Format: Paper presentations with discussion
Convenors:
Elgidius Ichumbaki , University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, ebichumbaki@gmail.com
Alicia Castillo Mena , Universidad Complutense de Madrid, alicia.castillo@ghis.ucm.es
Heritage sites and protected cultural objects have different meanings to different stakeholders worldwide. Whether natural, cultural, tangible, intangible, movable or immovable, heritage is perceived and valued differently depending on the stakeholders’ interests, attachments, expectations, etc. For example, while researchers consider heritage sites and cultural objects as sources of scientific knowledge, tourists consider such sites as centres of pleasure, relaxation, and enjoyment. On the one hand, a few government officials and independent tour operators regard archaeological sites and objects therein, for example, as sources of income, hence, engines of economic development. On the other hand, individuals and groups of local people in the site’s vicinity regard cultural heritage locales as markers of identity and centres of various spiritual practices. These varying meanings and interpretations cause contestation among stakeholders at different locally valued heritage sites, national monuments, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Similar contests exist in museums, where visitors may have different opinions about the displayed exhibitions. These contests disrupt socio-cultural and economic stability in the communities and limit innovation and the entrepreneurship opportunities that heritage sites and museums could offer. Answers to the questions regarding the history and nature of contests and how heritage scholars and practitioners can resolve these problems are relevant to site sustainability. This session, therefore, is the backdrop to detailing the existing ‘silent tensions’ at various cultural heritage sites, historic towns, and museums that endanger initiatives to ensure heritage sustainability. We invite scholars and practitioners to submit abstracts on the history, nature, and status of ‘silent tensions’ at heritage sites with different recognition statuses in historical cities and museums.
Papers:
Holistic Approach: A Strategy for Sustainable Management of Saadani Nature-Culture Heritage Sites, Tanzania
Richard Nandiga Bigambo, Dept of Archaeology and Heritage Studies, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
This paper explores the contests between Tanzania’s Saadani National Park (SANAPA) and surrounding communities. SANAPA presents a unique case, where conserving its exceptional natural heritage clashes with preserving its equally unique cultural heritage. The park, the only coastal sanctuary in eastern Africa, boasts a remarkable diversity of ecosystems, from beachfront and mangroves to coral reefs, palm trees, and savannas. Beyond its natural heritage, Saadani holds significant cultural heritage, marked by remnants of the 19th-century slave trade, traditional Swahili architecture, and historical salt-making practices. However, the future of these natural and cultural heritage assets is in peril because disagreement exists between the park management and the residents of six surrounding villages that rely heavily on these assets for their livelihoods. This situation creates tensions surrounding land-use priorities, economic pressures, and differing valuations of what constitutes valuable heritage. The paper delves into this complex relationship, exposing the pressing challenges of balancing the state’s focus on wildlife conservation with the desires of local communities and heritage experts who advocate an inclusive approach. To end contests and achieve sustainability, the paper argues for a holistic approach that integrates nature and culture as essential assets deserving equal treatment.
An Archaeological Case Study: The Keeladi-Kondagai Heritage and Identity Conflict
Shamili Jaishankar, Dept of History and Archaeology, Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence, Greater Noida, India
Ajay Kumar Rammoorthy, Keeladi Museum; Dept of Archaeology, Govt of Tamil Nadu, India
A rather novel problem, a sentimental feud between two villages, each claiming exhibits in Keeladi museum as their own ancestral properties. Although the excavated artefacts are widely acknowledged by people as Keeladi artefacts, its neighbours from Kondagai village, who own the land that was excavated, seek acknowledgement. The government’s decision to exhibit the artefacts under the name ‘Keeladi Museum’ and to include Kondagai in official inscription, attempted to address this conflict and balance competing sentiments. However, the acknowledgment did little to quell the dispute entirely, as questions surrounding the original ancestors and ownership of these artefacts have become part of the ongoing enmity between the two villages. Historically, the interaction between Keeladi and Kondagai reveals a shared complex history. This paper seeks to identify the original inhabitants of Keeladi-Kondagai village with shared ancestral provenance, and to give logical solutions for the now embedded feud that has spread from the archives through medieval inscription and archaeomaterials. While the colonial records speak only of Keeladi, medieval inscriptions found in temples therein establishes that the nomenclature ‘Kuntidevi Saturvedimangalam’ aligns with Kondagai. Does Tamil Brahmi inscribed on potsherds hold any record of the place in question? This research attempts to record the cultural and socio-political dynamics that led to the shared yet contested heritage of Keeladi-Kondagai. This study contributes to the broader discourse on how cultural heritage needs a sensitive approach, which can be a unifying factor rather than a divisive one. It highlights the need for a nuanced treatment in dealing with heritage sites where modern administrative boundaries do not reflect historical realities, advocating for a policy that respects and integrates the complex nature of shared histories.
