- Email: [email protected]
Heritage
Heritage C. Kelly, University of Greenwich, London, UK & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Glossary Authenticity The extent to which a heritage item, artifact, or event is seen to be valid, genuine, real, or legitimate by an individual or an organization. Commodification The manner in which heritage rawmaterials are utilized by other industries, for example tourism, for economic purposes. Contestation Negotiation, often between groups of people in local, national, or international spaces, in search of legitimate versions of authentic heritage. Governance The state structures at local, national, and/or international levels that organize, legislate, or fund heritage-related activities. Heritage Buildings, artifacts, landscapes, cultures, and traditions deemed to be of importance to past, present, and future populations. Intangible That which cannot be physically touched; in a heritage context, this often refers to a cultural tradition such as a song, a language-dialect, or superstition particular to a local area.
Introduction Heritage is an elusive concept, to both define and discuss, as it means many things to most people. Indeed, in basic chronological terms, it is often exclusively regarded as an idea that is set in the past. This notion has been challenged in recent years as various economic, environmental, and sociocultural activities have become concerned with heritage in a contemporary context. Many national and international organizations have incorporated the term heritage into departmental titles and functions. The scope of heritage is broad insofar as it may singularly or simultaneously be taken to refer to aspects of people and culture, the built environment, or natural landscapes. In this respect, it can therefore be manipulated by power structures in society to create subjective or partial narratives of the past (or present) for particular cultural, economic, environmental, and/or political purposes.
Defining Heritage Semantically speaking, the word ‘heritage’ has existed for centuries, with most dictionaries unanimously defining it as something inherited at birth, handed down, or a legacy
of some kind which links the past, through the present, to the future, at an individual or collective level. This legacy involves people, events, cultural landscapes, and objects deemed to be important at local, national, and/or international geographical scales. There is a multitude of ideas, both tangible and intangible, that the word has been applied to within the cultural sector and outside of it. European Architectural Heritage Year, 1975, is regarded by some as a benchmark for the inception of ‘heritage’ as a public forum concept. Thus, ‘heritage’ was a term that came to the fore in the 1970s, in Europe, and throughout the 1980s expanded increasingly to encompass other developments such as the establishment of heritage visitor centers by both the public and private sectors. Amalgamations of definitional discussions from the literature suggest that heritage includes (but not exclusively): buildings, archaeology, cultural artifacts, natural landscapes and landforms, wildlife, historical events or characters, cultural traditions, dress, language, and customs. Arguably, an object or event can become heritage because a person or organization deems it to be of importance, and therein lies the crux of the situation – heritage can be anything that is valued – from a family photograph to a national monument. Therefore, if individuals construct their own framework within which to define heritage, seeing it as a plural concept is of little value or consequence. Conversely, meanings can be deliberately constructed by the state, or economically driven organizations who select aspects of heritage for mass consumption, which can play a role in identity construction, the tourism industry, or creating a collective sense of belonging. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) also categorizes heritage into three main subdivisions: built heritage, natural heritage, and intangible heritage, and these groupings affect the way in which global heritage sites are designated and conserved at an international scale (see section on ‘Policy and Governance’ later in this article). The United Kingdom, for example, has specially designated ‘heritage coasts’, representing valued natural landscapes. The European Union has also designated ‘natural heritage areas’ to protect special natural environments in certain member states. The United States designates ‘national heritage areas’ through its national parks service, representing both built and natural heritage in its aim to ‘tell America’s story’. As shown in Table 1 above, UNESCO’s
91
92
Heritage
Table 1
Classifying heritage
Nation/Region Area
Site/Activities
‘Built’ heritage
‘Natural’ heritage
‘Living’ heritage
Buildings/cities Historic towns Seaside resorts Conservation areas Museums Art galleries Historic buildings Historic sites/monuments Heritage centers Heritage theme parks Archaeological sites Transport
Landscapes/environment National parks Coastlines Designated/protected landscapes Geological features Town/country parks Botanic gardens Historic gardens Nature reserves Countryside centers Country parks Forest Ecomuseums Archaeological sites
Communities/people Traditional food and costumes Festivals Markets Folklore, folklife houses/cafes Craft centers Farms Ecomuseums Everyday spaces Communities Historic events and characters Language Song and dance Religious practices/beliefs
groupings reflect a wide variety of spaces, objects, and activities at various scales. Intangible heritage – that which cannot be touched – interestingly, was only added recently in response to criticisms that ‘real people’ felt more affinity to everyday aspects of heritage such as language, customs, oral histories, and so on than to grand stately homes or ancient monuments, for example. For many urban dwellers, there is often little opportunity to engage with natural heritage on any kind of a regular basis, which can lead to a disassociation with or disregard for it.
Policy and Governance Heritage can take a variety of official (state-validated) and unofficial forms; the latter often conflicts with, or is resistant to, the former. To consider this further, we can reiterate that ‘heritage’ is an enormously diverse concept – there are multiple heritages, the contents and meanings of which change through time and across space. Interestingly, heritage policy has mainly focused on the built heritage in many nations, followed to a lesser extent by natural heritage (usually the domain of separate, environmental government agencies), and lastly, intangible heritage. This emphasis is accounted for through the obvious visibility of the built environment, consisting of townscapes, buildings, monuments (see Table 1), and other man-made infrastructures, which is easier to identify, quantify, and therefore monitor. Many countries have policies and organizations that are concerned with creating inventories of buildings of particular types of architecture, quantifying and classifying ancient monuments and archaeological ruins, and managing or conserving such heritage. At an international level, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS, a subcommittee of UNESCO) collates and monitors national registers. Effects of the tangibility of this type of heritage leads to greater attention in policy terms, and therefore, often also in funding terms.
