furnace Journal Issue 5 (2016)

ISSUE 5 – CONTENTS The Editors.

Małgorzata Trelka and Coralie Acheson – Editorial p.3-5 Keynote paper: John H. Jameson Management and Interpretation of World Heritage through Community Engagement p.6-13 Bhadravarna Bongsasilp World Heritage and Urban Communities in Thailand: Historic City of Ayutthaya, Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Province and Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province p. 14-25 George Richards Simulacra and Simulation: UNESCO's Approach to the Relationship between the Rehabilitation of World Heritage and Communities p. 25-31 Diana F. Rahman and Gregorius Afioma The Designation of Komodo National Park World Heritage Site: To Whom does it Benefit? p. 32-41 Harlov Melinda Shift of Importance from Built Heritage to the Local Community: Story of the First Hungarian World Heritage Site p.42-54 Call for Papers p. 55-56 Call for Book Reviews p.57 Forthcoming Conferences p.58 To download individual articles visit: https://furnacejournal.wordpress.com/ ISSN2057-519X (Online)

Editorial Support: Veronica Troy, Joseph Raine, Maryann Soper

1

Journal Editors @furnacejournal Małgorzata Trelka – mxt472@bham.ac.uk I am an AHRC CDA PhD researcher in Cultural Heritage based at the Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage. My research aims to explore the relationship between ‘community’ and World Heritage. I am an archaeologist holding an MA in both, Medieval Archaeology and Public Archaeology. My professional interest is in field archaeology as well as in heritage policy. I have experience working as a field archaeologist in commercial urban archaeology in the UK. I also worked as an intern in the Culture Department of UNESCO Bangkok, where I coordinated the Museum Capacity Building Programme for Asia and the Pacific undertaken by UNESCO and the Asian Academy for Heritage Management. In 2009, I was a rapporteur for the Intangible Cultural Heritage Field School in Lamphun, Thailand. In 2010, I took up a post with the National Heritage Board of Poland, where I eventually became Head of the Heritage Policy Department tasked with the implementation of the UNESCO 1972 and 2003 conventions.

Coralie Acheson – CRA534@student.bham.ac.uk I am an AHRC CDA PhD candidate at the Ironbridge Institute at the University of Birmingham. My research is exploring the ways in which tourists engage with the values of a World Heritage Site. I’ve worked in commercial archaeology in the UK for a number of years, in both urban and rural contexts, and both as a field archaeologist and in planning consultancy. I have an undergraduate degree in archaeology and an MA in Managing Archaeological Sites. In addition to those encompassed within the PhD my research interests include the ways in which we can creatively expand access to the historic environment, landscape and the ways in which it is negotiated, and the archaeologies of displacement.

2

EDITORIAL: World Heritage and Local Communities

This issue of furnace journal is the third in a series of four on the meanings and values of World Heritage inspired by the pioneering AHRC funded research project ‘Communicating World Heritage: Meanings, Values and Practices amongst Communities of Interest’ undertaken in the Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage at the University of Birmingham.

The first issue in the series considered Industrial World Heritage and the second looked at World Heritage Education. This issue is on the topic of Communities and World Heritage and will be followed by the final instalment in the series, which will address tourism. This volume showcases five papers relating to the relationship between World Heritage Sites, considered in the UNESCO discourse as sites of Outstanding Universal Value, and communities who live within or alongside this places. The papers present case studies from four continents and include examples of both cultural and natural World Heritage Sites.

The keynote paper by John H. Jameson introduces this volume by highlighting reoccurring themes in the individual papers. These relate to both the communities and their disconnection from site management as well as what he describes as ‘the participatory culture model’ where community engagement is not mere education or outreach conducted by heritage specialists but meaningful cooperation. His arguments are illustrated by recent research conducted by various scholars on the critical assessment of the relationships local people have with their heritage. These vary from communities opposing scientific interpretation of a World Heritage Site or, such as in the case of indigenous peoples, where they create new interpretative narratives. Jameson characterises the exclusion of local communities as often caused by the elitism of officials and academics, and the politics of power. Despite numerous international charters developed by bodies such as ICOMOS, he argues that, in some cases, it is almost impossible to comply with such international standards due to political, social and economic situations where there is no respect for multiculturalism. Hence, he is advocating for collective research in the construction of more pluralistic narratives, where heritage professionals take up a role of mediators more than mitigators.

As will be seen as a theme across a number of these papers, the absence of meaningful consultation or involvement of local people in the identification of heritage and development of Management Plans, contributes to the disconnection of local people from the sites in which they live. This volume will show that this disconnection has been inspired by top-down governmental bureaucracy, which 3

creates conflicts where not only communities suffer, but also the cultural heritage in its tangible and intangible forms. Two cultural heritage sites in Thailand form the focus of the paper by Bhadravana Bongaslip, which itself provides a unique insight into the operations of the Thai Government in its implementation of World Heritage processes. The author illustrates the complexity of the interrelated state departments, which form a structure of state bureaucracy where World Heritage is a matter of foreign policy and national importance. However, in this context, Bongaslip presents two contrasting case studies, the first representing the traditional top-down approach to World Heritage inscription used at the Historic City of Ayutthaya and the second, where a bottom-up approach empowering the local community has been utilised at Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat. In the case of the former the local community feels alienated from the ancient structures within their city and negotiate governmental interference in their lives and businesses. The result has been that people conceal and even destroy archaeological remains when they encounter them. In the latter case, in contrast, the nomination of the site has been led by well-respected people within the local community and is seen as a source of local pride and identity.

George Richards considers the involvement of UNESCO in post-conflict restoration of cultural heritage sites, using the case studies of the Bridge of Mostar in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Timbuktu in Mali. In both instances monuments of international significance were restored and the paper addresses the effects on the local community. Similarly to Bongaslip’s paper both a bottom-up and a top-down approach are presented. The work on the Bridge of Mostar was undertaken by an international coalition including UNESCO itself, but despite becoming an international symbol of restoration the local community remains divided. In the contrasting case of the more recent work in Mali, perhaps resulting from the need to use local experts due to the adobe architecture in question, there was considerably more interaction with the local community. Although it is too soon to conclude on the effectiveness of the restoration of Timbuktu, time will tell if the involvement of the local community may prove its value.

Diana Farisah Rahman and Gregorius Afioma’s paper on the Komodo National Park in Indonesia reflects many similar issues raised in this volume. The authors reflect on a vast increase in the popularity of the National Park to tourists in the last two decades. As a result, in combination with conservation led initiatives to preserve the habitat of the Komodo dragons, there has been a serious impact on the lifestyles and traditions of the local community. The community have found their fishing waters and forestry practices curtailed by zoning restrictions, whilst seeing no economic benefits as all tourist infrastructure has been developed on a neighbouring island. This is in contravention of best practice ideals relating to sustainable development. The result is that, while 4

the unique value of the Komodo dragon to humanity may be preserved, a whole dimension of also unique intangible heritage is at risk of being completely lost. Instead of prioritising the people of Komodo Island as a core community and respecting their traditions and cultural processes in the development of the Management Plans for the site, international tourism is being given precedence to the advantage of local interests.

Melinda Harlov’s paper presents a contrasting case study from a cultural World Heritage Site in Hungary. This is a particularly interesting example, deriving as it does from a site which has been the focus of conservation for over fifty years, with the inscription on the World Heritage List only a part of a much longer running development of ideas about how the site should be managed. The Old Village of Hollókö is a Palócz settlement which continued to be occupied into the second part of the 20th century. Its nature as a ‘living’ example of Hungarian rural life is at the core of its Outstanding Universal Value. However, the restrictions resulting from being preserved as a ‘heritage site’ led to the local community shifting to a nearby area and returning to the old village to practice traditional practices as performances of folklore rather than as a part of modern life. Harlov’s paper leads us to consider if this is the inevitable future for places like Komodo Island and if this fundamentally undermines the very values for which these sites are inscribed on the World Heritage List.

All the papers in this issue have highlighted issues of imbalance between the needs of local communities and the way sites are operated, which is often through top down management procedures which are run at a high level and which rarely involve meaningful consultation or engagement of the people who actually live within these sites. In all cases, relating to sites inscribed as both cultural and natural sites, the lack of interaction with the community risks loss of heritage values, whether it be through the vanishing of intangible heritage held in traditional lifeways, or by the physical threats to fabric. The case of Hollókö, where the living culture that is supposed to survive has been reduced to a theatrical performance prompts a question, is this a natural progression for other internationally designated sites where communities feel disconnected from their heritage?

Małgorzata Trelka and Coralie Acheson Furnace Editors

5

Management and Interpretation of World Heritage through Community Engagement John H. Jameson Tools for Engagement: The Participatory Culture Model Heritage studies are increasingly engaged in publicly interactive research involving interpretation programs that are a collaboration between archaeologists and other heritage specialists and the lay public. During the last two decades, globalization forces created a need for contextualizing knowledge in order to address complex issues and collaboration across and beyond academic disciplines, using more integrated methodologies that include the participation of non-academics and increased stakeholder involvement. Successful programs empower (or share power), as well as motivate, lay persons to more active involvement in not only archaeological fieldwork but also interpretation and dissemination processes. The resulting collaborative relationships generate “multivocality” within a participatory culture model. In these cases, participatory approaches often apply public/professional mediation within established principles of public presentation and interpretation. At times, this complements the academic perceptions of the past, but in others it challenges or replaces them. Cultural heritage specialists should embrace these collaborative opportunities that ultimately strengthen public support and appreciation of archaeology and cultural heritage (Jameson and Eogan 2013; Jameson 2013).

Community Activism and Collaboration Application of a participatory culture model and cultural specialist/lay person collaborative relationships are central components of effective interpretation of cultural heritage sites. An active role by the community in the Interpretation of material culture is an essential ingredient of community archaeology that gives non-archaeologists power to interpret the past. Practice shows that people can ascribe new relationships with sites, with technical or scientific interpretation being just one of many variations of meaning.

What we call “community archaeology” ascribes to a participatory model of stakeholder interaction.

The term has been thoroughly deliberated in recent years, largely eclipsing the older banners of “public archaeology” and Cultural Heritage Management that have dominated the lexicon of archaeological practice since the 1970s. Community archaeology goes beyond traditional descriptions of outreach and public engagement to more critical and reflexive actions and thinking.

Practitioners of community archaeology recognize a growing interest in voluntary activism in 6

archaeological research and interpretation and seek to create a platform for discussion about the effectiveness and importance of such work. They encourage collaboration between scholarship and politics, people and institutions, and a blending of interaction with and among various communities at local, regional, national, and international levels. They seek empowerment for diverse communities and incorporate multiple, inclusive, and at times conflicting perspectives on heritage, while striving to include voices of professionals, constituents, collaborators, mass media, and others.

Community archaeologists create projects that give the community a major role in the interpretation and dissemination of archaeological information. Moreover, community participation is not relegated to the interpretation of findings but also includes non-archaeologist contributions to any aspect of archaeology, including research design, project goals, and theoretical approaches.

However, in many cases worldwide, only a small portion of communities is involved in the participatory process; those with higher education and and other forms of cultural capital.

