NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Takht-e-Soleyman and Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: The Recognition and
Conservation of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes
by
Shabnam Inanloo Dailoo
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
CALGARY, ALBERTA
June, 2009
© Shabnam Inanloo Dailoo 2009
Library and Archives Bibliothèque et Canada Archives Canada
Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l’édition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-54425-9 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-54425-9
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non- L’auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l’Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. . The author retains copyright L’auteur conserve la propriété du droit d’auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author’s permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de thesis. cette thèse.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n’y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.
Abstract
This research emphasizes that cultural landscapes are places where tangible and
intangible values are integrated, where cultural and natural characteristics of place are
subject to change over time, and where people and places are interconnected. They are
places characterized by use and continuity.
This research examines the factors that contribute to the identification, conservation and management of cultural landscapes and to an understanding of how their conservation affects the critical relationship between culture and nature. It proves that while scholarly literature and institutional guidelines are available to help define, identify and evaluate cultural landscapes, research is weak with respect to their management. Despite the broadening of the concept of cultural landscape during the last two decades, there is a critical need to further develop this concept and to integrate it into a values-based management approach as well as into national legislation.
The study of two examples from Canada and Iran highlights the shortcomings of the application of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and demonstrates the complexities of identifying, designating and conserving cultural landscapes at national and international levels. Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman illustrate how a lack of recognition of values and inadequate and often inappropriate legal frameworks at different levels of government have resulted in significant management and conservation challenges.
The research concludes that cultural landscapes are not protected and are under threat because of a misapplication of theory in practice, and because of a lack of understanding of the concept of cultural landscape and its categories in local and cultural
iii contexts. Improvements could be achieved by recognizing the complexities and challenges of large-scale, multi-layered cultural landscapes, and by introducing new approaches and perspectives into the broader field of heritage conservation. The development of reference models would illustrate the challenges of applying the concept of cultural landscape in conservation practice and of promoting the application of an integrated and holistic approach for similar heritage properties with tangible and intangible, and cultural and natural values. The conceptual framework that emerges out of this study is intended to be ultimately applied in practice.
iv Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my greatest appreciation to my supervisory committee
members, Dr. Michael McMordie, Dr. Frits Pannekoek, and Dr. Dianne Draper who
supported me tirelessly and endlessly. Their encouragement, enthusiasm and commitment
made it easier for me to manage what at times seemed an overwhelming task. I am
grateful to my supervisor, Dr. McMordie, for his insight, expertise and guidance
throughout this research and for his faith in my work; to Dr. Pannekoek for his
knowledge, inspiration and dedication, and for his time, patience and many invaluable
comments; and to Dr. Draper for her insight, motivation and kindness. I would also like
to thank my examiners Mr. Francois LeBlanc and Dr. Donald Smith for their valuable
time and effort. It has been an honor to have them as a part of this research. In addition, I
would like to recognize Dr. Michael Quinn, who acted as neutral chair for the oral examination.
My deep gratitude goes out to the many individuals who took time to meet with me and participated in interviews for this research, graciously contributing their expertise, assistance and encouragement to this dissertation. I would also like to thank all
the government agencies and private sector organizations in Iran and Canada that provided information, knowledge and assistance. I especially thank Dr. Christina
Cameron who provided the opportunity to take this research to an international level.
I gratefully acknowledge friends who helped me with this research for their
support and insightful comments, especially Susan Buggey and Stephanie Westlund, for
giving their time and making constructive and useful comments. I am grateful to all my
v friends in Iran and Canada, as well as the EVDS faculty and staff, for their endless
support.
I would also like to thank my mother and father, Zahra and Asad, for their endless love, support and constant encouragement and for their confidence in me. I greatly
appreciated their many phone calls throughout this journey, which made me feel less far
from home, and for being readily available in times of difficulty. I also offer grateful
thanks to my parents-in-law for all their kindness, support and encouragement.
I am indebted to my husband, Alireza Farrokhi, for his love, spirit, knowledge,
and for believing in me. Without his active help, encouragement and support, this
dissertation would most certainly have not been completed. Alireza offered professional
advice and discussed, debated and commented on all aspects of the research. I am more
grateful than I can express to my daughter, Pardis, who has been my inspiration, for her
endless love and patience, for bearing with me, offering help with her little hands, and
being such wonderful company during this research and its many travels.
vi
To Pardis, my beautiful daughter and Paradise.
vii Table of Contents
Approval Page...... ii Abstract...... iii Acknowledgements...... v Dedication………………………………………..……………………………………….vii Table of Contents...... viii List of Tables ...... xiii List of Figures and Illustrations ...... xiv List of Acronyms ...... xvi Epigraph………………………………………………………………………………...xvii
CHAPTER ONE: THE RESEARCH AND ITS CONTEXT...... 1 1.1 Introduction...... 1 1.2 Research Problem ...... 4 1.3 Research Purpose...... 7 1.4 Importance of the Research ...... 11 1.5 Organization of the dissertation...... 13
CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 16 2.1 Introduction...... 16 2.2 Research Approach...... 19 2.3 Data Gathering...... 23 2.3.1 Secondary Research...... 25 2.3.1.1 Literature Review ...... 25 2.3.1.2 Government Reports and Documents ...... 26 2.3.2 Primary Research...... 26 2.3.2.1 Key Informant Interviews...... 26 2.3.2.2 Illustrative Detailed Examples...... 29 2.3.2.3 Monitoring of Current Events...... 33 2.4 Data Analysis...... 34
CHAPTER THREE: UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL LANDSCAPES...... 36 3.1 Introduction...... 36 3.2 Heritage – Heritage Sites/Historic Places...... 37 3.2.1 Cultural Landscapes and the Past...... 39 3.2.2 Cultural landscapes and Identity ...... 42 3.3 Valuing Cultural landscapes ...... 45 3.4 Understanding Cultural Landscapes ...... 46 3.4.1 Nature and Culture Relationship ...... 47 3.4.2 Cultural Landscapes: Natural Systems and Human Interventions ...... 49 3.4.3 Characteristics of Cultural Landscapes ...... 51 3.4.4 Ways of Looking at Cultural Landscapes ...... 53 3.5 Defining Cultural Landscapes ...... 56 3.5.1 Concept and Definition...... 56 3.6 Cultural landscape within the World Heritage Context...... 59 3.6.1 World Heritage Cultural Landscapes ...... 60
viii 3.6.2 Categories of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes...... 64 3.6.3 World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, Protected Landscapes and European Landscapes...... 67 3.7 Summary...... 69
CHAPTER FOUR: CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES ...... 70 4.1 Introduction...... 70 4.2 Identifying Cultural Landscapes...... 71 4.2.1 Exploring Meanings and Values in Cultural Landscapes...... 72 4.3 Evaluating Cultural Landscapes ...... 73 4.3.1 Significance and Values of Cultural Landscapes ...... 73 4.3.2 Importance of Integrity and Authenticity...... 75 4.3.3 Authentic Relations with Cultural Landscapes ...... 79 4.4 Managing Cultural Landscapes ...... 80 4.4.1 Cultural Landscape Management Planning and Conservation...... 84 4.4.2 Managing Change in Cultural Landscapes...... 87 4.4.3 The Role of International Documents and Practices ...... 88 4.5 Summary...... 91
CHAPTER FIVE: CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN CANADA AND IRAN...... 93 5.1 Introduction...... 93 PART ONE: Canadian and Iranian Heritage Policies and Regulations…………...... 95 5.2 Heritage Conservation in Canada and Iran...... 95 5.2.1 A Review of Canadian and Iranian Heritage Organizations Structures...... 95 5.2.2 Canadian and Iranian Definitions of Heritage Properties...... 104 5.2.3 Heritage Designation Process in Canada and Iran ...... 106 5.2.4 Conservation Approaches...... 110 5.2.5 Challenges of Heritage Conservation in Canada and Iran...... 114 PART TWO: Illustrative Examples…………………………………………………..119 5.3 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Canada and Takht-e-Soleyman in Iran ...... 119 5.3.1 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: A Cultural Heritage Site of Canada...... 121 5.3.1.1 Introduction...... 121 5.3.1.2 Heritage Values of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump ...... 123 5.3.1.3 Blackfoot Way of Life ...... 128 5.3.1.4 Management and Planning Context...... 130 5.3.1.5 World Heritage Designation ...... 134 5.3.1.6 Cultural Landscape Management Plan ...... 135 5.3.1.7 Visitors to the Site...... 136 5.3.1.8 Current Concerns ...... 137 5.3.2 Takht-e-Soleyman: A Cultural Heritage Site of Iran ...... 146 5.3.2.1 Introduction...... 146 5.3.2.2 Heritage Values of Takht-e-Soleyman ...... 148 5.3.2.3 Zoroastrianism ...... 151 5.3.2.4 Management and Planning Context...... 154 5.3.2.5 World Heritage Designation ...... 156 5.3.2.6 Cultural Landscape Management Plan ...... 157
ix 5.3.2.7 Visitors to the Site...... 160 5.3.2.8 Current Concerns ...... 160 5.3.2.9 Summary...... 162 5.3.3 Conclusion...... 162
CHAPTER SIX: ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCH ...... 171 6.1 Introduction...... 171 PART ONE: Analytical Results From The Key Informant Interviews……………...174 6.2 Cultural Landscapes: A General Discussion ...... 174 6.2.1 Identification of Cultural Landscapes ...... 175 6.2.1.1 Challenges in Recognition of Cultural Landscapes...... 175 6.2.1.2 Definition and Identification of Cultural Landscapes...... 184 6.2.1.3 Proper Definition of Cultural Landscape...... 186 6.2.1.4 Definitions of Cultural Landscape and Mixed Heritage a Confusion .187 6.2.2 Conservation of Cultural Landscapes...... 188 6.2.2.1 Major Challenges in the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes ...... 189 6.2.2.2 Legal Frameworks for the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes ...... 198 6.2.2.3 Key Concerns in Sustainable Cultural Landscape Management ...... 200 6.2.3 Cultural Landscapes in the Framework of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines ...... 202 6.2.3.1 Strengths and Weaknesses of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines in Defining Cultural Landscapes ...... 202 6.2.3.2 Criteria in the Operational Guidelines and Recognition of Cultural Landscapes...... 206 6.2.3.3 Application of World Heritage Operational Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes in Practice...... 209 6.2.4 New World Heritage Nominations...... 214 6.2.4.1 New World Heritage Nominations and the Cultural Landscape Option...... 214 6.2.4.2 Re-assessment of World Heritage Properties ...... 217 6.2.5 An Overview of the Key Informant Interviews...... 220 PART TWO: Illustrative Examples And Insights Gained From Attending International Events……………………………………………………225 6.3 Cultural Landscapes: An Illustrative Discussion...... 225 6.3.1 The Two Examples: Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e- Soleyman...... 226 6.3.2 Review of Documents ...... 227 6.3.2.1 Identification of Values ...... 228 6.3.2.2 State of Conservation and Management ...... 234 6.3.2.3 Available Resources ...... 237 6.3.2.4 Threats to the Sites...... 238 6.3.2.5 Future plans...... 241 6.3.2.6 Summary...... 242 6.3.3 Key Informant Interviews...... 243 6.3.3.1 Key Landscape Features of the Examples ...... 244 6.3.3.2 Landscape Conservation Plans ...... 247 6.3.3.3 Reassessment of Identified Values ...... 249 x 6.3.3.4 Conservation of Cultural and Natural Features of the Landscapes .....252 6.3.3.5 Concerns about Natural Resources and Conservation of Cultural Landscapes...... 253 6.3.4 Summary...... 254 6.4 Cultural Landscapes: An Experiential Discussion...... 256 6.4.1 International Expert Workshop for Enhanced Management and Planning of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes ...... 257 6.4.1.1 Introduction...... 257 6.4.1.2 Presentations ...... 258 6.4.1.3 Observations ...... 258 6.4.2 ICCROM Training Course on the Conservation of Built Heritage (February1 –March 30, 2007, Rome, Italy) ...... 260 6.4.2.1 Introduction...... 260 6.4.2.2 Observations ...... 260 6.4.3 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee (July 2 –July 10, 2008, Quebec City, Canada) ...... 262 6.4.3.1 Introduction...... 262 6.4.3.2 Decisions...... 262 6.4.3.3 Evaluations...... 265 6.4.3.4 Observations ...... 266 6.4.4 Summary...... 269 6.5 Concluding Remarks...... 270
CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 273 7.1 Introduction...... 273 7.2 Summary of the Study ...... 275 7.3 Relevance of the Results to Current Literature and Research ...... 276 7.4 Research Findings...... 278 7.4.1 Challenges at International Level: The World Heritage Centre...... 286 7.4.2 Challenges at National Levels: The Canadian and Iranian Heritage Authorities...... 287 7.4.3 Challenges at the Site Level: Two Illustrative Examples of Head- Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman...... 290 7.5 Research Conclusions...... 291 7.6 Research Implications...... 300 7.6.1 International Level...... 300 7.6.2 National Level ...... 303 7.6.3 Site Level...... 306 7.7 Future Research ...... 310 7.7.1 General Proposals...... 310 7.7.2 Proposals to the Canadian and Iranian Authorities ...... 313 7.8 Concluding Remarks...... 315
REFERENCES ...... 319
APPENDIX A: CERTIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS REVIEW ...... 330
xi APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM ...... 331
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...... 334
APPENDIX D: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES - DEFINITIONS AND CATEGORIES336
APPENDIX E: LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL LANDSCAPES (1993- 2008) ...... 344
APPENDIX F: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES...... 361
APPENDIX G: EXPERIENTIAL DISCUSSION ON CULTURAL LANDSCAPES...363
xii List of Tables
Table 5.1 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Canada and Takht-e-Soleyman in Iran .. 120
Table 6.1 Main Issues in Distinguishing Cultural Landscapes from other Types of Heritage Resources – Iranian Experts’ Perspectives ...... 181
Table 6.2 Main Issues in Distinguishing Cultural Landscapes from other Types of Heritage Resources – Canadian Experts’ Perspectives...... 182
Table 6.3 Main Issues in Distinguishing Cultural Landscapes from other Types of Heritage Resources – International Experts’ Perspectives ...... 183
Table 6.4 Major Challenges in the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes – Iranian Experts’ Perspective...... 195
Table 6.5 Major Challenges in the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes – Canadian Experts’ Perspective...... 196
Table 6.6 Major Challenges in the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes – International Experts’ Perspective ...... 197
Table 6.7 Advisory Bodies Recommendations to the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008...... 264
Table 6.8 Cultural Landscapes Inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2008...... 264
Table 7.1 Key Issues in Distinguishing Cultural Landscapes from other Types of Heritage Places...... 281
Table 7.2 Major Challenges in the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes ...... 283
Table 7.3 Major Issues in Identification of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman as Cultural Landscapes...... 295
Table 7.4 Major Issues in Conservation of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman as Cultural Landscapes...... 298
Table 7.5 World Heritage Sites of Canada and Iran (As of 2008)...... 302
Table 7.6 Tentative Lists of Canada and Iran (As of 2008)...... 302
Table 7.7 Justification of Criteria by the State Parties at the Time of Inscription...... 309
Table 7.8 Justification of Criteria by ICOMOS...... 309
Table 7.9 Review of Justification of Criteria Using the New Set of Criteria (Appendix F) ...... 309
xiii List of Figures and Illustrations
Figure 2.1 Framework for the Research on the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes .... 22
Figure 2.2 Research Methodology...... 24
Figure 3.1 Cultural Landscape: Culture – Nature Interplay ...... 48
Figure 3.2 World Heritage Process for Evaluation and Designation of Nominations...... 61
Figure 5.1 Structure of Heritage Organization in Canada – Parks Canada Agency...... 96
Figure 5.2 Structure of Heritage Organization in the Province of Alberta, Canada...... 97
Figure 5.3 Structure of Heritage Organization in Iran...... 101
Figure 5.4 Heritage Designation Process in Iran, Alberta and Canada ...... 108
Figure 5.5 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, Alberta, Canada ...... 122
Figure 5.6 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: Gathering Basin and Drive Lanes...... 125
Figure 5.7 The Landscape of Head-Smashed-In: View from the Jump to Southeast..... 140
Figure 5.8 The Jump at the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump...... 140
Figure 5.9 Head-Smashed-In: Gathering Basin and the Rocky Mountains in the Background ...... 141
Figure 5.10 The Vision Quest at Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump ...... 141
Figure 5.11 The Landscape of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: View from the Jump to the Processing Camp and the Kill Site at the bottom of the Jump...... 142
Figure 5.12 Head-Smashed-In: View over the Jump to the Kill Site and the Processing Area...... 142
Figure 5.13 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: The Burial Rock...... 143
Figure 5.14 Parking Area at Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump ...... 143
Figure 5.15 Head-Smashed-In: Interpretive Center - A Five-storey Exhibit Building Hidden Underground ...... 144
Figure 5.16 Head-Smashed-In: Entrance to the Interpretive Center...... 144
Figure 5.17 Head-Smashed-In: A gallery inside the Interpretive Center ...... 145
Figure 5.18 Takht-e-Soleyman, west Azarbayjan, Iran ...... 147
xiv Figure 5.19 Takht-e-Soleyman Platform, Zendan-e-Soleyman Hill and the Village ..... 148
Figure 5.20: Takht-e-Soleyman: Site Boundaries and Zoning ...... 159
Figure 5.21 The Landscape of Takht-e-Soleyman: View from Takhte-Soelyman Platform toward Zendan-e-Soleyman and the Village...... 164
Figure 5.22 Zendan-e-Soleyman Hill ...... 164
Figure 5.23 Takht-e-Soleyman Village...... 165
Figure 5.24 Takht-e-Soleyman Platform ...... 165
Figure 5.25 Takht-e-Soleyman: The Dragon - An Ancient Water Channel...... 166
Figure 5.26 Takht-e-Soleyman: New facilities Built on the Platform beside the Entrance - Residence for Visiting Scholars and Researchers and for Occasional Meetings...... 166
Figure 5.27 Takht-e-Soleyman: Azargoshnasb Fire Temple...... 167
Figure 5.28 Entrance to Takht-e-Soleyman Platform - View from Inside (Information Kiosk and the Channel Conducting Water from the lake to the Agricultural Fields) ...... 168
Figure 5.29 Entrance to Takht-e-Soleyman Platform - View from Outside (Water coming from the Lake Used for Irrigation)...... 168
Figure 5.30 The Lake at Takht-e-Soleyman ...... 169
Figure 5.31 Takht-e-Soleyman: Inside of a Temporary Exhibit...... 169
Figure 5.32 Takht-e-Soleyman: A Restored Building Serves as a Temporary Exhibit.. 170
Figure 5.33 The Parking area at Takht-e-Soleyman Platform ...... 170
Figure 7.1 Shared Challenges in Identification and Conservation of Cultural Landscapes...... 285
xv List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
DEO Iran Department of Environment
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GIAHS Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems
HSMBC Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and ICCROM Restoration of Cultural Property Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism ICHHTO Organization
ICHO Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization
ICHTO Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization
ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites
IFLA International Federation of Landscape Architects
IHO Iran Handicraft Organization
ITTO Iran Tourism and Touring Organization
IUCN WESCANA IUCN West/Central Asia & North Africa Regional Office
World Conservation Union (formerly the International Union IUCN for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources)
MAB Man and the Biosphere Programme of UNESCO
NCC National Capital Commission (Canada)
NPS U.S. National Park Service
TPRC Alberta Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture
xvi
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors; we borrow it from our Children.
Ancient Indian Proverb
xvii 1
Chapter One: THE RESEARCH AND ITS CONTEXT
Either landscape is everything, everywhere, every view and every place… or it is something selected, drawn from context by being framed in space or described in terms which endorse its rarity or raise its value.
Brian Goodey1
1.1 Introduction
Landscapes are geographic areas with unique and varied patterns and structures,
mostly characterized by physical evidence of human activities through history. While
cultural groups have modified the land in which they live, the land has also influenced
their culture. This interaction adds cultural values to the surrounding natural
environment. Landscapes were once mostly understood in natural and physical terms;2
however, increasingly they are appreciated for their cultural, social, political and
1 Spotting, Squatting, Sitting or Setting: Some Public Images of Landscape, 1986, p. 83. 2 For instance, in the English Landscape Gardens of the 18th century (large-scale gardens with natural appearance) or in the Persian Gardens that envision the ancient Persians’ conception and understanding of the world and of the heavens with a great appreciation of natural features, designed as early as 2500 years ago.
2 economic dimensions and for their intangible values (associative, spiritual values for instance). They began to be recognized as cultural landscapes where natural and cultural components have evolved through time together – not separately.
Cultural landscapes reveal much about a society; they reflect its origins and evolution. They contain illustrations of human activities over time through their evidence of social, economic and cultural successions. Cultural landscapes also evidence natural aspects. In a cultural landscape, both cultural and natural elements of the landscape exist in juxtaposition. A cultural landscape therefore reflects the close interaction between humankind and its natural environment.
The cultural landscapes of the globe, even if they differ in shape, size, appearance, antiquity, or function, all reveal the complex relationship between human beings and environment. The need for societies to conserve their cultural landscapes springs from their need to continue their complex interactions with their surroundings in a sustainable and comprehensive way. Cultural landscapes are living documents – live archives wherein it is possible to learn about the relationship between nature and culture, tangible and intangible heritage, and biological and cultural diversity. The future of such landscapes is important to humankind’s quality of life, and their protection must be integrated into conservation practices.
From the perspective of heritage conservation, cultural landscape is almost a new category. While it has been discussed at the international level and more specifically
3
within the UNESCO World Heritage Convention3 for fewer than 20 years starting in the
1990s, it was probably discussed earlier amongst international and national experts. The concept of cultural landscape has evolved both in theory and practice, but there remains a need to develop a comprehensive approach in order to define, identify, conserve and manage different types of cultural landscapes within their cultural contexts.
A comprehensive study of cultural landscapes would be best conducted if an interdisciplinary team of experts from a variety of fields were involved. Such studies
need to integrate insights and perspectives from various disciplines such as
environmental studies, cultural geography, social sciences, biology, anthropology,
archaeology, history and landscape architecture as well as the traditional conservation
frameworks. These cultural landscape studies would be able to acknowledge the
interrelationships amongst the many values within cultural landscapes and to gain a holist
insight into identification of cultural landscapes. Such an interdisciplinary approach is
critical in conservation and management of cultural landscapes.
This research examines the various factors that contribute to identification,
evaluation and conservation of cultural landscapes. Two examples from Canada and Iran
are investigated to address the shortcomings of the application of the UNESCO World
Heritage Convention and to illustrate the complexities of defining, identifying, designating and conserving cultural landscapes at national and international levels. The
examples illustrate how conservation of cultural landscapes affects the critical
3 The UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was launched by World Heritage Centre in 1972 and is also known as the World Heritage Convention.
4
relationship between human beings and their surrounding environments and how a lack
of recognition of all values has resulted in serious management and conservation
challenges.
1.2 Research Problem
Since the inclusion of cultural landscape in the World Heritage Convention in
1992, the conservation of cultural landscapes4 has gained more attention. Critical issues
remain, however, which require a deeper understanding of the concept of cultural
landscape and a broader exploration of the challenges of its conservation. There is no
doubt that the idea of cultural landscapes has broadened the traditional concept of
heritage and historic places, since in cultural landscapes culture and nature are integrated.
However, the traditional heritage conservation frameworks need to be developed and
expanded further in order to address the type of conservation practice required by cultural
landscapes.
The notion of cultural landscape is fairly new to most cultures. In many parts of the world the term cultural landscape5 does not exist (neither in local language nor as a
translation of the English term),6 although there might be other expressions used by
4 It should be mentioned that this is a new field of study. In fact, the discipline of heritage conservation or historic preservation (different titles in different parts of the world being used for heritage safeguarding) accommodates conservation of cultural landscapes. 5 Online Oxford English Dictionary, ‘cultural landscape n. (a) a landscape modified by the effects of human activity, such as farming, building, etc. (b) a notional landscape which embodies the cultural or artistic features of a country, field of activity, etc.’, retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50055630/50055630se15?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=cul tural+landscape&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50055630se15. 6 For instance, in Iran, the Persian word Manzar (landscape) is used mainly to describe natural sceneries and/or designed gardens such as historic Persian gardens. Only recently, the term cultural landscape is
5 locals to convey similar meaning. In some cases, it can be difficult to explain the definition and to grasp its meaning. The concern is not just to develop a literal definition; rather it is to determine more complex underlying concepts such as natural, cultural, historical, religious and associative values. If all complexities were to be taken into account, of course, the identification and ultimately conservation of cultural landscapes would be practically impossible. The problem of definition leads inevitably to the issue of identification of cultural landscapes and, most importantly, to the identification of their inherent values. The failures of conservation and management projects partly originate from the difficulties in the definition and identification of cultural landscapes.
Identification is of course a very critical and fundamental stage.
The other concern is the lack of interest on the part of some authorities responsible for protection of heritage properties when confronted with conflicting opinions on cultural landscapes. There are cases around the world where heritage sites are only identified as cultural heritage sites even though they fulfill the criteria to be recognized as cultural landscapes. This is because authorities wish to evade the substantial responsibility and the challenges of conservation and management of cultural landscapes.
The conservation of cultural landscapes is constrained by the nature of landscape itself. In most cases the irreplaceable, fragile, dynamic nature of a landscape does not receive the attention it deserves. Undoubtedly, change is inevitable and intrinsic to any
being used in heritage conservation vocabularies, and professionals have yet to agree on a single translation.
6
landscape and must be considered in conservation projects. Dynamism is a natural
characteristic and essential attribute of landscapes, and indeed, of ecological systems. The
composition of any given landscape and ecological structures and interaction between landscape pattern and function vary by both time and level (local, regional or global
levels). Changes in the patterns and processes of landscapes may cause profound changes
in the ecological interactions and fabric which add to the complexity of landscapes and all ecological systems.
Cultural landscapes are about people, their activities and natural environment.
Nature and culture continue to evolve and change. It is essential to understand the conceptual links between culture and nature and to conserve the relationship between human activity and the environment. In that an ecosystem comprises a natural region defined by the interactions and exchange of nutrients between living animals, plants and organisms and non-living elements7, humans are generally considered to be part of
ecosystems, and the influence of human activities on ecosystems is highly significant in
the conservation of landscapes. Besides, a cultural landscape is the reflection of the
cultural concepts and the changes caused by the culture(s) underlying it. Cultures interact
with an ever-changing dynamic nature, shaping multi-layer landscapes, thus resulting in
even more complexity. There is less concern for safeguarding the landscape when
modifications are believed to happen naturally and gradually (that is, without significant
human influence). Such changes are even necessary to promote and maintain dynamism
within ecosystems. In recent times, however, most of the drastic changes and
7 Definition of Ecosystem from Ernest Callenbach (1998). Ecology: A Pocket Guide.
7
disturbances to landscapes have been due to the severe impact of human activities with
little or no consideration for the environment. These human activities and influences have
disrupted ecosystem function and altered the dynamic rhythms and prevailing
manifestations within most cultural landscapes.
The other failure in the conservation of cultural landscapes lies in inadequate and
sometimes inappropriate legal frameworks and tools at different levels of authority. The concept of cultural landscape has gradually become clearer and more detailed in some
countries as a result of a great deal of research and institutional effort. However, in many
countries, the traditional heritage conservation frameworks are still dominant and do not
integrate the concerns of cultural landscape conservation.
These issues play an important role in the development of all-encompassing,
successful conservation and management plans. Unresolved, any one of these issues
could seriously undermine conservation efforts. Collectively, they jeopardize the survival of cultural landscapes and the protection of their integrity.
1.3 Research Purpose
Due to their interactive, ever-changing and dynamic nature, cultural landscapes pose a special set of identification and conservation challenges in comparison to other types of heritage places. They require a different theoretical and practical framework.
After reviewing a number of existing cultural landscapes and their conservation, a central question was established. How can the world’s cultural landscapes be better conserved in their entire complexity by all levels of governments and international authorities? The answer to this question lies in understanding the issues around the definitions and values
8
of cultural landscapes as heritage places. This of course leads to a number of auxiliary questions. How can the notion of cultural landscape and its multiple values be understood
and acknowledged worldwide? How can international organizations like the World
Heritage Centre more effectively contribute to the protection of cultural landscapes of
national and global significance? How can national authorities integrate cultural
landscapes into their heritage conservation frameworks?
A comprehensive review of the literature on heritage conservation and
development of new concepts in the field informed research theory and provided a basis
for further study. Interviews with key experts in charge of cultural properties and cultural
landscape programs were then conducted to determine the intersection of literature and
field practice. The intersection of expert advice with the existing literature and
application of best practices was further investigated by site visits to two disparate sites.
This approach was also critical in understanding the links between international and
national conservation practices.
The key hypothesis is that cultural landscapes are not protected and are under
threat because of a misapplication of theory in practice. The other hypotheses are: the
recognition of cultural landscapes is linked to their values; the recognition of cultural
landscapes depends on what heritage conservation frameworks are being used to
determine and evaluate their multiple values; and the successful conservation of cultural
landscapes is related to identification of their multiple values. These hypotheses were
continually measured against the data as more became available. Data sets were also
consistently compared to ensure that unusual data was studied and verified.
9
In the general planning of heritage places, a number of factors critical to the
conservation of cultural landscapes are not always addressed. The goal of this research is to identify the factors that contribute to success or failure in recognizing or conserving cultural landscapes. The primary intent of this study is to discuss the issues bearing on the conservation and management of cultural landscapes, both at national and international levels. By linking these issues, authorities will benefit from each others’ insights and problems.
This dissertation also intends to urge better understanding of the concept of cultural landscape and of its multi-dimensional values worldwide. It emphasizes the importance of introducing the concept of cultural landscape to different cultures, and the necessary steps needed to elaborate the idea of cultural landscapes. While well-structured planning and conservation strategies could be developed, only the basic concepts are understood and applied in practice.
This study highlights the fact that although natural decay is the main cause of change in all landscapes (an acceptable change to most experts), it is the mismanagement of the cultural landscapes that actually promotes their rapid destruction. Mismanagement can result from a lack of guidance for management decisions or inexperienced field professionals. Cultural landscapes are sites that are larger than a single property, and that are complex with a long past and layers of history and natural and cultural resources and
10
tangible and intangible values,8 all set in an evolving dynamic context. They demand different conservation approaches and new conservation frameworks.
This dissertation tries to promote a holistic concern for the protection of natural
features as well as the conservation of cultural aspects and architectural structures and associative dimensions of cultural landscapes. It provides some suggestions on how cultural landscapes can be conserved and managed as a whole. It emphasizes the need to assure the continuity of and natural integrity of cultural landscapes as well as the relationship between associated environment and natural forms and constructed objects.
A number of international and national proposals for cultural landscape identification and conservation have been established which will be discussed later in this dissertation. There remains a real further need to elaborate and adopt these existing documents. In other words, they need to be expanded to account for local situations and present-day problems, and the unique characteristics of particular cultural landscapes.
The dissertation also provides clarification and more specific information regarding cultural landscape issues such as definition and categories, identification, and conservation and management frameworks that can be applied to cultural landscape practices.
It is worthwhile mentioning that it is not the intention here to assert that all heritage properties are cultural landscapes but rather to emphasize the criteria for the identification of most clearly eligible candidates. The study investigates the challenges to
8 Tangible values are those attached to the physical qualities of cultural landscapes. Intangible values are values from a cultural tradition and other values associated with the site but not related to specific material features.
11
the use of the cultural landscape concept in different cultures. To this end different
approaches to defining and identifying cultural landscapes are explored in depth and the
gaps in the existing literature and documents, particularly regarding the definition,
identification, conservation and management of cultural landscapes, are identified.
1.4 Importance of the Research
The protection of the full range of tangible and intangible values represented in
cultural landscapes, so that the character and the spirit of place can be protected while
recognizing change over time and providing for the future changes that respect the value
of the site, is critical. The conservation of cultural landscapes provides cultural,
ecological, scenic, economic and other opportunities as well as support for national
identity today and for future generations. In other words, cultural landscape conservation
helps to properly protect the cultural expression of different traditions that have interacted with the environment through time.
According to the definition offered by the UNESCO’s World Heritage
Convention,9 a cultural landscape includes works of both human beings and nature and
their continuous interaction. That cultural landscape, this many-sided phenomenon,
exists in relationship to its natural context makes it ecologically as well as culturally
important. This research argues that to better protect cultural landscapes at all levels of
authorities, traditional conservation frameworks must be revised and the gap between
international policies and frameworks and those of national and local authorities must be
9 Article 1 of the 1972 World Heritage Convention.
12
reduced. Accordingly, the illustrative examples provide useful practical guidance for
treatment of similar cases and clarify how international and national identification,
designation and conservation systems, procedures influence each other and how different
cultural groups approach heritage properties. The research concludes with a series of
proposals for dealing with the obstacles to successful conservation at international,
national and local levels and urges immediate action to develop new conservation
policies and frameworks that include protection of all types of heritage properties.
This dissertation critically analyzes the current international, Canadian and
Iranian documents, criteria and guidelines and offers new directions for recognizing a particular environmental heritage as cultural landscape, with the purpose of providing further information and eventually strengthening previous research conducted in this area. Finally, the research proposes improvements to existing guidelines, suggesting a shift from an emphasis on definition and identification to conservation and management aspects to achieve conservation both in theory and in practice. The research responds to the need for ongoing planning requirements in management of cultural landscapes,
acknowledging that too often cultural landscapes suffer neglect, inappropriate
development and mismanagement.
The thrust of this study is that every stage in the process of conservation of any
given cultural landscape must be given careful attention from its definition in different
cultures and identification of its many values, to the proper evaluation of those identified
values and their designation and comprehensive management and conservation. It further
stresses that management planning for different kinds of cultural landscapes is equally
crucial in conservation practices and that designation of cultural landscapes, like other
13 heritage properties, does not mean that they are protected forever. Rather, designation is only the beginning of a long, ongoing conservation process.
The primary contributions of this dissertation to the current cultural landscape conservation theory and practice, therefore, are:
• Elaborating the gaps between professional practice in the field and the best theory.
• Identifying how cultures and practice have intersected in the current conservation of cultural landscapes and, most importantly, clarifying how the failure to understand the complexities of that intersection has resulted in cultural landscapes being ignored, destroyed or under-represented.
• Elaborating the ways in which values of cultural landscapes can be properly identified and the procedures for their protection.
• Developing new directions for the criteria and guidelines for the identification, inscription and conservation of cultural landscapes.
• Developing several proposals for consideration by international organizations (UNESCO World Heritage Centre and its advisory bodies), national (Canada and Iran), and local (Head-Smashed-In and Takht-e- Soleyman) authorities responsible for protection of heritage places.
1.5 Organization of the dissertation
This dissertation is organized into seven chapters.
Chapter One describes the research and its context. It covers the research problem and the research purpose. The importance of the research is outlined and the anticipated contributions of this research to knowledge and its practical applications are discussed.
14
Chapter Two documents the rationale behind the research design and data analysis. It discusses the research methodology and explains the type of approach selected to conduct this research. It describes the methods of gathering and analyzing primary and secondary data in details.
Chapter Three illustrates how the concept of cultural landscape was developed. It addresses the significance, definition and elements of cultural landscape. It depicts the existing legal framework, specifically in accordance with UNESCO’s World Heritage
Convention – and its Operational Guidelines. The different meanings of cultural landscapes for different cultural groups are also discussed.
The focus of Chapter Four is the safeguarding of cultural landscapes. It begins with the identification stage of protection and then leads to the evaluation, designation and finally the conservation and management planning stages. This chapter presents reasons for the significance of conservation of cultural landscapes of different kinds. It also looks at the World Heritage Convention in terms of the process of cultural landscapes conservation.
Chapter Five is devoted to the illustrative examples. It begins with an introduction to the different approaches toward heritage sites and cultural landscapes in Canada and
Iran. The discussion then turns to Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Canada and Takht- e-Soleyman in Iran. Both of them are designated at national levels and are also inscribed on the World Heritage List. An overview of the history and characteristics of the two cultural heritage sites is presented in this chapter. It also investigates the current management and planning context for each site.
15
Chapter Six analyzes the research information/data. The results of interviews conducted during the course of this research are presented. The data from the study of illustrative examples are outlined and examined. An experiential discussion follows the two first sections.
The final chapter, Chapter Seven, summarizes the research outcome and discusses the issues surrounding conservation of cultural landscapes, emphasizing the importance of recognition of cultural landscape as heritage property at all levels of authority. This
chapter concludes with a number of proposals. It emphasizes a need to develop advanced
strategies for more sensitive, thoughtful and inclusive conservation planning that takes
into account every aspect of a cultural landscape and its importance as an irreplaceable legacy.
16
Chapter Two: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The reality of any observed thing is a function of the frame of reference through which it is observed.
G. Youngblood1
2.1 Introduction
In order to better protect cultural landscapes, the existing legal and institutional frameworks have to be changed to integrate the concept of cultural landscapes as heritage places. In this regard, the research employed a model developed by Thomas Kuhn2 on the
concept of a paradigm and change of paradigms. This model was used to form a
conceptual basis to explain the traditional ways of looking at heritage and the changes
1 Quoted in Dormaar and Barsh, The Prairie Landscape: Perception of Reality, 2000, p. 23. 2 Thomas Kuhn is a historian of science and philosopher who developed a model to analyze change in scientific theory. His model has been applied in many other fields such as landscape architecture, ecological studies and material culture and more notably in historic landscape preservation in the work of Nora Mitchell (1996), a key cultural landscape conservation expert in the United States.
17 that the addition of cultural landscape brings to traditional heritage conservation frameworks.
According to Kuhn, a paradigm is “the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community” (Kuhn, 1970, p.
175). Based on this perspective, any professional community which employs a particular framework to conduct research, and to analyze and interpret, has a unique paradigm.
Existing frameworks or paradigms oftentimes cannot embody new concepts; they observe new worldviews as anomalies. Consequently, “a sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis” develops that, in Kuhn’s opinion, is a prerequisite to scientific revolution.
Kuhn calls a change of paradigm a revolution; scientific revolutions “are inaugurated by a growing sense, often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific community, than an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously led the way” (1970, p. 92).
A new paradigm eventually emerges to replace an old one in whole or in part, incorporating “much of the vocabulary and apparatus, both conceptual and manipulative, that the traditional paradigm had previously employed. But they seldom employ these borrowed elements in quite the traditional way. Within the new paradigm, old terms, concepts, and experiments fall into new relationships one with the other” (Kuhn, 1970, p.
149). Within two communities with two different paradigms
practicing in different worlds, [they] see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction….and they see them in different relations one to the other. That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one group… may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to another. Equally, it is why, before they can hope to communicate fully, one group or the other
18
must experience the conversion that we have been calling a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1970, p. 150).
Most cultural groups find certain things anomalies and are prone to reject them
“since anomaly seems to cast doubt on how we classify the world” (Douglas qtd. in
Silverman, 2005, p. 229). As also Mitchell points out from Kuhn’s work, communities usually resist accepting new paradigms. Shifts in paradigms occur when the fundamental structural elements of the old paradigms are affected by anomalies and when the new paradigms promise to develop future worldviews and in fact “in the future, guide research on problems… that the new paradigm will succeed with the many large problems that confront it, knowing only that the older paradigms has failed with a few” (Kuhn, 1970, pp. 157-158).
Based on this model, this dissertation takes further the existing arguments on the emergence of new concepts in heritage conservation. Mitchell argued that “recognition of cultural landscapes created a set of anomalies in the traditional framework in the preservation field….it is these anomalies that are now fostering a re-examination of the existing paradigm and the forging of a new one” (1996, p. 7). This research discusses how different cultural groups in different worlds understand these anomalies differently, based on the degree of sophistication of those groups, and assimilate them into their existing frameworks and at their own pace. The research applied a specific approach to critically investigate this conceptual framework and to provide a deeper understanding of the changes in paradigms.
Consequently, the traditional ways of looking at heritage and the existing legal, institutional and professional frameworks have to be changed in order to integrate the
19 concept of cultural landscape as heritage places. This change in paradigm will encourage development of a new conceptual framework that integrates the concept of cultural landscape and extends and clarifies the traditional frameworks, benefiting from national and international debates and the exchange of knowledge and experiences.
2.2 Research Approach
The research for this dissertation applied a qualitative approach which provided information that was generalizable. In such an approach, phenomena are studied and presented in an understandable way in terms of the meanings they evidence and their connection to people. Qualitative research involves a wide range of empirical materials and multiple methodological and interpretive practices in order to gain a better knowledge of the phenomena and ensure an in-depth understanding of the research questions (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). This approach brings depth and value to the research. Qualitative research is value-laden and focuses primarily on the qualities of entities. Rarely are they examined in relation to quantity and amount. In contrast quantitative research often relies on the use of numerical data.
The research for this study did not follow one typical strategy of inquiry, but rather employed several different strategies to develop a more unique approach. The emphasis was on deciding what fitted the project, and what could be effectively applied, and what was expected to be achieved (Strauss, 1991). The research employed the principles of the Grounded Theory, a qualitative research paradigm that drives theories from analysis and comparisons of data gained from research. Grounded Theory was not, however, central to the study, since the study was not only a social science investigation.
20
Nevertheless, the overarching concepts of Grounded Theory were useful in developing the specific approach underlying this research.
In Grounded Theory, theories emerge from data using particular facts and examples to form general principles; data gathering and data analysis happen simultaneously, and indeed, they inform each other. Theories are not proved in the
Grounded Theory; rather they are supported (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The two major strategies of the Grounded Theory approach, ‘the constant comparative method’ and
‘theoretical sampling,’ were considered. In the constant comparative method, data is coded and continuously analyzed in order to develop concepts and generate theories from conceptual categories. This inspection of all data fragments as evidence, and the continuous comparison of specific occurrences in the data, help to refine conceptual categories, to examine their relationships and to incorporate the concepts into a logical theory. In theoretical sampling, new cases are investigated in order to help to refine the concepts and the theory that have already been developed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The other approach was that of case study research. The definition of case study research is “a contemporary phenomenon in a real-life context, when boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are not clear, and when it is desirable to use multiple sources of evidence” (Yin, 1984, p. 23). The case studies were not an end in themselves; the cases were studied as detailed and illustrative examples and as a means to further investigate the research questions. It should be emphasized again that in this dissertation, the examples were not the main subject of the research. The purpose of this research was not to conduct case studies; rather it used cases to illustrate points, where appropriate, to provide detail support for particular questions. Illustrative examples were chosen and
21 studied because they were instrumental in furthering understanding of the problem, not just issues intrinsic to the case itself (Stake, 1994). The examples were used for theoretical elaboration and analytic generalization.
Models Kuhn’s Scientific Revolutions
Concepts Shift in Paradigms
Theories Cultural backgrounds influence understanding and Sophistication of cultures and their conservation frameworks
acknowledgment of cultural landscapes as heritage influence conservation of cultural landscapes
Hypotheses Recognition of cultural landscapes Recognition of cultural landscapes Conservation of cultural landscapes
relates to identification of values relates to conservation frameworks relates to protection of values
Methodology Qualitative Research Approach
Method Key Informant Interviews Illustrative Examples Government & International Current Event Monitoring Documents
Findings Shifts in traditional frameworks to incorporate cultural landscapes
Figure 2.1 Framework for the Research on the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes 22
23
2.3 Data Gathering
This research employed a combined methodology to provide a wider basis for investigation and for argument, and to gain deeper insight to the topic (Figure 2.1). The goal was to use multiple sources of evidence that spoke to the same set of issues, and to ensure that sound conclusions were developed (Yin, 1994). Multiple sources of data were used not only to support each other but to provide for a form of triangulation (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005; J. Mason, 1996) through combining different ways of looking at the identification and conservation challenges in cultural landscapes. Through triangulation, the research responds to the question of its validity and explains that findings are indeed based on critical investigation on cultural landscapes and do not depend only on the illustrative examples (Silverman, 2005). Triangulation answered the issue of confirmation of results; to confirm the research outcomes, evidence was needed to support the conclusions. Through triangulation, various compatible strategies were established to further investigate the questions and link evidence to conclusions (Miller &
Fredericks, 1994).
The research topic and overall research strategy informed the methods selection.
Methods were selected based on what type of data they would provide, how they could facilitate the resolution of the research questions while examining conservation of cultural landscapes from different perspectives. Primary sources such as in-depth key- informant interviews, illustrative examples and field observations and current event monitoring, as well as secondary sources, including reviews of literature and web sites, news and archives, were employed. The high quality of data gathered ensured the reliability of the research, since sources of information will be available for any future
24
critical re-examinations. The following (Figure 2.2) summarizes the research
methodology.
Phenomenon
Research Question
Data Gathering
Primary Source Secondary Source
Illustrative Examples Interviews Monitoring Current Events Literature Review Government Reports and Documents
Generation of Information
Data Analysis
Refined Conceptual Framework
Theoretical Development
Proposals
Figure 2.2 Research Methodology
25
2.3.1 Secondary Research
2.3.1.1 Literature Review
The published literature established a context for the research questions.
Reviewing the literature “as a means to an end, not an end in itself” (Yin, 1989, p. 20) was the primary consideration in analyzing the existing information relevant to the research on cultural landscapes.
The literature review began with identifying the available resources through searches in library catalogues, research databases, electronic journal indexes, journals, on-line bibliographies, notifications of new materials through on-line subject-specific subscriptions and finding the research cited in already-obtained relevant publications.
The items were then reviewed and critically analyzed. The information from relevant studies was summarized (Cooper, 1989). The publications were mainly written by highly specialized scholars, for a specific audience with very narrow objectives. In order to avoid a biased or misleading source, the quality of the source (for example, peer- reviewed material), purpose of the source, intended audience of the source, logical arguments and reputation of author were carefully considered. During the whole process of the literature review, materials by leaders and senior scholars in the filed were targeted
(Appleton, 1975; Birnbaum, 1994; Buggey, 1999b; Buggey & Keller, 2000; Buggey &
Mitchell, 2008; Cleere, 1995; de la Torre, 2005; Fairclough, 2003; Fry, 2003; Hannes &
Fry, 2003; Head, 2000; Longstreth, 2008; Lowenthal, 1978, 1993, 2005; Mitchell, 1996;
Mitchell & Diamant, 1998; Olwig, 2005; Phillips, 2003; Robertson & Richards, 2003;
Rodwell, 2002; Rossler, 2000; Sauer, 1925; Slaiby & Mitchell, 2003; Tilley, 1994; von
Droste, Plachter, & Rossler, 1995). The findings from the literature review were then
26 reported so as to avoid prejudiced reporting by referring to opposing views throughout the dissertation.
2.3.1.2 Government Reports and Documents
Key government and intergovernmental reports and administrative documents involving materials from international and national organizations, in both online and print format, were also reviewed. These included materials and reports from Alberta Tourism,
Parks, Recreation and Culture, Australia ICOMOS, 1995, Buggey, 1999a, Council of
Europe Secretary General, 2000, English Heritage, 2008, ICCROM, 2003, ICOMOS,
1994 and 2008, Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization,
Quebec Ministry of Culture, Communications and Status of Women, 2008, National Park
Service, 1998, Parks Canada, 2003 and 2006, Rossler 2002, Samadi, 1997, and UNESCO
World Heritage Centre, 1972, 2002, 2005a and 2008a. Also reports, materials and maps relevant to the illustrative examples from the Alberta Historic Resources Division, 1980;
ICOMOS, 1981, 2003; the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, 2002 and Parks
Canada, 2005 were examined and were used in conjunction with other sources of information. The review of the government reports and documents followed the same procedure stated in the literature review.
2.3.2 Primary Research
2.3.2.1 Key Informant Interviews
The qualitative nature of the research mandated open-ended interviews in which the interviewees were asked their opinions on cultural landscape conservation and
27 management. It was important to understand how the interviewees framed and structured their responses (Marshall & Rossman, 1999), since they were also asked to propose their own insights into certain problems. Their responses provided a basis for further inquiry
(Yin, 1984). The interviews were both focused and semi-structured because they followed a previously prepared set of questions. Interview questions were developed based on guidance from the literature on methods (Chadwick, Bahr, & Albrecht, 1984;
Creswell, 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Fontana & Frey, 1994, 2005; Schwandt, 2007).
Questions that would lead the interviewee in a particular direction or to a specific response were avoided. The questions were worded so as to allow interviewees to speak freely and openly express their fresh commentary and to ensure the relevance of the interviews to the research.
Since secondary information on cultural landscapes was limited, there was a real need to gather more detailed information through in-depth interviews, which generated data and offered insights, opinions and thoughts on the topic. The interview data was most effective when correlated with information from other sources.
Interviews were conducted with 27 experts and senior professionals from governments and the academy with different backgrounds and viewpoints who understood the complexities of subject at hand and had access to important unpublished information. Suggestions from Supervisory Committee and others, and the researcher’s personal knowledge identified potential informants. The interviewees were selected based on their knowledge, expertise and experience as identified by their publications, their role within organizations, and involvement in events.
28
Selected informants were contacted via email and telephone calls using a recruitment script which explained the title and the purpose of the study. The interviews took place from spring 2006 to spring 2007. The average time of interviews was one hour (ranging from 45 minutes to 2 hours). Key informant interviews provided the opportunity to develop a dialogue with active and widely known individuals in the field of cultural resource management and heritage conservation. This carried the investigation well beyond the limits of information from published materials.
Interview questions were developed in a manner that ensured that the intended research questions were addressed during the interview. Review of the literature identified concepts or issues that were helpful in refining the interview questions. Also, the interview questions were further refined during the course of the research as better understanding of the cultural landscapes and issues was gained. The supervisory committee and a few experts reviewed the questions before the interview process commenced. The interview questions are provided in Appendix C. There were two specific set of questions. One set of questions was developed for the illustrative examples and the other set mainly focused on the conservation of cultural landscapes in general.
The interviews were conducted both in English and Persian. All interviews were audio recorded with the permission of the interviewees. As well, handwritten notes covering the major topics were made. The interviews were then transcribed. The Persian interviews were first transcribed in Persian, and then the informative sections were translated into
English. The transcripts then provided the data for analysis. Audiotapes were helpful to avoid any misinterpretations and maintained for reference during the analysis stage. In order to generate accurate and meaningful data, the issue of transferring meanings and
29 connotations from one cultural context to a new one was considered (Marshall &
Rossman, 1999).
All informants were provided with an approved consent form (Appendix B) in the beginning of the interview that confirmed the confidentiality of the information gained in the interview. The Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary approved the research and issued the Certification of Institutional Ethics Review
(Appendix A). The interviews were conducted in person in Iran, Canada and Italy at
ICCROM. A brief overview of the purpose of the study and the intent of the interview was provided at the beginning of interviews. The interview results are contained in
Chapter Six.
2.3.2.2 Illustrative Detailed Examples
In order to further explore the research questions and gain a deeper understanding of the problems, two examples were examined in detail, Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Canada and Takht-e-Soleyman in Iran. Their selection was based on the factors of resources and time. The examples were exploratory in nature, which contributed to further understanding of issues through in-depth analysis. On the other hand, the illustrative examples were considered instrumental, since they were selected to provide insight into the issues of cultural landscapes conservation. Thus, although the examples were carefully studied, the main focus of the research was on conservation of cultural landscapes. The examples support generalizations, that is, they were used to apply conclusions to other cases and to a broader context (Stake, 1994, 2005). They were used
30 as analytic models; such models assume that generalizability is possible from any case
(Silverman, 2005).
The examples and their contexts were also examined to provide material for comparative analysis of the respective heritage conservation policies, frameworks and approaches in Canada and Iran. The illustrative examples emphasized “objective description and personalistic interpretation, a respect and curiosity for culturally different perception of phenomena and, empathic representation of local settings” (Stake, 1994, p.
242). Comparison was a powerful conceptual mechanism which maximized learning from the examples.
Data collection formed an important aspect of the study of the illustrative examples. It was important to use a consistent strategy for data collection in each of the examples. This allowed for more effective and valid comparisons. Information was collected through a standard set of interview questions. Field visits to the selected sites provided yet another source of evidence. During the research, two visits were made to
Iran, once to visit the site and another time to conduct interviews. Head-Smashed-In
Buffalo Jump in Canada was visited three times during the course of the research. Field observation allowed the recording of the existing condition at each site (Selltiz, Jahoda,
Deutsch, & Cook, 1959) and the examination of relationships that existed within the local context. In other words observational evidence, in this research a casual form of data gathering through personal experience, provided additional information (Lawrenz,
Keiser, & Lavoie, 2005) and added new directions for understanding the context and the research topic (Yin, 1984). While creating an opportunity for direct observation, the illustrative examples were also significant for collecting trustworthy data, obtaining
31 information that could be examined by other methods and preparing the basis for further investigation (Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch, & Cook, 1959). The results of the study of the detailed examples are presented in Chapters Five and Six.
During the site visits to Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman, photographs of these two sites were taken that were useful in conveying important information about the sites and their characteristics (Yin, 1984, p. 86). A special guided tour, led by a senior archaeologist at Head-Smashed-In, is offered once every year in spring. A limited number of interested people go for a half-day visit through the whole site. The tour starts from the gathering basin and drive lines to the cliff and the kill site.
This is only possible through arrangements with the private owners of the gathering basin. This visits provided the opportunity of taking photos of the gathering basin and drive lanes, places that are not usually accessible to visitors. Takht-e-Soleyman management team offers no guided tour of the site, and one has to explore the archaeological remains and surrounding landscape unescorted; however, almost all parts of the site are publicly accessible.
In terms of using photography for research on the two sites as cultural landscapes,
‘participatory’ use of photography – a more methodologically engaged approach – was employed which treated photography as a fieldwork tool. In ‘instrumental’ use of photographs, a few old photographs were examined because they were important in carrying and conveying historical information regarding the larger landscape and their
32 parts.1 The research recognized that photographs illustrate the tangible features and the
principal elements of these places, represent the particular visions of their inhabitants,
demonstrate functions, and document cultural changes in these landscapes. Meanings
were attributed to the photographs to further study the relationships between individuals
and their landscapes (Bellin, 2005; Jakle, 1987).
This method, the study of the illustrative examples, does have challenges. These
include potential concerns as to effectiveness or representativeness of examples,
subjective analysis resulting in misrepresentation of information, and difficulties in
accessing information. Another issue was concern about the wide applicability of the
results in practice, that is, valid generalization from the results. The treatment of
illustrative examples was analytical rather than statistical. The differences between the
two types of generalization were realized and it was understood that it is incorrect to
compare them to each other. In a broader sense, generalization was understood as a
reasoning activity/process which moves from specific circumstances (patterns, meanings,
processes, relations and conditions) that are recognized during the study of a specific
instance or case to a more general understanding of the subject matter (Schwandt, 2007).
In statistical generalizations, an example that is studied in the research is generalized to a
larger universe, whereas in analytic generalization, preliminary theory is used as a
template against which to compare the empirical results of the example (Yin, 1984).
Carefully planned examples were valuable in improving theory and encouraging further
1 Brian Rusted, Use of Photography in Research on Conservation of Cultural Landscapes (Personal communication, November 8, 2007).
33 investigation in order to identify other examples to which the results were generalizable.
The results arising from each example in the study were compared and analyzed with the intent of developing a generalization or theory based on trends and conflicts in the data; in other words, theory evolved during the course of research and by collecting data and analyzing data continuously (Strauss & Corbin, 1994).
2.3.2.3 Monitoring of Current Events
Current issues, events, gatherings and recent research pertinent to the research topic were monitored in order to update the information obtained during the research and to ensure that the research outcomes were pragmatic and applicable. This was in line with historical-comparative research consisting of documentation of an issue over time and comparison of the perspectives of different countries (Neuman, 1997). However, the study did not cover a full historical examination; instead the focus was on events that happened during the time of the research. Chapter Six contains the results of current event monitoring. Newsletters and online sources were scanned regularly to ensure a current understanding of the study’s context. Online resources included electronic newsletters and organizational web sites (Alberta Culture and Community Spirit; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2007; ICCROM, 2007; ICOMOS, 2008; Iranian
Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism Organization; Ministry of Culture
Communications and Status of Women, 2008; Ministry of Culture of Ontario; Parks
Canada; UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005a, 2008a, 2008b). The same criteria as the literature review were applied to assess the validity and creditability of this information.
34
2.4 Data Analysis
After developing a preliminary theory and gathering the required information by using multiple sources of evidence, primary and secondary research findings were analyzed. In the beginning, notes of all types from different sources were organized and documented so that they could be reviewed directly and could be later referred to independently of the written report. This approach increased the reliability of the research.
The generated data were critically reviewed and were analyzed more thoroughly.
They were compared, contrasted and labelled in a consistent manner and were put into categories and themes. Analysis of the data then continued through the reduction of more general data that did not greatly contribute to the research to more specific and constructive data that were directly related to the research topic, to make data more manageable. In the reduction stage, data sharing similar characteristics were also placed into the same categories (Chadwick, Bahr, & Albrecht, 1984). A coding system in the form of key words was developed to be applied to the data categories and themes. Coding was critical to determine if common themes emerged. Interpretation linked the collected data together, offered explanations and attempted to draw conclusions (Marshall &
Rossman, 1999). The whole process of coding was performed manually and key words were used instead of numbers. Key-wording enabled the conversion of data to a standard form and prepared them for analysis.
In order to interpret and theorize data, it was essential to work back and forth between data, concepts and conclusions. In the process of analyzing data, a whole was
35 broken down to its components; the integrity of the whole was then understood through reassembly of the parts (Schwandt, 2007). All data manipulations were carefully done so as to avoid biased conclusions (Yin, 1984) and prevent reinforcement of researcher’s views. Finally, the data gathered from different sources were summarized and linked to a more general theoretical conclusion. In order to ensure high-quality data analysis, four principles were applied. The analysis relied on all the relevant evidence; all major rival interpretations were assessed; the most significant aspects of the study were addressed and the researcher's prior professional knowledge was used to undertake the analysis
(Yin, 1994).
The analysis of the data, identification of their relationships and their integration led to a framework of refined concepts. In this research, this framework provided a basis for changing traditional ways of looking at heritage properties, improving existing frameworks to include different heritage categories and proposing a set of solid and careful proposals for different levels of authorities from international to national and local levels.
36
Chapter Three: UNDERSTANDING CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Cultural landscape is fashioned out of a natural landscape by a cultural group.
Carl O. Sauer1
3.1 Introduction
As early as the 16th century in Europe, the term landscape was associated with fine art, countryside scenery and rural lands with their special characters and identities.
The idea of landscape art was further developed in the17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The idea of cultural landscape is a century old as used in cultural geography and it continues to evolve. However the notion of cultural landscape as heritage has developed since the
1990s. Cultural landscape was acknowledged within the international heritage conservation community and many national ones as a heritage category that reveals historical aspects of societies. Cultural landscapes reflect the origins and evolution of a
1 The Morphology of Landscape, 1925, p. 46.
37 society. They contain illustrations of human activities over time through their evidence of social, economic and cultural succession. Cultural landscapes are also evidence of natural evolution. In a cultural landscape, both cultural and natural elements, and tangible and intangible values, exist in juxtaposition.