Landscape-based natural heritage holds a fond place in the hearts and imaginations of many people. Environmental legislation usually serves to protect and manage nonurban spaces, and global, European, and national regulations are in place to enforce a plethora of policies. Global Earth Summits which discuss international aspects of the natural environment have generated extreme responses as the planet faces a variety of environmental threats. Our global heritage could therefore be considered at a very basic level, in terms of natural heritage and all that it entails. Values related to the natural are also important at an individual level, where a person’s sense of identity or heritage can be heightened as they gaze at the Grand Canyon, the white cliffs of Dover, the lavender fields of Provence, Uluru, or other iconic landscapes. Policy provision for this is, however, much more difficult to formulate. Such cultural landscapes have long been the focus of geographers who attempt to discover the uniqueness of relationships between people and their environments. UNESCO has now recognized the importance of intangible heritage, such as endangered languages and oral heritage; placing as much importance and protection on these aspects as the tangible heritage they also safeguard. Thus, values of cultural expressions and practice and the recognition of communities/groups as those who identify, enact, re-create, and transmit the intangible or living heritage are also part of UNESCO’s policy remit. At national and local levels, many groups are engaged in cultural forms which can be classified as intangible heritage. The difficulty in creating policies and funding structures around these, lie in the complexity of deciding how to place value and merit on cultural, essentially qualitative issues? Tackling the question of how to fund local heritage sites and events, it can be argued that governments cannot avoid making value judgements when allocating funding but the requirement to be accessible to every possible community group has meant that many institutions are now facing enormous
Heritage
difficulties. One impact has been that many community organizations, for example, follow funding-led heritage agendas and themes, for financial survival, which results in a heritage dictated by state policy structures rather than being directed by the people to whom, arguably, it matters most. Many heritage organizations emphasize the need to measure cultural value, often to justify state funding mechanisms. However, many do not have any ‘robust indicators’ to measure the benefits of heritage to society or how people ascribe values to their local heritage in return. This may be because such a process requires indepth qualitative research – something that many government agencies have shied away from in favor of quantitative or ‘hard’ data, which is immensely easier to collect and analyze. Organizations such as the American Museums Association devise performance indicators, for their members, which allow the progress of such formal heritage spaces to be monitored. Festivals and other transitory cultural events gauge visitor numbers as measures of success. A major challenge for the heritage sector is to find ways in which to equally account for, manage, and value built, natural, and intangible heritage.
Commodification Commodification is a term used to describe how heritage is utilized as a commercial product and mass-produced, often at the cost of authenticity. If we see heritage in terms of a spectrum – at one end heritage has its own intrinsic cultural value, where it matters to individuals, communities, and nations, in its own right, or for its own sake; at the other end, heritage can be seen to have a utilitarian or economic use-value. In other words, it can be manipulated and selected somehow as a ‘product’ which can be presented, interpreted, and/or sold. The main sector that engages somehow with this commodification is the tourism industry (although some reference has been made in the literature to the ‘heritage industry’ itself, referring to the widest possible scope of agencies and activities involved in commodification). The exploitation of particular resources for the creation of heritage products inevitably affects the nature of these resources, leading to fears that they will be subject to damage, distortion, or just depletion. There are, however, both positive and negative aspects to tourism’s engagement with heritage.
Heritage Tourism It could be argued that there are few better ways than tourism to promote understanding between peoples – by inspiring admiration for shared natural and cultural heritages. Heritage sites have always attracted travellers.
93
Masterpieces of humankind and nature prompt in us a sense of wonder that is in itself a unique form of transportation. Heritage tourism attractions are diverse, reflecting earlier discussions on definitional classifications (see Table 2). Heritage assets allow for national and local areas to capitalize on tourism development and this can be enormously important in places where other forms of economic activity are scarce. However, uncontrolled tourism and ill-planned development can cause irreversible physical and social damage not only to heritage sites but also to the communities surrounding them. The physical impacts of tourism on natural and built heritage landscapes are the easiest to see, and therefore, to manage. Assessing and monitoring the way in which tourism affects intangible heritage and culture is rather more complex. Concepts of sustainability are important in the management of tourism, since heritage itself forms the very resource upon which the sector depends. The market does not always care for the finer nuances of cultural integrity, requiring state interventionism for conservation purposes.
Heritage Interpretation and Representation Given the breadth of meaning and conceptualization involved in the term ‘heritage’, the task of bringing heritage to an audience, be it domestic or overseas, is enormously challenging. Not all heritage, not all stories, and not all perspectives can be adequately displayed or told. Where heritage is engaged with in public spaces, such as tourism sites, heritage centers, museums, and galleries, a process is undertaken by those charged with it, to select, interpret, and present that heritage. This process involves a commodification of the past, of objects and events, in such a way that interest is raised, and in some cases, entertainment provided. In some instances, that ‘interest’ has profit-driven objectives (e.g., the economic viability of a local heritage site), and as such, must ensure that visitors are engaged and satisfied. In this very process, heritage becomes a product which can be used by consumers/visitors, and therefore, conveys particular messages. These messages come from the deliberate selection of resources, products, and packaging. These, in turn, are chosen on the basis of sets of subjective values (consciously or not) of those exercising these choices and the functional imperative for the selection (economic, educational, entertainment). The ways in which heritage objects are selected, put together, and written or spoken about have particular effects. These effects are not those of the objects per se; it is the use made of these objects and interpretive frameworks that can open up or close down historical, social,
94
Heritage
Table 2
Heritage tourism attractions
Heritage tourism category
Examples and sample sites
Built-heritage attractions