Development of New and Innovative Narratives Funari et al. (2016) have dealt with the question of using material culture (artifacts) to change perceptions of people and empower them. Their work illustrates the importance of collaboration between universities and communities and shows how, through collective research and the use of museum material, participative principles can guide us in the construction of more pluralist narratives, raising issues of memory, exclusion, and empowerment. Targeting their work to children and youth helps schoolchildren to question the notion of archaeology as something pertaining to the world of adventure and the sensational, enabling them to understand the importance of material culture in constructing less normative notions of the past and a more pluralist present. These experiences show how material culture is fundamental for power sharing and for questioning the status quo. These projects deal with archaeology, material culture, and heritage in a progressive way, aiming at social inclusion and encouraging youth to respect and appreciate diversity.

In several parts of the world, indigenous populations have adopted the works of tourist art to create new interpretive narratives that imply a transformation in the appreciation and revaluation of indigenous archaeological sites. In the case of Maya architecture in Chizten Izta, the rebuilding of a new pyramid emphasizes the importance of the physical site to the ancient ChichÊn Itzå community, helping to demonstrate the need for continued preservation, allowing for acknowledgment of the past while moving toward the future. Here, commercialization and tourism have generated a new way to visit the distant past, where the spectacle of restoration catches the visitor’s eye through illuminating the pyramid at night. The economic power of tourism dominates the scene. Maya 7

people accept this discourse and have made it a part of their culture today (Barry 2014, 2016).

Conversely, in the American Southwest, traditional decorative design elements of pottery collected by 19th century archaeologists have inspired modern indigenous potters to replicate the designs in the production of tourist art, resulting in a rediscovery of an important aspect of their traditional culture as well as an appreciation of the economic power of tourism.

Elitism and Political Power The issue of the disconnect between local communities and site management can be traced to two main causes: elitism of officials and academics, and the politics of power. Sandes (2010), in her comparative study of categories of stakeholders, summaries community stakeholders into the five general categories, not necessarily at play at the same time: (1) Cultural heritage professionals; archaeologists and site conservation specialists who deal with heritage as an intrinsic part of its profession; (2) Development professionals, people and organizations involved in projects; (3) Politicians, those in positions of political power or those who have some political concern about having a site either conserved or demolished to support their cause; (4) The “interested public,” those who have a concern for archaeological sites and cultural heritage but for personal rather than directly professional reasons; and (5) The “uninterested public,” the significant number of people who have no interest or conscious involvement with cultural heritage, nor consider it relevant to their daily lives. The first three categories we can label the educated and culturally privileged, with power to exercise discretion on the treatment of cultural heritage.

It is in the last two categories, the “interested public,” and “uninterested public,” generally lacking in authority and power, that most members of local communities fall. In our heritage management and interpretation efforts, we try to reduce the number of uninterested public through participative processes within more reflexive social environments. In heritage management, differentiating stakeholders is essential in creating effective bottom-up decision-making processes. In adopting this category scheme, we need to define the makeup of the uninterested public within demographic settings (i.e, locals, transients, tourists). One of the questions we should address in relation to the uninterested public is whether we are dealing with issues related to a miss-valuation of heritage and lack of participative projects, or, if we are dealing with a passive society that just reacts when they perceive they are deprived of benefits (Pastor Perez, 2016). Our challenge is to turn significant numbers of the uninterested public into an energized and engaged public. Partnerships between professionals and energetic communities can foster local care and management. In such scenarios, professionals can take the lead in activities such as training, mentoring, monitoring, and capacity building, but honesty and trust are vital if such approaches are to succeed. The archaeological 8

profession can use this model of partnering in community orientated projects to create a more public-facing profession which acts less as mitigator and more as mediator, where local communities are recognized as genuine stakeholders in archaeological practice The Hindering Effects of Authorized Discourses In most countries, the authorized heritage discourse (AHD) has dominated interpretation at managed sites reflecting an elitist narrative, displaying and requiring technical knowledge and insight to be comprehended. In many cases, the interpretation is very classical with a romantic vision that highlights the aesthetic, monumental, and “spectacular” aspects of sites at the expense of other significant features. Laurajane Smith (2012) has examined the consequences this discourse has for archaeological practices associated with community engagement and outreach. Smith maintains that the AHD frames archaeology heritage practices and works to conceive heritage as specifically ‘archaeological heritage’. The archaeological discipline owes much to the existence of this discourse, which privileges expert values over those of community and other sub-national interests and which works to constrain understandings of heritage as primarily material, neglecting the intangible values.

The political dominance of this discourse can hinder productive and critical community engagement.

Archaeologists need to engage in self-conscious and explicit challenges to this discourse to facilitate meaningful community partnerships.

In many parts of the world, manifestations of AHD have caused people to see World Heritage and archaeology as a brand or etiquette without any historical or cultural value. These perceptions are important to understand in the framework of early planning stages of site management and interpretation. For example, in the case of the Çatalhöyük site in Turkey (Apaydin, 2015, 2016a, 2016b), a small percentage of local people visits the site because they “don’t agree” with the scientific interpretation. Despite all efforts made, the integration between the international team and the local community has not been as effective as it should be. Nevertheless, our primary goal in these cases is to enable local communities to take an active role in the diagnosis and management of the heritage site. In areas facing problems of environmental degradation, urban insecurity, and high rates of unemployment, local education is paramount as an enabler for strengthening community identification with the site.

9

Official Documents, Guidelines, and Charters At the same time, a number of international guidelines, although they address the need for community engagement, also serve to promote the agendas of the educated and privileged, carrying some form of AHD. For example, the Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention, 2005, Council of Europe) states that the community must be involved in cultural heritage management. The ICOMOS Charter on the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (the 2008 Ename Charter) also addresses the importance of local community involvement. These and other international guidelines, however, tend to be optimistic and positivist, in the sense that they reflect the definitions and engineering of the heritage domain through topdown instruction of archaeologists or heritage managers. As an example, Barry (2016) outlines the challenges of the Tell Balata Archaeological Park project in Palestine, where it is almost impossible to comply with such professional standards and to follow the 2008 ICOMOS Charter due to the political, social, and economic situation and a lack of recognition of, and respect for, multiculturalism (Jameson, 2014).

Developing Community Relationships The relationship between community participation and interpretation of the sites is an important topic for current and future research. We are only beginning to evaluate our results and experiences.

In these endeavors, we need to work with our social science colleagues in such fields as sociology and social psychology in developing methodologies (surveys, focus groups, interviews, ethnographic observations, etc.) that can be applied to studies of archaeological heritage. We need to complement these studies with innovative ways to identify, and receive input from, stakeholders.

We need to develop marketing and social media skills. We need also to work with our communication partners such as interpreters, guides, exhibit designers, and site managers in developing collaborative relationships.

In our community archaeology deliberations and reflections, we work in the context of a juncture of archaeological, heritage, and community values. Those of us in resource management positions seek to empower, and share power, with diverse communities of defined stakeholders interacting in a variety of social contexts. In our interactions with and within communities, however they are defined, we need to recognize that community archaeology is always going to be an intervention into an existing social context where people are already actively producing and negotiating identities and where the past is plural and contested. Community archaeology may well contribute to social cohesion; i.e., using fieldwork to counter a spike in crime and disorder in school-aged populations, 10

but “we should also recognize that outcomes are not invariably positive and beneficial; once archaeologists engage with the heritage process they are engaging with the politics of recognition.

And recognition and inclusion must, by definition, also differentiate and exclude” (Smith 2012; Nevell and Redhead, 2015).

We should also recognize that there may be a complex play between individual motivations and benefits and any sense of community. Participation in projects may primarily be to augment the school curriculum or as parts of therapeutic practices. Recognizing the importance of individual motivation has led to new and significant forms of evaluation, pioneered by the Dig Greater Manchester project in the UK that found that “volunteers and participants usually have more personal reasons for engaging with community projects: to gain confidence, for the enjoyment of working with others, and for the empowerment that comes from giving the present more meaning.

Simply by taking part in the process and engaging in these activities, individuals can acquire new lifeskills at the same time that some of our larger academic questions are being addressed” (Nevell and Redhead, 2013).

We know that funding is always a challenge, both because resources are increasingly scarce, and because funding schemes can impose their own rules and conditions, that, in themselves, make the relationships between communities and professional archaeological practice more complicated. We have seen the reduction of major funding sources, such as the National Science Foundation in the U.S. and the Heritage Lottery Funding in the UK, and a draining away of support from universities, exacerbating the problem.

Given these vulnerabilities, broad political support for the objectives and practice of community archaeology is essential. Experience has taught us that constant vigilance is needed within the dayby-day issues of local politics. A failure to embrace community-based possibilities will result in the loss of society’s curiosity concerning our shared heritage and ultimately this will cost us support.

Despite these tensions, but also because of the vibrancy and relevance that they create, there is evidence, seen in the case studies and examples shared in this volume, that is positive about community archaeology and its future (Nevell and Redhead, 2015).

Conclusions Today, application of a participatory culture model and cultural specialist specialist/lay person collaborative relationships are central components of effective interpretation of cultural heritage sites

11

Innovative participatory approaches, avoiding the pitfalls of authorized and elitist heritage discourses, are raising the potential of cultural resources to heighten public sensitivity to the rich cultural heritage these resources represent. These approaches serve to connect multiple perceptions of the past, all equally important, that must be transmitted or facilitated by the cultural heritage manager.

Many argue that the incorporation of local knowledge is important to the survival of archaeology as an academic discipline. Community involvement serves to end the elitism and exclusive control that archaeologists have had over the material past, resulting in a “decolonized� archaeology, giving nonarchaeologists a shared role in interpreting the past. The degree of interpretive control that communities have in archaeological projects can vary from using interview and consultation data to producing academic publications written by community members based on community identified research questions. Project success requires investing the requisite time and resources to develop rapport and mutual respect with the local community. Today, experience has taught community archaeologists to plan for long-term collaborations beginning at project inception (Nevell and Redhead, 2015).

The common theme of the chapters in this volume is that they show alternative and innovative participatory approaches in cultural heritage management and interpretation. They also reveal a need to develop effective and sensitive interpretation in all communities.

Author John Jameson is retired from the U.S. National Park Service and is currently Staff Secretary, 12,000 Year History Park Working Group, in South Carolina. He is an active member within ICOMOS of the committees on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM) and Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (ICIP). He is also Assistant Editor for the Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage (JCAH). Contact: jhjameson@yahoo.com

12

References Apaydin, V. 2015. The Presentation of the Past: Pitfalls and Potentials–Education, Local Community and Archaeology in Turkey. Manuscript on file, University College London.

Apaydin, V. 2016a. Development and Re-Configuration of Heritage Perception: History Textbooks and Curriculum in Turkey. AP Online Public Archaeology Journal. Vol. 7.

Apaydin, V. 2016b. Effective or not? Success or Failure? Assessing Heritage and Archaeological Education Programs – The Case of Çatalhöyük. International Journal of Heritage Studies. Vol: 22, no 10: 828-843 Barry, K. M. 2014. Framing the ancients: A global study in archaeological and historic site interpretation. PhD dissertation, Art History. The Pennsylvania State University Graduate School, College of Arts and Architecture, University Park.

Barry, K. M. 2016. Maya Architecture and Interpretation: Chichén Itzá as part of the Cultural Heritage Narrative. Manuscript on file, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.

Funari, P. Paulo A., Garraffoni R.S , and Aparecida de Andrade Almeida. M. 2016. Archaeology and social inclusion in Brazil. Paper delivered at the Association of Critical Heritage Studies (ACHS) Conference, Montreal.

Jameson, J. H. 2013. Archaeologists at the Table: From Community to Global. In Training and Practice for Modern Day Archaeologists, edited by John H. Jameson and James Eogan. pp. 3-14. Springer.

