Download pdf - [] cultural landscapes a bridge between culture and nature.pdf

8/12/2019 [www.fisierulmeu.ro] cultural landscapes a bridge between culture and nature.pdf

1/8

1

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: A BRIDGE BETWEEN CULTURE AND NATURE

Ken Taylor

It is the landscape as a whole that largely manmade tapestry, in which all other artefacts areembedded which gives them their sense of place.1

Abstract

Historic(al) landscapes with their heritage valuescultu ral landscapeshave reached key status inthe field of cultural heritage conservation and planning. International recognition of culturallandscapes was extended in 1992 to World Heritage prominence with the establishment of threecategories of cultural landscapes of outstanding universal value. Notably cultural landscapes arecritically at the interface between nature and culture, tangible and intangible heritage, biological

and cultural diversity. They represent a closely woven net of inter-relationships between people,

events and places through time; they are a symbol of the growing recognition of the fundamentallinks between local communities and their heritage, people and their natural environment and arefundamental to peoples identity. The presentation will give an overview of the cultural landscapeidea, its significance in international heritage conservation work and will explore how the conceptin Asia has potential for special meaning and as a role model because of the enduring continuousnourishing tradition of history and ways of life manifested in rural and urban settings and theinextricable role of intangible values in the relationship between people, place and identity

The rise of cul tur al l andscapes

The 1990s saw a remarkable flowering of interest in, and understanding of, culturallandscapes: what David Jacques nicely calls the rise of cultural landscapes.2As a result of

the rise with associated emergence of a different value system inherent in cultural

landscapesthere came a challenge to the 1960s and 1970s concept of heritage focussing

on great monuments and archaeological locations, famous architectural ensembles, or

historic sites with connections to the rich and famous. Widening interest in public history

and understanding that the landscape itself, to those who know how to read it aright is

the greatest historical record we possess3 underpinned the emergence of the cultural

landscape movement. It also informed the notion that places or landscapes reflecting

everyday ways of life, the way people create places, and the sequence or rhythm of life over

time were significant. They tell the story of people, events and places through time, offering

a sense of continuity, a sense of the stream of time. They also offer a cultural context settingfor cultural heritage.

The concept of setting is critical to an appreciation of the rich layering inherent in the

cultural landscape idea. The 2005 International ICOMOS conference theme at Xian, China,

stressed the importance of setting in the practice of conserving cultural heritage in changing

townscapes and landscapes with the commentary that:

Setting is not just about physical protection; it may have cultural or social dimension. Tools needto acknowledge both the tangible and intangible aspects of setting. They also need to reflect thecomplexity of ownership, legal structures, economic and social pressures that impinge on the

physical and cultural settings of immoveable heritage assets.


2/8

2

Critical to the 1990s movement were the 1960s and 1970s scholarly writings of cultural

geographers like David Lowenthal, Peirce Lewis, Donald Meining,4J.B. Jackson5with his

inimitable essays on the everyday American scene, Dennis Cosgrove6in Britain, or Dennis

Jeans7 in Australia. They built on the late nineteenth century German tradition of Otto

Schltters Kulturlandschaft with landscape morphology seen as a cultural product and

Franz Boas who championed the idea that different cultures adjusted to similar

environments and taught the historicist mode of conceptualising environment.

8

They alsofollowed the tenets of the American geographer Carl Sauer who, in the 1920s, continued

this discourse with the view that the cultural landscape is fashioned out of a nat ural

landscape by a culture group.9An underlining message was and still is to use ones

eyes and intellect out there, to read the landscape as a document of human history with its

fascinating sense of time and layers replete with human values which inform the genius of

the place.

Equally important to the new sense of history and heritage values in the cultural landscape

idea was the concept that we could be involved in place making. Visitors to cultural

landscapes could be given a sense of participation through presentation of appropriate

interpretative material. So in the 1990s the cultural landscape idea gathered momentum. Itpermeated cultural heritage management and planning thinking and practice.

What i s a cultural landscape?

As we have seen, the term cultural landscape comes from the German term

Kulturlandschaft. The word landscape similarly has its origin in Anglo-German

language dating back to 500AD in Europe. The wordlandscaefand the notion it implied

were taken to Britain by Anglo-Saxon settlers. It meant a clearing in the forest with animals,huts, fields, fences. It was essentially a peasant landscape carved out of the original forest or

weald, ie out of the wilderness. So landscape from its beginnings has meant a man-made

artefact. In the nineteenth century landscape became imbued with nationalisticallyreligious and then scientific associations in Europe and North America linked to the concept

of wilderness or wild nature: something apart from people as with the Transcendentalist

movement in North America. The ultimate wilderness experience was one of solitude:

people and their trappings spoiled landscape in this image. We saw the zenith of this

ideology in the 1980s and 1990s where nature and culture were regarded by some natural

heritage lobbyists in the Western tradition as antithetical. At the extreme, people were not

part of nature and landscape was not seen as a cultural construct. It acquired objective

scientific meaning.

