstract
This article discusses the basic importance of the human senses the seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling and tasting in craftsmanship. Since the human perception changed and became more abstract with the introduction of the typographical printing and the theoretical science of technological constructions in times of the European Enlightenment, the role of the sense has declined. That raises the question, how experimental archaeology may contribute in the reconstruction of knowledge. The craftsmanship of wooden boatbuilding is used as an example, while general questions will be raised.
Keywords: Human Senses, craftsmanship, tacit knowledge, synaesthesia
"A person hears only what they understand" Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
1. Introduction - Boatbuilding Traditions in Norway
One of the most important attractions for tourists visiting Oslo, the capital of Norway, is the Vikings ships from Oseberg and Gokstad 1 ; they serve as signature features of Norwegian history and symbolise national identity. These thousand-year-old archaeological finds of ships exhibit strong similarities to the simple, open utility boats (see Figure 1) which served to the transportation of fish and other goods over the fjords and archipelagos of the long coastline until well into the 20th century. The building methods and material that were used correlate strongly with historical ship finds from the Vikings, which is why this period of Norwegian shipbuilding is usually portrayed as being 1,000 years old and continuing. 2
1 The Oseberg Ship was excavated in 1904 and can be dated dendrochronologically to the first half of the 9th century. The Gokstad Ship was excavated in 1880. It dates from the late 9th century 2 This is primarily applicable to the construction of boats on the Norwegian coasts of Westland and Northland. In this connection, it shall be mentioned that more recent research of boat building in the post-reformation era, primarily in the southern parts of Norway, found diffusions This gains new significance in view of the ratification of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage by the Norwegian Government in 2006; it is regarded as a salient national feature and ranks high up on the list of intangible cultural heritage in Norway. In order to avoid romanticising traditional craftsmanship unnecessarily, its central elements should be viewed as part of the intangible cultural heritage. Taking traditional wooden boat building as an example, therefore, the focus below will be on one of its central elements - namely the use of all of the sensory faculties: the sense of sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. Virtually all boats in the Central European and North European regions were built with overlapping planks until the 16th century (see Figure 2 left). The form of boats built using this method (clinker method) grew gradually but could be altered during the construction phase. The shape of the hull was created simultaneously as the planking progressed; bracing elements 3 were only fitted after the planking. In this regard, attention should be drawn to the fact that this building process was not conducted following theories or building plans. Practical work procedures handed down from generation to generation and boats that had already been built were all that served the craftsmen
3 Frames and floor timber as well as thwarts Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Jrn Bohlmann 67 as models. No building instructions or drawings existed. Plans would have been useless in any event because, as a rule, boat builders did not have a good command of reading or writing. Knowledge was passed down through the generations using narration and -significantly in this connection- actual crafting processes (that is to say physical work). A craftsman's cultural perception would primarily have been of an audio-tactile nature; to hear, perceive and understand were essential mechanisms of craftsmanship (Arisholm, 1995). A sound understanding of boat forms would have played a central role here - originating from the craftsman's mental image, as it were (Rasmussen, 2008; Gthche, 2009; Arisholm, 2008). Fig ure 1: One of the typical open utility boats from the Norwegian west coast, an fjords-seksring. The boat illustrated here has a length of almost nine metres with a three-man crew. The length of the boats varied between approx. 5 m to 18 m. Origin: (Eldjarn & Godal, 1988)
2. Historical Development in Boatbuilding
Towards the end of the 16th century, a new building style also became established in the Scandinavian region as a result of Dutch influence in which the planks no longer overlapped but formed a smooth outer shell (the carvel building technique) (see Fig. 2 right). This changed drastically the way boats were built. Using this method, the ribcage of the ship was built immediately after constructing the keel. This meant that the shape of the boat was fixed from the very beginning. While the clinker construction method allowed room to alter the shape of the boat whilst it was being built - therewith adding weight to the master boat builder's sense of style and proportion first and foremost - the shape of the boat was now predetermined and, in the truest sense of the word, binding. The craftsmen had to implement abstract, theoretically constructive instructions from this point on.
3. The Human Senses in Boatbuilding
However, since boat builders with no knowledge of reading or writing were unable to understand either written or graphical specifications, a way had to be found to make the abstract building specifications and plans understandable: the first true-to-scale, half model saw the light of day. With the help of this model the craftsmen were able to perceive the desired boat form, yes, to understand it in the truest sense of the word, which complied with their audio-tactile cultural perception. This requires tactual intuition and visual thinking. As in other countries, even large sailing ships were still being built in Denmark on the basis of an understanding of form that had been handed down through the generations without building plans until well into the 19th century (Gthche, 2009). Although these boat builders had a good command of reading and writing, this abstract skill had a considerably lower impact on every day life than it does in skilled crafts today. Audio-tactile perception, an implicit understanding of form and mental images, were skills that were still so strong that plans and specifications were not necessary. Boat builders simply had craftsmanship "in their blood".
Figure 2: The clinker and carvel construction principles. Employing clinker techniques, (left), the planks overlap: following the carvel form of construction (right), the planks form a smooth outer shell. Source: (Brms: 29)
68 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Jrn Bohlmann
No boats are built today simply following an inner understanding of form 4 but boat builders nevertheless consciously make use of the human sensory apparatus; choosing good quality wood in traditional boat building is a good example of this. The rudiments of judging the quality of wood are indeed learned by modern ship builders and applied by means of a visual inspection in the shipyard. The density of the annual rings, the colour of the wood or the distribution of possible knots are all important criteria with respect to the quality - they can be learned theoretically. However, a boat builder also makes use of his olfactory sense as the smell of different woods can vary between fresh-resinous, sour-biting through to sweet-marzipan-like. The smell of the wood is an infallible indication of its quality. The sense of smell is also of great importance when judging the condition of older wooden boats. The odour that is experienced when entering the cabin indicates beyond all doubt the state of the whole boat; if it smells rotten and stale, this is a sure sign that it is in bad condition.
However, conscious tactile perception is also one of a boat builder's daily tools, for example when joining wooden planks together. They have to be immaculately planed down so they interlock but fingertips can still feel the tiniest unevenness even if the eye can no longer see it. Even drilling a badly visible angle turns out better if a person can put his/her bare hand where the drill should come out. These are only a few examples of some small tricks a practised craftsman makes use of. Mastering them makes sense.
This is also true of visual judgement, having a good eye, which is familiar to all of us and the only tool that gets sharper instead of blunter with use (Hesthammer, 2008). Boat builders use it primarily to gauge harmonious lines, the so-called strakes. These are particularly important in the boat building trade
4 It is worth discussing to what extent boat builders who are still producing open utility boats today have an understanding of form at their disposal in the same way as their historical predecessors. Although the building plans of traditional utility boats are available today, these are still not laid out on a grid floor. Whether the boats were built in the historical way, "p klamp" remains unclear. because it is essential for boats to be pleasing to the eye and have harmonious lines. Sticking stubbornly to specific dimensions is therefore completely alien to every boat builder when it comes to maintaining beautiful lines. What is decisive then is having a good eye, not the construction drawing. The powerfully inviting nature of touching something - the so-called affordance (Guski, 2000) - which emits from a beautiful wooden boat is remarkable. Everyone has experienced affordance when viewing elegant sculptures in art exhibitions; the harmonious forms and surfaces simply invite being touched; they want to be understood, so to speak.
4. About Multi-sensual Perception
However, sensory perception in no way confines itself to seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling and tasting. Being aware of atmospheric moods is also a part of multi-sensory perception; combined with movement, it can lead to pleasure in the activity itself (also known as flow):
"Pleasure in the activity itself is less an explanation than an oblique reference to an aesthetic experience. This definition is useful if nothing else because it makes the aesthetic power of movement and physical awareness clear". (Schnhammer, 2009:247 my translation)
An aesthetic dimension of craftsmanship is undoubtedly being proficient in the use of the tools and material of the trade. Mastering tasks by means of physical activity and thereby producing beautiful objects - from raw material through to the finished product - is a special privilege of craftsmanship. If a craftsman's attention is fully concentrated on the task at hand and if this person is neither under-taxed nor overtaxed by it, then a joyful, aesthetic experience of pleasure in the activity itself (flow) can set in. The linguistic images of this flow thereby vividly describes the fact "that attention is undivided by events at such moments" [- it is] "comparable to ecstatic ecstasies and meditative ecstasy" (Schnhammer,2009:246 my translation) Flow, of course, should not be understood as a privilege of craftsmanship; the uplifting experience of this flow can be achieved through physical exercises Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Jrn Bohlmann 69 such as riding a bike, skiing or sailing just as much as through activities that are non-motor but creative. 5
But not only pleasure in the activity itself is an element of multi-sensory perception; a feeling for atmospheric moods should also not be neglected when it is necessary to illustrate sensory perception in craftsmanship. The term atmosphere here describes the cumulative image of different environments, moods and the underlying circumstances of situations (etc.). That an aesthetic experience coincides with a feeling for atmospheres has its origins in the fact that "on the one hand one's own mental state is present when experiencing atmospheres while on the other an aesthetic experience can be described as joyfully becoming aware of sensory-physical functions." (Schnhammer, 2009:250 my translation)
The so-called body schema 6 (Schnhammer, 2009) can be found to be directly connected to a feeling for atmospheres. In the same way as reading the term urban environment evokes an individual, atmospheric image of a municipal environment, every person has a different body schema (ebd:36) at their disposal in different situations. The intuitive feeling for form that prevails in the boat building trade can also be classified under body schema in my opinion. Anyone who has handled tools and material based on their own visual perception for many years is able to put the feeling "that something feels right or wrong in a certain way without being able to explain it" into the right context. There is no doubt that experiencing this intuitive feeling that something has the right form is not confined to skilled crafts.
Concerning a culture of predominantly audio-tactile perception in historical skilled crafts, considerably more meaning could be ascribed to the phenomena of synaesthesia 7 and idiosyncrasy 8 in craftsmanship in
5 See the Encyclopedia Britannica, among others, under the keyword creativity http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/142249/creativity/ 261736/Research-on-the-creative-process?anchor=ref940923, 29.09.2011 6 My translation of the German word Krperfhlbilder 7 Synaesthesia describes the linking of two (or several) physically separated areas of perception, such as colour and temperature.. A typical synaesthetic perception is, for example, those days than it can today. Schnhammer has ascertained that "various sensory areas clearly become distinguished from one another in the course of individual development." In concrete terms, this means that "children (and also indigenous peoples)" perceive synaesthetic","(normal) civilized adults only in special conscious states or if they are not (acutely) aware of sensory stimuli but perceive it [...] The particular characteristics of synaesthesia, especially its idiosyncrasies, remain unclear." (sic.) (Schnhammer, 2009: 234 my translation) In this connection, the question of the correlation between an understanding of form, mental images and a keen audio-tactile cultural perception with regard to synaesthesia and idiosyncrasy remains unanswered. What role could synaesthesia and idiosyncrasy have played in the passing on of traditions from generation to generation by way of physical work? The use of the sensory apparatus as well as the phenomenon of multi-sensory perception (in craftsmanship as well as generally) is, in principle, part of the implicit knowledge for which the Hungarian-British chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) coined the phrase "tacit knowledge" in the scientific canon of the 20 century (Polanyi, 2000). As implicit knowledge manifests itself exclusively in instantaneous processual action such as dance, drama or craftsmanship, it calls for empathy on the part of the person searching for it. Implicit knowledge is inherent knowledge which can only be partially verbalised. A basic prerequisite for examining it, therefore, is an understanding of and skill in the process which is to be examined. This empathy is dependent upon "a researcher [...] who has the same scope of feelings as the people being studied." (Bringus, 1997) A feeling for atmospheres, an intuitive sense of form, body schema, synaesthesia and idiosyncrasy are all intangible phenomena of an abstract nature; we are all familiar with them intuitively. However, because these multi-sensory perceptions, together with seeing,
linking certain colours to letters or numbers. Their spatial placement can also result from synaesthetic perception. 8 In psychology, idiosyncrasy describes a particularly strong aversion and oversensitivity towards certain people, living things, objects, stimuli, opinions; in psychiatry and psychosomatics, the individual experience and behavioural reaction to acoustic or visual stimuli, people or objects etc.
70 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Jrn Bohlmann hearing, smelling, feeling and tasting, can only be quantified and qualified with difficulty through the means and paradigms available in science today, they remain nebulous. The focus of medical research in fields such as neurology, cognitive psychology or psychiatry falls on these issues; linking them to the humanities, however, remains fragmentary. The question of whether there is a lack of researchers in this field shall remain unanswered here. It is precisely because very few humanistic contributions on the topic of multi-sensory perceptions are available, however, that they are prone to develop a regrettable list into the mystical. 9
With respect to the current level of research on implicit knowledge, the anthropologist Yolanda van Edes grasped a key point, in my opinion, by writing: Ones skill and craftsmanship may be as laudable, but totally out of range with the objectifying, distancing assets of modern science. In fact, one is no more than ones own ignorant and believing informant. Such a misdemeanour, however, foregoes the fact that there cannot be any knowledge without ability and skill [] From this perspective, the senses seem to offer a perfect point of departure to rethink methodological vocabularies within, and without, anthropology, its current position within academia, and its future. (sic) (van Ede, 2009)
5. Conclusions
There is no doubt that the implicit knowledge of traditional craftsmanship constitutes a part of the intangible culture. Skilled craftsmanship might appear to be artistic skill (Molander, 2003, 2006) to a person who cannot share the same gamut of feelings. The mastery of craftsmanship unfolds in action; it has a processual, performative character that only exists when it is performed. As it cannot be entirely verbalised, academic research cannot depict it adequately. A lack of scientific research on the topic of implicit knowledge leads to traditional craftsmanship being
9 The phenomenon of qualia may be regarded as an example; the phenomenon is as established as it is controversial in the canon of scientific research and is portrayed, among other things, as the edge case of the reach of science today.
understood as a romantic and mystical affair. Even if the whole concept of implicit skill cannot be viewed in its entirety, its most essential elements can, in my view, be presented methodically. In this connection, using the sensory apparatus constitutes a crucial element of implicit knowledge to which only an astonishingly small amount of attention has been given until now, although (or just because?) it represents the most natural tool of craftsmanship. Traditional craftsmanship is held in great esteem (in Norway as much as elsewhere); it is advancing to the position of becoming an official part of Norway's intangible cultural heritage. As in all other processual arts, the fascination in craftsmanship stems from its apparent artistic and aesthetic elements. Taking the development of historical shipbuilding as an example, a profound change in crafting processes is illustrated. Whereas craftsmen in the Middle Ages and the early modern era primarily made use of a culture of audio-tactile perception, tactility and narration only play a minor role in craftsmanship today. Many diverse traditional skilled crafts are to be located on the coordinate axes between development and preservation on the one hand and mystification and science on the other. As knowledge of traditional craftsmanship plays an absolutely crucial role in the protection of historical buildings and monuments, conservation and restoration, experimental archaeology and various museum work, humanistic research should contribute towards not allowing it to turn into an enigmatic manifestation that only serves national interests or romantic ideas. Just as in life in general, sensory and multi-sensory perceptions and their cultural contexts also play a key role in craftsmanship. Granting traditional craftsmanship the status of intangible cultural heritage should secure committed research contributions. There is no question that an approach by way of primary and multi-sensory perception would be an expedient course to follow.
References
Arisholm, T. (1995). Kunnskap mellom hndverk og vitenskap. In H. Laugerud & T. Arisholm (Eds.), Myten om det moderne (pp. 233-276). Oslo: Spartacus.
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Jrn Bohlmann 71 Arisholm, T. (2008). Metoder for formgivning Kravellbygging i Norge - Historie, teknikk, utvikling (pp. 61-102): Hardanger Fartyvernsenter; Norsk Sjfartsmuseum.
Bringus, N.-A. (1997). Von Sinnessymbolik, Sinntraining und einer sinnlichkeitsbewuten Ethnologie. In R. Morhmann, E., Rodekamp, V. & Sauermann, D. (Ed.), Volkskunde im Spannungsfeld zwischen Universitt und Museum - Festschrift fr Heinrich Siuts 65. Geburtstag (pp. 25-42). M+unser/New York/Mnchen/Berlin: Waxmann.
Brms, J. Lehrhefte frd en Boots- und Schiffbau; Nr.4: Holzbootsbau. Hamburg: Verlag fr Bootswirtschaft.
Eldjarn, G., & Godal, J. B. (1988). Nordlandsbten og fjordsbten. Lesja: A. Kjellands forlag.
Guski, R. (2000). Wahrnehmung; Eine Einfhrung in die Psychologie der menschlichen Informationsaufnahme. Stuttgart, Berlin, Kln: Kohlmahmmer Urban Taschenbcher.
Gthche, M. (2009). Anna af Horsens - og det anonyme skibsbyggeri i provinsen Martim Kontakt (Vol. 32, pp. 25-54). Kbenhavn: Kontaktudvalget for Dansk Maritim Historie- og Samfundsforskning.
Hesthammer, M. (2008). Fartybyggerens verkty og hjelpemidler Kravellbygging i Norge; Historie, teknikk, utvikling (pp. 169-202): Hardanger Fartyvernsenter og Norsk Sjfartsmuseum.
Molander, B. (2003). Hela Mnniskan Kunnskap Hvem Vver Kejsarens Nya Klder? (pp. 12-21). Stockholm: Stockhoms Hantverksfrening.
Molander, B. (2006). Hantverk i bokstavlig och verfrd mening Handverk og kunnskap. Trondheim: Tapir Akademiske Forlag.
Polanyi, M. (2000). Den tause dimensjonen: en innfring i taus kunnskap. Oslo: Spartacus.
Rasmussen, T. (2008). Kravellteknikkens vei til Norge Kravellbygging i Norge; Historie, teknikk, utvikling (pp. 9-60): Hardanger Fartyvernsenter, Norsk Sjfartsmuseum og forfatterne.
Schnhammer, R. (2009). Einfhrung in die Wahrnehmungspsychologie. Wien: facultas WUV.
Van Ede, Y. (2009). Sensuous Anthroplogy: Sense and Sensibility and the Rehabilitation of Skill. Anthropological Notbooks, 15 (2), 61-75.