Jameson. J. H. 2014. International Conventions and Charters and Archaeology Presentation Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, pp 3948-3954.

Jameson, J. H. and James Eogan. 2013. Introduction. In Training and Practice for Modern Day Archaeologists, edited by John H. Jameson and James Eogan. pp. vii-xiv. Springer.

Nevell, M. and N. Redhead. 2013. Archaeology for All: Managing Expectations and Learning from the Past for the Future - the Dig Manchester Community Archaeology Experience. In Archaeology, the Public and the Recent Past, Chapter: 5. Editors: Chris Dalglish, pp.65-75. The Boydell Press, First edition, University of Salford, Salford, UK. Nevell, M. and N. Redhead. 2015 (eds.). Archaeology for All: Community Archaeology in the Early 21st Century: Participation, Practice and Impact. Salford: University of Salford Centre for Applied Archaeology. (Salford Applied Archaeology Series; vol. 2).

Sandes, A. C. 2010. Archaeology, Conservation and the City: Post-Conflict Redevelopment in London, Berlin and Beirut. BAR International Series 2159. Oxford.

Smith, L.. 2012. Discourses of heritage: implications for archaeological community practice.

Electronic ISSN 1626-0252. https://nuevomundo.revues.org/64148, accessed December 5, 2016.

Pastor Pérez, A. 2016. Personal communication, University of Barcelona, December 2016.

13

World Heritage and Urban Communities in Thailand: Historic City of Ayutthaya, Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Province and Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province

Bhadravarna Bongsasilp

Thailand ratified the UNESCO 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1990. One year later, two cultural heritage sites in Thailand were inscribed onto the World Heritage List; these were the Historic City of Ayutthaya and the Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic Towns and Ban Chiang Archaeological Site was inscribed in 1992.

The State has two other cultural heritage sites on the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative Lists and more than ten sites were listed on the national lists which were approved by the National Committee for the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Heritage (the National Committee). In 2007, the government introduced a policy to recommend every Historical Park in Thailand as a World Heritage Site through a top-down process. This policy was not successful as sites of national significance did not necessarily meet the World Heritage criteria for inscription. Hence, no new World Heritage Sites have been inscribed in the last twenty years (Fine Arts Department, 2012).

The participation of local communities in the management of World Heritage Sites and their protection has been considered topical especially within the recently celebrated fortieth anniversary of the World Heritage Convention in 2012, of which the theme was World Heritage and Sustainable Development: the Role of Local Communities (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016 (a)).

Additionally, two other cultural heritage sites in Thailand were added to the Tentative List. These are the Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat in 2012 and the Monuments, Sites and Cultural Landscape of Chiang Mai, Capital of Lanna in 2015 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016 (b)). The submission of these sites was a bottom-up process; both of them were proposed by the local communities.

This article is about the participation of urban local communities in the World Heritage system, and the obstacles surrounding the operationalisation of the Convention looking at both top-down and bottom-up processes of cultural World Heritage in Thailand in the last twenty years. This will be illustrated through the comparison of two contemporary urban communities. The first of these is the Historic City of Ayutthaya, which was proposed to be inscribed on the World Heritage List by the central government. The second is the Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat,

14

a cultural heritage site on the World Heritage Tentative List, which has been proposed by the local community.

Administration of World Heritage in Thailand The Royal Thai Government is the State Party to the Convention and the implementation is carried out by the National Committee which administers World Heritage in Thailand. The Deputy Prime Minister is the President of The National Committee and the Minister of Natural Resource and Environment serves as the Secretariat of the Committee. The National Committee also has a role in the designation and supervision of the three subcommittees for World Heritage administration: these are the Subcommittee of Cultural World Heritage (Cultural Subcommittee), which has the Minister of Culture as the President and the Director General of Fine Arts Department (the DG of FAD) as the Secretary; the Subcommittee of Natural World Heritage (Natural Subcommittee), which has the Minister of Natural Resource and Environment as the President, and; the Subcommittee of Territory (Territorial Subcommittee), which has the Minister of Foreign Affairs as the President. Both the Cultural and Natural World Heritage Subcommittees have responsibility for the selection of sites to be proposed to the World Heritage List, which are then considered by the National Committee prior to submission to the World Heritage Committee. The Subcommittee of Territory advises on international affairs for the World Heritage. One of the main roles of the National Committee is the assessment of potential nominations for World Heritage inscription in Thailand and presents to the Thai Parliament for submission on behalf of the Kingdom of Thailand (Fine Arts Department, 2012).

The structure of the World Heritage administration at the national level of Thailand operates through governmental bureaucracy and there are no options for public participation.

Cultural World Heritage Administration Cultural World Heritage administration is directly under the authority of the Fine Arts Department, an organisation of the Ministry of Culture. Work is divided between two offices of the Fine Arts Department (FAD): the Office of Archaeology and the Regional Offices of Fine Arts Department (the Regional Offices). The Office of Archaeology is the focal point of cultural World Heritage in Thailand and liaises between the inner offices and other relevant organisations. As the Secretary of the Subcommittee of Cultural World Heritage, it advises on World Heritage management and acts on the policy of the National Committee. The Office of Archaeology also gives guidance to the Regional Offices in Cultural World Heritage management, both technical and academic. The Regional Offices are the administrators for the physical features of the area and carry out academic research of the cultural heritage sites which are located within their jurisdiction (Fine Arts Department, 2012).

15

Administration of cultural heritage sites and World Heritage sites in Thailand is the statutory responsibility of the General Director of the Fine Arts Department (DG of FAD) under the Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museum, 1961 as amended by Act (No. 2), 1992 (Fine Arts Department, 2013 (a)). This highly bureaucratic cultural heritage legislation has been enacted by the military government since 1961. The DG of FAD has the authority to designate heritage sites in Thailand and all the other aspects pertaining to the management of listed assets.

The Academic Committee for Ancient Monument Conservation (the Academic Committee) acts as the advisor to the DG of FAD (Fine Arts Department, 2013 (b)). The Academic Committee is formed of officials from the FAD and external experts who represent various academic and bureaucratic interests. Within this process there is no public participation despite the fact that the people’s rights in relation to their cultural heritage were acknowledged in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand version 1997 (Government Gazette, 2014). However, when a site is considered to be of national or international importance, management is reserved for the government and the public can only contribute on a passive level. Usage of the monuments, such as for events or festivals, requires permission from the DG of FAD (Fine Arts Department, 2013 (c)).

Figure 1 Structure of National and Cultural World Heritage Administration in Thailand

16

The Historical City of Ayutthaya The first case study is the Historic City of Ayutthaya, which was the capital city of Siam Kingdom for more than four hundred years from the thirteenth through to the eighteenth century. Ayutthaya is located on the flood plain in the central region of Thailand. It is an island surrounded by three rivers on the upper side of the Gulf of Siam. It is a significant site of ancient civilization; it was a trading and economic centre in South-east Asia, which connected the East and West at that period. Ayutthaya was destroyed and its ruins were abandoned in 1767. The Historic City of Ayutthaya was inscribed as a cultural World Heritage site in 1991 with the criterion iii of the World Heritage Criteria (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016 (c)). It was proposed as a World Heritage Site by the central government.

Figure 2 Ruins of Phra Si Sanphet Temple in the Royal Palace of Ayutthaya ŠBhadravarna Bongsasilp

17

Figure 3 World Heritage boundary of Historic City of Ayutthaya (Source: Office of Archaeology, Fine Arts Department)

The World Heritage's property of Ayutthaya is in the heart of Ayutthaya's city island, and covers an area of approximately three hundred hectares. It includes the principal ancient monuments such as the Royal Palace, Phra Si Sanphet Temple, Ratchaburana Temple and Phra Mongkonbophit Temple but does not cover the whole of the city’s island and significant heritage sites including the Chaiwattanaram Temple are outside of the area. The National Economic and Social Development Plan (version 1961) designated Ayutthaya province as an industrial area because of its excellent transportation (Office of National Economic and Social Development Board, 2016). The surrounding area of the Historic City of Ayutthaya is occupied by large factories and residential areas. The location has high potential for industrial growth. However, Ayutthaya is also a top tourist attraction for both international and domestic tourists who come for the temples and the tourist attractions which have been built up around them (Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2016). As such, there is an overlap between the needs of the present urban community for growth and the conservation needs for the protection of the authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage Site.

18

Conflict between ancient monument conservation and economic development often occurs in Ayutthaya. This can be seen in the way in which central government policies are imposed on the local authorities, resulting in conflict over land use such as limitation of building's height, inappropriate use, and damage to the ancient monument which are subject to national conservation legislations1. An example of these conflicts is the site’s boundary which cannot be extended due to resistance from the local community which occupies parts of the historic city. The Master Plan for Conservation specifies the eviction of the inhabitants of the World Heritage area. As a result there have been instances where archaeological remains have been destroyed by local people fearing eviction.

Another example of conflict over the site is the removal of shops and parking lots at the Phra Mongkonbophit Temple; these shops and parking lots were removed in line with the Master Plan because they were considered unsympathetic to the ancient monument. This plan has been strongly resisted by the trading community because the location provided by the authorities is far from the main sightseeing sites. Despite several negotiations, no solution has been found for this conflict. The Government is concerned that the World Heritage status might be in danger because of the unauthorised commercial developments near to the site. The imposition of these restrictions has resulted in a negative attitude towards the World Heritage Site by the trading community. The trading community is indifferent to the World Heritage status as they run small businesses in Ayutthaya aimed at the local pilgrims (Matichon Public, 2016 and MGR Online, 2016). The negative attitude of local Thai people towards the World Heritage at Ayutthaya was the result of protest in the other World Heritage inscription projects in Thailand such as Phra Prathom Chedi in Nakhon Prathom province (Fine Arts department, 2011 (a) and MGR Online, 2011).

The Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat In contrast to the Historic City of Ayutthaya, the local community has been much more involved in the addition of Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat to the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List. The conflict surrounding the proposed inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site raised issues of nationalism which led some people in Thailand to distrust the UNESCO process and the ideals of shared heritage (Silverman 2011 and Raymon, 2014).

However, the dispute also raised awareness of World Heritage in Thailand. 2 This case raised Nakhon

The associated legislations of the ancient city of Ayutthaya including the Master Plan for Conservation and Development of the Historic City of Ayutthaya which has been approved by the cabinet and conducted by the committees at national and local levels, the Act on Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museum, 1961 as amended by Act (No. 2), 1992, the Ratchaphatsadu Land Act, 1975, the City Planning Act, 1975, the Building Control Act, 1979 and the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, 1992 as amended by Act (No. 2), 1992 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016).

2 Preah Vihear is a temple located on the Thailand-Cambodian border. The issue of ownership of the temple has impacted diplomatic relationship between Thailand and Cambodia. In particular during the World Heritage nomination process of the temple by Cambodia 1

19

Si Thammarat people’s awareness of World Heritage. They are proud to have their important religious heritage site proposed as a World Heritage Site. Nakhon Si Thammarat is a major province in the Southern part of Thailand. The city centre is an urban area which overlaps with the ancient town. It was a major city of Tambralinga state during the Sri Vijaya Kingdom period, in the eighth to twelfth century CE. The early community of Nakhon Si Thammarat was located on a main sand bar of the Malay Peninsula of the Gulf of Siam and was a port town of the ancient Eastern World where it was connected to other ancient states including Indonesia, China, Sri Lanka and Persia. Besides the political and commercial relationships, archaeological evidence of religious relationships with ancient India and the Middle East including Brahmanism, Buddhism and Islam was found on Nakhon Si Thammarat. Nakhon Si Thammarat was a centre of Theravada Buddhism which had a close relationship with the Buddhism in Sri Lanka. The Buddhist Monk Pontificates from Sri Lanka brought the Lord Buddha's relics to Nakhon Si Thammarat. The ruler of Nakhon Si Thammarat built a stupa to contain the relics at the site of the present principal stupa of Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan.

