Heritage as ‘tangible and intangible’

UNESCO (2006) in its publication Cultural Heritage and Local Development, argued that heritage can be divided into two main categories, notably, a heritage that presents itself in a material and tangible form and a heritage that is intangible but manifests itself in the form of knowledge and practices, values, norms and belief systems. According to the National Heritage Resources Act (1999), tangible heritage resources include all heritage, that is material in form, such as historic buildings, art and artefacts, relics, archaeological sites, and monuments. Tangible heritage also encompasses natural resources such as the rivers, seas, soil, mountains, the forest and animals (Lowenthal, 2005; Smith, 2006). Tangible heritage resources can also be classified as movable or immovable (Dumbrell, 2012). Immovable tangible heritage resources includes monuments and landscapes, seas and forests, whilst movable tangible heritage resources include heritage objects such as stone age tools, warfare artefacts e.g. an assegai, a canon, or Zulu shield (UNESCO, 2003; Dumbrell, 2012). Most tangible movable heritage resources constitute museum collections and are readily accessible for education and research (Shava & Zazu, 2012).

Intangible heritage, on the other hand incorporates a wide range of non-material heritage.

These, as UNESCO (2003, 2006) and Deacon (2004) put it, include oral traditions and expressions, social practices, traditional craftsmanship and knowledge systems concerning nature. In southern Africa notable examples of intangible cultural heritage practices include the Zulu reed dance, Xhosa girls’ initiation ceremony (Intonjane), the worship of Mwali (Okuruo) in Botswana and the Karanga rain making ceremony (Mukwerera) in the case of Zimbabwe. Intangible heritage are often representations of the culture of a particular people and as Munjeri (2004) claimed, these entail the wider frame within which societies function.

The conception of heritage as tangible or intangible has become popular and is now used widely in heritage resources management practices (UNESCO, 2003, 2010). Significant to note is that over the last two decades more emphasis is being placed on the need to acknowledge that tangible and intangible forms of heritage, like natural and cultural heritage, are also interconnected or intertwined. UNESCO argued that:

All intangible aspects such as knowledge systems, the principles of action or the values and beliefs of man, cannot be considered as heritage if they cannot be shared, and given sensible form – words, objects, gestures, representations and even behaviours. (2006: 09).

Drawing our attention to the interconnected nature of tangible and intangible heritage, Ndoro (2005) pointed out that meaning and importance imbued in monuments, like the Great Zimbabwe ruins and the Great Pyramids in Egypt lay not only in the physical appearance but also in the reason behind their construction and existence. In concurrence, Smith (2006) argued that monument sites and rock art are not inherently valuable, but derive value and meaning from the present day cultural processes and activities (intangible) that are undertaken around them. Advocacy for recognition of the dialectical relation between tangible and intangible heritages comes against a historical background of heritage practices that allegedly emphasised tangible over intangible heritage resources. Pettman (2001), cited in Munjeri (2004), talked of a world in which that which is visible and concrete takes precedence over that which is immaterial. Munjeri (ibid.) argued that such an approach to conception of heritage is narrow and short sighted. In light of the above discussion it is worth highlighting that the value of the Phiphidi falls in Limpopo Province, as a case example, lies in the intangible cultural practices that the Ramunangi people conduct at the falls perhaps more so than the falls being merely a tangible heritage resource. Thus, the tension between the Ramunangi clan and the tourism developer may be due to both parties’ failure to acknowledge the connection between tangible and intangible aspects of heritage resources and how this determines the value and desired use of the Phiphidi falls. This failure may also be a manifestation of the tendency of current heritage legislation and management practices to emphasise the material nature of heritage over its intangible aspects as already pointed out earlier in this chapter (Manyanga, 2000; Ndoro, 2005; UNESCO, 2006). Again heritage education practices that acknowledge the interconnected nature of tangible and intangible aspects of heritage resources, as much as the evolving and dissonant nature of heritage could go a long way in mediating challenges such as those of Ramunangi and Phiphidi falls. The diagram below represents the interaction between tangible and intangible heritage and how these influence people’s construction of what heritage is. The diagram that follows re-emphasises the points raised in this chapter.