* Contact Author: Jrn Bohlmann, PhD Candidate, Norwegian University of Science and Technology / Sr- Trndelag University College, Trondheim,
Tel: 0047 99101575 E-mail: jorn.bohlmann@hist.no Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century 72 Art and Culture Strategies for Historical City Centres under Risk: the Lima Case
Carlos Leon-Xjimenez *
PhD researcher in the Urban Heritage Research Group, Institute for European Urbanism, Bauhaus-Universitt Weimar, Germany
Abstract
The practice-based PhD project is focused on the development and evaluation of contemporary art, culture and alternative architectural interventions in the UNESCO protected Lima Historical Centre (LHC) area, in Peru. The main purpose of the project has to do with the development of a participatory cultural experience, linking existing art and culture initiatives as catalysts for urban regeneration processes. The project aspires to activate an interdisciplinary laboratory where perspectives and opportunities for the creative use of the city centre can be sketched and tested, generating transient/nomad public spaces linking, through art and culture, the rich local intangible culture with the architectural patrimony under risk. In that sense, a discussion on urban heritage with the inhabitants and users of the Lima Historical Centre by developing platforms for designing sustainable solutions means to hear and understand not only their requirements but also their possible commitments. As the Lima Historical Centre is experiencing a very slow gentrification process, there is a need to sustain a living city centre, avoiding musealization and social cleaning with bottom-up initiatives that respect the different needs and can empower the local residents through production of cultural goods and related services. Observing the current Lima tourist-marketing focused on the architecture of the colonial times, it is argued that another concept for urban renewal can deal with the limitations of low investment and precarious living conditions in the over-crowded old houses, calling for collective action and alternative hybrid and mixed planning.
Photo 1. Aerial view of the Lima Historical City Centres core area: the colonial grid original from 1535. (Photo Google Maps)
1. The Place
Since the middle of the XX century, the current Lima city centre has experienced a progressive desertion of the dominant classes to more residential and suburban districts south of the old city centre (a phenomenon similar in other Latin-American countries). Simultaneously, the continued decay of the city centre has occurred parallel to the development of the popular self-built city by migrant populations from the countryside and the highlands. Part of this population overcrowds old houses -in the now called Historical Centre- creating partially the perception of decay (De los Ros, et al. 2011).
Lima Historical Centre (see Photo 1) has been part of the World Heritage Sites list since 1988, but faces severe decay in the physical structures. Over- populated old houses from the XVII-XIX centuries and modern buildings of the XX century are almost empty. Even despite first recovery efforts undertaken in the 1990s, there is still a lack of public policies and resources for sustainable urban renewal and social inclusion. The few private investments cannot hide the general stagnation in terms of protected heritage Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Carlos Leon-Xjimenez 73 recovery. In this direction, the work already done with the faades restoration and the rebuilding of traditional wooden balconies, point out an aesthetical consumerism of the history of Colonial time and to the historicism theme-park strategy.
The neo-liberal city strives for identity in times of globalization. In this sense it looks for the lost city centre but as a space for tourism. Within this framework there is ambivalence about the condition of protected heritage because in itself it does not warrant real city renewal without economic investments and real supporting policies. So long as there is a very slow gentrification process, the stagnation will continue to reinforce social tensions between the living conditions of poor inhabitants and the user requirements of the city centre.
Photo 2. Rooftops in the historical city centre. Lima, 2009
Considering the particular mix of construction types, state of conservation, and conditions of use, the area under protected heritage condition is dealing with informal growth developed during the XX century. These transformations consist of mutilations, illegal construction on top of the old houses and modern buildings (see Photos 2 and 3). In addition, building interiors and courtyards in the city centre have deteriorated into slum-like condition.
As Lima is located in an active seismic area, potential damage from natural disasters increases the risk in this highly valued protected patrimony. Without conservation or renovation, many of the endangered houses have developed structural problems, yet have not collapsed and even have inhabitants on the upper floors.
Photo 3. Rooftops in the historical city centre. Lima, 2009
2. Art and Architecture Approaches
Influential artwork done in Lima since the early 1980s has critically activated the use of public space an architectural infrastructure in the Historical Centre. In the scope of these works, there has been little reflection on the endangered patrimony and the social and economic factors in the area 1 . This is because the attention has been monopolized by art and architecture interventions from the monumental perspective, following top-down policies and big art exhibitions in protected architectural environments 2 , but also in public spaces. It was here in the public space where creative and unexpected interactions between art projects and the population took place, showing up the
1 See the Casa Vieja project. Arte Sin Argollas 3. Lima, 2009. Available at: <http://proyectocasavieja.blogspot.com> 2 The Lima Iberoamerican Biennal, developed in 1997, 1999 and 2002, was the result of the Centro de Artes Visuales (Centre for Visual Arts) under the metropolitan mayor Alberto Andrade. This centre organized also the National Art Biennal. This centre was closed by the subsequent mayor Luis Castaeda.
74 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Carlos Leon-Xjimenez need for more inclusive and dialogical public spaces 3 .
Photo 4. Allora & Calzadilla: TIZA (Lima) 1998-2002. 12 chalk pieces, each 64 long x 8 inches diameter. Installation: Pasaje Santa Rosa, Lima Biennial 2002.
It seems appropriate to recall some projects done in Latin America that had given a different perspective than the traditional one adopted by urban planners and governmental agencies: ArteCidade in Sao Paulo, between 1994 and 2002 (Brissac 2002), and the Informal City Caracas Case project between 2002 and 2004 (Brillembourg, Feireiss and Klumpner 2005).
These two projects show a progressive change in the perspective on how to understand art and cultural interventions in the big metropolis, discovering the potentials of art and architectural interventions for opening up a dialogue on critical issues like informality and urban regeneration, and at the same time, on solution potentials. In this direction some urban activation projects have already been done in Lima (see Photo 4), as well as in the Americas and Europe (such as the designs of Raumlabor Berlin (Raumlaborberlin et. al. 2008) (see Photo 5), the activation of spaces in Weimar by the KoCA-inn project (Brasil, Dietl, Grau, Knig 2010) (see Photo 6), the interventions by Santiago Cirugeda 4 in Spain,
3 The Centro Abierto(Open Centre) public art project has been focused in the use of facades and squares in the Historical City Center. Selecting progressively more dialogical and interactive projects. <http://www.centroabierto.org> 4 Based in parasitism and interrelation with existing and the neighbourhood gardening organized by Atelier dArchitecture Autogre 5 in Paris (see Photo 7), among many others, which show approaches that can be considered as tools and/or triggers for spatial activation and sustainable oriented use of the resources.
Photo 5. The Kitchen Monument by Raumlabor Berlin. Photo: (c) Marco Canevacci 6
Photo 6. Fleamarket in KoCA-inn. Weimar, 2010 7
architectural structures, empty plots as well as urban infrastructure. <http://www.recetasurbanas.net> 5 The Eco-Box and Passage 56 / Eco-interstice are some projects that link neighborhood, the improvement of communal live and an optimization of resources with active participation. <http://www.urbantactics.org/> 6 Photo Source: Canevacci, M. [electronic print] Available at: <http://www.raumlabor.net/?p=88> [Accessed 25 September 2011] 7 Brasil, D., Dietl, T., Grau, C., Knig, B. 2010 p. 178-179 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Carlos Leon-Xjimenez 75
Photo 7. Le 56 / Eco-interstice 8 by Atelier darchitecture Autogre. Paris, started on 2006
3. Proposal
I would like to propose the development of a research that combines the two intertwined dimensions, which make a city a living organism: the physical infrastructure (architecture and built city) and the socio-cultural layer (traditions and living cultural heritage). If the built city reflects the way its inhabitants understand the organized space, what kind of achievements can be fostered through using the dialogue between the local culture and the art and architectural interventions? The target project aims at creating situations and experiences through art and architectural interventions that activate institutional and civic debate on participatory urban renewal initiatives and polices.
In this direction, art and culture can bring tools for urban renewal; claiming for social activation of existing capabilities and human resources, and strengthening the economical diversity that the city centres need to perform. Considering the neighbourhood character of the city centre for its inhabitants, apart from the Historical character, I am interested in cultural experiences dealing with micro- politics and everyday living in the city through the activation of public and semi-private spaces. Here,
8 Photo Source: atelier d'architecture autogeree [electronic print] Available at: <http://www.urbantactics.org/projects/passage%2056/passage5 6html.html> [Accessed 25 September 2011] public events and interventions play an important role, developing the feeling of borough (i.e. with communal kitchen and playgrounds). If these cannot be fixed, why not make them temporary or even mobile? The urban renewal goes side by side with the understanding of the possible transformation also through social activation; and this does not mean big enterprises, but clever events generating consensus and own agendas.
The proposed framework is intended to transform perceptions of the city centre between the inhabitants and users of this area, generating spaces for dialogue and exchange of perspectives through contemporary art and cultural experiences, specifically looking for participation from these mentioned population groups. In a highly contested space like the UNESCO labelled Lima Historical Centre, particular local history and socio-cultural codes of inhabitants, authorities and institutions create a parallel dimension to negotiate and discuss possibilities.
4. Main Questions and State of the Art
Below is a list of questions that have been guiding this project: a) How art and cultural interventions can create a framework to open public dialogues around protected heritage and alternative/participatory urban renewal processes? b) How can trust and confidence be motivated and generated among the inhabitants and users of Lima Historical Centre in order to take part in participatory renewal processes? How can we understand the local inhabitants and their role in an active movement with the aim of improving their living conditions? c) What kind of identity does the Lima Historical City Centre project foster, in relation to its particular risky and endangered situation? Is it possible to link local culture and economic initiatives to test more sustainable urban development processes, rather than pure private investment gentrification? d) How does the city institutional framework focused in the Historical Centre (municipal administration, cultural patrimonial state agencies, and private sector) support these kind of experimental platforms? What can be learned
76 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Carlos Leon-Xjimenez from the process and the results of the experiences, as contributions towards sustainable urban renewal practices?
State of the art of the Research
The topic was approached for the first time in 2003 at the workshop organized in Lima focused on the urban landscape inside Lima Historical Centre. It was elaborated at further interdisciplinary workshop done in 2009 9 where the profile of this research proposal was conceptualized, updating the first approaches published (Leon-Xjimenez 2006).
Starting in October 2010, a bibliographical search was carried out in Berlin and later on in Lima, based on books and documents in local libraries, to document the historical, architectural and socio- cultural evolution of Lima, with special focus on its city centre, now part of Lima Historical Centre. After reviewing literature, the selected topic and the related project implies the implementation of an interdisciplinary platform in order to analyse the different factors that shape the current Lima Historical Centre; but also the mixed strategies that can generate alternative platforms to rethink the social-inclusive debate and/through symbolic interventions (here the role of art and culture interventions). The specialized literature on Lima Historical Centre is analysed in relation within the whole city dynamics, where urban analysis shows two different and opposite directions in the last twenty years.
On the one side, the analysis focuses on the touristic theme-park approach by current policies from the City administration with an awaited gentrification. On the other side, the research criticized the lack of responsible urban planning, understanding the situation of the city centre as a complex social issue linked to a mismanagement that comes from decades ago. Parallel to this, an archive on public art and
9 The workshop TECHOS DE LIMA: espacios urbanos y topografa lmite (Lima Rooftops: urban spaces and border topography) was done in Lima between September 15 th 19 th , 2009. <http://sites.google.com/site/cleonxjimenez/projects- 1/lima-rooftops/2009-workshop>
architecture interventions in Lima has been initiated to give a perspective on previous works already done by local artist, activist and cultural agents. A selective bibliography and documentation on urban art interventions and experimental architecture cases done in Latin America and Europe has been collected, especially focused on alternative urbanism and participatory practices.
5. Methods
The project-based research is understood as a process, where site-specific interventions are made parallel to interviews/meetings with responsible agencies. The collected data needs to be ordered to assist the following steps in the research.
At this time, two intervention steps are planned: a) First Phase: individual intervention, including search and creation of an urban observatory, a basecamp in Lima Historical Centre, where the research and the intervention plans can be organized. A workshop on urban landscape and scenarios with local population is considered. b) Second Phase: A curatorial project with site- specific artworks/interventions interacting with local cultural and inhabitants initiatives, using local buildings and public spaces. c) Third Phase: A symposium on local urban renewal and the participatory challenge.
Available methods
Art and architectural site-specific intervention. Data collecting techniques: Focus group / in-depth interviews and/or surveys.
Methods to be developed:
A participatory methodology to engage inhabitants potentials through workshops for design and renovation. Here the work and advice with local NGOs and the Lima Municipal office for neighbours participation is crucial. A strategy to approach local authorities and agencies of urban renovation, linking their efforts with a perspective of art and culture as triggers for better coordinated plans. I recognize that this practical work for the PhD Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Carlos Leon-Xjimenez 77 research will address different research stages in Lima. Time is needed not only to develop a confident relation with the neighbourhoods where the planned activities, but also to generate a network with local experts and practitioners that can be engaged in a creative platform for the curatorial project. In this sense, I assume the experimental character of this project, but at the same time, the project is in itself a self-reflective experience and learning process of refining targets, strategies and intervention approaches.
Planned work
Between July and September 2011 first contact has been established in Lima with key people focused on the topic.
A further fieldwork stage in Lima is planned in 2012 to start an art intervention, while developing a dialogue with the Lima Municipality Program for LHC recovery (PROLIMA), Municipal office for neighbour participation and the offices for Cultural Heritage at the Ministry of Culture.
The current Lima Municipal administration has the slogan Lima ciudad para todos (Lima a city for all) and understands culture as a key factor in generating citizenship and inclusion. In this sense, the proposed platform and the interventions are seen as a complementary rehearsal of interventions aimed at testing possible urban regeneration according the parameters proposed in this project.
The results of the 2009 workshop show a diversity of strategies that can be implemented in a pilot experience. Learning from the participants approaches, it is required to start further approaches to the existing institutions working on the Lima Historical Centre.
6. Conclusions
This practice-based research PhD project intends to rethink current polices for the regeneration in decay historical city centres. The experiences in Quito, after architectural upgrading of endangered patrimony, show the potential of inhabitants engagement as a way to empower an inclusive historical city centre. In the case of Lima, this project aspires to existing efforts, pointing out the potential of a better network with a non-conventional agenda. As long as the cities are living organisms where citizenship is negotiated, interested participation in the name of sustainable improvements through the change of mentalities and the exercise of creative reinterpretation of the patrimony is needed.
References
Brasil, D. et al. (2010). KoCA Inn by UrbanD - An urban experiment at the Kiosk of Contemporary Art in Weimar. Weimar: Revolver Publishing by VVV. Available at: <http://koca-inn.de/KoCA-Inn_web.pdf>
Brillembourg, A., Feireiss, K., Klumpner, H., (2005). Informal City. Caracas Case. Munich: Prestel
Brissac Peixoto, N. (2002). Intervenes urbanas: arte/cidade. So Paulo: Ed. SENAC [u.a.]
De los Ros, S., Barbacci, N., de la Serna, J., Chvez, J. (ed.) (2011). Centro Histrico de Lima Patrimonio Humano y Cultural en Riesgo / The Historic Center of Lima Human and Cultural Heritage at Risk. CIDAP, Lima Available at: <http://www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_publicat ion/Lima-Exhibition-Panels.pdf> [Accessed 30 March 2011].
Leon-Xjimenez, C. (2006). Lima Rooftops: case study of an urban desert. (Static, Issue 04) [Online] London: Static (Published November 2006) Available at: <http://static.londonconsortium.com/issue04/carlos_li marooftops.php> [Accessed 17 October 2011]
Raumlaborberlin, Maier, J., Heidelberger Kunstverein. (2008). Acting in Public. Jovis.
E-mail: carlos.leon@uni-weimar.de Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 78 Title: The Local List: A New Conservation Philosophy for the 21 st Century?
Carol Ludwig *
Postgraduate Researcher, School of Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, England, UK
Abstract
This paper argues that the way heritage is understood is important. Integral to heritage protection reform in England, conservation and planning officers are being told by Government to take a more holistic view of the historic environment, to define the significance of heritage assets and to formally recognise and record these at the local level in a Local List of heritage assets (CLG 2010). They are also being encouraged to widen public participation and engagement in this process, through the fostering of collaborative, consensus-building practices (Healey 2006; CLG 2010). This, together with calls for the social relevance of `heritage', highlighted in debates surrounding `social inclusion' and `public/communal value' (Sandell 2003; Newman and McLean 2004; Mason 2004), defines the core argument of this research, that how heritage is dominantly framed within influential decision-making debates is important, yet under-investigated. Specifically in England, a patent policy shift has taken place over the last decade, attempting to distance heritage and conservation planning from the long-standing elitist and exclusive conception it has held and to extend the traditional conservation values to include more intangible public/communal values. A key question is whether this policy shift has translated into processes on the ground. Consequently, this paper questions the philosophical underpinnings of conservation and whether the new conservation philosophy, expressed in recent policy and guidance can influence the established ideological perspectives of the experts managing the Local List process. Through document analysis, semi-structured interviews and participant observation in a number of English local authorities, this research examines how local heritage is dominantly framed during the Local List process, why, and how the dominant framing receives legitimisation. It specifically questions what role the Local List process plays in the practical implementation of calls to extend the definition of heritage and widen participation in conservation.
Keywords: heritage, conservation, Local List, communal values
1. Introduction- What is Heritage?
Heritage is a concept of complexity (Ashworth and Howard 1999: 5) and subject to inherent argument and contestation (Waterton 2007: 24). As a discursive, multi-faceted construction, heritage theory acknowledges that it is not possible to find a common, undisputed understanding of heritage and that in some contexts, this ambiguity and contestation really matters. Amid the competing discourses, scholars claim that one view or understanding of heritage inevitably becomes the particular version or interpretation that is dominant and has the power and consequent authority behind it to make it matter (Hall 2005: 26; Smith 2006; Waterton 2005; 2007). This is important as it serves to ostracise those whose conceptualisations of heritage do not align with the dominant, accepted meaning; thus impeding any genuine attempts to open up heritage to wider public involvement and inclusion. This belief is the essence of this research and underpins the wider rationale for this paper. If heritage means different things to different people, through time and space, local heritage management and conservation planning is potentially a problematic task, which appears to be under investigated in this context.
