Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 128

Understanding heritage

International Ph.D. Workshop


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.













*
Contact Author: Mathieu Dormaels, PhD Candidate,
Universit du Qubec Montra, Montral, Canada

E-mail: mat_dormaels@yahoo.com

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.

Keywords: Lima; decay; contemporary art; participation; urban regeneration




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.



*
Contact Author: Carlos Leon-Xjimenez, Bauhaus
Universitt Weimar, Bizet Strasse 1, D-13088 Berlin,
Germany

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

Emails: R.Purohit@kingston.ac.uk;
Y.Kaluarachchi@kingston.ac.uk

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.

Keywords: shamanism, tourism, drug, sacred, identity.



1. Introduction

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

Вам также может понравиться