furnace Journal Issue 1 (2015)

0

ISSUE 1 – CONTENTS The Editors. Page 2 Forward by Professor Mike Robinson, University of Birmingham. Director, Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage. Page 3 Keeler, P. and Trelka, M. Editorial: Cultural Heritage in an International Age. Pages 4-5 Carman, J. Keynote Paper: Internationalising heritage: The problem with being both Global and Local. Pages 6-12 Choomgrant, K. Critical heritage usages: a case of Thailand. Pages 13-18 Elcheikh, Z. Interpretation in cultural tourism: Nubian culture in Southern Egypt. Pages 19-26 Han, Y. and Zhong, W. The role of cultural heritage in economic regeneration: the cases of Shanghai and Hangzhou. Pages 27-35 Tay, D. Tse, N. and Ho, M. Glocalising Conservation. Pages 36-40 #Our UNESCO. Page 41 Call for Papers: Cultural Heritage in a Digital Age. Page 42.

Call for Book Reviewers. Page 43.

Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage Forthcoming Conferences. Page 44

To download individual articles visit: https://furnacejournal.wordpress.com/

ISSN 2057-519X (Online)

1

The Editors @furnacejournal Polly Keeler – pxk026@bham.ac.uk I am an AHRC CDA PhD candidate based on campus at the Ironbridge Institute (IIICH). My research explores the ways in which tourist absorb and negotiate ‘world heritage’ at UNESCO designated sites of outstanding universal value. My interests include: cultural heritage tourism, urban heritage, the modern use of historic buildings and marketing world heritage sites.

Jamie Davies – jgd475@bham.ac.uk My AHRC CDA PhD research at the Ironbridge Institute is on Education at World Heritage Sites- How are World Heritage Values communicated within the formal learning process. I hold a Archaeology BA and International Cultural Heritage Management MA from Durham University. Outside of my PhD research my interests are Digital Heritage, Maritime Heritage and Community Heritage. I am Vice Chairman of MOROL- Institute of Welsh Maritime Historical Studies, Founder of Cymdeithas Archaeoloeg a Hanes Llŷn/ Llŷn Archaeology and History Society and Trustee and Committee Member for the Llŷn Maritime Museum.

Joe Raine – jxr436@bham.ac.uk I am an AHRC CDA PhD candidate based at the Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage within the University of Birmingham and my research is on the communication of Industrial Heritage, particularly within a World Heritage context. I previously graduated with a BA in Archaeology and Ancient Civilisations and MA in Museums and Artefact Studies from Durham University and have a particular interest in industrial, sporting and conflict heritage along with museums and interpretation.

Małgorzata Trelka – mxt472@bham.ac.uk I am an AHRC CDA PhD researcher in Cultural Heritage based at the Ironbridge international Institute for Cultural Heritage. My research aims to explore the relationship between ‘community’ and World Heritage. I am an archaeologist holding an MA in both, Medieval Archaeology and Public Archaeology.

My professional interest is in field archaeology as well as in heritage policy. I have experience working as a field archaeologist in commercial urban archaeology in the UK. I also worked as an intern in the Culture Department of UNESCO Bangkok, where I coordinated the Museum Capacity Building Programme for Asia and the Pacific undertaken by UNESCO and the Asian Academy for Heritage Management. In 2009, I was a rapporteur for the Intangible Cultural Heritage Field School in Lamphun, Thailand. In 2010 I took up a post with the National Heritage Board of Poland, where I eventually became Head of the Heritage Policy Department tasked with the implementation of the UNESCO 1972 and 2003 conventions.

2

FOREWORD The field of cultural heritage is well served by dedicated academic journals but less so by journals produced by those who are its future. The appearance of a journal edited by research students of the Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage is a significant development in the field and I am very pleased and proud to welcome this new arrival.

With the discipline of cultural heritage expanding and diversifying, and our own postgraduate community at IIICH growing, it is important that journals such as this are developed in order to keep the heritage community in an engaging dialogue. I look forward to interesting debates generated within its pages. I predict it will be a significant platform for researchers and practitioners to share their work and have their efforts recognised.

I wish the journal every success in its future endeavours.

Mike Robinson Professor of Cultural Heritage, University of Birmingham Director, Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage

3

EDITORIAL: CULTURAL HERITAGE IN AN INTERNATIONAL AGE

Authors: Polly Keeler & Małgorzata Trelka Ironbridge International Institute of Cultural Heritage University of Birmingham, UK

Furnace, is a new Postgraduate Journal within the Ironbridge International Institute of Cultural Heritage (IIICH), University of Birmingham. As the postgraduate community in the heritage expands, there is a growing demand for platforms for discussion on ever growing field of Cultural heritage.

IIICH is a world renowned Institute which has its origins in a longstanding partnership between the University of Birmingham and the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust (IGMT). Due to the strong connection to the Ironbridge Gorge, the institute begun 30 years ago to conduct a ground breaking research into heritage management with the particular focus on Industrial Archaeology. IICH maintains a strong link with its industrial past and the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site, this has been the setting of the intellectual home for the critical study of cultural heritage that exists today.

The Institute welcomes diverse research themes including; heritage value, tourism, cultural heritage during conflicts, and heritage policy. Currently is the only Institute in the UK to offer an MA in World Heritage studies, with the first intake of students completing this academic year.

Furnace journal aims to reflect the diversity of research encouraged by IIICH by facilitating transnational discussion and debate on interdisciplinary aspects of cultural heritage. This journal will offer a platform for postgraduate students and academics to share their research with the wider community.

Each edition will have a theme and our first edition is: ‘cultural heritage in an international age’. We chose this theme as a way of engaging with the broader heritage community, as regardless of expertise, we all have to respond to the demands of today’s internationally-connected society. The arguments raised in the journal begin to deconstruct some of the present issues surrounding the theme and make fundamental enquiries about the future of cultural heritage.

We are pleased to publish papers that we believe critically engage with our designated theme and can present us with ideas that may, in future, transform the discipline.

This edition addresses the problem of characterising and defining heritage on a local, national or international bases in an age where interactions is expected to take place on all these levels. The word ‘international’ as used in the title aimed to reflect that heritage is not always rooted in a globalised context, since the connections between various cultural entities are sometimes lucid and domineering.

We are proud to have a leading article by Dr John Carman (IIICH), which gets to the heart of this debate and opens aspects of heritage studies up to further scrutiny. His observation, that responses to heritage are either local or global, concludes that neither makes sense without the other. He also raises questions about the nature of ‘the case study’ which is the primary research focus in the field of heritage, this may limit our understanding of the wider context of the management process.

4

This dichotomy between local and global is addressed in a paper entitled Glocalising Conservation.

The authors argue for an intraregional dialog between practitioners which could limit the impact international heritage doctrines affecting the management of cultural material at the local level.

Similarly noted by Carman in this edition, this article also highlights the drawbacks of a reliance on case studies, which are rarely universally applicable.

The authorised and manipulated nature of interpretation of heritage for nationalistic purposes can often omit various ‘other’ narratives. This has been presented in two papers: Critical Heritage Usages: A Case of Thailand and Interpretation in Cultural Tourism: Nubian Culture in Southern Egypt.

Lastly, the theme of urban regeneration is the subject of the article: The Role of Cultural Heritage in Economic Regeneration: the cases of Shanghai and Hangzhou. This case study from China illustrates that reliance on a Western framework of heritage based regeneration can mean that grass roots development is side-lined and local values are endangered.

We hope, that Furnace, like IIICH will be at the forefront of innovative thought in the field of cultural heritage. We hope that you find this journal engaging and look forward to your contribution.

5

INTERNATIONALISING HERITAGE: THE PROBLEM WITH BEING BOTH GLOBAL AND LOCAL Author: John Carman

To say that heritage is both local and global is banal: to say that Heritage Studies is a global field is obvious. But I am not sure that those of us in the Heritage Studies field have adequately addressed what these characterisations mean for us. Especially for those of us who pride ourselves on taking a ‘critical’ stance (and for suggestions as to what this means see Smith 2012; Winter & Waterton 2013; Winter 2013) we remain locked into an approach that either responds to heritage as global or responds to it as local: but never both at the same time. This inevitably denies the simultaneity of these aspects of the phenomenon we seek to understand in its entirety.

There is of course a distinction to be made concerning the nature of heritage in these two manifestations. At the global level we are inevitably dealing not with particular places, sites, monuments, or practices; but at the local that is precisely how heritage presents itself. As a global phenomenon, heritage is an abstract concept, uniting very different specific and concrete human creations by deeming them to have certain attributes in common: heritage here is those attributes that attach to specific entities. As a local phenomenon, it manifests in those specific and concrete human creations that are rooted in and only have meaning within that local context: divorce them from their local context and they cease to have the attributes that make them ‘heritage’. Here we see how the global and local are inevitably mutually implicated in an understanding of heritage, neither making any sense without the other.

This has inevitable consequences for the approaches we take to the study of heritage. General statements about the nature of heritage are meaningless unless attached to specific examples of the phenomenon: this draws us towards the case study as a convenient approach to research. On the other hand, case studies can tell us little about heritage beyond that individual case: and because to justify study we have already identified the example as one of ‘heritage’ such case studies offer nothing especially new in terms of understanding the general phenomenon. The result is the constant repetition of ideas already well-rehearsed elsewhere.

This short polemical paper will take a critical perspective on these aspects of Heritage Studies as a set of practices and discourses in an attempt to open them to further scrutiny.

6

Heritage as local: the case study as trope The most common trope of the heritage field is the case study. A survey of the last two complete volumes (2013, 2014) of the International Journal of Heritage Studies and the first issues of this year (2015, issues 1 to 5) indicates that of 116 articles published, 81 (70%) take the case study form (Table 1), and of the remainder most will have reference to case studies. Such approaches offer useful insights into particular manifestations of heritage and thus operate at the ‘local’ level: however all are deemed to represent particular categories of ‘thing’ that are classed as heritage and these are very wide (Table 2). In practice, and regardless of the object of heritage under discussion, the topics of individual papers relate to an equally wide range of issues, including tourism, regulation, presentation, performance, and valuation.

TABLE 1:‘CASE STUDY’ ARTICLES IN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 2013 – 2015 YEAR 2013 2014 2015 (to April 2015) TOTAL

TOTAL ARTICLES (EXCLUDING EDITORIALS) 41 50 25 116

CASE STUDIES 26 (63%) 40 (80%) 15 (60%) 81 (70%)

TABLE 2:CLASSES OF HERITAGE ‘OBJECT’ AS REPRESENTED BY ‘CASE STUDY’ ARTICLES IN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 2013 – 2015 YEAR / TOPIC Places People / community Museums Media Practices / performances Objects TOTALS

2013 16 1 3 1 4 1 26

2014 13 2 5

2015

16

6 3 1 2 3

40

15

The problem, however, is that the case study is ultimately of very limited use because, by the nature of the case study form, the results cannot be extrapolated meaningfully to any other context. This raises the issue of whether we are dealing with heritage as a single universal category or a range of very different phenomena which we insufficiently understand and so lump them all together. If the latter, the problem is with our approach, not the phenomenon with which we deal.