Cultural landscape is a concept which reflects the close interaction between humankind and the natural environment. The need for societies to protect their cultural landscapes springs from their need to continue their interactions with their surroundings in a sustainable and all-encompassing way. This chapter addresses both the meaning of the idea of a cultural landscape and also the challenges presented by the understanding of cultural landscapes themselves.
3.2 Heritage – Heritage Sites/Historic Places
Heritage is humankind’s legacy from the past; it has remained from the generations who created it, it is for today’s generation to appreciate and enjoy, and it provides the opportunity to make the past part of the future for the coming generations.
Heritage connects people to their past, providing an awareness that encourages a sense of continuity and provides an important source of personal and communal identity. The stories told about heritage sites are one way to define and support identity (McMordie,
2007). This understanding helps to give direction to human existence by giving meaning, purpose and value. The past and its surviving cultural attitudes are therefore not only important to understanding the present (Graham, Ashworth, & Tunbridge, 2000;
Lowenthal, 1979; Said, 1994), but also to understanding the future.
38
Heritage is not the only way in which humans are linked to the past; history, tradition, memory and myth are also among the diverse routes to the past (Lowenthal,
2004). Often, the terms past, history and heritage are used as synonyms; however, these terms are far from identical and each has its own distinct definition. One way of distinguishing them is to define the past as “what has happened,” history as “selective attempts to describe this and how things came to be as they are,” and heritage as “a contemporary product shaped from history” (Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996, p. 20).
Heritage can be found, carrying tangible and intangible values, in different forms, one of which is heritage sites or historic places. Heritage is a broad entity and is strongly connected to the present. Historic places are physical locations identified by their connection to the past. It is worthwhile to clarify that it was not the intention of this research to address the whole range of issues surrounding heritage properties; rather it focused on one type of heritage, namely historic places, and more specifically, cultural landscapes.
Heritage links to the past while modifying it in different ways. For instance, in a historic site, some features maybe emphasized, improved, replaced or removed or destroyed depending on whether, for example, those features were considered desirable or disrespectful, or socio-economic and political circumstances, or even ideologies. It should be noted that these modifications are due either to contingent survival of heritage through time as a part of the natural process or the purposeful protection of heritage through conservation practices. Either way, heritage modifies the past in a way that makes it, to some extent, different from origin, by safeguarding some parts and overlooking others. Lowenthal argues that while history is for all, heritage remains for a
39 specific group only, and that while heritage is often claimed as the legacy of the past for all humanity, it is restricted to a certain group, because of specific group interests (in
Head, 2000; Lowenthal, 1998). Lowenthal notes that the heritage remains for ‘us’2
(2006). This is true of many Indigenous peoples.
This perception that heritage belongs only to a specific group may seem in
contrast with the concept of heritage indicated in the World Heritage Convention, which
states that World Heritage Sites, regardless of their location, belong to all peoples of the
world (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 1972). However, it can be argued that heritage
is the product of the conserved or remembered past through a process of interpretation
(Ashworth, 1995). The procedure of conservation of a site, from its selection as a heritage
property to its interpretation, is very often decided by a specific group of people (society
or government) in accordance with its policies, although it is recognized that the site may
be deemed important to a much wider group.
3.2.1 Cultural Landscapes and the Past
As a type of historic place, cultural landscapes are also evidence of history – the
histories of past human impacts on nature, in many layers of time, obvious or hidden.
Landscape is sometimes referred to as “a living link with the past” (Mitchell, 1996, p.
70); that is, the origin of a landscape today is rooted in the past; thus, landscape is
valuable because it provides knowledge and understanding about both the past and the
2 By ‘us’, he means a specific group (society, band or nation) which claims the heritage resource as theirs, exclusively.
40 nature of the present. However, this knowledge of the past remains partial, since landscape can never reflect an entire period (Fairclough, Rippon, & Bull, 2002;
Lowenthal, 1979). Indeed, landscape retains valuable evidence of the past and, in this
sense, can be seen as “storage of past history” (Maaranen, 2003, p. 258) or “a bank of
cultural memories – some still in use, others are residue of past practices and knowledge”
(Alumae, Printsmann, & Palang, 2003, p. 126).
Landscape, in general terms, enfolds three important concepts: “nature as
fundamental heritage in its own right; environment as the setting of human action; and
sense of place as awareness of local difference and appreciation of ancestral roots”
(Lowenthal, 1993, p. 4). Natural, cultural and social influences have created unique and
diverse landscapes with distinctive characteristics. Cultural landscapes are evident
everywhere; however, often they hide their history and it therefore becomes difficult to
recognize them as historic places. Surrounding environment is the key player in shaping
cultures, while it has been also influenced by those cultures. Landscapes are the essential
basis for human activities. When Sauer3 defined cultural landscape as a “combination of
natural and man-made elements that comprises, at any given time, the essential character
of a place” (quoted in Hayden, 1995, pp. 16-17), he was well aware of the significance of
the personality of places and that different landscapes have different characters. This
concept is referred to as sense of place, which is unique for each landscape.
3 Carl O. Sauer was a cultural geographer who introduced the term cultural landscape in 1925.
41
Each place, and particularly each historic place, has its own character, which has evolved from cultural adaptation to the specific natural environment, thus leading to a distinctive sense of place (Mitchell & Buggey, 2000). Sense of place is a quality through which different places and different identities of a place are recognized. It is an intangible but significant spiritual component of quality of life, thus “a well-cultivated sense of place is an important dimension of human well-being” (Meinig, 1979, p. 46). In other words, sense of place is “the collection of meanings, beliefs, symbols, values, and feelings that individuals or groups associate with a particular locality” (D. R. Williams &
Stewart, 1996, p. 19). The meaning of place can be achieved if the intangible values of places are also recognized. For example, Indigenous peoples make rock art to introduce a sense of time and history into the landscape rather than creating monuments. Aboriginal cultural landscapes link people and place together and are filled with meaning and memories (Buggey, 2000; Tilley, 1994; Woody, 1999); monuments and buildings create
a more tangible and visible and sensible place. Nevertheless, they all create a sense of
history and the past.
In addition, one may see sense of place as the emotional relationship between an
individual and place. The intensity and meaning of this connection varies depending on
the individual. An individual’s sense of place therefore depends on both cultural and
natural attributes of a place (Tuan in Hayden, 1995; Tuan in D. R. Williams, Patterson,
Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1992). This perspective is well illustrated in Persian gardens,
particularly when they are located in the middle of an arid area, and their lush green
contrast to the area around them creates a very powerful sense of place.
42
3.2.2 Cultural landscapes and Identity
Human beings create their own history, cultures and identities. Identity and the creation of a common culture evolve out of an organic continuing dialogue. Any individual’s identity requires constant engagement with culture and society; in other words, an authentic self-identity is essentially formed through active and organic relationship with culture. The perception of identity initially is gained within a context, and the context itself depends on a person’s interactions with his surroundings. Therefore, the question of identity begins with what’s given to a person, a group or a society by culture. But as soon as someone thinks of the idea of identity, a kind of dialogue, a type of interaction with the surrounding environment is established which leads to change in the environment. It is in fact that process that generates identity. It is notable that the culture does not define a person, but the culture is a necessary condition for generating identity. A person only develops full identity when he realizes he is different from that culture but yet connected to it,4 and that there are similarities between them.
Culture is the basis for the formation of a concept that creates identity through
time, bridging past and future. Scruton notes that “through membership (in common
culture) I see the world as it was seen by those who went before me and will be seen by
those who are yet to be” (1990, p. 119). Undoubtedly, awareness of history enhances
identity, and as mentioned earlier, environment provides the foundation for culture, and
culture is the origin of identity, and identity itself is the source of value. Identity can be
described as an entity that is constructed, created, and even recreated through different
4 Stanley Stein, Personal Communication. October 10, 2006.
43 social processes (Robertson & Richards, 2003). Cultural identity – the relationship
between identity and culture – is such that culture contributes significantly to who
someone is. Both the contribution that a person makes and his interaction with that
tradition define his identity.5
In understanding one landscape as different from others, distinctive elements that
contribute to unique cultures can be identified. It is mainly because of the physical
attributes and associative values of a place that people wholly identify themselves as
being cultural groups. Space, an intangible entity without any specific structure, provides
the setting for place, while particular places give meaning to space. Thus, considering the fact that place is tangible in terms of its physical form, the visual form of a place is referred as landscape. Human-made features such as buildings, roads and bridges, or
natural features such as rivers, lakes and plants, give a place its appearance. Place implies
an integration of natural and cultural components as landscape does; “each place has its
own order, its special ensemble, which distinguishes it from the next place” (Lukermann
quoted in Relph, 1976, p. 3). Places also have a changing historical component because
new elements are constantly added to a place and other elements disappear when
historical and cultural features are altered.
According to Lynch,6 the identity of a place is the quality that makes the place distinct from other places. The three interrelated components that comprise the identity of a place are its physical features or appearance, observable activities or functions, and
5 Stanley Stein, Notes from Interview. October 10, 2006. 6 A pioneer in planning of urban environments and landscapes who also explored the presence of time and history in such environments.
44 meanings or symbols (Relph, 1976). Humans’ experience of a place and, in particular of a historic place, is based on the identity of that place and the fact that its ‘meanings’ arise from the understanding and previous experience of each individual. Therefore, ‘identity’ is not a simple, unchanging given, – but a variable construct. It might be argued that the
‘identity’ of a place is based on multiple, overlapping identities.
Historic places often provide a communal sense of identity and allow communities to discover and understand one another. Historic places, including cultural landscapes, establish identity that is valuable at both individual and group levels. The feeling of belonging to a place indicates the connection that exists between an individual and the space in which he lives, and expresses an authentic relation that reflects meaning, value and significance.7 Some believe that historic places are crucial to personal and
collective identity (individual identity and cultural identity and their genuine relationship) and essential for self-respect, or as Lowenthal notes, “heritage attests our identity and affirms our worth” (1998; Lowenthal, 2005). Therefore, the importance of historic places and their role in a nations’ sense of identity must be stressed, since these places record the life and stories of human beings like a document (Cameron, 2000). A cultural landscape in its natural context can retain substantial evidence of the passage of different cultures and their multiple identities through its physical manifestation.
7 These are elaborated in section 3.3.
45
3.3 Valuing Cultural landscapes
Value is described as “the relative status of a thing, or the estimate in which it is held, according to its real or supposed worth, usefulness, or importance” or “the quality of a thing considered in respect of its power and validity for a specified purpose or effect”
(Oxford English Dictionary, 6.a. & 6.f.). Values are considered subjective and therefore differ from one culture to another and may vary from one individual to another.
Therefore, cultural context is very important in considering values of heritage properties.
As a result, values attributed to cultural properties may be understood differently from culture to culture, and even within the same culture (ICOMOS, 1994, Para. 11). Values also may change in different periods of time within a given culture.
In studying cultural landscapes, the question remains, what is valued in cultural landscapes, and in fact, what makes cultural landscapes so crucial in terms of conservation of historic places? Identification of potential values in different cultural landscapes is essential in understanding the significance of cultural landscapes and in developing protection and management plans. Cultural landscapes are evidence of natural, cultural and social processes that create values; therefore, cultural landscapes have manifold values, including historical, cultural, natural, aesthetic, artistic/technological, archaeological, social, economic, political, educational and functional, that are worthy of protection to retain the sense of place. As stated in the
ICOMOS Nara Document, the values attributed to the heritage are the basis of conservation activities, activities that have varied throughout history and by culture
(1994, Para. 9).
46
Cultural landscapes have values in their own right that differ from the scientific and scenic qualities of places that are valued for their natural characteristics (Mitchell &
Buggey, 2000). As discussed previously, cultural landscapes not only link human beings with their ancestors but also reveal cultural diversity to future generations. They also attest identity – identity of a person, a cultural group or a nation. Cultural landscapes bond societies within a nation. Some other attributed values are:
• Cultural landscapes link people and nature; they are the place where people and nature meet;
• Cultural landscapes recognize intangible and spiritual values.
• Cultural landscapes recognize traditional knowledge and resource management systems;
• Cultural landscapes demonstrate sustainability. The links between cultural and biological diversity emphasize cultural landscapes as models for sustainable land-use.
3.4 Understanding Cultural Landscapes
The focus of most debates on cultural landscapes has been on the definition and identification of cultural landscapes rather than on the planning of their protection and management. Nevertheless, considering all national and international efforts at defining cultural landscapes, there is still a need to develop an appropriate definition of cultural landscapes in different cultures. Without understanding the notion of cultural landscape and its inherent values, it is impossible to identify, manage and protect culturally significant landscapes. The study of a cultural landscape involves the identification of its
47 very basic elements, the relationship between the elements, and in fact, the way they influence each other.
3.4.1 Nature and Culture Relationship
The interplay between nature and culture has been always a vigorously debated topic. There are varying thoughts about the relationship between nature and culture that are mainly dependent upon the cultural origin of those who have valued and identified it.
What humankind inherits is rooted in both nature and culture, and indeed nature and culture are interwoven (Lowenthal, 1997, 2005). This idea is accepted in many different cultures, which all agree that human beings interact with the natural environment and its forces, either in harmony with or in resistance to them. Human impacts are evident in all aspects of nature; nature also influences cultural groups and their activities. Many cultural and natural areas exist around the world that are evidence of such interplay and
“are the meeting place of nature and people, of past and present, and of tangible and intangible values” (Phillips, 2003, p. 10). This integration of natural and cultural environments is the primary characteristic of cultural landscapes (Figure 3.1).
Nature is a key part of humanized, culturally defined places. The self- understanding of human beings in relationship to the wider world is evidenced by differing concepts of nature. If nature is defined as a quality and a feature distinct from that of human civilization, the dualism that exists between culture and nature is still apparent, especially in a Western way of thinking (Head, 2000). One may argue that even
though nature is not ‘made’ by humans, nature is a human intellectual construct. This
48 relationship is then wholly dependent on human intentions and thereby can be argued to be a cultural attribute.
Natural Environment 1 Human Activity Identity & Character Economic Aspects
Appearance Landscape Integrity Cultural Influences Community Social Aspects
Succession
Cultural Landscape
Time
1. Adopted From: Van Mansvelt & Pedroli (2003) Figure 3.1 Cultural Landscape: Culture – Nature Interplay
In a broad sense, culture refers to all human activities and their impacts. Perhaps culture can be best understood as a process, a continuous combination of shared values, beliefs, behaviours and practices that characterize a group of people or a society. It is highly important to analyze the actual social practices that produce and modify material culture8 in different places through history.
There is disagreement between natural scientists and social scientists regarding
the culture-nature relationship. The first group considers culture as a heritage of nature
8 “Material culture is the study through artifacts of the beliefs – values, ideas, attitudes, and assumptions – of a particular community or society at a given time. The term ‘material culture’ is also frequently used to refer to artifacts themselves, to the body of material available for such study. … Material culture as a study is based upon the obvious fact that the existence of a man-made object is concrete evidence of the presence of a human intelligence operating at the time of fabrication. … The term ‘material culture’ thus refers…. both to the subject matter of the study, ‘material’, and to its purpose, the understanding of ‘culture’.” Prown (1982), Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method. pp 1-2.
49 while the latter believes that nature is defined socio-culturally (Olwig, 2005). Others
argue that natural heritage and cultural heritages are interconnected and indivisible.
Cultural landscapes are the places where culture and nature inseparably come together
(Buggey, 2000; Lowenthal, 2005). For the purposes of this dissertation, culture and
nature are very much related and it is impossible to consider them as two separate
entities.
3.4.2 Cultural Landscapes: Natural Systems and Human Interventions
Human activities have affected the natural environment from earliest times and
have resulted in the creation of cultural landscapes. It is not surprising that they are
evident everywhere. Therefore, cultural landscapes imply far more than aesthetics and
should be identified as valuable documents that remain from previous cultures. Sauer
believed that a cultural landscape “is fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural
group. Culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the cultural landscape is the
result” (1925, p. 46). He acknowledged the fundamental importance of nature since it
provides the basis for the cultural landscape, and of the culture which shapes the
landscape. In fact, it can be argued that “everything is culture” and depends on or has
been influenced by human beings; “cultural values…ascribed by different social groups,
traditions, beliefs, or value systems… fulfill humankind’s need to understand, and
connect in meaningful ways, to the environment of its origin and the rest of nature” (von
Droste quoted in S. Williams, 1996, p. 9). In other words, how a landscape is understood
is based on the way people experience and interpret the world.
50
Following this idea, many other scholars also disagree with the distinction between culture and nature (Ingold in Robertson & Richards, 2003; Tilley, 1994). They consider people’s activities and their cultural knowledge as consecutive. In this sense, the landscape is never complete, and humans have shaped it in the past and continue to add to it. This perspective disagrees with that of Sauer, who believed that “under influence of a given culture, itself changing through time, the landscape undergoes development, passing through phases, and probably reaching ultimately the end of its cycle of development” (1925, p. 343). On the other hand, it agrees that landscape is always subject to change due to both its evolutionary nature and the changes that human beings have forced on the natural landscape and continue to do so in order to create a liveable world (Lewis, 1998). Cultural changes occur either because of the development of the same cultures or as a result of replacement of cultures by other cultures. Therefore, the current state of a landscape differs from the original, as a result of cultural change and/or natural decay. As Mitchell explains, characteristics of a landscape can be analyzed and interpreted as a window on culture (1996), since “cultural groups socially construct landscapes as reflections of themselves” (Stoffle, Halmo, & Austin, 1997, p. 229). People use landscape to promote cultural continuity and to maintain these values into the future.
A landscape is like a document that describes a culture or different cultures that have been living there over time to create different layers of meaning.
The place of nature and culture in cultural landscape is a much-debated topic, and much of that debate centers on UNESCO’s definition. The UNESCO World Heritage
51
Center’s definition for cultural landscape, "combined works of nature and of man”9
(2005b), emphasizes the interplay between nature and culture, and between societies and environments through physical expression. Some believe that there is no such a thing as purely natural landscape, since humans have always influenced the environment; in addition, there is the belief that there is no such a thing as purely cultural landscape, since nature provides the basis for all human activities. On the other hand, nothing in the so- called natural environment can be found in its pristine form and devoid of human footprints. It can be argued, then, that the pristine nature is “a mirage, receding as it is approached” (Head, 2000, p. 4). The ways in which people attempt to approach nature conservancy are in fact little more than cultural interventions, differing from one culture to another.
3.4.3 Characteristics of Cultural Landscapes
Cultural landscapes have a number of characteristics which distinguish them from other kinds of heritage. Cultural landscape characteristics are common to different types of cultural landscapes in general terms; however, in individual cases they form unique cultural landscapes. Cultural landscape is considered both as an artefact and as a system
(a system in itself and also part of a larger system); in other words, they are both a process and a product (Alanen & Robert Z. Melnick, 2000). It is during the process of shaping and changing, both in the short term and the long term, that landscapes evolve. In fact, all types of heritage properties evolve, even those which seem to be the most stable,
9 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, clause 47.
52 such as structures, buildings and monuments. Likewise, cultural landscapes evolve and change over time.
A cultural landscape in its natural context retains substantial evidence of the passage of different cultures through its physical manifestation. Because of their evolutionary nature, cultural landscapes are subject to change, – that is, their current state differs from the original, as mentioned earlier, as a result of human activities (from a cultural point of view) and/or due natural growth or decay. Change in cultural landscapes happens at a more rapid pace and therefore is more obvious compared with other types of heritage properties. Evolution results in layers in landscapes of numerous elements (both tangible and intangible, from different periods of time) and various shapes. These characteristics contribute to diversity and richness in cultural landscapes.
In cultural landscapes, natural resources act as the historic fabric of landscape. Of course, there also exist man-made features such as architectural structures that emphasize the cultural and historical aspect of cultural landscapes. Natural elements have existed in landscapes through time and have been modified by human activities. The cultural activities can give cultural meanings to natural features (such as hills, rocks, caves, water, tree, animals and plants), as is evident, for instance, in many Aboriginal cultures. It is critical to consider natural features as being as historically significant as other ancient built features. This idea is even stronger in some cultures which respect natural elements in meaningful ways, like those associated with ancient Persian belief systems.
The shape of cultural landscapes largely depends on their physical attributes and characteristics, such as land form, geomorphology and others. These physical attributes
53 are always important in forming cultural landscapes, and varying land forms and geological features form diverse landscapes with unique appearances.
Different cultural settlements and cultural activities, including land uses, result in a variety of landscape patterns. Patterns in cultural landscapes form networks and layers.
Cultural landscapes are areas of land rather than points within the landscape and can be seen as networks of connected places. Rather than being just a series of parts or places, the connections within a cultural landscapes become important.
3.4.4 Ways of Looking at Cultural Landscapes
People value things differently according to their cultural backgrounds and the way they view the world. Some cultures put much emphasis on the historical and cultural values while others emphasize the connections between cultural, natural and spiritual forces in cultural landscapes. Whether or not these connections are recognized, influences the way cultural landscapes are defined and identified in these different cultures.
Identification of different aspects of value in a given landscape can result in different perspectives on the same landscape; therefore this way of looking at landscape is not limited only to what is seen, but also what is thought (Meinig, 1979).
When people acknowledge cultural landscapes within their cultural context, their perception of landscape is well fitted to their worldview. Problems arise when another culture intervenes and attempts to evaluate a cultural landscape according to its own cultural background, no matter what the original cultural context of the landscape might be. Moreover, there have been always conflicts when different cultural groups attempt to use the same landscape and its resources in their own way. It is thus important to
54 recognize that what is valued and whose values this selection symbolizes matter the most.
For instance, in a Western-derived culture, places are mainly valued where there is a physical manifestation of history. The tangible aspect of heritage becomes more dominant. However, in other cultures, such as those of the Aboriginal people in Canada, places that are spiritually significant have special values. Aboriginal people’s behaviours are deeply embedded in traditions and beliefs that shaped perceptions and values. They consider intangible aspects of a place as important as physical evidences. It is essential for them to ensure the balance between the concerns of the material world and the spiritual world (Carter, 1999).
Once the values are collectively recognized, then it is easier both to identify the values that are to be protected and to conserve and interpret these values. This is not an easy task. If the values are not identified correctly from the very beginning, the conservation process could be directed toward undesired and inappropriate outcomes.
The question of whose values is specifically important in Aboriginal cultural landscapes. The Aboriginal people have long valued the landscape as a whole. In contrast, other communities (namely Western and European communities) have tended to a utilitarian view, also to separate, disconnect, landscape elements according to their utility. The Western connection with the landscapes differs from that of Aboriginal people. Landscape in its totality is at the centre of Aboriginal worldviews rather than independent landscape features (Buggey, 1999a). An example might better serve to explain this concept. If Aboriginal people value a natural feature such as a hill, that hill has cultural landscape value. The stories told about the hill, emphasizing the importance of their association with the land or the activities that people have undertaken there, make
55 that hill valuable (Government of the Northwest Territories, 2004). If there is a lack of recognition of the connections amongst cultural, natural and spiritual attributes in a holistic way, there could be disagreements over conservation strategies. Therefore, a deeper understanding of cultural landscapes is only achieved through a holistic understanding of the various cultural values and an integrative analysis of all landscape components and processes. Vital to the planning and preservation of cultural landscapes is the consideration of total cultural values rather than a few carefully selected ones.
Worldviews such as those of Aboriginal people are rooted in the way they live with the land. Aboriginal people see themselves as a part of environment and they coexist with the natural elements. In contrast, in Western cultures, people are separate from their environment and act as observers (Buggey, 1999a). Land includes the water that flows upon (such as lakes and rivers) or under the earth, air, fauna and flora, landforms and rocks (such as hills and caves), and spirits that live in the land and their impact on how people live with the land (Government of the Northwest Territories, 2004). Land includes the many ways in which all these resources work together in the environment. Land is the basis for all social, economic activities such as camping, hunting, trapping, fishing, and harvesting plants. All these activities leave some physical remains such as tools, belongings, teepee (tent) rings, fire pits and paths and trails. Other activities such as spiritual and cultural activities are also related to the land. They include places where stories are or have been told, or place where rituals and ceremonies are or have been performed, with either no physical remains or remains such as medicine wheels (Buggey,
1999a; Government of the Northwest Territories, 2004). These activities collectively shape the Aboriginal cultural landscape.
56
Most Indigenous peoples worldwide approach history, heritage and cultural landscapes through their beliefs and ideas, according to their connection to the land. This way of connection to the land and in the broader sense, nature, is evidenced in many cultures. Ancient Persians10 developed very strong connections with nature, a way of
thinking which follows the Zoroastrian belief.11 Zoroastrians value four elements and respect them; they are Fire, Earth, Air and Water as symbols of purity and the sustaining of life. Fire together with clean water is used in their rituals. To Zoroastrians, nature is central to their cultural activities12 (Rivetna, 1990). For example, they celebrate many seasonal festivals, including the New Year on the first day of spring. Iranians have practiced this way of looking at their surrounding environments for thousands of years and have continued that legacy today.
3.5 Defining Cultural Landscapes
3.5.1 Concept and Definition
Concepts and definitions are culturally constructed. The ways people have seen landscapes are different from what they see today and they might change again in the future. Most of the time, people believe there should be a definition of a cultural landscape and then that definition should be followed by finding an example. Decisions are based on definition. However, it is often argued that it should be the other way
10 Persians, indigenous peoples of the Plateau of Persia, believed in Zoroaster. One of the illustrative examples of this research is a Zoroastrian Sacred place. Therefore, the belief system of Zoroastrianism is critical in understanding values of this site. 11 An ancient Iranian religion since 6th –5th century BC.
57 around. First, the conservation intention should be determined, and then the concepts designed to fit the intention.13 The following example might help. A child learns
language by thinking and talking; he does not learn definitions. It is very rare that a child
is given definitions. Parents start talking and the child picks up an understanding of what
his parents are saying. Very rarely do parents teach their child that ‘Book means a set of
written sheets made of paper’. Instead, they give him a book to read, or as the child starts
using a table and chair and he understands what they mean. This is also true in terms of
cultural landscapes. When working on cultural landscapes ideas and concepts develop
and at the end a definition can be offered. A cultural group perceives an area of physical
space as cultural landscape. Cultural landscapes are constructed by people; they exist in
the mind.
The debates on the interaction between nature and culture have had a great
influence on the definition of cultural landscape within the World Heritage Convention.
In fact, the definition of cultural landscape is primarily based on the interplay between
nature and culture. Cultural landscapes can be discussed in two ways. Although the term
cultural landscape was first defined in the World Heritage Convention at an international level and is supposedly applicable to different cultures, not all cultures are familiar with the term. However, even if they were aware of such a concept, cultural landscape is not
included in their heritage conservation practices. There are possibilities that similar
concepts exist that can be comparable to what is known as cultural landscapes. Therefore,
12 “Respect for the Environment: Veneration of the elements of nature (Fire, the Sun, the Earth and the Waters) and promoting a mutually beneficial existence with these elements, is central to Zoroastrian thought, placing this ancient religion well ahead of its time.” 13 Stanley Stein, Personal Communication. October 10, 2006.
58 special attention should be given to understanding different cultural conceptions and definitions of cultural landscape. The second point is that the term cultural landscape is not used everywhere. Different cultures have developed their own terminologies independent of the World Heritage Convention. Some nations have already defined specific types of historic places as cultural landscapes or their equivalent. For instance, in
England, the term historic landscape was developed during the first half of the 1990s and is used instead of cultural landscape. There, emphasis is placed on the historical aspects of landscape in order to ensure its conservation and management. The definition by
English Heritage is mainly concerned with how physical remains and other historical attributes of the present landscape can be seen and interpreted as indicators of the interaction between people and their environments and how these have formed the landscape’s character. English Heritage’s work on historic landscape brings together historic depth and character and particular concerns for the visual and scenic attributes of landscape (Fairclough, Greorge Lambrick, & David Hopkins).
In the international course of Integrated Conservation of Territories and
Landscapes of Heritage Value (ITUC 02), offered by ICCROM in 2002, a question was raised whether the site of moon landing can be inscribed on the World Heritage List, as a cultural landscape, if it is believed that cultural landscapes can only be found where human beings have been. This idea seems perhaps a bit absurd, but the point is – how far should the definition of cultural landscapes go? What should be the limiting factors?
59
3.6 Cultural landscape within the World Heritage Context
Since the late 1960s, the importance of environmental and heritage issues has been increasingly recognized, resulting in international statements and conventions that have influenced national heritage policies. The role of UNESCO as an international leader in the development and implementation of conventions and programs on natural and cultural heritage conservations is undeniable. By providing professional advice to nations, the World Heritage Centre14 has become one of the most influential agencies in
terms of heritage conservation standards and policies.
The concept of defining and evaluating the value of heritage places has been at
the heart of the Convention; however, its application has raised problems in terms of
attributing cultural and natural values. To understand this issue it is important to analyze
the concept of nature and culture in the context of the Convention and to understand how
cultural and natural attributes of heritage sites have been applied. Imaginative application
of this concept has led to a bridge between natural and cultural heritage sites and has also
introduced the notion of cultural landscapes. As well, the framework of the World
Heritage Convention was originally based on a Euro-centric approach. However, recent trends show that there has been a shift to include other cultures as well.
14 The agency responsible for the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) – known as the World Heritage Convention.
60
3.6.1 World Heritage Cultural Landscapes
The dichotomy between culture and nature was evident early on in the
UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention. The World Heritage Operational Guidelines demand that a property must be considered in one of the categories: cultural heritage, natural heritage or mixed heritage (culture-nature heritage). The criteria set for the assessment of sites were divided into cultural criteria (six items) and natural criteria (four items). Even the two scientific advisory bodies of the World Heritage Committee,
ICOMOS and IUCN, which are responsible for the assessment of World Heritage Sites as natural sites or cultural sites, act separately (Figure 3.2). The argument by Philips on the nature and culture interaction clarifies this point that the long tradition of “the separation of nature and culture – of people from their surrounding environment – which has been a feature of Western attitudes and education over the centuries, has blinded us to many of the interactive associations which exist between the world of nature and the world of culture” (Phillips, 1998, p. 36). The inscription of the first mixed cultural and natural heritage on the World Heritage List in 1979 – Tikal in Guatemala, an area of the tropical rainforest and one of the greatest Mayan city sites – resulted in the acknowledgment that there might be sites that do not satisfy any of the criteria laid out in article 1 of the
Convention.15
15 According to article 1, monuments, groups of buildings, and sites are considered cultural heritage.
61
Nominations from State Parties
UNESCO – World Heritage
Cultural Heritage Nominations Cultural Landscapes Mixed Heritage Natural Heritage Nominations
ICOMOS IUCN
World Heritage Group IUCN Protected Area Program
Cultural Landscapes
Mission Joint Mission Mission
ICOMOS Panel IUCN World Heritage Panel
World Heritage Committee
Figure 3.2 World Heritage Process for Evaluation and Designation of Nominations
The apparent limitations of the separate definitions of culture and nature in the
World Heritage Convention were recognized when a rural landscape – The Lake District in
the UK during 1980s – was nominated to be inscribed as a cultural landscape on the List.
This nomination was not based only on its scenery but on its character as a cultural
landscape – for example, its agricultural values and literary associations with William
62
Wordsworth.16 The main argument for the associative value was its association with
poets like William Wordsworth who were well known in England and the English-
speaking world, but not universally. IUCN would not recommend it under natural criteria
because of lack of integrity. The committee rejected the nomination in 1992 in the Banff
meeting because there was no clear Outstanding Universal Value. This led to the group of
experts (including a Canadian member) being tasked with defining cultural landscape and
its categories. The decision was made that cultural landscape would be looked at under
cultural, not natural criteria. While IUCN did not show any interest in cultural landscape
at that time, their view has changed. Today, IUCN acknowledges cultural landscape as
one of its five protected areas. Due to a lack of sufficient criteria to evaluate this type of
site, the nomination was unsuccessful. As a result, it became necessary to revise the
Operational Guidelines, and in 1992, the new category of cultural landscape was added to
the World Heritage Convention.
The recognition of cultural landscapes in the context of the World Heritage
Convention was the first step toward bridging the gap between culture and nature,
between art and natural history, and between monuments and wilderness. Prior to this,
natural scientists aimed to protect untouched natural areas and threatened species from
human influence while art historians aimed to preserve single monuments. Nature that
had been culturally modified seemed beyond the focus of each group. These ‘cultural landscapes,’ as they became known, were considered to have little value and were not
16 The Lake District was the place where this English poet lived, wrote and found inspiration in early 19th century.
63 recognized as a major area for conservation (von Droste et.al. in Mitchell & Buggey,
2000). Later, in the 1990s, this type of heritage site was considered as valuable as previously recognized types of cultural and natural heritage.
The Convention also influenced the definition of historic places and opened the way for the designation of cultural landscapes, to include the combination of nature and culture as cultural landscapes. The World Heritage Convention’s Operational Guidelines highlights the relationship between natural resource values and cultural heritage and describes cultural landscape as “diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment”17 (2005b). Cultural landscape is created through
the interrelationship between culture and nature over time. To this end, Lowenthal
affirms that cultural landscapes “as well as possessing a complex and continuing mix of
nature and culture” are different from World Heritage mixed sites; “they are by their very
nature extensive, occupying more terrain than sites devoted purely to the built heritage”
(Lowenthal, 1997, p. 18). According to him, the combination of natural and cultural
values in a cultural landscape is more than just the sum of its parts; it differs from mixed
sites in the same way that a magnificent architectural monument set in dramatic scenery
might.
Recognition of cultural landscapes not only introduced a new interest/concern to
the interpretation of heritage, but also changed the notion of wilderness. Prior to this,
wilderness was considered to be a pristine natural environment, unmarked by human
activity. Since natural resources are integral parts of the cultural landscape, they are
17 Annex 3, Clause 6 & 8.
64 considered “as part of a site’s historic fabric” (Meier & Mitchell in Buggey, 2000, p. 22).
Nature conservation is also addressed in the definition of cultural landscape when it refers to the protection of cultural landscape as a contribution to sustainable land use and the enhancement of natural values while maintaining biological diversity18 (UNESCO
World Heritage Centre, 2005b). This type of approach toward cultural landscape is also aimed to link ICOMOS and the IUCN activities in terms of assessment of cultural landscapes.
3.6.2 Categories of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes
According to the World Heritage Committee, three main categories for cultural landscapes can be identified19 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005b). These
categories of cultural landscapes were integrated in the Operational Guidelines. All
categories illustrate a long-lasting physical or spiritual human relationship with the
natural environment. As of 2008, 878 properties have been inscribed in the World
Heritage List, of which 679 are cultural, 174 natural, and 25 mixed sites located in 185
States that are signatories to the Convention.20 During the period 1992–2008, 64 cultural landscapes have been inscribed. The first property inscribed specifically as a cultural landscape on the List in 1993 was an associative landscape. This was Tongariro, – a
mountain sacred to the Maori people in New Zealand, which was first nominated in 1990
as a natural heritage site. Uluru-Kata Tjuta in Australia was inscribed in 1994. Like
18 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Annex 3, Clause 9. 19 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Annex 3, Clause 10. 20 World Heritage Centre Website, Retrieved December 14, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list.
65
Tongariro, this place is of extreme importance to the Indigenous peoples of the area and had been inscribed on the World Heritage List initially only for its natural value.
The first category – landscapes designed and created intentionally by man – is
“easily identifiable”; and usually under protection. This category is “often associated with religious and monumental buildings and ensembles” created for aesthetic reasons.21
Historic Japanese, English or Persian gardens are typical examples of this category.
The second category – the organically evolved landscape – is significant because of its “social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative,” and is identified either as a relict or fossil landscape or a continuing landscape. In a relict landscape, “an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period.” In a continuing landscape, “the evolutionary process is still in progress” and
“retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life.”22 They can be identified without difficulty since they all have physical remains as a result of transformation of natural elements by man, such as terraced rice fields in Asia, vine-growing terraces in the Mediterranean region, or hydraulic works such as dams and canals. However, a relict cultural landscape is more than an unstructured collection of monuments. For instance, Takht-e-Soleyman in Iran contains superimposed patterns of several periods which provide evidence for changing or continuous patterns of landscape use and activity within a single area (Irani Behbahani,
Sharifi, & Inanloo Dailoo, 2003). The adjacent village, farmlands and orchards will
21 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Annex 3, Clause 10(i). 22 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Annex 3, Clause 10(ii).
66 provide the opportunity for this World Heritage Site to be recognized as a continuing landscape as well. However, Takht-e-Soleyman was not recognized as a cultural landscape at all. Rather it has been inscribed on the World Heritage List as a cultural heritage site. Priority was given to the historical and cultural aspects of the site to ensure its inscription. The definitions by UNESCO World Heritage Centre force certain kinds of action and allow nation states to ignore other options. Debate over the site as a cultural landscape in this case would expose too many difficult issues. The result of the designation will be a lack of management planning that will affect all landscape features of the site, features that are crucial to the integrity of the site and important to the people living there.
Different types of association with natural resources create the intangible, historical, cultural and artistic values of cultural landscapes. Associative cultural landscape – the third category – is significant because of “the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of natural element.” The physical evidence “may be insignificant or even absent.”23 The religious, artistic or cultural associations of natural elements rather than material cultural evidence are the characteristics of associative landscapes (Cleere,
1995). In other words, in associative landscapes, the link between the physical and religious aspects of landscape is highly significant, as in the Aboriginal landscapes in
North America and Australia, such as Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Canada – A
World Heritage Cultural Landscape. It was used by Aboriginal people for thousands of
23 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Annex 3, Clause 10(iii).
67 years, and its spirituality is as important as its natural features. Indeed its spirituality is contained within its natural values.
The categories of World Heritage cultural landscapes have also motivated other countries to develop their own definitions and categories. The U.S. National Park
Service, a pioneer in national preservation, has recognized similar categories that are included in Appendix D. Parks Canada has also developed a definition of cultural landscapes in general terms, although no categories are identified. Moreover, Aboriginal cultural landscapes are defined within the Parks Canada agency and are also included in
Appendix D.
3.6.3 World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, Protected Landscapes and European Landscapes
There are some similarities between the World Heritage Cultural Landscapes,
IUCN Protected Landscapes and the European Landscapes; however, they differ in their significance and values. Protected Landscapes and the World Heritage Cultural
Landscapes involve landscapes of global interest all around the world. However,
European Landscapes include those landscapes of pan-European value located within
European territories (Weizenegger & Schenk, 2006). Nevertheless, the interaction between people and their natural environment – the interplay between culture and nature
– is at the root of all three of these landscapes. The IUCN Commission on Natural Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) has identified eight categories of Protected Areas.
Category V – Protected Landscape or Seascape – is relevant to the concept of cultural landscape in the context of the World Heritage Convention. World Heritage Cultural
68
Landscapes and IUCN protected landscapes have much in common. They both sustain the integrity of harmonious interaction of people with their environment (Mitchell &
Buggey, 2000; Phillips, 2003); nevertheless, the emphasis on the natural environment is dominant in protected areas.
The emphasis of the protected landscapes has been on the natural environment, biodiversity conservation and ecosystem integrity, while cultural landscapes primarily focus on human history, continuity of cultural tradition and social values. However, it is argued that integrating both approaches toward landscapes could benefit conservation practices (Mitchell & Buggey, 2000). The growing recognition of the importance of tangible/intangible or material/immaterial, natural, cultural and spiritual values is highly significant in bridging these two approaches. It is therefore essential to understand the concept and categories of protected landscapes in relation to cultural landscapes and the lessons they could learn from each other.
While the World Heritage Convention promotes the protection of the cultural landscapes with Outstanding Universal Values, the European Landscape Convention is developed to ensure protection, planning and management of the European Union landscapes at national and regional levels (Agnoletti, 2006). However, it is often argued that the European Landscape Convention emphasizes the historic aspect of landscapes while the World Heritage Convention’s primary focus is on cultural values.24
24 Mechtild Rossler, Personal Communication, June 1, 2006.
69
3.7 Summary
This chapter discussed the emergence of the concept of cultural landscape as a form of heritage. It noted the relationship between cultural landscape and the past to provide a better understanding as to why protection of cultural landscapes as heritage places is important. Reasons identified were in connection with cultural identity and the value of such landscapes to inhabitants.
This chapter elaborated the nature and culture interplay in cultural landscapes and argued that cultural groups view this relationship between natural environment and cultural traditions differently; there is no one way of looking at cultural landscapes.
Different worldviews are equally important and must all be taken into consideration in dealing with cultural landscapes. Cultural landscape and its categories were also reviewed in the context of the World Heritage Convention and within the frameworks of the World
Heritage Operational Guidelines.
While this chapter discussed the conceptual frameworks and the evolving definition and categories of cultural landscapes, Chapter Four will discuss the challenges of identification and conservation of cultural landscapes in practice.
70
Chapter Four: CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Landscape is a sign of what a culture values.
Marcia Muelder Eaton1
4.1 Introduction
While the previous chapter addressed the development of the idea of cultural landscape as a recent heritage category at the international level and discussed the
conceptual framework for the evolution of the concept of heritage, this chapter focuses on
the practical aspect of cultural landscapes in terms of identification of their values,
evaluation, designation to conservation and management. Identification of values is the first stage in the conservation process and if it is not appropriately done, management planning will not be successful.
1 Responding to the Call for New Landscape Metaphors, 1990, p. 22.
71
4.2 Identifying Cultural Landscapes
Different cultures express their heritage values in a variety of unique ways which may change over time within a given community. Often these cultural differences are most apparent in the expression of the world heritage values (ICOMOS, 1994). The
UNESCO World Heritage documents previously ascribed values incompletely as a result of limited understanding of the importance of the geographical and cultural context of cultural landscapes as well as the characteristics of heritage values.2 Each cultural group identifies cultural landscapes in terms of a particular set of values which might differ from those of others. Therefore, acknowledging differing perspectives and worldviews
and varied valuing systems is at the core of proper identification of multiple values of
cultural landscapes.
Cultural landscapes, usually places where people have lived, have cultural,
historical, spiritual, social and economic values as well as ecological and natural ones. As
Andrews and Buggey note, identification and protection of cultural landscapes and the
cultural values of their inhabitants has become a complex process due to their dynamic and ever-changing nature (2008). People feel a cultural responsibility for the conservation
of cultural landscapes, and in order to better identify cultural landscapes, the whole range
of values should be acknowledged. Very often, cultural landscapes are not acknowledged
as such due to a lack of understanding of the concept or the definition or a failure to
attribute the right values.
2 The Nara Document on Authenticity, Para 11 & Para 12.
72
4.2.1 Exploring Meanings and Values in Cultural Landscapes
Understanding the concept of cultural landscape is essential to the better identification of the totality of its characteristics and heritage values. It involves understanding the interconnectedness of its physical as well as intangible characteristics, that is, meanings – “what a place signifies, indicates, evokes or expresses” – and associations – the special connections that exist between people and a place”3 (Australia
ICOMOS, 1999). These features, characteristics, values and qualities that are present in a
cultural landscape represent its character-defining elements. They are “the materials,
forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings that
contribute to the significance of a resource – the heritage value of a historic place, and
which must be retained in order to preserve its heritage value”4 (Parks Canada, 2003).
Land use patterns, vegetation, furnishings, decorative details and materials may be such features5 (National Park Service).
The identification and evaluation of cultural landscapes is not simple; one reason
is that only one distinctive or prominent value might be recognized, because that type of
value is more evident than the others. For instance, often properties with historic values
are identified and evaluated more quickly those with cultural significance. ‘Historic’ is the first attribute that a community might think of when it comes to heritage values
3 Burra Charter, Articles 1.16 and 1.15. 4 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, Introduction; Evaluating Historic Resources in Alberta, Para 3.1.1. 5 Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes – Defining Landscape Terminology. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://www.nps.gov/history/HPS/hli/landscape_guidelines/index.htm.
73
(Mitchell, 1996). Natural features are also frequently recognized simply because they are not immediately considered part of a cultural landscape.
In fact, the identification of cultural landscapes involves not only defining the physical limits of landscape, that is, the boundaries of the property6 (UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, 2005b), but also recognizing cultural landscapes from other heritage categories and the acknowledgment of its many inherent values. Cultural landscapes have their own right to identification. Many cultural landscapes which contribute to for example, historic areas, are not identified as a resource and are only acknowledged as a secondary attribute.
4.3 Evaluating Cultural Landscapes
4.3.1 Significance and Values of Cultural Landscapes
The process of cultural landscape evaluation enables those responsible to determine what particular qualities and features form the significant character of a cultural landscape. How the existing characteristics and features of a cultural landscape are related to its natural, cultural, historic, or associative contexts determines the significance of that landscape; in some landscapes there are multiple layers of historical significance7 (National Park Service, 1998). Understanding the dynamic nature of
cultural landscapes and the tangible and intangible characteristics that give rise to their
meanings and values is the basis for all protective efforts. The results of the evaluation
process, prepared in the form of the statement of significance, should resonate with the
6 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Para 132.1. 7 NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management – Chapter 7, b.
74 inhabitants of the cultural group(s). In fact they should participate in preparing the statement.
Cultural landscapes are sometimes inadvertently assessed by local experts during the nomination process. Often this emerges during the on-site evaluation of the site after nomination by experts who examine the site to determine whether it meets the criteria of integrity and authenticity set by the World Heritage Committee and its advisory bodies.
If the first step – the primary assessments – is undertaken incorrectly, if the multiple values and associations possessed by cultural landscapes are not fully considered, the second step of evaluation may also fail to consider them. For instance, one cultural landscape may embrace both natural and cultural resources such as wildlife and/or vegetation species, archaeological areas, or continuing traditional land use. If any of the resources are not included in the evaluation process, the evaluation of nominations could also ignore their existence.
Who assesses the values inherent in cultural landscapes and the criteria they use is as important as who decides what is valuable and what values to accept (McMordie,
2007; Weizenegger & Schenk, 2006). Evaluations may be based on the personal values/taste of the evaluator to justify their recommendations. However, the evaluation must consider the values of the local people as well. It must also avoid heritage ‘fashion,’ any personal bias or the planning biases of the evaluators (Lowenthal, 1978).
International organizations and many national heritage institutions have developed series of criteria to be applied in the evaluation process. In theory these criteria comprise or represent the cultural context and are central to how cultural landscapes are identified and their values determined, which landscape components and characteristics
75 are debated, and which physical properties and symbolic meanings are emphasized.
Those applying the criteria must be aware that individuals and groups differ in their perceptions and consequent selection of landscapes (Lowenthal, 1978).
Values and circumstances change, and therefore the evaluation criteria constantly need updates. Parks Canada has integrated ‘change’ into its Guiding Principles and
Operational Policies. If a resource is not believed to be a cultural resource after evaluation, it may be re-evaluated at a later date8 (Parks Canada, 2006). For Parks
Canada, heritage conservation is an ongoing process and is cyclical by nature (2003). The people in charge of identification, evaluation, designation and conservation of heritage properties must always be aware of the need to re-examine their current criteria and approaches.
4.3.2 Importance of Integrity and Authenticity
In the evaluation process, the integrity and authenticity of cultural landscapes must be examined and judged. The 1994 text of the Operational Guidelines requires properties to “meet the test of authenticity in design, material, workmanship, or setting and in the case of cultural landscapes their distinctive character and components” (qtd. in
Cameron, 2008, para. 24 (b)). A cultural landscape must not only be significant according to the evaluation criteria, but also must be able to convey its significance – it must have integrity. That is, it must evidence the statement of significance. The cultural context and type of heritage property (whether a cultural site or a cultural landscape, for instance) is
8 Part III – Cultural Resource Management Policy, 2.2.3.1.
76 crucial in determining its authenticity and the degree of its truthfulness to its values and original state. In other words, evaluating authenticity of cultural landscapes within cultural contexts is as crucial as acknowledging the dynamic nature of cultural landscapes.
The physical features and inherent dynamic character of cultural landscapes must be considered in evaluating their integrity and authenticity. Land use, vegetation, cultural traditions, and ecological communities are all dynamic components of cultural landscapes
(Mitchell, 1996). Because cultural landscapes change more than other types of heritage, the current condition of a given landscape may differ from its original one, and often is still evolving. Therefore, the criteria used for evaluating the integrity and authenticity of cultural landscapes have to be different from those used for other cultural properties and
“must recognize, expect and endorse change” (Andrews & Buggey, 2008, p. 70). In this regard, Mitchell argues that:
A basic framework for assessing and sustaining authenticity of cultural landscapes acknowledges the challenges for preserving a dynamic heritage, recognizes the authenticity of processes that serve to retain a continuity of landscape character and associated intangible values, and sets the stage for innovative approaches to sustaining the relationship of people to place today and into future. A basic framework can guide an analysis of authenticity of cultural landscapes that is based on traditional methodologies yet extends and clarifies it based on the national and international dialogues (2008, p. 27).
Authenticity can be understood through a variety of attributes, including: form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions, techniques and management systems, location and setting, language and other forms of intangible
77 heritage, spirit and feeling and other internal and external factors9 (UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, 2005b). Authenticity can be measured by using different scales such as
“historical accuracy, cultural significance, environmental integrity, spontaneity, honesty
or even an inner feeling” (Martinez, 2003, p. 200). Attributes of authenticity such as spirit
and feeling are important indicators of character and sense of place. Therefore,
authenticity of cultural landscapes, as Mitchell also notes, “represents the interplay of
tangible and intangible values and the dynamic relationship between nature and culture”
(2008, p. 29). It is challenging to consider all of these in the practical applications of the
conditions of authenticity10 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005b). The Nara
Document on Authenticity emphasized that conservation activities should also pay
special attention to the role of authenticity (ICOMOS, 1994, Para 10). Experts at the San
Antonio Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of Cultural
Heritage of the Americas further recognized that:
in certain types of heritage sites, such as cultural landscapes, the conservation of the overall character and traditions, such as patterns, forms, and spiritual values, may be more important than the conservation of the site’s physical features, and as such, may take precedence. Therefore authenticity is a concept much larger than material integrity (Araoz, MacLean, & Day Kozak, 1999, Section B. 3. Authenticity and Material).
Such understanding is critical in assessing authenticity in Aboriginal cultural
landscapes, where the relationship between cultures and places and their continuous
association forms the meaning of such landscapes. Therefore, in assessing authenticity of
9 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Para 82. 10 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Para 83.
78 such landscapes one must recognize the connections between people and the places they value and respect “the cultural contexts to which such places belong, the belief systems associated with them, and the related concepts of land, time, and movement” (Andrews &
Buggey, 2008, p. 63).
Change itself is an important factor and must be considered in evaluating the integrity of cultural landscapes. It is important to take into account changes that affect the values of landscapes in their ‘wholeness’11 (National Park Service, 1998). A series of
qualities are important to the integrity of cultural landscapes; they are critical to defining
its characteristics and significance.12 In testing the condition of the integrity of a cultural
landscape, its “wholeness and intactness” and its “attributes” should be measured13
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005b), while taking into account its dynamic nature.
The relationship between the terms integrity and authenticity is still unclear when they are being applied in relation to cultural landscapes. Sometimes they are used as synonyms (Mitchell, 2008), and in other cases, integrity in cultural landscapes seems more important than authenticity. Rossler observes that in most international and regional meetings on cultural landscapes experts noted that “the test of authenticity is less relevant than the functional, structural, and visual integrity of these large-scale properties, particularly for living cultural landscapes” (2008, p. 48). Therefore, further debates are required to clarify the relationship of integrity and authenticity in cultural landscapes.
11 NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guidelines – Chapter 7, c. 12 National Park Service consider seven aspects in evaluating the integrity of cultural resource: they are Location, design, environment, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. They must all be present to some degree. Section VIII. How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property (National Park Service, 2002). 13 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Para 88.
79
4.3.3 Authentic Relations with Cultural Landscapes
Historic places, including cultural landscapes, are best appreciated if authenticity,
“the essential qualifying factor concerning values”14 (ICOMOS, 1994), is acknowledged
as a key consideration. Indeed, a fundamental issue that underpins the experiencing of
cultural landscapes is authenticity. It is the quality individuals seek as they have
meaningful interactions with place. An authentic relationship with nature and place is one
where the world reflects significance, meaning and value; in other words, one finds
oneself in it (Fowlow, McMordie, & Stein, 1999; McMordie & Stein, 2001). The
authenticity of cultural landscape is necessary in order to have an authentic relation with
the landscape, but it is not enough. Awareness of authenticity is also necessary in order to
have genuine experience in any cultural landscape. The nature and level of authenticity is
the concern of conservation practices, especially when it pertains to experiencing cultural
landscapes and the important feelings linked to that, such as identity, responsibility and
belonging (Burnett, 2001; Gustavsson & Peterson, 2003). An experience is considered an
authentic one only when the relationship with place is authentic and the place itself, and
in fact the qualities and values that inheres in the place, are also authentic. Although most
cultural landscapes change continuously because of their inherent dynamic nature, they
are considered authentic since they possess values and connection with the past. This
experience of place is central to the development of a ‘sense of place’ – all are based on
authenticity (Relph, 1976).
14 The Nara Document on Authenticity, Para. 10.
80
Of course, individuals view and experience cultural landscapes differently. Their attitudes, feelings, thoughts, and experiences have a significant connection to place. A person’s experience of cultural landscapes involves personal engagement, which then stimulates him to reflect on his interpretation of the present opportunities of such places, and to reflect on the nature of social relations and value systems, both in the past and in the present (Relph, 1976). On the other hand, experience is, as a matter of course, determined by the structure of the landscape15 (Appleton, 1975). An individual’s
presence in the landscape does not alter the determinate characteristics of the landscape
(Von Maltzahn, 1994). Some argue, however, that experience is intentional. The structure
of landscape and an individual’s intentions are the origins of the experience of landscape.
4.4 Managing Cultural Landscapes
The way physical spaces are understood determines an individual’s experience,
and therefore this understanding is critical to any planning. Any conservation activity
should recognize the characteristics of a given cultural landscape – its individual identity.
The physical appearance, function and meaning of a cultural landscape, when considered
carefully, create the possibility of a meaningful and authentic experience. Well-conserved
cultural landscapes with a protected sense of identity create basic conditions and make
possible more authentic information about human experience for future generations
(Cameron, 2000). Any conservation strategy must recognize the multiple values of
15 Appleton’s Habitat Theory: "aesthetic satisfaction, experienced in the contemplation of landscape, stems from the spontaneous perception of landscape features which, in their shapes, colours, spatial arrangements and other visible attributes, act as sign-stimuli indicative of environmental conditions favourable to survival, whether they really are favourable or not." (p. 69)
81 landscapes, including their cultural traditions and ecological values. Indeed, any strategy should be based on human values and on how humans view places. In order to develop a successful conservation practice, knowledge of identity must be also addressed (Paarup-
Laursen & Krolgh, 2003). The role of culture in experiencing a place should be also emphasized, since it is through the lens of culture that experiences are identified as valuable. Nevertheless, the “perishability of actual cultures” will remain a major worry of conservation professionals (Appiah, 2005, p. 130).
The primary focus of conservation activity is to respect the past. Mitchell surveys the concept of the past in conservation practices and concludes that in the nineteenth century, the past was considered to be “distant, with lessons to teach generally found in small islands of historic buildings. The past was distinct and separate from the present,” while in the mid-twentieth century, the past became “closer to the present, continuity with the past [was] given more value; past [was] seen as connected with the present with the relevance for the future” (1996, p. 28). Based on this, all present-day conservation activities should pay special attention to the critical role of the concept of the past. Some believe that it is the responsibility of conservationists to leave the inherited heritage at least as rich as it was when it was found (Dworkin in Appiah, 2005). Others argue that when a heritage property is identified and under protection, the nature of the past and its meaning are transformed and their substance, form or relation to the locale is altered.
Lowenthal asserts that “advocates of preservation who adjure us to save things unchanged fight a losing battle, since even to appreciate the past is to transform it”
(Lowenthal, 1979, p. 125). This is even more critical for the category of cultural landscape. Because of their dynamic and evolutionary nature, cultural landscapes are
82 subject to change, that is, the current image differs from the original. This does not suggest that buildings and architectural structures do not evolve – they do change, but at a slower pace – rather it emphasizes that the extent of change is large in cultural landscapes and thus greatly influences their fundamental characteristics.
Increasing threats to the existence of the integrity of cultural landscapes compel conservation, not the management of natural changes over time. Rather the purpose is to forestall the adverse modifications that are destroying rather than contributing to its values and characteristics. A static approach can never be practiced in the conservation of cultural landscapes. Any conservation approach should allow a landscape to continue its evolutionary life while preventing the further growth of potential threats. To Lowenthal, reshaping the heritage of a place is as vital as conserving it. He argues that heritage must be added or it would be lost and that heritage is added to by fabrication (1979). The questions are how much transformation and/or addition is acceptable and whether the nature of such additions to cultural landscapes is comparable to transformation of buildings and monuments. No doubt, any modification must be faithful to the identity of the place. Alterations must be authentic and historically accurate. It remains the responsibility of the conservationists to address this challenge. This leads again to the importance of the concept of authenticity in conservation practices.
As noted earlier, authenticity is one of the major concerns of heritage conservation. Professionals have to consider authenticity not only for objects but also for places and landscapes (Palang & Fry, 2003). In many places, a particular effort has been made to stay true to historical experience. In other cases, in order to recreate the past in the present, time and space have been rearranged. For example, when a building is
83 displaced from its original setting and relocated elsewhere, a new past is created in the new location; however, it can be interpreted and experienced by itself alone.
Nevertheless, this is not always an agreed-upon idea. It can also be argued that this displacement results in discontinuity with the original place.
Protection of cultural landscapes is a serious challenge, and conservation efforts must address a wide variety of issues. Managers of cultural landscapes often seek assistance from conservationists to determine future developments, which are a major threat affecting the experience of place. There are many examples of intrusions which do not consider the values of the place and which could seriously threaten its identity. For instance, the continuous development pressures experienced by Banff National Park of
Canada have led to the limitation of urbanization through management strategies to protect both cultural and ecological values (Feick & Draper, 2001).
In a World Heritage context, the management of cultural landscapes and its effectiveness are determined by the choice of criteria that is made by each country at the beginning for the nomination of each property, the evaluation of advisory bodies of the identified values and the final decision of World Heritage Committee. Those designated criteria are the focus of management planning of World Heritage Sites. Therefore, identification of multiple values of cultural landscapes is a key in their management planning. In other words, if values are identified correctly, the management plan should flow from that in a coherent way. The section on the significance and values of cultural landscapes addressed the role of the people who decide the values of cultural landscapes, which are closely linked to management planning. There are other significant factors that determine which cultural landscape deserves more protection and which one does not and
84 who sets the objectives for the management of cultural landscapes (Weizenegger &
Schenk, 2006).
The three categories of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes differ in terms of their form of management. While they all have the challenge of managing change due to their dynamic systems, each has its own specific issues. The first category, the intentionally designed cultural landscapes, is the least complicated of the three categories.
The second category, the organically evolving cultural landscapes, is difficult to manage because of their living cultures. Associative cultural landscape, the third category, is the most difficult, since it is always a challenge to define the Outstanding Universal Value of the association and to manage the intangible heritage. Although the Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003) was adopted to promote the safeguarding the intangible heritage, conservation and management of historic places with associative values remains a challenge.