2. Who Defines the Value of a Heritage Asset?
2.1 The Birth of the Traditional Conservation Values
There are certain values that have a long history of Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Carol Ludwig 79 acceptance in the realms of conservation thought and practice. Understanding conservation philosophy and the evolution of the conservation ethic is useful to understand the origins of conventional conservation values. These values, namely historical, architectural and aesthetic value, tend to reappear with some frequency in policy and legislative material, for example the special architectural or historic character of the building is the prime determinant of a heritage assets inclusion on the national statutory List (Tait and While 2009: 722). As conservations own history is crucial to understanding values about heritage today, it is thus, unpacked in more detail below. Beyond its early beginnings in romanticism, notions of artistic and aesthetic value tend to be associated with the philosophies of two influential art and social critics, John Ruskin (1819-1900) and William Morris (1834-1896). The preservation movement associated with Ruskin and Morris was in essence, a reaction against modernity and the restoration impulses of the nineteenth century and it is worth analysing in more detail, to understand how people began thinking about what it is that they value in a building and what it is that makes something heritage (Thompson 1981: 18).
Ruskin and Morris are often described as the first conservation militants (Miele 1996) primarily as a consequence of their efforts to prevent the destructive restoration of medieval churches and other ecclesiastical structures (Hobson 2004). Their motivations however were related as much to moral and temporal authenticity as to aesthetic concerns (Hobson 2004 29). For Ruskin, the fabric of a building was inherently valuable and needed to be protected for the artisanal and aesthetic values it contained: We have no right whatever to touch them. They are not ours. They belong partly to those who have built them, and partly to all the generations of mankind who are to follow us (Binney 1981: 205).
Here, the aesthetic became irrevocably linked with notions of `honesty', `trustworthiness' and intergenerational capital (Thompson 1981: 20), thereby paving the way for an interest in, and desire for, authenticity and historical evidence (Schouten 1995: 21; Assi 2000). Their interest was predominantly in the actual fabric of the relics as they believed that greater historical understanding was in part delivered by the actual physical remnants of relics and that the artistic quality of these physical remnants made them worth preserving. Protecting the authenticity of these remains, therefore, became absolutely sacrosanct (Hobson 2004). Thus ideas of architectural style, aesthetic quality and authenticity became synonymous with the meaning of heritage.
2.2 The Exclusivity of Conservation
Reacting to this, and to prevailing ideas about restoration and modernity, William Morris established the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) in 1877. His goal was to preserve existing structures and to counteract the highly destructive restoration of medieval buildings (SPAB 2011: 1). Indeed, Morris and others, in forming SPAB, set the organisations agenda by what educated, artistic people would protect on account of its artistic, picturesque, historical [or] antique...merit (SPAB 1877 in Hobson 2004: 30).
In his Manifesto proclaiming the interests and objectives of SPAB, Morris stated:
If... it be asked us to specify what kind of amount of art, style, or other interest in a building makes it worth protecting, we answer, anything which can be looked on as artistic, picturesque, historical, antique, or substantial: any work, in short, over which educated, artistic people would think it worthwhile to argue at all (Morris 1877).
The statement reveals not only the privileging of the authentic, the artistic and aesthetic value; it also legitimises the power of an educated, artistic and cultural middle-class to speak on behalf of the national collective (Redfield 2003). A clear distinction was made by Morris in the roles assigned to heritage users: architectural monuments were to be appreciated by the educated middle class and by contrast, they were the responsibility of the professional, whose role was to care for and pass them on, untouched, to future generations. More specifically, in relation to the former, it was only the well-educated who had the necessary cultural literacy to understand grand social and national narratives that were inherent in the fabric of such monuments (Smith 2006: 21). This clearly excludes those not
80 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Carol Ludwig considered to fall within this social class. In respect of the latter, the heritage `expert' (in the guise of conservator, archaeologist, planner, technical specialist etc.) was allowed to consistently assume and allocate exclusive priority to monumental and scientific values (McBryde 1995: 8). The elitist nature of conservation, as described above in relation to the philosophies of Ruskin and Morris, served to ensure that the public were not involved in decisions regarding what heritage is or how it should be identified or managed in the present.
2.3 An Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD)?
Clearly influenced by Ruskin and Morris 19 th
century traditional conservation values and Hewison and Wrights criticisms of the heritage industry, a recent idea introduced to heritage theory is the concept of an authorised heritage discourse (AHD) (Smith 2006). The AHD, Smith (2006) argues, exists and operates in contemporary heritage management and conservation planning settings and is associated with a closely defined suite of expertise. Smith (2006) claims that the AHD is the way professionals speak about and understand heritage in practice and she argues that like the philosophies of Ruskin and Morris, this dominant heritage discourse privileges expert values and knowledge, and simultaneously excludes all dissonant, conflicted or non-core accounts of heritage (Smith 2006: 30; Waterton et al. 2006). This discourse, she alleges works to reinforce ideas of heritage based on elite/consensus history, nationalism, tangibility, materialism and aesthetics. Crucially, she argues that this dominant framing or understanding of heritage is operating today in practice and she claims that its characteristics can be clearly identified in conservation legislation and policy.
The AHD is characterised as the privileging of expertise, which is ostensibly driven by a responsibility to `act for' and `steward' a `universal' past made up of `grand', `tangible', and `aesthetically pleasing' sites, monuments and buildings (Waterton 2007: 34). Smith (2006: 87) argues that the AHD is privileging the innate aesthetic and scientific value and physicality of heritage and masks the real cultural and political work that the heritage process does. Moreover, the AHD, she says, takes its cue from the grand narratives of Western national and elite class experiences, and reinforces the idea of innate cultural value tied to time depth, monumentality, expert knowledge and aesthetics (2006: 299). The above statements however paint a portrait in very broad brushstrokes, suggesting an authorised and therefore, legitimate, obsession with physicality and monumentality, to the complete exclusion of all other types of value. While Smith does concede in her work that in practice the AHD embodies more subtle differentiations and disagreements, and is more subject to change than her general characterisation initially appears to allow she maintains that the AHD has palpable qualities and outcomes (Feintuch 2007). The characterisation of the AHD offered by Smith (2006) is clearly essentialised, but it usefully prompts key questions about how heritage is understood and dominantly framed in conservation planning today. It also draws attention to local heritage management processes, and in particular issues of social and cultural values, social exclusion and community involvement.
3. Towards Joint Decisions: A New Conservation Philosophy?
3.1 Policy and Theoretical Calls for Change
Contrary to traditional 19 th century conservation values and the claims of Smith (2006) this paper argues that there is a new or emerging conservation philosophy or paradigm shift for heritage management and conservation in England. This new conservation philosophy, explicit in English policy documents and other grey literature published in the 21 st century, is gathering momentum. It puts an emphasis on opening up heritage to wider participation; it places more wide-ranging values at the heart of decision-making and it promotes grass roots projects to inclusively and transparently identify and protect what is valued as local heritage (DCMS 2007; English Heritage 2008; 2011; CLG 2010). In other words, it seeks to embrace social inclusion and community involvement processes to understand and incorporate social and communal aspects of heritage. Unlike the time- honoured philosophies of William and Morris, discussed above, it is argued here that this paradigm shift represents a strive to eradicate the traditional elitist conception of heritage and a demand that public Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Carol Ludwig 81 values are actively sought and reasonably included in practice. This paradigm shift situates heritage among debates pertaining to issues such as social inclusion and theoretical frameworks such as communicative planning theory (Habermas 1984) and collaborative planning (Healey et al. 1997; Healey 2006).
These issues and debates are important for three key reasons. First, the social relevance of heritage is clearly gathering continuous power and political clout. It has intensified over time and this can be observed in both academic literature (Waterton 2005; Waterton and Smith 2008; Strange and Whitney 2003) and in national policy and guidance developments (DCMS 2007; English Heritage 2000; 2008; 2011). Secondly, at the time of writing, England is undergoing potentially the greatest shake-up in heritage protection for many years: Heritage Protection Review. This, coupled with the rhetoric of the Big Society, the flagship policy idea of the 2010 UK Conservative Party general election manifesto (now a key part of the legislative programme of the Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement) highlights a clear political commitment to localism and devolution. These issues are thus of contemporary importance, timely and highly relevant to heritage management at the local level. Third, Local Listing of heritage assets appears to be gathering popularity, a degree of reverence and increasing weight within the planning system (Parker 1993; Boland 1999; Jackson 2010; CLG 2010) and looked upon as a potential practical tool to actively embrace, execute and trial the concepts of this new philosophy (CLG 2010; English Heritage 2010; 2011). It is unclear however whether the values inherent in the new conservation philosophy are being applied and implemented in practice. The following section draws attention to some of the key publications which support this argument.
3.2 Key Policy and Guidance
The idea of democratisation of heritage, exemplied perhaps by Power of Place (English Heritage 2000), and underpinned by the policies and resources of the Heritage Lottery Fund, has gained support as part of a wider political narrative of inclusivity. Power of Place (English Heritage 2000) was the first publication to actively promote democratic participation in the field of conservation, on the basis that the historic environment has the power to strengthen the sense of community and foster neighbourhood renewal (English Heritage 2000: 23). Power of Place made a passionate case for the historic environment not to be confined to some rarefied antiquarian realm but to be recognised as being in fact all around us (Cowell 2004). Meanwhile 'A Force for Our Future' (DCMS 2001), informed by 'Power of Place' emphasised the importance of taking account of this wider understanding of heritage, stating that heritage is about more than bricks and mortar.
A crucial further development in this new conservation philosophy came in the form of the Heritage White Paper: Heritage Protection for the 21 st
Century in 2007. In its wider sense, the White Paper is based around three key principles: (1) developing a unified approach to the historic environment; (2) maximising opportunities for inclusion and involvement; and (3) supporting sustainable communities by putting the historic environment at the heart of an effective planning system (DCMS 2007: 6). These principles clearly demonstrate the characteristics of the new conservation philosophy, as outlined above. Waterton and Smith (2008) however, point out that achieving these principles will be a challenge in practice. Furthermore, they argue that the language used in the White Paper, and the evidence drawn upon to illustrate the new system, appears to be suggestive of procedural change only (Waterton and Smith 2008: 201). Hewison and Holden (2004) support this view, claiming that the Review does aim to reinvigorate the meaning of heritage, but only on a conceptual level. The Heritage White Paper however was the impetus for a step-change in English policy for the historic environment.
Whilst the English Planning System is currently undergoing fresh reform and a draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is currently being debated, it is still pertinent to refer to current Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5, published in 2010, which for the first time, represents a turning point in conservation planning. PPS5 gives considerably more weight to non-designated heritage assets than ever before and
82 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Carol Ludwig takes a more holistic view of the built environment. The accompanying PPS5 Practice Guide (2010) also encourages planning authorities to consider compiling a Local List of heritage assets in partnership with the local community (English Heritage 2010: 12: 8). This places yet further emphasis on the Local List.
Whereas PPS5 marked a significant turning point in national conservation planning, the Draft Local List Best Practice Guidance (2011) marks a step-change in heritage management and conservation planning processes at the local level. The Guide epitomises the new conservation philosophy and paradigm shift alluded to throughout this paper. It clearly emphasises from the outset the new conservation philosophy it is adopting. For instance, in its introduction it emphasises the importance of public participation and collaboration, stating that, Local Listing is a means for a local community and a local authority to jointly decide what it is in their area that they would like recognised as a local heritage asset and therefore worthy of some degree of protection in the planning system (English Heritage 2011: 1). Moreover, the Local List Guide provides a table of commonly applied criteria as part of its dissemination of best practice. The final criterion is of overriding importance in the context of the new conservation philosophy. The criterion, reflecting the communal value referred to in Conservation Principles (2008) states that the Local List process should consider:
Social and Communal value- relating to places perceived as a source of local identity, distinctiveness, social interaction and coherence; often residing in intangible aspects of heritage contributing to the collective memory of a place (English Heritage 2011: 9).
The Guide is thus explicit in its portrayal of a new conservation philosophy. The overt inclusion of such a criterion demonstrates a clear step away from the more rigid, traditional core values prevalent during the 19 th century and arguably continuing within conservation legislation and policy today. Furthermore, the Guide illustrates a strong contrast to the AHD, and its elitist, scientific, physical, tangible focus, as characterised by Smith (2006). Nonetheless, despite such strong calls for the social relevance of heritage, some secondary data is drawn upon below to illustrate some striking findings which raise questions about implementation in practice.
4. Why Does this Matter?
4.1 How Local is the Local List?
Surveys of English Local Authorities conducted over the last two decades clearly illustrate a renewed interest and take-up of Local Lists. A recent survey undertaken by Jackson (2010) however indicates that in practice, the Local List process still reflects the long-standing traditional and elitist conservation philosophy as described above, as opposed to embracing the principles of the new policy and guidance.
4.2 Local List Decisions made by Experts
In Jacksons Local List Survey (2010) of all English local authorities, a clear finding was that Local List decisions appear to be predominantly made by experts, despite policy and theoretical calls for more devolved, local decision-making. Figure 1 reveals that the final decision on Local List nominations was made predominantly by planning and conservation staff.
Figure 1: Decisions on Local List Protection (Source: Jackson 2010: 49)
Even where an independent panel was used, these, Jackson found, were expert-led panels, generally made up of planning/conservation officers, architects, specialist surveyors, consultants, and occasionally a representative from a local historic amenity group and an elected Member. Other ways of finalising the List, Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Carol Ludwig 83 Jackson noted, included nominations being validated by an independent conservation architect or a particular steering group made up of councillors and senior officers. Nevertheless, the decision-making framework was dominated by experts in all cases.
4.3 National Assessment Criteria used for Local List
A further key message to emerge in the Local List survey is the reliance on national listing criteria to assess nominations for inclusion on the Local List. The Survey illustrated that over 60% of local authorities used the national listing criteria to determine which buildings and structures would be added to their Local List (see Figure 2). Whilst in 25% of cases, the survey shows that local authorities have prepared local criteria, initially indicating that they have perhaps recognised the need to incorporate local values rather than rely on the old canons of national listing criteria, in many of these cases the reality is that the national criteria have merely been tweaked to include a couple of additional criteria such as those relating to completeness and authenticity (Jackson 2010). This appears to provide a clear gulf between the notions of tangible, physical, art- historical values and the intangible social and cultural meanings discussed above; to the complete exclusion of the latter. Furthermore, it also begs the question of how a Local List can be local and reflect local distinctiveness, if national criteria are used as a key part of decision-making; shaping the construction of what heritage is at the local level.
Figure 2: Criteria Used to Assess Local Heritage Assets (Source: Jackson 2010: 49)
4.4 Limited Community Involvement
A final point to draw attention to is the exclusive or elite process in which the Local List appears to have been prepared. Other Local List Surveys including Parker (1993) and Bolands (1998) Surveys highlighted that Local Lists have predominantly been generated exclusively by local planning authorities. Parker (1993) more specifically revealed that around 50% of those surveyed had been created by conservation officers, either via formal survey or from existing local knowledge. This reveals what appears to be an expert-led approach to the Local List process, which moreover, creates parallels with the notion of Smiths AHD. There is no reference to community involvement or public values. In a similar vein, Jacksons (2010) survey illustrates that despite formal attempts to be more transparent in publishing information about the Local List, this has usually been in the form of an already agreed outcome. It is evident that community involvement was not an integral part of the Local List process at the time of her survey. She found that 52% promoted the Local List through the local authoritys website. Others publicised through newspaper press releases, radio interviews and leaflet drops after the Local List has been prepared (Jackson 2010: 51).
4.5 Summary
Overall, the surveys indicate that although a minority remain unconvinced, there is a growing consensus between authorities that Local Lists are an important consideration in the management of heritage. They also however indicate that the criteria used for determining what counts as local heritage are often the same as those explored above in relation to 19 th century conservation values and the criteria used to consider heritage assets for the national statutory list. Other assumptions drawn from the surveys are the expert-led approach adopted and the lack of public involvement. This not only suggests that the discursive space is not provided for debate around competing or alternative conceptions of heritage, but it also indicates that more intangible social and communal aspects of heritage are excluded from the Local List process.
5. Ongoing Research
This paper has developed a sense of the debates that surround heritage and its conceptual space with local
84 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Carol Ludwig conservation planning so as to situate the relevance of this ongoing research. Key issues include a lack of evidence that the new conservation philosophy, explicit in recent policy and guidance, has transferred to practice and insufficient empirical investigation into the underlying ideological perspectives of those managing the Local List process. Clearly the drive towards opening up heritage to wider public values and community involvement in an industry known for its exclusivity and buildings-led values is a challenge.
6. Conclusion
The central argument put forward in this paper is that recent policy developments and associated publications reflect a new conservation philosophy and a clear paradigm shift in the approach to conservation planning practice. Crucially, this represents an important step for the future management of the historic environment in which Local Lists could have the potential to play a key part. The impact the Local List process has on contributing to opening up the historic environment to wider participation and wider heritage values is under- investigated. Yet as a tool that is available to all local authorities it could provide a consistent avenue across the country for widening the meaning of heritage, capturing the more social and communal aspects of heritage, and engaging with local communities to foster collaborative, inclusive processes that build positive relationships between the public and the experts.
References
Ashworth, G. J. and Howard, P. (1999). European Heritage Planning and Management. Exeter: Intellect Ltd.
Assi, E. (2000). Searching for the concepts of authenticity: Implementation guidelines. Journal of Architectural Conservation 3 pp. 60-68.
Binney, M. (1981). Oppression to Obsession. In: Binney, M. and Lowenthal, D., (eds) Our Past before Us. London: Temple Smith.
Boland, P. (1999). The Role of Local Lists Context 61 pp. 26-28.
CLG (2010). Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. London: TSO.
Cowell, B. (2004). Why Heritage Counts: Researching the Historic Environment Cultural Trends 13(4) pp 23-39
DCMS (2001). The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future. London: TSO.
DCMS (2007). Heritage White Paper: Heritage Protection for the 21st Century. London: TSO.
English Heritage (2000). Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment. London: English Heritage.
English Heritage (2008). Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance. London: English Heritage.
English Heritage (2010). PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide. London: English Heritage.
English Heritage (2011). Good Practice Guide for Local Listing: Identifying and Managing Significant Local Heritage Assets: Draft for Consultation. London: English Heritage.
Feintuch, B. (2007). Book Review: Uses of Heritage by Laurajane Smith 2006. Museum Anthropology Review 1(2) pp. 181-183.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hall, S. (2005). Whose heritage? Un-settling `the heritage', re-imagining the postnation. In: Littler, J. and Naidoo, R. (eds) The Politics of Heritage: The Legacies of `Race'. London: Routledge, pp. 23-35.
Healey, P. et al. (1997). Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovation in Europe. London: UCL Press.
Healey, P. (2006) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Carol Ludwig 85
Hewison, R. and J. Holden (2004). Challenge and Change: HLF and Cultural Value. London: DEMOS.
