PhD Workshop Understanding Heritage (Cottbus, 2012)

8/11/2019 PhD Workshop Understanding Heritage (Cottbus, 2012)

1/128

Understanding heritage

nternational Ph.D. Workshop

Workshop ProceedingsEdited 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


2/128

International Ph.D. Workshop

Understanding Heritage:

Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st CenturyJune 14 -16, 2011 @BTU Cottbus

Workshop ProceedingsEdited by Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa, and Anca Claudia Prodan.


3/128

International Graduate School Heritage Studies - Brandenburg University of Technology at CottbusMain Building HG 4.34Konrad-Wachsmann-Allee 1D-03046 Cottbus

GermanyTel.: +49 (0)355 - 69 3479Fax.: +49 (0)355 - 69 4749Web: http://www.tu-cottbus.de/btu/de/gradschool.html

Editors: Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Anca Claudia ProdanCover design: Maya IshizawaLayout 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 forindividual 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.


4/128

International Ph. D. Workshop Proceedings- Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st century

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

List of Participants

IntroductionAnca Claudia Prodan, Ph.D. candidate at IGS: Heritage Studies ....................................................................................................................1

Understanding Heritage: Challenges and Perspectives for the 21st CenturyKeynote Address by Prof. Dr. Marie-Thers ALbert, Director of the IGS: Heritage StudiesBndicte Gaillard and Zi-ming Wong, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies..........................................................................................5

Reflections on a Dialogue with Dr. Roland BerneckerAnca Claudia Prodan, Ph.D. candidate at IGS: Heritage Studies ..................................................................................................................10Introduction to Panel 1: Heritage, Identity and ConflictDariya Afanasyeva, Chang Liu and Zi-Ming Wong, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies ..................................................................... 15

Summary of Round Tables Panel 1: Heritage, Identity and ConflictDariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Zi-Ming Wong, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies ............................................................. 19

Introduction to Panel 2: Communities and Heritage ProtectionBndicte Gaillard and Maya Ishizawa, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies ..................................................................................... 27

Summary of Round Tables Panel 2: Communities and Heritage ProtectionDariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Zi-Ming Wong, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies .............................................................. 32

Introduction to Panel 3: Mediating Heritage through RepresentationsShina Erlewein, Vernica Montero-Fayad and Anca Prodan, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies ........................................................ 39

Summary of Round Tables Panel 3: Mediating through Heritage RepresentationsDariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Zi-Ming Wong, Ph.D. candidates at IGS: Heritage Studies .............................................................. 42

Conclusions and OutlookThe Organizing Team ............................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Annex 1: Abstracts of participants ........................................................................................................................................ 50

Conflicting Identity and its Impact on HeritageSomi Chatterjee, Consultant and Conservation Architect, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, Kolkata, India ..................... 51

The Heritage of Loss: Preservation of Performance-based ArtworksAna 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


5/128


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 HeritageThorolf Lipp, Filmmaker and Owner of Arcadia Filmproduktion, Berlin, Germany....................................................................................... 55

Building a Documentation Strategy for World Heritage Properties in bringing together Different StakeholdersOna 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 StudiesAldo 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 InsightsJrn 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 CaseCarlos 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 VillageRaluca Mateoc, PhD Candidate in Social Anthropology, University of Fribourg, Switzerland ........................................................................ 86

Understanding Decision-making in the Built Heritage Practice in London, UKRuchit 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 PracticesSaparya Varma, Consultant, Conservation Architect, India ....................................................................................................................... 104

Challenges of Protecting a Living World Heritage Site; The Case of Tabriz Historical Bazaar Complex, IranSolmaz Yadollahi, MA, Conservation Architect, Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism organization, Iran ............................. 110

Annex 3: Organizers Profiles ..............................................................................................................................................116

II


6/128

III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We, the Organizing Team, would like to thank:

International Graduate School: Heritage Studies and the Student Council (StuRa) at BTU Cottbus fortheir 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 Parisfor their assistance in promoting the Workshop online.

The International Information and Communication Mediacentre (IKMZ) at BTU Cottbus for kindlyproviding 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.