4.4.1 Cultural Landscape Management Planning and Conservation
Appropriate management plans must be based on the protection and enhancement of both tangible and intangible values of cultural landscapes and allow for changes that are consistent with their values. Such management frameworks emphasize the protection of the values and characters as well as integrity and authenticity of such resources (Smith
& Associates Contentworks INC., 2004). Different levels of management, from long- term planning to immediate, should receive attention, and all values in cultural landscapes should be considered simultaneously. Only with the acknowledgment of the interrelationship between cultural values and natural systems can effective planning and
85 management of cultural landscapes be possible. In cultural landscape both intangible values and qualities must be integrated into the physical management process.
Cultural landscape management plans benefit from a Statement of Significance.
These should be integrated into the planning proposals in order to prepare a detailed and holistic framework for the implementation of conservation interventions. Any proposal must ensure the protection of values that may be affected. Cultural landscapes are most effectively managed when their values are understood and retained and the integrity of the relationship between people and their environment is maintained.
Management plans must aim to achieve a balance between ongoing use and development and conservation activities, and a balance between nature and culture and participative management (with local people), while addressing all types of values and their physical expression in landscapes. Cultural landscapes certainly require joint management and integrated planning. In preparing cultural landscapes management plans, different perspectives should be acknowledged. The collaboration of all stakeholders (individuals/landowners, NGO’s, agencies/government bodies or departments) in consultation with heritage and cultural landscape specialists – and the local community who have a cultural landscape understanding – is essential to maintaining the heritage values in cultural landscapes. One group can never provide a practical and effective management plan. While cultural groups have certainly shaped cultural landscapes, those who safeguard them also influence their future. All have a common commitment to the site, but they can come into conflict. Involvement of different groups ensures that all meanings are respected and that the legal, emotional and intellectual ownership of all groups is satisfied (Aplin, 2002).
86
Values-based management has emerged in the last decade to respond to the need for identification of values and to broaden the ways in which historic places are looked at, a move from looking at physical resources, built forms and the aesthetics toward looking at cultural, social and associative values. The 1999 Burra Charter of Australia addresses the shortcomings of the existing guidance in the field of heritage conservation. It provides guidance on values-based management of places with tangible and intangible values.
Values-based management is defined as “the coordinated and structured operation of a heritage site with the primary purpose of protecting its heritage significance as defined by designation criteria, government authorities or owners, experts of various kinds, and other citizens with legitimate interests in that place” (R. Mason, 2008, p. 184).
In values-based management different sets of values are identified, and different perspectives are integrated into the outcomes. This is why local consultation and participation are such important parts of any cultural landscape planning activities. For instance, the objective of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta16 Plan of Management states that the plan will continue to consider Aboriginal people’s beliefs and religious interpretation of landscape and nature (Parks Australia, 2000). Such considerations and involvement in the planning of cultural landscapes management must be incorporated at an early stage of the
decision-making process. Most often it occurs too late in the planning process.
Community-based management could be employed as a tool to encourage locals
“to cooperate in both identifying and retaining values and the essential character of places
16 Uluru-Kata-Tjuta in Australia is the second cultural landscape property inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1994.
87 by planning for the future and managing change” (Buggey & Mitchell, 2008, p. 164).
Community involvement responds to the principles of sustainability, and in terms of cultural landscape conservation and management it means inclusion of “multiple ecological, economic, social, and cultural values that are integral to the character of the cultural landscapes and that are integrated into community-based decision making and governance structures” (Buggey & Mitchell, 2008, p. 177). This approach to management of cultural landscapes provides long-term management solutions.17
4.4.2 Managing Change in Cultural Landscapes
Cultural landscapes are diverse, individually distinct and constantly changing, both in their components and in their appearance (Lowenthal, 1978). The changing characteristics of cultural landscapes must certainly be considered in management decisions. Social, economic, environmental, even cultural changes influence landscapes and create patterns that should be managed. The patterns reveal stories of the past, the stories of how and why the changes have happened. Understanding cultural landscapes means understanding the way of life in the past and the decisions made at that time. This is important to a better understanding of the current situation and certainly crucial to better decision making for the future. It is crucial to understand and treat change in
17 Two community-based examples and experiences that have proven themselves are: the Main Street Program of the Heritage Canada Foundation in which local communities were involved in revitalization of the central core of their towns (Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://www.heritagecanada.org/eng/about/hist.html), and the Regional Natural Parks of France that involves local communities and governments in protecting the rural heritage and promote sustainable economic development (“A Regional Nature Park is an inhabited rural area, recognized at a national level for its high heritage and landscape value, which organizes itself around a concerted project of sustainable development, based on the protection and valorisation of its heritage.” Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://www.parcs- naturels-regionaux.fr/fr/approfondir/faq.asp?lang=en).
88 cultural landscapes. Change does not disqualify a landscape in terms of its heritage values. “Change is part of history and, as long as it is not overly out of character, it need not detract from a site’s heritage value, and may even add to significance” (Aplin, 2002, p. 129).
Different types of cultural landscapes face different management issues, and dealing with living cultures and dynamic systems will always remain a challenge.
Besides local changes, global changes have also had a major impact on cultural landscapes and their values. For instance, introduced species and altered grazing patterns have changed agricultural landscapes. These factors must be addressed in management of cultural landscapes. The impact of wars on living cultural landscapes is another irreversible change, particularly when it involves the loss of people with traditional knowledge. Once cultural groups and their traditions are destroyed, they can never be reconstituted. Management planning must ensure that traditional knowledge relating to cultural landscapes is not only maintained, but in fact is transmitted to the next generations so that the system remains alive.
4.4.3 The Role of International Documents and Practices
International conventions, charters and other documents have always acted as prods to nations to improve their heritage practices. Nations, however, have to understand that these documents are only examples and cannot be applied equally to all cultures.
They need to be adopted at national levels and used according to specific context. For instance, the World Heritage Operational Guidelines have tried to clarify heritage categories with examples and sub-categories; however, there might be cases that do not
89 fall within any of those identified categories and still having significant values to their home culture.
Any cultural landscape planning should be based on national planning policy.
National legislative frameworks and international conventions are tools to support management frameworks. Attention should be paid to preparing manuals and guides to assist in cultural landscape recognition and planning. For instance, much of the work can be done through ICOMOS committees which have been created by countries at national level. The Australian Heritage Commission supports community-based landscape and heritage initiatives. The Commission encourages communities to assess, describe and/or document values of local landscapes and their significance. Communities are also encouraged to develop their own measures or sense of the significance of cultural landscapes and to prepare local conservation plans. Such local planning systems are later incorporated in the larger planning process (Nelson & Preston, 2005).
ICOMOS charters adopted by national Committees have influenced international documents and have added a cultural and national flavour to the international world. Not only have the ICOMOS Australia Burra Charter or the Conservation of Places of Cultural
Significance of 1992, or the 1983 Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment of ICOMOS Canada, or the 1992 New Zealand Charter for the
Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value been highly influential in their own countries, they have gained international significance and attention and have been applied in other cultural contexts.
International workshops and their proceedings are also worth noting. The
Persepolis International Expert Workshop for Enhanced Management and Planning of
90
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, for example, was an opportunity provided by
UNESCO World Heritage Centre – in collaboration with the UNESCO Tehran Cluster and the Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicraft and Tourism Organization – to examine and debate, for the first time in Iran, the methodologies and guidelines for advancing the implementation of cultural landscapes strategies and management. Such activities are significant in terms of capacity building by sharing the knowledge from international practices and experiences with the local people.
Management Guidelines developed for IUCN Category V Protected Areas are highly relevant to cultural landscape management strategies that can be adapted to cultural landscape management planning at national levels. Based on the IUCN management guidelines, cultural landscape must also be:
Planned, managed and run with, for, and – in some cases – by local people Run by many partners Conserved and run also with social and economic objectives Managed to help meet needs of local people Planned as part of a national and/or international system Managed as networks instead of just islands Set up for scientific, economic, and cultural reasons beside scenic preservation Managed for visitors and tourists with local people more in mind Managed adaptively with long-term perspective About protection, restoration and rehabilitation Viewed as national and community assets Viewed exclusively as national and international concerns (Beresford & Philips, 2000, p. 19; Phillips, 2002, p. 14).
91
The FAO program on conservation and adaptive management of Globally
Important Agricultural Heritage systems (GIAHS) is another international activity which relates to the management of cultural landscapes. This program, initiated in 2002, focuses on the global recognition, conservation and sustainable management of such systems and their associated landscapes, biodiversity, knowledge systems and cultures (Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2007). The GIAHS initiative plans to serve as a basis for creating a World Agriculture Heritage category in collaboration with other institutions, like UNESCO and the World Heritage Convention, to guarantee the sustainability of these globally important traditional agricultural systems.
4.5 Summary
This chapter discussed the different aspects of conservation of cultural landscapes in practice. It addressed the challenges in identifying multiple values of cultural landscapes. Identification and evaluation of landscape values is a complex process and requires a deep understanding of the concept of cultural landscapes. Successful conservation practices are therefore closely connected to comprehending conceptual frameworks. Cultural landscapes should be evaluated while recognizing their dynamic and ever-changing nature and acknowledging tangible and intangible aspects of place.
The importance of authenticity and integrity in evaluating cultural landscapes as heritage places, and in conservation planning and interpretation programs, was also discussed.
Management of cultural landscapes requires a particular planning framework that both incorporates multiple values and addresses management of change. Cultural landscapes thus demand further development of the existing World Heritage Operational
92
Guidelines as well as national guidelines to incorporate the criteria for management of cultural landscapes; international documents have been usually employed as a tool to encourage national and international dialogues in heritage conservation at different levels of authority.
Chapter Four addressed the challenges confronting cultural landscapes in the real world in terms of identification, conservation and management of their values. While such concerns were discussed in general terms in this chapter, Chapter Five will discuss them at national levels and particularly in relation to Canadian and Iranian approaches toward cultural landscapes. Two examples, Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Canada and Takht-e-Soleyman in Iran, will illustrate the practical challenges involved in conservation of places that could be identified as cultural landscapes.
93
Chapter Five: CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN CANADA AND IRAN
Every view that we take of the world is simply one way of looking at things and there are infinite ways of looking.
A. Watts1
5.1 Introduction
The definition of heritage has changed and expanded over time. It has evolved from being seen only as single properties and buildings and their immediate surroundings to groups of buildings or districts. Evolving over the past decades, the conservation of landscapes of historic and cultural values has also affected the identification of landscapes from gardens to cultural landscapes (Buggey, 1999b). It is important to develop policies and management practices to take account of new heritage categories.
Such policies must certainly integrate conservation of cultural landscapes within their frameworks. Conservation of cultural landscapes requires a framework which recognizes
1 Quoted in Dormaar and Barsh, The Prairie Landscape: Perception of Reality, 2000, p. 23.
94 the relationship between natural and cultural values. What is important in conservation of cultural landscapes is that their values be understood in a comprehensive manner. This approach must acknowledge cultural landscapes as whole entities with multiple values and should include all possible kinds of landscape.
The connection between national heritage practices and international policies is a critical factor in successful conservation activities. The adoption of a framework for cultural landscapes by the World Heritage Convention has influenced landscape conservation in countries worldwide, including Canada and Iran. In order to achieve international success, it is crucial to have a strong and practical national basis. How can a heritage site not be protected at national level according to the local policies and regulations but continue to be a well-conserved world heritage site? Part One of this
Chapter examines the Canadian and Iranian heritage policies and regulations, and Part
Two describes two examples that were inscribed on the World Heritage List based on these national criteria.
95
PART ONE: Canadian and Iranian Heritage Policies and Regulations
5.2 Heritage Conservation in Canada and Iran
5.2.1 A Review of Canadian and Iranian Heritage Organizations Structures
The structures and functions of the respective governments of Canada and Iran have laid out the system of institutions responsible for the conservation of heritage properties. In Canada, there are three levels of government: the federal (national) government, provincial and territorial governments, and local governments. Under the
Canadian constitution, provincial governments are responsible for property rights, but often have to and do act in accordance with national heritage policies when funding is involved. The local authorities, such as municipalities, often will cooperate with other levels of government, particularly when directed by legislation. This hierarchy is also followed in the system of institutions responsible for the conservation of heritage properties. In order to ensure the effective recognition and protection of heritage places and avoid any duplication of effort, it is essential that provincial and territorial governments, local governments and Parks Canada at the national level both formally and informally cooperate with one another. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate the structure of organizations responsible for protection of heritage properties in Canada and the Province of Alberta as an example of provincial structure in Canada.
At the national level in Canada, responsibility for the conservation of historic places and natural areas lies with the Parks Canada Agency. Since December 2003 and after the restructuring of several federal departments and agencies, the Minister of the
Environment is in charge of this Agency, which operates as a separate entity (Parks
Canada, Corporation Plan). Prior to this, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was
96 responsible for the operation of Parks Canada. The agency has both national and international commitments; Parks Canada plays a leading role in the management of natural and cultural heritage areas of national significance. Since 1919 the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC) has advised the federal minister responsible for Parks Canada on commemoration of persons, places and events of national significance. On the other hand, as a contributor to an international heritage agenda, it is also the agency responsible for the protection of the places in Canada that are natural and/or cultural heritage sites of international significance. Parks Canada is the sole agency that works with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, and provinces only nominate sites through Parks Canada, except, of course, for lands that are in title to the federal government, in which case Parks Canada is responsible for nomination.
Government of Canada
Department of Environment
Parks Canada
Natural Parks National Historic Natural Marine Conservation Area Directorate Directorate Sites Directorate
Figure 5.1 Structure of Heritage Organization in Canada – Parks Canada Agency
97
Government of Alberta
Ministry of Culture and Community Spirit
Heritage and Museums
Historic Resources Management Foundation Foundation Land Use Planning Archaeological Survey Aboriginal Consultation Aboriginal Consultation Historic Places Stewardship Alberta Historical Resources
Figure 5.2 Structure of Heritage Organization in the Province of Alberta, Canada
Parks Canada administers three major programs: they include the National Parks of Canada, a country-wide system of representative natural areas of Canadian significance; the National Historic Sites of Canada, which recognizes nationally significant places, persons and events; and the National Marine Conservation Areas, which manages marine areas for sustainable use containing smaller zones of high
98 protection.2 Parks Canada also coordinates several smaller programs which cover part of
the nationwide heritage sites and programs such as the Historic Places Initiative3 (Parks
Canada).
In Alberta, the Historic Resources Management Branch of the Heritage and
Museum Division, previously within the Ministry of Community Development, then the
Ministry of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture, and now under auspices of the
Ministry of Culture and Community Spirit, is responsible for the preservation, protection and presentation of Alberta’s history, culture, provincial parks and protected areas
(Alberta Culture and Community Spirit). The Ministry provides support services to the program divisions and the agencies and foundations for conserving cultural, natural and historical resources in Alberta. The Alberta Historical Resources Foundation,
Archaeology and History, and Protection and Stewardship are among the sections within the Historic Resource Management Branch. Land Use Planning and Aboriginal
Consultation became the new additions to the body of the Branch within Alberta
Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture. It should be noted that each of the Canadian provinces has a distinct approach. While Alberta is not typical, its policies and procedures were examined in more detail, since information on how Alberta manages its historic places was crucial to understand conservation approaches at Head-Smashed-In
Buffalo Jump.
2 National Parks of Canada: Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np- pn/index_E.asp. National Historic Sites of Canada: Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/lhn-nhs/index_E.asp. National Marine Conservation Areas: Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/index_E.asp. 3 Corporate plan 2005/6-2009/10, Retrieved January 23, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/plans/plan2005-2006/sec4/page1_E.asp.
99
The Parks and Protected Areas Network of Alberta safeguards natural features and landscapes that represent the environmental diversity and ecological process of the province, including ecological reserves, wilderness areas, provincial parks, and recreational areas (Swinnerton, 1993). This network has cooperated with the Canadian
Parks Council since 1962 (Canadian Parks Council). Comprising federal, provincial and territorial parks jurisdictions, the previous Federal Provincial Parks Council – now the
Canadian Parks Council (since 2002) – provides coordinated intergovernmental leadership and action on park issues and emphasizes four common areas: protection, heritage appreciation, outdoor recreation, and heritage tourism and the economy (Alberta
Community Development, The Federal Provincial Parks; Canadian Parks Council;
Swinnerton, 1993). Another program, Alberta’s Special Places Initiative, is an effort to expand the Province’s parks and protected areas network. The focus of Special Places
2000 is to establish new protected areas in natural regions in order to present a wider range of protected areas in the network that were previously under-represented (Alberta
Tourism Parks Recreation and Culture, Managing Parks and Protected Areas:
Establishing Protected Areas).
In Iran, there is only one level of government and each ministry has its own office in each province. Provinces in Iran do not have separate legislation. Figure 5.3 illustrates the structure of the Iranian organizations responsible for protection of heritage properties.
The organization responsible for ensuring the protection of all historical monuments and cultural environments is the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization (ICHO), previously within the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance and now a part of the Office of the
100
President.4 Article 3 of the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization constitution outlines
four responsibilities for the ICHO: Research, Supervision, Preservation and
Rehabilitation, and Presentation and Education (Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicrafts
and Tourism Organization; Samadi, 1997, p. 135). In 2004, ICHO and the Iran Tourism
and Touring Organization (ITTO) within the same Ministry merged to form the Iran
Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization (ICHTO). While the ICHO focused merely on the conservation of cultural properties, the new Organization, ICHTO, further extended its area of activities and now integrates heritage tourism into conservation practices. This amalgamation was the result of an economy drive. In 2006, another change was made to the Organization; this time the Iran Handicraft Organization (IHO) – a part of the Ministry of Industries and Mines – was added and the Iran Cultural Heritage,
Handicraft and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO) formed.
The Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization (ICHO) had established provincial and local offices to assist the organization in managing the large number of cultural properties all over the country. They continued their activities, accommodating the activities of provincial offices of the ITTO and IHO within their structure.
4 This means that ICHO was previously a branch of a ministry, then the Head of ICHO became an advisor to the President, the Organization now is at the same level as a Ministry, by itself.
101
Government of Iran
Provincial Cultural Heritage, Handicraft & Offices Tourism Organization
Tourism Directorate Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage Directorate Research Center
Designation Office Office of Office of Conservation & Conservation & Rehabilitation- Rehabilitation- Bldgs & Sites Historic Districts
Figure 5.3 Structure of Heritage Organization in Iran
It would have arguably been more appropriate for the ICHO to join the Iran
Department of Environment (DOE), which could influence the way natural heritage and cultural heritage were approached and could also result in inclusion of more diverse heritage properties. It is within the scope of the Iran Department of Environment (DOE) to identify, designate and protect a site as a natural heritage site at the national level. The
DOE has recognized categories for protection, including National Natural Monuments.
This category applies to exemplary and rare instances of flora, fauna or remarkable land
formations or landscapes or even ancient trees, which are brought under protection by
designating a suitable boundary under the DOE policies and regulations. The other
102 categories involve Protected Areas, Protected Territories, and National Parks5 (Iran
Department of Environment). The recent debates about whether to transfer the
responsibilities of the Iranian Natural Heritage – at national level – from the DOE to the
ICHHTO led the Conservation and Protection of Iranian Natural Heritage Branch of the
ICHHTO to compile the draft of a new regulation for the protection of natural heritage,
which works toward segregating the responsibilities of the two organizations vis-à-vis the
conservation of natural heritage. However, there is as yet no resolution. At an
international level, ICHHTO is supposedly the key player in the identification and
designation of natural heritage even though no nomination has been proposed yet.
In terms of World Heritage Sites in Canada, the Historic Sites and Monuments
Board of Canada (HSMBC) is responsible for advising the Minister on the nomination of
cultural monuments for the World Heritage List. Parks Canada prepares a list in
consultation with the provinces and territories and the HSMBC. As is the case for all
world heritage nominees, in addition to the requirement of being a national historic site of
Canada, the nominees must be on the tentative list and have an adequate management
plan to ensure the continued protection of the values that led to its inscription (Buggey,
2004). In order to determine the inclusion of a historic site on the World Heritage List,
Canada follows the framework outlined in the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, incorporating the anthropological
approach of the World Heritage thematic framework and the defining characteristics of
5 Website of the Iran Department of Environment, Retrieved December 6, 2008, from http://www.irandoe.org/en.
103 temporal, geographical, and spiritual diversity in Canada6 (Buggey, 2004). The first two
World Heritage Sites in Canada were designated in 1978: L’Anse aux Meadows National
Historic Site, a cultural heritage property; and Nahanni National Park, a natural heritage
property. The 2000 National Historic Sites of Canada System Plan for the identification
of Canadian sites of Outstanding Universal Value is consistent with the two principal
themes of the frameworks adopted by the World Heritage Committee in 1994 – that is,
Human Coexistence with the Land, and Human Beings in Society (Buggey, 2004).
The World Heritage Committee of Iran was established in 1976. The first three
sites were inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1979: Meidan Emam, Esfahan;
Persepolis, Shiraz; and Tchogha Zanbil, all cultural heritage sites. Nomination of a
property to be inscribed on the World Heritage List is the responsibility of the Office of
World Heritage Designation within the Department of International Affairs at the
ICHHTO. There is no specific framework for the selection of nominees at national level
to be included in the tentative list other than consultation with provincial offices and
managers of the national heritage sites. ICHHTO approaches heritage properties
following criteria similar to those of the World Heritage’s Operational Guidelines to
evaluate nominees and prepare a tentative list. The manager of the nominated site usually
prepares the application and forwards it to the Head Office. After reviewing the
application, the Office of World Heritage Designation submits the document to ICHHTO
and, through the organization, to the World Heritage Centre.
6 Retrieved February 3, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/spm-whs/itm5-/index_e.asp.
104
It is the two advisory bodies to the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS and
IUCN, who evaluate and make proposals on the designation of World Heritage nominations. ICOMOS Canada is the Canadian National Committee of the International
Council on Monuments and Sites. As such, it is the focus of international cultural resource exchange in Canada, sharing preservation information and expertise worldwide
(ICOMOS Canada). In addition, Canada is working with the World Conservation Union
– IUCN – through the IUCN Canada Office, which is actively involved in IUCN’s global programs.
As a member of UNESCO, Iran also has an ICOMOS National Committee, which has adopted its own rules of procedure and has elaborated its own program according to the goals and aims of ICOMOS. Iran is an IUCN WESCANA regional member
(West/Central Asia & North Africa). Iran, through this centre located in Jordan, coordinates its programs with regard to protected areas. National committees and regional members are supposed to collaborate with the national organizations or agencies responsible for heritage properties nominations to the World Heritage Committee and national heritage conservation activities.
5.2.2 Canadian and Iranian Definitions of Heritage Properties
Protection of heritage properties is almost impossible if no definition of heritage is in place to explain concepts. When heritage and its different categories are defined, values and characteristics of such places are clarified. Different cultural groups define heritage properties differently based on their cultural backgrounds and values.
105
In the Canadian context, historic place means “a site, building or other place of national historic interest or significance, and includes buildings or structures that are of national interest by reason of age or architectural design”;7 and equally, national historic
site means “a place designated under subsection (2) or a national historic site of Canada
to which the Canada National Parks Act applies”8 (Department of Justice Canada, 1985,
1998). Canada National Parks Act of 1930 (with its 1988 amendment) provides legislation for protection of Canada National parks (Eagles, 1993).
Article 1 of the 1988 Constitution of the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization indicates that “cultural heritage includes all the properties that remain from past generations. Such properties demonstrate human beings’ development throughout history, by studying how cultural identity and cultural path are recognized and by creating a means of learning from the past” (quoted in Samadi, 1997, p. 131). According to this definition, any structure, site, inscription, group of buildings, historic districts and, in general, any tangible and intangible property that manifests part of human beings’ socio- cultural life during history in the Iranian territory, or any symbol which demonstrates art, innovation, and the evolutionary development of human beings’ socio-cultural life in different periods of history, could be named historic property and considered a part of
Iranian cultural heritage.
The term cultural landscape was first used in the 1990s by Parks Canada and the
Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC). Parks Canada defines cultural
7 Historic Sites and Monuments Act, Section 2, Retrieved January 11, 2006, from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/h-4///en. 8 Parks Canada Agency Act, Section 2.1. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/p-0.4///en.
106 landscapes as “any geographical area that has been modified, influenced, or given special cultural meaning by people” (Parks Canada, 2006). Parks Canada’s Standards and
Guidelines describe landscapes in the Guidelines for Landscape as:
exterior spaces that have been assigned cultural (including spiritual) meaning, such as an Aboriginal sacred site, or have been deliberately altered in the past for aesthetic, cultural, or functional reasons, such as a city park, a cemetery or a backyard garden. Landscapes include land patterns, landforms, spatial organization, and vegetation. They also include related circulation systems, water features, built features, and views or other visual relationships (2003).
The first major document on planning for cultural landscapes that recognizes
Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes as heritage sites was prepared in 1999 by the HSMBC
(Buggey, 1999a). Parks Canada has acknowledged cultural landscapes at national level and has provided a definition for culturally significant landscapes, even though it can be considered important in supporting provincial, territorial and local authorities for identification and conservation of cultural landscapes; however, official commitment is still a requirement. Heritage sites in Canada are only categorized as either national parks or national historic sites. In the Province of Alberta, sites are only categorized as
Provincial Historic Resources, Registered Historic Resources, Municipal Historic
Resources, or as heritage areas. The Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, on the other hand, remains silent and has yet to offer a definition for cultural landscape.
5.2.3 Heritage Designation Process in Canada and Iran
Designation of a cultural property as a place of significant historic value is a key step toward its conservation. Designation provides legal frameworks that manage any
107 disturbance in cultural resources, including cultural landscapes. Based on the World
Heritage Operational Guidelines, Annex 3, many nationally designated sites (in both
Canada and Iran), are qualified to be identified as cultural landscapes, including many
Aboriginal places that could be looked at as associative cultural landscapes – category III of the World Heritage Cultural Landscapes – or numerous Persian gardens that could be classified under category I – landscape designed and created intentionally by man
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005b). However, this has not happened; Canadian and Iranian organizations follow their respective national criteria, which do not isolate cultural landscapes.
In Canada as well as Iran, consideration of heritage designations at the national level is performed on a case-by-case basis. The process of designation varies due to differences in organizational structure, but the processes have one point in common: in both countries, they can be initiated by anyone interested in cultural resources.
In Canada, the HSMBC considers recommendations respecting the marking or commemoration of historic places (Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada). Any
Canadian can suggest a topic for consideration by the Board by completing an application according to the framework developed by the Board as Information Requirement for a
Nomination. The proponent is responsible for preparing the application and submitting it to the HSMBC. The Board has outlined a set of criteria for the qualified places, persons or events for designation. Figure 5.4 briefly depicts the processes in both countries.
108
Iran Alberta Canada
Proposing a property Proposing a property Proposing a property to a to to Provincial Office Historic Resource Management Branch Executive Secretary of HSMBC
Application Prepared Application Prepared Application Prepared by by by Conservation Dept. of the Provincial Office proposing person/party proposing person/party
Review & evaluation Evaluation Review by by by Head of the Provincial Office Historic Resource Management Branch HSMBC
Recommendation Recommendation to Recommendation to Ministry of Culture and Community Spirit to Designation Council Ministry of Environment
Final review Final review Final review by by by Designation Council Ministry of Culture and Community Spirit Minister of Environment
Designation Designation Designation as a as a as a National Property Provincial Historic Resource National Historic Site
Figure 5.4 Heritage Designation Process in Iran, Alberta and Canada
At a provincial level, similarly, the first step to ensure the conservation of a
historic resource in Alberta is to designate it as a Provincial Historic Resource (PHR)
under the Historic Resources Act. The other levels of designation include Registered
Historic Resource (RHR) and Municipal Historic Resource (MHR). PHR and RHR
designations are the prerogative of the provincial government. MHR designations result
from the passage of municipal by-laws. The use of RHR category was discontinued since
2004 since it provided limited protection. Previously designated RHR will be considered
for possible upgrading to PHR. The Province has promoted greater municipal
engagement in Heritage Resource Management by suggesting a more vigorous role for
them. The differentiation between provincial and municipal historic resources lies in the
109 context within which an historic place finds its significance. The Historic Resources Act has not provided criteria as to what constitutes a PHR or MHR; the Heritage Resource
Management Branch has recently established an evaluation process for the designation of historic resources.9
Canadian national and provincial jurisdictions are respectful of each other’s ability to work independently with regard to heritage designations. While the national government keeps provinces informed of which places they propose to evaluate as
National Historic Sites and value their input, provincial concurrence is not required.
Designation by provinces as a Provincial Historic Resource is not a prerequisite for national designation. It should be clarified that National Historic Sites Designation of property does not protect the site. The site would have to be federally owned in order to
be under protection; privately owned National Historic Sites which are not protected by
either PHR or MHR designations have no protection at all.
The Canadian Register of Historic Places (CRHP) is a Federal-Provincial-
Territorial Collaboration which includes a comprehensive view of historic places formally recognized by different levels of governments in Canada. It aims to identify, promote and honour historic places through its support of heritage and conservation programs (Historic Places Initiative; Tracy, 2005).
In Iran, properties are designated only at one level, the national level, and the process is entirely the responsibility of provincial offices. The process of designation in the National Heritage List remains the same even after the establishment of the ICHHTO.
9 Laurence Pearson, Alberta Community Development. Personal Communication, January 24, 2006.
110
While any individual can initiate a designation file in Iran, the responsibility for evaluating the proposal and preparing the designation file falls within the provincial offices of ICHHTO. The provincial offices then submit the file to the Designation Office within the Cultural Heritage Department in ICHHTO.
Clearly, the structure of heritage organizations in Canada and Iran has influenced the designation process. While Iran has simply one level of heritage governance and designation, Canada has to work back and forth within its multi-jurisdiction system.
Successful achievements in Canada are the result of continuous collaboration among different levels of authorities. Without proper communication among national, provincial and local jurisdictions, resources would have been wasted and departmental overlaps would have caused serious unresolved conservation issues.
5.2.4 Conservation Approaches
Canadian and Iranian guidelines for the conservation of their heritage properties, in particular their World Heritage properties, have followed the approach of the World
Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines. The Canadian approach to landscape conservation was not, according to Buggey,10 a solely home-grown product.
Like architectural preservation, it was heavily influenced by American developments but
10 Susan Buggey, a Canadian Cultural Landscape expert, has been actively involved in development of the concept of cultural landscapes at the international level and has participated in numerous World Heritage expert meetings and workshops. She is also a key advisor to Parks Canada in development of the idea of cultural landscape in the Canadian context. She has had a lead role in advocating the conservation of cultural landscapes of Canada and in Particular Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes, through her many publications, meetings, and workshops.
111 of course through collaboration. Canadians also considered the approaches taken in other countries such as England, France, Germany and Spain (Buggey, 1999b).
The Canadian approach to the identification and conservation of cultural landscapes, as with other heritage places, is primarily values-based – values such as natural, historical, cultural, associative and symbolic. The focus on the historical association of places has evolved to a focus on place as a physical resource and eventually to a focus intertwining the two – that is, the associative and intrinsic values of place.
At the national level in Canada, the HSMBC has developed specific guidelines for the designation of cultural landscapes of national historic significance. There are guidelines for the identification and assessment of parks and gardens,11 rural historic
landscapes,12 and Aboriginal cultural landscapes.13 Buggey notes that at the national level
Parks Canada's Cultural Resource Management Policy is thoughtfully based on
international experiences and directions from the past few decades.14 This policy addresses the conservation of cultural landscapes and focuses on cultural resources in terms of physical resources that have historical association (Parks Canada, 2006). It also emphasizes a holistic approach that integrates conservation and presentation. One of the challenges for cultural landscapes lies in trying to apply this policy to places where the important values are primarily intangible, such as many Aboriginal cultural landscapes.
Applying the Cultural Resource Management policy to all activities that affect the
11 One category of designed landscapes, 1994. 12 One category of evolved continuing landscapes, 1994. 13 One type of associative cultural landscape, 1999. 14 Susan Buggey, Personal Communication, September 7, 2005.
112 cultural resources administered by Parks Canada has meant that the identification of heritage value has become the primary action or activity.
The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada is a recent development. The U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings, were used as a basis to develop Parks Canada
Standards and Guidelines. The Standards and Guidelines aim primarily to “provide sound, practical guidance to achieve good conservation practice” (Parks Canada, 2003).
Common ground on heritage shared by the federal, provincial and territorial governments enabled them to agree on these Standards and Guidelines, including the guidelines for archaeological sites and landscapes.
The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada are the basis for conservation in Alberta as well as in other provinces. The primary concern of the Protection and Stewardship section includes buildings and their restoration and preservation; cultural landscapes have not been mentioned directly15 (Alberta
Community Development). Indeed, the cultural heritage conservation practices in
provinces and territories also comply with the Standards and Guidelines. These Standards
and Guidelines deal with both the tangible and intangible aspects of historic places –
physical aspects of historic places and their non-physical associations.
15 Provincial Designation Program, Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/preserving/heritage/pands/designation/index.asp.
113
In the case of Iran, the first law relating to cultural heritage was the Conservation of National Properties Act (Antiquities Act) of 1930. Its Operational Guidelines were approved by the Parliament in 1932. Article 1 of the Antiquities Act defines the cultural property with two conditions of ‘location’ and ‘date’ of creation. According to this Act, all properties within the geographical boundaries of Iran which were created prior to the end of the Zand dynasty (c 1820) are considered cultural heritage. In 1973, by approval of the Designation of National Properties Act, the ‘date’ condition was extended to cover even contemporary properties (Samadi, 1997, p. 132). In 1979, Iran ratified the
Prevention of Illicit Excavations Bill. According to this bill, a property should be at least
100 years old in order to be recognized as a cultural-historical property. This is in line with UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage Convention and corresponds to international legal regulations. However, existing national programs in Iran do not adequately address cultural landscapes. The ICHHTO’s historic conservation policies and regulations with respect to historic landscapes fall short of the effort expanded for historic buildings and archaeological sites.
One significant attempt by the ICHHTO to address cultural landscape protection was the development of a program on the Presentation and Enhancement of Historical
Gardens, Sites and Places in Iran. Even though only one type of cultural landscapes was included in this program (the Persian gardens), it was considered a significant shift in the
ICHO’s approach toward heritage conservation activities. Prior to this, the major focus of the Organization has been buildings, structures and monuments. Historic gardens were, and very often still continue to be, only acknowledged as heritage sites, and only if accommodating a structure. This program appreciated gardens as cultural landscapes with
114 values beyond architectural values. The Deputy of Training and Presentation was one of the three main specialized departments in the ICHO. Within this department, a Technical
Office functioned as the core of the program. This program was a remarkable effort to broaden the concept of ‘presentation’ from the field of moveable properties to all types of cultural properties, including gardens, historical places, and archaeological sites.
Focusing on the ‘presentation’ of a historic property as the main aim, the program also emphasized the identification of historic properties and their presentation to audiences in order to increase public awareness.
The program recognized that the existing practices in the field of cultural heritage had only included excavation, restoration and rehabilitation. The new approach introduced presentation and considered every aspect of conservation and research. The primary idea for the development of this program was that “the proper presentation of a monument is the expression of its historical, cultural, and specific values” (Technical
Office of the Deputy of Training and Presentation - Iranian Cultural Heritage
Organization). It was noted in the program that the presentation plan should consist of all the necessary measures, including study, research, policy-making, planning and design.
Due to the recent changes in the ICHHTO’s organizational structure, this program has ceased to function.
5.2.5 Challenges of Heritage Conservation in Canada and Iran
Significant differences exist not only between the respective organizational structures in the Iranian and Canadian agencies but also in the level of policy-making and planning. As Cameron suggests, it is important first to evaluate the level of responsibility
115 given to institutions in the conservation of historic properties over the past few decades and then determine possible directions for future (Cameron, 2000). Much less attention has been paid in Canada to conservation than to identification, and most of this attention has been – and continues to be – focused on buildings rather than cultural landscapes.
Buggey believes this situation is by no means unique to Canada. The complexities of cultural landscapes – including values, issues, stakeholders and jurisdictions – have been prohibitive factors for their preservation.16 The Iranian approach to the conservation of
cultural landscapes faces these and even greater issues.
In terms of Iranian conservation practices, the existing framework must be
significantly modified and developed further in order to incorporate conservation of
cultural landscapes. Establishing a well-defined policy framework, then the policy and
then plans should be the priority of concern. Since cultural landscapes are not clearly
defined, the new framework should provide a comprehensive definition of cultural
landscapes, create a methodology for identifying and evaluating their significances, and finally develop an ongoing management planning system and understandable and practical national conservation standards. Iranian efforts to protect cultural landscapes require a policy which mandates the recognition and protection of the significant natural, historic, archaeological, ethnographic, and cultural values of a landscape.
The future of cultural landscape protection in Iran will only improve through the development of the concept and terminology and guidelines for applying conservation standards on cultural landscapes by working closely with national professionals and
16 Susan Buggey, Personal communication, September 7, 2005.
116 international networks, by collecting more information nationwide on cultural landscapes, by establishing a national centre or research initiatives that could survey cultural landscapes and by developing landscape management policies. Management plans based on local and national consensus is believed to be the key to the successful conservation of cultural landscapes, but the question remains as to whether this approach is applicable in all countries.17
The other major issues in conservation of any cultural and natural heritage in Iran
include the inaccessibility of information for people involved in making decisions, and a
lack of resources. Parks Canada provides funding for the purpose of safeguarding
national properties. One example is Parks Canada’s 1987 National Historic Sites of
Canada Cost-Sharing Program, which “provides financial contributions to owners of non-
federally administered national historic sites to undertake projects aimed at preserving
and presenting these special places for the benefit of Canadians”18 (Parks Canada). At a
different level, for example in the Province of Alberta, financial assistance is available
through the grant programs of the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation to
organizations and individuals for heritage preservation initiatives19 (Alberta Culture and
Community Spirit).
ICHHTO needs to encourage the development of proposals for programs that
develop a nationwide understanding of Iranian cultural landscapes. By enhancing the
17 In Iran community decision making is in its very first steps, while in Canada community-based planning is very common, although the degree of its success is not clear yet. 18 Working Together, Retrieved January 15, 2006, from, http://www.pc.gc.ca/intro/bienvenue- welcome/itm7-travail-working/travail-working1_e.asp. 19 Retrieved January 8, 2009 from, http://culture.alberta.ca/ahrf/default.aspx.
117 exchange of information and expertise, such programs will study the effects of policy on cultural landscapes. Programs such as the Historic Places Initiative in Canada could be an example. It is a collaboration of local, provincial, territorial and federal governments that has created the tools (such as the Canadian Register of Historic Places, and Standards and
Guidelines) and provided the information for Canadians to share. This initiative has, for example, provided the guidance necessary for conservation of historic places of significant values through online resources.
It is essential to increase conservation knowledge not only within countries but also at trans-national levels. Other countries' experiences and skills can be very informative (Fairclough, Greorge Lambrick, & David Hopkins). One example is the
Historic Landscape Characterisation Program (HLC), a national program of England, which reacts to the traditional designation system. According to this program, designation has been successful in the case of buildings and monuments but could not be effective for historic landscapes. The main goal of HLC is “to characterize the distinctive historic dimension of today’s urban and rural environment within a given area” (Clark,
Darlington, & Fairclough, 2004, p. 6). The other example is the Cultural landscape
Report (CLR) used by National Park Service as a primary guide to treatment of cultural landscapes in America (Slaiby & Mitchell, 2003). The Cultural Landscape Report
“documents the characteristics, features, materials, and qualities that make a landscape eligible for the National Register” (National Park Service, 1998, NPS-28, Chapter 7, B-
3). While HLC focuses on historic landscapes as a whole, CLR addresses an entire landscape or individual features within it. However, both, as starting points for the
118 protection of cultural landscape, have achieved success by providing background knowledge which addresses the issues surrounding cultural landscapes.
Canadians have participated actively in the international heritage conservation and cultural landscape scene and have shared their experiences with other countries. They have reflected on and applied experiences from current developments worldwide to
Canada. Some argue that they have not been very successful because of problems with the dissemination of information, and a failure to recognize the unique Canadian context
(Amos, 1996). Even so, it is important that the information and knowledge are transmitted to all other levels of governments, provincial and local, despite the fact that these governments have their own heritage conservation legislation and programs.
Parks Canada’s “Standards and Guidelines” is an important document in cultural resource management, which places Canada ahead of the Iranians’ efforts. The conservation and appropriate future use of historic places can be ensured by partnerships, shared knowledge and collective action. Therefore, it is the responsibility of governments at all levels to foster private sector participation in the stewardship of historic places; for example, in Canada through tax incentives, and grants. Cameron suggests that universities should be encouraged to participate as a response to the multidisciplinary demands of heritage conservation as well as the establishment of non-governmental alliances. She also acknowledges the importance of government leadership. In addition,
Cameron argues that “most if not all jurisdictions in Canada have either weak policies or no policies at all to look after the historic places under their direct stewardship” (2000, p.
93). However, in comparison with the Iranian authorities, Canada would appear to have been more successful.
119
PART TWO: Illustrative Examples
5.3 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Canada and Takht-e-Soleyman in Iran
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Canada and Takht-e-Soleyman in Iran are two examples that have been selected in order to gain a deeper understanding of each country’s approach toward heritage conservation. There are several reasons for these choices. These two sites differ in their appearances and physical features: Takht-e-
Soleyman has considerable ancient architectural remains while Head-Smashed-In has little left of its camp sites. In Head-Smashed-In, intangible aspects are as strong as its tangible and physical ones. On the other hand, in Takht-e-Soleyman, tangible values are the dominant aspect of the site. However, they possess many common points in terms of their many other heritage characteristics and associative values. Natural features have been the primary reasons these locations were selected by Aboriginal peoples and
Zoroastrians with respect to their beliefs and traditions. They are both located in rural settings, and the main activities are ranching at Head-Smashed-In and agriculture at
Takht-e-Soleyman. Both sites are the best protected cases of their types. They are both
World Heritage Cultural Heritage Sites; neither has been identified as cultural landscapes, yet they both fulfill the criteria for recognition as such. Table 5.1 provides further information on Head-Smashed-In and Takht-e-Soleyman.
120
Table 5.1 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Canada and Takht-e-Soleyman in Iran Name Head-Smashed-In Takht-e-Soleyman
Type Archaeology – Buffalo Jump Archaeology – Sanctuary
Age ca. 5700 Years ca. 2800 Years
Location Alberta – Canada West Azarbayjan – Iran
Context Rural Rural
National Historic Site of Canada / National Status & National Historic Site of Iran Provincial Historic Resource of Alberta Date of Inscription 1931 1968 / 1979
International Status & World Heritage Site World Heritage Site
Date of Inscription 1981 2003
World Heritage Cultural Heritage Property Cultural Heritage Property
Criteria C (vi) C (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)
Cultural Landscape Organically Evolved Cultural Associative Cultural Landscape Recognition Landscape (Continuing & Relict)
Natural, Cultural, Historical, Natural, Cultural, Religious,
Values Associative, Archaeological & Historical, Architectural &
Ethnological Archaeological
Potential Functions Cultural, Scientific, Research Cultural, Scientific, Research
Accessibility Easily accessible Easily accessible
Tourist facilities Well-equipped, Well-designed Poorly-equipped, Poorly-designed
For the purpose of the study of the illustrative examples, existing literature and documents were thoroughly reviewed. Site visits were crucial in better understanding of the documents and the informants’ comments, and in linking the reality of the sites to theoretical concepts. Visits to the sites were important because they provided the
121 opportunity to closely observe the features of the sites, to examine the values of the sites, to feel the sense of place, to take note of the visitors’ facilities and the ways of interpretation and presentation of the sites, and finally to understand the effectiveness of conservation and management plans. During the visits to the sites, numerous photographs were taken as a tool to support the observations from the site visits. Photographs are important in terms of illustrating the features of the properties, and visual data is a very broad category which can encompass anything from videos to photographs to onsite observational data such as signs (Silverman, 2005).
Photographs were taken based on the purpose of the research. The overall views of the landscapes were photographed to provide pictorial evidence in examining the integrity of the landscapes, the relationships between their elements, their patterns and contexts. Detailed photos were also taken of features and elements of the landscapes, and each integral part of the whole landscape. These were very instrumental in conveying the information to others who have not been to the sites. Admittedly, photographs cannot really create an original experience; however, they are helpful in visualizing what is being discussed.
5.3.1 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: A Cultural Heritage Site of Canada
5.3.1.1 Introduction
In south-west Alberta, the remains of marked trails and an aboriginal camp, and a tumulus where vast quantities of buffalo (American Bison) skeletons can still be found, are evidence of a custom practised by aboriginal peoples of the North American plains for nearly 6,000 years. Using their excellent knowledge of the topography and of buffalo behaviour, they killed their prey by chasing them over a
122
precipice; the carcasses were later carved up in the camp below.20
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump – in Blackfoot estipah-sikikini-kots meaning
‘where he got his head smashed in’ – is located northwest of the town of Fort McLeod in
southern part of the Province of Alberta and on the south-eastern edge of the Porcupine
Hills where the Rocky Mountains meet the Great Plains (Figure 5.5). There the prevailing
westerly winds, the frequent winter Chinooks, and the grasslands produced the key winter
range for the plains bison. The dependable winds also helped the Aboriginal people develop the systems for driving the bison to the cliff site.
Figure 5.5 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, Alberta, Canada21
20 Brief description at the World Heritage Centre website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/158/. 21 Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.head-smashed-in.com/info.html.
123
In 1968, the Federal Government of Canada declared Head-Smashed-In Buffalo
Jump a National Historic Site, and in 1979 the Government of Alberta designated Head-
Smashed-In a Provincial Historic Resource. Its designation by the Province resulted in the enforcement of numerous land use controls through related municipal and provincial legislation to ensure that no development took place within appropriate land use control zones. In 1981, Head-Smashed-In was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List as a Cultural Heritage Site. Photographs of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump are presented on pages 140-145.
5.3.1.2 Heritage Values of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
The very long process of interaction between climate, vegetation and animals has created the present day geology and topography of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
(Sandalack, 1988). Everything conspired at Head-Smashed-In to make the jump work.
The social organization of the Aboriginal people, combined with their intimate knowledge of animal behaviour and the site’s natural features, turned the entire landscape into a natural buffalo kill site. Indeed, the life of the Blackfoot people was based on the bison; they moved seasonally between summer and winter camps. Their familiarity with the geography, with the climate and the weather patterns, is symbolized by Head-
Smashed-In – a perfect adaptation of communal hunting techniques to a unique environment (Alberta Historic Resources Management, 1980; Revees, 1978).
This fairly extensive site, covering about ten square kilometres, includes the gathering basin leading to the drive lanes22 (the lines of rocks that have been laid out), the
22 Small cairns of rock delineated the main routes by which buffalo would be directed down over the cliff.
124 sandstone cliff (about 300 meters long and more than 9-18 meters high), the kill sites at the bottom of the cliff edge and the nearby processing campsite. There is also a connection down the various coulees, to the Old Man River Valley, the wintering grounds of the Blackfoot peoples – the Siksikaitsitapi.
The key feature of Head-Smashed-In’s natural landscape is the area that lies behind to the west of the buffalo jump – the gathering basin – a huge, natural, bowl- shaped depression that is about 36 square kilometres in size, the drainage basin of Olsen creek (Alberta Historic Resources Management, 1980). It acted as a natural trap – rich in grass and abundant water – to help contain the buffalo. The buffalo were rounded up from this area and then moved toward the cliff, and forced over the cliff to be butchered by the native hunters. There is a permanent stream that flows through the area. In this confined area the buffalo was almost always present – attracted by excellent grazing in the summer and in winter because of the warm Chinook winds. The hunters used this landscape to their advantage (Figure 5.6).
125
Figure 5.6 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: Gathering Basin and Drive Lanes23
There are many buffalo jumps across Canada, mostly in the West, and many of them consist of simply a cliff and behind the cliff a stretch of broad, flat prairie, a relatively undifferentiated landscape which makes it very hard to drive the animals. There was often nothing more than a cliff in the natural world that would help hunters. But at
Head-Smashed-In, there is the cliff and then behind it a massive area that is all designed perfectly to help the hunters. While many of the jumps across Canada were used once or twice or so, the natural formations surrounding Head-Smashed-In meant it was used hundreds, possibly thousands of times. The reason it was so successful and so valuable to
23 Adopted from Makale & Kyllo Planning (1980), Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: Interpretive Concept.
126 the Aboriginal people is that the natural landscape that lies behind the jump was ideally suited to facilitate the hunt. Without the natural formations behind the jump, it would have been a very average buffalo jump.24
The jump lies 3.2 kilometres east of the basin and is separated from it by a
highland with two passes. The basin allowed the hunters to use the highland on all sides
and to surround the herds and lead buffalo from the basin to the jump through a series of
drive lanes that are defined by more than 500 small man-made stone cairns, each about
one meter in diameter along three major drive lanes, each reaching some 10 kilometres or
more west of the kill site (Alberta Historic Resources Management, 1980).
In terms of the anatomy of the jump, the direction that the slope of the jump faces
in relation to the direction of the prevailing winds is important to the success of the site.
The winds blow away from the jump and cannot carry the stench of butchering back to
the herd. Another interesting part of the morphology of the site is that the hill crests and then comes down at the kill site. This creates a wonderful optical illusion, for animals like the bison with poor eyesight, of a continuous plain without a cliff. There are numerous kill sites along the bottom of the cliff, but two are prominent – Head-Smashed-
In and the Calderwood Site.
There is clearly a landscape component to this site. The landscape of the Head-
Smashed-In is deeply carved by coulees and drainage courses common to most prairie
landscapes. These contain bushes and small trees which provide shelter for animals
24 Jack Brink, Personal Communication, November 10, 2006.
127
(Makale & Kyllo, 1980). Its natural topography was vital to its successful use and to the story. It is a natural landscape that figures prominently in the cultural resources. The cultural and the natural elements coincide in this landscape. The great antiquity on the site – it has seen over 5700 years of use – is one of the key elements that helps define it as a cultural landscape. The use of the site lasted until the abandonment of the jump about
125 years ago with the virtual extinction of the Canadian plains buffalo, due in large part to intensive harvesting. The other key factor is that the site is extremely rich in archaeological material. There are deep layers of buried buffalo bones, stone tools and other domestic artefacts that all tell the story of how Aboriginal people managed the hunt.
The main locations for archaeological work are the kill sites and the camp grounds where they processed the animals.
The cliff has particular meaning to the Aboriginal peoples and therefore becomes a cultural feature. The drive lanes and now the interpretive center are also key cultural elements of the site. There are other associated cultural features: the vision quest site, a ceremonial location at the southern tip of the cliff side where members of the community sought “a direct relationship to spiritual forces without the benefits of human intermediary” to gain a personal revelation (Dormaar & Barsh, 2000, p. 16), and the petroglyphs, and rock carvings. To the Aboriginal people all of these sites were not only a practical place of sustenance, but also a spiritual place created by Napi – the Old Man, a key folklore and spiritual figure to the Blackfoot. The Old Man made the people, animals and birds, rivers, mountains and prairies, and covered the plains with grass for animals to feed on (Grinnell, 1962). Head-Smashed-In is referred to in one of the Blackfoot creation myths recorded by Grinnell. In this myth, Napi created the people at the Porcupine Hills
128 and taught them how to jump buffalo. Buffalo hunting provided the Aboriginal peoples a framework for socio-economic organization. Many of their rituals, ceremonies, myths, superstitions, taboos and visions were manifestations of the supreme importance of the buffalo in their life (Brink, 2008). There is also a strong visual connection between Head-
Smashed-In and Chief Mountain, further south on the U.S./Canadian border, another feature of religious and spiritual significance frequented by native peoples for vision quests and prayers. This visual link is also important in terms of the native spirituality.
5.3.1.3 Blackfoot Way of Life
Aboriginal people possess traditional knowledge which is crucial in understanding their relationship with the landscape. Traditional Knowledge is:
… knowledge that drives from, or is rooted in the traditional way of life of Aboriginal people. Traditional Knowledge is the accumulated knowledge and understanding of the human place in relation to the universe. This encompasses spiritual relationships, relationships with the natural environment and the use of natural resources, relationships between people, and is reflected in language, social organizations, values, institutions, and laws25 (Government of Northwest Territories quoted in Buggey, 1999a).
The Blackfoot people believe in the spiritual nature of all aspects of the world,
including the sun, the constellations, animals, plants, waterfalls, and thunder, etc., and
have an ability to connect with nature through prayer and vision. The Blackfoot people
respectfully interact with natural features and base all of their ethical and moral
25 Parks Canada Website, Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/r/pca-acl/index_e.asp.
129 behaviours on such a belief system. They arrange their life in accordance “with their observations of the natural world and the understanding of their relationship with the environment” (Bastien, 2005, p. 12).
The buffalo had a very significant spiritual influence on the lives of the Blackfoot.
The story of the creation of the Siksika Nation by Natosi Sun exemplifies the importance of buffalo. Natosi mixed earth and clay and dust and water, gathered buffalo bones and tied them together to create Man and named him Siksika, the people with black feet
(Canada Heritage Foundation in Dormaar & Barsh, 2000). The buffalo is described as a
‘walking department store,’ since it not only provided food but other resources for everyday life such as for clothing, shelter, and tools (Grinnell, 1962). Even though
Aboriginal peoples have differing creation stories based on their ecological settings, the stories have common themes and illustrate the relationship of the Blackfoot to the land, the buffalo, the plants and other animals. These relationships were necessary to sustain physical as well as spiritual life.
When the first white people arrived in the area, a new Eurocentric worldview – "a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and people’s relation to it” – was developed which changed the way of life of Aboriginal people. Land which gave everything to Aboriginal people and was a highly respected part of their life changed from being inhabited to being owned and changed from being a community resource to a commodity (Dormaar & Barsh, 2000, p. 1).
The native peoples developed complicated but effective means for communal hunting involving a variety of methods, such as the use of natural traps (box canyons, arroyos, and wetlands), the construction of corrals or pounds, and the use of hillsides or
130 cliffs as jumps. They used their intimate knowledge of bison behaviour and their seasonal movements to produce social and technological systems for the communal hunt, allowing development of sophisticated ‘bison drive systems’ (Alberta Historic Resources
Management, 1980).
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump represents a significant testament to the unique culture, history and lifestyle of the Aboriginal people of the Great Plains and indeed, the
Blackfoot way of life; one of the three tribes composing the Blackfoot Nation, the Peigan
Indians, have been living in this area for centuries. When the buffalo disappeared in the end of 1879, the Aboriginal people of the area, who used to live on the land and move in, around and through the landscape, were forced to settle on reserves and adopt a completely different agricultural lifestyle (Wormington & Forbis, 1965).
5.3.1.4 Management and Planning Context
Conservation Tools and Strategies
Head-Smashed-In is a National Historic Site of Canada owned by the Province.
The federal government only commemorates sites and has no regulatory authority, unless
the site is owned by the federal government. The fact that Head-Smashed-In was largely
intact was the main reason for its successful nomination. To prevent inappropriate
development, the first protective tool at Head-Smashed-In was its Provincial Historic
Resource status. Nothing physical and, in some cases, visual can happen to the designated
land that is owned by the government without the permission of the Minister responsible.
One successful example of the power of designation is reflected in the TransAlta
Company incident. The company was going to place a power line through the site, but
131 was persuaded to change its plans at considerable cost because of the impact on the site’s heritage resources. Another success is the limitation designation imposed on natural gas drilling. An oil rig up on top of the cliff that was doing some directional drilling but the
Province had it removed and there has been no drilling since.26
A second tool is the extension of Special Places 2000. It provides another level of
protection through government monitoring and review of any development activities.
This program – established by Provincial legislation – identified a broader range of
naturally significant places in the Head-Smashed-In region which were added to the
original land designation. Seven hundred and twenty-eight hectares around Head-
Smashed-In Buffalo Jump were added to the original 162 hectares of Provincial Historic
Resource Designation. The full 890 hectares were named to the "Special Places 2000"
project27 (Parks Canada, 2005).
The Special Places 2000 designation has created a buffer zone for Head-Smashed-
In. Prior to this, there was simply the area of designation and ownership of a certain area of land that were leased back to the original owners. It was fairly small and centered on the kill site itself, rather than on the lands including gathering basin and drive lanes, which are privately owned and are under less protection than government owned lands.
The Special Places 2000 was to identify a broader range of naturally significant places
into which, fortuitously, Head-Smashed-In fell. The purpose of the Special Places 2000 is
not cultural, but natural; it aims to conserve Alberta’s natural history28 (Alberta Tourism
26 Ian Clarke, Personal Communication, August 14, 2006. 27 Report on the State of Conservation of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump – Periodic Report on the Application of the World Heritage Convention. 28 Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.tprc.alberta.ca/parks/managing/establishing.asp.
132
Parks Recreation and Culture). In the case of Head-Smashed-In, it was the rough natural fescue grasslands that provided the rationale. This designation was added to the presentation to UNESCO on the current state of Head-Smashed-In, as being an added level of protection by creating a buffer zone where none existed before (Parks Canada,
2005).
State of Conservation
Since the natural character and function of the whole site helped shape the life-
ways of the Aboriginal peoples, a great emphasis should be placed on conserving the
natural setting of the site. Throughout the basin there are drive lanes which are an integral
part of the vast landscape; many of them are still in place and intact. The current use,
cattle grazing, has a low impact on the site; it will probably have the same effects as
bison had on the vegetation. According to available literature, bison and cattle have
similar diet preferences. However, past heavy grazing on some parts of the site, such as
the area below the jump site, has disturbed parts of the site (Bailey, 1984). The principal
loss has been in the gathering basin. Seeding of crops has removed some of the natural
prairie landscape and changed the appearance of the area (Alberta Historic Resources
Management, 1980).
The conservation status of different parts of the site varies; many activities have
happened in the kill site since first settlement, and some have influenced the character of
the site. In the late 1800s, the development of a sandstone quarry on the cliff face to
supply building material for Fort Macleod and a wagon road from the hillside to the
quarry area had negative effects. Arrowhead collecting activities on the kill area have led
to destruction of surface deposits (Alberta Historic Resources Management, 1980; Bailey,
133
1984). Road construction, especially in the camp site, has removed some of the archaeological deposits. As well, other activities such as archaeological surveys and stock watering ponds have disturbed the area below the jump cliffs (Alberta Historic Resources
Management, 1980).
Archaeological research itself is sometimes considered a destructive process. The archaeological work that was done in 1930s, 1940s, 1960s and then through the late
1970s and the 1980s generated enough cultural material to be catalogued and analyzed for years to come. There are certainly lots more of the archaeological remains on the site.
