Kitty Taylor

Heritage and culture studies have a rich connection to the study of landscape and in turn, a has a lot of interdisciplinary relationships to the academics of geography. Within this coursework project, I would like to explore and examine the breadth and depth of the study of culture and heritage landscapes in relation to space, politics and power. How heritage and culture discourses and institutions (such as the UNESCO World Heritage List and the literature surrounding it) are impacted by and influence streams of thought such as the politics of memory and tourism studies. Heritage and landscape are inherently intertwined due to the natural and human connection that is embodied within the landscape throughout history, traditions and (in)tangible practices. To add to this, heritage and landscape is politicised through the management, protection and enhancement that resides within an orbit of governmental duty – and it can be a means through with governance ambition can be instrumentalised (Waterton 2015). Waterton has explored the role of more-than-representational theory being deployed into the study of cultural and heritage landscapes, with a developing interest into the consideration of memory in our engagements with landscapes and place (ibid.). She argues that through paying attention to indigenous knowledge systems, researchers are able to understand different means through which the world can be represented and experienced (Waterton 2015, 906) and therefore an enriched view of meaning and prominence of landscapes as cultural and a part of heritage can be constructed. Foote (2003) refers to landscape as a “sort of communicational resource” that is “capable of extending the temporal and spatial range of communication” (Foote 2003, 33), due to the visible modification of landscape being so effective for symbolising and sustaining collective values over long periods of time. Human connection to landscape is such a complex and broad subject area but provide a solid basis for the study of heritage landscapes and the way that heritage and traditions shape and are influenced by physical conditions of natural and built places and spaces. Interest in the cultural landscape concept is now a ‘major theme’ in considerations of the management of cultural heritage places, with the roots of this interconnection lying in the social, political, and economic relationships between people and landscape which has a role in determining people’s sense of place (Taylor 2019, 50). 

A. E. Gfeller (2013) stated that heritage has become an increasingly important concept in today’s globalised world – and quoted the heritage studies’ scholar David Lowenthal: 

“All at once heritage is everywhere – in the news, in the movies, in the marketplace – in everything from galaxies to genes.” (David Lowenthal, The heritage crusade and the spoils of history, London: Viking, 1997, p. xiii.)

Through this rather fantastical description, it is shown that heritage really is a social construct more than a ‘thing’, where sites, monuments, artefacts (etc..) are flooded with meaning. Recognition of landscape as a type of cultural heritage is not a ‘new’ idea, and it has been explored within cultural geography, archaeology, and history throughout the twentieth century, therefore there has been an extensive array of methods and theories on the process of conceptualising landscape (Fairclough 2019, 1149). Caballero (2017) argues in his paper ‘Crossing Boundaries: Linking Intangible Heritage, Cultural Landscapes and Identity’, that a deep-seated connection between people’s identities and traditions that are found in heritage sites, and cultural identity is a critical concept to the discourse of heritage (Caballero 2017, 1-11). Academically then, a great deal of cultural, social, and anthropological understanding must go into empirical research that aims to explore the prominence of a heritage landscape. 

I would again like to draw on Waterton, and her call to the use of indigenous knowledges in the studies of heritage landscapes. She argues that by taking a more-than-representational approach towards heritage studies, scholars can re-imagine the spaces of heritage and their intersections with geography as a discipline (Waterton 2014). Through understanding and implementing ideas drawn from indigenous kinship and relationship to land (and/or non-human or more-than-human entities), a variety of human embodied experiences of landscape can be revealed, and decolonial and feminist thought implemented. Through even the snippet of literature than I have encountered surrounding heritage studies, it has become apparent to me that decolonial thought has an abundance of scholarship that would be integral to the heritage studies – especially that concerning the discourses surrounding UNESCO World Heritage Sites. 

The UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) was the first international instrument to encompass both ‘natural’ and ‘cultural’ heritage (Gfeller 2013). However, questions surrounding the dominance of European sites on the list have started to arise, with the inclusionary claims of the convention being challenged. Through archival research, ethnographic fieldwork and interviews, Brumann & Gfella (2022) demonstrated that the idea of cultural landscapes being a ‘trail-blazer’ for non-European cultural heritage is ‘largely a myth’ (Brumann & Gfella 2022, 148). They argued that there were very few representatives from the Global South involved in discussions, and that European hegemony has only increased, with a strong sense of Eurocentrism and national self-interests playing a crucial role in the recognition of cultural sites (ibid.). After the two world wars, policies, and academic studies on heritage conservation particularly in Europe and North America, were focused on saving abandoned buildings, restoring edifices damaged by war or documenting those that have become ‘obsolete because of changing times’ (Caballero 2017, 2). Through the discourses I have mentioned above in this essay, it is crucial to recognise that these initial Eurocentric ideas about heritage and cultural sites contrast the criteria that are used in identifying the cultural and spiritual intangible values that make up heritage sites in much of the Global South. For instance, the rice terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras were one of the first cultural landscapes that was inscribed to the World Heritage List of 1995, and it represents a cultural relationship between the land and the people that inhabit it. Through understandings of indigenous relationship and engagement to landscape through traditions and religion, the spiritual significance of the ‘organically evolved’ cultural landscape was recognised (Brumann & Gfella 2022). 

Another key policy area surrounding the discourses of heritage and culture in relation to landscape is the encouragement of tourism, as many heritage sites are seen as economic resources or as sites with the potential of economic development (Taylor 2019, 61). Ken Taylor (2019) briefly touches upon the relationship that locals within small villages of Asia have with the heritage tourism, and development that may come with it. In some circumstances the economic development that comes with heritage tourism can be seen as destructive of the initial ‘charm’ of the culture, social relationships and formed the heritage site in the first place. Therefore, there is an element of conflict or perhaps more eloquently put, a hard trick to balance the tourism that ‘sustains’ local communities and the possible destruction (or disruption) of cultural landscapes and the traditions that adorn them. Taylor argues that there is some involvement of the local people and communities in tourism management – and if it is accepted that culture is created by local people, and not static, then who are we to criticise any change that takes place? (Taylor 2019, 61). Fairclough expressed that it remains important that the ‘making of agricultural policy, landscape management and environmental protection holds [landowners and farmers] at the centre of decision making’ (Fairclough 2019, 1158). This is in response to governmental (and non-governmental), and ‘rarely local’ (ibid.) agencies that often have objectives that may not be primarily focused on environmental, ecological, and cultural concerns regarding the land. Identifying, investigating, and integrating decolonial theory surrounding ideas of landscape, inheritance, traditions, and culture should therefore undeniably be supported by academics and researchers in the field of heritage and culture studies. 

To conclude, it is for certain that heritage and culture as (in)tangible concepts are embodied into the landscape through human practice and connection to the organic landscape and urban landscapes. Connections to these landscapes, and the study and research committed to heritage and culture has been politicised through a number of avenues. This is due to governmental and non-governmental agencies being involved in conservation, tourism management, development, and landownership. As these ideas have become more complex and interdisciplinary, the field of heritage studies has blossomed, and several theoretical standpoints have been used to conceptualise landscapes. More-than-representational theory, feminist thought and decolonial thought have all been used to critically analyse human ideas of heritage and culture within physical landscapes. Through these thoughts, important discourses that challenge agencies (such as UNESCO) that are involved in the politicisation, creation and support of heritage and cultural landscapes have arisen. By exploring the great depth of the field and considering all aspects to heritage landscapes (such as tourism management and development), a holistic view of the sub-discipline will result in greater conversations that result in equity for all stakeholders involved.

Bibliography

Brumann, C., Gfella, A. E. (2022) Cultural landscapes and the UNESCO World Heritage List: perpetuating European dominance, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 28:2 Pages 147-162

Caballero, G. V. (2017) Crossing Boundaries: Linking Intangible Heritage, Cultural Landscapes and Identity

Fairclough, G. (2019) Landscape and heritage: ideas from Europe for culturally based solutions in rural environments, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62:7 Pages 1149-1165

Foote, K.E. (2003) Shadowed Ground: America’s Landscapes of Violence and Tragedy. Austin: University of Texas Press. Chapter 1: A Landscape of Violence and Tragedy, pp. 1-35.

Gfeller, A. E. (2013) Negotiating the meaning of global heritage: ‘cultural landscapes’ in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 1972–92*, Journal of Global History, 8 Pages 483-503 DOI: 10.1017/S1740022813000387

Taylor, K. (2019) New Lives, New Landscapes. Landscape, Heritage and Rural Revitalisation:Whose Cultural Values?, Built Heritage, 2 Pages 50-63

Waterton, D. H. E. (2015) Editorial: Landscapes of Heritage and Heritage Landscapes,

Landscape Research, 40:8 Pages 905-910

Waterton, E., 2014. A more‐than‐representational understanding of heritage? The ‘past’and the politics of affect, Geography Compass, 8(11), pp.823-833.