This brings me to an issue that has engaged me for the last two or so years: which is ultimately about our approach to how we study heritage. It seems to me that approaches are most valuable when they can not only be replicated locally but also transferred to other contexts, allowing direct comparison between one set of results and another. It matters that we can understand the heritage phenomenon – however we may define it and whatever we may call it – in ways that can cross territorial and cultural

7

boundaries. The case study approach cannot achieve that because it assumes we already know what constitutes heritage in the first place.

This puts my position somewhat at odds with others who advocate a ‘critical’ approach to the study of heritage. Elsewhere (Carman 2014), I have suggested the following as a ‘manifesto’ for heritage studies:  to treat all manifestations of ‘heritage’ as unique until we can show them to be otherwise  to seek to identify the specific attributes of the object of our immediate enquiry;  to reject all generalising concepts (such as ‘World Heritage’ status, the ‘authorised heritage discourse’ (Smith 2006), or ‘dissonant heritage’ (Tunbridge & Ashworth 1996) as irrelevant until we can clearly demonstrate (not merely assert) how they apply in specific cases;  to be on the lookout for the key attributes that make something heritage – not just taking others’ words for it – that are shared by other heritage objects or practices; and  to be prepared to acknowledge that not everything we study is ‘heritage’ in any meaningful sense.

To adopt such an approach so may mean the end of Heritage Studies as a distinct field of enquiry except as rather random collections of individual studies. But it will mean we gain a deeper understanding of real phenomena in a real world, rather than the creation of a category in our own imaginations.

Heritage as global: reinventing the wheel The limitations of the case study approach spill over into our attempts to grasp heritage as a universal category and its treatment as something different from other classes of research topic. I am always surprised at the amount of ink wasted in telling us that World Heritage status under the provisions of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO 1972a) is in reality nothing to do with globality, but instead is a product of the actions of nation states (see e.g. Rakic & Chambers 2007; Meskell 2013; Askew 2010; among others). Since the purpose of the Convention is to place responsibility for cultural heritage on nation states, and this is expressly announced both in the Convention and in the supporting Recommendation (UNESCO 1972b), it should be a start-point for analysis not a discovery made as a result of investigation. However, the fact that so many start from the premise that World Heritage is anything to do with the world is indicative of the extent to which we are blinded by our own rhetoric. The constant discovery as if new that World Heritage Sites are the product of action by nation states is an example of the manner in which research in Heritage Studies so often adds nothing new but instead simply restates what is already known. Table 3 (based again upon articles from International Journal of Heritage Studies from 2013, 2014 and 2015) is an indication of the manner in which the same themes – masquerading as new findings – are reiterated time and time again. The frequency with which the same themes appear in particular years – and their histories of emergence in the first place – are interesting in themselves and can no doubt be related to other developments in the Heritage Studies field, but that is not the purpose of highlighting them here; nor is it that they may sometimes offer progressive opportunities for development, which I do not doubt.

8

TABLE 3: EMERGENT THEMES AND THEIR REITERATION AS REPRESENTED BY ARTICLES IN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 2013 – 2015* THEME / FINDING 2013 2014 2015 Heritage is diverse / complex / contested 7 9 11 Communities are divided 3 6 5 Comparison across territorial boundaries is difficult 2 2 2 Heritage is about identity 7 2 7 Dominance of particular discourses 1 8 7 Heritage is made in the present 4 7 4 Heritage is not well understood 3 4 6 * The numbers here do not match numbers of articles since more than one finding may be contained in each article. Findings / themes that appear in one article are excluded. Neither are all articles included here: many do offer original insights and some offer both originality and banality.

Neither is the point here that these are irrelevant themes (they certainly are not irrelevant). It is that they are offered as discoveries rather than the defining characteristics of heritage which attract attention in the first place. There is an inherent circularity here: those characteristics which make heritage an interesting phenomenon to study are presented as surprising findings. Either the authors are ignorant of the field (which is highly unlikely) or the heritage studies field has become locked in an unhelpful but apparently ‘virtuous’ circle whereby its justification is confirmed but also mirrored by its findings.

It is notable that one of the requirements of the recently-founded Association for Critical Heritage Studies is adherence to the notion of the authorised heritage discourse and acceptance of its dominance in the field (http://criticalheritagestudies.org/site-admin/site-content/about-achs). Out of this comes a concern to challenge commonly-held notions of ‘community’, to develop ‘post-western’ understandings of heritage, and especially to integrate different disciplinary perspectives on the phenomenon of heritage (Winter 2013). What is missed in this endeavour, however, is that in laying down what aspects of heritage need to be challenged, it acts to constrain the degree of criticality that can be brought to bear on its study. In particular, the idea of the ‘authorised heritage discourse’ and its reach is taken for granted rather than itself becoming an object of investigation. A secondary concern with the historical development of the idea of heritage – although closely linked to the notion of the rise of the ‘authorised heritage discourse’ – is the idea of ‘heritagisation’ as a process (Harvey 2001), which can be placed as deep in the past as one chooses: but this can be interpreted merely as a return to conventional arguments which are part of and supportive of the authorised heritage discourse, that claims heritage has ancient roots. This ‘critical’ approach can be seen as merely a return to the very ideas it claims to subvert.

Elsewhere (Carman 2011), I have argued that whether we like it or not, in our engagements with the publics we notionally serve, we inevitably can only speak to those who already share our attitudes and expectations of heritage. Here, I am arguing that not only is this the case, but that what we have to say to our publics – including our fellow researchers – is what they already know. This puts us in the business of establishing a status quo rather than presenting the critical perspective on the world we aim to achieve. This is as true of critical approaches in heritage studies as it is of any other statements supporting an ‘authorised heritage discourse’.

9

De quoit s’agit-il: what is it all about?

This raises the question as to what the ultimate purpose of our efforts are: what is it all about?

Proponents of Heritage Studies as a discipline, or at least as a field of enquiry, are concerned to investigate a phenomenon that exists in the world around us: something that exists as a social fact.

Recognition that such a phenomenon exists and does so in some sense ‘detached’ from us (albeit created by human action) is essential: but those aspects we seek to investigate and how we seek to do so depend on the interests and specific context of individual researchers. These legitimately cover a range of aspects: the manner in which heritage is created by communities of interest; the values heritage (or any individual manifestation of heritage) is deemed to represent; the forms that heritage may take – and by extension what things or practices may not be classed as ‘heritage’; claims of ownership, stewardship, custodianship and their contestation; how communities of interest in heritage are created, sustained and structured; the transmission of knowledge or understanding of heritage; and so on.

The purpose of a case study approach would be to create bodies of knowledge that allow comparison across time and space, between different contexts, and of differing communities. We have to ask to what extent they do create such knowledge, however. For the most part, such researches appear to confirm what we already know about our object of investigation: what they provide are illustrative examples of heritage in particular contexts but no new insights into heritage as a universal category.

More generalising approaches – such as those designed to uncover the kinds of values represented by heritage (e.g. O’Brien 2010) – tend to ignore these specific examples in favour of a tendency to impose a particular vision on heritage: as an economic resource (Peacock & Rizzo 2008); or as a form of collective property (Carman 2005). In this case, heritage comes to us pre-packaged as something we already understand: the issue is not ‘what is heritage?’ but ‘how do we treat heritage?’ which is not at all the same thing. The latter presents heritage to us as a ‘problem’ to be ‘solved’ by processes of management rather than as an interesting human creation to be studied in its own right. A truly critical heritage would assert the latter to be its aim and ensure the focus remained on understanding an obscure object rather than assuming its characteristics and qualities to be known.

The question of: where next? also arises. Perhaps it is time for a single, straightforward statement of where we are in Heritage Studies. This should be a coherent account of the current state of Heritage Studies that makes it clear what we already know and what proponents of the field ought to know before they embark on research that can only confirm existing understanding and thereby maintain an emergent and authoritative status quo. That status quo can itself only offer a single alternative authorised discourse to the one critical heritage studies claims to seek to destabilise. Winter (2014) criticises the current reliance in Heritage Studies on theoretical perspectives derived from Western models: I agree with him on this, but we must also beware of merely creating alternative discourses that sit alongside one another, acting as parallel forms of understanding, that do not actively engage with one another. Western approaches may be flawed and fail to take into account the fundamental difference of non-Western cultures from those of a dominant West; but at the same time approaches derived from non-Western models are equally flawed, albeit in different ways. A Critical Heritage Studies would first recognise that contextualising different approaches to and attitudes towards our object of study is essential, and that may mean (as suggested above) recognising that not everything that is presented to us constitutes ‘heritage’ in any meaningful sense. To internationalise heritage also means abandoning universal categories.

10

Towards a conclusion While Heritage Studies may indeed be a global endeavour, this does not presume the universality of its object of study. It also does not presume the applicability of limited number of methodologies to what may in fact be very different objects of study. On this basis, one of our focuses of attention perhaps ought to be the field of Heritage Studies itself, one that is not only critical in addressing its object of enquiry – ‘heritage’ – but is also takes a critical stance towards its own practices. This is a task for all of us engaged in it, practitioners, students, professional academics and commentators and researchers of all kinds. It could be a noble endeavour, and would certainly be an interesting and lively one. I commend it to you.

Acknowledgements I wish to thank the Editors of Furnace for inviting me to contribute to its first edition and for the patience they have shown in awaiting delivery. I hope it meets their expectations.

I also thank all those who over the years I have worked with in the heritage studies field, and especially those who appear as objects of critique in this paper: our debates – sometimes at long distance and obliquely – have caused me to think long and hard about the nature of heritage and our purpose in investigating its myriad forms, and for me that is what our work is really about. I look forward to replies in whatever form they take.

John Carman* is Senior Lecturer in Heritage Valuation within the Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage based at the University of Birmingham *Contact email: j.carman@bham.ac.uk

11

References Askew, M. 2010. The magic list of global status: UNESCO, world heritage and the agendas of states. In Labadi, S. & Long, C. (eds) Heritage and Globalisation. Key Issues in Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge, pp.

19-44.

Carman, J. 2005. Against Cultural Property: archaeology, ownership and heritage. London, Duckworth.

Carman, J. 2011. Stories we tell: myths at the heart of ‘community archaeology’. Archaeologies: journal of the World Archaeological Congress 7(3), 490-501.

Carman, J. 2014. A divided heritage for a divided world: a manifesto for understanding heritage practices. In Amoêda, R., Lira, S. & Pinheiro, C. (eds) Heritage 2014: proceedings of the 4th international conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development. Porto, Greenlines Institute for Sustainable Development, 513-520 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 Meskell. L. 2013. UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 49: challenging the Economic and Political Order of International Heritage Conservation. Current Anthropology 54(4), 483-494 O’Brien, D. 2010. Measuring the value of culture: a report to the Department for Culture Media and Sport.

London, DCMS. Peacock, A. & Rizzo, I. 2006. The Heritage Game: economics, policy and practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press Rakic, & Chambers, D. 2007. ‘World heritage: exploring the tension between the universal and the national.

Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(3), 145-155 Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London, Routledge Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London, Routledge Smith, L. 2012. Editorial: a critical heritage studies? International Journal of Heritage Studies 18(6), 533-540 Tunbridge, J.E. and Ashworth, G. J. 1996. Dissonant Heritage: the Management of the past as a resource in conflict. London, John Wiley & Sons.

UNESCO. 1972a. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris, UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/. Accessed 28th May 2015.

UNESCO. 1972b. Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris, UNESCO. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13087&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 28th May 2015.

Winter, T. 2013. Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19(3), 532-545 Winter, T. 2014. Heritage studies and the privileging of theory. International Journal of Heritage Studies 20(5), 556-572 Winter, T. & Waterton, E. 2013. Critical Heritage Studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19(3), 529531

12

CRITICAL HERITAGE USAGES: A CASE OF THAILAND Author: Koorakit Choomgrant

Abstract: Heritage is socially and culturally constructed and used to serve different purposes. Heritage is therefore a representation of values from different perspectives ranging from the universal to the individual. In the context of Southeast Asia, heritage is politically utilized to help build-up the nation.

By doing so, heritage becomes official and authorised which excludes the non-mainstream heritage from the public understanding. The example from Thailand is presented to disclose the heritage making process and its roles as a business of majority.

Key Words: Majority Heritage, Minority Heritage, Authorised Heritage, Official Heritage, Business of Majority, Thailand ______________________________________________________________________

Introduction : In an attempt to define the term “heritage”, many scholars have deconstructed the heritage making process in order to critically understand a rationale behind why one thing becomes heritage and why something does not (Brett, 1996; Smith, 2004; and Harrison, 2013). Interestingly, it reveals how heritage is variously valued and used by different agents from the state to individuals. The state constructs and uses heritage as a national symbol representing the nation as a whole, whilst the community may perceive it as a threat to their existence or an impediment to their identities.

Moreover, heritage can become a tool for the state and society to repress minority groups, a topdown heritage or authorized heritage (Smith, 2006) or official heritage (Harrison, 2013). In contrast, minority groups can use heritage to make claims about their existence and their identities, a bottomup heritage or unauthorized heritage or unofficial heritage. This article aims at indicating that the construction of heritage is a business of majority and for a nation-building purpose. Moreover this article suggests, in accordance with the main purposes of heritage making, that minority heritage value which is not supporting the national values will not be officially regarded by considering a case of Thailand.

Thai National Heritage Usages: Nation-Building In Thailand, heritage is used politically, socially and economically. World Heritage sites in Thailand are also domestically regarded as a nation’s asset prior to ‘becoming a true global public good’ (Anheier & Isar, 2011: 3). By having a World Heritage emblem, the state can use it as part of a nation-building process (Harrison, 2013: 95-96) and as a means of politically asserting the nation state on the international stage as well as an attempt to minimize conflicts among groups of people within the borders of the state (Smith, 2004: 4).

13

Southeast Asia in the mid to late nineteenth century was in the era of colonisation. Hence, all states, except Siam (the former name of Thailand), experienced turbulence and warfare (SarDesai, 1993)1.

Siam, at that time was beleaguered by French-Indochina to the east and British-Burma and Malay Peninsula to the west and south, respectively, The reactions and policies of Siamese leaders in the intense political circumstances showed that they followed not only the collecting habits of Western colonisers but also used these to build its own coherence as a modern state (Byrne, 2014: 59). To affirm that Siam was different from its neighbours and was transforming to a modern nation state in relation to the West’s perception, Siam’s leaders had abandoned many so-called ‘uncivilised’ practices. Furthermore, in order to create an image of civilisation (Jackson 2004), King Rama V was the first leader in Thai history to travel abroad as far as Europe after his first and second coronations.

Siamese leaders conducted political negotiations and strategies which helped prevent Siam from being colonised.

Thailand had a different approach to what was later called “heritage”, to its neighbours. Its surrounding nations had shared a history of vulnerable experiences under western regimes before their liberation, whilst Siam encountered the powerful colonisers by employing different methods to maintain its supreme sovereignty over the territory. In the mid-twentieth century, when independence was granted to the colonised states in Southeast Asia, each nation struggled to create political and economic systems to build a stable society. One of the tools to make the state modern was through the use of heritage. The legacy of the colonial era and the role of the state protecting independence could be used as indications of collective values to form heritage. These two, I posit, would make heritage a business of consensus in Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand.

The lackadaisical attitudes about the origins of Siamese people turned out to be of major concern among Siamese leaders, as a result of the pressure from the Western powers. Prince Damrong 2 played a role in exploring the roots of Siam by examining and proposing that the ancestors of the current Thai-Tai had migrated further south from South China and established a kingdom named Nanchao and later Sukhothai (Saraya, 2002: 6). These groups filled Siam with physical evidence which asserted that there were groups of people living in the area. A project to map and record historical monuments throughout the kingdom was initiated (with the help of the Siam Society) in 1904, and the Society for Archaeological Investigation was founded in 1907. Later, the Archaeological Service was created in 1924 (Byrne, 2014: 59-60). In tandem, the same tactics were used by the colonisers to re-affirm the supreme legitimacy for controlling Thailand’s neighbours. This shows that while Siam was actively protecting its independence, the surrounding states were oppressed and were fighting for their independence (SaDesai, 1997).

For Thailand, independence is considered as a collective core value of the nation, which has been transplanted into citizens’ minds through various educational programs and state campaigns.

Chutintaranond (2014) has scrutinised Thai nationalism, present in school textbooks, and found that the major theme which all students in Thailand have long been taught is the pride of being independent. The history of Thailand is included in school textbooks and features the national history in a linear pattern from the first Thai kingdom: Sukhothai, the second: Ayutthaya and the third: Rattakosin. In each period, kings were portrayed as national heroes protecting and maintaining independence. The stories of their dedication to the nation have been repeated outside the educational sphere from time to time through different channels including films, comic books and television programs.

1

For more details regarding the colonial interlude please see SarDesai, 1993: 87-133.

Prince Damrong is a younger brother of King Rama V and regarded as a Father of Thai history and archaeology. His significant role was as a Minister of the Interior.

2

14

Byrne noted that there were several restoration projects in Thailand during the 1960s, Sukhothai’s restoration was the largest of these projects (Byrne, 2014: 61). It is clear that, in accordance with Thai school textbooks, Sukhothai is publicly and generally believed to be the first kingdom of the nation; therefore, it is not surprising why the restoration project of Sukhothai was the largest. Moreover, the Sukhothai kingdom was very significant as a symbol of freedom from the Khmer Empire and the time when the Thai alphabet was invented.

Religion is also a core value of Thai society and as such, archaeological excavations of the main religious sites were carried out and regarded as a nation building process. Byrne has noticed that the main-stream religious sites were emphasised and the state ignored “popular religion”- related sites as they demonstrated a belief in supernatural power (Byrne, 2014: 60). I further propose that the state leaders intentionally did this because “popular religion” would have been considered uncivilised by the West.

Interestingly, what the state created was clearly an indication of national history and value. These projects are regarded as an attempt to transform value to fabric or materiality, in other words, from intangible to tangible. This is also a subtle method of conveying the notion of values constructed by the state for the populous. Monumental sites, such as Sukhothai Historical Park, Ayutthaya Historical Park and the Khmer Ruins become official national heritage which was deemed to help harmonise and create unity within the national space. The listing of Ban Chiang Archaeological Site, Sukhothai and associated historic towns, and the historic city of Ayutthaya as World Heritage sites in 1992, represent a movement from a national to a global recognition of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’. It also enhances the public pride in national heritage since it shows the independence, power and prosperity of the Buddhist state. This helps to foster collective values among Thai people.

Thai National Heritage Usages: Political Unrest: Considering Thailand’s political history, particularly in the 1930’s, the Thai political system was transformed from absolute monarchy to democracy by the ‘people’s revolution’. Consequently, the revolution brought in another dimension of social values to Thai society. However, the new value of being democratic could not replace the existing value of monarchy. Instead, these two systems of values have been blended and have created a new set of meanings to the new political system as a constitutional democracy. These incongruous values of monarchy and democracy have been instrumental in polarising those who supported ‘red’ and ‘yellow’ during the early 2000’s.

It can be said that since 2005, Thailand has been embroiled in political chaos and instability. Shown in both domestic and international media, Thailand was and is still divided into two major parts, represented by those who wear red and yellow shirts. Each colour has a profound meaning in relation to the national values. However, this does not relate to the cause of fragmentation, instead it highlights the use of national values in each group.

The red faction exploited the value of nation as a core means to gather followers by claiming they have been protecting democracy for all Thai people, whilst the yellows have used the monarch to attract the attention of followers. From their different perspectives of being Thai and protecting national values, followers of each faction have gathered regardless of socio-economic or educational backgrounds. From my personal observation, this reflects the hidden meaning of the nation which is linked to democracy3. However, if democracy refers to the 1932 revolution, it is a very appropriate strategy of the red leaders to marry three terms including independence, ‘people’s revolution’ and 3

See more details of the five declarations of the red (Thai version) at http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1386668191, accessed on 10 October 2014.

15

democracy, which have been re-attached to the nation. In this case, the distinctive feature of heritage is clearly observed: it is socially constructed.

Since the recent coup d’etat in May 2014, in order to re-establish the country’s stability, national heritage is used again by political leaders. The National Council for Peace and Order (NCOP) reconstructed the recognition of national heritage values through many campaigns and activities. This has included, encouraging citizens to watch the film “King Naresuan”, who liberated the Ayutthaya Kingdom from Burmese occupation in the sixteenth century, also by exempting all Thai people from fees when visiting historical sites or national museums. This shows that national heritage values have never faded from Thai society. Its significance has been emphasised differently depending on the circumstance and purpose.

Thai National Heritage Usages: Overshadowing Minority Heritage Values: Hypothetically, a focus on minority heritage will not diminish the meaning of ‘mainstream heritage values’. The power of the bureaucratic authority which designates sites of national importance leaves limited space for minority heritage to be publicised. Despite being buried deep in specific communities, minority heritage can potentially be officially recognised by the state once it meets a certain criteria. Recent studies have affirmed that this process of status shift possibly occurs as a result of the political function assumed by the state (Smith, 2004, Harrison, 2013). In contrast, some minority values, as analysed by Byrne (2014), could not become formally accepted either by the state or by the majority (society) because it does not fit some of the standards set by the state. This is the case of “popular religion” in Asia.

Nation-building in all forms has always been the state’s major concern because it demonstrates the ability and capacity of the state to lead the nation along a proper path as well as to protect what the ‘majority’ treasures and values.