****


7/128

GUESTS

Prof. Dr. Marie-Theres Albert, Director IGS HS, BTU Cottbus, GermanyDr. Roland Bernecker,Secretary General German Commission for UNESCOManuel Peters, Chair of Intercultural Studies, BTU Cottbus, GermanyRobert Rode, Coordinator IGS, BTU Cottbus, GermanyBritta Rudolff, Chair of Cultural Heritage Management, BTU Cottbus, GermanyKlaus 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, NorwayAldo Buzio, Politecnico di Torino, ItalySomi Chatterjee, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, IndiaAna Dinger, Portuguese Catholic University, PortugalMathieu Dormaels, Universit du Qubec, CanadaAurlie Gfeller, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, SwitzerlandCarlos Len-Ximnez, Bauhaus-Universitt Weimar, Gemany

Thorolf Lipp, Arcadia Filmproduktion, GermanyCarol Ludwig, Northumbria University, UKRaluca Mateoc, University of Fribourg, SwitzerlandRuchit Purohit, Kingston University, UKLeonardo Rodriguez-Perez, Pierre du Bois Foundation for Current History, SwitzerlandOna Vileikis Tamayo, KULeuven, BelgiumSaparya Varma, Conservation Architect, IndiaSolmaz Yadollahi, ICHHTO, Iran

ORGANIZING TEAM IGS HS/FACILITATORS

Dariya AfanasyevaTiziana DestinoShina Erlewein

Veronica Montero FayadBndicte GaillardMaya IshizawaChang LiuFrank MllerSteven OjooAnca Claudia ProdanZi-Ming Wong

EXTERNAL MINUTE-TAKER

Cornelia Wilke, Master Student WHS , BTU Cottbus, Germany


8/128


INTRODUCTION

In June 2011 the International Graduate School: Heritage Studies at BTU Cottbus organized a PhDworkshop aimed at mapping challenges and perspectives for understanding heritage as framed inscientific 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 throughRepresentations. The interest was to get into contact with young researchers and professionals, comingfrom 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 21stCentury 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 TechnicalUniversity (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 programmesand 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 camefrom the PhD students themselves. This choice was informed by their interest in interacting moreclosely 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 valuabletool. Especially in an interdisciplinary field like heritage studies, such small group discussions facilitatethe bringing together of perspectives from different disciplinary backgrounds, allowing one to gainnew insights into ones own research subject. Furthermore, according to the experience gained bystudents at the IGS HS an international study programme they considered that bringing togetherdifferent cultural perspectives can similarly be an enriching experience. As a result, the students of theIGS HS set themselves to organize an international and interdisciplinary workshop open for youngresearchers with interests in networking for heritage.

by Anca Claudia Prodan

1


9/128


The Workshop was the first international event organized by the IGS HS, a very young programmewhich 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 beengoing on at BTU already for twelve years. Here, heritage-related research has been intensivelysupported by the Chair of Intercultural Studies, some of whose interests lie in the field of interculturalcompetence and in research on discourses of culture and heritage. Due to its contribution to UNESCOswork the Chair in Intercultural Studies was awarded the title UNESCO Chair in Heritage Studies in2003. In comparison to the Master Programme that focuses mainly on World Heritage, the structuredPhD 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 andexpanding on conventional scientific constructs of heritage and identity. Among others, this area alsolooks at the relation between tangible and intangible heritage;

3. Sustainable Protection and Use of Heritage in the Context of Innovative Conceptions of Heritagefocusing on concepts such as economic, social, cultural or ecological sustainability and also aiming toassess the potential and limits of participatory approaches to heritage protection;

4. Cultural Landscapes investigating, for instance, the relation nature-culture, the relation betweenland-use and biodiversity or between cultural landscapes and cultural diversity;

5. Mediation of Heritage through Innovative Technologies researching the potential of new technologyin the field of heritage education and promotion, including the UNESCO MoW programme, whichpreserves documentary heritage.