Historic townscapes, architecture, archaeological sites, monuments, historic buildings Sites: Dubrovnik, Croatia; The Winter Palace, St. Petersburgh; Stonehenge, England National parks, cultural landscapes, coastlines, caves, geological features Sites: Kakadu National Park, Australia; Mount Fujiama, Japan; the Grand Canyon, USA; the Amazon Rainforest, Brazil; Okavango Delta, Botswana Arts, crafts, festivals, traditional events, folk-history museums Sites: Carnival, Rio de Janeiro; Cannes Film Festival, France; Chinese New Year Festivals; Robben Island, South Africa Mines, factories, breweries, shipyards, Sites: Ironbridge Gorge, England; New Lanark, Scotland; Rhine Valley, Germany Cathedrals, abbeys, mosques, shrines, pilgrimage routes, and cities Sites: Taj Mahal, India; Angkor Wat, Cambodia; Sistene Chapel, the Vatican; Uluru, Australia; Santiago De Compostela, Spain Castles, battlefields, concentration camps, military museums Sites: Normandy, France; Hiroshima, Japan; Auschwitz, Poland Houses, gardens, or landscapes associated with artists and writers Sites: Wordsworth: The Lake District, England; Dickens: London; Van Gogh: French Landscapes, African Cave Art; Aboriginal Nature Art: Australia
Natural-heritage attractions
Cultural-heritage attractions
Industrial heritage attractions
Religious sites and attractions
Military heritage attractions
Literary or artistic heritage attractions
and cultural possibilities. The importance of insightful and inclusive representation–interpretation that acknowledges such legitimization of difference is crucial in spaces of contested identity and multiple heritage(s). There are many such spaces in an increasing number of global zones of conflict where concepts of ‘heritage and national cultural identity’ have become fragmented, blurred, and often violently challenged. Most FirstNations territories, former colonies, and countries with contested borders face challenging negotiations of heritage representation and interpretation. Museums in Jerusalem for example, must assess Jewish and Palestinian claims to different histories in shifting territorial space. Similar obstacles are being faced by heritage
professionals narrating the ongoing histories of Republican Catholics–Unionist Protestants in Northern Ireland, Maori–Pakehas in New Zealand, and Shiites– Sunis–Christians in Iraq, to name a few. As tourism increasingly seeks out new products with the growth of cultural-heritage tourism, the politics of representation ‘for-self ’ (local/national communities as part of identity building) versus ‘for-others’ (tourists, as part of entertainment/visitation) becomes much more loaded. It is important to acknowledge the importance of heritage as an economic resource, but it can also be used to help examine the meanings of culture and power, thereby giving it a vital sociopolitical function. On a micro-level, the politics of representation becomes crucial for the practicalities of heritage site-/ museum-exhibition design and layout. The process of heritage interpretation should be simply about moving knowledge from specialists to the general public in a clear and effective way. What is and what is not said, in complex settings, becomes important, and (more importantly) ‘how’ messages are portrayed takes on added significance. The task – for curators, educators, and exhibition developers – is to provide experiences that invite visitors to interpret meaning through deploying and extending their existing interpretive strategies and repertoires, using their prior knowledge and their preferred learning styles, and testing their own hypotheses against those of others, including experts!
Authenticity Much debate exists as to whether tourists or indeed, people in general are concerned with engaging in an authentic heritage experience, or more simply, ‘whether the truth matters’. For some, a visit to a heritage tourism site provides a sense of pleasant escapism, for others, it may be a quest for knowledge, or a complex matrix of many other social, cultural, or leisure orientedmotivations. Nonprofit, public spaces concerned with the representation of heritage (e.g., free-admission national museums) have arguably more leeway in their quest for authenticity. Other economically oriented tourism sites may allow for more nostalgic, stereotyped, or partial versions of the past, events, histories, traditions, and so on, in a bid to excite, entertain, or simply to keep visitors within their comfort zones. Heritage spaces are sometimes seen as safe places, where visitors can indulge themselves looking for the lost meanings of the present in an idealized past. Yesterday is presented as a time where there is no responsibility or discord. Such nostalgic and sentimental views of the past as a ‘golden age’ are what makes it such a dangerous place for the escapist to inhabit. Much of our ‘heritage’ is interpreted to stimulate nostalgia, idealize the past, and
Heritage
leads to a selective understanding of the past that has more to do with fantasy than truth. Many tourismoriented sites construct heritage interpretation very selectively and portray only the lighter side of history in an attempt to exploit the public’s appetite for reconstructed, comforting, and nostalgic images of the past. For some, however, heritage interpretation is about education and challenge while encouraging visitors to question their values and attitudes. The idea of authenticity as a sociological discourse was initiated in the 1970s where it was discussed within the broader framework of a debate about the relationship between tourism and modernity. Commentators saw modern people as alienated from their own society, and therefore, reality and authenticity were thought to be elsewhere: in other historical periods and other cultures, in purer, simpler lifestyles. This builds upon the notion of nostalgia for the past representing dissatisfaction with the present. As the gaps between truth and fiction become more blurred, tourism engages in what has been termed ‘staged authenticity’ – where the sector knowingly presents heritage almost as theme-park like parodies of itself, and in some cases, tourists are happily complicit in such a process.
The Politics of Heritage and Identity In any nation, a multiplicity of quite different ideologies exist and can be conveyed through the same heritage, rather than any specific, coherent political program intended to support a distinctive prevailing view of society. Whether national conflicts are reconcilable through proactive, inclusive cultural heritage policy is arguable and remains to be seen in many places. Questions of identity and difference are common in the landscape of contemporary political theory. Problems of diverse heritage identities and representation are not exclusive to divided states such as Israel, Palestine, and Ireland, for example. Indeed, this notion of an internal national homogeneity (which draws inevitably upon a particular representation of heritage and a mythology of the past for its coherency and legitimization) – has conditioned western conceptualizations of political space for more than two centuries. Many writers have examined the interconnection between heritage, identity, and place. Some argue that without being connected to a place, people begin to lose their identity and their heritage. They suggest that the past is integral to our identity and that staying connected to natal or long-inhabited locales is a natural inclination. This view is increasingly being challenged as globalization grows in momentum and the role of virtual, cyber-based communities who share common interest bases, rather than shared place-identities, rises.