This is a masterpiece of rounded stupa, called Lanka style, which spread across the southern part and other parts of Thailand until the present day. This stupa of Wat Phra Mahathat is a symbol of the unwavering faith in Buddhism of the local people on the peninsula (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016 (d)).

Figure 4 Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat ŠBhadravarna Bongsasilp

between 2007 and 2012. As a result it can be argued that an undercurrent of unease towards World Heritage has developed, as some Thais associate this case with the idea that World Heritage brings conflicts and violence.

20

Figure 5 Tentative World Heritage boundary of Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat (Source: Office of Archaeology, Fine Arts Department) The Dean of Nakhon Si Thammarat Rajabhat University (the current President of Nakhon Si Thammarat Cultural Affair Council) is responsible for increased awareness of World Heritage amongst local people in Nakhon Si Thammarat. He proposed to the Governor of the Province that the site merited consideration for nomination to the World Heritage List. As a result the National Committee assigned the Fine Arts Department to support the local community in the initial stages of the World Heritage process (Fine Arts Department, 2012). At the same time, the local community also asked the Director Office of Archaeology, who is also a local person, to provide support for developing the nomination (Srisuchat, 2016 and Sukrakan, 2016). The key individuals in this process were professionals from the local community. Although they represented the expert community, they were able to communicate in the local dialect and understand the culture of the area. This represents a shift from the previous case where experts were considered to be outsiders.

Without the local community’s interest in their heritage, which is linked to their sense of cultural pride and identity, this project would have never been successful. The sense of local identities of the communities living in the Southern territories of Thailand increased their interest in education on how to preserve their cultural heritage. Another factor in this successful collaboration was the 21

community’s great respect for the former teacher and the local experts; they were able to trust them more than they would have done with outside experts. In addition, the community was able to learn about World Heritage and local perspectives were incorporated into the nomination process.

The community is proud that their area of local religious significance could become a World Heritage Site. The local community was involved in collaboratively identifying the physical boundaries of the site, and identifying its significance based on their knowledge of it and in line with the construction of national narratives. This nomination both raised funds from local businesses and received funding from the central government (Fine Arts Department, 2011b).

In contrast to the way by which Ayutthaya was nominated to the World Heritage List, at this site the local community had a significant role in both starting and leading the process of placing it on the Tentative List. The government bureaucrats adapted to their new roles as consultants for academic and administrative purposes. The budget of the project from the government was given directly to the local authorities resulting in local cultural heritage management being placed in the hands of the local community. In addition, there were public hearings regarding every procedure, which acted in accordance with the policy of sustainable development of the government at that time and the strategy of the World Heritage Committee in their fortieth anniversary celebrations (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016 (a)). As a result, there has been much more effective collaboration with the local community in bringing current commercial practices within the site in line with the conservation plan for the monuments. Due to this, it only took two years to add this site to the Tentative List, which is a very short time compared to other sites which have gone through the more common top-down process (Ministry of Culture, 2011).

Conclusion In conclusion, the case studies have shown that local community participation is a rewarding approach to World Heritage management in urban centres. The requirements for conservation can cause conflict with the present urban community who live alongside the ancient monuments. By involving the local community in the process of World Heritage inscription, these communities can collaborate with conservation experts to create an appropriate site management plan. In the case of the Historic City of Ayutthaya, the World Heritage site has been inscribed and managed through a top-down process. Despite more than twenty years of sharing knowledge of the site with the local community, the level of community engagement with the site's values appears to be less than at the other case study site, Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat. Here, the local people have participated in every procedure relating to the World Heritage nomination. Although their local cultural heritage site is not a World Heritage site, listing on the Tentative List made the

22

local people more aware of and engaged with their heritage. The myriad benefits which the local community reaped from taking part in this process include maintenance of the site as well as numerous collaborations with various sectors focused on conservation of the physical features of its cultural heritage and cultural landscape and other infrastructure projects in the local area. The participation of a local community who believed in the value of World Heritage and engaged in a bottom-up process of nomination resulted in the sustainable protection of cultural heritage, unlike the top-down approach taken at Ayutthaya where the World Heritage process was guided by the bureaucratic procedures imposed by the central government.

Author Bhadravarna Bongsasilp is a PhD Candidate at Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage, University of Birmingham. An Archaeologist at Expert Level, Office of Archaeology, Fine Arts Department, Ministry of Culture, Thailand. Contact: bxb364@bham.ac.uk References Fine Arts Department , 2008. Report of Conservation and Development of Historical Park Project.

Fine Arts Department, 2011a. Public Hearing Report of World Heritage Inscription: Phra Prathom Chedi.

Fine Arts Department, 2011b. Public Hearing Report of World Heritage Inscription: Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat.

Fine Arts Department, 2012. Cultural World Heritage in Thailand. Bangkok: Commercial World.

Fine Arts Department, 2013a. Acts. Available at: http://www.finearts.go.th/plugins/2012-11-27-14-10-05/%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%9A2.html (Accessed: 14 September 2016).

Fine Arts Department, 2013b. Construction Plan and Landscape Development in Ancient Monument Area Consideration. Available at: http://www.finearts.go.th/files/72/reduceProcess/31.pdf (Accessed: 14 September 2016).

Fine Arts Department, 2013c. Permission. Available at: http://finearts.go.th/files/72/reduceProcess/07.pdf (Accessed: 14 September 2016).

Government Gazette, 2014 Constitution. Available at: http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/ DATA/ PDF/2540/A/055/1.PDF (Accessed: 14 September 2016).

23

Matichon Public, 2016. Arrangement of Mongkhon Bophit Temple Market: raise negotiation team for the World Heritage city’s image. Available at: https://www.khaosod.co.th/view_newsonline.php ?newsid=1454060352 (Accessed: 14 September 2016).

MGR Online, 2011. Local People Oppose World Heritage Inscription of Phra Prathom Chedi. Available at: http://www.manager.co.th/Local/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9540000104720 (Accessed: 14 September 2016).

MGR Online, 2016. Ayutthaya Province Keeps Action on the Illegal Encroached Shops at Mongkhon Bophit Chapel. Available at: http://www.mgronline.com/Local/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9590000010757&Html=1&TabID=1& (Accessed: 14 September 2016).

Ministry of Culture, 2011. Meeting Report of the Cultural World Heritage Subcommittee 1/2554.

Date 25 February 2011 at Ministry of Culture Conference Room Floor 21st.

Office of National Economic and Social Development Board (2016). The National Economic and Social Development Plan. Available at: http:www.nesdb.go.th/main.php?filename=develop_issue (Accessed: 14 September 2016).

Raymond, G. 2014. Thai-Cambodia Relations One Year after the ICJ Judgment. Available at: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/11/11/thai-cambodia-relations-one-year-after-the-icjjudgement/ (Accessed: 14 September 2016) Silverman, H. 2011 Border wars: the ongoing temple dispute between Thailand and Cambodia and UNESCO's World Heritage List. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 17: 1, 1-21.

Srisuchat, T. 2016. Personal Communication.

Sukrakan, C. 2016. Personal Communication.

Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2016. Ayutthaya. Available at: http://uk.tourismthailand.org/AboutThailand/Destination/Ayutthaya (Accessed: 14 September 2016).

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016 a. Report of the 40th Anniversary Year activities: Celebrating 40 years of the World Heritage Convention and looking forward to tomorrow. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1018/ (Accessed: 16 August 2016).

24

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016b. Tentative Lists. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/state=th (Accessed: 16 August 2016).

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016c. Historic City of Ayutthaya. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/576 (Accessed: 18 August 2016).

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016d. Wat Phra Mahathat Woramahawihan, Nakhon Si Thammarat. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5752/ (Accessed: 14 September 2016)

25

Simulacra and Simulation: UNESCO's Approach to the Relationship Between the Rehabilitation of World Heritage and Communities

George Richards

Just as the built environment can reflect society (King, 2005: 1), so the destruction of buildings can shatter the community reflected in them, like a brick through a mirror or a stone in a quiet pool. For this reason the rehabilitation of monuments is an act redolent with the symbolism of community rehabilitation.

This paper examines how UNESCO has taken this relationship between the

rehabilitation of heritage and the rehabilitation of communities into consideration in its approach to the rehabilitation of World Heritage sites, and how UNESCO's approach has developed over time, with reference to two cases: the old bridge in Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina; and the mosques and mausolea of Timbuktu, Mali. This paper, considering UNESCO official decisions and communications as primary source material, will show how UNESCO's approach has developed from placing a focus solely on the symbolic value of rehabilitating heritage for communities to a more practical appreciation of the benefits that can arise from involving communities in heritage rehabilitation.

Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina The old bridge of Mostar was an exemplary piece of Islamic Balkan architecture, designed by Hayruddin, apprentice to the famous Ottoman architect Sinan, and completed in 1566/1567. It was destroyed by Croat artillery fire in 1993 during the Bosnian war (Borowitz, 2005: 65). The bridge was rebuilt by a broad coalition of intergovernmental organisations and governments, including UNESCO, work was completed in 2004 and the Bridge was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in 2005 (Armaly et al., 2004: 6-17).

UNESCO inscribes sites on to its List of World Heritage according to specified criteria (UNESCO, 1972: 11). The ten criteria (revised in 2004) are set out in UNESCO's 'Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention' (UNESCO, 1972: 11; UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015a). Unusually for an architectural monument, the bridge (or more technically, the 'Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar') was not, as might be expected, inscribed under criterion (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'. Instead, the bridge was inscribed under criterion (vi) – 'to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, 26

with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance' (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005: 141). The World Heritage Committee's Guidelines state that criterion (vi) 'should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria' – but no other criteria were cited in the Mostar inscription (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015a: 16). In other words, the Committee deemed the bridge to satisfy criterion (vi) in such a way that its preference for secondary, supporting criteria did not apply.

In satisfying criterion (vi), the Committee set out its rationale as follows: 'With the “renaissance” of the Old Bridge and its surroundings, the symbolic power and meaning of the City of Mostar – as an exceptional and universal symbol of coexistence of communities from diverse cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds – has been reinforced and strengthened, underlining the unlimited efforts of human solidarity for peace and powerful cooperation in the face of overwhelming catastrophes' (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005: 141).

Put simply, the rehabilitation ("renaissance") of the bridge strengthened the bridge's power as a symbol of the coexistence of communities of diverse backgrounds and of human resilience in the face of catastrophe. As Sophia Labadi (2013: 122) put it: 'What matters is not that the bridge was reconstructed but that it embodies the values for which it was nominated and inscribed – that is, that it stands as a symbol of hope and reconciliation'. In its rationale for the inscription of the Mostar bridge onto the World Heritage List, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee thus emphasised the relationship between the symbolic power of reconstructing heritage and coexistence. The Committee's rationale, however, – that the bridge's reconstruction reinforced Mostar's power as a symbol of coexistence – rested on the assumption that reconciliation had been achieved in Mostar, that the town really did enjoy happy coexistence of communities.