The PhD students who organized the workshop are doing research in the above named five focus areasand their researchers together offered a basis for, and are reflected in, the three thematic sessions ofthe workshop:

1. Heritage, Identity and Conflict2. Communities and Heritage Protection3. Mediating Heritage through Representations

These three thematic sessions consisted in presentation followed by roundtable discussions. Duringthese sessions, presentations were delivered by workshop participants. The purpose was to get

2


10/128


quainted with each others research. These sessions were reserved for presentations by participantsonly. The students of the IGS HS did not present their researches within these thematic sessionsbecause 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 theframework of another event taking place as part of the 20th anniversary (3). This event was a so-calledresearch party and was headed by the motto: knowledge/science brings joy / knowledge/sciencebrings friends (4). The three thematic sessions were chaired by students of the IGS HS: Steven Ojoo forthe first panel, Bndicte Gaillard for the second, and Shina Erlewein for the third. Each session wasfollowed by roundtable discussions, where workshop participants formed smaller groups to discusspredefined questions as well as problems raised during their presentations. Roundtable discussionswere 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 Alberton the first day of the workshop. It presented different perspectives and understandings of heritageand 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 byAnca Claudia Prodan on behalf of the students of the IGS HS. On the first day of the workshop therewas also a special session given by our guest Dr. Roland Bernecker, Secretary General of the GermanCommission 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 workshopended 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 asocio-cultural event which was organized at the end of the workshop in cooperation with masterstudents and alumni of World Heritage Studies.

Workshop Proceedings

The publication at hand is a compilation combining texts written by the workshop organizers to reporton the activities and discussions carried out during the workshop, and short abstracts and articlessubmitted for publication by workshop participants. The order of articles does not follow the order inwhich they were presented during the workshop. In the proceedings at hand articles were re-arrangedfor convenience and are ordered as follows:

The publication starts with an article by Bndicte Gaillard and Zi-Ming Wong, who report on thekeynote address delivered by Prof. Marie-Theres Albert. This is followed by a similar report preparedby Anca Claudia Prodan to present highlights from the special session with Dr. Roland Bernecker. Asnext, six articles containing panel descriptions and summaries of roundtable discussions were com-

3


11/128


bined and they highlight some of the most important matters that were discussed. Panel descriptionsare meant to provide information regarding the focus of each panel. They include key points frompresentations 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 wasprepared by Dariya Afanasyeva. The second panel is described in an article written by BndicteGaillard and Maya Ishizawa. Finally, the description of panel 3 was prepared by Veronica MonteroFayad, Shina Erlewein, and Anca Claudia Prodan. Summaries for the roundtable discussions werewritten by their respective moderators Dariya Afanasyeva, Maya Ishizawa and Zi-Ming Wong. Thesummaries of roundtable discussions were also sent to workshop participants, who contributed to theirpreparation. 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 theworkshop.

The annexes contain the articles submitted by workshop participants. Participants, who were not ableto submit articles, have submitted abstracts, which are also included in the annexes. The main aim ofthe workshop was to provide a forum for discussion, where young researchers gain new insights andunderstandings 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 scientificcommittee for revision. However, they were simultaneously reviewed by several Ph.D. students of theIGS HS. Interference of reviewers with the language and writing style used by workshop participantsin 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 GraduateSchool: 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 otherevent was a Conference World Heritage and Sustainable Development organized by the Master Programme in World HeritageStudies (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, infact, one of these five classes.

(4) Translated from German by the author; in original Forschungsparty: Wissen schafft Freu(n)de

4

****


12/128


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-TheresAlbert, 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 ofthe UNESCO Chair in Heritage Studies since 2003. In her speech, she discussedthe meaning of heritage and shared her reflections on the understanding ofheritage, relating its construction to a historical process. Making a distinctionbetween authorised and non-authorised discourses of heritage, as she wouldterm it, she discussed the protection of tangible and intangible heritage andthereby 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, deliveredher keynote speech on June 14th, 2011 to mark the opening of the three-day Ph.D Workshop entitledUnderstanding 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 heritageactually mean? These are the basic questions one needs to reflect upon as one approaches the threethematic topics of this workshop, namely issues of identity and conflicts in heritage, of communityparticipation 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 byreporting, in the first part, on the challenges that the definition of heritage raises and, in the secondpart, presenting different perspectives represented by the discourses on the understanding of heritage.

5


13/128


blems as a legacy of history. Prof. Albert thus brought to attention the fact that every individual, everyculture or society would have to make sense of their legacy, as produced in the course of history, bydrawing on these experiences to shape the present or future life. There are values handed downthrough 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. Forthis reason Prof. Albert demonstrated that the way people handle inherited circumstances isconstructed.