95
A common theme of some heritage literature is the concentration on the local nature of identity and the role of heritage, in times of uncertainty or upheaval. The urge to preserve the past can be viewed as an effort by people to preserve a part of themselves, and those feelings of nostalgia are often strongest when national identity is somehow threatened. Confusion about identity and loss of confidence is often seen in immigrant communities who have no natural or historical connection to their new place of residence. The mass movement of Central and Eastern European migrants in the first decade of the new millennium has seen new cultural compositions emerge in the West of the continent. Poland in particular, has experienced extreme population shift. America has a long history of multiculturalism and its specific heritage challenges range from the authentic representation of native AmericanIndian peoples to the proposed primacy of Spanish as a legal language in California (to reflect the large Mexican/central-American population composition). However, if it is culture and heritage, above all else, that are (as research suggests) fundamental to identity, their inclusive representation remains a charged political issue. Where heritage is displaced (or even misplaced), questions of ownership arise and the heritage of the indigenous population can no longer be promoted as unambiguously universal or necessarily dominant. Concepts of hegemony (supremacy) and ownership are relevant here insofar as the creation of any heritage actively (or potentially) disinherits or excludes those who do not subscribe to the terms of meaning defining that heritage. The term ‘dissonant heritage’ is used to describe heritage which is embedded in discord and conflicting versions of the past or present. Contestation refers to negotiation, often between groups of people in local, national, or international spaces, in the search for legitimate versions of their own authentic heritage. Heritage is therefore simultaneously: knowledge; a cultural product; and a political resource. Key questions include why a particular interpretation of heritage is promoted, and whose interests are advanced or retarded by such versions of the past, or present? If heritage knowledge is situated in particular contexts of understanding or power relations, it is timespecific and thus its meaning(s) can be altered as sociocultural and political situations change. Consequently, it is inevitable that heritage is contested and challenged in a dynamic manner. The question ‘whose heritage?’ is an increasingly complex one for many nations and localities. Heritage also plays a crucial social function in terms of identity construction, at personal, local, regional, and national scales where it can be seen as the primary instrument in the discovery, creation, and subsequent nurturing of a national identity. Heritage can be framed as activities and events that establish or symbolize social cohesion. Therefore, heritage undoubtedly has cohesive
96
Heritage
as well as separatist potential. The psychological continuity and identity of such cohesive groups is a primary ingredient which acts as a cultural frame of reference. This function of heritage is important in periods of social transition or major national reorientation, for preserving hegemonic equilibrium and momentum.
World Heritage Conservation and Management Attempts to construct a concept of heritage at a global level are conceptually problematic. However, given increasing levels of interdependency between people and places, practical attempts have been made to inventorize value and apply international conservation strategies. The World Heritage Convention of 1972 was a landmark global gathering where it was stated for the first time, internationally, that parts of our cultural and natural heritage are of outstanding interest, and need to be preserved for humanity as a whole. It established criteria and procedures for the inclusion, on a single World Heritage List, of properties constituting cultural and natural heritage worthy of preservation. UNESCO’s World Heritage Mission is to encourage countries to sign the Convention and ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage through the nomination of sites within their national territories for inclusion in the world heritage list. At the time of writing, over 700 world heritage sites (WHSs) existed in more than 120 countries, and the number increases annually. There are three possible categories for inscription onto the WHS list – (1) cultural heritage, which includes monuments, groups of buildings, and sites, and this is the largest category representing almost two-thirds of the entire list; (2) natural heritage, which includes natural features, geological and physiographical formations; natural sites; and (3) mixed properties or cultural landscapes, representing combinations of the above and includes aspects of intangible heritage, which is by far the smallest WHS list category, reflecting classificational and definitional debates in previous sections above. No two WHSs are (by definition) alike but all share common problems such as the need for a delicate balance between visitation and conservation. All are national flag carriers, symbols in some way of national culture and character. Most are major cultural tourism attractions of their country and some (such as Machu Pichu, the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China) are powerfully evocative symbols of national identity and are universally recognized. World Heritage is a fragile nonrenewable resource which needs to be safeguarded, both to maintain its authenticity and to preserve it for future generations. Visiting a WHS should be a special experience, on
a different scale from visiting other tourist sites. The majority of visitors to such places are, predictably, motivated by an interest in heritage and culture, although this motivation may not be matched by any prior knowledge of the site concerned making the provision of appropriate and meaningful interpretation even more important. In terms of management and conservation, UNESCO aims to preserve for the present and the future the monuments that bear witness to the creative nature of humanity, and to make these treasures available to the widest possible public. In this light, there are specific WHS operational guidelines which designated sites must adhere to. Monitoring is conducted by specific committees, and WHS listing may be withdrawn if guidelines are not adhered to. General guiding principles include: (1) sites should be seen as integral parts of local and regional conservation, tourist and development plans, and not as ‘intrusive islands of conservation’, (2) good integration of site preservation, conservation, and presentation strategies, (3) the need for the development of suitable management plans, and (4) advanced recognition of threats to sites (e.g., pollution, tourism, farming, building development). Naturally, these issues differ depending on the ‘type’ of site (e.g., natural or cultural), the ‘location’ (e.g., urban or rural, developed or developing world), the organizations who own and/or manage the site (e.g., private, public, or voluntary bodies; single or multiple ownership/management). All WHSs must have effective visitor management strategies, thereby ensuring the sustainability of the sites themselves for future generations’ appreciation. Heritage not considered to be World Heritage in UNSECO’s classification terms, is nonetheless of enormous value at multiple scales, and worthy of conservation for its own sake. In a changing world, new constructs of heritage, identity, authenticity, and representation will continue to emerge as meanings are constantly renegotiated over time and space. See also: Memorials and Monuments; National Spatialities; Tourism.
Further Reading Ashworth, G. J. and Larkham, P. J. (1994). Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in the New Europe. London: Routledge. Cohen, E. (2002). Authenticity, equity and sustainability in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(4), 267--276. Cosgrove, D. (1998). Social Formation and the Symbolic Landscape (2nd edn.). London: Croom Helm. Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J. and Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. London: Arnold. Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J. and Tunbridge, J. E. (2005). The uses and abuses of Heritage. In Corsane, G. (ed.) Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader, pp 26--37. London: Routledge.
Heritage
Hardy, D. (1988). Historical geography and heritage studies. Area 20, 333--338. Harvey, D. C. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 7(4), 319--338. Herbert, D. T. (ed.) (1991). Heritage, Tourism and Society. London: Mansell. Hewison, R. (1987). The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London: Methuen. Hewison, R. (1989). Heritage: An interpretation. In Uzzell, D. (ed.) Heritage Interpretation vol. 1, London: Belhaven Press. Howard, P. (2003). Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity. London: Continuum. Johnson, N. (1999). Framing the past: Time, space and politics of heritage tourism in Ireland. Political Geography 19, 187--207. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palang, H. and Fry, G. (2003). Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changeing Landscapes. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
97
Shaw, B. J. and Jones, R. (eds.) (1997). Contested Urban Heritage: Voices from the Periphery. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Smith, L. (2006). The Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge. Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting Our Heritage. North Carolina: Chapel Hill Books. Uzzell, D. (1998). Interpreting our heritage: A theoretical interpretation. In Uzzell, D. & Ballantyne, R. (eds.) Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation, pp 11--25. London: The Stationery Office.
Relevant Websites http://www.unesco.org United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) website-this lists World Heritage Sites and explains the tangible/intangible dimensions to heritage.
