The purpose of this paper is to assess various researches on heritage so as to understand the general concept of heritage. In its discussion, the paper tries to identify the difference and the similarities between heritage and patrimony. France spearheads on the use and the development of the concept and definition of heritage with a semantic change at a certain historical episode. The paper also reviews the Ethiopian use, understanding and interpretation of the term heritage. Though there is a different interpretation and understanding between the word heritage and patrimony from the perspective of two sides – the French and the English, it is also important to note that nowadays there are different literatures and scholars that use the two terms interchangeably.
1.General Concept of Heritage, as Enlightened in France
To begin with, we need to understand the differences and the similarities between the word patrimony and the word heritage. Patrimony is derived from the Latin word, Pater, which means father or the paternal line (Legacy vs Heritage-WordReference Forums).
In France, the word patrimony was called by different names like monument, héritage and cultural property. However, the French Revolution became an important upheaval for the use of the word patrimony in the sense of its present meaning. The French Revolution brought a broad meaning of patrimony because at this time all properties including the goods and properties of a king were nationalized as public goods replacing the regular usage of the term “monument” which was a reference to past testimonials (Marilena, 2010: 321 - 322). In a precise manner, the idea of preservation and conservation of historical monuments began in France in 1862. At this time, it was the amateurs who played a great role in the preservation of these monuments, and later professional archaeologists started to study and group into different specializations (Restoration in France, A Gradually-Developing Consciousness).
In the last decades of the 20th century a new semantic change was brought with reference to the use of patrimony, and the concept of patrimony possessed an expansion into the cultural dimension especially in the period between1930 – 1945 (Marilena, 2010: 321 - 322).
In English, the term “patrimony” has several translations. In a purely financial direction, it expresses the moral capability of a person to inherit a certain treasure or an asset/property which contains a vague term, “wealth” that approaches the French term “richesse”. When it is a question of translating the term “patrimony of humanity”, whether it is natural or cultural, the term “heritage” is generally retained, and in English it is not wide and systematic when we compare and contrast with the French. For example, the French term «patrimoine génétique» is translated in English as “genotype”. [But the meaning of the French term “patrimoine génétique” refers to the goods inherited from a father or a mother or the transmission of heritage from generation to generation on the basis of lineage]. Moreover, the word “inheritance”, the act to inherit, is sometimes preferred to the French term “patrimoine” in the understanding of the English side. Apparently, in the English dictionaries, the term “patrimony” only recovers the French concept of héritage. However, many authors choose to translate “patrimoine” in its broadest direction i.e. “natural patrimony” (Putin, 2008: 47).
The word heritage is also found in the French literature possessing the term, héritage, but in this case the meaning is different from the English context. When it is used in French, heritage refers to only part of the inherited goods and thus the vision is vertical as opposed to patrimoine which has a horizontal vision more than a mere act of inheritance (Marilena, 2010: 321 - 322).
Today, the French term “patrimoine” treated as equivalent to the English word “heritage”, which is used as a globalized name. In connection with this, terms like patrimonialisation or incorporations into heritage are come to be applicable. With respect to patrimonialisation, Putin has pointed out four patrimonial approaches (Putin, 2008: 7). These are:
- The question of the holder of the patrimony: Patrimony does not exist alone. Rather, its existence is depended on the relation between the holder of the patrimony and the patrimony itself.
- The question of “common”: A patrimony cannot be a sole property of public or private.
- The question of identity: Patrimony is mainly attached with the holder of an individual or a group.
- The role of patrimony as a bridge for the past, present and future: Patrimony is a meta-account that serves the present society to memorize the past and provide information for future generations.
2. Definition of Heritage
With regard to the definition, there are different scholars who interpreted the term heritage or patrimony in different ways. To mention some of them, the Center for Heritage and Society in the University of Massachusetts defined: “Heritage is the full range of our inherited traditions, monuments, objects, and culture. Most important, it is the range of contemporary activities, meanings, and behaviors that we draw from them. It is an essential part of the present we live in--and of the future we will build (What is Heritage? 1).” Others define that heritage is something that gives us a sense of identity and the elements of it make us, as human beings in particular and as a nation at large (What is Heritage? 2).