The

Committee's rationale might even be read to imply that the reconstruction of the bridge would itself 'reinforce' such coexistence. In fact, ten years after the bridge's reconstruction, Mostar is still deeply divided, its local government paralysed by divisions between the communities (Sito-Sucic, 2012; Sito-Sucic, 2013). The Committee's rationale for inscribing the bridge is thus undermined by the reality: the reconstructed bridge may have been intended to reinforce Mostar's position as a symbol of coexistence, but Mostar is no symbol of coexistence. In light of this, or perhaps because of it, UNESCO's approach to the rehabilitation of Timbuktu draws on the practical effects of communityled heritage rehabilitation, alongside the symbolic value of reconstruction.

27

Timbuktu, Mali Unlike the Mostar bridge, Timbuktu (more specifically, the three great mosques of Djingareyber, Sankore and Sidi Yahia and sixteen mausolea in the city) was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1988, before its mosques and mausolea were severely damaged in the 2012 conflict (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 1988: 17). UNESCO has undertaken a comprehensive programme of rehabilitation of the Timbuktu site and, in doing so, UNESCO has developed its approach to the relationship between the rehabilitation of heritage and the rehabilitation of communities.

On the one hand, similarly to the old bridge in Mostar, UNESCO has emphasised the symbolic importance of the rehabilitation of Timbuktu and the impact of that rehabilitation on the community. Thus, on the reinstallation of the rehabilitated sacred gate of the mosque of Sidi Yahia – pulled down and damaged in 2012 – the director-general of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, said: '"The reinstallation of the sacred gate, a religious and cultural landmark of Timbuktu, marks a new and decisive step in Mali's reconstruction and peace building work"'. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016). The symbolic value of the gate – as a 'religious and cultural landmark' – is thus linked to the reconstruction of Malian society.

Between the symbolic value of the Timbuktu site to the community and its more functional role, UNESCO presented as the rationale for the rehabilitation the fact that the mosques and mausolea had 'long been places of pilgrimage for the people of Mali and neighbouring West African countries', that they were 'an important part of the region's religious belief system', and that their destruction 'represented a tragic loss for local communities' (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015b; UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015c). Implied in UNESCO's reasoning, the rehabilitation of Timbuktu restored an important cultural feature to local communities.

Alongside the purely symbolic value of rehabilitation of heritage, UNESCO has also noted the relationship between the rehabilitation of Timbuktu by the community, using traditional techniques, to the rehabilitation of the community. Thus, Bokova 'paid tribute to the inhabitants and masons of Timbuktu whose mobilization and skills played a crucial part in the reconstruction of the buildings.

“Your work is a lesson in tolerance, dialogue and peace,” she declared (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015c) – in other words, the rehabilitation of Timbuktu by the community has contributed to the rehabilitation of the community. Similarly in 2014 Lazare Eloudou Assomo ,UNESCO representative to Mali, connected the rehabilitation by the community to preserving the cultural value of the site: “We want the community to rebuild their own heritage. It's not just about 28

rebuilding stones. It's also about keeping the cultural significance and keeping the role that the mausoleum had in structuring the life of the community“ (UNESCO, 2014). Discussing Timbuktu Vibeke Jansen, director of the UNESCO office in New York, similarly stated: “A community’s cultural heritage reflects its life, history and identity. Its preservation helps to rebuild broken communities, re-establish their identities, and link their past with their present and future“ (UNESCO, 2014). These statements – and Jansen's most clearly – demonstrate the close relationship between heritage rehabilitation and community reconstruction in UNESCO's approach to post-conflict Timbuktu, both as a symbol of community reconciliation and, through the act of rehabilitation, as a practical means of rebuilding communities.

Conclusion The two examples considered in this paper – the old bridge of Mostar and the mosques and mausolea of Timbuktu – shine a light on UNESCO's approach to the relationship between the rehabilitation of World Heritage sites and the rehabilitation of communities. In both Mostar and Timbuktu, UNESCO considered relationship between the symbolic value of the sites being rehabilitated and the reconstruction of local communities. In Mostar, however, for all the symbolic power that UNESCO ascribed to the reconstruction, the town remains deeply divided. Perhaps because of this divergence between how UNESCO evaluated the bridge's symbolic value and the failure to achieve reconciliation in Mostar, in Timbuktu, UNESCO also emphasised a more practical link between the rehabilitation of heritage and community: namely, that rehabilitation of heritage by communities can contribute to rebuilding those communities and to preserving the role of heritage sites in society. UNESCO's more recent approach is therefore to link both the symbolic value and the practical effects of heritage rehabilitation to community reconstruction.

Author: George Richards is Special Rapporteur for Cultural Heritage at the Joint Crisis Coordination Centre of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Iraq, and is a senior fellow at Iraq Heritage. Follow George on Twitter at @gergis.

29

Bibliography Armaly, M., Blasi C.; Lawrence H. 2004. Stari Most: rebuilding more than a historic bridge in Mostar.

Museum International. 56(4). 6–17.

Borowitz, A. 2005. Terrorism for self-glorification: the herostratos syndrome. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

King, A. D. 2005. Introduction. In Anthony D. King (ed.). Buildings and society: essays on the social development of the built environment. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1-17.

Labadi, S. 2013. UNESCO, cultural heritage and outstanding universal value: value-based analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage conventions. Plymouth: AltaMira Press.

Sito-Sucic,

D.

2012.

Mostar:

one

family,

three

armies,

a

divided

city.

Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-bosnia-mostar-idUSLNE83102N20120402 (accessed 1 November 2016).

Sito-Sucic, D. 2013. Politicking paralyzes divided Bosnian town of Mostar.

Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bosnia-mostar-idUSBRE9140O620130205 (accessed 1 November 2016).

UNESCO, 1972. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage.

UNESCO, 2014. Re-building cultural heritage in Mali. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/mediaservices/single-view/news/re_building_cultural_heritage_in_mali/#.V-6ByPl95D9

(accessed

27

September 2016).

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 1988. Report of the World Heritage Committee: twelfth session (SC88/CONF.001/13).

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2005. Decisions of the 29th session of the World Heritage Committee (Durban, 2005) (WHC-05/29.COM/22).

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015a. Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (WHC.15/01).

30

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015b. Reconstruction of Timbuktu mauseoleums nears completion. http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1307/ (accessed 27 September 2016).

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015c. Director-general praises the people of Timbuktu for the reconstruction of the city's mausoleums. http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1324/ (accessed 27 September 2016).

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2016. UNESCO welcomes restoration of sacred gate of Sidi Yahia in Timbuktu. http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1557/ (accessed 27 September 2016).

31

The Designation of Komodo National Park World Heritage Site: to Whom does it benefit?

Diana F. Rahman and Gregorius Afioma

Since its inscription as a World Heritage Site in 1991, Komodo National Park has experienced an influx of tourists, almost tripling pre-inscription visitor numbers. This is unsurprising since in addition to the Komodo dragons themselves, tourists also discover the added attraction of the park’s wonderful marine life. However, positive developments which have been claimed as an impact of the growing industry do not extend to the closest community who lives within the national park.

Kampung Komodo is a village located in the heart of Komodo Island, but it has hardly received any improved facilities or economic benefit. The reason for this is that many developments are centralised in Labuan Bajo, a small city on the mainland where the main airport is located. Further, the designation of Komodo World Heritage Site brought an additional layer of conservation, which means that the villagers’ activities are now limited by the implementation of protection strategies.

These strategies do not only threaten the local community’s social welfare; the designation and its current management strategy can potentially endanger the relationship between the Komodo people and their heritage site. Therefore, it stands to reason that the local community now feels excluded from the management of the World Heritage Site.

The Komodo National Park Komodo National Park is inhabited by thousands of komodo dragons and was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1991. The National Park itself consists of three major islands: Komodo, Rinca, and Padar, together with many smaller islands, located in the eastern part of Indonesia between Sumbawa and Flores. The biggest island of the National Park, Komodo Island, has a human population of almost 2000 who live in 5% of the island’s total area. Komodo dragons are already well known among travelers around the world as the world’s largest lizard, but since its inscription to the World Heritage List, the National Park has received far more international attention.

As arguably expected from inscription on the World Heritage List, tourism in this area has grown significantly since the international designation. From the 20,000 visitors that Komodo National Park received in 1990’s, numbers have grown to 60,000 in 2013 and 90,000 in 2015. With the effort that

32

Indonesia Tourism Ministry has made in promoting the island in recent years, it is predicted that in 2019, Komodo National Park will welcome no less than 500,000 visitors (Kementrian Pariwisata Indonesia, 2016). In addition to promoting the National Park as a World Heritage Site, more investment in festivals, infrastructure, health facilities, and air transportation are being made in order to attract visitors and to ease the access to the island. Many local newspapers mentioned that the national park’s World Heritage status has brought positive impacts to the development of tourism industry in the area (Molan, 2014; Stirman, 2011; Trirahmi, 2013). With the increase of visitors and growth in tourism in this area, the government believes that the local economic development will be enhanced and therefore will contribute to the improvement of the local community’s livelihood.

Given the definition of local community as human settlements close to a given site (Joppe, 1993), however, it seems that tourism does not really bring an improvement to the closest community in Komodo National Park. All hotels, restaurants, and other tourism facilities are located not in on Komodo Island but in Labuan Bajo, a city more than 40 kilometres away on the Flores mainland where the airport is located. Therefore, Kampung Komodo, a village that is located on Komodo Island remains untouched from investment or improvements. Visitors must travel by boat for several hours to access Komodo island from Labuan Bajo, but they rarely go to Komodo village after that, in spite of it being located within the main island of Komodo National Park.

Looking at the case study, is it appropriate to argue that the designation of World Heritage Sites delivers more benefit than negative impacts to the local community? When the heritage sites have become of interest of the international community, does it mean that its local community will lose their ownership or control of their heritage?

33

1. Kampung Komodo, view from the dock. (Photo source: G. Afioma) Tourism in Komodo Village Although it does not apply to all sites and is becoming a subject of debate among scholars, Johansen (2012) explained that World Heritage inscription potentially increases tourism development within an area and delivers economic improvement to the local community. In the case of the local community in Komodo Village, the government’s decision to protect Komodo Island as a national park already resulted in local people being restricted in performing their job as fishermen, let alone the designation of Komodo as a World Heritage Site. The status has resulted in a different conservation and zoning system than before. The zoning system that initially meant to conserve the biosphere of the island and protect the surrounding area has resulted in the constriction of the allowed fishing area for the villagers, which was their main way of making a living. Moreover, tourism development has not brought any significant impact for the local community, although Hall and Lew (2009) have said that improvements for the community should be put into place along with the development of tourism. The major facilities, schools, and infrastructures are only developed in Labuan Bajo and did not happen in Komodo Village. The village’s livelihood does not improve significantly: schools are not allowed to be built, locals need to go to the mainland in order to access a hospital, and the permissible fishing area is getting smaller in regard to conservation activities.

Mentioned as one of the world’s best snorkelling destination, the marine world of the Komodo National Park area is an additional attraction to the park itself, which attracts more visitors each year. There are currently around 50 dive operators in Labuan Bajo and each of them offers 34

opportunities to explore more than 1000 variety of fish and 260 different coral reefs. Among those operators, only around one third of them are owned by Indonesians and even fewer are owned by local people from Flores or the West Manggarai regency. Although a lot of training has been provided for the local community in order to increase their participation in tourism industry, they are reported to have difficulty competing with foreign nationals who work as business actors or diving instructors in the area.