Glossary Authenticity The extent to which a heritage item, artifact, or event is seen to be valid, genuine, real, or legitimate by an individual or an organization. Commodification The manner in which heritage rawmaterials are utilized by other industries, for example tourism, for economic purposes. Contestation Negotiation, often between groups of people in local, national, or international spaces, in search of legitimate versions of authentic heritage. Governance The state structures at local, national, and/or international levels that organize, legislate, or fund heritage-related activities. Heritage Buildings, artifacts, landscapes, cultures, and traditions deemed to be of importance to past, present, and future populations. Intangible That which cannot be physically touched; in a heritage context, this often refers to a cultural tradition such as a song, a language-dialect, or superstition particular to a local area.
Introduction Heritage is an elusive concept, to both define and discuss, as it means many things to most people. Indeed, in basic chronological terms, it is often exclusively regarded as an idea that is set in the past. This notion has been challenged in recent years as various economic, environmental, and sociocultural activities have become concerned with heritage in a contemporary context. Many national and international organizations have incorporated the term heritage into departmental titles and functions. The scope of heritage is broad insofar as it may singularly or simultaneously be taken to refer to aspects of people and culture, the built environment, or natural landscapes. In this respect, it can therefore be manipulated by power structures in society to create subjective or partial narratives of the past (or present) for particular cultural, economic, environmental, and/or political purposes.
Defining Heritage Semantically speaking, the word ‘heritage’ has existed for centuries, with most dictionaries unanimously defining it as something inherited at birth, handed down, or a legacy
of some kind which links the past, through the present, to the future, at an individual or collective level. This legacy involves people, events, cultural landscapes, and objects deemed to be important at local, national, and/or international geographical scales. There is a multitude of ideas, both tangible and intangible, that the word has been applied to within the cultural sector and outside of it. European Architectural Heritage Year, 1975, is regarded by some as a benchmark for the inception of ‘heritage’ as a public forum concept. Thus, ‘heritage’ was a term that came to the fore in the 1970s, in Europe, and throughout the 1980s expanded increasingly to encompass other developments such as the establishment of heritage visitor centers by both the public and private sectors. Amalgamations of definitional discussions from the literature suggest that heritage includes (but not exclusively): buildings, archaeology, cultural artifacts, natural landscapes and landforms, wildlife, historical events or characters, cultural traditions, dress, language, and customs. Arguably, an object or event can become heritage because a person or organization deems it to be of importance, and therein lies the crux of the situation – heritage can be anything that is valued – from a family photograph to a national monument. Therefore, if individuals construct their own framework within which to define heritage, seeing it as a plural concept is of little value or consequence. Conversely, meanings can be deliberately constructed by the state, or economically driven organizations who select aspects of heritage for mass consumption, which can play a role in identity construction, the tourism industry, or creating a collective sense of belonging. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) also categorizes heritage into three main subdivisions: built heritage, natural heritage, and intangible heritage, and these groupings affect the way in which global heritage sites are designated and conserved at an international scale (see section on ‘Policy and Governance’ later in this article). The United Kingdom, for example, has specially designated ‘heritage coasts’, representing valued natural landscapes. The European Union has also designated ‘natural heritage areas’ to protect special natural environments in certain member states. The United States designates ‘national heritage areas’ through its national parks service, representing both built and natural heritage in its aim to ‘tell America’s story’. As shown in Table 1 above, UNESCO’s
91
92
Heritage
Table 1
Classifying heritage
Nation/Region Area
Site/Activities
‘Built’ heritage
‘Natural’ heritage
‘Living’ heritage
Buildings/cities Historic towns Seaside resorts Conservation areas Museums Art galleries Historic buildings Historic sites/monuments Heritage centers Heritage theme parks Archaeological sites Transport
Landscapes/environment National parks Coastlines Designated/protected landscapes Geological features Town/country parks Botanic gardens Historic gardens Nature reserves Countryside centers Country parks Forest Ecomuseums Archaeological sites
Communities/people Traditional food and costumes Festivals Markets Folklore, folklife houses/cafes Craft centers Farms Ecomuseums Everyday spaces Communities Historic events and characters Language Song and dance Religious practices/beliefs
groupings reflect a wide variety of spaces, objects, and activities at various scales. Intangible heritage – that which cannot be touched – interestingly, was only added recently in response to criticisms that ‘real people’ felt more affinity to everyday aspects of heritage such as language, customs, oral histories, and so on than to grand stately homes or ancient monuments, for example. For many urban dwellers, there is often little opportunity to engage with natural heritage on any kind of a regular basis, which can lead to a disassociation with or disregard for it.
Policy and Governance Heritage can take a variety of official (state-validated) and unofficial forms; the latter often conflicts with, or is resistant to, the former. To consider this further, we can reiterate that ‘heritage’ is an enormously diverse concept – there are multiple heritages, the contents and meanings of which change through time and across space. Interestingly, heritage policy has mainly focused on the built heritage in many nations, followed to a lesser extent by natural heritage (usually the domain of separate, environmental government agencies), and lastly, intangible heritage. This emphasis is accounted for through the obvious visibility of the built environment, consisting of townscapes, buildings, monuments (see Table 1), and other man-made infrastructures, which is easier to identify, quantify, and therefore monitor. Many countries have policies and organizations that are concerned with creating inventories of buildings of particular types of architecture, quantifying and classifying ancient monuments and archaeological ruins, and managing or conserving such heritage. At an international level, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS, a subcommittee of UNESCO) collates and monitors national registers. Effects of the tangibility of this type of heritage leads to greater attention in policy terms, and therefore, often also in funding terms.