Examples researched by Denes (2012a and 2012b) are useful in discussing the different valuations in contemporary Thailand. Denes (2012a) in her provocative article on the Phanomrung Santuary, expresses the believe that: The reinvention and upgrading of ritual practices from relatively simple rites and offering to a sumptuous affair featuring highly structured Brahmanic rites attended by government officials and politicians and geared towards domestic tourists also reflected the changed symbolic status of the site, from a sacred landscape for local populations to a heritage site of national significance that symbolically and temporally referenced the ancient Khmer empire (Denes 2012: 199) Denes in another article (2012b) comments about heritage revitalization characteristics. …heritage revitalization in Asia largely privileges cultural heritage that is monumental, of ‘universal’ aesthetic value, exotic and vibrant, seemingly immutable and focused on the (national) past … Heritage revitalization can contribute to new “tyrannies of identity” by defining rigid boundaries of group identity which reinforce a ‘self’ vs. ‘other’ mentality. (Denes 2012b: 169).

In the case of the Phnomrung Santuary, two major interests are expressed: one from the local community and the other from the state. Since both parties have different purposes of utilising the Phnomrung Santuary, conflicts can occur and these could lead to confrontation. However, there is a clear distinction between the local values assigned to the site and the expert assigned values. For 16

example the Fine Arts Department (FAD) is concerned with protecting the aesthetic and scientific importance of the site rather than acknowledging the existing local relationship with the place.

Authorised heritage discourse can therefore potentially overwhelm local cultural significance and value.

Conclusions: This paper outlines that heritage is socially and culturally constructed. The value of heritage reflects what contemporary society pays attention to and what meanings they attach to the material culture.

I also surmise that what we are protecting at heritage sites is not material or fabric, but values sanctioned by society in the form of physicality. However, under the national scheme of heritage values lie various differences in relation to race, beliefs, practices and perceptions. The stateprotected heritage is utilised to build national values whilst trespassing on minority heritage values.

This leads to conflicts in terms of the usages of the sites, regarding minority beliefs and tradition. This is exemplified in the case of Phanomrung Sanctuary, Thailand where the top-down heritage making process is of authorised majority.

Since heritage is an action, the heritage making process at a national level, including its use to serve national purposes, is presented in relation to Thailand. Different backgrounds and experiences play major parts for the state in constituting collective values and adherence to issues in the past in relation to current contexts. Social value, overall, is what the state wishfully expects would unite their population. However, under the national scheme of heritage values lie various differences in relation to race, beliefs, practices and perceptions. The state-protected heritage could trespass on minority heritage value and lead to conflicts in terms of the usages of the sites regarding minority beliefs and traditions as shown in the case of Phanomrung Sanctuary of Thailand.

If ‘authorised heritage discourse’ (Smith 2004) or ‘official heritage’ (Harrison 2013), is a representation of a majority value, it becomes meaningful to explore what we understand to be ‘minority heritage’.

Korakit Choomgrant is a PhD (candidate) in Architectural Heritage Management and Tourism, Silpakorn University, Thailand.

Contact email: korakit.cho@dpu.ac.th

17

Bibliography: Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: reflections on the origin and spread ofnationalism.New York, Verso.

Isar, Y.R. 2011. ‘UNESCO and Heritage: global doctrine, global practice, in Anheier, H. and Isar, Y.R. (eds.), Heritage, Memory and Identity. London: Sage. Page no Australia ICOMOS. 1999. The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Available online at: <http://australia.icomos.org/wpcontent/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf>.

Brett, D. 1996. The Construction of Heritage. Cork : Cork University Press.

Bunnag, T. 1997. Provincial Administration of Siam 1892-1915. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Byrne, D. 2014. Counterheritage: critical perspectives on heritage conservation in Asia. New York, Routledge.

Chutintaranond, S. et al. 2014. Chatniyom Thai Nai Beab Rean Thai (Thai Nationalism in Thai School Texts). Bangkok, Matichon.

Denes A. 2012. ‘Mapping Living Heritage at the Phnom Rung Historical Park: identifying and safeguarding the local meanings of a national heritage site. Journal of Siam Society. 100. 183-215.

Denes, A. 2012. ‘The Revitalisation of Khmer Ethnic Identity in Thailand: empowerment or confinement? in Daly, P. T. and Winter, T Handbook of Heritage in Asia. London, Routledge.

Goudineau, Y. n.d. Laos and Ethnic Minority Cultures: promoting heritage. Abbeville, UNESCO France.

Harrison, R. 2013. Heritage: critical approaches. London, Routledge.

ICOMOS. 1964. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter). Available online at : <http://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf>.

ICOMOS. 1994. The Nara Document on Authenticity. Available online at : <http://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf>.

Jackson, P. A. 2004. ‘The Thai Regime of Images’. SOJOURN. 19.2. 181-218.

Pattiya, A. & Aiewsriwongse, N. 1982. Lakthan Thang Prawattisat Nai Prathet Thai (Historical Evidence in Thailand). Bangkok, Bannakij.

Saraya, D. 2002. Becoming Tai: the historical basis of the Thai nation. Bangkok, Thana Press and Graphics.

SarDesai, D.R. 1997. Southeast Asia: past and present. Colorado, Westview Press.

Smith, L. 2006. The Uses of Heritage. London, Routledge.

Staiff, R. and Bushell, R. 2013. ‘Mobility and Modernity’, cited in Luang P. (ed.) ‘Re-thinking Heritage and Tourism’. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 19. 1. 98-113.

UNESCO. n.d. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Available online at: <http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf>.

18

INTERPRETATION IN CULTURAL TOURISM: NUBIAN CULTURE IN SOUTHERN EGYPT Author: Zeina Elcheikh

Abstract: The culture of the Nubians, as a distinct ethnic group, has long been a subject of interest, both before and after the construction of the High Dam. Many aspects of Nubian culture in Southern Egypt have become a tourist attraction. Yet, the assimilation of Nubian culture in tourist narratives has made this distinctive heritage a subject of ‘polishing’ and ‘(over)simplification’ to make it consumable for visitors. Based on first-hand accounts of lived experiences and impressions on the presentation of Nubia and Nubians in Southern Egypt, this paper witnesses the dichotomies in interpreting a place and the culture of its people, as a response to and in the service of tourism. It concludes that Nubian heritage’s interpretation for tourism purposes cannot escape political influences, and that the past can be partially glorified, partially shown, or partially omitted with the intent of making the subject more pleasant and less controversial for visitors.

Keywords: Nubia, tourism, tourist narratives, simplification, museumification, contested pasts ______________________________________________________________________

Introduction: At the beginning of the 19th century, efforts were made to regulaise the flow of the Nile. After the completion of the ‘old’ Aswan Dam (Aswan Low Dam, or the Reservoir) in 1902, it was heightened in 1912, and later in 1933. Consequently, the Nubians gradually lost their renowned palm trees, waterwheels, and ‘their small but fertile lands’ (Fernea and Kennedy, 2010: 249). After the revolution in 1952, the decision to construct the High Dam was taken. A new agreement with the Sudan on the partition of the Nile waters was signed on the 8th November, 1958.This enabled the construction to start on the 9th January, 1960. The flow of the river was blocked and the lake began to fill in summer 1964. The lake flooded the entire Nile Valley south of the dam, and well into the Sudan, a total distance of about five hundred kilometres, and water level was raised at least 50 meters (Hopkins & Mehanna, 2010: 7).

When the High Dam was first designed, it became clear that many archaeological sites along the Nile valley would disappear forever beneath the waters. This urged Egypt (at that time the United Arab Republic - UAR) to approach UNESCO and request its help in saving the monuments of Nubia, because such work was beyond its financial capacity and expertise. Similarly to Egypt, the Sudan joined the attempt to save the monuments at risk. UNESCO made its first general appeal on the 8th March, 1960, and the result was the International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia. Nubians residing in the areas that were to be flooded below the dam (around 120,000 in Egypt and the Sudan) were forced to abandon their historical homeland in the interest of economic prosperity for their various countries of origin (Hopkins & Mehanna, 2010: 8). While the international community was mobilised to save the monuments of Nubia, no such attention was really paid to the fate of its people and their cultural heritage, which was strongly connected through history to their original homeland, which was to be submerged beneath the rising water.

Today, Nubian culture has become a new attraction in the tourism industry, already flourishing in Egypt. Tangible and intangible aspects of the Nubian culture have been largely promoted for tourism 19

by Egyptian travel agencies in Cairo and other centres and also by Nubians themselves. Whereas the focus of official tourism-related facilities is on a history represented in monuments and snapshots of the ‘good old days’, many Nubians seek to make use of their culture to develop a new form of tourism, not only as a means to increase their income but also a medium to assert their cultural identity.

This paper aims to explore the dichotomies in the interpretation of Nubians’ past and history in tourism-related activities and various areas in Southern Egypt. In other words, how Nubians see this history and past themselves, and how others are communicating them to tourists.

Interpretation in Cultural Tourism: […] real history is challenging. It is complicated and uneven. It can be risky. It can be fun, entertaining, interesting, even exciting. History can inspire us and give meaning and relevance to our everyday lives. Obviously, heritage sites are not always fun and entertaining and interesting and exciting. But they can be.

(Crokern, 2004: 15) As a leading generator of cultural exchange, tourism offers many experiences that range from the sightseeing of monuments and historical relics to knowing more about other people’s lives and culture. According to the International Cultural Tourism Charter, this provides a ‘personal experience, not only of that which has survived from the past, but of the contemporary life and society of others’ (ICOMOS, 1999). This notion of past and present indicates that cultural tourism is established on both ‘the history and heritage of a place and its people, as well as on their contemporary lives’ (Smith, 2003: 29).

In this regard, three terms can be differentiated: past, history and heritage. According to Smith (2003: 82), the past is about all that has ever happened, while history is the ties of sequential ‘presents’ to describe certain aspects of the past, and heritage is ‘a view from the present, either backward to a past or forward to a future’. Rivera-Orraca (2009: 32) observes that looking backwards requires a reconstruction of ‘what is considered valid in a specific context’, and how the social, political, cultural and institutional context affects the construction or reconstruction of history.

On the one hand, Smith argues that ‘heritage has been associated traditionally with what is inherited or handed on from one generation to the next and that it is ‘the contemporary use of the past including both its interpretation and representation’(2003: 82). Lowenthal (1985) noted that memory plays the major role in transmitting heritage in cultures that lack writing or cannot store records of past events.

On the other hand, ‘new insights and needs, new memories and forgetting force each generation to revise what relic it notices and how to interpret them’,(Lowenthal, 1985: 264). Interpretation has been defined by Tilden (1977: 8) as: an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by first-hand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information.

Accordingly, interpretation is both a process and a product; utilised wherever visitors’ experience needs to be enriched by a better understanding of the importance of what they are visiting, such as historical sites, art galleries, and museums. However, Lowenthal (1985: 273) argues that: the more interpretation is available, the more people rely on it; they are seldom conscious of, or worried about, the alterations of the past that interpretation implies.

20

When the construction of the past is subject to ‘bias, selectivity and distortion’, heritage interpretation ‘does not necessarily need to be a faithful representation of historical facts and events’ (Smith 2003: 84). Memory itself is a difficult and multifaceted issue, and subject to selectivity, according to RiveraOrraca (2009: 36) and Vaglio (2013) it is: part of a narrative that may be discursive or image-based, and what is remembered is not always pleasant, often the refusal to remember corresponds to an attempt to remove.

However, how can a ‘past which still divides and creates tension’ (Vaglio, 2013) be interpreted and remembered? In the case of the Egyptian Nubians, the history of being uprooted from their homeland is hard to avoid.

Scope of the Work and Limitations: What may be called Nubian identity in Egypt today should be understood less as an expression of an essential, age-old racial, cultural or linguistic difference, and more as the product of several dynamic historical process such as British-drawn international boundaries between Egypt and Sudan that cut Nubia in half in 1899; the traumatic experience of forced relocation in the two separate nation-states in the 1960s as a result of the High Dam project: and assimilationist government policies.

(Abdelmeguid, 2004: 2) The main groups of Nubians can be differentiated from each other mainly by their dialects: Kenuzi (Matokki) and Fadija (Mahas). They also have other distinctive aspects to in their culture, strongly associated with geographical and historical milieus (architecture, decorations, etc.). Moreover, the political borders drawn by the British Condominium in 1899 divided Nubians into “Egyptian” Nubians and “Sudanese” Nubians. These groups are also divided according to the experience of relocation in the 1960s, as a consequence of the High Dam, since some Nubian villages were not affected by the construction. Secondly the tourism industry has created divisions since not all of the Nubians encounter tourists or engage in tourism-related activities.

Therefore, the presentation of Nubian culture is critical, and to generalize attributes of “Nubianness” is an over-simplification of its complex historical and ethnological context. The Nubians addressed in this paper are those in Southern Egypt, closely related to the activities of cultural tourism where Nubian heritage and culture are displayed. For this paper two villages were addressed: the Kenuzi village of Gharb Soheil (not affected by the High Dam and experiences tourism) and the Fadija village of Ballana (displaced village due to the High Dam construction with no direct contact with tourism).

The fieldwork, which included interviews and meetings with 12 Nubians, 7 tourist guides and a tourism professional, took place in March 2013. A small pool of initial informants helped in nominating, through their social networks, other participants, some were spoken to directly or via telephone.

Unlike a survey or questionnaire in qualitative research, informants (Nubian community, tourist guides and experts groups) were encouraged, through a phenomenological methodology, to describe their experiences, thoughts, and memories. These accounts helped in gathering several points of view on different issues raised and in conducting further enquiries, to understand why some answers were contradicting one another.

The subject appeared, however, to have some sensitivity especially for a few tourist guides, who deliberately ignored some questions. The sample of Nubian interviewees in this paper is not large (12 Nubian informants), and the phenomenological data and the theme itself are subjective, which makes the ability to generalize the findings of this work limited. Finally, this paper was part of a Master’s 21

thesis at the University of Stuttgart, in which the role of the Nubia Museum in Aswan was also explored.

Findings and Discussion: Dam piled high […] they dumped you in the way of the mighty river. You have blocked the life-flow of water. Behind you it has built up and drowned half our land. The River is good like its people, but the dam confined the water in a huge lake […]. The water drowned lined lines of palm trees and polluted the sweet water. It ruined the time of peace and purity.

(Oddoul, 2008: 96) Although Nubia does not exist anymore, the Nubians visited in Gharb Soheil or Ballana are still present and continue their inherited traditions. However, their perception of Nubia as a place and home is not the same. Nubia, before the High Dam, has always been connected with a romanticized image of a quiet land with mud brick houses and date palms. However, the High Dam changed the morphology of the area forever, as well as how the image of this place is communicated. For instance, Nubians who were affected by the High Dam in the 1960’s, or whose predecessors experienced the forced displacement and transferred it to them, do not share the same opinions. During the field trip to the Nubian villages of Gharb Soheil and Ballana, informants were asked to describe ‘Nubia’ in three separate expressions, gathered in the table (Figure 1).

My Life * Where I want to be Nothing is like it

Kindness Safety Honesty

Lost Lost Lost

The Nile Egypt Middle state

The Nile Kindness Dark skin

Purity Cleverness Fear of God

Best people Serenity Solidarity

Best people Solidarity Unity

Kindness Affection Solidarity

Finest people Significance Best place

Beauty First thing on earth Kindness

Another world Nice people Another culture

*Experienced the forced displacement in the 1960s

Figure 1: Descriptions of “Nubia” in three separated expressions by the Nubian informants in the villages of Gharb Soheil and Ballana

22

Picture showing “Welcome to the High Dam’s Visitors” panel (Zeina Elcheikh 2013)

The answers opened a discussion related to the interpretation of history, past and heritage in the Nubian context. Questions have been raised about how people access their own past, and what aspects of the past should be selected for presentation to the public. This is shown in an apparent conflict in interpretation of both the past and present of Nubia and Nubians, by Egyptian official bodies.

To draw examples, two tourist spots within the scope of this paper have conflicting interpretations.

Firstly, in the case of Lake Nasser/Nubia: on one hand, a tour guide may describe it as the “largest man-made lake that carried the name of President Gamal Abdul-Nasser forever”. On the other hand, one could hear that “a whole civilization is buried underneath this water”. The same is applicable to the High Dam, as one may describe it as “the fourth pyramid of Egypt” or “the gravestone of Nubia”.

Both cases are valid depending on who is speaking.

Another example of contradicting narratives appears in the stories of Nubians showing their happiness through music and songs, while taking their belongings to the boats and leaving their villages, as described by many officials. However, one can also hear other stories from people who lived the experience, such as a Nubian woman in Ballana (interviewed 19th March, 2013), who recalls from her childhood: I was about nine years old when we had to take the boats and leave. They first took our furniture, and then all members of the same family were put together. My father was blind at that time – perhaps for his own good. People died because of this displacement.

At that time while we were all crying, you could hear zalaghit (1) not from any Nubian but from Saidis (2) who used to work among us. These Saidis were not losing anything, on the contrary they got a piece of land in the new settlements exactly like ourselves, we who lost everything.

Such narratives are also emphasized by the director of the Nubia Museum in Aswan (interviewed, 20th March, 2013): People were asked to sing and play music on their ways to the boats and while being transferred to their new villages. When they arrived, they were deceived that the reality was not exactly as bright what had been promised to them. Nubians’ reactions regarding the stories of resettlement are similar to those of someone who was offered a wrapped gift, and had lot of courtesy to keep smiling even after noticing how cheap that present was, compared to the sacrifice he made to get it.

23

Part of the diorama in the Nubia Museum showing the waterwheels flooded by the High Dam (Zeina Elcheikh 2013)

The Lake Nasser/Nubia from the High Dam, and the rescued Temple of Kalabshais seen on the right of the picture (Zeina Elcheikh 2013)

The creation of the Nubia Museum in Aswan serves as compensation for the Nubians’ loss in Egypt, at least emotionally. However, the presentation of Nubia and Nubians fossilize in one’s mind an image whose only authenticity is that of the showcased artefacts. The establishment of a ’Nubian’ museum was a recognition of the ongoing existence of Nubians in Egypt. Yet the recreated image of Nubians that is presented in the museum is contested, with a contrast between the lived and presented heritage. The showcased picture of Nubians and the actual are not quite the same. The first portrays a snapshot of a Nubian community at a certain period of time, while the second reveals a continuity of inherited traditions, which does not reflect the reality beyond the museum.

Houses in the displaced village of Ballana (Zeina Elcheikh 2013)

Scene of a Nubian village with traditional architecture and decorations,the Nubia Museum (Zeina Elcheikh 2013)

24

An Egyptian tour guide was asked how he interprets the story of the High Dam and the submergence of Nubia to tourists, he answered as follows: Tourists are here for enjoying their time, not to go into details of the past that could be annoying, perplexing, or could give a negative impression on the country in general.

(Interviewed 19th March, 2013) This was further elaborated by another tour guide (telephone interview, 31th May, 2013), who described his work as ‘diplomatic, where no personal opinion should be publicly stated exceeding some drawn limits’. Another question was addressed in relation to the governmentally trained tour guides in Aswan and surroundings, and how many Nubians are included in such training programs.

The answer was, ‘there should be some of them, but this is not important, because after all, we are all Egyptians’.

Conclusions: Cultural tourism should be thoughtfully managed it is essential to understand the needs and desires of the affected community. In the Nubian context, cultural tourism should also be sensitively managed.

Nubians’ feeling of being underprivileged and deprived in the national context of the Sudan and Egypt, and their fear of losing ties with their culture, makes them want to be distinctive. They have full possession of their past only through inherited traditions, and a complete control of their present only through practices related to this legacy. This fact generates a dilemma caused by the difficulty of creating a balance between a glorious past and a misplaced present.

Changes are inevitable when interpreting a place and it’s past, especially when it is made by a group committed to give a positive version of the tragic past to visitors. However, if packaged tours, museums exhibits and storytelling of tourist guides are set up only for an external audience to speak only about a bygone past, it may be considered as another governmental imposition and opportunism at the Nubians’ expense, as the High Dam was in the past.

If interpretation in cultural tourism is looked at as something much broader - a chance of a ‘living’ culture to survive in a certain region socially, politically and economically - it might open up a new perspective, because ‘living culture’ and a ‘museumified culture’ are often very different things.

Notes (1) Sounds of joy mainly in weddings.

(2) Egyptians from Upper Egypt.

Zeina Elcheikh holds a M.Sc. in Integrated Urbanism from the University of Stuttgart. Zeina is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Stuttgart (Institute for History of architecture).

Contact email: elcheikh_zeina@yahoo.com

25

Bibliography: Abdelmeguid, O. 2004. ‘Nubian Identity and Cultural Tourism’, in Nubian Museum and Community, MA thesis. Renwardt Academy, Amsterdam, Netherlands (not published).

Crokern, W. 2004. ‘Heritage Tourism: where public and history don’t always meet’.American Studies International. 42,2/3. 7-16.

Fernea, R. and Kennedy, J. 2010. ‘Initial Adaptations to a New Life for Egyptian Nubians’, in Hopkins N & Mehanna S (ed.) Nubian Encounters: The Story of the Nubian Ethnological Survey 1961–1964.

AUC Press, Cairo.

Hopkins, N. & Mehanna, S. (ed.).2010. Nubian Encounters: The Story of the Nubian Ethnological Survey 1961–1964, AUC Press, Cairo.

International Council on Monuments and Sites.1976. Cultural Tourism Charter. Available online: < http://www.icomos.org/tourism/> viewed 1 April 2013.

Lowenthal, D.1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Oddoul, H. 2008. Nights of Musk: stories from Old Nubia, trans. A Calderbank. AUC Press, Cairo.

(Original work published 2002).

Rivera-Oracca, L. 2009. ‘Are Museums Sites of Memory?’. The New School Psychology Bulletin. 6. . 2.

32-37.

Smith, M.2003. Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. London, Routledge.

Tilden, F. 1977. Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill,. The University of North Carolina Press.

Vaglio, G. 2013. About our Museum, unpublished paper on the Museum of Resistance, Deportation and Civil Rights, Turin.