To achieve the new tourism ministry’s goals, the Indonesian government is now attempting to establish a tourism authority body with the aim of encouraging infrastructure improvement to support tourism activities in several areas in Indonesia, including Komodo and Labuan Bajo. Its main task is to accelerate tourism development by providing clean water, good waste management systems, and sufficient facilities in order to create a better environment for tourism to grow.

However, it seems that the authority body does not include consideration of local communities in its strategy as their main steps to foster tourism growth rely mostly on the development of attractions, visitor accessibility, and amenity improvement (Kementrian Pariwisata Indonesia, 2016). There is a lack of local community involvement strategies mentioned in the key success factor and less in more specific strategies in improving local communities’ wellbeing regarding the growing industry they are facing.

Mowforth and Munt (2003) argue that local communities in third world countries can hardly benefit from tourism growth which is likely to occur through the national or international status of the site.

Given the situation of the local community in Komodo village, it can indeed be argued that locals do not have control of the site nor the ways the industry is developed. Even though the local authorities and management plan insist that the involvement of residents is important, in the actual implementation, local community’s views are hardly heard, including those who reside in Komodo village.

Komodo People and the World Heritage Status Beginning from a small research project conducted about Komodo many years ago (Auffenberg, 1981; Diamond, 1987; Burden, 1927), the Komodo people have witnessed the process of the Komodo dragon becoming famous and now its designation as a World Heritage Site. They observed it become a biosphere reserve in 1977, turn into a national park in 1980 and finally receive its World Heritage Status in 1991. The majority of Komodo people were traditional fishermen, but since the designation brought tourism in the area, many of them trying to shift their profession into the tourism sector. In early 2013, as a result of the growing industry, Komodo Village was designated by 35

the Indonesian government as a tourism village. This means that the development and management of the village will be handled mostly by its own community with the aim of supporting the tourism industry (Putra and Pitana, 2010). Interestingly, many Komodo people do not feel that the concept of tourism village is effective. They also consider that the status of Komodo as a biosphere reserve and a World Heritage Site have excluded them from their heritage due to their access to the resources of the island and its surroundings becoming increasingly restricted. They lost their ownership, management, access, and the benefits of their resources from conservation activity and tourism development.

In Komodo Village locals have believed for many years that Komodo dragons are their siblings.

Komodo in the local language is ‘sebae’ which means half, and local people attempt to protect the existence of this animal although the komodo is a deadly species. This kind of connection, inherited from their ancestors, that the komodo is a family member and they have responsibility to protect the animal is arguably an intangible value that is not understood well. It is argued by Jimura (2016) that many management systems tend to separate the sites and their local community, causing an exclusion of local people from their own heritage. This can be seen in Komodo National Park as the government’s effort to protect the site and animal is through prohibiting local residents to develop their way of living side by side with Komodo. The lack of understanding that a connection of the locals and the sites as more than just people and their place of living might be the main cause which triggers the separation of the management of a World Heritage Site and its local people. On Komodo island, the existing management system, carried out by local people, is apparently considered as insufficient by the local authority, and unexpectedly, removing this local tradition has led to some Komodos attacking the village.

The Komodo National Park itself has been trying to optimize its conservation strategies, both of the Komodo Island and its buffer zone, through the application of nine zones (See figure 2). All activities in Komodo National Park are only allowed in the permitted zone, including fishing and habitation.

Obviously, a zoning system that is developed by the national park is an improvement in the management strategy of the site, considering that the issues affecting Komodo dragons and their habitat includes over-fishing of reef resources, destructive fishing, and poaching (Erdmann, 2004).

Data from Erdmann (2004) also identified that the coral reef resources in the Komodo National Park area is among one the most seriously threatened in Indonesia. Reef gleaning, cyanide fishing, and blast fishing were performed heavily by the fishing community causing degradations of the marine ecosystem and fish stocks. Therefore, it is a relief that the government has taken further responsibility to ensure the sustainability of the Komodo National Park and its buffer zone.

36

Fugure 2. Zoning of Komodo National Park.

Source: http://www.komodonationalpark.org/zoning.htm (Accessed: 27 October 2016)

Nevertheless, the management system could be viewed as insufficient since it aims to sustain the environment without providing a solution to the sustainability of local community. In many tourism destinations local populations often have to compete with the tourism industry for the use of resources (Cole, 2012, Swarbrooke, 1999). To solve that conflict, a site needs a sufficient management of tourism and careful assessment of its impact for the area. Here on Komodo Island the local people’s intention is not to compete with the tourism industry for resources, but rather to compete with legal regulations that are created to protect the tangible form of their heritage which now belongs to the world due to the designation.

With the status of Komodo National Park as a World Heritage Site, it could be argued that the local community’s expectation is that the status would also maintain the life of those who live within heritage sites since the convention aims to ‘adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community…’ (UNESCO, 1972). Moreover, as there is now a concern that World Heritage Sites should also contribute to the sustainable development of 37

communities, it is not irrational for local communities to ask if being inscribed as a globally significant site, Komodo National Park could ‘contributes (sic) directly to alleviating poverty and inequalities by providing basic goods and services, such as security and health, through shelter, access to clean air, water, food and other key resources’ (UNESCO, 2011). On the contrary the inscription became a status which has driven international attention but meant local people lost their ability to access their own heritage.

3. Souvenirs seller in Komodo Village (Photo source: G. Afioma) Discussion Leask (2006) argues that though balancing a World Heritage Sites conservation activity and tourism activity is difficult, conservation activity should be the priority. As we look at Komodo Village, however, compromising local community’s social welfare is not a sustainable solution if we are to manage the heritage values holistically. It is difficult to understand the connection between natural World Heritage Sites and their intangible value, but Komodo village shows that the link between a natural site and its intangible values can be just as powerful. For the local community it is a

38

foundation of the traditional management system which allows them to protect the sites before a management plan was established or even before any global recognition.

As the number of tourists increases as a result of the designation of Komodo as a World Heritage Site, there is little positive economic impact for the villagers in Kampung Komodo. Facilities on the island have not improved s they are encouraged mostly in Labuan Bajo. Trying to participate in the industry, many villagers in Kampung Komodo now work in hand-crafting and selling souvenirs, even though visitors rarely visit the village and their shops. Therefore, it cannot be said that now the local community received significant benefits from tourism development in Komodo National Park Looking at Komodo Village as a case study we see a powerful argument that Disko and Tugendat.

(2014) and Olenasha’s (2014) assertion that local communities are often considered a threat to World Heritage Sites, can be confirmed. Komodo village has been on the island long before the national park was established and their own ways of conservation have been successful in preventing the extinction of Komodo dragons so far. Their traditional way of protecting the animals worked, but their importance to the site is still neglected. For many years local people in Komodo village have been blamed as those who contribute to the decline in environmental sustainability, but it can be argued that some of their more irresponsible actions happened as a result of their difficulties in accessing economic and social sustainability.

Therefore, if a World Heritage Site is to contribute to the sustainable development, it is nonnegotiable that the social and economic sustainability of local communities should come together with the environmental sustainability of the sites. In fact, ensuring the social welfare of local communities, which includes recognizing their connection with the World Heritage Site and making sure that the community does not need to compete with conservation strategy, would avoid environmental destruction. Arguably, even when a site is designated with an international status, local communities should still be able to access them as a local site as it was before the designation Authors Diana F. Rahman is a Doctoral researcher in the Institute of Sustainable Heritage, University College London, UK. She is interested in the management of World Heritage Sites and intangible heritage studies, also have done some research in tourism at heritage sites. Her current research is about sustainable tourism in the World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. Contact: diana.rahman.16@ucl.ac.uk Gregorius Afioma Researcher in Sun Spirit for Justice and Peace, Labuan Bajo, Indonesia has a degree in philosophy and now working as a researcher in Sunspirit for Justice and Peace.

Sunspirit is a non-government organisation focusing in research and advocation in the area of West Manggarai Indonesia. He is also an editor in chief of online magazine floresa.co. Contact: gregoriustujuh@gmail.com 39

Bibliography Auffenberg, W. 1981. The Behavioral Ecology of the Komodo Monitor. Gainesville, Florida: University Presses of Florida.

Burden, W. D. 1927. Dragon Lizards of Komodo: An Expedition to the Lost World of the Dutch East Indies. New York, London: G.P. Putnum's Sons.

Cole, S. 2012. A Political Ecology of Water Equity and Tourism: A Case Study from Bali. Annals of Tourism Research 39(2): 1221-1241.

Diamond, J. M. 1987. "Did Komodo dragons evolve to eat pygmy elephants?". Nature. 326 (6116): 832 Disko, S. and Tugendhat, H. (eds) 2014. World Heritage Sites and Indigenous People’s Rights.

Copenhagen: IWGIA. Pp.3-37.

Erdmann, A. M. 2004. A Natural History Guide to Komodo National Park. Available online from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadh659.pdf [Accessed: 29 October 2016].

Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A. 2009 Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts. New York: Routledge.

Johansen, R. 2012. Cultural Landscapes: Challenges and Possibilities: Vegaoyan- The Vega Archipelago, Norway. In Galla, A (ed) World Heritage Benefits Beyond Borders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 53-64 Joppe, M. 1996. Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Management, 17, 475–479 Kementrian Pariwisata Indonesia. 2016. Dokumen Pembangunan Destinasi Pariwisata Prioritas 20162019. Available online from http://www.kemenpar.go.id/userfiles/Paparan%20%20Deputi%20BPDIP.pdf [Accessed: 29 October 2016].

Leask, A. 2006. “World Heritage Site Designation”. In Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (eds) Managing World Heritage Sites. Oxford: Elsevier. Pp. 5-19.

Molan, L. 2014. Komodo dan Babak baru dunia kepariwisataan NTT. Antara News, 3 January.

Available online at http://www.antaranews.com/berita/412366/komodo-dan-babak-baru-duniakepariwisataan-ntt [Accessed 11 October 2016].

Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. 2003. Tourism and sustainability: Development and new tourism in the Third World 2nd edition. London: Routledge.

40

Olenasha, W. 2014 “A World Heritage Site in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Whose World?

Whose Heritage?” in in Disko, S. and Tugendhat, H. (eds) World Heritage Sites and Indigenous People’s Rights. Copenhagen: IWGIA. Pp.189-220.

Putra, I N., and Pitana, I, G. 2010. Pariwisata Pro-Rakyat: Meretas Jalan Mengentaskan Kemiskinan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Kementrian Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata Republik Indonesia.

Shackel, P.A. 2011. Pursuing Heritage, Engaging Community. Historical Archaeology 45 (1): pp 1-9.

Stirman, Y. 2011. Quo Vadis Pariwisata Manggarai Barat. Flores File, 27 Mei. Available online at http://floresfile.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/quo-vadis-pariwisata-manggarai-barat.html [Accessed 11 October 2016].

Swarbrooke, J. 1999 Sustainable Tourism Management. New York: CABI Publishing.

Trirahmi, M. 2013. Membanggakan! Pulau Komodo, 1 dari 7 Keajaiban Alam Warisan Dunia.

KabariNews, September 14. Available online at http://kabarinews.com/membanggakan-pulaukomodo-1-dari-7-keajaiban-alam-warisan-dunia/58548 [Accessed 11 October 2016].

