" THE INTANGIBLE DIMENSION OF MONUMENTS AND SITES WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST"

Jean-Louis Luxen

a.Context.

Over the past thirty years, the concept of cultural heritage has been continually broadened. The Venice charter made reference to “monuments and sites” and dealt with architectural heritage. The question rapidly expanded to cover groups of buildings, vernacular architecture, industrial or 20th century built heritage. Over and above the study of historic gardens, the concept of “cultural landscape” highlighted the interpenetration of culture and nature. Today an anthropological approach to “heritage” leads us to consider it as a social ensemble of many different, complex and interdependent manifestations, reflecting the culture of a human community. “Conservation” represents an insistence on harmony, over time, between a social group and its environment, whether natural or man-made, while the protection of this lifestyle is perceived as a major aspect of sustainable human development.

Recently the question of authenticity has attracted our particular attention. The diversity of heritage categories, the building materials used and the methods of construction or adaptation have led to the establishment of variable standards of authentic conservation. At the same time, it was also necessary to take into account differing interpretations, in the light of different cultural traditions, of the very concept of authenticity itself. The Nara Document introduces a form of compensation for a certain relativism of concepts by the universal requirement for explicit reference to the values that a cultural property represents in the eyes of the human community concerned.

These changes have led conservation professionals to go beyond the question of "how to conserve?" to more fundamental questions: "why conserve?" "conserve for whom?". What is the meaning of conservation? The quest for the “message” of cultural properties requires us to identify the ethical values, social customs, beliefs or myths of which physical heritage is the sign, the expression, in time and space. Values of authenticity or identity are advanced in order to reveal the significance of architectural or urban constructions and transformation of the natural landscape through human intervention. In the end, the concept or social representation of the cultural property is more important than the object itself: the intangible dimension prevails.

The result is a more comprehensive approach designed to give a better appreciation of the uniqueness of cultural properties, the presiding genius of a cultural group and its "roots", against a background of rapid social change and openness to external influences. This approach is based on a lucid awareness and dynamic mobilisation of a community. However, it also carries with it the risk of excessive and even chauvinistic or conflictual affirmation of identity, if it loses sight of universal values and the richness of dialogue between cultures and openness to others.

The distinction between physical heritage and intangible heritage is now seen as artificial. Physical heritage only attains its true significance when it sheds light on its underlying values. Conversely, intangible heritage must be made incarnate in tangible manifestations, in visible signs, if it is to be conserved. This dialectic may prove particularly fruitful in providing greater representation for those cultures of the world which place more importance on the oral tradition than on the written, on folk arts and traditions rather than sophisticated artistic expression. The geo-cultural regions that stand to benefit in particular are Africa and Oceania, whose physical heritage consists of more humble works in perishable materials, a heritage that the “monumentalist” approach has for too long neglected. Yet the specific contribution made by theses cultures represents a significant enrichment of the global heritage catalogue.

A precise definition of cultural properties is nonetheless indispensable as an operational basis for an appropriate conservation policy in all its various dimensions: identification and cataloguing, legal protection, conservation and restoration, management and promotion, public awareness and professional training. Some form of “materiality” is essential for a significant relationship between intangible heritage and the natural landscape altered or buildings constructed by man. Such materiality has already been sought out and illustrated in concrete terms according to a number of recently-formulated categories, and has already made it possible to include certain cultural properties on the World Heritage List. These categories offer the following specific fields of action:

Cultural routes or itineraries whose tangible traces and constructed signs bear the mark of cultural and artistic interchanges across frontiers and across the centuries: pilgrim routes such as the road to Santiago de Compostela; trade routes such as the Silk Road; migration or exploration routes such as the Salt Road or the slave roads, with the island of Goree off Senegal. In each instance, the route identification is based on “serial inscriptions” of physical evidence: it is the route as such, however, that is identified as a cultural property. (See Madrid Seminar, 1994).

Cultural landscapes , which bear the mark of systems of agriculture or husbandry, such as terraced rice paddies, vineyards, or the wooded countryside of the bocages in northern France, or of traditions of human inhabitation or forms of community, such as the troglodyte dwellings of Cappadocia, the site of Sugur in Nigeria or the cliffs of Bandiagara in the Dogon lands.

Associative sites , which evoke a legend or myth, such as the sites of Tongariro in New Zealand or Uluru-Kata Tjuta in Australia, where there is no human construction to be seen but which nonetheless represent significant cultural heritage value to the local population.

Commemorative sites , marked by a dramatic moment in human history, such as the Auschwitz concentration camp, Robben Island or the Genbaku Dome, the Memorial to Peace in Hiroshima.