Hobson, E. (2004). Conservation and Planning: changing values in policy and practice. London: Spon Press.
Jackson, S. (2010). How Local is the Local List? Unpublished Thesis (MSc.), University of Newcastle.
Mason, R. (2004). Conflict and complement: An exploration of the discourses informing the concept of the socially inclusive museum in contemporary Britain. International Journal of Heritage Studies 10 (1) pp. 49-73.
McBryde, I. (1995). Dream the impossible dream? Shared heritage, shared values, or shared understandings of disparate values. Historic Environment 11(2 & 3) pp. 8-13.
Miele, C. (1996). The first conservation militants: William Morris and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. In Hunter, M. (ed.), Preserving the Past: The Fitful Rise of British Preservation. Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing. pp. 17-37.
Morris, W. (1877). Manifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. London: Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings.
Newman, A. and McLean, F. (2004). Presumption, policy and practice: The use of museums and galleries as agents of social inclusion in Great Britain. International Journal of Cultural Policy 10 (2) pp. 167-181.
Redfield, M. (2003). The Politics of Aesthetics: Nationalism, Gender, Romanticism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Sandell, R. (2003). Social Inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change. Museum and Society 1 (1) pp. 45-62.
Schouten, F. F. J. (1995). Heritage as historical reality. In Herbert, D. T. (ed.), Heritage, Tourism and Society. London: Mansell, pp. 21-31.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge.
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) (2011). The Society for the Protection of Ancient Building Principles and Philosophy [WWW] SPAB. Available from: http://www.spabfim.org.uk/data/files/pages/spab_prin ciples.pdf [Accessed: 20/06/11]
Strange, I. and Whitney, D. (2003). The Changing roles and purposes of heritage conservation in the UK. Planning Practice and Research 18 (2) pp. 219-229.
Tait, M. and While, A. (2009). Ontology and the Conservation of Built Heritage. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27 pp. 721-737.
Thompson, M. V. (1981). Ruins: Their Preservation and Display. London: British Museum Publications, Ltd.
Waterton, E. (2005). Whose sense of place? Reconciling Archaeological Perspectives with Community Values; Cultural Landscapes in England. International Journal of Heritage Studies 11(4) pp. 309-325.
Waterton, E. (2007). Rhetoric and Reality: Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in England. Unpublished Thesis (PhD) University of York.
Waterton, E. et al. (2006). The utility of discourse analysis to heritage studies: The Burra Charter and social inclusion. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12(4) pp. 339-355.
Waterton, E. and Smith, L. (2008). Heritage Protection for the 21st century. Cultural Trends 17(3) pp. 197-203.
* Contact Author: Carol Ludwig, Postgraduate Researcher, School of the Built and Natural Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST
E-mail: carol.ludwig@northumbria.ac.uk Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 86
Cultural Heritage, Everyday Ethnicity and Religiosity in a Romanian Village
Raluca Mateoc* PhD Candidate in Social Anthropology, University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Abstract
Fantana Mare (Baspunar) is the only Romanian village fully inhabited by ethnic Turks. A project planned in the village aims at its transformation into an inhabited open-air museum and, according to some media statements, at its inclusion in the World UNESCO patrimony. Related to this transformation, the article investigates how the media, the members of an ethnic Turks association and the village inhabitants and leaders display various identity components of what could be named a local, religious and ethnic heritage.
1. Introduction
Our contribution will be based on a case study related to the Communities and Heritage Protection topic within the workshop Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century. The focus of the contribution will be the local, religious and ethnic dimensions of identity in the analysed setting, in which identity is understood as "the construction process of meaning starting from a cultural attribute, or a coherent whole of attributes, which gets the priority over all other sources." (Castells, 1999) "Cultural heritage" will be understood here as "self conscious tradition", or "conscious culture performed in old and new public contexts and asserted against historical experiences of loss. It responds to demands that originate both inside and outside indigenous communities, mediating new powers and attachments: relations with the land, among local groups, with the state, and with transnational forces." (Clifford, 2004). This contribution is based on a two-day field work (interviews 1 and participant observation) in the village hosting the heritage site, on questionnaires applied to members of an association of ethnic Turkish students, and on media monitoring.
1 Our informants are : the leader of the ethnic group (muhtar), the village imam and his brother the sons of the leader , a mixed family (a Turk the muhtars brother - married to a Romanian woman) 2. Geographical Location, Entering the Field and Challenging the Media Arguments
The village of Fantana Mare (Baspunar) lies in the county of Constanta, in the Romanian province of Dobruja, a region hosting a multicultural mix of ethnic groups 2 . It has 374 inhabitants 3 who are, apart from four mixed families, all ethnic Turks. The village will be the focus of our analysis as, viewing its ethnic Turkish population and cultural specificities, it is meant to be transformed into an inhabited, open-air museum for touristic purposes. On entering the field 4 , the village landscape (see photo 1) did not stand apart from the neighbouring ones, except for such aspects as: winding roads instead of straight, angular ones, low-ceilinged houses, the stone fence supporting the roads structure (see photo 2) and, of course, the newly renovated mosque and fountain in the middle of the village (see photo 3). We met our host while she was chatting with her neighbour, in Turkish, the language commonly used in the village. They are a mixed family: a Romanian woman and an ethnic Turk. Inside the house of our hosts, framed Kuran citations were hung above the doors and carpets were hung on the walls. A Turkish
2 Russian-Lippovans, Ruthenians, Dobrujan Germans, Greeks, Gypsies, are some of the recognized minority groups from the Dobruja region 3 Data from the 2002 Census 4 In August 2010 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Raluca Mateoc 87
TV program was on in the background of our evening discussion. Our host had previously accommodated other anthropologist researchers and mentioned that "you have a lot to see here." In our approach, we assumed that the main identity components are found in the impact of Islamic religion on the villagers lifestyles. We observed the presence of religious rituals 5 in our informant familys everyday life, in the following situations: the husband was attending a pomana 6 in a neighbouring village, participating at the commemoration of a mans death. With the wife, we talked about the Friday prayer at the village mosque that she was going to attend the following day, an event attended exclusively by women. We were in the month of Ramadan, but she mentioned not keeping the fasting. At around midnight, we walked to the gate of their house when hearing the imams singing prayer in the minaret, and she recited a prayer in Turkish and told about its meaning. Her fluency in spoken Turkish, after six years of marriage with her husband, an ethnic Turk, is amazing. On the arrival in our hosts house, the husband talked about hospitality as being a norm in their family. When his wife told him about our meeting that evening, he told her that she did well to put us up and that, in their house, the guest is brought in, from the gate to the table. We would also like to give some examples of how our hosts apply certain customs in their everyday life: when we ate, we sat at a low table on two carpets on the floor, as they always eat that way. Our host refused to eat some sweet cheese pies that we had brought, before asking for her husbands permission, for fear that they had been cooked with pork grease. We would also like to mention that, at their marriage, the families practiced the buying of the bride. One of our informants mentioned that this custom has underlying economic motivations, as the
5 Rituals understood in Geertzs (1966) acceptation, that the essence of religion originates in ritual because "the world as lived and the world as imagined, [are] fused under the agency of a single set of symbolic forms". 6 According to the explanations of my informants, the seventh day commemoration after a mans death, at which only men are present (the imam that officiates the commemoration, and male members from the family of the deceased) family is compensated for the "loss" of the brides two working hands. Thus, in the everyday lives of the observed individuals, religion and the observance of related customs are present in their social world. Apart from the individual level, we could perceive some cultural markers on the macro level of the village, in the discourse of one informant (the ethnic group leader). These are related to two events - the former edition of the culinary festival in the village that included the participation of a well known TV producer and a broadcast, and the prospective costumes and dance festival. Our media reports (a random sample of online newspaper articles 7 , from national daily newspapers and a local one) present the "heritage construction" action as a transformation of the village into an inhabited "open air museum." In our media monitoring, we depicted two sets of identity markers cultural and developmental, as well as local and religious ones. As for the first set, "the touristic village" 8 is showed "as a promise of the mayor to the villagers to escape poverty"; another report shows that "the Turkish Businessmen Association will sponsor the project after sewage and running water are installed in the village." In other media reports, the village transformation is presented as altering the places "cultural" originality: "peoples houses will be repaired with the price of losing cultural specificity"; "the double-glazing windows from the mosque will be removed." Also, a statement in a media report shows that "the open-air museum project is now frozen, while the project of setting up a park of wind- generated energy turbines is ongoing." The media mentions the TIAD (Turkish Businessmen Association) as an economic actor involved in financing the future project, but also in bringing "humanitarian help" to the village during the Ramadan. 9 The gastronomic traditions are mentioned as being an asset in the potential transformation of the village into a touristic setting. After this media monitoring and following our field work, we can assert that our hosts in Fantana Mare
7 I conducted an online monitoring of articles in national and regional Romanian newspapers published between 2007-2009 8 Cited translations from the respective articles 9 TIAD is a Turkish association
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Raluca Mateoc 88
have some insight into the initiative of "developing" the village for touristic purposes, but were not yet in the situation of talking about the material advantages that this change could bring. No practical steps (e.g. houses renovation) were taken by the village authorities or inhabitants in this direction. The local and religious identity components are present in the media arguments of the local leader on the historical continuity of the ethnic group: "we have been here for 600 years and have remained Turks and Muslims." Still, other reports mention the "loss of traditions" and "weak religiosity", but also the existence of certain norms for mixed marriages. Also, in some reports, Muslim religion is said to have some local identity markers at the level of some village communities: they have different imams for women and men, and practice some syncretic forms of Islam not recognized by the Muftiate (e.g. pilgrimages at ancestors tombs). In conclusion to our media monitoring and field observations, we would like to assert that the discussion on the village as a heritage site is more present in the media discourses than in the real village life. All the development and cultural markers provide the first hint at a staged authenticity (McCannel, 1973), according to which the ethnicity and identity markers are revived by actors external to the village inhabitants (political local elites, economic developers) and do not spring from the ethnic group members themselves. The link between the project and its potential belonging to the World Heritage List is only found in the following media statement: "Local authorities intend to introduce the village on the UNESCO world heritage list." The mentioning of a potential belonging to UNESCO could be understood as legitimizing the project initiative.
3. Self- perceptions of Religiosity
Religion plays a leading role in the perceptions shaping ethnic identity, and is therefore an important component of the heritage construction and "revival" strategy within the ethnic Turks group, to which the village inhabitants belong. In order to explore some self-perceptions on the religious component of the ethnic groups identities 10
10 The respondents are members of an association whose we applied questionnaires to an association of ethnic Turkish students. The answers of these respondents could give a relevant insight in the intergenerational transmission and adaptation of religious practice within the Turkish ethnic group as a whole, and on its interplay in the heritage construction actions involving this group. In the answers, the practice of Muslim religion is described as being moderate, but is still assumed as a strong identity marker. Some of the given answers are: "I am a believer, not a practitioner. I go to the mosque two times a year."; "If we speak about religion in terms of rules clothes, fasting, the five daily prayers - , I will say yes, I practice it partial"; "as we live in an Orthodox country, we cannot practice the daily prayers"; "the Muslim religion is very rigorous, but it seems that we, the community members, have something of the Orthodox lightness." 11
The practices themselves range from fasting and daily prayers to mosques attendance. Still, in the given answers, the individual practices (prayers, fasting, not eating pork) are more frequent than the group ones (attending the mosque, pomana). Some of the given answers on the practiced rituals are: "The five prayers, fasting, helping the poor"; "the five pillars; I participate at church services"; "I do black fasting, but not the whole month, only two weeks"; "religious holidays"; "I practiced a lot the Namaz (the daily prayers five times a day) but dont any more." The following two groups of answers investigate the self-perception of our respondents on their religious life, as compared to the one of their parents. In these answers, the most present characteristics of their religious life are: "more informed", "diluted", "better", "weaker", but also "superficial". The accent is put on a certain weakness of practices compared to the one of the respondents parents. At the same time, our respondents describe the religious life of their ethnic group as being "poor", "unadapted to modernity", "diversified", "fake", as some ethnic Turks (in poor material condition) use Islamic religion as a way of obtaining material advantages. Some reasons given for the "poor" religious life are: the
name will remain anonymous, at the wish of the association leader 11 Translated citations from the questionnaire answers Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Raluca Mateoc 89
diversification of religious practices 12 , their dilution as a result of mixed marriages, the religious leaders "lack of involvement." Two of the given answers are the following: (1)"after 1990, the source of religious learning was diversified, consisting of lessons given at the village mosques, religion lessons in schools, the study of religion at University level in places such as Turkey and the Arab countries; all these lead, in time, to a diversification of points of view regarding religion."; (2) "in Bucharest, the ethnic group I belong to is spread out (..) now I see and feel that the Musim religion is a family affair; nothing is done to attract young Mulsims or young people from mixed families to the Muslim religion, as the leaders of other religions do. Nothing is done in Bucharest, so that the future generations know something about the Muslim religion." When asked about the main activities that the ethnic group use as an identity building strategy, our respondents mentioned the gatherings at the mosque on religious holidays, organization of excursions to holy places, music or dance events. Gatherings related to giving and receiving humanitarian aid on Ramadan were also mentioned. As for their leaders, most answers reflect the idea that "they are divided because of the leadership of the two Unions 13 , therefore there is no unity on the cultural aspect; they are making a family business out of religion." The questionnaire data was essential for reflecting the religious identities of this ethnic group, and for providing a background picture on the setting in which the heritage touristic actions are planned. On the individual level, the intergenerational transmission generated more "diluted" but also more "informed" practices. On the macro level, the discontentment towards the leaders, as well as the diversification of
12 The discussion on Imams trained in Arab countries that have not been accepted by the Muftiate as imams (due to the "radical Islam" they were trained in) has been ongoing in the media, as shows the report "The conflicts among Muslims in Romania involved the government into a diplomatic scandal"(www.hotnews.ro, 2009) 13 The Romanian Democratic Turkish Union (http://www.udtr.ro) and the Romanian Democratic Union of Turkish Muslims Tatars (http://www.tatar.ro/). Both ethnic groups Turks and Tatars are of Muslim confessions and have a single religious authority at national level The Muftiate. practices define the religious identity of the ethnic group.
4. Inter-cultural Perceptions: Reinforcing the Ethnic Identities Components
The ethnic Turks perceptions on Tatars - a geographically neighbouring ethnic group 14 - as well as their perceptions on the Romanian majority were investigated in our fieldwork, in order to perceive the levels at which the differentiations are made. For example, our host mentioned that "Turkish people are peaceful, not like the Bulgarians. They did not fight and always were in good relations with the Romanians." Another informant mentioned that "the Tatars have more guts in life situations, while the Turks are more realistic." He adds the following: "as they (Tatars) do not belong to any country, the policies directed toward them during the communist regime were lighter. They had more representatives in political life than the Turks had, out of a need to protect them. Also, they were less punished." In addition, our informant mentioned that their political union was named the Romanian Turkish - Tatar Democratic Union 15 "as the Tatars, having no country, could not have an independent union." Our only Tatar informant mentioned that among Turks, the Tatar phobia is greater than in the case of Romanians. The perception of the Turkish minority on the Romanian majority was also explored in our questionnaire. The social relations between ethnic Turks and Romanians are characterized as "open, sincere, without prejudices"; "the relationship is very good with the majority, as the Turks / Tatars did not have any pretensions regarding territorial autonomy, like the Hungarians." The questionnaire also touched upon the issue of authenticity and perceptions on the villages hosting ethnic Turkish population - (1) "the villages with Turkish and Tatar populations are primitive, but not archaic, as some might say; people are simple and hard working and praise their religion and customs";
14 Independenta (Bairamdede) the main village of the commune to which Fantana Mare belongs has a 20% Tatar population. 15 Now the Union is divided into: The Romanian Democratic Turkish Union and The Romanian Democratic Union of Turkish Muslims Tatars
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Raluca Mateoc 90
(2) "these villages were emptied in the communist regime. Communities in which traditions have remained untouched are few."
5. Conclusion
Cultural heritage is built on a connection between the past and the present, as our case also shows. The heritage revival strategy (in practice, the development and transformation of the village into an open air museum) is built, in both the media arguments and the informants statements, in the light of the ethnogenesis concept, understood as re-giving life to culture and identity and re-signifying borders (Giordano, 2009). We could also perceive that ethnicisation, as a process of giving meaning to the existence of an ethnic group, poses to the "identity managers" the problems of authenticity. In Fantana Mare, the heritage revival action involves actors that practice, in the words of Brubaker (2002) a form of "ethnic antreprenoriate". The intervention of TIAD (the Turkish Businessmen Association, thus a Turkish association) as an economic actor could generate a form of "purification" of local religiosity, itself contaminated by heterodox practices, with the purpose of presenting a "true Islam" in the heritage village site. In this aspect, Clifford (2004) shows that "what counts as "tradition" is never politically neutral and the work of cultural retrieval, display, and performance plays a necessary role in current movements around identity and recognition." (Clifford, 2004) Like in the case presented by Clifford (2004), the transformation of the village into a heritage site is based on articulation (cultural and political alliance), performance (forms of display for different "publics"), and translation (partial communication and dialogue across cultural and generational divides) actions.
Bibliography
Works
Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without Groups, Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.
Castells, M. (1999). Le pouvoir de lidentit, Paris, Fayard.
Clifford, J. (2004). Looking Several Ways. Anthropology and Native Heritage in Alaska. Current Anthropology Volume 45, Number 1.
Geertz, C. (1966). "Religion as a cultural system", in: Michael Banton, ED., Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, London, Travistock Publications, pp.1-46.
Giordano, C. (2009). "La chimre de lethnogense ou le mirage dune solution ethnique aux problmes socio-conomiques des populations rom" in Transitions. Nouvelles identits rom en Europe centrale et orientale, vol. XLVIII-2, Universit de Genve, Institut Europen et ULB, Bruxelles.
Mac Cannell, D. (1973). Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 3: 589 603.