Still others explained heritage in the following manner: “Heritage frequently selects and clarifies certain pasts and infuses them with present purposes. It lends cultural capital and value to historic places that may have lost their value otherwise, and it offers a `hereness’ that reproduces stable, historic identities, allowing places to enhance their distinctiveness and identity in the globalizing world.” In this view, it is further elaborated that heritage is by nature selective, and it reflects the good and evil images of the past. Heritage is not a full representation of history for it celebrates only a certain version of the past. It gives a socially constructed and negotiated identity in which the actors for this desired image are often local officials and strategic planners (Atkinson et al., 2002: 28-29). The term heritage can be defined as something we need to keep. But it also “implies ownership and value to particular groups of humanity” (Carter et al., 1997: 46).
Though there is no uniformity between countries and regions of the world and so it may not be applicable in the same way, it is important to mention the broad definition of UNESCO which says that heritage is anything cultural or natural that includes both the gift of nature and the product of the creativity and labor of man from the prehistory up until the present day that describes and witnesses to the evolution of nature and which has a major value in its form, scientific, historical, artistic and handicraft content ( Yahaya Ahmad, 2006: 292–300).
3. Heritage in the Case of Ethiopia
Ethiopian literatures have different expressions and concepts with regard to heritage. The Proclamation of Number 229/58 E.C. defines that heritage is anything made by man before 1850 E.C. But since this definition was not inclusive in expressing the general meaning of heritage, another Proclamation was issued in number 36/1982 E.C and gave an elaborative definition similar to the meaning put by UNESCO (Proclamation Number 229/1958 E.C., Proclamation Number 36/1982).
So, the conceptual interpretation of cultural heritage in Ethiopia is not different from what is stated in the forgoing discussion. The proclamation of the Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (ARCCH) under the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in Ethiopia, after defining cultural heritage in a similar way as stated in the forgoing discussion, illustrates the following points as part of the large domain of the concept of cultural heritage (ARCCH, 1984).
Tangible cultural heritage means cultural heritage that is palpable (can be seen and felt) and include moveable and immovable historical and manmade objects.
Moveable cultural heritage means cultural heritage not attached to the foundation and that can be moved from place to place easily and which are handed down from the past generation. It includes:
- Parchment manuscripts, stone paintings and implements, sculptures and statues made of gold, silver, bronze, iron, copper or of any other mineral, or wood, stone inscriptions of skin, ivory, horn, archaeological and bone or earth or of any other material, and also paleontological remains.
- Written and graphic documents or cinematographic and photographic documents or sound and video recordings
- Coins made of gold, silver, bronze, copper or any other materials
- Ethnographic implement, ornament and or any other cultural object of nations, nationalities and peoples.
Immoveable cultural heritage means cultural heritage attached to the ground with a foundation and which can be moved only by dismantling which includes:
- Sites where cultural heritage have been discovered, paleontological, historic and prehistoric archaeological sites,
- Buildings, memorial places, monuments, palaces,
- Remains of ancient towns, burial places, cave paintings and inscriptions,
- Church, monastery, mosque or any other places of worship.
Intangible cultural heritage means any cultural heritage that cannot be felt by hands but can be seen or heard and includes different kinds of performances and show, folklore, religious believes, wedding and mourning ceremonies, music, drama, literature and similar other cultural values, traditions and customs of a society.
The literal meaning of the term heritage (ቅርስ-kiris as pronounced by the Ethiopian official language, Amharic) is an object which is inherited from a father or the past generation with precious value, and thus it needs to be protected. Sometimes, the ordinary people use the term ‘kiris’ for any tangible object inherited from their father or their past generation regardless of its preciousness – they preserve the object for the memory of their forefathers or their past generations.
From an academic point of view, one can trace back to the remote past to know as to when and in what context heritage was used in Ethiopia. The common language for heritage in Ethiopia was associated with the word, monument (-hawult). Obelisks which were said to be constructed before the 1st century AD clutch sources of inscriptions that explain the word ‘hawult’. Therefore, the term monument is an ancient terminology in Ethiopia which was used to express heritage.
In the second half of the 19th century, the emperor of Ethiopia, Menelik II (r. 1889 – 1913) began an archaeological and historical study to identify and preserve the antiquities of his predecessors of the medieval rulers of Ethiopia. The search for traces of the Christian past of Ethiopia by the emperor was focused on the ruins of churches and royal sites. The emperor had encouraged archaeological studies to be carried out. For example, in 1905 he expressed his desire for the German archaeological mission to study the historical sites in Ethiopia (Bairu Tafla, 1981: 495-512, 507). The aim of the program by the emperor was to uncover historical objects associated with his predecessors. The objects could vary from the ruins of royal palaces and churches to coins, stone paintings, sculptures and statues and parchment manuscripts. This indicates that the concept of heritage began to acquire a semantic change in Ethiopia towards the end of the 19th century as the notion of heritage far more advanced than the solitary view of associating monument with heritage.