In order to illustrate her statements, Prof. Albert related a personal experience she had during a visitto Oskar Schindlers factory in Krakow, which has been turned into a museum. At that time, there wasa new exhibition on the attack of Krakow by Nazi forces during World War II. Though what it relatedwas a period of German history that took place before Prof. Albert was even born, the exhibition madeher 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 whenseeing 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 thesame historical legacy. Prof. Albert explained why this is so. By belonging to a community people havesimilar 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, differentcommunities tend to interpret differently the same historical event, and this is an illustration of whythe 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 ideaof heritage. She made clear that if one examinesdictionary definitions of the word heritage onewould find different understandings of the word.As she pointed out quoting the New Shorter OxfordDictionary, some may refer to property that isdevolved to the heir from the deceased, othersrefer to it as a kind of gift. She added that most ofthese characterise heritage as a tangible good orcommodity. However, there is also one definitionof heritage as inherited circumstances, which,according to Prof. Albert, illustrates meaningsconsisting of social events and coinciding experi-ences. These refer to benefits as well as pro-

6


14/128


Moving to the construction of identity through the historical experiences, Prof. Albert stressed thatthis general function of heritage, namely to shape identity, existed long before the inflationary useof 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 exampleof a research on immigrants to the United States of America. A 33-year-old immigrant was quoted inthe book The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life: I have a family of myown, and I want to instil a sense of family values in them by being around their extended family. Iwasnt born here in the U.S. Im a transplant. My family immigrated here. Being around my familygives 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 seeshow 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, wherebyknowledge is passed down from one generation to another. Prof. Albert clarified that socialisationprocesses vary depending on national, social, gender or status specific factors. Consequently, thevalues that are developed out of these processes vary, too. Thus, Prof. Albert suggested that this isexactly what creates the diversity of human life and the construction of heritage is determined by thisdiversity, 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 timeand have great importance for the country. This meaning of heritage departs from the context of socialor cultural events or from the influence of socialisation on the shaping of values and behaviouralpatterns. Prof. Albert showed that in this context heritage is understood as qualities and achievementsof 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 closerto the context of the UNESCO conventions in preserving cultural heritage.Hence in order to understand heritage, Prof. Albert indicated, it is necessary to determine thecontexts, 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, justlike the term heritage, belongs to a specific disciplinary and epistemological context. After recallingthat discourse is attached to the poststructuralism of Michel Foucault or to the critical theory of JrgenHabermas and Hans Otto Apel, Prof. Albert explained that she uses the epistemological

7


15/128


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 isconstructed. 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. Withthese 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 heritagediscourse has been constructed by the global UNESCO community including experts and advisors inthe field of heritage. In this context the discourse created can be considered as hegemonic since itinitially 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 possessesan immanent value. Prof. Albert mentioned that the criteria developed under the concept ofOutstanding Universal Value enable the experts to use these qualitative characteristics in order toenlist 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 asof 2010) compared to the rest of the world, it demonstrates the verifiability of Smiths remark thatthe authorized discourse is focused on European tangible heritage.Prof. Albert underlined that the heritage discourse of the 1972 World Heritage Convention in fact hasto 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 wasseen as subordinate to culture.

Contrasting the experts who belong to the authorised heritage discourse with the communities whobelong to the non-authorised heritage discourse, Prof. Albert emphasised the fact that even thoughthe communities are not as recognized as the experts the interventions they provide are much moreinnovative 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 thatof the community as belonging to a non-authorised heritage discourse that helps people locatethemselves socially, politically, economically or culturally. She proved that heritage as such may beconceived 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 subjectof research changes: while the focus is on universal values elaborated by the UNESCO communityunder 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 indisciplines, epistemology and methods.