In contrast to this elitist natural heritage view of landscape was the geographers view of

landscape as a way of seeing.10In other words landscape itself was, and still is, explained as

a cultural construct replete with humanistic meanings and values. This also includes the

exclusive notion of wilderness, making it in reality a cultural construct and cultural

landscape.

Given the traditional relationship between nature and culture in Eastern cultures one may

ask the question of whether the term cultural landscape poses problems for these culture s.

Following this line of thought, Feng Han argues, for example, in China that the term

Cultural Landscapes is problematic for the Chinese.11She posits that landscape has

its specific meanings in China which contrast with western notions, including inter alia that

it is humanistic rather than religious; it is aesthetic rather than scientific; travelling in natureaims to be enjoyable, instead of solitude oriented; artistic rebuilt nature is more beautiful

than the original. In this latter point it is interesting to note that in the sixteenth century


3/8


4/8

4

landscapes are a product of change. They embody physical changes which in turn reflectevolving attitudes towards the landscape. It is important that we learn to interpretcultural landscapes as living history and as part of our national identity. They contain awealth of evidence of our social and material history with which we readily associateheritage values.he

ritagev

al

ue

s.

It is important also to remember that the cultural landscape idea embraces urban areas,

including historic towns and citiesor parts of theseas well as rural areas. Again Asia is

well endowed with such entities. Outstanding examples of historic urban areas in Asiaalready on the World Heritage List include for example in addition to George Town

Luang Prabang; Hoi An; Ayutthaya and Sukhothai; and five historic/sacred cities out of

seven nominations in Sri Lanka. But not one of these uses the World Heritage categories of

cultural landscapes.

World Her itage status

The term cultural landscape is now widely used internationally. In 1992 cultural

landscapes arrived on the world heritage scene with the declaration of three categories of

cultural landscapes of outstanding universal value for World Heritage purposes:

Clearly defined landscapes designed and intentional ly created by man: eg

Aranjuez Cultural Landscape, Spain(2001 ); no Asian inscriptions exist notwithstanding

places like Suzhou, China being WH listed cultural properties.

Organicall y evolved landscapes in two categories:

(i) A relict or fossil landscape in which an evolutionary process has come to an end but

where its distinguishing features are still visible.

(ii) Continuing landscape which retains an active social role in contemporary societyassociated with a traditional way of life and in which the evolutionary process is still in

progress and where it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.

Figure 1 INTERACTIVE PHENOMENON OF LANDSCAPE (K. Taylor)


5/8

5

Cultural landscapes inscribed on the WH list in the Asia-Pacific region include for example:

Champasak cultural landscape including the Vat Phou temple complex, Lao PDR

(inscribed 2001) in recognition of its presentation as a remarkably well preserved planned

landscape more than 1000 years old, shaped to express the Hindu relationship between

nature and culture from the 5th to 15th centuries; Orkhon Valley cultural landscape,

Mongolia (2004) reflecting the symbiotic relationship between nomadic, pastoral societies

and their administrative and religious centres and the importance of the area in the historyof central Asia; Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (1995).

Associative cul tur al landscapes: the inclusion of such landscapes is justifiable byvirtue of the powerful religious, artistic, or cultural associations of the natural element

rather than the material cultural evidence. Tongariro New Zealand (1993), Uluru/Kata

Tjuta National Park, Australia (1994) are two Asia/Pacific examples.

Asia-Pacifi c: a missed opportuni ty?

By July 2009 there were 66 World Heritage Cultural Landscape Properties: of these about

12 or 13 and I will add only 12 or 13are in the UNESCO Asia-Pacific region. Othernominations such as Tana Toraja in Indonesia are in the waiting list for assessment. By

comparison the figures for 2003 were 30 and 4 respectively. So there has at least been some

welcome increase in recognition of the significance of cultural landscapes.

Many existing Asian properties on the WH List, eg Ayutthaya, would admirably fulfil the

category of continuing landscape of outstanding universal value with cross references to the

associative cultural landscape category. They offer scope for renomination.

The foregoing discussion prompts the question, why is this so? Here it is instructive to look

at the issue through the lens of authenticityand its relevance to notions of heritage in

Asia. This is where the spirit of place resides as much in the meaning and symbolism ofplaces and their settingintangible valuesas it does in tangible physical fabric.

The Nara Document and H oi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia16

Special aspects of authenticity and spirit of places in Asia are addressed in these two

landmark documents which have profound relevance to the cultural landscape idea and its

application in Asia.