Probably, less than 10% of the site has been excavated. The surface of the archaeological site will be better preserved if technologies with less impact are employed, such as sub- surface imaging.29
There has not been any active archaeology at the site for the last ten years. The only archaeological work that was done was when the pathway on the site was repaired in
2005. A level of cultural material along this particular pathway was removed from the surface; however, the material is recovered and saved being used for interpretive programming.30 In spite of the loss of actual provenance for these items, the precise area where they were located is known. One of the problems that needed to be addressed was
inadequate monitoring of work under the contract. Even though strict attention was paid
to all of the guidelines that described how to protect the cultural and natural landscape,
due to a gap in the management structure, it failed. It is important to note that initially the
29 Ian Clarke, Personal Communication, August 14, 2006. 30 Ibid.
134 philosophy for preservation of archaeological resources was to cap the site, i.e., parking lots, trails and pathways rather than to excavate since capping is reversible.31
5.3.1.5 World Heritage Designation
The focus of Head-Smashed-In’s application for World Heritage designation was
not as a cultural landscape; the notion of cultural landscape as a heritage type did not exist in the 1980s. Also, the focus also was not on Aboriginal people at all; there was little consultation with any Aboriginal group at the time of nomination, and the government prepared the nomination paper based on an archaeological draft. At the time of the nomination of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump to World Heritage, the major focus of the application was on the archaeological part of the site, which was over 10 meters deep and at least six thousand years old.32 The incredibly dramatic, powerful and
magnificent story of the buffalo jump was the focus of the application. The application
did describe the gathering basin back behind the cliff, the drive lanes, and so on, but it did
not present it as a cultural landscape (Alberta Historic Resources Management, 1980).
The government would have had a much better chance of conserving that site and
its integrity if it had been designated a cultural landscape. The cliff, the bone beds, the
site and the Interpretive Center are not the story; they are just the end of the story!
Currently, visitors cannot realize that there is so much more to the story. There is a limit to how much interpreters can show and tell visitors. Head-Smashed-In is a very large, complex site. Visitors often go to the site and visit the cliff where the buffalo died and
31 Ibid.
135 where the bones and the stone tools are buried assuming that they know the story. In fact, the whole story goes back many kilometres into the basin that lies behind the jump.
5.3.1.6 Cultural Landscape Management Plan
At Head-Smashed-In, the prospect of World Heritage Site designation and the concomitant periodic reporting made it necessary to have formal documentation in place for the management of the landscape. The original submission to UNESCO and the development plan that was produced became, in effect, the landscape management plan, because it identified both of the areas that required conservation, and the need for a grazing plan. There is no formal landscape management plan for Head-Smashed-In, but the review of the earlier documents indicated that the UNESCO World Heritage
Committee found them acceptable as an alternate to a formal landscape management plan
(Parks Canada, 2005). Nevertheless, there still remains a need for a coherent and integrative cultural landscape management plan that will reflect the need to conserve the rare and endangered species in the area, heritage concerns and the concerns of key stakeholders including Aboriginal peoples, ranchers, and the differing industries that give the community economic life.
The natural landscape must be conserved, in order to keep any sense of the cultural landscape. The native people’s use of the landscape was, in effect, benign. In fact, the only surface traces of their existence are the cairns for the drive lanes and teepee rings for the encampments, both of which are barely visible. To preserve these no
32 Jack Brink, Personal Communication, November 10, 2006.
136 intervention was required. There was no need to stop natural decay by wind or water or to clean the deposits covering them.33
Aboriginal peoples respected the ecosystems, but it does not mean that the landscapes they lived in were untouched or in their natural state. Aboriginal peoples are referred to as “active landscape architects”; for instance, they used fire to control vegetation in order to attract the buffalo. They have always managed the landscape to sustain their food supplies; their livings were dependent on landscape. Aboriginal people view landscapes as alive with spirit and different forms of intelligence. To them, landscapes have distinct characters, like any human society with distinct social and
cultural characteristics (Dormaar & Barsh, 2000, p. 9).
5.3.1.7 Visitors to the Site
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump has access to secondary and to major highways.
The admission process makes it possible to have visitors’ statistics for Head-Smashed-In.
The visitation is considerable when compared to that at Takht-e-Soleyman. However, in
an international context, the visitation is declining along with tourism generally in North
America. Visitor amenities at the Head-Smashed-In Interpretive Centre include
washrooms, a food and gift shop, interpretive and educational programming,
publications, walking and hiking trails, and parking and transportation services. Head-
Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Interpretation Program includes a visitor management plan to
33 Ian Clarke, Personal Communication, August 14, 2006.
137 control the entire interpretive development of the site in relation to anticipated visitor attendance (Alberta Historic Resources Management, 1980).
5.3.1.8 Current Concerns
Beside past and present conservation pressures that affected the integrity of Head-
Smashed-In, there are a number of other concerns as well.
Oil and Gas Developments: Recently, there has been strong pressure for oil and gas exploration in the Head-Smashed-In area. It will be a challenge to prevent this activity considering the Province’s strong pro-development ethic. The site might be forced to accommodate natural gas processing plants or other construction in the flats below the Jump.
Subdivision: The Head-Smashed-In area has a very low population density. There
is tremendous pressure by Calgarians to build vacation houses as they already have in
neighbouring Okotoks, High River, Turner Valley, Black Diamond or Waterton. The
economic pressures on the ranches in the surrounding Porcupine Hills might be so great
that the ranchers will seek permission to sell some of their holdings in smaller, acreage-
sized parcels. The natural landscape that is so much a part of the traditions of Head-
Smashed-In would be replaced with weekend housing estates. Fort Macleod might seem
far from the Jump now, but the day might come when the pressures to subdivide are
irresistible.
There is a need to develop effective measures that would prevent these kinds of
developments. Land control is the county’s responsibility, but this does not mean that
owners cannot sell portions of their land. Only new construction requires approval by the
138 county, and only new significant construction such as a hotel or a gas processing plant will require provincial approval.
In Alberta, the Municipal Government Act (Government of Alberta) does allow
Direct Control34 zoning, which enables integration of heritage conservation in land use
planning. The Province reviews any applications for development or land-use change on
the designated site that are of no effect or are of beneficial effect submitted by both local
government and land developers. Without the approval of the Minister of Culture and
Community Spirit, no such application can succeed on the designated lands.
Land owners are required to comply with the regulations that limit land disturbance. If any activity threatens the landscape, it will be stopped. One concern is obviously political. It is not popular to impose restrictions on or controlling lands that are privately owned. Currently, the government is working with the ranchers in order to preserve that area as a landscape that tells the full story of how Head-Smashed-In worked. If they are not successful there could well be difficulties.
Windmills: If the region is rich in oil and gas, it is equally rich in environmentally
friendly energy – wind. From the top of the Head-Smashed-In cliff, the long line of
windmills marches into the horizon, disturbing the view, the story and the spirit of Head-
Smashed-In. It might be argued that the windmills are not permanent in the landscape;
their footprint will be virtually invisible. The government does not own the lands that
accommodate windmills; it does not have any control over the privately owned lands, and
34 Division 5: Land Use, 640, Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/M26.CFM.
139 has not developed a conservation plan for that area. There is not much control visually over what happens any distance from the site. The issue of wind power is just one example, and there are other issues in other places.
There is a definite legal boundary specifying the land that the Government of
Alberta owns. When the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada recognizes
National Historic Sites as such, it prescribes a legal boundary as well, but that is not completely defined yet. A committee within the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of
Canada35 – the Designated Place Committee – is reviewing all national sites in Canada to
check the legal boundaries. Since many of the old designations did not state legal
boundaries, it has only been in recent years that it has become clear, for legal reasons
such as ownership and conservation activities, that precise boundaries are required. The
Head-Smashed-In final boundary is not resolved yet and needs more work.36
35 The Board was formed in the 1920s. 36 Martin Magne, Personal Communication, September 8, 2006.
140
Figure 5.7 The Landscape of Head-Smashed-In: View from the Jump to Southeast
Figure 5.8 The Jump at the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
141
Figure 5.9 Head-Smashed-In: Gathering Basin and the Rocky Mountains in the Background
Figure 5.10 The Vision Quest at Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
142
Figure 5.11 The Landscape of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: View from the Jump to the Processing Camp and the Kill Site at the bottom of the Jump.
Figure 5.12 Head-Smashed-In: View over the Jump to the Kill Site and the Processing Area.
143
Figure 5.13 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: The Burial Rock
Figure 5.14 Parking Area at Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
144
Figure 5.15 Head-Smashed-In: Interpretive Center - A Five-storey Exhibit Building Hidden Underground
Figure 5.16 Head-Smashed-In: Entrance to the Interpretive Center
145
Figure 5.17 Head-Smashed-In: A gallery inside the Interpretive Center
146
5.3.2 Takht-e-Soleyman: A Cultural Heritage Site of Iran
5.3.2.1 Introduction
The archaeological site of Takht-e Soleyman, in north- western Iran, is situated in a valley set in a volcanic mountain region. The site includes the principal Zoroastrian sanctuary partly rebuilt in the Ilkhanid (Mongol) period (13th century) as well as a temple of the Sasanian period (6th and 7th centuries) dedicated to Anahita. The site has important symbolic significance. The designs of the fire temple, the palace and the general layout have strongly influenced the development of Islamic architecture.37
Located in the West Azerbayjan Province of Iran, near the town of Takab and on southern border of the Balkash Mountain, this highland is significant for its geomorphological, natural and archaeological features (Figure 5.18). Takht-e-Soleyman38
– probably one of the most ancient ritual places of the Zoroastrians ever discovered
(Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, 2002) – and the Zendan-e-Soleyman39 Hill are
two of the most important features of this area and are also the focus of this research
(Figure 5.19).
37 Brief description at the World Heritage Centre website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1077. 38 Solomon’s Throne. 39 Solomon’s Prison.
147
Figure 5.18 Takht-e-Soleyman, west Azarbayjan, Iran40
In 1931, Takht-e-Soleyman was designated and placed on the National Heritage
List of Iran. It is one of the few Grand Historic-Cultural Projects of Iran initiated since
1993, and during the ensuing years core and buffer zones were defined for the site.
40 From Takht-e-Soleyman’s Information Catalogue.
148
Takht-e-Soleyman was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2003, as a World Cultural
Heritage Site.
Figure 5.19 Takht-e-Soleyman Platform, Zendan-e-Soleyman Hill and the Village41
5.3.2.2 Heritage Values of Takht-e-Soleyman
The landscape of the area is characterized by the archaeological remains in the
Takht-e-Soleyman platform and Zendan-e-Soleyman Hill, as well as other integral parts such as natural features (mountains, river, woodland and thermal springs), agricultural areas (farmlands and orchards), and the Takht-e-Soleyman Village located between the
Platform and the Hill. The site’s natural peculiarity was a key factor in its selection as a sanctuary (Huff); the Hill has the same geological formation as that of the Takht and its lake; however, it has a high conical summit (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization,
2002). Pages 164 to170 include photographs taken during the visits to Takht-e-Soleyman.
149
Around the opening of a great hollow sedimentary hill, known as Zendan-e-
Soleyman Hill, there are remnants of a historic sacred place for worshiping Anahita, the
Goddess of Water. Datable potsherds found on these remnants show that they belong to the first millennium BC. Zendan-e-Soleyman is a hollow hill about 110 meters high, which has a mouth approximately 60 meters wide and 100 meters deep and still possesses gas springs below the visible sedimentary layers and ruins deposits (Iranian Cultural
Heritage Organization, 2002). The region on the west side of Zendan has many thermal water springs. Local people believe that these springs possess mysterious powers. These springs are an integral part of the site. Zendan-e-Soleyman, once a great thermal spring, was dried up by its own sediments, most probably due to a seismic cataclysm. The early residents, taking it as the dissatisfaction of the Goddess of Water, left the place and settled around another thermal spring nearby, known as Takht-e-Soleyman, to praise
Anahita more respectfully.
Takht-e-Soleyman Platform is an elliptical platform (380 by 300 meters) of calcareous sediments and is surrounded by a masonry wall and 38 buttresses which make it resemble a fort. The wall is about 1.12 kilometres long, 3.8 meters wide and 13 meters high (Naumann, 1995). In the middle of the Platform is the sacred Avestan42 Chechasta
Lake, which has a spring in the bottom with a mouth about two meters in diameter. The
shape of the Lake is also elliptical, with a great diameter of 115 meters and is funnel-
shaped in vertical section (46-115 meters deep) (Naumann, 1995). Water flows out of the
Lake toward the surrounding agricultural lands through two streams. The amount of the
41 Adopted form aerial photographs of the area from the National Cartographic Center of Iran.
150 water coming from the spring in the bottom of the Lake and the amount of the water flowing out of the Lake through these two streams are almost equal, keeping the level of water almost unchanged. There is evidence of a residential enclosure on the alluvial platform, possibly the remnants of a small hamlet, Shiz, from the Achaemenid period (6 –
4th centuries BC). But the most important buildings on this site are those from the
Sassanid period (3rd – 7th centuries AD) (Naumann, 1995). The Azargushnasp Fire
Temple43 and the Anahita Water Temple were built on the Platform with the Anahita
Temple, indicating that Water and Fire were worshipped at the same place and at the
same time. Avestan texts show that Azargushnasp or Adur-Gushnasp was one of the three principal fire temples which contained the most revered fires in Sassanid period (Huff).
The other two have not been located so far (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization,
2002). It was the symbol of the unity of the Nation; after the coronation at Ctesiphon in
Mesopotamia, Great Kings went there on foot for pilgrimages. The ancient Fire Temple was destroyed in the 7th century AD by the Byzantine Empire. However a 10th century historian reported that the fire had burned there for 700 years before his time. Probably the destruction was limited to the decorations and structures or perhaps the structures were later partially restored.
After Arabs attacked Iran, the local residents called it Takht-e-Soleyman to preserve it from more destruction44 (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, 2002).
According to people’s beliefs, the Prophet Solomon built the palace complex around the
42 The Zoroastrian sacred book. 43 Adur Gusnasb or Athur-Gushnasp meaning Fire of the Knights.
151 fire temple. He came here as a ruler on his flying carpet and imprisoned the disobedient spirits in the mount of Zendan. (The Persian term Zendan means prison.) During the night he went back to his wife Belqis, living in the northern highlands called Takht-e-Belqeis
(The Throne of the Queen of Sheba). There is a mountain nearby known as Tavileh-e-
Soleyman (The Stable of the Prophet Solomon) from which some people still believe they can hear the neighing of the horses at night (Naumann, 1995). Historically, remnants of a sedimentary wall with an exceptionally winding path were used to bring water to the residential area beside the platform. It was created by the deposits of the ancient water stream from the lake in the Platform which exists in the south-western side of the external area of Takht-e Soleyman. This wall – 300 meters long and approximately 2 meters high
– is called Ejdahaye Soleyman (Dragon of Solomon) and again is related to the myths of this area.
In 1270, the site was restored and used as a summer place and hunting palace, called Setourigh (Naumann, 1995). This place was neglected once again in the 14th century and abandoned until the early19th century. Since then it has been repeatedly visited by Western scholars and travelers (Huff).
5.3.2.3 Zoroastrianism
Takht-e-Soleyman is a testimony to the association of nature and history and to the perfect harmony of the landscape and religious practices, revealing one of the great artistic achievements of Sassanid civilization (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization,
44 Muslim Arabs believed that these monuments were signs of blasphemy. Soleyman (Solomon in English)
152
2002). The site has strong symbolic and spiritual significance and provides a valuable insight into Zoroastrianism, one of the oldest surviving belief systems as an official and royal religion influential in the development of Persian art, architecture and landscape planning. Of the three important Fire temples of the Sassanid Empire, it is the only one that survives and the only representative of a Zoroastrian sanctuary. Zoroastrians still perform limited religious ceremonies yearly at this site.
Zarathushtra Spitama (Zoroaster), the first prophet to teach monotheism45 appreciated Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds. Fire is to the Zarathushtrians
(Zoroastrians) “a blazing symbol of divine illumination, enlightenment, warmth, love, purity and energy”46 (Suren-Pahlav, 2000). The symbolic relationship between Takht-e-
Soleyman and the natural features47 makes it culturally significant, as a testimony of the association of ancient beliefs with natural features. UNESCO announced the celebration of the 3000th anniversary of the Zoroastrian culture and religion during 2002-2003.
The layout of the Sassanid Fire Temple and buildings is an outstanding example of the blending of natural and built landscape into a whole. The integration of architectural elements and structures into their natural context was an important reference
point for the development of early Islamic architecture. The square layout of the fire
temple, the massive vault of the iwan (portico) and the open court around the water
source are clearly reflected in the architectural composition of Islamic mosques, shrines
is the name of a prophet who, according to ancient texts and legends, possessed supernatural powers and has been always respected by Muslims. 45 The belief in one God. 46 Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://www.cais- soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/introduction.htm.
153 and palaces in Iran and other countries. Some relationship can be also found to early
Romanesque churches in Europe (ICOMOS, 2003).
Architectural style, design and materials used for construction add more tangible value to the site. The ensemble of Takht-e-Soleyman is an archetype of the royal architecture of Sassanid period. The ability of ancient people to use the lake as the centre of the design represents their deep understanding of the relationship between their faith/philosophy and natural/geological features. In terms of its overall design it is notable that the exterior wall follows the oval shape of the platform. The architectural layout inside the oval exterior wall is formed of two squares, one around the Lake, open to the area north of the lake, obviously a royal court, and the other an enclosure on the north side of the royal court, the fire temple complex area, which was accessible from the north gate as well as the royal gate in the south. The main building of the fire temple complex, the chahartaq, is located on the main north-south axis, which ran through the centre of the lake.48 Local stones,49 as well as mud brick and brick in later periods, were
the major materials of construction.
Although Takht-e-Soleyman was developed and modified over time and this is
reflected in its different architectural characteristics, it still occupies its original setting
and foundations and retains its historic ruin area and its integrity. The calcareous
sediments of the lake have separated different epochs of habitation on the Platform due to
the occasional flooding of the lake and its calcareous sediments. The previous older
47 Water and Fire are among the fundamental elements respected by Persians – ancient Iranians – they are Fire, Air, Water and Earth. 48 Mohammad Mehryar, Expert with Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, Personal Communications, 2001.
154 layers are preserved in some parts of the site and are considered as important potential archaeological locations. The structures were eroded mainly due to neglect, natural erosion and seismic activities in the region.
Takht-e-Soleyman and Zendan-e-Soleyman are familiar physical and symbolic landmarks for the current residents in the area and the region. The locals, although from another faith, respect the sacredness of the site and truly believe in the myths related to the site, which are passed on from generation to generation. The round shape and the size of Zendan make it a visual attraction as well.
5.3.2.4 Management and Planning Context
Conservation Tools and Strategies
The focus of conservation activities has been largely on archaeological
excavations and on the restoration and reconstruction of architectural structures within
the boundaries of the Platform. The site is protected under the Preservation of National
Properties Act (Antiquities Act) of 1930. The Iranian Heritage Organization is responsible for implementation of this Act and focuses on the archaeological remains.
Although the Organization has identified the boundary of the site and categorized it in
different zones with varied physical and visual development restrictions, they are not
responsible for the conservation of the natural elements and environment of the site. The
Takht-e-Soleyman area falls within the boundaries of a Protected Area and a Wild Life
49 Rough/coarse and cut stones, red sandstones.
155
Refuge recognized by the Department of Environment of Iran.50 These areas are
important in terms of natural resources. Very strict regulations are in place for such areas
which control any type of development. Lack of effective communication between
organizations, difficulties in negotiations and separation of the natural and cultural
conservation are the main concerns at Takht-e-Soleyman. Both organizations are well
informed about their specific areas of concern, one from a protection of environment
standpoint and the other from a cultural resource perspective, but they do not collaborate,
since collaboration could be seen as interference with the other. This has led to
operational conflicts. Attention needs to be paid to the full range of natural and cultural
values represented in the landscape, so that the character and the spirit of place can be
protected.
State of Conservation
Decay is a law of nature and conservation is only a process intended to slow it
down. If a small problem is ignored today, it might become a major cause for destruction
tomorrow. Considering the evolutionary character of landscape, most of the changes
evident in the landscape of Takht-e-Soleyman are reasonable and a part of its nature, such
as the natural changes in the pathway of the river or change in the vegetation along the
riverside – due to aging, diseases or natural disasters, or the changes on the edges of the
Lake on the Platform, decreasing the diameter of the Lake due to water sedimentation
(approximately one centimetre per year). These all happen naturally and no intervention
could or should be made. The other change happens at Takht-e-Soleyman Village. The
50 Retrieved December 6, 2005, from http://www.irandoe.org/en
156 changes undertaken by local residents based on traditional lifestyles have been minimal; however, major developments are problematic.
Natural decay and vandalism have been the major causes of destruction on the archaeological site. Archaeological excavations have been mainly conducted on the
Platform and very limited excavations have been performed in the landscape. The
American Institute of Iranian Art and Archaeology under Arthur Upham Pope conducted the first archaeological excavation in 1937. Systematic excavations have been performed since the 1970s for about 20 years by German archaeologists and for almost a decade by
Iranian archaeologists (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, 2002). Due to the size of the archaeological site and the critical condition of archaeological and architectural structures in the past few years, most management planning and activities have focused on the protection and emergency rescue activities. Archaeological excavations, restoration activities and stability of structures have been the subject of major monitoring actions and inspections (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, 2002).
5.3.2.5 World Heritage Designation
The World Heritage nomination dossier for the Takht-e-Soleyman was prepared based on its historical, cultural and religious attributes. Even though the notion of cultural landscape as a heritage type was well developed in 2003 at the time of this nomination, cultural landscape category did not garner much attention. It was understood that the historical aspects of the site were sufficient for its successful nomination. The architectural significance and the importance of the Sassanid Fire Temple was the focus of the application. The World Heritage Committee and the advisory bodies did not
157 recommend that the Iranian authorities revise and consider it as a cultural landscape, although Takht-e-Soleyman and the integrity of its whole landscape would have better conserved if it was recognized as such.
5.3.2.6 Cultural Landscape Management Plan
The Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO) has defined core and buffer zones for Takht-e-Soleyman since 1993. These mandate a type of protection for the landscape as well (Figure 5.20). The approved buffer zones have been respected by local people and ICHHTO’s provincial guardians monitor its enforcement.
The area has three levels of zoning. Takht-e-Soleyman Platform – the core zone – is like a bowl in the middle of the buffer zone and covers an area of 10 hectares. The surrounding buffer zone area is approximately 385.5 hectares. The larger landscape is protected by another landscape buffer zone that covers 7,438 hectares and includes six other adjacent sites and their zones. The zoning has its specific regulations; any kind of intervention or physical/functional modification should consider the conservation regulations according to the defined zoning. No alteration or development is permitted in the core zone, but traditional farming on the agricultural lands is allowed in the specific buffer zone and in the landscape buffer zone. Activities which might change the appearance of the landscape and cause pollution are forbidden in the landscape buffer zone (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, 2002). It could act as an effective tool to control all activities in the area only if all cultural, natural, associative and other values of the site are acknowledged, and only if local inhabitants are involved.
158
ICHO has mentioned a few activities with regard to the natural elements of the site in the World Heritage nomination file for Takht-e-Soleyman mid-term management planning (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, 2002). These involve protection of the ecosystem; however, their effectiveness and their implementation are under question. If these protective measures are not integrated in the larger management plan, they will not protect the entire landscape and its integrity. For instance, while the Department of
Environment has identified numerous plants and animals in this Protected Area, which is rich in terms of medical plants, none are identified in the management plans. Neither are the potential contributions of the animals in the region to the significance of the site.
Figure 5.20: Takht-e-Soleyman: Site Boundaries and Zoning 159
160
5.3.2.7 Visitors to the Site
Services at Takht-e-Soleyman are at a minimum, with no interpretive programs.
Visitation to Takht-e-Soleyman is very limited. While researchers and students do visit the site, visitation consists mainly of locals from nearby villages. The number of foreign visitors has increased during the last decade but is still low, although the site is accessible through secondary roads and a major highway. Facilities are not notable and are limited to guided panels along the road to the site and onsite. However, Takht-e-Soleyman project is considering development of visitor services such as guide signs, guide booklets and maps in Persian and English, trained guides, an interpretation centre, new publications, media relations to increase the number of visitors, visitor facilities (buffet and gift shop, guesthouses, restaurants and others in the neighbourhood), and facilities for employees and academics (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, 2002).
5.3.2.8 Current Concerns
Urban Development: Presently, the site is protected from any urban
encroachments simply because it is far from any major urban centre. The only threat
might be the development of the nearby village. There was a master plan in place for the
village, and the primary works and infrastructures were implemented, but the project was
later discontinued (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, 2002). The proposed plan was
prepared based on major city master planning principles and surprisingly did not consider historical context and identity. Topography and environmental issues, as well as ownership issues, were all overlooked. If the master plan were to be completely implemented, the historical identity of the area would be lost. It is the historic, natural,
161 cultural and spiritual values of the site that are of high significance and demand specific attention. Currently, there is a will to prepare an improvement plan for the village instead of subdividing the agricultural lands for urban development. Iranian Cultural Heritage,
Handicraft and Tourism Organization recommends that future development of the village be in accordance with the traditional architecture of the area.
Land-use changes: The archaeological heritage of the site is enriched by the
Sassanid town, which is now covered by surrounding agricultural fields and still needs to
be excavated. Any land-use changes in the area will threaten the archaeological site and
will question the integrity of the landscape. The continuity of the existing land use is a key factor in ensuring the protection of the integrity of the site. The flowing water from
the lake has been an essential source for the development of agriculture in the area and
irrigates the adjacent agricultural lands owned by local farmers. Intensifying the existing
agricultural activities may however cause degradation.
New constructions: Takht-e-Soleyman has been historically used by people. Even
though human activities have shaped and modified the landscape, they have been
respectful of it in a broad sense. New facilities have been constructed both inside and
outside of the Platform for the purpose of enhancing the visiting experience. Since there
has been no comprehensive planning beyond Takht, the placement of many facilities can be argued to have been minimally problematic.
While the construction of the main road to Takht-e-Soleyman from Takab is considered positive by most since it facilitates accessibility of the site, there are concerns regarding its location, the character of the fences along it and the nature of future traffic.
162
Mineral Resources: The Takht-e-Soleyman region has a high mineral resource potential. Numerous metallic and non-metallic mines, including historical gold mines (the famous gold mine at Zarshuran in the Anguran district) and silver mines, could attract industrial activity. Stone and gypsum quarries also have historical significance since they were used for construction of Takht-e-Soleyman (Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization,
2002). There is a potential threat if these mines were to be heavily used. Not only would the landscape be changed by the mines themselves, but the refining processes could be an even greater intrusion.
5.3.2.9 Summary
Takht-e-Soleyman contributes to the historical continuity of the area. Its fire temple dating back to the Sassanid period continues to be functional, although only symbolically, and offers spiritual sustenance to today’s Zoroastrians. Human activities have shaped and modified the natural features (vegetation) and the cultural features
(buildings, structures, roads and water streams) of the broader landscape.
5.3.3 Conclusion
The review of the two examples leads to one significant question: Are Takht-e-
Soleyman and Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Cultural Heritage or Cultural Landscape properties?
At the time of the designation of Head-Smashed-In in the early 1980s, cultural landscape was not even included in the World Heritage categories. The only option was designation as a cultural heritage site. Although Takht-e-Soleyman could have been
163 nominated as a cultural landscape in 2003 rather than as a complex of scattered historic sites, the Iranian authority only emphasized the architectural, archaeological and historic aspects of the site. The inscribed cultural heritage area is huge in size and includes 14 historic sites around Takht-e-Soleyman. The examples were inscribed on the List at different times, one prior to and the other after recognition of cultural landscape within the World Heritage context. However, the results remain the same; they are not recognized as cultural landscapes either internationally or nationally. This underestimates the multiple values of these sites and negates the fact that the sites are obviously cultural landscape properties.
The result, which gives priority to historical and cultural considerations, will be a lack of effective management planning in which the landscape as a whole, including those natural features that are crucial to the integrity of the site, and its inhabitants are considered. There are lessons to be learned from both cases that can significantly improve the future of the world’s cultural landscapes both internationally and nationally.
This chapter reviewed the Canadian and Iranian approach toward the conservation of heritage properties. It examined the existing frameworks in terms of cultural landscape protection. This review was essential in understanding how the selected examples were treated within their local contexts which were later connected to their international status as World Heritage Properties. The study also illustrated the practical issues that the
Canadian and Iranian authorities face in applying their traditional policies and frameworks. The next chapter discusses the results of the key informant interviews vis-à- vis the illustrative examples.
164
Figure 5.21 The Landscape of Takht-e-Soleyman: View from Takhte-Soelyman Platform toward Zendan-e-Soleyman and the Village
Figure 5.22 Zendan-e-Soleyman Hill
165
Figure 5.23 Takht-e-Soleyman Village
Figure 5.24 Takht-e-Soleyman Platform
166
Figure 5.25 Takht-e-Soleyman: The Dragon - An Ancient Water Channel
Figure 5.26 Takht-e-Soleyman: New facilities Built on the Platform beside the Entrance - Residence for Visiting Scholars and Researchers and for Occasional Meetings.
167
Figure 5.27 Takht-e-Soleyman: Azargoshnasb Fire Temple
168
Figure 5.28 Entrance to Takht-e-Soleyman Platform - View from Inside (Information Kiosk and the Channel Conducting Water from the lake to the Agricultural Fields)
Figure 5.29 Entrance to Takht-e-Soleyman Platform - View from Outside (Water coming from the Lake Used for Irrigation)
169
Figure 5.30 The Lake at Takht-e-Soleyman
Figure 5.31 Takht-e-Soleyman: Inside of a Temporary Exhibit
170
Figure 5.32 Takht-e-Soleyman: A Restored Building Serves as a Temporary Exhibit
Figure 5.33 The Parking area at Takht-e-Soleyman Platform
171
Chapter Six: ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCH
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Marvin Malecha1
6.1 Introduction
So far the purpose of this research has been to gain a better understanding of the issues surrounding conservation of cultural landscapes, ranging from conceptual and theoretical challenges to the practical shortcomings in the definition, recognition, conservation and management of cultural landscapes. Cultural landscapes as heritage places are understood differently in many parts of the world. It is critical to understand how differing cultures understand the concept of cultural landscape and how these varying concepts have come together internationally. As important is the emergence of a
1 EVDS Symposium, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, 2006.
172 new understanding of research needs, and the development of new methodologies and tools for conservation of cultural landscapes.
This chapter is presented in two parts. The first part includes the analytical results from the key informant interviews and is divided into subsections: Identification of
Cultural Landscapes, Conservation of Cultural Landscapes, Application of the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention and
New World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. Since the challenges of identification and conservation of cultural landscapes were the central arguments of this research, the informants’ reflections on these challenges are underlined and separately presented in the tables that are explained later in this chapter. Tables 6.1 to 6.6 highlight the key issues identified by informants in identification and conservation of cultural landscapes.
The second part involves two subsections: the study of the illustrative examples and insights gained from attending international events. The first subsection discusses
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman through an analysis of their official documents and reflections of a number of informants particularly on these sites.
The second subsection of this part reflects personal observations while attending three international events: an international workshop on cultural landscapes held in Iran, an international training course held in Italy, and the 32nd session of the World Heritage
Committee in Canada.
Many key issues in the identification and conservation of cultural landscapes were noted by one or two experts, particularly Canadian and international experts. This indicated that not all respondents were aware of many issues in dealing with cultural landscapes. Although other respondents, such as the Iranian experts, face the same
173 challenges in practice, they could not relate the challenges to a particular theoretical issue. Therefore, regardless of the number of informants who addressed the very same significant responses, the identified issues are included in the analysis due to their importance and their contribution to better identification of the challenges relating to cultural landscapes. The interviewees were coded in alphabetical order to respect their anonymity. For instance, (I-1) stands for Interviewee Number One and so on.
174
PART ONE: Analytical Results From The Key Informant Interviews
6.2 Cultural Landscapes: A General Discussion
The in-depth, open-ended interviews with key informants were conducted in three groupings (International, Canadian, and Iranian) involving 27 individuals. The interview questions are provided in Appendix C. The research and interviews attempted an international focus and national focus on Canadian and Iranian cultural landscape issues.
The interviewees, selected for their activities in the area of heritage conservation, were academics, international heritage officials and professionals, and Iranian and Canadian heritage professionals and government officials.
Ten people were interviewed in Canada. The participants were from a wide range of organizations and included members of the Canadian delegation to the World Heritage
Committee meetings; director, managers and regional manager with the Alberta
Government; experts with Parks Canada Historical Services; a manager at Parks
Canada’s Cultural Resource Services and university professors. They were from varied educational and professional backgrounds, including archaeology, architecture, design, philosophy, and museum studies.
Eleven people were interviewed in Iran. They included cultural heritage project managers, member of the ICOMOS Cultural Landscape Committee, members of the
Steering Committee of Cultural Heritage based at the Iranian Cultural Heritage,
Handicrafts and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO); directors of Iran’s cultural heritage and cultural landscape sites; directors of the World Heritage Sites of Iran; experts from the ICOMOS Iran National Committee, and scholars at the Research Centre for
175
Conservation of Cultural Relics at ICHHTO, as well as university professors in heritage conservation, archaeology, architecture and environmental design.
Three key internationally active experts were among participants: an official from the UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office, an official from the World Heritage Centre and an adviser on management and protection of cultural heritage at ICOMOS. Six other professionals from around the world who attended an ICCROM international course in
Rome, Italy, also participated in the research.
The qualitative analysis consisted of labelling and coding the interview transcripts to identify trends and contradictions. Codes were identified based on the content of the interviews and were used to assign responses to relevant groups and to particular questions. All transcripts were reviewed several times to ensure that the labels and codes were used in a consistent manner. Codes were specifically used for two core questions: issues in identification of cultural landscapes and challenges in conservation of cultural landscapes.
6.2.1 Identification of Cultural Landscapes
6.2.1.1 Challenges in Recognition of Cultural Landscapes
The interviewees were asked for their thoughts on how to distinguish cultural landscapes from other types of heritage resources. General conformity in the responses of experts and scholars shows a shared concern about the identification of cultural landscapes at different decision-making levels and in different cultures. It is clear that while each cultural group shared common issues with the international community, they also faced national cultural challenges (Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3).
176
The concept of cultural landscape is a fairly recent concept (I-4) (I-6) (I-15) (I-
16) (I-18) (I-23). Professionals may know of the relatively new idea of cultural landscape
and may think it is a better way to look at places holistically, but this makes little
difference to the average person. To average citizens, it is just government jargon and
bureaucratic words. To many of the stakeholders the term is not easy to communicate.
A number of informants argued that previously, the discussion was focused
mainly on surrounding environments and the natural settings of monuments. Today many
still confuse cultural landscape with ‘setting’ and use the words interchangeably. While a number of regions immediately grasped the notion of cultural landscape, as in North
America and Europe, others had difficulty in understanding the concept, i.e., a number of
Asian countries.
The term cultural landscape is not recognized in many cultures (I-4) (I-15), even though the definition of cultural landscape as stated in the World Heritage Operational
Guidelines is broad and inclusive. In some cultures the words cultural landscape or landscape are absent. In countries like Iran, the idea of cultural landscape already exists and people only need to understand the changing terminologies. Iranians, for example, used to refer to them as geographical phenomena instead of cultural landscapes (I-19).
The translations of the words understandably create problems with an
understanding of the concept. As noted by a World Heritage official, in China for
instance, it was not possible to translate the concept of cultural landscape when it was
first illustrated by the World Heritage Centre using the Sacred Mountains1 as examples of
1 Such as Mount Taishan and Mount Huangshan, both World Heritage Mixed Heritage properties.
177 associative cultural landscapes. The Operational Guidelines are now only translated into
French and Spanish. Other language groups are still left on their own to determine precise translated meanings.2
The recognition of cultural landscapes is related to the identification of values (I-
1) (I-3) (I-4) (I-15) (I-19) (I-21) (I-26) (I-27). The fundamental question is what values and elements comprise a cultural landscape. Many of the interviewees argued that people often misunderstand cultural landscape as encompassing everywhere, i.e., any landscape.
In the context of World Heritage the concept of Outstanding Universal Values is critical,
which means not every landscape could be designated as World Heritage Cultural
Landscape. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes must be places where the Outstanding
Universal Value derives from the interaction between nature and culture and not from an
unstructured assembly of the different elements. A lack of knowledge of multiple values
merely leads to a partial identification of the relevant values. These values are part of a
much wider set of cultural values, and their application will depend upon the cultural
background of whoever decides on a cultural landscape’s patrimonial importance.
A number of respondents noted that most cultural landscapes do not demonstrate
exceptional values as clearly as other types of heritage (I-1) (I-21) (I-25) (I-26). They
supported the idea that intangible, spiritual and associative values should be also
considered in identification of heritage cultural landscapes. Defining a place as a cultural
landscape is difficult, as sometimes human imprints are very difficult to perceive.
2 In 2008, the UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office published the first edition of the Basic Terms of the World Heritage Convention in Persian, available from http://xorshid.com/publications/?i=7.
178
The definition of the terms intangible and associative values, outside of the
Aboriginal cultural landscapes, is still weak, requiring more study and elaboration. Even where there have been some successful attempts to define intangible, as at Head-
Smashed-In, the integration of intangible with tangible heritage still needs considerable work (I-1) (I-3).
The categorization of different types of cultural landscapes is still an ongoing
process (I-1) (I-20). The three categories of cultural landscapes as indicated in the World
Heritage Operational Guidelines should not be considered as inclusive of other potential
categories.3 The categorization of cultural landscapes remains under development.
Indeed, some professionals believed that cultural landscapes are best left uncategorized to
ensure complete flexibility.
Cultural landscapes demand particular types of policies, standards and guidelines
(I-1) (I-3) (I-8) (I-21) (I-23). According to respondents, a key difficulty has been and remains a dearth of conservation regulations appropriate to cultural landscapes. A great deal of the policy development and professional standards and practice in most countries of the world is focused on buildings and architecture that come out of architectural and art history. In a number of Western countries, conservation regulations specific to cultural landscapes have been developed. Research has to broaden beyond archaeology or architecture in order for decision makers to be able to come to grips with a site’s cultural landscape. This will require a strong national commitment.
3 The World Heritage Committee at its16th Session in Santa Fe, New Mexico in 1992 adopted the category of cultural landscape as a new heritage type. In order to assist in better understanding and protecting the large variety of the world’s cultural landscape, the expert meeting in Petit Pierre, France adopted three typologies that were earlier discussed in Chapter Three.
179
The ways of thinking influence aspects of cultural heritage that may be
represented in cultural landscapes (I-3) (I-6) (I-19) (I-21). The traditional ways of
looking at heritage did not include the natural environment. However, in the traditional
ways of looking at landscapes by Indigenous peoples there is no separation of the natural
and cultural environments. Some informants believed this is yet to be recognized in either
various criteria, guidelines, or standards that are being used. The definition of cultural
landscapes includes the environment and can emphasize the interrelationship both of
people and place or people and nature. However, change is beginning and the World
Heritage body now recognizes the need to bring together cultural or natural properties.
Heritage professionals are inexperienced in working with cultural landscapes (I-1)
(I-3). According to Canadian experts, another difficulty in identifying cultural landscapes, which certainly is found in many countries including Canada and Iran, is the lack of experience of many cultural heritage professionals in working in complex layered sites that are larger than a single property and contain both natural and cultural resources.
They discussed that professionals must recognize that ongoing, evolving, dynamic changing contexts are not generally as characteristic of buildings as they are of cultural landscapes, and they must consider this characteristic in their conservation approaches.
Different, more complex and often more expansive documentation is required for cultural landscapes than for most buildings and monuments.
Boundaries of cultural landscapes are not clear (I-3) (I-4) (I-22). Another
important issue raised by a few informants relates to the determination of the boundaries
of properties to ensure that they respect a cultural landscape’s Outstanding Universal
Values. The difficulty in working with stakeholders or even in working in a theoretical
180 model is evident when there is a lack of clarity as to where the boundaries lie and where the buffer zones might be. These informants raised a few questions. Is the whole of the cultural landscape as it existed at a moment in the past needed to ensure integrity? Is a representative section sufficient? If so, in what ways does it need to be representative?
How are the edges to be drawn? How is its visual integrity to be protected? They argued that guidance on how to draw the lines and boundaries of cultural landscapes is a key need. Where the lines are drawn depends on cultural traditions, traditional land use, and current uses. Issues of boundaries and Outstanding Universal Values are strongly interrelated. Stakeholders have clear interests in the precision of the boundary. To them, negotiation is indeed the only way such a boundary can be determined.
Shared responsibility is also a major challenge (I-4) (I-18) (I-22). The major
issues in distinguishing cultural landscapes from other heritage types are not only the
question of perception but also the question of unclear ownership and unclear
responsibility. A few participants indicated there is no formal management mechanism
that ties all the people involved in a given cultural landscape together – no cooperative
relationship among all stakeholders. The cultural landscape may exist in the minds of
people but to manage it, it has to exist in a more formal sense. Often the large number of
landowners, uses, and administrative organizations that have a stake in the land and its
management influence the recognition of cultural landscapes. The difficulties are
immense and even greater than those faced by large parks or individual architectural
monuments, although the complexity of multiple jurisdictions is also evident in historic
districts.
181
Table 6.1 Main Issues in Distinguishing Cultural Landscapes from other Types of Heritage Resources – Iranian Experts’ Perspectives
Main issues in distinguishing cultural landscapes from other types of heritage resources
Definition unclear to many cultures New concept Terminology absent in many cultures Translation unavailable in many countries
Failure to identify all values Multiple values Failure to identify all parameters/factors
Traditionally focused on archaeological and Way of thinking architectural aspects of heritage and relics
Lack of specific regulations, policies, guidelines and standards Iranian Experts Lack of strong national impetus, national Legal and professional framework determination and national willingness Lack of sufficient research Lack of appropriate framework for documentation
Negligence Inattention to the past and history
182
Table 6.2 Main Issues in Distinguishing Cultural Landscapes from other Types of Heritage Resources – Canadian Experts’ Perspectives
Main issues in distinguishing cultural landscapes from other types of heritage resources
Definition unclear to many cultures Question of perception New concept Professional jargon / Bureaucratic words Language not communicating with average citizens
Multiple values Failure to identify all values
No component for the natural environment in Way of thinking the traditional way of thinking
Policy development and professional Legal and professional framework standards focused on buildings and structures and not on cultural landscapes
Where boundaries lie Unclear boundaries Where buffer zones are
Canadian Experts Multiple ownership Unclear ownership
Lack of cooperative relationship among Shared responsibility people (stakeholders)
Inexperienced in working with a distant past and subsequent layers of the past Inexperienced in working with natural Inexperience of cultural heritage people resources Inexperienced in working in an ongoing, evolving, dynamic and changing context
183
Table 6.3 Main Issues in Distinguishing Cultural Landscapes from other Types of Heritage Resources – International Experts’ Perspectives
Main issues in distinguishing cultural landscapes from other types of heritage resources
Definition unclear to many cultures Terminology absent in many cultures Translation and problems in understanding the concept New concept Human imprints may be difficult to perceive New type of heritage category Categorization and sub-categorization still an ongoing process
Lack of knowledge of all values Failure to identify all values Multiple values Relativity of values and importance Most cultural landscapes lack outstanding values like other types of heritage
International Experts International Legal and professional framework Lack of Criteria
Wide range of stakeholders (landowners, Multiple stakeholders administrative organizations, etc.) involved in the use and management of the land
Scale Large areas
Authenticity Difficult to be evaluated/assessed
184
6.2.1.2 Definition and Identification of Cultural Landscapes
The confusion over the definition of cultural landscape is an obstacle to identification. Whether a broad or a more specific and limited definition of cultural landscape would benefit the recognition of cultural landscape is an issue that meets with divergent professional perspectives. On the one hand, the broad definition of cultural landscape provides the opportunity for any site to be thrown into the cultural landscape basket (I-3) (I-4). On the other hand, a definition in the Operational Guidelines that is broad, holistic and general is needed to leave the possibilities open for the future (I-1) (I-
18). To an Iranian professional, definitions that are not supported by everyone cause limitations and impede the process of heritage conservation. A Canadian expert argued that in working with a landscape one only has to consider what is in that real landscape.
An expert affiliated with UNESCO Culture Sector agreed that it is better to keep the definition as it is for the time being and in fact, to keep the scope wide, so that as sub- categories of cultural landscapes are defined over time, more will be recognized, protected, conserved and sustained. However, onsite managers might prefer to have more rigid and specific definitions of cultural landscapes (I-20).
A World Heritage Centre official noted that although the convention does not include the notion of biodiversity and cultural landscape, it states that the broad definition is a ‘combined work of nature and of man’ (I-15). Furthermore, this official argued that the Operational Guidelines have been too specific in the definition of three types of cultural landscapes. Therefore, from international perspectives, the definition is both broad and specific enough, providing the right balance. But can a cultural perspective be defined so as to be applicable to all cultures? The experience of the World Heritage
185
Centre suggests that the definition works well. According to this official, the Centre believes that with a few exceptions the definition is accepted internationally.
Furthermore, none of the expert meetings has ever come up with a proposal to change the definition. Consequently, the Centre has no plans to change or develop the definition further.
Two Canadian experts with international experiences described the case of
Canada’s Rideau Canal to illustrate the complexities of recognizing places as cultural landscapes (I-4) (I-18). One expert argued that in many cases, recognition of places as cultural landscapes seems to be based on individual preferences. The Rideau Canal was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2007 as a Cultural Heritage property under
Criterion One – a masterpiece of creative human expression, and Criterion Two – the transfer of British technology to a wilderness situation. Although many Canadian experts argued it as a cultural landscape, a 200-kilometer waterway with a variety of landscapes and land uses, others believed that if it was nominated as a cultural landscape it would be difficult to determine its Outstanding Universal Value and to draw its boundaries. The engineering arguments were on the other hand very clear. Perhaps its cultural landscape was a buffer zone to its engineering heritage. Regardless of the fact that such a nomination subordinates cultural landscape to engineering heritage and might fail to emphasize the full importance of the site’s totality, the Canadian officials decided to take the easier route to ensure success and designated the site as a cultural property.
The other expert explained that in dealing with the Rideau Canal as a cultural landscape at national level, it was divided into eight broad sub-units (such as wetlands, forest, farmland, urban, cottage country and so on). This helped the experts to deal with
186 each of these categories one by one, but the complexity did drive them to a simpler route to designation and not as a cultural landscape.
6.2.1.3 Proper Definition of Cultural Landscape
The Operational Guidelines’ definition is informative, but difficult to understand.
A Canadian expert who has been involved in the development of the concept of cultural landscape at the international level believed that a concise definition of cultural landscape should be short and clear and suggested the following definition by Davidson-Hunt:
“cultural landscape is defined as the physical expression of the complex and dynamic sets of relationships, processes and linkages between societies and environments”4 (2003).
This expert argued that culture and nature are obviously equal in this definition, which
includes linkages, processes and relationships integral to the understanding of a cultural
landscape. This definition encompasses the spiritual relationships of people and the
associated values as well (I-3).
A Canadian member of ICOMOS International World Heritage evaluation team5
also agreed that the definition of cultural landscape as stated in the Operational
Guidelines is very fluid and hard to contain (I-4). This expert suggested that a partial
solution may be to begin with a very clear understanding of values and then to limit the designation to those parts of the site that demonstrate and contribute to the Outstanding
4 Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=506250841&Fmt=7&clientId=12303&RQT=309&VName=PQD 5 ICOMOS World Heritage evaluation team is responsible for evaluation of cultural heritage and cultural landscape nominations.
187
Universal Value. Often cultural landscapes are so large as to preclude any other approach.
Cultural landscapes as heritage should be better integrated into the working practice of the World Heritage sites and national heritage properties (I-3) (I-4).
Eventually, there would be many countries that would then create their own definitions.
Different countries would have similar standards and speak the same language. This is why having the similar definition is important. The Canadian definition of cultural landscape is very similar to the World Heritage one, but adapted to a Canadian context. A
Canadian expert explained that it was kept the same so that there would be some similarities with those of other countries. However, even the Parks Canada definition is very broad and needs elaboration if it is to provide real meaning (I-3).
6.2.1.4 Definitions of Cultural Landscape and Mixed Heritage a Confusion
Cultural landscapes are seen as the integration of culture and nature. Mixed heritage is seen as distinct, separating the two and recognizing culture in one area and nature in another. Cultural landscapes differ from mixed heritage sites because they do not necessarily meet or need natural heritage criteria (I-3) (I-15) (I-18) (I-20). Some respondents argued that prior to 2005, when the Operational Guidelines Criteria were split into two sets of criteria, cultural heritage nominees were evaluated on cultural criteria and natural heritage nominees on natural criteria. In mixed sites each set of criteria should have been considered, but in the instance of cultural landscape only the cultural criteria were taken into account. Mixed sites were meant to be those that have clearly met natural criteria and cultural criteria. For many cultural landscapes, the big
188 question was whether or not they would also fit under natural criteria, and the majority could not. After the amalgamation of the Criteria, in theory all 10 criteria are to be considered when evaluating World Heritage nominations no matter what category of heritage. This might not always happen in practice.
To Canadian experts with international experience, mixed heritage and cultural landscape are increasingly confused at the Word Heritage Committee. Before the
Committee considered cultural landscapes, they would nominate mixed sites. From 1993, with the introduction of cultural landscape properties, there is little talk about mixed heritage properties. Today a mixed site signifies an old nomination, an indication of the mindset of the day. Nominations are either for a cultural site, a natural site or a cultural landscape. The Committee has discouraged mixed nominations.6 They discussed Meteora
in northern Greece as an example of a mixed heritage site. This property holds both geological and cultural values and consists of a series of vertical natural sandstone pillars
used by monks as platforms on which to build monasteries. The only access is by baskets
which are hoisted up the sides of the pillars. The experts believed if the site were nominated today, it would probably be listed as a cultural landscape (I-4) (I-18).
6.2.2 Conservation of Cultural Landscapes
The conservation of cultural landscapes and the challenges in developing and
implementing management planning was another core issue. Participants provided
6 It is notable that Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé-Okanda in Gabon was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2007 as a mixed property, which means the Committee still consider the Mixed Heritage nominations.
189 constructive observations, noting their concerns from their own international and local standpoints covering both conceptual and practical issues. International and Canadian professionals pointed out challenges in the managing and planning stages and the issues they have confronted. Iranian experts and a number of experts from developing countries clearly linked conservation challenges to the concept and definition of cultural landscape.
In other words, they are still dealing with the first stages, that is, defining the concept, the terminology and a translation of the English words. Others have understood, defined and applied the concept and then have identified cultural landscapes and have passed to the next stage, which is management planning (Tables 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6).
6.2.2.1 Major Challenges in the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes
Cultural landscapes are complex sites (I-1) (I-3). Conservation of cultural
landscapes is challenging, given their complexities. The size of cultural landscapes makes
conservation and management even more complicated, requiring more resources to
implement conservation plans.
Cultural landscapes demand a particular management approach (I-1) (I-8) (I-26).
In conservation of cultural landscapes, holistic, all-encompassing management planning
is the most appropriate. The identification of all values is essential for the proper
protection of cultural landscapes. Iranian experts believed only adequate research,
education, and training that involve multiple tangible, intangible, spiritual, associative
and other values that relate to cultural landscapes can ensure successful conservation
planning.
190
Cultural landscapes have multiple stakeholders and jurisdictions (I-3) (I-8) (I-27).
The conservation of cultural landscapes is challenging because it involves many
stakeholders, multiple jurisdiction and often an equal number of owners. A Canadian, an
Iranian and an International respondent argued this alone presents an incredible problem
that can involve multiple ministries and differing sets of civil servants, each with distinct
mandates. Both the mandate and the will to cooperate are critical. Often, those owning the cultural landscapes have neither the legal, human, financial resources nor professional expertise to implement conservation plans.
Cultural landscapes are contested places (I-3). Given different people’s values,
and that their varying ways of looking at their heritage can become contested, there needs to be more work with conflict resolution in the management of cultural landscapes. There are a number of good examples where stewardship of natural resources and cultural heritage together has been based on consensus. The work of the Conservation Study
Institute in Vermont7 and its collaboration with the Quebec-Labrador Foundation on
management of natural resources in cultural landscapes is a case in point.
Managers of cultural landscape properties come from different educational or
training backgrounds (I-3) (I-18). Managing natural resources in cultural landscapes is a challenge because the majority of cultural landscape managers either come from a background in cultural heritage without adequate natural resource experience or vice versa. Typically, in most governments, responsibilities for natural and cultural resources
7 The Conservation Study Institute was established by the US National Park Service in partnership with academic, government, and nonprofit organizations in 1988: http://www.nps.gov/archive/mabi/csi/index.htm.
191 are divided, with the cultural people in one department and the natural resource people in another. In Parks Canada, even though they were in the same agency, they did not work closely together until the last ten years. In Iran, experts are in two different organizations and coordination between natural and cultural departments is frequently missing. Experts need to agree that they are responsible for the same set of heritage resources, whether natural or cultural.
In the case of the Rideau Canal, Canadian experts explained, there are people interested in improving the quality of water and the edges of the water. To them the cultural resources of Rideau Canal are not a priority. But all realize that in order to succeed they must collaborate on each others priorities. The gap between those trained in natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities must be bridged both in the workplace and in university learning.
Cultural landscapes have multiple layers (I-3). Cultural landscapes involve many layers that are traditionally each subject to heritage assessments. Generally the practice is to look for what is the most outstanding rather than how all of the layers of historical
remains are integrated. Even if the integrated layers are recognized, the key question
becomes whether all these layers can be or are still being managed effectively. According
to this respondent, Parks Canada Cultural Resource Management Policy has a good
structure for providing a theoretical basis for that purpose, but putting it into practice
remains a challenge.
Most cultural landscapes are living places (I-4) (I-26). Because cultural
landscapes are mostly inhabited places marked by human presence, they are working
landscapes. Lack of control becomes problematic in conservation of living heritage.
192
National parks with well-defined boundaries and fences, with designated areas for visitors and with restricted access to the protected zones, are easier to manage than cultural landscapes where people need to continue to live, to earn and to adapt. It is impossible to freeze these landscapes in order to ‘preserve’ the living heritage; they would no longer be ‘living.’8
Management of change is critical in cultural landscapes (I-4) (I-20). Cultural
landscapes, with their dynamic and changing nature, demand a totally different approach.
The degree of change in a cultural landscape can be quite significant, especially if the
sustaining environment collapses. Two international experts discussed the Rice Terraces
of the Philippines Cordilleras to illustrate the issue. This site was one of the first cultural
landscapes in the world to be endangered. Its survival relies completely on the local
community and landowners in terms of its physical structure and sustainability. While the rice crop is of a very specific low quality and gets a low market price, it is also used to make spiritual wine that is used for village’s ceremonies and traditional activities. In the end rice cultivation is not economically viable and fails to respond to the economic needs of the community.9 The experts also noted that the local people had a lot of chants and
8 This is linked to a more technical issue – the use of appropriate terminology in the field of heritage conservation. To a Canadian expert, the word preservation itself is a word under dispute. Many argue that a cultural landscape cannot be preserved but can be conserved by managing the change. This distinction is an important one. The US National Park Service system often refers to preservation, and to many preservation means freezing. In certain cases, preservation might be appropriate, but a cultural resource cannot just be frozen, because it needs to be maintained, and in maintenance there is intervention and change. Later in this chapter, the use of differing words in different cultures is discussed as experienced by experts participating in an international course. 9 The experts explain that work on the rice terraces is back-breaking and machines cannot be used in the small flats. Accompanied by a migration from rural areas into the urban centers, some parts of the Rice Terraces have significantly deteriorated. That landscape may well disappear because it has no viable economic life (I-20) (I-23).
193 songs associated with work in the rice terraces. This music was listed in the intangible cultural heritage as a masterpiece. That will also disappear within a generation as people become disassociated from their land and its heritage.
One of these experts also discussed vineyards as another example of managing change in cultural landscapes (I-4). If the method of making wine changes dramatically and if a certain kind of machine requires differing spacing of the grapes, the entire appearance of a vineyard could change. Whether authorities responsible for heritage should compensate farmers not to adapt (either not to farm or to farm in a traditional way) in order to freeze a landscape is under dispute. This expert believed there are similar issues at play in historic towns, for example whether the local inhabitants of a rustic town should ever have the rights to have indoor running water. How to accommodate the legitimate desires of a population for modernity is challenging.
The pressures from urban and industrial developments are everyday challenges in cultural landscapes and threaten most historic sites. According to a number of international respondents, many countries accept these challenges and control change in land values, in land use, and in the construction of new buildings and other structures within the boundaries of cultural landscapes (I-23) (I-24) (I-25) (I-27).
Conservation challenges are mainly similar to those of identification problems (I-
1) (I-6) (I-8) (I-13) (I-18) (I-19) (I-21) (I-23). The issues that were noted earlier with regard to the identification of cultural landscapes were discussed again by a few respondents when addressing challenges in conservation. How one perceives cultural landscape is critical to an understanding of the concept. First there is a need to understand
the concept of cultural landscape at the local level and recognize its multiple values. Only
194 then can cultural landscape be defined based on international criteria and national criteria.
They pointed out that proper and successful management planning requires public and professional awareness and participation at all stages from decision making to implementation. Time, and human and financial resources, as well as adequate information and research on cultural landscape, are essential to ensure this.
Presentation of cultural landscapes is a part of conservation (I-15). Presentation of
cultural landscapes is closely linked to their protection. A World Heritage official
believed that, in many sites, the interpretation is limited at best. Much more needs to be
done at the entrances to these sites to ensure the public knows what it is encountering.
But because cultural landscapes encompass large and complex areas, it may be that
interpretative opportunities need to be scattered appropriately throughout the landscape.
At the moment there are no examples of interpretation strategies that meet the full needs
of cultural landscapes.
However, this official continued, presentation is less of a problem for the category
of Designed Cultural Landscapes and Gardens, as in the case of many historic gardens in
England, France, Spain and Italy. There are a number of good examples of appropriate
interpretation. Perhaps at this time, the best guidelines are in the Associative Cultural
landscapes, the UNESCO/IUCN Working Guidelines for the Conservation and
Management for Sacred Natural Sites.10
10 International Symposium 'Conserving Cultural and Biological Diversity: The Role of Sacred Natural Sites and Cultural Landscapes' – United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan, 30 May–2 June 2005. This official declares that IUCN is much better at management issues in terms of protected landscapes and natural heritage properties because they were into management planning long before ICOMOS. ICOMOS should work on management framework for cultural landscapes. The next challenging step will be to work
195
Table 6.4 Major Challenges in the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes – Iranian Experts’ Perspective
Major challenges in the conservation of cultural landscapes
Unknown concept to many cultures Unknown concept to many local authorities New concept Definition unclear to many cultures Terminology absent in many cultures Translation unavailable in many countries
Size, Dimensions Large areas
Multiple values Protection of multiple values
Diverse cultural context/background Varied culture of conservation Way of thinking Lack of holistic conservation and management approaches Iranian Experts
Lack of knowledge and understanding at the local level Inappropriate implementation by local Knowledge and awareness authorities Lack of research and adequate information Lack of public awareness Lack of public participation
on the management guidelines for cultural landscapes and make them available to site managers of the existing sites (I-15).