To illustrate this point, Prof. Albert referred to the issue of management and legal ownership of landat the World Heritage site Kakadu National Park (Australia) where a joint management of the site has

8


16/128


has been negotiated between the white Australians and the Aborigines. A second example citedconcerns the issue of religious identity, hence also of the intangible value, of a heritage site, as seenin 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 thelast years. As she stated, the authorised discourse evolved from a focus on the materiality of heritageand the label World Heritage to the immaterial constructions of heritage that emerged with theConvention 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 andexpressions, (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 theIntangible Heritage one can see two main changes: first in the geographical representation of theintangible 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 differencesthe two discourses are not distinguished from each other. These changes reflect a substitution of theauthorised heritage discourse on material heritage with an authorised discourse on immaterialheritage. With the authorised discourse on immaterial heritage, the communities are encouraged tobe 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 considersheritage as a cultural process. However, the aforementioned construction of inherited circumstancesis 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 thepotential of process-related determination of heritage for the development of identities and awarenessis 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 heritagediscourse should be taken out of its narrow interpretation frame of well-known discourses and theirexperts, 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


17/128


Reflections on a Dialogue with Dr. Roland Bernecker

by Anca Claudia Prodan

On the first day of the Workshop a special sessionwas organized to give some input to the roundtablediscussions that took place in its context. The inputcame from Dr. Roland Bernecker, Secretary Generalof the German Commission for UNESCO, whoenriched the workshop with his presence and contri-bution. His genuine interest in the intelligence of

the younger generation(1) the words he usedwhen expressing his appreciation for the work ofyoung researchers made participants feel thattheir contribution to the heritage discourse wasrelevant. This encouraged participants to raise ques-tions and created an atmosphere that facilitateddialogue and interaction. Words cannot recreate thatatmosphere, 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 topresent the contribution given by Dr. Bernecker by recounting his views and the dialogue he had withthe 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, forinstance, 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 societyfeels. 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 inUNESCO, but also because participants, through their questions, showed an interest to know moreabout 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 bygovernmental 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


18/128


their values are filtered through international selection criteria as those applied by UNESCO withregards to World Heritage Sites. Dr. Bernecker admitted that the system of UNESCO may be confusingthrough 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 inscribingsites on the World Heritage List determined local authorities to improve the state of conservation of therespective sites. Dr. Bernecker confirmed that the World Heritage Convention can be an instrument thatcan stand against the dynamics of destruction. He added his own example the de-listing from theWorld Heritage List of the German site Dresden Elbe Valley(2) saying that, regardless of the conflictswhich surrounded this case, discussing aesthetic dimensions of landscape on a political level was anopportunity 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 understandthis context, apart from understanding the heritage discourse. This context is informed, in fact, by thegeneral mission of UNESCO to create a better world; or, as stated in its Constitution, to build peace inthe minds of men through the moral and intellectual solidarity of mankind. In this regard, his insightsabout UNESCOs work were peculiar in comparison to the panel presentations that preceded hisspeech(3). Each presentation related in specific ways to the notion of conflict and there was a generalunderstanding among participants that, one way or another, heritage is linked with conflict. Onewould have expected that at his turn Dr. Bernecker will expand on this link. But instead, he softenedsuch 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 throughouthistory not only to build and maintain communities but also to compete and to fight others. Yet, he

rally, has been used throughout historynot only to build and maintain communi-ties but also to compete and to fightothers. Yet, he also wanted participants toreflect on heritage as a source of coopera-tion, not just one of conflict. Perhaps thebest example given in this regard was theWorld Heritage Convention itself becauseit resulted from the solidarity of the inter-national community, who cooperated inthe saving of sites that are relevantbeyond borders. The history of the WorldHeritage Convention was mentioned previ-ously by one participant, who is doingresearch on the development of the World

11

Dr. Bernecker in a conversation with workshop organizer Bndicte Gaillard Alexander Kinzelt


19/128


Heritage Convention through time(4). Dr. Bernecker noted the significant contribution which suchresearch can make, because people have to know that this Convention was initially an instrument ofinternational 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 whichthe 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 thatall workshop participants could agree with this, since the workshop itself did no less than indeedconnecting pieces of the world. And even if not all participants subscribed to his view, it is noteworthythat during roundtable discussions several examples were given by participants to show how heritagecan be a source of cooperation and of dialogue(5).

Further contribution of Dr. Bernecker consisted in insights regarding the complementarities betweenthe 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 contributionexperts 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 functionsis even more important today because participatory approaches have moved front stage, thus bringingstakeholders with different interests together and increasing the need to understand the differentmeanings each attaches to heritage.

The contribution of Dr. Bernecker was not limited to insights about the work of UNESCO, but consistedalso in reflections regarding the function of heritage in contemporary society. One often hears criticismthat 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 assertsthat heritage is not just a stone structure or an object, which can be fenced off or put up on display. DrBernecker agreed that heritage is more than that; it is a complex system of knowledge. But then hewent on and challenged participants with some questions. If we agree that heritage is a complexsystem of knowledge, can we still relate to this knowledge? Do we actually need it? Are we still usingit? 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 enjoygoing to the opera or listening to classical music? Or rather will these be played up only for nostalgiaor for the sake of a few elites? He underlined that these were important questions and referred toexamples presented by participants, which reflected the impact of mo-ernization on heritage and its

12


20/128


dernization on heritage and its transmission(7). Noteworthy inputs were generated by his bringing inthe notion of performance and guiding participants to consider it in relation to two different waysof 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, orperforming a certain movement like in arts or in rituals. The former understanding rests on an abstractnotion 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 ofperformance. 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. ForDr. Bernecker safeguarding intangible heritage, which is based on rituals and social connectivity, canincrease awareness of the importance of the human senses. For sustaining his own arguments heturned 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 underlinedonce 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 wereuseful starting points that encouraged participants to initiate their own reflections. But they were alsouseful because they gave more impetus for active involvement. Asked about the future prospects ofUNESCO as organization, Dr. Bernecker replied that the younger generation is best positioned toanswer 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 surelydepends also on the kind of open and constructive dialogue that he successfully sustained during theworkshop.

Notes:

(1) This article is based on material recorded at the workshop during the special session with Dr. Roland Bernecker. The ideasexpressed in this article represent the author's personal interpretation of the recorded material. The language used is that of theauthor 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 whoseterritory the site is located.

(3) The reference is to the presentations of Aurlie Elisa Gfeller, Jrn Bohlmann, Somi Chatteriee, Saparya Varma, LeonardoRodrigues 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


21/128


(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


22/128


Introduction to Panel 1: Heritage, Identity and Conflict

Heritage is not only about objects, such as monuments and artefacts, but alsoabout cultural practices, in all their manifestations, which play a key role in theconstruction of identities in contemporary societies. Learning about heritagemay enrich our awareness of cultural roots, and at the same time, it also helpsus understand and appreciate differences of other cultures. However, heritagemay 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, whereperceptions of history, cultural goods and traditional arts are heavily laden withsocial and political implications. How is it, exactly, that heritage shapes identi-ties? How can heritage help open the doors for intercultural dialogue? And howcan one resolve identity-related conflicts where heritage is at stake? These werethe 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 UNESCOConvention 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, ofbeing 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 andrituals.

15

by Dariya Afanasyeva, Chang Liu, and Zi-Ming Wong


23/128


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 associationwith a number of important social groups, including family, gender, place of residence, economicposition, 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 becometargets of violence arising from inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts, as well as to struggle betweenrepresentatives 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 tensionwithin and between societies. This is an increasing challenge in the 21st century, particularly in thecontext of cosmopolitan and multicultural societies, where perceptions of history, cultural goods andtraditional 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 doctoralresearch explores the ways in which intangible values attached to a landscape by the people contributeto 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 ethnicgroups 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 beintegrated 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


24/128


sole, Italy. Her presentation investigated the evolution of the notion of world heritage between the1972 WH Convention and 2010. In particular, she focused on four issues: (1) how and to which extentkey 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 WHCommittee 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 withthe 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 regardedas 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 andgeographical conditions; (2) to which extent this craftsmanship is the result of regional, social andcultural resources; and (3) whether it is possible to discover transnational identity in this particularNorwegian boat-wreck.

Leonardo Rodriguez-Perez, associate researcher at the Pierre du Bois Foundation for Current History inGeneva, Switzerland, dealt with the indigenous uses of Ayahuasca (an Amazon brew prepared in orderto induce shamanic experiences) and possibilities for their recognition as intangible heritage. Hefocused 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) doesonly 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 nolinkage with indigenous culture and identity; and (3) should ritual uses of Ayahuasca be treated as aproblem of civil right in terms of religious freedom, instead of a cultural and indigenous identityissue?