Landscape-based natural heritage holds a fond place in the hearts and imaginations of many people. Environmental legislation usually serves to protect and manage nonurban spaces, and global, European, and national regulations are in place to enforce a plethora of policies. Global Earth Summits which discuss international aspects of the natural environment have generated extreme responses as the planet faces a variety of environmental threats. Our global heritage could therefore be considered at a very basic level, in terms of natural heritage and all that it entails. Values related to the natural are also important at an individual level, where a person’s sense of identity or heritage can be heightened as they gaze at the Grand Canyon, the white cliffs of Dover, the lavender fields of Provence, Uluru, or other iconic landscapes. Policy provision for this is, however, much more difficult to formulate. Such cultural landscapes have long been the focus of geographers who attempt to discover the uniqueness of relationships between people and their environments. UNESCO has now recognized the importance of intangible heritage, such as endangered languages and oral heritage; placing as much importance and protection on these aspects as the tangible heritage they also safeguard. Thus, values of cultural expressions and practice and the recognition of communities/groups as those who identify, enact, re-create, and transmit the intangible or living heritage are also part of UNESCO’s policy remit. At national and local levels, many groups are engaged in cultural forms which can be classified as intangible heritage. The difficulty in creating policies and funding structures around these, lie in the complexity of deciding how to place value and merit on cultural, essentially qualitative issues? Tackling the question of how to fund local heritage sites and events, it can be argued that governments cannot avoid making value judgements when allocating funding but the requirement to be accessible to every possible community group has meant that many institutions are now facing enormous
Heritage
difficulties. One impact has been that many community organizations, for example, follow funding-led heritage agendas and themes, for financial survival, which results in a heritage dictated by state policy structures rather than being directed by the people to whom, arguably, it matters most. Many heritage organizations emphasize the need to measure cultural value, often to justify state funding mechanisms. However, many do not have any ‘robust indicators’ to measure the benefits of heritage to society or how people ascribe values to their local heritage in return. This may be because such a process requires indepth qualitative research – something that many government agencies have shied away from in favor of quantitative or ‘hard’ data, which is immensely easier to collect and analyze. Organizations such as the American Museums Association devise performance indicators, for their members, which allow the progress of such formal heritage spaces to be monitored. Festivals and other transitory cultural events gauge visitor numbers as measures of success. A major challenge for the heritage sector is to find ways in which to equally account for, manage, and value built, natural, and intangible heritage.
Commodification Commodification is a term used to describe how heritage is utilized as a commercial product and mass-produced, often at the cost of authenticity. If we see heritage in terms of a spectrum – at one end heritage has its own intrinsic cultural value, where it matters to individuals, communities, and nations, in its own right, or for its own sake; at the other end, heritage can be seen to have a utilitarian or economic use-value. In other words, it can be manipulated and selected somehow as a ‘product’ which can be presented, interpreted, and/or sold. The main sector that engages somehow with this commodification is the tourism industry (although some reference has been made in the literature to the ‘heritage industry’ itself, referring to the widest possible scope of agencies and activities involved in commodification). The exploitation of particular resources for the creation of heritage products inevitably affects the nature of these resources, leading to fears that they will be subject to damage, distortion, or just depletion. There are, however, both positive and negative aspects to tourism’s engagement with heritage.
Heritage Tourism It could be argued that there are few better ways than tourism to promote understanding between peoples – by inspiring admiration for shared natural and cultural heritages. Heritage sites have always attracted travellers.
93
Masterpieces of humankind and nature prompt in us a sense of wonder that is in itself a unique form of transportation. Heritage tourism attractions are diverse, reflecting earlier discussions on definitional classifications (see Table 2). Heritage assets allow for national and local areas to capitalize on tourism development and this can be enormously important in places where other forms of economic activity are scarce. However, uncontrolled tourism and ill-planned development can cause irreversible physical and social damage not only to heritage sites but also to the communities surrounding them. The physical impacts of tourism on natural and built heritage landscapes are the easiest to see, and therefore, to manage. Assessing and monitoring the way in which tourism affects intangible heritage and culture is rather more complex. Concepts of sustainability are important in the management of tourism, since heritage itself forms the very resource upon which the sector depends. The market does not always care for the finer nuances of cultural integrity, requiring state interventionism for conservation purposes.
Heritage Interpretation and Representation Given the breadth of meaning and conceptualization involved in the term ‘heritage’, the task of bringing heritage to an audience, be it domestic or overseas, is enormously challenging. Not all heritage, not all stories, and not all perspectives can be adequately displayed or told. Where heritage is engaged with in public spaces, such as tourism sites, heritage centers, museums, and galleries, a process is undertaken by those charged with it, to select, interpret, and present that heritage. This process involves a commodification of the past, of objects and events, in such a way that interest is raised, and in some cases, entertainment provided. In some instances, that ‘interest’ has profit-driven objectives (e.g., the economic viability of a local heritage site), and as such, must ensure that visitors are engaged and satisfied. In this very process, heritage becomes a product which can be used by consumers/visitors, and therefore, conveys particular messages. These messages come from the deliberate selection of resources, products, and packaging. These, in turn, are chosen on the basis of sets of subjective values (consciously or not) of those exercising these choices and the functional imperative for the selection (economic, educational, entertainment). The ways in which heritage objects are selected, put together, and written or spoken about have particular effects. These effects are not those of the objects per se; it is the use made of these objects and interpretive frameworks that can open up or close down historical, social,
94
Heritage
Table 2
Heritage tourism attractions
Heritage tourism category
Examples and sample sites
Built-heritage attractions
Historic townscapes, architecture, archaeological sites, monuments, historic buildings Sites: Dubrovnik, Croatia; The Winter Palace, St. Petersburgh; Stonehenge, England National parks, cultural landscapes, coastlines, caves, geological features Sites: Kakadu National Park, Australia; Mount Fujiama, Japan; the Grand Canyon, USA; the Amazon Rainforest, Brazil; Okavango Delta, Botswana Arts, crafts, festivals, traditional events, folk-history museums Sites: Carnival, Rio de Janeiro; Cannes Film Festival, France; Chinese New Year Festivals; Robben Island, South Africa Mines, factories, breweries, shipyards, Sites: Ironbridge Gorge, England; New Lanark, Scotland; Rhine Valley, Germany Cathedrals, abbeys, mosques, shrines, pilgrimage routes, and cities Sites: Taj Mahal, India; Angkor Wat, Cambodia; Sistene Chapel, the Vatican; Uluru, Australia; Santiago De Compostela, Spain Castles, battlefields, concentration camps, military museums Sites: Normandy, France; Hiroshima, Japan; Auschwitz, Poland Houses, gardens, or landscapes associated with artists and writers Sites: Wordsworth: The Lake District, England; Dickens: London; Van Gogh: French Landscapes, African Cave Art; Aboriginal Nature Art: Australia
Natural-heritage attractions
Cultural-heritage attractions
Industrial heritage attractions
Religious sites and attractions
Military heritage attractions
Literary or artistic heritage attractions
