Intersection between Intangible Cultural Heritage and World Cultural Heritage

Another important aspect is the conceptual and legal intersection between the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention and the World Heritage Convention. Considerable

Knut Einar Larsen, ed., Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention: 67

Proceedings, Nara, Japan, 1–6 November 1994 (Paris/Tokyo: UNESCO World Heritage Centre/Japan Agency for Cultural Affairs, 1995). On the Nara Conference on Authenticity, see also chapter 5.3.4.

Cameron, “Conservation,” 42.

68

Kristal Buckley, “An Overview of the Round Table,” in Proceedings of the Round Table (14–16 March 2007) 69

organized by the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage on Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions, eds. Christina Cameron and Christine Boucher, 165 (Montréal: Université de Montréal, 2007), http://www.patrimoinebati.umontreal.ca/documents/Table_ronde_2007_Proces-verbaux.pdf.

Stovel, “1972 and 2003 Conventions,” 74–75. On the presentation and illustration of the six cultural criteria,

70

research exists concerning this subject matter. While existing differences foster the 71 categorical and dichotomous thinking about cultural heritage, the overlap provides potential for better understanding the relationship between tangible and intangible heritage. A comprehensive study on the influence of recognizing Intangible Cultural Heritage not only on the interpretation of Outstanding Universal Value, but also on the understanding of World Cultural Heritage in general seems to be missing.

Some authors have emphasized the differences between the two Conventions and their respective cultural heritage concepts. Taking a legal perspective, Yusuf notes that “the main objective of the 2003 Convention is to ensure that intangible cultural heritage is considered and safeguarded in its own right, as defined in the Convention, and not only as associative elements of tangible heritage.” The tangible and the intangible in this context are understood 72 as distinct heritage categories, that is, the materiality of place on one hand and knowledge, skills, and practices on the other. A main difference between the two Conventions that was 73 already mentioned earlier is the omission of the idea of Outstanding Universal Value in relation to the 2003 Convention. Naurath observes that the Conventions have different scopes in that there is “a distinction between outstanding properties and representative customs.” 74 While World Heritage is intended to be of value beyond national boundaries, Intangible Cultural Heritage is grounded in local context and therefore representative. While this and other differences can be justified from a legal and administrative point of view, the

For example Janet Blake, “Relationship to 1972 World Heritage Convention,” in Commentary on the 2003 71

Unesco Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 5–7 (Leicester: Institute of Art and Law, 2006); Guido Carducci, “The 1972 World Heritage Convention in the Framework of Other Unesco Conventions on Cultural Heritage,” in The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A Commentary, eds. Francesco Francioni and Federico Lenzerini, 374–75 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Craig Forrest, “The Tangible and Intangible Relationship,” in International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage, 384–85 (London: Routledge, 2010).

Yusuf, “Cultural Heritage,” 42.

72

Rössler “Tangible and Intangible,” 65 and 67.

73

Naurath, “Looking for Values,” 121.

fragmentation of the concept of cultural heritage obscures the interrelations between the tangible and the intangible. 75

Other authors have stressed the overlap that exists between the two concepts. Stovel in the context of the 2007 Round Table observes that although “the two Conventions are spoken of as the ‘tangible’ and ‘intangible’..., each deals exhaustively with both the tangible and the intangible cultural heritage.” The participants of the Round Table noted moreover that 76 overlap occurred “in the area of human creative activities that are expressed in association with specific locations.” This mostly concerns the intersection between criterion (vi) and the 77 idea of cultural spaces associated with Intangible Cultural Heritage. Skounti investigated the links between World Heritage sites and Intangible Cultural Heritage expressions and notes that these links can be very different, “in some cases [referring to] a simple spatial cohabitation and in others a very strong cultural link.” 78

Another important aspect of the intersection is the influence of the 2003 Convention and other UNESCO conventions on the conception of Outstanding Universal Value. As already mentioned previously, various authors have written about the history or interpretation of World Heritage value. However, only one text was found that explicitly links the question of understanding Outstanding Universal Value to intangible heritage. In an article published in 2006, Rudolff investigates the crossover from and intersection between Outstanding Universal Value and cultural diversity. She describes the debate of the World Heritage Committee on 79 World Heritage value in 2004 and 2005, and speculates on stimuli coming from the 2003 Ahmad Skounti, “The Lost Ring. Unesco’s World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage,” Millî Folklor 23,

75

no. 89 (2011): 39.

Stovel, “1972 and 2003 Conventions,” 71.

76

Christina Cameron and Christine Boucher, eds., Proceedings of the Round Table (14–16 March 2007) 77

organized by the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage on Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions, 185 (Montréal: Université de Montréal, 2007), http://www.patrimoinebati.umontreal.ca/documents/ Table_ronde_2007_Proces-verbaux.pdf.

Skounti, “The Lost Ring,” 36.

78

Britta Rudolff, “Between ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ and ‘Cultural Diversity’: Heritage Values in

79

Transition,” in Constructing World Heritage, eds. Marie-Theres Albert and Sieglinde Gauer-Lietz, 109–20 (Frankfurt am Main: IKO-Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation, 2006).

Convention and the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Rudolff discusses the difficulty of reconciling Outstanding Universal Value with cultural diversity, which has become increasingly important since the early 1990s. She argues for interpreting Outstanding Universal Value as cultural diversity while acknowledging that the World Heritage value would thus lose its benchmark character. 80