196
Table 6.5 Major Challenges in the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes – Canadian Experts’ Perspective
Major challenges in the conservation of cultural landscapes
Similar to identification issues
Lack of awareness of what cultural Awareness landscape is
Different type of sites Dealing with complex sites involving layers
Failure to manage natural resources in cultural landscapes Management approaches Failure to manage change Failure to look at cultural landscapes within their total environment
Different ways of looking Contested spaces Varying values for different people
Different levels of authority Overlaying jurisdictions (cultural/natural people) Multiple stakeholders
Canadian Experts Multiple ownership Difficulties in coordination and/or collaboration
Lack of appropriate and adequate policies, Legal and professional framework regulations and standards Failure to put policies into practice
Gap in professional expertise and People’s training understanding: Natural sciences vs. Arts
Poorly defined, unclear boundaries Boundaries Lack of control especially in working and inhabited landscapes
197
Table 6.6 Major Challenges in the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes – International Experts’ Perspective
Major challenges in the conservation of cultural landscapes
Recognizing a heritage site as cultural Recognition landscape
Failure to identify multiple values Multiple values Failure to identify both tangible and intangible values
Still internationally in the process of New heritage type recognizing different sub-categories
Lack of holistic conservation of key elements and all values Conservation approaches How to retain the spirit of place How to acknowledge the living heritage
Inappropriate interpretation Presentation Need for on-site museum
Failure to control urban development pressures Developments Weak relationship between local community and development planners
International Experts International Difficulties in controlling increase of land value within area Local residents’ desire to sell off parcels of their land Failure to maintain the original land use Changes in land-use Land-use changes to industrial or residential uses Failure to prevent local communities/settlers from adding new structures (buildings, roads, etc.) in sensitive areas
Lack of adequate legal frameworks Lack of adequate human resources with Resources professional expertise Limited financial resources
198
6.2.2.2 Legal Frameworks for the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes
At the international level the World Heritage Convention dictates that the State
Parties have the obligation to conserve potential heritage sites as well as their World
Heritage sites. The duties of the World Heritage Centre are not only to advise governments on potential nominations, but also to ensure the conservation of the sites on the List. If the State Party fails to fully protect a property, the World Heritage Centre intervenes. Reports to the Committee can identify concerns on the way a property is treated which might lead to Monitoring Missions at the invitation of State Party.11 A
World Heritage official discussed a Monitoring Mission which was undertaken for Sintra
Cultural Landscape in Portugal, and did not have a management Plan (I-15). Since the
State Party did not implement the suggestions of the first mission, their request for another mission was refused. Instead the Centre asked the State Party to implement the suggestions of the first mission. In this sense, the World Heritage Centre has a powerful role, although the most they can legally do is to advocate the removal of a site from the
World Heritage list.
Parks Canada Cultural Resource Management policy has five principles that must be applied together in a holistic way to World Heritage Sites regardless of site type. If the values of a cultural landscape have not been properly identified, then there could be a problem. By forcing managers to think through the answers and by applying the principles in the process, in a Canadian expert’s opinion, Parks Canada has developed a
11 Experts from the Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN go to Monitoring Missions.
199 reasonably sound process (I-4).12 This expert compared the Canadian document with the
U.S. National Park Service Cultural Resource Management policy.13 The Canadian
alternative is thought to be successful and leaves the opportunity for the site managers to
reflect on appropriate action for each particular case; the National Park Service’s policy
is in contrast a thick, complicated document with rules for every possible situation.
At a more local level in Canada’s provinces, there are a number of jurisdictions
that are now beginning to recognize cultural landscapes. In the Province of Ontario, for
example, until 2005, provincial legislation allowed designation of buildings and districts,
but not landscapes. Since March 2005, the new Ontario Heritage Act provides for cultural
landscapes. More of the provinces are moving in this direction although there are always
jurisdictional challenges (I-18). The protection of the historic and natural district of
Mount Royal as a cultural landscape in Montreal, for instance, involves both the Ministry
of Culture and Communications of Quebec and the City of Montreal (I-25).
In most parts of the world, cultural landscapes are a new phenomenon and are not
yet incorporated in local authority, municipal, or national legal frameworks (I-19) (I-24)
(I-23) (I-26). The changing world recognition of cultural landscapes and an increasing
understanding of their complexities should be considered as all jurisdictions move
forward with their respective heritage plans.
12 The short Cultural Resource Management policy was written in late 1980s and developed based on the realization that the site managers would not read long complex documents. Parks Canada believed that there is no point in writing lengthy manuals and establishing complex rules that resource managers would not read. 13 NPS- 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline.
200
Iranian experts noted that responsible authorities have not yet developed any particular conservation and management plan for cultural landscapes; however, small steps are slowly taken by the natural heritage committee in ICHHTO which might in the future relate to cultural landscapes (I-6) (I-19) (I-21).
6.2.2.3 Key Concerns in Sustainable Cultural Landscape Management
Sustainable management is an important part of the discussion of conservation for a cultural landscape. Sustainability14 is a word which is widely used, but not really
understood, or at least, if understood, not clearly defined. To a Canadian expert, in the
conservation of cultural landscapes, it is not just the elements that are conserved; the processes which give birth to the elements also need to be conserved. It means that attributes of landscapes in an overall sense are to be conserved. Something that is in motion is conserved, not just the current static reality. In such manner, the word sustainability becomes an important part of what is discussed; because it is the process that is being sustained. The sustainability of process should be the real goal of conservation in a cultural landscape. It is not just about keeping all the physical elements in place. Progress should be possible, but in a manner that is sympathetic to the values of the place (I-18). An Iranian expert also reflected, regarding the importance of sustainable management of cultural landscapes, that managing change – both natural and cultural – is
14 UN definition of Sustainability: “Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainable development is a balance in three dimensions: Environmental Protection, Economic Growth, and Social Development. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Sustainable Development, retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/review.htm.
201 a key part of sustainable management and cultural landscapes should be allowed to continue their natural cycle of life. No management plan should interfere with this cycle, because too much control means too much intervention, which can result in more damage
(I-1). Therefore, the term sustainability has to be defined in the cultural landscape management context but within an appropriate cultural framework (I-18) (I-19).
Nevertheless, there has to be an understanding of the origins of the landscape and how it has been managed by its inhabitants for hundreds if not thousands of years. Thus an overview of the history of the management of the sites is crucial in development of management plan for future of cultural landscapes. A World Heritage expert described
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park of Australia, which has been and continues to be managed for thousands of years (I-15). This example illustrates the existence of an equilibrium between landscape and its sustainable management by the Aboriginal people.
Considering cultural landscapes within their total environment and maintaining the relationship between the site and all surrounding phenomena are crucial in sustainable management. This means looking at earth, water, sky, fauna, flora, and viewscapes, as well as the culture of local societies. In Aboriginal societies or Aboriginal worldviews, for instance, all of these are integrated. This is not always recognized within current heritage practice (I-3) (I-6).
There must also be an awareness of global challenges and global markets. A way should be found to minimize economic reliance on tourism, but yet to make the site available to tourists (I-6) (I-8) (I-15). A few respondents believed tourism should not be the main income for living cultural landscapes. More efforts are required to help those living in cultural landscapes to better manage their resources and to continue to evolve in
202 the way they have been doing for thousands of years. If they want change, they should not be bound to traditional ways. The balance is a very delicate one. That being said, comprehensive planning will nevertheless be required to manage tourism both to protect cultural landscapes and to provide appropriate facilities for tourists to enhance their experience. Public participation and involvement with experts in preparing such management plans are key in successful planning.
6.2.3 Cultural Landscapes in the Framework of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines
The World Heritage Convention and its current Operational Guidelines have been instrumental in the international recognition of cultural landscapes as a heritage type. The
Operational Guidelines document is a key international tool for cultural landscape recognition, its conservation and its presentation. Participants reflected on their practical experiences when applying the Convention and its Guidelines, and addressed its strengths and shortcomings.
6.2.3.1 Strengths and Weaknesses of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines in Defining Cultural Landscapes
The World Heritage Convention, an intergovernmental convention, is variably understood. Some State Parties understand the Convention, its Operational Guidelines and emerging concepts and ideas very well, while others understand them very poorly or not at all. A few international experts agreed in some cases State Parties have nominated properties independent of expert recommendation. The World Heritage Committee and its advisory bodies can advise, but if the country does not want to recognize the heritage
203 of a minority group or if there are territorial issues, or governments have different priorities, sites will not be nominated (I-12) (I-15) (I-18). One of the experts illustrated the point describing the case of Mount Ararat, the most holy mountain of the Armenians, which is on Turkish territory. It will stand little chance of nomination. Therefore, the fact that there is no access by experts to the list except through their governments remains a problem.
On the other hand, the intergovernmental aspect of the Convention can be an advantage. The Centre can urge governments to take correct measures and protect inscribed properties; otherwise, the Committee has the power to put the properties on the
List of World Heritage in Danger. If the State Parties continue to fail to properly protect the properties, the Committee could de-list them (I-15).15
The Operational Guidelines is acknowledged to be the most useful document for defining whether the property is a cultural landscape and what kind of cultural landscape it is. One Canadian official reasoned that its strength lies in clarifying the definitions, so that one can actually understand what kind of landscapes they are dealing with. The
Operational Guidelines provide useful directions on how to assess values and, indeed, to
15 There are a number of success stories where the World Heritage Committee reacted strongly and demanded State Parties halt improper developments. The proposed new bridge which threatened to endanger the cultural landscape of Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany or the proposed high-rise building adjacent to Maidan Emam Esfahan in Iran are two cases. In the first instance the Committee suggested a tunnel instead of the bridge and in the second, the Committee asked the State Party to decrease the height of the high-rise in order to maintain the visual integrity of the site. However, there are an equal number of unsuccessful interventions. The Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman (inscribed in 1994) was de-listed from the World Heritage List in 2007, because the State Party decided to reduce the size of the protected area by 90% which would destroy the Outstanding Universal Value of the site.
204 assess integrity and authenticity, which is in itself a very difficult concept, particularly with regard to ever changing landscapes (I-4).
This official added the Operational Guidelines are, however, quite weak on the management side, with only a general chapter on management, demonstrating a real need to rethink management and conservation standards. The World Heritage Committee requires the Outstanding Universal Values of World Heritage cultural landscapes to be describable through a Statement of Significance. If a clear Statement of Significance is developed it should assist decision making whether a proposed intervention or change is acceptable or not, or whether or not those changes and interventions impact the
Outstanding Universal Value. Once a cultural landscape is inscribed on the World
Heritage List, the interpretation of the Outstanding Universal Values and what will impact them can become very subjective. This is apparent from a review of the monitoring reports. For example, this Canadian official reasoned, there is a plan to put a major highway through the Palladian Villas, scattered throughout the Veneto region in
Italy. Denying the impact of noise and air pollution, the State Party claims the road will have little if any impact, if they drop the highway below the view line. There is no instrument to guide the Committee in decision making on such cases, in part because not much research has been done on how much change and intervention is acceptable. While this is a weakness for all heritage categories, it is particularly serious for cultural landscapes, since by their very nature they are in constant evolution (I-4).
Another Canadian expert, however, argued while the three categories of cultural landscapes defined in the Operational Guidelines (designed, organically evolved and associative) are useful and allow the Committee an overview of what has been
205 designated, they are much too broad. For example, the Rideau Corridor is defined as a
“continuing or evolving landscape” in World Heritage terminology, but that does little to assist in devising management strategies. The categories are far too broad although they may help people see patterns on the World Heritage List (I-18).
Another Canadian expert declared that the strength of the World Heritage
Operational Guidelines is that not only have they been widely accepted, but also that they are in the literature in a number of countries such as Australia16 and the United States17
(I-3). This expert noted that the Operational Guidelines have also significantly influenced
Canada, particularly at the national level, where cultural landscapes were not really an integral part of the national historic sites program.18 Following the World Heritage
Convention adaptation of Operational Guidelines, Parks Canada developed guidelines for parks and gardens, which are a type of defined cultural landscape, within its National
Historic Sites and Parks. Parks Canada and some of the provinces have also begun to examine rural and Aboriginal landscapes as well (I-3).19 However, there are many more
16 For instance, Jane Lennon Works, such as 'The evolution of landscape conservation in Australia: Reflections on the relationships of nature and culture', in The protected landscape approach: Linking nature, culture and community, Mitchell, Nora, Jessica Brown, and Michael Beresford (eds.), 2005, UK Countryside Commission, pp.195-207. 17 For instance, Arnold R. Alanen and Robert Z. Melnick’s work, such as their book Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America (2000), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 18 A Canadian expert reported the Canadian Register of Historic Properties however includes only a few sites that are really cultural landscapes. This may be in part because of terminology on the Register web site or because the site is not fully searchable. A great deal of interest exists in the Province of Quebec which is more heavily influenced by European experience than the rest of Canada. The idea of Regional Natural Parks of France, a different way of looking at place, evolved in Quebec, in part, because of its strong commitment to its cultural identity. Cultural landscapes are a greater part of the province’s cultural agenda, agendas which are not always a high priority in the rest of Canada (I-3). 19 The acceptance of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines has spread from Canada’s national government to its provinces as well. Ontario’s Ministry of Culture, for instance, has used the framework for cultural landscapes and has an illustration of a “defined landscape” (Battlefield House) on its website. The Ontario Heritage Act of 1975 identifies individual heritage properties (buildings and landmarks) and
206 types that need to be conserved. While there would appear to be improved guidance for the identification of cultural landscapes, this does not mean that the exercise has been useful to all countries, particularly where English is not common (I-4).20
World Heritage officials claimed although there have been attempts to make the
Operational Guidelines more useful, the World Heritage Centre is aware that it is still not
an easy-to-read document. It took a few years for the sub-committees within the World
Heritage Committee to redefine the Operational Guidelines and finally to gain support
from experts and the full Committee (I-15) (I-20). Regardless of these shortcomings, in
the opinion of one of the World Heritage officials, some call the World Heritage
Convention brilliant because it provides for the possibility that tangible elements can be
associated with intangible ones through an assessment of the various Outstanding
Universal Values.
6.2.3.2 Criteria in the Operational Guidelines and Recognition of Cultural Landscapes
The World Heritage Centre believes now that the two sets of criteria are together
nominations are easier.21 The amalgamation of the criteria has meant that the Centre now
requires countries to consider the full range of the possibilities in the preparation of
districts and now has expanded the area of conservation to include cultural landscapes. Cultural landscapes in Ontario, retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/landscape.htm 20 For instance, the Operational Guidelines document is used only for nomination of the Iranian World Heritage Sites – not for the nomination of other national heritage properties. 21 As explained in Chapter Three, the categories of cultural landscapes were introduced in 1992. When the Lake District in the UK was nominated in 1992, the shortcomings of the Operational Guidelines became obvious. There was a gap between cultural and natural criteria with the real difficulty being on the cultural side. In 1998, at the Amsterdam expert meeting, the decision to join the criteria was made.
207 nominations.22 A World Heritage official noted the formalistic view is that the natural and cultural criteria were previously placed in different paragraphs and separated from
each other; paragraph 24 for cultural heritage and paragraph 44 for natural heritage.
When preparing the nomination dossiers, people preparing nominations were confused as
to where to find the appropriate criteria. Now, there is one place, the current paragraph
77, which defines cultural and natural criteria in one set of criteria, and in annex 3 of the
current Operational Guidelines, cultural landscapes are among the different types of sites
that can be identified (I-15).
The new set of Criteria came into force after February 2005, which means the
2005 nominations evaluated by the Committee in 2006 still were under the old
Operational Guidelines. The 2006 nominations evaluated by the Committee in 2007 was
the first batch dealt with under the new combined criteria. The results were not that much
different, indicating that their influence will not be easily felt, at least in the short term.
But as a World Heritage official noted, in the long term this merger of the criteria should
have an impact (I-15).
Some Iranian, Canadian and international informants believed the new set of
criteria will not greatly influence recognition of cultural landscapes per se (I-1) (I- 3) (I-
22 According to a World Heritage expert, in most cases of cultural landscapes, they will be nominated using cultural criteria. In very rare cases states also examine the natural criteria, for example, the Sacred Mountains. The Sacred Mountains cannot be put solely under the Criterion VI (associative values) because the Committee is very careful in using these Criteria. At the 2001 Wakayama Workshop on Sacred Mountains in Asia/Pacific, the conclusion was that the use of cultural Criterion VI (associative values) and the notion of natural beauty (current Criterion VII) would certainly be a possibility. This would not have been possible in the past. While the criteria for the nomination of the Sacred Mountains are changing, they remain very complex given that their nomination will require lengthy consultations with multiple communities and belief groups. There will be always sites that will never be nominated, like Mount Fuji since a military base impacts the integrity of the site (I-15).
208
18) (I- 20) (I-21). They argued nothing has fundamentally changed and the cultural criteria (one to six) and the natural criteria (seven to ten) have just been renumbered one to ten. There are no additional cultural landscape criteria. There was a lot of discussion before the criteria were unified as to whether to integrate or amalgamate them. In the end, they are still the same ten criteria; the first six are the old cultural and the last four are the natural criteria.
While on one hand, it can be argued that since the criteria are the same they do not influence nominations, on the other hand, for cultural landscapes, they are important because they now put the cultural criteria and natural criteria in one list (I-3) (I-4). It should make it easier to evaluate cultural landscapes, because their natural and cultural features are so interwoven.
Respondents agreed that time will determine whether ICOMOS and IUCN will start using all of the criteria or whether ICOMOS will continue to work separately with the first six and IUCN with the remaining four. It is hard to reach consensus with two bodies – one, IUCN, dealing with natural environments and the other, ICOMOS, focusing on historic buildings, monuments and districts (I-1) (I- 3) (I-4) (I-15) (I- 18) (I- 20) (I-
21).23
23 Cultural landscapes remain a bone of contention inside the World Heritage community largely because every time a cultural landscape is nominated, it is understood to be a cultural not a natural site. Administratively, the World Heritage Committee is organized so that ICOMOS evaluates cultural landscape nominations. IUCN experts also evaluate these nominations but on separate missions and submit an independent opinion to the World Heritage Committee. This has caused great confusion, because IUCN is supposed to work through ICOMOS, and ICOMOS is supposed to make one unified presentation on the relationship between nature and culture (I-18). However, at the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS for the first time presented recommendations for cultural landscapes based on a report reflecting evaluations by both ICOMOS and IUCN.
209
Nevertheless, State Parties are now encouraged in preparing nominations to consider both criteria with the hopes of identification of the full range of values. In other words, when State Parties propose what they believe is a natural property and wish to inscribe it under the natural criteria, they must also consider the cultural aspects and vice versa. One expert observed that in many parts of the world like the Caribbean or in the
Asia/Pacific region this is absolutely integral to any natural site nominations. State
Parties have also started to present indigenous sites, because there is now an ability with the guidelines to recognize the integration of cultural, natural and spiritual attributes within the scope of the definition of cultural landscape (I-3).
6.2.3.3 Application of World Heritage Operational Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes in Practice
While a World Heritage official stated that the World Heritage Operational
Guidelines were used all over the world (I-15), this was doubtful for another internationally active Canadian expert (I-4) because certainly many countries use the criteria to prepare nominations but not many employ the other chapters. Others may use the chapter on managing the World Heritage emblem properly, but most ignore Article 5 of the Convention, the responsibility to build internal capacity. Quite a few countries bring forward sites to be designated, but then have no motivation for long-term conservation.
This Canadian expert emphasized that the long, hard and ongoing management that can be seen, for instance, at Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump takes time and financial and human resources. Many countries are not prepared to make that commitment; they
210 primarily want to benefit from tourism. While there are occasionally tourism management strategies, to protect the site, often they are about bringing more people without sufficient provisions for site protection (I-4).
Another Canadian expert advisor to the ICOMOS-International commented that the Operational Guidelines helps professionals define cultural landscape, but not to manage them. The Operational Guidelines are simply in place to inscribe sites on the
World Heritage List and usually do not go beyond that. It is therefore not surprising that the Operational Guidelines do not really help professionals. The clues for professional practice come from other sources24 (I-18).
To ensure the proper application of the Operational Guidelines, there is an equal
need for more training and capacity building (I-15). On the one hand there are limited
numbers of training opportunities focusing solely on cultural landscapes and their
conservation, many of which are not offered any more.25 On the other hand, a new person
appointed to be a site manager of a new World Heritage Site, which happens to be a
cultural landscape property, would have more difficulty in appreciating the Operational
Guidelines, even with training, in comparison with a person who has been more involved.
This is exacerbated in many parts of the developing world where the document’s
terminology is seen as difficult and where English is not the primary language.
24 Professionals’ educational background, experience and training are among these sources. 25 There have been many regional seminars, short-term courses on cultural landscape issues and capacity building programs for specialists from around the world (I-15). The ICCROM course on cultural landscapes is one example, but unfortunately the last one was offered in 2002. The International Centre for Protected Landscapes in University College of Wales, UK, also offers short-course planning and management programs and workshops to all levels of professionals but is not widely know around the world.
211
The key problem in the application of the Operational Guidelines in the majority of countries is language. In the experience of the World Heritage experts, a site manager who does not speak English, or speaks only broken English, would have difficulty in understanding the key documents even with a training course. To compound the problem, very often the right people are not trained. Site managers should be sent to short term courses to improve their English and then send on an in-depth training seminar (I-15) (I-
20). In some countries, like Russia, where none of the site managers speak English or
French, the documents have been translated and the World Heritage Centre was able to make training workshops available in Russian. However, that alternative may not be available to small countries or even smaller language groups (I-15).
The problem often is that government officials attend meetings of World Heritage
Committee without their experts, who actually prepare the nominations. It is not the operational body, but the national commission for UNESCO, plus Foreign Affairs, with their Ambassador and the permanent delegations, who are at UNESCO. Government officials often do not understand the key issues of integrity, authenticity or management plan. This can result in the failure of nominations and, ultimately, of their management
(I-4) (I-15).
The Operational Guidelines cannot be used effectively in professional practice because they are too general. In many countries the World Heritage Operational
Guidelines are only used for the World Heritage Sites, not national ones. A few international experts believed that the Operational Guidelines can be effectively employed only if they are integrated with local legislation, the framework for cultural heritage and management strategies (I-22) (I-24) (I-26). They argued the Operational
212
Guidelines should be extensively publicized among professionals to allow professionals to become familiar with them so that they would be able to apply them. Professionals then could provide feedback to the World Heritage Committee based on their experience.
Although there are many national and international conservation standards available, there are no World Heritage–approved conservation methodologies or management systems. Experts apply their best interpretation of what they have been able to glean from others and adapt it to their own particular culture (I-4). However, an official confirmed that experts at the World Heritage Centre have been working on a project to develop guidelines for the management of cultural landscapes which could be applied to all World Heritage Sites.26 A set of guidelines is also being developed on how
to prepare a proper management plan (I-15).
Canada has evolved in a specific way because its responsible agencies and
committees27 communicate and cooperate effectively. During development of the
Canada’s tentative list, there were consultations over the criteria with all of the provinces
as well as the tentative list of nominees. According to the Canadian experts and officials,
natural and cultural criteria have been extensively and successfully integrated in Canada
and the idea of cultural landscapes has moved forward in a number of programs (I-3) (I-
4). In Ontario, for instance, the revision of the Heritage Act included considerations of
cultural landscapes and now there are structures within the planning frameworks that
26 A manual on how to prepare natural heritage nominations is also being prepared. ICCROM is involved in developing the manual on cultural urban sites. 27 National Historic Sites of Canada, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and the Canadian delegates to the World Heritage Committee.
213 include them.28 Quebec has also integrated the idea of cultural landscapes and the idea of
memory in its heritage planning.29 The Province of British Columbia has pursued cultural
landscape within its provincial framework by organizing training sessions for different
groups of experts, including planners (I-3).30
There are many jurisdictions in Canada which deal with cultural landscapes, and
local authorities in particular seek more detailed guidelines. Canadian experts identified
the work of the National Capital Commission, with its strong program on cultural
landscapes, as another important Canadian example of managing cultural landscapes with
little attention to the World Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines, even
though it is well aware of them (I-3) (I-18). The Commission deals with urban
landscapes of the City of Ottawa as well as the rural landscapes around Ottawa and
Aboriginal landscapes. The Commission has undertaken a number of landscape studies,
which, while they have not had a strong cultural landscape focus, are nevertheless
instructive. Most of them recognize that the natural elements are integral part of
landscapes and need to be included even though the integration is not always carried out
in practice. The tools that Commission needs to manage its diverse responsibilities and
28 This is particularly important because in Ontario powers are often delegated to the municipalities through the Planning Act. 29 It has stressed the importance of including the idea of multi-complex cultural heritage and integrating the historic district effectively with its total environment as a part of the planning structures, for example, Sillery, Quebec City and La Prairie, Montreal. 30 These have been undertaken in conjunction with, for example, the Heritage Society of British Columbia. A great deal of material has been developed by various experts in Victoria, BC. However, much of the material is not readily accessible. At best it can be found in government reports.
214 extensive properties throughout the region are quite different than those offered by the
World Heritage Operational Guidelines.31
6.2.4 New World Heritage Nominations
6.2.4.1 New World Heritage Nominations and the Cultural Landscape Option
Nomination of new World Heritage sites and assessing their values with cultural landscape consideration directly relates to the understanding of the concept of cultural landscape and its definition. Countries are responsible for seeking information from the
World Heritage Center, ICOMOS and IUCN, other international organizations and
nations, and for learning how to undertake nominations with the cultural landscape option
in mind. This does not encourage the creation of new dialogues or new material (I-4).
The adaptation and application of international guidelines at the national level would be
another way to raise awareness and understanding of cultural landscapes. An Iranian
expert noted that the ICOMOS Florence Charter, for instance, has been translated and
applied to a few historic gardens of Iran; historic gardens are a type of cultural landscape
(I-8).
To an Iranian official, understanding intangible and economic values of
conservation programs also influences acceptance of new heritage categories by heritage officials (I-6). Nevertheless, some experts believed that government officials, local authorities, communities, site managers and NGOs should also be educated about cultural
31 The National Capital Commission has prepared a document, Definition and Assessment of Cultural Landscapes of Heritage Value on NCC Lands, which discusses cultural landscapes in local contexts with a reference to international documents. It identifies steps to identify, research, evaluate, communicate and manage cultural landscapes of different scales.
215 landscapes, how to identify their values and how to conserve them (I-1) (I-6) (I-23).
Whatever increased capacity that might exist for the identifying, planning and management of cultural landscapes, in the opinion of two Iranian and Canadian experts, has come through short courses, workshops, and through assisted policy development (I-
3) (I-6).
A World Heritage official suggested that to further assist State Parties in recognition of cultural landscapes as heritage places, in addition to capacity-building training courses and workshops, State parties could also invite experts to advise on nomination and conservation. The expert implied that this could happen through the
World Heritage Centre, which could act as a broker agency, only if financial resources are available. The assigned experts would go on a field trip and examine the issues onsite.
Comparative studies are also a useful technique. Comparative study is a requirement for a
World Heritage nomination; examples for comparison can be chosen from the World
Heritage List or the Tentative List or any other cases (I-15).32 A Canadian expert replied
that developing nomination and conservation models which can be made available to others is also an important encouragement to State Parties. There are unfortunately not very many good examples in Canada, in Iran or for that matter elsewhere (I-3).
32 This official explained that a comparative study was, for example, conducted for the fossil landscape of Saint Kilda. The results presented to the World Heritage Committee illustrated that there were only three other islands in the world which had this specific human-nature interaction dealing with birds. A comparative study can help define the Outstanding Universal Value of a site and the alternatives to its conservation (I-15).
216
The World Heritage Centre has published a number of books and periodicals on cultural landscapes,33 and held special seminars and expert meetings.34 However, as
Canadian, Iranian and international experts noted, whether all that information gets into
the hands of the people at the various sites and in the national organizations responsible
for heritage is not known (I-3) (I-4) (I-8) (I-22). The dissemination of information is as
vital as the research itself. One proposal, for instance, was to make relevant information
available online at an appropriate webpage.
The nomination of cultural landscapes is greatly affected by the fact that in many countries, there is no connection between the cultural institutions responsible for cultural
heritage and natural institutions. Communication is at best weak when there should be a
lot of interplay between natural and cultural institutions and experts and their
governments. A Canadian official suggested if natural and cultural experts are not at the
same institute, then there should be a forum for dialogue. While in Canada at national
level, both types of resources are well integrated, because Parks Canada looks after both
cultural and natural sites, at the provincial level there is a greater divergence between
agencies responsible for nature versus those responsible for cultural resources (I-4).35
33 The examples are a book by Bernd von Droste, Herald Plachter and Mechtild Rossler, Cultural Landscapes: Components of a Global Strategy, World Heritage Paper Series no. 6 (World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992 – 2002) and World Heritage Paper Series no. 7 (Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation). 34 A complete list of expert meetings could be found at the World Heritage Center website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/#3 35 In Alberta, they were recently merged into one ministry called Alberta Tourism, Park, Culture and Recreation although they have again been split. For a short time Alberta was unusual amongst the Canadian provinces, but it has reverted to the split which is the norm.
217
In most cases, site managers and officials are afraid of nominating sites as cultural landscapes (I-15). A World Heritage official observed that a number of World Heritage
Sites in the Netherlands could be cultural landscape properties,36 because they display the
interaction between the people of the Netherlands and water. The reason they were not
nominated as cultural landscapes is because they would have been transferred to the
jurisdiction of another Minister.
According to this expert, one of the issues with cultural landscapes, therefore, is the need for a team approach that involves all jurisdictional stakeholders (I-15).
Ministries of Agriculture, Environment, Forestry, Natural Resources, and Recruitment (in
case of canals for instance) and others have to work with the Ministry responsible for
heritage such as Ministries of Culture or Heritage. That is not happening in most of the
countries, which means sites are nominated incorrectly, largely because of lack of
capacity of the nominating Ministry. National authorities really need to address this issue.
6.2.4.2 Re-assessment of World Heritage Properties
There is considerable disagreement as to whether to re-assess already inscribed
sites on the World Heritage List to find out if they fulfill cultural landscape criteria. More
importantly, would they be better conserved if designated under this category? A World
Heritage expert believed that re-assessment should be definitely carried out (I-15). This
expert explained that one of the questions in the framework of the Periodic Reporting is
36 They are: Schokland and surroundings – a fossil landscape – and Mill Network at Kinderdijk-Elshout – a continuing landscape.
218 whether the sites are well managed, i.e., whether all the values of the site have been recognized. Many site managers completing the Periodic Reporting have identified additional criteria. This does not necessarily mean that they will be re-nominated.37
In the opinion of the World Heritage Centre, new cultural landscape nominations
are not the concern of the World Heritage Centre. There are already too many sites on the
List which are not properly protected and managed; conservation and presentation of
already inscribed sites is of higher importance. The issues of management and
interpretation have to be addressed prior to nominations; State Parties will rarely develop
management plans later. The process of conservation must start a long time before the
nomination (I-15).
Re-assessment would be helpful to ensure that conservation of existing properties
is being undertaken in a holistic way, a view supported by a few international and Iranian
experts (I-20) (I-22) (I-23) (I-24). Many sites are on the World Heritage List that should
really have been nominated as cultural landscapes, some of which would certainly be
better protected as cultural landscapes. For example, it would be helpful if Canada were
to recognize Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Alberta or Tanguay territory in British
Columbia as cultural landscapes, as a Canadian expert emphasized (I-3). But in the end,
it really depends on governments and their willingness to do this. Another Canadian
expert argued the case of the Solovetsky archipelago in the north of Russia – six islands
37 The example this expert mentioned was the Hawaiian Volcanoes, a natural site in the United States which home to an Indigenous people. Since the State Party has no willingness to recognize it, renomination is impossible (I-15).
219 in the White Sea – that has the oldest and longest stone labyrinth in the Europe (I-18).38
The site was nominated in 1992 as a mixed site. IUCN believed it has no natural values;
ICOMOS said it has significant cultural values. It was inscribed as a cultural heritage site on the List. But in fact, culture and nature are connected and cannot be separated. This should have been presented as a cultural landscape. The Russians understand that the site fulfills the cultural landscape criteria, but whether they will re-nominate the site is unclear. This expert believed it is not a case of logic, but rather willingness. If they are willing to add to the criteria, they need to re-nominate this site, since major modifications require new nominations.
A World Heritage expert who is involved in heritage conservation activities both at national and international levels and is closely involved with the World Heritage
Committee’s activities declared that the re-assessment of already inscribed sites would be exhausting. On the one hand, once a site is inscribed on the List as a World Heritage property, it is a World Heritage site and needs to be managed well; on the other hand, if rethinking the values of the site, and adding additional values as cultural landscape, through cultural landscape plans, improves the management and protection of that site, then it is maybe worth it. But the time available to the World Heritage Committee is limited. Given existing workloads, the reassessment of sites is not a priority (I-4). In the future, the re-assessment option might become more feasible, this expert declared. It
38 The three thousands year old mazes or labyrinths were developed on the islands as monasteries and were used most recently as a gulag or prison camp. The churches and monasteries have survived.
220 seems to some not as urgent an issue as dealing with the protection of existing sites or the examination of new nominations.39
The feasibility of re-assessments requires more study. An expert explained that
within the Canadian context, it would be difficult to re-assess heritage sites considering the complex process of nomination. In Canada, Statements of Significance are written for
the Canadian Register of Historic Places in a strict format, with a limited number of
words and photographs. A re-assessment requires going back to square one for each
resource. This would not be the best expenditure of limited financial and human
resources (I-3). In Iran, professionals argued that neither re-assessments nor re-
nominations would be considered. At best, criteria might be changed in a minor way as
amendments to the original designation (I-6) (I-21).40
6.2.5 An Overview of the Key Informant Interviews
The idea of cultural landscape has taken several decades to develop and will take
an equal period of time if not more to be integrated into practice. Conservation of cultural
landscapes remains a challenge. Although there are about 64 cultural landscapes on the
List as of 2008, they were proposed by a number of State Parties with uncertainty. As
experts argued, in too many cases the countries nominated cultural landscapes because
someone suggested it as a good idea. There was little real understanding of the
39 Currently the Committee will only look at approximately 45 sites a year including renominations. Given that there are 185 countries that have signed the convention as of November 2007, in theory each can have one site examined ever four years. 40 Since a change to the nomination from a natural or cultural site to a cultural landscape would be considered a significant change, this is not a realistic route to change. State Parties are not likely to risk a re-nomination and or to lose a potential nomination in the four year cycle.
221 implications of the nomination, and some State Parties were surprised when they were asked to manage the site as a cultural landscape.41
The responses confirmed that there is no one way of looking at cultural
landscapes. Besides the cultural differences among experts, professionals such as
architects, planners, historians, and geographers all looked at cultural landscapes
differently. Some of the respondents thought that cultural landscape is more about
perception and that cultural landscape is not what is out there, but it is what is in one’s
mind, while others focused on the tangible aspects of landscapes. It is critical to know
how these perceptions inform one’s personal or collective sense of identity. In any case, it
is important to have a common understanding of cultural landscapes.
Interviewees were asked the same questions. Despite being members of a
common heritage profession, there were different responses, largely resulting from
differences in social and cultural backgrounds. The differences in response also reflected
differing stages of knowledge and sophistication. For instance, North American responses
indicated a greater sophistication, although it is clear that Iranian and some international
responses, with sufficient passage of time, may well adopt a more sophisticated approach
as well.
Iranian experts and officials did not respond to the research questions in much
detail in comparison with Canadian experts, or a number of international experts who
41 As one of the Canadian expert with international expertise explained, strong suggestions to Iranian officials resulted in inscription of Bam and its Cultural Landscapes, for instance, as a World Heritage Cultural Landscape. ICOMOS believed that it was wrong to present it as a fortress alone and that the landscape was vital to the integrity of the site. Often, links with government officials who make decisions on cultural heritage properties are certainly important, as they were in this instance (I-18).
222 elaborated on their responses. As is obvious from the data presented in this chapter, less reference was made to Iranian respondents than the other participants; however, they were asked the same questions. None of the Iranian respondents could comment with certainty as to whether any frameworks were under development in their country for conservation of cultural landscapes.
Results of the interviews highlighted the fact that participating experts had differing perspectives. Even acknowledging their varied cultural backgrounds and different worldviews, it is still clear that they need to at least understand the new overarching concepts. Therefore, while culture certainly matters in the selection and conservation of cultural landscapes, a lack of understanding of basic agreed-upon professional practice and terminology emerged as the real issue. How is it possible to make professional decisions on heritage conservation issues if the key people in the field do not have a common understanding of definition and practice?
Heritage conservation challenges at a national level played a key role in identifying the issues underlying the questions. For instance, Canadians have conducted research on the conservation of Canadian cultural landscapes which has led to development of a definition for cultural landscape and standards and guidelines for its conservation. In other words, they have localized the definition of cultural landscape as defined by the World Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines. On the other hand, Iran has neither developed its version of the term cultural landscape yet, nor provided any relevant standards or guidelines. As a result, when Iranian experts were asked to explain the issues involved in the identification of cultural landscapes, they focused on theoretical debates about terminology, or on definitional issues specific to
223
Iran. Canadians’ responses, however, went beyond this and stressed concerns around implementation and practical issues in conservation and management of cultural landscapes.
When participants were asked about the major challenges in the conservation of cultural landscapes, most of them reflected again on the issues surrounding the identification of cultural landscapes. While this shows that the question of conservation and identification are interrelated, it also illustrates how far their thinking still has to go.
Key Iranian heritage officials claimed that cultural landscapes could not be designated by themselves alone. They needed to incorporate a monument. Such reflections and thoughts suggest that obviously the idea that a cultural landscape could merit conservation in its own right has not yet been fully accepted. In other words, such observation was mainly a result of lack of knowledge and lack of understanding of the concept that not all cultural landscapes contain monuments; and not all natural landscapes are devoid of them.
Many of the Iranian key expert respondents in the field of heritage conservation were not fully cognizant of the World Heritage Convention’s cultural and natural criteria and their recent amalgamation. Only a few who were involved at the international level and who attended the World Heritage meetings knew of the criteria. The gap between those with international and national knowledge was wide and increasingly obvious.
However, key Canadian experts at the national level and the majority of experts with the
Province of Alberta were well aware of international heritage conservation policies and current trends.
224
The majority of experts acknowledged that while the Committee has accomplished much and undertaken a number of reforms, it now needs to focus on strengthening the conservation aspects of the convention. They believed that one person or World Heritage officials on their own cannot accomplish this independently; development of such a document will require a number of meetings of global experts to develop an agreed-upon general set of conservation principles. Unfortunately there will be challenges, since the Committee currently has too many diplomats and not enough technicians.
225
PART TWO: Illustrative Examples And Insights Gained From Attending International Events
6.3 Cultural Landscapes: An Illustrative Discussion
In this study, multiple research methods were used to provide as much evidence as possible to support the hypotheses. The key hypothesis, as discussed in Chapter One, is that cultural landscapes are not protected and they are under threat because of a misapplication of theory in practice. The other hypotheses are: how cultural landscapes are recognized is linked to how their values are identified; recognition of cultural landscapes depends on what heritage conservation frameworks are being used to determine and evaluate their multiple values; and conservation of cultural landscapes is related to identification of their multiple values. Research on cultural landscapes, from identification of their values to their conservation and management, needs to employ multiple perspectives for better understanding of the challenges. Besides conducting key informant interviews on the general issues with respect to conservation of cultural landscapes, two examples were employed to illustrate the issues they raised. The study of these examples demonstrated the challenges of conservation of cultural landscapes in practice and provided insight into the issues of improper identification of places that have the potential to be recognized as cultural landscapes. This examination allowed the confirmation of the issues identified by the key informants and extension of new ideas into theoretical development.
226
6.3.1 The Two Examples: Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman
Chapter Five provided detailed information on heritage values and characteristics of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman. It concluded that both examples illustrate the characteristics of cultural landscapes, and as World Cultural
Heritage Sites they do so at an international level. Both possess multiple values related to cultural landscapes, including but not limited to cultural, natural, associative, historical, and archaeological values.
The Government of Alberta owns and manages Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump; however, beyond the designated area the land is owned or leased by ranchers. As a
Provincial Historic Resource, Head-Smashed-In is protected under the Alberta Historical
Resources Act. Further, as it is a Provincial Historic Site, the Government of Alberta both owns the land where the Interpretive Centre is located and provides interpretive services.
Takht-e-Soleyman is the property of the Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and
Tourism Organization (ICHHTO); most of the farmlands surrounding the site are owned by the local people. Takht-e-Soleyman is protected under law by the Iranian Cultural
Heritage Organization Charter as a National Heritage property, including the buffer zone defined in 1993. Takht-e-Soleyman became one of Iran’s ten Grand National Projects for conservation in 1993.
One of these examples could be recognized as an Aboriginal cultural landscape and another could be identified as a designed and/or organically evolved cultural landscape. Neither is acknowledged as a cultural landscape at the national level. Head-
Smashed-In and Takht-e-Soleyman are described as unique archaeological resources.
227
These illustrative examples were examined in different ways: by visiting the sites and by a thorough study of the existing literature, as discussed in the second part of
Chapter Five; through examining available government documents and other publications; and also through the key informant interviews that are discussed here.
6.3.2 Review of Documents
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo jump complex represents a major testament to the unique culture and lifestyle of the Aboriginal people of the Great Plains of the New World. It is a manifestation of a distinct pattern of human development which characterizes this region, and serves to symbolize the inventiveness of Native North American cultures in adapting to their environment.42
Takht-e-Soleyman reveals architectural achievements of Outstanding Universal Values, which from artistic, religious, mythical, and historical points of view emerge from a symbiosis of man-made and spectacular natural setting.43
A section of Chapter Five comprised a comprehensive review of the literature and
documents on those examples. In this section, the official documents, including their
nomination dossiers, advisory body evaluation report, the Committee’s decision for their
inscription on the World Heritage List and the reports on state of conservation were
reviewed and analyzed. These documents are of great importance because they reflect the
views of the responsible authorities in each case and summarize all of the different
42 Proposal for the Nomination of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump on the World Heritage List. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1077/documents/ 43 General Statement at Proposal for the Nomination of Takht-e-Soleyman on the World Heritage List, P.2, Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1077/documents/
228 studies that have been conducted prior and during their nominations process.44
Examining the details of these reports was crucial in understanding the ways State Parties
approach heritage resources and identify their values. Further, this examination identified
the similarities between national and international officials and experts and divergences
of the opinions and perspectives.
Head-Smashed-In was nominated by the State Party as an archaeological site with
reference to the Article 1 of the 1972 World Heritage Convention. ICOMOS evaluated
the nomination and recommended to the World Heritage Committee in favour of
inclusion of the site as a World Heritage Cultural property. Iran nominated Takht-e-
Soleyman as an archaeological site, referring to the Article 1 of the 1972 World Heritage
Convention; the advisory body (ICOMOS) also evaluated it as an archaeological site and
eventually the property was inscribed on the List as a World Heritage Cultural property.
6.3.2.1 Identification of Values
Statement of Significance and Statement of Authenticity/Integrity
At the time of inscription, no Statement of Significance was proposed for Head-
Smashed-In. In the report on the State of Conservation, the importance of landscape for
the buffalo jump was emphasized in historical, archaeological and scientific terms,
44 Information presented in this part is derived from Report on the State of Conservation of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump:
229 highlighting the hunting system on the North American plains based on native people’s knowledge of the bison's distinctive behaviour patterns and their seasonal movements, and the morphological features of the jump. The cultural and social patterns reflected in the lives of the Aboriginal people were important to successful bison driving:
The landscape is an outstanding example of the subsistence hunting that perpetuated the existence of the plains nations as a buffalo culture into the late nineteenth century and to which they still hold in the form of their spirituality and in the preservation of their traditional knowledge base.45
The Statement of Significance of Takht-e-Soleyman emphasized the natural and archaeological aspects of the property as an exceptional testimony to the royal fire temple of Sassanian emperors. Another part of the Statement embraced the significance of natural values of the site as well as historic and religious values:
The fire temple is situated in a mountainous setting marked by a small lake… [the lake] is undoubtedly at the origin of foundation of this site… the surrounding plain watered by the source of Takht-e-Soleyman is as green as it was described in the past by the medieval historians as the pasture for the horses of the Mongol Ilkhanid army.46
The proposal for the nomination of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump on the World
Heritage List stated that the site was the best preserved site of its kind and was fully
authentic on its setting. The report of the State of Conservation clarified that the changes
in authenticity/integrity of the site since inscription relate to the construction of the
45 Report on the State of Conservation of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump:
230
Interpretive Centre and the site infrastructure that supports it, and the archaeological investigations at the site between 1981 and 1995.
The integrity of the site has been changed significantly since inscription.
Surrounding lands were purchased to protect the site from changes in land use and potential visual impacts. A part of this land was used for the development of the
Interpretive Centre and the rest has been leased back to the original owners for cattle grazing, which can also be a tool for fire suppression. Head-Smashed-In became a part of
Alberta’s Special Places 2000, “a program intended to identify a wide range of culturally and naturally significant lands in order to afford them a level of protection through monitored use.”47 This program allows for land-use control on all development projects
within the area.
In another part of the Takht-e-Soleyman’s nomination dossier, the Statement of
Authenticity described the property in terms of tangible aspects such as its use and
function (as representative of the Sassanian Fire Temple), location (as being the same as
the ancient location of Shiz), and material and substance (that archaeological excavations
have not affected structures of the monument.)48 This statement should also have
addressed the authenticity of the site from the perspective of form and design. It would
have been better if it could have covered other aspects of the intangible heritage of the
property such as traditions and spirit and feeling as indicators of character and sense of
place49 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005b).
47 Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/parks/managing/establishing.asp 48 Proposal for the Nomination of Takht-e-Soleyman on the World Heritage List as a World Cultural Property: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1077/documents/ 49 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Para. 83.
231
ICOMOS, in its evaluation of the property, confirmed that Takht-e-Soleyman is the main Zoroastrian sanctuary of the Sassanian period and that the recent archaeology and restorations at the site did not compromise its authenticity. ICOMOS also noted that the landscape of the area surrounding Takht-e-Soleyman has evolved over time and that the visual integrity of the site is characterized by its rural and agricultural nature. Takht- e-Soleyman Village, between the two principal components of the property, is an integral part of the visual integrity of the landscape. The remoteness of the site, being far from main urban centers and major developments, and its mountainous environment have served to safeguard the integrity of the site. The environment of Takht-e-Soleyman was the main reason for selection of the site for building the sanctuary and for its occupation thousands of years ago. Takht-e-Soleyman encompasses strong symbolic, religious and spiritual values related to fire and water. The architectural expression of the Sassanian civilization illustrated a very strong Iranian identity which significantly influenced the development of Islamic architecture. The archaeological potential of the property is also significant.50
Comparative Analysis
Head-Smashed-In was examined in relation to other excavated bison jumps in
Canada and the United States. The study stressed the fact that Head-Smashed-In was by far the best preserved through an examination of its various attributes (gathering basin, kill site, and campsite) using three categories: physical/archaeological, preservation, and
50 Advisory Body Evaluation: Takht-e Suleiman (Iran) No 1077. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1077.pdf
232 interpretation. This was done using a matrix to compare the qualitative and quantitative elements of each site (Alberta Historic Resources Management, 1980).
The comparative evaluation of Takht-e-Soleyman with other Sassanian structures in Iran was conducted by the Iranian authorities and distinguished the site as being the principal Zoroastrian sanctuary in the Sassanian period. Its fire temple is the oldest and largest in existence. Other Sassanian structures were either influenced by the architecture of another period of time or reflected architectural influences of other parts of the world or of the other lesser important Iranian fire temples (Iranian Cultural Heritage
Organization, 2002).
Justification of Criteria
Canada nominated Head-Smashed-In for inclusion on the World Heritage list
under cultural criterion (iii) – a unique testimony to a cultural tradition that has
disappeared – and criterion (v) – an outstanding example of a traditional land use that is
representative of the plains culture now irreversibly changed. These suited perfectly
criterion (vi) under which the site is inscribed, but which, by the Committee direction,
should only be used in conjunction with other cultural criteria. ICOMOS evaluated and
recommended that the site be inscribed on the List as a World Heritage Cultural Property
only under criterion (vi), commending it as “a site directly and materially associated with
the survival of the human race during the pre-historic period.”51 The 2005 Report on the
51 Head-Smashed-In Bison Jump Complex (Canada) No. 158: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/158.pdf
233
State of Conservation of Head-Smashed-in Buffalo Jump52 also confirmed the selection of criteria by Canada but was not included in the inscription.
Like Head-Smashed-In, Takht-e-Soleyman was nominated as a cultural heritage site; as a result, the Iranian authorities only considered the six cultural criteria as stated in the Operational Guidelines. At the time of nomination of Takht-e-Soleyman in 2003, the two sets of criteria were not yet amalgamated and were in two different paragraphs. They justified five criteria out of six; namely criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi). ICOMOS evaluated the property and approved the same five criteria and recommended the property to be designated under these.
Justification of criterion (i) illustrated that the Iranian experts understood the concept of cultural landscape. Further, they acknowledged the interrelationship of people and nature, spirituality and natural environment.53 The point is that the term cultural
landscape was not used in wording the nomination dossier.
In criterion (ii), Iranian officials noted the historic use of natural landscape and its
design and plan according to the religion as a part of development in architecture,
technology, monumental arts, planning and landscape design. In criterion (iii), the
cultural tradition and ancient civilization of Sassanians were highlighted. They also
mentioned that the Zoroastrians still survive in the region and perform religious
52 Report on the State of Conservation of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump:
234 ceremonies on the birthdate of Zarathustra in early spring; although this is not a publicized event.54 Criterion (iv) describes harmonious integration of the architectural ensemble, religious activities and landscape.55 Perhaps the most important part of the
nomination was stated in criterion (vi) because the site relates to the one of the oldest
belief systems which continues to survive. The whole concept of the site planning was
based on their beliefs and religious activities. Both of the modern fire temples in Iran and
India were planned along the same lines as Takht-e-Soleyman.
Even though there have been references to the natural setting of the property in
the justification of the criteria, the description of the property in the nomination dossier
only embodied the Takht-e-Soleyman platform, its buildings and structures, Zendan-e-
Soleyman and the structures around the opening of the Hill, and a geological review of
that and a few other features.56 There were no references to the natural elements of the
site in the description.
6.3.2.2 State of Conservation and Management
According to the nomination dossier of Head-Smashed-In, the State of
Conservation differs between the kill site, the campsite and the gathering basin. The main
damages to the kill site have been the quarry activities at the cliff face in the late 1800s,
and artefact collecting. The campsite below the cliff has been better conserved; road
54 This event is a very important part of the present life of the site, which should be protected; however, it is not considered in management planning or in any other conservation projects. 55 Proposal for the Nomination of Takht-e-Soleyman, p.12. 56 They include Belqeys Citadel, Tepe Majid Mound, Historical brick baking kiln, Sassanian extracting quarries, and Tumulus near the Village.
235 construction and the construction of stock watering ponds and archaeological excavations have not impacted this part of the site. The greatest impact has been on the natural elements of the gathering basin resulting from the change of a natural landscape to an agricultural one. The main focus of conservation activities has been the archaeological remains, particularly the kill deposits.
The area is managed under the Alberta Historical Resources Act as a Provincial
Historic Resource and also under Special Places 2000 legislation. Its grasslands are managed under contractual agreements/leases which adhere to best range management practices between State Party and the neighbouring ranching families. The strategic management plans for the area include the regional Aboriginal people and reflect their traditional concerns for the land.
A number of non-government agencies, individuals and government bodies are directly involved in the management process through provincial consultation processes.
A Minister's Advisory Committee composed of primary regional stakeholders provides advice on issues concerning the site and its associated resources. The Friends of Head-
Smashed-In Society supports the site interpretation programs and involves mainly
Aboriginal peoples, three adjacent towns and landowners.
The presentation and interpretation of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump has facilitated the revival of native culture in the region. The management and development of the site has become a partnership between the Blackfoot-speaking people, who are employed at the site in various interpretative and management capacities, and the
Province of Alberta.
236
The report on the State of Conservation states that the Interpretation Program, the
Alberta Historical Resources Act, the Province's archaeological regulations, the guidelines for Special Places 2000 and the site operations and maintenance schedules have been sufficient to provide the basic content of a management plan without having drawn it together into a joined document. There is no single management plan in place for the site.
The State of Conservation of Takht-e-Soleyman in the nomination dossier discussed damages to the architectural structures and buildings on the platform of Takht- e-Soleyman and also Zendan-e-Soleyman.57 Natural aspects of Zendan-e-Soleyman Hill
were to be studied in collaboration with the Iran Department of Environment in order to
develop the historical and technical documentation of the site. It seems that either this
project never started or no results were produced yet, since no official reports are
available at this time. Unfortunately, the landscape which is such an integral part of the
property is not addressed in the State of Conservation document.
Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization cannot
implement effective management because other organizations are also involved in the
area beyond the fortification and archaeological remains. To ensure an effective
management system, it is important that different departments deepen their cooperation.
It is unfortunate that the regional plan only concerns the maintenance of the
restoration work. Construction of the main road to Takht-e-Soleyman from Takab58 and
57 In this part, damages to the Belqeys Citadel are also reviewed. 58 The nearest city to the site, almost 45 kilometers away.
237 construction of hotels and restaurants in Takab are the only contributions to tourism identified in the nomination dossier.59
6.3.2.3 Available Resources
Comparatively speaking, it does not seem that financial resources were a
constraint in the conservation of Head-Smashed-In. On the other hand, Takht-e-Soleyman
has very constrained financial resources. A major part of the financial resources from
Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization goes toward restoration
projects and safeguarding of the sites. Support from the national development project has
been spent mainly on tourism development, but little has been accomplished.60
Staffing at Head-Smashed-In Interpretive Centre involves people with expertise in
the field of interpretation and educational programs and administrative services. Heritage
conservation professionals and other experts are available through the headquarters staff
of Cultural Facilities and Historical Resources Division, who are located in the provincial capital. The Canadian Conservation Institute, the Canadian Museums Association, and
Parks Canada, all headquartered in the nation's capital (Ottawa), are available to the site for consultation. The Province is linked to the expertise of the federal level, particularly
Parks Canada.
At Takht-e-Soleyman the number of experts involved with the project is very limited. Instead of an interdisciplinary team of experts of varied disciplines, a traditional team composed of architects, archaeologists and historians is involved. Experts from
59 Proposal for the Nomination of Takht-e-Soleyman, p.34.
238 other fields such as natural sciences are not involved in the conservation and planning activities.
6.3.2.4 Threats to the Sites
The Report on the State of Conservation of Head-Smashed-In stated that development projects were controlled because of Head-Smashed-In’s designation as a
Provincial Historic Resource and its inclusion in the Special Places Program. The World
Heritage values of the property have remained virtually intact since the date of inscription. The sole changes at the site revolved around the sensitive development of interpretive facilities, including an underground Visitor Interpretive Centre, the upper and lower trails, and nearby off-site parking areas. The current land use of the area, ranching, does not pose any major threats to the site.
The report did note, however, that the extreme weather of the region did increase the erosion of archaeological materials and pathways. Wind and water lead to thinning of the prairie vegetation and downhill erosion of the deposits close to the surface. The cliffs at the Head-Smashed-In have slid during the historic period. Even though it will not happen in the immediate future, in geological terms, the next cliff to fall could be the main cliff. No mechanical measures are proposed and no planning is in place to determine how to mitigate this eventuality.
The Interpretive Centre has controlled visitor impacts on the site. The site brochures and guides, interpretive signs and verbal communications prohibit casual
60 Proposal for the Nomination of Takht-e-Soleyman, p.35.
239 artefact collecting. The use of a trail system and controlling access has been enforced as a method to protect fauna and flora.
This report indicated that monitoring focuses on archaeological remains and assesses the damages caused by heavy rains or high winds, freeze/thaw and cattle- grazing. The Archaeological Survey of Alberta visits the site annually. Visual impacts of distant but visible commercial or agricultural development are also monitored as an aspect of physical alteration or intrusion. Grazing patterns must be monitored to prevent overgrazing that could lead to alteration in the surface and eventually expose subsurface cultural deposits. The vegetation and landscape are conserved to protect the deposits but not to protect their cultural integrity. However, the experience of the past two decades of protecting Head-Smashed-In shows that the existing management plan has been effective and efficient in controlling detrimental human and natural impacts on the cultural resources and the landscape.
Of the threats identified at Takht-e-Soleyman, the most important one was the development of the nearby village. This has been stopped and reoriented to protect the core and buffer zones of the main platform. Whether this reorientation is satisfactory and adequate is still unclear. The report stated that “the site is in the wilderness faraway from towns and economic centers.”61 That is partially true, but the site is still not fully protected from development pressures. No major environmental pressure was identified except for the harsh climate and its impacts on the structures. The site seems to be
61 Proposal for the Nomination of Takht-e-Soleyman, p 40.
240 protected from floods, and during the last century, no natural disasters have been reported. Visitor pressure does not seem to be a threat.
No site management plans or other plans were introduced when the property was nominated. Monitoring is focused only on restoration activities. The staff of the ICHHTO provincial office reports annually to the ICHHTO central office; however, the focus remains primarily on recent restoration.
Population growth is not a threat at Head-Smashed-In. The two primary landowners limit their activities to cattle-grazing, maintenance, vehicle pathways and crop cultivation. The core zone of Takht-e-Soleyman accommodates a number of guardians and professionals. The major inhabitants are in the nearby village in the buffer zone but there are no official statistics.
In identification of the values in the nomination dossier, a number were recognized at Takht-e-Soleyman. However, in practice, not all of those values are under protection and conservation activities only involve restoration projects. Iranian officials claim that the property is in a good state of conservation. This might be correct in terms of restoration projects but does not apply to the property as a whole. Natural features such as mountains, rivers, fauna and flora, medical plants, and thermal springs are recognized as strong points of the site, as are the precious metal and quarries close to the site. The area is designated as a protected area by the Iran Department of Environment. The two authorities involved do not apparently collaborate and they apply their conservation measures separately. Lack of communication between them has resulted either in no interest in each other’s activities, in operational conflicts, or in overlapping activities which have no positive outcomes.
241
6.3.2.5 Future plans
Future actions at Head-Smashed-In, as identified in the Report on the State of
Conservation, were mainly related to staffing and training. Training in geology and archaeological sciences is aimed at site interpretation. Still, training in terms of landscape conservation is missing. Other future plans focus on the modification of visitor facilities, including new galleries at the Centre and improving the path system.
Two important steps were envisaged in the Report on the State of Conservation which are highly significant in terms of changes to the World Heritage recognition of
Head-Smashed-in. Canada is planning to ask the World Heritage Committee for a change to criteria for inscription and also proposes a new Statement of Significance which was missing in the original nomination.
Within the framework of an approved project of restoration, conservation and presentation of Takht-e-Soleyman, different offices of ICHHTO are involved. The project manager prepared a report on the preservation and management activities carried out at
Takht-e-Soleyman from 1993 to 2001. It indicated that the activities were focused on restoration projects, archaeological research and studies. One reference was made to other activities such management of the surrounding area outside the platform, and plans for development of a cultural village, tourist facilities, guide training, and guidebook publication. There was no attempt at the management of the property as a whole. The conservation project is ad hoc instead of being part of an integrated plan.
A plan was prepared in 2002 for the short term (one year) and mid-term (three years) with a focus on enhancement of the visitor facilities and improving services. This
242 plan will have difficulty in achieving its objectives, particularly due to the reality of limited budget. The development of an ecological and educational park within a cultural village which would respect the traditional architectural style of the nearby villages was also planned. It was hoped it would encourage the local farmers to consider the whole landscape as a part of this ecological park.