and cultural possibilities. The importance of insightful and inclusive representation–interpretation that acknowledges such legitimization of difference is crucial in spaces of contested identity and multiple heritage(s). There are many such spaces in an increasing number of global zones of conflict where concepts of ‘heritage and national cultural identity’ have become fragmented, blurred, and often violently challenged. Most FirstNations territories, former colonies, and countries with contested borders face challenging negotiations of heritage representation and interpretation. Museums in Jerusalem for example, must assess Jewish and Palestinian claims to different histories in shifting territorial space. Similar obstacles are being faced by heritage
professionals narrating the ongoing histories of Republican Catholics–Unionist Protestants in Northern Ireland, Maori–Pakehas in New Zealand, and Shiites– Sunis–Christians in Iraq, to name a few. As tourism increasingly seeks out new products with the growth of cultural-heritage tourism, the politics of representation ‘for-self ’ (local/national communities as part of identity building) versus ‘for-others’ (tourists, as part of entertainment/visitation) becomes much more loaded. It is important to acknowledge the importance of heritage as an economic resource, but it can also be used to help examine the meanings of culture and power, thereby giving it a vital sociopolitical function. On a micro-level, the politics of representation becomes crucial for the practicalities of heritage site-/ museum-exhibition design and layout. The process of heritage interpretation should be simply about moving knowledge from specialists to the general public in a clear and effective way. What is and what is not said, in complex settings, becomes important, and (more importantly) ‘how’ messages are portrayed takes on added significance. The task – for curators, educators, and exhibition developers – is to provide experiences that invite visitors to interpret meaning through deploying and extending their existing interpretive strategies and repertoires, using their prior knowledge and their preferred learning styles, and testing their own hypotheses against those of others, including experts!
Authenticity Much debate exists as to whether tourists or indeed, people in general are concerned with engaging in an authentic heritage experience, or more simply, ‘whether the truth matters’. For some, a visit to a heritage tourism site provides a sense of pleasant escapism, for others, it may be a quest for knowledge, or a complex matrix of many other social, cultural, or leisure orientedmotivations. Nonprofit, public spaces concerned with the representation of heritage (e.g., free-admission national museums) have arguably more leeway in their quest for authenticity. Other economically oriented tourism sites may allow for more nostalgic, stereotyped, or partial versions of the past, events, histories, traditions, and so on, in a bid to excite, entertain, or simply to keep visitors within their comfort zones. Heritage spaces are sometimes seen as safe places, where visitors can indulge themselves looking for the lost meanings of the present in an idealized past. Yesterday is presented as a time where there is no responsibility or discord. Such nostalgic and sentimental views of the past as a ‘golden age’ are what makes it such a dangerous place for the escapist to inhabit. Much of our ‘heritage’ is interpreted to stimulate nostalgia, idealize the past, and
Heritage
leads to a selective understanding of the past that has more to do with fantasy than truth. Many tourismoriented sites construct heritage interpretation very selectively and portray only the lighter side of history in an attempt to exploit the public’s appetite for reconstructed, comforting, and nostalgic images of the past. For some, however, heritage interpretation is about education and challenge while encouraging visitors to question their values and attitudes. The idea of authenticity as a sociological discourse was initiated in the 1970s where it was discussed within the broader framework of a debate about the relationship between tourism and modernity. Commentators saw modern people as alienated from their own society, and therefore, reality and authenticity were thought to be elsewhere: in other historical periods and other cultures, in purer, simpler lifestyles. This builds upon the notion of nostalgia for the past representing dissatisfaction with the present. As the gaps between truth and fiction become more blurred, tourism engages in what has been termed ‘staged authenticity’ – where the sector knowingly presents heritage almost as theme-park like parodies of itself, and in some cases, tourists are happily complicit in such a process.
The Politics of Heritage and Identity In any nation, a multiplicity of quite different ideologies exist and can be conveyed through the same heritage, rather than any specific, coherent political program intended to support a distinctive prevailing view of society. Whether national conflicts are reconcilable through proactive, inclusive cultural heritage policy is arguable and remains to be seen in many places. Questions of identity and difference are common in the landscape of contemporary political theory. Problems of diverse heritage identities and representation are not exclusive to divided states such as Israel, Palestine, and Ireland, for example. Indeed, this notion of an internal national homogeneity (which draws inevitably upon a particular representation of heritage and a mythology of the past for its coherency and legitimization) – has conditioned western conceptualizations of political space for more than two centuries. Many writers have examined the interconnection between heritage, identity, and place. Some argue that without being connected to a place, people begin to lose their identity and their heritage. They suggest that the past is integral to our identity and that staying connected to natal or long-inhabited locales is a natural inclination. This view is increasingly being challenged as globalization grows in momentum and the role of virtual, cyber-based communities who share common interest bases, rather than shared place-identities, rises.
95
A common theme of some heritage literature is the concentration on the local nature of identity and the role of heritage, in times of uncertainty or upheaval. The urge to preserve the past can be viewed as an effort by people to preserve a part of themselves, and those feelings of nostalgia are often strongest when national identity is somehow threatened. Confusion about identity and loss of confidence is often seen in immigrant communities who have no natural or historical connection to their new place of residence. The mass movement of Central and Eastern European migrants in the first decade of the new millennium has seen new cultural compositions emerge in the West of the continent. Poland in particular, has experienced extreme population shift. America has a long history of multiculturalism and its specific heritage challenges range from the authentic representation of native AmericanIndian peoples to the proposed primacy of Spanish as a legal language in California (to reflect the large Mexican/central-American population composition). However, if it is culture and heritage, above all else, that are (as research suggests) fundamental to identity, their inclusive representation remains a charged political issue. Where heritage is displaced (or even misplaced), questions of ownership arise and the heritage of the indigenous population can no longer be promoted as unambiguously universal or necessarily dominant. Concepts of hegemony (supremacy) and ownership are relevant here insofar as the creation of any heritage actively (or potentially) disinherits or excludes those who do not subscribe to the terms of meaning defining that heritage. The term ‘dissonant heritage’ is used to describe heritage which is embedded in discord and conflicting versions of the past or present. Contestation refers to negotiation, often between groups of people in local, national, or international spaces, in the search for legitimate versions of their own authentic heritage. Heritage is therefore simultaneously: knowledge; a cultural product; and a political resource. Key questions include why a particular interpretation of heritage is promoted, and whose interests are advanced or retarded by such versions of the past, or present? If heritage knowledge is situated in particular contexts of understanding or power relations, it is timespecific and thus its meaning(s) can be altered as sociocultural and political situations change. Consequently, it is inevitable that heritage is contested and challenged in a dynamic manner. The question ‘whose heritage?’ is an increasingly complex one for many nations and localities. Heritage also plays a crucial social function in terms of identity construction, at personal, local, regional, and national scales where it can be seen as the primary instrument in the discovery, creation, and subsequent nurturing of a national identity. Heritage can be framed as activities and events that establish or symbolize social cohesion. Therefore, heritage undoubtedly has cohesive
96
Heritage
as well as separatist potential. The psychological continuity and identity of such cohesive groups is a primary ingredient which acts as a cultural frame of reference. This function of heritage is important in periods of social transition or major national reorientation, for preserving hegemonic equilibrium and momentum.