Newspaper Articles
Apostol, M. (2009). Satul cu 400 de turci i o singur cimea, Evenimentul Zilei, 30 August, viewed 1 October, 2011. Available at http://www.evz.ro
Cealera, C. (2007). Baspunar, muzeul in aer liber, Romania Libera, 18 June, viewed 1 October 2011. Available at http://www.romanialibera.ro
Cires, T. (2008). O can cu ap rece din fntna Dobrogei, Jurnalul Nationa,, 6 August, viewed 1 October 2011. Available at www.jurnalul.ro
Martinescu, D. (2008). Blestemul apelor la Baspunar, 13 December, viewed 1 October, 2011. Available at http://www.romanialibera.ro
Racoare, C. (2007). Golgota de la Fantana Mare, Ziua de Constanta, 10 March, viewed 1 October, 2011. Available at http://www.ziuaconstanta.ro
Simionescu, R. (2008). Baspunar satul care ateapt nvierea, Lumea satului, 1-15 August, viewed 1 October 2011. Available at http://www.lumeasatului.ro
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Raluca Mateoc 91
Photo 1. The village landscape; Source: Raluca Mateoc
Photo 2. The streets and stone fences; Source: Raluca Mateoc
Photo 3. The minaret and the fountain; Source: Raluca Mateoc
* Contact Author: Raluca Mateoc, PhD Candidate in Social Anthropology, University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Emails: raluca_mateoc@yahoo.com
Understanding Heritage: Chalelnges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century 92 Understanding Decision-making in the Built Heritage Practice in London, UK
Ruchit Purohit * and Yamuna Kaluarachchi *
School of Surveying and Planning, Kingston University, United Kingdom
Abstract
The practice of 'managing change' for built heritage projects has emerged over the last two hundred years from the early days of preservation, restoration and conservation to heritage protection in usage of terms and practice. As we await the new Heritage Protection Bill and the much debated "Heritage Partnerships Agreements" model, this research project aims to understand the role of decision-making processes in UK heritage practice. It intends to map the different factors and stakeholders shaping these processes and to understand their role, and to determine their priorities and influences. Through examining decision-making theory, the project recognises the need to develop a coherent model which can then encompass all factors. A literature review has been conducted to help map the decision-making processes at particular periods in time and the chosen methodology, i.e. case study research, allows analysis of the decision-making processes for each chosen case study. A factor model developed from the literature review includes various criteria which influence decision-making; i.e. Aesthetics/Physical, Social/Cultural, Economic, Environmental/Sustainability, Legal/Political and Behavioural. The project deals with various concepts and philosophies which are highly debated in the 'theory of heritage' vs. the 'practice of heritage'. These are "rational decision-making", "rationality", "value of heritage", "participation" and "community involvement".
Keywords: decision-making, heritage, rationality, participation, value
1. Introduction The Discourse on Heritage
Smith (2006) citing Foucault (1991) argues that discourses are forms of expertise, collected into different disciplines, which deal with the construction and representation of knowledge. She further states that apart from reflecting meanings, relations and entities; Discourse also constitutes and governs them (Smith, 2006).
The discourse on heritage in the UK has evolved in the last two hundred years with decision-making in practice changing hands from Kings to ruling elites to conservation experts and now the public. Decisions taken within this discourse have shaped the knowledge surrounding the current practice and developed the existing public perception to heritage. The new developments in Heritage call for a more participatory approach, which this research seeks to explore through understanding the role of factors and stakeholders which influence decision-making.
This will be done by mapping the role of stakeholders in three case studies across London which were listed or underwent regeneration in the last ten years. The research is at the data collection stage for the pilot study The Brunswick and will be followed by a comparative analysis and findings from all three cases.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Perceptions of Heritage
Heritage has been perceived and defined extensively in a varied context by different authors. Loulanski (2006) struggles between the elastic definition of heritage as anything inherited from the past and the constricted definition of items of historic and cultural significance. Heritage is a dynamic process which has been developed and modified across time and space where bigger entities like conservation areas and functions have replaced preservation approaches of artefact, objects and buildings since the 19 th century. The contemporary perception is Heritage which Loulanski terms as commodification of the past or a contemporary product shaped from history (Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996). Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Ruchit Purohit, Yamuna Kaluarachchi 93 Two decades ago, Robert Hewison in his controversial and influential book The Heritage Industry argued against this commodification (Larkham, 1999). Instead of manufacturing goods, we are manufacturing heritage, a commodity which nobody seems able to define, but which everybody is eager to sell, in particular those cultural institutions that can no longer rely on government funds as they did in the past (Hewison, 1987).
In the context of the UK, he feared that if the process of heritage industry went the way it was going then it would turn the UK into one big museum, showing desperate measures as a product of economic necessity and would lead to the erasure of the present (Hewison, 1987).
Heritage has been thus, interpreted and misinterpreted in a number of ways. Larkham (1999) provides another perspective for heritage stating that heritage is a process of selection and presentation of aspects of both (history and place), for popular consumption. The important point to note in all three authors observations is the use of words product, commodity, consumption. The understanding of the consumer is relatively lacking. On the other hand, Smith (2006) wants to prove that there is no such thing as Heritage in her book Uses of heritage. She claims that there is a dominant Western discourse on heritage which is blindly followed by everyone and calls it Authoritative heritage discourse (AHD). Most of the policies have been developed under this AHD for the management of heritage or what the organisations constitute as heritage.
Thus, Heritage has had its role in shaping public policies and has had its support from different groups of stakeholders at different times. These support mechanisms could be linked to various different factors, ranging from physical, social, historical, aesthetical, economical etc. Loulanski (2006) clearly calls attention to two factors by stating that Heritage is tightly bound within societal and economic realities and that economic factors shape the possibilities of heritage conservations practice in fundamental ways, by influencing decisions, shaping policy, encouraging or discouraging the use of heritage, enabling conservation through financing, giving incentives to stewardship, and so on (Lowenthal 1985, cited in Loulanski 2006).
In addition to the multitude of factors, the heritage debate needs to be studied at various time levels. Earlier decisions regarding heritage were made by rulers (mostly ecclesiastical) but later the issue of heritage was mostly raised by the elite groups. The involvement of experts and their comments and influence has been consistent throughout history. Lately conservation has been seen more as a populist movement with larger public interest and governments have focused on the issue of public involvement.
The debate has always ranged in the form of allowing or disallowing change. Certain groups follow the ethos of preserve as found, but others follow the ethos of restoring the built environment back to its original conception. Objections to these rose citing the issues of redundancy and sustainability, leading to a new definition of conservation as managing change. Hence, contemporary culture calls for managing change. The question faced by most people in positions is how much of this change has to be acceptable? What are the methods of allowing or disallowing? All past processes from preservation, restoration, facadism to adaptive reuse have been widely criticised and contested in the last decade. (Pickard 2001, Pendlebury and Townshend 1999, Strange and Whitney, 2003). Heritage has always been and always will be ambiguous and debatable, since why we save, what we save and how we save are recurrent questions. This can also be linked to the current controversy and debate on the sustainability concept.
As Hewison (1987) reflected on the justifications of preservation as the responsibility of the present to preserve the past and pass it to tomorrow, Smith (2006), challenges this idea stating that the heritage discourse naturalises the practice of rounding up the usual suspects to conserve and pass on to future generations, and in so doing promotes a certain set of Western elite cultural values as being universally acceptable. This helps draw the idea further that Heritage lies in a contested terrain which can lead to dominance of a particular groups and exclusions.
94 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Ruchit Purohit, Yamuna Kaluarachchi
Figure 1. Trends in Cultural Management (Source: Clark 2000 cited in Loulanski 2006)
Figure 1 helps us trace the evolution of heritage concepts and perceives heritage as multi faceted and constantly evolving. As the terminology modified in last two hundred years and adapted to the growing understanding of conservation, the practice grew in incorporating more strategic methods and tools. It also shows the shift of power from a state led top down approach.
2.2 Perceptions in UK and England The Current Context
The UK has undergone developments and modifications of Acts in the planning system to incorporate heritage conservation in the last century. Though these Acts make the conservation process seem a linear development, some critics have claimed that this development is perplexed and incoherent. It has been stressed by Strange and Whitney (2003) that the role and function of heritage conservation is in a state of flux. This is in support to Townshend and Pendlebury (1999) who state that conservation needs to rethink its purpose and role if it is to maintain its place in the planning system specifically and urban policy more generally. The confusion caused by these debates reinforces the need for a holistic and unified approach for management of heritage.
A number of bodies have sprung up independently over the last century in the UK claiming their views on the heritage practice. They have contributed to the current UK conservation philosophy and have also influenced legislation and policies. Similarly, UK conservation practice is also continuously influenced by the progressive charters of international conservation practice.
Many philosophies developed in past century are complementary and conflicting in their own rights to the ethos of conservation. All of them have been incorporated in the recent policy guidance by the English Heritage (English Heritage, 2008). English Heritage provides a brief for each process with the guidance of when these processes should be allowed. This opens room for debate and confusion that English Heritage supports all of the processes which are conflicting to each other. The following figures show the vast choices and criteria needing to be considered before a decision is made.
Citing English Heritage, Strange and Whitney (2003) specify that many aspects of heritage planning practices are experimental and widely debated and contested, with many questions raised about desirability and effectiveness of contemporary approaches to conservation.
Figure 2. Managing change Criteria (Source: The author)
Figure 3. Managing Change Practices (Source: The author) Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Ruchit Purohit, Yamuna Kaluarachchi 95 The figures 2 and 3 show the abundance of listing processes, numbers of bodies involved and influencing international charters. It also shows that this abundance of knowledge has led to greater confusion in current practice.
The Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) published a white paper titled Heritage protection for the 21 st Century in 2007 followed by a Draft Heritage Protection Bill in April 2008. This bill based on Heritage Protection Review undertaken by DCMS aims for a simplified, transparent, inclusive, effective and streamlined management system of historic properties in the United Kingdom (DCMS, 2007). It recognised the need of change for current consent systems, requirement of heritage partnerships agreements and new statutory requirements for heritage environment records. It proposed a new unified Register of Historic Sites and Buildings of England (RHSBE) (English Heritage, 2008). This Bill is still waiting to be in the Queen's Speech since it was first brought forward for the legislative programme 2008-09. The Bill has been hailed by most experts in the country as one of the major changes required in the functioning of heritage management; and has been welcomed by most of the professional bodies in the country with a few modifications (RTPI, IHBC, RICS, RIBA, POS & CIOB, 2008).
It needs to be understood that this process is a part of the ongoing AHD. In the assessment of the review by Smith and Waterton (2008), the authors make a valid point that the proposed changes in the White Paper do little to challenge the dominant and elitist understandings of heritage and attendant cultural values and meanings, and thus fails to adequately address social inclusion/exclusion issues in the cultural sector (Smith and Waterton, 2008).
2.3 Participatory Approaches, Decision-making and Rationality in Heritage Practice
Participatory approaches to planning have been talked about for a long time but only recently have they been considered as an option. This can be observed in the newly introduced Planning Policy statement (PPS 5) and the Local List agenda. In the ladder of participation proposed by Arnstein in 1969, consultation as a process in planning is midway in community control over project decision-making (Figure 4).
There have been debates all over the world in the last two decades about the practice of public participation. The involvement of the public in decision making has always been offset by various concerns such as the depth of participation, equal participation and representation from all stakeholders, satisfaction of particular groups and neglect of others and evaluating success of a project.
In case of heritage management and conservation, Pendlebury et al (2009) argue that the social values that underlie these process have become enmeshed with urban regeneration policies and practices which are not necessarily socially inclusive or progressive (Smith, 2006). Various stakeholders have various values attached to particular historic buildings and it can be a difficult task to come up with one solution for all. The more complicated the issue, the more the decisions can be politicised and manipulated.
Martignon (2001) believes that the main feature of social rationality is that individuals and groups interest and utilities are constantly interacting in difficult dynamical systems and games where simple strategies are not easy to detect. These can be explored by participation.
Whereas Huber and McDaniel (1986) suggest for decision-making principle to drive organisational structures, Van de ven and Delbecq (1974) identify
Figure 4. Ladder of Participation (Source: Arnstein 1969)
96 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Ruchit Purohit, Yamuna Kaluarachchi group decision-making as more relevant especially when people from different backgrounds come together. Rationality and good decision-making are subjective concepts and debate is always generated.
Rationality cannot be defined, Simon claimed, unless this is done by relating it with its environmental and cognitive constraints (Martignon, 2001) Herbert Simon proposed that human inference in the real world exhibits bounded rationality, based on limited search, and clear stopping rules. Regressive methods do not work in adaptive decision making. Instead emotions rule the process of decision-making. This is bounded rationality. One fundamental class of heuristics in the context of social rationality is emotions. Emotions function as important stopping rules in decision-making (Martignon, 2001).
In the field of the built environment and in particular conservation there are a lot of factors which need to be taken in consideration, and a lot of voices to be heard across time, space and different levels. In this case, it is almost impossible to take a rational decision where rationality is defined by consistent use of logic and probability. Many decisions in the conservation industry are left to one person i.e. the minister in charge. This has been observed in the past when ministers took decisions disregarding the suggestions by advisory committees (Larkham, 1999 and Delafons, 1997). Human rational behaviour... is shaped by a scissors whose two blades are the structure of task environments and computational capabilities of the actor (Simon 1990).
2.4 Assigning Values to Heritage
English heritage follows a values based approach based on the Burra Charter (ICOMOS Australia, 1999) in listing and protection of historic properties. Figure 6 is from published documents by English Heritage. The intention thus is to protect the fabric as well as the values attributed to it (Poulios, 2010). This puts people in centre of decision making and involves various stakeholder groups related to the historic property. Poulios (2010) and Demas (2003) contest this by adding that there is a strong managing authority i.e. the conservation professionals which identify the stakeholders, decide on their involvement and which values to protect.
The task of assigning these values and their prioritisation in decision-making processes is uncertain. As established in earlier paragraphs of how emotions rule decision-making, the prioritisation of values will always be a subject of scrutiny. [...] because cultural heritage has a multitude of values, it is not always possible to protect all of them equally. Values are sometimes in conflict, and managers must make decisions that favour some but not others (De la Torre (2005a:8) cited in Poulios 2010).
Poulios and De la Torre further assert that conflicting stakeholders have different values assigned to the property and the values that prevail belong to the group with most political power making it important to acknowledge that values are mutable and that there are few absolutes in terms of what is right or wrong (de la Torre, 2005a:5 cited in Poulios 2010, 172). Demas (2003) concludes that these approaches may thus become capable of being manipulated and turned into formulas of rules.
3. Research Methodology Case Study Research
The chosen methodology for the research is case study research. The research aims to understand and assess decision making in chosen case studies, identify stakeholders and their values with the property, analyse linkages and networks between various stakeholders. The area of research has been
Figure 5. Heritage Values (Source: English Heritage) Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Ruchit Purohit, Yamuna Kaluarachchi 97 narrowed down from UK to England and focuses on London. Case studies have been chosen in accordance with the factor model (Figure 6) developed from the above literature review. Also, these cases have been chosen with considerations that they were in the public light (i.e. highly debated) in last ten years (2000-2010).
Figure 7. The Brunswick chronology model (Source: The author)
The Pilot Case study identified for the project is 'The Brunswick' in Bloomsbury, a modernist building built in 1972 which underwent regeneration in two phases 2000-2006. Semi-structured interviews have been completed with various stakeholders involved in the project, with a few remaining.
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the data from the initial stages of research with detail chronological documentation on the Brunswick and the stakeholders involved in the process of regeneration. This has been collected with the help of extensive literature review from publications and the interviews conducted. The analysis of data will help to chart (Fig. 9) the stakeholders according to their level of influence in decision making. Other case studies identified are the Brick Lane Mosque; Brixton market and the Euston Arch. Though each factor plays a complex and important role in decision making; each case study represents different factor prioritised as an important influence in the decision-making process. The data collected from these studies would be analysed and compared with each other to identify patterns, influences and priorities in the decision making process. The chosen methodology expects rich and detailed outcomes from the interviews giving a texture to the literature review.
Figure 6. Factor Model influencing Decision making (Source: The author)
Figure 8. Stakeholder Model for Brunswick Regeneration (Source: The author)
Figure 9. Developing Influence vs. Interest Model for Brunswick, (Source: The author)
98 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Ruchit Purohit, Yamuna Kaluarachchi 4. Conclusion and Further Research
This research deals with various facets of conservation and decision-making processes and tries to unearth the disparities in meanings and definitions of the key concepts: conservation, preservation, heritage, value, rationality and decision-making.
It demonstrates that there is still a conflict in heritage decision making, where the institutionalised sources, who have taken up the role are now being looked upon to guide the development of the heritage discourse. These sources understand the need to recognise the non powerful voice as required legitimately but yet have to take these voices on board.
Though a platform has been created for the voices to be heard, there exists a considerable gap in the influence and implementation of these voices. The research questions the belief systems and asks for more participatory development which can be used for making better decisions and to develop a win-win situation for all stakeholders.
Bibliography
Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," JAIP, Vol. 35(4), 216-224.
Baer, N.S. and Snickars, F. (2001). Rational Decision- making in the preservation of cultural property Berlin: Dahlem University Press
Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H. and Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1988). Decision-making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bell, D. E. (1985). Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations research, 33(1), 1 27.
Cullingworth, B. (1999). British Planning: 50 Years of urban and regional policy. London: The Athlone Press.
DCMS (2007). Heritage protection for the 21st century, The Stationery Office (TSO), viewed 12/10/2010 http://www.official- documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7057/7057.asp
Delafons, J. (1997). Politics and Preservation: A policy history of the built heritage 1882-1996. London: Chapman & Hall.
Demas, M. compiler. (2003). GCI Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites Bibliography. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
Dillon, S. M. (1998). Descriptive decision-making: Comparing theory with practice. In Proceedings of 33rd ORSNZ Conference, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Duncan, R. (1973). Multiple decision-making structures in adapting to environmental uncertainty: the impact on organizational effectiveness. Human relations, 26(3), 273 291
English Heritage, text prepared by Druary, P. and Mcpherson, A. (2008) Conservation Principles: Policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment. London: English Heritage.
English Heritage Listing Guidance online http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/
Hewison, R. (1987). The Heritage Industry: Britain in climate of decline. London: Methuen London Ltd.
Huber, G. and McDaniel, R. R. (1986) The decision- making paradigm of organizational design. Management science, 32(5), 572 589.
Huber, G. P. (1990) A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of management review, 15(1), 47 71. Larkham, P. (1999). Preservation, Conservation and Heritage: Developing concepts and applications. British Planning: 50 Years of urban and regional policy. London: The Athlone Press.