Saparya Varma, consultant and conservationarchitect at Hampi WH Area Management Author-

ity, India, dealt with the changes and conflicts intraditional management practices with relation toissues 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 andsub-castes, based on their occupation. In the 19thand the 20th centuries, with increased social

17

Ms. Saparya Varma presenting her paper in Panel 1. BTU Multimediazentrum


25/128


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 discussthese 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 concludedthat both heritage and identity are very complex and versatile concepts, which mutually enrich, andform, 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, everyperson can give her or his own answer to the question of how heritage shapes her or his identity, ondifferent levels.

Notes:

(1) Steven Ojoo is now a former student of the IGS HS.

The research of Somi Chatterjee, who also works atHampi WH Area Management Authority in India, focusedon conflicting identity and its impact on culturalresources, based on a series of case studies. Looking atthe formation of culture as a complex and dynamicprocess, it aimed at developing tools that can help tobetter understand, retain and appreciate identity. It also

looks into the role of professionals and policy-makers inthe creation of these tools and attempts to identify issuesthat lead to conflicts within a society or among differentsocieties.

Ms. Somi Chatterjee giving her presentation for Panel 1. BTU Multimediazentrum

****

18


26/128


Summary of Round Tables Panel 1: Heritage, Identity and Conflictby 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 questionsthat were suggested by the organizers for brainstorming about relevant topicsto the panels that were connected to the problematics raised during the presen-tations. Here, we summarize the conclusions for the Panel on Heritage, Identityand 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, BTUCottbus), 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 notonly 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. Theheritage related to this official identity could be exclusive, such as the case of illegal migrants, thatare not citizens of the country where they arrived and the heritage of that place does not representthem; 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 toidentity. 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


27/128


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 concludethat 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 everycontext as in Western culture.

The identity is dynamic and, heritage and identity are processes. When identity changes or isre-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 bycommunities or imposed by external actors?

For instance, after the Independence of India from United Kingdom, the new government wanted toreinforce the sense of a nation a political entity called India. The pre-colonization India or thesub-continent did not exist as an entity post- independence. The leaders needed a concept of nationtherefore principalities (like the princely state of Rajasthan, Nizam`s estates) or large chunks ofindependent 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 Norwaybased 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 thewine 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 acceptedthat this was their heritage. Locals of the region already had an identity, but a new observation withregards to their landscape as heritage was suggested, and the identity changed in relation to this newidea of heritage.

The process of recreation of communities and sensibilities generates new identities, new visions onheritage.

20


28/128


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), JrnBohlmann (Trondheim University College and NTNU, Norway), Klaus Zehbe (Chair InterculturalStudies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Tiziana Destino (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany),Steven Ojoo (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTU Cottbus, Germany), Chang Liu (IGS: Heritage Studies, BTUCottbus, 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 areall separate individuals (physical beings, if one may say so); on other levels, however, we becomepart 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 onewas born, raised; a certain natural surroundings that one perceives as home. On the other hand, wemay speak of cultural heritage, in its various manifestations, which is not necessarily linked to anyspecific 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 itsdifferent levels. By reflecting on who we are (as single individuals, as members of our families, asmembers 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 processof 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, andidentity also shapes heritage.

21


29/128


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 NaturalEnvironment, UK), Aurlie Gfeller (European University Institute, Italy), Somi Chatterjee (Hampi WorldHeritage 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, specificallyprivate 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 significancegiven 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 hasbecome more of an invention of curators or heritage promoters. If you look at the case of heritage inFlorence, it has become more a matter of tourism instead of identity of the local people. Authoritiesdefine 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 objectsand even denying the rights of traditional craftsmen as creators.)

According to the Intangible Heritage Convention, heritage is something to be safeguarded as it relatesto cultural identity. However, if we look at the example of the Viking boat making, the techniques havechanged along the way, so when we say it is heritage that one identifies with, it is maybe more of acontemporary interpretation rather than a historical investigation.

State Parties are often not so interested in the history of community identity. The authorities are usinga different language which the community may not identify with. There are researchers who are moreinterested 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 inheritage studies is a form of social action or activism.The difference may depend on positions relatedto the epistemological background of the researcherin anthropology, sociology or more specificdisciplines.

22


30/128


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 heritageopen 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 receivedby 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 thesame time they preserve their original identity related to their ancestors. The intercultural dialogue isopen not only among the different cultures that attend the Carnival that is a cultural manifestationfrom the Afro (and) Caribbean communities, but also an intercultural dialogue within the communityitself, 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 inIceland. 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 wastransformed.