Figure 2: The interaction between tangible and intangible heritage and how this influences the way heritage is constructed

As discussed above, heritage constructs are influenced and shaped by both tangible and intangible aspects tied to that which we perceive as heritage (De la Torre, 2002;

Mason, 2002; Deacon, 2004). To illustrate this I use an example of pottery. Pottery as an intangible cultural practice draws its meaning and value from the tangible clay pots that it produces for use by people. Both the practice and the object resulting from it are dialectically related and to preserve them requires a holistic and relational thinking. Pottery as a cultural practice has evolved over time within Africa (Elias, 1970, cited in Smith & Riley, 2009; Benjamin, 1973, cited in Smith & Riley, 2009).

As people changed from cooking using traditional clay pots such as tsaiya and shambakodzi in the case of Zimbabwe, to using modern enamel pots, pottery as a practice and the clay pots it produced lost value, and became extinct in some parts of the country. What then emerged within the country is, as Benjamin (ibid.) pointed out, mechanised pottery and mass production of clay pots for foreign tourists. So pottery as an intangible cultural art lost its aura, and the clay pot lost its functionalities (that of cooking and holding water), becoming decorative or aesthetic. The picture below, taken at Great Zimbabwe monument, shows how shape and functionality of traditional

What is heritage, whose heritage, and what is

heritage valuedfor?

Tangible

Landscapes, mountains, biodiversity, the built environment, monuments, shrines, rock art,

traditional art and crafts

Intangible

Oral history and traditions, values and norms, social cultural practices, e.g. rituals, ceremonies, songs and dance, knowledge systems and practices relating to

nature and the universe

Zimbabwean pottery has evolved over time. Note how the clay pots are arranged starting with the original towards the most modern, and oriented to satisfy the taste of visiting foreign tourists.

As already noted, over-emphasising one aspect of a heritage resource, be it tangible or intangible, over another is often problematic, and has varying implications for heritage resource management practice. This is because tangible and intangible aspects of a heritage resource are dialectically related (Ouzman, 2003; Katsamudanga, 2004).

In rounding up the discussion on how I worked with the concept of heritage, I re-emphasise that the only thing that is certain about heritage is that people interpret it differently (Graham et al., 2000; Smith, 2006). Apart from this I also argue that heritage is a discursive and ontologically relational concept, hence it is generally

“what we choose” (Steyn, 2011: 9). I further argue that working with such a fluid concept of heritage is more likely to allow us to be tolerant and accommodative of the diversity of cultures and practices inherent in post colonial southern Africa. In a recent study (Dichaba, 2010) talked about how a shift from constructing heritage as monumental to being a cultural landscape allowed for inclusion of rural communities’

views and values concerning heritage sites in post colonial Botswana.

Figure 3: A collection of pottery made by local women at Great Zimbabwe cultural village

Modern-------Older

Older

Another point needing re-emphasis is that our constructs of heritage also influence the way we frame and constitute heritage management and education practices (Head, 2000). It determines the way we develop and work with policy. For education it shapes the way we interpret and present heritage to the learner or general public. If we construct heritage as narrowly natural or tangible, we often run into the problem of failing to recognise and harness the interconnected nature of forms of heritage to strengthen and situate management and education practices. This thesis further argues that overemphasis of natural over cultural heritage, or tangible over intangible heritage, which is still apparent in post colonial southern Africa, renders current heritage management and education practices inadequate for addressing the challenges that the heritage sector in the region is faced with (see Section 1.2.1 and Chapters Eight and Nine). The need to work with a broader and inclusive construct of heritage in both management and education practices is critical, and adds significance to the goal and focus of this study (see Section 1.3).