World Heritage Conservation and Management Attempts to construct a concept of heritage at a global level are conceptually problematic. However, given increasing levels of interdependency between people and places, practical attempts have been made to inventorize value and apply international conservation strategies. The World Heritage Convention of 1972 was a landmark global gathering where it was stated for the first time, internationally, that parts of our cultural and natural heritage are of outstanding interest, and need to be preserved for humanity as a whole. It established criteria and procedures for the inclusion, on a single World Heritage List, of properties constituting cultural and natural heritage worthy of preservation. UNESCO’s World Heritage Mission is to encourage countries to sign the Convention and ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage through the nomination of sites within their national territories for inclusion in the world heritage list. At the time of writing, over 700 world heritage sites (WHSs) existed in more than 120 countries, and the number increases annually. There are three possible categories for inscription onto the WHS list – (1) cultural heritage, which includes monuments, groups of buildings, and sites, and this is the largest category representing almost two-thirds of the entire list; (2) natural heritage, which includes natural features, geological and physiographical formations; natural sites; and (3) mixed properties or cultural landscapes, representing combinations of the above and includes aspects of intangible heritage, which is by far the smallest WHS list category, reflecting classificational and definitional debates in previous sections above. No two WHSs are (by definition) alike but all share common problems such as the need for a delicate balance between visitation and conservation. All are national flag carriers, symbols in some way of national culture and character. Most are major cultural tourism attractions of their country and some (such as Machu Pichu, the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China) are powerfully evocative symbols of national identity and are universally recognized. World Heritage is a fragile nonrenewable resource which needs to be safeguarded, both to maintain its authenticity and to preserve it for future generations. Visiting a WHS should be a special experience, on
a different scale from visiting other tourist sites. The majority of visitors to such places are, predictably, motivated by an interest in heritage and culture, although this motivation may not be matched by any prior knowledge of the site concerned making the provision of appropriate and meaningful interpretation even more important. In terms of management and conservation, UNESCO aims to preserve for the present and the future the monuments that bear witness to the creative nature of humanity, and to make these treasures available to the widest possible public. In this light, there are specific WHS operational guidelines which designated sites must adhere to. Monitoring is conducted by specific committees, and WHS listing may be withdrawn if guidelines are not adhered to. General guiding principles include: (1) sites should be seen as integral parts of local and regional conservation, tourist and development plans, and not as ‘intrusive islands of conservation’, (2) good integration of site preservation, conservation, and presentation strategies, (3) the need for the development of suitable management plans, and (4) advanced recognition of threats to sites (e.g., pollution, tourism, farming, building development). Naturally, these issues differ depending on the ‘type’ of site (e.g., natural or cultural), the ‘location’ (e.g., urban or rural, developed or developing world), the organizations who own and/or manage the site (e.g., private, public, or voluntary bodies; single or multiple ownership/management). All WHSs must have effective visitor management strategies, thereby ensuring the sustainability of the sites themselves for future generations’ appreciation. Heritage not considered to be World Heritage in UNSECO’s classification terms, is nonetheless of enormous value at multiple scales, and worthy of conservation for its own sake. In a changing world, new constructs of heritage, identity, authenticity, and representation will continue to emerge as meanings are constantly renegotiated over time and space. See also: Memorials and Monuments; National Spatialities; Tourism.
Further Reading Ashworth, G. J. and Larkham, P. J. (1994). Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in the New Europe. London: Routledge. Cohen, E. (2002). Authenticity, equity and sustainability in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(4), 267--276. Cosgrove, D. (1998). Social Formation and the Symbolic Landscape (2nd edn.). London: Croom Helm. Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J. and Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. London: Arnold. Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J. and Tunbridge, J. E. (2005). The uses and abuses of Heritage. In Corsane, G. (ed.) Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader, pp 26--37. London: Routledge.
Heritage
Hardy, D. (1988). Historical geography and heritage studies. Area 20, 333--338. Harvey, D. C. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 7(4), 319--338. Herbert, D. T. (ed.) (1991). Heritage, Tourism and Society. London: Mansell. Hewison, R. (1987). The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London: Methuen. Hewison, R. (1989). Heritage: An interpretation. In Uzzell, D. (ed.) Heritage Interpretation vol. 1, London: Belhaven Press. Howard, P. (2003). Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity. London: Continuum. Johnson, N. (1999). Framing the past: Time, space and politics of heritage tourism in Ireland. Political Geography 19, 187--207. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palang, H. and Fry, G. (2003). Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changeing Landscapes. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
97
Shaw, B. J. and Jones, R. (eds.) (1997). Contested Urban Heritage: Voices from the Periphery. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Smith, L. (2006). The Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge. Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting Our Heritage. North Carolina: Chapel Hill Books. Uzzell, D. (1998). Interpreting our heritage: A theoretical interpretation. In Uzzell, D. & Ballantyne, R. (eds.) Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation, pp 11--25. London: The Stationery Office.
Relevant Websites http://www.unesco.org United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) website-this lists World Heritage Sites and explains the tangible/intangible dimensions to heritage.