The protection of the diversity of the ecosystem through local education and involvement were key objectives. The traditional medicine of the region was also supposed to be further studied, although no reports or publication have yet been prepared.
However, the involvement of the community at the site who use its water for irrigation purposes is a positive sign. How successful this will be remains to be seen. The key to success will be a continuation of meetings and gatherings with the local stakeholders.
6.3.2.6 Summary
A review of government documents available on Head-Smashed-In and Takht-e-
Soleyman was significant in understanding how these cultural heritage properties are being treated, and what current and future management plans are in place to ensure their conservation. Since the sites were designated as cultural heritage properties, there has not been a large corpus of information which reports on other aspects and values of these sites as cultural landscapes. Obviously, most material and reports concentrate on archaeological excavations and activities which are not the purpose of this study.
Nevertheless it was important to be aware of their existence, in that governments do document their conservation activities, mainly within the areas that are of interest to them.
243
This review clarified that at national level, both examples are protected, but only the values identified for their designation are priorities of the governments. The landscape features of both sites fall far behind archaeological and architectural features in any analysis. Both sites benefit from some degree of natural areas protection programs; however, these programs and their activities are not linked to heritage conservation activities, both being dealt with separately.
6.3.3 Key Informant Interviews
A number of key informants were interviewed to discuss the issues of conservation of cultural landscapes in relation to the two examples. This was particularly important to ensure the accuracy of data gathered from literature. This triangulation was a way of ensuring a link between the researcher’s interpretation and external reality. The interviews were conducted by beginning with descriptive questions of ‘what’62 and
‘how.’63 The interviewees were asked to explain their opinions on the matter in question.
The questions were framed so that interviewees clarified their responses without having
to always be asked the ‘why’ question directly. The analysis of data was started by
coding respondents’ answers into different areas. From this data, a number of reasons
seemed to predominate. The analysis showed again significant variation in the degree of
62 For instance the interviewees were asked: “What are the key landscape features in the site? or What would be the most appropriate landscape conservation plan(s)? What would be the goals of this plan(s)?” 63 They were asked for instance to explain “How do you balance conservation of cultural and natural features of landscape?”
244 knowledge and understanding of cultural landscapes by professional and cultural background.
6.3.3.1 Key Landscape Features of the Examples
Participants were first asked to explain the key features of the selected examples.
This was a very critical question because it directly relates to the understanding on the part of the experts of the values of Takht-e-Soleyman and Head-Smashed-In and their acknowledgment that both had landscape features.
An Iranian official believed the most prominent feature of Takht-e-Soleyman was its specific geographical conditions with exceptional geological phenomena, mentioning that the area is called the ‘Oxygen Corridor’ even within the Middle East because of its geological characteristics. Surrounding mountains give the site a unique character within a bowl-shaped area. Quarries are an important part of the area, as this official noted, as well as a variety of fauna and flora, including medicinal plants which add to the natural values of the site (I-7).
Experts directly involved with Head-Smashed-In explained the values of the site from Aboriginal peoples’ perspective, with an understanding of what a cultural landscape means to Aboriginal peoples (I-5) (I-11). They explained the very nature of the cliff-side and the kill sites. For the Aboriginal people, these represent not only a practical place of sustenance, but also a spiritual place.64
64 This does not only include the local tribes (the Blackfoot-speaking people), but others who traveled or hunted there like the Stoneys or the Kootenais. What should be included in a cultural landscape, then, should include these multiple perspectives. This would include not only the jump but the Oldman River, prominent mountains, some meeting places or even other surrounding buffalo jumps. An expert added that
245
The Canadian experts identified features of Head-Smashed-In that were directly connected with the buffalo jump. These included the gathering basin – in its natural form, the huge, natural bowl-shaped depression – rich grass and sources of water (permanent stream), and drive lanes – lines of rocks that have been humanly/artificially laid out. The cliff face, the kill site at the base of the cliff, the camp and processing area down-slope from the kill site on the prairie grassland, and the connections to the Oldman River valley, where the wintering grounds were located, were also included. Visual links are also valuable in terms of native spirituality. The experts emphasized that there is also visual connection between Head-Smashed-In and Chief Mountain, which has spiritual significance for the native people. Cultural and historical resources, including sacred and ceremonial sites within the site as well as in the nearby areas, were listed. There are other associated cultural features, such as the vision quest hill and a ceremonial location at the southern tip of the cliff side which is thought to be a burial ground. The main components of the site could be seen within the larger framework of the landscape (I-2) (I-5) (I-9) (I-
11).
A number of experts stated that the question as to what are the cultural features of the site has to have the phrase ‘to whom’; to the government officials, to the archaeologists and experts, to the staff who work at the site, to the Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples or to the visitor. They declared that they could describe the most important cultural aspects of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump as a cultural landscape from their
to understand the use of entire landscape, it is crucial to understand how the hunt was organized and how it was run (I-5).
246 point of view, but it might not necessarily be the same as what a group of Aboriginal elders would say. Others may or may not recognize those values (I-2) (I-9) (I-11).65 A
Canadian expert confirmed this point that cultural landscapes are contested places because people’s values differ (I-3).
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump is more than a series of discrete archaeological sites; it is the whole complex. Considering only archaeological remains such as arrowheads and teepee rings, an official argued, ignores the fact that it has spiritual value to the Blackfoot people. There has been a change of thinking over the last two decades in the way experts at the Alberta government level consider these types of sites. They now recognize the spiritual values of the site as well as the cultural values, and recognize the need for consultation with the Aboriginals (I-14). An Iranian official, on the other hand, explained that Takht-e-Soleyman is considered as a natural-historic complex (ensemble).
It is designated as a complex and not just a site (I-7).66
One expert, who works with Parks Canada and had the experience of working at
the provincial level in Alberta, explained that the natural features have been modified by
culture and the cultural features are not necessarily separable from natural features. In
fact, the recognition of elements of the natural landscape as being important to Aboriginal
people makes them cultural features (I-11).67
65 This is also true at Takht-e-Soleyman; cultural values that experts described differ from what Zoroastrians would identify. 66 In terms of World Heritage, it should be noted that a natural-historic complex is not the same as cultural landscape. 67 This expert also argued that the interpretive centre is considered to be a part of the landscape. It is not the traditional way Aboriginal people define the landscape and it is not why Head-Smashed-In is recognized. For the Aboriginal people, they might not consider the interpretive centre as a cultural facility since they do
247
Another Canadian official noted other intangible values associated with the Head-
Smashed-In landscape. Connection to places due to the oral traditions of the Aboriginal people through stories and myths makes those landscapes special to them (I-9). The main geological feature of the site – the cliff – as the natural element of Head-Smashed-In in the end becomes a cultural feature. This official continued that people should not rely on a single definition of cultural landscape because it depends on whom people are talking to. Everyone has a different reason for a place having cultural value. Therefore, cultural landscape would be dependent on the cultural and historic values assigned to the place.
6.3.3.2 Landscape Conservation Plans
Besides the Provincial Historic Resource designation and Special Places designation that provides two levels of protection, there is no specific landscape conservation plan for Head-Smashed-In (I-11) (I-14).68 Special Places 2000 developed a
buffer zone for the site that was not there before and was presented to the UNESCO
World Heritage Centre as an added level of protection. The Centre wanted the State Party
to have formal documentation in place for the management of the cultural landscape. The
original submission to UNESCO and the development plan that was produced became, in
effect, the landscape management plan for Head-Smashed-In. According to experts, it
identified those areas that require protection; it identified the need to maintain a grazing
not use it for ceremonial, spiritual purposes. It is an only place where they have their jobs. However, to others, the interpretive centre is a cultural element (I-11). 68 As discussed in Chapter Five, the Government of Canada also has no conservation plan in place for provincially owned properties such as Head-Smashed-In; it is just commemoration with no regulatory authority.
248 regime; and it identified the need to prevent untoward development such as drilling and power line visual intrusions. The principal issue is the extent to which potential impacts on the view planes can be controlled. Even though there was no formal integrated management plan encompassing all the plans, the World Heritage Centre found the existing documents and plans acceptable (I-5) (I-9). Neither does Takht-e-Soleyman have a specific landscape management plan. An Iranian official claimed that landscape zoning was introduced as a tool for protection of the landscape which controls new developments and construction, and changes depending on the existing land use within the area. A review of landscape zoning has clarified that a broad area is included in the zoning. However, it is not integrated into the general management plan. Conservation planning mainly relates to archaeological excavations, restoration projects and maintenance (I-7).
At both sites, the expertise for conservation is largely derived from the archaeologists who identified the area, did research, substantiated the designation of the areas69 and drafted the nomination dossier for the World Heritage Status. At Head-
Smashed-In, the experts with the Government of Alberta explained, natural history
specialists, biologists, botanists, palaeontologists, wildlife officers, historians and
planners were involved with the site management group. So were experts from other
departments such as Sustainable Resource Development, the Department of Energy and
the Department of Justice. The operational experts include site managers, interpreters,
and education officers at the Interpretive Centre. Parks Canada staff has not been
69 That is provincial designation for Head-Smashed-In and national designation for Takht-e-Soleyman.
249 particularly involved in efforts at Head-Smashed-In (I-5) (I-9). At Takht-e-Soleyman, a provincial team is involved in decision making on the site. An official confirmed that people from natural resources and environment department should certainly comment on the plan, as should the Transportation Office, the Water organization, the Tourism
Organization and the Ministry of Interior (I-7).
6.3.3.3 Reassessment of Identified Values
In the first part of this chapter, the divergent answers of the participating experts were discussed vis-à-vis whether it would be useful or necessary to re-assess the already inscribed sites on the World Heritage List as cultural landscapes. The same question was asked of Iranian and Canadian experts in the cases of Takht-e-Soleyman and Head-
Smashed-In. There were also divergent views as to whether Head-Smashed-In was a cultural landscape or a cultural heritage site, while in the case of Takht-e-Soleyman only one option was considered.
Head-Smashed-In was nominated almost three decades ago as a cultural site, because the State Party focused on the archaeological part of the site. An official noted that the application did describe the gathering basin and drive lanes but it did not present the site as a cultural landscape (I-2). Another expert argued by the mid-1980s the State
Party had a different perspective on the relationship of landscape and Aboriginal peoples.
Alberta broke ground by involving the Aboriginal with telling the story at the Interpretive
Centre. These included Blackfoot stories of the significance of the place and the stories of creation alongside those of the archaeologists (I-11).
250
Experts agreed that the cultural and the natural elements of the landscape coincide at Head-Smashed-In and that it would be useful to look at Head-Smashed-In from a cultural landscape perspective (I-5) (I-9) (I-11). In comparing Head-Smashed-In with
Takht-e-Soleyman, one Canadian expert concluded that Head-Smashed-In is not a manipulated landscape, but rather a natural landscape that was used, understood and used again with very minor impacts by Aboriginal people for thousands of years; the occupation of the campsite is the major use. Takht-e-Soleyman has occupations that are covered, and even the landscape itself is changed by the cultural presence, but it is natural landscape overlaying the cultural landscape. Head-Smashed-In is less complex than
Takht-e-Soleyman and their scale differs, although the principle is the same and they could be both recognized as cultural landscapes (I-5).
An official with Government of Alberta declared that if they wanted to nominate
Head-Smashed-In at the present time, it is not determined yet if they would call it a cultural landscape, since a cultural landscape deals with how people think about the land, rather than the physical elements that are on the land. Head-Smashed-In was a phenomenal opportunity for a buffalo jump which was used for thousands and thousands of years and probably today would be regarded as a sacred landscape because buffalo hunting was never just about subsistence, it was also very much ceremonial. This official admitted that they would have a better chance of conserving the site and its integrity if it was designated as cultural landscape. There is clearly a landscape component to the site and it is the landscape that makes the story. It is the natural landscape that figures prominently in the cultural resources. To this respondent, it is still primarily a cultural heritage property; therefore, he suggested that if it is going to be regarded as cultural
251 landscape, it is better to divide it according to the past and the present users of the site (I-
2).70
According to this official, in many minds, a UNESCO World Heritage
designation is about attracting visitors and creating economic benefit. The type of
designation is irrelevant. However, it should be recognized that an appropriate amount of
landscape is required to sustain the integrity of such properties and to ensure conservation
of all values (I-2).
Another official with the Government of Alberta stated that efforts to include it as
a cultural landscape have been well received. A recent review of the State of
Conservation of the site illustrated that the original nomination had been too restrictive.
The broadening of the nomination will happen as an amendment to the designation and
not as a re-nomination. This official also noted that although it seems discussions
amongst the Alberta Government with Parks Canada and World Heritage centre have
endorsed an amendment to the designation, since new criteria will be introduced it will
not be a minor modification. Rather the site will require a re-nomination (I-5). Canada
has a significant number of World Heritage Sites already and there is apparently a
70 An official with the Alberta Government indicated that if Canada wanted to nominate a cultural landscape which has been sacred for the past people and the present, Writing-on-Stone in southern Alberta is the one. This exotic landscape is sculpted by wind and water and Aboriginal people built ceremonial structures on the land. It includes burial and vision quest sites. Writing on Stone is like a church where native people go and worship although some will argue it was a site for organized graffiti. Head-Smashed- In was a place where they would go to make a living. It is a sacred place now perhaps because Aboriginal people lost so much of their entire way of life and places like Head-Smashed-In are critical places in which to remember their past. Therefore, they may say that it is a sacred landscape, while the elders consider it more a practical place. To the elders, the relationship with Head-Smashed-In was not about the landscape, it was in fact about the relationship between people and bison (I-2). However, one may disagree with this opinion, noting that the elders believe it is a sacred place – a place made by Napii to sustain his people. There were always prayers before the buffalo drive. The iniskin rock ceremony is indicative.
252 perception that maybe that is enough. This is especially true in terms of natural heritage.
One expert added that there may be some room for considering Aboriginal or Indigenous heritage. The general opinion is that Canada would prefer new nominations rather than re-nominations at this stage (I-9).
The official at Takht-e-Soleyman stated that the landscape zone of the property includes 14 historic sites. Each is documented and has a separate designation identity number. Only if they come across new findings will an amended be required. For instance, new monuments such as the City of Sassanians have been found in the farmlands, orchards and grasslands surrounding Takht-e-Soleyman. Their extent still has to be determined. Even on the platform of Takht-e-Soleyman, while acknowledging the depth of information provided by excavations, there are still layers and layers of structures and information that remain unexcavated. These new findings have to be added to the original nomination to complete the dossier (I-7).
6.3.3.4 Conservation of Cultural and Natural Features of the Landscapes
There was a general assent among the Canadian experts that cultural and natural features of the landscape are well balanced at Head-Smashed-In on the government- owned property (I-2) (I-5) (I-9) (I-11) (I-14). These experts stated that Alberta very carefully considers any changes that might happen to the vegetation, wildlife, water regime or other aspects of natural environmental. They also take care of the cultural resources of the property.
To one expert, in comparison with many World Heritage properties, the impact of human beings is not real concern at Head-Smashed-In because it is located in a thinly
253 populated area far from major urban encroachments and developments. Nevertheless, it is important to think in advance about any potential developments and be ready and have a master management plan for the property (I-2).
At Takht-e-Soleyman, since there is no major urban centre close to the site, the impact of humans is not yet a serious threat to the landscape. It has been decided, the
Iranian official reported, not to consider further development of the village although there is encouragement to improve it. Without approval from the responsible organization and with no zoning, only the Supreme Council could change the status of the village, which it has declined to do so far. The local and the national authorities agreed to limit new construction and to respect the vernacular architecture. While all structures do not really follow the regulations pursuant to the agreement, for the most part zoning has been respected (I-7).
6.3.3.5 Concerns about Natural Resources and Conservation of Cultural Landscapes
Head-Smashed-In Special Places program has a heavy Parks focus. Officials noted that during negotiations with local users, sometimes Parks and Recreation allow impacts on the cultural resources of parks. However, the conflicts are operational rather than philosophical or intellectual. The Parks officials simply do not want a focus on cultural landscape interfering with their administration of the natural one. When they were together in a single Department, Parks and Historic Sites were much more collaborative. What will happen now that they are in two separate Departments remains to be seen (I-2) (I-5).
254
There are competing interests in many jurisdictions. In Alberta, based on an expert’s observation, experts at different departments of the government resolve conflicts through cross-ministry teams and by creating influential cross-ministry programs. The
Historic Sites Unit with the Government of Albert is a small but powerful agency that has influenced other ministries to put meaningful measures in place. However, there are cases where economic interests prevail (I-9).
There has never been any conflict between the Iranian Cultural Heritage and
Tourism Organization and the Department of Environment in the Takht-e-Soleyman area.
An official claimed that in cases of natural-historic heritage properties, the Department of
Environment cannot function; it is the responsibility of the Iranian Cultural Heritage and
Tourism Organization, which obviously does not have the expertise, knowledge, education and training or resources to make appropriate decisions on natural aspects of heritage properties. Although this organization functions like a ministry and has supposedly more power to control any activity within the boundaries (and within the zonings) of all national heritage properties, in practice, there are very few success stories
(I-7).
6.3.4 Summary
A number of issues were identified by the informants as being significant in their reflections on the two examples. These relate to issues of identification and evaluation of values, issues of ownership, land use and multiple jurisdictions, issues of management planning and conservation activities. General conclusions that were generated from examining these two examples are:
255
• Canadian and Iranian authorities varied in their strategies toward
landscape management. Canadian have an overarching management plan
in place which they thought includes the landscape as well. No proper
comprehensive management plan was introduced for the Iranian site.
• The more coherent plan that reflects stakeholders’ values and Aboriginal
people’s values, which is the intention of the Alberta Government, is not
an approach yet acceptable to the Iranian authorities for Takht-e-
Soleyman.
• Both authorities had different views of their future plans for the sites.
Canadians concentrated on training of the staff on interpretive programs
and the Iranians were more focused on restoration projects.
• Both authorities were willing to look at the sites within the cultural
landscape framework. They had the understanding, to different extents,
but both admitted that more work is needed in terms of development of
particular strategies for cultural landscapes, for training and for resource
management.
• Both authorities noted that re-nomination of the sites would be much more
difficult to deal with than considering amendments to the original
nominations. This may be because of the World Heritage Committee’s
global strategy and due to national policies and resources limitations.
256
6.4 Cultural Landscapes: An Experiential Discussion
Earlier in this chapter, in the analysis of notes from informants, it was noted that participants emphasized the importance of capacity building through training courses, seminars, workshops and expert meetings to increase the level of awareness and understanding of professionals in order to enhance their abilities to recognize, conserve and manage cultural landscapes. They believed that participation in such programs and events and sharing new developments of concepts, ideas and thinking with other professionals and government officials at local, national and internationals levels plays an important role in better conservation of heritage properties.
During the course of this research, opportunities to attend three different international heritage events, a workshop, a course and a meeting, were provided. These experiences provided considerable insight into how such events are organized and how effective they were in contributing to a deeper knowledge and understanding of heritage.
These events were treated as another source of information and were used as a tool for triangulation, to examine the research problem from other perspectives. They also provided opportunities to follow the current thinking of the heritage conservation world.
It should be admitted that attending a regional workshop on management of cultural landscapes (as observer), an international ICCROM training course (as participant) and a session of the World Heritage Committee (as observer) highly influenced personal understanding of heritage conservation procedures and approaches and corroborated much of the other field research. More information on these international events is provided in Appendix F.
257
6.4.1 International Expert Workshop for Enhanced Management and Planning of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes
6.4.1.1 Introduction
The Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization hosted and co-organized an expert workshop in Persepolis, Iran, from May 29 to June 2, 2006, with the support of the UNESCO Tehran Cluster Office, the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS
International to discuss enhanced management of cultural landscapes. The participants included site managers from Iran and the region,71 international experts, experts with the
Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization and national and local policy
makers.
This workshop had a World Heritage focus. Its first objective was to share lessons
and successful practices in identification of heritage values of cultural landscapes, and
discuss existing guiding principles for the management of cultural landscapes. The other
main objective was to elaborate specific guidelines for enhanced management of cultural
landscapes based on the existing management and conservation guiding principles
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005a).
The workshop took place in Pasargadae and Persepolis World Heritage Cultural
properties, both with valuable cultural and natural environments; the sites were examined
as case studies. The fact that they have not been recognized as cultural landscape
properties has created some difficulties in the holistic conservation of their natural and
71 India, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.
258 cultural values. The results of the international expert workshop could be used by countries around the world which face similar conservation challenges.
6.4.1.2 Presentations
Presentation of regional case studies illustrated the practical challenges of conservation and management of cultural landscapes. The management plan, for example, for treatment of the petroglyphs within the Archaeological Landscape of
Tamgaly – World Heritage Cultural Landscape of Kazakhstan (2004) – included the need to limit the impact of tourism. The site of Dehistan/Mishrian in Turkmenistan (World
Heritage Tentative List of Turkmenistan) was discussed as a potential cultural landscape property. The presentation of management issues and threats to Outstanding Universal
Value of the Group of Monuments at Hampi – World Cultural Heritage Site of India
(1986) – provided insight into the challenges of a site which is not recognized as a cultural landscape but in fact has a valuable landscape component.
Among the many management issues brought forward, a few deserved particular note. First were the conflicting understandings of the definition, second was the determination of boundaries of World Heritage Sites, third confusion about the scope of management plans, fourth confusion over the role and area of jurisdictions, fifth lack of technical capacity of the authority, and sixth uncontrolled development.
6.4.1.3 Observations
The outcomes of the workshop were presented in the form of proposals in a few major areas to different local and national jurisdictions. These included: first, improved
259 conservation and development; second, sound tourism development, awareness, and capacity building; and third, education with regard to cultural landscapes. A number of specific immediate actions were also recommended.
The Iranian experts were willing to discuss the terminology in more depth and expressed diverging ideas on cultural landscapes. They intended to produce a Persian term equivalent to the English term. The international experts believed that it was beyond the objectives of this workshop to discuss definitional concerns and to approve a translation of the word cultural landscape. While it is understandable that it is not the responsibility of international body to examine the local terms and their appropriateness, they could have encouraged the discussion and been more supportive of it and provided general directions to help national experts to deal with this issue later at another workshop held at national level.
The Persepolis Proposal provided some exciting recommendations in terms of identification and conservation of cultural landscapes, although whether these could be effectively applied is another matter. Whether the site managers who attended the workshop could or would apply the proposals is questionable. Most of the Iranian experts, like other regional experts present at the workshop, had backgrounds in archaeology and architecture and were accustomed to a traditional framework for looking at heritage properties. The application of the Proposal at national and local level is not going to happen without follow-up meetings and workshops.
260
6.4.2 ICCROM Training Course on the Conservation of Built Heritage (February1 – March 30, 2007, Rome, Italy)
6.4.2.1 Introduction
ICCROM organized the first training course on Conservation of Built Heritage in
2007 (CBH07) in Rome, Italy. Twenty-two participants from twenty-one countries were selected from more than 130 applicants from over 60 countries. They included a wide range of conservation practitioners and decision makers of diverse backgrounds, involving architects, landscape architects, archaeologists, planners, environmental designers, engineers, cultural resource managers, and heritage conservationists.
6.4.2.2 Observations
Although it is beyond the scope of this research to provide a full review of the course, a few observations might provide better insight into the nature and value of such international training courses.
Participants were selected from all regions of the world from developed and developing countries, male and female, and with differing areas of expertise. One selection criterion was that the participants should be mid-career and have both an ability to influence their community and to disseminate what they learned to a wider community.
The selection led to a strong interdisciplinary approach to conservation practice. The selection also ensured that the course included a wide variety of topics and examples from different parts of the world. The usual focus on European and Western approaches was absent.
261
Participants each introduced the government structures and conservation techniques common to their countries. Participants were not only asked to explain the definitions of heritage in their countries, but to examine how the Western notion of heritage conservation influenced their practices.
One of the most constructive exercises at the course was individual participant discussions on the meanings to their cultures of differing heritage treatments. They were asked to rank a number of treatment items such as restoration, repair, rehabilitation, preservation, conservation and so on according to the level of intervention. Because of their unique cultures each group of participants produced a different ranking. For instance, in the United States of America, the term preservation is used instead of conservation. Conservation is the key term in the European context and most international documents. To some, conservation was the overarching treatment, while to others, preservation was that dominating term. For some, preservation meant freezing a monument – a negative implication in many jurisdictions.
There were a few who believed that conservation is a term that is most often used with regard to natural heritage protection and not applicable to cultural heritage properties. Some participants had national guidelines which defined all of these terms, while others had no point of reference. This exercise clarified the fact that there were diverse opinions in the field of heritage protection, depending on one’s culture and profession. While there was no final agreement on a single set of definitions, there was an agreement to respect diversity. Regardless of the conclusion, there does need to be a common language so that everyone can understand each other’s and international conventions.
262
During this course, urban and cultural landscapes were discussed as new, emerging and evolving terminologies. The need to understand landscapes and to define the causes of their deterioration and decay was seen as a priority. However, historical buildings and architectural structures represented the core of the discussion while cultural landscapes were of lesser interest. With only two lecturers specifically dealing with cultural landscapes, this was not surprising.
6.4.3 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee (July 2 –July 10, 2008, Quebec City, Canada)
6.4.3.1 Introduction
Twenty-one members of the World Heritage Committee, together with delegates from State Parties and observers (more than 800 participants), gathered in Quebec City in
July 2008 for the Committee’s 32nd session to examine the nominations of cultural and natural sites submitted for inscription on UNESCO’s World Heritage List. The
Committee also reviewed the state of conservation of a number of World Heritage sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and discussed the State of
Conservation reports of numerous World Heritage Sites. During the 32nd session, 27 new sites were inscribed on the List (19 cultural sites and eight natural sites). Among the cultural sites inscribed, four were cultural landscape properties.
6.4.3.2 Decisions
Examination of these endangered cultural landscapes during the session illustrated several important issues, all involved in the absence of the Statement of Outstanding
263
Universal Value, which includes conditions of integrity and authenticity, unclear boundaries, and a lack of effectively implemented comprehensive management plans.
The other conservation issues identified by State Parties and advisory bodies included insufficient management mechanisms (including incomplete/inadequate legislation, lack of human and financial resources), new construction (bridges, and high-rises), illegal excavations of cultural property leading to deterioration of archaeological remains and damage to heritage areas, changes in land use, abandonment and diminishing interest by local residents, mining, unregulated development, urban encroachment, and inattention to tourism needs72 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2008b).
A detailed discussion on the State of Conservation of a number of the World
Heritage Cultural Landscapes also indicated the same conservation challenges as those
identified for the World Heritage Cultural Landscapes on the List of in Danger. These
included issues like mining, infrastructure, the impact of tourism facilities, boundary
issues, land use, lack of coordination between responsible authorities, insufficient
resources and regulations, absence of Statement of Significance and visual impacts.
During the 32nd session, one of the cultural landscape properties was referred back to the State Parties,73 and two were deferred.74 The main obstacle to their
nomination related to site boundaries, buffer zones, development, the impact of new
construction (such as bridges, high-rises), the difficulties in the preparation and
72 Document No.: WHC-08/32.COM/7A 73 Nominations which the Committee decides to refer back to the State Party for additional information may be resubmitted to the following Committee session for examination (Operational Guidelines, Paragraph 159). 74 The Committee may decide to defer a nomination for more in-depth assessment or study, or a substantial revision by the State Party (Operational Guidelines, Paragraph 160).
264
implementation of fully functioning management plans and, in some cases, an absence of
comparative analysis and knowledge of associated properties.75
Table 6.7 Advisory Bodies Recommendations to the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 State Party WH Cultural Landscape Nomination Recommendation Decision Criteria Argentina Cultural Landscape of Buenos Aires Non-inscription Withdrawn (ii) (iv) (vi) +CL Croatia Stari Grad Plain Inscription Inscribed (ii) (iii) (v) + CL Indonesia Cultural Landscape of Bali Province Deferral Deferred (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) + CL Japan Hiraizumi – Cultural Landscape Deferral Deferred (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) +CL associated with Pure Land Buddhist Cosmology Kyrgyzstan Sulaiman-Too Sacred Mountain Referral Referred (iii) (iv) (vi) + CL Mauritius Le Morne Cultural Landscape Referral Inscribed (iii) (iv) + CL Papua New Inscription Inscribed (iii) (iv) + CL The Kuk Early Agricultural Site Guinea Vanuatu Chief Roi Mata’s Domain Deferral Inscribed (iii) (iv) (vi) + CL
With the Committee’s inscription of four cultural landscapes on the World
Heritage List – Chief Roi Mata’s Domain, Vanuatu; Kuk Early Agricultural Site, Papua
New Guinea; Le Morne Cultural Landscape, Mauritius; and Stari Grad Plain, Croatia –
the total of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes became 64, as of 2008.
Table 6.8 Cultural Landscapes Inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2008 State Party World Heritage Cultural Landscape Criteria Croatia Stari Grad Plain (ii) (iii) (v) + CL Mauritius Le Morne Cultural Landscape (iii) (iv) + CL Papua New (iii( (iv) + CL The Kuk Early Agricultural Site Guinea Vanuatu Chief Roi Mata’s Domain (iii) (iv) (vi) + CL
75 Document No.: WHC-08/32.COM/8B.
265
6.4.3.3 Evaluations
ICOMOS evaluations of the Outstanding Universal Value were for the most part consistent with the issues identified by international and national informants who were interviewed for the purpose of this research. Based on the ICOMOS evaluations on cultural landscapes nominations in 2008 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2008b), a number of nominations were deferred or referred back to their State Parties for the following reasons:
• The outstanding Universal Value was not justified or demonstrated or was missing in the management plan.
• The boundaries were unclear and did not include appropriate core and buffer zones.
• The general management plan and sub-plans were not adequate.
• The integrity of the property was compromised.
• The authenticity of the property was unclear.
• Further comparative analysis was required.
Although not all cultural landscapes were rejected for the same issues, at least one or more of these concerns applied to each nomination. The same concerns, however, were highlighted when the cultural landscapes on the World Heritage List of in Danger were being examined. If a property with one or more of these issues gets inscribed on the
World Heritage List, these issues will remain, and each year the Committee has to deal with the problematic properties. To address the issues identified during the evaluation of
266 cultural landscape nominations, ICOMOS presented a number of recommendations to the
State Parties. These can be summarized as follows:
• Incorporate the protected area into master plans,
• Develop tourism strategies,
• Develop policies to address development threats and control developments in the buffer zone,
• Develop functioning management plans, and
• Integrate buffer zones into management plans.
6.4.3.4 Observations
During the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee, one of the members of the Committee asked the Chairperson what was meant by cultural landscape and suggested the definition needed clarification. If committee members were not aware of the notion of cultural landscape, how could they decide on the appropriateness of cultural landscape nominations? It was not clear whether other members of the committee had similar questions. This illustrated again that the category of cultural landscape was still new to many cultures and that even amongst members of the World Heritage Committee there was confusion or at best inadequate briefing and preparation.
This is not unique to the members of the committee, although members in particular must be aware of recent conceptual developments in order to be able to make decisions. Also, it is imperative that the capacity of advisory bodies should be further developed in order to be able to accommodate new categories and typologies such as
Historic Urban Landscapes. Advisory bodies should employ or invite qualified experts
267 who could review specific types of heritage properties. This being said, the World
Heritage Centre, the Committee, the advisory bodies and State Parties should always take into account that development of new categories of heritage leads to new nominations that require new approaches and new tools for their protection.
Through these first-hand observations, the complexities around decision making became increasingly apparent. If professions understand the complexities of the World
Heritage list, they should become more serious in the administration of the World
Heritage Sites for which they are responsible.
Language remained a huge obstacle. Experts cannot easily communicate with locals and locals with experts, since not everyone speaks the official languages of international organizations. Often, local people cannot understand specific words or technical terms used in conversations and consultations or in written documents. They may know terminologies in their own languages, but the English terms may mean nothing. Without interpreters or a common language, it is difficult to convey meanings and concepts.
The State of Conservation report is critical to the conservation of Outstanding
Universal Values because it updates information on World Heritage Properties. Analysis of State of Conservation is the essence of the Convention and the basis of the Committee meeting. The one State of Conservation report adopted by the Committee in 2005 for
268
Head-Smashed-In was thoroughly examined earlier. At this meeting, given the limits of time, only half of the State of Conservation reports were reviewed.76
During the session, one significant conservation issue that was discussed was the
lack of integrated management systems. The Committee and advisory bodies should
provide clarification to the State Parties as to what types of management plans are
expected. In particular they should include ideas on how to manage dynamic change in
heritage properties and, more specifically, in cultural landscapes.
The Committee is now urging State Parties to include a Statement of Significance
in front of their nomination dossiers. This is critical in terms of identification of values
and later, in terms of conservation of those values. Outstanding Universal Value has to be
well-defined and prepared as a brief report. It is beneficial for State Parties, advisory
bodies and the Committee to effectively discuss the State of Conservation of properties.
One Committee member suggested that the focus of presentations should be thematic
rather than regional to provide a better opportunity to compare cases and examine similar issues.
While it is important to acknowledge the work of the World Heritage Centre in terms of publications, meetings and seminars and so forth, and to appreciate its accomplishments to date as the international leader and the driving force in conservation of cultural landscapes, it is also important, to the Centre and other international bodies, to improve the shortcomings identified in this section and to build on that experience and
76 Reports on the state of conservation of sites are very important. It is through these reports that State parties could re-assess the values identified at the time of nomination and modify the values and update the designation files.
269 move to the next stage; that is, to work on how to put these ideas into practice and how to replicate this success at a national level.
6.4.4 Summary
These three events did not deliver what people expected. The information provided during the workshop, course and meeting was significant; however, a full comprehension of the information was only possible if attendees had a willingness to learn. In the International Workshop in Persepolis, few experts and site managers really cared about the concept of cultural landscape. Whether they will integrate the principles of conservation of cultural landscapes into their sites and their comprehensive management plans is debatable.
On the other hand, the international course was very dense; very limited time was allocated to different topics. Only one brief session was dedicated to cultural landscapes.
It is hard to believe this course would greatly influence the participants of other disciplines and areas of expertise, or attract them to cultural landscapes.
The World Heritage community at this meeting was rife with politics and bureaucracy. The expert evaluations and decisions were often influenced by the willpower of some State Parties, which in many cases made the Committee dysfunctional. Further, it was understood that the World Heritage community does not communicate equally with all State Parties, either as a result of language barriers or due to lack of interest on the part of State Parties or international bodies.
It is impossible to believe that by participation in such events one will be equipped with the knowledge, understanding and expertise to overcome heritage
270 challenges. Rather, such events are only windows to real world challenges in respect of which very interested people with great determination and enthusiasm will go beyond what they have learned and build on their experiences.
6.5 Concluding Remarks
The interviews with the key informants from Canada and Iran and a number of international experts and officials were employed to gain a deeper understanding of the issues cultural landscapes confront in the real world. Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and
Takht-e-Soleyman were selected as two examples to highlight particular challenges such heritage places face in practice. They shared similar issues that other cultural landscapes might face, although the two examples are not recognized as cultural landscape properties. Experience and observations gained from attending international events served as yet another way of examining the issues and challenges identified by informants. These three approaches to the research problem were applied to examine the research question from different perspectives; while they confirmed each other’s outcomes, they were used as a tool for triangulation.
Informants involved with the illustrative examples argued various issues that on the one hand, were also identified by experts who were discussing cultural landscapes in general, such as the issues of definition and perception of cultural landscape, identification of its multiple values (whose values and why those values), and conservation and management planning. On the other hand, the current concerns of authorities in protection of each of the examples of this research were similar to those discussed at the Persepolis Workshop and to those addressed at the 32nd session of the
271
World Heritage Committee when advisory bodies reported the results of their review of the nominations.
Management issues of case studies discussed at the Persepolis Workshop also mirrored the issues raised by the key informants, such as the conflicting understanding of the definition, confusions over the boundaries of cultural landscapes, the scope of management plans, multiple jurisdictions, technical capacity and uncontrolled development.
World Heritage cultural landscapes were nominated from all over the world from different categories, varying in their characteristics and their Outstanding Universal
Values, yet they experienced challenges common in most cultural landscapes. The advisory bodies’ evaluations of cultural landscape nominations at the World Heritage meeting emphasized the similar challenges in identification of values, unclear boundaries, inadequate management plan, compromised integrity and unclear authenticity of nominees.
In such manner, each of the three approaches discussed in Chapter Six – the general discussion on cultural landscape protection, the illustrative discussion through the two examples, and the experiential discussion on international events – informed the research in a unique way and added to the credibility of the outcomes of the research.
They contributed to the argument confirming that there is no one way of looking at cultural landscapes, and that cultural groups understand cultural landscapes according to their unique worldview.
This chapter reported the informants’ observation on cultural landscapes, and the challenges of identification and conservation of cultural landscapes. Chapter Seven
272 provides a more detailed discussion on the information presented in Chapter Six and introduces a series of implications for local, national and international policy makers and decision makers.
273
Chapter Seven: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Find the meaning of cultural landscape in your homeland, by retaining your identity and your authenticity. Your natural environment differs from others’; as does your culture and its expression.
Bagher A. Shirazi1
7.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the entire study: the problem, background, findings and proposals. This research sought to analyze the various factors that contribute to identification, designation and conservation of cultural landscapes, and to understand how conservation of cultural landscapes affects the critical relationship between human beings and their surrounding environments. Two examples from Canada and Iran were examined to address the shortcomings of the application of the UNESCO World Heritage
Convention and to illustrate the complexities of defining, identifying, designating and conserving cultural landscapes at national and international levels. The examples
1 Personal Communication, May 15, 2006.
274 illustrated how a lack of recognition of all values – either due to a lack of knowledge or improper decision making – has resulted in serious management and conservation challenges. In both cases, identification of the dominant value(s) of cultural landscapes has led to partial conservation through inadequate and often inappropriate legal frameworks and tools at different levels of government. The cases also illustrated how international experiences have adversely influenced these two sites. Examining the reasons for the failure of an integrated natural and cultural conservation strategy in these cases will assist others in the protection of similar heritage properties with cultural and natural values.
A comprehensive review of all available documents in the field of heritage protection, and particularly conservation of cultural landscapes, revealed that while scholarly literature is available on the definition and identification of cultural landscapes, the research is extremely weak with respect to the management of cultural landscapes.
Despite the broadening of the concept of cultural landscape during the last two decades, there is a critical need to further develop this category and to integrate the concept of cultural landscape and the values-based management of landscapes into national legislation.
The future of a nation’s and indeed the world’s cultural landscapes depend on the identification and protection of their multi-dimensional values. Only if cultures comprehended the concept of cultural landscape and its categories in local contexts, and develop identification, evaluation and designation criteria based on local realities, will the conservation of cultural landscapes be guaranteed. Out of this study have emerged
275 several conceptual frameworks – that are discussed in this chapter – which could have serious implications when applied in practice.
7.2 Summary of the Study
This study and its underlying research identified the factors affecting conservation and management of cultural landscapes at both a national and international level. A comprehensive literature review was the basis for understanding the context and the overarching concepts, while interviews with key international, Canadian and Iranian experts, managers and government officials informed detail. Head-Smashed-In Buffalo
Jump in Canada and Takht-e-Soleyman in Iran were used as illustrative examples.
This review and evidence generated a central question: How can the world’s cultural landscapes be better conserved in their entire complexity by all levels of governments and international authorities? The answer to this question lies in understanding the issues around the definitions and values of cultural landscapes as heritage places. This consideration resulted in a number of auxiliary questions. How can the notion of cultural landscape and its multiple values be understood and acknowledged worldwide? How can international organizations like the World Heritage Centre more effectively contribute to the protection of cultural landscapes of national and global significance? How can national authorities integrate cultural landscapes into their heritage conservation frameworks?
This study concluded that cultural landscapes are about people, their activities and natural environment. Nature and culture continue to evolve and change. It is essential to understand the conceptual links between culture and nature and to conserve the
276 relationship between human activity and the environment. It is also critically important to expand beyond the Western-centric views that have been common for a long time and to involve different worldviews in dealing with heritage and heritage conservation.
Awareness of and respect for diversity and difference in current heritage practices based on different cultural backgrounds encourage diverse insights that could be integrated into the existing perspectives. This dissertation also emphasizes that in the conservation of cultural landscapes, lack of respect, response and connection to values of cultural landscapes will result in the loss of their wholeness. If the significance of multiple values and their interconnections are not acknowledged, they will not be considered in management plans and conservation measures will not be in place to ensure protection.
7.3 Relevance of the Results to Current Literature and Research
The concept of cultural landscape involves a variety of fields that have not traditionally contributed to heritage conservation or to the study of landscapes. New perspectives and insights and diverse methodologies are introduced to the field of heritage conservation from disciplines such as environmental history, cultural geography, conservation biology, anthropology and the social sciences. Accordingly, while focusing on heritage conservation and management, this research drew on the intersecting fields of environmental management, cultural resources management, heritage resource planning and management, historic landscape conservation, and landscape architecture to gain a holistic insight into the interrelationships between various values within cultural landscapes. The conservation of cultural landscapes can only occur within an
277 interdisciplinary environment; however, the debate within the professional communities is just beginning and has not yet found direction.
Since the conservation of cultural landscapes occurs in the wider context of the
World Heritage movement, in addition to exploring national practices, it was vital to compare international practices and contexts. Research into the different conservation approaches in Canada and Iran provided an important conceptual framework and a key reference point.
By indicating how the conservation and management of cultural landscapes cannot be separated from recognition of their values and interdependencies, this study builds on the existing literature. It not only works toward a new understanding, a re- recognition, and redefinition of the concept of cultural landscape, but toward a new application of the concept by international and national authorities. It also contributes to an understanding of national (Canadian and Iranian) dynamics, and identifies and recommends solutions to the main issues relating to cultural landscapes so that factors often excluded from the conservation and management of cultural landscapes, whether they are national or international, can be articulated. A series of implications for international, national and site-level decision makers, which could be introduced at any one of these levels, particularly where they have no tradition of cultural landscape conservation, are also developed. Most important, the most appropriate approaches to the management of cultural landscapes that can assist in resolving the complex conservation dilemmas facing many national and international authorities are also identified and discussed.
278
7.4 Research Findings
The concepts of heritage and heritage conservation, as well as the understanding of the relationship between culture and nature as manifested in UNESCO’s declarations and practices, have significantly changed in the past few years. One critical new concept is that of cultural landscape. Cultural landscapes contain illustrations of human activities over time through evidence of social, economic and cultural successions. While cultural groups have modified the land where they live, the land has also influenced their culture.
This interaction adds cultural values to the surrounding natural environment. The need for societies to conserve their cultural landscapes springs from their need to continue their complex interactions with their surroundings in a sustainable and comprehensive way.
There is a growing awareness of the significance of cultural landscapes, since the future of these landscapes is increasingly important to quality of life. Conservation is becoming an urgent priority. This recognition has led to an emerging body of research in heritage protection that examines the ways in which conservation and management of cultural landscapes contribute to the retention of the spirit of place as well as to the individual and collective identities of communities. For example, the Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place through the Safeguarding of Tangible and
Intangible Heritage, adopted in October 2008, demonstrates national and international collaboration to highlight the importance of places where tangible and intangible values of heritage are inseparable, and to put greater emphasis on the spirit of place (ICOMOS,
2008).
279
The definition of cultural landscape is dependent on the identification of values inherent in such heritage places, which in turn are closely linked to the cultural backgrounds of the decision makers, authorities and professionals. The failure of protection and management plans partly stems from the difficulties in defining and identifying such landscapes. An understanding of the concept of cultural landscape and a recognition of its multiple values are critical and fundamental to achieving best conservation practices. Yet, a serious concern is the lack of interest on the part of some authorities in the recognition and protection of cultural landscapes. The reasons are either lack of knowledge or understanding of the concept of cultural landscape or inadequate and sometimes inappropriate legal frameworks and tools at different levels of authority.
The major challenges identified by key informants in distinguishing cultural landscapes from other types of heritage are:
• The concept of cultural landscape is a fairly recent one and is not well- understood by all cultures.
• The term cultural landscape is not recognized in many cultures.
• The recognition of cultural landscapes is related to the identification of values inherent in landscapes.
• Many types of cultural landscapes are not identified yet.
• Cultural landscapes demand particular types of policies, standards and guidelines.
• A heritage official’s cultural background may lead to blindness to identification of aspects of cultural heritage represented in a cultural landscape.
280
• Heritage professionals are inexperienced in working with cultural landscapes.
• Boundaries of cultural landscapes are very frequently contested and difficult to establish.
• Shared responsibility in cultural landscapes amongst jurisdictions or levels of authority remains a major challenge.
The following presents the major challenges identified by key informants in conserving and managing cultural landscapes emerging out of the issues identified above:
• Cultural landscapes are complex sites.
• Cultural landscapes are contested places.
• Managers of cultural landscape properties come from different backgrounds.
• Cultural landscapes demand a particular and distinctive management approach.
• Cultural landscapes have multiple stakeholders and overlapping jurisdictions.
• Cultural landscapes have multiple layers of occupation and history.
• Most cultural landscapes are still occupied as living places.
• Management of change is critical in cultural landscape management.
• Conservation challenges are mainly the same as those of identification problems.
281
• Presentation of cultural landscapes is a part of conservation.
As Tables 7.1 and 7.2 illustrate, the issues raised by the participants surrounding the identification of cultural landscapes are very similar to the issues noted for the conservation of cultural landscapes. This indicates that not only are identification and conservation interrelated, but also that many who are still dealing with the very first stages of definition and identification are not deeply involved with conservation issues and are not aware of different possible challenges (Figure 7.1).
Table 7.1 Key Issues in Distinguishing Cultural Landscapes from other Types of Heritage Places
Major Issues Details of Issues
Definition: Unclear to many cultures Terminology absent in many cultures Translation and problems in understanding the concept Question of perception New concept Human imprints difficult to perceive Professional Jargons / Bureaucratic words Language not communicating with average citizens New type of heritage category. Categorization and sub-categorization still an ongoing process
Failure to identify multiple values Lack of knowledge of all values, parameters/factors Multiple values Relativity of values and importance Most cultural landscapes do not have outstanding values like other types of heritage
No component for the natural environment in Way of thinking the traditional definitions of heritage Legal and professional framework Policy development and professional
282
Major Issues Details of Issues
standards focused on buildings and structures and not on cultural landscapes Lack of specific regulations, policies, guidelines and standards Lack of criteria Lack of strong national impetus, national determination and national will Lack of sufficient research Lack of appropriate framework for documentation
Where the boundaries lie Unclear Boundaries Where the buffer zones are
Scale Often they encompass large areas
Often multiple owners with overlapping and Ownership sometimes unclear ownership
Wide range of stakeholders involved in the Multiple stakeholders use and management of the land Lack of cooperative relationship among stakeholders Shared responsibility often disregarded
Inexperienced in working with a distant past and with subsequent layers of the past Inexperienced in working with natural Inexperience of cultural heritage people resources Inexperienced in working in an ongoing, evolving, dynamic and changing context
Authenticity Difficult to evaluate/assess
Negligence toward the complex past and its Negligence history
283
Table 7.2 Major Challenges in the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes
Major Issues Details of Issues
Similar to identification issues
Unknown concept to many cultures Unknown concept to many local authorities New concept Definition unclear to many cultures Terminology absent in many cultures Translation unavailable in many countries
Failure to identify all values Failure to identify both tangible and Multiple values intangible values Protection of multiple values
Still in the process of recognizing different New heritage category sub-categories internationally
Deals with complex sites involving layers Different type of sites Large areas in size, dimensions and scale
Poorly defined, unclear boundaries Unclear boundaries Lack of control, especially in working and inhabited landscapes
Lack of knowledge and understanding of what cultural landscape is at the local level Failure to recognize a potential heritage site as a cultural landscape Knowledge and awareness Inappropriate implementation by local authorities Lack of research and adequate information Lack of public awareness Lack of public participation
Diverse cultural context/background Way of thinking Varied culture of conservation
Conservation and management Lack of comprehensive and integrated approaches conservation and management approaches Failure to conserve key elements and values which define the spirit of place Failure to manage natural resources in cultural landscapes
284
Major Issues Details of Issues
Failure to look at cultural landscapes within their total environment Failure to manage change
Different ways of looking at culture Contested spaces Varying values for different people within a culture
Different levels of authority Overlapping jurisdictions (cultural/natural people) Multiple stakeholders Multiple ownership Difficulties in coordination and/or collaboration
Lack of appropriate and adequate policies, Legal and professional framework regulations and standards Failure to put policies into practice
Gap in professional expertise and People’s training understanding: Natural sciences vs. Arts
Failure to control urban development pressures Developments Weak relationship between local community and development planners
Difficulties in controlling increase of land value within area Local residents’ desire to manage the disposition and control of their land Failure to maintain the original land use Changes in land-use Land-use changes to industrial or residential uses Failure to prevent local communities/settlers from adding new structures (buildings, roads, etc.) in sensitive areas
Inappropriate interpretation Presentation Need for onsite museum
Lack of adequate human resources with Resources professional expertise Limited financial resources
285
Figure 7.1 Shared Challenges in Identification and Conservation of Cultural Landscapes
Through a comprehensive review of the literature and through key informant interviews, a number of issues were identified as being significant in the identification, designation, management, and conservation of cultural landscapes. These issues relate to the fact that the differing perceptions, levels of knowledge and cultural backgrounds of those involved including decision makers all matter in the complex process of recognition and conservation of cultural landscapes. The following summarizes the critical challenges identified in the conservation and management of cultural landscapes that demand immediate action.
286
7.4.1 Challenges at International Level: The World Heritage Centre
The relationship between nature and culture is unique and entirely dependent upon each culture’s perspective with respect to nature, culture and their interrelationship.
The failure to recognize these differing cultural perspectives has resulted in inappropriate conservation decisions. Experience shows that only with the understanding of the influence of culture on an understanding of nature, with a complete assessment of the interrelationship of the two in theory and in practice, can world heritage be protected in a meaningful and holistic way. In fact the considerable debate over the interrelationship between culture and nature and heritage conservation strategies has been largely driven by Euro-centrism. These debates are reflected in the policies and activities of the
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the international pioneer in the conservation of cultural landscapes.
The concept of identifying and conserving the values of heritage places has been at the heart of the World Heritage Convention, and indeed, all international heritage conservation policies. However, the application of the Convention in different countries with diverse cultural roots has raised key issues. The earlier application of either natural or cultural criteria to the exclusion of the other within the framework of the Convention has led to planning, conservation and development policies and decisions that are incomplete and often at variance. However, in recent years there are signs that this has changed. This perspective on nature-culture interaction is now regarded as a highly significant part of the application of the World Heritage Convention.
The World Heritage Centre is exercising leadership in the identification of cultural landscapes. However, because nation states are lagging behind in the application
287 of the Operational Guidelines, the Centre has to advise nations on how to apply the guidelines. This is challenging because the Centre has to recognize:
• How to build a global appreciation of the multiple values inherent in cultural landscapes.
• How to promote consideration of the whole set of criteria within the Operational Guidelines in identification and evaluation of cultural landscapes.
• How to enhance the existing guiding principles from a focus on definition and identification to management approaches.
• How to promote the emergence of the World Heritage designation of properties as one conservation tool to reduce/stop irreversible impacts through the enforcement of proper management planning.
• How to encourage application of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines for better identification of heritage properties, not only for World Heritage designation but also for national purposes.
• How to promote international understanding that the World Heritage List is not a check list of acquisition or achievement of State Parties but rather is a List of unique global properties in which values are properly identified.
7.4.2 Challenges at National Levels: The Canadian and Iranian Heritage Authorities
Despite improved clarification of the links between nature and culture through this new attention to cultural landscapes, and numerous international conventions, charters and other documents urging nations to improve their heritage practices to include cultural landscapes, many countries and their bureaucracies have yet to heed the call.
288
Nations have yet to understand that these documents are only examples and cannot be equally applied to all cultures; they need to be adapted to a specific context (UNESCO
World Heritage Centre, 2005a). In some cases, nations have gone beyond international knowledge and developed more detailed policies, guidelines and standards, which they have applied to those frameworks at their national or even local levels (Nelson & Preston,
2005; Slaiby & Mitchell, 2003; Smith & Associates Contentworks INC., 2004). In order to appraise the values of cultural landscapes in their entirety, existing approaches and methodologies require careful re-examination. The Government of Quebec, in Canada, for instance, recently launched a study to evaluate the effectiveness of its legislation and practices with regard to heritage conservation. This study recommends that existing frameworks be updated to ensure the sharing of responsibility among stakeholders and also to integrate management of cultural landscapes into their heritage conservation activities and policies (Ministry of Culture Communications and Status of Women,
2008).
The following outlines the main challenges that the Canadian and Iranian governments must address to protect their cultural landscape properties:
• How to strengthen national and international collaboration to benefit from existing and evolving international knowledge.
• How to incorporate international knowledge into decision making at national level.
• How to change existing structures and ways of looking at the world to deal with larger environments like cultural landscapes.
289
• How to integrate conservation of cultural landscapes into existing heritage conservation legislations and frameworks.
• How to adopt the conceptual meaning of cultural landscape and to gain an understanding of the concept instead of a literal translation.
• How to implement the definition of cultural landscape in the social, planning and implementation of that landscape.
• How to widely disseminate research results and information at different levels of authority (electronically rather via simple storage as archival documents for a select few).
• How to make these resources available to the public and researchers outside of the government.
• How to invest in training site managers to equip them with skills and tools to thoughtfully consider local communities’ needs and to resolve their problems.
• How to improve communication between site managers and stakeholders through regular meetings.
• How to involve Indigenous and local people in the decision-making process.
• How to encourage local people to invest in the area and build a partnership which will maximize their benefits.
• How to find opportunities to re-establish original activities and traditional land uses.
• How to encourage traditional protection and management systems.
290
7.4.3 Challenges at the Site Level: Two Illustrative Examples of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman
While conservation of cultural landscapes must be addressed with complete understanding of the local circumstances, opportunities and restrictions, most cultural landscapes confront the same issues that were identified by many informants: major developments, ownership, boundaries, values and so forth. Each example of this research illustrated specific issues that were examined in depth in Chapters Five and Six. Canadian and Iranian authorities must therefore take the following into account when planning for
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman:
• How to control major developments, urban encroachments, land-use changes to ensure integrity of the sites.
• How to protect fragile natural landscapes and archaeological resources.
• How to integrate the World Heritage Operational Guidelines into national, provincial or local guidelines at World Heritage Sites, like Head-Smashed- In and Takht-e-Soleyman.
• How to determine boundaries and zoning of cultural landscapes within heritage conservation frameworks.
• How to employ preventive measures in the areas adjacent to the designated areas where there is no buffer zone in the legislation (or any other secondary protection) (as it is the case in Alberta), or,
• How to enforce buffer zones and landscape zones in practice in places that secondary protection is provisioned.
• How to protect the sense of place and recognize, understand and articulate the spirit of place and main elements of landscapes.
291
• How to encourage authentic visitors’ experiences through proper interpretation and presentation of landscapes.
• How to encourage collaboration of responsible national authorities and the heritage authorities and their coordination with local authorities.
• How to deal with ownership issues in conservation of these landscapes.
7.5 Research Conclusions
The partial acknowledgment of values in heritage properties is not just specific to
World Heritage designations; rather, it appears to be a shortcoming of national heritage conservation legislation and frameworks in many countries. Heritage professionals have employed certain frameworks for decades to conduct research in the field of heritage conservation, to analyze and interpret findings, and to develop guidelines for implementation of projects. As discussed in Chapter Two, the traditional frameworks often cannot embody new concepts, for example, cultural landscapes. Many cultural groups have resisted accepting cultural landscapes as a heritage category. These include those who have neither introduced any definition of cultural landscape nor developed particular policies and guidelines. The traditional frameworks that these groups apply should change in order to integrate the new concepts; otherwise, they lead to malfunction or crisis.
This research confirmed that a shift in the paradigm – to use Kuhn’s term – must happen to include cultural landscapes in heritage frameworks. Conservation of cultural landscapes will only be possible if a new paradigm emerges in the field of heritage conservation. The emergence of a new heritage conservation framework is slowly
292 happening, but many are not there yet. Some cultural groups are ahead of others; however, still more time is required for this new framework to fully evolve in every aspect, and for it to embrace the category of cultural landscape, including its definition, identification, conservation and management.
Managing heritage resources is about managing values and understanding where heritage values lie, both in a narrow and in a broad sense. Cultural landscape should be considered as a collection of elements and a collection of layers of usage involving a whole series of patterns on land rather than any individual element within it. In managing cultural landscapes, it still remains necessary “to fully engage the complexity of our landscape world, the great variety of meanings, and the multiple landscape constituencies
– especially in ways that get beyond the visual and historical narrative” (Melnick, 2008, p. 208).
During the last decade, Canada has developed the notion of values-based management of historic places that parallels the federal Historic Places Initiative2 and the
Canadian Register of Historic Places.3 Values-based management of historic places is
distinct from materials-based management, which is the traditional and historical way of
thinking on the part of those who manage physical places and conserve the physical
elements that were believed to articulate a site’s values. The debate that is now happening
in Canada is a debate about the range of elements that can be considered heritage values.
2 Parks Canada’s Historic Places Initiative is a collaboration which involves all levels of government – local, provincial, territorial and federal. 3 As one of the tools of Historic Places Initiative, Canadian Register of Historic Places, is a searchable, on- line, public resource with information about recognized historic places of local, provincial, territorial and national significance.
293
Cultural landscapes should be recognized as places where the values may be embodied in process and unique land use, rather than a specific set of physical remains.
The traditional way of thinking has no real place in managing cultural landscapes and their continuing change. Countries should start the process of developing a heritage management strategy that could be applied to cultural landscapes. To achieve this, first it is important to understand how to deal with cultural landscapes at the beginning of the process of defining and understanding values. Currently heritage places are first assessed through the Statement of Significance.4
Heritage management strategy that considers management of multiple values of
landscapes while recognizing their dynamic nature is related to sustainable management
and planning. The concept of sustainability in conservation of cultural landscapes
involves the long-term effects of management decisions and relates to connecting local
people and sites. If a given landscape gives people meaning and identity in their lives,
then locals should be given the responsibility for planning, maintaining and protecting
landscapes of value to them. Obviously a mechanism will be required to resolve problems
when differing community groups value the same landscape for different purposes.
Values of heritage could also be considered through time. Values can change, but how do
they change? Over generations, a place could be valued for totally different reasons. A
heritage place should be managed in a way so that those values can survive over time as
well. It is increasingly clear that even at an international level new ideas and themes will
4 A Statement of Significance has three components: description of place, heritage values and character- defining elements.
294 emerge. Conservation approaches should be chosen carefully to protect as many values as possible and to ensure a wide range of future alternatives.
Training local trainers in the community will be essential. Lack of knowledge on the part of the people who prepare legislation – in terms of the role of local communities in conservation activities – has led to the exclusion of local planners and local regulators.