Loulanski T. (2006). Revising the Concept for Cultural Heritage: The Argument for a Functional Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21 st Century Ruchit Purohit, Yamuna Kaluarachchi 99 Approach. International Journal of Cultural Property, 207- 233
Martignon, L. (2001). Principles of Adaptive Decision Making. Rational Decision-Making in the Preservation of Cultural Property. N. Baer, F. Snickars (Eds.). Dahlem University Press
Pendlebury, J. (2002). Conservation and regeneration: complementary or conflicting processes? The case of Grainger Town, Newcastle upon Tyne, Planning Practice and Research vol. 17 no. 2 pp. 145-158.
Pendlebury, J. and Townshend, T. (1999). The conservation of historic areas and public participation, Journal of Architectural Conservation vol. 5 no. 2 pp. 72-87.
Pickard, R. (2001). Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation. London: Spon Press.
Poulios, I. (2010). `Moving Beyond a Values-Based Approach to Heritage Conservation'. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites pp. 170-185
RTPI. (2008). Response to the White paper -Heritage protection for the 21st Century, http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/1647/P20070601-1- IHBC-RTPI-RICS-HWP-040607-Final.pdf
Simon, H. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioural science. The American economic review, 49(3), 253 -283
Smith, L (2006). Uses of Heritage. 978-0-203-60226- 3 (electronic): Routledge, UK
Smith, L and Waterton, E (2008). Grey Literature Review: Heritage Protection for the 21st Century, Cultural Trends 17(3):197-203
Strange, I. and Whitney, D. (2003). The changing roles and purposes of heritage conservation in the UK, Planning Practice and Research vol. 19 issue 2/3 pp. 219-229.
Strange, I. (1997). Planning for change, conserving the past: towards sustainable development policy in historic towns?, Cities vol. 14 no. 4 pp. 227-233. Conceptual issues raised by sustainability/historic city debate.
Townshend, T. and Pendlebury, J. (1999). Public participation in the conservation of historic areas: case studies from North-east England, Journal of Urban Design vol. 4 no. 3 pp.313-331.
Tunbridge J. E. & Ashworth G. J. (1996). Dissonant Heritage - The management of the past as a resource in conflict John Wiley Sons Ltd., Chichester
Van de ven, A. H. and Delbecq, A. L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. The academy of management journal, 17(4), 605 621.
While, A. (2006). Modernism vs. urban renaissance: negotiating post-war heritage in English - 13 -city centres, Urban Studies vol. 43 no. 13 pp. 2399-2419.
* Contact Author: Ruchit Purohit / Yamuna Kaluarachchi, School of Surveying and Planning, Kingston University, Penrhyn road, Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 100 Ayahuasca: International Proscribed Drug or Intangible Heritage?
Leonardo Rodrguez Prez *
Associate researcher, Pierre du Bois Foundation for Current History, Switzerland
Abstract
Ayahuasca is an Amazon brew prepared in order to induce shamanic experiences. Its use might date back to at least 2000 B.C. Today, it is an important part of indigenous shamanism and neo-shamanism practices. In this text, we explore some possibilities and problems arising from considering Ayahuasca indigenous uses intangible heritage in Peru and Brazil.
Ayahuasca is a term of Quechuan origin that means wine of the souls. It refers to the brew made from the decoction of two plants native to the Amazon forest: the Banisteriopsis caapi and the leaves of Psychotria viridis. This Brew has been used to induce shamanic experiences by indigenous peoples since at least 2000 B.C. (Fotiou, 2010: 7).
At the beginning of the 20th century in the Brazilian Western Amazon, the formation of a society based on the extraction of rubber established the conditions for the ancient indigenous tradition of Ayahuasca to be assimilated by Brazilians. In this way, between 1910 and 1945, syncretic Ayahuasca churches were founded by Afro-Brazilians (i.e. mixing Christianism with African and indigenous traditions). Nowadays, there are three primary Brazilian churches that employ Ayahuasca as a sacrament: the Santo Daime, The Union of Vegetal (UDV) and the Barquinia
(Labate and MacRae, 2010: 1-4).
2. Ayahuasca Intangible Heritage in Brazil and Peru
In April 2008, a coalition of these Ayahuasca churches submitted a paper to the Brazilian National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN). They requested to recognize the use of Ayahuasca in religious ceremonies as an element of Brazilian national cultural heritage. To justify this demand, the Ayahuasca churches quoted the definition of intangible heritage as it was established in the UNESCO 2003 Convention. According to those churches:
We can affirm that the use of Ayahuasca in religious doctrines fulfils the requirements of characterization as immaterial patrimony, considered as practices, representations, expressions, knowledge and techniques that communities or groups recognize as an integral part of their cultural patrimony. 1
The proposal to declare Ayahuasca brew intangible heritage in Brazil is not an isolated case in South America. In June 2008, Peruvian National Institute of Culture has designated the knowledge and traditional uses of Ayahuasca, as practiced by native Amazon communities, intangible cultural heritage of the Nation. One of the main objectives of this declaration was to preserve the brew from Western commoditization. Peru has only recognized traditional uses of the brew as cultural patrimony, to explicitly exclude transnational shamanism tourism. It is important to note that differences between ritual uses of Ayahuasca, in relation with commercial psychedelic substances, are underlined by the Peruvian declaration of Ayahuasca as intangible
1 Available at www.bialabate.net, translated by Mathew Meyer. Today, three years later, this project has still not received an answer from IPHAN.
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Leonardo Rodrguez Prez 101 heritage: The effects produced by Ayahuasca, extensively studied because of their complexity, are different from those produced by hallucinogens. A part of this difference consists in the ritual that accompanies its consumption, leading to diverse effects, but always within the confines of a culturally determined boundary, with religious, therapeutic and culturally affirmative purposes () what is sought is the protection of traditional use and sacred character of the Ayahuasca ritual, differentiating it from Western uses out of context, consumerist, and with commercial objectives (Fotiou, 2010: 339). 2
To declare Ayahuasca national heritage in Peru goes to the divide between indigenous / historical / authentic uses of Ayahuasca, and Western / modern / appropriating uses of it. As we see, the Peruvian State also affirmed the sacred character of Ayahuasca brew, when used by communities in religious contexts, a character that does not allow considering the brew just a drug. The debate about Ayahuasca as a drug or a sacrament emerges because this brew contains Dimethyltriptamine (DMT), a psychoactive substance proscribed by United Nations Conventions and which is criminalized in many countries. 3
The question of considering Ayahuasca a drug has predated the proposal to declare the brew intangible heritage. Today, the Brazilian government does not exactly have a law, but an accumulation of opinions and resolutions recognizing the right to ritual and religious use of Ayahuasca. In 1985, Ayahuasca was placed on the Brazilian list of proscribed substances by the Federal Council of Narcotics; although there is also a more recent opinion from 2004 that explicitly affirms the ritual and religious use of Ayahuasca as a right related with religious freedom. Only Ayahuasca outside the ritual context would be punishable (Labate and MacRae, 2010: 198).
2 My emphasis; as we saw in the Brazilian case, the text quoted here refers to the definition of intangible heritage given in the Article 2 of the 2003 UNESCO Convention. 3 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances from 1971 and UN Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances from 1988
Ayahuasca churches are now expanding in Europe and North America. The Santo Daime and Union of Vegetal are present in Netherlands, Spain and Canada, with juridical recognition (Labate, Goldstein, and Arantes, 2008). 4 Apart from this institutional spreading of Ayahuasca, there are Europeans that offer Ayahuasca within independent ceremonies in the old continent, as well as indigenous and mestizo individuals travelling from Amazonian countries to work with the brew in Europe. This expansion of Ayahuasca use also fosters the debate about the Ayahuasca status (i.e. sacrament, identity item, healing instrument, drug?). In this globalized context, we can ask several questions about Ayahuasca and the possibilities to consider the brew an item of intangible heritage.
3. Problematique
The indigenous origin of Ayahuasca poses the question of the relation between Ayahuasca and ethnical identity. The problem differs from country to country. In Peru we may ask which roles (if any) play indigenous organizations, communities or individuals in the process of declaring Ayahuasca intangible heritage. In Brazil, indigenous peoples were absolutely marginalized from the proposal submitted to the National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage; although they have recently joined the national debate on the issue. 5 Who are the representatives of indigenous peoples in Brazil? Which are their claims and interests in participating in this debate? In the Colombian case, we have the UMIYAC (Association of Ayahuasca Indigenous Physicists from the Colombian Amazon), directed by shamans from several indigenous peoples, which pretends to have the right of deciding which groups and individuals can be considered qualified Ayahuasca practitioners, according to traditional criteria (Weiskopf, 2004: 300-335). In this case, we may analyze the need to identify actors and mechanisms to define a deontology on the practice of Ayahuasca, and, at least in this country, an indigenous organization is the best institution to fulfil this
4 We know these churches work in a clandestine way in other European countries (France, England, Switzerland) 5 Labate, E-mail communication, May 2010
102 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Leonardo Rodrguez Prez function.
The spread of Ayahuasca churches and independent practitioners (indigenous, Latin American mestizos and Europeans) in Europe raises a series of questions related to processes happening in the Amazonian countries. Outside more or less traditional indigenous contexts, could Ayahuasca be considered candidate for the Intangible Heritage Convention? Can just Ayahuasca practices held by recognized churches (e.g. Santo Daime in Netherlands, UDV in Spain) be considered intangible heritage in an eventual proposal? This last problem would be pertinent in the Brazilian case also.
Another question which is necessary to pose for all the European and Amazon areas is the following: which status could be given to independent individuals and groups, who use Ayahuasca outside a cultural framework or religious organization? The problem can be reformulated in order to include identity issues. If Amazonian indigenous uses of Ayahuasca could be considered as intangible heritage, which legal status should be attributed to uses by indigenous shamans or individuals claiming an ethnical identity and working in Europe with Ayahuasca? There is maybe another question that could be interesting to answer. If the Brazilian State recognizes Ayahuasca as intangible heritage, we would have two countries in South America (Brazil and Peru) that give that status to Ayahuasca. With this background, would UNESCO accept a demand to declare the brew intangible heritage?
We have some hypothesis that could guide a future research on this problem. Ayahuasca is not a drug or a sacrament by itself; it depends on the context in which it is used. Following UNESCO 2003 Convention, it is difficult to consider a practice as intangible heritage if it is not supported by a community which holds that practice as part of its identity. That is why it is important to put Ayahuasca in relation with ethnical identities. In this context, it may be more useful if independent Ayahuasca practitioners argue in terms of religious freedom in order to achieve juridical recognition of their work, or even in terms of medical arguments, and not in terms of intangible heritage. In any case, it is essential to affirm the humanist and sacred nature of Ayahuasca when used in certain contexts, in contrast to commercial drugs (e.g. cocaine or heroine), if Ayahuasca were to be recognized as an item of intangible heritage.
4. Conclusions
We have articles and notes in books about Ayahuasca as intangible heritage focusing on the Brazilian case (Labate, Meyer), but we are lacking a comprehensive work in heritage studies that covers both the Peruvian and Brazilian cases and further, that takes into account all the complexity and diversity of phenomena related with Ayahuasca on a transnational level. The Heritage Studies domain, with its transdisciplinary vocation, offers points of view to approach the Ayahuasca issue. The research hypothesis proposed here would put these Latin- American initiatives in a more global context, which is necessary to eventually design a proposal to nominate Ayahuasca as intangible heritage if it proves that this declaration could foster ethical and fruitful practice of this kind of shamanism and could bring some benefits to the communities holding this knowledge.
Bibliography
Caicedo Fernandez, Alhena. (2010). El uso del ritual del yaj: Patrimonializacin y consumo en debate. En: Colombia Revista Colombiana De Antropologa ed: Instituto Colombiano de Antropologa v.46 fasc.1 p.63 86.
Fotiou, Eugenia. (2010). From medicine men to day trippers: Shamanic tourism in Iquitos., Peru: University of Wisconsin-Madison, PhD on anthropology.
Labate, Caiuby Beatriz and MacRAE, Edward. (2010) Ayahuasca, Ritual and Religion in Brazil. London: equinox.
Labate, Caiuby Beatriz. (2010). Mail Communication. May
Labate, Caiuby Beatriz,.GOLDSTEIN, Ilana, Arantes, Antonio A. (2008). AyahuascaFrom Dangerous Drug to National Heritage: An Interview with Antonio A.
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Leonardo Rodrguez Prez 103 Arantes. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. Vol 28, Pp. 53- 64. Meyer, Mathew. (2010).Light from the Forest: Cultural Heritage and Religious Drug Use in Amazonian Brazil. Nucleo de Estudos Interdisciplinares sobre Psicoactivos (NEIP),
UN. (1971). Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Vienna.
UN. (1988). Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Vienna, 20 December,
UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris.
Weiskopf, Jimmy. (2004).Yaj: El nuevo purgatorio. Bogot: Villegas editor.
Web Site: www.bialabate.net
* Contact Author: Leonardo Rodrguez Prez, Associate researcher, Pierre du Bois Foundation for Current History, Switzerland
E-mail: perez.rodriguez@graduateinstitute.ch Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 104 Changes and Conflicts in Traditional Management Practices
Saparya Varma* Consultant, Conservation Architect, India
Abstract
Traditional societies had their own distinct methods of managing resources like land, finances, people. The formation of the social structure, culture of these past societies was the result of a continuous evolution and the ultimate aim was always efficient resource management. The aforementioned aspects also formed the basis for planning at macro and micro levels. In the case of India, the traditional societies devised an efficient system of social stratification, where, people were divided into multiple castes (jatis) and sub-castes based on their occupation. Each of these jatis formed its own, unique sub-culture which was influenced by their occupation, geography of the land, climate and other such factors. These aspects clearly reflected on the built fabric, resulting in a diversity of vernacular heritage in India. The efficiency of the caste system however, did not last long as a certain section of the society became more privileged and ill-practices like untouchability became prevalent. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with increasing social consciousness, several legal reforms were enforced in all parts of India, aiming to bring about an egalitarian society. Although these legal reforms had several positive effects, it brought about a drastic change in the traditional management practices, impacting negatively, the vernacular built heritage at large.
Keywords: castes, tangible, intangible, conflict
1. Introduction
Kerala, a state in Southern India, followed the caste system as stringently as the rest of India. The dwellings of the people of each of these castes were a physical reflection of their status in the society, practices, tradition and culture and hence, each one was unique. Although the caste system was just a method of social stratification, there were many evils associated with it. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century saw the enforcement of several legal reforms for the betterment of the castes that were subjected to these evils. Undeniably, these social reforms/ acts have been very advantageous to the society and have created a positive social change, but, they have had an absolute negative impact on the vernacular heritage of Kerala. This paper intends to discuss the impact of these legal reforms that were introduced and its impact on the tangible and intangible heritage with the case of Kerala. The case is presented with specific relevance to two castes (jatis) Nambudiris and Nairs. The paper intends to address in detail the system of marriage, patterns of inheritance (intangible heritage) and its reflection on the built fabric (tangible heritage), the reforms that were enforced and its implications on the heritage (conflict). The information in the research is limited to that obtained from secondary sources. The area of study is limited to the case of the two castes, Nambudiris and Nairs as these are two castes in Kerala that functioned differently in the past but the conflict that faces their built heritage today is the same.
2. Literature Study
Accounts on the history of Kerala prior to the European era are scarce. The only source of information about early Kerala history is the Keralolpathi and Keralamahatmyam; accounts in Malayalam by unknown authors written probably in the seventeenth or eighteenth century. Hence the historic information might not be accurate as these accounts are covered in myths and legends. However, there is extensive research on the anthropological aspects of Kerala i.e. people and castes, social stratification, cultures and lifestyles with special emphasis on the matrilineal system that prevailed Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Saparya Varma 105 here. There was a need to understand the technical terminologies used in anthropological studies. Social organization by Robert.H.Lowie, 1960 gives clear definitions for terms related to Anthropology and Sociology. Other works like Methods and styles in the study of Culture by R.B.Edgerton, 1974 describes the various aspects of society that need to be studied and methods to study it.
3. Description of the Site Kerala
The long stretch of land lying west of the Western Ghats in peninsula India is believed to have been created by Lord Parasurama, an avatar of the Hindu God Vishnu, by reclaiming this tract of land from the sea with his axe. Studies on the geology of the region, however, state that this tract of land was probably the result of an upward movement of the earths plates or the continuous deposition of silt by rivers over thousands of years. The geography of Kerala is one of the important reasons for its cultural uniqueness. Kerala is a long, narrow strip of land sheltered on the west by the Arabian Sea and the east by a continuous mountain range; the Western Ghats. Historically, this territory was isolated from the rest of India politically and culturally, with exceptions of contacts by land with its immediate neighbours Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Most of the trade contacts and migrations were through the sea. The tropical climate of the region is favourable for the growth of spices and the coastal line favoured the formation of many natural harbours. These are the aspects that attracted traders and settlers from various parts of the globe, resulting in a very unique synthesis of culture. This resulting culture, however, remained isolated within this sheltered patch of land.
3.1 Kerala and Cultural Synthesis
The original inhabitants of this area were the mountainous tribes Cherumars probably after whom this stretch of land was called the Chera country. The first sets of immigrants were the Nairs; whose exact origin is debatable and the immigration probably took place around 600 B.C.E. The Nairs in Kerala were mainly warriors who gained supremacy over the original inhabitants and established themselves as local chieftains in many parts of the Chera country. These immigrants settled as clans 1 in households called tharavads . The second sets of immigrants were the Brahmins of Aryan origin or the Nambudiris who ravelled along the Konkan coast into Kerala probably around 100 C.E. This is believed so because the Nambudiris of Kerala still follow some of the customs of marriage and adoption that prevailed amongst all Brahmins before the Brahminical religion underwent transformations under the influence of Buddhism (300 B.C.E to 400 C.E) in the rest of India. After a brief struggle with the Nairs, the Nambudiris gained the supreme authority in the society and settled in households called Illom. The Nairs and the Nambudiris established themselves as chieftains with authority on the small pieces of estates they owned. The Chera territory was divided into a number of chiefdoms and lacked an administrator. Constant struggles for power and land amongst these chieftains necessitated a single, efficient administrator for the entire territory. Legend has it that some learned Nambudiris from the Chera territory adopted some Kshatriyas from the neighboring Chola and Pandya Kingdoms, adding a new tier in the hierarchical setup. This Kshatriya administrator was given the title of Perumal. Later migrants into Kerala included the Arab traders, Jews from Europe in the first centuries of Common Era. Migrations from other parts of India also occurred like the Konkanis from the western coast north of Malabar, Brahmins from central Tamil Nadu, Gujarati and Parsee settlers in search of trade. The fifteenth century saw Portuguese traders in Kerala and the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Dutch traders. The last of the European settlers were the English. All of these migrations and the myriad origins of the immigrants resulted in Kerala being a land of cultural synthesis.