In recognition of the significance of authenticity in cultural heritage management the

drafting of The Nara Document on Authenticity (International ICOMOS 1994) aimed to

challenge conventional thinking in the conservation field. It acknowledges the framework

provided by the World Heritage Committees desire to apply the test of authenticity in ways

which accord full respect to the social and cultural values of all societies in relation to

cultural properties proposed for the World Heritage List. The Nara Document is a tacit

acknowledgement of the plurality of approaches to the issue of authenticity and that it does

not reside primarily in Western notions of intact fabric. It is an attempt to explore an ethos

that acknowledges local traditions and intangible values. Logan (2001) suggests rightly that

the Nara Document was a powerful voice from the periphery, a veritable watershed. 17

The Nara Document acknowledges the need to respect cultural diversityand all aspects of

belief systems. It proposes that authenticity judgements may be linked to a variety ofinformation sources. These may includeform and design; materials and substance; use and

function; traditions and techniques; location and setting; spirit and feeling. The Document


6/8

6

points out that use of these sources permits elaboration of specific artistic, historic, social,

and scientific dimensions of a cultural heritage place. Nevertheless it has been misused

within Asia to suit nationalist ideals (which are just as imperial as earlier Eurocentric or

Americanised ones), possibly because of its generalised nature. It made a virtue of being

non-specific.

The draft Hoi An Protocolsdocument promulgated in 2005 by UNESCO Bangkok is anattempt to rectify the woolly nature of the Nara Document. The sub-title of the protocols

Professional guidelines for assuring and preserving the authenticity of heritage sites in the

context of the cultures of Asia is an important statement of the recognition of diverse and

enduring cultural identities in Asian countries. The protocols recognise the impact of

tourism in Asia and effects on restoration and presentation of heritage places for tourism

purposes. The document includes a series of definitions which draw considerably on the

Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter. The inclusion of a section on Asian Issues is welcome,

particularly in the mention of indigenous and minority cultures and the need to find ways of

interpreting sites within an appropriate context as a way of engaging visitors.

The protocols are an attempt to underscore the inter-relatedness of practices for theconservation of the physical heritage sites, the intangible heritage and cultural landscapes.

Whilst they have potential to be a valuable guide, the separation of cultural landscapes from

archaeological sites; historic urban sites/heritage groups; and monuments, buildings and

structures in the section Site Specific Methodologies for Asia is confusing. Indeed it

seems misleading to me, in that cultural landscapes are the overall umbrella under which

everything else sits.

Nevertheless, and, in my view, with particular application to the cultural landscape idea inAsia, a notable inclusion in the Protocols is the linking of the Cultural Significance of

heritage sites and concepts of Authenticity. The Protocols (p.10) state that The Cultural

Significance of heritage sites has been defined by the Burra Charter as the aesthetic,historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations which is

embodied in the place itself, its setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places

and related objects. The goal of conservation is to preserve this significance by ensuring

that all interventions and actions meet the test of authenticity in all respects. Understanding

the relative degree of significance of heritage resources is essential if we are to rationally

determine which elements must be preserved under any circumstance, which should be

preserved under some circumstances and which, under exceptional circumstances, will be

sacrificed. Degree of significance can be assessed on the basis of the representativeness,

rarity, condition, completeness and integrity and interpretive potential of a resource.

The key to the process is the concept of Authenticity (my bold) which has become the

universal concern of the conservation profession since the adoption of the 1972 UNESCO

World Heritage Convention, which defines authenticity as the primary and essential

condition of the heritage. Authenticity is usually understood in terms of a matrix of

dimensions of authenticity: location and setting; form, materials and design, use and

function and immaterial or essential qualities. Together these form the composite

authenticity from which significance derives (see Table 2). The retention of authenticity is

the aim of good conservation practice.


7/8

7

Table 2 Dimensions of Authenticity (Hoi An Protocolsp.10)

IMPLICATIONS FOR PENANG ????? if we look at the city and its setting as anurban cultural landscape. What are the aspects you want to keep whilst allowing the

place to change, cater for tourists and protect World Heritage values of George Town?

Conclusion

As indicated in the Abstract to this paper, it is my view that the cultural landscape concept

has potential for special meaning in Asia and as a universal role model. This is because of

the enduring nourishing tradition of living history and ways of life manifested in rural and

urban settings as cultural landscapes and the inextricable link with intangible values in the

relationship between people, place and identity. There ought to be more World Heritagenominations coming forward under the cultural landscape categories. At the same time there

is a pressing need to take heed of the warning in the Hoi An Protocols (p. 13) of the

constant threats to their authenticity:

Loss of Traditional Knowledge as a result of globalisation, particularly among the

younger generations in the region. Skills which are required to create, maintain and present

cultural heritage in an authentic manner are at risk. The diversity of these intangible

knowledge forms must be mapped, evaluated and protected in order to support other

preservation initiatives.