If authorities and managers do not have support from local people, even if they have the law, legislation and conservation frameworks, no management plan can be effectively implemented. People have to be continuously informed of developing plans. Informed participation by all stakeholders is crucial. Sustained communication, which must continue indefinitely, is critical. Both professionals and the public at large must know what a cultural landscape comprises, what the challenges are and what their responsibilities might be. If the support of local individuals is absent, the heritage conservation programs will fail.
In dealing with cultural landscapes that impact large areas and people’s rights to develop their property as they wish, it is critical to listen to the local people. Some communities will want rules imposed, because they protect the special character of their place as they have identified and understood it; others will resist because the rules interfere with their activities. Values-centered conservation could lead to an inclusion of a greater range of stakeholders.
Canada’s Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Iran’s Takht-e-Soleyman, two
World Heritage Cultural Properties, illustrate the issues facing many cultural landscapes even though they are not officially acknowledged as such. A comprehensive study of the two indicates that they both involve natural, spiritual/religious and associative values,
295 among others. However, in their designation only their cultural and historical values were emphasized. The Iranian designation highlighted the natural environment as being significant in the formation of Takht-e-Soleyman but did not present the site as a cultural landscape. Failure to note the interaction between people and the environment was the primary reason that Canada and Iran nominated the sites as cultural sites rather than cultural landscapes.
The issues of identification of cultural landscapes were examined in the context of the two sites. The reasons that contributed to the failure to recognize Head-Smashed-In
Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman as cultural landscapes are presented in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Major Issues in Identification of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman as Cultural Landscapes
Main Identification Issues Head-Smashed-In Takht-e-Soleyman
Cultural landscape a new 9 9 concept
Multiple values not 9 9 recognized
Traditional way of thinking 9 9
Existing legal and 9 9 professional framework
Unclear boundaries 9 -
Large scale of cultural 9 9 landscapes
Multiple ownership 9 9
Multiple stakeholders 9 9
Inexperience of cultural 9 9 heritage people
296
As was noted in Chapter Four, the category (or the title) of a heritage property is not as important as its protection, conservation and management. Heritage properties are not categorized as cultural/historic/heritage resources/properties/monuments in many parts of the world. A number of key informants stated that the increasing sub- categorization of heritage restricts heritage conservation alternatives. Nevertheless, so long as categorizing and sub-categorizing heritage properties eases the path for conservation and management of values and provides guidance on what should be protected, it seems unlikely to restrain conservation activities. Some argued that it is not important whether a property is called a cultural landscape; rather, it is important to understand it as a cultural landscape and see the resulting connections to natural and cultural values. Once it is seen as such and its various natural and cultural values are seen as interconnected, there is more likely to be a common approach instead of several disconnected approaches to conservation. The management systems at both sites were studied in detail to determine whether their current management plans embraced multiple values and their interconnection.
Four protective measures exist at Head-Smashed-In: the Alberta Historical
Resources Act (controlling any adverse physical or visual impact on the values of the site); regulations governing the administration of archaeological resources in the Province of Alberta; Special Places 2000 (affording it another level of protection through monitored use in terms of protection of environmental diversity); and the Municipal
Government Act (which establishes Direct Control zoning and links local and provincial governments). The State of Conservation of Head-Smashed-In reported that the first two
297 measures5 are considered sufficient for the protection of both natural and cultural values of the property. However, there has been no unified management plan for the cultural and natural landscape at Head-Smashed-In. Previously, the two directorates that were responsible for protection of natural dimensions and cultural dimensions of Head-
Smashed-In were located within the same Ministry. Recent change, which has separated them again, could result in some communication challenges and increasing problems surrounding collaborative management.
Takht-e-Soleyman has no single general management plan. The existing plan focuses on maintenance and restoration. The Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicraft and
Tourism Organization (ICHHTO) cannot implement an effective management plan on their own because of the involvement of other organizations in the areas outside the
fortification and the archaeological remains. An effective management system is
dependent entirely on the cooperation of the differing government stakeholders. A
divided management is the most prevalent. There is little demand for a management that
has a vision beyond the existing traditional issues.
This review of the current management situation at both sites indicates that the
primary concern of authorities was to secure their respective designation as a World
Heritage Site. They had some concerns about other aspects of the sites; however, no
effective management mechanisms were envisioned. Contrary to what some might argue,
that the category and the title of designated heritage plays a minor role in conservation
practices, it in fact plays a significant role. The conservation of heritage properties is first
5 Alberta Historical Resources Act and Special Places 2000.
298 and foremost about the proper identification and designation. Table 7.4 illustrates the major challenges in conservation of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-
Soleyman, based on the challenges identified by key informants.
Table 7.4 Major Issues in Conservation of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman as Cultural Landscapes
Main Conservation Issues Head-Smashed-In Takht-e-Soleyman
Multiple values not protected 9 9
New heritage type 9 9
Large and complex areas 9 9
Unclear boundaries 9 -
Lack of knowledge and 9 9 awareness Traditional way of thinking 9 9
Existing conservation and 9 9 management approaches
Contested spaces 9 9
Multiple stakeholders 9 9
Legal and professional 9 9 framework
People’s training 9 9
Development pressures 9 9
Land-use changes 9 9
Presentation and - 9 Interpretation approaches
Human and financial - 9 resources
299
In landscapes such as Head-Smashed-In, the Aboriginal people should be involved in all stages of the management planning of the site. Consultation provisions provide the opportunity to re-engage Aboriginal peoples and, particularly in this case, the
Blackfoot people with their understanding of the cultural landscape. Recognition and understanding of cultural landscapes are instrumental to changing people’s view in the larger society about the depth of their history at a particular location. The Blackfoot
Confederacy Landscape Heritage Advisory Committee involves key Blackfoot ceremonialists who give the Alberta Government advice and wisdom about issues on management and how to respect Blackfoot traditions and protocols.
Aboriginal perspectives on planning tourism, as well as educational and spiritual matters relating to the site, is critical. Aboriginal peoples want to be involved at two levels: during development of plans and during operations. Some knowledge is sacred and cannot be shared with the public, and they do identify locations that should be off- limits to the general public because of spiritual concerns.6
Takht-e-Soleyman is a significant religious place for Zoroastrians, and they value
this site for different reasons than might locals or local and national authorities. There is
an urgent need to involve Zoroastrian representatives in the planning of the site to ensure
that their worldview and belief system is taken into account in its conservation. More practically, when involved they are more likely to participate both financially and as
volunteers if consulted during planning, conservation, development, and operations.
6 Blackfoot Heritage Landscape Advisory Committee meetings, 2006
300
7.6 Research Implications
7.6.1 International Level
• The World Heritage Centre should encourage nominations of different types of cultural landscapes from all around the world instead of, for instance, focusing on agricultural landscapes in Europe, in order to develop a more representative and well-balanced World Heritage List responding to the Global Strategy.
• The World Heritage Committee should appoint a group of experts from the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN7 and key experts from State Parties to prepare a set of stronger and broader guidelines for the management side of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines. This team should connect the identification of values and designation of properties to their management planning.
• The World Heritage Centre also has to develop management guidelines for cultural landscape properties, as a unique heritage category that requires a unique approach to conservation and management.
• The World Heritage Committee should urge its advisory bodies (ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM) to develop a series of joint guidelines which could be applicable in dealing with cultural landscapes, from identification, evaluation and designation procedures to training and capacity building programs.
• The protection of globally outstanding cultural landscapes has to be linked to nationally significant cultural landscapes. The World Heritage Centre needs to prepare practical examples and make them available to State
7 Involving the works of ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes and Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas: Landscapes/Seascapes.
301
Parties. States should be encouraged to use those examples to more effectively identify and protect their national cultural landscapes. Nationally significant cultural landscapes need planning similar to those nominated as World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. Conservation of cultural landscapes can improve the living standards and cultural lives of people at both local and regional levels.
• Tentative Lists prepared by State Parties will indicate their future intentions for designation of heritage properties and the categories they intend to use. In order to nominate a property for inscription on the World Heritage List, sites should have been previously submitted to the World Heritage Centre on the Tentative List. These tentative submissions should form the basis for the preparation of future nomination dossiers. It is critical that State Parties properly identify values and justify the criteria for nomination of these sites at early stages well before sites are included in the tentative list. If cultural landscape properties are not identified early, chances are that State Parties will not change their nomination criteria later.
Table 7.5 shows the number of Canadian and Iranian World Heritage Sites. Canada has more Natural Heritage than Cultural Heritage properties, while Iran only has designated Cultural Heritage Sites. The only Cultural Landscape property which was designated in an emergency situation is now on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Table 7.6 provides information on the number of the sites on the Canadian and Iranian tentative lists. Iran has provided too many sites to be on the List. The question remains whether they have identified values properly and if they have developed management plans for each of the 58 sites.
302
Table 7.5 World Heritage Sites of Canada and Iran (As of 2008)
WH State Total WH Natural WH Cultural WH Mixed WH Properties in Party Properties Properties Properties Properties Danger
Canada 15 9 6 0 0
9 (including one 1 (The Cultural Iran 9 0 Cultural 0 Landscape Landscape Property)
Table 7.6 Tentative Lists of Canada and Iran (As of 2008)
Total Tentative Natural Cultural Mixed State Party List Properties Properties Properties Properties
Canada 9 1 4 4
45 (including three 2 (both Cultural Iran 58 11 Cultural Landscapes) Landscapes
• The World Heritage Centre should encourage State Parties to use appropriate and consistent terminology in their nominations. Different names are very often used in nomination titles (and often in designated properties) for cultural landscape properties: cultural-natural landscape; natural-historic landscape; or cultural landscape. They are often also listed under different categories either as mixed or cultural heritage sites. This shows that there is little or no thought behind many of the nominations. For instance, a Persian Garden is listed for future nomination under cultural criteria. Whether it is recognized as a cultural landscape – a more appropriate category – is unclear.
• The World Heritage Centre should improve its online database of cultural landscapes which is available to the public. Presently the database is not
303
complete and its advanced search option is problematic. Website symbols used to identify the category of properties8 should be extended to illustrate cultural landscapes as a sub-category of cultural heritage.
• The World Heritage Centre should develop a new design for learning, considering the fact that educating and training has to be based on local realities and culture as well as internationally driven standards.
• The World Heritage Centre, together with the national and regional authorities concerned, could develop an online systematic capacity building system to enhance awareness and to advocate information sharing.
7.6.2 National Level
• Many State Parties have to revise their legislation to enable them to adopt cultural landscapes as heritage properties. Such legislation should also be applied in practice. While there should be an onus upon governments to enact legislation, legislation cannot work without programs. Governments have to provide resources for programming arising from the legislation and to start putting protective measure in place. In Canada, the absence of meaningful legislation has left the federal government with few programs. The upshot is that little gets done. On the other hand, there is a lot of strength in provincial programs like the ones in Alberta.
• State Parties should carefully plan their tentative lists. They should be required to properly identify the values of future nominations and their categories. Management plans should be included in the dossiers of properties on the tentative list. Generally, if State Parties do not have
8 Symbols used for World Heritage Properties in the Website of the World Heritage Centre are: green circle for natural heritage properties, yellow diamond for cultural heritage properties, green and yellow circle for mixed heritage properties, and red circle and red diamond for properties on the List of in-Danger.
304
management plans in place at the time of listing, they do not prepare plans upon designation.
• The way to solve the problem of private and government ownership should be addressed in the legal framework. The framework should highlight the fact that heritage and cultural landscapes are a shared heritage belonging to everyone.
• Some countries cannot develop an effective and appropriate management plan since they lack a vision for their heritage properties. Preparing a vision statement that focuses on the future of these sites will provide managers with clear decision-making criteria. The vision should be communicated to other responsible bodies as well.
• Legislation can act as a tool to create a management process. Governments should develop legislation as well as training and capacity-building programs to help local communities plan and conserve their own cultural landscapes.
• People responsible for World Heritage nominations must be trained. In many cases, these people believe that architectural values are enough to ensure that the dossier is approved for designation. They do not seriously consider natural or intangible heritage and certainly would not bring forward cultural landscape properties.
• Canadian and Iranian authorities should develop each of the sites studied here as ‘reference models’ not only for local and national audiences, but for international audiences as well. Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman can illustrate the application of Operational guidelines in terms of identification and evaluation of values and perhaps in terms of landscape management. In preparing reference models for identification, designation, conservation and management of cultural landscapes, it is
305
critical to elaborate on what would be expected in these management plans. Because it is impossible to include every detail in such models, each cultural landscape has unique characteristics which should be highlighted. Perhaps graduate students in Canada and Iran could undertake the suggested projects 9 for the two national authorities. They could:
o Recognize each site as a cultural landscape and identify their multiple values using local/provincial/national or even international policies and guidelines.
o Prepare an appropriate management plan in consultation with all stakeholders. This could involve meetings/roundtables with people from different jurisdictions for example landowners, local inhabitants, and spiritual beneficiaries.
o Implement in the conservation plans procedures that arise from recognition of the sites as cultural landscapes.
o Communicate the results widely (locally/nationally/regionally) with other site managers and officials through workshops and seminars.
• Iranians and Canadians must link different activities pertaining to cultural landscapes in their countries and raise awareness within different
9 Students from different disciplines could be involved to study the interdisciplinary nature of working with cultural landscape properties. Students from architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology, environmental studies, planning and design, history, heritage conservation (historic preservation), and cultural resource management could work on Head-Smashed-In and Takht-e-Soleyman as both World Heritage Sites and National Historic Sites under supervision of experts from the governments and other professional and scholars to define their values and boundaries. Students could develop primary ideas on management planning, preparing objectives of such plans, different approaches for their implementation and monitoring. Students could develop a new nomination dossier, or update/improve the existing designation file. They could make recommendations to the provincial/national authorities of possible changes. Interdisciplinary projects might be possible in Canadian universities; however, implications of such interdisciplinary activities in Iranian higher education may not happen easily and/or quickly.
306
departments about their achievements. For example, Food and Agriculture Organization’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) was awarded to two systems in Iran, the Qanat Irrigation Systems and Homegardens, and the Qashqai Nomadic Pastoralism, was unknown to the Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicraft and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO). Iran’s Department of Environment and Centre for Sustainable Development (Cenesta) has been involved in the project, although GIAHS has indicated that they intend to mainstream the GIAHS concept.
• The management of cultural landscapes has to be publicized at all jurisdictional levels. The Melina Mercouri International Prize for the Safeguarding and Management of Cultural Landscapes (UNESCO Greece) was awarded to the historical village of Maymand in southern Iran in 2005. This complex of handmade settlements in the mountains is a National Historic Site of Iran and is on the Tentative List of Iran to the World Heritage Centre. While the nomination of this site is a great achievement for Iranian authorities, not many are aware of it. It is a critical achievement that should be widely broadcast throughout the Iranian heritage community. 7.6.3 Site Level
As one World Heritage official stated, an archaeological site in a landscape is not a cultural landscape. Only those sites that demonstrate a relationship between people and land in a universal way are eligible to be inscribed on the World Heritage List as cultural landscapes. Head-Smashed-In and Takht-e-Soleyman manifest human interaction, tangibly and intangibly, with their surrounding environment.
A complete understanding of the full extent of the Head-Smashed-in Buffalo
Jump complex is not available yet. The extent of the kill site along the cliff face, the
307 extent of the campsite and processing area, or the scope of the historical and archaeological features of the gathering basin, have not been completely determined.
However, the landscape characteristics of the gathering basin are a reasonable indicator of the extent of the gathering basin. This is also true in the case of Takht-e-Soleyman, where the information on the extent of the Sassanian city outside of the Platform, beneath the surrounding agricultural lands, is not available yet.
It is important to understand that both sites are not fully excavated and many of their features are still unknown. While the limited excavations at both sites have provided a wealth of information, much more remains to be discovered. This is critical in identifying further values of both sites. Certain parts of lands should be set aside and not be allowed to be developed at both examples, not only for archaeological reasons but for the sake of protecting the integrity of both sites. In such a manner, the primary activity of the area – ranching and farming – should be promoted as a relatively non-destructive land use. Surrounding lands at both cases have been used for grazing purposes, which fits the landscapes very nicely.
Both sites need extraordinary management plans. The management plan at Head-
Smashed-In might seem sufficient at this stage; however, a more comprehensive plan is required. Takht-e-Soleyman would also benefit from such a management plan that also integrates the current landscape zoning of the area and provides the tools to ensure its implementation. Without one, within a few years its values would be in danger.
Different scenarios should be developed for the consideration of Head-Smashed-
In Buffalo Jump and Takht-e-Soleyman as cultural landscape properties. It does not matter if the Canadian and Iranian authorities are willing to change the status of the
308 inscription. If they do not they can at least look at the property from a cultural landscape perspective and conserve its multiple values. On the other hand, if they acknowledge the cultural landscape values of the properties, they will need to re-nominate the property, since the advisory bodies (ICOMOS and IUCN) will want to evaluate them as cultural landscapes. Major modifications like this would not be considered amendments to the existing nomination. Whether new criteria are introduced or the existing criteria justified at the time of inscription, a re-assessment will be required. If they re-nominate they would have to justify the criteria (Appendix F). For Head-Smashed-In, it is suggested that
Canada amend criterion C (iii) and C (V) to the existing criterion C (vi). For Takht-e-
Soleyman, the criteria could be the same as the original ones, but it needs to be evaluated as cultural landscape.
If Canada and Iran do not wish to re-nominate their respective sites and want to nominate a new property instead, they could work on these examples at the national level as a model for future nominations. They could act as references for local authorities in understanding how properties should be viewed if they were cultural landscape nominations. This would be important even at international level since they could be referenced by other State Parties. Successful case studies can be very encouraging.
Sharing the experiences and learning from these examples has to be a part of any training and capacity-building program. People can learn from past mistakes and unsuccessful examples as well. Failure can play a constructive role in improving peoples’ skills, understandings and knowledge and in preventing future failures.
It should be noted that the criteria shown here are based on the numbering of criteria in 1980s for Head-Smashed-In and the numbering prior to amalgamation of
309 criteria in 2005 for Takht-e-Soleyman.10 The changes in the numbering of criteria should
be taken into account. However, Report on the State of Conservation of Head-Smashed-
In Buffalo Jump states that the primary criteria identified by the State Party were Criteria
(iii) and (v).
Table 7.7 Justification of Criteria by the State Parties at the Time of Inscription
Criteria (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
Head-Smashed-In 9 9 Takht-e-Soleyman 9 9 9 9 9
Table 7.8 Justification of Criteria by ICOMOS
Criteria (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
Head-Smashed-In 9 Takht-e-Soleyman 9 9 9 9 9
Table 7.9 Review of Justification of Criteria Using the New Set of Criteria (Appendix F)
Criteria (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x)
Head-Smashed-In 8 8 ; : ; 9 8 8 8 8 Takht-e-Soleyman 9 9 9 9 8 9 8 8 8 8
10 The list of Criteria for Selection of World Heritage properties (the Operational Guidelines 2002 and 2005) is included in Appendix F. The numbering of the Criteria in the Operational Guidelines 1978 was applied in evaluation of the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide78.pdf).
310
The reason natural criteria could not be justified is not that the properties do not have natural values; rather they both have natural beauty, aesthetic importance (N (vii)) and geological significance (N (viii)). In comparison with other inscribed sites they might not show the Outstanding Universal Value. Nevertheless, at national or even regional levels they rank highly significant in terms of those natural criteria. Neither Criteria N
(ix) (outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological processes) nor N (x) (most important and significant natural habitats) is suitable for either properties.
Criterion C (v) could also be justified for Takht-e-Soleyman because the site manifests human interaction with the environment. Although this site is not a major historic city with a extensive human settlement, the traditional settlement of the
Zoroastrian monks in such sanctuaries follows the same pattern.
It is therefore suggested that Canada amend Criteria C (iii) and C (v) for Head-
Smashed-In. Criteria for Takht-e-Soleyman should be kept the same. Both sites are recommended to be represented as cultural landscape properties. Such representation will retain the integrity of the sites to a greater degree and will more powerfully/legitimately exclude any inappropriate developments.
7.7 Future Research
7.7.1 General Proposals
The considerable debate surrounding cultural landscapes at an international level and more specifically within the UNESCO World Heritage Convention has made their
311 definition and conservation a touchstone for the principles underlying natural and cultural resources planning and management (Rossler, 2000, 2002; UNESCO World Heritage
Centre, 1972; von Droste, Plachter, & Rossler, 1995). Unfortunately, the world is embroiled in debates of definition and the issues of landscape management remain a serious challenge with no proper agreed-to landscape management methodologies. Most management and conservation practices identify particular issues related to tangible values, but neglect other significant values and major challenges in cultural landscape conservation (Alumae, Printsmann, & Palang, 2003; Aplin, 2002; de la Torre, 2005;
Phillips, 2003; Powell, 2000; UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2002, 2008b). These challenges include, among others, dealing with very complex sites and contested spaces, multiple stakeholders and jurisdictions, the dynamic and evolutionary nature of landscapes, and a lack of control by the landscapes’ inhabitants. This oversight tends to treat cultural landscapes as independent from their other underlying values. Cultural landscapes are often treated as physical manifestations without considering their natural/ecological, socio-economic, spiritual and other intangible values. Future research should address this missing dimension, with the understanding that if the multiple values that comprise cultural landscapes are not recognized, conservation and management of such landscapes is only partial and that ultimately certain values will be lost. This research should also emphasize the need for a wholly different kind of landscape management to contend with change in landscapes while retaining both tangible and intangible values.
Future research must make a contribution to understanding and managing cultural landscapes based on their multiple ecological, cultural, historical, social, and economic
312 values, with an emphasis on respecting the multiple stakeholders. The importance of community-based management of landscapes that have been traditionally well stewarded by their inhabitants can not be over-emphasized. There remains a genuine need to develop a comprehensive approach, both in theory and practice, in order to contextually conserve and manage different cultural landscapes (Hobson, 2004; Longstreth, 2008).
Managing these landscapes is directly linked to traditional management systems and local ownership. It cannot be emphasized too much that local community involvement in planning for landscapes and a respect for community values in the management process is the key to successful conservation (Buggey & Mitchell, 2008; Gustavsson & Peterson,
2003). Often the importance of local community values and the need to capture such values in planning are discussed at different levels of jurisdiction; however, there has been little or no attention to the ways and means by which this will occur. Very often there have been serious inconsistencies in bringing these discussions into practice.
In the last decade Canada has become a leader in research on values-based management and has incorporated the Principle of Value in its Cultural Resource
Management Policy (Parks Canada, 2006). Future research could explore how the
Canadian values-based management of heritage sites recognizes and retains these values.
Any research should address how values-based management might address the problems surrounding cultural landscape planning, and whether this approach has any international validity or is confined to the Canadian cultural and political environment. This study has shown that the management of cultural landscapes cannot be separated from recognition of their values and interdependencies, and perhaps this is true of the planning frameworks selected as well.
313
Since the identification and definition of cultural landscapes are very critical and the very first stage of conservation and management planning, conducting a comprehensive review of all available definitions of cultural landscapes from an international perspective might be useful. The analysis of these differing perspectives would help achieve a better understanding of the role of cultures in developing concepts and definitions and in understanding underlying values.
The application of proposals, recommendations and decisions of international workshops and meetings at national and local levels is related to the willingness of the authorities and decision makers. Therefore, responsible authorities should cultivate determination and maintain a strong will to protect their cultural landscapes. Further meetings, seminars and workshops are crucial to encourage responsible authorities to seriously consider and apply recommendation offered by international events. However, there needs to be a common language that allows professionals to understand each other as well as international bodies. At the international level a common professional lexicon is as critical as the language of the community. In most cases, inability to speak the official languages of the international bodies became a barrier in proper communication.
7.7.2 Proposals to the Canadian and Iranian Authorities
Iran has recently attempted to further the concept of cultural landscape. The first official step was to co-organize the 2006 Persepolis International Expert Workshop for
Enhanced Management and planning of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. This needs, however, to go further. Research should be undertaken which would examine the implications of implementing the paragraphs of the Persepolis Proposal by the Iranian
314
Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization. The study could also attempt to determine whether local participation based on values management could be adopted at other sites and perhaps nationally.
One of the key issues surrounding heritage in Canada is that a great deal of it belongs to the Aboriginal peoples and their ancestors. There is a disconnect between
Aboriginals, who constitute a minority, and more recently settled Canadians. Research needs to be undertaken on how to successfully integrate or manage their possibly divergent views of a single landscape. The heritage of Aboriginal peoples is not seen as the heritage of most Canadians. Disenfranchising Aboriginal peoples through treaties and the reserve system has separated them from their cultural landscapes, from places special to them. Many of the prominent ceremonies which are still being practised today are not always rooted in their cultural landscapes. Canadians need to understand the depth of culture and time of these cultural landscapes.
Different types of cultural landscapes should also be studied. They should not be limited to archaeological or agricultural landscapes. Many intentionally designed landscapes are only recognized as cultural landscapes because they usually involve a building or an architectural masterpiece which dominate the site. In Iran, the Persian
Garden – a designed cultural landscape – cannot be identified solely as a cultural landscape. The pattern, layout and features and elements of garden are important, but they are only designated with a building as focus. Other categories of cultural landscape, for example industrial landscapes, receive less attention. Parks Canada has mainly dealt with cultural landscapes from the perspective of Aboriginal peoples. Little attention has been paid as to how this concept could be applied to Euro-Canadian history, to western
315
Canada’s historic towns and their urban cultural landscapes, its ranch and farm lands, its hydro-electric power developments, each with its distinctively different land management practices.
7.8 Concluding Remarks
Mixed method data sources were interrelated to provide both micro- and macro- perspectives on the diverse contexts and factors affecting protection of cultural landscapes. These sources included interviews, document analysis, and two detailed examples to holistically explore all the dynamics involved in developing both theoretically and practically the concept of cultural landscapes. Semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions were conducted with key informants. They were asked to propose their own insights into certain problems. Their responses provided a basis for further inquiry. The purpose of conducting interviews was two-fold: to gain deeper knowledge of the issues of identifying, conserving and managing cultural landscapes in general, and to understand both examples and identify their practical issues in particular. In this manner, the Canadian and Iranian government policy documents and key documents and reports produced by agencies responsible for heritage conservancy, as well as international documents such as World Heritage Convention and related documents, were reviewed and analyzed. The experiences gained by attending international events also informed the other methods employed in the research; they were critically reviewed to examine the application of informants’ comments within the heritage community at different levels of authority.
316
This research has confirmed that cultural landscapes reveal much about a society.
They reflect its origins and evolution. They contain illustrations of human activities over time through their evidence of social, economic and cultural successions. While cultural groups have modified the land in which they live, the land has also influenced culture.
This interaction adds cultural values to the surrounding natural environment. The need for societies to conserve their cultural landscapes springs from their need to continue their complex interactions with their surroundings in a sustainable and comprehensive way.
The changes in patterns and processes of landscapes resulting from human activities should be considered in the management of ecosystems and landscapes.
Understanding the structure and function of landscapes and developing a new theoretical framework are also crucial for sustainable landscape conservation, management, and planning for the future. Such a conservation framework must be able to inform policy and management decision.
Cultural landscapes are alive – living documents. From them it is possible to learn about the relationship between nature and culture, tangible and intangible heritage, and biological and cultural diversity. The future of landscape is important to quality of life and its conservation must be a priority. For effective cultural landscape conservation, it is crucial to determine and understand how the natural environment, biodiversity, and ecosystem integrity, as well as human activities, cultural diversity, traditions and social values are conserved.
Further, the study has acknowledged that the concept of cultural landscape has gradually become clearer as a result of much research and institutional effort, although
317 the degree of comprehension of the concept varies in different societies. There is growing awareness of the importance of cultural landscapes, and a body of research in heritage landscape conservation is emerging at national and international levels. It examines how the conservation and management of such places contribute to retaining the spirit of place as well as individual and communal identities. However, there remains a need to develop a comprehensive approach, both in theory and practice, in order to define, identify, conserve and manage different cultural landscapes within their own context. The terminology and categorization that are used to identify and investigate cultural landscape processes are crucial to the development of principles to guide the conservation of landscapes and to identify the important elements required to achieve management outcomes. How a landscape is defined and categorized can have a significant effect on a wide range of management decisions.
This study has emphasized that cultural landscapes are usually places that have cultural, historical, spiritual, social and economic values as well as ecological and natural ones, although these values are relative and contextual and they vary over time. Through interviews and site visits, as well as documentary analysis, the research has identified how different cultural groups understand cultural landscapes based on their unique worldviews. Cultural background and worldviews are therefore crucial to identifying the values of places as cultural landscapes.
The previous chapters have promoted concern for the full range of values represented in landscapes, both cultural and natural, while protecting key elements, so that both the character and the spirit of place are protected. It also argued that to better conserve cultural landscapes, the whole range of values should be identified,
318 acknowledged and protected. To this end, management plans must emphasize the protection of the values and characters as well as the integrity and authenticity of these resources. Values-based management has emerged in Canada as a response to this need.
It shows promise for other societies.
The entire international community is coming to terms with the fact that it is important to recognize cultural landscapes and identify their values but that the challenges of protecting them are extraordinarily complex. There are no easy solutions. It is essential to build on previous experiences, and to have a supply of good case studies, successful cases or not, since failed examples also provide important lessons. Through illustrative examples, the idea of cultural landscape can be better understood and even be applied in other parts of the world. A study of such examples could create inspiring experiences that enables authorities to go beyond the bounds of their local experiences. It is also essential to look into ways of enhancing the management capacity of the authorities and stakeholders so that they can participate in and create solutions. This is only possible if achievable goals are envisioned as the very first step to local, national and international improvements.
This study concludes that there is no one real concept of cultural landscape that is understood by all cultural groups, and that the lack of definition, the lack of proper identification and evaluation of multiple values, and the lack of planning and management methodologies on the one hand, and the discord at international and national levels because of lack of cultural understanding or other restrictions, on the other hand, are at the root of the issue of proper conservation of cultural landscapes.
319
References
Agnoletti, M. (2006). Introduction: Framing the Issue - A Trans-disciplinary Reflection on Cultural Landscapes. In M. Agnoletti (Ed.), The Conservation of Cultural Landscapes (pp. xi-xix). Oxfordshire: CABI. Alanen, A. R., & Robert Z. Melnick (Eds.). (2000). Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Alberta Community Development. The Federal Provincial Parks Council. Retrieved January 05, 2006, from http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/preserving/parks/fppc/what.html Alberta Community Development. Provincial Designation Program. Retrieved January 05, 2006, from http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/preserving/heritage/pands/designation/index.asp Alberta Culture and Community Spirit. Historic Resources Management. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://culture.alberta.ca/heritage/resourcemanagement/default.aspx Alberta Historic Resources Management. (1980). Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Complex World Heritage Nomination File. Edmonton: Alberta Community Development. Alberta Tourism Parks Recreation and Culture. Managing Parks and Protected Areas: Establishing Protected Areas. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.tprc.alberta.ca/parks/managing/establishing.asp Alumae, H., Printsmann, A., & Palang, H. (2003). Cultural and Historical Values in Landscape Planning: Locals’ Perception. In H. Palang & G. Fry (Eds.), Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes (pp. 125-145). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Amos, B. (1996). The International Context for Heritage Conservation in Canada. Environments, 24(1), 13. Andrews, T. D., & Buggey, S. (2008). Authenticity in Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes. APT Bulletin, 39(2-3), 63-71. Aplin, G. (2002). Heritage: Identification, Conservation and Management. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Appiah, A. K. (2005). The Ethics of Identity. Princton: Princton University Press. Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience of Landscape. London: John Wiley and Sons. Araoz, G. F., MacLean, M., & Day Kozak, L. (1999). Proceedings of the Interamerican Symposium on Authenticity in the Conservation and Management of Cultural Heritage of the Americas. Washington D.C.: US/ICOMOS. Ashworth, G. J. (1995). Heritage, Tourism and Europe: A European Future for a European Past. In D. T. Herbert (Ed.), Heritage, Tourism and Society (pp. 68-84). London: Mansell Publishing Limited. Australia ICOMOS. (1999). The Burra Charter. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://www.icomos.org/australia/burra.html Bailey, A. W. (1984). Ecology of Vegetation at Head-Smaeshed-In Buffalo Jump. Edmonton: Western Rangeland Consultants LTD. Bastien, B. (2005). Blackfoot Ways of Knowing: The Worldview of the Siksikaitsitapi. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
320
Bellin, R. (2005). Photo-elicitation and the Agricultural Landscape: 'Seeing' and 'Telling' about Farming, Community and Place. Visual Studies, 20(1), 56-68. Beresford, M., & Philips, A. (2000). Protected Landscapes: A Conservation Model for the 21st Century. The George Wright Forum, 17(1), 15-26. Birnbaum, C. A. (1994). Protecting Cultural Landscapes Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. Preservation Brief 36 Retrieved January 22, 2006, from http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm Brink, J. (2008). Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump. Athabasca: Athabasca University Press. Buggey, S. (1999a). An Approach to Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/r/pca-acl/index_e.asp Buggey, S. (1999b). Conservation of Landscapes of Historic and Cultural Value: The Emergence of a Movement. Environments, 26(3), 17. Buggey, S. (2000). Associative Values: Exploring Nonmaterial Qualities in Cultural Landscapes. APT bulletin, 31(4), 21-27. Buggey, S. (2004). World Heritage Global Strategy and Canadian Cultural Sites of Outstanding Universal Value. Retrieved February 3, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/spm-whs/itm5-/index_e.asp Buggey, S., & Keller, G. P. (2000). Managing Cultural Landscapes through Values, Technology, and Planning. APT bulletin, 31(4), 3. Buggey, S., & Mitchell, N. (2008). Cultural Landscapes: Venues for Community-based Conservation. In R. Longstreth (Ed.), Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice (pp. 164-179). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Burnett, K. A. (2001). Heritage, Authenticity and History. In S. Drummond & I. Yeoman (Eds.), Quality Issues in Heritage Visitor Attractions. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann. Callenbach, E. (1998). Ecology: A Pocket Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cameron, C. (2000). The Spirit of Place: The Physical Memory of Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 35(1), 77. Cameron, C. (2008). From Warsaw to Mostar: The World Heritage Committee and Authenticity. APT Bulletin, 39(2-3), 19-24. Canadian Parks Council. National, Provincial and Territorial Parks Agencies: Working Together. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.parks- parcs.ca/english/ Carter, S. (1999). Aboriginal People and Colonizers of Western Canada to 1900. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. Chadwick, B. A., Bahr, H. M., & Albrecht, S. L. (1984). Social Science Research Methods. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Clark, J., Darlington, J., & Fairclough, G. (2004). Using Historic Landscape Characterisation. London: English Heritage and Lancashire County Council. Cleere, H. (1995). Cultural Landscapes as World Heritage. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 1(1), 63-68.
321
Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Davidson-Hunt, I. J. (2003). Indigenous Lands Management, Cultural Landscapes and Anishinaabe People of Shoal lake, Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Environments Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=506250841&Fmt=7&clientId=12303&RQT =309&VName=PQD de la Torre, M. (Ed.). (2005). Heritage Values in Site Management. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Department of Justice Canada. (1985). Historic Sites and Monuments Act. Retrieved January 11, 2006, from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/h-4/64679.html Department of Justice Canada. (1998). Parks Canada Agency Act. Retrieved January 11, 2006, from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/p-0.4/90682.html Dormaar, J. F., & Barsh, R. L. (2000). The Prairie Landscape - Perception of Reality: Prairie Conservation Forum - Occasional Paper Number 3. Eagles, P. F. J. (1993). Parks Legislation in Canada. In P. Dearden & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and Protected Areas in Canada (pp. 57-74). Toronto: Oxford University Press. Fairclough, G. (2003). Cultural Landscape, Sustainability, and Living with Change? In J. M. Teutonico & F. Matero (Eds.), Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation of Built Environment (pp. 23-46). Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. Fairclough, G., Greorge Lambrick, & David Hopkins. Historic Landscape Characterisation in England and a Hampshire Case Study. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/HampshireHLC.pdf Fairclough, G., Rippon, S., & Bull, D. (2002). Europe's Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change. Brussel: EAC. Feick, J., & Draper, D. (2001). Valid Threat or ‘Tempest in a Teapot’? An Historical Account of Tourism Development and the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage Site Designation. Tourism Recreation Research, 26(1), 35-46. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The Art of Science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 361-376). London: Sage Publications. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The Interview: From Neutral Stance to Political Involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Licoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 695-728). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
322
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2007). Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS). Retrieved October 25, 2007, from http://www.fao.org/sd/giahs/contacts.asp Fowlow, L. D., McMordie, M., & Stein, S. (1999). Who's Afraid of Authenticity? In E. Thorbjoern Mann (Ed.), The Power of Imagination: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (pp. 62- 67). Oklahoma: Edra. Fry, G. (2003). From Objects to Landscapes in Natural and Cultural Heritage Management: A Role for Landscape Interfaces. In H. Palang & G. Fry (Eds.), Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes (pp. 237-253). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded theory : Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Atherton. Government of Alberta. Municipal Government Act (Chapter M-26). Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/M26.CFM Government of the Northwest Territories. (2004). Guide to the Preparation of Statements of Significance for Historic Sites: Government of Northwest Territories. Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. London: Arnold. Grinnell, G. B. (1962). Blackfoot Lodge Tales: The Story of a Prairie People. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Gustavsson, R., & Peterson, A. (2003). Authenticity in Landscape Conservation and Management: The Importance of the Local Context. In H. Palang & G. Fry (Eds.), Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes (pp. 319-356). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hannes, P., & Fry, G. (Eds.). (2003). Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hayden, D. (1995). The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Head, L. (2000). Cultural Landscapes and Environmental Change. London: Arnold. Historic Places Initiative. Canada's Historic Places: A Federal Provincial Territorial Collaboration. Retrieved November 20,, 2007, from http://www.historicplaces.ca/acc-hom.aspx Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Retrieved January 05, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc- hsmbc/index_E.asp Hobson, E. (2004). Conservation and Planning: Changing Values in Policy and Practice. London: Spon Press. Huff, D. TAK¨T-E SOLAYMAÚN. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.iranica.com/newsite/ ICCROM. (2007). Conservation of Built Heritage (CBH07). Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://www.iccrom.org/eng/prog_en/02built_en/cbh_en/2007_02cbh_en.shtml ICOMOS. (1994). The Nara Document on Authenticity. Retrieved December 29, 2005, from http://www.international.icomos.org/naradoc_eng.htm
323
ICOMOS. (2003). Evaluations of Cultural Properties: Takht-e-Suleiman (Iran). World Heritage Committee 27th Ordinary Session, Suzhou (China) Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1077.pdf ICOMOS. (2008). Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place through the Safeguarding of Tangible and Intangible Heritage. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://www.hospitalite.com/Clients/icomos/en/99_intro_blog.htm ICOMOS Canada. ICOMOS Canada. Retrieved January 14, 2006, from http://canada.icomos.org/ International Expert Workshop on Enhanced Management and Planning of World Heritage Cultural Landscape. (2006). Persepolis Proposal For Enhanced Management and Planning of World Heritage Cultural Landscape. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-477-1.doc Iran Department of Environment. Department of Environment. Retrieved December 06, 2005, from http://www.irandoe.org/en Irani Behbahani, H., Sharifi, A., & Inanloo Dailoo, S. (2003). A Glance at the Conservation and Reclamation of Archeological Landscapes. Iranian Architecture Quarterly, 3(12+13), 56-71. Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism Organization. Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism Organization. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://ichto.ir/ Iranian Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism Organization. Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization: Laws and Regulations. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.ichto.ir/tabid/77/Default.aspx Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization. (2002). Proposal for Nomination of Takht-e- Soleyman on the World Heritage List as a Cultural Property: Takht-e-Soleyman: Fire Temple of Knights (VI th- XIII th Centuries). Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1077/documents/ Jakle, J. A. (1987). The Visual Elements of Landscape. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed. Vol. 2). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lawrenz, F., Keiser, N., & Lavoie, B. (2005). Evaluative Site Visits: A Methodological Review. In E. Stern (Ed.), Evaluation Research Methods (Vol. II, pp. 403 - 419). London: Sage Publications. Lewis, P. (1998). The Challenge of the Ordinary: Preservation and the Cultural Landscape. Historic Preservation Forum, 12(2), 18-28. Longstreth, R. (Ed.). (2008). Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lowenthal, D. (1978). Finding Valued Landscapes, Environmental Perception Research Working Paper (Vol. 4). Toronto: University of Toronto, Institute of Environmental Studies. Lowenthal, D. (1979). Age and Artifact: Dilemmas of Appreciation. In D. W. Meinnig (Ed.), The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays (pp. 103- 128). New York: Oxford university Press.
324
Lowenthal, D. (1993). Landscape as Heritage: National Scenes and Global Changes. In J. M. Fladmark (Ed.), Heritage: Conservation, Interpretation, Enterprise (pp. 3-15). London: Donhead Publishing. Lowenthal, D. (1997). Cultural landscapes. UNESCO Courier, 50(9), 18-20. Lowenthal, D. (1998). Fabricating Heritage. History and Memory, 10(1). Lowenthal, D. (2004). The Heritage Crusade and Its Contradictions. In M. Page & R. Mason (Eds.), Giving Preservation a History: Histories of Historic Preservation in the United States (pp. 19 - 43). New York and London: Routledge. Lowenthal, D. (2005). Natural and Cultural Heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11(1), 81. Lowenthal, D. (2006). Heritage Wars. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://www.spiked- online.com/Printable/0000000CAFCC.htm Maaranen, P. (2003). Landscape Archaeology and Management of Ancient Cultural Heritage Sites. In H. Palang & G. Fry (Eds.), Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes (pp. 255-271). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Makale, & Kyllo, L. (1980). Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump: Interpretive Concept. Edmonton: Makale & Kyllo Planning Associates Ltd. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Martinez, J. J. Z. (2003). Authenticity in the Context of Ethnic Tourism: The Local Perspective. University of Calgary, Calgary. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage. Mason, R. (2008). Management for Cultural Landscape Preservation: Insights from Australia. In R. Longstreth (Ed.), Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice (pp. 180-196). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. McMordie, M. (2007). Really True Stories? (pp. 11): Unpublished conference paper presented (in summary) at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada. McMordie, M., & Stein, S. (2001). A Thread of Many Fibres, 6th International Canadian Studies Conference, . St. Petersburg, Russia: Russian Association for Canadian Studies. Meinig, D. W. (1979). The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Scene. In D. W. Meinig (Ed.), The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscape (pp. 33-48). New York: Oxford University Press. Melnick, R. Z. (2008). Are We There Yet? Travels and Tribulations in th Cultural Landscpe. In R. Longstreth (Ed.), Cultural Landscpes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice (pp. 197-209). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Miller, S. I., & Fredericks, M. (1994). Qualitative Research Methods: Social Epistemology and Practical Inquiry. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Ministry of Culture Communications and Status of Women. (2008). A Fresh Look at Cultural Heritage: Workbook. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from
325
http://www.mcccf.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/documents/consultation- publique/workbook.pdf Ministry of Culture of Ontario. Cultural Landscapes in Ontario. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/landscape.htm Mitchell, N. J. (1996). Cultural Landscapes: Concepts of Culture and Nature as a Paradigm for Historic Preservation. Unpublished Ph.D., Tufts University, Massachusetts. Mitchell, N. J. (2008). Considering the Authenticity of Cultural Landscapes. APT Bulletin, 39(2-3), 25-31. Mitchell, N. J., & Buggey, S. (2000). Protected Landscapes and Cultural Landscapes: Taking Advantage of Diverse Approaches. The George Wright Forum, 17(1), 35- 46. Mitchell, N. J., & Diamant, R. (1998). Nature, Culture and Conservation: Defining Landscape Stewardship. Environments, 26(1), 43. National Park Service. Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://www.nps.gov/history/HPS/hli/landscape_guidelines/index.htm National Park Service. (1998). NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guidelines. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nps28/28contents.htm National Park Service. (2002). How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15 Retrieved December 15, 2008, from http://www.nps.gov/history/NR/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15.pdf Naumann, R. (1995). Die Ruinen Von Tacht-E Suleiman Und Zendan-E Suleiman (F. N. Samii, Trans.). Tehran: Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization Nelson, J. G., & Preston, S. M. (2005). Towards a Sense of Place: Preparing Heritage Landscape Guides: A Manual for Urban and Rural Communities in Ontario. Waterloo: Environments Publications. Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (3rd ed.). Toronto: Allyn and Bacon. Olwig, K. R. (2005). Introduction: The Nature of Cultural Heritage and the Culture of Natural Heritage - Northern Perspectives on a Contested Patrimony. International Journal of Heritage Studies 11(1), 3-7. Oxford English Dictionary. Value. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50274674?query_type=word&queryword=val ue&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=4&search_id=ml VM-cR8ndF-5132&hilite=50274674 Paarup-Laursen, B., & Krolgh, L. (2003). The Duality of Indigenous Environmental Knowledge among the Fulani of Northern Burkina Faso. In A. Roepstorff, N. Bubandt & K. Kull (Eds.), Imagining Nature: Practices of Cosmology and Identity. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Palang, H., & Fry, G. (2003). Landscape Interfaces: Introduction. In H. Palang & G. Fry (Eds.), Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes (pp. 1- 13). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
326
Parks Australia. (2000). Uluru - Kata Tjuta National Park Plan of Management. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/publications/uluru/pubs/management- plan.pdf Parks Canada. Corporate plan 2005/6-2009/10. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/plans/plan2005-2006/sec4/page1_E.asp Parks Canada. Parks Canada. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://pc.gc.ca/index_e.asp Parks Canada. Working Together. Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/intro/bienvenue-welcome/itm7-travail-working/travail- working1_e.asp Parks Canada. (2003). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Retrieved January 05, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/nldclpc-sgchpc/index_e.asp Parks Canada. (2005). Report on the State of Conservation of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump - Periodic Report on the Application of the World Heritage Convention. Periodic Report on the Application of the World Heritage Convention Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pm-wh/rspm-whsr/rapports- reports/r4_e.asp Parks Canada. (2006). Guiding Principles and Operational Policies. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/poli/princip/index_E.asp Phillips, A. (1998). The Nature of Cultural Landscapes: A Nature Conservation Perspective. Landscape Research, 23(1), 21-38. Phillips, A. (2002). Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas: Protected Landscapes/Seascapes. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 9 Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAG- 009.pdf Phillips, A. (2003). Why Lived-in Landscapes Matter to Nature Conservation. APT Bulletin, 34(1), 5-10. Powell, J. (2000). Expanding Horizons: Environmental and Cultural Values within Natural Boundaries. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 6(1), 49. Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. London: Pion. Revees, B. O. K. (1978). Bison Killing in the Southwestern Alberta Rockies. Plains Anthropologist, 23(82, Part 2), 63-78. Rivetna, R. M. (1990). Iranian Religions: Zoroastrianism - About Zoroastrian Religion Retrieved December 14, 2008, from http://www.cais- soas.com/cais/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/about_zoroastrianism.htm Robertson, I., & Richards, P. (2003). Studying Cultural Landscapes. London: Hodder Arnold. Rodwell, D. (2002). The World Heritage Convention and the Exemplary Management of Complex Heritage Sites. Journal of architectural conservation, 8(3), 40-60. Rossler, M. (2000). World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. George Wright Forum, 17(1), 27-34. Rossler, M. (2002). Linking Nature and Culture: 30 Years UNESCO World Heritage Convention. In German Commission for UNESCO & Brandenburg University of
327
Technology at Cottbus (Eds.), Nature and Culture: Ambivalent Dimensions of Our Heritage - Change of Perspective (pp. 27-42). Cottbus: Drckzone GmbH & Co. Rossler, M. (2008). Applying Authenticity to Cultural Landscapes. APT Bulletin, 39(2-3), 47-52. Said, E. (1994). Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books. Samadi, Y. (1997). Legislations, Regulations, Guidelines, Directives and Conventions Related to the Iranian Cultural Heritage (Shabnam Inanloo Dailoo (some parts), Trans.). Tehran: Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization. Sandalack, B. A. (1988). Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Complex Form and Process: Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Manitoba. Sauer, C. O. (1925). The Morphology of Landscape. University of California, Publications in Geography, 2(2), 19-54. Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Scruton, R. (1990). The Philosopher on the Dover Beach: Essays. Manchester: Carcanet Press. Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M., & Cook, S. W. (1959). Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Rinehart and Winston. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook (Second ed.). London: Sage Publications. Slaiby, B. E., & Mitchell, N. J. (2003). A Handbook for Managers of Cultural Landscapes with Natural Resource Values. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from http://www.nps.gov/csi/csihandbook/home.htm Smith, J., & Associates Contentworks INC. (2004). Definition and Assessment of Cultural Landscapes of Heritage Value on NCC Lands. Retrieved. from. Stake, R. E. (1994). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 236-247). London: Sage Publications. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Licoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Stoffle, R. W., Halmo, D. B., & Austin, D. E. (1997). Cultural landscapes and traditional cultural properties: A southern paiute view of the Grand. American Indian Quarterly, 21(2), 229-250. Strauss, A. (1991). A Personal History of the Development of Grounded Theory [Electronic Version]. Qualitative Family Research. A Newsletter of the Qualitative Family Research Network, 5. Retrieved June 20, 2007 from http://www.ucsf.edu/anselmstrauss/pdf/work-grounded_qfr.pdf. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Licoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication. Suren-Pahlav, S. (2000). An Introduction to Daenâ Vanuhi: The Good Religion of Asho Zarathushtra. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://www.cais- soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/introduction.htm
328
Swinnerton, G. S. (1993). The Alberta Park System: Policy and Planning. In P. Dearden & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and Protected Areas in Canada (pp. 111-136). Toronto: Oxford University Press. Technical Office of the Deputy of Training and Presentation - Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization. Presentation and Enhancement Plan for Historical Gardens, Sites and Places. Retrieved January 01, 2006, from http://www.persiangarden.ir/about/EN/aboutus8.htm Tilley, C. (1994). A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Providence and Oxford: Berg. Tracy, W. A. (2005). In Time and Place: Master Plan 2005 for the Protection, Preservation, and the Presentation of Alberta's Past. Edmonton: Alberta Community Development. Tunbridge, J. E., & Ashworth, G. J. (1996). Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php- URL_ID=17716&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html UNESCO World Heritage Centre. World Heritage Centre. Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/ UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2002). Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation. Shared Legacy, Common Responsibilty Associated Workshops 11- 12 November 2002 Retrieved July 29 2008, 2008, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001329/132988e.pdf UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2005a). International Expert Workshop for Enhanced Management and Planning of Cultural Landscapes (Ref. 1764). Paris: World Heritage Centre. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2005b). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2008a). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2008b). Reports of the 32 Session of the World Heritage Committee (WHC-08/32.COM). von Droste, B., Plachter, H., & Rossler, M. (1995). Cultural Landscapes: Reconnecting Culture and Nature. In H. Plachter & M. Rossler (Eds.), Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value: Components of a Global Strategy (pp. 15-18). Jena, Stuttgart, and New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag in cooperation with UNESCO. Von Maltzahn, K. E. (1994). Nature as Culture: Dwelling and Understanding. Montreal &Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
329
Weizenegger, S., & Schenk, W. (2006). Cultural Landscape Management in Europe and Germany. In M. Agnoletti (Ed.), The Conservation of Cultural Landscapes (pp. 183-196). Oxfordshire: CABI. Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the Commodity Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place. Leisure Sciences, 14, 24-46. Williams, D. R., & Stewart, S. I. (1996). Sense of Place: An Elusive Concept that is Finding a Home in Ecosystem Management. Journal of Forestry, 5, 18-23. Williams, S. (1996). The Four New `Cultural Landscapes' [Electronic Version]. UNESCO Sources, 80, 9. Retrieved January 8, 2009 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001033/103365e.pdf. Woody, A. (1999). Linking Past and Place: The Construction and Maintenance of Tradition. American Indian Rock Art, 169-178. Wormington, H. M., & Forbis, R. G. (1965). An Introduction to the Archaeology of Alberta, Canada: Denver Museum of Natural History. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Vol. 5). London: Sage publications. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing.
331
APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM
Research Project Title: Cultural Landscapes: From Definition To Preservation
Investigator: Shabnam Inanloo Dailoo
Informed Consent Agreement
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is about and what your participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask.
Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information.
I am a PhD student in the Faculty of Environmental Design at the University of
Calgary. I am conducting a research on cultural landscapes and the surrounding issues as my dissertation. The purpose of the project is to investigate the possible reasons for success or failure of the preservation of cultural landscapes. The goal of this research is to identify the contributing factors, and to promote concern for conservation of natural features as well as preservation of the cultural aspects and architectural structures that is necessary for successful preservation. The research will lead to guidelines that will assist the achievement of preservation both in theory and in practice. The University of Calgary
Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this research study.
I wish to interview you because of your professional knowledge of this issue as a manager/professional staff/planner and designer of Takht-e-Soleyman Archeological
332
Site; World Heritage Centre’s Committee member/staff/relevant scientific bodies’ members; Historic Sites and Cultural Facilities director/staff at Alberta Community
Development; Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization responsible departments’ members. I do not expect any risk to you in participating in this study. Your participation would involve answering some questions, which would require about 45 minutes. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time, in which case records of any information collected from you would be destroyed.
All responses to these questions will be considered public and may be cited in the dissertation, unless anonymity is preferred. With your permission, I would like to make an audio recording of the interview to improve the accuracy of my work.
I will keep the interview notes, drafts and audio tapes in a locked drawer at the university or my home office. After the study is finished, they will be kept by my supervisor for two years as is required by our Faculty ethics guidelines. After that, they will be destroyed.
Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood to your satisfaction the information regarding participation in the research project and agree to participate as a subject. In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time. Your continued participation should be as informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your participation. If you have further questions concerning matters related to this research, please contact:
333
Shabnam Inanloo Dailoo 1(403)220-2169 [email protected]
Professor Michael McMordie 1(403)220-4178 [email protected]
If you have any questions or issues concerning this project that are not related to the specifics of the research, you may also contact the Research Services Office at
1(403)220-3782 and ask for Mrs. Patricia Evans or email her at [email protected].
Participant’s Signature Date
Investigator and/or Delegate’s Signature Date
______I agree to be identified ______I wish to remain anonymous Participant initial Participant initial
I wish to be anonymous and referred as ______Pseudonym ______I agree to audio recording of the interview Participant initial
A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference.
334
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
General Questions
• What are the main problems in identifying cultural landscapes from other types of heritage resources? o How do these problems differ from those in identifying other types of heritage resources? o Is confusion about the definition of cultural landscapes an obstacle to identification? How? o What have been good/weak features of the World Heritage guidelines used to define and identify cultural landscapes? o Do you think the new amalgamated set of criteria will influence the recognition and inscription of cultural landscapes? If yes, how? • How do you deal with the conflict between the definitions of cultural landscape and mixed heritage? • How do you think the World Heritage Operational guidelines for cultural landscapes could be effectively employed in professional practice? o Do you know of programs / examples / situations where they have been employed? o How effective were they? What was particularly effective? What was not effective? • How do you think the definition of cultural landscape could be specified? • Do you have future plans/concerns for improving definition of cultural landscapes? • What are the ways you can help state parties/professionals to identify a heritage resource as a cultural landscape? • Do you think there is a need for reassessment of inscribed sites as a cultural landscape? • Do you have any mandates for the conservation of cultural landscapes?
335
• What are the major challenges in the conservation of cultural landscapes? • What are the key concerns in sustainable cultural landscape management? • Do you have any other related comments?
Questions for Illustrative Examples • What are the key landscape features in the site? • What would be the most appropriate landscape conservation plan(s)? What would be the goals of this plan(s)? • If there is a plan, who do you think should be involved? • If there is no plan, who do you think is responsible for planning? • Do you have any mandates from high-level responsible authorities(s) (national/provincial) that urges you to follow specific landscape conservation plan? • How do you balance conservation of cultural and natural features of landscape? • What are the most important issues when you want to integrate concerns about natural resources into conservation of cultural landscapes? • How do you deal with conflicts between natural and cultural resource management in cultural landscapes? • Do you have any other related comments?
336
APPENDIX D: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES - DEFINITIONS AND
CATEGORIES
1) World Heritage Definition of Cultural Landscape 11
Definition
“6. Cultural landscapes are cultural properties and represent the "combined works
of nature and of man" designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of
the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the
physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of
successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal.
7. They should be selected on the basis both of their outstanding universal value
and of their representativity in terms of a clearly defined geo-cultural region and also for their capacity to illustrate the essential and distinct cultural elements of such regions.
8. The term "cultural landscape" embraces a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment.
9. Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land-use, considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they are established in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature. Protection of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land-use and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape. The continued existence of traditional forms of land-use
11 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention - Annex 3: Guidelines on the Inscription of Specific Types of Properties on the World Heritage List (Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf).
337 supports biological diversity in many regions of the world. The protection of traditional cultural landscapes is therefore helpful in maintaining biological diversity.
Definition and Categories
10. Cultural landscapes fall into three main categories, namely:
(i) The most easily identifiable is the clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man. This embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons which are often (but not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles.
(ii) The second category is the organically evolved landscape. This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features. They fall into two sub-categories:
- a relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form.
- a continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.
(iii) The final category is the associative cultural landscape. The inscription
338 of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent.”
2) Parks Canada’s Definition of Cultural Landscape
“Cultural Landscape is any geographical area that has been modified, influenced, or given special cultural meaning by people.”12
“An Aboriginal Cultural Landscape is a place valued by an Aboriginal group (or
groups) because of their long and complex relationship with that land. It expresses their
unity with the natural and spiritual environment. It embodies their traditional knowledge
of spirits, places, land uses, and ecology. Material remains of the association may be
prominent, but will often be minimal or absent.”13
“Landscapes in the context of these Guidelines are exterior spaces that have been assigned cultural (including spiritual) meaning, such as an Aboriginal sacred site, or have
been deliberately altered in the past for aesthetic, cultural, or functional reasons, such as a
city park, a cemetery or a backyard garden. Landscapes include land patterns, such as the
Métis river lot system; landforms, such as hills, prairie or terraces; spatial organization, such as the relation of a house to a barn; and vegetation, such as trees, shrubs or herbaceous plants. They also include related circulation systems, such as paths, roads, parking lots, rail lines and rights-of-way or canals; water features such as lakes, streams,
12 Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies (Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/poli/princip/gloss_E.asp#c). 13 Parks Canada, An Approach to Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes (Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/r/pca-acl/sec4/index_e.asp).
339 pools or fountains; built features such as light standards, fences, benches or statuary; and views or other visual relationships.”14
3) US National Park Service’s Definition of Cultural Landscape
Definition
“Cultural landscapes are settings we have created in the natural world. They
reveal fundamental ties between people and the land–ties based on our need to grow food, give form to our settlements, meet requirements for recreation, and find suitable
places to bury our dead. Landscapes are intertwined patterns of things both natural and
constructed: plants and fences, watercourses and buildings. They range from formal
gardens to cattle ranches, from cemeteries and pilgrimage routes to village squares. They
are special places: expressions of human manipulation and adaptation of the land.”15
Categories
“A cultural landscape is a geographic area, including both natural and cultural resources, associated with a historic event, activity, or person. The National Park Service recognizes four cultural landscape categories: historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, historic sites, and ethnographic landscapes. These categories are helpful in distinguishing the values that make landscapes cultural resources and in determining how they should be treated, managed, and interpreted.
14 Parks Canada, Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada: Guidelines for Landscapes (Retrieved January 5, 2006, from, http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/nldclpc- sgchpc/sec3/page3e_e.asp). 15 US National Park Service, NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts of Cultural Resource Management, B. Types of Cultural Resources / 2. NPS Resource Types (Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nps28/28chap1.htm).
340
Historic designed landscapes are deliberate artistic creations reflecting recognized styles, such as the twelve-acre Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C., with its French and Italian Renaissance garden features. Designed landscapes also include those associated with important persons, trends, or events in the history of landscape architecture, such as Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site and the Blue Ridge
Parkway.
Historic vernacular landscapes illustrate peoples' values and attitudes toward the land and reflect patterns of settlement, use, and development over time. Vernacular landscapes are found in large rural areas and small suburban and urban districts.
Agricultural areas, fishing villages, mining districts, and homesteads are examples. The
17,400-acre rural landscape of Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve represents a continuum of land use spanning more than a century. It has been continually reshaped by its inhabitants, yet the historic mix of farm, forest, village, and shoreline remains.
Historic sites are significant for their associations with important events, activities, and persons. Battlefields and presidential homes are prominent examples. At these areas, existing features and conditions are defined and interpreted primarily in terms of what happened there at particular times in the past.
Ethnographic landscapes are associated with contemporary groups and typically are used or valued in traditional ways. In the expansive Alaska parks, Native Alaskans hunt, fish, trap, and gather and imbue features with spiritual meanings. Jean Lafitte
National Historical Park and Preserve illustrates the strong interrelationship between the dynamic natural system of the Delta region and several cultural groups through many
341 generations. Numerous cultural centers maintain ties to distinctive, long-established groups with ethnic identities.
The four cultural landscape categories are not mutually exclusive. A landscape may be associated with a significant event, include designed or vernacular characteristics, and be significant to a specific cultural group. For example, Gettysburg National Military
Park is a historic site primarily significant as the scene of the 1863 Civil War battle. The park also includes historic vernacular farm complexes that existed at the time of the battle and a number of designed components added later to commemorate the event, including a national cemetery, roads, and numerous monuments.”16
“A rural historic landscape is defined as a geographical area that historically has been used by people, or shaped or modified by human activity, occupancy, or intervention, and that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of areas
of land use, vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and natural
features.”17
4) IUCN Category V: Protected Landscape/Seascape
“Protected Landscape/Seascape - protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation is area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often
16 Chapter 7: Management of Cultural Landscapes, 3. Cultural Landscape Categories (Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nps28/28chap7.htm). 17 US National Parks Service, National Register Bulletin – NRB30, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes, 1999, 1-2.
342 with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area.”18
5) The Australian Heritage Commission’s Definition of Cultural Landscape
“Cultural landscape is applied to areas of landscape including landscapes where
natural features have special meanings to people such as traditional Aboriginal Australian
landscapes, to highly modified or developed landscapes. That land may have continuing
use or may be a collection of extant remains.”19
In the 1996 Australian State of the Environment Report it was recognised that (AHC
2002:1):
“Much of Australia may be regarded as cultural landscape because of the traditions and practices of Indigenous peoples over thousands of years. Immigrants since the first European settlement have added further layers of historical evidence and social significance to the natural landscape.”20
6) The European Landscape Convention21
a "Landscape" means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the
result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors;
18 IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas - Protected Areas and World Heritage Programme: Defining Protected Area Management Categories (Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.unep- wcmc.org/protected_areas/categories/index.html). 19 The Australian Heritage Commission (2001:1) quoted in Coleman, Cultural Landscapes Charette: Background Paper, 6. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/CLBackground9- 03.pdf). 20 Jane Lennon in Australia State of the Environment 1996, quoted in Coleman, Cultural Landscapes Charette: Background Paper, 5 & 6. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/CLBackground9-03.pdf). 21 Article 1 - Definitions, Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm.
343
b "Landscape policy" means an expression by the competent public authorities of general principles, strategies and guidelines that permit the taking of specific measures aimed at the protection, management and planning of landscapes;
c "Landscape quality objective" means, for a specific landscape, the formulation by the competent public authorities of the aspirations of the public with regard to the landscape features of their surroundings;
d "Landscape protection" means actions to conserve and maintain the significant or characteristic features of a landscape, justified by its heritage value derived from its natural configuration and/or from human activity;
e "Landscape management" means action, from a perspective of sustainable development, to ensure the regular upkeep of a landscape, so as to guide and harmonise changes which are brought about by social, economic and environmental processes;
f "Landscape planning" means strong forward-looking action to enhance, restore or create landscapes.
344
APPENDIX E: LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
(1993-2008)22
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape 1993 Tongariro became the first property to be inscribed on the World Heritage List under the revised criteria describing cultural landscapes. The mountains at the heart of the park have cultural and religious significance for the Maori people New Zealand Tongariro National Park and symbolize the spiritual links between this community and its environment. The park has active and extinct volcanoes, a diverse range of ecosystems and some spectacular landscapes. 1994 This park, formerly called Uluru (Ayers Rock – Mount Olga) National Park, features spectacular geological formations that dominate the vast red sandy plain of central Uluru-Kata Tjuta Australia. Uluru, an immense monolith, and Kata Tjuta, the Australia National Park rock domes located west of Uluru, form part of the traditional belief system of one of the oldest human societies in the world. The traditional owners of Uluru-Kata Tjuta are the Anangu Aboriginal people. 1995 For 2,000 years, the high rice fields of the Ifugao have followed the contours of the mountains. The result of knowledge handed down from one generation to the next, Rice Terraces of the Philippines and the expression of sacred traditions and a delicate social Philippine Cordilleras balance, they have helped to create a landscape of great beauty that expresses the harmony between humankind and the environment.
In the 19th century, Sintra became the first centre of European Romantic architecture. Ferdinand II turned a ruined monastery into a castle where this new sensitivity was displayed in the use of Gothic, Egyptian, Moorish and Cultural Landscape of Portugal Renaissance elements and in the creation of a park blending Sintra local and exotic species of trees. Other fine dwellings, built along the same lines in the surrounding serra, created a unique combination of parks and gardens that influenced the development of landscape architecture throughout Europe. 1996 Czech Lendice Valtice Cultural Between the 17th and 20th centuries, the ruling dukes of
Republic Landscape Liechtenstein transformed their domains in southern
22 Adopted from the UNESCO World Heritage Website.
345
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape Moravia into a striking landscape. It married Baroque, Neo- Classical and Neo-Gothic architecture of the castles of Lednice and Valtice with the countryside fashioned according to English romantic principles of landscape architecture. A 200 sq. km property, it is one of the largest artificial landscapes in Europe. The site is of outstanding universal value as a cultural landscape, an exceptional example of the designed landscape evolved in the Enlightenment and afterwards. It succeeds in bringing together in harmony cultural monuments from successive periods and both indigenous and exotic natural elements to create an outstanding work of human creativity. 1997 Human activity in the magnificent natural landscape of the Salzkammergut began in prehistoric times, with the salt Hallstatt-Dachstein/ deposits being exploited as early as the 2nd millennium BC. Austria Salzkammergut cultural This resource formed the basis of the area’s prosperity up to landscape the middle of the 20th century, a prosperity that is reflected in the fine architecture of the town of Hallstatt.
This outstanding mountain landscape, which spans the contemporary national borders of France and Spain, is centred around the peak of Mount Perdu, a calcareous massif that rises to 3,352 m. The site, with a total area of 30,639 ha, includes two of Europe's largest and deepest canyons on the Spanish side and three major cirque walls on the more abrupt northern slopes with France, classic France/Spain Pyrénées-Mont Perdu presentations of these geological landforms. The site is also a pastoral landscape reflecting an agricultural way of life that was once widespread in the upland regions of Europe but now survives only in this part of the Pyrénées. Thus it provides exceptional insights into past European society through its landscape of villages, farms, fields, upland pastures and mountain roads.
The Amalfi Coast is an outstanding example of a Mediterranean landscape, with exceptional cultural and natural scenic values resulting from its dramatic topography and historical evolution great physical beauty and natural diversity. It has been intensively settled by human communities since the early Middle Ages. There are a Italy Costiera Amalfitana number of towns such as Amalfi and Ravello with architectural and artistic works of great significance. The rural areas show the versatility of the inhabitants in adapting their use of the land to the diverse nature of the terrain, which ranges from terraced vineyards and orchards on the lower slopes to wide upland pastures.
346
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape
The Ligurian coast between Cinque Terre and Portovenere is Portovenere, Cinque a cultural landscape of great scenic and cultural value. The Terre and the Islands layout and disposition of the small towns and the shaping of Italy (Palmaria, Tino and the surrounding landscape, overcoming the disadvantages of Tinetto) a steep, uneven terrain, encapsulate the continuous history of human settlement in this region over the past millennium. 1998 The Viñales valley is encircled by mountains and its landscape is interspersed with dramatic rocky outcrops. Traditional techniques are still in use for agricultural production, particularly of tobacco. The quality of this Cuba Vinales Valley cultural landscape is enhanced by the vernacular architecture of its farms and villages, where a rich multi-ethnic society survives, illustrating the cultural development of the islands of the Caribbean, and of Cuba.
The Qadisha valley is one of the most important early Ouadi Qadisha (the Holly Christian monastic settlements in the world. Its monasteries, Valley) and the Forest of many of which are of a great age, stand in dramatic positions Lebanon the Cedars of God (Horsh in a rugged landscape. Nearby are the remains of the great Arz el-Rab forest of cedars of Lebanon, highly prized in antiquity for the construction of great religious buildings. 1999 Viticulture was introduced to this fertile region of Aquitaine by the Romans, and intensified in the Middle Ages. The Saint-Emilion area benefited from its location on the pilgrimage route to Santiago de Compostela. Many Jurisdiction of Saint- churches, monasteries, and hospices were built there from France Emilion the 11th century onwards. It was granted the special status of a jurisdiction during the period of English rule in the 12th century. It is an exceptional landscape devoted entirely to vine growing, with many fine historic monuments in its towns and villages.
The cultural landscape of the Hortobágy Puszta is a vast area of plains and wetlands in eastern Hungary that Hortobágy National Park Hungary preserves intact the Traditional forms of land use, such as - the Puszta the grazing of domestic animals, have been present in this pastoral society for more than two millennia.
The Sukur Cultural Landscape, with the Palace of the Hidi (Chief) on a hill dominating the villages below, the terraced fields and their sacred symbols, and the extensive remains of Nigeria Sukur Cultural Landscape a former flourishing iron industry, is a remarkably intact physical expression of a society and its spiritual and material culture.
347
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape
Kalwaria Zebrzydowska is a breathtaking cultural landscape Kalwaria Zebrzydowska: of great spiritual significance. Its natural setting – in which a the Mannerist series of symbolic places of worship relating to the Passion Poland Architectural and Park of Jesus Christ and the life of the Virgin Mary was laid out Landscape Complex and at the beginning of the 17th century – has remained virtually Pilgrimage Park unchanged. It is still today a place of pilgrimage. 2000 A stretch of the Danube Valley between Melk and Krems, a landscape of high visual quality. It preserves in an intact and Wachau Cultural Austria visible form many traces - in terms of architecture, urban Landscape design, and agricultural use, mainly for the cultivation of vines - of its evolution since prehistoric times.
Classical Chinese garden design, which seeks to recreate natural landscapes in miniature, is nowhere better illustrated than in the nine gardens in the historic city of Suzhou. They Classical Gardens of China are generally acknowledged to be masterpieces of the genre. Suzhou Dating from the 11th-19th century, the gardens reflect the profound metaphysical importance of natural beauty in Chinese culture in their meticulous design.
The remains of the 19th-century French Haitian coffee plantations in the foothills of the Sierra Maestra are a unique Archaeological evidence of a pioneer form of agriculture in a difficult Landscape of the First Cuba terrain of virgin forest, the traces of which have disappeared Coffee Plantations in the elsewhere in the world. They throw considerable light on the South-East of Cuba economic, social, and technological history of the Caribbean and Latin American region.
The Loire Valley is an outstanding cultural landscape of great beauty, containing historic towns and villages, great The Loire Valley between architectural monuments (the châteaux), and cultivated lands France Sully-sur-Loire and formed by many centuries of interaction between their Chalonnes population and the physical environment, primarily the river Loire itself.
The Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz is an exceptional example of landscape design and planning in the Age of Enlightenment, in the 18th century. Its diverse components - Garden Kingdom of Germany outstanding buildings, landscaped parks and gardens in the Dessau-Wörlitz English style, and subtly modified expanses of agricultural land - serve aesthetic, educational, and economic purposes in an exemplary manner.
Lithuania / Curonian Spit Human habitation of this elongated sand dune peninsula,
348
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape Russian 98km long and 0.4-4km wide, dates back to prehistoric Federation times. Throughout this period, the natural forces of wind and tide have threatened it. Its survival to the present day has been made possible only as a result of ceaseless human efforts to combat the erosion of the Spit, dramatically illustrated by continuing stabilization and reforestation projects.
The Palmeral of Elche, a landscape of groves of date palms, was formally laid out, with elaborate irrigation systems, at the time the Muslim city of Elche was erected, towards the end of the tenth century A.C., when much of the Iberian Spain Palmeral of Elche peninsula was Arab. The Palmeral is an oasis, a system for agrarian production in arid areas. It is also a unique example of Arab agricultural practices on the European continent. Cultivation of date palms in Elche is known at least since the Iberian times, dating around the fifth century B.C.
The southern part of the island of Öland in the Baltic Sea is dominated by a vast limestone plateau. Human beings have lived there for some five thousand years and adapted their Agricultural Landscape Sweden way of life to the physical constraints of the island. of Southern Öland Consequently, the landscape is unique, with abundant evidence of continuous human settlement from prehistoric times to the present day.
The area around Blaenavon is proof of the pre-eminence of South Wales as the world's major producer of iron and coal United Blaenavon Industrial in the 19th century. All the necessary elements can still be
Kingdom Landscape seen - coal and ore mines, quarries, a primitive railway system, furnaces, workers' homes, and the social infrastructure of their community. 2001 The Fertö/ Neusiedlersee Lake area has been the meeting place of different cultures for eight millennia. This is graphically demonstrated by its varied landscape, the result Austria / Fertö / Neusiedlersee of an evolutionary symbiosis between human activity and
Hungary Cultural Landscape the physical environment. The remarkable rural architecture of the villages surrounding the lake and several 18th- and 19th-century palaces adds to the area's considerable cultural interest.
The Champasak cultural landscape, including the Vat Phou Vat Phou and Associated Lao People’s Temple complex, is a remarkably well-preserved planned Ancient Settlements Democratic landscape more than 1,000 years old. It was shaped to within the Champasak Republic express the Hindu vision of the relationship between nature Cultural Landscape and humanity, using an axis from mountain top to river bank
349
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape to lay out a geometric pattern of temples, shrines and waterworks extending over some 10 km. Two planned cities on the banks of the Mekong River are also part of the site, as well as Phou Kao mountain. The whole represents a development ranging from the 5th to 15th centuries, mainly associated with the Khmer Empire.
The Royal Hill of Ambohimanga consists of a royal city and burial site, and an ensemble of sacred places. It is associated with strong feelings of national identity, and has maintained Royal Hill of Madagascar its spiritual and sacred character both in ritual practice and Ambohimanga the popular imagination for the past 500 years. It remains a place of worship to which pilgrims come from Madagascar and elsewhere.
Wine has been produced by traditional landholders in the Alto Douro region for some 2,000 years. Since the 18th century, its main product, port wine, has been world famous Portugal Alto Douro wine region for its quality. This long tradition of viticulture has produced a cultural landscape of outstanding beauty that reflects its technological, social and economic evolution.
The Aranjuez cultural landscape is an entity of complex relationships: between nature and human activity, between sinuous watercourses and geometric landscape design, between the rural and the urban, between forest landscape and the delicately modulated architecture of its palatial buildings. Three hundred years of royal attention to the Aranjuez cultural Spain development and care of this landscape have seen it express landscape an evolution of concepts from humanism and political centralization, to characteristics such as those found in its 18th century French-style Baroque garden, to the urban lifestyle which developed alongside the sciences of plant acclimatization and stock-breeding during the Age of Enlightenment. 2002 The 65km-stretch of the Middle Rhine Valley, with its castles, historic towns and vineyards, graphically illustrates Upper Middle Rhine the long history of human involvement with a dramatic and Germany Valley varied natural landscape. It is intimately associated with history and legend and for centuries has exercised a powerful influence on writers, artists and composers.
The cultural landscape of Tokaj graphically demonstrates Tokaj Wine Region the long tradition of wine production in this region of low Hungary Historic Cultural hills and river valleys. The intricate pattern of vineyards, Landscape farms, villages and small towns, with their historic networks
350
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape of deep wine cellars, illustrates every facet of the production of the famous Tokaj wines, the quality and management of which have been strictly regulated for nearly three centuries. 2003 The cultural landscape and archaeological remains of the represent the artistic and religious developments, which from the 1st to the 13th centuries, characterized ancient Bakhtria, integrating various cultural influences into the Cultural Landscape and Gandhara, school of Buddhist art. The area contains Afghanistan Archaeological Remains numerous Buddhist monastic ensembles and sanctuaries, as of the Bamiyan Valley well as fortified edifices from the Islamic period. The site is also testimony to the tragic destruction by the Taliban of the two standing Buddha statues, which shook the world in March 2001.
Quebrada de Humahuaca follows the line of a major cultural route, the Camino Inca, along the spectacular valley of the Rio Grande, from its source in the cold high desert plateau of the High Andean lands to its confluence with the Rio Leone some 150 km to the south. The valley shows Argentina Quebrada de Humahuaca substantial evidence of its use as a major trade route over the past 10,000 years. It features visible traces of prehistoric hunter-gatherer communities, of the Inca Empire (15th to 16th centuries) and of the fight for independence in the16th and 20th centuries.
The Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka are in the foothills of the Vindhyan Mountains on the southern edge of the central Indian plateau. Within massive sandstone outcrops, above comparatively dense forest, are five clusters of natural rock Rock Shelters of India shelters, displaying paintings that appear to date from the Bhimbetka Mesolithic Period right through to the historical period. The cultural traditions of the inhabitants of the twenty-one villages adjacent to the site bear a strong resemblance to those represented in the rock paintings.
The nine Sacri Monti (Sacred Mountains) of northern Italy are groups of chapels and other architectural features created in the late 16th and 17th centuries and dedicated to different aspects of the Christian faith. In addition to their symbolic Sacri Monti of Piedmont Italy spiritual meaning, they are of great beauty by virtue of the and Lombardy skill with which they have been integrated into the surrounding natural landscape of hills, forests and lakes. They also house much important artistic material in the form of wall paintings and statuary.
South Africa Mapungubwe Cultural Mapungubwe is set hard against the northern border of
351
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape Landscape South Africa, joining Zimbabwe and Botswana. It is an open, expansive savannah landscape at the confluence of the Limpopo and Shashe rivers. Mapungubwe developed into the largest kingdom in the sub-continent before it was abandoned in the 14th century. What survives are the almost untouched remains of the palace sites and also the entire settlement area dependent upon them, as well as two earlier capital sites, the whole presenting an unrivalled picture of the development of social and political structures over some 400 years.
This historic landscape garden features elements that illustrate significant periods of the art of gardens from the 18th to the 20th centuries. The gardens house botanic United Royal Botanic Gardens, collections (conserved plants, living plants and documents)
Kingdom Kew that have been considerably enriched through the centuries. Since their creation in 1759, the gardens have made a significant and uninterrupted contribution to the study of plant diversity and economic botany.
The area exhibits a profusion of distinctive rock landforms rising above the granite shield that covers much of Zimbabwe. The large boulders provide abundant natural shelters and have been associated with human occupation from the early Stone Age right through to early historical Zimbabwe Matobo Hills times, and intermittently since. They also feature an outstanding collection of rock paintings. The Matobo Hills continue to provide a strong focus for the local community, which still uses shrines and sacred places closely linked to traditional, social and economic activities. 2004 The cultural landscape of Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley offers a microcosmic perspective of the way people have harvested the resources of the high Pyrenees over millennia. Its dramatic glacial landscapes of craggy cliffs and glaciers, with high open pastures and steep wooded valleys, covers an Madriu-Perafita-Claror area of 4,247 ha, 9% of the total area of the principality. It Andorra Valley reflects past changes in climate, economic fortune and social systems, as well as the persistence of pastoralism and a strong mountain culture, notably the survival of a communal land-ownership system dating back to the 13th century. The site features houses, notably summer settlements, terraced fields, stone tracks and evidence of iron smelting.
The 18th- and 19th-century cultural landscape of Dresden Germany Dresden Elbe Valley Elbe Valley extends some 18 km along the river from Übigau Palace and Ostragehege fields in the north-west to
352
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape the Pillnitz Palace and the Elbe River Island in the south- east. It features low meadows, and is crowned by the Pillnitz Palace and the centre of Dresden with its numerous monuments and parks from the 16th to 20th centuries. The landscape also features 19th- and 20th-century suburban villas and gardens and valuable natural features. Some terraced slopes along the river are still used for viticulture and some old villages have retained their historic structure and elements from the industrial revolution, notably the 147-m Blue Wonder steel bridge (1891–93), the single-rail suspension cable railway (1898–1901), and the funicular (1894–95). The passenger steamships (the oldest from 1879) and shipyard (c. 1900) are still in use.
A landscaped park of 559.90-ha astride the Neisse river and the border between Poland and Germany, it was created by from 1815 to 1844. Blending seamlessly with the surrounding farmed landscape, the park pioneered new approaches to landscape design and influenced the development of landscape architecture in Europe and America. Designed as a ‘painting with plants’, it did not Germany / Muskauer Park / Park seek to evoke classical landscapes, paradise, or some lost Poland Muzakowski perfection, instead it used local plants to enhance the inherent qualities of the existing landscape. This integrated landscape extends into the town of Muskau with green passages that formed urban parks framing areas for development. The town thus became a design component in a utopian landscape. The site also features a reconstructed castle, bridges and an arboretum.
Þingvellir (Thingvellir) is the National Park where the Althing – an open-air assembly, which represented the whole of Iceland – was established in 930 and continued to meet until 1798. Over two weeks a year, the assembly set laws – seen as a covenant between free men – and settled disputes. The Althing has deep historical and symbolic associations for the people of Iceland. The property includes Iceland Þingvellir National Park the Þingvellir National Park and the remains of the Althing itself: fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone. Remains from the 10th century are thought to be buried underground. The site also includes remains of agricultural use from the 18th and 19th centuries. The park shows evidence of the way the landscape was husbanded over 1,000 years.
Bam and its cultural Bam is situated in a desert environment on the southern Iran landscape edge of the Iranian high plateau. The origins of Bam can be
353
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape traced back to the Achaemenid period (6th to 4th centuries BC). Its heyday was from the 7th to 11th centuries, being at the crossroads of important trade routes and known for the production of silk and cotton garments. The existence of life in the oasis was based on the underground irrigation canals, the qanāts, of which Bam has preserved some of the earliest evidence in Iran. Arg-e Bam is the most representative example of a fortified medieval town built in vernacular technique using mud layers (Chineh).
The landscape of Val d’Orcia is part of the agricultural hinterland of Siena, redrawn and developed when it was integrated in the territory of the city-state in the 14th and 15th centuries to reflect an idealized model of good governance and to create an aesthetically pleasing picture. The landscape’s distinctive aesthetics, flat chalk plains out of which rise almost conical hills with fortified settlements Italy Val d’Orcia on top, inspired many artists. Their images have come to exemplify the beauty of well-managed Renaissance agricultural landscapes. The inscription covers: an agrarian and pastoral landscape reflecting innovative land- management systems; towns and villages; farmhouses; and the Roman Via Francigena and its associated abbeys, inns, shrines, bridges, etc.
Set in the dense forests of the Kii Mountains overlooking the Pacific Ocean, three sacred sites – Yoshino and Omine, Kumano Sanzan, Koyasan – linked by pilgrimage routes to the ancient capital cities of Nara and Kyoto, reflect the fusion of Shinto, rooted in the ancient tradition of nature worship in Japan, and Buddhism, which was introduced Sacred Sites and from China and the Korean Peninsula. The sites (495.3 ha) Japan Pilgrimage Routes in the and their surrounding forest landscape reflect a persistent Kii mountain Range and extraordinarily well-documented tradition of sacred mountains over 1,200 years. The area, with its abundance of streams, rivers and waterfalls, is still part of the living culture of Japan and is much visited for ritual purposes and hiking, with up to 15 million visitors annually. Each of the three sites contains shrines, some of which were founded as early as the 9th century.
Set around the lush Tamgaly Gorge, amidst the vast, arid Chu-Ili mountains, is a remarkable concentration of some Petroglyphs within the 5,000 petroglyphs (rock carvings) dating from the second Kazakhstan Archaeological half of the second millennium BC to the beginning of the Landscape of Tamgaly 20th century. Distributed among 48 complexes with associated settlements and burial grounds, they are
354
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape testimonies to the husbandry, social organization and rituals of pastoral peoples. Human settlements in the site are often multilayered and show occupation through the ages. A huge number of ancient tombs are also to be found including stone enclosures with boxes and cists (middle and late Bronze Age), and mounds (kurgans) of stone and earth (early Iron Age to the present). The central canyon contains the densest concentration of engravings and what are believed to be altars, suggesting that these places were used for sacrificial offerings.
The Kernavė Archaeological site, about 35 km north-west of Vilnius in eastern Lithuania, represents an exceptional testimony to some 10 millennia of human settlements in this region. Situated in the valley of the River Neris, the site is a complex ensemble of archaeological properties, encompassing the town of Kernavė, forts, some unfortified Kernave Archaeological settlements, burial sites and other archaeological, historical Lithuania Site (Cultural Reserve of and cultural monuments from the late Palaeolithic Period to Kernave) the Middle Ages. The site of 194,4 ha has preserved the traces of ancient land-use, as well as remains of five impressive hill forts, part of an exceptionally large defence system. Kernavė was an important feudal town in the Middle Ages. The town was destroyed by the Teutonic Order in the late 14th century, however the site remained in use until modern times.
The 121,967-ha Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape encompasses an extensive area of pastureland on both banks of the Orkhon River and includes numerous archaeological remains dating back to the 6th century. The site also includes Kharkhorum, the 13th- and 14th-century capital of Orkhon Valley Cultural Mongolia Chingis (Genghis) Khan’s vast Empire. Collectively the Landscape remains in the site reflect the symbiotic links between nomadic, pastoral societies and their administrative and religious centres, and the importance of the Orkhon valley in the history of central Asia. The grassland is still grazed by Mongolian nomadic pastoralists.
A cluster of dozens of islands centred on Vega, just south of the Arctic Circle, forms a cultural landscape of 103,710 ha, of which 6,930 ha is land. The islands bear testimony to a Vegaøyan - The Vega distinctive frugal way of life based on fishing and the Norway Archipelago harvesting of the down of eider ducks, in an inhospitable environment. There are fishing villages, quays, warehouses, eider houses (built for eider ducks to nest in), farming landscapes, lighthouses and beacons. There is evidence of
355
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape human settlement from the Stone Age onwards. By the 9th century, the islands had become an important centre for the supply of down, which appears to have accounted for around a third of the islanders’ income. The Vega Archipelago reflects the way fishermen/farmers have, over the past 1,500 years, maintained a sustainable living and the contribution of women to eiderdown harvesting.
The 987-ha site on the volcanic island of Pico, the second largest in the Azores archipelago, consists of a remarkable pattern of spaced-out, long linear walls running inland from, and parallel to, the rocky shore. The walls were built to protect the thousands of small, contiguous, rectangular plots Landscape of the Pico (currais) from wind and seawater. Evidence of this Portugal Island Vineyard Culture viniculture, whose origins date back to the 15th century, is manifest in the extraordinary assembly of the fields, in houses and early 19th-century manor houses, in wine- cellars, churches and ports. The extraordinarily beautiful man-made landscape of the site is the best remaining area of a once much more widespread practice.
The Koutammakou landscape in north-eastern Togo, which extends into neighbouring Benin, is home to the Batammariba whose remarkable mud tower-houses (Takienta) have come to be seen as a symbol of Togo. In this landscape, nature is strongly associated with the rituals and beliefs of society. The 50,000-ha cultural landscape is remarkable due to the architecture of its tower-houses which Koutammakou, the Land Togo are a reflection of social structure; its farmland and forest; of the Batammariba and the associations between people and landscape. Many of the buildings are two storeys high and those with granaries feature an almost spherical form above a cylindrical base. Some of the buildings have flat roofs, others have conical thatched roofs. They are grouped in villages, which also include ceremonial spaces, springs, rocks and sites reserved for initiation ceremonies. 2005 The four Nabatean towns of Haluza, Mamshit, Avdat and Shivta, along with associated fortresses and agricultural landscapes in the Negev Desert, are spread along routes linking them to the Mediterranean end of the incense and Incense Route - Desert spice route. Together they reflect the hugely profitable trade Israel Cities in the Negev in frankincense and myrrh from south Arabia to the Mediterranean, which flourished from the 3rd century BC until the 2nd century AD. With the vestiges of their sophisticated irrigation systems, urban constructions, forts and caravanserai, they bear witness to the way in which the
356
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape harsh desert was settled for trade and agriculture.
The dense forest of the Osun Sacred Grove, on the outskirts of the city of Osogbo, is one of the last remnants of primary high forest in southern Nigeria. Regarded as the abode of the goddess of fertility Osun, one of the pantheons of Yoruba gods, the landscape of the grove and its Osun Osogobo Sacred meandering river is dotted with sanctuaries and shrines, Nigeria Grove sculptures and art works in honor of Osun and other Yoruba deities. The Grove, which is now seen as a symbol of identity for all Yoruba people, is probably the last sacred grove in Yoruba culture. It testifies to the once widespread practice of establishing sacred groves outside all settlements.
This volcanic archipelago, with its spectacular landscapes, is situated off the coast of the Hebrides and comprises the islands of Hirta, Dun, Soay and Boreray. It has some of the highest cliffs in Europe, which have large colonies of rare and endangered species of birds, especially puffins and United gannets. The archipelago, uninhabited since 1930, bears the Saint Kilda Kingdom evidence of more than 2,000 years of human occupation in the extreme conditions prevalent in the Hebrides. Human vestiges include built structures and field systems, the cleits and the traditional Highland stone houses. They feature the vulnerable remains of a subsistence economy based on the products of birds, agriculture and sheep farming.
2006 The 34,658 ha site, between the foothills of the Tequila Volcano and the deep valley of the Rio Grande River, is part of an expansive landscape of blue agave, shaped by the culture of the plant used since the 16th century to produce tequila spirit and for at least 2,000 years to make fermented drinks and cloth. Within the landscape are working distilleries reflecting the growth in the international Agave Landscape and the consumption of tequila in the 19th and 20th centuries. Mexico Ancient Industrial Today, the agave culture is seen as part of national identity. Facilities of Tequila The area encloses a living, working landscape of blue agave fields and the urban settlements of Tequila, Arenal, and Amatitan with large distilleries where the agave ‘pineapple' is fermented and distilled. The property is also a testimony to the Teuchitlan cultures which shaped the Tequila area from AD 200-900, notably through the creation of terraces for agriculture, housing, temples, ceremonial mounds and ball courts.
357
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape Much of the landscape of Cornwall and West Devon was transformed in the 18th and early 19th centuries as a result of the rapid growth of pioneering copper and tin mining. Its deep underground mines, engine houses, foundries, new towns, smallholdings, ports and harbours, and their ancillary industries together reflect prolific innovation which, in the early 19th century, enabled the region to produce two-thirds United Cornwall and West of the world’s supply of copper. The substantial remains are Kingdom Devon Mining Landscape a testimony to the contribution Cornwall and West Devon made to the Industrial Revolution in the rest of Britain and to the fundamental influence the area had on the mining world at large. Cornish technology embodied in engines, engine houses and mining equipment was exported around the world. Cornwall and West Devon were the heartland from which mining technology rapidly spread. 2007 Gobustan Rock Art Cultural Landscape covers three areas of a plateau of rocky boulders rising out of the semi-desert of central Azerbaijan, with an outstanding collection of more than 6,000 rock engravings bearing testimony to 40,000 years of rock art. The site also features the remains of Gobustan Rock Art Azerbaijan inhabited caves, settlements and burials, all reflecting an Cultural Landscape intensive human use by the inhabitants of the area during the wet period that followed the last Ice Age, from the Upper Paleolithic to the Middle Ages. The site, which covers an area of 537 ha, is part of the larger protected Gobustan Reservation.
The Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé- Okanda demonstrates an unusual interface between dense and well-conserved tropical rainforest and relict savannah environments with a great diversity of species, including endangered large mammals, and habitats. The site illustrates ecological and biological processes in terms of species and habitat adaptation to post-glacial climatic changes. It contains evidence of the successive passages of different Ecosystem and Relict peoples who have left extensive and comparatively well- Gabon Cultural Lamdscape of preserved remains of habitation around hilltops, caves and Lope – Okanada shelters, evidence of iron-working and a remarkable collection of some 1,800 petroglyphs (rock carvings). The property’s collection of Neolithic and Iron Age sites, together with the rock art found there, reflects a major migration route of Bantu and other peoples from West Africa along the River Ogooué valley to the north of the dense evergreen Congo forests and to central east and southern Africa, that has shaped the development of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa.
358
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape
The Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine in the south-west of Honshu Island is a cluster of mountains, rising to 600 m and interspersed by deep river valleys featuring the archaeological remains of large-scale mines, smelting and refining sites and mining settlements worked between the 16th and 20th centuries. The site also features routes used to Iwami Ginzan Silver transport silver ore to the coast, and port towns from where Japan Mine and its Cultural it was shipped to Korea and China. The mines contributed Landscape substantially to the overall economic development of Japan and south-east Asia in the 16th and 17th centuries, prompting the mass production of silver and gold in Japan. The mining area is now heavily wooded. Included in the site are fortresses, shrines, parts of Kaidô transport routes to the coast, and three port towns, Tomogaura, Okidomari and Yunotsu, from where the ore was shipped.
The 160,000 ha Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape of dramatic mountainous desert in north-western South Africa constitutes a cultural landscape communally owned and managed. This site sustains the semi-nomadic pastoral livelihood of the Nama people, reflecting seasonal Richtersveld Cultural and patterns that may have persisted for as much as two South Africa Botanical Landscape millennia in southern Africa. It is the only area where the Nama still construct portable rush-mat houses (haru om) and includes seasonal migrations and grazing grounds, together with stock posts. The pastoralists collect medicinal and other plants and have a strong oral tradition associated with different places and attributes of the landscape.
The Lavaux Vineyard Terraces, stretching for about 30 km along the south-facing northern shores of Lake Geneva from the Chateau de Chillon to the eastern outskirts of Lausanne in the Vaud region, cover the lower slopes of the mountainside between the villages and the lake. Although there is some evidence that vines were grown in the area in Lavaux, Vineyard Switzerland Roman times, the present vine terraces can be traced back to Terraces the 11th century, when Benedictine and Cistercian monasteries controlled the area. It is an outstanding example of a centuries-long interaction between people and their environment, developed to optimize local resources so as to produce a highly valued wine that has always been important to the economy. 2008 Stari Grad Plain on the Adriatic island of Hvar is a cultural Croatia Stari Grad Plain landscape that has remained practically intact since it was first colonized by Ionian Greeks from Paros in the 4th
359
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape century BC. The original agricultural activity of this fertile plain, mainly centring on grapes and olives, has been maintained since Greek times to the present. The site is also a natural reserve. The landscape features ancient stone walls and trims, or small stone shelters, and bears testimony to the ancient geometrical system of land division used by the ancient Greeks, the chora which has remained virtually intact over 24 centuries.
Le Morne Cultural Landscape, a rugged mountain that juts into the Indian Ocean in the southwest of Mauritius was used as a shelter by runaway slaves, maroons, through the 18th and early years of the 19th centuries. Protected by the mountain’s isolated, wooded and almost inaccessible cliffs, the escaped slaves formed small settlements in the caves and on the summit of Le Morne. The oral traditions associated Le Morne Cultural Mauritus with the maroons, have made Le Morne a symbol of the Landscape slaves’ fight for freedom, their suffering, and their sacrifice, all of which have relevance to the countries from which the slaves came - the African mainland, Madagascar, India, and South-east Asia. Indeed, Mauritius, an important stopover in the eastern slave trade, also came to be known as the “Maroon republic” because of the large number of escaped slaves who lived in Le Morne.
Kuk Early Agricultural Site consists of 116 ha of swamps in the southern highlands of New Guinea 1,500 metres above sea-level. Archaeological excavation has revealed the landscape to be one of wetland reclamation worked almost continuously for 7,000, and possibly for 10,000 years. It contains well-preserved archaeological remains demonstrating the technological leap which transformed Papua New The Kuk Early plant exploitation to agriculture around 6,500 years ago. It is Guinea Agricultural Site an excellent example of transformation of agricultural practices over time, from cultivation mounds to draining the wetlands through the digging of ditches with wooden tools. Kuk is one of the few places in the world where archaeological evidence suggests independent agricultural development and changes in agricultural practice over such a long period of time.
Chief Roi Mata’s Domain is the first site to be inscribed in Vanuatu. It consists of three early 17th century AD sites on the islands of Efate, Lelepa and Artok associated with the Vanuatu Chief Roi Mata’s Domain life and death of the last paramount chief, or Roi Mata, of what is now Central Vanuatu. The property includes Roi Mata’s residence, the site of his death and Roi Mata’s mass
360
World Heritage Year State Party Description Cultural Landscape burial site. It is closely associated with the oral traditions surrounding the chief and the moral values he espoused. The site reflects the convergence between oral tradition and archaeology and bears witness to the persistence of Roi Mata’s social reforms and conflict resolution, still relevant to the people of the region.
361
APPENDIX F: CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
PROPERTIES
Selection Criteria for Inclusion of Heritage Properties on the World Heritage
List23
Cultural criteria Natural criteria
Operational Guidelines 2002 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
Operational Guidelines 2005 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (vii) (x)
“(i): to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;
(ii): to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology,
monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;
(iii): to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to
a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;
(iv): to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or
technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human
history;
(v): to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or
sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the
23 The World Heritage Center’s Website, Section on The List. Retrieved, January 19, 2009, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/.
362 environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;
(vi): to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria);
(vii): to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;
(viii): to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;
(ix): to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;
(x): to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.
The protection, management, authenticity and integrity of properties are also important considerations.
Since 1992 significant interactions between people and the natural environment have been recognized as cultural landscapes.”
363
APPENDIX G: EXPERIENTIAL DISCUSSION ON CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
International Expert Workshop for Enhanced Management and Planning of
World Heritage Cultural Landscapes
Background
During the last decade, a series of international and regional workshops
concerning cultural landscapes as a category of World Heritage were held to contribute to
better representation of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes on the List. The results of
these workshops, supported by the World Heritage Committee, the World Heritage
Centre, ICOMOS, ICCROM, and IUCN included an improved set of categories of
cultural landscapes. The 2001 Asia-Pacific Expert Meeting on Sacred Mountains, one of
the Asian workshops, developed guiding principles for the identification, conservation,
and management of Scared Mountain Cultural Landscapes, as a category of cultural
landscapes (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005a).
The Persepolis Meeting was the result of two previous workshops. The conclusions of the workshop on 'Cultural Landscapes - the Challenges for Conservation'24 emphasized the importance of international collaboration, research, training and capacity building. The 2003 Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic Reporting Exercise recommended that regional States Parties further identify World Cultural Landscape properties and to seek ways and means to enhance management and presentation of such heritage properties
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005a).
24 11-12 November 2002 Ferrara, Italy.
364
Although the need to share knowledge, experience, and develop guidelines for cultural landscape management has existed for many years; the Persepolis International
Expert Workshop was the first workshop being held in the West and Central Asian
Region, which enabled discussions on enhanced management of cultural landscapes.
Topics
The experts at the workshop discussed several themes pertaining conservation and
management of cultural landscapes. The thematic framework of the workshop was:
• “World Heritage Cultural Landscape protective zoning based on heritage
value assessment
• Community involvement, traditional management mechanisms for
Cultural Landscape World Heritage conservation
• Legislation, land ownership, land exploitation, and management of
Cultural Landscape World Heritage
Appropriate (culture-sensitive) presentation and sustainable tourism development
of Cultural Landscape World Heritage properties.” (International Expert Workshop on
Enhanced Management and Planning of World Heritage Cultural Landscape, 2006, p. 1).
Presentations
International experts provided general information on the evolution of the concept of cultural landscape and discussed theoretical and practical aspects of the World
Heritage Cultural Landscapes. In their presentations they also included discussion of
365 definitions of Outstanding Universal Value and values in the framework of conservation strategies, and management of cultural landscapes.
A review of the history of the inscription of the Iranian sites on the World
Heritage List started the engagement at the national level. The Iranian experts discussed the term cultural landscape and suggested a few Persian equivalents for cultural landscape. The role of managers and decision-makers at local and national levels and the interrelationship between cultural heritage and tourism in conservation of cultural landscapes were also highlighted.
The implication of the concept of cultural landscape was examined within Iranian
World Heritage properties as well as tentative properties such as Persepolis and
Pasargadae, Takht-e-Soleyman, Bam and its Cultural Landscape, Bisotun, the natural and historic landscape of Izeh, the cultural landscape of Alamout, and the historical cities of
Masouleh and Abyaneh. These properties manifested an exceptional relationship between people and their natural environment.
Observations
A list of participants to the Workshop was suggested during the preparatory
phase. Experts from the world Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM were supposed
to be accompanied with international experts in cultural landscapes from at least five
countries from different regions (Japan, Italy, U.K., Latin America, Africa, and the Arab
States) (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005a). The number of international
participants was less than predicted. Unfortunately in the end only one expert was present
and this impacted the value of the workshop.
366
Other participants who were also encouraged to participate included site managers of World Heritage Cultural Landscape, Tentative List properties, Cultural World Heritage properties whose setting can be considered as Cultural Landscapes in the West-Central
Asian Region such as Afghanistan (Bamiyan), India (Bimbetka, Champaner), Iran (Bam,
Persepolis, Pasargarde), Pakistan (Taxila, Indus Valley Civilization properties),
Kazakhstan (Tamgaly), Kyrgyz Republic (Issyk Kul, Sulehmantoh), Tajikistan (Ajina
Tepe), and Turkmenistan (Merv). Unfortunately only three regional participants were present although a significant number of Iranian experts attended. If all those suggested and invited had joined the Workshop, broader discussions could have taken place.
Too many Iranian cases were scheduled and few went beyond describing the historical and cultural importance of the site. It would have been more effective to select only a limited number of sites and to have discussed their conservation and management issues.
ICCROM Training Course on the Conservation of Built Heritage (1
February - March 30, 2007, Rome, Italy)
Background
The CBH07 Course was a part of ICCROM training courses and long term
programs in heritage conservation. ICCROM considered recent international trends and
thinking pertaining conservation of a wide range of built heritage categories including
buildings, sites, historic centers and cultural landscapes to develop this course as a
pioneer in its kind. The CBH07 provided the opportunity for participants to expand their
awareness, knowledge, and understanding of current principles and practices in
conservation of the built heritage and to enhance skills, judgments, and experience.
367
Participants became familiar with cultural, environmental, technical issues while they studied conservation issues within a broader strategic and planning framework.
Topics
The course was designed around three main themes: the conceptual frameworks
of heritage conservation, approaches to heritage management planning and practical
conservation challenges (ICCROM, 2007).
An overview of the historical development and key concepts in built heritage
conservation, and different approaches to define heritage formed the first unit of this
course. This part of the Course emphasized the importance of cultural worldviews in
heritage conservation. Lecturers also familiarized participants with recent theoretical
developments and emerging concepts on sustainability, culture-nature interaction,
intangibles and historic urban landscapes.
Discussions on different planning and management approaches of heritage formed
the second unit of the course. Integrated approaches to the management of heritage to
develop broad conservation objectives were examined. A number of lecturers addressed
management systems using worldwide and different legal and institutional frameworks.
A variety of examples, including a number of World Heritage Sites, from different
countries illustrated conservation planning at different levels from World Heritage to
national and local (site) levels. Further discussions highlighted integrated and
participatory approach in heritage management. Participants examined the theoretical
frameworks within the management of a local cultural landscape in an urban
environment.
368
As the last unit of the course, conservation processes, principles and practices, technical conservation issues including identification of conservation problems and their solutions in different parts of the world were addressed. It included three major parts; 1. the role of information and documentation in conservation decision-making process involving tangible and intangible elements, cultural and environmental aspects of different types of heritage; 2. approaches and methods to condition assessments through understanding materials, structures, sites and landscapes and their causes of alteration and decay, with a section of urban and cultural landscapes; and 3. conservation treatments and interventions ranging from emergency treatments to options available to achieve conservation goals based on current philosophical, ethical, and cultural considerations.
Beside the study visits in Rome and Florence, participants used the archaeological site of Herculaneum (a Roman site buried during the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, later excavated, and now part of the World Heritage Site of Pompeii) as an opportunity to apply what they had learned.
Observations
The course manager asked each participant to make a presentation on their work/experience and I dealt with the approaches to recording of the various factors affecting cultural landscapes. My presentation included two examples: Fin Garden in
Kashan (a designed cultural landscape) and Takht-e-Soleyman Archaeological Site (an organically evolved cultural landscape). I discussed their tangible and intangible characteristics as well as the conservation problems of each site. The fact that a new and different holistic approach to heritage is required for cultural landscapes was highlighted in the presentation. Only then will it be possible to assess those features and attributes
369 important for retention. It is critical to define tie key processes that have shaped and continue to define the character of landscape over time. Some participants who had similar examples in their own countries engaged in the discussion and asked for clarification on specific details; however, for some they did not see the relevance to their own area of interest.
32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee (2 July - 10 July 2008, Quebec
City, Canada)
Background
The World Heritage Convention initiated a global movement for the protection of
world heritage and has become one of the most widely recognized instruments in the field
of heritage conservation. The Convention has inspired intercultural dialogue and
international collaboration ever since its adoption in 1972. According to the Article 8 of
the World Heritage Convention, the World Heritage Committee is established as
representative of the different cultures and regions of the world. The World Heritage
Committee sessions take place each year in one country to celebrate cultural and natural/biological diversity of the globe and to ensure the safeguarding of the world’s
shared heritage. Canada hosted the 2008 Committee meeting in Quebec City. As one of
the World Heritage historic centers, Quebec City also celebrated its 400 year old
anniversary at the same time.
The World Heritage Committee examines approximately 45 new nominations per
session. The nominations are first examined by ICOMOS and IUCN. The Committee
then makes decisions considering the advisory bodies’ evaluations and recommendations
and other additional information provided by State Parties.
370
Decisions
At its 32nd session, the Committee decided to maintain a number of the properties
on the List of World Heritage in Danger including several cultural landscapes. As of
2008, 30 properties were on the List25. The List is not a punishment but rather an alarm
bell that an Outstanding Universal Value is in danger of being lost. The status could also
impact a State’s ability to secure funding and support. The include the cultural landscape
and archaeological remains of the Bamiyan Valley in Afghanistan (WHC-
08/32.COM/7A.21), Bam and its Cultural Landscape in Iran (WHC-08/32.COM/7A.22),
the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (WHC-08/32.COM/7A.24), and the
Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany (WHC-08/32.COM/7A.26).
List of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes in Danger
Year of State Party World Heritage Cultural Landscape Criteria Inscription Cultural Landscape and Archaeological (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Afghanistan 2003 Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (vi) Germany Dresden Elbe Valley (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 2004 Iran Bam and its Cultural Landscape (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 2004 Philippines Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (iii) (iv) (v) 1995
The Committee also discussed the state of conservation of a number of World
Heritage Cultural Landscapes. Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape, a
mountainous desert in North-Western South Africa was inscribed on the List in 2007
25 According to Article 11 (4) of the Convention, properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger are threatened by serious and specific dangers, such as the threat of disappearance caused by accelerated deterioration, large- scale public or private projects or rapid urban or tourist development projects; destruction caused by changes in the use or ownership of the land; major alterations due to unknown causes; abandonment for any reason whatsoever; the outbreak or the threat of an armed conflict; calamities and cataclysms; serious fires, earthquakes, landslides; volcanic eruptions; changes in water level, floods and tidal waves (World Heritage Convention).
371 under criteria (iv) (v). The inhabitants have a strong oral tradition associated with different places and attributes of landscape.26 Two months after its inscription, the
Government issued a prospecting permit for minerals for the property even though at the
time of nomination, mining was not recognized as a threat within the nominated property
or its buffer zones because it was protected under National Heritage Act. Conservation
issues identified by ICOMOS included concerns with regard to boundary, human use and
management issues.27
The group of monuments at Hampi in India28 which include 16th century
abandoned temples and palaces built on a hilly agricultural landscape, is a sacred place of
religious and cultural significance. It was inscribed on the List under criteria (i) (iii) (iv);
and on the endangered list in 1999 and 2006.29 Conservation issues of this property
involved the location of transportation infrastructure, lack of coordination, limited human
and financial resources support for site management, lack of building and land-use
regulations, tourism development pressures, pressure from illegal constructions, issues
with regard to boundaries and buffer zones, the long process of approval of integrated
management plans and issues around the preparation of the Statement of Significance
(Statement of Outstanding Universal Value).30
26 World Heritage Centre Website, The List: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1265. 27 Document No.:WHC-08/32.COM/7B.52. 28 It could be considered an archaeological, fossil (relict) cultural landscape, even though not officially recognized as such. 29 World Heritage Centre Website, The List: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/241. 30 Document No.:WHC-08/32.COM/7B.70.
372
The Palace and Gardens of Schonbruun31, an 18th century ensemble in Vienna,
Austria illustrate exceptional examples of decorative art was inscribed on the List in 1996
under criteria (i) (iv).32 Conservation issues focus on the height of new developments and
their impact on sight lines.33
The Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape in Hungary was inscribed on
the List in 2002 under criteria (iii) (v). The long tradition of wine production and
traditional land-use is evident in the cultural landscape of Tokaj in an area of low hills
and river valleys for at least a thousand years.34
Conservation issues discussed noted lack of a Heritage Impact Assessment35 in relation to the development projects within and in the vicinity of the property, for instance an electricity power station in the buffer zone and a coal energy plant on the territory of another State Party. In this case, since one development is in another jurisdiction a trans-boundary extension of the property was recommended.36
A total of eight cultural landscape properties were nominated, one of them, the
Cultural Landscape of Buenos Aires, Argentina was withdrawn at the request of the State
Party. Switzerland and Italy originally nominated Rhaetian Railway in the
Albula/Bernina Cultural Landscapes as a cultural landscape property; however they
31 Although this property is not officially recognized as cultural landscape, it could be considered a designed cultural landscape and it is worthwhile to note the conservation issues of such properties very relevant to issues in cultural landscapes. 32 World Heritage Centre Website, The List: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/786. 33 Document No.: WHC-08/32.COM/7B.83. 34 World Heritage Centre Website, The List: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1063. 35 In order to take timely and effective measures to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties in case of any development (para 172 Operational Guidelines), it is required to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment to analyze the situation and actions envisaged and also to assess the impact of the plant on the Outstanding Universal Values of cultural landscape (World Heritage Operational Guideliens).
373 withdrew the cultural landscape portion prior to the meeting. Only the cultural aspects of the site were evaluated for inscription.
List of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes as of 2008
Year of State Party World Heritage Cultural Landscape Criteria Inscription Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of Afghanistan (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) 2003 the Bamiyan Valley Andorra The Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley (v) 2004 Argentina Quebrada de Humahuaca (ii) (iv) (v) 2003 Australia Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (v) (vi) (vii) (ix) 1987, 1994 Hallstatt-Dachstein Salzkammergut Cultural Austria (iii) (iv) 1997 Landscape Austria Wachau Cultural Landscape (ii) (iv) 2000 Austria/ Fertö/Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape (v) 2001 Hungary Azerbaijan Gobustan Rock Art Cultural Landscape (iii) 2007 Croatia Stari Grad Plain (ii) (iii) (v) 2008 Archaeological Landscape of the First Coffee Cuba (iii) (iv) 2000 Plantations in the Southeast of Cuba Cuba Viñales Valley (iv) 1999 Czech Republic Lednice-Valtice Cultural Landscape (i) (ii) (iv) 1996 France Jurisdiction of Saint-Emilion (iii) (iv) 1999 The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and France (i) (ii) (iv) 2000 Chalonnes (iii) (iv) (v) (vii) France/ Spain Pyrénées - Mont Perdu 1997, 1999 (viii) Germany Dresden Elbe Valley (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 2004 Germany Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz (ii) (iv) 2000 Germany Upper Middle Rhine Valley (ii) (iv) (v) 2002 Germany/ Muskauer Park / Park Muzakowski (i) (iv) 2004 Poland Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé- Gabon (iii)(iv)(ix)(x) 2007 Okanda Hungary Hortobágy National Park - the Puszta (iv) (v) 1999 Hungary Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (iii) (v) 2002 Iceland Þingvellir National Park (iii) (vi) 2004 India Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka (iii) (v) 2003 Iran Bam and its Cultural Landscape (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 2004 Italy Sacri Monti of Piedmont and Lombardy (ii)(iv) 2003 Portovenere, Cinque Terre, and the Islands Italy (ii) (iv) (v) 1997 (Palmaria, Tino and Tinetto)
36 Document No.: WHC-08/32.COM/7B.95.
374
Year of State Party World Heritage Cultural Landscape Criteria Inscription Italy Val d'Orcia (iv) (vi) 2004 Italy Costiera Amalfitana (ii) (iv) (v) 1997 Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park with the Italy Archeological sites of Paestum and Velia, and the (iii) (iv) 1998 Certosa di Padula Israel Incense Route - Desert Cities in the Negev (iii) (iv) 2005 Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Japan (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) 2004 Mountain Range Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Japan (ii) (iii) (v) 2007 Landscape Petroglyphs within the Archaeological Landscape of Kazakhstan (iii) 2004 Tamgaly Lao People's Vat Phou and Associated Ancient Settlements Democratic (iii) (iv) (vi) 2001 within the Champasak Cultural Landscape Republic Ouadi Qadisha (the Holy Valley) and the Forest of Lebanon (iii) (iv) 1998 the Cedars of God (Horsh Arz el-Rab) Kernave Archaeological Site (Cultural Reserve of Lithuania (iii) (iv) 2004 Kernave) Lithuania/ Russian Curonian Spit (v) 2000 Federation Madagascar Royal Hill of Ambohimanga (iii) (iv) (vi) 2001 Mauritius Le Morne Cultural Landscape (iii) (iv) 2008 Agave Landscape and the Ancient Industrial Mexico (ii) (iv) (v) (vi) 2006 Facilities of Tequila Mongolia Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape (ii) (iii) (iv) 2004 New Zealand Tongariro National Park (vi) (vii) (viii) 1990, 1993 Nigeria Sukur Cultural Landscape (iii) (v) (vi) 1999 Nigeria Osun-Osogbo Sacred Grove (ii) (iii) (iv) 2005 Norway Vegaøyan -- The Vega Archipelago (v) 2004 Papua New The Kuk Early Agricultural Site (iii) (iv) 2008 Guinea Philippines Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (iii) (iv) (v) 1995 Kalwaria Zebrzydowska: the Mannerist Poland Architectural and Park Landscape Complex and (ii) (iv) 1999 Pilgrimage Park Portugal Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture (iii) (v) 2004 Portugal Alto Douro Wine Region (iii) (iv) (v) 2001 Portugal Cultural Landscape of Sintra (ii) (iv) (v) 1995 South Africa Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 2003 South Africa Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape (iv) (v) 2007 Spain Aranjuez Cultural Landscape (ii) (iv) 2001 Sweden Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland (iv) (v) 2000 Switzerland Lavaux, Vineyard Terraces (iii) (iv) (v) 2007 Togo Koutammakou, the Land of the Batammariba (v) (vi) 2004
375
Year of State Party World Heritage Cultural Landscape Criteria Inscription United Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (ii) (iii) (iv) 2003 Kingdom United Blaenavon Industrial Landscape (iii) (iv) 2000 Kingdom United (iii) (v) (vii) (ix) St Kilda 1986, 2005 Kingdom (x) United Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape (ii) (ii) (iv) 2006 Kingdom Vanuatu Chief Roi Mata’s Domain (iii) (iv) (vi) 2008 Zimbabwe Matobo Hills (iii) (v) (vi) 2003
It may be unclear to some why the Committee does not examine more sites, why
they limit the number of nominations by each State Party to two (one of each is generally always a Natural Heritage Site), or why they only examine a limited number of nominations (approximately 45 nominations) each year. However the Committee only
sits for ten days annually. The number of reports and decision required in these days
precludes increasing the number of nominations. The Committee must also discuss the
current state of properties on the List of in Danger as well as State of Conservation
Reports of World Heritage properties already inscribed. At the 32nd session, the time allocated for the examination of the nominations was very brief - perhaps too brief. The
Chairperson, Rapporteur and Secretariat play important roles on the way the session progressed. Their workload was huge, their responsibility enormous and the agendas often impossible. The Chair requires great ability to negotiate sensitive situations.
Dresden Elbe Valley was probably one of the most important cases discussed at the Committee for two reasons: it was a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger at risk of de-listing and second, it is a World Heritage Cultural Landscape. When the
Committee was considering de-listing this site, the German delegates intervened, updated
376 the Committee with regard to their efforts to stop the construction of bridge and so impressed the Committee that the site was retained on the List of World Heritage in
Danger. Delegates from State Parties lobbied Committee members and the Germans had the support of a number of members of the Committee. They requested the Chairperson to allow the State party to elaborate on the plans to protect the site.
In 2007, the first ever World Heritage Site was de-listed but that decision was made at the request of the State Party (Oman). In terms of cultural landscape of Dresden
Elbe Valley, the State Party successfully insisted on retention of the Site. The retention on the list will encourage the State Party to continue their efforts to resolve the conservation issues. It is clear that the decisions at the World Heritage Committee are very political and nominations could also be subject State party lobbying.
This case makes it clear that delegates to the World Heritage Committee meeting can influence and change the Committee and its decisions to a great extend. The
Committee changed the recommendations made by advisories bodies in its 32nd session.
In many cases referred nominations were inscribed and in some deferred cases were
either inscribed or referred back to the State Parties.
In the State of Conservation reports, high-rise buildings, bridges with their
negative visual impacts were debated. A proper methodology for preparing Visual Impact
Assessments should be developed and be available for State Parties. Many Environmental
Impact Assessments are being undertaken worldwide. These assessments could be used
as a model reference for development of guidelines for visual and cultural impact
assessments.
377
The Committee appeared to be less engaged and less critical when advisory body presented the Natural Heritage nominations. This was evident in the speed with which they adopted the IUCN draft decisions of natural heritage nominees. Why? They seemed as interested in natural heritage sites which were no better prepared as the Cultural
Landscape nomination. Could it be that the Committee had less competent in natural than cultural heritage? Are natural heritage sites assumed to have fewer threats or management issues because humans need not be accommodated to the same extent?