UNESCO, 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO, 2011. Strategic Action Plan for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 2012-2022. Available online from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2011/whc11-18ga-11-en.pdf [Accessed 10 October 2016].

41

Shift of importance from built heritage to the local community: Story of the first Hungarian World Heritage Site Melinda Harlov Hollókő, the first Hungarian World Heritage site since 1987, is a perfect case study to investigate the changes in the theory, method and practices of earth-built architecture protection. The new status of the settlement led to Hungary’s acknowledged presence within the international cultural heritage community. Furthermore, it brought about the Hungarian government’s new focus on cultural heritage management, as well as new economic benefits and lifestyle for the locals. Numerous scholarly and governmental reports have been published about Hollókő in the last quarter century; these are critically analyzed to point out some elements of interconnectedness that must be reevaluated and used for future planning. The change in the use of, and perception about, earthbuilt architecture led to the attribution of its heritage status, and the intensive monument protection activities catalyzed the modification consequences of heritagizing a dying settlement among others in the locals’ common identity. This site is also a good case study to illustrate the changes of focus from the Venice Charter to the Nara Document as well as its most recent additions (Keitner 2000). The modified professional requirements (from mainly monument protection to intangible cultural heritage aspect and participatory management initiatives), the locals’ continuously forming responses, and the necessary preservation and adaptation actions on the protected groups of buildings create a vivid and complex picture that can serve as an example for future cases.

Fig.1 The village from bird’s-eye view http://bagyinszki.eu/archives/186 42

Hollókő is located in the mountains of Northern Hungary far from any major roads or important cities. The village that was first mentioned in the early 14th century consists of elongated parcels of land with both farm and residential buildings. Houses have earthen or mud walls supported by wooden purlin structures and are covered with reed or tiled roofs. The houses usually have three sections that have the functions of kitchen; (living-bed) room and a pantry and they also have the wooden porches (Wiebenson 1998) (Fig. 1). The international reputation of Hollókő was the motivation behind the formation of numerous other organizations focusing on the protection of earthen architecture in Hungary (Hollókői civil szervezetek 2011). It also led to many national and international specialized professional conferences, such as the Békés Vernacular Architectural Conference, which is held biannually (Népi Építészeti Tanács 2014), and meetings for the establishment of the Vernacular Architecture Charter (ICOMOS 1999). Despite the many positive outcomes, perception of the settlement and its transformation has changed drastically throughout the decades. Past processes of heritage management that focus solely on monument protection can be highly criticized within our contemporary imaginings of appropriate site management. The changing needs of the locals that are natural consequences of the modern lifestyle (instead of agricultural work more tourism related employment), which has led to the formation of a new village and the depopulation of the World Heritage site, is just one negative evolution of the site’s development. As indicated by the category of the settlement’s Facebook page, the attention for the site seems to have shifted from culture and protection of heritage, to tourism and leisure (Fig. 2).

Accordingly, the village is a perfect example of continuous transformation due to diverse time periods and the shift of emphasis in UNESCO World Heritage management.

Fig. 2 Facebook front page of Hollókő https://www.facebook.com/IloveHolloko?fref=ts 43

Different functional reuses of earth-built heritage at different periods What was lost completely before protection was put in place?

It is important to state that when the nation-wide monument protection system was established in 1957, the village was on the brink of extinction. Its population had dramatically decreased; it had lost its identical prefecture status and was a co-settlement with the neighboruring village, Nagylóc (N. Waigand 2013). Viola Tomori conducted research there in the 1930s that has been re-published multiple times, including in the 1980s, before the settlement received its World Heritage status.

Tomori writes about the inhabitants, describing their lifestyle as being symbiotically connected with nature and completely disconnected from the contemporary human world (Tomori 1986). Such a description interprets the settlement and the locals as ancient and almost pre-civilized. Further, Zoltán Szabó describes the village of 1930, stating that “the village exists isolated within its surrounding as the nut or the pearl in its shell” (Szabó 1986). This image alludes to the timelessness of the national narrative. Hollókő was first seen as possessing national value by demonstrating the authentic and original village setting and lifestyle. It was handled as a true representation of the national identity which is grounded in timelessness, tradition, continuity, originality, a uniting national narrative (including a founding myth) and the pure, archaic community (Hall 1997). The founding myth of Hollókő that is captured in the name of the settlement (raven stone), carries the same initiatives. It tells about a wicked noble man, who stole a young girl and captured in his castle.

But the nanny of this lady was a witch who ordered the ravens to take the castle into pieces stone by stone to free the girl. According to the myth that happened and the ravens built another castle from those stones that still stands next to Hollókő on a mountain. Most of these characteristics were identified in Hollókő, not just in the settlement as a group of buildings, but also through the local community and its lifestyle.

The re-establishment of this lost, ‘pure’ state has become highly significant to the academic professionals (such as ethnographers, monument conservators) and the ultimate factor in the realized heritagizing processes. Building structures and handcrafted motifs that were previously evaluated as a combination of regional characteristics are seen today as an identical and typical motif system of Palócz culture. The Palóczs, the ancestors of the locals, are an already integrated Slovakian minority, or even of Hollókő (Ács 1990). The traditional Palócz vernacular architecture trends (ICOMOS 1987), which are mentioned in the World Heritage nomination, date back to the 18th – 19th century, when this minority was a unique and distinct group. Their autonomous identity changed in the late 20th century when the settlement achieved its new status of international acknowledgement, and the named minority had already become integrated into mainstream society (Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon 1977-1982). Moreover, the entire village was completely burnt down in

44

1909, and only the structure and the architectural characteristics allude to the pre-20th century period (Koris 1992). Accordingly, the current status of Hollókő cannot be identified as original Palócz vernacular architecture (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 World Heritage nomination plaque the author’s photo Monument protection in the Socialist time After the monument protection specialists identified this area, they included the territory in official monument- and protected area lists. First it was mentioned among the monuments of the county (1954), then a management plan was formulated regarding the protection of the buildings, leading to the official status of group of monuments 3 in 1979. Due to the political and policy circumstances of that period (1950s - 1980s), the State first had to buy the buildings in order to be able to protect them. Hollókő’s successful preservation was the result of the fruitful cooperation between protection and policy professionals (Dobosyné 2013). Continuity of the existence of this group of monuments and the traditions that were considered to be integral to them was ensured by the protection of the buildings and Ferenc Mendele’s ideology behind it. Mendele (1934-1994) was an 3

Group of monuments is a category within the Hungarian monument protection system that means not just literally more than one monument next to each other but it also emphasizes that the value is in its existence as a set, for instance a street with houses from the same period but with different functions.

45

Ybl-awarded architect, conservationist, and the former director of the National Inspectorate of Historic Monuments. He held and adapted the ideology that every function has to be present within the monument buildings (Mendele 1969). Along these lines, later physical additions to the buildings have not been counted as mistakes or as having a negative impact on authenticity. For example, a Hopper window was added later on the roof of a house that originally served as the post office. Later this building became a post museum and hostel and to fulfill these functions the Hopper window was seen acceptable. Part of the justification for the newly added element was that it has an authentic look from outside as it resembles a garret window made of tin (Magyar Építőipar 1991) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 Hopper window on Postal Museum and Hostel Magyar Építőipar magazine Beyond the protection of the houses, the natural surroundings are also preserved with great care in order to save the traditional agricultural methods, which were still in use in the mid-20th century (Mendele 2013). Similarly, the management of the Office for the Protected Landscape Area of Hollókő has required even today an old, traditional method of gardening (small plot gardens) that is considered to be neither effective nor sustainable. The management plan prohibited entirely any construction on the surrounding hillsides in order to ensure the living museum concept of the settlement (Kiss 2013). UNESCO characterizes Hollókő as ”the living example of rural life,” even though the kind of lifestyle it lauds had died out during the country’s Socialist period, hence it is less a museum than a mausoleum of a certain way of life.

46

Both types of activities (the protection of the built and the natural values) were carried out mainly by scholars and professionals in the field of monument protection to preserve Hollókő. The conserved monument buildings went through a transformation in function due to the “socialist monument policy” that was prevalent at the time (Galambos and Román 1967). It was envisioned that the conserved monuments would serve the aims and needs of the contemporary public by becoming a venue for Socialist cultural and educational endeavors. Acknowledged values such as community, hard work and a simpler way of life could be experienced and practiced here and it was believed nature would fulfill and enrich the workers. Accordingly, the original and preserved houses were transformed into motels, artists’ residences and weekend houses. The main target groups to entice into using these transformed buildings were tourists, scouts and artists. In order to draw the attention of these groups to Hollókő, a national campaign was launched. As a part of the campaign, the village’s female chorus participated in and won the nation-wide, televised art talent contest called Fly Peacock in the 1970s (Farkas 2013).

After the change of regime Since 1989, the scholarly acknowledgement and appreciation of the Hungarian monument protection process, realized in Hollókő, have continued. This has also helped to strengthen the role of conservators both within the country and internationally. The higher education of this profession, as well as the necessary structure of institutions nation-wide and the necessary legal frameworks 4 (laws and regulations), were smoothly formulated after the political change of the country. Similarly, the fame of Hollókő was undiminished. A model of a house from Hollókő, with its original furniture, was exhibited at the 20th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention in 1993 at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. This was a representation of the village that illustrated Hungary’s architectural values and its folk art, as well as that of all of Central Europe (Koris 1993). The settlement became a special destination, a kind of exotic attraction for tourists, to whom the scenery and the folk programs were successfully offered (Örsi 2013). Locals who had already moved away from the old village of Hollókő and established a modern section of the settlement would get dressed in folk costumes to act out old traditions, songs and professions in the street of the old village, while tourists wandered through the scene participating in the events and buying from the locals. As such, the monument houses and the entire old village turned into a theatrical stage. Also, partly due to

4

In order to fulfil all the recommendations formulated by UNESCO World Heritage Convention certain instructions should be legally adopted by the member states. Hungary adopted some of these retrospectively after the democratization of the country.

47

the same aim, the street of the old village has been covered with concrete and electric streetlights have been introduced for the visitors’ convenience (Mezősiné 2001).

Fig. 5 Festival scene in Hollókő http://bagyinszki.eu/archives/186 A more recent social movement called ‘festivality’ has also manifested in the community (Gábor 2000). Today, festival after festival is organized in Hollókő. Not only is the traditional Easter festival celebrated (Hollókő Easter Festival 2015), but other diverse events are organized almost every month. Such events include wine feasts and the celebration of Saint Stephen, which recognizes the first king of the country and the anniversary of the establishment of Hungary on 20th August every year (Hollókő’s official website). At these occasions, both more traditional performances as well as their popularized and commercialized versions are performed that also shows the decreasing importance of authenticity over the aim of serving the aims and needs of the widest possible audience. These touristic events are advertised not just on the homepage of the settlement, but on various social media channels as well. Moreover, Hollókő exists outside its physical boundaries not just with the help of social media, but also by participating in programs outside the village. They also 48

create their own events outside the settlement, such as press conferences or introductory events in the capital, which is located nearly 100 kilometers away (A Centrál Kávézóban mutatkozik be Hollókő 2014). These events represent the shift of importance from the earth-built houses to the intangible elements of heritage, meaning the traditions and other elements of the folk culture, in which the architecture serves only as symbols or metaphors of human activities (Fig. 5).