4. Society in Early Kerala
The society and culture of Kerala is very different from that of the rest of India, because, as explained before, Kerala was composed of migrant settlers from varied origins. Each of these migrants carried with them, their traditions and cultures. Over time, some of these fused with the existing culture of Kerala,
1 A clan is a unilateral exogamous group.
106 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Saparya Varma resulting in one that is very different from any of these ancestral cultures.
4.1 Social Hierarchy
The Chaturvarna scale of Hinduism is one that classifies people into jatis (castes) depending on their occupation. In a typical Varna scale, the Brahmins are the most esteemed amongst castes as they are the scholarly, religious community. The next in the hierarchy are the Kshatriyas who were the rulers/administrators. The Vysyas, who are the traders are third in the scale and the fourth and the last class of people are the Sudras, who provides services to the above three jatis. Untouchability was prevalent in India in the early times. Unlike the rest of India, the castes in Kerala do not follow the Chaturvarna scale. There are various sub- castes in Kerala that cannot be included in this classification. In the case of Kerala, the Brahmins can be classified as two the early migrant Brahmins or Nambudiris and the later migrant Brahmins who are the Tamil and Konkani Brahmins. The Nambudiris formed the scholarly and religious community in Kerala. But apart from this they were land owners, too. The later migrant Brahmins were mostly associated with trade and performed religious services in their community temples. The Tamil Brahmins were also associated with accounting in the Royal courts. Sudras formed the last tier in the hierarchical set-up. Nairs and their equivalent castes were also Sudras but since they were positioned atop the hierarchical ladder, they were not considered un-touchables. The castes below Nairs were all considered untouchables.
4.2 Marriage and Descendancy
Sambandham system or the system of keeping consorts occurred commonly in Kerala, mainly amongst the Nambudiris, Kshatriyas and Nairs. Men of higher castes (Nambudiris and Kshatriyas) were allowed to have sambandhams with women of lower castes (Kshatriya, Nairs).The off-spring from this union belongs to the mothers caste as per the rules of matrilineality 2 , For example; If a Nambudiri man has
2 Matrilineality is the system where the children belongs to the mothers lineage and inherits property from the maternal side. a sambandham with a Nair woman, the offspring would be a Nair. In cases where man and woman of the same caste married (svajati), the ritual is called kalyanam (marriage) and the offspring would also belong to the same caste. Starting with the highest in the caste hierarchy i.e. the Nambudiris, who followed a patrilineal lineage, only the eldest son of the family married a Nambudiri woman. The younger sons were only allowed to keep consorts (sambandhams) with either a Kshatriya or a Nayar woman. This system existed so that the property of the Nambudiri family remained undivided; the eldest son enjoyed the rights to the fathers property and the younger sons (appan) were supported by the eldest brother. The earliest Nambudiri settlers enforced the matrilineal system on the Kshatriyas and the Nairs where men and women have equal rights to property. The result of this was that, when a Nambudiri man had sambandham with a Nayar or Kshatriya woman, he could enjoy the advantages of his consorts share of property. In case of the Nairs, the men were allowed to marry Nair women and the women could have sambandhams with both Kshatriya and Nambudiri men. The Nairs also followed a system where, marriage within the caste (Kalyanam) was permitted. This was because the next lower castes were considered untouchable. Such a system of inter-relationships between castes in Kerala is very unique. Because of such a system, there was a variety in the marital pattern which reflected on the built form as well.
4.3 Marital Residence
The term marital residence although applied is not very relevant while describing the social system in Kerala as more than marriages, there exists the system of sambandhams. The marital residence of a Nambudiri man and woman is patrilocal 3 .Patrilocal residence can be defined as one where the wife stays with the husband.
In case of the sambandhams, the pattern of residence is matrilocal 4 and in many cases; the husband stays with the wife after sambandhams. There are cases where the pattern is duolocal 5 , where
3 Residence where the wife stays with the husband as is the custom in most Indian families. 4 A place where the husband lives with his wife 5 The residence where married couples do not live together Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Saparya Varma 107 the couples do not live together. Even though inter relationships between castes were permitted, the caste system was still very rigid, the reason why the man of a higher caste could not stay with his consort.
4.4 Households
4.4.1 Matrilineal Households
A matrilineal household is generally composed of a lady and her lineage 6 , i.e. her sibling(s) and her children. Lineage can be defined as a large group of people who trace back to a common female ancestress in case of a matrilinear one. One matrilinear household is composed of one or more tavazhis or matriclans 7 clans from the same matrilineal descent. When the members increase in number, one or more matriclans shift out of their ancestral property to construct their own household either within the same state or outside. The pattern of every matrilineal household is similar.
4.4.2 Patrilineal Household
Most of India with the exception of some tribal groups follows the patrilineal 8 society. In Kerala, the Nambudiri, the Christians, Muslims (with the exception of the Malabar Muslims) and the Cherumars follow the patrilineal system. A majority of groups in Kerala followed the matrilineal system. In a typical patrilineal household, the residents are the parents and their sons; the sons with their wives. The daughters reside with the parents until her marriage. She moves into the husbands house after marriage. Such a system is called the patrilocal residence.
5. Property and Property Management in Illoms and Tharavads
The reflection of the system of marriage and descendancy on the built form can clearly be studied
6 These are large groups of people who trace back to a common ancestor. In the case of a matrilineal system, the common ancestor is a female(ancestress) 7 Clans that are related through a matrilineal descent 8 The system where the children belong to the fathers lineage, which includes inheritance by studying the housing of each of these castes. The Nambudiris reside as a patrilineal clan in households called Illoms. Each of these Illoms had their own facilities and services that could be used by the residing members of the patrilineal clan i.e. a shrine of the family deity, an estate, common services and facilities like Kitchen, Dining area, granary, pond etc. There was no system of subdivision of ancestral property, as the oldest son once of age, inherited and managed the property and handed it over to his oldest son after his time. The role of women was limited only to the domestic sphere. The Illoms never increased in number and in cases where the number of members increased, the addition was to the existing building. There are as many Illoms today as the number established years ago and are at a larger threat of disappearance than other historic houses in Kerala. The Nairs reside as a matrilineal clan (thavazhi) in a household called tharavad. This is generally a complex with facilities similar to those in an Illom. When the number of members increases, either one of the matrilineal clans builds another residence within the complex, while still sharing the common facilities or builds its own houses out of the complex. The tharavads are hence dispersed and many in number when compared to the Illoms. A tharavad was generally managed by the oldest surviving male member of the family (karanavor) and upon his death, rarely, by the oldest surviving female, Karanavathi. The eldest male member, i.e. the Karanavor, was active in the public domain of the household that includes management of estates, economic matters etc, while the authority of the Karanavathi extended over the private sphere; mostly the domestic sphere. Inheritance of property was equal amongst the children of the Karanavathi. The share of property of the maternal uncle was inherited by his sisters children. Such a system was in practice until certain legal reforms became active in the early twentieth century abolishing the matrilineal system and the joint-family system. Although the reforms did have a positive impact on the society, it has an absolute negative impact on the tangible heritage of Kerala, with specific relevance to the Illoms and tharavads. In a way, these reforms catalyzed the process of decline in numbers of the historic houses.
108 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Saparya Varma 6. 20th Century and Changes in Kerala Society
Increase in social and political consciousness in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century brought about myriad changes in the society for the betterment of people who were considered untouchables otherwise. Education, property ownership or any privileges were limited to people of the upper classes, in this case, the Nambudiris and the Nairs. As people of lower castes were considered untouchables, entries was restricted to most public places like shrines, schools etc and were deprived of basic standards of living. Such ill practices led to many leaders introducing reforms to abolish the caste system and untouchability and introduce education for all. Another set of acts like the land reforms act of Kerala was enacted by the ruling communist government of Kerala which provided for an equal division of land amongst all. The Abolition of Jenmikaram resulted in control over the extent of land a landlord could hold. The caste hierarchy led to people of the upper classes owning large extents of land, depriving such a privilege for people of other castes. These reform and acts were introduced with the aim of establishing an egalitarian society. The British, who were then in control of the administration in India, also introduced new acts, abolishing many of the practices followed by the Nambudiris and Nairs. These blanket acts abolishing the matrilineal tradition or the Abolition of the joint family system (Marumakkathayam act of 1939) were introduced as some of the traditional practices were considered inappropriate or immoral. However, these acts were introduced without studying or anticipating the changes in the physical fabric that a change in tradition would cause.
7. Conflicts and Conclusion
The social reforms/acts that were introduced led to a social change that is advantageous in many ways to the people of lower classes. Today, untouchability is more or less an aspect of the past and land ownership, education etc are for all classes of the society. Although the caste system is not completely abolished, ill practices are not common anymore. However, the conflict lies in the fact that although the reforms have created a positive social change, they have an absolute negative impact on the cultural heritage of Kerala.
The same is explained as follows with relevance to the Illoms and Tharavads (built heritage) that has been the focus of this paper. 1. The act abolishing the matrilineal system of descendancy and inheritance has created a situation where the children of the karanavor (eldest male member of a matriclans) inherit his property rather than his sisters children. Such a change resulted in subdivision of property (land and built heritage). Larger estates became subdivided into smaller plots which later, were sold to multiple owners; as shown in figure 1. 2. In the case of an Illom i.e. the Nambudiri house, all children had equal rights to property leading to sub-division of land as a result and following the same fate as that of a tharavad, mentioned above. 3. The abolition of Jenmikaram, i.e. control over the extent of land holdings, also resulted in a similar situation where large estates were sub-divided into smaller plots, affecting the integrity of the cultural heritage. Fig 1: Graphic showing sub-division of plot and multiple ownership
The changes on the historic property were not sudden but as vernacular heritage is not recognized by any law in India, no timely actions were taken to control the slow disintegration and modification of historic properties. Adding to the problem is the total lack of documentation of the number of original properties, their extent and other relevant details. The sub-division of the estates and their continuing alteration is leading to loss in the authenticity and Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Saparya Varma 109 integrity of the cultural heritage. A complete documentation and mapping of vernacular heritage in Kerala is of first priority while simultaneously developing solutions to prevent further sub-division and alteration of historic property.
References
Ember, Carol. R. (1973). Ember Melvin, Anthropology. New Jersey, Edgewood cliffs, Prentice Hall.
Edgerton, R.B. Langners, L.L. (1974). Methods and styles in the study of Culture. San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp.
Iyer, Krishna; (1970). Social History of Kerala: The Dravidians, Volume II. L.A: Madras, Madras Book Centre.
Lowie, Robert. H. (1960). Social Organization. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Mayer, Adrian.C. (1952). Land and Society in Malabar. Oxford: Geoffery Cumberlege, Oxford University press.
Menon, Achyutha.C. (1911). The Cochin State Manual. Cochin: Government press.
* Contact Author: Saparya Varma, Consultant, Conservation Architect, India.
Tel: + (91) 9742255448 E-Mail: saparyavarma@gmail.com Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century 110 Challenges of Protecting a Living World Heritage Site; The Case of Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex, Iran
Solmaz Yadollahi *
MA, Conservation Architect, Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism organization, Iran
Abstract
Protection of living heritage places is one of the most complicated challenges of the conservation field in the 21st century. Addressing issues arisen from the conflicts between conservation and use and conflicting values of the place is the key tool to achieve sustainable protection. In case of multifunctional World Heritage Sites, the problem gets more complicated as the conditions which World Heritage Sites need to fulfil should be taken into consideration in the local socio-economic context. The living World Heritage Site of Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex (THBC) inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2010 provides a tangible illustration of the complexity of protecting a multifunctional World Heritage property in Iran. In this paper it is sought to discuss the conservation challenges and issues, their causes and roots and finally propose a policy-making approach to achieve sustainable protection and use in Tabriz Bazaar World Heritage Site.
Keywords: Tabriz Bazaar; protection; stakeholders and values
1. Introduction
Protecting living heritage 1 places that have kept functioning for centuries and embody values both as places of cultural significance and where local people depend on is one of the most complicated challenges of the conservation field in the 21st century. Addressing issues arisen from the conflicts between conservation and use and conflicts among different values of the place is the key tool to achieve sustainable protection. In case of multifunctional World Heritage places, the problem gets more complicated as the conditions which World Heritage Sites must fulfil - such as integrity and authenticity - should be taken into consideration in the local social and economic context. In the recent decade (after 2003) the number of living World Heritage Sites has increased in Iran. Changes made in the 2007 Iranian World Heritage Tentative
1 The term living heritage here is understood as the built heritage which have been used and maintained continuously by local users and stakeholders. This notion is used in contrast to the kind of heritage which is fully managed by the heritage authorities and has values for stakeholders other than local communities. List, clearly show the growing attention to living heritage places and this means that the number of Iranian World Heritage properties which serve contemporary functions will increase in future. The example of living World Heritage Site of Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex (THBC) (see Figure 1) inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2010 provides a tangible illustration of the complexity of protecting a multifunctional World Heritage property in Iran.
Figure 1. Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex, Sadeghiya Chaharsuq (junction), spring 2009 Yadollahi Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Solmaz Yadollahi 111 2. Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex, Protection Challenges in the New Age
THBC World Heritage Site located in the centre of Tabriz city in north-west of Iran is a commercial and cultural ensemble that embraces numerous historic buildings with a remarkable functional diversity. In 2010, THBC was included in UNESCO World Heritage List as one of the most important international commercial centres along the Silk Roads, a living complex developed from the early centuries of the Islamic era on the basis of a strong traditional social system, and an outstanding example of an Islamic Bazaar (ICHHTO, 2009). Bazaars are formed by several commercial, religious and public buildings built together gradually through the history. In fact, Bazaars can be considered urban complexes built and developed to contribute to the social and economic life of cities. In Tabriz Bazaar for instance, there are thousands of Dokkans (shops), 25 caravanserais, 20 Timchas (covered caravanserai) and 8 cluster Bazaars, as well as 28 mosques, 3 mausoleums, 6 Madrasas 2 and 2 libraries built to serve religious functions in addition to a square which used to be the governmental centre of the city. Then again, there are a number of teahouses, 5 Hammams 3 , an icehouse and a gymnasium. All these components located in a core zone area of 28.9733 hectares (see Figure 2), form a historic socio-economic ensemble with a vast range of users and stakeholders.
Figure 2. Tabriz Bazaar general view (the core zone area is shown with red colour) Iranian Cartography Organization
All mentioned characters result in complexities in functional, economic, social and legal issues in terms
2 Traditional religious schools 3 Traditional Bath-house of policy making and managing the Bazaar as a cultural heritage resource. Moreover, when THBC was inscribed in the World Heritage List, adopting conservation policies became even more complicated. That is to say, local heritage authorities (as implementers of the World Heritage Convention) need to take contemporary functional and social demands into consideration and also should make sure that the conditions of integrity and authenticity and the necessity of safeguarding the outstanding universal value are being respected. The first step to achieve sound policy-making and protection is to understand the conflicts among values which different stakeholders ascribe to the Bazaar and to assess how the multiplicity of perceptions and interests affect the outstanding universal values of Tabriz Bazaar as a World Heritage Site.
2.1 The Change in Tabriz Bazaar's Key Functions in the Contemporary Era While, by its authentic nature, the Bazaar should be a public and commercial palace, the contemporary Bazaar has become merely a retail and whole sale centre and tourist attraction today. In fact, active mosques, mausoleums and Madrasas can still be seen in Tabriz Bazaar, but, former research 4 and particularly studies conducted between 2009 and 2011 (during and after the process of its nomination and inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List) indicate that the social contribution of Tabriz Bazaar to the life of the people involved with it has considerably changed through the last century. Tabriz Bazaar has served a diversity of functions to different stakeholders throughout the history. Being able to cope with and contribute to the changing world, Tabriz Bazaar has played a vital role in social and economic growth of communities. However, after the intensive change of commerce and lifestyle particularly during and after the industrialization and modernization era, needs, perceptions and power balance of the stakeholders changed and as a result, THBCs contribution to the economic and mainly social development experienced a remarkable fall.
4 Including, the survey of functional changes of buildings within Tabriz Bazaar in the last decade by THBC Base in 2002, Asl-e Sarirai, 2007 and Yadollahi, 2010.
112 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Solmaz Yadollahi As interests of the Bazaari 5 and Olamaa 6 were strongly interconnected to the interests of the government between 14th and 19th centuries, the Bazaar was the joining point of the economic, political and social interests of four key stakeholders; the Bazaari, government, Olamaa and local citizens in this period (Yadollahi, 2010). However, during the19th and 20th centuries due to the industrialization and centralization policies of the government, the role of the Bazaari and Olamaa decreased in social and economic affairs of the country and consequently, the leading role of the traditional Bazaar weakened in many cities and diminished in Tabriz (Ashraf, 1983). Moreover, not being prepared to compete with modern educational and communicational systems, many public spaces of THBC were left vacant or with limited functions in the recent decades (Yadollahi, 2010).
2.2 Effects of the Change in Function and Stakeholders' Interests on the Tabriz Bazaar as a Heritage Resource
As a result of change in social life and commerce style after industrialization, values contemporary stakeholders ascribe to the Tabriz Bazaar are considerably - but not completely - different from values based on which this historical socio-economic complex was built and developed. So, matching the contemporary use patterns with the existing buildings is now a challenge for users of the Bazaar. Moreover, the new age added new values in addition to the Bazaar's past social, political and economic values. After it was included in the national heritage List in 1975 the historic, cultural and architectural values were created by new stakeholders, architects, conservationists and archaeologists. As the result of change in character and interests of stakeholders conflicts in terms of ownership, land use, intervention methods in the buildings are inevitable in such a large ensemble which is now a World Heritage Site. The most tangible examples of how this change affected the built and living heritage of Tabriz Bazaar is summarized in table 1 and the following illustrative report resulted from study and monitoring conducted
5 Merchants of the traditional Bazaar 6 Religious leaders between winter 2009 and summer 2011.
Main causes and roots of the problem
- High commercial value of central and southern areas of Bazaar (economic exploitation) (see Figure 3) - Low commercial value of northern areas - Inappropriate new functions - Diminishing social contribution of Bazaar in the contemporary social life - Bazaar area considered as an isolated part of the contemporary city in the city master plan (HCAUPI, 2007) - Lack of awareness about the cultural significance of the property among the stakeholders - Lack of balance of power among the stakeholders - Lack of transparency in decision making process
Evidences and signs of existence of the problem
I n
b u i l t
e n v i r o n m e n t
- Growing number of abandoned public places (compare Figures 4 and 5), particularly in the northern areas (Yadollahi, 2010 and Golkar, 2005) - Many examples of damage in design authenticity such as: The imbalance between mass and open spaces because of covering green and open spaces to provide more space for commercial use (see Figure 6); (Yadollahi, 2010) Illegal constructions and interventions in the core zone area in spite of core zone regulations (Yadollahi, 2010) - Change in urban morphology in the buffer zone due to large-scale regeneration projects around the Bazaar (Yadollahi, 2010)
I n
s o c i a l
r e l a t i o n s
- Unsolved court conflicts among stakeholders (THBC Base) - Lack of trust between owners and heritage bodies (Yadollahi, 2010 and Asl-e Sarirai, 2007) - Unequal share of different stakeholders from the Bazaar as a cultural and economic resource (Yadollahi, 2010 and Asl-e Sarirai, 2007)
Table 1. Main causes and roots of protection and use issues in THBC World Heritage Site and signs of the issues in built and social atmospheres of the site.
Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Solmaz Yadollahi 113
Figure 3. a shop dug in the wall (a result of high economic value of the place), Tabriz Bazaar, summer 2010 Yadollahi
Figure 4 The Garshasb Zurkhana (gymnasium), 1970s ICHHTO
Figure 5.The Garshasb Zurkhana was abandoned in the last decade like many other public places in Tabriz Bazaar. 2010 Yadollahi
Figure 6. The increasing demand for using all the available space for commercial purposes and the weakened role of Bazaar as social place resulted in special imbalance in the built Bazaar. Many open and green spaces are covered to be used as shops, workshops and store houses. (Top: Mass and open spaces of southern Bazaar after contemporary interventions, Bottom: Mass and open spaces of southern Bazaar before contemporary interventions, 2009 Yadollahi)
3. Protecting Tabriz Bazaar Living World Heritage Site through Participatory Management Approach; Towards Sustainable Protection and Use
Keeping in mind that, understanding the social and built features of the Bazaar, the way in which it has developed and formed until today, and the way in which it keeps working are initial steps towards adopting sound policies for its sustainable protection; and taking the results of all past and ongoing studies about architectural, economic and social features of Tabriz Bazaar into consideration, it can be said that Bazaar is a commercial, social and cultural ensemble developed throughout the history based on sustainable development and its existence depends on its adaptation to change. That is to say, dealing with change is an authentic attribute of the Bazaar and if the changing process does not harm its social and structural integrity it keeps transcending and serving functions to new generations with new needs and perceptions. So, function and use management is the key to moving towards sustainability. But, What is the sustainable use pattern for this particular site?" Who determines characters and conditions of a
114 Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Solmaz Yadollahi use pattern which is sustainable? And even if a sustainable use model is provided will all stakeholders agree with it and contribute to its implementation? Understanding the sustainable use pattern can only be possible through understanding functions and benefits of the heritage resource for each stakeholder. For us as conservationists, for instance, the notion of sustainability is equal to sustainable protection of cultural significance of the place, whereas, for merchants (see Figure 7) it means economic development and increase in their income from their places in the Bazaar in a continuous way. Owners of religious places have a different conception of sustainability. Continuity and development of religious activities of mosques, Madrasas and mausoleums and continuity of and increase in their income from Vaqf 7 properties in the Bazaar area are expectations and interests they link to the sustainability and development. Although the notion of sustainability and sustainable function is understood differently by different stakeholders, previous experiences in participation of stakeholders for protecting the Tabriz Bazaar show all of us stake holders usually can find common interests and not necessarily a common language. The successful social resistance of Bazaaris and local people of Tabriz against the government oriented project of Ferdosi street (the street which was designed to cut the Tabriz Bazaar in two parts) in 1920s 8 and the successful experience of 1994 participation project 9 launched by the local cultural heritage organization indicate the fact that concentrating on common interests of stakeholders instead of relying on strict regulations and adopting top-down management approaches can address many issues regarding the conflicts among stakeholders and particularly issues arisen from contradiction of conservation and use.
7 Islamic endowment 8 Based on statements of Bazaaris and local heritage bodies Mr. Chatruz and Mr. Yazdani (Summer 2009) 9 Based on statements of Mr. Taghizadeh a former director of local heritage organization
In other words, as conservationists, we need to be able to give solutions and alternatives to different stakeholders upon our knowledge about who they are and what they want. In fact, to satisfy our interest protecting and prolonging the place's outstanding universal values we need to be able to negotiate and communicate through more than one language as in a place like Bazaar "benefit" is the talked language of every stakeholder.
4. Conclusion
Protecting World Heritage places which hold a variety of political, economic, social and cultural values involves complex challenges in dealing with ownership, land-use and sometimes socio-cultural conflicts. This article gave an overall view of these challenges in Iran that doesnt have a long experience in protecting multifunctional World Heritage Sites. Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex is a comprehensive example of a living multifunctional World Heritage Site clearly illustrating the policy- making challenges heritage authorities are facing. Through studying the key stakeholders who are involved or must be involved in decision-making for THBC World Heritage Site and following the changes in their perceptions of the Bazaar and in values they ascribe to it, it is tried to understand the nature and the most basic active and adaptive character of this public place. A management system which does not consider this basic character, will end up with turning the Bazaar into a tourist attraction, a wholesale market place, a centre for small workshops and lofts or any other kind of place, but not a "Bazaar" with its living social character and cultural qualities. Therefore, since the local people and particularly the Bazaari have been experiencing and coping with change since before it became a heritage site, the most important principles to be considered by the heritage authorities to achieve a feasible management approach for Tabriz Bazaar could be: ! Changing the top-down approach of negotiation and education activities that consider local people as the side that always needs to be educated and guided by the heritage bodies, to a system which tries to learn from experiences of all stakeholders, particularly the Bazaari, Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st Century Solmaz Yadollahi 115 ! Reviewing and optimizing the legal system and existing core and buffer zone regulations according to opinions of all stakeholders, ! And finally, understanding and accepting the fact that we heritage bodies must not and cannot "manage" these people and their property, but, as one of the stake holders we can contribute to the management and decision-making process.
Figure 7.Merchants in Mirza Shafi Timchasi, Tabriz Bazaar, 2011 Yadollahi
References
Ashraf, Ahmad. (1983). Bazaar-mosque alliance: the social routs of revolts and revolutions, international journal of politics, culture and society 1, 538-567.
Asl-e Sarirai, Fatemeh, (2007). Investigation of anthropological features of Tabriz Bazaar, MA, Azad Islamic university, school of social science, Central unit.
Golkar Telli, (2005). Der "Groe Bazar" von Tabriz, Iran, Bauforschung und Entwicklung eines denkmalgerechten Erhaltungskonzepts der historischen Marktanlage, PhD, TU Berlin.
Higher Council for Architectural and Urban Planning of Iran (HCAUPI), (2007). Statement of HCAUPI approvals, councils secretariat, Tehran
Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO), (2009). World Heritage Nomination Dossier of Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex (THBC), Tehran.
Tabriz Heritage Organization, (2002), Statistical survey of functional changes of buildings within Tabriz Bazaar in the last decade, Tabriz.
Yadollahi Solmaz, (2010). Rehabilitation of Sadeghiye Complex of Tabriz Bazaar Considering the Management of Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex as a World Heritage Nominee, MA, University of Tehran, School of Architecture.
* Contact Author: Solmaz Yadollahi, Conservation architect, independent consultant at ICHHTO World Heritage Inscription Bureau, Adress:4th floor, no6, Sazman-e Ab Str. Behnam Str., A. Kashani Str. Tehran, Iran.
Tel: (+009821) 44058470 E-mail: solmaz.yadollahi@Gmail.com ANNEX 3: Organizers Profiles 116 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century THE ORGANIZING TEAM International Graduate School: Heritage Studies Dariya Afanasyeva obtained a Masters degree in Applied Psychology at Dnepropetrovsk State University of Ukraine in 2001. In 2002 she joined the World Heritage Studies programme at BTU Cottbus, from which she graduated in 2004 and was awarded the Master of Arts degree. Her Masters thesis was entitled Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism Management at Cultural Heritage Sites - A Case Study from the Archaeological Heritage Site of Abila in Northern Jordan. From 2004 and until December 2009, Ms. Afanasyeva worked as a research assistant at BTU Cottbus. In Summer Semester 2010 she became a PhD candidate at the Interna- tional Graduate School: Heritage Studies. Her major research interests lie in the fields of cultural landscapes. Research Title: Shared Heritage: Sacred landscapes of Crimea, their development and protection in the multi-cultural context Summary: Based on the case study of the sacred landscapes in Crimea (Ukraine), the research examines the processes through which specific natural features become invested with meaning of a religious kind. It explores the ways in which intangible values attached to a landscape by the people contribute to both protection of this landscape and the shaping of peoples cultural and religious identity. Shina Erlewein studied Social and Cultural Anthropology, History and Society of South Asia and Gender Studies at Humboldt University of Berlin and at Free University Berlin. She did extensive fieldwork and ethnographic film-work on performing arts in South India, had a teaching assignment at the department for Political- and Social Sciences (FU Berlin), worked as a project- and network director for a transnational EU Youth Initiative and realized various projects as a documentary filmmaker. Since 2005 she was production director for the series Meisterwerke der Menschheit produced in HD for ZDF and 3sat. The series was designed to feature the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity (UNESCO). Research Title: Screening Intangible Heritage. The Role of Audio-Visual Media in the Representation of Intangible Heritage: The Case of Kutiyattam Sanskrit Theatre in India Summary: This study examines the role of audio-visual media in the representation and construction of Intangible Heritage, in particular of the ancient Sanskrit Theatre Kutiyattam. A conceptual analysis traces the interrelatedness of representation, ICH and media while insights from a case-study in India highlight particular aspects of the interface of ICH and media practices with regard to the safeguarding, promotion and archiving of a living heritage. Bndicte Gaillard graduated from the Institute for Political Studies (Sciences Po Toulouse), France, and she earned a Master of Arts in Political Science entitled Political sociology of representations and cultural expertises in 2009. During the university year 2006/2007 she studied at the Russian State University for the Humanities in Moscow, Russia, and she did an internship at the French Institute in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, in June 2007. Her Master thesis, about the management of cultural heritage in Russia is entitled The Kazan Kremlin, patrimonial object and symbol of the reconstruction of the Tatar identity. In the frame of her Master studies, she did an internship at the UNESCO Moscow Office (Russia), in the Sector for Culture from April to August 2009. Research Title: Conflictive delisting process of a World Heritage Site in Germany: The case of the Dresden Elbe Valley Summary: This research focuses on the case of the Dresden Elbe Valley, first World Heritage Site to be de-listed from the World Heritage List against the will of the State Party to the 1972 World Heritage Convention. An analysis of the step by step decisions from the inscription to the delisting of this site aims at deconstructing the reasons of the impossibility to find a compromise between the various stakeholders. 117 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century THE ORGANIZING TEAM International Graduate School: Heritage Studies Maya Ishizawa graduated in Architecture and Urbanism from Ricardo Palma University (Lima, 2001). She has worked in architectural design, construction, stage design,art direction and teaching. In 2009 she graduated from a Masters degree in Media and Governance at Keio University in Tokyo, with a thesis entitled Regional Planning for the conservation and sustainable regeneration of the Andean cultural landscape in the Inka Sacred Valley in Peru. Her interest lies in the relationship between humans and nature by studying traditional knowledge and historical landscape structures. In 2009, she did an internship in UNESCO World Heritage Centre in Paris, focusing on research about the cultural landscapes of the World Heritage List. Research Title: Sustainable Conservation of Cultural Landscapes in Mountain Regions. A comparative study on landscape manage- ment in the Andes and the Pyrenees. Summary: The research explores the possible application of local cultural practices of landscape management in the planning and conservation of cultural landscapes by studying two study cases of the World Heritage in Peru and Spain. The aim is to assess protected areas systems for Cultural Landscapes: Culture-based and Nature-based by clarifying the relationship between local communities, biodiversity and sustainability. Chang Liu was born in Beijing, China. She obtained a bachelor degree in Japanese studies from the Capital Pedagogic University before completing her master studies at BTU Cottbus in 2008. Chang lived and studied in China, Japan and Europe. During her studies she did an internship at UNESCO Beijing Office. She organised the Chinese Taoist Shadow Theatre exhibition and perform- ance at the 10th anniversary of the master programme in World Heritage Studies at BTU Cottbus. Chang is currently a PhD student at IGS: Heritage Studies at BTU Cottbus, where she is developing her dissertation entitled: Safeguarding and Managing Intangible Cultural Heritage in China: A case study on the Sustainable Development of Taoist style (Daoqing) Shadow Theatre in Huanxian. Research Title: From Feudal Rubbish to National Treasure: Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in China, Case Study on the Sustainable Development of Huanxian Daoqing Shadow Theatre Summary: The research examines the safeguarding and sustainability of intangible cultural heritage in Socialist China through an analysis of Daoqing shadow theatres experience in Huanxian. It analyzes changes in safeguarding policy and its impact on the local community. The main aim is to construct a theoretical framework based on a socio-historical approach in order to explore the transformation of intangible cultural heritage over the last 60 years. Vernica Montero Fayad studied Anthropology at the Universidad de los Andes when she graduated in 2003 with the thesis The Dissident Tradition: contributions for a critical consideration upon handicrafts. From 2005 to 2006 she did Museums Studies at the University of Applied Sciences for Technology and Economics (HTW) in Berlin, Germany, and then the Master in World Heritage Studies at the Brandenburg University of Technology (BTU) in Cottbus. She obtained the title Master of Arts in 2010 with the thesis From Ethnographic Objects to Intangible Cultural Heritage at the Ethnological Museum Berlin. She had worked at the former Museum of Popular Arts and Traditions in Bogot and at the National Museum of Colombia. Research Title: The Representation of the "Other" in Museum: Colonial and Post-colonial Representation of Colombian Indigenous People at the Ethnological Museum of Berlin and at the National Museum of Colombia Summary: The research explores colonial and postcolonial representations of Colombian indigenous communities at the Ethnologi- cal Museum of Berlin and at the National Museum of Colombia. It analyzes conceptions of cultural identity that underlie museums representation of indigenous people through ethnographic objects. Additionally, the research attempts to reveal the meaning attached by indigenous people to these ethnographic objects today. 118 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century THE ORGANIZING TEAM International Graduate School: Heritage Studies Anca Claudia Prodan is a young researcher, whose interests include theories of culture and heritage, cultural policies, as well as interpersonal, intercultural and technology-mediated communication. Currently she is enrolled as Ph.D. candidate at the International Graduate School Heritage Studies at Cottbus University, Germany, where she is doing research on the topic of documentary heritage preservation. Prior to undertaking her doctoral research, she studied in Romania and in Germany, obtain- ing a bachelors degree in Anthropology-Philosophy, a masters degree in World Heritage Studies, and some theoretical and practical experience in Theatre Directing and in Pedagogy. Research Title: The Digital Memory of the World: An Exploration of Documentary Practices in the Age of Digital Technologies Summary: This research examines the conceptual and practical changes that emerge in the field of documentary heritage preser- vation as a result of using computer and Internet technologies. The UNESCO Memory of the World Programme offers a reference point in this analysis. The main aim is to understand the limits of using digital technologies for purposes of preservation and to suggest alternative solutions to the drawbacks they may have. Zi-Ming Wong first graduated from the National University of Singapore with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Linguistics and Chinese Studies. He then worked as a translator and journalist covering the performing arts, education and other local news, before going freelance as a research writer for various archival projects. He first came to the Brandenburg University of Technology (BTU) Cottbus to pursue an M.A. in World Heritage Studies, and wrote a thesis on cultural differences in heritage concepts, with the medieval town of Quedlinburg as a case study. Upon returning to Singapore, he worked in the promotion of Indian classical music and dance and was actively involved in arts education. Research Title: Intangible Cultural Heritage of Dance as Medium for Intercultural Dialogue: Culture Assimilator Re-interpreted Summary: This research explores intercultural dialogue in a culturally diverse nation, using intangible cultural heritage as medium. It re-interprets the Culture Assimilator advanced by German social psychologist Alexander Thomas as a conceptual tool, adapting his understanding of culture as open system to consider heritage as an intercultural process for negotiation of social values through dialogue. The Indian dance heritage in Singapore is used as example. 119 International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century THE ORGANIZING TEAM International Graduate School: Heritage Studies *FORMER Ph.D. STUDENTS OF IGS HS WHO TOOK PART OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKSHOP* Tiziana Destino is an Italian architect & heritage expert. Her professional and academic background has developed across Europe and North Africa since 1998 - Holland, France, Japan, Spain, Italy, Morocco and Egypt. Graduated at the Polytechnic of Bari, Italy in 2004 with an urban revitalization project of an informal settlement in Northern Cairo, Egypt, she is specialized in traditional/sustainable Architecture and Urban Planning. She is a member of ISCARSAH (International Scientific Committee on the Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage) and ICOMOS Italy. Currently she is enrolled as doctoral student, doing research in the field of heritage. Frank Mller studied history, sociology and political sciences at the TU Dresden, Germany. He graduated in History with a master-thesis about the aristocratic consumer behavior at the end of the 19. Century, using the case study of Margarethe von Hausen (1866-1919) in Dresden. After obtaining his degree he worked for the digitalization project of the Schsische Staats- und Universittsbibliothek "Landtagsprotokolle". Since November 2010 he is a doctoral student at BTU Cottbus, where he is research- ing the change of the cultural landscape Peitz during the usage of the local smelter from mid 16th to mid 19th Century. Steven Yieke Ojoo received his Master of Arts in Heritage Management at the Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany after a BA degree in Philosophy and Public Administration at Moi University, Kenya. He is currently doing research on the topic of Ethnic Conflict Resolution in Kenya, based upon application of some forms of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Besides being actively involved in African Development Forums, he is also engaged in research on specific cultural elements that contribute to the slow pace of development in sub- Saharan Africa, more specifically Kenya. 120
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION: NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND INNOVATIONS. Proceedings of The 5th International Baltic Symposium On Science and Technology Education (BalticSTE2023)
Convergence, Persistence and Diversity in Male and Female Careers – Does Context Matter in an Era of Globalization?: A Comparison of Gendered Employment Mobility Patterns in West Germany and Denmark