“Intangible Heritage” is a term used by people “in the know”. But for those of us who are just becoming part of the people “in the know” it may not be as familiar. I had no idea it even existed until a few weeks ago, when I began class here at UCL. This post will explain this term.
The first convention to tackle the issue of Intangible Heritage took place in 2003. The focus was on the knowledge and skills that needed to be preserved from loss. To be considered for preservation it needs to be demonstrated that there is a threat to its existence and that it is something that is worthy of preservation. Threats like modernity and westernization are two common and oft used threats. But other outside forces might also put this sort of heritage in jeopardy.
Intangible Heritage is really focused on memory. It includes knowledge and skills but can also include artifacts and sites. One of the running jokes in class is that persons can also be included as a “master craftsman”. As such, would a person go around life with a sticker on them saying “I am a living human treasure”?
This memory finds expression in food, tales, artisans, folklore, healers, cosmologies, languages, customs, dance, games, performance, music, drama, mythology, ritual, handicrafts, architecture, etc. The range is so broad and the scope so all-inclusive that there has come some questions about the validity of this designation. Since tangible heritage fits within intangible heritage (after all, material remains were caused by someone’s skill or knowledge) isn’t intangible heritage simply a broader umbrella instead of a separate category? Another of my questions is, “When intangible heritage is preserved (knowledge written down, skill recorded, etc) doesn’t it then become tangible?”
Another question (asked by people “in the know”) is “What isn’t heritage?” After all, isn’t every aspect of life seemingly included in it? One question that is always prevalent is “How do you determine what is ‘worthy’ to be preserved?” Naturally, there are some things that should not be preserved. Who makes these decisions? And how are they reached? Is this sanitation of the past? And is that ethical?
And again we come back to that perplexing question, “Who owns heritage?” One would naturally say that the person who created it owns it. But how do you solve this? Since heritage is passed down through culture, presumably the creator of the skill or knowledge has long died. So does the community own it? Which community? Does “squatter’s rights” play any part? Since any culture can adopt any heritage, where does it stop? What is the delineation?
In music and authorship, there is an international law that says that their creations become public property 70 years following their death. So obviously anything that is ancient fits this bill. So is all heritage “public property of the world”?
And there is another problem. As anyone who has a talent for art (of any kind) knows, once you try to codify it – the “art” of it dies. Creativity cannot be trapped or captured in a bottle to be shared with others. Creativity can only come through inspiration. This is not something that can be “written down” or “recorded”. So, in the act of making the intangible – tangible, are we actually killing it?
And what of stereotypes? Many countries try to commercialize their heritage by promoting their “differentness”. Once this is done, is it really their heritage or just a commercialized form of it? An example would be to see if the Scottish actually use kilts on a day-to-day basis or is it only “traditional dress” for special occasions? If it is only for special occasions, is it really their modern culture? Or is it a memory of who they once were and now just dress up to pretend to be? If the latter is the case, how “authentic” is it?
All of these questions just bring me back to an idea that is formulating and gaining shape with each new class. That is: is culture actually something we can ever capture and display on a shelf in a museum? Can we ever record culture? Isn’t “culture” too complex and too fluid to trap, identify, and label? What we today consider “culture” is really just generalizations about common denominators of a time gone by; an attempt to locate something that everyone does (even though there is never a case where everyone does the exact same thing). And if we can’t do it today, how are we (as archaeologists) ever to be expected to do it for an ancient civilization of which we only have fragmented material remains? This leads me to the suspected obvious conclusion that perhaps archaeologists should be doing something other than try to rediscover ancient cultures. Maybe that is not what we are meant to be looking for.
No comments:
Post a Comment