Globalization, as the leading force of the current time period, has often opposing effects, as Stuart Hall points out (Hall 1997). If we apply his theory to Hollókő and see the UNESCO World Heritage initiative as a kind of cultural globalizing trend, we can understand why the participating actors have different views and possibilities. Based on this chain of thought, the village represents this complexity depending on whether Hollókő is connected to the past or to the present and if it is researched in its smaller or wider location. These views can also be mixed in numerous ways providing new combinations and understandings. For example, while the inhabitants moved out almost completely from the monument buildings and established a new settlement next to the authentic one, they earn their income from the tourism and marketing activities of the historic settlement (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6 The map of Hollókő (the yellow spot north to Dózsa Gy.u. is the new village) http://www.gkrte.hu/public/terkep/28.jpg

49

As such, they maintain their unique local identity, while they use the benefits of the World Heritage status. It is important to note that there are not many career opportunities in that region; tourism is almost the only way to earn a living. Accordingly, those who stay in the village look for any manner of participating in the local tourism industry, either by joining any folk ensemble in the village, working at the tourist office, or providing accommodation. Locals intended to buy back the monument houses from the State in order to have bigger role and higher level of independence in the management of the local tourism, but this initiative failed. An agreement that would ensure the protection of the monuments and the level of management freedom the local community wanted to achieve could not be achieved (Kovács-Molnár-Farkas 2000).

Even though many try to maintain the original and traditional identity of Hollókő, the settlement is not a living village anymore and never will be again. Homi K. Bhabha offers a possible solution through the notion of translation. Translation is a type of identity construction or reestablishment that on the one hand connects strongly to the past and to the traditions, but on the other hand it incorporates no intention to turn back to the past because such an endeavor is impossible (Bhabha 1994). If this notion is adapted to the case study of Hollókő, the researched Hungarian settlement and its local community need to have a dual identity that is interconnected. This identity must both protect and pass on its heritage as values (tangible and intangible elements alike), but also needs to develop a contemporary Hollókő identity (not just as the keeper of the lost values and lifestyle) (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7 local girl with modern jewelry and in flip-flops acts out intangible heritage http://kalandokcirm.blogspot.hu/2010/06/holloko.html 50

Hollókő would not have reached such success only through the activities of the locals. Rather, both scholarly professionals and political support were needed and still play a vital role. Similarly, without the daily activities of the inhabitants of the village, not only the heritage values but most probably the settlement itself would have disappeared.

Conclusion Based on certain scholars’ views, these changes are signs of the natural adaptation to modern times (Fejérdy 2013). Others would initiate a rethinking of the concept of Hollókő, as the originally defined values of the settlement, the named characters for which the protection started at the beginning, are not fully present there—for instance, the locals have moved out from the old buildings, hence there is no example of a living settlement anymore (Sonkoly 2010). The representation of the settlement changed from the romanticized nationalistic interpretation of the frozen former lifestyle in “a nut shell” to the consciously protected heritage by the inhabitants. It is important to point out that even though Hollókő has lost the features through which it gained its World Heritage status, there has not been any complaint or reaction in this regard from the international community. It is partly because the national heritage professionals as well as the members of the international professional institutions have understood that it is impossible to force the local community to live a pre-19th century lifestyle, and the transformations—such as the enactment of the traditions and the protection of the monument buildings without living in them—are still serving the aim of preserving and sharing the heritage values of Hollókő. Another reason for accepting these changes is due to the modifications within the international organization which has moved the focus from the solely tangible heritage to the lifestyle and the local community and culture as well as emphasizing cultural relativity, participatory actions, local values and intercultural tolerance over authenticity, originality and continuity (Fig. 8).

51

Fig. 8 Montage of Hollókő with its tangible and intangible heritage http://www.itthon.eoldal.hu/cikkek/termeszetvedelem/holloko.html Author Melinda Harlov is a PhD candidate at the Atelier Department of European Social Sciences and Historiography of Eötvös Loránd University. Her research topic is the establishment of UNESCO World Heritage Cultural sites in Hungary as a combination of the international norms in the national context. Contact: melindaharlov@gmail.com

Bibliography Népi Építészeti Tanács. (2014). Ki van itthon?, Népi Építészeti Tanács, Budapest.

A Centrál Kávézóban mutatkozik be Hollókő. (2014). http://orientpress.hu/127039. Ács, I. 1990. Hollókő, Corvina, Budapest.

Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture, Routledge, London.

Dobosyné A.A. and Kovács, D. (eds.). 2013. Hollókő örökség, ICOMOS, Budapest, p.7-11.

Farkas, T. 2013. Beszélgetés Kelemen Istvánnéval, Piroska nénivel in Hollókő örökség, ICOMOS, Budapest, p. 179-189.

52

Fejérdy, T. 2013. Hollókő a világörökségi falvak között in Hollókő örökség. ICOMOS, Budapest. p. 157169.

Gábor, K. 2000. A középosztály szigete, Belvedere, Szeged.

Galambos, F., Román A. 1967. A Balaton környék népi építészeti együttesei, Műemlékvédelem, XI./1., p. 14-24.

Hall, S. 1997. A kulturális identitásról in Feischmidt M. (ed). Multikulturalizmus, Osiris Kiadó, Budapest.

Hollókő’s official website. http://www.holloko.hu/hu.

Hollókői Civil Szervezetek. 2011. http://www.helyicivil.hu/h/holloko-egyesulet-alapitvany.

Hollókő Easter Festival. 2015. press release, http://www.holloko.hu/hu/letoltes//letolthetodokumentumok/sajtoanyag-husveti-fesztival-2015.doc.

Keitner, C. 2000. UNESCO and the Issue of Cultural Diversity. Review and Strategy, 1946–2000, UNESCO, Paris.

Kiss, J. 2013. A világörökségi Hollókő Ófalu műemléki, természeti értékeinek, védelmének rövid ismertetése in Hollókő örökség, ICOMOS, Budapest, p. 143-153.

Koris, J. 1992. A hollókői magyar pavilion. Műemlékvédelem, 4, p. 245-246.

Koris, J. 1993. Hollókői magyar pavilion Párizsban: Világörökség kiállítás a párizsi UNESCO palotában, Magyar Építőipar, 4, p. 117-118.

Kovács D., Molnár M., Farkas T. 2000. Hollókő felemelése és …?. in Ferenc Bódi and Antal Bőhm (eds.) Sikeres helyi társadalmak Magyarországon, Agroinform, Budapest, p. 95-121.

Magyar Építőipar. 1991. Postamúzeum és vendégház, Magyar Építőipar, 1 / 2, p. 36-37.

Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon 1977-1982. Palócok, 4th volume, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Mendele, F. 1969. Hollókő műemléki jelentőségű területének védelme, Műemlékvédelem, XIII/4, p.

201-211.

53

Mendele, F. 2013 Hollókő műemléki védelme in Hollókő örökség, ICOMOS, Budapest, p. 31-41.

Mezősiné dr. Kozák, É. 2001. Hollókő, Száz magyar falu könyvesháza series, Grafika-Typopress Nyomda, Budapest.

N. Waigand, M. 2013. Hollókői kezdetek, in Hollókő örökség. ICOMOS, Budapest, p. 69-79. Örsi, K. 2013. A tájépítész emlékei Hollókő védelmével és helyreállításával kapcsolatban a kezdetektől napjainkig (50 év), in, Hollókő örökség, ICOMOS, Budapest, p. 137-142.

Sonkoly, G. 2010. A tárgyi (világ) örökség hermeneutikája: Hollókő példája, Magyar Múzeumok Magazinja, http://www.magyarmuzeumok.hu/tema/143_.

Szabó, Z. 1986) Czifra nyomorúság: A Cserhát, Mátra, Bükk földje és népe. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Tomori, V. 1986. Egy palóc falu lélekrajza, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Wiebenson, D.; Sisa, J. and Lővei, P. eds. 1998. The Architecture of Historic Hungary, MIT, Cambridge.

54

Call for Papers Next Edition: World Heritage and Tourism This is a Call for Papers for contributions to furnace, an open access, postgraduate/ graduate journal. Edited by doctoral researchers in the Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage (IIICH) at the University of Birmingham. furnace hopes to be a facilitator for sparking debates and discussions surrounding the expanding and diversifying disciplinary field of cultural heritage.

The World Heritage Convention only mentions tourism once, and it does so in the context of threats of a magnitude potentially great enough to warrant putting a site on the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger. When tourism is not being discussed as a direct threat to World Heritage Sites, it is typically considered in terms of providing appropriate facilities for visitors or with the potential economic benefits that tourism can bring both to individual sites and their surrounding areas.

However, there is a need to consider how tourists engage with and experience World Heritage in broader terms. The Budapest Declaration outlines a number of strategic objectives, of which the fourth is to “increase public awareness, involvement and support for World Heritage through Communication” (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2002, emphasis original). This theme is expanded on in the ‘awareness-raising and education’ section of the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015, VI.C). Although there is a clear emphasis on communication of the key themes of World Heritage through education, the general public, including tourists, are also identified as a significant audience.

This issue will examine the theme of World Heritage and tourism in relation to the experience of World Heritage sites by tourists, exploring the nature of communication to tourists and the many and varied ways they may interact with the sites they visit. As tourism is characterised by its short term nature, is it possible for individuals to gain anything more than a surface level experience of 55

World Heritage, and is this different to the sort of experience they might have at sites not inscribed on the List. We are seeking submissions of papers with a focus on exploring the ways in which tourists encounter World Heritage and how they may differ from other communities of interest at these sites. Papers of both a theoretical or case study basis are welcomed. Broad themes for the issue include: – The ways in which World Heritage values are represented to tourists and the resulting effects on tourist experience; – The role of World Heritage status and values in the construction of tourism imaginaries of destinations; and – How significant is World Heritage in tourist narratives of place?

The theme of the 6th issue of the IIICH Postgraduate journal furnace is World Heritage and Tourism.

Full papers are required by Friday, December 30th 2016. They should be sent to: furnace@contacts.bham.ac.uk . Decisions will be made quickly by the editorial board. Those accepted will be reviewed and corrected for publication launch on Friday 2nd June 2017.

See the webpage for further information on submissions. https://furnacejournal.wordpress.com/ For further information or any questions, please contact us via the email above or tweet at @furnacejournal

56

Calls for Book Reviewers: Barbiera, I. Choyke, A. M. Rasson, J. A. 2009. Materializing Memory. Archaeological material culture and the semantics of the past. Barbiera, I. Choyke, A. M. Rasson, J. A. (eds). BAR International Series 1977.

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

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

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

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

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

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

57

Forthcoming Conferences: Second CfP - BRIDGE: The Heritage of Connecting Places and Cultures Dates: 6-10 July 2017 Location: Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site, Shropshire, UK Second Call for Papers Deadline: 16 January 2017 About: Bridges physically and symbolically connect places, communities and cultures; they remind us of division while at the same time providing the means for unification. This conference seeks to explore heritage of bridges –not only as remarkable physical structures connecting places and cultures but also as symbolic and metaphorical markers in the landscape.

Indicative themes of interest to the conference include: The materials and technologies of bridges – the heritage of form and function National and local iconographies of bridges Narratives of bridge construction and destruction Communities united and communities divided by bridges Poetics of the bridge - representing the bridge in art, literature and film Love and death on the bridge The language of the bridge – metaphors and meanings in social life Touring bridges – travel narratives and tourism economies Alternative bridge crossings – tunnels and ferries Please see the website for full details and call for papers.

Visit our website: https://bridgeconference.wordpress.com/call-for-papers/

58

59