From a News Story: Multiple Interpretations of the Stone Rhinoceros
Jiayi Xu, The Chengdu Museum, Chengdu, Sichuan Provence, China
In 2018, flooding occurred in many parts of Sichuan Province during the summer; a resident associated the stone rhinoceros, an archaeological artefact thought to have been used as a water suppressor in the Han Dynasty (202 BC-220 AD), which was unearthed in 2013, with the belief that the days of unusual weather conditions were due to the fact that museum staff had displayed it in the museum, so that it could not achieve the function of water suppression. The museum gave a scientific reply to the public’s questions. The discussion in this article starts with this news. It will explore the multiple interpretations of archaeological artefacts by different subjects, institutions, and periods to recognise the differences and demonstrate the relationships between artefacts, museums, historic cities, residents, and contemporary society. The first part outlines the history of the stone rhinoceros and discusses its influences. The second part analyses the interpretation of the stone rhinoceros by curators, educators, commercial sectors and other institutions. The third part explores the relationships and interpretations between historical cities, museums, heritage and modern society to show the contradiction, harmony and coexistence between them and provide references for future academic research, policy-making and social development.
Caught In Crossfire: The Key Players in Manila’s Vanishing Heritage
Christian Gappi Fernandez, School of Archaeology, University of the Philippines
Heritage, along with all other things that may be classified as such, creates division due to their subjective nature. This is not only in terms of differences in preservation philosophies or best practices, but also in terms of how they are valued by stakeholders based on the opportunities or satisfaction they derive from them. With the case of Manila’s urban landscape, built heritage structures commonly vanish silently overnight. It’s a small consolation to these mute structures that they’re being saved from imminent demolition when reported to appropriate government agencies. This paper examines the disagreement of intentions among key players, contextualised through interviews and available case studies. Further, it attempts to understand their dynamics in managing historic urban landscapes in Manila influenced by economic, social, cultural, and political elements. The study aims to create a pool of expectations that will be a basis for finding a common ground for a more sustainable existence of both heritage and development. We are to understand that what is being protected is not only the structure itself but also the value attached to it as part of the landscape that embodies the culture of the past, which is crucial in maintaining our identity.
Object or Ancestor? Fake or Real? Heritage Conflicts as Reflected in a German Museum
Dr Lars Fruehsorge, Museum Director, Collection of the Cultures of the World, Luebeck, Germany
Ethnographic museums in Germany are currently in a process of critical self-reflection. Negotiating different views of heritage turns out to be an important learning process on this path. This paper will focus on cases from the Ethnographic Collection of Luebeck. One example is an ancestor given back to the Selk’nam community in Chile. His case reveals different concepts of heritage among the various stakeholders and helped the museum a lot to establish new forms of religious respect and dialogical exhibition curating.
More insights come from the study of replicas of archaeological objects which are produced as a commodity for tourists in various Indigenous communities. Museums rarely exhibit them, as they are considered merely ‘fakes’. But for the artists who produce them, their meaning is complex. Making replicas may be a subaltern strategy of resistance in heritage conflicts, an expression of identity, a way to preserve traditional knowledge or to challenge western chronologies. Recent research shows that the production of such replicas goes back deep in colonial times. Future studies might help us to better understand historical Indigenous artists not only as passive victims of the colonial European collecting mania, but also as actors with their own heritage agenda.
Changing Archaeological and Heritage Discourses Concerning Late Palaeolithic Cave Sites in South China, Taiwan, and the Philippines
David J. Cohen, Dept of Anthropology, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
While new discourse is often driven by new data, why else are internal, professional interpretations and public-facing narratives concerning Late Palaeolithic cave sites in East and Southeast Asia changing in recent years and what might still be missing from these new views? Last Glacial-Early Holocene cave sites in Taiwan (Baxiandong) and South China (Zengpiyan and the ‘Early Pottery’ sites of Yuchanyan and Xianrendong) serve to illustrate some aspects of the impact of the present-day political context on the construction, interpretation, and presentation of the past(s) and of differences between academic discourse vs. narratives for the public when the caves become enlisted as heritage sites. While critical heritage studies calls for greater multivocality in such narratives and in setting agendas for the heritage process, only a limited number of stakeholders’ voices are currently heard. Lastly, by drawing on interpretations of karst caves on Palawan (Philippines) as liminal nodes within animated landscapes, we can ask if we are lacking something in our discourses about the cave sites of Taiwan and South China, particularly concerning the ontology of these caves—the meanings and understandings of these caves to people in the past and how these people experienced and perceived these special places.