The Kazan Kremlin (Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation) is a site in which different cultureshave occupied the same space. Before the nomination on the World Heritage List, the local authoritiesrebuilt a mosque like the one that stood at this exact same place before the Tsar Ivan IV conquered thisterritory near the Volga. Now the Kazan Kremlin consists of a mosque and an Orthodox cathedral. Thelocal authorities used the reconstruction of the mosque and the inscription on the World Heritage Listto 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 bothcountries. The people from the Valley are identified themselves to the same place whether they arefrom India or from Pakistan. This example illustrates how boundaries were created by new nationswhere people are identified to a place and not to a modern state.

23


31/128


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 becomecitizens 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 aretalking about. On the general level of discussion, it can be concluded that being the expression ofpeoples collective identity (including cultural identity), heritage is the means through which thisidentity 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 aspectsof life that are of importance to us. In this way, heritage may serve as a means of communicating ofcultural (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.


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. Anexample discussed is the intangible heritage of Vedic chanting. It is not only a religious tradition; it iseven 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 specialresonance 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 orcultural arguments. Another example may be the practice of yoga in the western society. Is it reallyintercultural when somebody of another culture is romanticizing it and interpreting it in a differentway? There is an issue of whether one is respecting the traditional dance of another culture, which hasreligious origin, or when one treats it as a form of entertainment. Whether heritage can open the doorsfor intercultural dialogue can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. (The question is whether oneadopts the practice in its totality without questioning the principles. Yoga exercises for example areonly a fraction of a holistic self-disciplined living known as Yoga.)

24


32/128


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 generatedthrough heritage can be an instrument for solving conflict.

In order to solve a conflict, it is necessary to promote understanding. This understanding comes fromexplanations 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 ofidentity 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 whohas the right over heritage? The international community, the State, the local communities, thevisitors? Who decides what to conserve and what to destroy? An example is the destruction of theBuddhas 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, andafterwards, the international community, through UNESCO, decides to reconstruct them. How is theBuddhist or Afghan community being engaded in this discussion?

The building of identities results in apolitical process ruled by the entitiesthat have the power.In India, dressing traditions are very

diverse but they are progressively beingreduced to one tradition that is beinggeneralized all over India. Who decideswhich tradition is taken? And how isthat this particular culture is becomingpowerful?

25

Workshop pariticipants in the Round Table discussions. Alexander Kinzelt


33/128


Consequently there is a conflict between the ruling identity and the non-authorized identities. Cultureand identities are processes and they are adapted through time, influenced by political factors.

b) Conclusions Round Table 2.This question was not discussed.


This depends on specificities of the cases, it may not be appropriate to generalize. It all comes back tothe 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 apreclusion of diversity for individuals and communities.

26

****


34/128


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 primaryrole in maintaining and transmitting heritage but they are not the only actorswith an interest in its protection. Sometimes the demands of the various actorsinvolved 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. Consequentlythis 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 externalcommunities that can be related to and can benefit from heritage. In this panel, we addressed theconcept 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 paneldiscussed 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 caseswhere traditional local knowledge is involved in the production of heritage, the safeguarding of thisknowledge is often in danger due to external influences, such as development, modernization andtourism. Often, the importance of intangible cultural heritage is not sufficiently considered in theinstitutional strategies of heritage protection.

27

by Bndicte Gaillard and Maya Ishizawa


35/128


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 thatare being confronted to heritage conservation regulations - deal with and often govern over heritagethat 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 externalcommunities.We distinguished two types of protection: the Legal Protection and the Active Protection. The first typeof 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 theLegal 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 PhDstudents who were involved in the organization of the workshop. For instance, the question of how tomake local communities aware of the value of their heritage and enable them to enjoy and benefitfrom it, by increasing their appreciation, was being developed by Tiziana Destino (1), through casestudies 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 thePyrnes and the Andes.

Frank Mller (2) was researching, from a historical perspective, the changes in the cultural landscapeof Peitz triggered by local communities and by external stakeholders through agriculture, forestry andmining.

Finally, Bndicte Gaillard, is focusing on the case of

PhD Workshop Understanding Heritage (Cottbus, 2012)

Documents

Transcript of PhD Workshop Understanding Heritage (Cottbus, 2012)