26

THE ROLE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE IN ECONOMIC REGENERATION: THE CASES OF SHANGHAI AND HANGZHOU

Authors: Yanwei Han & Wei Zhong

Abstract: In the last four decades, cultural-led regeneration has become an important phenomenon on a global scale. Chinese cities started to embrace the fashion in early 1990s. This paper explores the role of heritage conservation in economic regeneration in China. The analysis focuses on both positive and negative impacts of two heritage-led projects in China: the Tianzifang Creative Industrial Park in Shanghai, and the Gongchen Bridge Area in Hangzhou. It leads to the conclusion that the revival of deindustrialised urban areas is a complex endeavor and requires a long-term management plan. Also projects have to respond to social and economic realities so to reconfigure their physical space and transform their functions.

Key Words: economic regeneration; heritage conservation; deindustrialized urban areas; commercialization; gentrification

_____________________________________________________________________

Introduction: In response to the economic decline of many urban districts in the 1970s, cultural heritage was first employed as a useful tool to promote an urban renaissance in western countries. Since the 1990s, culture-led urban regeneration has been used by major cities in Western Europe and North America, to drive the economic renewal of many post-industrial cities and former port areas which had struggled to compete in the changing global economy.

The practice of culture-led regeneration through heritage rehabilitation is growing rapidly in many Chinese cities. The earliest example is Beijing 798, an artistic production base set in a semi-abandoned factory complex, which was gradually developed by a spontaneous agglomeration of artists. It was followed by a series of culture-led regeneration projects in Shanghai. This new way of urban development has been widely adopted in run-down urban sites in China. Generally, these heritageled development projects were practiced in two forms: with the potential for harnessing tourism or developing artistic and creative industries.

The last 40 years have witnessed heated discussions among scholars on this trend of heritage-led regeneration in a post-industrial age. Arguments in favour of these kinds of heritage-based renovation projects suggest that cultural, social and economic welfare can be achieved through regeneration projects initiated by the conservation of cultural heritage (English Heritage, 2005). Kearns and Philo highlight the successful examples of cultural heritageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s critical role in fostering economic competitiveness (1993). Hospers (2002) explores the close link between tourism and economic regeneration in the case of Manchester in the UK and Baltimore in the USA. Some researchers advocate the essential role of cultural-driven projects in the inter-city competition for investment, a 27

skilled workforce and tourists (Vanolo, 2008). However, some researchers express their concern that heritage tends to be abused and stereotyped through marketing and branding (Evans, 2003).There are also tendencies that these post-industrial areas can be commercialised and gentrified within the bounds of cultural-led regeneration projects (Debray 1999).

Academic discussions in China, in general, take an optimistic attitude towards heritage-related regeneration projects. Numerous articles (Shi, 2010; Zeng, 2010; Song, 2011) have been written about aspects such as identification of the historic or economic values of regenerated districts, the possible roles of historic quarters in the urban landscape, and the heritage-based strategies of urban planning.

Less time has been devoted to the assessment of the actual impacts of these projects on economic development. A small group of researchers, however, have started to consider the economic effects of heritage conservation projects on the local communities. Apart from some reviews of Western theories and practices in this field (Zhang, 2013), a few papers go beyond the gains and lessons of heritage-led projects (Ling & Lang, 2013; Wang & Li, 2009; Hiu et al., 2014). Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that these studies lack a critical view and tend to overstate the positive effects of these projects.

This paper attempts to analyse the role of heritage conservation in economic regeneration through empirical studies in a more critical way. Despite the above mentioned cases of successful practice in Western societies, the degree to which this approach is productive in the context of China is yet to be examined. In this study, the analysis will be focused on the impacts of two heritage-led projects in China: the Tianzifang Creative Industrial Park in Shanghai and the Gongchen Bridge Area in Hangzhou.

These cases are chosen as representative of different forms and stages of urban regeneration.

Tianzifang Creative Industry Park: Tianzifang is unique in terms of its location. Unlike the traditional industrial zones, located in an expansive area of large factories, it is a neighborhood bounded by the Taikang Road in Shanghai, with both factory lanes developed in the 1950s and Shikumen houses (traditional residential houses in Shanghai) which were built in the 1930â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. As a result of de-industrialisation, factories and workshops in the area lost their real estate value and became vacant in the early 1990s. The renovation of this area was initiated in around 1998, when renowned artists Chen Yifei and Er Dongqiang set up their studios in an abandoned workshop (Luwan District Government, 2008). Their example was followed by many artists in favour of its low rental prices and its location close to the downtown area.

28

Figure 1: Tianzifang before regeneration. Source: Shi, Chunyang

Figure 2: Tianzifang today. Source: Yanwei Han.

Soon, the scale of the development was beyond the limited spatial capacity of the factories and the renovations extended to residential houses in the surrounding area in 2004 (Ng, 2006). The local residents started to play a dominant role in the revival. Gradually the expansion of the area included more residential houses, which were also used as commercial units such as bars, restaurants and retail shops (Figure 1 & 2).

This development gained its momentum in 2011, there were over 40 arts studios and art shops and about 20 designersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; firms and workshops, set up by both Chinese and foreign artists. Over 70 companies from 18 countries and regions were housed in these renovated houses and factories, still with the authentic features of the traditional architectural structure in the typical lanes of Shanghai (Zhu, 2009).

It has become a unique place with a combination of modern art, a new development in industrial culture and traditional residential houses. This has made the area attractive to thousands of local visitors and foreign tourists each day. The Tianzifang Management Committee was established in 2008 by the local government, to oversee day-to-day management of the site. The official status of the area was further authorized by the Shanghai Municipal Government as the Shanghai Creative Industry Park in 2009 (Zhu, 2009).

The Rebirth of the Gongchen Bridge Area The case study of Hangzhou is located in a pre-industrial area around the Gongchen Bridge on the west bank of the Grand Canal. Historically, this area was developed with a close relationship to the Grand Canal. It served as an important harbour and later, gradually developed into a large industrial base for textiles in the 20th century. Nevertheless, with the decline of the textile industry in 1990s, the district lost its economic function, with warehouses and factories falling into decay (Figure 3).

29

Figure 3: Tongyi Public Cotton Mill in decay. Source: Bao, Dunyuan.

Figure 4: Living Handicraft Exhibition Hall in the buildings of Tongyi Public Cotton Mill. Source: Yanwei Han

The Grand Canal’s bid for UNESCO World Heritage status in 2005 created an opportunity for the regeneration of this area. The new identity of the district was designed to become an area with cultural tourism potential. This regenerated the commercial, social and cultural vitality of the whole area and hence increased the real estate values of the district. Regeneration of the Gongchen Bridge area involved “both the renewal of the physical fabric and the active economic utilization of buildings and spaces” (Tiesdell et al., 1996: 20). Transformative projects were carried out through three stages. The first stage focused on the preservation of the authentic historical features of the district, including the Gongchen Bridge, quays and warehouses along the Grand Canal. The second stage targeted the West Bridge Historic Quarter and Xiaohe Street Historic Quarter. The third stage saw, old industrial buildings converted into functional spaces, such as lofts and museums (Figure 4). Meanwhile, the municipal government also invested in the projects to improve infrastructure, housing and public transportation.

The government’s investment in these heritage-led projects stimulated other investments from large companies. On the east bank of the Grand Canal, a Central Business District (CBD) and numerous expensive residential buildings were set up, together with associated businesses, such as restaurants, wine bars, retail shops and entertainment centres.

Unlike the Tianzifang project, which was a grass root effort, the revival in the Gongchen Bridge Area was the result of government intervention. Observations from the previous case studies have revealed that historical features have been cautiously preserved and then packaged into cultural products to meet the growing demands of cultural tourism. The heritage-led tourism project in the Gongchen Bridge area showcases a sustainable way to balance historic preservation and urban development.

Positive impacts on the local areas Direct Economic Impacts Direct economic impacts refer to the financial benefits from the projects on the local areas. These include the rise of employment and increases in property value and revenues. The increase in job opportunities is evident in both case studies. The increase in new commercial activities in the historic district of Tianzifang has created more jobs, particularly for the residents (Hiu et al., 2014). The 30

restoration works on the Gongchen Bridge Area has contributed to a boom in real estate and tourism industries in the district, which in turn has led to increased employment opportunities. The improved job market is deemed as a way to improve the quality of life (Omann & Spagenberg, 2002).

As well as increased employment opportunities, the property values have also risen due to the higher aesthetic value of these districts. For example, the property values of Gongchen Bridge District increased rapidly after the area has been regenerated (Ye, 2008). Recently, the property value of this area has seen a vast increase and this district has become a fashionable residential area in the city.

Over 20 real estate companies have been attracted to invest in this area (Zhang & Zhang, 2009). Within two years, the average property value rocketed from 768 RMB/m2 in 2007 to 1300RMB/m2 in 2009 (Zhang & Zhang, 2009).

The impact on the economy can also be represented through the increase in revenue collected from sales of art products, rental income of the landlords and the spending habits of tourists and visitors.

Tianzifang serves as a typical example of revenue increases generated by a heritage-led project.

Initiated by the £2,100,000 governmental investment in the improvement of infrastructure in the district in 2008, the revenue of the district soared to over £1,000,000 in the next year. The annual increase rate of profits was over 20% in the following years (Luwan District Government, 2008).

Indirect Economic Impacts: Some indirect economic effects should also be taken into consideration as they are intrinsic to the sustainable development of the regional economy. In the process of regeneration, local cultural heritage becomes an important facet of local identities of this region. This can encourage the local residents to engage with innovative projects and strengthen their entrepreneurial skills. Projects utilizing cultural heritage attract residents who are likely to see the business potential of the cultural environment. This kind of regeneration can play an essential role in the localization of businesses.

However, these effects are likely to develop in the long term and are therefore difficult to estimate with precision.

Potentially Negative Effects: Commercialization and Devaluation of Cultural Heritage: Although culture-led preservation and renovation can spur the economic regeneration of these case study areas, commercialization can potentially impoverish the historic and artistic value of these districts. As some scholars have noted, a number of heritage-led regeneration projects tend to “merely begin with poetry and end with real estate” (Evans, 2005: 959).

The Tianzifang project has gradually become commercialised. The increased number of tourists has led to the simplification of local cultural heritage. When some visitors recalled their experience of visiting this site, they felt disappointed, saying that “two years later it has fallen prey to its own success. It has become full of shops selling tourist ware and restaurants catering to tourists. There are still some shops selling unique gift items, but they are becoming few” (ThanksSocialSecurity, 2012).

As a result of the inner commercialisation process that has happened in the Tianzifang Zone, the rental price of a studio space has become extremely high. The artistic community (the original cultural generator) has been forced to seek studios space elsewhere. According to a report by the Global Times, the famous Chinese photographer Er Dongqiang, one of the earliest artists to settle in the area, had to close his studio at Tianzifang due to the pressure of ever-increasing rents (Zhou, 2012). Er told the Global Times that “it has become a common phenomenon that the rents at cultural and creative

31

industrial parks have surged over the past few years as these places have become more commercialized” (Zhou, 2012).

As Smith (2006) outlines, the sustainability of city development will not be attained unless local culture is treated as an indispensable element in the revitalization strategies. The trend of commercialization will compromise the true value of these areas and will hinder their sustainable development in the future.