Fighting for Multi-million-year Fossils and Localities: Exploring Contests Among Research Groups at Oldupai (Olduvai) Gorge in Northern Tanzania
Mariam Bundala, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
North-eastern Tanzania is an invaluable region for paleoanthropological research, offering a wealth of localities that significantly enhance our understanding of human evolution. Among the most notable sites are Oldupai (Olduvai) Gorge, Laetoli, Lake Ndutu, and Nasera Rock Shelter. These localities have collectively yielded fossils and artefacts dating over 4 million years, providing critical insights into the evolutionary history of hominids and hominins. The fossils and artefacts recovered play a pivotal role in the comprehension of ancient human cultures and behaviours. Because of this significance, the localities attract researchers whose outputs not only enrich the academic community but also foster pride in humanity’s history and accomplishments. Unfortunately, these researchers are competing to access the sites, fossils, and artefacts therein, which isn’t healthy to foster collaborative research for knowledge production. This study explores the social dynamics and relationships among paleoanthropologists engaged in research at Oldupai Gorge and its implications for knowledge production. I argue that this inharmonious situation has adversely affected various aspects of research, collaboration, training opportunities for emerging scholars, the quality of academic publications, and the overall safeguarding of this globally significant heritage site. Addressing these challenges requires an exploration of effective strategies for fostering cooperation and enhancing communication among researchers.
Valuing Heritage for Heritage’s Sake or for the Expectations and Offers? Heritage Contests and Negotiations at Kilwa and Bagamoyo Site in Tanzania
Elgidius B. Ichumbaki, Dept of Archaeology and Heritage Studies, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Cultural heritage values differ across and among various stakeholders, ranging from individuals, groups of people, and communities to tourists. While such differences are common to several sites that have been promoted and utilised for tourism purposes, a handful of studies about this issue exist, especially in localities with multicultural identities. Focusing on two coastal heritage sites of Kilwa and Bagamoyo, both in Tanzania, the paper presents the ongoing contradictions among various stakeholders. The paper uses the data collected through interviews and stakeholder meetings to show that in addition to the spiritual and historical values the sites hold for the local people, the government’s failure to meet what the local communities expect from the heritage is another source of conflict. The paper argues that the government authorities mandated to care for heritage must inform the communities surrounding Kilwa and Bagamoyo that the sites need more financial resources to meet their expectations. Therefore, they should join the other stakeholder’s initiatives to preserve the sites despite lacking expected financial or economic benefits.
The Dream of Returning to the Tang Dynasty: Whose Dream and Whose Heritage?
Qiwei Guo, Institute of Archaeology, University College London
This study examines the negotiations and mediation among various stakeholders in the protection and development of Tang Dynasty heritage in Xi’an, China, particularly surrounding the “Grand Tang Mall” project. Situated on the site of the Tang Dynasty capital’s core area, this project involves the reconstruction of ancient style architectural complexes, combining light shows and immersive performances to recreate the vibrant urban life of the Dynasty and restore the prosperity of the nation’s ‘Golden Age’. In the late 20th century, the government began planning the area as a tourism attraction, with tourism developers soon introduced to the project. However, this collaboration has been hindered by unequal distribution of tourism profits, divergent values of heritage, and imbalanced power dynamics among stakeholders. While the government seeks to preserve the city’s cultural heritage as part of its political agenda, developers prioritise profit from its cultural tourism potential. Local residents express dissatisfaction with the large-scale investments and forced relocation, while tourists criticise the commercialisation and homogenisation of the experience. This study thus aims to discuss the broad issues around authenticity, cultural identity, representation, and ownership in heritage management in this process, reflecting on the political culture of heritage communities and even tourists being brokered and deputised.