Urban Renewal resulting from social and economic pressure: although residents may wishto retain the fabric and feeling of their traditional built environment, owners are under

pressure to maximize the potential of their land and not the historical structures and spaces

on it. The result is demolition of entire historical neighbourhoods, or at best, slow attrition

as one building after another is replaced by modern, highreturn development.

Infrastructure Construction due to the speed and scale of engineering works in the region.

In addition to tangible physical modifications, intangible values are damaged as for example

in changing visual envelopes and destruction of symbolic connections between places and

places and their settings.

Cultural Tourism through the process of standardizing, modifying and commodifying

cultural assets poses a serious risk of loss of authenticity. All too often presentation of


8/8

8

heritage is carried out by the tourism industry for the benefit of its members and not by

those responsible for the safeguarding of cultural heritage. As a result, both the physical

fabric of a heritage property and its intangible aspects are trivialized and compromised.

Decontextualisation and the Loss of Unique Sense of Place We de-contextualize our

culture when we build theme parks around our historic monuments and we treat them as

garden ornaments. We also do it with our intangible heritage when we put ondinner dance shows and treat these expressions of art and ritual as some kind of desert for

trivial consumption. This de-contextualization of our culture is a very serious problem

because it destroys the authenticity of the cultural expression. Policies of preservation that

have led us to as tourism products are the reason for our relative lack of success in

conservation. This is an attitude we must correct if we are ever going to succeed in placing

culture where it rightfully belongs, as the foundation of development.

References

1Lowenthal, D., (1981), Introduction in Lowenthal, D., & Binney, M., Our Past Before Us. Why Do We Save

It?, Temple Smith, London,2Jacques, D (1995), The Rise of Cultural Landscapes,International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1-2: 91-

101.3Hoskins, WG (1955), The Making of the English Landscape, Hodder& Stoughton, London, p.14.

4See for example (i) Lowenthal, D (1975) Past Time, Present Place. Landscape and Memory, Geographical

Review, 65-1: 1-36; (ii) Lowenthal, D Age and Artifact. Dilemmas of Interpretation in Meinig, ed. (1979)

The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Geographical Essays, Oxford University Press, New York; (iii)

Lewis, P Axioms for Reading the Landscape in Meinig, ed, 11-32.5For example Jackson JB (1984),Discovering the Vernacular Landscape, Yale University Press, New Haven.

JB Jackson was a prolific and elegant writer on the American vernacular scene.6Cosgrove, D (1984) Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, Croom Helm, London.

7See (i) Jeans, D ed (1984), Australian Historical Landscapes, Allen & Unwin, Sydney; (ii) JeansD andSpearritt, P (1980), The Open Air Museum: the cultural landscape of New South Wales, Allen & Unwin,

Sydney.8Taylor, K (1998), From Physical Determinant to Cultural Construct: shifting discourses in reading

landscape as history and ideology, FIRM(ness) commodity De-light. Questioning the canon; Proceedings of

Fifteenth Annual Conference of The Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zealand,University of Melbourne, Sept 1998;371-378.9Sauer, C The Morphology of Landscape, 1925 p.25 in Carl Sauer (ed), University of California

Publications in Geography(1919-1928); 2.2 (1929),19-53.10

See Cosgrove.11

Feng Han (2004), Cross-Cultural Misconceptions: Application of World Heritage Concepts in Scenic and

Historic Interest Areas in China, Conference Presentation paper to 7th US/ICOMOS InternationalSymposium, 25-27 March 2004, New Orleans, USA.

12Natawan Munga and Vital Lieorungruang (2006),Doi Suthep-Pui National Park, Chiang Mai: A CaseStudy in Cultural Landscape Conservation, unpublished report submitted in partial fulfilment of Course

Cultural Landscapes, International Program in Architectural Heritage Management and Tourism, Silpakorn

University, Bangkok.13

Jackson, JB, (1984), p.156.14

Rossler, M. (2006) World Heritage cultural landscapes, Landscape Research, 31(4), pp. 333353.15

http://flinders.edu.auUnderstanding cultural landscapes: definition16

(i)International ICOMOS (1994),Nara Document on Authenticity:

www.international.icomos.org/nara_eng.htm

(ii) UNESCO Bangkok,Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia: Professional guidelinesfor assuring and preserving the authenticity of heritage sites in the context of the cultures of Asia within

the framework of the Nara Document on Authenticity (Third draftversion April 2005).17

Logan, W (2001), Globalising Heritage: World Heritage as a Manifestation of Modernism and

Challenges from the Periphery, pp. 51-57 inProceedings of Australia ICOMOS National Conference2001, 20

thCentury HeritageOur Recent Cultural Legacy, Adelaide 28 November1 December 2001;

Australia ICOMOS, Burwood, Australia
http://flinders.edu.au/http://flinders.edu.au/http://flinders.edu.au/http://flinders.edu.au/