Gentrification and Social Separation: Apart from the surge of rent in the Tianzifang Zone, the wave of gentrification and social separation is also affecting the resident artistic communities. Some artists were able to create businesses that gave them the income to enable them to stay in the area. However, other artists have not been so successful and under the pressure of the rising rent, have left the area. As a result of the divide among artists, quite a number of studios and workshops were gradually replaced by design companies, restaurants, and bars.

As some local artists such as Zhu Jun and Zhang Zhaohui have criticized, the district became “more about a show rather than serious art” (Lou, 2006). As early as 2004, some artists started to move their studios to other locations. By 2009, the number of pioneer artists dropped below thirty (Wang & Li, 2009).

Different from the case of Tianzifang, the gentrification in the Gongchen Bridge is a result of an influx of new middle-class residents in the area. The culture-led urban planning policy and the large investment from the municipal government attracted further investment from real estate developers.

As a result, this area has become attractive to wealthier residents due to its distinctive cultural environment, improved infrastructure and reasonably priced housing. In contrast, with the rise in property value, the poorer residents are choosing to move away, as a result of being displaced by wealthier newcomers with a higher income and stronger consumptive power. The input of both governmental and private capitals and an increased number of wealthier residents in surrounding areas has gradually formed a besieging situation towards the historical quarters in the area.

The new high-income residents can spur the development of local commerce, broaden the tax base for the government, and potentially deter crime in the area. On the other hand, the departure of local residents will also threaten the cultural distinction of the place, and thus compromise the future investments.

Conclusion: Heritage-led regeneration attempts to marry “conservation” and “development” during times of rapid urbanisation. Cities growing in number have started to view cultural heritage as an asset to support a new economy and as a tool to address the decline of urban districts. Meanwhile, due to the different characters and resources of each city, various forms of regeneration have been applied. Judging the strengths and weaknesses of top-down and bottom-up projects, there are no clear indicators as to which are more advantageous. Nevertheless, local community involvement and better cooperation between political administrators and local residents will be likely to create a balanced and sustainable local economy.

32

Despite the positive impacts on the economic revival of these projects, the sustainability and duration of such impacts are still under question. In order to address the negative impacts such as gentrification and commercialisation, several measures should be taken. Firstly, the effective participation of the local community should be encouraged throughout the whole process of regeneration projects.

Secondly, suitable housing should be made available for local people, so as to guarantee the cultural diversity and to prevent gentrification. To ensure the sustainability of the regeneration projects, marketing and evaluation of these historic urban areas should still be carried out, even in the post stages of the projects. In summary, the revival of deindustrialised urban areas is a complex endeavour and requires a long-term management plan. Also projects have to respond to social and economic realities so to reconfigure their physical space and transform their functions.

Yanwei Han is a PhD student at the Ironbridge International Institute of Cultural Heritage, University of Birmingham, UK. Wei Zhong is a lecturer at the Zhejiang Gongshang University, China.

Contact Email: willahyw@163.com

33

Bibliography:

Bao, D.Y. 2008. The Regeneration of Old Factories. Zhejiang on Line. Available online at: <http://photo.zjol.com.cn/05tupian/system/2008/10/14/ 010025103.shtml> (Accessed: May 23, 2014).

China Daily. 2003. Artists Find New Haven. Published April 23rd 2013.Available online at: <http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/63022.htm>. (Accessed: May 10, 2014)

Debray, R. 1999. Les Monuments ou la Transmission comme Tragme s in: R. Debray, (ed.) Ld.ray Monumental? Paris. France, Fayard. 11–32. cited from Michel Rautenberg (2012) Industrial Heritage, Regeneration of Cities and Public Policies in the 1990s: elements of a French/British comparison, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18:5, 513-525.

English Heritage. 2005. Regeneration and the Historic Environment: heritage as a catalyst for better social and economic regeneration. London, English Heritage. Available online at: <http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ . Accessed: May 23, 2014.

Evans, G. 2003. Hard-branding the Cultural City - from Prado to Prada. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 27.2. 417-440.

Hospers, G. 2002. Industrial Heritage Tourism and Regional Restructuring in the European Union.

European Planning Studies. 10. 3. 397-404.

Kearns, G. and Philo, C. 1993. Culture, History, Capital: A critical introduction to the selling of places, in G. Kearns & C. Philo (eds.) Selling Places: the city as cultural capital, past and present. 1–32, Oxford, Pergamon Press.

Ling, H.L. and Lang, G. 2013. Conserving the Heritage in Chongqing by Market Forces: The feasibility of adopting TDR in China. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development. 3. 1. 18-34.

Luwan District Government. 2008. Luwan Qu Zhi 1994–2003 [Luwan District Memorial]. Yuaomen Press: Shanghai (in Chinese).

34

Ng M.S. 2006. The Case of Tianzifang in Shanghai Creative Industry and the Rehabilitation of the City.

Research Center for Shanghai Creative Industry (in Chinese).

Shi, C.Y. 2006. â&#x20AC;&#x153;prilTaikang Road I n Shanghaiâ&#x20AC;?. Available online at: <http://blog.big5.voc.com.cn/blog_showone_type_blog_id_111225_p_1.html.> (Accessed: April 17 2014)

Smith, M.K. 2006. Tourism, Culture and Regeneration. Cambridge, MA, CABI.

Tianzifang. n.d. Taikang Road. Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Taikang_Road> (Accessed: May 11, 2014).

Tiesdell, S. Oc, T. and Heath, T. 1996. Revitalizing Historic Urban Quarters. Architectural Press, London.

ThanksSocialSecurity. 2012. Fast becoming Kitschy. Available at: <http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g308272-d1372928-r128101393Tian_Zi_Fang-Shanghai.html.>. Accessed: May 23, 2014.

Vanolo, A. 2008. The Image of the Creative City: Some reflections on urban branding in Turin. Cities.

25.370-382.

Ye, Q.Y. 2008. The Study on Protection and RE-use of Industrial Heritage in the Area around the Grand Canal of Gongshu District Section. Unpublished masters dissertation, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.

Zhang, H.H. and Zhang, X.X. 2009. The Rebirth of the Affluent West Bridge Historical Quarter.

Qianjiang Evening News (in Chinese).Available online: <qjwb.zjol.com.cn/html/200908/20/content_54164.htm?div=-1>. (Accessed: May 12, 2013).

Zhou, P. 2012. Famed artist to leave Tianzifang. Global Times. Available online at: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/737539.shtml. (Accessed: May 10, 2014).

Zhu R.L. 2009. Jiedu Tianzifang [Understanding Tianzifang]. Wenhui Publishing, Shanghai. (In Chinese).

35

GLOCALISING CONSERVATION Authors: Diana Tay, Nicole Tse & Melissa Ho.

Abstract: Researchers and international bodies such as UNESCO have begun to acknowledge the plurality of cultures, and therefore the importance of addressing each region’s needs on its own terms. However, some conservation practitioners on the ground have been slower to recognise the importance of seeing their own contexts from a ‘glocal’ point of view. The future of cultural heritage conservation relies on increasing intra-regional dialogue, while continuing to share findings and best practices with the conservation community internationally.

Keywords: conservation, glocal, best practices, international standards, region

Heritage, as an institutional practice, aims to preserve selected remains from the past (Esposito, 2014:20) that can then be presented in the future as important to the understanding of these remains’ original context(s). One of the many ways in which this is done is through the collection or acquisition of objects identified as being important to, or representative of, that context. These specimens of specific time/places are then strung together to form an approximation of a narrative of history and heritage through cultural objects and sites. Arguably, the human agency involved in this highly subjective process can be problematic when one object or even one culture’s recognition is privileged over another.

In particular, the context of this decision-making – the intersection(s) of socio-historical influences and individual preferences – often goes unremarked, much less examined. This is potentially contentious, especially given that these fragments are then retroactively woven into a narrative that becomes a part, if not all, of a culture’s self-identity.

This desire to collect and acquire objects – essentially, the drive behind the institutional practice of heritage as we now understand it – was born in Western Europe and was later ‘exported’ to its colonies, including those in Asia, beginning in the second half of the 19 th century (Esposito, 2014: 20). Notions of ‘heritage’ in this sense are currently understood worldwide, this is mainly based on material authenticity, aesthetic qualities and historical values (Chan et. al, 2014: 22). This bears the trappings of its original cultural backgrounds, and may not necessarily be representative of how individual cultures perceive, experience, and choose to embody their own ideas of heritage. Whilst the practice of collection and acquisition has its roots in Western European values and belief systems, scholars working in contexts

36

outside the region have played a paramount role in engaging with and deconstructing the basic assumptions underlying established practices in heritage management.

Conservation as a Contextual Discipline: Conservation as a discipline has, quite naturally, mirrored to a large extent the institutional practice of heritage in terms of its historical trajectory and development. Moreover, the care of cultural material continues to be useful in wider discussions about cultural heritage.

Questions about the ethics of cultural heritage conservation – such as what should be conserved, and who should make these decisions – inevitably both reflect and have some influence on what constitutes ‘heritage’ from an institutional point of view.

It should be noted that this paper uses the term ‘South-East Asia’ as a purely geographic point of reference. This may seem limiting and essentialising, however, the case study provides us with a sufficiently complex example which can be used to discuss the need to take a glocal – and not a global, or a local – approach to the care of cultural heritage materials and therefore, by extension, its constitution.

The discipline of conservation is considered young (Pye & Sully, 2014: 19), and its development as a mature discipline will be contingent with the development of several surrounding issues, such as ‘the ability to define requirements for what constitutes new knowledge’ and ‘an effective communications network’ (Davies & Devlin cited in Sloggett, 2009: 173). Current developments, however, have been ‘framed predominantly by the practice, protocols and knowledge related to collecting institutions and their agents’, with a ‘reliance on values such as verifiability and reproducibility’ (Sloggett, 2009: 173). The development of conservation as a discipline in South-East Asia therefore reflects a wider truth about the nature of globalisation; it does not, contrary to what one might expect, produce an imagined community that is both international and homogenous. Instead, it results in a ‘mobility of ideas’ (Tan, 2010: 8) that are then interpreted, adopted, and/or eventually adapted on the ground within each facet of this imagined community. One result of globalisation, and therefore this ‘mobility of ideas’, is the development of contemporary Asian art practice and a heightened interest in its collection. This increased interest in the collection of contemporary Asian art has necessitated greater attention to the care of such collections.

However, while conservation practices in Europe and the United States have their origins in 19th century enlightenment theories (Sloggett 2009, p.71), in South-East Asia, conservation as a disciplinary practice is linked to the establishment of museums. Moreover, the museum in its current form is ‘the cultural product of Western history, and its concept was not domesticated by Asia until the twentieth century’ (Wu 2006: 2). However, the protection of cultural and heritage assets, in the broadest sense, has been active in the South-East Asian region much longer and is linked to traditional and local practices and values (Agrawal, 1975:155). It was not until the late 1980s to 1990s that contemporary art museums came into focus, as the ‘preservation of an indigenous cultural heritage was initially the goal of many national museums in the region, which in turn ‘reflected an effort to foster the expression of a localised cultural identity’ (Chiu & Genocchio, 2010: 24).

This is particularly evident in the context of contemporary art practice in South-East Asia, which has developed along a trajectory different from that of European or Northern American contemporary art. Although South-East Asia is linked to and influenced by the globalised 37

world, locating South-East Asian contemporary art is complex as it does not follow the ‘Western’ trajectory, and thus resists a ‘Western’ concept of contemporary art (Seng, 2012: 116). Before the convergence of contemporary art and globalisation, South-East Asian artists already had strong local traditions that had derived from different cultural environments and histories. These are rooted in how the visual arts in the region have conveyed core and broad cultural values ‘across the boundaries of temporal, linguistic and geographical differences for centuries’ (Leuthold, 2011: xi). The definitions of contemporary art according to the customary knowledge systems have been categorised chronologically, following art history and artistic movements, and are considered to encompass works from the 1970s to the present day (Schädler-Saub, 2010: 3). However, categorisations of what ‘contemporary art’ might encompass within the context of the South-East Asian region are not validated by the same European and Northern American historical timelines. Instead, a definition of ‘contemporary art’ in South-East Asia is more comparable to the broad spectrum of art forms in the region, and should recognise the plurality of artistic, philosophical and social expressions of the place (Chiu & Genocchio, 2010: 3). While this is an example specific to South-East Asia, each culture has its own socio-historical contexts which shape their cultural heritage and the objects that are then collected as part of a narrative of this heritage.

Nermin Sayasili, in his paper ‘Gesturing no(w)here’, argues that the concept of the global is often structured within a localized entity (2011: 410). Paul Virillo's proposed term ‘glocalisation’ – which addresses this new framework of globalisation within a localised context and considerations (cited in Sayasili, 2011: 412) – provides a way to engage with Zijlmans’s argument that ‘art history is not global’ (2007: 289). Its implication is therefore that approaches to the care of cultural materials cannot ignore local specificities, even as globalisation appears to blur the boundaries of these specificities. A glocal understanding of each collection, and thus a glocal understanding of the care of it, is therefore necessary to the consideration of disciplinary strategies for conservation and collection care. It has been argued that although international frameworks continue to be helpful as one of many points of reference, they alone cannot be adequate in addressing the regionally-specific nature of the collections that come into the care of practitioners.

Glocalisation and Platforms for Dialogue: This is not to say that there has been no attempt within the broad field of conservation to acknowledge the plurality of cultures, and therefore addressing the importance of each region’s needs on its own terms. As early as 1975, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) acknowledged that the Asian region varies from the European traditions of art and the meaning of conservation, and that ‘ignorance of these matters has often been disastrous’ (Agrawal, 1975: 155). However, some conservation practitioners on the ground have been slower to recognise the importance of seeing their own contexts from a glocal point of view. These practitioners choose instead to refer to international standards derived from Euro-American studies– such as studies on environmental and climate conditions – that on a practical level, have very little immediate relevance to the needs of individual collections.

Furthermore, the relative paucity of intra-regional dialogue regarding best practices leads to practitioners on the ground choosing to adopt and adapt international standards as a stepping stone to developing their own best practices. This is because individual practitioners or groups 38

of practitioners remain unaware that more relevant practices are already being developed in the region. This tends to lead to the wasting of resources, through the unnecessary replication of adaptation efforts, where these resources could have been channelled to the development of other best practices, had there been greater intra-regional dialogue about developments within the discipline. Moreover, network groups such as Asia Pacific Tropical Climate Conservation Art Research Network (APTCCARN) and the International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art – Asia Pacific (INCCA-AP) provide a platform on which practitioners and conservators in the region can share research findings and projects with fellow network members. However, the different languages and dialects used across the region continue to pose potential challenges to a completely open dialogue across the region.

This is not, however, to disparage inter-regional dialogue, which continues to contribute to the development of the discipline as a whole. Instead, we argue that the future of cultural heritage conservation – and its development as a mature discipline – relies on increasing intraregional dialogue, while continuing to share findings and best practices with the broader conservation community internationally.

Bridging the Gap: The discussion in this paper has utilised a more comparative approach in illustrating our argument for a more glocal approach to the practices of cultural heritage conservation. In order for conservation to mature as a discipline in this international age, there remains a need for the field, as a whole, to move farther away from the artificial binaries of ‘international’ and ‘local’, and instead to address each collection and its needs on its own terms. As the care of collections is both influenced by and influences perceptions of what material objects should be considered part of a culture’s heritage, the manner in which this care is administered needs greater consideration. The development of best practices should thus reflect an informed consideration of the specific nature and therefore necessary care of each collection, in order to responsibly present and conserve what comes to be regarded as heritage.

Diana Tay* has recently completed her MA in Cultural Material Conservation at The Grimwade Centre for Cultural Materials Conservation, University of Melbourne. Dr Nicole Tse is a researcher and lecturer at The Grimwade Centre for Cultural Materials Conservation, University of Melbourne. Melissa Ho works as an independent researcher. *Contact email: dianalexis.t@gmail.com

39

Bibliography: Agrawal, O.P. 1975. ‘An Asian view of conservation’. Museum. 27.4. 157 – 160.

Chan, J. Dull, I. Di Piertro, G. Esposito, A. Guagnini, S. Huang, A. van Der berg, I. and Wittek, R. 2014. ‘Heritage beyond the boundaries: a manifesto’. The Focus. 69. 22 – 23.

Chiu, M. and Genocchio, B. 2010. Contemporary Asian Art. London, Thames & Hudson.

Esposito, A. 2014. ‘Theorizing heritage in Asia as an ‘encounter’’. The Focus. 69. 19 – 21.

Leuthold, S., 2011:Cross-Cultural Issue in Art: frames for understanding. New York, Routledge.

Pye, E. and Sully, D. 2007. ‘Evolving challenges, developing skills’. The Conservator. 20. 1 – 28.

Sayasili, N. 2011. ‘Gesturing no(w)here’, in J. Harris (ed.), Globalization and Contemporary Art. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. 409 – 421.

Schädler-Saub, U. 2010. ‘Introduction’, in U. Schädler-Saub & A. Weyer (eds.), Theory and Practice in the Conservation of Modern and Contemporary Art: reflections on the roots and the perspectives. London, Archetype Publications Ltd. 1 – 8.

Seng, Y.J. 2012. ‘The Primacy of Exhibitionary Discourses: contemporaneity in Southeast Asian art, 1992 – 2002,’ in T.K. Sabapathy (ed.), Intersecting Histories: contemporary turns in Southeast Asian art. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University. 116 – 129.

Sloggett, R. 2009. ‘Expanding the Conservation Canon: assessing cross-cultural and interdisciplinary collaborations in conservation’. Studies in Conservation. 54.3. 170 – 183.

Tan, B.H. 2010. ‘Public Collections: the Asian scene’. Conference Series for The Asia Pacific Contemporary Art Fair, Shanghai, China. Shanghai, 9 September.

Wu, D.R. 2006. ‘The Cultural Hegemony in the Museum World’. International Council of Museums (ICOM), INTERCOM Conference and Annual Meeting, Taipei. Taiwan, 2-4 November.

Zijlmans, K. 2007. ‘An Intercultural Perspective in Art History: beyond othering an appropriation. In J. Elkins (ed.), Is Art History Global?. New York, Routledge. 289 – 299.

40

A series of online debates led by students from the Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage, University of Birmingham, in collaboration with archaeology and heritage students from Universities and early career professionals across the world. #OurUNESCO is designed to provide a forum to critically evaluate the state and role of UNESCO ahead of its 70th anniversary.

Every third Monday of the month between 16:00-17:00 GMT. Follow the debate on Twitter and join in using #OurUNESCO. Forthcoming Discussion topics: June 15th 2015- World Heritage and Industrial Heritage July 20th 2015- 39th Session of the World Heritage Committee August 17th 2015- World Heritage and Communities September 21st 2015- Open Discussion Past Debates: January 19th 2015- The World Heritage List First debate with contributors from Birmingham, UK, Durham, UK, Germany, Mexico and The Netherlands. Significantly raised the profile of furnace Journal.

February 16th 2015- Intangible Heritage Second debate with contributors from Birmingham, UK, Durham, UK, York, UK, Canada, India, Mexico, Spain and The Netherlands.

March 16th 2015- UNESCO: The Institution Third debate with contributors from Birmingham, UK, Bristol/Glasgow, England, UK, Germany and Spain.

April 20th 2015- World Heritage and Tourism May 18th 2015- World Heritage Education With contributors from Birmingham, Cornwall, Devon, South Wales, the Giantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Causeway and Panama!

41

CALL FOR PAPERS ‘Cultural Heritage in a Digital Age’ furnace, is a newly forged Postgraduate Journal within the Ironbridge International Institute of Cultural Heritage (IIICH), University of Birmingham. Cultural heritage is an ever expanding and diversifying discipline; we hope to be a facilitator for sparking debates and discussions surrounding the field.

The theme for the second edition of the journal is: ‘Cultural Heritage in Digital Age’.

In today’s Digital Age, digital technology is embedded in all cultural heritage research and engagement. This edition aims to identify through case studies the current framework between Cultural Heritage and Digital Technology. Does digital technology include or exclude? How participatory are the current buzzwords of Crowdfunding, Crowdsourcing / User Generated Content or Mobile Technology? Has an ethical and critical discourse been developed to accommodate this rapidly developing environment? These questions begin to deconstruct some of the present issues surrounding the theme and make fundamental enquiries about the future of cultural heritage.

Please send your submissions to furnace@contacts.bham.ac.uk by August 14th 2015. See the webpage for further information on submissions. For further information or any questions, please contact us via the email above or tweet us at @furnacejournal The online journal will be published on October 2nd 2015 to coincide with the UNESCO Digital Heritage Congress 2015, Grenada, Spain.

42

Call for Book Reviewers Book review submissions can also be of any length but the word count cannot be over 1,500 words.

For more information on submissions see: https://furnacejournal.wordpress.com/information-forauthors/ Books to be reviewed: Barbiera, I. Choyke, A. M. Rasson, J. A. 2009. Materializing Memory. Archaeological material culture and the semantics of the past. Barbiera, I. Choyke, A. M. Rasson, J. A. (eds). BAR International Series 1977.

Hurcombe, L.M. 2007. Archaeological Artefacts as Material Culture. Routledge.

King, T. F. 2013. Cultural Resource Laws and Practice (4th edition) Lanham, AltaMira Press.

Labadi, S. 2013. UNESCO, Cultural Heritage, and Outstanding Universal Value: Value-based Analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions. Rowman and Littlefield.

St. Clair, A. Taylor, K. Mitchell, N. J. 2014. Challenges and New Directions (Routledge Studies in Heritage). Taylor & Francis Group.

Worrell, S. Egan, S. Naylor, J. Leahy, K. Lewis, M. 2007. A Decade of discovery. Proceedings of the Portable Antiquities Scheme Conference. Archeopress.

If you are interested in obtaining a copy and reviewing these books, please get in touch with us: furnace@contacts.bham.ac.uk

43

44

45