Care, People, and Archaeology in a Resilient World: Exploring Community Processes and Networking in Cultural Heritage and Museums in Europe and Latin America
Alicia Castillo, Cultural Heritage Management research group. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
This paper outlines the initial hypothesis and methodological proposal to enhance heritage management strategies through case studies and demonstrations from an archaeological perspective and a people-based approach. The approach is inclusive and intersectional, focusing on care and gender perspectives. The case studies are museums and world heritage sites in Havana (Cuba), Madrid (Spain), and Puebla (Mexico), where project activities are being implemented. The challenge is the relationship between the cultural assets, the spaces in which they are located, and the people who inhabit the surroundings. This chapter focuses on the urban context to learn the perception and action of the local community and other stakeholders. The goal is to develop methodologies to overcome social and cultural detachment and exclusion and to foster greater social cohesion through heritage. This, in turn, will contribute to sustainable heritage management based on citizen participation, seeking to generate networks of care and co-management of archaeological and other cultural heritage sites.
La Interpretación Patrimonial Intercultural: Una Vía Para una Convivencia Más Armoniosa en Aitios Patrimoniales
Intercultural Heritage Interpretation: A Path to More Harmonious Coexistence in Heritage Sites
Manuel Gándara, Posgrado en Estudios y Prácticas Museales, Escuela Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museografía, del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México
Heritage interpretation is a form of heritage education in informal contexts. ‘Education’ should not be confused with ‘schooling’. Heritage education is, paraphrasing New Zealand’s way of defining it, “about heritage, in heritage and for heritage”. Heritage interpretation is at the centre of this activity as a way to provoke insights in the audience to create their own meanings, while promoting the care of that which is being valued.
To this end, Sam Ham created “thematic interpretation”, which has been succesfully applied in many countries. In Mexico, we adopted and adapted it to our region, with an emphasis on cultural heritages. An important component is our anthropological-historical approach. It highlights the relevance of cultural diversity, as atested in heritage itself: heritage allows us to recognise it and to celebrate it. For us, heritage is crucial not only to local identities and memories, but also for acknolweding our common humanity and trajectory.
But the questioning of the “authorised discourse” by authors like Jane (2013), has led some colleagues to chastise “institutionalised” heritage and favour locally recognised heritage. And also to suggest that the latter has no need for interpretation, since the local population already understands what they value. We shall argue that is not the case; especially when the local culture wants to share their heritage with people from other cultures. For that, they do need ‘intercultural interpretation’. We will go even further, and argue that all heritage (institutionalised or local), necessarily involves always intercultural interpretation: that is, the translating of the language and values of those that share their heritage to the people they share it with. In institutional interpretation this involves translating the specialist’s technical language, and providing context and background to those that may need them, so that heritage values can be understood and appreciated.
Conflicts may arise when the local and the institutional understanding of a particular site do not match; or in defining the ammount of empirical information involved in that understanding. Traditional beliefs may clash with academic data. This will be exemplified with two cases, Chichén Itzá and Palenque, in Mexico, in which the tension between discourses may eventually reach violent levels. The central issues then become: can anything be said about a site? Or are there limits as to what is legitimate, desirable or necessary to say? Intercultural interpretation may help bridge the gaps and allow for a more harmonious relationships among the relevant agents.
Evaluating the Sustainability of Archaeological Heritage as a Mechanism to Overcome Disharmony Between Stakeholders
Maria Luz Endere, CONICET – INCUAPA (UE CONICET-UNICEN), Argentina
Nahir Meline Cantar, CONICET- IHAM UNMdP, Argentina
The diversity of values that different stakeholders attribute to archaeological heritage has been a topic of interest for researchers and managers over the last three decades. Discussions have focused on how to ensure the sustainability of heritage and establish a balance between the different values at stake. This paper presents a qualitative methodology for evaluating the sociocultural sustainability of archaeological heritage, based on a set of indices and indicators. It seeks to analyse the sociocultural sustainability of archaeological heritage from the perspective of the main stakeholders involved in heritage processes: public and private managers, researchers, and civil society. The indicators are grouped into four major benefit variables: social recognition of heritage; access to and availability of information; the participation of different stakeholders in its management, and the cultural diversity present in its appreciation and use. A replicable evaluation framework is proposed, adaptable to diverse sociocultural realities, allowing for the identification and examination of the various variables involved in heritage development processes and thus identifying or quantifying potential conflicts surrounding archaeological sites.
The application of this methodology is presented, using the archaeological heritage of Olavarría (Buenos Aires Province, Argentina) as a case study. The results show a stark contrast between the interests and information produced by researchers and the public’s knowledge and management priorities of managers.