These examples suggest exciting possibilities that are far from having been fully exploited. They also carry a risk of loss of focus, particularly in the “commemorative sites”, with limited physical value but laden with symbolic meaning; this category risks attracting a host of battle-fields expressing a confused sense of commemoration. It was for this reason that the World Heritage Committee (1996) decided that no cultural property should henceforth be inscribed on the World Heritage List solely on the basis of criterion vi of the "Guidelines for implementation of the Convention": “direct or material association with events or living traditions, ideas, beliefs or artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance”. It should be noted, however, that this decision is highly controversial in that it represents a severe limitation on recognition of those forms of cultural heritage in which the intangible element predominates. The recent Canterbury Seminar, in its conclusions, raises this point of discussion.

b.Precautions.

In any exploration of this intangible dimension of heritage, it is important to remain in touch with our fields of specialisation. We must take care to consider the intangible dimensions in the context of their relationship to physical heritage, i.e. to the monuments and sites that are our field of study and action. It is only on this condition that our contribution to the general debate will be most fruitful. Let us not become distracted by analysis of the various aspects of intangible heritage such as customs and traditions, music, language, poetry and other forms of human expression, fields which lie outside the professional competencies of most of our members.

c. Techniques and knowhow.

The conservation of heritage construction also constitutes a "conservatory" of specialised construction techniques or traditional technologies, whose ingenuity merits recognition and protection. Such recognition is, indeed, often indispensable in ensuring the survival of many edifices or modifications of the landscape inherited from the past, and whose adaptation to local climatic and economic needs is the products of centuries-old tradition.

No doubt our International Scientific Committee for Training, chaired by Jukka Jokilehto, a great connoisseur of the World Heritage Convention, should pay particular attention to heritage crafts and skills. The Committee should perhaps look beyond the interest too often confined to the functions of architecture or urbanism, and focus its attention on the importance of the knowhow and techniques best suited to interventions on ancient examples of cultural heritage.

d. Intangible references.

Two complementary approaches are recommended: one, seeking to reveal the intangible dimension of a physical construction; the second, seeking to incarnate an intangible form of heritage in a material object.

It is interesting as part of this twofold approach to distinguish from the World Heritage List those physical cultural properties that have acquired an intangible reference from those that have not, however justified it might seem, and those that might be eligible for such a reference. This, based on very distinct references:

Spiritual reference

This is undoubtedly the easiest to perceive and the best illustrated of references. It reflects a predominance of European and Christian culture with sites such as the Vatican, Santa Maria de Guadalupe, Vézelay, the monasteries of Mount Athos, the Cave of the Apocalypse in Patmos or the monuments commemorating Luther at Esleben and Wittenberg. Jerusalem is considered a holy city for the three monotheistic religions of the Book. Islam is represented primarily by Kairouan and Islamic Cairo, and Buddhism by Borobudur, the temple of Kandy and the Horyu-Ji of Nara. There is also the Itsukushima Shinto temple in Japan, or the residence and temple of Confucius in China, as well as a number of Hindu temples in India. The spiritual reference was not considered in the case of the churches of Lalibela in Ethiopia, nor for the Jesuit missions of South America, any more than for the cathedral of Chartres or for Avignon. On the other hand, it was a factor in the case of ancient ceremonial or burial sites such as Memphis and the Pyramids of Giza, the sites of Delphi, Olympia and Epidauros, the entire monumental ensemble of Teotihuacan, or the Maya site of Copan.

Reference to the origins of man

Some sites have been protected because of the illustration they offer of certain stages in the evolution of the human race, such as the site of Sangiran in Indonesia, that of Zhoukoudian near Beijing or the sites of Sterkfontein in South Africa. The bison cliff, Head-Smashed-in Buffalo, in Canada is another interesting example.

There are still too few such sites. It is curious to note that criterion vi has never been applied to the Lower Omo Valley in Ethiopia, despite its considerable importance. There is great scope for significant exploration to be made in this scientific field, particularly in the many sites featuring cave paintings.

Political reference

Often implicitly present, this reference is more frequent than might at first appear. Only a handful of examples are clearly identified, such as the Hall of Independence in Philadelphia or the Statue of Liberty in New York. The Rila monastery, whose authenticity was compromised by devastating fires, was inscribed solely on the grounds of criterion vi, as a symbolic manifestation of the Bulgar renaissance after the Ottoman occupation. The Old City of Warsaw, after its complete reconstruction, must also be considered as the manifestation of the Polish nation's desire for renewal. Undoubtedly we must be wary of too frequent political references in inscriptions unless it is abundantly clear that the values that prevail are wholly in accordance with human rights and ideas of peace and tolerance in relations between peoples.

Social reference

A number of inscriptions acknowledge the spirit of human occupation of a natural site or historic city: Venice and its lagoon, Great Zimbabwe, Zabid and Sana'a in Yemen, the valley of Katmandu, the historic towns of Potosi, Morelia or Guanajuato. Yet criterion vi has not been applied to many inscriptions of equally powerful significance such as Istanbul, Timbuktu, Kyoto, Pueblo de Taos or Abomey.

Above all, there are few instances of reference to social history in the strict sense. Ironbridge in the UK, the Canal du Midi in France and the Lifts of the Canal du Centre in Belgium are the few inscriptions illustrating the Industrial Revolution. The workers' town of Crespi d'Adda in Italy is not singled out on the basis of criterion vi, nor is the Völklingen steelworks in Germany. Special attention must undoubtedly be paid to industrial and 20th century heritage, including urban housing developments, industry, trade and communal infrastructure which can only be fully explained by reference to social changes in the recent past.

Explorations and migrations

Anticipating the recognition of the concept of “cultural itineraries”, some sites have been inscribed as testimony to migratory movements, such as Anse aux Meadows in Canada, or Mozambique island. The first identifications of exploration of the New World have emerged, with Angra do Heroismo in the Azores, the old towns of Santo Domingo or Cartagena, and the Indian Archives in Seville, all sites of strong monumental interest.

This identification should be reinforced, with emphasis on the reciprocal influences such movements have had. Above all, however, other migration routes need to be identified, such as the trans-Saharan routes or the Pacific Island landing sites. Or else what is needed is, quite simply, a better illustration of clearly identified interchanges in the tangible testimony, as in the case of the Silk Road. These approaches are particularly interesting because they cross political and scientific boundaries and lay emphasis on cultural and artistic cross-fertilisation.

Artistic reference

This is undoubtedly a reference too often lacking.

The cultural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List do include a number of architectural treasures, such as the Acropolis in Athens, the Escorial or the Bauhaus and its sites at Weimar and Dessau. Curiously enough, however, criterion vi was not applied to the Alhambra in Granada, the Imperial Palace in Beijing or the Palladian villas around Vicenza.

Rarer still are references to any other form of artistic expression. The only clear examples are Salzburg, in honour of Mozart, or Mount Taishan in China, for its definitive influence on Chinese painting, or the grottoes of Mogao, also in China. Here is surely a rich vein to be mined, enabling writers, musicians and plastic artists to be honoured through the places they frequented. Some of our French colleagues, for example, envisage the listing of the Montagne Sainte Victoire, in homage to Cézanne.

Gathering-places

A new reference merits consideration, relating to public areas or gathering-places in which forms of popular culture are expressed. Such recognition is of vital importance if we are to take into account the particular genius of civilisations based on oral tradition or on ephemeral forms of artistic expression. One outstanding example deserves special mention: Djema-el-Fnâ square in Marrakech, Morocco. This simple market-place, with no remarkable buildings to recommend it, has from time immemorial been a centre of extraordinary creativity where story-tellers, tumblers and jugglers, musicians, sculptors and other ply their arts.

Sacred natural sites

Another reference little developed, although it is of major importance in many areas of the world, is that of sacred natural sites: woods, rivers, or mountains, sacred or commemorative trees. Their recognition demands further exploration of the links between culture and nature. It also demands appropriate forms of identification, because the values of these natural objects are often known only to initiates: indeed, secrecy is an important component of such values.

e. Limits of the exercise.

At the close of this analysis, it is apparent that progress must be made towards the identification of intangible elements to be associated with physical heritage, in order to bring out the fullest expression of its spiritual, cultural and artistic values. No doubt imagination and creativity will also be required in inventing new procedures, according to the example of the Japanese who have developed an original policy for the protection of “living national treasures”, masters possessing the gift of knowledge and major cultural and artistic traditions.

It must also be admitted, however, that this exercise has its limits. There will always be forms of human expression, often the most sophisticated forms like music or poetry, which can only be diminished by being handled with the conceptual tools and mechanisms of legal protection and conservation appropriate to physical heritage. Let us consider for one moment the major problem posed by languages: their diversity is a source of enormous richness for humankind, yet today they are being impoverished, denatured and even, in some cases, wiped out. Specific policies are now essential to allow for the identification and promotion of such forms of expression, often among the most noble produced by mankind.

Jean-Louis Luxen
Secretary General of ICOMOS (1993-2002)