4. Management Issues of Heritage
Nowadays, it is observed that there is a great interest towards patrimonies, for the peoples and governments of many nations tend to think that patrimonies are one of the components that made possible to trace their identities. As a result, governments are committed to protect archaeological sites and antiquities being endorsing legislative laws (Bordie et tal., 2006: IX). But there are people who abused the antiquities by moving them from the archaeological sites irrespective of the scientific methods. Those people are often regarded as “looters and condemned by professional archaeologists”. The great challenge against the antiquities is illicit trafficking. The trade of antiquities has increased overwhelmingly in every nations of the world (Ibid,: x).
Apart from interpreting heritage in an abstract way, practicing how to manage heritage is crucial. “The practice of heritage management is currently undergoing a process of transition, in which different interpretations, strategies of management and social groups compete for authority (Waterton et al., 2006: 342).” Groups and individuals along with associations as well as those involved in its management should be provided with opportunities to contribute to and participate in understanding the cultural significance of a place. Where appropriate, they should also have opportunities to participate in its conservation and management (Ibid., 67).
Indigenous people are the primary source of information on the value of their heritage and how it is best conserved. So, it is a wise decision to offer the opportunity for an active role in any project or activity involving their heritage. For many places, the role of people with skills and experiences in conservation is to respond to requests for advice from people with spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place (Ibid., 68-69). The obligation to involve people is accompanied by the responsibility of those involved with management or undertaking a project to listen, learn and respond (Ibid., 350).
The idea of preserving a certain cultural heritage place with its items included seems simple and achievable. However, in practical terms there are constraints such as technical, economic, political, and social difficulties accompanied by opportunitism. Nevertheless, a certain heritage site needs to have three important management tools: developments, controls and communications. In this concept, development refers to the infrastructure and the facilities found in the heritage site. Controls have to do with the laws and guidelines which are important to conduct surveillance or to enforce using specific heritage legislation, patrol staff, security cameras and similar other controlling methods. With respect to communication, the ways are education, extension and interpretation. Practical examples for communication are school programmes, conferences, workshops and role play and re-enforcement. When we use the three tools for heritage site management, accuracy, quality, maintenance of integrity and best practice are applicable implicitly. (Carter et al, 1997: 48-51).
Bibliography
-Atkinson, David, Cooke, Steven and Spooner, Derek. (2002). Tales from the Riverbank: place-marketing and maritime heritages. International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1,pp. 25± 40.
-Bordie, Neil, et al. (2006). Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Anthiquities Trade. Florida: University Press of Florida.
Carter, Bill and Grimwade, Gordon (1997). 'Balancing Use and Preservation in Cultural Heritage Management', International Journal of Heritage Studies, 3:1, 45 — 53.
-The Councils of Ministers of FDRE (1997). The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Cultural Policy.
-Gardon, Mary-Catherine E., (2006). ‘The Heritagescape: Looking at Landscapes of the Past’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12: 5, 394 – 411.
-Legacy vs Heritage-WordReference Forums
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:E6_jDoRT6joJ:forum.wordreference.com
Restoration in France A Gradually-Developing Consciousness
http://www.reims-cathedral.culture.fr/restoration-in-france.html
-The Proclamation of ARCCH in Ethiopia, 1984.
Putin, Vincent. (2008). «Les Approches Patrimonials au Regard de la Question de la Prise en Charge du Monde». Thèse de doctorat, l’Institut des Sciences et Industries du Vivant et de l’Environnement, Agro Paris Tech.
-Vecco, Marilena, (2010). Journal of Cultural Heritage: The Definition of Cultural Heritage: from the Tangible to the Intangible, Venice, Italy.
-Waterton, Emma et al. (2006). 'The Utility of Discourse Analysis to Heritage Studies: The Burra Charter and Social Inclusion', International Journal of Heritage Studies.
What is Heritage? 1http://www.umass.edu/chs/about/whatisheritage.html
What is Heritage? 2
(http://www.teachingheritage.nsw.edu.au/1views/w1v_obrien.html, http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/heritage/heritage-in-ballarat/what-is-heritage.aspx).
Yahaya Ahmad, The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible, 2006, pp. 292–300).
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario